What do you think off the "future" setting

[nodunit 397]

Indeed unless it features an interior with the commander screen displaying RTT and the driver had viewports.

[krazikilla 5]

Even it might be a "realistic" near future setting, i like to fight with simple ironsights much more :)

Also now, as lot of for example US-Soldiers are using badass uber-sights, i think the normal iron-sight fighting is more interesting.

More Supressing, less hitting, harder spotting, etc.

(One reason why i also like vietnam or ww2 settings a lot)

I dont like the near future setting. (but i can live with it)

[Commander-598 0]

Macross Zero?

Nah, Macross was transforming Space F14s in the UN fighting 50ft tall alien humans in powered armor.

This is one of the many, many parts of the Gundam Franchise, 08th MS Team to be precise.

[paecmaker 23]

I have no bad thoughts about the settingh in the game, but I would love a ww 2 setting to.

Imagine you are advancing in a small village then suddenly a tiger appear. I would love that, and the planes, just flying and engage in dogfights while shermans storm on the ground. Now I know there are mods for ww2 but I would love an official game.

Until that happens I have to do with mods and red orchestra 2.

[smookie 11]

I have no bad thoughts about the settingh in the game, but I would love a ww 2 setting to.

Imagine you are advancing in a small village then suddenly a tiger appear. I would love that, and the planes, just flying and engage in dogfights while shermans storm on the ground. Now I know there are mods for ww2 but I would love an official game.

Until that happens I have to do with mods and red orchestra 2.

Isn't it like Call of Duty (1,2 or 3) you are talking about? it's an official game :)

[Innomadic 10]

Even it might be a "realistic" near future setting, i like to fight with simple ironsights much more :)

Also now, as lot of for example US-Soldiers are using badass uber-sights, i think the normal iron-sight fighting is more interesting.

More Supressing, less hitting, harder spotting, etc.

(One reason why i also like vietnam or ww2 settings a lot)

I dont like the near future setting. (but i can live with it)

What are you talking about? We've seen a reflex, an ELCAN and Irons....thats it....no one is forcing you to use all the scopes, you can still use irons if you want...

Edited June 20, 2011 by Innomadic

[Steakslim 1]

the ACOG style scope is an Elcan btw.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Yea I have to agree that I am getting tired of everyone using reflex/holographic sights on everyfuckingthing (not just in ArmA).

Ironsights are boss.

[arigram 0]

Yea I have to agree that I am getting tired of everyone using reflex/holographic sights on everyfuckingthing (not just in ArmA).

Ironsights are boss.

Red Orchestra 2 is coming...

[Montanaro 0]

Re-read the story description. NATO is on the verge of being edged out of Europe, and then they decide to send a special forces team behind enemy lines, into an island off the coast of the Mediterranean. Sounds more ridiculous than the original OFP storyline.

Nobody's moaning, contrary to how you seem to be interpreting the situation. Also, please try to refrain yourself from immaturity.

In my opinion - it's both. Gameplay needs to be as realistic and accurate as possible, meanwhile a simulator must render existing (past or present) elements. You cannot simulate a future weapon or vehicle because it hasn't even been used in real life to begin with.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the storyline. You could argue that almost any scenario they come up with will be unrealistic in some manner. I don't think sending a special forces team to an island to disrupt the enemy is that crazy (we really don't know the entire story right now). But, again, IMO a rouge russian general invading a couple tiny islands in the Adriatic and having the USA retaliate nearly starting WW3 is a bit out there.

As for your argument about "future weapons" I think this has been roundly addressed in previous posts. Certainly there is a distinction between soon to be adopted equipment that is based on known scientific concepts/field tests and scifi plasma rifles and stealth hoverboards.

Again, how does replacing the m4 with a realistic future alternative hurt gameplay? The gun may be shaped different, it may have a slightly higher ROF and use a currently unconventional caliber. That certainly won't change the gameplay or completely betray realism. I'd have a much bigger issue if BIS pulled a "BattleField 2142"

[Innomadic 10]

I also re-read the story description, they sent them behind enemy lines to gather intel on an OPFOR experimental weapon.

I don't think that its THAT outlandish...

[CameronMcDonald 147]

Yea I have to agree that I am getting tired of everyone using reflex/holographic sights on everyfuckingthing (not just in ArmA).

Ironsights are boss.

Respekt up, brah.

[PASTOR 0]

I would love to see BI redo the eighties era. Basically because:

1. The Cold War

2. All the data is available on the equipment. We know almost everything about that era weapons and should be fairly easy to simulate

3. No hyper advanced equipment, and equipment still on the drawing board

4. No Arma-verse fantasy or never gonna be created weapons (like the comanche)

[CameronMcDonald 147]

3. No hyper advanced equipment, and equipment still on the drawing board

4. No Arma-verse fantasy or never gonna be created weapons (like the comanche)

[roberthammer 582]

I would love to see BI redo the eighties era. Basically because:

1. The Cold War

2. All the data is available on the equipment. We know almost everything about that era weapons and should be fairly easy to simulate

3. No hyper advanced equipment, and equipment still on the drawing board

4. No Arma-verse fantasy or never gonna be created weapons (like the comanche)

Why the BIS should do same Cold War era over and over? Get OFP or try CWR2 demo or better wait for full CWR2

Comanche is fully working helicopter - they are no big issues there , in our reality they just canceled it because it was so expensive Comanche helicopter program - which is big shame

[quantum2000 10]

Comanche was killed by UAV advancements, cause UAV is a cheaper armed reconnaissance vehicle without the need to protect pilot.

I think BIS adding Comanche as attack helicopter for BLUEFOR is both gesture for American players and using more future-style model. IMO - some improved Eurocopter Tiger versions would be more in-line with war-theater location and supply bases availability.

[Daniel 0]

Comanche was killed by UAV advancements, cause UAV is a cheaper armed reconnaissance vehicle without the need to protect pilot.

I think BIS adding Comanche as attack helicopter for BLUEFOR is both gesture for American players and using more future-style model. IMO - some improved Eurocopter Tiger versions would be more in-line with war-theater location and supply bases availability.

That just got me thinking, it would be fairly simple to make a mod that replaces what many have trouble accepting as plausible vehicles and weapons, with real world equivalents. So as you say, swap out the Commanche for a Eurotiger, likewise the Mi-48 with a Havok or SuperHind, etc. It wouldn't be a massive change, you could even keep the relevant config values the same to avoid breaking the campaign. The only issue would be vocal recordings, although there's every chance they'll only mention callsigns, and there's no problem there. There seems to be an audience for it. Though frankly i'm looking forward to my Commanche.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Daniel

[Innomadic 10]

Who cares, as Ivan said at E3, its in because they liked it.

[Baff1 0]

I don't feel any different towards a near future setting as I do a contemporay setting.

But I prefer historical settings.

I prefer to be learning rather than fantasing if at all possible.

[paecmaker 23]

I prefer to be learning rather than fantasing if at all possible.

You know that there are much better ways of learning than games, right?

[Big Dawg KS 6]

You know that there are much better ways of learning than games, right?

Nah, games are actually great for learning. And not just learning games, but all games. Whether what you learn is useful or not depends on how the game was designed.

But learning is not a primary goal for ArmA 3 so...

Edited June 28, 2011 by Big Dawg KS

[Montanaro 0]

You know that there are much better ways of learning than games, right?

Yet you shouldn't look past games as a source for learning and skill building.

What is the most effective way to learn? Reading a book, or doing by experience? I'm not saying I have the answer.

But being able to view objects in real time 3d and how they generally behave can be useful. Also some games (Real time strategy like Total War franchise) can open the door for historical learning.

I've been playing games for years, to say I haven't learned various things from them that I wouldn't be able to otherwise, without significantly more effort, would be a lie.

[ricnunes 0]

Like I said in other threads I'm completly against this future setting of ArmA3 and of course I prefer past, present or even near future (2-3 years, 5 years max) settings since there is ABSOLUTELLY NO WAY to know what will be in service in 15 years from now (ArmA3 202x setting) and even an aproximate guess will certainly be completly wrong! There are too many variants that can happen which will dictate which weaponry will exist in 2020's - It could even be possible that in the 2020's that the weaponry in existance be BASICALLY the same (with small improvements) as we have in the present since prototypes of future weaponry could get canceled (like happened to the Comanche) due to global economic crisis (present and/or future ones).

IMO, it seems that the only "valid argument" of people that defends the ArmA3 futuristic setting is that it will model diferent weaponry and units/sides/countries. So my sugestion in other to cater this argument is the following:

Instead of making controversial futuristic setting, why doesn't BIS models conflicts based on real ones set in the past (even using diferent names since BIS seems more confortable with this) such as:

- Iran vs Iraq --> this one would have completly diferent sides, no USA, no NATO, etc... it would have a very diferent mix of western equipment (such as G3 assault rifle, AH-1J Cobra helicopter, F-5, F-4, F-14, Mirage F1 fighter aircraft, etc...) and eastern equipment (AK rifle familiy, Mi-24, Mig-21, Mig-23, Mig-25 fighter aircraft)

- Various Israel Vs Arab countries conflicts --> These ones would also have very diferent sides with also a very diferent mix of western and eastern equipment.

- Falklands War --> This one would bring a completly diferent kind of side/faction which is Argentina. It would have a very diferent mix of western-only equipment and it wouldn't have USA as a side and it wouldn't have any Russian weapons - how's that for "diferent"?.

- Various African conflicts ranging from the Portuguese Colonial Wars to the Bush Wars (Angola versus South Africa) or more recent African conflicts such as the intervention of Mercenary and British Forces in Sierra Leone.

As you can see there's no need to use the future setting to be inovative and inventive - If BIS want it can invent a conflict based on those that happened in the past we would have REALISTIC equipment with REALISTIC setting/scenario and with DIFERENT equipment/setting (units, weapons, vehicles, scenario, etc...)

[Valiant 1-4 10]

Im a little worried about the near future setting, the Merkava surviving the Hellfire(or who knows what) missile in the teaser, rolling out a few feet then hearing its gun go "pew" like a laser is tosh on both parts.

[soul_assassin 1750]

Im a little worried about the near future setting, the Merkava surviving the Hellfire(or who knows what) missile in the teaser, rolling out a few feet then hearing its gun go "pew" like a laser is tosh on both parts.

anti-tank missile defence and coil guns have been discussed to death. Both exist and feasible. Get over it.