Community driven Bug&Issue Tracker (CIT) for ARMA 2: Operation Arrowhead and ARMA 2

[nettrucker]

I find this conversation about content bugs vs. "engine" bugs very interesting, and Suma's quote is quite illuminating in this regard. His quote tells me that "other" devs are responsible for content bugs, which consist of thousands of tunable values, and of course lots of mission scripts. Anyone who reads the beta forums knows that Suma is constantly developing new things and fixing old things having to do with the engine, and engaging the community wonderfully while doing so.

So, IMHO, the good news is that the engine tech is more than 90% there, but the "content" lags behind, at least in A2, PMC, and BAF. I think that BIS should allocate more resources to mission design/fixing, content development, and playtesting in general. Just my two cents.

I agree with OMAC. More ressources in mission design and playtesting (quality control). BIS is lacking under that point of view which is bad for business. If the campaign of ArmA II wasn't broken on release it would've been a bigger success. IMO.

[twisted]

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.

[OMAC]

If the campaign of ArmA II wasn't broken on release it would've been a bigger success. IMO.

I agree 100%. See GameSpot A2 review. More polish/less bugs = happy players = good reviews = more sales = more beer for Suma and Dwarden.

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.

[Innomadic]

I agree 100%. See GameSpot A2 review. More polish/less bugs = happy players = good reviews = more sales = more beer for Suma and Dwarden.

Actually if they had more time with the game, waited for everything to be patched, then we'd see better reviews, however reviewers simply don't stay around for long, which is exactly NOT what Arma is about really.

Reviewers these days need everything delivered on a silver platter...

[OMAC]

Actually if they had more time with the game, waited for everything to be patched, then we'd see better reviews, however reviewers simply don't stay around for long, which is exactly NOT what Arma is about really.

Reviewers these days need everything delivered on a silver platter...

Well said. But at least sites like GameSpot include player reviews, and averaged overall game scores including those of players, which I usually find to be quite accurate overall (exception - see BAF score below).

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)

Edit:

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.

[No Use For A Name]

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

[OMAC]

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

I agree. BIS rules. Best support in gaming history. But Freedom Fighters MUST BE FIXED.

[NoBrainer]

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...

[nettrucker]

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.

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.

@ OMAC

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.

[Sniperwolf572]

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.

While I do agree with you on the campaign/mission/showstopper bugs (I find those a bit more relevant since they're the first impression on people), you also have to realize how many things the engine exposes to the players/modders. A 100% bug free product is unreachable goal for any developer with that in mind.

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.