Jump to content
Dwarden

Development Blog & Reveals

Recommended Posts

I find it magnificent how big of a deal you can make out of this. I'm out until you've cooled down..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You gotta love these apologists. They've learned about ArmA3 only a few months ago from reading a bunch of articles about Wasteland and now they teach us about how half the game is missing is not an issue.

The amount of BIS "fanboys" on this forum is too damn high, defending every wrong mistake the devs make by giving the impression "We, the community, love you". We dont need planes, an editor or multiplayer either, because the community will fix this and why would you complain? The game is smooth and accessible so who cares about the rest.

And when good arguments (post #5459) are given just fucking ignore them completely, typical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have we seen any planes yet?

Do you think we will see them with the full release?

Actually Im getting more and more dissapointment for every day.

No optimizations and people are actually seeing lower frames instead of increased frames.

The only positive thing might be that I skip the upgrade of my system. No point of upgrading if the story will develop like that.

PS

Must add that a lot of people I know already stopped playing Arma 3

In the latest video we can saw L-159 ALCA which in game called A-143, if you open PBO, you can find F35, L-159 and C-130

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not even going to comment on this.

Not because I am angry at BI now, but because the community response is as raging as can be. Really? For years I´ve watched people in mod threads (going back to OFP times) saying that they do not care about the BI campaigns, they do not care about the BI Missions, and how the community does everything "teh best anyways" (remember the Armed Assault times when signatures like "BI delivers the Game, The community delivers the Content" were common?) and now this is suddenly a major problem?

You're starting to complain about the fact that BI has realized that especially the hard core community is very unsatisfied with many details in the simulation part, and that they want to focus on delivering those features before wasting tons of effort in coding for scripting a massive campaign that now needs to be used for making other things work that need to be put in to make the game work?

I do not get you.

Edit: However, I also have to add that my surprise at this revelation is everything but positive. Not sure if I can keep up my confidence, but since OFP was a very troubled development, the superstitious part of my brain urges me to actually take this as a good sign.

Edited by InstaGoat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's like an empty food store with all the ingredients you have already paid for. Sure it would be nice if someone would make the dinner for you, and that someone is coming, a bit later though.

But in the meantime, you could learn how to cook yourself just what you want. Or just eat some crackers.

Well, enough of metaphors, I've got work to do.

It's more like buying a car or a house, and finding yourself with all the pieces needed to mount and build. It's not something you mount in half a hour, exactly. A set of good, complex, varied, well balanced missions need several months of development (not counting several months of learning!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not even going to comment on this.

Not because I am angry at BI now, but because the community response is as raging as can be. Really? For years I´ve watched people in mod threads (going back to OFP times) saying that they do not care about the BI campaigns, they do not care about the BI Missions, and how the community does everything "teh best anyways" (remember the Armed Assault times when signatures like "BI delivers the Game, The community delivers the Content" were common?) and now this is suddenly a major problem?

You're starting to complain about the fact that BI has realized that especially the hard core community is very unsatisfied with many details in the simulation part, and that they want to focus on delivering those features before wasting tons of effort in coding for scripting a massive campaign that now needs to be used for making other things work that need to be put in to make the game work?

I do not get you.

I totally agree with you, it's just a matter of patience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're starting to complain about the fact that BI has realized that especially the hard core community is very unsatisfied with many details in the simulation part, and that they want to focus on delivering those features before wasting tons of effort in coding for scripting a massive campaign that now needs to be used for making other things work that need to be put in to make the game work?

a) BIS doesn't care about the "hardcore community", they aren't focusing on simulating anything. Where did you even get the idea they do any of those?

b) Mission designers do not work on programming and features (although with the level of incompetence of ArmA3 team you can never know)

c) Keep encouraging BIS to do this again and again. Why bother doing a quality product when people pay money anyway.

Edited by metalcraze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not even going to comment on this.

Not because I am angry at BI now, but because the community response is as raging as can be. Really? For years I´ve watched people in mod threads (going back to OFP times) saying that they do not care about the BI campaigns, they do not care about the BI Missions, and how the community does everything "teh best anyways" (remember the Armed Assault times when signatures like "BI delivers the Game, The community delivers the Content" were common?) and now this is suddenly a major problem?

You're starting to complain about the fact that BI has realized that especially the hard core community is very unsatisfied with many details in the simulation part, and that they want to focus on delivering those features before wasting tons of effort in coding for scripting a massive campaign that now needs to be used for making other things work that need to be put in to make the game work?

I do not get you.

Not the same people.

Its like the 'Americans are prude, yet have the largest porn industry' argument. Those are not the same people either. The community, like the US, consists of more than 1 person, and thus has more than 1 opinion.

EDIT: Anyway, i am quite happy with the complains. It shows that there are still people who care about a decent SP experience. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What a load of Overreacting.

The campaign -Will Come Soon After Release-.

With the release we Will still get a massive amount of stuff. Stuff that has demanded a Lot of hard work.

With all the massive amount of stuff we get, we'll get a promise that things will be polished and tweaked long afterwards, if something somehow didn't work, or could work better.

And still some seem to be full of rage.

I really can't understand why. I try, but really can't.

You are missing the point completely buddy. This feels as though BIS are pulling the rug from under us all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a translated to english version of the interview that sparked all this available somewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not even going to comment on this.

Not because I am angry at BI now, but because the community response is as raging as can be. Really? For years I´ve watched people in mod threads (going back to OFP times) saying that they do not care about the BI campaigns, they do not care about the BI Missions, and how the community does everything "teh best anyways" (remember the Armed Assault times when signatures like "BI delivers the Game, The community delivers the Content" were common?) and now this is suddenly a major problem?

You're starting to complain about the fact that BI has realized that especially the hard core community is very unsatisfied with many details in the simulation part, and that they want to focus on delivering those features before wasting tons of effort in coding for scripting a massive campaign that now needs to be used for making other things work that need to be put in to make the game work?

I do not get you.

Because "BI community" is not a single entity, maybe? For example, I played the games since Operation Flashpoint, and I never said anywhere that I do not care about a campaign or sp missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Inhale...... exhale.... slow and steady....

Seriously guys, you need some patience in your lifes. It's not like you've been told you'll die in a car crash day after release.

It's only the campaign, you'll still get Altis, more apcs, tanks, jets, more official scenarios and much much more.

It's exactly this kind of comment that is not only off topic, uncalled for, but also does the exact opposite of what it is meant to do.

We're also not talking about some hobby project here, but a commercial enterprise. We're customers, we've already pre-paid for something (and as you can see, I got the supporter edition), and now we hear that what they promised isn't actually in.

So, really this sort of comment is totally uncalled for and off-topic to boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not even going to comment on this.

Not because I am angry at BI now, but because the community response is as raging as can be. Really? For years I´ve watched people in mod threads (going back to OFP times) saying that they do not care about the BI campaigns, they do not care about the BI Missions, and how the community does everything "teh best anyways" (remember the Armed Assault times when signatures like "BI delivers the Game, The community delivers the Content" were common?) and now this is suddenly a major problem?

You're starting to complain about the fact that BI has realized that especially the hard core community is very unsatisfied with many details in the simulation part, and that they want to focus on delivering those features before wasting tons of effort in coding for scripting a massive campaign that now needs to be used for making other things work that need to be put in to make the game work?

I do not get you.

Edit: However, I also have to add that my surprise at this revelation is everything but positive. Not sure if I can keep up my confidence, but since OFP was a very troubled development, the superstitious part of my brain urges me to actually take this as a good sign.

Dude.

During the video ,published as part of a series of articles of the german PC Games.de magazine, alongside of a look at Altis, the MBT's and other new units, it was said that the initial release will not contain the campaign in order to make the core game-features more sophisticated and polished.

Dunno about you, but to me this means polishing/finishing existing features. Not adding features that the "Hardcore community" has been begging for, for years.

Edited by PurePassion
cleaning up the duplicates...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They spend 3 years developing the game. I guess they need another 3 so the campaign will be polished?

"Full content"? It's not full if it doesn't have a campaign.

Oh dear. Thank god I didn't decide to go to the game developement business.

I've done 3D-modelling, texturing, artwork and other stuff though.

And I know when something has been done with a real effort and when it's not. Seen enough of crappy models and textures, poor maps, poor design.

Arma 3 models and textures and design has been excellent and high quality. It takes a lot of time and hard work.

Even if the campaign design was started years ago, there has to be changes all the way while other aspects, especially the AI is tweaked, or the campaign would just not work.

There has never been any arrogance on BI side. They really want to make a damn good game experience. Why wouldn't they?

The developers even discuss direct with the community about the tweaking of the game. I can't see why they would deserve to be called "incompetent" or "lazy" or why on earth some members of the community is overly "disappointed".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They really want to make a damn good game experience.

Butchering features, going back on promises that made people buy ArmA3, dumbing down the game isn't exactly "really wanting to make a damn good game experience"

Why wouldn't they?

Because we already paid money. And their new target audience doesn't care about ArmA as we can see in this very thread. As long as Wasteland or whatever works - who cares about the rest of the game.

The developers even discuss direct with the community about the tweaking of the game.

Except they do it after the outrage that the lack of communication caused while staying almost silent up until the end of June.

I can't see why they would deserve to be called "incompetent" or "lazy" or why on earth some members of the community is overly "disappointed".

Well I dunno dude. Maybe because people get only a half of what they have paid for and even that half is subpar compared to their previous products?

Totally can't see how that can be disappointing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Butchering features, going back on promises that made people buy ArmA3, dumbing down the game isn't exactly "really wanting to make a damn good game experience"

Because we already paid money. And their new target audience doesn't care about ArmA as we can see in this very thread. As long as Wasteland or whatever works - who cares about the rest of the game.

Except they do it after the outrage that the lack of communication caused while staying almost silent up until the end of June.

Well I dunno dude. Maybe because people get only a half of what they have paid for and even that half is subpar compared to their previous products?

Totally can't see how that can be disappointing.

You need to relax, metalcraze. BI is not evil. They are not trying to target any "COD audience". They just made wrong "priorities" during game design, and now they are paying for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not the point. In the Arma 3 development cycle, there has been so much backtracking on promises that were made and now there is another, pretty vital one to add onto that pile so close to the release date.

Imagine these scenarios:

  • You find out through a media video that there is going to be no MP on the release day in the final version because the netcode sucks and they want to improve it, someone comes on the forums and says "It's ok! Everyone who has the game will get FREE MP shortly after release!"
  • You find out through a media video that there is going to be no mission editor on the release day because there is something wrong with it, then someone comes on the forums and says "It's ok! Everyone who has the game will get FREE mission editor shortly after release!"

First scenario has already happened to BI with Carrier Command, and the MP isn't out even, what, almost a year after it's been released? Is that shortly? Sure it's not the same people behind two projects.

To show how funny this is, I'm going to compare it to the shittiest excuse for a game which is WarZ, that was pulled from Steam when Valve realized that things that were advertised were not in the game that was marked as "finished" and refunds were given to whoever wanted them. This is the same stance I expect Valve to take for every title that does that, and I'm disappointed that BI has decided to go down that path. Luckily BI might be able to dodge this because they aren't exactly saying what's going to be in the final game.

going to react on this one, CC: GM had never promised that there will be MP , there was only possibility it might happen ... the title was developed as SP, marketed as SP and sold as SP ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a) BIS doesn't care about the "hardcore community", they aren't focusing on simulating anything. Where did you even get the idea they do any of those?

b) Mission designers do not work on programming and features (although with the level of incompetence of ArmA3 team you can never know)

c) Keep encouraging BIS to do this again and again. Why bother doing a quality product when people pay money anyway.

It is a Battlefield simulator. It doesn´t simulate any of the assets to maximum detail of functionality, it attempts to simulate the whole picture with focus on the infantry level. However, that´s my stance, and not the official stance and in fact I think so far no one has even really defined what kind of "Simulator" Arma is/was supposed to be. I dunno, but I never looked at OFP being a simulator back then in the first place. It was a fun game that had a type of unique and engaging gameplay that went along with my interests: modern combat.

And from a business perspective, I do not know how lucrative the hardcore community is to begin with. If you owned a company, would you try to sell to a group where you knew you wouldn´t get your money back in the first place? Arma 3 has top notch assets in it right now, and along with the other titles being worked on right now, millions of euros have been invested. 70 people x 2000 € (That's way below half of the reported monthly average net income of european developers in games development, and about 1000~ short of average entry pay for games developers in Sweden) x 12 x 3 is 504000,- €. I do not know what taxes are, but in germany you would need to double that amount -at least- to get what the company actually has to pay. If you assume everyone gets the average pay (4300 €) you double the 504.000,- roundabout, and double that again for taxes. So the dev team will have cost around 1.5 Million alone.

Add running costs for your assets, advertising, conventions (those are expensive, not even counting travel expenses.) as well as wastage, and considering that this isn´t the only game in development these numbers stack up quickly.

Two years ago they re-financed with an external investment of 3 mil, so by now money will be tight again, and while DayZ was lucky, I doubt that you can sustain a company from accidental sales from a mod for however long it´ll take before they will be able to finish Arma 3 to the standards we as a community are expecting. Also, DayZ by now is a major and deep re-write of the engine, so that will tie up more expensive man-hours that need to be paid for.

And I for one paid for the alpha full well knowing that I was paying for a BIS product, and it is only a game, and I expected things would not go smoothly at all. Especially after the greece debacle. If people went into it not expecting at least a few bumps, I feel sorry for them, but it doesn´t invalidate the fact that this development has gone rather shittily over a long time period, and that the fat needs to be cut where necessary.

In fact, I´d rather have them throw things out when they don't work, rather than keep them and make the game taste as bad as Arma 2 did again.

And I won't make any assumptions about what tasks the Mission designers fulfill: I do not know how BI organizes their team, and how task assignment is structured, and I don't really care either. All I want is a tightly packaged, polished game, with no nonsense attached. For example, another manhattan.

Because "BI community" is not a single entity, maybe? For example, I played the games since Operation Flashpoint, and I never said anywhere that I do not care about a campaign or sp missions.

Yes. I am an exclusive SP person too, I have said that often. However, I am pretty sure that I am not going to be dead one week after the game releases (knock on wood), and I have enough interest and time to wait for an excellent SP campaign, rather than a shitty one now.

This is what the complaints seem like:

"We don't want your fixed, non-buggy, polished campaign tomorrow, we want your buggy, badly designed, nonfunctional prototype campaign now!"

Remember Manhattan.

And even outside of the many, many rivet-counting issues Arma 3 has from the perspective of someone interested in Asset realism, there are many building sites in the program that need to be resolved, and I´d rather have them work on those right now, rather than diddledaddle about with non-matching AI/Assets and Campaign design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. I am an exclusive SP person too, I have said that often. However, I am pretty sure that I am not going to be dead one week after the game releases (knock on wood), and I have enough interest and time to wait for an excellent SP campaign, rather than a shitty one now.

This is what the complaints seem like:

"We don't want your fixed, non-buggy, polished campaign tomorrow, we want your buggy, badly designed, nonfunctional prototype campaign now!"

I disagree. The point isn't that nobody wants a functional, polished, and finished campaign, or a polished game. The point is that the game is going to be sold as a finished, polished and final product when it clearly isn't. And frankly, if I understood that interview correctly, the reason for the delay isn't the campaign, but rather the AI. The guy in the interview says "they don't want to repeat an Arma-2-debacle since they're not happy with the AI yet". This doesn't sound like "it's just the campaign", this rather sounds like "the AI is so broken that you cannot play the campaign because you'd notice". Granted, we don't know, and the way this got out was obviously unintentional, but we have to go with what we have.

What we are looking at here is a game that will be sold as a final product and clearly isn't. If people wanted that, they could buy the beta now, but anybody that hasn't bought the game yet will wait because they do not want an unfinished product.

I am a fanboy. I really am. I bought the supporter edition because I am, in spite of having been severely screwed over with ACR. But no amount of fanboyism should excuse the way that existing and new customers are treated here. The most obvious reaction to the issues would be to delay the game. Apparently, they don't want that. Fine. But then accept the fact that people will complain, and more so, accept the fact that people rightfully complain.

EDIT: And just to be clear on it, I am waiting mainly for Altis. I don't have a problem with waiting a few more weeks for a final release, however, as I mentioned ACR which hasn't been patched yet probably because Arma 3 takes preceedence: What if a few weeks after release, they have to say "sorry sales were so bad, we have to postpone the campaign because DayZ takes precedence".

Edited by Alwarren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
going to react on this one, CC: GM had never promised that there will be MP , there was only possibility it might happen ... the title was developed as SP, marketed as SP and sold as SP ...

You're digging a bigger hole here for yourself.

If I search for "carrier command multiplayer" on google, I'll find plenty of references to "no multiplayer on launch, but later", you'll find plenty of people who never followed these forums closely that got the impression that the MP for it is going to be included in a future patch. There are also plenty of reviews who absolutely plaster the game for not having multiplayer at all where it seems to be the thing that would incredibly improve the game. Saying things like what you just said makes you look untrustworthy. You know, if I said, "hey Dwarden, help me lift this heavy box to the top floor and I just might give you some money for your trouble" and then when it's all said and done, I say "Well? What are you expecting? I said I might, not that I will!" you'd tell me to piss off.

I hate to be that guy, but should I now list the features that were promised and marketed for Arma 3 that are most certainly not going to be in Arma 3 because of various reasons, that we've come to accept as not happening months ago but still haunt us through age old posts and videos from BI people?

I understand that things change, priorities shift, shit happens and whatnot, but there's a line where you lose credibility and understanding runs out, and from my perspective, a guy who's been and still is supporting you in numerous ways over the years, it's getting pretty damn close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what the complaints seem like:

"We don't want your fixed, non-buggy, polished campaign tomorrow, we want your buggy, badly designed, nonfunctional prototype campaign now!"

And even outside of the many, many rivet-counting issues Arma 3 has from the perspective of someone interested in Asset realism, there are many building sites in the program that need to be resolved, and I´d rather have them work on those right now, rather than diddledaddle about with non-matching AI/Assets and Campaign design.

Damnit I am supposed to be sleeping.

I gather the inverse from the "defenders". I think of it as you assuring me that because they removed the campaign that other features will work perfectly or that the campaign will be perfect because it was released later. That when the campaign is put back in it will work perfectly.

Atleast that is the only excuses I see being given.

They are taking it out because

1. Its a buggy pos right now and they want to fix it.

2. They are working on something else (or something to that effect)

Firstly I want to know how they know those are the reasons it was removed as iirc they said they will release a dev blog giving reasons. Otherwise shits being made up.

Furthermore I dont gather really anger at the removal of the camp, its more anger at they have to remove the camp. As it stands they seem to have more excuses than "insert x that gives a lot of excuses" and as much as I want to rec the game and give massive props to BI, I have to hesitate. Why? Because if they decided to look at recent history of BI as a company read the forums for a bit they would say This looks like some shady business.

Edited by Masharra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a Battlefield simulator. It doesn´t simulate any of the assets to maximum detail of functionality, it attempts to simulate the whole picture with focus on the infantry level. However, that´s my stance, and not the official stance and in fact I think so far no one has even really defined what kind of "Simulator" Arma is/was supposed to be. I dunno, but I never looked at OFP being a simulator back then in the first place. It was a fun game that had a type of unique and engaging gameplay that went along with my interests: modern combat.

I'm perfectly OK without any Falcon 4.0 level of a simulation. However when the game is advertised as "realistic" or "with simulation elements" I expect it to be like that.

But then I launch ArmA3 and see that a .50 cal antimateriel sniper rifle has a recoil and weight of a pistol, that I can put on ridiculous loads (eliminating the need for an ammo-bearing buddy) while BIS cuts out the last fatigue effect due to demands of casual players (even though march 5th alpha had a perfect solution for fatigue and ridiculous loads without any crappy blurring), that sides have copy pasted weapons and vehicles are mirrored even bearing exactly the same weapon systems, that there are insta-health regen medkits completely eliminating the need for a medic (and no I'm not going to unpack every mission and remove them by hand), that a lot more advanced ArmA2's first-aid system is out and isn't coming back, that TAB-lock is STILL in, that soldiers have built-in GPS into their heads (red circle on the map), that you can rotate around instantly no matter what weapon a soldier is holding or what stance he's in among many other things - I honestly can't say BIS cares about anyone but casual players.

And from a business perspective, I do not know how lucrative the hardcore community is to begin with. If you owned a company, would you try to sell to a group where you knew you wouldn´t get your money back in the first place?

How do you know ArmA wasn't selling well in the first place?

Of course catering to a casual player would bring in more money.

However the thing is ArmA3 was advertised as "we are not cutting anything out", "we are not dumbing down anything", "encumbrance system!", "advanced medic system!", "TOH flight model!".

If ArmA3 was advertised from a get go as Battlefield on big maps which it mostly is now - no problem then. After all I have no illusions about new Splinter Cell being a game for a casual player because they don't advertise it as a proper Splinter Cell to begin with.

If you do not want to cater to a "hardcore" community, if you think that "hardcore" community won't make your game be profitable - why advertise for it? That's a very unfair thing to do.

In fact, I´d rather have them throw things out when they don't work, rather than keep them and make the game taste as bad as Arma 2 did again.

How about fixing things that don't work? And not throwing out things that work?

And what's with this "ArmA2 tasted bad"? So it was buggy on release so what. Bugs can be fixed. Nobody is going to fix ArmA3 because its problems are not bugs.

"We don't want your fixed, non-buggy, polished campaign tomorrow, we want your buggy, badly designed, nonfunctional prototype campaign now!"

They had three years to make a campaign. And the fact that they still haven't manage to make it but going to release it "soon after release" means it will be very rushed, badly designed and buggy.

Edited by metalcraze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Butchering features, going back on promises that made people buy ArmA3, dumbing down the game isn't exactly "really wanting to make a damn good game experience"

Because we already paid money. And their new target audience doesn't care about ArmA as we can see in this very thread. As long as Wasteland or whatever works - who cares about the rest of the game.

Except they do it after the outrage that the lack of communication caused while staying almost silent up until the end of June.

Well I dunno dude. Maybe because people get only a half of what they have paid for and even that half is subpar compared to their previous products?

Totally can't see how that can be disappointing.

Overreacting still.

"Butchering features" "dumbing down" .. What?

"We already paid! Now they forget us because they have a new target audience, those money hungry &%/&%ds!" .... ?

"We, the Angry Community Members with our Angry Bashing and Barking made the developers act!" ... oh really.

"We got HALF of what we dreamed of!" "And that HALF is crap also, it's not like in our dreams!" ... oh yes, I CAN see now where the disappointment comes from.

I do not want to sound disrespectful. But I really think that some members of the community just need to shut down their browser and take a cold shower, and Calm Down. You can't think reasonably when high on adrenaline.

This in not a discussion, only some outcry with mostly no sense at all.

Edited by Azzur33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polishing the campaign affects positively to the campaign only.

Polishing the core features affects positively to the both missions and mods in both SP and MP and the campaign itself too: actually to the whole game!

Delaying the campaign and concentrating on core features is the best decision (with the decision of going Steam-exclusive) that you've made during these 2 years that I've been with you. I fully support your decision. Thank you BIS! :cancan:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×