Support NeoGAF

[Arcipello]

You don't grasp BIS do you, a very small team that is re-fitting an engine used for military purposed and have managed to snag up some top modders to make their game one of the most enjoyable. They aren't a multi-million dollar company with 100+ employees and only games to focus on.

Getting a good game that is made better FOR FREE for tons of extremely high quality modifications and people complain - HOLY SHIT, yes, horror that you have to go to ONE site and look for these mods, damn, what is this world coming to.

haha calm down dude! and yeah im a PC gamer and know the joys of mods... all i wanted was better explosions in this game from the get go, dont want to have to wait for a few months after its released before i get my wish. Clearly you are wearing rose tinted glasses if you cant see the up side to BI releasing a much more polished game than they have in the past.

 

[Anton Sugar]

Funny, every time I hear someone complain about the game it's AI, always AI and what the AI does and doesn't do. Here's the top reason why I don't have these complaints: I would never play with the AI in this game other than some AI running around with no purpose. This game was made and created for player controlled combat and the AI was a complete after-though, granted it's a problem but why are people screaming about innovation, bugs all over when all they do is complain about the AI? Tell us the AI needs fixing and stop projecting it to the entire game like every expect is completely useless.

Here's a kicker: ArmA 3 features a new AI code based on some software I can't recall, so most of your problems should be fixed and I still won't agree with people who play with the AI, especially not squad AI. Yes it's there but this game isn't meant to be played SP, this is a multiplayer experience with other players and there it outshines every other game I have ever played.

If you disregard the AI, you disregard a good half of the entire game. The "engaging" campaigns that BIS hypes? All fall to shit with bad AI. Fuck, you can't even say it doesn't matter for multiplayer, unless you only play in the 100 player battles that gather every so often. Are you trying to say that's the only way it's meant to be played?

Case in point: the other day, I WAS playing with a friend in a co-op MP mission. In 9/10 co-op missions, you're going to have some AI companions, who, of course, will many times fuck up the mission. How can something like that be ignored?

I play ARMA2 (OA, PMC, whatever, take your pick) every week and I LOVE that it's a niche game. ARMA2 fans need to stop deluding themselves into thinking, "It's okay that half of the game sucks". Yes, BIS is a small studio, yes, it's developed for a niche--but if AI is as unimportant as you say, why include a campaign at all? Why advertise these co-op and SP campaigns?

I never said every aspect of the game is useless--it's pretty obvious that I love the game. Even with all the bugs, it's easy to spend HOURS on one mission and I think that says a lot about it. We're on the same side here. ARMA2 is a good/great game that could be excellent/perfect--I'm stoked that they actually have a proper physics system in game now, and I love the modding community and what it puts out. But many of the mods are for fixes or improvements--time that could be spent on other things if the devs had addressed them themselves.

 

[Sethos]

Zeus_AI + ACE AI, Co-op scenarios, no AI complaints.

Never had any problems with the AI in any of the scenarios I played.

 

[BattleMonkey]

Zeus_AI + ACE AI, Co-op scenarios, no AI complaints.

Never had any problems with the AI in any of the scenarios I played.

Yes we get that mods are wonderful, but people are talking about the core product being better. Our money goes to BI, not to the modding community.

Without modding the game heavily, there is lots of issues with the game, especially in the game campaigns that are full of broken. User made scenarios tend to work out better, but again people like the package they paid money for including the campaigns, to work.

 

[Zenith]

Are you kidding me, DICE, complete package? You get a bunch of pre-made maps, no map editor, nothing - You get a bog standard game that looks great. ArmA offers a massive, insanely easy to use map editor where you can make scenarios super easily, even player vs player or co-op maps. ArmA is NOT a casual whore game for all you Call of Duty / Battlefield players. ArmA is a simulator, infantry mainly which engine is being sold for military training purposes and has been refitted for gaming purposes by a smaller team within BIS for the people who actually enjoy proper military SIMULATORS.

ArmA will never become that casual-tard fest people are craving for. They are trying to grab more people but they are ( thankfully! ) not changing the recipe. I will agree with certain bugs and performance issues but all those other complaints are a joke, find another game to play.

They have the recipe down perfectly, they just need to work on the rough edges which they are doing with an animation system and proper physics with Software based PhysX, they are adding all the combat scenarios people have been wanting and it's still as easy to mod as every. TRUE fans couldn't wish for me, flip flop gamers who aren't actual fans, want the game to turn into some Battlefield game.

This game is about the modding, can't except that? Move on. Some of the modders out there have been hired by professional studios based on their work and a great example is the sound mod makers for this game is creating stuff that is above and beyond 80-90% of games out today!

You are confusing tactical with clunky. And it was embarrassing when BIS put the modding community as a feature point on the back of the dvd case. A game should be able to stand on its own.

 

[Anton Sugar]

Zeus_AI + ACE AI, Co-op scenarios, no AI complaints.

Never had any problems with the AI in any of the scenarios I played.

I used Zeus AI as well. My friend doesn't have ACE installed (I have NEVER gotten Six Updater to work smoothly, consistently). Most of the issues I just talked about were with Zeus AI installed. It helps, a lot, but it's still not perfect, and that's frustrating.

And my example of BF3 wasn't that BF3 bests ARMA 1/2/3 at what it does, but there was a time when it was thought, "Oh, well, we're doing this huge game, so we have to make sacrifices somewhere." As technology and studios advance, they're finding ways to expand on what their scope can be. ARMA is still an entirely unique experience, but you look at the BF3 and everything it's bringing to the combat "experience" (i.e., SMOOTH first person animations, a solid shooting engine, amazing war effects, suppression mechanics, DESTRUCTION, etc.) and you wish that ARMA had those as well.

 

[Automatisch]

You are confusing tactical with clunky. And it was embarrassing when BIS put the modding community as a feature point on the back of the dvd case. A game should be able to stand on its own.

I'm pretty sure Half-Life did that on some of the later releases.

 

[Dyno]

Do not compare ArmA to stuff like Battlefield. I don't think they are in competition at all.

I have a friend with a beastly computer system (named Beastor actually) and we fool around with ArmA 2 all the time. As a shooter it's not the best experience (to me at least.) The thing is my friend makes levels and some of them are really cool.

He put a dozen tanks, a dozen copters, and a dozen planes plus infantry on a map at night and it is something that has to be seen to be believed. He painstakingly re-created Operation Baras which was a British SAS hostage situation in Africa. It's quite cool. A few days after Osama Bin Laden died there were great levels of the whole operation using the schematics of the compound in Abbotabad.

It's not cinematic or well paced or any of the other things you come to expect from a AAA shooter but it has its own strengths that are quite amazing. It's the future but most of us aren't ready for it. I'm not getting into it myself any time soon but I really appreciate that it's out there. These guys are on the edge and you know that other developers are looking to them.

 

[BattleMonkey]

but you look at the BF3 and everything it's bringing to the combat "experience" (i.e., SMOOTH first person animations, a solid shooting engine, amazing war effects, suppression mechanics, DESTRUCTION, etc.) and you wish that ARMA had those as well.

Well ARMA already has a solid shooting engine for what it's doing, and that is replicating realism including proper ballistic drag, ricochets, etc. BF is not really going for realism even if it has more recoil and weight that other shooters dont. Also ARMA does not need a suppression mechanic as the game basically forces players to take cover because of lethality. Suppression is needed in BF and other games because of the godly armor and bullet resistance player characters have that make them fearless against incoming fire. In ARMA players getting shot at know "oh shit, get down", because one bullet can kill.

It's also highly unlikely to see things like destruction in an ARMA game just because of how demanding a game it already is, they would have to greatly scale the game down to put any complex destruction. And really if ARMA is going to do destruction, players would want it to be realistic unlike the BF games which while nice, are very much not realistic.

Visual improvements and effects we can hope for and have better chance of realization.

 

[Anton Sugar]

To me, ARMA is all about the overall experience. It's at it's best when you're fully absorbed into the world, stalking/fighting/flying, whatever--enough to ignore the game's shortcomings. Having better visual effects, having weapons that FEEL powerful, having realistic radio chatter, having destruction--all of these would enhance the experience. BFBC2, while arcadey, has an intensity level, for me, that is mostly unmatched. When I want intense, tight combat, I play BFBC2; when I want grandeur on the battlefield, I play ARMA2.

Can you imagine BF3's head, on ARMA2's body?

ARMA2, for all intents and purposes, was a horribly optimized game. Script heavy, didn't take advantage of multiple cores (for a long time), strange LOD issues. If the base engine were more solid/more optimized and properly utilized all of your PC's resources, then it would open doors for other features.

 

[Sethos]

Better find another game guys, it'll never be the game you want

Hop on the Battlefield wagon, sounds more up your alley.

 

[BattleMonkey]

To me, ARMA is all about the overall experience. It's at it's best when you're fully absorbed into the world, stalking/fighting/flying, whatever--enough to ignore the game's shortcomings. Having better visual effects, having weapons that FEEL powerful, having realistic radio chatter, having destruction--all of these would enhance the experience. BFBC2, while arcadey, has an intensity level, for me, that is mostly unmatched. When I want intense, tight combat, I play BFBC2; when I want grandeur on the battlefield, I play ARMA2.

Can you imagine BF3's head, on ARMA2's body?

ARMA2, for all intents and purposes, was a horribly optimized game. Script heavy, didn't take advantage of multiple cores (for a long time), strange LOD issues. If the base engine were more solid/more optimized and properly utilized all of your PC's resources, then it would open doors for other features.

I don't think you will get a game like ARMA with BF level of quality for quite a few years. Even with better optimization and more work on visuals, the current hardware is likely not capable of providing a game like ARMA in scale with the visual detail of BF3.

And the realistic approach of ARMA combat is also not going to ever give the intensity you get with a BF game which gets much of it's intensity from more hollywood style of action. Realistic combat is just not that "exciting"

 

[Anton Sugar]

Better find another game guys, it'll never be the game you want

Hop on the Battlefield wagon, sounds more up your alley.

Been on both wagons for 5+ years, thanks anyways.

I'll never understand why ARMA fans get so defensive when a desire is expressed to make ARMA into a better game.

 

[Sethos]

Been on both wagons for 5+ years, thanks anyways.

I'll never understand why ARMA fans get so defensive when a desire is expressed to make ARMA into a better game.

Well, you're all babbling on about Battlefield 3 elements and shit, how daft are you? ArmA will always be a niche game made by a tiny team and it will never be the smooth, polished and Hollywood-esque product you want. It'll be a small, charming game that caters for a very specific group of gamers that have excepted the bugs, excepted the mod installation requirements and excepted the hard work by everyone involved and appreciate a developer you can actually talk to - I've even spoken directly with Dwarden regarding game issues he'd look into, that is priceless.

So who cares how long you've been playing this for? So I have, you are apparently ready to move on as your wishes won't be granted, just do it, move on.

It's like expecting your poor old grandma to buy you that 50" Plasma. When you get a home-knitted shirt with a moose motive, you just smile, say you love her and wear it when you visit.

The big developers are like your wealthy old uncle, when he gives you a home knitted shirt, you can moan.

 

[Anton Sugar]

I don't think you will get a game like ARMA with BF level of quality for quite a few years. Even with better optimization and more work on visuals, the current hardware is likely not capable of providing a game like ARMA in scale with the visual detail of BF3.

And the realistic approach of ARMA combat is also not going to ever give the intensity you get with a BF game which gets much of it's intensity from more hollywood style of action. Realistic combat is just not that "exciting"

I'd disagree, I think the combat in ARMA is very exciting. Sure, it's not hollywood, but when it's on, it's on. I keep mentioning BF3, but turning ARMA into Battlefield is NOT what I want, it's elements of BFBC2/BF3.

-A tighter first person model rather than the camera just married to the third person head. The current model is fine for large scale battles and movement, but any time you're indoors or need precise movement, it's clunky as hell. And the "well, it's not designed for that" excuse is bullshit. If you're giving us access to building interiors, develop a movement system that doesn't clash with it
-Improve war/explosion effects. WarFX and all the other mods are great, but it would be wonderful if these were a part of the game from the get-go, and it's really not too demanding on the engine
-Better AI (including vehicle pathfinding). This is not out of the scope of the engine either--if you're touting a war simulator, then be sure that your AI is up to task
-Better menu system. Let's face it, the current system used is the exact same as OFP, which is ten years old. This is just laziness on the dev's part and dramatically reduces the accessibility. You cannot argue this point, this isn't even a "don't dumb it down" point, this is a "design this better" point.
-Better voice/radio communications. Again, the exact same system from ten year old OFP is in use. Why?

Destruction is probably a pipe dream, so I'll leave it out. However, I still believe it should be a feature for any shooter, as it adds another level to the experience/immersion, for me. Other than that, these requests really aren't out of the ordinary and many are a standard nowadays.

 

[BattleMonkey]

I'd disagree, I think the combat in ARMA is very exciting. Sure, it's not hollywood, but when it's on, it's on. I keep mentioning BF3, but turning ARMA into Battlefield is NOT what I want, it's elements of BFBC2/BF3.

-A tighter first person model rather than the camera just married to the third person head. The current model is fine for large scale battles and movement, but any time you're indoors or need precise movement, it's clunky as hell. And the "well, it's not designed for that" excuse is bullshit. If you're giving us access to building interiors, develop a movement system that doesn't clash with it
-Improve war/explosion effects. WarFX and all the other mods are great, but it would be wonderful if these were a part of the game from the get-go, and it's really not too demanding on the engine
-Better AI (including vehicle pathfinding). This is not out of the scope of the engine either--if you're touting a war simulator, then be sure that your AI is up to task
-Better menu system. Let's face it, the current system used is the exact same as OFP, which is ten years old. This is just laziness on the dev's part and dramatically reduces the accessibility. You cannot argue this point, this isn't even a "don't dumb it down" point, this is a "design this better" point.
-Better voice/radio communications. Again, the exact same system from ten year old OFP is in use. Why?

Destruction is probably a pipe dream, so I'll leave it out. However, I still believe it should be a feature for any shooter, as it adds another level to the experience/immersion, for me. Other than that, these requests really aren't out of the ordinary and many are a standard nowadays.

Well why I put the whole realistic combat in quotes about excitement is because it's often seen as such and a very different experience. Combat is generally much slower and at long ranges unlike most shooters. You don't run through exploding buildings up to tanks to plant C4, etc. Lot more slow methodical shooting, lot more hide and seek and slow movements, shooting at little dudes in your scope instead of the common 20-30 meter engagements in your average action shooter.

I don't really have issue with the camera in FPS view, lot of folks like the aspect of the free movement head. Much of it also is trying to simulate the difficulty of moving and aiming at any speed, shooting is supposed to be done stationary for the most part. Close quarters never has been an issue becuase the game rarely ever made use of close quarter encounters, MP is a different situation but I think all realistic shooters turn sloppy when it comes to up close range combat.

I would love most of all for them to improve the game audio as it is really bad all around, especially the robot voices which should just be completely removed. I think they are just being held down by budget and being cheap with recycling crap in their games.

AI surely could be greatly improved, not sure how complex they could really get though because of how the campaigns play out in the game, where it actually is simulating full scale combat even if it's taking place on another part of the continent miles away, and when you have multiple engagements in the campaign world, I can see it being very difficult to get an overly smart AI system going, especially when so many developers can't handle AI in simple corridor shooters even.

And I agree the UI and such is a clusterfuck and sloppy, they could streamline and improve on so much of it, but again just seem to recycle what they already have.

 

[Dwarden]

as i can now finally post around

i can assure we are working to make ARMA 3 really better experience than ARMA 2: OA

 

[PaulLFC]

Mission editor: check.

Means I can do more of this.

So pumped!

I had no interest in this game until I read that it had a mission editor. On my radar for the Steam sale now.

 

[Butulino]

Here you can find an exclusive interview with Ivan Buchta, Creative Director of Bohemia, with a lot of details on the new single player, some very precise technical info, as well as a brief reference to the multiplayer. Topics include the structure within the game's open world, AI improvements, their disinterest in adding a cover system, underwater combat, vehicles, weapon changes, DirectX 10/11 differences, multiplayer modes, and more.

Everyeye:Two problems of the full-scale battles in ArmA 2 were that the enemy AI was really good at spotting your unit and that your soldiers were too good at shooting them and some times you won an entire mission without shooting once. Are you addressing these in the new AI system? On what exactly are you focusing, beside those?

Ivan Buchta:The case you mention illustrates how the mission design works in our games. Arma has never been player-centric, and the things may always proceed towards a certain set of conditions which indicate the mission end: we do not ask the player to fulfill an objective, we rather ask whether an objective is accomplished. Imagine yourself as a Special Forces guy behind enemy lines tasked to blow up an enemy ammo dump. You may either do it yourself, or you may ask local resistance to do this task for you. In both cases, the ammo dump would eventually get blown to pieces, and you win. However, lots of testing and balancing will be done in order to avoid putting the player in the role of a mere witness. In the campaign, there are a numbers of unavoidable tasks or decisions.
Regarding the AI improvements in general, we would mainly like to achieve more natural movement of the AI soldiers. The Micro-AI system already makes the AI entities formidable opponents, but there is a lot to improve in terms of the visuals. Also, we put a lot of effort into "teaching" AI to use the new features, e.g. underwater movement, first aid routines or customizable loadouts.

http://www.everyeye.it/pc/articoli/arma-3_intervista_14306?pagina=2

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Game looks amazing, but my current PC isn't anywhere near capability to run it smoothly. It's a shame, I love warfare simulations. :|

 

[Joseph Merrick]

I had no interest in this game until I read that it had a mission editor. On my radar for the Steam sale now.

the series' had mission editors in every game since ofp, 10 years ago exactly. why did you think arma3 wouldn't have one?

 

[The_Player]

New portion of screenshots
http://www.eurogamer.net/gallery.php?game_id=15374&article_id=1384850#anchor

 

[Frencherman]

Source: http://armedassault.info/

20min Gamescom Presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ3RbJ2CcLg&feature=player_embedded

Verdict: Proud to be PC-Gamer

 

[Joseph Merrick]

beautiful

 

[Brobzoid]

unf unf unf

 

[Anton Sugar]

Looks very similar to ARMA 2 screens.

I love ARMA, but I'm really hoping that ARMA 3 doesn't feel like just an expansion pack. I know they have a new physics engine, but it better be polished, and REALLY hoping for AI and UI improvements. Don't know if I can be bothered to play it otherwise.

 

[Frencherman]

I love the futuristic car cockpit. Let's hope that it has airbags on board in case of woodland shortcuts

@Mr. Snurb:
Arma2 is still one of the industries best lookers out there. It's clear for me that Arma3 can't reinvent the wheal visually.

 

[Anton Sugar]

It's true, visually, it's very much the same, which is not bad (even though the HDR is still a little wonky, it seems). I'm really just hoping for some animation, physics, AI, and UI improvements.

 

[Walshicus]

Gah, I *want* to like this just like I *wanted* to like Arma 2. But pretty graphics didn't stop Arma 2 from playing like crap. I guess I should play the demo before buying this time.

 

[Llyranor]

After putting original ArmA2 on extended hold after a few missions of the crappy heavy-scripted buggy campaign, I gave it another chance with Arrowhead during the recent Steam sale. Playing co-op missions with a few buddies is tons of fun. My opinion of the game has reversed completely.

 

[Frencherman]

Look at these distance. There I see a real difference to Arma2

 

[Frencherman]

Seriously, nothing makes me more excited than newly released Arma3 shots.

 

[Yobalt]

If they update the voice commands and make them not hilarious/terrible, I'm totally going to buy this game.

 

[Dwarden]

there are news and screenshots:

http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/285-scanning-the-horizon-arma-3-in-2012

 

[strafer]

So this is like the spiritual successor to Operation Flashpoint?

 

[Dwarden]

So this is like the spiritual successor to Operation Flashpoint?

ARMA serie was the only and true successor to OFP ...

http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/129-arma-2-the-name-tale

 

[schragnasher]

So this is like the spiritual successor to Operation Flashpoint?

Dunno if i say "spiritual", considering Bohemia made those games too...

 

[Jackpot]

ARMA serie was the only and true successor to OFP ...

http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/129-arma-2-the-name-tale

So can you tell us what the story is behind Iran using Israeli rifles? I know the game is set in WW3 so has Israel been conquered and Iran is lacing their bullets with irony?

 

[Sethos]

I cringe every time people start using controls as an excuse not to play the game. They clearly missed the entire point of the game. The controls are perfect, especially for an infantry simulator. The game looks stunning and I hope this new physics engine hits home with some proper physics. Although I'm still afraid vehicles will feel stiff and not interact with terrain and damage like you'd expect. Also would love to see proper animations when using turrets and stuff like that.

I can live with a lot of things in this game but the stiff animations on everything, weird transitions and combat scenarios rendered impossible due to lack of proper physics are probably what I really want out of ArmA 3.

Hopefully something related to the PhysX SDK is included with the game, to allow the modding community to take it every further if required.

 

[BattleMonkey]

It's true, visually, it's very much the same, which is not bad (even though the HDR is still a little wonky, it seems). I'm really just hoping for some animation, physics, AI, and UI improvements.

ARMA 2 is a pretty decent looking game, just some refinements would make it look fantastic and some of the mods for it do make it pretty nice. As I mentioned before I think the biggest issue with the visuals is how crazy inconsistent they were. You would have some amazingly modeled vehicles and player models sometimes, even some very realistic animations, but then combat breaks out and the animation is all over the place.... like when an enemy gets shot and instead of seeing them fall over they would sometimes teleport to the ground dead.

 

[Anton Sugar]

I cringe every time people start using controls as an excuse not to play the game. They clearly missed the entire point of the game. The controls are perfect, especially for an infantry simulator. The game looks stunning and I hope this new physics engine hits home with some proper physics. Although I'm still afraid vehicles will feel stiff and not interact with terrain and damage like you'd expect. Also would love to see proper animations when using turrets and stuff like that.

I can live with a lot of things in this game but the stiff animations on everything, weird transitions and combat scenarios rendered impossible due to lack of proper physics are probably what I really want out of ArmA 3.

Hopefully something related to the PhysX SDK is included with the game, to allow the modding community to take it every further if required.

I don't mind the abundance of controls and options. But they NEED a more intuitive interface. It is 90% unchanged from the original OFP.

AND PLEASE GOD SOME NEW VOICEWORK

 

[Marco1]

Please bring this to the next-gen of consoles!!!!
Whichever of them will have this is a guaranteed sale on the hardware from me.

 

[BattleMonkey]

I don't mind the abundance of controls and options. But they NEED a more intuitive interface. It is 90% unchanged from the original OFP.

AND PLEASE GOD SOME NEW VOICEWORK

I think some people believe that folks want the game dumbed down. No, the point is that the controls of the game are horrible and people want it improved/streamlined. There is alot that just feels archaic and that they could simplify into a more intuitive control scheme. Simulator does not mean that any shitty control scheme could be used. Just the whole mission/map segment of the game could use an overhaul as it's needlessly complex with button presses and navigating through menus.

The game also does a bad job at introducing new players to the game, so your going to always have people who buy it on steam or so, load it up, and have no idea how to use majority of the game functions. The training scenarios do a piss poor job of teaching and to run through all of them takes a long time. If anything they should perhaps try to integrate the tutorial segments into the early parts of the game to ease players into the game?

 

[Sethos]

I think some people believe that folks want the game dumbed down. No, the point is that the controls of the game are horrible and people want it improved/streamlined. There is alot that just feels archaic and that they could simplify into a more intuitive control scheme. Simulator does not mean that any shitty control scheme could be used. Just the whole mission/map segment of the game could use an overhaul as it's needlessly complex with button presses and navigating through menus.

Then please do outline what's so wrong with them.

And why is it, that every time there's an ArmA thread I see your name just shitting them up? Why are you even playing them with all your complaints?

I don't mind the abundance of controls and options. But they NEED a more intuitive interface. It is 90% unchanged from the original OFP.

AND PLEASE GOD SOME NEW VOICEWORK

That I can agree with. The interface is pretty shoddy.

 

[Sentenza]

The game looks absolutely stunning.

 

[BattleMonkey]

Then please do outline what's so wrong with them..

Can probably write a book on all that is wrong. One of the simplest right off the back is how clunky it is just to change your weapon selection. That is a straightforward example of how the entire games interface and controls are just needlessly clunky. You have to go through too many menus, clicks, button combination presses to do pretty much anything. It's a simulator with a ton of options that will make it complex, but the game hasn't done a single thing since OFP to improve their archaic design. Using the map to control your teams is also redundant with having to hold down buttons and clicking, the game loves doing stuff like that when after selecting your team I should simply be able to click on the map or right click and have full access to controls. The game has menus within menus. You don't need 10 different menus you can access with commands in the game, so much of it could be consolidated into fewer menus that you can access to quicker. Having 10 menus with a variety of commands in each to remember is nuts, especially when many of these menus lead to sub menus.

And why is it, that every time there's an ArmA thread I see your name just shitting them up? Why are you even playing them with all your complaints?

It's a good game at it's core, but heavily flawed. ARMA 2 did not learn anything from ARMA 1, they just keep making the games bigger and trying to output better visuals, but actually improving the gameplay never seems high on their priority list. They are one of the few people out there still doing a hardcore military shooter sim which is great, but just because it's the only one and is ambitious, I can't give it a free pass on it's obvious flaws. And really most of the complaints have been about the exact same thing since you largely are the one who keeps defending the same issues over and over to the same people. Just because it's niche and you like it, doesn't mean everyone else should have no opinion and be excluded from wanting to see a better product.

 

[Syphon Filter]

are the multiplayer maps in arma games all big? are there any close combat maps?

 

[Jackpot]

Then please do outline what's so wrong with them.

And why is it, that every time there's an ArmA thread I see your name just shitting them up? Why are you even playing them with all your complaints?

pfft, don't pull that BS, he's entitled to point out the problems. And Arma has a lot of problems. Sooooooooooooo clunky. It's mentioned in nearly every review. Don't stick your head in the sand over it.

 

[Sethos]

Can probably write a book on all that is wrong. One of the simplest right off the back is how clunky it is just to change your weapon selection. That is a straightforward example of how the entire games interface and controls are just needlessly clunky. You have to go through too many menus, clicks, button combination presses to do pretty much anything. It's a simulator with a ton of options that will make it complex, but the game hasn't done a single thing since OFP to improve their archaic design. Using the map to control your teams is also redundant with having to hold down buttons and clicking, the game loves doing stuff like that when after selecting your team I should simply be able to click on the map or right click and have full access to controls. The game has menus within menus. You don't need 10 different menus you can access with commands in the game, so much of it could be consolidated into fewer menus that you can access to quicker. Having 10 menus with a variety of commands in each to remember is nuts, especially when many of these menus lead to sub menus.

What a load of rubbish. The entire game is based of a default control scheme with added features. You have the separate head control movement on ALT / Double-tap ALT, variable speed and the menu that is also context sensitive. Weapon switching can be bound to a key, every action is context sensitive means you can press the bound action button and perform it completely without the menu. If there's more options than one, the menu opens - Whoa! Like every other game. Sounds to me you're just complaining ( as usual, in an ArmA thread ) with no base.

The only thing that I will halfway agree with is team controls, because in overview mode the camera is overly sensitive and can be confusing in a battle situation. But it's possible to move entire squads or individual units to a position within a split-second, even has an arrow that latches to a relevant object close by.

Sounds more like you're describing the ACE mod.

are the multiplayer maps in arma games all big? are there any close combat maps?

ArmA usually has one primary map with some smaller maps. The primary map is quite large and then you can build missions on that, so you pick an area on this map to make your scenario. So that basically means you could load up some TDM 'map' and still have access to the rest of the huge island / continent.

pfft, don't pull that BS, he's entitled to point out the problems. And Arma has a lot of problems. Sooooooooooooo clunky. It's mentioned in nearly every review. Don't stick your head in the sand over it.

Yes and let's point that out at every fucking opportune time, whenever there's an announcement, a new screenshot or some news, let's just barge in and scream "OMG BUGS, CONTROLS, AI OMFFGF" yes we know and we've known since OFP1. It won't change or it'll change at an incredibly slow pace. Just get fucking over it and play something else. The rest of us has come to terms with it and just enjoy what we got instead. This shit has been going on before you even joined.

 

[Jackpot]

Yes and let's point that out at every fucking opportune time, whenever there's an announcement, a new screenshot or some news, let's just barge in and scream "OMG BUGS, CONTROLS, AI OMFFGF" yes we know and we've known since OFP1. It won't change or it'll change at an incredibly slow pace. Just get fucking over it and play something else. The rest of us has come to terms with it and just enjoy what we got instead. This shit has been going on before you even joined.

I'm aware of OFP's history. As you say they are part and parcel of the franchise which is why they will be discussed a lot. You may as well whine about people discussing bugs in a Fallout or Elder Scrolls thread. Suck it up.

And as for "go play something else". What's that apart from an attempt to avoid acknowledging any of the game's problems and jam your fingers in your ears? Go play what else? There aren't any other games like it, that's why he wants the next game to have at least some of its problems fixed so it can reach its potential instead of being a hit or miss experience. The way you so quickly dismissed all his points out of hand only makes you appear super defensive.