What is wrong in AAPG?

2»

Comments

  • Hey.I.Have.A.GunHey.I.Have.A.Gun Posts: 638Player
    L0rdDamian wrote: »
    I could keep listing stuff but what's the point. Nothing will change

    Nor will you by the looks of it, you keep bringing up ranks all the time. In fact, personally If I were you I would not talk like a "god" and improve your skills a bit more instead. 1.9 on console is very bad.

    Ok squeaker.

    He's right. I've been saying it all along.
  • phil.svphil.sv Posts: 23Player
    L0rdDamian wrote: »
    phil.sv wrote: »
    You say that CS is for fun boys while AAPG is for fewer serious gamers?
    Did I say that? Don't think so, specially not since I dislike CS as much as I dislike my ex..

    Sure not. Was an hyperbole, as we say in Italy. I anticipated other (your) comments to answer. In the sense that someone can say: AAPG has few players because is LESS amusant that CS. But Arma3 is 10 times less amusant than AAPG, and have an average players number of 9.000.
    L0rdDamian wrote: »
    phil.sv wrote: »
    evidently there is sometingh to change. No bugs, good graphics, decent maps... is some other.
    Not going to happen, everything in this game is outdated. Game Engine, DirectX, GPU support. The only thing that is going to save their game series is coming with AAV on the latest UE version or different engine. They probably will not do a lot more on this game this year.

    TRUE. Is outdated but acceptable. And CS is 10 times more outdated of AAPG and has 230.000 average players!!

    So is evident that IS NOT a problem of game engine, but of GAMEPLAY or REWARDS or something else. And I DON'T SPEAK about a more amusant gameplay.... Arma 3 IS NOT AMUSANT, but has 9.000 average players.

  • {!T!}LordDamian{!T!}LordDamian Posts: 713Player
    edited January 3
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    Even though there are things you don't like about AAPG, name three things that you like:

    1) Me playing the game.
    2) Making people cry.
    3) Playing it drunk.

    H.E.A.T. wrote: »
    i join the server and allso i see hacker sorry AA but this are true

    Just because you see something, doesn't mean it's the reality.

    L0rdDamian wrote: »
    I could keep listing stuff but what's the point. Nothing will change

    Nor will you by the looks of it, you keep bringing up ranks all the time. In fact, personally If I were you I would not talk like a "god" and improve your skills a bit more instead. 1.9 on console is very bad.


    Ok squeaker.


    I prefer to be a 30 year old squeaker then a 12 year old talking like a god, with 1.9 on console. Oh what am I saying, you are still a E-8 rank so that makes you below me according to your logics.

    phil.sv wrote: »
    L0rdDamian wrote: »
    phil.sv wrote: »
    You say that CS is for fun boys while AAPG is for fewer serious gamers?
    Did I say that? Don't think so, specially not since I dislike CS as much as I dislike my ex..
    But Arma3 is 10 times less amusant than AAPG

    I can't really compare Armed Assault to America's Army, specially not since Armed Assault is a Military Simulator and America's Army is a arcade shooter. MillSims like Armed Assault will always have more players in general, the fights are bigger with 100v100 PvP servers, they have vehicle warfare, there is a higher tactical gameplay with large community's supporting it and most of all they have a massive mod community supporting their games. The vanilla version of Armed Assault 3 I was meh, even as a big fan of their games and than we got ACE and ACRE mod and my life was complete :chuffed:
  • ={101st}=Whiplash27={101st}=Whiplash27 Posts: 2,102Player
    edited January 3
    phil.sv wrote: »
    TRUE. Is outdated but acceptable. And CS is 10 times more outdated of AAPG and has 230.000 average players!!

    So is evident that IS NOT a problem of game engine, but of GAMEPLAY or REWARDS or something else. And I DON'T SPEAK about a more amusant gameplay.... Arma 3 IS NOT AMUSANT, but has 9.000 average players.

    I do agree that there is a gameplay issue with AAPG that we've discussed here endlessly.
    To sum: Very small skill curve where the main path to dominance is fast reflexes and map knowledge, sluggish feeling gameplay (today's gamer wants fast & responsive), very little tournament support and options for server admins, lack of features (AA2 had way more features by this point in development), poor map selection (when 75% of the matches in your top 5 maps are Inner Hospital there's an issue) + poor support for UMMs, silly gameplay features (like self bandaging every time you get shot, excessive suppression/aim punch combo, etc).

    Anyway, here's the thing about CS. For one, CSGO is not really that outdated, sure the game released in 2012, but Valve continues to make updates to the engine regularly. Second, CS had a huge playerbase going back to 1999/2000. Valve was smart in that they bought out the rights to CS from its creators and turned it into a competition game. Once the game caught fire, they kept the gameplay similar for each subsequent version. Of course, there are people who will say that CS 1.6 = life and that every version after stinks, but in spite of those complaints, CS 1.6 plays way more similarly vs. CSGO than AA2.3 (the zenith of the AA series IMO) or AA2.8.5 plays vs. AA3 vs. AAPG. They kept their player base because they didn't change too much and focused on keeping the game as the number one competition FPS game in the world. It worked and continues to work.

    To come back to AAPG, you're talking about a game with a player base that's like 1/1500th of what CS' player base is. You're not going to take a game that's outdated with such a small player base and make it rise to stardom. Sure, with some good changes you could maybe get a bump in the PC base, but AAPG is pretty much dead. Whenever we get AAV that's the Dev team's big chance to make a big impression and move this franchise forward towards reclaiming success.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • (Beer_me)lobo(Beer_me)lobo Posts: 639Player
    edited January 3
    to me aapg always lacked the wow factor ,aa2 had it with the toys , wasn't always about the objective it was fun to play , rpgs that blew up the objs, preparing the objectives then using thermite grenades to blow them ,(or setting enemy on fire) running around with 203 to get a kill by hitting him on the head with the 203 from 5 ft away ,back-blast kills with rpgs
  • RollingInTheHurtRollingInTheHurt Posts: 186Player
    Game is just not fun anymore.
    Its stale, lacks any meaningful ongoing development, buggy and full of cheaters.
    35d2uec.png
  • The game actually started dying when they decided to release it on steam ... a lot of my friends stopped playing at that point . as well as i did for a long time then i came back but a lot of ppl didn't
  • ={101st}=Whiplash27={101st}=Whiplash27 Posts: 2,102Player
    edited January 4
    The game actually started dying when they decided to release it on steam ... a lot of my friends stopped playing at that point . as well as i did for a long time then i came back but a lot of ppl didn't

    I doubt that has anything to do with it. Maybe back when AA3 came out people still had issues with Steam, but today it's the most reliable and most used game distribution platform available. I don't know a single person who plays PC games that doesn't use Steam at this point.

    Tons of people tried AAPG. I remember seeing this place blowing up when closed and open beta came out. However, lots of people didn't like the game and left. I remember adding lots of people to my Steam list at the time and one by one they started expressing their dislike for the game and went to play other games.
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
Sign In or Register to comment.