ArmA 3 is going to Sodomize the Piss-Fuck out of BF3

Pretty much

If I really wanted a realistic Army experience, I'd join the Army itself and sit around base all day, occasionally going out on patrol and shooting at the local's chickens.

in sales?

Buck wrote:

in sales?

the developers of Arma have actually continued to provide a Nice product for those of us who love what Arma IS. They don't completely change it to increase sales and "appeal to a wider audience".

CoD will win in sales because a bunch of fuck twat kids from all over the world will end up getting it from mommy and daddy.

ArmA is too realistic & slow paced for me.

BF and ArmA have separate audiences IMO, sure some BF players play ArmA just like some CoD players play BF but a majority of the BF audience wouldn't like ArmA, especially not the new audience which is used to the faster paced BF (BC1 & BC2 that is)

FFigh wrote:

ArmA is too realistic & slow paced for me.

BF and ArmA have separate audiences IMO, sure some BF players play ArmA just like some CoD players play BF but a majority of the BF audience wouldn't like ArmA, especially not the new audience which is used to the faster paced BF (BC1 & BC2 that is)

BF2 is the fastest i ever want it to get. Gimme big maps and tactics none of this meat grinder shit.

xALIENAx wrote:

BF2 is the fastest i ever want it to get. Gimme big maps and tactics none of this meat grinder shit.

I went back to BF2 a while ago... TBH it felt boring as shit after getting used to BC2. Wake felt like playing against out of bounds campers in BC2. Then again, I liked BF2142 more than BF2.

FFigh wrote:

I went back to BF2 a while ago... TBH it felt boring as shit after getting used to BC2. Wake felt like playing against out of bounds campers in BC2. Then again, I liked BF2142 more than BF2.

I went back to BF2, FUshe pass 64.
i was like Ahhh.. Im home!

Then i played alpha of BF3 and was like OHHH F*(&#^

I cant understand why anyone would want to play something like that, fuck I get annoyed playing HM since its way too big, too little flags and not enough vehicles, its a video game I want to be entertained not train to be in the military

1. CoD
2. BF
3. ArmA


Based on sales of course. Must be something to it if CoD continues to sell so well while BF remains an also-ran.

Fido wrote:

1. CoD
2. BF
3. ArmA


Based on sales of course. Must be something to it if CoD continues to sell so well while BF remains an also-ran.

While true, sales doesnt make it the best, just makes it the highest selling

FFigh wrote:

ArmA is too realistic & slow paced for me.

BF and ArmA have separate audiences IMO, sure some BF players play ArmA just like some CoD players play BF but a majority of the BF audience wouldn't like ArmA, especially not the new audience which is used to the faster paced BF (BC1 & BC2 that is)

I wouldn't... slow as fuck

DTECH wrote:

While true, sales doesnt make it the best, just makes it the highest selling

It's the 21st century, everyone who games has access to the internet. Facebook exists. It's all so connected. Look at Minecraft, which never spent a penny on advertising. Every player in Minecraft heard about it through word of mouth or good press. There's no excuse for "people stick with what they know" anymore. The game people find most enjoyable will sell.

Fido wrote:

It's the 21st century, everyone who games has access to the internet. Facebook exists. It's all so connected. Look at Minecraft, which never spent a penny on advertising. Every player in Minecraft heard about it through word of mouth or good press. There's no excuse for "people stick with what they know" anymore. The game people find most enjoyable will sell.

So you are saying that cuz it sells the most it is the best?

GM used to be no1 by selling low priced POSes, Apple sells shit tons of iPhones yet you cant watch internet videos on it (for the most part) I could come up with more examples but you get the drift...

But these two products are the same price. It's not a question of providing a cheaper lesser quality game.

Fido wrote:

But these two products are the same price. It's not a question of providing a cheaper lesser quality game.

When cost isnt a factor that still doesnt make something "better" would you rather shell out money for a Lady Gaga mp3 or for a Ramones mp3?

Popularity plays into something being at the top, still doesnt actually make it good or better then other competing offerings

I guess I can kinda see where Aliena's coming from. She expected the sequel to BF2 to be more like BF2.

Then again you havent even seen Conquest 64 players yet, so calm ya tits. They said the maps are gonna be just as big/bigger than BF2 so there's plenty of room for tactics.

4 players per squad kinda sucks though.

DTECH wrote:

When cost isnt a factor that still doesnt make something "better" would you rather shell out money for a Lady Gaga mp3 or for a Ramones mp3?

Popularity plays into something being at the top, still doesnt actually make it good or better then other competing offerings

Good point, but I still can't see it that way. The Ramones still outsold Gaga but had about 40 additional years to do it in, Lady Gaga is clearly the more successful artist because more people like her than like(d) The Ramones. That's really all there is to it.

People buy the game they most enjoy playing...

Fido wrote:

Good point, but I still can't see it that way. The Ramones still outsold Gaga but had about 40 additional years to do it in, Lady Gaga is clearly the more successful artist because more people like her than like(d) The Ramones. That's really all there is to it.

The real problem is we are trying to classify what is "good" when there really is no such thing since its subjective

Yeah, but what you can measure is how many people prefer one thing compared to another. More people think CoD is good. Like it or not.

I read a really good article about why COD is so poular (and games like it)

Basicly it says that it appeals to 2 huge audiences-
the Teens and pree teens who are insanely fickle. Cod and its flashy rewards "ZOMG u gots XXXX" combined with a fast track to leveling up and very easy to understand game play keep them interested for a long time. the E-peen boosting "prestige" also appeals to many young players who are compete ting with thier friends.

The second audience isn't any one age group but rather the more casual fraggers- Again it's easy to pick up and play solo. Game like BF2 and especially PR and ARMA you're pretty much MANDATED to join a big-shot clan of armchair generals to enjoy it as it REQUIRES a strategic, coordinated approach. Simply joining and attack the enemy will only get you killed and cost your team assets.

Games like these tend to appeal to us "no-lifers" who spend 5+ hours a day on a single game for 3 or more years, play with the same people every single day, and work out every map down to s science. It's a much smaller number of people who are going to do this.

Fido wrote:

Yeah, but what you can measure is how many people prefer one thing compared to another. More people think CoD is good. Like it or not.

I could argue that this is fundamentally flawed, In much the same way democracy is...

No everyone who buys something really understands the nuts and bolts of it to determine that it is infact "better". Just the same as when you have a bunch of un-educated morons, or people only concerned with Self-interest wieging in on matters of nation and state- they likely aren't qualified to have a (official) opinion on the matter.

Popularity alone does not = Quality.

Fido wrote:

Yeah, but what you can measure is how many people prefer one thing compared to another. More people think CoD is good. Like it or not.

Nothing to do with me liking it or not, I DGAF about COD I dont play it since I just dont like how it plays, plus the no vehicles part is what really puts me off, destruction+vehicles is what make BC2 better for me, if COD had those Id play COD

Same I think the only thing CoD's missing is driveable vehicles. I know they're on their way there though (maybe 7 games from now in 2013). And I know when they get there they'll do them better than Battlefield. Because they suck kinda a lot in BF, which is why the whole vehicle thing kinda lost its luster.