Development Blog & Reveals

[dale0404 5]

I get it, but I dislike the decision. The decision would be to grow a backbone and delay, a delayed polished game will still give better reviews than giving reviewers public Arma 3 MP and a couple of showcase missions to judge the game by.

That would be a sensible decision but I very much doubt it will happen,

---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:17 ----------

In the video, they blamed the AI. If that's the case then this is a general single-player and COOP issue with the final game.

Good point, and I know the AI is bugged to hell in its current state.

[Alwarren 2765]

Funnily I don't think that this decision will harm reviews. It will make them better. Reviews always complained about the campaign beeing unplayable because of bugs and stupid AI.

Oh?

"Unfortunately, at this point we cannot recommend Arma 3 if you are into single player. The problems with the AI, coupled with the fact that there isn't any single player campaign in the game yet, means that unless you are into multiplayer game-modes like Wasteland, Arma 3 will offer nothing to you, and you will be better off waiting for Call of Duty Ghost or Battlefield 4, both of which will have a single player campaign AND top-notch multiplayer. What is in there is good (with the exception of the AI which still has issues) but it doesn't offer anything of the cinematic experience that CoD and BF4 offer. Multiplayer is bogged down by performance issues and lack of teamplay. Really, we do wonder who Arma 3 is aimed at."

Just as an example.

[doln 10]

Delaying the game past (I'm assuming) christmas would seriously impact revenue. They are a business.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Delaying the game past (I'm assuming) christmas would seriously impact revenue. They are a business.

And that's still another quarter to work on things, considering their release target is Q3. Bad MetaCritic score on the other hand is forever.

[Flaky 10]

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..

I just want to go back and address this because it really was a tremendously problematic release for a new player. I bought Arma 2 halfway through 2009, running the very same CPU I have now (Q6600). It was totally unplayable, and I mean literally you couldn't play it for more than 10 minutes without it crashing. Average FPS would have been in the 5-10 range on the menu screen (lol), and as for AI, well, it hardly mattered. Never mind the campaigns, I literally couldn't even finish the tutorial because it was so unfriendly and clunky. I had to wait until the 1.5 patch (almost a year later) before playing it at all. Remember back when even entering a small village would bring the game to a stuttering halt? And that was on a processor which was not too bad at the time.

Now compare that to what we have now. FPS in the 20-30 despite the massive improvements in visual quality, tripled viewdistance, completely overhauled engine, massive map, massive cities, animations, overhauled lighting/effects/AA/weather, you name it. On exactly the same processor. Even my old HDD. What do you call that if not progress? Bug fixes? Hardly. That stuff could never be fixed comprehensively by modders. That is the important work that has been done and is being done to ensure that players get something more than a $100 plastic disc on release date. What is more the developers are acknowledging the past weaknesses of campaigns, and are prepared to take some flak to improve them. It is quite a brave move indeed, as the comments in the thread show. But it should be seen in the broader context. I am sure it is the right decision.

[metalcraze 290]

Yeah but a few patches after release ArmA2 became playable and it was a good game.

ArmA2 1.0 release isn't really any different from ArmA3 alpha. Alpha was the same. It took BIS the same amount of time to get rid of CTDs and some performance problems.

FPS in the 20-30 despite the massive improvements in visual quality, tripled viewdistance, completely overhauled engine, massive map, massive cities, animations, overhauled lighting/effects/AA/weather, you name it.

Actually ArmA3 terrains are a lot less detailed than ArmA2 Chernarus.

"Massive cities"? Where? There's nothing but microscopic villages on Altis.

Weather was there since TOH (and rain is still not back in) and of course graphics upgrades are bound to happen in 3 years no?

So yeah you got better graphics and animations. But in the end ArmA3 is a lot worse game than ArmA2 is due to catering to a casual player and axing features.

Delaying the game past (I'm assuming) christmas would seriously impact revenue. They are a business.

So why not release it on christmas not next month?

Also new ArmA3 audience will be buying stuff like Call of Duty and Battlefield on Christmas, they won't care about ArmA3 past October and I think this is a reason why BIS releases an unfinished game ASAP.

Edited August 2, 2013 by metalcraze

[instagoat 133]

BI is making WIP limits for carrying big loads (check dev branch) and fatigue effects are fine. Infact, I think characters still get tired a bit too fast.

I don't think so. The initial tiring is okay. I tested the opfor rifleman (who is just below half bar on the load) and the opfor AT specialist (who is at 90% loaded) on a 500 meter straight course on the runway (measured out with cones). The rifleman's sprint lasted until about 125 meters from a standstill, the AT specialist managed about 70 meters before he got tired. Both managed to run with sprint key held for 3 km, then I stopped to check the cooldown on the tiredness.

There is a hard cap for it, both took about 45 seconds to recover fully from max fatigue.

Weapons sway while fatigued was increased -significantly-, so that point is moot too. The system is about as punishing as that of Arma 2, plus the weight management. It could be more punishing (tired jogging and sprinting animations, as well as double fatigue system (sustained and immediate).) for my tastes, and I hope we will see some improvements.

By now I think that the scare of the fatigue system being "taken out" is wrong.

[Vigil Vindex 64]

I have to wonder why the AI has been left to cause such disruptions. If the previous Arma games taught us anything it was that the AI has a huge impact on the game. Why the AI was not front and center on the priority list is a mystery to me.

[Alwarren 2765]

And that's still another quarter to work on things, considering their release target is Q3. Bad MetaCritic score on the other hand is forever.

Good point. Seen this often, games like Arma 2 have bad reviews because what gets reviewed is usually what is available on release day. Only a handful of magazines and web sites will pick the game up after a couple of patches. A bad review will stick to a game.

[slynchy 0]

Wow, launching a game as 'final' without the campaign is pretty bizarre.

That leaves reviewers to talk about a handful of showcases and multi-player on day one.

I can't help but think that that will hurt review scores bearing in mind that magazines/sites aren't going to re-review the game when the campaign is released.

I understand the need for polish, and god speed with that, but it is a curious business decision.

It's such a shame because I honestly thought Arma 3 was in the best position for the strongest launch out of all the other games in the series.

[Azzur33 1]

You usually do that with arguments, not rather empty words.

SITREP or similar news item explaining the reasoning.

People are feeling cheated/misled, and trying to put sugar (or dung) on top of that won't help.

First of all: The overly angry reception to this "leaked news" is full of rather empty but exaggerated words, a good argument is not something that makes no sense.

Do you honestly think that you wouldn't get the proper explanation from BI about the delay of the campaign?

That they would just mention that "By the way, you're not getting a campaign at release. Just deal with it."?

And only the Angry Response would bring the excuses and apologies?

I'm not feeling cheated or misled now, and I really don't see why I should.

And maybe those who do feel that now, will still find the new content pretty good when it arrives, and be satisfied when the campaign feels a bit more complete.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Azzur33

[Dwarden 1124]

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.

w/e the MP never was promised as something what may happen (it was even often mentioned in line of CC: GM 2 if you search 'deep enough')

also it doesn't mean the MP can't happen even in future (in fact it might already exist, just not in form ready for public)

might happen ... is long timeframe after all ...

[hoot 0]

I just want to go back and address this because it really was a tremendously problematic release for a new player. I bought Arma 2 halfway through 2009, running the very same CPU I have now (Q6600). It was totally unplayable, and I mean literally you couldn't play it for more than 10 minutes without it crashing. Average FPS would have been in the 5-10 range on the menu screen (lol), and as for AI, well, it hardly mattered. [...]

Good for you that you did not witnessed the 2006 release. You would probably know what 'unplayable' really means. To be honest, the 2009 release was kind of a better one. I think 'broken release' is a signature feature of BI. Problem is, you can do such things one or two times. A third time may work too (at best, as I may add), but you hardly get the chance for a fourth time. I have no problems if 'delayed' becomes the BI'ssian signature feature, just to make things clear.

[metalcraze 290]

Weapons sway while fatigued was increased -significantly-, so that point is moot too. The system is about as punishing as that of Arma 2, plus the weight management. It could be more punishing (tired jogging and sprinting animations, as well as double fatigue system (sustained and immediate).) for my tastes, and I hope we will see some improvements.

By now I think that the scare of the fatigue system being "taken out" is wrong.

Weapon sway while fatigued isn't increased (compared to A2's fatigue). Go prone and it's completely gone in an instant. Hold breath and it's gone.

In ArmA2 if you ran for too long you would slow down somewhat. You would still be able to run forever (at a slower speed) but that's understandable considering realistic loadouts. After all backpacks were added as an afterthought and a loadout without a backpack is quite light. Weapon sway cannot be eliminated even by going prone.

However in ArmA3 loadouts aren't only completely unrealistic, they are beyond reason. And yet there's absolutely no difference to fatigue whether you run around naked or carry half a dozen rockets and a .50 cal sniper rifle. And you can run around forever. There's not a single fatigue effect providing a real downside. Just harmless fluff like heavy breathing and weapon sway that is easily removed.

You shouldn't even be able to move with what you can put on in ArmA3 let alone run. Yet put on 100 kgs and there's no difference to putting on nothing but underpants.

In March 5th alpha you would've been forced to walk with a heavy load which is realistic and shows when you've taken too much. Right now there is no point in not taking whatever you want.

For some reason people forget that jogging in ArmA3 is equal in speed to sprinting in BF3 but you can't do that forever in BF3. You need transport.

Edited August 2, 2013 by metalcraze

[schlonz75 1]

Being more a SP mission player, I must admit that of course I am disappointed in a certain way, too. But even for me the world keeps turning and I'd rather have a proper working camp instead of one thats unpolished and buggy.

Surely, a core feature missing at release day is not good, not for the players who already paid for it, neither will make this a good impression to new potential buyers. But what makes me concerned is this:

Well you see that is technically the problem. Up until a couple of hours ago we were going to get a camp on release.

Who is to say next week MBT's wont be until after release?

Who is to say fixed wing wont be until after release?

Who is to say Altis wont be until after release?

Chances are we will get that stuff ofcourse, but chances were that we were going to get a camp at release too.

No doubt that something "major" had to happen that caused them to ax the camp thus far, but what else is cut?

Like some others i think BIS should extend the beta stage and finish the camp before release, because there might be buyers that are not well informed and may hold an unfinished product in their hands. I can wait maybe a few weeks more for the release (Though I know, some of us can't...)

So I virtually sign the following exemplary post and keep my optimism ;)

I get it, but I dislike the decision. The decision would be to grow a backbone and delay, a delayed polished game will still give better reviews than giving reviewers public Arma 3 MP and a couple of showcase missions to judge the game by. Once the reviews are in, there's no going back. Everyone else can be just fine with the Beta content and incremental packages.

greetings, jens

[Kemeros 1]

It's really impossible to go in any game forums these years without seeing rage posts everywhere. How many times did the devs say that they were in crunch time and making the full game content ready? Too many times now. Hell they said this during the alpha too: The people who are making the content are not the same that do many of the changes you see every day.

I'm probably wasting my time. In any case, the game is approaching complete data lock very quickly since they want to launch. Once the game is launched, they said they would be back to daily dev branch patches. More stuff will come over time.

Patience people. There are other games you can play while you wait.

[-=seany=- 5]

The campaign will be delayed a bit.....oh no...what will I do, the world is ending...:16_6_8:

Sheesh. You know the last BIS campaign I played through? Operation Flashpoint Resistance.

Played about 30 minutes of Arma1 campaign, gave up. JIP Multiplayer was new and was more fun

Played about 30 minutes of Arma2 campaign, was supposed to be playable Coop. I tired this but it was a disaster. Got stuck on about the 2nd mission by some bug that caused the mission to not progress.

Played about 30 minutes of A2Oa campaign. Seemed like fun but the AI constantly doing stupid things made me quit.

Played less than 30 minutes of BAF/PMC/ACR campaigns. PMC seemed good, but lost motivation to play. BAF campaign had same annoying AI, crashing your vehicles, getting stuck, refusing to follow orders and just standing there. ACR campaign..ahem...less said about that the better.

So do I care if no campaign is in initial release? No...maybe given time they will actually make some thing that is fun to play and not a buggy turd. In the meantime I can enjoy Stratis and multiplayer.

[Smurf 12]

Now I really want to know what happened in the past three years, many things must have gone so bad and so wrong. Hell, you could contact Discovery Channel or something like that to make a show a la "American Chopper", "Deadliest Catch" or the Ice truckers thing, but with game development.

Would be a first and there is enough drama to keep the show steady for at least 2 seasons now.

[-=seany=- 5]

Yeah and they wouldn't even need a script :D

[Alwarren 2765]

Patience people. There are other games you can play while you wait.

Plainly, no, I have no patience left. This doesn't have anything to do with playing other games, which is a rather poor excuse anyway. I have patience, after all, I already waited from 2011 to 2013 to see the game at all. But this isn't about patience at all. Are you going to tell me I have to have patience after one year of ACR and still there is no patch for it to fix the horrible mess that it is? Stop making up excuses. If you think this is about the delay at all, you haven't actually paid attention.

It is about the poor state that the game is in, with, what, about one month left to release.

What does "shorty after release" mean? The same as "shortly after E3 2012"? The same as a one year wait for a DLC that is unusable in its current state?

[metalcraze 290]

So do I care if no campaign is in initial release? No

So I guess I shouldn't care too because you don't care or what's the point you are trying to make?

What does "shorty after release" mean? The same as "shortly after E3 2012"? The same as a one year wait for a DLC that is unusable in its current state?

I bet there's a fanboy excuse for this too.

I wonder if people even realize that they very much validate the new crappy BIS policy of releasing subpar products with cut out content that will be added after release. Possibly even for money - and I don't mean the campaign.

Edited August 2, 2013 by metalcraze

[Niklas 1]

I have no problem with the campaign coming later, but i worry about how the game is going to be received. Releasing a campaign, a CORE part of a game later is simply dumb and will cause PR trouble.

[-=seany=- 5]

So I guess I shouldn't care too because you don't care or what's the point you are trying to make?

When you said you did care, what was the point you where trying to make?

When people make a comment about a design/development decision, they say whether they like it or not...other people then post to give their opinion. This how an "Internet Forum" works.

Honesty, I don't even know why you stick around here.

[Colossus 2]

Personally I don't mind it, my experience with ArmA 2's campaign was not the greatest (contrary to OA and EW) so I understand if more work needs to be done. However, in terms of having to show this off to critics and newcomers (as mentioned before), I think it's a mistake not having a campaign when ArmA 3 goes gold. But I assume the problem is that the window of which they can launch ArmA 3 is limited. If they delay it I would guess it wouldn't be out before Q1 2014, something that is way beyond the deadline Marek has set [source]. Not to mention they also have a second highly anticipated game in the pipelines as well.

Having said that, I think the Lemnos incident may have caused the campaign to be altered dramatically, if not just a bit, which could be the main reason the campaign is being delayed. Of course, bugs is also a likely factor. We'll know more once that blog pops up. Until then it's just assumptions.

[Maio 293]

1. I would like to point out that the people who opted into the Alpha and Beta phases were doing it willingly and I'm sure they took into consideration the risks that come with a game that is still WIP and which was delayed, such as the removal of features or game content.

2. I would also like to point out that we as human beings have different expectations in life and measure said expectations based on our own levels of success and failure.

I would highly appreciate if users would continue posting feedback regrading the matter at hand without throwing punches no matter how subtle at each others opinion as well as considering taking a little time off and allow the developers to give an explanation.

Thanks.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Maio