Dead game

Im doing this post in the hopes that the aapg dev team will see this
iv'e noticed that this community is dying agree or not its true. server are shunting down clans are leaving
server populations in official are dwindling i love this game but the fires going out you have done very small patches adding no new content in the past 3 o 2 years nothing new has been aded but 2 maps and 2 guns. a lot of people have lost faith in the Devs from Americas Army Studio they are showing no interest in keeping the game going .
«13

Comments

  • Dct.F|LeventeDct.F|Levente Posts: 549Beta Tester
    Currently most of the development effort is focused on the next AA game. From an other forum topic: https://forum.americasarmy.com/discussion/7644/aa5-discussion-thread-renamed/p53
    2019 vision should be shifting 70% of team resources across to AA5 development. Then the remaining 30% focus on trickling out bug/performance fixes for AA4.

    That's about where we're at

    Based on this, I wouldn't expect ground-shaking changes in AAPG.
    Theory and reality are not that different. In theory.
  • [DFekt].NoVaseline[DFekt].NoVaseline Posts: 12Player
    Currently most of the development effort is focused on the next AA game. From an other forum topic: https://forum.americasarmy.com/discussion/7644/aa5-discussion-thread-renamed/p53
    2019 vision should be shifting 70% of team resources across to AA5 development. Then the remaining 30% focus on trickling out bug/performance fixes for AA4.

    That's about where we're at

    Based on this, I wouldn't expect ground-shaking changes in AAPG.

    oh a new game hellz yea!
  • ={101st}=Whiplash27={101st}=Whiplash27 Posts: 2,121Player
    Yeah, AAPG is pretty much donzo. We'll have to wait for a while for whatever AA5 is going to look like.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • Hc|CAPTAIN(HUN)Hc|CAPTAIN(HUN) Posts: 110Player
    They are running this game just because there are the loading screen videos. Thats the main reason.. The videos quality and quantity have been more developed then the game it self. I guess its not they fault they Just do what the army orders them. Also, back in the good times aa2 they had a budged between 1-5 millions for every year, what I assume is not the case for aapg




    Hc|Captain(HUN) -
  • frankoffrankof Posts: 1,016Moderator
    The game has been dead or dying sins at least AA2.3...
    ss_4_frankof.png
  • KodenKoden Posts: 284Player
    edited March 3
    frankof wrote: »
    The game has been dead or dying sins at least AA2.3...

    That's bold! And hurts. Also, things were slightly different back then. Might be a matter of fond memories, but i still remember the forums, the community, the maps depot!! That was awesome, the amount of custom maps (with several coop missions)...and then it was shut down along with all the other AA2 related services back in late 2011.

    The coop community was quite tight. Too bad we weren't that many tho (one of em actually reached to me on youtube a couple days ago watching one of my videos :) after like...8 or 9 years! ).
    Derob6.jpg
  • ={101st}=Whiplash27={101st}=Whiplash27 Posts: 2,121Player
    edited March 3
    Co op and map editor all came beyond the peak popularity of AA2. Co op a bit earlier, but I don't remember a lot of people playing it at the time. AA2 peaked some time around 2005 or 2006 and then started falling off. That would put you into that 2.3 to 2.5 time frame.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • doogle!doogle! Posts: 678Player
    Coop was kinda garbage. I tend to think that once that big wave of SF maps came out, water treatment etc, that's when the game started really getting kinda saturated with useless updates.

    2.3, maybe 2.5 was the beez-neez. 2.8.5 was just too much
  • ={101st}=Whiplash27={101st}=Whiplash27 Posts: 2,121Player
    edited March 6
    Hospital, CSAR, & Sandstorm were all awesome early SF maps. Village was pretty cool, but too big. Some of the ones that came after were nothing special. After that it started getting to the point where we started getting co-op maps, strykers that you couldn't drive, javelins, and all this other stuff that didn't add a ton to gameplay. Maps that were getting released at this later time weren't as big hits as the earlier maps.

    Either way, what really started killing AA2 were the implementation of movement restrictions (limiting crouch & jump) and things like atomic flash bangs (where guys would just sit around with a flash in hand waiting for guys to blind and kill). There were other things too, but I can't remember. They were all changes that were made in the name of realism because the uber realism junkies started complaining that the people who were better players than them would do unrealistic things and things like how getting flashed wouldn't make you be able to get back into the fight so quickly... and yes, I remember huge threads about these things being discussed in the forums at the time.

    Before you knew it a lot of the competitive teams started dropping the game and tons of people left. I remember 2.6 or 2.7 was around the time that I mostly stopped playing AA2. At the time I was involved enough in the comp scene to know a large base of players from all sorts of different teams and most people were getting fed up with the game and complained about the changes after each patch.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,605Beta Tester
    They were all changes that were made in the name of realism because the uber realism junkies started complaining

    It should have occurred to you by now that this is what the studio was trying to do with the game FOR THEIR CUSTOMER, the Army.
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • Dct.F|LeventeDct.F|Levente Posts: 549Beta Tester
    edited March 7
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    They were all changes that were made in the name of realism because the uber realism junkies started complaining

    It should have occurred to you by now that this is what the studio was trying to do with the game FOR THEIR CUSTOMER, the Army.

    (Disclaimer: I was not around in the AA2 era. My comment is more of a generic one.)
    Well, the army pays, thus they are technically the customer. However, if this causes the studio to make bad things for gameplay... they are still poor choices for gameplay! Sure, they are kind of "justified", because the paying customer wanted it. But justified poor decisions are still poor decisions from the perspective of the players. And player will make decisions based on the player's perspective.

    I, the player, will want something, what is good for me. I won't think like: "hey, this thing is super unfun, but I guess the Army made them implement it, thus all is forgiven/forgotten. I'll keep playing, I don't care it is not fun!". I want to have fun. Even if I understand, that I'm not the one with the money, I want to have fun.
    And if the Army has sense, they want their target audience to have fun, because this is the only was they can achieve what they want. The question is: am I the target audience or not?

    Understanding why decisions are made and agreeing with these decisions is NOT the same thing. They are fundamentally different IMO.
    Theory and reality are not that different. In theory.
  • doogle!doogle! Posts: 678Player
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    They were all changes that were made in the name of realism because the uber realism junkies started complaining

    It should have occurred to you by now that this is what the studio was trying to do with the game FOR THEIR CUSTOMER, the Army.

    Just wow.
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    They were all changes that were made in the name of realism because the uber realism junkies started complaining

    It should have occurred to you by now that this is what the studio was trying to do with the game FOR THEIR CUSTOMER, the Army.

    (Disclaimer: I was not around in the AA2 era. My comment is more of a generic one.)
    Well, the army pays, thus they are technically the customer. However, if this causes the studio to make bad things for gameplay... they are still poor choices for gameplay! Sure, they are kind of "justified", because the paying customer wanted it. But justified poor decisions are still poor decisions from the perspective of the players. And player will make decisions based on the player's perspective.

    I, the player, will want something, what is good for me. I won't think like: "hey, this thing is super unfun, but I guess the Army made them implement it, thus all is forgiven/forgotten. I'll keep playing, I don't care it is not fun!". I want to have fun. Even if I understand, that I'm not the one with the money, I want to have fun.
    And if the Army has sense, they want their target audience to have fun, because this is the only was they can achieve what they want. The question is: am I the target audience or not?

    Understanding why decisions are made and agreeing with these decisions is NOT the same thing. They are fundamentally different IMO.

    True Levente. Some people like to lean on the Army is the customer crutch. And while they pay the bills, I'd bet my arm that Col John Doe isn't telling Devs to implement this or that nuance. There may be some guidance, but that doesn't mean the Studio is being micromanaged to the most minute details.

    I
  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,605Beta Tester
    Don't be ridiculous Doogle. Do you honestly think I like all the decisions that have been made? I notice you never comment when I bother to lay out my own critique of the game, but just love to get your digs in.

    Bravo, I say. Bravo!!! :worldsTiniestClap:

    FACTS are not a crutch just because you don't like them.
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • ={101st}=Whiplash27={101st}=Whiplash27 Posts: 2,121Player
    edited March 7
    The Army may want certain things, true. However, we'd be kidding ourselves to say that they don't take some player feedback and implement it in the game. Back in the beta for AAPG there various things that they implemented because the players wanted them. There are certain things that seem (unfortunately) to be off limits and lots of things that never came about despite the community pushing hard from them, but let's not forget that the game didn't have leaning and OpFor weapons to start, all of the maps were cardboard cutout training maps, player movements all had heavy acceleration values, shooting patterns had lots of random variables, sway patterns were completely random, all servers had two revives... there were lots of others. Many of those things changed to how they currently are due to player feedback. So to say that the Army wanted x, y, & z, and that player feedback never plays into certain changes is to not look at how the game has evolved over the years. I do think that as the beta started wrapping up (especially after it got out of closed beta) the desire to listen to player feedback lessened, but it still was there.

    In AA2 it's 100% certain that they got rid of the ability to jump too often because people complained about it, they removed the ability to crouch too often because people complained about it. I remember so many threads on the forums about people complaining about bunny hoppers and players who crouch spammed because they couldn't aim so therefore it had to be put to a stop. I also remember long threads in the forum about flash bangs needed to be more effective because realism. At that point in time the game had a huge player base, you don't make changes like that and not expect huge repercussions. I don't care what some big shot at the Army who probably doesn't play the game wants (yes, I know what they want is what goes -- Not the point here). The point of this game at the end of the day is to get tons of eyes on the US Army. So no matter who you want to say is the customer, if the so-called customer is the only one playing this game then it's failed. Same with if the only people playing this game are a niche group of realism junkies or 30+ year old men, then it's failed. Sorry, but I can hardly recall a time in recent memory where I've heard someone who isn't in their 20s or older playing AAPG.

    At the time it was thread after tread of realism junkies saying that they wanted the game to be more realistic. The Army gave into these people and the game suffered. Even today we get people on here who want AAPG or AA5 to be more like Arma (a niche game) rather than trying to compete with the big boys. You talk about people who want the game to be the way they want for selfish reasons. They'd rather a round based Arma clone that will get 5,000 people playing vs. trying to consider making a game that hundreds of thousands will want to play.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,605Beta Tester
    Isn't it possible those things got done because that was the direction the Army wanted to go?

    It's not like the Comp crowd wasn't noisy. Why didn't THEY influence the build?

    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 630Player
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    Isn't it possible those things got done because that was the direction the Army wanted to go?

    It's not like the Comp crowd wasn't noisy. Why didn't THEY influence the build?

    AFAIK because you betas didn't like to see the comp beta so it got cancelled?!
    AAPG is good!
  • ={101st}=Whiplash27={101st}=Whiplash27 Posts: 2,121Player
    edited March 7
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    Isn't it possible those things got done because that was the direction the Army wanted to go?

    It's not like the Comp crowd wasn't noisy. Why didn't THEY influence the build?

    Sure it's possible, but if that's the case then those were foolish decisions regardless. Don't fix what ain't broken and don't try to ram a square peg into a round hole... all that good stuff. The Army really needs to sit down and do some research on what makes a game successful in today's environment. Obviously, right now that's battle royale and I'm not saying to make an America's Army squad based BR game, but it's important to look at what kind of features and basic game mechanics are prevalent in the market, improve on them, do something unique with them, and add that Army flare. That's the blue print to being successful. Don't just tailor a game to a small loud niche who wants an Army simulator or a pure AA2 clone. Yes, it's good to look at AA2 and copy some of those features/ideas and mechanics, but the game needs to also come into the current decade.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,605Beta Tester
    I'm not defending the reasons, I'm stating what I see as facts. That's all. Stating facts doesn't suggest I'm condoning them.

    What I'd LIKE to see doesn't really matter, and I accept that. Unlike:

    As to the Comp Beta group, I wasn't a Beta then, but my impression of 'most' of the comp crowd in general was that they were belligerent, entitled, disruptive, demanding, and terrible at useful feedback here in the Public Forum. I have no idea if they behaved the same way behind 'Closed' doors, and if they did, I'd not be allowed to comment on it anyway.

    Comments like 'old grandpa's proning around the maps' and 'get rid of this, 'it's not Scottish*"' were pretty typical.

    The forums were toxic back then, and I hated it. :(

    So, all we can do is move forward and learn from our mistakes, I hope.


    (* - 'if it's na Scottish, it's ****' )
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • ={101st}=Whiplash27={101st}=Whiplash27 Posts: 2,121Player
    edited March 7
    I don't mean the comp beta group, I mean the closed beta prior to open beta ;) (what was that from May 2013 to August 2013?) .

    Either way, regardless of anything, any of us few remaining here want to see a successful America's Army game. I just caution the Dev team to really figure this thing out before anything. Really understand the market and do it right. The last thing you want AA5 to be is a _____ clone or a game that plays like it's from 2005. The day AAPG came out it was immediately labelled a CoD clone. Unfair or not, that was it for the game.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • -[U|S|A]-Gorilla-[U|S|A]-Gorilla Posts: 707Administrator
    Simply put guys the army gives the direction on how they want the game made. AA:PG is proving grounds. The game also has to have its own signature. Keeps it separated from other games with large studios that inc everything into the game that most players are looking for today like every gun, throwable device, 2nd hand weapon that does exists or does not. If you think about it no one will be ever happy with any game because they have their own idea of what should or should not be imputed into the game.

    If you asked me I would love to see old maps. Ohh but wait I can :) They are in steam workshop. But I want to play them when I want and I don't want to pay a server, Ohh that's right we can host a server from our own rigs now. But I am not sure how to set it up? That's right there are guides and other players that have successfully done it and I can get help setting up. Ohh man now I don't have anyone to play with and fill my server. I guess I have to make some friends and inv them to my server.

    It would be awesome to have more maps and better ones. Oh, really AA has provided a powerful editor where I can learn to make my own map the way I want. Hmm but how do I get started? What there is a section on the forums that has other players that are willing to help you get started and guilds on steam, how awesome it that :).

    I hate that AA:PG did not set up any comp server or any comp within the game. What's that I read in the forums? A bunch of comps that players have set up all on their own? Maybe I should stop my complaining and do something my self and set something up too?

    Hey I would love to see a comp for user made maps. The Devs did say something about getting something going at one point. Hmm now they can't because there main focus is on the new AA game? Well I guess I could complain about it till I get my way OR I can do it myself like suggested by the Devs. And maybe I can get players to help donate for a 1st and 2nd place prize. I might be even able to get a Devs attention once I have finished setting up and see if they are able to op in and check it out and maybe do something for the winners too.

    I want the game like AA2. AA2 this AA2 that. All I want is AA2 when the game had no comp because the game had no real comp. Even PlayStation and xbox was garb. Ohh but look now how the PC gaming is dying and PS and Xbox is doing so much better. I guess I can see how the future moves on to bigger and better things. It would be awesome if there was backwards comp for the new AA5 so that anyone playing AA5 can play with anyone playing on console.

    I am with you guys on a lot of your points. But I think most of you got the point that this game is no longer AGS main focus. So is it worth complaining about AA where I will get no great feedback from? Or would it be better for leave my great ideas on what should happen with AA5 in the right thread and hope that my voice is heard because I was polite and game a thought out play plan on AA5 rather then nag like a teen what is not getting what he or she wants.

    I love this game like many of you and would LOVE to see some changes. However the things I want to see from AA5 has already been told from my own voice. Those things that I want to do still with this game. I motivate myself and others to do the things that I want to do. I guess the last thing to do is keep busy until we can start doing some work on something new.

    For the main question on this page. I guess AA:PG is dead because of the consistent comp and how old this game is. I am in my 30's and most of the people I work with and younger or around the same age. I ask others all the time what they are playing since I have Xbox. No matter young and old 80% of them are playing a new game ever 2 weeks. And the Games like AA or PUBG they have their times until the next new best game comes out. But do you see the Devs of those game do much dif then what ours do? No. There are patches new maps and new guns just like others. If there are bugs that you think need to be fixed. Then leave a bug report because chances are the Devs might not know about it. But with AA5 being the focus. Like a bunch of older games. Don't expect fixes to happen right away.

    I do agree that they should happen more often. But I can understand why and play the game just the way it is just fine.
Sign In or Register to comment.