Is ArmA 3 Futuristic? Yes. Realistic? Maybe.

[Nicholas 5]

This thread is intended to explain the difference of futuristic and realistic, which it seems most people are getting mixed up. Please read the following definitions before we begin:

Definitions:

Futuristic - Of, characterized by, or expressing a vision of the future.

Realistic - Tending to or expressing an awareness of things as they really are.

ArmA III is set in the future. No one has the ability to decide what is realistic and what is not, except Bohemia of course. Unless you can see into the future, which I doubt you can, you can't describe the future as being realistic or not. This is also the Armaverse, not the real world. It may be realistic or unrealistic in terms of graphics or physics, but I am talking about the content of the game. So those of you who are describing ArmA III as being unrealistic or realistic, you are wrong. It is futuristic. We won't know if it's realistic or unrealistic until we are actually living in the years that ArmA III takes place in.

Please, stop complaining that it is unrealistic and start referring to it as futuristic. If you don't like it being futuristic, then tough luck, because you're always moving into the future. The future is tomorrow, next week, next year, or even decades from today. Remember, futuristic, not unrealistic/realistic!

Thank you for your time.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Nicholas

[JakeWed 10]

Well, Their is Kinda a Line, You can say a Futuristic Game is Un-Realistic

As You know, On Earth we cant just Randomly jump From two legs strait up and Move 5m Forward, its Physically Impossible

Or hitting a 50kg Steel Box (As ArmAIII Has Physics) with a 5.56 Round from a M16 Series Rifle and it Flying off 2km...

Having Realism simply Means that it is Realistic due to the Laws of Physics and Science (my 0.50 anyhow) and Not having Complete Crap that's in some other games (Like Jumping and 'Sniping' Someone though a scope in Mid Air)

[Nicholas 5]

JakeWed, I'm talking about the content. Not the physics or graphics. Content. You cannot call the content of a futuristic game realistic or unrealistic, because it's the future.

[Zipper5 74]

Oh God, a whole thread devoted to this crap...

I'll give it a chance but there is a very short leash involved here.

[Nicholas 5]

Oh God, a whole thread devoted to this crap...

I'll give it a chance but there is a very short leash involved here.

Crap? I'm helping BIS out here.

[Praelium 0]

I think the easiest way to end this debate is to point out that futuristic =/= lasers and spaceships. In fact, I believe that the original Arma was set in the future and it's clear that this is just a way for BIS to include a little bit of "plausible fantasy" into their games.

[Nicholas 5]

Basically:

Futuristic =/= Realistic or Unrealistic

[Windexglow 10]

Opinions. Mine is right, so shut up.

[Nicholas 5]

Opinions. Mine is right, so shut up.

I'm totally open to opinions. I just had to point out to JakeWed that I was talking strictly about the content of the game, and not the graphics or physics. If you don't have anything useful or constructive to add, then don't post. ;)

[rye1 21]

You've already seen content of the game that is real in todays times. And if it goes into futuristic levels that are believable then I will cope. :p

[Zipper5 74]

Crap? I'm helping BIS out here.

It just perpetuates these silly and sometimes outlandish arguments. As I said, I'm giving it a chance to prove me wrong.

Anyways, if we're looking at futuristic stuff here, then lets look the other way too - historical accuracy:

Does that look like any T-80 you've ever seen?

[Nicholas 5]

Further justifies my argument that people shouldn't be complaining if it is realistic or not. But a name can't be realistic or unrealistic, can it?

Example: Billy - That name is so realistic!

Edited June 29, 2011 by Nicholas

[nkenny 1051]

You've already seen content of the game that is real in todays times. And if it goes into futuristic levels that are believable then I will cope. :p

This.

However the argument can be applied in the wrong direction. US soldiers, wearing UK DPM, and RAIL modified Ukranian AKMs + eotechs are all technologies which are contemporary and therefore theoretically possible. It'd be a very tough and uphill struggle to sell this as a realistic scenario.

-k

[maturin 12]

Or hitting a 50kg Steel Box (As ArmAIII Has Physics) with a 5.56 Round from a M16 Series Rifle and it Flying off 2km...

That's the ballistic engine, not the physics engine. (Yes, I am aware that they are the same thing in reality.)

And the ballistics are fine. That's just a ricochet. If a 5.56 round is effective out to 800m with a flat trajectory, it will go for miles if it bounces up at an angle of 45 degrees with most of its velocity retained. Not sure how the weight of the surface it strikes is relevant, and steel is conducive to ricochets, being smooth and hard. Other times the round will bounce to the ground 2m away, as the system is randomized.

Edit: I just got what you said. Where have we seen videos of bullets hitting things?

Edited June 29, 2011 by maturin

[JakeWed 10]

Nowhere, Was Just Using it as a Example of Unrealistic Content, and Something It Would look like (Exaggerated of Course)

And Just Saying, Content can be used as a Umbrella Term, Covers Everything in the Game (Physics, Textures, Sound etc...)

And thats a Great Example of Unrealistic Stuff Even though its based in the Future NkEnNy, theoretically Possible but Practically Improbable

Edited June 29, 2011 by JakeWed

[stk2008 14]

See now the location/weapons have never been my concern I dont care what they use (with in reason) but want I do care about is the way the game plays eg like the last two ARMA`s they where great and dare I say it with ACE for me was the icing on the cake.

I like this series because its a SIM and love it so much and BIS of course ;).

As long as BIS keep the game in the SIM area I dont care what weapons/tanks etc they have in it.

[BlackAlpha 10]

This thread is intended to explain the difference of futuristic and realistic, which it seems most people are getting mixed up. Please read the following definitions before we begin:

Definitions:

Futuristic - Of, characterized by, or expressing a vision of the future.

Realistic - Tending to or expressing an awareness of things as they really are.

ArmA III is set in the future. No one has the ability to decide what is realistic and what is not, except Bohemia of course. Unless you can see into the future, which I doubt you can, you can't describe the future as being realistic or not. This is also the Armaverse, not the real world. It may be realistic or unrealistic in terms of graphics or physics, but I am talking about the content of the game. So those of you who are describing ArmA III as being unrealistic or realistic, you are wrong. It is futuristic. We won't know if it's realistic or unrealistic until we are actually living in the years that ArmA III takes place in.

Please, stop complaining that it is unrealistic and start referring to it as futuristic. If you don't like it being futuristic, then tough luck, because you're always moving into the future. The future is tomorrow, next week, next year, or even decades from today. Remember, futuristic, not unrealistic/realistic!

Thank you for your time.

The future == unrealistic, because it's not real. If it was real, it would be the present. So I just have to point out that your following comment is wrong and somewhat uncalled for: "So those of you who are describing ArmA III as being unrealistic or realistic, you are wrong." ;)

You are saying people use the word "futuristic" incorrectly to describe certain parts of ArmA3. But how do you really know they are using it wrong? If I say, "I don't like the commanche and I don't like ArmA3 because it's too futuristic and I prefer a more realistic game", then how am I using the word futuristic incorrectly? Futuristic means it's based in the future, it's most likely fiction (in one form or another) and therefore it's not real/realistic. Explain to me why people have to make a destinction between futuristic and realism. The word futuristic can be used to describe things that are/aren't realistic. Why should I twist the meaning of this word and jump through hoops to explain something that I could simply describe with one word, futuristic? :)

Personally, I think people already understand what they are saying when they use the word "futuristic" or "realistic". And people already understand that just because a game is sci fi, the underlaying gameplay could still be somewhat realistic. But they very deliberately use those words because they have a certain meaning. It's just that people say something you don't like to hear for some reason, so now you try to "educate" them on how wrong they are and what the "true meaning" of futuristic and realistic is, and you try to come off as if you are telling a fact. But it seems to me that your fact is actually your opinion, and your opinion is false, mister. ;)

Edited June 29, 2011 by BlackAlpha

[max power 21]

The future == unrealistic, because it's not real. If it was real, it would be the present. So I just have to point out that your following comment is wrong and somewhat uncalled for: "So those of you who are describing ArmA III as being unrealistic or realistic, you are wrong." ;)

You are saying people use the word "futuristic" incorrectly to describe certain parts of ArmA3. But how do you really know they are using it wrong? If I say, "I don't like the commanche and I don't like ArmA3 because it's too futuristic and I prefer a more realistic game", then how am I using the word futuristic incorrectly? Futuristic means it's based in the future, it's most likely fiction (in one form or another) and therefore it's not real/realistic. Explain to me why people have to make a destinction between futuristic and realism. The word futuristic can be used to describe things that are/aren't realistic. Why should I twist the meaning of this word and jump through hoops to explain something that I could simply describe with one word, futuristic? :)

Personally, I think people already understand what they are saying when they use the word "futuristic" or "realistic". And people already understand that just because a game is sci fi, the underlaying gameplay could still be somewhat realistic. But they very deliberately use those words because they have a certain meaning. It's just that people say something you don't like to hear for some reason, so now you try to "educate" them on how wrong they are and what the "true meaning" of futuristic and realistic is, and you try to come off as if you are telling a fact. But it seems to me that your fact is actually your opinion, and your opinion is false, mister. ;)

I agree. It's likes saying you can't give me a realistic forecast of what you will be doing tomorrow. And this game is based on the same sort of what ifs as all the other games. The people who are complaining must be complaining only about the kit... and well, I'm not sure how much endurance you can possibly have in such a shallow argument. The only thing that is actually futuristic and seems to be less likely that the scenario itself is the Hamok... but who knows, maybe Mil and Kamov merged in the future.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Max Power

[paecmaker 23]

Some people say its wron to say its realistic because its in the future. Well if not realistic then I say its plausible. The future in A3 is not impossible, it can happen so I would say its plausible. Its not a realitic future, its not an unrealistic future, its a plausible future.

[BlackAlpha 10]

So are you saying that you can't give me a realistic forecast of what you will be doing tomorrow?

Futuristic can be used to describe things that aren't realistic. However, I don't think I said futuristic equals unrealistic in all cases. If I did, then that's a mistake.

If that doesn't answer your question, then I'm not sure what you meant.

Edit: And it seems like you just edited your post and I'm now totally confused... :p

Edited June 29, 2011 by BlackAlpha

[purepassion 22]

i will sit down and enjoy, cause this is a impasse... ;)

[BlackAlpha 10]

Some people say its wron to say its realistic because its in the future. Well if not realistic then I say its plausible. The future in A3 is not impossible, it can happen so I would say its plausible. Its not a realitic future, its not an unrealistic future, its a plausible future.

That is probably the most correct answer if you have to sum it up into one word. And much better then the topic creator's way of trying to redefine the words realistic and futuristic.

ArmA3 is unrealistic because it's futuristic and contains works of fiction. However, even though the content of ArmA3 is futuristic, it is also plausible and not that far gone from the present day realities.

So from now on when describing ArmA3 I will simply say: "ArmA3 is plausible." Even when a friend asks me: "How's ArmA3?" I will reply: "It's plausible."

Edited June 29, 2011 by BlackAlpha

[Archosaurusrev 12]

ArmA3 doesn't have any laz0rs.

Screw you who cry "Bwaa, it's a few years in the future with some prototypes, UNREALISTIC!!!"

No one cried about the XM8, or the fictional countries....

[max power 21]

Futuristic can be used to describe things that aren't realistic. However, I don't think I said futuristic equals unrealistic in all cases. If I did, then that's a mistake.

If that doesn't answer your question, then I'm not sure what you meant.

Edit: And it seems like you just edited your post and I'm now totally confused... :p

I was agreeing with you and I started by writing down a rough sentiment I wanted to add but I accidently hit send before I built a post around it. I was at the pub earlier, you see :p

[maddogx 13]

No one cried about the XM8, or the fictional countries....

Actually, yeah they did. The hardcore realism brigade has been around here longer than you think. :)

But they did shut up eventually, thank god, so I'm hoping the same will happen here.