krise madsen Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 The main fault from my point of view is that ArmA is trying to be too many things to too many people. I honestly don't think vehicle and infantry games mix well (except when the vehicles are opfor targets as in GR). When you mix a FPS with player controlled vehicles in a 'Realistic' setting then both elements have to make compromises and this shows. Yup, I think that pretty much nails it. Respectfully krise madsen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WytchDokta Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 squad_e's, Just to avoid any problems with the language barrier, that's "squaddies" in English. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoQuarter Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Where it comes to AI, i think arma was meant to be designed for human v human .. Every soldier (player) should have a role, squad_e's, pilots, medics, air support, artillery support, drivers, tank crew.. The list goes on..I don't know if it was intentional not, but that is more or less true in practise. I have high hopes that with the reported improvements in ArmA 2 when I'm up in the weapon station of a HMMWV and order the AI driver to reverse, that he actually backs up, and not move forward in a long drawn out U-turn, presenting a Large Slow Target to whoever is interested. I do not like having to switch positions to accomplish relatively simple tasks, that the AI should be capable of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squad_e Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Where it comes to AI, i think arma was meant to be designed for human v human .. Every soldier (player) should have a role, squad_e's, pilots, medics, air support, artillery support, drivers, tank crew.. The list goes on..I don't know if it was intentional not, but that is more or less true in practise. I have high hopes that with the reported improvements in ArmA 2 when I'm up in the weapon station of a HMMWV and order the AI driver to reverse, that he actually backs up, and not move forward in a long drawn out U-turn, presenting a Large Slow Target to whoever is interested. I do not like having to switch positions to accomplish relatively simple tasks, that the AI should be capable of. well, let me say there no different from the people i've been in who were in humvee's and FAV's in BF2 And that is a big a wish list for ArmA 2... I still havn't seen any "in-game footage" of them in vehicles.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2nd Ranger Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 BIS can make all the engine updates they want, but I'm not sure they'll ever be able to significantly improve the AI without a drastic redesign or a completely new engine. They're almost three engine updates in now, and the AI being advertised seems to center on 'higher precision movement'. I read somewhere that ArmA 2's AI will be able to move to within centimetres of a given waypoint, compared to ArmA's 1m (and I guess OFP's 5 metres). There have also been mentions of AI using flanking, suppressive fire etc. But really, is this what we expect in 2009? Are we supposed to get excited over the fact that an AI goes where you tell him to? Or the fact that, as seen in the early Arma2 teaser footage, they take cover behind trees? It's a pretty sorry state of affairs when we're impressed that an AI attempts not to get shot. Later on in that same video though, it does appear that the AI falls back on its old contact behaviour, i.e. immediately going prone, even in an urban environment, instead of scattering and finding cover. This is one issue on which Codemasters' Flashpoint 2 will probably come out on top, simply by virtue of having a game engine that isn't like a ten year-old suit that you've had re-tailored three times. [i loved Flashpoint and still play it to this day, but there is no denying that the AI has always been somewhat clunky and inconsistent.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubletap Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 (edited) Where it comes to AI, i think arma was meant to be designed for human v human .. Every soldier (player) should have a role, squad_e's, pilots, medics, air support, artillery support, drivers, tank crew.. The list goes on.. The best thing would be to have tank battles online, where you have a driver, gunner and commander.. Now if they were all humans .. I would love to see that hapenning The problem with that, which I have seen in every game, is that humans almost always play like GAMERS not like soldiers. It's sad, but most A.I. enemies in tac sims, despite their faults, behave more realistically than a "squad" of gamers. The main fault from my point of view is that ArmA is trying to be too many things to too many people. I honestly don't think vehicle and infantry games mix well (except when the vehicles are opfor targets as in GR). When you mix a FPS with player controlled vehicles in a 'Realistic' setting then both elements have to make compromises and this shows. I don't know about being too many things to too many people, it's just that they're trying to do too many things period, even if it's for just one group of people. This is the same problem I have with Falcon 4. It's an F-16 simulation, yet the player has control over the entire war - fighter squadrons, combat engineers, acft carrier positions, and much more. It's more of a headache than anything, but in ArmA's case, the sim seems more like a compilation of great features that are just too much, and we end up with poor performance and clunky gameplay. I still think Arma is by far the best hope for a great combat sim, we just don't know which version will be the one to nail it. I just hope they don't confuse "streamline the sim" with "dumb-down and go Hollywood". Edited February 17, 2009 by doubletap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiles4 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 chiles4 you never bring your weapon up and use the sights or scope? Oops, I knew someone would eventually bring this up. I don't use the scopes in Arma because I'm so much better using the reticle. When I fire at a moving enemy at 150-200m away with a basic scope, all I see are the dust puffs (bullet striking ground) and not even that sometimes. I don't see a tracer when scope-firing (like some tracer mods give you)...I just don't get enough visual feedback. When I use the reticle, it's like I can see the entire flight of the bullet and can then very quickly correct to score a hit - even at ranges where using the reticle should be considered *ahem* "nutty". Maybe I can see just enough of the tracer to follow the flight. I know a lot of peeps use 6th Sense Tracers but to me, that looked like enemies were throwing light sabers at me. I don't use any tracer mods. Sometimes I use iron sights just for a change if the target is immobile but I'm still much better with the reticle. I also prefer iron sights to scopes. I know I'm in the minority but I have to go with the method with better results. The problem with that, which I have seen in every game, is that humans almost always play like GAMERS not like soldiers. It's sad, but most A.I. enemies in tac sims, despite their faults, behave more realistically than a "squad" of gamers. I don't think anyone could have verbalized it better than that. It's like you instinctively know that the weakness of a human enemy will be their lack of teamplay and the quest for a glory-kill. I know Arma has its weaknesses but if it's not the best open-field-long-range-engagement-tactical shooter out there, then what is? Or shouldn't I be asking that in a Ghost Recon forum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twcrash Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I am irritated by BI for even putting out ArmA. In the Forums I have gotten into a heated argument with BI moderators after they informed me and I quote "ArmA was a stepping stone for ArmA 2 and was released so we could make money to fund ArmA 2" So I was like are you kidding me? Anyways i ripped into em in a post and was warned I would be banned lmao. I am just floored they did exactly what Ubi did with Lockdown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiles4 Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I wouldn't get hung up on what one person says. If BI produces "stepping stones" like Arma, I'm all good with it. Arma is by far the best computer game I've ever played. His statement, on the face of it, doesn't even seem to make sense. Was HL1 a stepping stone for HL2? It almost seems to imply that Arma II's gameplay will be so revolutionary it will make Arma seem like a joke. I doubt very much that's going to happen. I think we'll see improvements in graphics (of course), AI (hopefully) and CQB-style combat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.