Let's talk about all AA games

13»

Comments

  • SG1][Teal'cSG1][Teal'c Posts: 76Player
    That's actually not what I was talking about, maybe I made a mess with my question.
    Insurgency had 15k players at one point in time. AAPG has had 3k max.
    13mio registered people doesn't mean 13mio people are playing the game, especially since this number is over all AA's for any time :-)
    ______________________________________________
    Casual games are meant to be fun.
    Competitive games are meant to be hardcore difficult.
    2 distinct differences, please stop mixing them up <|¦¬)
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,140Player
    edited March 2016
    Insurgency tended to have peaks when it would go on sale for dirt cheap. Tons of people would buy it and then try it. That's why that peak only occurs in a single month and then drops again. Also the average player count hardly budges even though there was a huge jump in peak players. The game was still more popular than AAPG, but it also got more exposure due to the fact that it was a game for purchase. Steam would advertise the game with pop ups in steam and on their front page. AAPG has never gotten anything remotely similar to that because it's free. Part of me wonders if this game would be more popular if the Army charged $10 for it.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • .!.dgodfather.!.dgodfather Posts: 449Player
    That would be interesting to see. Insurgency floats between 1800-2500 players depending upon the time of day. And as you stated, that increases for a period on a new patch or advertised sale. A variable to all of it is the wealth of games to choose from. Even a decent game, might not make it big with all the options to choose from today compared to 13 mil back in the AA1/2 days. AA1/2 was advertised more than any version of the game as well (mostly through recruitment centers).
    Fragweiser Website
    Make AA Great Again!
  • SG1][Teal'cSG1][Teal'c Posts: 76Player
    I would pay 10$, or even 20$ to the devs for this game, no doubt bout that. But I wouldn't if I had to do that via Steam. I don't like to support Valve and give them even a cent, if it's not unavoidable ^.^
    ______________________________________________
    Casual games are meant to be fun.
    Competitive games are meant to be hardcore difficult.
    2 distinct differences, please stop mixing them up <|¦¬)
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,140Player
    edited March 2016
    That would be interesting to see. Insurgency floats between 1800-2500 players depending upon the time of day. And as you stated, that increases for a period on a new patch or advertised sale. A variable to all of it is the wealth of games to choose from. Even a decent game, might not make it big with all the options to choose from today compared to 13 mil back in the AA1/2 days. AA1/2 was advertised more than any version of the game as well (mostly through recruitment centers).

    AA1/2 had the recruitment centers and also word of mouth. I found out about the game because a friend told me about it and burned it on a CD for me. Word of mouth still makes a difference, although I'm not sure how big a factor it is. Games sell on hype these days more than anything else. I take a game like The Witcher 3, game of the year for 2015, highly praised by reviewers and everyone who's played it and it sells way less than a game like Fallout 4 because of hype.

    In today's PC market, Steam is the place to be to have your game recognized. Unfortunately, if your game is free Valve has no incentive to post it everywhere and drum up hype. The most I've ever seen for this game was a tiny little square on the main page that was easy to miss. Definitely no big banner or anything of that nature.

    The thing is, I have no idea if the Army would even be legally allowed to sell a video game. So you run into that issue anyway.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • [Nomad][Nomad] Posts: 15Player
    I really loved AA 2 all the way to AA 2.8. Before I discovered AA 2 I searched and tried out every FPS I could find, Ghost Recon (it was good), COD WW2, Wolfstein, Halo, and none of them didn't click.

    When I found AA 2 it was amazing. More teamwork, tactical, realistic, fun, etc. instead of just running around and shoot.

    If it was still official supported I'd be playing it today. I know there is the unofficial AA 2.5 community but they had some security issues and I had to ditch it. I have a hard time trusting unofficial stuff.

    Then came along AA 3, I was so excited about it but it was a HUGE failure. I tried AA3 like 2-3 times and every time it sucked so bad. It was so BAD... no words to describe.

    Kept playing AA 2 until it was dropped and then it kinda faded away.

    Now we have AA:PG, it's new, different. I like it but not as much as I liked AA 2. AA 2 is the gold.

    If I give 9/10 for AA2, I'd give 7/10 for AA:PG, while AA3 is 0/10!

    I like AA:PG but I wish it had similar mechanics and maps, etc. from AA 2. But better than nothing. It could've been a little better, but it is what it is. AA:PG is the only military FPS game I'm playing currently and I don't have a choice. Other than I'm thinking to try the Arma 3.
  • SG1][Teal'cSG1][Teal'c Posts: 76Player
    @[nomad] As I started this topic, the meaning was to talk about the "Why" :-D
    May you tell why and what you loved about AA2 and what you didn't like about AA3 so it was that bad for you? Would be quite interesting.
    ______________________________________________
    Casual games are meant to be fun.
    Competitive games are meant to be hardcore difficult.
    2 distinct differences, please stop mixing them up <|¦¬)
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,140Player
    edited April 2016
    Here's my list of the biggest differences between AAPG & AA2:
    1. Breathing cycle for aiming vs. shake + hold breath - I still think I like the breathing cycle more. It also made sniping and long range shooting more difficult. Today, sniping is super easy. Even firing long range with a close quarters sight (M68) is relatively easy.
    2. Prevalence of doors in maps - slows gameplay down, makes maps more interesting. Not every map necessarily needs them.
    3. No revives. Medic system was for active players rather than incapacitated players. (AA3 did both) - I personally can't stand revives or at least revives in their current state.
    4. No self bandaging - Requires team play for healing. The current system seems kind of pointless except when someone is extremely injured.
    5. The maps in general
    6. Forced load outs vs. pick whatever you'd like - Maps can be crafted to their load outs. We can even see how remakes of old AA maps don't play the same with the current system.
    7. Firing mechanics are a bit different (although the Devs tried doing it like AA2 in beta and lots of people hated it) - I'm personally fine with how the weapons fire, but I know some people aren't.
    8. Squads - this honestly doesn't impact much IMO)
    9. Training - I'm still hoping for advanced training (e.g., medic) and a requirement to do the shoot houses before playing. Still has no impact on gameplay.
    10. Grenade launchers and rocket launchers - has its pros and cons
    11. Action speeds - faster reloads and weapon switch make a pretty big difference in game speed.

    I'm sure there are a few other things, but I can't think of them right now. There are also quite a few similarities, but that's not the point of this.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
Sign In or Register to comment.