GR v AA mouse/gun movement.

[Poita]

I really wanted some GR lad input on this subject. so i hope you dont mind if i just copy my post from the BIS forum so i dont have to write the whole thing here again.

I've said before that i see GRAW as my new urban shooter game and AA as my countryside one. Combined i think i can get the GR experience again finally. The AA gun move feel has the same probs as it had in OFP though. I love the snap to movement of the gun in GR.

Anyway read the post and tell me what you think. If you wanna help lobby BIS to change it then go to this link and chime in too.

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikon...2;r=1;&#top

I totally loved OFP but one thing i didnt like and a big reason why my Ghost Recon clan mates couldn't get into it was the way the gun moved in relation/response to the mouse movements.

Its the same probelm in the demo of Armed Assault.

I'ts more like piloting a boat the driving a car. Feels very unweildly. I always feeling like i have to work really hard to get it to aim where i want. Always that little drag and delay an over pan.

My comp isnt great at a 2gig Athlon, 1 gig ram but i have a 7600GT car so it's not weak either. I have the game on 1024 with allll the grpahics options either off or as low as i can get them.

In Ghost Recon they still manage to pursue a reasonable amount of realism, i know it's not a sim as OFP and AA are closer to but i think one thing people don't want is inertia on the mass and weight of the gun. It's just annoying. I hate the feeling that i have to wave it around and try to settle the ret or optics of the gun where i want.

I just want the aiming of the mouse and the onscreen result to be flawless and not something i have to struggle with.

At least make that an option for those of use that loved OFP and will buy AA for sure but would like that snap to wherever i point the gun aim style.

*** oh and you pureists, dont flame me, i'm just asking for an option, doesnt mean i dont love and appreciate all the other elements of the game.

[Lightspeed]

I know what you mean, but what I'm trying to do for the sake of enjoying a new game is to stop comparing it to [GR].

It takes some getting use to, but I'. finding it a lot easier with some practice to hit my targets quickly.

One thing that I do notice in the Demo is that a lot of the combat is from fairly long range so one can't expect to hit the target easily from that range without being very accurate with the weapon.

For me, it seems like it could be more realistic then [GR] because it does take some effort to fire a gun long and straight.

[EasyCo]

Also, It seems the acog is not included in the demo (please correct me if I am wrong). It is kind of hard to hit a target far away with the aim point.

[T_1]

Also, It seems the acog is not included in the demo (please correct me if I am wrong). It is kind of hard to hit a target far away with the aim point.

Sneak up on them and get closer

[Hockeystick]

I know what you mean, but what I'm trying to do for the sake of enjoying a new game is to stop comparing it to [GR].

If you could just say that about GRAW

But anyway, I prefer the standard mouse/gun movement from [GR].

[jay316]

I know what you mean, but what I'm trying to do for the sake of enjoying a new game is to stop comparing it to [GR].

If you could just say that about GRAW

the difference is graw had ghost recon in its name and was suppose to be a sequal to ghost recon, armed assault is a build off of operation flashpoint and stays true to its operation flashpoint roots. it just so happens that armed assault is a modern combat game with a tactical team oriented gameplay and supports alot of things we liked about ghost recon 1, instead of being a 4 man futuristic cqb game.

[Lightspeed]

the other difference is, I gave GRAW a good chance and it failed to deliver - the fact that it wasnt [GR] was not what killed it for me.

The limit on player numbers, the unstable connections, etc etc were the things that killed GRAW for me.

nuff said.

[Poita]

Actually Lighty it's a subtle difference but i dont compare ArmA to GR. I compare it to excellence in gaming and game interface and execution of which i consider GR to be one of the hightest achievements.

I don't want AA to be GR I want AA to be as good as GR there is a difference. And anyway in my opinion every game should be compared to the best game of its type so far. Nothing wrong with that.

I wouldn't compare Company of Heroes to GR.

I don't expect the same look, missions, weapons, characters, maps etc in AA that i got in GR, i just expect as good or better gameplay experience.

So as far as that goes i compare every tactical shooter to the best of its type so far which is Ghost Recon. After a game bests it i'll then compare every subsequent game to that game.

[CrowmanUK]

If you dont like the way the weapon pans round the screen try altering the floating zone in the controls, its at the bottom, I think that should make it more like GR if you turn it off.

[Hockeystick]

I know what you mean, but what I'm trying to do for the sake of enjoying a new game is to stop comparing it to [GR].

If you could just say that about GRAW

the difference is graw had ghost recon in its name and was suppose to be a sequal to ghost recon, armed assault is a build off of operation flashpoint and stays true to its operation flashpoint roots. it just so happens that armed assault is a modern combat game with a tactical team oriented gameplay and supports alot of things we liked about ghost recon 1, instead of being a 4 man futuristic cqb game.

Nope, GRAW is a sequal to GR2. Why do you think Mitchell is there?

The 360 and PC version share the same story, which means that they have to share the same people, four that is. And please, what ever you do, don't say that the 360 version is more [GR] than the PC, cuz it's not.

Both games have the "hero-story" but atleast the PC version is challenging with it's brutal enemy AI. The problem is the team-AI which is better than the 360 team-AI however since you can give induvidual orders on the PC version.

Anyway, GRAW is not [GR], and it was never meant to be [GR].

Except for the team-AI and the "hero-story" I really don't know what would make GRAW suck so much compare to [GR]. [GR] wasn't perfect (not saying that GRAW is either). You do have to babysit you team in [GR] too. They can't take cover if they are under fire, you have to do everything yourself and giving orders through the map during a firefight is not very practical.

So one good improvement of Ghost Recon is that you can give orders through the HUD.

Enoguht OT for me... bye bye now

Edited December 24, 2006 by Hockeystick

[Claymoar]

If you dont like the way the weapon pans round the screen try altering the floating zone in the controls, its at the bottom, I think that should make it more like GR if you turn it off.

And "off" means moving pointer all the way to the left?????? Will have to try this,thanx for the tip.

[Sup]

The 'loose' gun control is one of the key things that made OFP what it was. It would be an odd step to remove it from AA, or even make it optional. I'm not sure about all of you, but when I'm holding something it doesn't point exactly at the center of my vision every time I move my head.

[Noraf]

I'm not sure about all of you, but when I'm holding something it doesn't point exactly at the center of my vision every time I move my head.

well, when i was in the armed forces, i was learnt (is that actualy a word?) that the gun should always point were i was looking...

[Sup]

I'm not sure about all of you, but when I'm holding something it doesn't point exactly at the center of my vision every time I move my head.

well, when i was in the armed forces, i was learnt (is that actualy a word?) that the gun should always point were i was looking...

Yeah, but how fast would it follow if you turned quickly? I admit to really having no idea what I'm talking about, but this definitely seems more realistic than locking the aim to your exact center of vision 100% of the time.

[Noraf]

well, since i'm right handed, and not a links shooter (sp?) it would follow perfectly to the left, but not that fast to the right.

pick up a broom and give it a try, if you haven't got something better to try it with.

afther all, a gun that you do not know what it's pointing at, isn't wery safe...

[Waika]

I'm sorry, while I understand your sentiments -- I disagree strongly...

ArmA by design is intended to raise the bar of realism and tactically sophisticated game-play, and IMHO this it does very well. While still a game by design, I think BI have made a very wise move in making weapons more realistically unwieldily with inertia and slew.

You can not in the real world 'snap' a weapon to a point of of perfect aim 270° to your left or right in a fraction of a second as you can in Ghost Recon with a mouse and a little practice.

While I acknowledge that realism should not be the sole arbiter of game design, here I think it's a good move for several sound reasons that have everything to do with the quality of game-play and more realism is just an added benefit.

To wit, as players began to master Ghost Recon's metrics and game-play; verses play became more and more unrealistic and arcadish, ridiculously fast and spammy -- i.e. even team vs team objective games usually devolved to Rambo death-match play... The only resort players looking for more realistic, or just game-play with more depth then out and out death match play was to hook-up with Tactical Gamer or play COOP.

While ArmA may not offer you the satisfaction of Counter-Strike twitch aim, it does offer a nice answer for those of us that have been seeking more tactically sophisticated versus play, where slow movement, a heavier emphasis on deeper skills of execution in virtual marksmanship, and a greater reliance on team-work become essential.

I can only say; I hope you give it more of a chance then you have -- and will learn to appreciate what BI is offing you.

[Sup]

after all, a gun that you do not know what it's pointing at, isn't very safe...

Give AA a week or two, you'll always be able to tell what your weapon is pointing at fast enough. If you're in a situation where you wont, you can use your sights. Unless it's changed from OFP, those follow perfectly.

[Noraf]

been playing it quite a bit, since release, and i'm quite happy with the way the sights are

[mwgfghost]

I guess I just have to get used the weirdness of the controls. I'm used to simpleton(don't think that's a word and if it is it's probably spelled wrong) controls. Right-click and bam your sights are there. But I'm really desperate for a new game seeing as how GRAW 2 keeps getting delayed. This game just looks like it has so much potential. The graphics in the demo aren't that great but I think that's cause they released the demo so early. The videos and new screen shots look breath taking. Not the best graphics but definately not the worst. I played the demo three or 4 times last night and could not get the hang of it. I think once I have the game and have a book with all the controls it'll be easier. I don't like having to look at the controls when playing the game. And the read me is just eh! After my Arabic mid-term yesterday, I didn't feel like reading anything. Just wanted to game and annihilate some enemy AI. I did alright though. Like I said. It's gonna take some getting used to.

[Noraf]

well, early and early.... i've had the game for about a month when the demo came out.... the game was released in early november, i think, just the english version that lags behind a bit

The controlls in arma are quite demanding, but you'll learn them afther a wile, and get even more out of this game.

Ohh, and btw, the demo mission is a coop mission, and not ment to be played with a single human player so, if you can't get it done by yourself, do not feel to bad, the ai, as good as it might be, can't compare to a human player

[pz3]

I'm not sure about all of you, but when I'm holding something it doesn't point exactly at the center of my vision every time I move my head.

well, when i was in the armed forces, i was learnt (is that actualy a word?) that the gun should always point were i was looking...

Yeah, but how fast would it follow if you turned quickly? I admit to really having no idea what I'm talking about, but this definitely seems more realistic than locking the aim to your exact center of vision 100% of the time.

it should always point where you look. I learned this the hardway myself playing paintball.

Look left head and gun pops out behind a bunker and before i could shift my marker i was shot twice. If my marker was with me instead of aiming at the ground I could of managed to probly take him out.