What do you think off the "future" setting

[Magog 10]

you must have have hated OFP then... :rolleyes:

If you cant spot the exaggerated difference then it's not my problem.

But if it bothers you that the game is set a few years into the future, don't buy the game.

But I'm sure you will anyway and slobber over it like a good sheep. :j:

I'm sure I wont. I've only played two games from BIS, and only one that I actually bought. I think I can avoid ARMA3, but I'm still entitled to come here and have my say. BIS can listen to you all day and night, and they wont learn anything.

and for the record, I have no idea where people get the "Military Sim" thing from. Oh wow, they made VBS! You can also run around on foot and get in vehicles, that means ARMA is a simulation of real life!

No, it's a military simulator, not life simulator. If they cant represent the world of military properly, then they're no longer a mil-sim.

From one of their countless pages:

Arma 3, the latest installment of the tactical military simulation game from critically acclaimed independent developers Bohemia Interactive, creators of the award-winning mil-sim series Arma.

Survive in the rich & authentic environment

Adapt to the unsurpassed experience of modern ground combat

Win in the open-ended & story-driven campaign

Combining the strength of its predecessors with radical engine improvements, Arma 3 provides a unique experience of sandbox-oriented combat gameplay in the most detailed environment of the series.

[dmarkwick 261]

Point for point, gameplay is what makes ARMA realistic, and I never stated otherwise. Additionally, its content is what makes it a self-classified military simulator. When the content of a game exceeds the boundaries of our present or past realities, it's no longer simulating anything but rather nulling the realism factor.

As I said above, a combination of many elements gives a game its realism. ARMA is a game, thank you for the information, but it labels itself as a mil-sim as well. If it wants to do a Battlefield it should no longer call itself a mil-sim for that genre's enthusiasts.

Well, obviously I ain't gonna change your mind over something you've already decided on, but I might make the point that "simulation" doesn't necessarily mean simulation of existing equipment. ArmA's simulation handle stems from it's ability to play a scenario with each element acting autonomously, according to it's designs. You cannot say that ArmA's tanks act realistically according to existing tank tactics, nor aircraft. But neither are they scripted to do exact things for gameplay. It only needs to be able to act within reasonable parameters autonomously. That's far from a "study sim" (which I think is what you are meaning BTW) but it is a simulation, in that emergent behaviors are apparent.

Read the story description in ARMA3's official homepage. So you don't waste your time searching for it, here:

After years of intense warfare against Eastern armies, Europe has become the last stand for the battered NATO forces. On the verge of being driven into the sea, NATO command embarks upon a most desperate measure. In the hope of seizing what seems to be a well-guarded military secret, Operation Magnitude is launched.

A small group of Special Forces and Researchers are sent to a Mediterranean island deep behind enemy lines. However, the mission is compromised and the task force destroyed, leaving Cpt. Scott Miller washed ashore upon the hostile island. In his effort to carry out the mission, he will face the dangers of modern warfare, an unforgiving environment, and the consequences of his own decisions...

Ah you mean you don't care for the backstory? I personally couldn't care less for the backstory, only what happens during the game. I obviously cannot do anything about your dislike of the 5-sentence backstory. The 6th sentence is the important one: forging a battle force starting from scratch.

[Montanaro 0]

If you cant spot the exaggerated difference then it's not my problem.

I'm sure I wont. I've only played two games from BIS, and only one that I actually bought. I think I can avoid ARMA3, but I'm still entitled to come here and have my say. BIS can listen to you all day and night, and they wont learn anything.

No, it's a military simulator, not life simulator. If they cant represent the world of military properly, then they're no longer a mil-sim.

From one of their countless pages:

Arma 3, the latest installment of the tactical military simulation game from critically acclaimed independent developers Bohemia Interactive, creators of the award-winning mil-sim series Arma.

Survive in the rich & authentic environment

Adapt to the unsurpassed experience of modern ground combat

Win in the open-ended & story-driven campaign

Combining the strength of its predecessors with radical engine improvements, Arma 3 provides a unique experience of sandbox-oriented combat gameplay in the most detailed environment of the series.

Oh, like a bandit group of russians invading some piss ant islands off the coast of croatia nearly starting ww3 is soooo much different than a nato like force trying to hold an island in the middle of one of the most important sea trading routes... :j:

But I'm sure your bitching and moaning is going to teach BIS something.

Where did a say it was a "life" sim? :j:

you are right about the "mil-sim" part though :o even though I don't really consider it a "simulation"

But tell me; what makes a mil-sim? Is it gameplay, or is it as you indicate, weaponry?

Explain how the USA not having the m16 disqualifies a game as a "simulator"

[paecmaker 23]

I dont get it, why is people talking about dumbing down a game to BF/CoD standards when they s ee that there are newer weapons and vehicles. Last time I checked both battlefield and COD had mostly real life weaponry, and most of the announced things here does exist or are evolved from RL.

Say the patrol boat, they say it doesnt exist in real life but its still plausible. The MI 48 kajman is a more modern adaption of MI 24 Hind.

[roberthammer 582]

The MI 48 kajman is a more modern adaption of MI 24 Hind.

I should say more Mi28 - Cabin is Mi28 , role and the cargo is Mi24 and the coaxial rotors and gearbox is Ka52 :cool:

[instagoat 133]

Oh wait, another thread full of whining about HURR DYING REALISMUH.

I´ve not read this in full, only skipped it, and what I´ve read is making me grind my teeth. How about everyone who is offended by BIS move to go futuristic goes to learn how to program and puts out a competitive product to teach them a lesson or something.

Meanwhile, I´ll enjoy the game. Sorry, but some of you guys are not fun to read. :/

[Magog 10]

Oh, like a bandit group of russians invading some piss ant islands off the coast of croatia nearly starting ww3 is soooo much different than a nato like force trying to hold an island in the middle of one of the most important sea trading routes... :j:

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.

But I'm sure your bitching and moaning is going to teach BIS something.

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

But tell me; what makes a mil-sim? Is it gameplay, or is it as you indicate, weaponry?

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.

[dmarkwick 261]

It seems that some people see "realistic", "simulator" and "existing" as meaning the same thing.

"Realistic" - does the thing act close to it's real life counterpart? Most people seem to limit this to equipment only. I include behavior in this also. In fact I would place behavior above all else in ArmA. Maybe that's why I look forward to A3 :)

"simulator" - does the thing act close to how it would act IRL. Doesn't need to necessarily exist - nearly all vehicles exist in a simulator before *actually* existing. But does it respond appropriately?

"Existing" - does it exist :)

[-Luc- 10]

Hi,

I'm fully agree with Magog.

He explains in a much better English than me (not my first language) what I think of ARMA 3.

I'm also surprised by the immaturity and lack of respect of the mainstream tenants.

Thank you,

-Luc-

[dmarkwick 261]

Well I would apologise to anyone if I made any elitist or dismissive comments :) I just try to respond to what I see as either misconceptions or wild assumptions.

[-Luc- 10]

Hi,

Well I would apologise to anyone if I made any elitist or dismissive comments :) I just try to respond to what I see as either misconceptions or wild assumptions.

Your comments are good, but not everyone like you...

Thank you,

-Luc-

[-GR-Operative 10]

"Realistic" - does the thing act close to it's real life counterpart? Most people seem to limit this to equipment only. I include behavior in this also. In fact I would place behavior above all else in ArmA. Maybe that's why I look forward to A3 :)

You are right, of course. But now tell me how to properly depict a vehicle that doesn't exist realistically? :eek:

Also, if you put behaviour above everything in ARMA, is it okay to change the setting to, let say, prehistoric world or space warfare in ARMA4?

I'm not at all against near future, almost present, setting, I just don't fell it can be depicted correctly: tell me a realistic future-based game. It's only possible to simulate correctly the present. Also, I'm not a BIS follower nor do I put them in an altar, but they make great games and should be respected in their decisions, even if them may turn away some of their fans (for some time only, as they will, most probably, end buying their game again).

[2nd ranger 282]

Operative;1958332']You are right' date=' of course. But now tell me how to properly depict a vehicle that doesn't exist [i']realistically[/i]? :eek:

Not to get into another Hamok debate, but that vehicle is so rooted in and close to reality that it couldn't be any easier to depict. It is a coaxial rotor helicopter. You consider its main characteristics, its weight, its aramament, and you base your simulation of it on these factors and your knowledge of existing aircraft, not to mention your experience of simulating such vehicles in the past. Call me crazy but I don't think BIS are winging it here.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Operative;1958332']

I'm not at all against near future' date=' almost present, setting, I just don't fell it can be depicted correctly.[/quote']

BIS isn't trying to predict the future (not entirely at least). This is the Armaverse, it's not the real world. Realism comes from the many parallels between the fictional content and the real world. Again, BIS isn't aiming for authenticity, but for general realism.

[zooloo75 834]

I don't care what the setting is, as long as the engine is the same and improved, I'm happy.

[custard~SPARTA~ 10]

I'll still buy it but I don't like the idea, this maybe irrational but hey.

[mrcash2009 0]

You know - there already exist the Photo-Stealth Camouflage Technology or Active Camouflage

Basicly that Technology is blending into your environment ,which creates perfect camo - sure it don't work 100% at the monent ,but in the future it can be done ;)

I was having a laugh here I must admit. I know about the tech you speak of too. Lets face it its open season ref test tech, the implementation on the field is just a financial issue or testing and waiting game for allot of it, so to put in the sim or not is the question.

Seems Future Soldier has that covered whereas A3 seems to be more balanced.

I dont actually mind the future thing anyway, mainly based on the fact its in the Arma engine that deals so well with mods to go any areas other than A3 vanilla anyway, so its all good in my view.

Edited June 17, 2011 by mrcash2009

[Sgt. Exodus 10]

Operative;1958332']You are right' date=' of course. But now tell me how to properly depict a vehicle that doesn't exist [i']realistically[/i]? :eek:

Fairly easily, with a little imagination.

Ok, it's 202x in the armaverse, NATO forces have finished a new heavily-armoured APC based around a Land-Rover style chassis.

I've already got the general shape restrictions, (a landie), another requirement is the heavy armour, so I'll have a look at what sort of armour we're using these days, a lot of it is angular and heavy-looking, so mould that around the existing chassis, get rid of the windows and replace them with slats, maybe some racks on the top and the sides for carrying equipment.

Put some more armour on the sides and give it bigger wheels, with a better suspension

Now we have a realistic looking vehicle. Now how would it handle?

Well, it wouldn't break any land speed records, but it would hit about 40 without too many problems.

Turning would be like a humvee, and the suspension would probably allow it to sway a little going around corners, stopping would also be a little slow due to the weight of the armour and baggage.

Here we have a new, made-up vehicle that's realistic.

Help solve your question? :)

[paecmaker 23]

Originally written by Magog.

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.

well many games have ridicolus(misspelled) stories, I say that its not the story itself that is importent, its how they present it and tell it that atleast I feel is importent

[mr_centipede 31]

*sigh* people panicking about BIS going to the future will make the game bad. Personally I dont think so...

The M1A2 in the game(ARMA2) is hardly realistic at all, can be kill by RPG-7 in 2-3 shots. No laser range-finder, etc etc. But the game is still playable and fun.

When I as an infantry, encounter an armored units, wheter a BMP or a tank, generally as an infantry you dont go head to head with them. That is for me a Mil-sim. I'm sure ARMA3 will convey the same feeling. Whether the armor armed with a laser or something, the general rule still stands - infantry dont go head-to-head with armor. The tactics will generally be the same. The feeling will be the same. It's ARMA all the way

[nodunit 397]

well many games have ridicolus(misspelled) stories, I say that its not the story itself that is importent, its how they present it and tell it that atleast I feel is importent

What makes the story ridiculous? Whatever happened to the days of imagination where anything can happen?

[bangtail 0]

So why not have AT-ATs and snowspeeders if anything can happen? (j/k)

The reason some people are a little wary of this scenario/theatre is because for the first time, BIS are using weapons/platforms that don't exist.

All the previous games have used fictional places, which is fine, but they have only featured available weapons systems/platforms.

I'm not too worried about it because I don't really care about the SP/campaign component but I can see why it bothers some people.

[nodunit 397]

Sure if they can get away without lucasarts sueing them :P

But in all seriousness I'm not worried either, the vehicles are different but the applications remain the same and they aren't showing any signs of batshit crazy things like helicopter with magical negative magnetic shielding to repel bullets.

Edited June 18, 2011 by NodUnit

[bangtail 0]

Yah, exactly - it's not worth worrying about :)

[Perforator 10]

Fanciful imaginary weapons = self ridicule

BIS have left themselved exposed to ridicule and mockery from the bonafide military simulation communities.