Is Arma 3 authentic?

[xyberviri 1]

I think the true question is "Is Arma 3 a video game?"

because half of the community seems to want VBS with out paying for it. The game doesn't have to be authentic to anything, its a game, the mere fact that a gun, ship or tank resembles a real life counter part is only gravy. So long as its believable i think is more important, Do the tanks have hover pads? do we have rocket back packs? do we have jump jets on boots that have some unlimited fuel supply with almost no weight to support its functionality. no because you wouldn't believe in any of that junk.

I wish people would focus on the game engine instead of the game content, right now is the time to make sure functionality exists instead of content.

would you rather have accurate simulation of the helicopters or do you want 1 more helicopter that is basically a different color? The devs can change stuff in the game engine now, after this is over they are going to shift the team over to ToM or DayZSA and we will be on maintenance. At that point the community will start curing out content(the devs can't compete with the community on content production, but they can give us better tools and a better engine to put that content in.)

Edited July 7, 2013 by xyberviri

[BlackLord 0]

Doln, stop being so childish please, you are just as worked up about this topic as the people you hate on.

[dragon01 902]

I think the true question is "Is Arma 3 a video game?"

because half of the community seems to want VBS with out paying for it. The game doesn't have to be authentic to anything, its a game, the mere fact that a gun, ship or tank resembles a real life counter part is only gravy. So long as its believable i think is more important, Do the tanks have hover pads? do we have rocket back packs? do we have jump jets on boots that have some unlimited fuel supply with almost no weight to support its functionality. no because you wouldn't believe in any of that junk.

ArmA is no ordinary video game. Go play BF or GRAW if you're looking for a game. ArmA was, for quite some time, marketed as a simulator. It's the same difference as between DCS and HAWX. It's no wonder that people want ArmA to go further in "DCS" direction. ArmA III fails to meet those expectations, instead moving towards "HAWX" direction. It starts taking artistic liberties with equipment and using fake names, which is just as unbelievable as a jetpack. Yes, this was known to happen occasionally (As were jetpacks), but never on such a scale. AIII doesn't really feel authentic, even if the equipment is more or less based on what really exists.

[metalcraze 290]

The game doesn't have to be authentic to anything, its a game

It may come as a shock to you but there are different genres in gaming. ArmA doesn't have to be a token dumbed down shooter just because your vision of what a game is the totally True and Correct one and everybody else is of course wrong. Especially these silly guys (don't they know VBS is not a game?):

https://milgaming.army.mil/

So long as its believable i think is more important, Do the tanks have hover pads? do we have rocket back packs? do we have jump jets on boots that have some unlimited fuel supply with almost no weight to support its functionality. no because you wouldn't believe in any of that junk.

Running with 200 kgs on the back up and down steep hills without ever getting tired or slowed while using insta-health regen medkits to heal any wound in 3-4 seconds is pretty believable I agree.

[mmaruda 20]

The futuristic setting is not an issue. Mods will sort it out once the full version is here and saying that Arma is moving in the HAWX direction is just not just for the game. Sure they do use a futuristic setting, but the gameplay is not different than what we saw in Arma 1 and 2. The whole point was for the devs to have some creative liberty in equipment modeling and also to present a symmetrical conflict.

Also the whole HAWX and DCS comparison is completely out of place. HAWX is an arcade shooter, more simplified even than Ace Combat or Crimson Skies. DCS is a hardcore study simulation of aircraft and in that regards Arma does not even come close. DCS players laugh at the ToH physics most people around here want so bad. At the same time Arma players can laugh at the DCS attempts to present a credible battlefield (Combined Arms). Unfortunately neither has a dynamic campaign like Falcon BMS. That said, these are all completely different games and should not be mixed. Arma was NEVER a proper simulator of anything in particular. Its goal was to simulate a combined arms battlefield and it succeeds for the most part (depends on the mission and AI performance). As for simulating stuff in Arma: infantry is not properly simulated - you do not get dehydrated, hungry, there is no realistic wound and medic system, etc, you need ACE for most of the obvious things like weapon supporting and you can't jump; vehicles are simulated at about just the same level as in BF3.

However, what Arma allows players to do is conduct a 64+ player coop mission using combined arms tactics, proper communication and this will look pretty damn authentic no matter the guns and tanks used and with mods and the editor the possibilities seem endless and unfortunately no other game can to this on a comparable level.

As for "people wanting to go further in 'DCS' direction", I think that is because they have no idea how DCS plays. Imagine if you had to dish out $2500 on a gaming rig another $1000 for necessary peripherals like HOTAS, TrackIR and rudder and then had to spend around a month in manuals and tutorial missions only to be able perform basic tasks in the game in a single machine with a perspective of spending another couple of months on learning to be combat effective.

I think Arma is fine where it is. Some additional realism features would be nice, like for example developing vehicle operation to say '90s level simulation games, improving animation and some interaction physics, maybe some good looking damage textures, but that would also mean that modders would have to put much more effort into adding content to the game.

IMHO Arma 3 is pretty authentic and that is determined by the fact that it's easy to get killed, rushing does not work, it's hard to determine where the enemy is firing from and CAS looks cool from the ground (especially in MP, when someone is using proper 9-line protocols).

[dragon01 902]

As for "people wanting to go further in 'DCS' direction", I think that is because they have no idea how DCS plays. Imagine if you had to dish out $2500 on a gaming rig another $1000 for necessary peripherals like HOTAS, TrackIR and rudder and then had to spend around a month in manuals and tutorial missions only to be able perform basic tasks in the game in a single machine with a perspective of spending another couple of months on learning to be combat effective.

What's there to imagine? I did just that. :) Granted, I got my HOTAS cheap (it's CH, by no means cheap or low quality, but I got lucky and bought a used set) and planning to get FreeTrack running (tried FaceTrack NoIR, too, but was too jerky) instead of paying for TrackIR, but the idea is the same (besides, you don't really need a headtracker, but it makes a lot of things much simpler). I only really gotten into Falcon 5.5 (same sim level as DCS, but older), but I'm the kind of player who loves details, switch-o-logy and complex simulation. I know how DCS plays.

Besides, I only used the titles for a rough comparison (they're extremes, and I wanted a clear example). HAWX is an accessible game. DCS is a hardcore sim. Now ArmA is something in between. Not really a proper sim (that's VBS), but not a normal tactical shooter, either (that's GRAW). My point was, until recently it seemed like it's evolving towards being more like VBS (while still maintaining relative accessibility), while AIII decided to go towards games like GRAW. It's still realistic and with very rich gameplay, but it starts using speculative equipment instead of equipping the player with what real soldiers/marines have, and by inventing speculative threats instead of simulating what the real troops face.

[ak1287 1]

Besides, I only used the titles for a rough comparison (they're extremes, and I wanted a clear example). HAWX is an accessible game. DCS is a hardcore sim. Now ArmA is something in between. Not really a proper sim (that's VBS), but not a normal tactical shooter, either (that's GRAW). My point was, until recently it seemed like it's evolving towards being more like VBS (while still maintaining relative accessibility), while AIII decided to go towards games like GRAW. It's still realistic and with very rich gameplay, but it starts using speculative equipment instead of equipping the player with what real soldiers/marines have, and by inventing speculative threats instead of simulating what the real troops face.

First, I agree with the first half of this paragraph. ArmA is a half-sim/half-game hybrid, and I love it for that. I don't want it to be super realistic, because I've done it in real life; I don't want to be super arcadey, because I have other games for that, that honestly handle a lot better for that scenario. ArmA fills a niche for me, as a sandbox game with a more realistic bent, where I can play with friends who have had the same training and experiences as I have, replicate events we were either involved in or read about, and not be hampered by the completely unrealistic aspects of CoD/BF3, nor the inaccessible aspects of other simulators (excluding price points, of course.)

That being said, I see nothing unrealistic about the equipment, especially since a good portion of it is based off weapons systems that are currently being researched; nor do I really care that they aren't labeled as such, because that just seems like a ridiculous thing to get upset about.

I also think it's entirely possible that the scenario in ArmA 3 is entirely something that NATO would get involved in.

[mmaruda 20]

What's there to imagine? I did just that. :)

Maybe I should have stated that there are people here who yell "sim" and have no idea what a sim looks like. :) Anyway the whole speculative aspect is interesting, since we finally get to fight an equal force. Gameplaywise however, nothing is changed. Id does not matter much if the gun you are firing has high rate of fire or the bullets are 5.56 ot 6.5 since you mostly shoot on single and one shot eliminates a guy anyway. Bare in mind that despite adding a lot of high tech stuff, we do not see that affect the game - stealth is not simulated, all those fancy MFDs are just for show... Come one man, if you play DCS and have flown the A-10C you should know how cool the avionics is. Just the digital stores management and weapon profiles are a huge help, same goes for the HOTAS system. There is kickstaerter for DCS F-35. I have read that the F-35 has some fancy-ass radar and uber-datalink system where all the target brackets are displayed on the helmet screen so it pretty much looks like HAWX interface. Arma 2 had the F-35 but did not go that way. The whole future setting is to allow the devs to be creative and avoid legal issues with manufactureres of the real things (you probably know what Belsimtek went through with their Huyey module). At the same time, the devs know the modders will fill the gap. Arma is not going to become GRAW. Trust me on this one.

[davex83 10]

To be honest i will prefer a non futuristic setting, would be more realistic and immersive than now, and the actual geopolitical situation in Europe, Asia and US is perfect for a fictional conflict more near at us on time. Real weapons, vehicles and names should be present and also different factions for each side (italian, french, uk forces etc etc vs iran, turk, russian forces), i don't think devs would have problems on refresh the ArmA 2 models for ArmA 3, and they could release the futuristic content as expansion (like ArmA 2: Private Military Company) where a special high tech force come in help for the two main story forces.

But i know...this would remain a dream...

Devs should open a vote on forums and site to see what people want, BIS are already known for respect they deserve to players and this should be a great move even in marketing ;)

(sorry for my poor eng, isn't my language and i learn it by myself)

Edited July 9, 2013 by DaVeX83

[Kieran 11]

The vast majority of the Weapons and vehicles in arma 3 already exists in real life currently.

I'm sure modders will and proberly are in the process of making the old school arma 2 weapons etc.

[Masharra 10]

Bare in mind that despite adding a lot of high tech stuff, we do not see that affect the game - stealth is not simulated, all those fancy MFDs are just for show... Come one man, if you play DCS and have flown the A-10C you should know how cool the avionics is. Just the digital stores management and weapon profiles are a huge help, same goes for the HOTAS system.

Finally someone points that out. The helicopters are just fancy skins with different weapon loadouts and "minor" differences.

[chortles 263]

The vast majority of the Weapons and vehicles in arma 3 already exists in real life currently.

I'm sure modders will and proberly are in the process of making the old school arma 2 weapons etc.

More specifically, quite a few of the small arms are outright stated in the Field Manual to be custom variants, evolutions, redesigns or otherwise descendants of existing weapons (i.e. the Mk20 series explicitly stated to be related to the F2000), and modders have already been releasing M16/M4-type weapons (i.e. ToadBall and Sham's M16A4s, FHQ M4/Accessories, the RH/Ardvarkdb MK 18 MOD 1 and so on).

Every time someone claims that Arma is supposed to be about milsim, not Barbie doll dress-up, I just look at all the "modern real-world armies" and laugh (I can hear someone crying "MY IMMERSION").

[davex83 10]

I am pretty sure that a remake of ArmA 2 with new engine will sell more than ArmA 3 due to the futuristic setting of the second one. I repeat they should open a vote on their community, see how many threads were opened about the futuristic setting.

[-ghost-tf 12]

Remake of arma2 as DLC would be awesome.

[chortles 263]

I repeat they should open a vote on their community, see how many threads were opened about the futuristic setting.

They already went through this "debate" two years ago... then went with the futuristic setting anyway. ;)

[instagoat 133]

Finally someone points that out. The helicopters are just fancy skins with different weapon loadouts and "minor" differences.

Because Arma is not a Helicopter simulator. There are some universally missing features, such as proper HUD's, Laser Rangefinding, Targeting systems, etc, but details like switchable MFDs or Advanced startup or throwing tracks on tanks or whatever is just rivet counting.

[Masharra 10]

Because Arma is not a Helicopter simulator. There are some universally missing features, such as proper HUD's, Laser Rangefinding, Targeting systems, etc, but details like switchable MFDs or Advanced startup or throwing tracks on tanks or whatever is just rivet counting.

I get what you are saying... Some would argue it isnt a simulator at all.

[Maio 293]

I am pretty sure that a remake of ArmA 2 with new engine will sell more than ArmA 3 due to the futuristic setting of the second one. I repeat they should open a vote on their community, see how many threads were opened about the futuristic setting.

Yes and the persons opening those threads represented a vocal minority of the old fans. The rest either took fancy to the near future setting or were not bothered, as they play the game for its core sandbox features and not the authenticity of the armed forces represented in the game.

Remake of arma2 as DLC would be awesome.

Diversity would be nice, but I'd rather see new nations and weapons then the same old same old. Plus bringing the entire A2 content pack to A3 standards... I think the content artists and config guys would pull their hair out.

I get what you are saying... Some would argue it isnt a simulator at all.

Well... it's not, or ever was. IMHO

I think they needed a catchy term to set it apart from the regular FPS as well as defining the actual genre of the game, and MilSim popped out.

I think "Arma 3 is the latest installment in Bohemia's popular MilSim series" sounds a lot better then "Arma 3 is the latest installment in Bohemia's popular combined arms military shooter sandbox series"

Edited July 9, 2013 by Maio
series

[davex83 10]

They already went through this "debate" two years ago... then went with the futuristic setting anyway. ;)

This made me sad...sometimes i dream to be the universe emperor...i can see me with a beer in a hand, a gold throne under my @$$, and with my unlimited powers enter the minds of game developers and tell them what players want from games (ARMA 3, BATTLEFIELD, JOINT OPERATION...) as i read in years on forums and others media...

...and no, sorry, who complain isn't only a OLD fan...this is the worse way to see the problem...(as i say, see other franchise glory end)

Edited July 9, 2013 by DaVeX83

[instagoat 133]

This made me sad...sometimes i dream to be the universe emperor...i can see me with a beer in a hand, a gold throne under my @$$, and with my unlimited powers enter the minds of game developers and tell them what players want from games (ARMA 3, BATTLEFIELD, JOINT OPERATION...) as i read in years on forums and others media...

...and no, sorry, who complain isn't only a OLD fan...this is the worse way to see the problem...(as i say, see other franchise glory end)

Oh look, it´s this argument again.

I repeat. The assets don't matter unless the gameplay supports them. A tank is a tank, and a gun is a gun. If the game had 80s assets, it would still play in an identical manner, apart from the magic AT launchers. Otherwise, it would be -identical- to what it is now, with the future assets. Or what else are you complaining about? That you can move now without feeling like you´re a sedated cow with its pants full of bricks? Or that you can aim now like it´s 2006, and not 1999 anymore? Or that you can suddenly throw grenades in a way that makes them useable? Or that every surface now has penetration, including bodies? Or that we now have a decent Inventory system?

I know the game has tons of problems. But I do not understand why people focus on what's ultimately visual superficialities if core features are still lacking. Your 1985 M60 won´t be better than our 2035 modded Merkava because Armour simulation, Fire Control Systems, Commander Features and Sound simulation will be the lackluster same. Heck, you could model a 1945 tank and a 2035 one with the features in the game now and there would be no gameplay difference apart from the fact that the new one will have thermals and magic instant rangefinding (but incremental zeroing and/or magic autozeroing via right click lock).

All of these are GAMEPLAY and GAME ENGINE problems. Who cares about the assets if even the core features are turning out to remain problematic?

[davex83 10]

Oh look, it´s this argument again.

I repeat. The assets don't matter unless the gameplay supports them. A tank is a tank, and a gun is a gun. If the game had 80s assets, it would still play in an identical manner, apart from the magic AT launchers. Otherwise, it would be -identical- to what it is now, with the future assets. Or what else are you complaining about? That you can move now without feeling like you´re a sedated cow with its pants full of bricks? Or that you can aim now like it´s 2006, and not 1999 anymore? Or that you can suddenly throw grenades in a way that makes them useable? Or that every surface now has penetration, including bodies? Or that we now have a decent Inventory system?

I know the game has tons of problems. But I do not understand why people focus on what's ultimately visual superficialities if core features are still lacking. Your 1985 M60 won´t be better than our 2035 modded Merkava because Armour simulation, Fire Control Systems, Commander Features and Sound simulation will be the lackluster same. Heck, you could model a 1945 tank and a 2035 one with the features in the game now and there would be no gameplay difference apart from the fact that the new one will have thermals and magic instant rangefinding (but incremental zeroing and/or magic autozeroing via right click lock).

All of these are GAMEPLAY and GAME ENGINE problems. Who cares about the assets if even the core features are turning out to remain problematic?

I quoted you because i agree with every single word, but tell me... where is the problem if i hope to see both features gameplay/game engine and "visual superficialities" solved?

Isn't worse to see the old problems of gameplay and engine still here lie low a futuristic setting not credible at all?

So me and you have the solution...devs please save the good thing of ArmA, the setting close to real (me) and focus on gameplay and engine problems (you)!!!

[Tonci87 163]

I hate it that they use fantasy names for everything. I think this is OK on something that doesn´t exist IRL or is still a prototype, but naming a Kamaz Zamak is just plain silly.

[nodunit 397]

Perhaps it is a copyright thing. Maybe they got permission from some companies to use the vehicle names but not others..although I don't really see how that makes sense, how using a replica image under a different name means skirts that..

[chortles 263]

I imagine that the answer is "the same way that prior companies got away with 'weapon image under a different name'". Heck, part of the reason that Colt Defense's suing of Bushmaster Firearms backfired was because of how "genericized" the image of a M4-like weapon had become by the mid-2000s.

[BigBoss 10]

How did they get away with naming the weapons in ArmA2? If I recall correctly, they used real names and designations.

Some of these fictional names are quite silly, the Vermin is my personal 'favorite'.