[x-post from NewPlayers] Arma 2 Engine - Reality and common sense questions

[kev070892@comcast.net 0]

There is so much to talk about with this mod's recent fame. I am not sure whether to glorify it for its ingenuity and brilliant concepts or scratch my head at the shear oversight players have put into the game.

Watch any DayZ introduction video and within the first minute the instructor will explain that DayZ is an immersion survival mod. They will explain that not only is the learning curve steep, but the game's mechanics are hard pressed to learn as well. Good, difficulty is almost the most important factor in video game’s success these days. It almost directly translates to a fun experience for skilled users who want a challenge.

Well, WarCraft: Orcs and Humans was challenging and rewards skillful players, but it didn’t quite give off the vibe that a game like StarCraft does today. The same goes for Arma 2. I've been watching live streams of DayZ for the past three days straight analyzing every detail (you can't put the focus in analyzing DayZ while actually playing it). It boils down to the Arma 2 engine; the DayZ mod can only do so much.

http://i.imgur.com/r8YC5.jpg

It only took a single Google search to confirm my suspicion. It's no secret that Arma 2 has been coined as the most realistic war-game on the market. And for $20, it's quite a rewarding experience. Games like Call of Duty or Diablo 3 for $59.99 generally feel as if they are deluding the experience for the user; cheapening the fun at the expense of the buyer.

DayZ, while giving players a fun environment, exploits the facts that the user is distracted by the goal of survival to worry enough about the immersion of the game:

HEALTH, STAMINA, FOOD, AND GENERAL NEEDS:

DayZ gave a solid effort for the needs other simulations shaved off on. Games like Left for Dead, Resident Evil, Dead Space, and Dead Island overlook the fact that the Zombies are not your first concern. DayZ’s Survival is imperative -- your character can break limbs, be infected, get hungry etc. First off, you're in a post-soviet area; you really think a T-shirt and a vest will keep you warm? Look at the wiki and it reads (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Chernarus) "Chernarus is a fictional post-Soviet country, accurately recreated from geographical data of real landscape". Temperatures would be FREEZING at night. You would NEED shelter, fire, food, water just to survive a single day. Look at the recent film (and book of course) The Hunger Games. While most competitors were killed by other competitors, dying from the environment was the primary concern. This is no different in DayZ. Players should need to find firewood and be FORCED to camp out during night time. Night should also be literally impossible to navigate in. In real life in an apocalyptic world, you would need to wait till dawn to navigate. As I said before, DayZ makes a good attempt, but does not nearly bring the satisfaction of an immersive survival game. The icons on the right side of your screen and the way to bring them to normal levels involve an IQ less than ten. Bandaging wounds and eating food is a simplistic and dumbed down system. The games' focus on combat leaves the experience of survival as wasted potential.

COMBAT, MOVEMENT, AND WEAPONS

The Arma 2 engine does a very good job at providing realistic scenarios but doesn't deliver when it comes to logical realism. Snipers shoot across fields bolt action at much higher rates than normal (have you ever tried pulling back the bolt of a high caliber sniper rifle?). Not only that, but they do it without spotters (good luck with calculating wind and trajectory of your bullet all while tracking a moving target by yourself). Let's take a quote from the popular movie Shooter when discussing a shot from a mile distance (done in Arma 2 with ease): "You know what it takes to make a shot at that range? Everything comes into play that far. Humidity elevation, temperature, winds, spin-drift. There's a 6-10 second flight time so you have to shoot it where the targets going to be. Even the coriolis effect, the spin of the earth comes into play". Arma 2's combat engine is a standardized joke compared to reality.

Take a look at this well done introduction and instructional video of DayZ: "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3op-Q1o5RI". Notice at 3:30 you see the speaker attempting to eliminate a moving target. While the aspect of patience is there (there is an INCREDIBLE amount of patience involved with real life snipers, you sometimes have to wait 10 minutes just for the shot to open up), the realism is comparable to someone bunny hopping in CS: Source getting a headshot no-scope from T-spawn to the double doors of Dust2. Watch in the video as his target moves as lightning speeds WHILE CROUCHED. Now -- I want you to crouch on the floor (yes get off your chair). Then, I want you to try and move from one end of the room to the other. If you've ever tried Airsoft or Paintball (real life wartime simulation), you will know what I am talking about. That speed of crouching is nigh-impossible. Not to mention, the sound of the shot would echo within a two mile radius AT LEAST. If the target in this video were to rise and sprint, aware of the snipers presence, he would have a less chance of getting shot than a quarter being thrown into a small cup from a 25 yard distance. The knockback of rifles, especially sniper rifles, would actually shake you (and can cause serious injury to less experienced users – which your character in DayZ IS) unless you have a pod attached to the ground. The stillness of the crosshairs is inhuman, and the accuracy of the bullet equates nothing to its real life counterpart.

Running, crouching, and prone positions are far too fast. Next, I want you to take a metal pole that weighs around 40 pounds and put it on your back via a sling. Then, get a gun holster on your waist and put a 16 pound weight in it. Try and switch between the pole on your back and the weight in your holster as fast as you can. In fact, I want you to just try and run with both of them on your body. It's not going to happen at any reasonable speed. Changing weapons alone should take six seconds at LEAST. Reloading ammunition should take up to thirty seconds depending on what gun you are using. What players call realism these days is a terrible misconception. And while I hope it is not true, I believe players have ascended beyond realism even being a factor in their games. It’s an unfortunate and cruel world where a video game that prides itself on realism and survival can't even make basic and accurate judgments for MOVEMENT. Let alone the physics behind shooting a real life weapon.

THE ZOMBIES

Every video game has their own take on how a zombie should behave or perform. Some games believe them to be mindless, wandering on their own accord. The debate has gone on for decades discussing if they are able to have sensory thoughts of smell or vision. The fictional concept has grown beyond this with the age of modern video games. Zombies now behave like heat seeking missiles in a body. Their AI programmed to eliminate the player -- and if unable, to increase speed, damage, and difficulty until that goal is achieved.

Watch TotalBiscuit's (

) video on DayZ and you will begin to understand. From the very beginning at 2:50, the Zombie AI appears to be very poor (those who have experience in-game can vouch as well). Notice how the Zombie comes behind TotalBiscuit and does damage to him. Arma 2's engine of a grey shading to indicate pain is by far the strangest adaptation there is to the concept of health. I thought I had seen it all with Diablo 3's "Low Health" screen (http://hautegamer.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/d3.png). Remember, a Zombie by regular standards was once a person. Now, have you ever been tackled by another person, either in sport or play? That kind of Zombie attack WOULD TAKE YOU DOWN TO THE GROUND WITH EASE. Force = MA (mass times acceleration). An average speed of a sprinting human (zombies are easily sprinting) is around 15 (6.7 meters per second) miles per hour. An average male weight would be around 80 (175lb) kilograms (in this day and age). That's 536 Newtons of force hitting you on impact. No one would be able to stand against that, let alone prevent a concussion. The Zombie should tackle you and begin eating you while your friend must get him off you.

Not to mention, take a look at the Zombie movement and how the guns are shot. Pay no attention to the cardboard hand holding the gun perfectly still as the Zombie approaches (very realistic) but notice how shots that should be on point don't actually hit their mark. Watch the video at 3:02 at the shot he takes at the Zombie with his pistol. Notice the Zombie teleport? You would think this is just latency -- it's not. Go to any video, any live stream, or play the game yourself and you will see just how crazy the AI and projectile system works.

The game is still in Alpha, but the decision to run it on the engine of Arma 2 was very poor. What blows my mind away is Arma 2 came out in 2009 but runs WORSE than Counter Strike: Source. How is this possible? Are we digressing in terms of logical shooters? I know the Call of Duty franchise fell after Call of Duty 3, but I thought at least Battlefield 3 was a step in the right direction. Imagine DayZ with a Battlefield 3 engine? Imagine DayZ with a Counter Strike engine. Hell, I bet the Skyrim engine could somehow run it better. At least in that game it stresses the importance of Stamina. Mind you, throughout this entire discussion, I haven’t even mentioned graphics. I’ve seen games on Dreamcast that match Arma 2 by graphical standards.

I am here and speak only to invoke the thoughts of others. I only seek the improvement of the gaming industry. Do not act like I am questioning your deity but more of that I am questioning your loyalty to a game that you may think too highly of.

[ZomboWTF 527]

I couldn't imagine any game being more in the direction of survival than the arma engine, actually, no engine i know of can handle an area that large (counter strike engine, are you fucking kidding me? source engine or the old HL engine couldn't handle an area larger than an average airfield) and having that good pings while still having bullet drop, force reduction for every projectile and a decent amount of weapon realism

of course, you arent the experienced soldier you play in arma2, but i think bringing more realism into the gun mechanics is not a top priority, go play ace ffs if you want that

creating a grappling-system and tackle/wrestling system in this game... yeah you better start programming now, maybe you're done in 2 years, and then debugging begins

and go ahead and ask for the BF3 source code, lol.. they'll laugh at you forever

as to the symbols on the side, yes they are needed, how would you tell if you're hungry otherwise? you aren't the person in the game, and certain feelings like hunger/thirst need to be expressed to the player

Theres only so much a programmer can do, i dont think you ever programmed a 3d model from scratch, or modded a complex game before, so until you can do better, STFU

you're doing great rocket and team, keep it up!

[kev070892@comcast.net 0]

Zombo, you're tunnel visioning here. You see, the creator(s) of DayZ had three options when creating this experience.

A. Present the idea to a corporation in a detailed presentation, ultimately explaining WHY the product will sell. That is their primary concern.

B. Create the product yourself. Have individuals invest in your product and build it from the ground up. This is by far the hardest approach.

C. Create your product via a pre-made game engine, but understand its' limitations will be unimaginably large-scale.

Guess which option they decided to go with?

Further more, the symbols on the side were implemented as a retard-fail safe. What happens when you start getting hungry in real life? Well, for starters you begin to get TIERD. Wait... does your body have icons on it when it gets hungry? Mine doesn't. The only warning I get is my stomach growls. Gee... that seems rather easy to implement. How about when I feel sick? Well... in real life in worse case scenarios, sometimes my vision blurs a bit, sometimes I have a hard time walking straight or moving. Gee... that would be easy to implement too.

You need to think about concepts like these with a more open mind.

[ZomboWTF 527]

First thing i am ,when i need to eat, is getting hungry... dont know how your body works, mate

and as said, feelings need to be made clear to the player, how are you gonna know your character is cold/hot hungry/thirsty near death else? come up with an idea, dont just whine that its not good enough for you

Yet, the first two options are more for money-making and selling a complete game

Not everyone has the funds for such a thing, nor the knowledge of creating an entire engine from nothing

I didnt pay for dayZ, if you did, you did something wrong

And OF COURSE i have a tunneled vision, because im against you... lol

[integ3r 5]

Zombo' date=' you're tunnel visioning here. You see, the creator(s) of DayZ had three options when creating this experience.

A. Present the idea to a corporation in a detailed presentation, ultimately explaining WHY the product will sell. That is their primary concern. [/quote']

And they'd laugh in his face, place restrictions on creative direction, add deadlines, forced multiplatform development, etc. Why the hell do you think BF3 turned into such a clusterfuck? Why do you think the market is oversaturated with call of duty style modern military shooters? The developer has almost no control.

Further more' date=' the symbols on the side were implemented as a retard-fail safe. What happens when you start getting hungry in real life? Well, for starters you begin to get TIERD. Wait... does your body have icons on it when it gets hungry? Mine doesn't. The only warning I get is my stomach growls. Gee... that seems rather easy to implement. [/quote']

Are you daft? You can tell if you're hungry even if your stomach doesn't growl. Your brain reacts if your stomach is empty. You know this intuitively, since your brain isn't directly hooked into the game, you'll need to know this intuitively as well.

How about when I feel sick? Well... in real life in worse case scenarios' date=' sometimes my vision blurs a bit, sometimes I have a hard time walking straight or moving. Gee... that would be easy to implement too. [/quote']

There is no indicator for sickness, you cough. Actually, you cough blood.

Arma 2 may be a clunky unoptimized mess, but no other moddable engine runs on the same map scale... Source engine? LOL.

Current games are driven by Consoles. Most engines these days are designed to run on consoles. That means restrictions right out of the box. This game cannot run on a console, it's not just a hardware issue. A keyboard simply allows for way more complex gameplay than gamepad does. Why do you think the RTS genre is dead?

Finally, this is alpha, suggest changes and it can happen! Want zombies to pin you, suggest it, but you must surely understand there ARE limits on the engine. And there ARE limits to the DayZ Devteams resources.... There really aren't any alternatives until Arma 3 comes out and DayZ is made a standalone game.

EDIT: Well maybe Cryengine could do it...

[djkling 5]

Hunger cues in real life arent "stomach grumbling", thats absurd. Most people FEEL hungry, their brain TELLS THEM they are hungry. The Icon is essentially your feeling in game. Unless you can hook up a stimulator to my brain which will adjust hormone levels to signal hunger, I'm not in with removing them.

Also, no matter how good you are, your volume will never be entirely accurate, and its nice to know you can tell how loud you are being around zeds. Same with water. Blood could be left out as the sole issue, leaving in the shaking and blurry vision. But bleeding... i'm sorry, is there a way you can make my computer instill pain into me and maybe throw some warm red liquid that clots on my lap?

This argument is absurd.

as for the gripes on the Arma2 engine... this is probably the single most realistic engine out there, but remember we are still working at a computer. Otherwie you have to go find a real gun, go run in the woods, and find zombies in towns... wtf?

Oh, and if you want realism and removal of icons and assists taht are diluting (not deluding) the experience, I hope you have a treadmill with a cold shower overhead to immerse you in realism.

The engine isnt perfect, but its the best we got. If youre not into it, go design one and send it over to Rocket, I'm sure he'd have a look

[kev070892@comcast.net 0]

Not so true, I am actually agreeing with most everything you're saying. You just have this attitude like "It's good enough" or "there's nothing we can really do to achieve that goal".

That mindset will get you nowhere. Here's what will get you somewhere. Go to Valve or Electronic Art's headquarters with the DayZ product in its' current state. Pitch to them the product and show its' current success and ask if they will buy the product rights from you (you're not the owner, I know). That alone is more effort than what is currently being discussed.

Stop saying "you can't" and start saying "we will".

---

x-post from /New Players

"You think the gun simulation is bad? Try movement. People are moving like rocket ships while holding tons of equipment and weaponry on them. Seriously, get off your computer chair and try running while holding a rifle. I guarantee you can't do it for long.

You see.. it's not even realism at this point. It's just common sense. You shouldn't be able to move quickly while crouched. You shouldn't be able to go from Prone to jumping in less than two seconds flat."

[djkling 5]

The DayZ mod only works within the Arma engine, and its being ported to Arma3 so my guess is popping to another vendor will only result in BI being pretty upset.

Also, you sed it to Vavle or EA they are going to change it to their demographic. We'll have COD-like DayZ

Its good how it is and getting better. You can go pitch your idea to EA or Valve if you like... see how it goes.

[void.false@gmail.com 300]

Running, crouching, and prone positions are far too fast. Next, I want you to take a metal pole that weighs around 40 pounds and put it on your back via a sling. Then, get a gun holster on your waist and put a 16 pound weight in it. Try and switch between the pole on your back and the weight in your holster as fast as you can. In fact, I want you to just try and run with both of them on your body. It's not going to happen at any reasonable speed.

Yep. I was an average geek when I joined the military. Almost died on my first march that was barely 3km long. But after few month could do a 15km trip without a problem.

Here we are talking about post-apocaliptic world where only the strongest survived (thus 'survivor'). All others have died or turned into zeds. That's pretty realistic scenario and it explains how your character can crouch-run with his gun.

The speed issue was addressed in original OFP, IIRC. The point is that this is a game and you have to balance realism/playability. If it would be too hardcore then it will be unplayable. Imagine yourself spending 2 hours to cross that mountain in Chernorus like it would take IRL. Will it be realistic? Yes. Enjoyable? No. The maps in game are huge so developers decided to give at least sprinting speeds to the players so they could cope with the distances without getting too bored.

[kev070892@comcast.net 0]

It's not my product and I have no say on what should happen to it. You cannot assume Valve or EA would make a COD-like game. From what I have heard, Battlefield 3 (made by EA) provides a much different feel than COD. I have heard many reviews say it actually does feel like you are in a modern day battle.

Let me bring up a very, very, very simple example that eveyone can understand. I've been to the shooting range quite a lot. I also airsoft and paintball quite often. I even do archery from time to time. Now tell me, when I shoot a bullet, where on my real life user interface do I find out how much ammo I have left in my chamber?

---

"The speed issue was addressed in original OFP, IIRC. The point is that this is a game and you have to balance realism/playability. If it would be too hardcore then it will be unplayable. Imagine yourself spending 2 hours to cross that mountain in Chernorus like it would take IRL. Will it be realistic? Yes. Enjoyable? No. The maps in game are huge so developers decided to give at least sprinting speeds to the players so they could cope with the distances without getting too bored."

Then thank you for proving my point. The game creators not only threatened balance at the sake of their users' short attention spans but also broke the realism factor that Arma 2 had tried so hard to achieve. Listen, making the game easier or more convenient is almost always a negative effect. Guess what, your gun in DayZ never jams. It never breaks, you can carry it into water and it will continue to work as new. You never have to clean the barrel. You never have to repair it. It can NEVER be broken in half. If you hop into water, it will not appear to be wet once you out.

I could literally go on and on.

[integ3r 5]

It's not my product and I have no say on what should happen to it.

Actually' date=' because this is a mod where no investor or huge publisher is pulling the string, you may have no say, but that doesn't mean your voice isn't heard. Rocket can do essentially whatever he pleases.

You cannot assume Valve or EA would make a COD-like game. From what I have heard, Battlefield 3 (made by EA) provides a much different feel

than COD.

Oh I can assure you, after playing over 400 hours of BF3 and plenty of hours of CoD, that the two are definitely connected. Not only that, I can tell BF3 suffered from it. Greatly. (and don't take 400 hours played as flattery, gaming is basically all I do, and other games pull more than 400 hours, also, BF3 isn't terrible, it just average) It also suffered from being rushed out by EA trying to beat MW3 on release. BF3, almost a year after release, is STILL a mess. And what do they do? They release 'premium' DLC. Patching is limited and bogged by consoles. It's a lost cause, and so would DayZ be if it went down that path.

I have heard many reviews say it actually does feel like you are in a modern day battle.

You should know that modern review sites aren't worth shit. Why? Because what generates traffic on their sites? Content. Who supplies the content? Developers and publishers. What do developers do if some site said bad shit about their game? Exactly.

Let me bring up a very' date=' very, very simple example that eveyone can understand. I've been to the shooting range quite a lot. I also airsoft and paintball quite often. I even do archery from time to time. Now tell me, when I shoot a bullet, where on my real life user interface do I find out how much ammo I have left in my chamber?

[/quote']

Hell, suggest it. But what you DO know is the weight of an empty magazine compared to a full one. Maybe not with airsoft, but with actual bullets you do. Rather have a color indicator representing magazine weight. Red = empty/light. Green = full/heavy. And then it gradually goes from green to red as it fires.

[herd 69]

arma 2 has bad graphics? Are you blind or retarded or playing at 640/480 and very low?

There is NO game that big with such graphics. OMFG GTFO

[void.false@gmail.com 300]

Then thank you for proving my point. The game creators not only threatened balance at the sake of their users' short attention spans but also broke the realism factor that Arma 2 had tried so hard to achieve. Listen, making the game easier or more convenient is almost always a negative effect. Guess what, your gun in DayZ never jams. It never breaks, you can carry it into water and it will continue to work as new. You never have to clean the barrel. You never have to repair it. It can NEVER be broken in half. If you hop into water, it will not appear to be wet once you out.

Give a realistic running speed and render a game unplayable. Codemasters did it with Dragon Rising. Now this game sells for 5 bucks at most and lost to oblivion. As of Arma2 it is military simulator. You dont run and gun. Most of the time you are crouched proning. If you played original OFP campaign you would know what is it to be 90% of the time on you belly. Running short distances from cover to cover at sprinting speed is completely legit. The only problem is that your character doesnt get tired. But anywasy, go join vanilla arma2 multiplayer and try sprinting in the open. See for yourself how much you live.

Jamming gun? In my 3 year service I can count by my fingers how many times my gun got jammed. Althou yes, we kept it in best conditions, cleaning every morning on dayly basis. But anyway if you treat your weapon like you treat you woman it will serve you great. And do you really want to turn Arma2 into disassembly/clean/assembly simulator?

[kev070892@comcast.net 0]

@integ3r

“And they'd laugh in his face, place restrictions on creative direction, add deadlines, forced multiplatform development, etc. Why the hell do you think BF3 turned into such a clusterfuck? Why do you think the market is oversaturated with call of duty style modern military shooters? The developer has almost no control.”

Again with the assumptions. Do you not understand how well DayZ is doing? Last I heard it was 250,000 active players? That was from a video, so it could be off. You have no idea whether the corporation will like/dislike the idea. Console games have been losing money since the days of Gamecube. Computers have gotten to the point where they can easily surpass consoles. How can console games compete when there are computers which bridge three GTX 580s together?

Second, Real Time Strategy is not even REMOTELY CLOSE to dead. The StarCraft franchise has more money circulating than all the Call of Duty games combined and then doubled. There are tournaments every day for thousands of dollars, not to mention tournaments every month for tens of thousands.

Third, “Arma 2 may be a clunky unoptimized mess”

That one sentence is the embodiment of everything I am saying. It was a bad idea to choose Arma 2. The game barely broke even in terms of revenue when it was released. What about Farcry 2’s engine? What about Crysis’ engine? Right there we are getting into real specifics. If I was well-learned in the area of game engines I would be shutting this conversation down; but I’m not. This is all for Rocket to think over. Assess your options, try again, think differently. That is how great games are made.

[SystemiK 366]

The game is still in Alpha' date=' but the decision to run it on the engine of Arma 2 was very poor.

[/quote']

You are ignoring the fact that Rocket works for the developer of the engine. As a mod dev, he has unprecedented access to the engine (as we have seen in recent Arma 2 beta patches) as well as literally every other aspect of the developer (including it's MoCap studio and audio facilities). On top of that, I'm not convinced there were many other options that he could have chosen which were capable of doing what he wanted.

I'd say all in all, he made the best decision possible for the mod and it's success. Ideally the final game will release as a standalone and leave behind it's mod roots, but that still has yet to be decided.

[kev070892@comcast.net 0]

"Ideally the final game will release as a standalone and leave behind it's mod roots, but that still has yet to be decided."

Yes.

But let's take steps to get there now rather than later.

[radius 0]

The game is still in Alpha' date=' but the decision to run it on the engine of Arma 2 was very poor.

[/quote']

You are ignoring the fact that Rocket works for the developer of the engine. As a mod dev, he has unprecedented access to the engine (as we have seen in recent Arma 2 beta patches) as well of literally every other aspect of the developer (including it's MoCap studio and audio facilities). I'm not sure there were many other options that he could have chosen which were capapable of doing what he wanted.

I'd say all in all, he made the best decision possible for the mod and it's success. Ideally the final game will release as a standalone and leave behind it's mod roots, but that still has yet to be decided.

If you don't like bullet counters then turn them off or find a server that turns them off.

As for the ArmA engine itself I think it is well done. Not to mention there are many mods that make it even more realistic. I use one where if you push yourself too far with too much weight you eventually collapse and can hardly move.

It's highly extensible and most people can throw together decent scenarios with it in a short period of time. Also the fact it is completely open appeals to me. Almost every other game out there gives you alleys to run through which IMO is a piss poor way to make any game. Most are too simple to handle an open world like ArmA.

Not to mention ArmA3 looks like it is going to be a huge step beyond ArmA2 in terms of gameplay. It will be interesting to see how it changes between the two.

Oh, and on realism, I think ArmA got transitioning to and from ladders correctly. It takes a while, and seems even longer when being chewed on by zombies.

[Neog2 (DayZ) 0]

DayZ is Rocket's Project, and he started that project before he got hired at BI. But even so I doubt he would leave BI to pursue another company. Biggest thing is Map Size I have yet to see anything that size via EA, or Valve.

It's all about the Engine.

Now Techland's (Poland) Dead Island is another story. On the whole this game maybe bigger but they break it up over several different parts that do require loading which I don't know if they can force everything to be shown at the same time. Chrome Engine is new to me and havent really seen to many games with that. The only other game is Call of Juarez: The Cartel that I know of. For Graphics Dead Island was on point.

But Honestly the Engine that I think that would work perfectly and I believe will have a huge zombie version early next year is the Grand Theft Auto V Engine. RAGE.

With the success of Red Dead Redemption:: Undead Nightmare. I can't Imagine that Rockstar wont have a zombie mode in the big wide open world of Grand Theft Auto this time around. Now the RAGE Engine is capable of making HUGE areas even on console and graphics are pretty decent. Bunch of capable animations as well. That would be my engine of choice unless I wanted the best looking zombie game then I would probably still pick Techland's Chrome Engine.

[integ3r 5]

@integ3r

Again with the assumptions. Do you not understand how well DayZ is doing? Last I heard it was 250' date='000 active players? That was from a video, so it could be off. You have no idea whether the corporation will like/dislike the idea. Console games have been losing money since the days of Gamecube.[/quote']

That's just not true. They've been sucking since the gamecube however. And only recently do people seem sick of the crappy shovelware games that nintendo put out for the Wii. They're losing money NOW, but they didn't a few years back.

Furthermore, I'm not saying publishers wouldn't pick it up. I'm saying they would greatly interfere with the original vision and put considerable restrictions on development and the vision. Planned DLC? You bet. Multiplatform? Guaranteed. And once you're down that route you'll get downscaling in order to run on consoles. Deadlines, very little time (and resources) for 'experimental' features that will get scrapped down the line.

Computers have gotten to the point where they can easily surpass consoles. How can console games compete when there are computers which bridge three GTX 580s together?

It sure as the sun will rise tomorrow that they fucking can't! Consoles may be shit' date=' but it's where the money is. And that's what matters to investors. PC gaming (unfortunately) isn't the mainstream medium it by every right should be.

Second, Real Time Strategy is not even REMOTELY CLOSE to dead. The StarCraft franchise has more money circulating than all the Call of Duty games combined and then doubled. There are tournaments every day for thousands of dollars, not to mention tournaments every month for tens of thousands.

Yeah, there's starcraft/blizzard and what other franchise? Pretty much nothing. Or, atleast nothing that publishers bother to market (see wargame: european escalation). There's Relic (CoH, WH40K) however and thankfully, Company of Heroes 2 is on the horizon. Compare this to MMOs and shooters. That's where publishers THINK the money is at. Actually, it's not about the genres, it's that they want to BE world of warcraft and that they want to BE call of duty.

You and I know they're obviously wrong, but they don't give a shit.

That one sentence is the embodiment of everything I am saying. It was a bad idea to choose Arma 2. The game barely broke even in terms of revenue when it was released. What about Farcry 2’s engine? What about Crysis’ engine? Right there we are getting into real specifics. If I was well-learned in the area of game engines I would be shutting this conversation down; but I’m not. This is all for Rocket to think over. Assess your options' date=' try again, think differently. That is how great games are made.

[/quote']

If you ask me, the biggest reason rocket chose Arma 2 is probably because: 1, it's the engine he was the most familiar with. 2, it's about 60% of the way there. 3, no licensing issues, it's "easily" moddable out of the box.

Rocket used to be just 1 guy who did this in his spare time.

[kev070892@comcast.net 0]

"If you don't like bullet counters then turn them off or find a server that turns them off."

It should be turned off by default. This is an immersion game. Real life has no bullet counter.

"As for the ArmA engine itself I think it is well done. Not to mention there are many mods that make it even more realistic. I use one where if you push yourself too far with too much weight you eventually collapse and can hardly move."

It should be turned on by default. Ditto as above.

"It's highly extensible and most people can throw together decent scenarios with it in a short period of time. Also the fact it is completely open appeals to me. Almost every other game out there gives you alleys to run through which IMO is a piss poor way to make any game. Most are too simple to handle an open world like ArmA."

Agreed, making the game harder is almost 99% of the time better. Open space leads for more opportunities for mistakes.

"Not to mention ArmA3 looks like it is going to be a huge step beyond ArmA2 in terms of gameplay. It will be interesting to see how it changes between the two."

Creators should of waited till the new product came out and not wasted their time on a 3 year old product.

"Oh, and on realism, I think ArmA got transitioning to and from ladders correctly. It takes a while, and seems even longer when being chewed on by zombies."

Agreed, ladders in real life take quite awhile to climb.

[Maderas 12]

I'm sure Rocket wants the mod to be as popular as possible while still retaining its own charm now that it has experienced a bit of mainstream success, doubly so if he plans on releasing a standalone version. Most of your suggestions would push people away from the game. It's about finding a balance.

Being forced to camp out by a fire all night or you freeze to death? Like seriously? NOBODY would play on night servers if that's how it worked, and that's terrible design with 1:1 time ratios. Realism only goes so far, it's fun to play a game with realistic elements as it's a quaint concept with today's generation of games. Taking it as far as you want it to go would drive away 95% of the player base. It barrels past the line between fun and frustration and guns the engine for 6 hours in the wrong direction.

[kev070892@comcast.net 0]

"Furthermore, I'm not saying publishers wouldn't pick it up. I'm saying they would greatly interfere with the original vision and put considerable restrictions on development and the vision. Planned DLC? You bet. Multiplatform? Guaranteed. And once you're down that route you'll get downscaling in order to run on consoles. Deadlines, very little time (and resources) for 'experimental' features that will get scrapped down the line."

They are a corporation that is trying to make money. You need to understand that is ALL they care about. Companies are well aware that no one is going to buy crappy wii games that rely on gimmicks to sell (like almost every wii game ever made) or terrible shooter makes like the call of duty franchise or halo reach etc. Gamers are getting smarter and realize that they don't need to keep buying the same game over and over just because the number on the box went from two to three. If you showed them reasonable evidence of how making the game more dynamic would increase sales, I would bet my life on it that the game would be preserved. DLC's and multiplatform support are unavoidable. It makes the companies tons and tons of money.

"It sure as the sun will rise tomorrow that they fucking can't! Consoles may be shit, but it's where the money is. And that's what matters to investors."

"Yeah, there's starcraft/blizzard and what other franchise? Pretty much nothing. Or, atleast nothing that publishers bother to market (see wargame: european escalation). There's Relic (CoH, WH40K) however and thankfully, Company of Heroes 2 is on the horizon."

I can tell you right now that what you just said is not true. Consoles are not making money. In fact, did you know that companies lose money on every console they sell? Oh yes, they lose hundreds on every single xbox, ps3, or wii sold. HUNDREDS EACH. It all relies on games, and guess what, people are not buying as many games as they used to. Games like Dota 2, League of Legends, Heroes of Newerth, or StarCraft 2 is where every last dollar is in the gaming market right now.

Dota 2 is still in beta and already they have had two tournaments where the prize was ONE MILLON DOLLARS. You think I'm lying? Go look it up, one millon dollars and the game hasn't even come out yet.

"If you ask me, the biggest reason rocket chose Arma 2 is probably because: 1, it's the engine he was the most familiar with. 2, it's about 60% of the way there. 3, no licensing issues.

Rocket used to be just 1 guy who did this in his spare time."

I agree, but the product has grown and now it can no longer work correct under such a massive user base. It needs to expand, it needs to improve.

---

@Maderas

I can prove that you are wrong. Mind you, these ideas were literally conceived within a minute of thinking. A real game developer would spend months pondering such a drastic idea like this.

1:1 Timescale with REAL TIME HOURS. Obviously, you would play on a server that matches your time zone so it is light out when you are actively playing. When darkness falls, you can play on another server that is on the exact OPPOSITE TIME SCALE. Hence, your character will be preserved on the old server until you choose to come back on when it is daytime.

You can choose to maneuver in the dark, but it will be painstakingly slow. You will need light and will need to exercise extreme caution. Going into a building without scouting intensely is suicide. You will need to find heavier clothing to survive the cold outside if you choose to maneuver etc. You will need to get kerosene for a lamp, find some way to travel efficiently and safely, and only travel with others. Traveling with a light source would leave you exposed. In real life, if you wanted to travel at night in such conditions, you know what you would do? You would actually attach yourself together around the waist with a harness so none walk off alone. Obviously a mechanic like that would be too hard, but just for one moment, put yourself in the eyes of a survivor.

[JeffersonAirplane 0]

So hatefiend you seem like a pro, when is your mod coming out? Can't wait to try it.

[integ3r 5]

They are a corporation that is trying to make money. You need to understand that is ALL they care about. Companies are well aware that no one is going to buy crappy wii games that rely on gimmicks to sell (like almost every wii game ever made)

Oh they are well aware that people will INDEED buy crappy wii games that rely on gimmicks. Because that's exactly what happened. However it's a short term deal. Consumers smartened up' date=' and nintendo is feeling the blow right now, but a year back, they were laughing their way to the bank.

or terrible shooter makes like the call of duty franchise or halo reach etc. Gamers are getting smarter and realize that they don't need to keep buying the same game over and over just because the number on the box went from two to three. If you showed them reasonable evidence of how making the game more dynamic would increase sales, I would bet my life on it that the game would be preserved.

Same goes for this, it's because publishers who are late to the party want to cash in on the contemporary craze. MW2 sold astronomically, surprise everyone wants to make CoD clones. Surprise they suck because they are quick cash-ins. THEN consumers smarten up after having gotten burned once.. or twice... or thrice... Which is what we're seeing with nintendo.

DLC's and multiplatform support are unavoidable. It makes the companies tons and tons of money.

Exactly. This basically spells the doom for a game like DayZ. Why?

1. Consoles cannot match a PC. This means no large maps like chernarus. 32 player multiplayer or less. I guess you could bring up MAG but did that have maps like chernarus? Would it allow tons of players if it simulated ballistics' date=' AI zombies, etc.? What's the infrastructure? I don't know. And we didn't see anything like it again.

2. Consoles cannot have gameplay like a PC, the controller doesn't allow it. Disregarding "dumbing down for an audience" it will HAVE to be dumbed down because of the physical limitations of a controller.

3. Patching on consoles is costly, slow AND with considerable limitations. Patches cannot exceed a certain size, patches for the Xbox must be certified by microsoft before they can be released (this process can take weeks). And a fee must be paid.

DayZ would never survive like that.

I can tell you right now that what you just said is not true. Consoles are not making money. In fact, did you know that companies lose money on every console they sell? Oh yes, they lose hundreds on every single xbox, ps3, or wii sold. HUNDREDS EACH.

I don't know the exact numbers regarding the loss at which they sell. But I'm pretty sure that only applies to sony and microsoft. The wii was sold at a profit to nintendo. However they quickly rake in those losses in game sales and Xbox live subscriptions. But that's really irrelevant. Who cares if M$ loses a buck on their console? Developers and publishers are 3rd party.

It all relies on games' date=' and guess what, people are not buying as many games as they used to. Games like Dota 2, League of Legends, Heroes of Newerth, or StarCraft 2 is where every last dollar is in the gaming market right now. [/quote']

I don't know where you're pulling this from.

Dota 2 is still in beta and already they have had two tournaments where the prize was ONE MILLON DOLLARS. You think I'm lying? Go look it up' date=' one millon dollars and the game hasn't even come out yet. [/quote']

So what?

I agree' date=' but the product has grown and now it can no longer work correct under such a massive user base. It needs to expand, it needs to improve.

[/quote']

Well it is expanding and improving with each update... It's not like it's wasted time if it will be ported to Arma 3 anyway...

EDIT:

Maybe you should play a bit more, the game actually does run on 1:1 timescale...

[kev070892@comcast.net 0]

This isn't just another Call of Duty remake. It's DayZ. It's a multiplayer survival wargame. It's completely different from any product on the market. There's not one game out on the market that is this similar to DayZ. It would make a disgusting amount of money.

There is a game called Counter Strike: Source. It made a boat load of money and had a massive user base. It was not multi platform. Neither would DayZ be multi platform. DLC's gallore of course. People would shell out big money just to have different costumes or guns -- that usual garbage that sickens me. It makes the companies money though, and that means more support for the game. At least the difficulty curve of DayZ would separate the men from the boys. It would keep the game interesting.