How close is ArmA 3 to real military action?

[soldierkid 1]

Hi Fellow Gamers,

Ive been reading this article on http://www.army-technology.com/features/featurewar-games-military-tech-in-the-virtual-world/

and it talks about how Arma 3 is pretty much as close to reality as you can get without gettin blown up haha. I was just wondering what everyone's opinion on it was?

[frostwyrm333 1]

Hi, this and your other topic will be closed in a short while. There is nothing like "REAL MILITARY ACTION" but it will be a good realistic game, yes.

[metalcraze 290]

If you are really interested in finding an answer to this question you can easily compare ArmA gameplay videos to real life military videos.

It's pretty close.

Of course there are also pretty arcade-ish missions made by the community but that's another aspect of ArmA flexibility. After all you can have russkies riding on cows with cow-mounted grenade-launchers in this game too.

[kotov12345 10]

well it depends - you cant simulate everything in one game. According public at this moment BIS presented fight with zombie more realistically than other aspects :)

[soldierkid 1]

Why its an interesting question no? in the article van Buchta, creative director of Arma 3 says "There is a hardcore milsim [military simulation] community around our games, consisting of many military professionals, military enthusiasts and other generally knowledgeable fans, who regard military accuracy and authenticity as very important,"

[MissionCreep 12]

Well, for starters, everything occurs on a 2-dimensional screen and all movement is mouse or keyboard controlled. So not really that close.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Your choice of caps lock in your thread title won't help you much. Plus this question has been asked before.

It's basically the civilian version of what the U.S. Army/USMC (and many others) use to train their soldiers. Google VBS2 for more info on that. That pretty much says it all.

[W0lle 1050]

As close as Pluto is to the sun, go figure.  :D

[Echo38 1]

There are a great many things in Arma 2 which were intentionally made unrealistic--a good example of this is being able to eject from helicopter gunships. Although I'd like for this sort of thing to be improved, I don't see any reason that it would be, since most players evidently prefer less realism in these areas. Arma 3 will, like Arma 2, be a game with some simulator elements, rather than an actual simulator. While it generally has more realism than most shooters, it has less realism than some shooters in some areas, and less realism than a high-fidelity simulator in virtually all areas. Ah, well--Arma is what it is, and I love it, but it'd be really nice if it did a better job of living up to its reputation as a simulator game.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Echo38

[Tankbuster 1746]

I've played the series since 2002 and not once have I had to;

• Sleep downwind of a flaming pit of poo.
  
• 
  
• Stay awake for 3 days.
  
• 
  
• See good men die.
  
• 
  
• Spend months away from family.
  
• 
  
• Been shot at or blown up.
  
• 
  
• Had to kill other people.
  

All for £16,000 a year.

So, it's nothing like real military action. Stupid question.

[Echo38 1]

I don't think anyone here is asking to see that sort of thing in Arma 3. Those of us who desire more realism wish for realism in areas where realism wouldn't make gameplay any less fun. For example, the aforementioned helicopter ejections, or, for that matter, being able to take a rocket launcher and sniper rifle into the cockpit of an A-10. Being realistically unable to eject from the helicopters wouldn't make gameplay less fun; to the contrary, having to autorotate down like a real helicopter pilot makes things more fun, not less. Having a SMAW launcher in your A-10 cockpit--it's just lame. Removing that unrealistic gamey stuff would only make the game better and more enjoyable, except to arcade kiddies. And, really, why are they playing Arma anyway if they like arcade stuff? Call of Battlefield seems more up the line of someone who'd parachute down from an Apache with a SMAW in his pocket.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Echo38

[max power 21]

To expand on what Tankbuster is saying, war is not a game. Logically, game-like things are not war-like. As far as games go I think it gets closest without actually having personally experienced a battle or a gunfight. There are certain expectations the game places on you due to its mechanics: act as a team, move slowly, use the terrain, use your assets appropriately, etc. You may even be able to make a fairly realistic scenario in terms of who is there and what happens. This is the part of war that everyone talks about but I have gleaned it's actually not really descriptive of what war is or what it does to the people it involves.

[metalcraze 290]

Oh I like how people jump on the dude with "no you don't have to poop your pants if you need to go to men's room under fire so ArmA is nothing like real war" when the dude was just asking whether it allows for real-life combat to look like real-life combat gameplay-wise and not hollywoody arcade shoot-ishness

I think it's kinda obvious that when a bullet misses a dude in the game by 5 mm it doesn't hit another dude sitting in front of the monitor behind him with PC controls in hands.

[SnowSky 12]

I for my part think that ArmA/Ofp is a really good simulation. As all simulators - they can't kill you (okay, you might want to stick a Tazer to your head and connect a Force Feedback Controller with a Relais for the tazer - but I guess that won't be a reason to play a simulator then). If people mean that "realistic" games need to be 1:1 to reality, I think they didn't get the point. It's the same as with people who think that only a good looking graphic in a video game proves "realism".

The game gets realistic if you play it in a serious way, by this I mean parts like communicationhandling, logistics, tactics and the biggest factor - handling your life as it would be the only one you have.

If the mission allows you to respawn - and you play it in a style like "I run around the corner - if I die - i'll be back in 1 minute and then I know where he is" - then it won't be ever realistic because of YOUR behaviour.

In multiplayer it gets even harder to stay "realistic" - because even if you try to take it serious, other people might teamkill you to test their weapon - so how would you like to avoid it? making it unrealistic in a manner of disabling teamkilling?

So in general I would say yes - arma is realistic

and I don't count arguments like "tank driving, flying and so on is so 'arcadeish'", I would like it, but it would be beyond the scope I guess

My 3,141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067 Lire :)

[Ekko 1]

All I know is that ArmA 3 is going to be a lot more realistic then your average Arcade Fps because BIS has been working on their engine for quite some time now. And I believe it can't be less realistic than their previous military sims... With it's new gameplay it actually looks a lot more realistic than arma 2. Yeah you heard me, A lot! and going for easier and more responsive gameplay is actually realistic, because our minds act very similar in the virtual world and the real world(my opinion though) It also looks more realistic visually. Everything is improving, it might lose some realistic aspects here and there but it's still going to be military realistic, because thats what they are making, a military simulator.

And if you don't believe it's going to be military realistic, just wait for year 2036 and tell me im wrong...

[mordeaniischaos 3]

Well, ArmA 2 is a pretty basic simulation that ignores a LOT of the basic things a soldier does in the field, for one. Even ignoring everything the modern Soldier/Marine/Corpsmen/etc does in the field besides engage in firefights or perform recon. you aren't getting a very accurate representation. ArmA is a broad form "simulation" focusing more on quantity over quality. It allows you to do a lot of things, and has a lot of toys, but no one mechanic is particularly deep. ArmA 3 will hopefully improve on that, but just the AI alone is enough to make ArmA 2 ridiculously unrealistic. Add the health model, lack of a decent damage model, piss poor land vehicle simulation, and how incredibly static and limited the environments tend to be, ArmA 2 is pretty unrealistic. Hopefully ArmA 3 adds more detail to the simulation with things like Zeroing your rifle (adjusting sights for range and windage) and a more flexible stance system, both of which I know have been talked about somewhere on the forums. But there's so much you can't do in ArmA, and that's ok, but it's not a super realistic detailed look at what combat is really like. You can make it more realistic with some mods, but at the end of the day, it's just not meant to be as detailed as, well, real life.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Well, ArmA 2 is a pretty basic simulation that ignores a LOT of the basic things a soldier does in the field, for one. Even ignoring everything the modern Soldier/Marine/Corpsmen/etc does in the field besides engage in firefights or perform recon. you aren't getting a very accurate representation. ArmA is a broad form "simulation" focusing more on quantity over quality. It allows you to do a lot of things, and has a lot of toys, but no one mechanic is particularly deep. ArmA 3 will hopefully improve on that, but just the AI alone is enough to make ArmA 2 ridiculously unrealistic. Add the health model, lack of a decent damage model, piss poor land vehicle simulation, and how incredibly static and limited the environments tend to be, ArmA 2 is pretty unrealistic. Hopefully ArmA 3 adds more detail to the simulation with things like Zeroing your rifle (adjusting sights for range and windage) and a more flexible stance system, both of which I know have been talked about somewhere on the forums. But there's so much you can't do in ArmA, and that's ok, but it's not a super realistic detailed look at what combat is really like. You can make it more realistic with some mods, but at the end of the day, it's just not meant to be as detailed as, well, real life.

Well, you know the game so well you don't know that zeroing is already included.

[Smurf 12]

It's so real that the next US war will be fought in it, due budget cuts.

[mordeaniischaos 3]

In basic, unmodded ArmA 2?

Also, never claimed to be an expert. I have yet to really get into the game, sorry if you're a little butthurt that I don't think it's the most detailed simulation. I don't think that's a bad thing in most cases (the AI is just dreadful, when you have to deal with it), and understand why it's not hugely detailed. But I am excited to see how much more detail is going into ArmA 3.

Edited July 25, 2012 by MordeaniisChaos

[igneous01 19]

It's so real that the next US war will be fought in it, due budget cuts.

this.

We will resolve all conflict in the world by having huge lan parties against other countries parliaments.

---------- Post added at 11:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 PM ----------

Well, ArmA 2 is a pretty basic simulation that ignores a LOT of the basic things a soldier does in the field, for one. Even ignoring everything the modern Soldier/Marine/Corpsmen/etc does in the field besides engage in firefights or perform recon. you aren't getting a very accurate representation. ArmA is a broad form "simulation" focusing more on quantity over quality. It allows you to do a lot of things, and has a lot of toys, but no one mechanic is particularly deep. ArmA 3 will hopefully improve on that, but just the AI alone is enough to make ArmA 2 ridiculously unrealistic. Add the health model, lack of a decent damage model, piss poor land vehicle simulation, and how incredibly static and limited the environments tend to be, ArmA 2 is pretty unrealistic. Hopefully ArmA 3 adds more detail to the simulation with things like Zeroing your rifle (adjusting sights for range and windage) and a more flexible stance system, both of which I know have been talked about somewhere on the forums. But there's so much you can't do in ArmA, and that's ok, but it's not a super realistic detailed look at what combat is really like. You can make it more realistic with some mods, but at the end of the day, it's just not meant to be as detailed as, well, real life.

have you tried ACE yet? it has what you are asking for (minus character movement, but if you want that, get the pvp animation pack)

[mordeaniischaos 3]

I haven't dabbled with it yet, I keep meaning to read up on it to see if it really actually does the things I want but the little I read about it seems like it's more of a half step up rather than actually adding the details I'd like to see. I'm happy just waiting for ArmA 3 to hopefully have a game that gets more in-depth.

[-Coulum- 35]

Arma 2 (and I assume arma 3) are as close to real you'll get with any video on the market. That being said they're is alot that could be done to get even closer to realism.

But the bottom line is, how real it feels all depends on how you play. If you run and gun, respawn and repeat it doesn't feel real at all but rather like a cheesy video game. If you use patience and treat your avatars life like its the only one you got it will feel very real.

[metalcraze 290]

In basic, unmodded ArmA 2?

Yes.

I have yet to really get into the game, sorry if you're a little butthurt that I don't think it's the most detailed simulation. I don't think that's a bad thing in most cases (the AI is just dreadful, when you have to deal with it), and understand why it's not hugely detailed. But I am excited to see how much more detail is going into ArmA 3.

It's not the most detailed simulation but there is no better (and unfortunately it will stay this way - no competition). Same goes for AI - the best we've got in shooter games, for better or worse.

If there was AI that behaved like humans we wouldn't be needing real soldiers anymore.

Want the ultimate infantry realism - get ACE mod. I can't play vanilla anymore because of it.

[onlyrazor 11]

Same goes for AI - the best we've got in shooter games, for better or worse.

If there was AI that behaved like humans we wouldn't be needing real soldiers anymore.

People keep getting the misconception Arma has, and I quote, "terrible" AI. They've been spoiled by over-scripted shooters. There are very few games with AI that even approaches good that isn't player-centric and takes place in an open world.

I recall STALKER also had quite convincing AI. Maybe not the best, but it was convincing, though that's second-hand experience.

[-GR-Operative 10]

I think it's kinda obvious that when a bullet misses a dude in the game by 5 mm it doesn't hit another dude sitting in front of the monitor behind him with PC controls in hands.

But you gotta admit that would be a nice advertising for ARMA: As real as it gets haha