Am I the only one who disliked the futuristic approach?

[harr0w 10]

so its afew year ahead certainly aint the future some peeps comments are suggesting.

as long as the net codes massively improved over arma 2, plenty of weapons equipment vehicles etc and bit more balanced tech per side (im looking at you KA52) all will be good. plus the lovely modders will give us anything that missing thats for sure.

[mach2infinity 12]

Not too concerned about the theme or setting becuase this game is so highly moddable. Where else could you have stormtroopers, nazi soldiers, & 20' tall robots fighting against a WW2 US soldiers, Stargate Atlantis Cast, Vietnam era soldiers while Zetaborn aliens and Zombies are running around trying to kill everyone?

Once again the very talented people that play this game will open it up beyond its limits.

Sure :)

But for me the reason why the fantastical mods and addons work so well is because they're set against a realistic backdrop. I think that contrast just shows the versatility and scope of the game's potential.

Regardless against whom you fight, it's still awesome when you get to fire a anti-tank launcher or a projected beam weapon. As Dcal put it to me once, "I can't wait to introduce one of those things (Zetaborn) to the business end of a SMAW" :D

so its afew year ahead certainly aint the future some peeps comments are suggesting.

as long as the net codes massively improved over arma 2, plenty of weapons equipment vehicles etc and bit more balanced tech per side (im looking at you KA52) all will be good. plus the lovely modders will give us anything that missing thats for sure.

It seems that some of the units to be used in the next game may be of a speculative nature, so there's more of a fictional element to it and maybe a further detachment from reality. I know it's a game and it's not real but it's nice to have that versimillitude. Nonetheless, as long as the game's netcode is more efficient than the last one and it won't require a major system upgrade then fine.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Mach2Infinity

[Steakslim 1]

Operative;1930186']Who really believes the US Military is going to adopt the F2000' date=' that will be 24 years old by 2025?[/quote']

No one, and no one is saying they have in the game, but again it's existence in the game is plausible given the story.

[Ish 11]

Operative;1930186']Who really believes the US Military is going to adopt the F2000' date=' that will be 24 years old by 2025?[/quote']

The first model of the M16 first went into production in 1960.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Ish

[chiefredcloud 10]

Futurisim? The Comanche existed. It flew. IT was not purchased true. And it was in this date and time. So where do we (meaning you) get this futuristic stuff. Please, set me straight.

Oh and the cameras on the helmets, been around for years (talking about avaiable, not neccissarily issued).

So what else besides the "futuristic" Comanche is futurisitic about ArmA 3 so far?

[Steakslim 1]

well....that Hybrid freak of a russian helicopter is a valid complaint for those who don't like the idea..

[metalcraze 290]

Yeah. The hybrid looks very amateurish and lame.

Rather use Mi-28 and Ka-50 separately. Choppers don't get outdated in 20 years. Or even 40.

[Steakslim 1]

I don't think it looks amateurish or lame, but for the reason you mentioned about the service life of said helicopters, I have a hard time believing it would come to be. Now if they made some updated version of the MI-28 that improved upon it's already existing features rather than completely changing the assembly of how it flies, it might of been a bit more believable.

[chortles 263]

Forgive me if someone already mentioned the Mk 16/Mk 17 rifles (aka the "SCAR") and the XM8 as BIS going "out there" realism-wise... but no, I'm not bothered by those at all, but rather am waiting to see how this will do performance-wise (AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition, 4 GB RAM, Radeon HD 5770 1 GB, 7200 rpm HDD) and whether BIS is willing to push the engine and capabilities of ARMA 3 far enough that it'll break A2/OA addons compatibility (I'm actually hoping for that).

[-GR-Operative 10]

The first model of the M16 first went into production in 1960.

And when was it adopted?

The M16 then began being improved and upgraded, so it's what it's now.

What about the F2000? You pick a 24 years old weapon without any kind of improvement (as you have not tested/fielded it properly) and deploy it to frontline?

I also did not like the SCAR, if it's the matter.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Operative;1931435']And when was it adopted?

The M16 then began being improved and upgraded' date=' so it's what it's now.

What about the F2000? You pick a 24 years old weapon without any kind of improvement (as you have not tested/fielded it properly) and deploy it to frontline?

I also did not like the SCAR, if it's the matter.[/quote']

Doesn't matter. If you have a world war coming, you ensure survival by any means necessary, apart from seed banks somewhere in Greenland.

Wars are inflationary. Think about it.

[dysta 10]

So you say ARMA3 cannot be "Scientifically Correct" even into different years, technologies and factions. Even the Sci-Fi Halo is still based on modern firearms to create UNSC armaments (albeit the very unlikely accuracy due to the 500-years-later differences) , doesn't mean ARMA3 cannot go the same method by leading 10 years advanced?

Then I must ask everybody here, what's your right-brain for? Judging the accuracy by year numbers?

[-Paladin- 10]

Doesn't matter. If you have a world war coming, you ensure survival by any means necessary, apart from seed banks somewhere in Greenland.

Wars are inflationary. Think about it.

So why the FN2000 and not HK-116 or a FAMAS G2 this weapons a far superior to the FN2000. And look futuristic too

Especially for Spec Ops importent.

With a forward ejector and in the future every one using thermals(lets hope not) they will detect you much easier even behind cover when you shoot.

Just looking your shells flying toward you.

That doesn't make sens for Spec ops.

---------- Post added at 05:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:57 PM ----------

So you say ARMA3 cannot be "Scientifically Correct" even into different years, technologies and factions. Even the Sci-Fi Halo is still based on modern firearms to create UNSC armaments (albeit the very unlikely accuracy due to the 500-years-later differences) , doesn't mean ARMA3 cannot go the same method by leading 10 years advanced?

Then I must ask everybody here, what's your right-brain for? Judging the accuracy by year numbers?

Did you really compare Arma franchise with halo?

I´m dreaming?

[nodunit 397]

What part of Armaverse do you people not understand.

[-GR-Operative 10]

So you say ARMA3 cannot be "Scientifically Correct" even into different years, technologies and factions. Even the Sci-Fi Halo is still based on modern firearms to create UNSC armaments (albeit the very unlikely accuracy due to the 500-years-later differences) , doesn't mean ARMA3 cannot go the same method by leading 10 years advanced?

Then I must ask everybody here, what's your right-brain for? Judging the accuracy by year numbers?

So either you say HALO is realistic (in the matter of weapon selection) or ArmA 3 will be not, what one to chose?

[dysta 10]

Did you really compare Arma franchise with halo?

I´m dreaming?

Yes and no.

Because it's sci-fi, doesn't mean it must not go realistic. It's not about "it's not even possible to see bullets in 500 years later!", but rather "why don't we just simulate what they possibly have in the future, and in any ways."

And yes, I try to find out the data of "the effective range of 9.5x40mm (M634)".

Operative;1931565']So either you say HALO is realistic (in the matter of weapon selection) or ArmA 3 will be not' date=' what one to chose?[/quote']

In between, please (HALO is semi-realistic, so do ARMA3).

------------

This is a really ridiculous question I've ever received. Why have to judging the "realism" by the genre, name and year because it's future and we don't have any idea at all?

You want reason I asked for it? Fine. That's because we don't try to amplify our imaginations, by denying it's an "Art of Wars" instead of "The 10 Commandants of Wars".

Like one topic in Halo community argue most: UNSC still use cartridge-loaded firearms because of The Law of Geneva? Leave that possibility to "scientifically corrected" reason, not judgments.

[Joseph Archer 10]

If BIS are interested, put me down for one who would prefer modern era rather than future.

[SPC.Spets 21]

Who cares? BIS gives you the chance to completely modify your lovely ArmA Game. The futuristic thing is only for the campaign I guess, wich not all arma players even play once.

For me, its interesting, you people complain and complain, but you gonna buy the game soon or later, because theres no other game like ArmA in this world.

[-GR-Operative 10]

This is a really ridiculous question I've ever received. Why have to judging the "realism" by the genre, name and year because it's future and we don't have any idea at all?

Dude, how you define realism?

I think it's a way of recreate things keeping the most fidelity to reality.

I say HALO is not realistic because it's set in a far future.

The Physics may be realistic, the environment may be realistic, the body modeling may be realisitic, etc, but the setting cannot be realistic (at least not proven-realistic) because it's in the future.

The same applies to ArmA.

Talking about setting fidelity, OFP > ArmA > ArmA2 > Arma3.

You get what I mean?

You can add actual warfare, tactics, military aspects to a future setting, but it's not realistic (again, not proven) because, in the future, those things may change and end totally different in comparison with what was implemented in the game setting.

Now, apparently, ArmA3 will keep the modern warfare aspect with things possible to happen, nothing too drastic, but a lot speculative.

Edited May 20, 2011 by [GR]Operative
adding quotations

[dlang 24]

I hate this.

Please BIS make two modes:

Actual vehicles and ....

Futuristic.... :(

[meade95 0]

I agree - I do not like the future concept - Lets stick with the now and within no more than next 10 years (tops).

I also don't like the European setting (and Island) of A3.

[Kristian 47]

They WILL NOT make another pack of HMMWVs and Abrams for us. Why won't people get it? Its futuristic, its mod-able, THERE WILL BE THE DAMN M4a1 YOU GUYS LOVE SO MUCH! :mad:

Just quit whining about it allready, it isn't helping in any pov...

[ahmedjbh 0]

I agree Ray.

I am not a big fan of the future style.

However I have confidence in the modders.

[dysta 10]

Operative;1931645']Dude' date=' how you define realism?

I think it's a way of recreate things keeping the most fidelity to reality.

I say HALO is not realistic because it's set in a far future.

The Physics may be realistic, the environment may be realistic, the body modeling may be realisitic, etc, but the setting cannot be realistic (at least not proven-realistic) because it's in the future.

The same applies to ArmA.

Talking about setting fidelity, OFP > ArmA > ArmA2 > Arma3.

You get what I mean?

You can add actual warfare, tactics, military aspects to a future setting, but it's not realistic (again, not proven) because, in the future, those things may change and end totally different in comparison with what was implemented in the game setting.

Now, apparently, ArmA3 will keep the modern warfare aspect with things possible to happen, nothing too drastic, but a lot speculative.[/quote']

I am talking about the plot-settled sci-fi story to be alternatively realistic. Future never realistic because we never knew it. It's just a goddamn story, and you force yourself not to write it because story is never realistic..

You want to know "Scientifically corrected" in simplest way? Turn on the TV and see the weather forecast. It's unrealistic, but it happens somehow.

[-Luc- 10]

Hi,

No, you're not the only one who dislike the futuristic approach.

About addons:

Because of their complexity, they are not so numerous and frequent (Less than ARMA 1 and much more than OFP).

So this is not the solution to overcome the lack of realism many people want.

Let people make the futuristic addons.

...

I like realism, and I'm not the only one.

In 2001, that's what bring me to OFP and made ​​me buy the ARMA series.

I was disappointed by ARMA 1, Arrowhead and PMC because of the lack of realism.

So now, I'm not sure that I will follow BIS again.

That's only my opinion.

Thanks,

-Luc-