Am I the only one who disliked the futuristic approach?

[-GR-Operative 10]

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.

But they are not always right, you get it?

[Zipper5 74]

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

Ah yes, because the units and vehicles of OFP looked very similar to their real life counter-parts, and there weren't any weapons being used in the game that weren't even in use at the time. :rolleyes:

[dysta 10]

Operative;1931705']But they are not always right' date=' you get it?[/quote']

*Sigh* That's what I think afterward, looks like future is more like a gamble of our life.

[max power 21]

sure kid naval warfare on a 30x30 map with cruisers and super carriers. I am delusional and paranoid sure. All that specs that are needed for arma 3 to sit hours long in front of a 2 d monitor and listen to static and whales,dolphins

Sure and the underwater funny happy world that you will never see because you closed in a barrel.

But hey what do I know I am no Navy man I sure in the future there are glass subs where you can look around.

Take a cold shower you need to get back to realty.

Uuuuhhh... you know that the Ocean is procedurally generated and practically limitless in ArmA, right? And now they have procedurally generated terrain that is also limitless?

...

Right?

Ah yes, because the units and vehicles of OFP looked very similar to their real life counter-parts, and there weren't any weapons being used in the game that weren't even in use at the time. :rolleyes:

Not to mention M16a2.

[instagoat 133]

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.

On the matter of addons: The community isn´t as large as it had been with OFP. The added complexity is a factor, sure, but going for a new, more "mainstream" setting if you want to call it that is going to bring more new people in than some game being about a period long past. Outside WW2, which mainstream to-be milsimmer cares about some rebellion going on on an island in the mid 80s? I´m not sure, but my uneducated guess would be: not that many.

What Arma´s community needs is an influx of fresh blood, skilled and dedicated addon makers who join ranks with the established ones, to create new and exciting content for the game. (Better documentation would help, hint hint BIS) And new people only get drawn if the game as a basis is exciting. And, again: to most people, an 80s setting just doesn´t cut it. Unless you´re named hideo kojima of course, then you can do it and do brilliantly with it, even today.

As for the realism, in sheer terms of gameplay, Arma is about as realistic as a game ought to get. Any more of it and it gets excessive, which is only enjoyed by a very niche crowd of very dedicated, very active and involved gamers, but certainly not the majority of people who might enjoy the game but have so far been put off by it. I´m not advocating dumbing down the game, but making it more attractive to the general audience.

The gameplay essence must remain unchanged, otherwise it won´t be a worthy Arma title. Though knowing BI, they probably won´t even change the venerable command interface :P

I have no respect for the rivet counting and whining about this or that kit being "wrong". BI decided to go for a near future sci-fi setting here, and as such are taking their liberties with it. It´s called Artistic License, as I´ve stated in another thread.

If you don´t like it, stop complaining, and stick with Arma 2. It saves you time, nerves and also helps the rest of us who are positively excited about the game focus on the game, instead of your endless complaints.

Cheers

[arokfridr 10]

I do not like the futuristic setting very much, I just hope they keep it plausible and use likely weapon systems. No F2000, atleast not for US troops. I strongely doubt that that the SCAR would be gone by 2020.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Arokfridr

[-Paladin- 10]

Uuuuhhh... you know that the Ocean is procedurally generated and practically limitless in ArmA, right? And now they have procedurally generated terrain that is also limitless?

...

Right?

This endless terrain is aye candy because the AI is not reacting in this areas. No WP following, nothing.

And if this is set on lemnos how long will be render t the endless ocean.

till it hits Europe or Africa? Or is there a flood in future and lemnos is the only shore?

---------- Post added at 10:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 PM ----------

Ah yes, because the units and vehicles of OFP looked very similar to their real life counter-parts, and there weren't any weapons being used in the game that weren't even in use at the time. :rolleyes:

no of this weapon was part of the campain, or important.

Just a goodi like the XM8 in Arma 2.

[jakerod 254]

This endless terrain is aye candy because the AI is not reacting in this areas. No WP following, nothing.

And if this is set on lemnos how long will be render t the endless ocean.

till it hits Europe or Africa? Or is there a flood in future and lemnos is the only shore?

---------- Post added at 10:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 PM ----------

no of this weapon was part of the campain, or important.

Just a goodi like the XM8 in Arma 2.

I am also fairly certain things like the G36 and Steyr Aug were never used in the campaigns with the exception of Codemaster's campaign which wasn't that good (I did like the montignac level).

[Ryujin 0]

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?[/quote']

Not really.

I find it kind of strange how people are mixing up realism and authenticity/setting. That "Hamok" chopper could be totally realistic and perfectly simulated. It could have a proper flight model for that airframe, DCS level of detail, and properly modeled RHA penetration values at various ranges and atmospheric conditions for a laser in the nose or whatever.

It'd be 100% realistic. The fact that it doesn't exist would have nothing to do with the realism. It could act exactly like it would if it was created. If I fire up DCS:A10 and go flying around in a Russian paint scheme, is the game suddenly arcade? It'd still be a very good simulation of a Russian A10. Not very authentic for a modern setting, but a fictional near future setting kind of negates that.

You can argue you don't like the near future setting (a valid enough point), but you can't really argue that it's now unrealistic or whatever yet. That is a gameplay/mechanics thing and has nothing to do with whether this stuff actually exists. We don't have enough info right now to make any realism arguments.

Personally I think it could be pretty interesting, I'm more concerned about the realism than the equipment.

[max power 21]

And if this is set on lemnos how long will be render t the endless ocean.

till it hits Europe or Africa? Or is there a flood in future and lemnos is the only shore?

LOL. First you say the ocean is too small, now you say it's too large. You said that the Ocean wasn't large enough for seaborne engagements, and that's false.

Moreover, you've gone from being concerned that an ocean is too small for vessel-to-vessel or vessel-to-land combat to being concerned about intercontinental travel. I think you need to figure out exactly it is what you're concerned about and not respond to someone's comments with something that's totally unrelated.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Max Power

[Heatseeker 0]

Arma: Advanced Warfighter?

My simple guess is that BIS just needed to show something new and diferent since no one would be all that excited if they showned pictures with the same old Abrams, t72, mi-8, etc in a new game that doesnt really look all that new to begin with..

edit: But the "Hamov" has to go!

[-GR-Operative 10]

Not really.

I find it kind of strange how people are mixing up realism and authenticity/setting. That "Hamok" chopper could be totally realistic and perfectly simulated. It could have a proper flight model for that airframe, DCS level of detail, and properly modeled RHA penetration values at various ranges and atmospheric conditions for a laser in the nose or whatever.

It'd be 100% realistic. The fact that it doesn't exist would have nothing to do with the realism. It could act exactly like it would if it was created. If I fire up DCS:A10 and go flying around in a Russian paint scheme, is the game suddenly arcade? It'd still be a very good simulation of a Russian A10. Not very authentic for a modern setting, but a fictional near future setting kind of negates that.

You can argue you don't like the near future setting (a valid enough point), but you can't really argue that it's now unrealistic or whatever yet. That is a gameplay/mechanics thing and has nothing to do with whether this stuff actually exists. We don't have enough info right now to make any realism arguments.

Personally I think it could be pretty interesting, I'm more concerned about the realism than the equipment.

100% realistic?

"It should", "It could", "Maybe" = "It's not"

[Madus_Maximus 0]

There's only some many times you can pit a brand new totally cutting edge latest thing in military tech M1A2 TUSK upgraded to the balls against a 70's era, manufactured in the Ukraine cheap ass poorly maintained T72. With this story it gives them the chance to show the best the world and their respective opponents have to offer on a more level playing field.

The use of many of the things in the screenshots and so on can be easily explained by the storyline. It's set in the not too distant future, they've been at war for some time. Things like the Comanche for example may have been cancelled, but they still exist and are a very viable option when fighting an equally advanced enemy. They were scrapped because we've been fighting farmers and militia with less equipment than your average American private citizen and they just simply aren't needed for those kind of conflicts.

There's room for artistic license, it's a game remember. Most people don't buy BIS games for the campaign, they buy them because they're massively moddable and have a mission editor built right in so you can create any scenario you can think up pretty much. They're just giving us a much bigger selection of gear to use by doing things this way. Don't whine that they're giving us more content on the grounds of "but it's not accurate to how things are NOW!".

People would whine at them even if they did that, likely the same people, complaining about the lack of content for mission makers.

BIS are giving us a solid foundation for us to create our OWN scenarios and our OWN extra content. If you want total accuracy of the current state of things, then go for it, the engine and game assets will make the best platform for us to do such things, just like their previous (and current) games do.

[Ish 11]

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']

First people whine about it being the future, then people whine about the weapons being old. Sorry, im not gonna play the game.

[metalcraze 290]

I am also fairly certain things like the G36 and Steyr Aug were never used in the campaigns with the exception of Codemaster's campaign which wasn't that good (I did like the montignac level).

Steyr Aug was used in OFP Resistance. One of my favourite weapons there

[DARK-STEALTH 10]

I just want to know if we finally have x-ray vision. It's plausible at that time in the future. Isn't it?

As long as I can run into combat with an M4, I'll be happy.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

and that UFO looking russian drone being the most obvious examples.

It's not a UFO. They took a classic style barbecue grill, made it fly, and then added a machinegun.

[sgtice 10]

SCARs and ACRs would be quite nice, and still seeing the M16A2 & A4s lying around as well as maybe some M4 & M4A1s

[gonk 0]

The comanche is not furturistic... it is quite old. 1996 old. But the project got scrapped due to UAV improvements.

One of the tanks looks like a Merkava mk iv, again not futuristic... 2004..

There seems to be a nice mix. Need to see videos to see how they all operate.

So I guess it is more ARG ...being a game and all...

[max power 21]

The FN F2000 was first revealed in 2001, being developed probably in the late 90s.

The Comanche was developed in the 1988, first flying in 1996, and was cancelled in 2004.

Of the components of the Hamok (I prefer Hamov because it's a better portmantea, but I concede that Hamok is gaining popularity), the V-80 prototype of the Ka-50, and the Mi-28 prototype first flew in 1982.

There's nothing really that futuristic at all. What we're left with is a complaint about things that don't exist -in that way- IRL. Well, Chernarus doesn't exist either. And who knows what equipment this army from this 'Mediterranean island' uses, or what events in the ArmAversum are different than the real world.

[Daniel 0]

I think we all just want to hear campaign dialogue along the lines of:

"Where's our Commanche support?! We're getting hammered by a pair of Hamoks out here!"

[AnimalMother92 10]

I just really hope that the "classic" US and Russian vehicles and gear are still available.

[max power 21]

I think we all just want to hear campaign dialogue along the lines of:

"Where's our Commanche support?! We're getting hammered by a pair of Hamoks out here!"

Hahaha. Yes we do.

[ArmAriffic 10]

people are going to say they don't like the futuristic approach but chances are you are all going to but A3 anyways

EDIT: They have to use a new main weapon for A3 otherwise people would complain about it already have been used and is nothing new, ect (PMC for example)

Edited May 21, 2011 by ArmAriffic

[neokika 62]

I like the futuristic approach to be honest, will be very cool to play the main campaign set in 2020+.

Obviously, the traditional weapons and vehicles will still be all there for sure, futuristic stuff is related to the main story line/campaign and I'm sure it will only take a little number of futuristic weapons/vehicles.

_neo_