Optimization and worse graphics: The key to a fivefold increase in sales of ARMA 3

[NodUnit]

Depends on what they do about shaders, in Arma1 you could turn off normal and specular maps but Arma2 you cannot. Furthermore you can push very high detail on even the lowest computer, but you generally have to sacrifice view distance.

@ OP, the problem is that chances are your friends would drop the game anyway, if graphics are their primary concern then I have little to no doubt that the complexity would drive them away in the end. While the graphics can be pretty, beautiful even, and a great deal of the game, they are not the core, and the core is what drives most away regardless of any imagery.

It's like comparing old classics such as Janes Fleet Command, Fighting Falcon, Janes Longbow and so on, the graphics may not be great by todays standards but it is not the graphics to which we stake everything on. Even todays great DCS black shark is pretty simple in terms of "Graphics", the only real beauty's you'd see would be the aircraft, the rest of it is simple in clutter, very little in shaders and so on. If you have any of these then show it your friends and get thier opinion, if they cannot bare to play them because of the graphics then chances are, it's not for them.

[Recta DP]

This discussion is trivial. First off the thread title claims how to sell Arma3 fivefold and then asks for laptop compatible settings -a strangely uncompelling argument. The game - just like every other -has minimum specs as well as offers a free version to test out.

Of course the statement was meant to be provocative. I spoke about my friends: If Arma 2 would look at least acceptable on inferior computers (which fulfill the minspecs), not only one person but five would have purchased it (In my circle of friends).

Arma 1 was looking acceptable with everything on "low", it had crisp and clear graphics, not much LOD switching etc. Arma 2 is not playable if everything is on "low", it's a pixel mess.

In the intial post it states that he has 4 friends who would buy it if blah blah...then goes on to say that it plays as a pixelated mess on their systems. How are they playing the pixelated mess if they didnt buy it

It's called "Demo Version" and "Arma 2 Free".

@ OP, the problem is that chances are your friends would drop the game anyway, if graphics are their primary concern then I have little to no doubt that the complexity would drive them away in the end. While the graphics can be pretty, beautiful even, and a great deal of the game, they are not the core, and the core is what drives most away regardless of any imagery.

It's like comparing old classics such as Janes Fleet Command, Fighting Falcon, Janes Longbow and so on, the graphics may not be great by todays standards but it is not the graphics to which we stake everything on. Even todays great DCS black shark is pretty simple in terms of "Graphics", the only real beauty's you'd see would be the aircraft, the rest of it is simple in clutter, very little in shaders and so on. If you have any of these then show it your friends and get thier opinion, if they cannot bare to play them because of the graphics then chances are, it's not for them.

But thats exactly my point! They love simulations like OFP or Steel Beasts and want realistic gameplay, they don't care about fancy graphics. The graphics just need to be functional.

[NoRailgunner]

Just how many people would like to play A3 on lowest settings anyway? Maybe just wait until A3 is released and see which requirements are needed to enjoy A3 on "functional" graphic setting. Hardware prices will drop and perhaps it will make sense for them to upgrade or buy some new stuff.... On the other hand who knows, perhaps BIS finds a good solution so lowest/low settings will look reasonable good in A3? Guess BIS already knows that not everyone is going to buy "the best pc" just for A3 release.

[frostybowman]

I'm no CPU / GPU expert, but looking at games that run with Cryengine or games like Skyrim have amazing graphics and I can max out with better than 60 frames a second. I don't know why ARMA 3 requires the primary use of the CPU for rendering, but I wonder why it can't seem to operate at the same frame rates as other games.

Now before I get flamed here by people thinking I'm hating on Arma, this is not the case. I love Arma. It has been an outstanding game.

My speaking out on this is based on concern for BI's future. The intesity and immersion is awesome. But, there are competitors that are starting to take notice and have better graphics/physics engines that far exceed the RV3.

I hope BI will understand that I want Arma to continue and that perhaps redesigning the engine or utilizing another may be the key to the future of the franchise.

I know some won't like what I have to say so I'm preparing for indirect.

ERN, ERN, ERN... Incoming, Incoming, Incoming... ERN, ERN, ERN... Incoming, Incoming, Incoming

---------- Post added at 01:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 PM ----------

@ Recta DP

I agree fancy graphics arent the number one concern, but in todays watershed of graphical enhancements and physics elements being completely within BI's capability...why not?

As far as fancy graphics are concerned...even Esimgames updated the original Steel Beasts to SB PRO PE. Now it has full day/night cycles and they are about to implement shadows. My point...no, shiny graphics don't replace content, but they are desired.

[froggyluv]

Let me be the first to fire then.

Cryengines games suck. Period. Sure they may look flashy with the tiny areas and egocentric scale shooters but once your done being wowed by all of the shiny floating trash -your done. Skyrim (although I think looks decent) has been generally lambasted for selling out and not utelising the full extent of PC powers -hence the many high texture mods that are so popular. Once they have Two Towers scale battles with a real combat mechanic experience -Ill be impressed.

Most people and previewers are pretty blown away by Arma3's graphics especially considering your in a fully functioning environment -not just pretty backdrops and glowy things. Of course Arma2's livestock tend to glow as well...

It's called "Demo Version" and "Arma 2 Free".

Might have been good idea to mention that in intial post. I thought Arma2 Free was all Low Rez anyway?

[antoineflemming]

Arma 1 was looking acceptable with everything on "low", it had crisp and clear graphics, not much LOD switching etc. Arma 2 is not playable if everything is on "low", it's a pixel mess.

So in other words you're saying that there's more that makes ArmA2 unplayable than just high quality textures, right?

[Recta DP]

So in other words you're saying that there's more that makes ArmA2 unplayable than just high quality textures, right?

Yes, they use a lot of new shaders, high poly models, more "decoration" objects, etc. ArmA1 was better suited for players who played on "low" graphic settings. But let's end the discussion... maybe my friends really need new computers ;-).

[DMarkwick]

I'm no CPU / GPU expert, but looking at games that run with Cryengine or games like Skyrim have amazing graphics and I can max out with better than 60 frames a second. I don't know why ARMA 3 requires the primary use of the CPU for rendering, but I wonder why it can't seem to operate at the same frame rates as other games.

ArmA differs from those other titles in one very pertinent way; it's not player-centric. Other games are (mostly) only concerned with processing stuff that surrounds the player in his current location. ArmA though applies processing to every unit on the entire map, regardless of whether you're there to see it or not, regardless of whether you even ever see the outcome or not. Those other titles may have some amount of this (like Skyrim) but they're rare, and don't process every move & decision like ArmA does.

As an example if you place some opposing units on the far side of the map 10km away, they will proceed to engage each other, making the same decisions, moves & tactics using the terrain & local objects as though you were there to see it.

As far as I know the rendering utilises the GPU mostly the same as other titles.

[kimozabbi]

ArmA though applies processing to every unit on the entire map, regardless of whether you're there to see it or not

I'm guessing the new ragdoll physics and physx collisions will put more of a load on our computers than Arma 2 does, will that still be the case even if we can't see units, for example units out of our view on other side of map.

[DMarkwick]

I'm guessing the new ragdoll physics and physx collisions will put more of a load on our computers than Arma 2 does, will that still be the case even if we can't see units, for example units out of our view on other side of map.

Well, although it makes sense to apply ragdoll to units across the map (in case you ever get over there) there's no reason it has to be done in real-time