AA5 Discussion Thread (Renamed)

1434446484974

Comments

  • doogle!doogle! Posts: 713Player
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    I will say that AAPG was immensely hurt by the whole training theme. To invest so much time and effort into that on day 1 is one of the many things that hurt the initial feedback on the game. Let's remember what many people's first impression of the game was: cardboard cutout maps, no opfor weapons, no lean, excessive revives where no one ever really dies, capture the flag, among some others. There was a lot of wasted time on a game that was never intended to feel like the original America's Army games. Then when they realized that feedback was overwhelmingly negative on that stuff they started to try to change course and make things more like the old games. However, they were still prevented for whatever reason from taking the extra steps necessary to try to push it to target a more high skill type game which is the only thing that would have given it a chance.

    This is probably one of the truest statements I've read about AAPG.

    Alot of people try to focus on aim punch or suppression, or mechanics or blah blah. But you know what? The ugly cardboard maps and default 3 revives, plus 3rd person body spectate...lmao.
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,152Player
    edited November 2018
    I don't think making those sort of changes would have changed much in player draw. If it's like that today, why aren't people playing it like crazy?

    I can summarize the main flaws of today's version of the game in a few points:

    The most important: There are still a good amount of fundamental flaws in the gameplay. I think we both can agree on that and we've discussed it in so many of these threads that it's not worth rehashing here. Sure, gameplay is fun, but it's also too easy. Get any player with decent aim and they'll dominate a server in no time. There's not really much to learn except the maps. Skill in this game is pretty much all map knowledge and aim. If you get the two down you'll at least be able to be near the top of the scoreboard on most games. I figure this is the reason why things like suppression and aim punch are so harsh since removing them will just make the game even easier for higher skilled players. The game never developed any kind of risk vs. reward system or any kind of system that makes the game harder. Movement penalties and things of that nature would help in conjunction with things like increasing movement speed to make targets more difficult to hit. This game is laughably easy to get head shot kills in. I try to move around constantly and I find it to be a waste since people will still nail you with a 4x scope with ease from across the map.
    Rainbow 6 Siege is a game that is very much like that too, but I think their gadget system and things of that nature help make up for it. Honestly, the game gets stale really fast, I'm surprised it has stayed popular so long. It's a game that I think a top notch America's Army game could overtake with the right marketing. CS is one where you really have to spend time to master the game otherwise even if you aim great and know the maps well enough you'll still get dominated.

    Lack of content. The official maps are pretty much nothing special across the board. The only one that was a hit was Inner Hospital. Sure, they look great (sans cardboard cutout maps), but none of them are exactly memorable. It can't be understated how important maps are to a game's success. I haven't played on an official map server in a long time, if I only had the choice of playing official maps, I probably wouldn't bother with the game anymore. If the developers really want AAV to be a success, they really should spend some time examining what makes a great map. Especially study CS maps if you want to pick a single game. You obviously don't need to make maps exactly the same as CS, but there are a lot of good points to take on map creation from that game.
    The re-released AA2 maps were not the best choices either. I love Sandstorm, but it was the wrong map to release, not exactly one of the most popular maps in the game. Insurgent Camp doesn't play the same without the M203. People asked for CSAR forever and even though there are CSAR packs in the mission editor, it was curiously never released.
    We've just gotten our first new weapon since beta recently. I guess you can include the RPG if you want, even still that was only a few months ago. What about the US equivalent (is that still the AT4?)?
    Beyond that, no front attachment system or anything of that nature. Nothing to add more customization or even fun gadgets to use.
    If you compare what AA2 had after 5 years of development it's a huge difference.

    The game doesn't exactly scream America's Army. Losing the required training is a huge hit on the game, no matter what anyone says. Take away the menus and loading movies and the game doesn't really feel any bit more like an Army game than any of the other modern warfare games out there.

    In the end, I've seen people peg this game as a cross between CS and R6, which isn't necessarily bad, but it also hasn't really done enough and has too many flaws to warrant for the average gamer to care about it.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • Hey.I.Have.A.GunHey.I.Have.A.Gun Posts: 643Player
    doogle! wrote: »
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    I will say that AAPG was immensely hurt by the whole training theme. To invest so much time and effort into that on day 1 is one of the many things that hurt the initial feedback on the game. Let's remember what many people's first impression of the game was: cardboard cutout maps, no opfor weapons, no lean, excessive revives where no one ever really dies, capture the flag, among some others. There was a lot of wasted time on a game that was never intended to feel like the original America's Army games. Then when they realized that feedback was overwhelmingly negative on that stuff they started to try to change course and make things more like the old games. However, they were still prevented for whatever reason from taking the extra steps necessary to try to push it to target a more high skill type game which is the only thing that would have given it a chance.

    This is probably one of the truest statements I've read about AAPG.

    Alot of people try to focus on aim punch or suppression, or mechanics or blah blah. But you know what? The ugly cardboard maps and default 3 revives, plus 3rd person body spectate...lmao.

    Don't forget trade kills!
  • .!.dgodfather.!.dgodfather Posts: 458Player
    No HS = kill makes a majority of the FPS community laugh at the game.
    Fragweiser Website
    Make AA Great Again!
  • aaHollywoodaaHollywood Posts: 372Developer
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    I can summarize the main flaws of today's version of the game in a few points:

    The most important: There are still a good amount of fundamental flaws in the gameplay. I think we both can agree on that and we've discussed it in so many of these threads that it's not worth rehashing here. Sure, gameplay is fun, but it's also too easy. Get any player with decent aim and they'll dominate a server in no time. There's not really much to learn except the maps. Skill in this game is pretty much all map knowledge and aim. If you get the two down you'll at least be able to be near the top of the scoreboard on most games. I figure this is the reason why things like suppression and aim punch are so harsh since removing them will just make the game even easier for higher skilled players. The game never developed any kind of risk vs. reward system or any kind of system that makes the game harder. Movement penalties and things of that nature would help in conjunction with things like increasing movement speed to make targets more difficult to hit. This game is laughably easy to get head shot kills in. I try to move around constantly and I find it to be a waste since people will still nail you with a 4x scope with ease from across the map.
    Rainbow 6 Siege is a game that is very much like that too, but I think their gadget system and things of that nature help make up for it. Honestly, the game gets stale really fast, I'm surprised it has stayed popular so long. It's a game that I think a top notch America's Army game could overtake with the right marketing. CS is one where you really have to spend time to master the game otherwise even if you aim great and know the maps well enough you'll still get dominated.

    Lack of content. The official maps are pretty much nothing special across the board. The only one that was a hit was Inner Hospital. Sure, they look great (sans cardboard cutout maps), but none of them are exactly memorable. It can't be understated how important maps are to a game's success. I haven't played on an official map server in a long time, if I only had the choice of playing official maps, I probably wouldn't bother with the game anymore. If the developers really want AAV to be a success, they really should spend some time examining what makes a great map. Especially study CS maps if you want to pick a single game. You obviously don't need to make maps exactly the same as CS, but there are a lot of good points to take on map creation from that game.
    The re-released AA2 maps were not the best choices either. I love Sandstorm, but it was the wrong map to release, not exactly one of the most popular maps in the game. Insurgent Camp doesn't play the same without the M203. People asked for CSAR forever and even though there are CSAR packs in the mission editor, it was curiously never released.
    We've just gotten our first new weapon since beta recently. I guess you can include the RPG if you want, even still that was only a few months ago. What about the US equivalent (is that still the AT4?)?
    Beyond that, no front attachment system or anything of that nature. Nothing to add more customization or even fun gadgets to use.
    If you compare what AA2 had after 5 years of development it's a huge difference.

    The game doesn't exactly scream America's Army. Losing the required training is a huge hit on the game, no matter what anyone says. Take away the menus and loading movies and the game doesn't really feel any bit more like an Army game than any of the other modern warfare games out there.

    In the end, I've seen people peg this game as a cross between CS and R6, which isn't necessarily bad, but it also hasn't really done enough and has too many flaws to warrant for the average gamer to care about it.

    You know I actually can't find a lot of fault in this.
  • `xinoN`xinoN Posts: 359Player
    edited November 2018
    To be extremely honest -- You can make a great product however if nobody knows about it then it won't go anywhere. You guys can nitpick the game all you want. The game's not perfect but it is a solid game. At the end of the day I imagine next to none budget was spent on proper marketing. This is essencial nowadays. Whenever I ask a gamer about America's Army that person never heard of it. There are worse games out there with many more players and way more successful.
    Oh well.
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,152Player
    edited November 2018
    `xinoN wrote: »
    To be extremely honest -- You can make a great product however if nobody knows about it then it won't go anywhere. You guys can nitpick the game all you want. The game's not perfect but it is a solid game. At the end of the day I imagine next to none budget was spent on proper marketing. This is essencial nowadays. Whenever I ask a gamer about America's Army that person never heard of it. There are worse games out there with many more players and way more successful.

    I think word of mouth is still the most important. It can easily make a game sink or boom. Steam Spy tells a big story on the game:
    https://steamspy.com/app/203290
    Owners: 2,000,000 .. 5,000,000

    I think that means 2-5 million owners. The game was downloaded a lot of times, people tried it and then never came back. It's nowhere near the numbers of other popular games, but it still shows that enough people gave the game a chance. A good comparison is to Arma 3. Same Ownership numbers, but Arma 3 averages 21K players.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • RollingInTheHurtRollingInTheHurt Posts: 200Player
    Have any of the Devs ever actually played AA2?
    Not a mocking question, but serious one.
    1.jpg
  • doogle!doogle! Posts: 713Player
    Have any of the Devs ever actually played AA2?
    Not a mocking question, but serious one.

    lol

    =[ probably not
  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,607Beta Tester
    To doogle and .!.dgodfather...

    Your replies to my prior post where absolutely excellent, and I mean that wholeheartedly. As I've said, but might get lost in the shuffle, I WANT you all to get your ideas across to make this game better. You guys know stuff!!! I want your posts here to be productive. Productive criticism. I don't care. Just don't be UNproductive. I know it's not my job to brow beat you guys, but I want your expertise to make a difference!

    :+1:
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • aaHollywoodaaHollywood Posts: 372Developer
    Have any of the Devs ever actually played AA2?
    Not a mocking question, but serious one.

    Yes, more than you know
  • doogle!doogle! Posts: 713Player
    Have any of the Devs ever actually played AA2?
    Not a mocking question, but serious one.

    Yes, more than you noob

    :+1:
  • `xinoN`xinoN Posts: 359Player
    Have any of the Devs ever actually played AA2?
    Not a mocking question, but serious one.

    Yes, more than you know

    alright, then tell us your usual pipeline strategy.
    just kidding.
    Oh well.
  • doogle!doogle! Posts: 713Player
    rush east vent.

    every. single. game.
  • Hey.I.Have.A.GunHey.I.Have.A.Gun Posts: 643Player
    doogle! wrote: »
    rush east vent.

    every. single. game.

    I remember one match against a really bad team where we picked a route into the main pump room or main CP and rushed it one after the other each round. I think we hit every route that match. West Entrance, Bathroom Corridor, Main Intersection, Main Vent, East Vent, East Maintenance Tunnel to Ladder. East Maintenance Tunnel to Ladder rush we usually did on assault once per Pipeline match.
  • doogle!doogle! Posts: 713Player
    AA2 was fun man. The choo-choo train into main pump, everyone throwing nades in different directions as you enter through west entrance.../sigh
  • =IK=Doba==IK=Doba= Posts: 2,789Player
    `xinoN wrote: »
    it is a solid game.

    It really isn't when basic movement is as sluggish as this.
    _____________________________
    #Support Comp Mode

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN4YhM6jUB2MxVj8i3b9rhw
  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,607Beta Tester
    edited November 2018
    =IK=Doba= wrote: »
    `xinoN wrote: »
    it is a solid game.

    It really isn't when basic movement is as sluggish as this.

    "Sluggish" is both subjective and relative. I consider the movements quite responsive, except for when the pawn gets caught on stuff. This game is WAY less sluggish than AA2 or AA3 (and I know, because I still test them) or something like ARMA. So, you must be comparing to another game that is less "sluggish."

    Which game is less sluggish? And....which free game is more "solid?"
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • `xinoN`xinoN Posts: 359Player
    =IK=Doba= wrote: »
    `xinoN wrote: »
    it is a solid game.

    It really isn't when basic movement is as sluggish as this.

    I looked it up and sluggish equals moving or operating more slowly than usual and with less energy or power. I guess It's just different from the game you're comparing it with. Doesn't make it less solid. I would agree with you if it was laggy, non responsive or something like that.
    Oh well.
  • .!.dgodfather.!.dgodfather Posts: 458Player
    AA3 is sluggish if you are injured, as it should be.
    Fragweiser Website
    Make AA Great Again!
Sign In or Register to comment.