AA5 Discussion Thread (Renamed)

1686970717274»

Comments

  • [!ReDRuM!]L0rdDamian[!ReDRuM!]L0rdDamian Posts: 791Player
    Yeah but servers were so full you could hardly get in back then and most kids today have no patience for learning by fire. They don't stick around. I do agree with you though. Even if they had low lvl servers people would just make new accounts to slaughter them anyways.

    For some weird reason yes, servers were more populated back then with the lower numbers of overall gamers in the world. And they do have lower patience, tho they learn faster than us old dudes.

    doogle! wrote: »
    Rambo has a point. If the player count allows, they need a safe space to learn a bit w/o getting stomped down by people who've been playing the AA series for 15 years. Or maybe there's 10 games of bots they have to play against. Idk. But I cannot even imagine jumping into a game of AAPG against some of the monsters out there if I had zero to no FPS experience.

    If AAPG is the first shooter a new player plays yes it can be hard, but in general that's with anything you do for the first time. One of the things I enjoyed and missed after jumping over to AA3 and AAPG was the co-op missions you could play in AA2. I think it would be a very good idea to re-introduce that game mode into the next release aside of the weapon training modes like in AA2 and it would solve that part mostly.
  • AAL.RamboAAL.Rambo Posts: 68Player
    AAL.Rambo wrote: »
    Hi!
    I think that one of the most important things in the new game has to be about new players.There must be the possibility of a place or server only for new players. Because you have to think for the last 3 years in this game, it is very difficult for new players to play this game because the majority of players out there now are players with long hours so its more and more hard new players continue playing. And the new players are the reason for that one game not died.

    When I started to play FPS games 20+ years ago, I got my behind kicked so hard and so much it made me the player that I am today. We didn't had rookie servers, which was a good thing. It made me use my head instead of running around like a mad man. It's better to play against some one 20 times better then you instead of fighting to equal skill, that's the only way people will learn to adapt their gamestyle and learn from their mistakes.

    And just one small correction, it's not the new players that keeping this game alive. It's all the AA veterans that just can't let go of this title even with the horrible version we had like AA3.

    Well yes, and no, I think that both are correct and wrong haha because like all games, a lot of people get tired after play a lot some game, so if new players don't come or hold the game dies.

    Too we have to think that right now is harder than when the first AA released, now there are a lot of new FPS games and in addition, free games too created by big companies of games.
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,152Player
    edited June 30
    AAL.Rambo wrote: »
    Well yes, and no, I think that both are correct and wrong haha because like all games, a lot of people get tired after play a lot some game, so if new players don't come or hold the game dies.

    Too we have to think that right now is harder than when the first AA released, now there are a lot of new FPS games and in addition, free games too created by big companies of games.

    I think the point is that without the long time AA players (however few are left or remember it from their youth) continuing to show interest in this franchise it would have been long dead after AA3 and even AAPG.

    Anyway, the market kind of sucks right now. Most games that have come out recently have generated hype for a few weeks or months and then died off. The FPS market is still controlled by Fortnite, CoD, and CS as the top tier. Then below them are the likes of R6S, Apex, Overwatch, PUBG, and (for now) Valorant. Most other games aren't even worth mentioning in terms of large scale success. Many of the big games have been out for quite some time and people are looking for the next big thing.

    The question these days if you're building a round based shooter is what does your game do that's unique compared to CSGO and R6S? Valorant pretty much ripped off CSGO, added powers, and changed some mechanics a bit. It had tons of hype, and it may generate a decent following, but it seems like most of that hype died down now. If AA5 is a cookie cutter FPS like AAPG (I enjoyed the game, but let's be honest, it didn't do much that was unique) then it'll fail. AA2 had more features and unique bits than AAPG, but even a 100% clone of that game probably wouldn't impress almost 15 years later. Whenever we end up hearing about AA5 some day, I hope that the development team focuses on that aspect more than anything else. Not just "hey, we're an Army game," but instead "here's how we're different than the other guys." I just hope that they know what that is right now as they're building it.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • Dct.F|LeventeDct.F|Levente Posts: 587Beta Tester
    I'd be one happy camper if AA5 could be in the same league as the top games you mentioned (CS, CoD, etc). However, I don't think that is realistic as expectations go. I think is is really difficult for a new FPS game to get a playerbase as big as AA2 did (talking about relative numbers). Very few games managed, and all of them were released by big companies.

    I think what AA5 could achieve is a not huge, but reasonable playerbase, with 5-10k concurrent players at all times. I mean if AA5 is good, then it can do that.
    Theory and reality are not that different. In theory.
  • doogle!doogle! Posts: 713Player
    AAL.Rambo wrote: »
    Well yes, and no, I think that both are correct and wrong haha because like all games, a lot of people get tired after play a lot some game, so if new players don't come or hold the game dies.

    Too we have to think that right now is harder than when the first AA released, now there are a lot of new FPS games and in addition, free games too created by big companies of games.

    I think the point is that without the long time AA players (however few are left or remember it from their youth) continuing to show interest in this franchise it would have been long dead after AA3 and even AAPG.

    This is a fantastic point. And it's one of the main reasons I'm salty about the lack of transparency from the Army. It's not like they're working on GoT Season 9 in here...it's a sequel to two underwhelming sequels from aa2.

    All 50 of us would appreciate some news.
  • Twitchr.Carbon8Twitchr.Carbon8 Posts: 301Player
    edited July 4
    I see lots of people comparing this game to CS:GO, Valorant, or other popular shooters. I think they are kinda barking up the wrong tree. To me, the core of AA is more of a call or duty 2, insurgency etc. Realistic enough to be believable, but not so that's it's punishing you for realism like Arma is to me.

    I(and probbly most others my Generation) want to play the video game version of on action movie, or series. Watching the action scene of a realistic run and gun type movie, and wanting to be immersed in that world. Weather it's Jack Ryan rushing a terrorist base, or Marky Mark without the funky bunch ambushing a lakeside cottage like in the movie Shooter.

    It's hard for your blood not to be pumping after watching these, and that's what AA always has been to me. I don't want Magic, or special abilities in my shooters. I want to be able to pull up iron sights with a pistol, and grenades actually able to take out an enemy.

    CS is a great game, but the gaming of the mechanics ruin the entertainment. Valorant or siege kills me internally each time I run into some magic guys trap, or the Meta of saving up your ultimate abilities. In CS, shooting someone in the head with most guns doesn't equal a kill, ruins it for me. But, COD is wayy too un-tactical for me. Lottery the top players in that game run into a room, do a 360 and then trace back to the enemy in the room. Jumping out of a 3 story window , and your body gets back all it's health after walking for 5 seconds?

    This is mostly me rambling about what I gate about other games, but AA has always filled that niche for me. And I feel like there are alot other like me.
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,152Player
    edited July 6
    The comparison of CS, Valorant, and R6S are due to the fact that they compete in the same space. That is round based tactical shooters. Regardless of if they're more fast paced, arcadey, or whatever else. In general every FPS game has to compete against the whole grouping, but if you want to look at players who are looking for a competitive shooter then round based games will always be the height of the FPS competitive scene.

    So when an America's Army game comes out, sure you can say that from one angle it competes with the likes of Insurgency or Arma since they have more realistic gameplay elements, but America's Army doesn't really play like either of those games because they aren't round based shooters. Game play flows very differently and those games aren't designed for competitive play. The main place a game like AA5 would compete would be with the likes of CS, R6, and Valorant. Could it be similarly popular? Hard to say, I don't see why not as long as they hit every major point and differentiate themselves. The game could fall anywhere on the spectrum if they do it well enough. Word of mouth is powerful, that's why AA3 & AAPG were dead before they ever got off the ground. R6 Siege has proven that a slower paced tactical shooter can still enjoy large scale mainstream popularity. Maybe not to the level of CS, but the game is 5 years old and still peaks at over 125k players per day on Steam plus whatever play solely on Uplay (which I'd wager is very sizable).

    I'd also say that R6 Siege wasn't a guaranteed hit when it came out either. Prior to siege I'd probably put R6 in a similar situation as AA plus having a developer (UbiSoft) that wasn't the most well liked. R6 hadn't had a hit game in years and hadn't even put out anything new since 2008 (Siege came out in 2015). In a similar way it had a legion of old fans, but wasn't relevant in the current scene. They decided to put a new spin on their franchise, do something different than everyone else was doing, did it well and just consistently put out new content as the game grew. Granted, Ubisoft has way more money to play with vs. Army Game Studio, but it's not unheard of that old franchises get new life if the developers take some risks and do something interesting and unique with them.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • .!.dgodfather.!.dgodfather Posts: 458Player
    If AAPG is anything remotely like what they will deliver as a "competitive" shooter going forward, just stop now.

    Arma, Insurgency, etc., those are great Army "feel" games. Weapons, mechanics, attachments, gear, sounds, feel, etc. They need that sort of "feel" mixed into whatever they do next. Those games feel Army, so much more than AAPG does.

    People say that whatever is next has to be fast rounds. I don't agree with that. BR games are popular and rounds are long lasting. What allows them to succeed is that you don't have to sit around and wait, you leave when you die and drop into a new battle again in a few minutes. They have dynamically sizing zones that create action. They can make something large scale that is fast, but also long lasting. It shouldn't be a BR clone though.

    An R6S style game that focuses on gadgets, attachments, and guns would be enjoyable too if done the right way, but larger scale battles like BR type games would fit the Army brand better IMO. AA2 style games would be great if you didn't have to wait forever for a match to finish to play again. Maybe simply adding a warzone type gulag or something like it would make AA2 type gaming better where when you die, you still have action while waiting for the round to end.

    Regardless of opinions, they should focus on making something that will land somewhere on a streaming platform in the masses. Advertising is something they don't appear to do. Streaming is what will get eyes on the game and build popularity, if recruitment is where they want to be.
    Fragweiser Website
    Make AA Great Again!
Sign In or Register to comment.