Development Blog & Reveals

[nodunit 397]

I'm going to have to steal that ProGamer http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3vdsl0/

True true, and to their credit they are taking on a lot of what is placed upon their plate. They may not get to the simplest of tasks at the time but they still have gotten them...they could updated the lighting engine post beta and left it there but they continued, lights could have remained shining for a mile but they fixed that too. They do have a lot to work with and I can respect that but the process has been..confusing.

It's not difficult to understand why some people are so upset, but I would like to hear the reason for this delay, if only to bring some understanding to this confusing topic.

It might have been better to state the reasons before the interview though, considering the community has an all seeing eye and....exciteable nature.

Edited August 3, 2013 by NodUnit

[progamer 14]

From the latest interview, it said they had 70 people. Big game studios have 300+ people working for them.

[Poochie 10]

I'm going to have to steal that ProGamer http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3vdsl0/

True true, and to their credit they are taking on a lot of what is placed upon their plate. They may not get to the simplest of tasks at the time but they still have gotten them...they could updated the lighting engine post beta and left it there but they continued, lights could have remained shining for a mile but they fixed that too. They do have a lot to work with and I can respect that but the process has been..confusing.

It's not difficult to understand why some people are so upset, but I would like to hear the reason for this delay, if only to bring some understanding to this confusing topic.

It might have been better to state the reasons before the interview though, considering the community has an all seeing eye.

This obviously was decided some time back and I'm no longer willing to give BI the benefit of the doubt so I'd be bet this leaked interview forced their hand to make an announcement.

[mmaruda 20]

I've played since OFP and I'm completely indifferent to this whole fiasco

- But there will be a campaign, it's just going to be delayed a bit

- I'm 99% sure there will be an armoury, the ARMEX sign is in the game files, and it was a very popular mission in Arma 2, I can almost guarantee it will be in Arma 3

- Wearing another factions uniform is against the Geneva convention, which is why they took it out.

- I agree, I was really looking forward to this, but it's relatively minor. The editor is still pretty good

-Delaying the campaign just sends a message to a potential customer "give us you money and take this unfinished product, we promise to finish it". Sorry but, apart from long term fans, who is going to swallow that? Does anyone buy a car full price without the gearbox, because the dealer promised to install it later? BIS is shooting themselves in the foot and the reviewers will eat them alive and bad reviews mean one thing: apart from the people who already bought a per-order at reduced price, not many people will but version 1.0.

-The armory is actually one thing they could have ditched, I don't know single person who ever spent more than 5 minutes there.

-Shooting civilians an POWs is also against the "Whateva Convention", lets take that out too. Has there ever actually been a war, where all those rules were adhered to? The Geneva Convention is pure fiction.

-The editor is the heart of Arma, but not everyone want's to spend hours making missions and some stuff cannot be done without scripting and some people just don't have the time or mental capability to learn the editor inside-out. I am too old, and too undereducated to get the whole scripting stuff, not to mention I don't have time for that, I just want to play the game, not have to make it and then play it. Sorry, but that is the kind of attitude a developer should also recon with.

Personally I can wait for Arma 3 to get fixed/finished/better/whatever, but I cannot help but feel disappointed and somewhat cheated. I have bought the supporter edition and that wasn't because I wanted some stupid forum badge. I truly believed that simulation gaming could make it out of the closet and into the mainstream and I saw Arma 3 as a potential game that would lead the way and I wanted to do whatever I can to help BIS make it. Now it looks like the dream won't happen, because Arma 3 must be released. Period. This kind of reminds me of another game. IL-2 Cliffs of Dover ring a bell?

Anyway, Poochie is right. You cannot call the game finished and ready for release, when it lacks key features that were supposed to be in it. It's still going to be a beta really, with BIS adding and fixing stuff from time to time. Anyway, what am I supposed to do with Arma 3 past release that I cannot do now? How is "releasing" it going to make what we have here better? Have a larger map and some tanks? I already have it through All-in Arma.

[mobile_medic 43]

The engine serves as the foundation, and is the most worthwhile of investments for the long-term, in my opinion. Everything is built upon it. After the windfall of dayz, and the push towards Arma 3, it seemed the perfect time to finally bring their engine into the 21st century so they could have something robust to build on and look forward, rather than be hindered by the past. It just makes good business sense to my mind. The current state of the engine, puts them in a precarious position for the future in my mind.

We have seen over a years worth of delays accumulate with little to show for it. That is the most concerning thing. To see the fragile foundation upon which the game is built go un-addressed, while features continue to be eliminated or pushed to the back burner. It's like building a mansion out of plywood on top of quicksand, and painting it up real pretty.

[progamer 14]

I'm going to have to steal that ProGamer http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3vdsl0/

True true, and to their credit they are taking on a lot of what is placed upon their plate. They may not get to the simplest of tasks at the time but they still have gotten them...they could updated the lighting engine post beta and left it there but they continued, lights could have remained shining for a mile but they fixed that too. They do have a lot to work with and I can respect that but the process has been..confusing.

It's not difficult to understand why some people are so upset, but I would like to hear the reason for this delay, if only to bring some understanding to this confusing topic.

It might have been better to state the reasons before the interview though, considering the community has an all seeing eye and....exciteable nature.

Lol, I was thinking of the joker when I typed that!

---------- Post added at 03:38 ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 ----------

BIS said they will continue daily development branch updates after release and the feed backer tracker will remain running with all the tickets. BIS does not release a new game every year either, they spend years polishing, adding feature and optimizing the game.

[mmaruda 20]

BIS does not release a new game every year either, they spend years polishing, adding feature and optimizing the game.

So this year they decided to make up for it an release 3 of them - Arma 3, DayZ and Take On Mars. I personally doubt DayZ Standalone will make much money - the hype is gone and I doubt this version will offer a significantly different experience than the free mod. And the Mars thing? Duh.

[progamer 14]

So this year they decided to make up for it an release 3 of them - Arma 3, DayZ and Take On Mars. I personally doubt DayZ Standalone will make much money - the hype is gone and I doubt this version will offer a significantly different experience than the free mod. And the Mars thing? Duh.

I was referring to Arma games.

[nodunit 397]

DayZ hasn't lost it's hype, you'll still to this day find constant request and demands for it to be part of Arma 3..and that is partly where the problem lies. The audience seeking dayZ is more generalized towards visuals even more, and because of the fact alone that Arma 3 looks prettier means that many will not buy it and have stated that fact.

I can't comment on take on mars but it does raise a curiosity of pulling resources.

[Poochie 10]

I'm going to have to steal that ProGamer http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3vdsl0/

True true, and to their credit they are taking on a lot of what is placed upon their plate. They may not get to the simplest of tasks at the time but they still have gotten them...they could updated the lighting engine post beta and left it there but they continued, lights could have remained shining for a mile but they fixed that too. They do have a lot to work with and I can respect that but the process has been..confusing.

It's not difficult to understand why some people are so upset, but I would like to hear the reason for this delay, if only to bring some understanding to this confusing topic.

It might have been better to state the reasons before the interview though, considering the community has an all seeing eye and....exciteable nature.

That's the thing though, this decision wasn't decided on last week but obviously some time ago. Why are we only finding about this through a third party source? It's almost as if BI's hand was force because of this leak.

[nodunit 397]

That's the thing though, this decision wasn't decided on last week but obviously some time ago. Why are we only finding about this through a third party source? It's almost as if BI's hand was force because of this leak.

Perhaps it has..I wonder if this really is a situation that BI could have won if we are to assume that progress of implimentation began during the alpha release. If they release the campaign in a questionable state then it will be slammed for being buggy and "unplayable". And if they hold it back then they get slammed for other reasons, sometimes I wonder where they find the enthusiasm for the job.

[OMAC 254]

I can understand where this is coming from, but honestly, I find the fact the campaign is missing hilarious, and honestly, the "I don't mind, community will deliver" reactions are sending the wrong signal yet again. We're again in a situation where everyone is saying "Community will fix it"... features missing ? No problem, community will fix it... Content missing ? No problem, community will fix it...

As I said, I can understand why the decision was made, but I'm disappointed. If the game isn't finished, don't declare it finished. This will backfire with reviewers. This will backfire with sales. There ARE people that have no interest in multiplayer. What will they do ? Play through the showcases for the tenth time ?

Honestly, BIS, I hope you know what you are doing.

Edit: Yes, I saw that we will be able to download the campaign later, for "free".. That doesn't change the fact, though, that the game will come out unfinished.

^ ^ Couldn't have said it better. IMO the entire release should be delayed. No campaign = no game = bad reviews = lost sales. Without the campaign, it's just a beta (really an alpha), so why not continue the beta for a few months longer? It will be a screwup of near-biblical proportions if the game is released in an incomplete state.

The info came out due to the PCgames.de interview with Karel/Gaia of BI, so it was BI who released the info/started the leak, eh?

Edited August 3, 2013 by OMAC

[Azzur33 1]

how long have you played the arma series venom?

if you have played it since OFP you will understand

I have played since OFP, and now I think that part of this community has gone compelety insane.

And I'm not the only one who sees that.

Ridiculous definitely.

Now a suggestion for some:

Remove the game. Just let it go. Vote with your feet.

And why?:

It's not your project. This game obviously is not for you. Fanaticism is not healthy.

There is and will be other games and other developers. BI doesn't need you.

You don't appreciate other peoples work.

You put the bars sooo high and say "jump". And they do jump.

But if they drop the bar even once, they are incompetent, lazy arrogant ¤&%¤%s, who only care about Easy Money not willing to even try to Please you.

You could do it, of course, it's so simple. You'd never try it yourself though, why should you. You're the Holy Customer.

But yeah, every game forum is the same, and has the same kind of people.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Azzur33

[kylania 567]

I can't comment on take on mars but it does raise a curiosity of pulling resources.

Take On Mars is like one guy and an entirely different engine from ArmA. If you wanna talk about pulling resources it's DayZ. Arguably some of the better quality designers and artists went to work on that. The head programmer did. After legal troubles which affected part of the ArmA team those guys went to work on DayZ instead of ArmA. It's pretty clear what pulled resources from what and it wasn't a fun little space game. :)

[progamer 14]

I guess I have to be the one to say it, this is the wrong thread for such discussion, http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?159007-Discussion-on-quot-Axed-quot-Features Is a good place for this discussion.

---------- Post added at 05:18 ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 ----------

Take On Mars is like one guy and an entirely different engine from ArmA. If you wanna talk about pulling resources it's DayZ. Arguably some of the better quality designers and artists went to work on that. The head programmer did. After legal troubles which affected part of the ArmA team those guys went to work on DayZ instead of ArmA. It's pretty clear what pulled resources from what and it wasn't a fun little space game. :)

Yea, not normally the one to say/agree with things like this though. But they are a small team and Dayz cut the resources smaller than ever before.

[Wiki 1558]

Yep, agree on this one:

People are disappointed, and even if they only know a part of the thing (only thing they noted is "campaign not included in release", whereas BIS hasn't communicated the whole information), well I think people are going mad here.

I can understand that people are disappointed, but all the thing "BIS you suck" etc...??

Come on guys, you're not serious!

Take a look toany other dev. (and I mean major game dev.), none of them reaches the same level as BIS.

I'll quote myszlf:

"I've been a SP player rather than MP player (although I played MP with my teams), and I was disappointed in BIS Campaigns since ArmA 2.

I only liked the very first mission of Harvest Red (infiltrate the village and destroy the com stuff), then it just went fucked up (warfare in SP: seriously???).

Even OA + DLC campaigns were not outstanding (not to mention ACR which was catastrophic).

That's why I went into editing and made some SP missions and campaigns - just like I wanted.

Hopefully, many people liked them.

To me, the best campaigns in ArmA 2 are: 100 days by RCMW, Cobalt and Blood on the sand by Zipper5 and Operationnal Detachement Delta and SEAL Team DEVGRU by Sick1 (and of course CWR).

All I want is the same campaign quality (and length) as the CWC one (or like those I mentionned above).

Last thing to say about the campaign:

Please, make us play each role like in CWC (grunt, SF, pilot etc...) and please dont make a campaign in which the player is always the leader (or is the leader from mission 3 to the end)."

I really have no problem with the delaying thing if it brings us a better game and campaign.

[chortles 263]

I don't know how A3 will turn out in the long run, but I hope for A4 someone at BI gets realistic and pragmatic and clearly defines for themselsves what they fully capable of delivering, then they need to deliver it. If they haven't got the resources, or they are unable to make a true multi-core 64bit engine that is as polished as the compettion then they need to make a smaller game.

I think you'd sooner see the Arma series cancelled outright than ever see a "main series" Arma that wasn't overweeningly overambitious because only "such great heights" could actually inspire them enough to justify a new game...

Hell, don't be surprised if Arma 3 itself is their first time where someone "gets realistic and pragmatic and clearly defines for themselsves what they fully capable of delivering, then they need to deliver it", and that they still managed to overlook one of the details until it was too late to turn around.

Perhaps it has..I wonder if this really is a situation that BI could have won if we are to assume that progress of implimentation began during the alpha release. If they release the campaign in a questionable state then it will be slammed for being buggy and "unplayable". And if they hold it back then they get slammed for other reasons, sometimes I wonder where they find the enthusiasm for the job.

Wouldn't be surprised if the answers to that last question are "future setting", "underwater" and "Comanche". :lol:

Take On Mars is like one guy and an entirely different engine from ArmA.

Yeeeeah, when I saw this I was like "wait, you mean ToM has people that aren't Dram?" :lol:

I'm not going to accuse it of being a rush job, but with how short the time from announcement to public release was, it was pretty clearly one of the "small projects" relative to both DayZ standalone and Arma 3 and/or something that was essentially done well before the announcement, and as has been brought up more than once its engine is a descendant of CCGM's anyway (so unless someone is versed in both that engine and RV4, no point in pulling Arma 3's devs for that). In any case, if what ProGamer said about "70 people" on Arma 3 is true, then based on last year's number of around a hundred BI devs, that's actually more than two-thirds of all BI devs that are working on Arma 3 while all other projects have to split the remaining less-than-a-third between them.

The interesting thing to me though re: DayZ and Arma 3 though isn't allegations of shifted resources or "the A team" (with the implied accusation that it's "the B team" that got left to do Arma 3, as more than one person has accused) it's in the snippets that are revealed by Rocket's relatively big mouth compared to the Arma 3 devs, and the very fact that he has that unlike the Arma 3 devs... and yeah, it's pretty obvious that "legal troubles which affected part of the Arma team" (gee I wonder why they'd not want to be publicly associated with Arma 3 anymore when their court case is actually still open to this day?).

Interesting thing is that I took a look at some reactions from my general player group... and the essential reaction was that Harvest Red-onward had so prejudiced them against BI's mission makers that they weren't even entirely aware that the game was ever supposed to be shipping with a SP campaign, much less bothered by a lack thereof.

[old_painless 182]

Think that BI are really playtesting for once. And quickly came to realize that the AI is a hindrance for the campaign to play out. given the sharp Q3 deadline AI had to become a priority by pure logic.

[dale0404 5]

I've been playing BI games for over a decade and it's become clear that they don't seem to think much of their player base.

Now that is just total twaddle buddy. You cant bash the devs for that, it is pretty damn obvious that the devs do think a lot of the player base. Let's wait and see what the explanation is about the whole caboodle shall we? And yes, I am still pissed off about the campaign getting delayed but I am a little more pragmatic now.

[chortles 263]

I should add and point out that at the very least, a bunch of the devs are (former) player base.

[bis3 10]

Have you guys seen new DayZ video? Jump animation, injury animation and many things what were requested for so long here. Seems we know whats more important for BIS.

[Wiki 1558]

Anyway, we DO know there will be usermade missions and campaigns (already exist since Alpha) to make us wait until the campaign release.

If delaying the camp is for the good cause (making the game and/or the campaign better), well I'm ok with that.

All I ask for is a good game with decent game mechanisms (A2 was quite good about them) and a good and long campaign.

[Tonci87 163]

I said what I had to say. Now I will wait for the devblog that explains this.

I want to add that I am not against delaying the campaign if this means that we get a long and outstanding campaign. But if we get something like OA then I'll be the very first one to ask "WTF have they been doing all these years?"

I'm just really concerned by the apparent lack of time and maybe even focus.

Here is an Idea for BIS:

1. Rename the release to "Extended Beta"

2. Keep the game selling with a slightly lower price 45€ ?

3. Go for full release when you have the important features ready.

[Wiki 1558]

Totally agree with Tonci.

In the worst case, ArmA 3 campaign will offer the same quality as ACR DLC campaign lol.

[windies 11]

With the multiplayer in the current shape that it's in unless you are into playing on 5 player limit wasteland servers, Not having the campaign at release is a very huge blow. They might as well delay the game, no one is going to want to buy a game where the multiplayer portion barely works and there's zero single player content unless you feel like learning an entirely proprietary scripting language because to be honest you can only do so much in the editor without scripting, you can't even change unit loadouts without scripting.

This is really the final thing to just destroy any loyalty I had towards them. I've said it before, but I honestly still thought that they could pull something off and really make ArmA 3 great and re-instill that faith. I get that they have their reasons for cutting the campaign out until sometime "down the road" but learning about it from what appears to possibly be an accidental leak of information ( it's speculation just like anything else but It seems like their hand was forced on fully releasing this information) just kind of makes hearing it that much worse. It's another LARGE chunk of axed content that seems to be piling up more and more. I'm honestly just thinking "What's next?".