Arma 2 - anyone can drop a few words?

[Sea Skimmer]

Oh, and I've read that the AI uses objects as cover. Which is a lazy-ass propaganda since no one clarifies its about STATIC objects like houses and trees and not DYNAMIC objects (like IFV's or cars) A video on that youtube channel shows that you can put a bus in the middle of the firefight and everyone makes a point by NOT going near it.

Which is the proper thing to do, since you'd have to be retarded to take cover beside a vehicle with three hundred gallon unarmored fuel tank in a real battle. It’d be very nice if they deliberately programmed the AI to keep a distance from its own vehicles so it doesn’t killed by them exploding.

[Tolya]

Which is the proper thing to do, since you'd have to be retarded to take cover beside a vehicle with three hundred gallon unarmored fuel tank in a real battle. It’d be very nice if they deliberately programmed the AI to keep a distance from its own vehicles so it doesn’t killed by them exploding.

Yes, it would be very nice if they programmed the AI to keep distance from easily explodable vehicles. But I still wonder what would they do in a small-arms firefight with HMMVW's, APC's and tanks as cover.

[Oskuro]

It would also be nice if vehicles did not blow up like that when they shouldn't, but oh well...

[weemadando]

OK, this is apparently a 1000 AI battle in ARMA2. I must admit that it looks impressive. What I have to ask though is what kind of monstrous, demon enhanced machinery is running this?

[Stark]

Is it wrong that all I see is horrible and inefficient smoke effects? What in that video showcases AI? And why do all the tracers look like blasterbolts? If there's a 1000 AI in there, why can we just hear the same 2 rifles bursting the whole time?

I loved the missile that hovered down at a bout 2m/s with a giant trail out the back though.

[Steel]

Is it wrong that all I see is horrible and inefficient smoke effects? What in that video showcases AI? And why do all the tracers look like blasterbolts? If there's a 1000 AI in there, why can we just hear the same 2 rifles bursting the whole time?

I loved the missile that hovered down at a bout 2m/s with a giant trail out the back though.

You're pretty obviously just trolling now arent you? Tracers do actually look like blaster bolts.

"If theres 1000 people, why are they not directly on top of each other?"

"When a missile moves nearly straight towards the camera it looks like its going slowly and hovering and this is obviously an error rather than the effect of perspective LOL"

There are reasonable criticisms but you just aren't trying today.

I had a quick look at some of the other videos on youtube and the voices sounded terrible, much more jarring pauses/changes in tone than in Ofp or Arma1 from the sound of it. Also another video had the guy jump over a fence (good addition) but the animation for jumping over it was about 3 seconds too late, so he kind of slogged through the fence and then vaulted in midair. Hooray for fixing animations.

[Oskuro]

It's ArmA all right, walk for a gazillion meters, just to be killed when you're in range of the enemy

It looks interesting, I particularly liked the smoke/fog effects of explosions on the ground, although I suspect the AI won't have trouble seeing through those. I also noticed some subpar smoke effects on missiles.
The night sky did look a bit out of place, namely because the ground was lit up as if it was noon, and there seems to be a choppy jump to the pure blakc sky.

I'm not seeing the 1k AIs either. The battle doesn't feel more populated than an average BF battle, and I'm suspecting the whole thing is intentional. The video keeps showing the distant smoke columns as if saying "see! There's a battle there!!" but we really don't get to see shit (although the friendly tanks looked sweet), so I'll reserve judgment on that area for now, I'd even wager the video poster might be exaggerating, or that the game itself states it's a 1000 AI battle but some heavy optimization brings this down (as it should, mind you).

Overall, it feels immersive, and if that's the goal, they are doing a nice job.

[CaptHawkeye]

I'm with Stark and Oskuro, video was too vague and dark to back up the "1000 man bam!!11!" claim. You can see maybe 4 guys and a tank here and there. If they wanted to show off the game's battle AI count why would they set it at night in the first place?

[Steel]

That isnt an official video, its just what some randomer has set up in the editor and then filmed in fraps or whatever. Of course we have no way to check if he did actually put 1000 men in there... except we do! Because its here. The density of the troops in no way has any bearing on the overall number of men fighting in the battle. The game does not put the player as a special point, everything happens exactly the same whether or not it is near the player, so having 100x10 man skirmishes simultaneously spread over the few hundred sq km of country is the same AI and physics wise as having a 1000 man fight in one place. Hes taken the video at night presumably as it looks much cooler. According to his profile thats what the game looks like on medium res/settings/effects with a quite powerful pc (massively overclocked however).

Heres what looks like well over 100 planes in the same place fighting instead.

[Tolya]

Is a 1000 AI battle a bloody case of FarCryan tech-demo wankery? Damn straight. Is it still awesome? Hell yes.

[CaptHawkeye]

That isnt an official video, its just what some randomer has set up in the editor and then filmed in fraps or whatever. Of course we have no way to check if he did actually put 1000 men in there... except we do! Because its here. The density of the troops in no way has any bearing on the overall number of men fighting in the battle. The game does not put the player as a special point, everything happens exactly the same whether or not it is near the player, so having 100x10 man skirmishes simultaneously spread over the few hundred sq km of country is the same AI and physics wise as having a 1000 man fight in one place. Hes taken the video at night presumably as it looks much cooler. According to his profile thats what the game looks like on medium res/settings/effects with a quite powerful pc (massively overclocked however).

Heres what looks like well over 100 planes in the same place fighting instead.

On the other hand...

My my, it seems Bohemia went for a quantity over quality approach this time. Either that, or the game features bullet dodging ninja cows.

[Oskuro]

Actually, I was in essence complaining that the video wasn't great on showing the action, not that the action was impossible (although at first I did think it was an official video). So yeah, crappy video, maybe the guy should have gone in observer mode for a while to show the battle.

Also, damn you Steel! That 100 plane battle was fricking awesome! Now I'll have to pick this game up just to do that on the editor! With TANKS!

That, and a cow level, it seems

[Stark]

Man I am digging the 'claims not supported by video = trolling' vibe. Shoulda drank the koop-aid!

[Tolya]

Man I am digging the 'claims not supported by video = trolling' vibe. Shoulda drank the koop-aid!

I have trouble remembering where the claim "1000 AI Battle = AWESOMEZ AI" was made... wait... there wasn't.

[Stark]

Sorry, I'm still loling at the amazing spectacle of 10 minutes of a guy checking his 3-9 and lying down occasionally while pretty much nothing happened. It made me want to buy the game! I've been waiting for an orienteering simulator for years!

Amusingly, the air combat looks disturbingly like air combat from Spring.

Oh, wait...
[quote="wando"[/quote]OK, this is apparently a 1000 AI battle in ARMA2. I must admit that it looks impressive.[/quote]

Obviously he saw something I didn't?

[Tolya]

Sorry, I'm still loling at the amazing spectacle of 10 minutes of a guy checking his 3-9 and lying down occasionally while pretty much nothing happened. It made me want to buy the game! I've been waiting for an orienteering simulator for years!

That's the scary part about "teh Realistic Gamez". The more realistic it is, the less shit happens during 99% of it.

You walk around some nice grassy fields and then KAPOW you're dead.

And I think you are missing the point. It isn't awesome because there are 1000 AI entities in it. It is awesome because of the sandbox nature of the game, which allows you to basically play out almost any scenario you'd dream of. That's what kept me glued to the screen of OpFlash for 2 years, despite bugs, shitty omniscient AI and poor performance.

[Stark]

That's the scary part about "teh Realistic Gamez". The more realistic it is, the less shit happens during 99% of it.

So why be surprised that videos of it are boring as hell?

You walk around some nice grassy fields and then KAPOW you're dead.

And people wonder why Gears outsells ArmA.

And I think you are missing the point. It isn't awesome because there are 1000 AI entities in it. It is awesome because of the sandbox nature of the game, which allows you to basically play out almost any scenario you'd dream of. That's what kept me glued to the screen of OpFlash for 2 years, despite bugs, shitty omniscient AI and poor performance.

That's great, but videos in which nothing happen are still boring as shit and tell you nothing about the game (except how terrible the smoke effects are, anyway).

And man, just thinking about how much work you had to put into the OFP mission editor gives me the fucking chills.

[Tolya]

And man, just thinking about how much work you had to put into the OFP mission editor gives me the fucking chills.

So what's a good mission editor to you? Because the only "difficult" thing in the OFP mission editor was the script language. And even I could grasp the basics to make a simple voiced-over cutscene in just a few hours.

I would buy Ofp over Gears anytime. Gears was pretty much mediocre to be honest, a sweet action flick while it lasted, but the story was lame, AI was dumb, guns were boring (maybe apart from that awesome revolver and the explosive crossbow). Why people like that game so much is beyond me.

Yes, Gears outsells OFP. But so does Halo (at least for Xbox - and it even outsold Gears there). Even a bloody Sims2:Pets expansion pack outsells OFP (and even Gears afair) so I don't see it a particularly good argument. And in case you are wondering, I know why. The same reason people in USA elected a monkey-witted war-mongering cowboy chimp for their president.

[Oskuro]

Why people like that game so much is beyond me.

Because it's a decent tacticool shooter for the Xbox. PC gamers didn't even give it the time of day, seeing how they had superior alternatives. It was an Ok game, though.

As for OFP's lack of sales, it's simply because most players are closer to the casual side of the spectrum, and OFP as well as ArmA cater to a more sim-hardcore crowd. Just like sims are outselled by more arcadey alternatives, or decent driving games are outselled by mediocre games that let you paint your car in horrible colors while listening to hip hop beats.

[Commander 598]

And man, just thinking about how much work you had to put into the OFP mission editor gives me the fucking chills.

ArmA pretty much told you what to type, and I hear ArmA2 has a built in reference.

[Losonti Tokash]

Why people like that game so much is beyond me.

Clearly it's because their tastes simply aren't as refined as the more discerning OFP player. I, too, get frustrated when people choose to play another game simply because it's more "fun" and ignore the realism factor, real or imagined.

[Tolya]

Clearly it's because their tastes simply aren't as refined as the more discerning OFP player. I, too, get frustrated when people choose to play another game simply because it's more "fun" and ignore the realism factor, real or imagined.

Oh yes, I heard that too. Bleak, gritty shootouts with generic mutants (oops, an alien "race", me forgot ) in a ruined city = fun!

Seriously, I had some fun playing Gears, but it's placed somewhere below both Rainbow Six's Las Vegas. And X-Men: Wolverine.

Good marketing, that's what's selling the games these days. Not it's actual quality, but the bribed "journalists" at gamespot and huge posters all around the city. And yes, I know Im living on Earth and it's the 21st century. So can we please drop the "sales" bit now and move on, since it's clearly redundant?

[Losonti Tokash]

Clearly it's because their tastes simply aren't as refined as the more discerning OFP player. I, too, get frustrated when people choose to play another game simply because it's more "fun" and ignore the realism factor, real or imagined.

Oh yes, I heard that too. Bleak, gritty shootouts with generic mutants (oops, an alien "race", me forgot ) in a ruined city = fun!

As opposed to a hiking simulator with ground textures out of Flight Simulator 98?

[Stark]

Because it's a decent tacticool shooter for the Xbox. PC gamers didn't even give it the time of day, seeing how they had superior alternatives.

Like what? I haven't played a shooter on PC in seriously years (except STALKER which is a different sort of thing). Indeed, successful shooters on console basically mean I'll never upgrade my PC again. So tell me these 'superior' shooters?

As for OFP's lack of sales, it's simply because most players are closer to the casual side of the spectrum, and OFP as well as ArmA cater to a more sim-hardcore crowd. Just like sims are outselled by more arcadey alternatives, or decent driving games are outselled by mediocre games that let you paint your car in horrible colors while listening to hip hop beats.

Or because OFP specifically was a bug-ridden mess with a shitface UI, and in general because it was DELIBERATELY opaque and appealed to the 'simulationist' market which is FUCKING TINY compared to the 'people want to jump in and have a good time' market.

It's actually fucking hilarious to hear ArmA nutbars (obviously simulationists) claim that Gears is 'somewhere below Vegas' and only succeeded because of 'good marketing'. It's like they're totally divorced from reality. Gears only sold because they bribed journalists! If Bohemia bribed journalists, it'd be a big seller too! Sales aren't a measure of the size of the appropriate market because... um...

I'm digging on how the ArmA mission editor is relevant to a response I made to a statement regarding the OFP mission editor (and how the mentally ill could play with it for years). I played Star Control 2 for years, and Gears 2 has really good co-op!

[Oskuro]

Like what? I haven't played a shooter on PC in seriously years

A lack of new releases doesn't automatically render previous releases moot, and there have been, and still are, great shooters out there for the PC, simply because the shooter mechanics work better under the keyboard/mouse combo. You're simply being dishonest, dipshit.

and in general because it was DELIBERATELY opaque and appealed to the 'simulationist' market which is FUCKING TINY compared to the 'people want to jump in and have a good time' market.

How is that different form what I said? Is it really so hard to actually read a post before breaking out the hate-speech?

In fact, I've never said Gears was a bad game, it is a decent game, not the second coming of gaming Chirst, but a decent shooter that plays well with the console control scheme. And, in fact, you shoot your own foot here:

It's like they're totally divorced from reality. Gears only sold because they bribed journalists! If Bohemia bribed journalists, it'd be a big seller too! Sales aren't a measure of the size of the appropriate market because... um...

Gears of War sales on the PC sucked big time, you smart arse, wich actually accounted for Epic's decision to not release GOW2 for the PC. How does that not indicate that PC gamers (the ones not already owning an Xbox, mind you) didn't like Gears? You could argue that the whole shooter genre for the PC has been in steady decline for some time now (as we are in the MMO era), but that's the point, they didn't buy, because they didn't like it, it didn't change their mind regarding the decline, just as UT3 didn't either.