Is Arma 3 authentic?

[slatts 1978]

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'.

Designations are just that. A military designation isn't the actual name of the gun and therefore isn't subject to copyright. E.G. The M1014 is a designation while the actual name is "Benelli M4 Super 90"

[-Coulum- 35]

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?

Amen. Couldn't agree more. To me, authenticity, realism, immersion etc. are determined by the core game mechanics not the weapons. If I am playing a game with hitscans, it doesn't matter if I wield an M4 or a laser gun, the authenticity is, to me, the same.

[davex83 10]

Amen. Couldn't agree more. To me, authenticity, realism, immersion etc. are determined by the core game mechanics not the weapons. If I am playing a game with hitscans, it doesn't matter if I wield an M4 or a laser gun, the authenticity is, to me, the same.

Ok but in this thread we are talking about authenticity of the game especially for vehicles and settings...so i understand your position, but if you haven't nothing to say about the thread theme stop complaining about gameplay and write about yours gameplay suggestions on the proper thread, why still trying to persuade us how bad is talking about names or settings?

[-Coulum- 35]

Ok but in this thread we are talking about authenticity of the game especially for vehicles and settings...so i understand your position, but if you haven't nothing to say about the thread theme stop complaining about gameplay and write about yours gameplay suggestions on the proper thread, why still trying to persuade us how bad is talking about names or settings?

Erhm... sorry? The title of the thread is "Is Arma 3 Authentic" I am simply stating what I feel defines authentic. Does that not fit in with the "thread theme". I don't believe I was complaining (though I don't deny having complaints).

Concerning the weird naming, maybe BIS just wants to make the game have a futuristic feel? By naming the Kamaz, Zamak, you may trick some people into thinking they are using a "super cool futuristic vehicle" while not actually having to invent one and pissing off the guys who want "authentic" vehicles - just a wild guess, I don't know nor really care. Still don't know the names for the majority of the weapons in game.

[BigBoss 10]

Kamaz is the name of the company which manufactures those trucks, so I guess they renamed them to avoid copyright infringement. Same goes for the Hunter (M-ATV), which is manufactured by Oshkosh IRL. In game, the company's name is written on the steering wheel, but if you look closely it actually reads Rshkosh.

As for the authenticity, I understand these things do not matter for some, but please understand, those whom are enthusiastic about military hardware, might feel a little upset. I'm pretty sure most of you have some kind of a hobby and at least one point, you have found yourself annoyed by someone or something representing your interest incorrectly.

BiS isn't going to change major things this late in development, demanding that is pointless, besides, we only have a vague idea about upcoming units/equipment and the dev team's future plans. Also, there is nothing mods can't solve in the end. So, all this bickering about this topic is unnecessary.

Personally, apart from a few exceptions, I do not mind the weapons and vehicles, because they aren't that futuristic. Some of them are in the prototype phase, many others are actually in service, few are completely made up. What I don't like is the way they are distributed amongst factions. It is kind of weird to see Americans (I assume they are Americans, I do not know anymore) using Finnish made Patria AMVs along with Israeli made Merkava Mk4 tanks. I guess it's because the story is about a NATO Task Force. The Iranians (if they are still Iranians) were shown holding Israeli TAR-21 rifles in early screenshots, something which I always found ironic. BiS changed this fortunately, and now they are using Iranian made KH2002s (Katibas), although their shiny new MG the Zafir is actually an IMI Negev, which is, again, an Israeli weapon, but whatever.

[purepassion 22]

although their shiny new MG the Zafir is actually an IMI Negev, which is, again, an Israeli weapon, but whatever.

If you look at the ingame weapon description in the field manual, you'll find that this weapon is actually a copy of the Negev design which caused many disputes in the Armaverse

As for slightly changed names, that has already been the case in e.g. Arma 2 (see "Handover" etc etc)

[BigBoss 10]

If you look at the ingame weapon description in the field manual, you'll find that this weapon is actually a copy of the Negev design which caused many disputes in the Armaverse

Thanks! I did not know that. I guess I should check the manual more often.

[chortles 263]

Thanks! I did not know that. I guess I should check the manual more often.

In the Field Manual a bunch of the weapons are stated to be descendants, evolutions or custom versions of real-world weapons... and in the Negev's case, a Chinese-made weapon; it's also where I first found out the "fate" of the TRG series after it got removed from BLUFOR inventories: that that series would be the weapon of the "GREEN Guerillas", apparently dubbed FIA over in dev branch.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Also, the Merkava has not been assigned to a side yet that we know of. There are screenshots of it in all three different faction camos. Just like the Hunter when we first saw screenshots of it.

For all we know the Merkava will end up being the GreenFor (Altian Armed Forces) main battle tank given it's age.

[[GLT] Legislator 59]

Altian Armed Forces? I could live with that if Altis / Limnos somehow became independent from Greece during the war. Otherwise it's pretty lame.

[NeuroFunker 11]

Since the game is in future, but still has good old kamaz, will we see the newest kamaz "taifoon" in game?

it's quite weird, that armies still using that old but good kamaz in year 2035.

[doln 10]

There are many, many more screenshots of the Merkava in blufor camo (And if you go look up Dyslecxis alpha preview trailer you can see many of the vehicles that were shown in opfor camo 2 years ago are now in the flat brown blufor camo, like the namer and the merkava) than there are of it in the opfor or independant camo. Independants will probably get a green camo verison of the opfor tank given their use of opfor technology in the beta.

Not only that, there are many screenshots of a t-90 descendant tank which would make far more sense going to the OPFOR than to the BLUFOR.

And bring back the railgun tank >:c

Edited July 14, 2013 by Doln

[wyspa 1]

I found something interesting today.

2t Stalker APC

Manufacturer page

BTR-K have different turret fitted to it. But hull looks almost exactly lite that of BTR-K, only differences are in the back of the vehicle, and vieports in front.

However if you look at version in image below, the view-ports looks the same as in Arma 3.

http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/3/2074/2_04.jpg (178 kB)

Edited August 9, 2013 by Wyspa

[purepassion 22]

Thank you for the notification! :) The Kamysh is indeed based on the 2T Stalker. This picture you found with the characteristic paintjob really makes the similarities obvious.

The turret is a modular Rafael SAMSON RWS turret.

[defk0n_NL 2]

Erhm... sorry? The title of the thread is "Is Arma 3 Authentic" I am simply stating what I feel defines authentic. Does that not fit in with the "thread theme". I don't believe I was complaining (though I don't deny having complaints).

Concerning the weird naming, maybe BIS just wants to make the game have a futuristic feel? By naming the Kamaz, Zamak, you may trick some people into thinking they are using a "super cool futuristic vehicle" while not actually having to invent one and pissing off the guys who want "authentic" vehicles - just a wild guess, I don't know nor really care. Still don't know the names for the majority of the weapons in game.

Basically this, Unless you have been employed in the army, most of the gear seems really unfamiliar.

It also plays a big role in how people perceive the game. Its like generic coke vs Coca Cola, It can damage the immersion because a certain value is lost.

I think switching from m16 to MX is more corroding then switching from m16 to m42 for example

I also think when people are referring to Sci Fi they are referring to this. Having no reference point instead of having it built upon previous one.

PS: I might just have finally figured out why Arma 2 feels more authentic then Arma 3.

Its like walking into McDonalds one day and find out they have swapped burgers for hotdogs.

Edited August 14, 2013 by defk0n_NL

[chortles 263]

I just took a look at the Launch Countdown page's weapons listing, and the PDW2000 is a renamed ST Kinetics Compact Personal Weapon (STK CPW) albeit in 9 x 21 mm (like the other 9 mm weapons) instead of 9 x 19 mm; the telltale signs to me were the vertical foregrip being attached by underbarrel rail and the magazine as seen here and extended stock as seen here.

[suprememodder 11]

Basically this, Unless you have been employed in the army, most of the gear seems really unfamiliar.

It also plays a big role in how people perceive the game. Its like generic coke vs Coca Cola, It can damage the immersion because a certain value is lost.

I think switching from m16 to MX is more corroding then switching from m16 to m42 for example

I also think when people are referring to Sci Fi they are referring to this. Having no reference point instead of having it built upon previous one.

PS: I might just have finally figured out why Arma 2 feels more authentic then Arma 3.

Its like walking into McDonalds one day and find out they have swapped burgers for hotdogs.

reference point is really damn important in immersion. glad someone brought this up. it's true for medieval games. so many crappy rpgs just design armors off the top of their heads. they don't base armors on things found in history books and manuscripts. suspension of disbelief goes right out the window.

[paecmaker 23]

I know old thread is old.

However I think the first page should be changed a bit now, it features vehicles(perhaps weapons as well) that are not in the game anymore, like the F35.

Also I think you should add the T100 as its definitly based on the black eagle tank/T95.

[spanishsurfer 58]

What exactly is futuristic about Arma 3? Not much at all IMO.

[purepassion 22]

I can certainly update the post when I have access to my desktop :)

Also, thank you for that excellent reference picture!

[Gudsawn 93]

Came across this while looking at some weapons:

Magpul M4

ACR

Looks like the MX rifle was based off of the two above.

They look very similar.

Perhaps this could be added to the list?

[mistyronin 1181]

They look very similar.

Perhaps this could be added to the list?

To me the ACR has more points:

[13islucky 10]

I always thought that some of the MXs kinda resembled the CZ805.

[scrim 1]

GDSN: I'd say the M4 has little to do with it. The only things in common that I could really see where things like grip, butt stock, rail system, etc., things that aren't exclusive to the M4 at all.

[squirrel0311 16]

According to the Internet Movie Firearms Database - The MX rifle seems to be a combitnation of the Remington ACR and the Robinson Armament XCR-L http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/ArmA_III

As I said in my wish list... I'm fairly happy witht he weapons we have in the game now but if they insist on adding more then I would say add only the most modernized versions of the classics.

Also, WHEN IS THIS THREAD GOING TO GET MADE INTO A STICKY? This needs to be where everyone can see it. Same with the COMMUNITY WISHES AND IDEAS - DISSCUSSION thread. We have the NO DISCUSSION thread stickied but what is the point of seeing a wishlist if you can't discuss it?