Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

33. Re: Hardcore Tactical Shooter Kickstart Mar 4, 2012, 21:02 Teddy
 
Dmitri_M wrote on Mar 4, 2012, 06:14:
ArmA's failing is it requires a VAST amount of modding to get it to a point where it becomes something truly special and unique with features not available in any other tactical shooter to date.. The built in campaigns, maps and features are terrible and BIS themselves have made little effort to take the game into a meaningful creative direction.

If you view R6 as a CQB shooter, Ghost Recon as a mid range shooter, then ArmA is the long range\size over detail shooter.

Of those three titles it is the least accessible though. Requires a lot of patience and the right level of mods to really enjoy. You can tailor it to be any sort of shooter you like. Most gamers can't invest the time in it.

On a base level though you'd still have to cope with the non-ID engine inherited control school with the characters head acting as a camera, rather than the player's view being tied directly to the weapon as it is in ID engines\conventional tac shooters. Personally it's never bothered me, but then I'm not a little bitch like many gamers. Even back when tactical shooters ruled the market, we'd have many hardcore PC guys LAN with us and complain about dying too easily in Swat, or the movement being too slow in R6 (compared to Quake) or the controls being clunky in OFP\Arma. Today's shitty consolised versions of R6 and Ghost Recon. That's what gamers really want. Enjoy guys.

I agree on most points. The problem is, you can't release a game today that isn't something special on it's own. If it requires a "VAST amount of modding" just to enjoy the game, then that's a complete failure of game design.

I'm sure my take on it isn't much different from many people who tried it. I heard the hype, said 'alright, I'll give it a shot.' Bought the base game, loaded it up, tried to like it. Deleted it a week later. Everything about the way the game handled screamed amateur, as though these people had never been introduced to the concept of a user-friendly interface/control scheme. They seriously need to hire someone competent in that field. Anyways, story continues, when I comment on my response to the game I'm told, "Oh, you need to have this expansion pack and these mods for the game to be 'really good'." I laugh my ass off and say fuck that, I already wasted enough money on that PoS, I'm not shelling out double the cash, much less spending the time needed to track down the mods and keep them updated just in the hopes that these people are right.

The way I see it, they made a shoddy ass product, filled with bugs and unnecessarily awkward game-play and then the gamers fixed it for them. That's not something I intend to reward a company for, even though I do applaud them for allowing their game to be modded in the first place.

Who knows, maybe BIS will make Arma3 something special right out of the gate, but I'm not holding any real hope for that after having been sorely disappointed by ARMA 1 and 2.
 
 
Subject
  
Optional
Message
 
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.
 




footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo