Caring about the Player

[xmongx]

Yep....Agreed.
Big no from me too.

My own insignificance is one of the the things i hold dear, in arma2 its the driving force behind my mission design. I cannot think of another game (developer) that allows me that freedom.

Fail post unfortunately.

[Flash Thunder]

The game will recieve more attention when overall hardware prices are lower and when BIS tries to do something like what codemasters did FTE gamemodes i mean, the average person doesnt want to learn scripting, mission editing (aka lazy people) they want instant gratification. If BIS created just a few gametypes like what CM did (sorry i have to use them as the example) then they could market these gametypes to that audience and say look we gave you the modes all you have to do is drop in and play, you can learn squad commanding at a different time.

Dynamic missions fun to play could be quick could be long thats where its at.

Feel free to state an arguement this is just what I came to after showing some of my console friends the game and letting them go at some of the scenarios.

[Nicholas]

Dynamic missions fun to play could be quick could be long thats where its at.

Dynamic, instant missions are included.....they have been since ArmA 1

Both in singleplayer and multiplayer.

Go to Singleplayer > Scenarios > My Missions > New Mission

Then you select your template (Type of mission) and choose where, when, type of enemies etc....

[mmaruda]

I think, the OP has a point. I have a dodgy relationship with Arma, sort of a love and hate thing. If there would be another game like this, I's drop BIS product. Problem is there isn't.

From a newcomer's poinr of view, you get completely put off by the bad interface and sluggish control of you character, not to mention being a tank commander. I've played a lot od ASG in mi free time (I know, it's not exactly being professional military, but it's as close as I could get) and I just know, that when looking and things, aiming, moving, communicating, you do thsese things fast and without hessitation in real life. In Arma, just turning you head seems weird, like it weights a ton, so sluggish. Issuing oreders is terrible, why can't we have something like a como-rose interface as in Battlefield 2?

All in all, I do feel that there needs to be more 'game' in this game, and I don't think, it would contradict the military simulation character of Arma if done right.

[2nd Ranger]

A balance can be achieved in mission design by simply requiring the player's presence - with no specific action - before the mission moves forward. For example; the objective is to secure a series of small hamlets in an area like Zargabad. An attack does not commence until the player (as part of a squad or leading his own team) is in position. This is hardly unrealistic. It wouldn't then matter how many enemy the player himself kills, just as long as they are all dead. Perhaps in this situation the player would feel like part of a team rather than being regarded by the AI as 'that weird guy over there who never keeps perfect formation'.

Another method - on the engine side of things rather than the mission design - would be to highten the effectiveness and thus the significance of a particular class of unit, for example enabling machinegunners and snipers to have more of an impact on enemy morale. This way, the player would feel that their actual role in the squad or platoon is of some worth (and no, I'm not suggesting Arma should adopt a 'class' system or introduce 4-man fireteams populated by wise-cracking characters).

It's fine if the game doesn't revolve around the player, but he should not be useless. If a mission can truly be completed with no input from the player then one should wonder why they played it in the first place.

[kylania]

with you just being another cog in the machine, instead of the gun-toting super hero that saves the day, every day.

ArmA is not based on having the player being a "gun-toting super hero that saves the day, every day".

[2nd Ranger]

He didn't say it was, he said he enjoyed that it wasn't.

[Nicholas]

If a mission can truly be completed with no input from the player then one should wonder why they played it in the first place.

Yeah, but the player can add input. It's just like why do people join the Army? (For pay/ help your country, but there are alternatives)

Why do people volunteer?

[InstaGoat]

People seem to be not getting my point, to reiterate.

Arma´s gameplay is based on freedom of execution on the mission objective. The problem is the following: Players want to make a difference, and they want to do well.

I am NOT talking about changing the gameplay principles that underly Arma. I´m talking about making them more accessible. Changing the gameplay is chickening out.

But people need to be told what the game expects of them, and what the measure of success is in the game. Instead of just giving them a random set of missions that run their course around them, without them understand what is going on.

For most people, Arma is a completely new experience: they don´t know what to expect, and all they can do in absence of a tutorial is equate their experience to those which they had with other games. Arma being so completely different leads to alienation. This will not be the case if people are prepared from the get go to experience a game that is wholly different from what they´ve known before, and that there is enjoyment to be had even if they´re NOT the super hero.

[Nicholas]

So lack of documentation is what your getting at? Now that I can agree on.