What do you think off the "future" setting

[max power 21]

BI also didnt say there wouldnt be zombies. Yet nothing points in that direction so its pretty safe to assume there wont be any. :rolleyes:

Using that logic, one would come to the conclusion that the end boss isn't going to be a flying whale! Pfft.

[todayskiller 10]

Well here is my opinion of the game, if you have problems with what my opinion is, say so in a mature manner, and not some kiddy tone...Ty.

I personally don't like the futuristic weapons either, but...It's BI...SO I'm sure there will be good balance and what not to make this game worthwhile to everyone.

This is about the max I can go into the future, games like Tom Clancy's future soldier is way to much in the future...such as cloaking, and other bs like that.

So I'm 50/50 on this games direction...I don't like futuristic stuff, but at least it's things that are actually being tested (weapons, vehicles, etc)...and not some randomly made up stuff, like a laser shooting sniper rifle that can shoot from 100000000 miles stuff.

Since this game is still being made true from the heart from BI, I'll definatly buy it, no doubt about it...I just wish they would of stayed modern (I know alot of you don't like that)...But hey, that's my opinion...(or even go back in the past, and do some other wars).

-TodaysKiller

[Montanaro 0]

The problem with "going back in the past" is that it limits the amount of technology that BIS can put into the game that modders can piggyback off of.

FLIR in OA was a pretty big deal for most people. Not many modders have been successful in creating it since OFP.

Who knows what modding benefits will come from TROPHY, kinetic weapons and whatever else will grace the game that will open the functionality door for future mods that otherwise would be locked (and would have to be lock picked)?

[2nd ranger 282]

Yeah, as much as I would like to see another past scenario (though I don't mind the near-future thing), BIS seem to like their technology too much to go back now. Which is clearly why they chose a future setting for A3 anyway.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

The problem with "going back in the past" is that it limits the amount of technology that BIS can put into the game that modders can piggyback off of.

Like how we can have melee combat, proper bolt-action weapons, towed weapons, horses & railways? Oh wait, none of those are applicable to a modern/future setting...

See? It works both ways.

[onlyrazor 11]

Like how we can have melee combat, proper bolt-action weapons, towed weapons, horses & railways? Oh wait, none of those are applicable to a modern/future setting...

See? It works both ways.

That's why we have mods, my friend :bounce3:

[Big Dawg KS 6]

That's why we have mods, my friend :bounce3:

Without engine implementation, mods would struggle to make these work well. The point was that going with a modern/future setting does not necessarily open more opportunities for modding. A past setting can open just as many.

[Montanaro 0]

Like how we can have melee combat, proper bolt-action weapons, towed weapons, horses & railways? Oh wait, none of those are applicable to a modern/future setting...

See? It works both ways.

1. Melee: Hardly a solid feature in any mod

2. "Proper" bolt actions: A. For years, the actual bolt actions never worked in mods. B. I don't recall any bolt actions actually cycling in mods. Maybe for a couple sniper rifle mods, but for I44 I don't think that's in.

3. Towed Weapons have been around a long time and was fairly easy to implement (clunky sometimes)

4. Horses: Do you remember the OFP horses? ARMA was almost out by the time someone made a horse (more specifically water buffalo) that had "moving" legs.

5. Railways: Another feature that took a long time, and it's hardly mainstream or newsworthy

Unfortunately you proved my point. Not having game features and newer technologies already in game can limit modding. Almost all of the items you listed took years to actually release for public use and almost all of them are extremely clunky/goofy.

[Baff1 0]

Like how we can have melee combat, proper bolt-action weapons, towed weapons, horses & railways? Oh wait, none of those are applicable to a modern/future setting...

I'm not sure if I'm missing the context of this post... but

All of those are applicable to a modern setting.

Cavalry charges were made in the current Afghanistan war. Melee combat was used in the current Afghanistan war (and indeed all wars in history), 105 mm artillery pieces were towed in Afghanistan. Bolt action rifles were used in Afghanistan. (I assume by proper bolt action that you are excluding sniper rifles).

Not sure about railways in Afghanistan, but just about every other modern country has them.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Baff1

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Unfortunately you proved my point.

And you totally did not even see mine. A past setting could also provide usable new engine tech for modders, such as the examples I gave, just the same as a future setting could.

---------- Post added at 09:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 PM ----------

All of those are applicable to a modern setting.

Cavalry charges were made in the current Afghanistan war. melee combat was used in the current Afghanistan war (and indeed all wars in history), 105 mm artillery pieces were towed in Afghanistan. Bolt action rifles were used in Afghanistan. (I assume by proper bolt action that you are excluding sniper rifles).

That's totally beside the point. A game set in the past would be more likely to include these features (thus new engine tech), which is an argument against Montanaro's point that a future setting is better because it gives us more new engine tech.

[Baff1 0]

Actually rideable animals is something I have been missing from ArmA for some time.

I'd like to see them implimented.

There are some stories I'd like to depict.

However I don't agree that this is a more likely scenario for the past. Horseback and pack mules are contempory still. Certainly no less contemporay today than they were in the Cold War.

Gief camels. The ships of the desert as opposed to the Sopwith ones.

Here is a great tale.

"Horse Soldiers: The 21st Century Cavalry Charge

Yes, horse mounted troops still play a part in 21st century warfare. Incredibly, the cavalry charge, launched against tanks and entrenched positions was the tactic that effectively drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan.

In his book, Horse Soldiers, Doug Stanton describes a cavalry attack supported by U.S. Special Forces (pages 152-155). Two lines of 150 men each formed up behind a hill about a mile from the Taliban trenches. The horsemen carried an assortment of weapons including AK 47s and RPGs (rocket propelled grenades). There were about seven ridges between the Afghan (Northern Alliance) cavalry and the Taliban position. Each ridge was about 50 feet high, with about 200 yards of ground between each. "As they rode, the horsemen continued rising up and down the hills, appearing and disappearing."

At about a half mile range the Taliban, very much aware of the Afghan presence, began firing with machine guns and tanks at the thin first line of horsemen. As Stanton relates, "Men would be riding in the saddle and then suddenly fly backward as if yanked and tumble to the ground and lie motionless as more horses approched from behind and leaped over them, charging toward the firing line." The horsemen were riding as fast as they could, with their reins in their teeth toward the enemy as if their safety lay in direct confrontation with the enemy. They were aided by the waves of the ridges which made it difficult for the guns, especially on the tanks, to take accurate aim.

At the last ridge before the Taliban position, the Afghans jumped from their horses, placed the horse's reins on the ground and placed one foot on top of them to keep the horses from flying. They then unleashed a furious fire on the trench. Meanwhile the U.S. special forces who were present called down smart bombs on the tanks. As the first line of cavalry fired, the second line caught up and "blew past, shouting, galloping straight at the Taliban line. The standing fighters swung back into their saddles and beat their horses to catch up." The two lines now formed one single attack. The Taliban line crumbled. Many of the Taliban threw down their weapons and ran.

But at the last minute, U.S. airpower (because of low fuel) had to return to base and more Taliban tanks came to the scene. After taking the entrenched position, the Afghan cavalry was forced to retreat. Even so, this tactic, combining smart bombs with cavalry assault, would prove highly effective as the U.S. special forces became more adept at bringing the bombs to bear. Later, U.S. Special Forces would on one occasion even join in a charge itself."

http://www.indepthinfo.com/afghanistan/horse-soldiers.htm

One thing I would say about the future scenario is that it gives the artists a lot more lisence.

"That's not an M4! An M4 has no carry handle on the top!"

"STFU This is the future M4, bitch.".

Edited July 1, 2011 by Baff1

[Uberduderofdoomer 10]

Honestly, Arma is way too realistic for things such as mechs or things that arent even being developed right now, and the few things they change (such as that heli) arent different enough from current tech to merit existing in an environment where realism is held at such a high value.

I like stuff like the special offroad car cause that is something that I feel my high school auto class could build, or something that less organized military would maybe need or develop. You can get creative with that stuff already, but making a hybrid helicopter is something completely different, and I feel goes a little too far. I would be kind of pissed if we had to use stuff like that in the main campaign and that it was a main focus point.

A great solution to this would be to take the futuristic/nonexistant stuff and throw it into a dlc pack, or better yet make it an option. Simple enough to disable non-realistic vehicles.

Yet they would still be spending their time making fictional vehicles when they could spend it on making more exotic or exciting current vehicles. At least, with that option/dlc venue they could just go apeshit for all the future lovers, making things that are actually worth making as opposed to just a slight modification to a real thing, ruining the fun for both camps.

Kinda bummed really, ARMA 3 looks like the first game with engine capabilities to make it realistic in almost all regards, and it's the first game to start taking liberties with the realism. Sigh.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Uberduderofdoomer

[mr_centipede 31]

So what if ARMA3 make it like GRAW route? To me, GRAW itself is quite realistic, even with cross comm and stuff. Maybe thats the future and it's viable (it would be more realistic if you need batteries for those thing).

The thing that made GRAW unrealistic is the mission(s). You dont send an SF of four to charge a courtyard full of enemy.. (mission 1). You usually go around it, but the mission got a tether so we had to go through the gauntlet and die countless time. It is tactical, though kinda limited to the mission designer intent. Same with DR, it can be tactical... but still on rail (with tether)... So what I'm saying is, the game can be realistic, but the mission design didnt go for realism, but hollywood action-pack instead.

So what is realism then? For me, if I can employ tactics freely and realistically.. then thats realism for me. Even with storm trooper rifles or gauss rifle (Republic Commando comes to mind, but that game also on rail)

But if realism for you is the number of nuts and bolts on the tyre of a jeep, or how many rails on the top/side of an M4, then for me, I call that nit-picking.

But yeah, everyone has their own definition of 'REALISM'... BIS has theirs. You cant please everyone. If you tried, you'll usually end up disappoint everyone instead.

Pardon my bit of a rant...

PS:// I vote for I dont really care... I got the same engine, the same freedom as in CWC, ARMA and ARMA 2. What's not to like?

Edited July 1, 2011 by Mr_Centipede

[Montanaro 0]

And you totally did not even see mine. A past setting could also provide usable new engine tech for modders, such as the examples I gave, just the same as a future setting could.

Sorry, I had interpreted your post as "Well modders were able to deal with the limitations anyway and still make those mods"

[Ish 11]

I don't feel it IS that futuristic.. Besides. M16 came along like 60 years ago and it's still in active service. AKA 20 years from now, it wont be a huge difference from what we've got today.