Arma 3 content

[xxbbcc 6]

This is not the first time I voice this request - I do realize there's an Arma 3 Wish List thread but I think this request is somewhat different from game engine/feature requests so I made a new thread for it.

What I'd like to see in Arma 3 is content (at the very least islands, buildings and plants/clutter - plus troops/vehicles/weapons would be better) ported forward from Arma 1 and Arma 2.

I know this would take a lot of work but I'd like to be able to have all these islands in a single game, not in 3 separate ones where all games have different controls and different features. I wouldn't mind paying extra for these but I'd like officially supported ports, not fan-made content.

I wouldn't expect these ports re-done to Arma 3 quality standards - in their current form they're already high quality. Having them available in Arma 3 would be great.

What do you think?

PS: To clarify, I have no problems with fan-made addons in general. However, I'd like BIS to port their own content in an officially supported way so that when there are game changes, these ports are also updated.

Edited May 21, 2011 by xxbbcc

[Richey79 10]

Disagree.

Yes, it'llbe nice to have all the best stuff moving forward, but the amount of work to even do a straight port and bug-kill is massive. If it's done by the community, then noone minds bugs, slipping release dates, etc. If Bis did it, everyone would jump on every little fault and bug, complain that all the units should be released with three different sets of camo and so on.

The end result produced by the community is usually to an even higher standard than Bis would have been able to achieve.

As long as Bis release good modding tools, the future will be fine.

[Daniel 0]

Armed Assault is showing its age, but i'd love to see Arma 2 and Arrowhead content in Arma 3 with all the features. They could call it a Legacy DLC.

[xxbbcc 6]

the amount of work to even do a straight port and bug-kill is massive.

Yes, of course. That's why I'm willing to pay extra for it.

If it's done by the community, then noone minds bugs, slipping release dates, etc.

<snip>

The end result produced by the community is usually to an even higher standard than Bis would have been able to achieve.

I disagree. Look at the Arma 1 port done by Kju. When he walked away from it, all support and bug-fixing stopped. I don't know if it's working with the current game or not, I was never able to get it working with A2:CO - it keeps crashing on me.

Plus BIS already did the work on these islands - bug fixing would likely be much less than with original content.

[PuFu 4600]

it's just not gonna happen.

I know it is easy for you to just wright it down on those forums "islands and eventually vehicles and characters from A1 AND A2, updated to A3 quality standards", but that would take a HUGE amount of time (multiply whatever time you think about right now when reading HUGE amount of time part by x2.5)

BIS games are business for them, and putting man-hours in something that could be optional or mandatory resulting in a very pricey game is nothing but good business.

[xxbbcc 6]

"islands and eventually vehicles and characters from A1 AND A2, updated to A3 quality standards"

I specifically wrote "not updated to A3 quality standards". The islands in A1 and A2 are of very high quality, along with buildings, vegetation and clutter. I see no need for any updates other than those required by engine changes to how islands are loaded.

Troops, vehicles and weapons would be a nice extra, but I'd be fine if the islands were ported.

I also know the amount of work that would go into this - I'm a software architect, working on fairly big systems. And from a business point of view - if enough people are willing to support the port, it makes sense business-wise to do it. I'd be willing to pay ~$30 for a port of A1 islands and another ~$30 for the A2:CO islands. That's comparable to the price of the new game.

[Cookieeater 10]

Actually no, I don't want ports if they create another disaster like ArmA II CO did to multiplayer. BIS has better things to work on than reporting their content into a new game. I'd prefer more original content in ArmA III, than graphically outdated content from the previous games that should be ported from by modders. I'd rather prefer BIS breaking a lot of porting ability from old ArmA games in order to make ArmA III as good as possible. Things such as the new animation system for the ArmA III models couldn't possibly work with the old ArmA II animation system. When porting is thrown into the mix, it'll make BIS operate under a heavy amount of constraints to keep legacy content years and years ago, when they can just ditch that and work freely.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Cookieeater

[dunedain 48]

I'm against for several reasons.

Arma3 looks very ambitious to me, it would be a huge load of work to port old contents nobody but fanboys may buy.

I'm all against DLC, I bought Reinforcement though and honestly it's not very good. Same goes with small expansions such as Red Hammer or Queen's Gambit which don't bring much to the game but can unnecessarly split the community.

I would rather want BIS to focus on solid and innovative expansions the way Resistance was to OFP and OA is to Arma2.

To me few but great quality contents is way better than a shit load of outdated and poorly detailed contents from previous games. So I think it's a terrible idea. I may add that the only reason OFP and his addons get to be ported by the community on Arma2 is because of the great solo experience they have to offer, which is definitely not the case with Armed Assault and Arma2.

Edited May 21, 2011 by dunedain

[Zipper5 74]

What would be the point of selling ArmA and Arma 2 if this occurred?

[mrcash2009 0]

I agree here, to pay more for it wont make it happen, all ref the business side of things, Zipper hit the nail on the head.

[PuFu 4600]

I specifically wrote "not updated to A3 quality standards". The islands in A1 and A2 are of very high quality, along with buildings, vegetation and clutter. I see no need for any updates other than those required by engine changes to how islands are loaded.

Although all this talk is based only of an idea of A3, i for one would expect that the simple port over you image to need more work on it before actually functioning in A3.

No one is aware if the existing shaders will be supported anymore (A2 still supports A1 simple shader, as well as the newly super shader, but A3 is moving to a different API), or if the actual model will function in the same manner.

And from a business point of view - if enough people are willing to support the port, it makes sense business-wise to do it. I'd be willing to pay ~$30 for a port of A1 islands and another ~$30 for the A2:CO islands. That's comparable to the price of the new game.

What would you count the "enough people"?

Will it be the new blood BIS is trying to get? Or maybe the existing community members who area cheap about 8$ per DLC, in order to support their "beloved" developer? I wonder...

[xxbbcc 6]

What would be the point of selling ArmA and Arma 2 if this occurred?

Do you think it'd matter if a player buys the "A1 & A2 Island port" for ~$60 plus A3 for ~$40

OR

they buy A1 for ~$10, A2 for ~$20 and A3 for $40?

Even if the island port would sell for ~$30, the final numbers are the same for BIS.

Plus I already have both A1 and A2 and I'd still be willing to buy the island ports for the convenience of using those islands in the new game.

I'd prefer more original content in ArmA III, than graphically outdated content from the previous games

A1 and A2 (the current Arma game!) are by no means graphically outdated. There're some visual differences, yes, but it's minimal. It's entirely possible that the A3 rendering engine could make up for it.

---------- Post added at 12:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 PM ----------

What would you count the "enough people"?

It doesn't matter what I mean by 'enough' - if BIS gets enough supporters to pay for it, they can do it. That's why I posted the poll - to see what people think.

[Cookieeater 10]

Do you think it'd matter if a player buys the "A1 & A2 Island port" for ~$60 plus A3 for ~$40

OR

they buy A1 for ~$10, A2 for ~$20 and A3 for $40?

Even if the island port would sell for ~$30, the final numbers are the same for BIS.

Plus I already have both A1 and A2 and I'd still be willing to buy the island ports for the convenience of using those islands in the new game.

A1 and A2 (the current Arma game!) are by no means graphically outdated. There're some visual differences, yes, but it's minimal. It's entirely possible that the A3 rendering engine could make up for it.

What will happen to multiplayer though? You'd slice up the multiplayer community as much as possible between the hardcore ArmA players, the casual ArmA players, and the editor ArmA players. Same with the map making community. I'd rather prefer BIS breaking a lot of porting ability from old ArmA games in order to make ArmA III as good as possible. Things such as the new animation system for the ArmA III models couldn't possibly work with the old ArmA II animation system. When porting is thrown into the mix, it'll make BIS operate under a heavy amount of constraints to keep legacy content years and years ago, when they can just ditch that and work freely.

[Zipper5 74]

Do you think it'd matter if a player buys the "A1 & A2 Island port" for ~$60 plus A3 for ~$40

People here complain about the $10 they spent on BAF and PMC. Imagine if they figured they had to spend $60 for ported content from ArmA and Arma 2?

Now, I would buy it as I always want to support BIS, but I have to say, I think I would be one of very few in such a scenario.

[xxbbcc 6]

What will happen to multiplayer though? You'd slice up the multiplayer community as much as possible between the hardcore ArmA players, the casual ArmA players, and the editor ArmA players. Same with the map making community.

Why do you think so? Even now, I have ~20 excellent fan-made maps on my computer, in addition to the stock A2:CO islands. It doesn't remove me from the community in any way.

Sure, the paid DLCs could have that effect but the way I look at those - it's simply a way to support the development of this game. I do realize that it's a lot of work for BIS to develop these huge islands and the other content, so I bought all the DLCs. (I personally hate PMC, but I still bought it to have all the content.)

[PuFu 4600]

It doesn't matter what I mean by 'enough' - if BIS gets enough supporters to pay for it, they can do it. That's why I posted the poll - to see what people think.

even so, a thread on those forums cannot be even considered an approximation for those possible buyers

[gossamersolid 155]

Do you think it'd matter if a player buys the "A1 & A2 Island port" for ~$60 plus A3 for ~$40

OR

they buy A1 for ~$10, A2 for ~$20 and A3 for $40?

Even if the island port would sell for ~$30, the final numbers are the same for BIS.

F*** that... I payed $49.99 for ArmA 2 and $49.99 for OA... no way in hell am I paying anything for a port, I've already payed for the damn content.

[xxbbcc 6]

F*** that... I payed $49.99 for ArmA 2 and $49.99 for OA... no way in hell am I paying anything for a port, I've already payed for the damn content.

I think you misunderstood my question - you wouldn't be required to buy it. I, too, have both games already and I'd still want the port so I can use the latest game engine (with the latest rendering engine + performance advances) but still use the old islands.

[Tom1 10]

I want modders to do like a CAA1 thing if possible, i mean, cherno, takistan, sahrani, lingor, tora bora, isla duala, panthera, all of those are awesome maps that would make arma 3 more fun if they were ported over. But BIS should stick to Arma 3 content only.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Meh, as a consumer I cant see any argument against it. Just more cookies in my cookie jar.

[antoineflemming 14]

I wouldn't want stuff ported per say. It'd be nice if there was some sort of backwards compatibility, like certain old mods, especially unit mods, working in ArmA 3. I know animation/skeleton issues might be a problem. But couldn't they use the same skeleton and simply make new animations?

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

I would pay $20 to see Sahrani brought to ArmA 3. I may be alone in this, but I doubt it.

Even better, include it in the base ArmA 3, and maybe make a separate editor category for it, if that's even possible?

[metalcraze 290]

A project like CAA2 will be nice to have.

I'm not paying extra because nobody will bother to update the content and I already have it. But to have it there in a state it was in ArmA2 (especially maps) is more than enough

[Nicholas 5]

No. Instead of the developers wasting their time porting content from previous games, I'd rather have them making quality new content. I can still go back and play the older games if I want.

I also don't want the same thing to happen that happened with ArmA 2 and ArmA 2 OA. ArmA 2 units not having the same features as ArmA 2 OA units.

[xxbbcc 6]

I want modders to do like a CAA1 thing if possible, i mean, cherno, takistan, sahrani, lingor, tora bora, isla duala, panthera, all of those are awesome maps that would make arma 3 more fun if they were ported over. But BIS should stick to Arma 3 content only.

It was exactly CAA1 that made me add this request - Kju walked away from it and now there's no support because a single individual rarely has the time, motivation, knowledge that Kju had to do it alone. He did an awesome job but now his work is pretty much abandoned. I, for one, couldn't ever get it running - it always crashes on me and eventually I gave up.

It is exactly because of this that I'd like an official port - if we pay for it, we can expect BIS to maintain it and fix problems with it.

---------- Post added at 10:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 AM ----------

No. Instead of the developers wasting their time porting content from previous games, I'd rather have them making quality new content. I can still go back and play the older games if I want.

Why would they waste time with it? If we pay for it, BIS can hire people to do the work. Plus it wouldn't be 'development' work - the islands are already done. Some porting work could be needed but most likely that'd include tweaking textures and data for the new engine. (If there are data differences.) Actual engineers may not even need to be involved that much - maybe for an installer and some tweaks, the rest could be done by the art team.