denisv on 17/11/2009 at 08:11
Funny that they can spend their time on making some of the most realistic and detailed graphics of any software ever, but can't be bothered with QA even after release.
Thirith on 17/11/2009 at 08:30
Quote Posted by denisv
Funny that they can spend their time on making some of the most realistic and detailed graphics of any software ever, but can't be bothered with QA even after release.
Never mind that we're talking about two entirely different parts of the team. And never mind that a bugfree game with mediocre graphics will move fewer units than a buggy game with great graphics.
It's absolutely valid to criticise
ArmA 2 for being buggy, but all too often there's a big helping of naive thinking implicit or explicit in what is criticised.
Edit: What I find interesting is how
ArmA 2 (much like its predecessors) its a true love-it-or-hate-it game, to the point where most of its fans will defend it with their lives while those who dislike it sound as if the game killed their puppy by driving a tank over it. It's definitely not a title where the ones who dislike it say so once or twice and then move on.
denisv on 17/11/2009 at 09:39
Quote Posted by Thirith
Never mind that we're talking about two entirely different parts of the team.
So you're saying a programmer working on graphics engine isn't qualified to do QA? I'm not buying that.
Quote Posted by Thirith
And never mind that a bugfree game with mediocre graphics will move fewer units than a buggy game with great graphics.
Nonsense. Today's console games look worse than ArmA
1, but it doesn't prevent them from selling, does it?
Look at Modern Warfare 2. It has five hours of single player, mediocre graphics, poor controls, and a ridiculous storyline. Why does it sell? Because you don't get constantly yanked out of the game by bugs so obvious they leave you wondering if any of the developers tried playing the game they made!
A well-tested, optimized sequel to OFP would be like the second coming of Christ. It's just as likely, as well.
Thirith on 17/11/2009 at 10:48
1) Arma 1 is visually highly inconsistent; some things look good (e.g. models), others look really bad (e.g. animations). Most if not all current-gen video games will have more consistently high-quality visuals. Yes, the resolution will be lower, but most customers don't give much of a damn.
2) You honestly think that the average customer would say that Modern Warfare 2 has mediocre graphics?
3) A programmer working on the graphics engine is highly unlikely to be dealing with physics, scripting and AI bugs, and from what I hear those make up the majority of ArmA 2 bugs.
4) Do you think that the average customer (especially action game fans) cares much whether a single-player campaign is 7 hours in length or 20 hours or 80 hours? Most recent reports that I've seen would seem to indicate that a majority of players do not finish single-player campaigns.
Malleus on 17/11/2009 at 11:40
Quote Posted by denisv
Nonsense. Today's console games look worse than ArmA
1, but it doesn't prevent them from selling, does it?
We're talking about a PC game here in a niche genre.
Quote:
Look at Modern Warfare 2. It has five hours of single player, mediocre graphics, poor controls, and a ridiculous storyline. Why does it sell?
It sells because people want games which are simple, spectacular, cool and makes you feel badass. BIS games might look good, but aren't simple, and last I heard, planning attacks or crawling in the bushes observing the enemy isn't 'cool'. Not to mention that MW2 was unbelievably hyped.
Quote:
A well-tested, optimized sequel to OFP would be like the second coming of Christ. It's just as likely, as well.
You do realize that OFP 1.0 was far from bug free?
EDIT:
Quote Posted by Thirith
It's definitely not a title where the ones who dislike it say so once or twice and then move on.
Yeah and it's totally annoying.
Wille on 17/11/2009 at 12:13
The single player campaign in ARMA2 is just horrible. I guess the developers simply tried too much to create a dynamic campaign even if the engine is not really suited for that (scripting breaks up easily in such an open world). Simple infantry missions like the first OFP campaign missions were stellar and really made you feel like a part of a bigger battle. Better characters and voice acting in OFP also helped to hide the simple nature of many missions.
A good thing is that there are many country specific mods coming out with possible campaigns. Now that mission makers know the limitations of mission scripts and modules, the results will probably be better than BIS' excuse of a campaign.
denisv on 17/11/2009 at 13:13
The graphics, animations and handling in MW2 are mediocre. It looks kinda nice because the levels are colourful and there's lots of clutter, but that's about it. The engine feels like an upgraded Quake 2.
I have no idea where you're getting your information that people don't care about campaigns. What else is there? Multiplayer is highly variable and time consuming, and making your own missions in the editor and pretending you don't know where the enemies are is a bit lame as well.
As for the average player wanting mindless shooting gallery action, I call bullshit. After all one of the most praised parts of MW1 was where you were a sniper sneaking around in the dirt. ArmA players aren't exactly above any average either. Have you seen the BIS forums or ArmA public servers? Jesus Christ, an anthropologist could spend a lifetime studying those retards. Their distinguishing characteristic certainly isn't any kind of sophistication, it's just that they have a much higher tolerance of bugs than the average CoD player.
ArmA isn't niche because it's such a special princess, or too complex for the average player. It's niche because it's full of bugs.
Malleus on 17/11/2009 at 13:37
Quote Posted by denisv
As for the average player wanting mindless shooting gallery action, I call bullshit.
Which part of "simple, spectacular, cool and makes you feel badass" did you translate as "mindless shooting gallery action"? EDIT: In the Chernobyl mission you're always told where to go to stay hidden, it's scripted to make sure always something interesting happens and that you're always in an interesting environment. That totally fits the "simple, spectacular, cool and makes you feel badass" criteria, IMO.
Quote:
ArmA isn't niche because it's such a special princess.
Sorry, but it is. :)
GoldenNugget on 19/11/2009 at 00:18
I think ArmA2 is really fun. But I haven't really touched the sp because I agree it runs terribly and has some scripting bugs. I just play on a private server with custom made missions which run great and are fun to play tactically or just "blobbing" it.
The latest beta patches really improve the performance and the ai a lot. It also adds in a grass layer which conceals enemies at long ranges. Also a lot of good mods are out or will come out which will add a lot to the game like ACE2.
Bakerman on 23/11/2009 at 08:57
I recently got ArmA 2 to celebrate my new rig, and I've played through the first mission (no bugs so far!). I think the most un-fun thing about it is that you're not led by the nose to your next objective, or told exactly what you should be doing all the time. After getting used to that, I really started to enjoy the way the game assumed I was intelligent, rather than having the designers micro-manage my every footstep. I also started to think more while playing - instead of only having to worry about whatever my guns was pointing at, I was always checking my six, the positions of my squadmates, checking the map and compass to get my bearings, thinking about location, etc. It's a great experience.
(Of course, this is after trying to play the first standalone scenario on Veteran about ten times and dying horribly :p. Takes a bit of getting used to.)
That doesn't excuse the alleged buggyness, but it'll always be something I come back for, bugs or not.
