Personal Feedback: From an old player

ReconDoc83ReconDoc83 Posts: 6Player
I want to make a few observations about the game. While at first it might not seem as though it is "game support" related, I assure you it is. I want it to be known going in that I am in no way trying to "talk down" the game, or flame the development.

I began playing AA in late 2001; I met Casey Wardynski at a veteran's function in early 2001 (my wife and I both are vets) a short time later he offered me a beta seat; but because of my job at the time I was unable to take him up on the offer. I still played quite frequently with DEVs and Betas when I could get time. I thought Casey was a genius with this concept and Chris Chambers helped pull it off remarkably. I was one of the original "disk players" who received a hand out edition of Recon; I still have the original disk in fact. I thought Abraxas and Later AceKilla were the digital age equivalent to Davincis. Later as a fledgling graphics designer (in my own mind) I was one of dozens of the conceptual designers who were asked to provide renderings of what is today the current AA Logo; While today's version is a bit different you can still see my work in the design; I am honored to have contributed to that and see it incorporated almost 15 years later. .....what I am getting at is, I have been around this game for a long time.

Special Forces was arguably the best version of the game ever...to date. I left the community after the NPGI and MOVES institute fiasco. When Monterrey was closed and everyone left was moved to Alabama. The game and the community just felt "different". The air was electric when AA3 was announced and I tried to come back to the game; but the resource requirements, the video card requirements,...I mean for me personally it was as if the new game and URE was asking us to build a machine specifically to play the game....it unmanageable. Honestly it seemed as if the "new" developers were more interested in concentrating on the XBox release and that community than they were the PC players who had made the game what it was. And then, like the day after it was released they were all fire too. The whole community that had just calmed back down from the previous exodus was in an uproar all over again. So I decided enough was enough and walked away.

From 2009 to October 2016 I never played another "video game". I didn't even own a console system. But a surgery scheduled for late 2016 coaxed my wife into buying me a PS4 console system to keep me occupied while she was at work and I was recuperating. I knew about the AA:PG release in 2013, but I had no desire to head back into the community; I was "done". I knew that there had been additional XBox releases and I still wasn't interested.....but then the PS4 announcement came out; and I said "Well fk it, why not?"

So here I am three months into playing this game as nothing more than a "player" today; no clan to manage, no "inside track" to bond with; just a guy playing the game........and here is what I have found, noticed, experienced, questioned.

1. The game, graphically, is a bit disappointing. To be honest it isn't much more detailed than Special Forces was when I left. Which is surprising to me. The advancement in platforms, processing power, viewing displays,... I have played other "shooters" Battlefield 4 and 1, I played the private beta for COD WW2, and I am a Tom Clancy Wildlands fanatic (just completed the PvP beta for that last weekend).

So I don't "get it"; how can a game that has been around for over 15 years be at least a generation behind its peers? There are literally 10s of millions of tax payer dollars spent to date in funding this project. A project I fully support and agree with by the way.

For instance in BF 1 there is a map called "Sania Desert" at one point in the battle a true sandstorm develops during game play; the "Sandstorm" in AA is terribly inadequate in comparison.

Homestead is a pale comparison to the old Farm in every way. And compared to the forested worlds of Wildlands, and BF 4 and 1....

Why are the worlds so closed? I mean in comparison to other closed world game maps it seems AA is trapped in a shoebox.

No night maps? No NVG? Bridge, Farm, Insurgent Camp, Pipeline were all the most popular maps in the game yet none of that is represented. No fog, No rain? other games have unlimited changing environments during game play but this seems to be stuck in 2009 again.

No ACOG on an M4? Seriously? Now I have read "reasons" why they were removed, but those reasons do not hold water. The reasons they were removed is the limitations withing the size of the world. If the worlds were comparable to those in other games the ACOG would be a must. In the REAL WORLD we would never deploy with a red dot scope in situations where we are going to experience distance shooting. And since the M16 is all but replaced by the M4a1 it seems counter intuitive to be able to have it on the M16 and not the M4 in game.

You can't have an ACOG on an M4 BUT you have a DMR and a Sniper on the same maps with distances under 200 meters? Most of these existing maps should have the sniper riffles removed from play function. Actually all of them....

What happened to the "LEAN IN"?

One grenade... I'll just leave it at that.

2. One of the MAJOR issues for AA after Special forces and during AA3 was the server lag.....it was the #1 reason people left the game. It became unbearable. Playing "Homestead", and "Intercept" feels like being right back in the old days of 2009. The lag is horrendous........

3. The same old "issues" with game play; This isn't specific to AA really, but in Special Forces it was addressed to an extent; The "bunny hopping", "side to side dancing" there were advances made in the code that limited the height and speed to which a person could jump and move laterally to create as much reality as possible......I see that is no longer present. How realistic can a game be if two of the most important factors of the realism are exaggerated?

4. No vote kick system? People can be jerks, team killing, team shooting (just enough to hurt you so a bullet from the enemy kills you), language, harassment. I listened to some millennial activist completely denigrate an AD military guy with his AF icon the other night for over an hour. Sure we can mute them, sure we can leave and go to another server.......but why should we have to? Why should they be allowed to freely antagonize and intimidate others on a server because they know there is no recourse? Bring back the vote kick system.

5. The VOIP is broken; when I first start the game and enter a server it works flawlessly; but if I leave a server and join a new one it no longer functions unless I close the game and start is over.

I am sure there are other things mentioned by other people. I am sure some of, if not all of the things I have mentioned have been mentioned before. I am truly not trying to "bust anyone's balls" here either. I am just offering a viewpoint from someone who quite literally played this game from Day 1.

Again I know that this might seem as though I am dogging the development; after all I have said absolutely ZERO "good things" about the game or what I like about it. But the fact is I do actually like the game. The fact that VOIP is now built into the game VS a decade ago when we had to run an external coms program is a huge plus. the "party system" that allows teams and friends to play together. Game play in general is very well done.

I know detractors will use the same argument and excuse used for the last 15 years "It's a FREE game, stop complaining!" But in reality it really isn't a free game; we the people pay for this product to be developed out of our pockets. The first eight years of game development cost the tax payers $32.8 Million dollars; quantified to today with increases in budget costs and inflation the total investment is hovering around $100 million dollars.

It can be better than it is



Comments

  • MoPar496MoPar496 Posts: 13Player
    Wow, amen brother.
    I know how you feel, as a long time player/fan of another shooter franchise ( chough SoCom cough), I fully understand the frustration that, time + "improvement" = a worse game than the franchise first or at least earlier instalment.
    The only solace I can offer is just play and enjoy something that's NOT Call of Duty.
  • Ps4TestedPs4Tested Posts: 7Player
    As the guy above said. I've been a fan of SOCOM since what feels like to be forever, so I feel you in everything you say. I have wrote stories on forums about this that and the other but no finished product at the end of it....
    A combination of few of the titles out there would create the perfect game but it seems like it's all heading the wrong way. The biggest thing IMO is lobbies etc creating a community. All games these days are just matchmaking systems with no sense of real purpose. Anyway il leave it short and sweet as I could go on for hours but what I'm saying is that I feel you brother in everything you say.
  • Hey.I.Have.A.GunHey.I.Have.A.Gun Posts: 645Player
    ReconDoc83 wrote: »
    No night maps? No NVG? Bridge, Farm, Insurgent Camp, Pipeline were all the most popular maps in the game yet none of that is represented. No fog, No rain? other games have unlimited changing environments during game play but this seems to be stuck in 2009 again.
    I don't remember Farm being popular, relatively speaking, in AA2. Bridge and Insurgent Camp are on the PC version right now.
    ReconDoc83 wrote: »
    No ACOG on an M4? Seriously? Now I have read "reasons" why they were removed, but those reasons do not hold water. The reasons they were removed is the limitations withing the size of the world. If the worlds were comparable to those in other games the ACOG would be a must. In the REAL WORLD we would never deploy with a red dot scope in situations where we are going to experience distance shooting. And since the M16 is all but replaced by the M4a1 it seems counter intuitive to be able to have it on the M16 and not the M4 in game.

    You can't have an ACOG on an M4 BUT you have a DMR and a Sniper on the same maps with distances under 200 meters? Most of these existing maps should have the sniper riffles removed from play function. Actually all of them....
    I'm certainly not going to attempt to debate with you what's realistic, but the fact remains that this is a video game. There has to be an effort made to balance weapons. I played back when the M4 had an ACOG on PC. There was no reason to use any other weapon. It was superior at any range. The M16 has the ACOG available in DMR role, I believe. The trade-off being, of course, that it isn't full-auto and is typically going to be less desirable than the M4 for closer engagements. The M24 is definitely the best range weapon, but is generally not going to be a lot of good to most players up close. That's much better for a video game than having the M4 be the best or nearly the best in every situation.
    ReconDoc83 wrote: »
    One grenade... I'll just leave it at that.
    Again. Video game. AA2 cut way down on the grenade loadouts in its last few years as well.
    ReconDoc83 wrote: »
    3. The same old "issues" with game play; This isn't specific to AA really, but in Special Forces it was addressed to an extent; The "bunny hopping", "side to side dancing" there were advances made in the code that limited the height and speed to which a person could jump and move laterally to create as much reality as possible......I see that is no longer present. How realistic can a game be if two of the most important factors of the realism are exaggerated?

    I don't personally view those issues. "Bunny hopping" in the traditional sense isn't possible in AAPG. Regardless, time would be better spent working on aiming and shooting those people instead of suggesting that the game should make them an easier target for you.
    ReconDoc83 wrote: »
    4. No vote kick system? People can be jerks, team killing, team shooting (just enough to hurt you so a bullet from the enemy kills you), language, harassment. I listened to some millennial activist completely denigrate an AD military guy with his AF icon the other night for over an hour. Sure we can mute them, sure we can leave and go to another server.......but why should we have to? Why should they be allowed to freely antagonize and intimidate others on a server because they know there is no recourse? Bring back the vote kick system.
    I can't speak to how well it works, but there's an option on this website to report abuse. Votekick itself can be abused, and I guess they've decided that the potential for votekick to be abused is greater than the need for it.

  • -R@MPAGE--R@MPAGE- Posts: 151Player
    ReconDoc83 wrote: »
    No ACOG on an M4? Seriously? Now I have read "reasons" why they were removed, but those reasons do not hold water. The reasons they were removed is the limitations withing the size of the world. If the worlds were comparable to those in other games the ACOG would be a must. In the REAL WORLD we would never deploy with a red dot scope in situations where we are going to experience distance shooting. And since the M16 is all but replaced by the M4a1 it seems counter intuitive to be able to have it on the M16 and not the M4 in game.

    You can't have an ACOG on an M4 BUT you have a DMR and a Sniper on the same maps with distances under 200 meters? Most of these existing maps should have the sniper riffles removed from play function. Actually all of them....

    I am with you, but I was playing back in original beta when we had an ACOG on a m4 and it was just extremely unfair. It was too easy, and like Gun said, there was no reason to use any other gun. I think it has to do with the size of the maps though. Going back to a point you said about Sinai desert in battlefield. If we had a map that size, with no M4 with an ACOG I would be upset. But maps like Downtown or inner are just very unfair with a m4 and ACOG setup. I think maps with certain weapon loadouts are a must. I'm sure that is something they can look it.
    ReconDoc83 wrote: »
    One grenade... I'll just leave it at that.

    With you again, but back to my first point that the maps are just too small in my opinion.
    ReconDoc83 wrote: »
    3. The same old "issues" with game play; This isn't specific to AA really, but in Special Forces it was addressed to an extent; The "bunny hopping", "side to side dancing" there were advances made in the code that limited the height and speed to which a person could jump and move laterally to create as much reality as possible......I see that is no longer present. How realistic can a game be if two of the most important factors of the realism are exaggerated?

    Disagree. If someone is hopping around or moving side to side, I don't feel like it drastically affects my ability to kill them

    ReconDoc83 wrote: »

    1. The game, graphically, is a bit disappointing. To be honest it isn't much more detailed than Special Forces was when I left. Which is surprising to me. The advancement in platforms, processing power, viewing displays,... I have played other "shooters" Battlefield 4 and 1, I played the private beta for COD WW2, and I am a Tom Clancy Wildlands fanatic (just completed the PvP beta for that last weekend).

    Completely agree
    ReconDoc83 wrote: »
    It can be better than it is

    Completely agree, and plenty of pleas on this forum have been made. We can all see the potential of this game, but personally I can't help but think the devs cut corners to save time/money or whatever the excuse may be. I just don't think they have their finger on the pulse of the community.





    image
  • ReconDoc83ReconDoc83 Posts: 6Player
    The guys who have commented, your posts are appreciated. I actually didn't think anyone would respond other than the usual (in Ubisoft case) "shut up old fart", or comparable.

    As far as our discussion on the M4 goes, you guys had the same comments practically;
    "with an ACOG on the M4 nobody needed to use any other weapon"

    Which is exactly my point and why the M4A1 has been redeployed with select / full auto and ACOG today; because regardless of the fact that the AR platform is a 60+ year old system....it works. An M4 with an ACOG truly is the "weapon for all seasons". Yes in specific environments you deploy a DMR or a Sniper and in some CQC you deploy alternatives. But realistically this game IS supposed to be "realistic". One of you stated;
    The maps are too spam and it provides too much of an advantage

    But if the map is too small for an M4 / ACOG then it is obviously too small to need a DMR or M24 system.

    In the case of the M4 this was just one small portion of my statement; obviously it isn't the hinge point of the game.

    I do take offense at the comment
    I do not remember "Farm" being that popular
    ....Blasphemy! The Farm was home to some of the greatest battles in AA! You sir should be ashamed and sent back for RETRAINING! lol....

    Thanks for all the replies.

    Doc
Sign In or Register to comment.