AA5 Discussion Thread (Renamed)

1246752

Comments

  • aaHollywoodaaHollywood Posts: 349Developer
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    I hope we don't see a 3 year wait. Who knows, we may be talking about UE5 coming out a that point.

    Hey PUBG was farted out in 6 months so maybe there's hope something flashy and crashy could get out the door sooner lol.
  • -pR|Arkeiro-pR|Arkeiro Posts: 718Player
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    I hope we don't see a 3 year wait. Who knows, we may be talking about UE5 coming out a that point.

    Hey PUBG was farted out in 6 months so maybe there's hope something flashy and crashy could get out the door sooner lol.

    There is always hope, but it's just hope.

    Over 1.1k Golden Hawkeyes.
  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,334Beta Tester
    - Party Crasher Alert - (consider this post to be from a fellow gamer...I don't speak as a Beta here...)

    Like some people, I've been here since 2002. Here's some unsolicited advice from an observer (who may get fired momentarily...)

    - The Army needs to truly understand what they want from development and not shy away from what they want or make excuses for it. Government projects of this particular genre, and you could say there are few, have a tendency to be a one-balled bull let loose in a really big corral without a single cow. Pardon the analogy.

    - The Army needs to AVOID giving the community the idea that said community has any power or input unless THEY TRULY DO. There is nothing worse than a bunch of whiney gamers thinking they can control the development of this game, and then whine and moan when no one supposedly listens. Feedback is NOT the same as holding the reins. The Army needs to be clear how that will work and neither deviate nor apologize.

    - There is only one criterion - that the game is what the Army wants. Does it WANT to compete in the FPS realm? If not, don't fall for community arguments to the contrary. It'll only make things worse.

    - Once that's settled, be clear, stick to the plan OR explain why the plans have changed. Don't say "It'll get done," and then not do it, either.

    - Expect constructively and positively given feedback, give examples on how to do it, and clear the community of people who can't give feedback without having a breakdown, fit or pathology-driven tantrum. Yes, I mean kick them the heck out. Over the years, this forum has been a prime example of people creating a toxic environment, and it has been bad for the game. All the people who supposedly care seem blissfully unaware of how their approach to it can make things worse. Don't apologize for having goal-oriented management. If people don't like it, the door is ----> THAT WAY.

    - There's nothing wrong with running a tight ship. This is the Army. (bonus non-sequitur alert!)
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • aaHollywoodaaHollywood Posts: 349Developer
    There is always hope, but it's just hope.

    Hope is not a plan -- I agree with the original 3-year prediction
  • ={101st}=Whiplash27={101st}=Whiplash27 Posts: 1,938Player
    edited August 16
    Here's the thing:
    AAO/2 was super popular.
    AA3 crashed and burned.
    AAPG had a small dedicated following and then crashed and burned with only now the PS4 version sustaining its existence.

    If the US Army wants to make a multiplayer first person shooter game, then it's a waste of time if they're not shooting to make a popular game. It doesn't mean it needs to Fortnite/PUBG popular, but I honestly wouldn't consider any MP game any kind of success these days unless it consistently averages around 30-40K players with 60K+ peaks. If you look at any MP game that's been at least somewhat successful over the past few years, I'd say those are achievable numbers.

    Obviously, the Army needs to do what it needs to do to get this game out there and make it what it wants it to be. However, it would be foolish to not try to appeal to the already built in fan base for this series. Look at the 155 page post from a few years ago. Look at the AmericasArmyGame Facebook page. Look at anywhere someone mentions the name America's Army. They all say the same thing, about how great AA2 was and that they wish they could play it again. You obviously can't just make a full blown port on UE4 and think it'll work out perfectly, but a modern America's Army game that at least uses that game as a blueprint/starting point would, in my opinion be the best place to start.

    Although, my biggest warning is to not copy what's popular in the market place. IMO, the biggest things that made people write off AAPG from the start were:
    1) Doesn't do anything unique that I can't get from COD or CS
    2) The weird training vibe, why?
    3) Doesn't really feel like an Army game.

    Honestly, it may be a good idea to go onto YouTube and listen to the early reviews for AAPG to get an idea of what people said about it back then.

    First and foremost, the game needs to be America's Army. and if anything, try to do something unique with it. Do something that will get people's attention and not write it off as a COD or CS clone. If you're too much like the other guys, you'll just have a bunch of old AA players who will come back to give the game a try and write it off as "Not like the old one."
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • aaHollywoodaaHollywood Posts: 349Developer
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    - Party Crasher Alert - (consider this post to be from a fellow gamer...I don't speak as a Beta here...)

    Like some people, I've been here since 2002. Here's some unsolicited advice from an observer (who may get fired momentarily...)

    - The Army needs to truly understand what they want from development and not shy away from what they want or make excuses for it. Government projects of this particular genre, and you could say there are few, have a tendency to be a one-balled bull let loose in a really big corral without a single cow. Pardon the analogy.

    - The Army needs to AVOID giving the community the idea that said community has any power or input unless THEY TRULY DO. There is nothing worse than a bunch of whiney gamers thinking they can control the development of this game, and then whine and moan when no one supposedly listens. Feedback is NOT the same as holding the reins. The Army needs to be clear how that will work and neither deviate nor apologize.

    - There is only one criterion - that the game is what the Army wants. Does it WANT to compete in the FPS realm? If not, don't fall for community arguments to the contrary. It'll only make things worse.

    - Once that's settled, be clear, stick to the plan OR explain why the plans have changed. Don't say "It'll get done," and then not do it, either.

    - Expect constructively and positively given feedback, give examples on how to do it, and clear the community of people who can't give feedback without having a breakdown, fit or pathology-driven tantrum. Yes, I mean kick them the heck out. Over the years, this forum has been a prime example of people creating a toxic environment, and it has been bad for the game. All the people who supposedly care seem blissfully unaware of how their approach to it can make things worse. Don't apologize for having goal-oriented management. If people don't like it, the door is ----> THAT WAY.

    - There's nothing wrong with running a tight ship. This is the Army. (bonus non-sequitur alert!)

    I'll be crystal clear here.

    The Army pays for America's Army (including all its iterations) and all the other outreach products we make (GoArmy Edge, Career Navigator, Stars, et al) for only a few reasons --

    #1 To market the US Army
    #2 To put young eyeballs on US Army branding and marketing
    #3 To show the US Army is high-tech (and sometimes more generally what soldiering is about)

    These are the things the Army wants from development. Do you know why we're on the PS4? Because those Army career loading videos we all watch between games get 100k views per month there, when absolutely nobody watched them on YouTube without a video game. This is what the Army is paying for.

    I have no idea how much power the community will have, that's up to the quality of their ideas, technical direction, popularity, and all sorts of other factors that go into game development. On one hand, listening to feedback will hopefully get us better ideas, better ideas make a better game, and a better game gets in front of more eyeballs. On the other hand, the "community" isn't in one of those three bullets, it's just what we make it.

    Similarly, the Army only cares about competing in the FPS realm if it gets eyeballs on what the US Army wants eyeballs on.

    Notice none of those bullet points say it has to be on PC or a first person shooter or tactical or any of those things we take for granted. I know we want a lot of those things because of the niche and tradition of what America's Army has been and is about, but I'm also kinda warning you that I have no real idea what will happen with AA5. No one does!
  • aaHollywoodaaHollywood Posts: 349Developer
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    Here's the thing:
    AAO/2 was super popular.
    AA3 crashed and burned.
    AAPG had a small dedicated following and then crashed and burned with only now the PS4 version sustaining its existence.

    If the US Army wants to make a multiplayer first person shooter game, then it's a waste of time if they're not shooting to make a popular game. It doesn't mean it needs to Fortnite/PUBG popular, but I honestly wouldn't consider any MP game any kind of success these days unless it consistently averages around 30-40K players with 60K+ peaks. If you look at any MP game that's been at least somewhat successful over the past few years, I'd say those are achievable numbers.

    Obviously, the Army needs to do what it needs to do to get this game out there and make it what it wants it to be. However, it would be foolish to not try to appeal to the already built in fan base for this series. Look at the 155 page post from a few years ago. Look at the AmericasArmyGame Facebook page. Look at anywhere someone mentions the name America's Army. They all say the same thing, about how great AA2 was and that they wish they could play it again. You obviously can't just make a full blown port on UE4 and think it'll work out perfectly, but a modern America's Army game that at least uses that game as a blueprint/starting point would, in my opinion be the best place to start.

    Although, my biggest warning is to not copy what's popular in the market place. IMO, the biggest things that made people write off AAPG from the start were:
    1) Doesn't do anything unique that I can't get from COD or CS
    2) The weird training vibe, why?
    3) Doesn't really feel like an Army game.

    Honestly, it may be a good idea to go onto YouTube and listen to the early reviews for AAPG to get an idea of what people said about it back then.

    First and foremost, the game needs to be America's Army. and if anything, try to do something unique with it. Do something that will get people's attention and not write it off as a COD or CS clone. If you're too much like the other guys, you'll just have a bunch of old AA players who will come back to give the game a try and write it off as "Not like the old one."

    I don't disagree with any of this.
  • doogle!doogle! Posts: 579Player
    OICURMT! wrote: »
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    So aaHollywood, are you the new (or maybe additional) Tots?

    New and then some.

    Tots is gonzo.

    I think it's worth quoting this... Tots did a great service for the game, he will be missed.

    Welcome to the forums aaHollywood. :)

    OIC!

    Will all of his forum bans be removed? There are several. Most of them went above and beyond what I would consider routine forum moderation...



  • iNv|roKis-iNv|roKis- Posts: 419Player
    Thank the lord tots is gone. Dude was insane. Hollywood welcome.
    Bhop is a string of jumps with no interruptions.
  • aaHollywoodaaHollywood Posts: 349Developer
    doogle! wrote: »
    Will all of his forum bans be removed? There are several. Most of them went above and beyond what I would consider routine forum moderation...

    Lol I hadn't even considered it. I'll look.
  • ddra-ddra- Posts: 453Player
    Welcome Hollywood,

    I’d take survey opinions with a grain of salt. I think everyone can agree there’s two schools of thought that prevail these forums, and typically the old timers with AA2 pipedreams have the loudest voice on here.

    Trust your market research. You want eyes on the game and Army IP? Twitch garners millions of views a day, make it something worth watching. Folks enjoy watching high level competitive players, cater to them.

    It’s been over two years since I’ve been vocal about the changes that needed to be made, and I’m still exhausted from it. Some AA5 koolaid hype might help with that..

    It’s great seeing this type of activity from a dev, hope you don’t burn out too soon. This community is relentless, but I’ve made lifelong friends from this game, so I can’t complain too much. Best of luck.

    image
    Fragmovie 6 | iNv Discord
    FGNL Season 1 Champions
    FN Season 2 & 4 Champions
  • LWOF_BrOkenArrowLWOF_BrOkenArrow Posts: 278Player
    edited August 16
    Whatever direction the U.S. Army takes with this game, I hope that they note that's it's probably in their best interest to continue focusing efforts on the PS4 and consoles in general, especially since they're able to better achieve their objectives on console (as Hollywood implied previously).
    Make a new game? Make a PS4 and/or other console version. Not saying their couldn't be a PC version, just that it should be released on the same date as the console version.

    Also, why not step away from just showing military life in the army but also promote AJROTC? I know that there are a lot of young people who play this game. Thousands of High schools across the U.S. have programs. Show how the army is "motivating young people to be better citizens". You might convince someone to take the program in high school if you show loading screens of JROTC Teams (like robotics, drill, or marksmanship)
    Teamwork is essential, it gives the enemy other people to shoot at



    P0asKE2.jpg
  • aaHollywoodaaHollywood Posts: 349Developer
    ddra- wrote: »
    Trust your market research. You want eyes on the game and Army IP? Twitch garners millions of views a day, make it something worth watching. Folks enjoy watching high level competitive players, cater to them.

    If you've got ideas for who then I'm listening. We are looking into sponsoring some streamers to play AAPG.
  • aaHollywoodaaHollywood Posts: 349Developer
    Whatever direction the U.S. Army takes with this game, I hope that they note that's it's probably in their best interest to continue focusing efforts on the PS4 and consoles in general, especially since they're able to better achieve their objectives on console (as Hollywood implied previously).
    Make a new game? Make a PS4 and/or other console version. Not saying their couldn't be a PC version, just that it should be released on the same date as the console version.

    Also, why not step away from just showing military life in the army but also promote AJROTC? I know that there are a lot of young people who play this game. Thousands of High schools across the U.S. have programs. Show how the army is "motivating young people to be better citizens". You might convince someone to take the program in high school if you show loading screens of JROTC Teams (like robotics, drill, or marksmanship)

    All good ideas -- you're dialed in
  • doogle!doogle! Posts: 579Player
    ddra- wrote: »
    Trust your market research. You want eyes on the game and Army IP? Twitch garners millions of views a day, make it something worth watching. Folks enjoy watching high level competitive players, cater to them.

    If you've got ideas for who then I'm listening. We are looking into sponsoring some streamers to play AAPG.

    THAT would be a major win.

    I'd start with finding....attractive females with blue hair.
  • ={101st}=Whiplash27={101st}=Whiplash27 Posts: 1,938Player
    edited August 16
    I would caution to not go after individual twitch streamers to help give ideas/consult with the creation of the game unless they're the types who have a lot of experience in a competitive FPS environment (which honestly with the exception of Shroud and a few other guys, there aren't a ton). I've also read stories about some game companies getting burned by streamers who were paid to help out on their games and were kind of worthless.

    I personally tend to think that a good comp game lends itself to a good casual/pub game. Some people disagree, but you can't deny the success of games like all of the MOBAs (LoL, Dota, etc), as well as FPS games like CS and even newer ones like Rainbow 6 which tailor to the competitive experience. Even AA2 had a large and very active competitive scene. One thing's for sure, any game that has some kind of competition going tends to get big draws on those days on Twitch. I've said in older posts, fun to watch and good for competition is the perfect recipe for success. The question is getting there. It's also why I would never want a future game that has 7 minute rounds. Who would watch a streamer who dies in the first 30 seconds of the round and then has to wait out a long round watching some guy camping in the corner until there's 30 seconds left?
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • aaHollywoodaaHollywood Posts: 349Developer
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    I would caution to not go after individual twitch streamers to help give ideas/consult with the creation of the game unless they're the types who have a lot of experience in a competitive FPS environment (which honestly with the exception of Shroud and a few other guys, there aren't a ton). I've also read stories about some game companies getting burned by streamers who were paid to help out on their games and were kind of worthless.

    The streamers were just for game marketing purposes, to get AAPG in front of more eyeballs. There is no consulting on future games going on from those folks.
  • ={101st}=Whiplash27={101st}=Whiplash27 Posts: 1,938Player
    edited August 16
    Whiplash27 wrote: »
    I would caution to not go after individual twitch streamers to help give ideas/consult with the creation of the game unless they're the types who have a lot of experience in a competitive FPS environment (which honestly with the exception of Shroud and a few other guys, there aren't a ton). I've also read stories about some game companies getting burned by streamers who were paid to help out on their games and were kind of worthless.

    The streamers were just for game marketing purposes, to get AAPG in front of more eyeballs. There is no consulting on future games going on from those folks.

    Ok, just making sure. Although, I'm not sure how big Twitch is with PS4. Seems to be majority PC oriented. I'm not sure if YouTube is any different or if Sony has their own platform.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • SSKwaNtedSSKwaNted Posts: 266Player
    mmm finally something is moving around here :awesome:
    AAPGOD/ Ex R6 Pro
    Achievements
    Youtube
    Steam
  • CrushmasterCrushmaster Posts: 496Player
    Hollywood, please make AA great again. AA:PG was my first game of the series. I don't want it to be the last, and I want the amazingness of beta back - but better.

    What was so much better about the beta? How was it different?

    Most of it was the sound. You could hear everything, and it was consistent. I understand CS has shift walking that makes you silent, but it's consistent. Since full release, it's been horribly inconsistent and you can't rely on it. I don't have amazing headphones, but they're good and work for me in every other game. I could hear everything with $10 headphones in beta.

    Definitely in agreement with most of the suggestions in this thread. Catering to comp is a good idea, and if done in a balanced fashion makes it great for both that and casual play. CS:GO excels at this.
Sign In or Register to comment.