Last edited by nettrucker; Jul 27 2011 at 18:38.
Do you like music?
Originally Posted by walker
Took out myself and two other squad mates bouncing a grenade off a wall.
Originally Posted by CarlGustaffa
Bah, I've done that since OFP I can't hit a barn when I'm trying to. But with nades, I can hit a barn when I'm not trying to
BIS provides support like no other game. That, and the amazing vision of their games, is why i will gladly spend money on their sim games without a second thought.
but no matter how amazing their support they do not have unlimited time. not making excuses for them just setting up a line of thinking.
The poster who suggested getting a trusted group of modders to 'fix' the problems that are fixable by configs is making a very smart suggestion.
Look at how skilled the modders in Arma2 are. And the offer is free and high quality labour from people who know the game almost as well as the devs. Only payment would be the honour of having their credits in next bis game that incorporates such patch/changes.
the thing is to aim big and remove as much workload on the issues that are important to community and then make it easy for BIS to review and accept them. The less work BIS has to do on such a lot of problems the more value they can get out of the situation.
how many issues should be aimed for - as many as possible. couple hundred if that many are important. and then these get properly documented and ticked off as they are done and incorporated in beta patches for community testing.
i hope BIS does see the sense in this if it can be made to mean minimal extra work for them for quite a good return. But if they choose not to then that is their business decision to stand by.
I should add that AI behavior is included in "engine" development, is integral to gameplay, and is still being improved, but still I think that BIS will get the biggest bang for the buck by concentrating on fixing content issues, given the already incredibly high quality of engine/environments/modelling.
Some of the best things about the A2 campaign are the plot, characters, and mission design. It is these which moved A2 from "game" to "triumph" category. All the best games have well-developed, intricate plots and gameplay, including non-linear play, sandbox environment, and choices with consequences. Unfortunately, many of the campaign missions have flawed objective triggers and other little bugs that deleteriously effect gameplay. All of those problems could have been removed with better play testing from smart, dedicated players - like those in these forums. I hope A3 has equally complex plot and gameplay. Note how OA is a world ahead of A2 in terms of bugs.
The way ToH is being developed with community previews is unparalleled in the history of gaming, AFAIK. Community feedback will guarantee a better game and more sales. I really, really hope that A3 goes the same route.
Last edited by OMAC; Jul 28 2011 at 01:33.
Iron Front: Liberation 1944 Beta Tester
Take On Helicopters: Rearmed Beta Tester
OMAC Mission Pack 1
Tactical Withdrawal mission for Iron Front Liberation 1944
A Mine In South Asia
Reviewers these days need everything delivered on a silver platter...
GameSpot scores (PC versions only):
A2 - 8.0 ("great")
OA - 8.5
Crysis - 9.5
Crysis Warhead - 9.0
F.E.A.R - 9.1
Far Cry 2 - 8.5
Doom 3 - 8.5
Operation Flashpoint: Red River - 6.5 ("fair" = crap)
Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising - N/A (total extreme crap)
User Scores (GameSpot scores not available):
PMC - 8.5 (loser boy critic score - 6.9, silver platter delivery needed)
BAF - 7.1 (inaccurate; critic score - 8.5, my score - 8.5, would have been 9.0 if it was longer)
Compare scores of OA and Far Cry 2. Given engine/graphics/modelling, OA should be a 9.5 compared to FC 2. The only reason it isn't is short length and lagging content. I personally think that if the scenarios are included for evaluation, OA should get a 9.0 score.
Last edited by OMAC; Jul 28 2011 at 13:35.
I say let BIS decide since they're the ones that made the damned thing lol...
Something that sounds as easy as "changing a little bit of code" or whatever can have drastic results in the end-product, and BIS devs are the only ones that see/know that.
Let them do their work in peace
Personally I'm happy that they're still supporting a 2+ year old game with constant patches/updates, whilst most companies MAYBE patch their games once or twice and then move on
Last edited by No Use For A Name; Jul 28 2011 at 03:20.
Case: CoolerMaster HAF-922
MoBo: ASUS M4A89GTD Pro/USB3
PSU: XFX Black Edition 750w
CPU: AMD Phenom II x4 965 3.4GHz OC'd-->3.9GHz
RAM: 12GB Mushkin Blackline DDR3 1333 w/ 6GB RAMDrive
GPU: Palit GTX 560Ti 2GB
Display: Asus 25.5" @ 1920x1200
OS: Win7 Pro 64bit
Audio: On-board AC'97 w/ Sony 5.1 surround
ArmA2 @ SimHQ: Introducing SimHQ O.N.E. - Objectives and New Environments, to SimHQ Arma2 multiplayer! Join us Mondays and Thursdays for organized tactics and teamwork!
It's great to see the dev's explain things here!
I like the support that BIS provides. It's unique.
I also think that content fixes should have a higherpriority, since I belive you actually get rid of "that" bug once and for all.
Then BIS could consentrate on engine fixes en development afterwards.
Get rid of the obvious things.
BIS missions that is reported in the servers RPT log, that says "missing ;", things like that should be gone a long time ago.
Vehicles missing texture or other things. Just so BIS could consetrate on developing the game further.
But I may be wrong. I don't work as developer so...
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
NoPryl of Norway
I love BIS games but it's a fact that still a lot of things needs fixing. have a look at the CIT tracker. BIS has my full support because they support me their customer.
Just looking from the business point of view. The quality control is their weakest spot. If there would be an aproppriate quality control ArmA II would have blown and gone really big. The first days after release, the forum was one single rant. Todays customers are more and more demanding and today you can't allow yourself to release a faulty or malfunctioning product. BIS keeps up with it by supporting their games on a longterm run. They have lost a lot of sales due to the initial buggy or sometimes broken SP campaign. People couldn't play or finish the missions in the campaign and that has caused some heavy casualties in sales IMO.
@ OMACSome of the best things about the A2 campaign are the plot, characters, and mission design. It is these which moved A2 from "game" to "triumph" category. All the best games have well-developed, intricate plots and gameplay, including non-linear play, sandbox environment, and choices with consequences. Unfortunately, many of the campaign missions have flawed objective triggers and other little bugs that deleteriously effect gameplay. All of those problems could have been removed with better play testing from smart, dedicated players - like those in these forums. I hope A3 has equally complex plot and gameplay. Note how OA is a world ahead of A2 in terms of bugs.
They have never reached the strenght of CWC or Resistance IMO. I was able to identify myself with Armstrong and Troska the 2 main characters in the OFP campaigns. I couldn't in ARMA II nor in Armed Assault I also believe that people would be a lot more satisfied if the campaigns would have the epic lenght of the OFP campaigns. I hope in ArmA III they are going back to the roots when it comes to campaigns.
With most games a bug-free story mode and missions is enough, while with ArmA there's the editor and the entire modding capability. If you look at the (abridged) list PvPScene made, you'll see that great many bugs listed there are not huge deals when you just look at the core campaign/missions, but are very important to the contributing community at large.