Development Blog & Reveals

[metalcraze 290]

ArmA 3 is not for you - It's even more of a hypothetical than the previous ArmA 2 games with their slightly different parallel Earth. It's an extrapolation of combat and gear 22 years into the future.

Me? I personally love that they're having a pretty good and realistic bash at what things might be like in 22 years time.

Is that why tanks are missing coaxial/commander guns and antimissile protections, Merkava is missing a mortar and enemies from different hemispheres wield exactly the same weapons?

I guess a tank that could defend itself was an obsolete concept and enemies that hate each other to a point they kill each other... share ammunition and guns/turrets to fire it.

Apparently in the future aviation is obsolete too and choppers that can only carry 8 people are the thing.

Come on man. Tell me you aren't serious.

[antoineflemming 14]

I would say it's ugly and I dislike it, same as I'm saying right now. Who said it's about realism, it's about immersion. If it's ugly and immersion breaking, well it's ugly and immersion breaking.

All I'm saying is it doesn't look right, and because of that it's immersion breaking. It would be like trying to sell me on Chevy's new concept in Need For Speed or iRacing or rFactor by sticking a stang ass end on a vette chassis. Go ahead and do it but it's gonna be butt ass ugly, it's not gonna fit right and you're going to catch a lot of flak because it's very far fetched and hard to believe, hence immersion breaking.

Well why is ugly immersion breaking? I guess that's the point I'm getting at. Is it because it's ugly and you don't like the design, or is it because it breaks the "immersion" into the game because it's not realistic? Because I fail to see what "ugly" has to do with immersion. Are you seriously telling me that every single helicopter or tank or IFV looks "good"? Are you seriously telling me there are no ugly vehicles in the real world? That's my point. Seems like your issue is that you simply don't like the look of something, and so you then complain about how ugly it is. That's why people cannot take your complaints seriously. Because your complaints aren't about what's realistic or not realistic. They are about design choices and about how you feel something isn't "right" simply because you don't like the look of something. You aren't going to get your wish because of that. You aren't going to succeed with your argument because of that. You aren't going to get anything from BIS simply because you don't like the design of BI's 2035 setting. You are asking for something you won't get. Arma 3 isn't going to all of a sudden ditch the future setting and return to the modern day because you don't like the design. It is "sad" that we are having this discussion again because this discussion has nothing to do with realism. It has nothing to do with what makes sense. It only has to do with what you think looks good, what is aesthetically pleasing to you.

@Alwarren I'm not addressing the issues like all factions using similar tech. That wasn't what was mentioned earlier. Specifically, it was the idea that the US would use a Merkava (yes, the US did in fact look at the Namer. Is it so implausible that at some point in the future, they'd consider the small possibility that buying another nation's armor would be cheaper than spending billions to put a new tank through design, production, and fielding for service? Because, yes, the US Army has been trying for a while to produce new armor), or that skids, specifically UH-1 skids, would be on a Lynx. While, sure, the UK might not feel a need to do so, is it impractical or implausible for them to do so? Is it at least possible? That answer is yes. Therefore BIS had taken upon themselves to choose a certain possibility that isn't impractical, illogical, or unrealistic to do so. It is simply your opinion that they wouldn't do that. And, I can understand how that'd be immersion-breaking for them to do something that, to you, seems unlikely. But that doesn't make it game-breaking. Everyone using the same hardware, well that is illogical and impractical and very unlikely, seeing as nations really like to have their own stuff. Even NATO allies don't share equipment. That, I agree with. The limitations that metalcraze speaks of, I agree with that. What I cannot agree with is making a big deal out of design choices that aren't unrealistic or game-breaking. It is not odd that the US would switch to a new rifle. They certainly switched to the M16 at a particular point in time. They certainly developed the M4 to replace the M16 at a certain point in time. Things change. Get used to it. Design choices are made for better or worse, get used to it (ACUPAT ring a bell?). Ugly designs are fielded as well as good looking designs, get used to it. It's not impractical, it's not illogical.

Mods, especially mods set in different time periods, do have something to do with Arma 2. But just because those mods existed doesn't mean there was something wrong with Arma 2's modern day setting. Nor did that mean that Arma 2 should have featured designs and hardware that was from those featured time periods. And, again, those are mods. Arma 2, vanilla Arma 2, in it's featured assets, had everything to do with the modern period. If you didn't like the modern period, or the modern assets, then you really didn't like Arma 2 wholistically. You liked RV3. And if you really can't stand the 2035 setting, which includes the vehicles, aircraft, ships, uniforms, vests, helmets, factions, and terrain, then what you're left with is liking the engine, RV4. That's what you like about Arma 3 then, because all those other features are designed and tailored around the 2035 setting that BIS has envisioned. I wouldn't say "Arma 3 isn't for you" but I would say, that if you are absolutely just dying for a modern setting (since you don't like the 2035 setting), modern assets (specifically M1A1 Abrams, M16s/4s, AK47s, Islamic terrorists/militants, asymmetrical warfare, etc), that a modern mod/addon is for you and what you should starting looking for or working on. Because you're not going to get that modern stuff in this game. You simply aren't. That is unlikely. That is impractical when BIS is already designing around the 2035 setting. Mods aren't to be a solution to problems, but the lack of modern stuff isn't a problem that needs fixing. So in that regard, you really should start looking for, asking for, or making a modern day mod/addon. Because that's the only way you're getting a modern setting and modern stuff in Arma 3.

[windies 11]

It's personal preference more or less. I dislike the new helicopter mainly because I find with the skids on their it looks out of proportion and kind of ugly, which is why I truly hope they're placeholder. If the skids matched the proportions of the helicopter itself better, I would find it more believable, So I guess it's both because I find it to be ugly and because I find it to break immersion because it doesn't seem plausible because for one, I know they're off a Huey and secondly because they just don't fit.

Thing is, I'm not saying that you liking something that I dislike is wrong. I'm just stating my opinion on it and honestly I'm just trying to defend it against the forum defense force. Even though I've said why I don't like it and why I feel it is immersion breaking, I don't need you or really anyone else to understand why, except for the developers with whom my opinion is directed towards. I'm not trying to stop you from saying "BI I LOVE THE NEW SKIDS ON THE NEW CHOPPER!!!11!!1" so why is it you feel the need to oppose me from saying I dislike the way the new chopper looks, or the way some of the mashup content looks or how believable it is? Maybe I won't get anywhere with the developers and maybe they won't change it, but I'm still allowed to voice my opinion. Why do you feel it's your prerogative to play Forum Cop on what is acceptable feedback/criticism and what isn't?

[antoineflemming 14]

It's personal preference more or less. I dislike the new helicopter mainly because I find with the skids on their it looks out of proportion and kind of ugly, which is why I truly hope they're placeholder. If the skids matched the proportions of the helicopter itself better, I would find it more believable, So I guess it's both because I find it to be ugly and because I find it to break immersion because it doesn't seem plausible because for one, I know they're off a Huey and secondly because they just don't fit.

Thing is, I'm not saying that you liking something that I dislike is wrong. I'm just stating my opinion on it and honestly I'm just trying to defend it against the forum defense force. Even though I've said why I don't like it and why I feel it is immersion breaking, I don't need you or really anyone else to understand why, except for the developers with whom my opinion is directed towards. I'm not trying to stop you from saying "BI I LOVE THE NEW SKIDS ON THE NEW CHOPPER!!!11!!1" so why is it you feel the need to oppose me from saying I dislike the way the new chopper looks, or the way some of the mashup content looks or how believable it is? Maybe I won't get anywhere with the developers and maybe they won't change it, but I'm still allowed to voice my opinion. Why do you feel it's your prerogative to play Forum Cop on what is acceptable feedback/criticism and what isn't?

Not my prerogative to play forum cop. Not playing forum cop. What you've said is perfectly acceptable feedback/criticism. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be allowed to post any criticism. I'm just saying that if I were you, I really wouldn't expect for BIS to scrap the 2035 setting for a modern one. That'd be like canning their entire game just to make Arma 2 on RV4. That's impractical. Also, the whole reason I was asking questions is to get at what you said, that it's personal preference. I was trying to figure out why people had such a problem with the future stuff in the game. Because unless I'm mistaken I've seen the argument that some of the future designs are somehow unrealistic. That's all. Not trying to tell you what to complain about. Just trying to better understand your argument. I mean, I think the helicopter itself, skids or no skids, looks ugly. :p But I was trying to be as respectful as possible, and do apologize if I didn't come across as such. Not trying to say your not liking the design of the choppers is wrong, just that it seemed that there was a sort of mixing of ideas that design = level of realism. Sorry if I misunderstood. Again, if I were you, I just personally think that there's a more likely chance of a modern setting mod than a modern setting Arma 3 or DLC at this point. But your criticism at least does let BI know that not everyone likes the future setting. And I hope they understand that there are probably even more people who don't like the copy-paste nature of their A3 assets.

[windies 11]

I'm not expecting them to really do anything, just providing feedback and criticism based on my point of view, that's all really. I'm not trying to hurt the developers by saying that I think the chopper is ugly but it's also my truthful and honest opinion. I at least said why I think it's ugly, and really if the skids were more proportioned, even if they kept the Huey skids but scaled them to better fit the chopper instead of just "tacking" them on, it would go a long way to making it less ugly. Instead though it just seems like they wanted to use pre-existing assets and tack them together to try and make something "new" without really putting in any effort to make it look right or proportioned or good and that's kind of lazy and annoying and I see a lot of that throughout ArmA 3. I know they have time constraints and are under the gun, but It's starting to go a little too far and it's probably why criticism seems more "hostile" when in reality it's more frustration.

[antoineflemming 14]

I'm not expecting them to really do anything, just providing feedback and criticism based on my point of view, that's all really. I'm not trying to hurt the developers by saying that I think the chopper is ugly but it's also my truthful and honest opinion. I at least said why I think it's ugly, and really if the skids were more proportioned, even if they kept the Huey skids but scaled them to better fit the chopper instead of just "tacking" them on, it would go a long way to making it less ugly. Instead though it just seems like they wanted to use pre-existing assets and tack them together to try and make something "new" without really putting in any effort to make it look right or proportioned or good and that's kind of lazy and annoying and I see a lot of that throughout ArmA 3. I know they have time constraints and are under the gun, but It's starting to go a little too far and it's probably why criticism seems more "hostile" when in reality it's more frustration.

It's ugly. I'm comforted that it's an AAF chopper and saddened that it's a real one used by the UK. lol. AH-64Ds, now those are beautiful choppers. :) Completely understandable what you're saying. Does seem like they are taking shortcuts. Don't see why they feel the need to rush to get out some AAF air and armor when they could take their time and make new stuff anyway.

[ravenholme 50]

It's ugly. I'm comforted that it's an AAF chopper and saddened that it's a real one used by the UK. lol. AH-64Ds, now those are beautiful choppers. :) Completely understandable what you're saying. Does seem like they are taking shortcuts. Don't see why they feel the need to rush to get out some AAF air and armor when they could take their time and make new stuff anyway.

I have to say that I hoped if the AAF got an attack chopper, it would be a Mangusta or Rooivalk. Maybe it could still happen, though the other sides would have to get another chopper too.

[progamer 14]

It might also be that people are a bit tired of seeing recycled assets. It's not only all the Merkava-based armour and same turret on all vehicles, it's also recycled assets from Arma 2. A lynx with skids looks weird, and IMO breaks immersion. Seeing real-life vehicles under different names is weird. That is why people complain.

TBH, I wouldn't mind recycled assets from Arma 2 if they were called Warrior, Lynx, etc. I dislike the mash-ups.

Yea, adding on random stuff and random content is not what people wanted from content. I bet if you removed all the camo from the weapons and vehicles, someone who knows nothing about the game would not be able to tell which asset belongs to which.

Why does every vehicle from Arma 2 have to be have something added to make them fictional? But now all the new fans drawn in will "fight" for fictional vehicles in every future Arma game.

---------- Post added at 01:46 ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 ----------

I have to say that I hoped if the AAF got an attack chopper, it would be a Mangusta or Rooivalk. Maybe it could still happen, though the other sides would have to get another chopper too.

They are not the AAF, they are mirrored generic superpower 3 will the same resources as the other two unfortunately.

---------- Post added at 01:47 ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 ----------

Statements made as to why they wanted fictional names with things like "rivet counting" seem extremely lazy from Arma 2.

---------- Post added at 01:50 ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 ----------

Not my prerogative to play forum cop. Not playing forum cop. What you've said is perfectly acceptable feedback/criticism. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be allowed to post any criticism. I'm just saying that if I were you, I really wouldn't expect for BIS to scrap the 2035 setting for a modern one. That'd be like canning their entire game just to make Arma 2 on RV4. That's impractical. Also, the whole reason I was asking questions is to get at what you said, that it's personal preference. I was trying to figure out why people had such a problem with the future stuff in the game. Because unless I'm mistaken I've seen the argument that some of the future designs are somehow unrealistic. That's all. Not trying to tell you what to complain about. Just trying to better understand your argument. I mean, I think the helicopter itself, skids or no skids, looks ugly. :p But I was trying to be as respectful as possible, and do apologize if I didn't come across as such. Not trying to say your not liking the design of the choppers is wrong, just that it seemed that there was a sort of mixing of ideas that design = level of realism. Sorry if I misunderstood. Again, if I were you, I just personally think that there's a more likely chance of a modern setting mod than a modern setting Arma 3 or DLC at this point. But your criticism at least does let BI know that not everyone likes the future setting. And I hope they understand that there are probably even more people who don't like the copy-paste nature of their A3 assets.

A modern game would not be just reused Arma 2 assets. Things have changed since then. MRAPS, active protection systems, more STOL and VTOL. New and better weapons.

---------- Post added at 01:51 ---------- Previous post was at 01:50 ----------

Devil is in the details for some people and I agree to an extent with a general dislike of some of the mashups in ArmA 3 and how I personally perceive them. As for the Lynx, it's kind of odd seeing the UH-1 skids on there, I agree with Alwarren that it does look kind of odd. I personally hope they are just placeholder and they will actually design some skids that flow or blend with the design of the helicopter and don't look like a lazy rip from other assets.

I also want to say that I don't have a issue with fictional names as much as I do with if an asset looks good or plausible for a real world counterpart.

Why add skids? People are just going to mod them off if they can or never use it and instead use the one from Arma 2 ported.

The question remains though, will the new fans drawn in liking the current content fight for fictional content for all future games? Or will we ever see a modern realistic Arma?

Edited November 28, 2013 by ProGamer

[antoineflemming 14]

A modern game would not be just reused Arma 2 assets. Things have changed since then. MRAPS, active protection systems, more STOL and VTOL. New and better weapons.

And you can have all those things with a near future game, but yet there are "new" weapons in Arma 3 that people can't stand specifically because they are new. You may not get another modern Arma game, if there is another Arma. The next Arma will probably take place soon after this one since the progression has been forward moving as far as the campaigns are concerned. But at what point was BI obligated to only make a modern, present-year game in the first place?

As far as the skids, there are versions with skids. They didn't make that up out of thin air. They added skids because there are versions with skids. If people are just going to mod them off (how do you know what people will do?), then oh well. But the issue isn't that it isn't realistic. Again, that's why I was asking all those questions, because some people still have this notion that if they don't like the design, that this makes Arma 3 unrealistic.

If someone who wasn't familiar with Arma 3 couldn't tell what major assets (tanks, planes, helicopters) belonged to which faction, then they wouldn't be able to tell even with the camo on. Just because Arma 3 has some fictional assets, which by fictional you must mean modern assets with modifications like a Lynx with skids, does not mean that every newcomer will want fictional stuff and will hate modern stuff. As for me, what I'd like to see, more than 10 year old, 20 year old, or 30 year old hardware, is BI adding assets in the game that are currently in the prototype phase. Or is that also too "fictional" for you?

Again, aesthetic design choices like skids vs no skids aren't a matter of realism, but a matter of personal design preference. Please don't confuse the two.

[dnk 13]

SO, why are you still here in the forum posting about Arma 3 when you don't care ?

I do not understand the logic behind this response at all. "Most" doesn't imply "all"...

Please give me your source of these stats. No way you are basing it all on your own assumptions, right?

It's as based on assumptions as the claim that the forums are representative of the whole game-playing community. However, it has the addition of common sense, which states that typically the more involved/dedicated fans participate on forums, while the more casual fans don't. That's human nature. You're free to substantively counter that or provide your own stats. Or you can disagree with human nature. Your call.

The problem is that BIS wastes time on a yet another copy-pasta instead of replacing ArmA3 stuff with something unique for once.

What do you want exactly? I think I've subtly made the point in this thread that real-world militaries "copy-pasta" all the time. We're still using "copy-pastad" F-16s from the 70s, B-52s from the 40s, and an updated "copy-pastad" M16 from the 60s/70s. Fast forward just 22 years into the future, and there's going to still be a lot of "copy-pastad" things from the current 2013 military, updated a bit. BI's filling out their futuretech with updated currenttech, which is more realistic than all armies being 100% futuretech.

And AAF totally needed a tank and IFV (which most likely will follow all other assets into a BF-like balance land) instead of being unique / worse than superpowers. All AAF has is a small island to call home but somehow they have enough finances to hold a top notch hi-tech army? Is BIS kidding?

And somehow the Iranians had F-14s in Iran-Iraq despite being a pissant 3rd-rate power. And somehow the Argentinians had weaponry to sink British warships in the Falklands. And somehow North Vietnam had recent jet fighters, Mi-8s, and up-to-date Chinese tanks during the US-VN war despite being a country of mired-in-poverty mud-farmers. That "somehow" is what's not explained, but it doesn't mean there can't be an explanation.

[garbol87 10]

Wow... It's a fictional game in a fictional setting with ficitional weapons. I think that BLUFOR and CSAT should get the "future" tech weapons vechicles and AAF the latest modern ones like the ones from ArmA2/OA. I think that this is what BIS is doing.

I FOR ONE WELCOME OUR NEW GREENFOR OVERLORDS!

Edited November 28, 2013 by Garbol87

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

I would say it's ugly and I dislike it, same as I'm saying right now. Who said it's about realism, it's about immersion. If it's ugly and immersion breaking, well it's ugly and immersion breaking.

The A-10 and the Glock in Arma 2 were so immersion breaking for me. Two of the ugliest weapons I can think of. Totally ruined the game for me. *nod*

[Vibrant_Viper 0]

I welcome the new content, but imo those skids makes the "lynx" look a bit like a christmas sled.

[byku 13]

To balance stuff up - I love the new equipment :).

[13islucky 10]

They are not the AAF, they are mirrored generic superpower 3 will the same resources as the other two unfortunately.

Wasn't this because people didn't get that the AAF was supposed to be undermanned and so they complained about it?

[carlostex 38]

The future setting is not so exciting for me either but it is what it is and it's what we have for Arma 3. Developers are human beings too, and they might get burned of doing the same era for every game. Arma 1 and 2 was modern day, OFP was late cold war and Arma 3 is future setting. I would like them to revisit James Gastovsky and Viktor Troska story, setting before the Resistance campaign, for Arma 4. But i don't think they'll be doing eras where there were no FLIR's and NVG's.

[petek 62]

Have to admit I'd like some continuing "fixes" to the current content too (coaxial and commander MG's for the tanks that don't have them - and why the coaxial on the slammer isn't at least a 7.62mm is beyond me.....)

Welcome additional content welcome - after all there were skins for the Pawnee and the Orca in Greenfor camo so at least it is something additional that's being added.

I hope we continue to see changes in the default load outs (I know it's unlikely now since episode 1 is out) but it's always annoyed me that the Greenfor had a 6.65 caseless autorifleman (rather than a more logical 5.56 SAW-type weapon) We've had changes for the CSAT autorifle and the EBR as a marksman weapon for the better in my opinion.

Still hoping for pistol attachments for all too....... I can dream;-)

[windies 11]

The A-10 and the Glock in Arma 2 were so immersion breaking for me. Two of the ugliest weapons I can think of. Totally ruined the game for me. *nod*

Your sarcasm and lack of understanding surrounding the concept of immersion in video games is duly noted.

[progamer 14]

The future setting is not so exciting for me either but it is what it is and it's what we have for Arma 3. Developers are human beings too, and they might get burned of doing the same era for every game. Arma 1 and 2 was modern day, OFP was late cold war and Arma 3 is future setting. I would like them to revisit James Gastovsky and Viktor Troska story, setting before the Resistance campaign, for Arma 4. But i don't think they'll be doing eras where there were no FLIR's and NVG's.

The future setting that has no future tech so the developers can be lazy. Just look at the fact that two weapons still have the wrong caliber. That would be unacceptable in Arma 2. They are moving towards a balanced hardcore arcade game to try and get a slice of that. COD and Battlefield money.

The good times were back when everybody though Arma 3 was going to fix Arma 2's realism problems and add ACE like features. But now most Arma 2 players stopped playing Arma 3.

[mistyronin 1181]

Why does every vehicle from Arma 2 have to be have something added to make them fictional? But now all the new fans drawn in will "fight" for fictional vehicles in every future Arma game.

Why add skids? People are just going to mod them off if they can or never use it and instead use the one from Arma 2 ported.

Some Lynx in real life have skids, you can check in my previous post for photos. Not exactly the ones in the new model, but anyone with a little bit of knowledge of military equipment know that that in every country the military customize its vehicles as they please.

BTW, Armies like the Cyprus one have all kinds of modern weapons and are not superpowers... For the matter take Israel itself, is a really small country and has Atomic bombs. All depends on the country's budget and big bros...

You ask for realism, and the truth is that most of the Arma series content its realistic ( some things are simplified, and others are adapted or mixted, but all are based in reality ).

[progamer 14]

Some Lynx in real life have skids, you can check in my previous post for photos. Not exactly the ones in the new model, but anyone with a little bit of knowledge of military equipment know that that in every country the military customize its vehicles as they please.

BTW, Armies like the Cyprus one have all kinds of modern weapons and are not superpowers... For the matter take Israel itself, is a really small country and has Atomic bombs. All depends on the country's budget and big bros...

You ask for realism, and the truth is that most of the Arma series content its realistic ( some things are simplified, and others are adapted or mixted, but all are based in reality ).

People complain that since the vehicles have fake names that they don't have to be realistic. There are many things about the future setting though that seem lazy. Like the tank weapons and mirrored assets with different meshes.

[mistyronin 1181]

People complain that since the vehicles have fake names that they don't have to be realistic.

That doesn't make any sense. In Arma series most of the vehicles have generic names. And its quite obvious that whatever name you want to give to a pear, its always gonna be a pear.

BTW, if by people you mean a few users... Its fine, but I have not seen any big movement in this forums asking for the real names. That may not even be possible due to copyright reasons.

There are many things about the future setting though that seem lazy. Like the tank weapons and mirrored assets with different meshes.

But in real life that happens. Tank bodies have been used with different turrets ( engineer, AA, Artillery etc. ). That started in world war 2, the Merkava is a nice example of that. On the other hand, Russian and American APC are more and more looking alike. In fact nowadays seems to be a fashion to make modular vehicles.

Edited November 28, 2013 by MistyRonin

[progamer 14]

That doesn't make any sense. In Arma series most of the vehicles have generic names. And its quite obvious that whatever name you want to give to a pear, its always gonna be a pear.

BTW, if by people you mean a few users... Its fine, but I have not seen any big movement in this forums asking for the real names. That may not even be possible due to copyright reasons.

But in real life that happens. Tank bodies have been used with different turrets ( engineer, AA, Artillery etc. ). That started in world war 2, the Merkava is a nice example of that. On the other hand, Russian and American APC are more and more looking alike. In fact nowadays seems to be a fashion to make modular vehicles.

Ou don't see tanks missing coaxial guns or commander guns in real life. Or weapons shooting the wrong caliber. But the new tank seem to show that the developers realized this.

What I mean is people downvote against ticket asking for vehicle to be more realistic.

[mistyronin 1181]

Ou don't see tanks missing coaxial guns or commander guns in real life. Or weapons shooting the wrong caliber. But the new tank seem to show that the developers realized this.

I agree that tanks could use a better weapons setup, for example I think that the Merkava "Slammer" should have a mortar build-in ( like the real life one ). But you complained before about the Lynx skids, and to tell you the true, it looks more practical and fit more the ones that BI have included in the AAF one, that the skids used in real life in that helo.

[NeuroFunker 11]

The good times were back when everybody though Arma 3 was going to fix Arma 2's realism problems and add ACE like features. But now most Arma 2 players stopped playing Arma 3.

seems i'm not everybody, bis said, they want arma 3 be more open towards new players, so that means, it had to be made simpler in some parts. I don't think a newcomer, will get much of a clue, why his bullets fly 10 meters to the right or left from the target, and how to measure wind and set it properly for the scope.