AA5 Discussion Thread (Renamed)

16062646566

Comments

  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,605Beta Tester
    The doogle wrote:
    It's not criticism, it's feedback. And there's the "you" language again.

    thatssotrue_3749_1331166173.gif
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • vapor.ivapor.i Posts: 269Player
    Longtime no see fellas.....so is AA5 still being planned, in development or been thrown in trash already?
    If your in development please walk the (new team) through aa1 & aa2 but for the love of god don't show them aa3 or aapg because frankly they were garbage versions.
    Flame me all you like, playerbase numbers don't lie! Just figured I would pop in here to see if this is still ongoing or scrapped since I've seen very little done to aapg.

    What up dogfather!
    AA2 veteran player / fanboy
  • Hey.I.Have.A.GunHey.I.Have.A.Gun Posts: 641Player
    ChiiiToH wrote: »
    I'd really like to get in on the dev part of this! I could possibly take an internship if possible? I'm going to school getting my Batchelor's in Game Design at Full Sail University, and I graduate December 2020! Could I PLEASE get a reply to my comment about possible internship or getting in on development?

    I tried, but I just can't leave this one alone.

    In 2+ years the spelling of "bachelor" hasn't been covered?
  • doogle!doogle! Posts: 678Player
    Just because it makes your green name angry and your feelings upset doesn't mean it's not feedback.
  • Duke_AudiDuke_Audi Posts: 328Beta Tester
    Many people mistake criticism for feedback. The key difference between the two is that criticism involves judgment and faultfinding which are viewed as negative. Feedback evaluates and may contain suggestions for corrective action which are positive.
    556127a3323e2cfd0355aaa34b6e0b63-full.jpg
  • .!.dgodfather.!.dgodfather Posts: 445Player
    Hi Vapor! I'd love AA2 (or AA3) over AAPG. I'd argue to say it's worse than AA3.

    Duke - Your interpretation of feedback as "positive" is not accurate. It's your prerogative.

    Feedback: information about reactions to a product, a person's performance of a task, etc. which is used as a basis for improvement.

    Feedback can be negative or positive. Criticism strictly offers no suggestion for improvement.

    Example: AAPG is terrible. Scrap it and make something that better suits the AA series.
    Fragweiser Website
    Make AA Great Again!
  • Duke_AudiDuke_Audi Posts: 328Beta Tester
    < snip >

    Duke - Your interpretation of feedback as "positive" is not accurate. It's your prerogative.

    Feedback: information about reactions to a product, a person's performance of a task, etc. which is used as a basis for improvement.

    Feedback can be negative or positive. Criticism strictly offers no suggestion for improvement.

    Example: AAPG is terrible. Scrap it and make something that better suits the AA series.
    You should re read what I wrote because I did not write what you claim I did. The word "positive" was in referacne to the way suggestions for corrective action should be worded. Also, I make no claim to have "privileged rank" so I find your use of the word "prerogative" to be presumptive.
    The definition of "feedback" is as you state. How the feedback is given dictates as to whether it's preceived as negative or positive. The majority of adverse comments I read in these forums are not negative feedback. They are clearly criticisms as is your example.
    How is AAPG "terrible"?
    Why should the army "scrap it"?
    What do you think would better suit the AA series?
    You see, no feedback in which to base improvements on, just criticisms.


    556127a3323e2cfd0355aaa34b6e0b63-full.jpg
  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,605Beta Tester
    doogle! wrote: »
    Just because it makes your green name angry and your feelings upset doesn't mean it's not feedback.

    Ah, my green name doesn't have feelings, but the guy behind it is pretty amused that some 'feedback artists' can't grapple with where we're actually at, as opposed to the fantasy game they wish for. I keep trying to help you: The Army makes what they want and neither you, nor my green name can change that. I have come to terms with that reality. Why haven't you?

    At this point, you are nothing but a griefer. That's not feedback OR criticism. You just like causing trouble.
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • doogle!doogle! Posts: 678Player
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    doogle! wrote: »
    Just because it makes your green name angry and your feelings upset doesn't mean it's not feedback.

    but the guy behind it is pretty amused that some 'feedback artists' can't grapple with where we're actually at, as opposed to the fantasy game they wish for.

    What? Are you saying that no one should say anything about the current game because it's just the way it is? I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make. I love the AA series. I hate the lack of attention it has received not only from FPS gamers, but from Army Game Studios/the US Army itself.
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    doogle! wrote: »
    Just because it makes your green name angry and your feelings upset doesn't mean it's not feedback.

    keep trying to help you: The Army makes what they want and neither you, nor my green name can change that. I have come to terms with that reality. Why haven't you?.
    But we do have that power. They (Devs) have asked for feedback before. They watch the forums...or at least used to. They HAVE to listen to players or no one plays. And when no one plays, there's no return on investment for recruitment.

    Keebler750 wrote: »
    doogle! wrote: »
    Just because it makes your green name angry and your feelings upset doesn't mean it's not feedback.

    At this point, you are nothing but a griefer. That's not feedback OR criticism. You just like causing trouble..
    Yea well, that's like, your opinion man.
  • .!.dgodfather.!.dgodfather Posts: 445Player
    edited September 8
    Duke_Audi wrote: »
    You should re read what I wrote because I did not write what you claim I did. The word "positive" was in referacne to the way suggestions for corrective action should be worded. Also, I make no claim to have "privileged rank" so I find your use of the word "prerogative" to be presumptive.
    The definition of "feedback" is as you state. How the feedback is given dictates as to whether it's preceived as negative or positive. The majority of adverse comments I read in these forums are not negative feedback. They are clearly criticisms as is your example.
    How is AAPG "terrible"?
    Why should the army "scrap it"?
    What do you think would better suit the AA series?
    You see, no feedback in which to base improvements on, just criticisms.

    I disagree. How the feedback is perceived dictates as to whether it's negative or positive. If you don't like how feedback is delivered, that may be your own problem.

    If only there was enough time to go over and re-hash the problems with AAPG. If only relevant arguments weren't nay-sayed by the privileged. If only... There are forums upon forums, upon topics, upon messages, upon archived forums, upon special forums, upon reviews... all of information about why AAPG is terrible. More recently, quite simply the fact that AA5 is an idea insinuates that AAPG is terrible. No one has to say that directly for people to see that.

    The privileged speak highly and the people who play the game complain. Are we looking at different message boards? Must be... I'm looking here forum.americasarmy.com/discussion. Where are you looking?
    Fragweiser Website
    Make AA Great Again!
  • -[U|S|A]-Gorilla-[U|S|A]-Gorilla Posts: 707Administrator
    I am hoping to close this dispute because its going on long enough. Feed back https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feedback Criticism is not always been perceived as positive. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criticism However they go hand in hand and no matter what, weather positive or negative, feedback is welcome on this forums as long is it does not go against any forum rules.

    Same thing goes for opinion. Also hand in hand. We all have our opinions. We can state them and weather we agree with one another is up to the individual. Obviously we have some people that feel like others are trying to belittle others their opinions and how they are responded back at. If your not looking to look past this but would rather continue to battle it out then simply rethink about that next post and feeding more into something that may be perceived into a measuring, whit or debate contest.

    We are simply here to formulate some ideas and give our feedback. Weather or not the Dev's is or is not done with this game or the next it still does not excuse the sole purpose of this forums and the threads. Give your thoughts and ideas and your personal experience and leave something that can benefit. If your not helping out by leaving suggestion that's fine too because I am sure we can think for ourselves and come up with great ideas that could fix a issue or dream big about the next game.

    However this is no guarantee that your ideas will be what the customer wants. Each game in the series has had its own prerogative. AA:PG is all about that. It said it in its name. Proving Grounds. Yes, like SO many other I loved AA and AA2 and SF and the 7 core values. I loved all the maps and guns. I also love that there was little competition then and that this game stood out from others for so long. I would like to see all these things in the next game in the series, if there is a next game. But times are changing and I am getting older. The great game I knew is now out of date. I can hope to see something like it was 11 or 15 years ago. But in my case I can leave my thoughts ideas and feedback but unless you make your own game, then that is all that we can do to offer this community.
  • .!.dgodfather.!.dgodfather Posts: 445Player
    Fair enough and good points Gorilla. One last observation though. A beta tester, while allowed their opinions and freedom to express them, should be held to a higher standard in representing the game. They probably should not present negativity towards the public community, even if they are sick and tired of the complaints. If a beta tester presents toxicity, as seen here, that's one of the worst things the public will ever see.
    Fragweiser Website
    Make AA Great Again!
  • -[U|S|A]-Gorilla-[U|S|A]-Gorilla Posts: 707Administrator
    Agreed.
  • OICURMT!OICURMT! Posts: 117Beta Tester
    edited September 11
    Fair enough and good points Gorilla. One last observation though. A beta tester, while allowed their opinions and freedom to express them, should be held to a higher standard in representing the game. They probably should not present negativity towards the public community, even if they are sick and tired of the complaints. If a beta tester presents toxicity, as seen here, that's one of the worst things the public will ever see.

    I'll agree with everything you said except "as seen here"... I don't see it as toxicity, but rather a counterpoint to in the incessant interruptions that occurs in this thread.

    Positive feedback is welcome, but innuendo that is disguised as feedback, is not...

    OIC!
    --

    In life, there is no respawn... why should there be in a game?
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,121Player
    edited September 10
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    doogle! wrote: »
    Just because it makes your green name angry and your feelings upset doesn't mean it's not feedback.
    The Army makes what they want and neither you, nor my green name can change that. I have come to terms with that reality. Why haven't you?
    I'm sorry, but I hate this argument. Every developer in the world makes the game that they want to make. However, there isn't a developer in the world that makes a game that they expect no one to play. If the Army wants to create a public video game, then they expect people to play it, and not just a few thousand. Does AA5 need to blow up and be the next big thing? Probably not, but it certainly needs to do WAY better than AA3 and AAPG. A player base that averages 30K at any given time is not unreasonable. That wouldn't even put it in the top 10 on Steam.

    Now, will our feedback make AA5 popular? Who knows? Honestly, I've played a good amount of FPS games, but I can't stand a lot of what's popular these days. So maybe my opinion is worthless because what the 14-24 year old crowd is into I find to be awful. I will say that right now the FPS market is terrible. A large percentage of people are tired of what's out there right now. The market is really ripe for something to come in and grab a huge player base. Some people are saying CoD MW may be that game, but we'll see. CoD games are always flavor of the month games.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • Dct.F|LeventeDct.F|Levente Posts: 550Beta Tester
    edited September 10
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    doogle! wrote: »
    Just because it makes your green name angry and your feelings upset doesn't mean it's not feedback.
    The Army makes what they want and neither you, nor my green name can change that. I have come to terms with that reality. Why haven't you?
    If the Army wants to create a public video game, then they expect people to play it, and not just a few thousand. Does AA5 need to blow up and be the next big thing? Probably not, but it certainly needs to do WAY better than AA3 and AAPG. A player base that averages 30K at any given time is not unreasonable. That wouldn't even put it in the top 10 on Steam.

    What you say makes sense, if the higher-ups know the gaming market. Sometimes I doubt that. We don't know how the funding/decision chain is built. However, I doubt that the Devs we see are the ones who make the fundamental decision - I mean: how much resources can this project have.

    Armies around the world are built in a chain-of-command basis for a reason. However, such a structure is detrimental for something like a video game. The higher-ups most likely know a lot less about gaming than the people on the other end (=Devs). And unfortunately in a chain-of-command structure people on the high end are not necessarily open to advice/ideas coming from the low end. And I doubt that they would suddenly change this attitude for a video game.

    As I said: we cannot know, if this is the case or not. I certainly don't know. But this could explain a few things.
    Theory and reality are not that different. In theory.
  • .!.dgodfather.!.dgodfather Posts: 445Player
    With AA3 they hired an outside team and that team were given some constraints to within, whereas they likely had more control of development of the game along certain guidelines. In-house it seems to be less lenient.
    Fragweiser Website
    Make AA Great Again!
  • Dct.F|LeventeDct.F|Levente Posts: 550Beta Tester
    edited September 10
    With AA3 they hired an outside team and that team were given some constraints to within, whereas they likely had more control of development of the game along certain guidelines. In-house it seems to be less lenient.

    I don't think AA3 is super relevant in this conversation. The release was 10 years ago, so development/management choices had to be made maybe like 13-15 years ago. I'd assume many-many things have changed since both in and outside the studio. Sure, some conclusions can be drawn, but I'd do that with caution. (Just to clarify: I was nowhere near the development of AA3. This is 100% just my opinion.)

    To be honest, I don't think that AA3 is as bad as some people think. It's not bad, it's unfinished. I mean the amount of "Coming soon" in the menus was crazy. Based on this I assume that other areas were unfinished as well. Sure, this doesn't fix it's issues, but I don't think it is fair to trash AA3 and it's Devs so much, if they couldn't finish the game. We are judging an unfinished product, which for whatever reason had to be called final.
    Of course, I might be biased here. AA3 was my 1st tactical FPS (and my 2nd FPS in general), thus it will always be special for me. What is also true, that since I didn't play many games before, I was probably more forgiving about the definitely existing flaws. I like many concepts in AA3 more, than in AAPG.
    Theory and reality are not that different. In theory.
  • doogle!doogle! Posts: 678Player
    The point he's making is that we sit here and assume Army Game Studios hands are tied. They may be, but they may not be. Depending on how the contract or Statement of Work is worded, the deliverable may just be to develop an FPS that meets certain requirements. I highly doubt there's some Col sitting in on meetings twice a week making decisions to add the RPG to a BDX map, or deciding that all the maps are training cardboard cut-out maps.

    If you listen to some of the podcasts the Devs did on AAPG, it seems like the opposite. It seems like they had a ton of leeway. There's also an episode where one Dev talks about the lack of accountability which allows them to really do what they want (paraphrasing, of course). He mentions the ability to make mistakes, and then since the game isn't for profit, not stress too much and just work to correct that mistake in the next patch. Problem is, we go 27 years in between patches in this era of the AA series.
  • Dct.F|LeventeDct.F|Levente Posts: 550Beta Tester
    Fair enough. Those podcasts were ages ago...

    Yeah, it would be nice to know what kind of freedom the Devs have. And also: what kind of resources. Do they get the possibility for major fixes? I mean: if something works in the game to some extent but has flaws, how much resources they get to make it better?
    But I guess this kind of info is above my 0$ paycheck... *sigh*
    Theory and reality are not that different. In theory.
Sign In or Register to comment.