Development Blog & Reveals

[nikiforos 450]

Vietnam all the way but I know that the jungle will destroy FPS with the current engine. But if the manage to overhaul or a new engine maybe then I say YES!!!

[chortles 263]

Whereas these days Cold War/modern will drive me away from a game, not towards... as in, I straight up won't play it without a future setting. Hell, next game I'm even looking at these days... is also set in 2035. :D

It will indeed be expanding what we have now, as stated many times by BIS, even going into brief hints that there will be more Civilians things as well, considering there were nothing but a few cars here and there in SP. As for going back to col war... That's a done deal, it's almost done to death just like zombies. Modern twists looks to be the way things are going now. To be quite honest, as long as no more fictional vehicles and weapons show up (at least to silly extents... Stealth A-10/Chinook <.<), than i'm fine with what we get, given it's immersive enough to believe it.

Ehhhhh, the Stealth Chinook idea at least purportedly had a real-world counterpart in rumors of such participating in the 2011 UBL mission alongside Stealth Blackhawks. Edited June 3, 2015 by Chortles

[froggyluv 2130]

ArmA 1 and ArmA 2 being a Cold War games? - those are modern day games

Most likely because of CWR2 - it felt like 3 games of that era as the interest level is always high for that here.

[onlyrazor 11]

If BIS' motivation for moving forward in time was to open up their creative possibilities, I don't see them basing a full game around AKs and AR-15s again, especially since it's a popular era for modders as well. Maybe an expansion pack for a future Arma game could provide the Cold War throwback at some point, but I don't think it's probable in the near future.

I'll let BIS surprise me. With a sidescroller WW1 Arma 4.

[chortles 263]

If BIS' motivation for moving forward in time was to open up their creative possibilities, I don't see them basing a full game around AKs and AR-15s again, especially since it's a popular era for modders as well.

It's a year-plus-old-by-now story, but that wasn't quite the original motivation... rather, after Operation Arrowhead it was decided to do something wildly different, only for that to eventually become Arma 3 (though the "futura" mentions in the RPT or in-game error messages reference this).

[Wiki 1558]

COD Black Ops 1 was in Cold War

And everything in Vietnam was Cold war era too.

[Alwarren 2765]

Operation Flashpoint, Arma 1, and Arma 2 were pretty much Cold War.

Er... are you aware what "Cold War" actually refers to? Here is a refresher. Arma 1 was set in the early 2000's, while Arma 2 was set in 2009 and stretching to 2015 in the PMC campaign. None of these games has anything to do with the Cold War.

On another note, non ex's instant weaponry? All of the weaponry in Arma 3 is simply Modern Tech. That's why people don't know what it is, a lot of them don't know what exists now. There are only a handful of things BIS decided they wanted to get creative with, like some DLC weapons, and the Stealth A-10 and Chinook. Those are the things I don't quite like either, if rather just be straight up modern weaponry.

Modern Tech like the MX?

I don't quite get the whole of the 2035 scenario. It was said that the designers wanted some artistic freedom, but ultimately didn't take it. Most of the weapons are re-labelled existing ones, like the Zafir/Negev, Katiba/KH-2002 or the horribly named Slammer/Merkava. Practially nowhere except for the MX and the stealth variants of the vehicles is there a lot of derivation from the originals. Ok, the KH-2002's rail is a bit higher in reality, and none of them shoots a fictitious 6.5 caseless round.

If they wanted to embrace the 2035 theme, IMO they didn't take if far enough. Augmented reality would be one thing that could have been added, as was apparently planned with the eyepatch helmets and google glasses but never actually implemented.

Bottom line, whatever the next Arma is, I want it to go back to REALITY. No more non-functional science fiction stuff, no more arbitrary weapon reshuffling. To be honest, looking at the earliest footage of Arma 3, it seems to me that almost EVERYTHING we have on the NATO side today was originally planned to be CSAT. You see OPFOR Hunters, and the first PhysX demonstration featured a hex-camo Namer. This looks like the decision to give the US Israeli tanks, give an Israeli machine gun to OPFOR and an Israeli assault rifle to FIA was rather a cost-saving measure instead of an artistic or design choice.

but had more of a feel for Cold War.

Cold War feel is US against SOVIET UNION. Have you actually played Arma 2 at all? Because TWS sights don't really feel Cold War at all.

---------- Post added at 20:31 ---------- Previous post was at 20:17 ----------

Whereas these days Cold War/modern will drive me away from a game, not towards... as in, I straight up won't play it without a future setting. Hell, next game I'm even looking at these days... is also set in 2035.

You'll be happy with XCOM 2 then, which is AFAIR also set in 2035.

It's all about personal preference, but let's face it, the demand for Cold War Rearmed on Arma and Arma 2 somehow gives away that the Cold War scenario is a rather popular (because underrepresented) one. I have said it a million times, and I will say it again, lacking any sort of background details, the current scenario is as unrelateable as it can get. There is not even the remotest idea who CSAT actually is (Is it only Iran, since we seem to be shooting a lot of Persians, or is it more than that?), why are the AAF the bad guys ("slaughtered half their population" is only SAID but never SHOWN in the campaign), there is only a short confused trailer showing the supposed political evolution in 2035, the scenario MIGHT have been interesting but lacks any sort of substance. I like to equate this to the horrible Star War prequel trilogy, which is basically the same. Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi are "good friends", but it is all forced on us (just like the laughable romance in the movie) through the typical "Look here (neon sign) they are totally, like, friends and shit" while nothing of it is actually visible or felt in the movies. I feel the same about the current Arma 3 scenario. Decoupled from reality, it's an amorphous mass of unrelated buzzwords and factions thrown at you with neon signs saying "bad guys" and "good guys" in typical black-and-white painting. While any good story has at least some sort of antagonist, the campaign and scenario doesn't. No General Guba that you can hate (or even relate to, if you so desire), just a faceless mass of evil middle-eastern guys.

If you want that, fine, but I want substance. It doesn't HAVE to be Cold War. It just has to be something I can relate to, and seeing how the "dramatic" capabilities of the writers of the campaign is, I think it might be easier to go for a known scenario that doesn't need a lot of introduction to be able to understand and relate to.

But hey, I have derailed the discussion long enough, I'm fine with people having different opinion, even though I cannot see any good argument. Hint "It feels like Cold War" is are so-called weasel words.

[zukov 483]

COD Black Ops 1 was in Cold War

And everything in Vietnam was Cold war era too.

vietnam's war is a dream but will not happen ever

[2nd ranger 282]

This looks like the decision to give the US Israeli tanks, give an Israeli machine gun to OPFOR and an Israeli assault rifle to FIA was rather a cost-saving measure instead of an artistic or design choice.

This is one of the main reasons I look forward to the expansion; it's more likely that we will see assets and storylines that were actually planned from the beginning of its development, rather than a bunch of stuff that was rehashed, repurposed and retconned after development setbacks led to the demise of the original design direction.

the horribly named Slammer/Merkava.

Maybe General Bill Slammer made a name for himself in the 2020s :rolleyes:

[chortles 263]

If they wanted to embrace the 2035 theme, IMO they didn't take if far enough. Augmented reality would be one thing that could have been added, as was apparently planned with the eyepatch helmets and google glasses but never actually implemented.

Full agreement here, mind you, Arma 3 is actually one of the more "low-tech" 2035-set games and even Black Ops 2 made use of the future warfare concept despite being set in 2025.

As far as the MX though... it's the same Bohemia that had the US Army toting Mk 16/Mk 17 SCARs as far back as OA, so it wasn't as much of a stretch for me to think that the US Army adopted a new weapon once the caliber change to 6.5 mm was decided... if only because the caliber change is arguably the more implausible of the two. ;) I do accept the rebuttal that such a US Army could theoretically have just rechambered their SCARs to 6.5 mm (config-only difference, while reusing the OA MLODs or remodeling them from scratch) but unless a dev says when the MXs were decided on/modeled -- that is, whether they were modeled/planned from the beginning with the Mk20 (F2000) as a placeholder or whether the Mk20 was supposed to be the default BLUFOR weapon as seen in 2011 -- it could be that such was never in the cards.

You'll be happy with XCOM 2 then, which is AFAIR also set in 2035.

Considering what Firaxis revealed, I am happy as a clam! :D Though I dare to claim legitimate "gameplay, not just setting" as far as my happiness. :D

@ Zukov: Framerate questions aside it's also a matter of interest; an old article from ~2005 back when Game 2 was under development (as Operation Flashpoint 2) had Maruk flat-out ruling out a Vietnam War setting with a particular vehemence, so unless he's changed his mind on that...

This is one of the main reasons I look forward to the expansion; it's more likely that we will see assets and storylines that were actually planned from the beginning of its development, rather than a bunch of stuff that was rehashed, repurposed and retconned after development setbacks led to the demise of the original design direction.

While the campaign change due to the winter-of-2012 jailings is what it is, are we both hoping for "the campaign that could have been there had the money been there earlier"? The Eurogamer article pretty much implies that the plot was made to fit the chosen (and presumably already worked-on) terrain rather than the other way around -- that is, it's set on Altis because Bohemia had done up eventual-Altis (previously Limnos) even before "Futura" became Arma 3 -- but I'm guessing that it's the flip-side of what Bohemia mentioned in their solicit for external 3D artists, that "more help means more content!" Edited June 4, 2015 by Chortles

[runekn 3]

I don't quite get the whole of the 2035 scenario. It was said that the designers wanted some artistic freedom, but ultimately didn't take it.

I'm pretty sure that making other models than the same M4s and AKs was the artistic freedom they wanted. Freedom as in: "We're free to look elsewhere than the standard assets that has been done to death."

[Wiki 1558]

All I need for the expansion, short of new assets / units / factions of course, is a good, long, immersive linear campaign.

I've been quite disappoited of BIS campaign since ArmA 1.

Some of them have 1 or 2 interesting mission, but nothing more.

For example, Resist from Kydoimos or In Our Time were much better than East Wind IMHO.

[gliptal 25]

I just wish for the old OFP campaign vibe.

Yay!

[chortles 263]

I'm pretty sure that making other models than the same M4s and AKs was the artistic freedom they wanted. Freedom as in: "We're free to look elsewhere than the standard assets that has been done to death."

Pretty much the upside of going non-Cold War/non-contemporary for me, at this point they don't even add immersion or relatability for me.

I just wish for the old OFP campaign vibe.

This one's a tricky thing -- how do you define "the old OFP campaign vibe", and in particular how can you define it in terms of specific things that can be done as opposed to a "feel" that may well have simply been a product of its time and not something that can be consciously reproduced?

[das attorney 857]

I like to equate this to the horrible Star War prequel trilogy, which is basically the same. Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi are "good friends", but it is all forced on us (just like the laughable romance in the movie)

lol

[ericcartman3470 4]

BI shows their new ArmA 3 Map on the E3 2015 PC Gaming Show:

http://arma3.com/countdown

Edited June 4, 2015 by EricCartman3470

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Er... are you aware what "Cold War" actually refers to? Here is a refresher. Arma 1 was set in the early 2000's, while Arma 2 was set in 2009 and stretching to 2015 in the PMC campaign. None of these games has anything to do with the Cold War.

Modern Tech like the MX?

I don't quite get the whole of the 2035 scenario. It was said that the designers wanted some artistic freedom, but ultimately didn't take it. Most of the weapons are re-labelled existing ones, like the Zafir/Negev, Katiba/KH-2002 or the horribly named Slammer/Merkava. Practially nowhere except for the MX and the stealth variants of the vehicles is there a lot of derivation from the originals. Ok, the KH-2002's rail is a bit higher in reality, and none of them shoots a fictitious 6.5 caseless round.

If they wanted to embrace the 2035 theme, IMO they didn't take if far enough. Augmented reality would be one thing that could have been added, as was apparently planned with the eyepatch helmets and google glasses but never actually implemented.

Bottom line, whatever the next Arma is, I want it to go back to REALITY. No more non-functional science fiction stuff, no more arbitrary weapon reshuffling. To be honest, looking at the earliest footage of Arma 3, it seems to me that almost EVERYTHING we have on the NATO side today was originally planned to be CSAT. You see OPFOR Hunters, and the first PhysX demonstration featured a hex-camo Namer. This looks like the decision to give the US Israeli tanks, give an Israeli machine gun to OPFOR and an Israeli assault rifle to FIA was rather a cost-saving measure instead of an artistic or design choice.

Cold War feel is US against SOVIET UNION. Have you actually played Arma 2 at all? Because TWS sights don't really feel Cold War at all.

---------- Post added at 20:31 ---------- Previous post was at 20:17 ----------

You'll be happy with XCOM 2 then, which is AFAIR also set in 2035.

It's all about personal preference, but let's face it, the demand for Cold War Rearmed on Arma and Arma 2 somehow gives away that the Cold War scenario is a rather popular (because underrepresented) one. I have said it a million times, and I will say it again, lacking any sort of background details, the current scenario is as unrelateable as it can get. There is not even the remotest idea who CSAT actually is (Is it only Iran, since we seem to be shooting a lot of Persians, or is it more than that?), why are the AAF the bad guys ("slaughtered half their population" is only SAID but never SHOWN in the campaign), there is only a short confused trailer showing the supposed political evolution in 2035, the scenario MIGHT have been interesting but lacks any sort of substance. I like to equate this to the horrible Star War prequel trilogy, which is basically the same. Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi are "good friends", but it is all forced on us (just like the laughable romance in the movie) through the typical "Look here (neon sign) they are totally, like, friends and shit" while nothing of it is actually visible or felt in the movies. I feel the same about the current Arma 3 scenario. Decoupled from reality, it's an amorphous mass of unrelated buzzwords and factions thrown at you with neon signs saying "bad guys" and "good guys" in typical black-and-white painting. While any good story has at least some sort of antagonist, the campaign and scenario doesn't. No General Guba that you can hate (or even relate to, if you so desire), just a faceless mass of evil middle-eastern guys.

If you want that, fine, but I want substance. It doesn't HAVE to be Cold War. It just has to be something I can relate to, and seeing how the "dramatic" capabilities of the writers of the campaign is, I think it might be easier to go for a known scenario that doesn't need a lot of introduction to be able to understand and relate to.

But hey, I have derailed the discussion long enough, I'm fine with people having different opinion, even though I cannot see any good argument. Hint "It feels like Cold War" is are so-called weasel words.

To be honest, i could care less about Cold War/WW2, and Vietnam. Well, kinda Vietnam. What would be awesome? Modern Asia setting. There's something about certain Asia based geography, it may be the epic mix of water and land. However, i guess we should wait. Maybe one day we'll get something that awesome. =P

Yeah, the MX was actually designed by CMMG in coordination with BIS, so technically... it's real. It's basically a lighter MK-16/17 with an in between round to suffice stronger than 5.56, but close enough to 7.62. Also, you only need one ammo type with a standard round. Though, i would have loved it they stuck with the Original ACR design. Anyhow though, the cold war was an interesting time... They had some weird looking vehicles for alot of purposes.

---------- Post added at 15:09 ---------- Previous post was at 15:08 ----------

BI shows their new ArmA 3 Map on the E3 2015 PC Gaming Show:

http://arma3.com/countdown

http://abload.de/img/armaqzam2.jpg

I saw that too. Does that flat sloped hill in the middle look kinda like a Volcano to you guys?

[papanowel 120]

BI shows their new ArmA 3 Map on the E3 2015 PC Gaming Show:

http://arma3.com/countdown

http://abload.de/img/armaqzam2.jpg

Let's hope for a brand new and refreshing terrain.

I guess we will not see any river or stream :(

[froggyluv 2130]

Now that I think about it, if this expansion is coming with a fully fleshed 3d editor, that means building floors will (should!) now be defined. Oh the possibilities............

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

It could be coast line, but it actually looks like a lake.

[Undeceived 392]

I think it's the coast line, Dark, check the flat horizon on the left

[onlyrazor 11]

The lack of pre-reveal ARGs disappoints me. Used to be we had to work hard for information before an official reveal came up. Obviously this is another symptom of BIS dumbing the Arma series down for the unwashed masses.

Yes, sarcasm.

[Kydoimos 915]

Anyone see the stars? :D Doesn't look like the northern hemisphere to me...

[Greenfist 1863]

Anyone see the stars? :D Doesn't look like the northern hemisphere to me...

http://www.reddit.com/r/arma/comments/38jjei/arma_3_new_terrain_is_in_the_southern_hemisphere/

The raw image of the stars in the teaser shows the constellation Crux, which is a deep southern hemisphere constellation not visible from the northern hemisphere. Judging by the angle of the constellation next to the horizon, we can assume that this terrain is near the equator and not far south, which places it somewhere in the tropics. Your guess as to which continent it is on!

I can't spot it though.

edit. got it.

Stars align just fine. The purple ones are from the countdown site, green ones from Chile, at dawn (like on the site) in November: (not necessarily Chile, but southern hemisphere is certain.)

http://i.imgur.com/SdWtB33.png

Edited June 4, 2015 by Greenfist

[Chairborne 2594]

BI shows their new ArmA 3 Map on the E3 2015 PC Gaming Show:

http://arma3.com/countdown

http://abload.de/img/armaqzam2.jpg

H Y P E D

Y

P

E

D

:cool: