Indeed, I also want them to do more than well.. I want them to stick around and hope for the possibility of them coming to join us 1% here in the forum and get involved themselves, there would be no better feedback for the devs than a new players perspective, currently most come and say it's a COD rip off or it's not AA2 because the maps we have are fast paced, basically it's them saying they are getting slaughtered before even getting to grips with the game, then are recklessly boo'd off the forum, telling them 'in as many words' to go back to COD where they belong rather than listening to their concerns (I've been guilty of it myself )
I think there's a need for tacti-cool, camper heaven, bigger maps with lots of random encounters and outcomes (e.g Hospital), as much as need for action packed, multi-choke, pre-determined.. small maps (e.g Inner), for the benefit of all players of any skill level to enjoy.. that's basically all I'm getting at.
I think we already thrashed over training/tutorial and matchmaking over the past few months, no doubt these things would be great too!
Exactly dude, I mean a game mode can be made or break by its maps. Look at Battlefield 4, those maps were not made for the game mode rush. I think the devs of AA need to focus efforts on bugs and maps. My suggestion maybe bring back 3 or 4 maps from previous games and some newer maps that don't have that training feel like some of the current maps.
Anyone who aint played this game yet would be a new player, regardless of anything else they have played, including AA2. Everyone knows the two are nothing alike.. they just share half the title name.
Granted it's rare for an AA2 player to only now try AAPG, but I see it often enough to have said it. Most will already be playing or have already left.
If my trollery drives you crazy, you'd better put on your seatbelt.
Most AA2 maps won't work in this game. I've said it tons of times before. There are some that do work, but the vast majority are not made to work with this game. I wouldn't mind a few AA2 remakes. I think game sequels should have a bit of overlap in maps. However, we need more original maps.
People who pine for old maps are just unhappy about the current set of maps. If the new maps blew your socks off, no one would be saying "We want AA2 maps!" It's all a matter of map quality. Give us great maps that have longevity and you won't hear about AA2 maps.
What thread are you reading? its been mentioned 3 times on this page already before i did in normal discussions about how great or bad it is.
We are reading the same thread. Exactly 1 person has said something which can be considered positive about bridge in this thread.
Yet you act as if there is an overwhemling amount of AA2 guys who are promoting bridge as a great map.
Then you go on to say "nostalgia kicking in again" clearly making, once again, a negative connotation to AA2.
In other words, trying to discredit anything AA2 guys say.
You do this all the time... I'm just the only one who says something about it.
But here if we were to listen to you guys anyone would think bridge is equal to inner hospital. I'm guessing it's that nostalgia kicking in again.
This thread is still just as stupid 6 pages in with people dribbling about old map remakes still like that's the only thing they can think of out the box.
What thread are you reading? its been mentioned 3 times on this page already before i did in normal discussions about how great or bad it is.
We are reading the same thread. Exactly 1 person has said something which can be considered positive about bridge in this thread.
Yet you act as if there is an overwhemling amount of AA2 guys who are promoting bridge as a great map.
Then you go on to say "nostalgia kicking in again" clearly making, once again, a negative connotation to AA2.
In other words, trying to discredit anything AA2 guys say.
You do this all the time... I'm just the only one who says something about it.
But here if we were to listen to you guys anyone would think bridge is equal to inner hospital. I'm guessing it's that nostalgia kicking in again.
This thread is still just as stupid 6 pages in with people dribbling about old map remakes still like that's the only thing they can think of out the box.
Futhermore it shows how much of these players are missing a true AA2 remake on a modern engine, that stands out from todays games like AA2 did in its time.
Yes the maps could be better but don't be acting like the maps you enjoy are popular for everyone. Hospital and bridge are rarely played as much as the other maps and are a pretty boring experience. With either a way too complex layout with a bazillion hiding places or a giant choke point that relies on camping and aim so everyone rage quits as aim is not very popular here. Mostly only new players are on them when they haven't learnt the good or bad maps yet. But here if we were to listen to you guys anyone would think bridge is equal to inner hospital. I'm guessing it's that nostalgia kicking in again.
This thread is still just as stupid 6 pages in with people dribbling about old map remakes still like that's the only thing they can think of out the box. I think I have been the only one to actually pitch an idea with description and images for inspiration and oh look, it might get included in the game. I must have been trolling.
They're both WILD remakes. The AAPG version of Bridge is closer to the original in comparison to AA3 (lucky enough). The AAPG version of Hospital has it's issues indeed, but Inner Hospital is among the most played maps also because it's [mod edit - TOS violation] polished. I would love to see a version of Intercept that has the same level of polish. I often happened to get stuck in some point of that map.
a map as big as full hospital or redline needs to have a moving OBJ. by that i mean a VIP that starts getting intercepted/chased from the moment the round starts. else there's just so many places for people to fight each other and completely ignore the objective til the absolute last minute of the round... while the defense team has the upper hand by simply just forcing the assault team to clear the entire map before even picking up the "flag".
Very much like the VIP spawn in the AA2 version of Hospital...you had to move or your VIP was very likely to fall in the early minute of gameplay
What thread are you reading? its been mentioned 3 times on this page already before i did in normal discussions about how great or bad it is.
We are reading the same thread. Exactly 1 person has said something which can be considered positive about bridge in this thread.
Yet you act as if there is an overwhemling amount of AA2 guys who are promoting bridge as a great map.
Then you go on to say "nostalgia kicking in again" clearly making, once again, a negative connotation to AA2.
In other words, trying to discredit anything AA2 guys say.
You do this all the time... I'm just the only one who says something about it.
But here if we were to listen to you guys anyone would think bridge is equal to inner hospital. I'm guessing it's that nostalgia kicking in again.
This thread is still just as stupid 6 pages in with people dribbling about old map remakes still like that's the only thing they can think of out the box.
At least now you're not claiming it was said sarcastically.
I used bridge as my example because i didn't want someone to say inner is hospital etc i should of stuck with hospital if you were going to go all out on bridge. But its not just bridge its anything AA2 related because the circle jerk is strong even if it plays like crap.
But you guys will love bridge...we had another thread of you guys suggesting adding a grenade launcher is going to save Bridge as a map.... lol.
I just missed the comment that wasn't sarcastic on the first time.
Anyway, you're doing it again... It doesn't reflect good on you. Not all AA2 guys like bridge, not even close. I don't like bridge, you just generalise.
Focus on your own suggestions, which i actually agree with sometimes, and refer to an individual's suggestion if you don't agree. Your opinion will gain in value. Don't go attacking an entire group of people. It's not only inaccurate and misleading, it's in poor taste.
Not to try and derail this thread But its pretty simple. Stop associating people as Comp and people as Pub or whatever and just treat everyone equally. This goes for both sides but I never ever in any my posts. Mention Comp people vs pub people. Especially if you have no clue why some people are even consider in the forums automatic comp players. just stop it all.
Same principle. Refer to individuals and do it with basic courtesy.
We need to stop this bickering back and forth.
Derailing threads. For constant bickering back and forth for nothing. You seriously think the Developers want to read this crap? If someone try's to start a bickering war back and forth lets do the Devs a favor and ignore that person, be the bigger person. If we keep these threads strictly on the following rules the Devs might actually read everything in the forums and enjoy reading and listen to all of are feedback.
1. If you agree with what a person says simply click the agree button.
2. If you disagree with what a person says simply click the disagree button.
3. If you would like to add your own opinion to the topic simply do that. (If someone lashes out on you ignore them it will get forgotten much more quickly than a full page of bickering back and forth in a thread).
4. If you would like to explain to the Devs why you agree with something do that.
5. If you would like to explain to the Devs why you disagree with something do that.
6. Reread your post before you post it. (Am I attacking someone? If I post this could it lead to a back and forth bickering and eventually a closed thread then boom all the opinions on that specific topic are locked and that is all the developers have for information to go on. Maybe someone down the road would of had something very valuable to add the topic or had a great idea, but we don't get to see it because that thread gets closed and is off the front page within a day or 2 and is history.)
Lets make these forums a place for either you Agree or Disagree or you have an idea or you have a different idea. This way the devs will actually be getting solid feedback and know what to change in the game and what not too etc...Do whatever you want in other areas of the forums but please keep the General Discussion like this. So this game can actually go somewhere. I am pretty sure we all want the same goal. If you are happy with the current state of the game, That only has attracted an average of 718 players on at once per day for the past 30 days. Then you seriously need to rethink what will make this game more popular because clearly after 2 years the player average per day has been cut in half. Open beta was released Aug 29th, 2013 Average players on a time for that month was 1,326. Right now we are at 718. Something is obviously wrong. Lets try and help fix this with our Agree/Disagreeing and our solid feedback and opinions. No bickering back and forth nonsense. Derailing threads. Changing thread topics etc. You got a problem with someone take it up in a Private message.
It's not bickering it's individuality clashes, it's quality read for the devs laughing at the 1%, I like a good wall of text to read or compose, hate short answers
Your original post made it out like you were referring to a new player to the series not a disgruntled returning player to the series from AA2. It's abit one sided where only a moaning ex AA2 player would complain it's "not AA2" and "too much Call Of Duty".
A fresh legit unbiased new player to the game would not have an issue with either of your points. They wouldn't know AA2 and might not see a free fps game in a direction towards COD as a bad thing because it may be more to what they be used to compared to the slow game play certain players on the forum want to create.
If this game was like COD I'd be happy, I shamefully or not (not that I really care what people think).. like a good session on COD, I like action packed killstreaks, respawns and unbalanced weapons, gives games an unpredictable outcome and it's often eventful and thrilling gameplay. We 'know' why AA can't be like a game such as COD, so the only other shooter anyone can effectively compare AAPG with (in some manner).. is one of it's older brothers AA2 or AA3, this is why it gets mentioned so much so much.. along with the fact these guys are true fans of the franchise and feel passionately about it.
Anyways, as popular as AA2 might have been or was, matters little to me because when I played it, it felt slow, clunky and hurt my eyes (nothing against anyone who enjoyed it). I'm certainly not pro AA2 but that game and it's maps are mentioned so many times on the forum, in comparisons and even by new forum users (who may not actually be new since we have changed forum) that's why I perhaps wrongfully used them people as an example of 'new player'.. wrong.. My bad, but that's not the point I was trying to make overall. We need to retain new players, keep them playing.. if that means a mixture of big and small maps, AA2 remakes whatever.. to cater for varying preferences, it all has to be considered.
On the subject of AA2 maps, People have seen Wolvies remake of CSAR and come to a realization they can be ported and manipulated to work with AAPG, that's the best connection to why "We want AA2 maps!" that I can make, he did it with CSAR so why not others? Some won't work for sure, because of feature limitations like M203, AI.. Vehicles, RPG's or just won't fit in with the mechanics we currently have., Mostly they won't fit because it's a completely different game.
I just want people to stick around, so we can grow.. if that means ramping up the features, or dumbing any down.. whatever the case.. it's got to be done, and soon. Spring ends in June on my calendar. I'm massively guilty of one thing in these mammoth postings, that's over analyzing things before we even seen the end product, opt-ins were just a whistle wetter. So consider this my last, I'll go back to lol answers and demote myself back to lower case posts only.
G'night all
If my trollery drives you crazy, you'd better put on your seatbelt.
If this game was like COD I'd be happy, I shamefully or not (not that I really care what people think).. like a good session on COD, I like action packed killstreaks, respawns and unbalanced weapons, gives games an unpredictable outcome and it's often eventful and thrilling gameplay. We 'know' why AA can't be like a game such as COD, so the only other shooter anyone can effectively compare AAPG with (in some manner).. is one of it's older brothers AA2 or AA3, this is why it gets mentioned so much so much.. along with the fact these guys are true fans of the franchise and feel passionately about it.
Nailed it. Almost seems like this game has an identity crisis. I really wish the game would either go the full AA route with realism but not without playability, or go the route this game looked like it was going when it first came out, a COD /BF clone with hit markers. The talk of the new health system to come with the revive timer sounds like nothing but battlefield.
I think new maps on a quarterly bases sounds like a pretty good idea. As far as map design, I think there's more to it than maps although it's fair to say that the training maps seriously don't cut it. I'd argue that weapon mechanics and combat as a whole could benefit from a do over. I think that should almost come first.
instead of constantly generalizing and bashing anyone who liked aao/aa2, please respect people as individuals.
-
in fact, aa2 is the proper game to compare this to. this game is still using or missing a lot of mechanics that need to be polished. the best way to prove how much more work this game needs is to compare it to aa2. in comparison, this is still a shell of a game and needs a lot more to deliver on release.
-
-
the common fallacy here is that: getting the new audience means you have to abandon your original and change your design to appeal to new people...
-
you don't need need to do that to attract the "new players"... if you stick to your roots, then you'll get plenty of new gamers.
-
proof?
-
1. i mean... look at Nintendo. it is designed to make the same games year after year, but it constantly pulls in a new audience without trying to compete with other consoles. how? because each year more and more 8 year old kids come into the market.
-
so really, Nintendo (AA, CS, ARMA, etc) has no pressure to be more like Xbox and PlayStation (CoD and BF). Nintendo has a stable market of its own. Nintendo does not need to sacrifice that market to try to appeal to the other console audience... or to remain relevant.
-
-
2. another example... if Star Wars never had episodes 4-6, and only had 1-3, then that franchise would not be a success. parents would not be turning their kids into lifelong fans.
-
you couldn't simply go to a Star Wars forum and tell all the fans of ep 4-6 (aao/aa2) to "get with the times"... or "deal with it" just because either you're a fan of Jar Jar Binks (AA3)... or you think CGI and lense flare is going to be amazing for the franchise (COD)...
-
-
3. if CSGO had abandoned the CS core mechanics and instead slapped on the CS name on an otherwise unrecognizable game, it wouldn't have made it out of beta successfully either. it would have been financial suicide for Valve. Valve knows that. Valve isn't going to dumb down their core mechanics to appeal to a casual audience. it keeps to its roots... and the fans will attract the "new generation" audience all on its own.
-
-
it is foolish to think it's okay to abandon a franchise's identity in favor of trying to appeal to a total "new generation" or a totally different type of audience... you can't do that with products where word of mouth is going to make or break it. if your new game still resonates with the original fans, then new players will follow suit. that's how you attract the new audience; the new generation. the best way to establish success and grab hold of a market is to stand apart from the pack, and in an undeniable good way.
Even though this thread is getting a little off topic, I can understand both sides of the coin.
Firstly, I guess their primary audience would be the 'younger' people contemplating their future careers, so I understand the concept of 'entertaining' the younger audience.
Having said that I hope we don't end up with a generic COD.
From what we have seen from early days to the current opt in's it seems the devs are listening and taking notes. ATM, it seems to be heading in the right direction.
I personally don't wan't an ARMA either, where all the movement is clunky, there are 7000 keys to do something simple and it takes 3 days to shoot a bullet.
I personally would like a Tactical shooter.
Now AA2 achieved that well, but this is for better words, AA4.
The devs seem to be trying to incorporate new features, game play and their own updated version of AA, not just make a reproduction of AA2.
Either way someone is not going to be happy. New players are used to games like COD and BF. Older players are used to AA2.
So from what I can see it's a balancing act to make both generally happy.
I personally would like to see maps that are less channeled and more sandbox.
I would also like to see less dumbing down. I believe that if it is made on the harder side it adds to it's longevity.
Rather than just run, shoot, die, I want to think now what do I do.
For me the revive system works, the movement works, though some actions could be slowed.
Alot works but it needs more of the 'hardness' to master it and the openness of maps.
Sorry for the long post.
Just my 2 cents.
correction: CoD and BF players are used to CoD and BF. be it the pace, the game mode, the map size, the instant respawns, the unlocks, the overly helpful hud, the tons of ways to get easy kills without much effort...
-
some of those CoD and BF players are "new" to video games, but many are not...
-
this has nothing to do with "new" players or new generation. this is the fallacy. in fact, new generation of gamers are not restricted to only having appreciation or experience with arcade shooters. my nephew is going to be the target audience for this franchise in a few years... when that time comes, he will have experience with FAR more games besides Minecraft, Pokemon, and Call of Doody. not all "new gamers" are destined to be mindless gamers who don't want a challenge, and just want a participation ribbon...
-
we know why big publishers avoid creating good strategy games. it is easier to milk the casual audience for money than it is to try to milk the audience looking for a more challenging experience. but this US Army project doesn't run on shareholder greed for profits.. it should be trying to make a game that will make a lasting impression.
-
more perhaps a symptom of some developers' favoring the more casual experience because it aligns with their own personal level of commitment to games as a casual hobby, forgetting each dev who is in power of making such choices is not representative of the target audience... or mixing who's who there... it is wrong if your opinions are mostly influenced by trends set by popular arcade shooters, instead of being confident in, or familiar with, understanding, valuing, or respecting the tactical shooter genre roots, and that large community in its own right. you can't just push that audience aside as if it doesn't exist and claim it has been replaced with a "new" audience. it's just not true.
-
there's total simulation.
there's tactical/strategy/consequence/skill/earn it.
there's arcade/casual/forgiving/free rewards.
-
somehow some people seem to continuously argue there's only sim vs arcade, and totally miss what sits in the middle.
-
you don't call CSGO a simulation... and you don't call it an arcade experience either. that would be a narrow minded way of trying to boil everything down into 2 boxes.
-
so why is it okay to defend this game's casual arcade status it is in, and detest anything that tries to increase the tactical feel? by falsely claiming tactical = simulation???
Comments
He would be the 'old' new player, they turn into the kinda folk you see asking for AA2 maps back.
Like I said.. boo'd off the forum
Exactly dude, I mean a game mode can be made or break by its maps. Look at Battlefield 4, those maps were not made for the game mode rush. I think the devs of AA need to focus efforts on bugs and maps. My suggestion maybe bring back 3 or 4 maps from previous games and some newer maps that don't have that training feel like some of the current maps.
Anyone who aint played this game yet would be a new player, regardless of anything else they have played, including AA2. Everyone knows the two are nothing alike.. they just share half the title name.
Granted it's rare for an AA2 player to only now try AAPG, but I see it often enough to have said it. Most will already be playing or have already left.
People who pine for old maps are just unhappy about the current set of maps. If the new maps blew your socks off, no one would be saying "We want AA2 maps!" It's all a matter of map quality. Give us great maps that have longevity and you won't hear about AA2 maps.
We are reading the same thread. Exactly 1 person has said something which can be considered positive about bridge in this thread.
Yet you act as if there is an overwhemling amount of AA2 guys who are promoting bridge as a great map.
Then you go on to say "nostalgia kicking in again" clearly making, once again, a negative connotation to AA2.
In other words, trying to discredit anything AA2 guys say.
You do this all the time... I'm just the only one who says something about it.
Futhermore it shows how much of these players are missing a true AA2 remake on a modern engine, that stands out from todays games like AA2 did in its time.
They're both WILD remakes. The AAPG version of Bridge is closer to the original in comparison to AA3 (lucky enough). The AAPG version of Hospital has it's issues indeed, but Inner Hospital is among the most played maps also because it's [mod edit - TOS violation] polished. I would love to see a version of Intercept that has the same level of polish. I often happened to get stuck in some point of that map.
Very much like the VIP spawn in the AA2 version of Hospital...you had to move or your VIP was very likely to fall in the early minute of gameplay
Anyway, you're doing it again... It doesn't reflect good on you. Not all AA2 guys like bridge, not even close. I don't like bridge, you just generalise.
Focus on your own suggestions, which i actually agree with sometimes, and refer to an individual's suggestion if you don't agree. Your opinion will gain in value. Don't go attacking an entire group of people. It's not only inaccurate and misleading, it's in poor taste.
Same principle. Refer to individuals and do it with basic courtesy.
I'll leave it at that for this dispute.
Derailing threads. For constant bickering back and forth for nothing. You seriously think the Developers want to read this crap? If someone try's to start a bickering war back and forth lets do the Devs a favor and ignore that person, be the bigger person. If we keep these threads strictly on the following rules the Devs might actually read everything in the forums and enjoy reading and listen to all of are feedback.
1. If you agree with what a person says simply click the agree button.
2. If you disagree with what a person says simply click the disagree button.
3. If you would like to add your own opinion to the topic simply do that. (If someone lashes out on you ignore them it will get forgotten much more quickly than a full page of bickering back and forth in a thread).
4. If you would like to explain to the Devs why you agree with something do that.
5. If you would like to explain to the Devs why you disagree with something do that.
6. Reread your post before you post it. (Am I attacking someone? If I post this could it lead to a back and forth bickering and eventually a closed thread then boom all the opinions on that specific topic are locked and that is all the developers have for information to go on. Maybe someone down the road would of had something very valuable to add the topic or had a great idea, but we don't get to see it because that thread gets closed and is off the front page within a day or 2 and is history.)
Lets make these forums a place for either you Agree or Disagree or you have an idea or you have a different idea. This way the devs will actually be getting solid feedback and know what to change in the game and what not too etc...Do whatever you want in other areas of the forums but please keep the General Discussion like this. So this game can actually go somewhere. I am pretty sure we all want the same goal. If you are happy with the current state of the game, That only has attracted an average of 718 players on at once per day for the past 30 days. Then you seriously need to rethink what will make this game more popular because clearly after 2 years the player average per day has been cut in half. Open beta was released Aug 29th, 2013 Average players on a time for that month was 1,326. Right now we are at 718. Something is obviously wrong. Lets try and help fix this with our Agree/Disagreeing and our solid feedback and opinions. No bickering back and forth nonsense. Derailing threads. Changing thread topics etc. You got a problem with someone take it up in a Private message.
If this game was like COD I'd be happy, I shamefully or not (not that I really care what people think).. like a good session on COD, I like action packed killstreaks, respawns and unbalanced weapons, gives games an unpredictable outcome and it's often eventful and thrilling gameplay. We 'know' why AA can't be like a game such as COD, so the only other shooter anyone can effectively compare AAPG with (in some manner).. is one of it's older brothers AA2 or AA3, this is why it gets mentioned so much so much.. along with the fact these guys are true fans of the franchise and feel passionately about it.
Anyways, as popular as AA2 might have been or was, matters little to me because when I played it, it felt slow, clunky and hurt my eyes (nothing against anyone who enjoyed it). I'm certainly not pro AA2 but that game and it's maps are mentioned so many times on the forum, in comparisons and even by new forum users (who may not actually be new since we have changed forum) that's why I perhaps wrongfully used them people as an example of 'new player'.. wrong.. My bad, but that's not the point I was trying to make overall. We need to retain new players, keep them playing.. if that means a mixture of big and small maps, AA2 remakes whatever.. to cater for varying preferences, it all has to be considered.
On the subject of AA2 maps, People have seen Wolvies remake of CSAR and come to a realization they can be ported and manipulated to work with AAPG, that's the best connection to why "We want AA2 maps!" that I can make, he did it with CSAR so why not others? Some won't work for sure, because of feature limitations like M203, AI.. Vehicles, RPG's or just won't fit in with the mechanics we currently have., Mostly they won't fit because it's a completely different game.
I just want people to stick around, so we can grow.. if that means ramping up the features, or dumbing any down.. whatever the case.. it's got to be done, and soon. Spring ends in June on my calendar. I'm massively guilty of one thing in these mammoth postings, that's over analyzing things before we even seen the end product, opt-ins were just a whistle wetter. So consider this my last, I'll go back to lol answers and demote myself back to lower case posts only.
G'night all
Nailed it. Almost seems like this game has an identity crisis. I really wish the game would either go the full AA route with realism but not without playability, or go the route this game looked like it was going when it first came out, a COD /BF clone with hit markers. The talk of the new health system to come with the revive timer sounds like nothing but battlefield.
I think new maps on a quarterly bases sounds like a pretty good idea. As far as map design, I think there's more to it than maps although it's fair to say that the training maps seriously don't cut it. I'd argue that weapon mechanics and combat as a whole could benefit from a do over. I think that should almost come first.
-
in fact, aa2 is the proper game to compare this to. this game is still using or missing a lot of mechanics that need to be polished. the best way to prove how much more work this game needs is to compare it to aa2. in comparison, this is still a shell of a game and needs a lot more to deliver on release.
-
-
the common fallacy here is that: getting the new audience means you have to abandon your original and change your design to appeal to new people...
-
you don't need need to do that to attract the "new players"... if you stick to your roots, then you'll get plenty of new gamers.
-
proof?
-
1. i mean... look at Nintendo. it is designed to make the same games year after year, but it constantly pulls in a new audience without trying to compete with other consoles. how? because each year more and more 8 year old kids come into the market.
-
so really, Nintendo (AA, CS, ARMA, etc) has no pressure to be more like Xbox and PlayStation (CoD and BF). Nintendo has a stable market of its own. Nintendo does not need to sacrifice that market to try to appeal to the other console audience... or to remain relevant.
-
-
2. another example... if Star Wars never had episodes 4-6, and only had 1-3, then that franchise would not be a success. parents would not be turning their kids into lifelong fans.
-
you couldn't simply go to a Star Wars forum and tell all the fans of ep 4-6 (aao/aa2) to "get with the times"... or "deal with it" just because either you're a fan of Jar Jar Binks (AA3)... or you think CGI and lense flare is going to be amazing for the franchise (COD)...
-
-
3. if CSGO had abandoned the CS core mechanics and instead slapped on the CS name on an otherwise unrecognizable game, it wouldn't have made it out of beta successfully either. it would have been financial suicide for Valve. Valve knows that. Valve isn't going to dumb down their core mechanics to appeal to a casual audience. it keeps to its roots... and the fans will attract the "new generation" audience all on its own.
-
-
it is foolish to think it's okay to abandon a franchise's identity in favor of trying to appeal to a total "new generation" or a totally different type of audience... you can't do that with products where word of mouth is going to make or break it. if your new game still resonates with the original fans, then new players will follow suit. that's how you attract the new audience; the new generation. the best way to establish success and grab hold of a market is to stand apart from the pack, and in an undeniable good way.
Agree with all of it. Well said.
Firstly, I guess their primary audience would be the 'younger' people contemplating their future careers, so I understand the concept of 'entertaining' the younger audience.
Having said that I hope we don't end up with a generic COD.
From what we have seen from early days to the current opt in's it seems the devs are listening and taking notes. ATM, it seems to be heading in the right direction.
I personally don't wan't an ARMA either, where all the movement is clunky, there are 7000 keys to do something simple and it takes 3 days to shoot a bullet.
I personally would like a Tactical shooter.
Now AA2 achieved that well, but this is for better words, AA4.
The devs seem to be trying to incorporate new features, game play and their own updated version of AA, not just make a reproduction of AA2.
Either way someone is not going to be happy. New players are used to games like COD and BF. Older players are used to AA2.
So from what I can see it's a balancing act to make both generally happy.
I personally would like to see maps that are less channeled and more sandbox.
I would also like to see less dumbing down. I believe that if it is made on the harder side it adds to it's longevity.
Rather than just run, shoot, die, I want to think now what do I do.
For me the revive system works, the movement works, though some actions could be slowed.
Alot works but it needs more of the 'hardness' to master it and the openness of maps.
Sorry for the long post.
Just my 2 cents.
correction: CoD and BF players are used to CoD and BF. be it the pace, the game mode, the map size, the instant respawns, the unlocks, the overly helpful hud, the tons of ways to get easy kills without much effort...
-
some of those CoD and BF players are "new" to video games, but many are not...
-
this has nothing to do with "new" players or new generation. this is the fallacy. in fact, new generation of gamers are not restricted to only having appreciation or experience with arcade shooters. my nephew is going to be the target audience for this franchise in a few years... when that time comes, he will have experience with FAR more games besides Minecraft, Pokemon, and Call of Doody. not all "new gamers" are destined to be mindless gamers who don't want a challenge, and just want a participation ribbon...
-
we know why big publishers avoid creating good strategy games. it is easier to milk the casual audience for money than it is to try to milk the audience looking for a more challenging experience. but this US Army project doesn't run on shareholder greed for profits.. it should be trying to make a game that will make a lasting impression.
-
more perhaps a symptom of some developers' favoring the more casual experience because it aligns with their own personal level of commitment to games as a casual hobby, forgetting each dev who is in power of making such choices is not representative of the target audience... or mixing who's who there... it is wrong if your opinions are mostly influenced by trends set by popular arcade shooters, instead of being confident in, or familiar with, understanding, valuing, or respecting the tactical shooter genre roots, and that large community in its own right. you can't just push that audience aside as if it doesn't exist and claim it has been replaced with a "new" audience. it's just not true.
-
there's total simulation.
there's tactical/strategy/consequence/skill/earn it.
there's arcade/casual/forgiving/free rewards.
-
somehow some people seem to continuously argue there's only sim vs arcade, and totally miss what sits in the middle.
-
you don't call CSGO a simulation... and you don't call it an arcade experience either. that would be a narrow minded way of trying to boil everything down into 2 boxes.
-
so why is it okay to defend this game's casual arcade status it is in, and detest anything that tries to increase the tactical feel? by falsely claiming tactical = simulation???