How many will play ArmA 3 solely for its realism?

[JCDBionicman 1]

If you like realistic games, why not invest in a commercial copy of VBS2? A hundred bucks (or two if I'm not remembering correctly), but you'll be set for life won't you?

People don't play video games for their realism. Certain exceptions to "realism" will have to be made in ArmA 3, just like in ArmA 2, if the developers want to make the game actually fun to play to the majority of PC gamers. Proof is in that, for example, you can switch out optics on guns on the fly in ArmA 3 while in real life you would have to carefully zero the optic at a firing range before doing so.

Another example would be dealing with injured. In ArmA 2 (and probably 3) you simply treat the soldier, and while this can sometimes be lengthy, regardless of the severity of his wounds he will be able to still fight, and at full capacity once he recovers after some time. While this is unrealistic it's necessary so that games can be wrapped up in a reasonable amount of time, and still it's a lot more complex and cumbersome to gameplay than "hide behind cover" or "magical healthpack." No player wants to wait something like an hour to get back into the fight, and no sane person should for the sake of a video game.

Can you see how certain sacrifices should be made for the sake of it being a video game? I believe a simulation nears reality, but does not mimic it completely. It sort of tries to create metaphorically accurate substitutes for things that players of the simulation simply wouldn't normally have the luxury of taking the time to deal with. In a flight simulator for example, the time for checking the plane for takeoff can be long, as in hours. Also, if the plane needs repairs or something, that can take days. So while the simulation of medical practices may not be perfectly accurate, It's reasonably accurate as far as in how it tries to create a somewhat believable atmosphere of realism while still being playable to the consumer.

I think some people misunderstand why they actually like ArmA. I think it's not necessarily it's realism, and really when you get to thinking, ArmA isn't as nearly realistic as it should be for being a game supposedly being sold to people who want realism. I mean, people say the same thing about COD, so think about that for a minute. Just because ArmA is a game marketed for it's realism doesn't necessarily mean that's why people like it

I am interested in ArmA 3 for it's attention to detail, it's attention to complexity, it's attention to polish. I bought a computer recently just so I could ArmA 2. Unfortunately I found that it's much an unfinished game, and now I know why barely anybody plays it, and why there's barely any attention given to it by any media outlet. Perhaps some mods fix where the game is completely broken, but I believe that a game so heavily dependant on modders to do the developers jobs for the player to get a complete and full experience, is not a game worth 30 bucks for. This is the same reason why I stopped playing Bethesda's games, including Skyrim.

I've heard comments from developers that have gotten my hopes up, such as that they are working on creating better controls. Also the footage looks really really good. The footage from ArmA 2 looked good too, so I won't just be fooled by fancy trailers. Another thing that has gotten my hopes up is that the person who was in charge during ArmA 2's development has left to give that responsibility to someone else. I don't know much about either the former lead designer or the person replacing him, I'm just saying this might be good news for ArmA 3 if ArmA 2's problems had anything to do with the former lead designer.

I'll get to the point though. ArmA 2 tries so hard to be realistic that it isn't fun. It fails at both. The CTI mode only manages to be semi realistic, and that's being generous. CTI is not fun because the map is too large, and slogging from town to town performing the monotony of military logistics is not fun for obvious reasons. To fill the void that is the 166 square miles or 244 square miles of Takistan and Chernarus, AI is used. As many have said, dealing with AI is extremely frustrating. They aren't a good replacement for humans (currently) because they perform menial skills with too much perfection (shooting and aiming) while lacking any actual intelligence, ie pathfinding, taking cover. Now my point is that ArmA 3 multiplayer should be PVP focused. Currently, A2 is not focused on the group of people who want to play multiplayer to have a great time, or at least to those who know how to have a great time (none that I've noticed). What A3 should be, and what A2 should be multiplayer wise, is Battlefield but bigger and with more attention to detail. I'm going to get it out of the way firstly, that it is entirely irrelevant that ArmA is not Battlefield, and that there is nothing wrong with me suggesting that ArmA should take some pointers from it, and that even in doing so ArmA is still an original game and very different from Battlefield. I have my own criticisms with Battlefield and Battlefield 3 in particular, but the multiplayer in B3 for those that haven't played it is very very fun and engaging. Battlefield multiplayer is fun because it's slow, but not slow as in slow to a crawl like ArmA. I'll let the implications speak for themselves.

I mentioned that I appreciate attention to detail, but not necessarily realism. Let's take mocapping for example. You might think mocapping is great because it's realistic, and therefore provides a greater ability to suspend disbelief. You are right, but what's more important about mocapping is that it makes animation look immensely intricate and complex, in other words, beautiful. This is either impossible or very hard to replicate with current animation technologies. Even Euphoria is used in conjunction with mocapping, not as a substitute. Let's look at Metal Gear Solid. Ridiculously unrealistic actually, but this game while heavily fictional takes everything from reality as inspiration for it's fantastical fiction. Military tactics, military weapons, history and science, all intricately detailed and explained accurately throughout the MGS series. What I'm getting at is that adhering to realism is the only way to get a level of detail that is astonishingly beautiful in it's complexity. Many praise MGS for it's story and level of emotion. Actually, when you take a closer look at MGS it's nothing but a soapbox of overacting and ridiculous cheesyness, but it's sold to the players like cake because of how convincing all the surrounding detail is to them.

Edited January 17, 2013 by JCDBionicman

[rye1 21]

Solely is a bit of an awkward way of wording it, isn't it? I don't think anyone plays ARMA solely because of anything. It's a variety of factors.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

You state "...that ArmA 3 multiplayer should be PVP focused," when groups like ShackTac, UO et al have proven quite convincingly that great PVP scenarios are not only possible, but enjoyable in ArmA 2 already.

With regard to public servers, I believe that the reason CTI-esque missions like Domination are so prevalent is because they can be left running on a server with little/no admin input, players can come and go as they please, grab their sniper rifles and AT launchers and lone wolf some AI from a hill somewhere - they don't need to grab 7 other mates and form a squad to get traction. It's possible to parallel this with other games like BF3, where players can go recon and sit on a rock with their straight-pull-bolt-aimpoint-kill-mark-inscribed-M98Bs with little/no team interaction necessary, or run straight into battle and die gloriously within 30 seconds of spawning. In other words, it caters to the need for rapid gratification, and who cares if realism even comes into it? Everyone is SF online.

What I see as a the fatal flaw with the above post is that you see CTI, and CTI against the AI at that, as the only MP mode worth discussing. CTI is probably the most bug-ridden MP mode created for A2. What about small and large scale PvPs, or simple co-ops with only a few reasonable objectives, where the author has provided constraints against "the monotony of military logistics" or where the need for logistics has been removed in totality?

The mechanics for great MP has been provided in this series since the Cold War Assault days - it's just that the vast majority of people don't want to undergo the hassle of either making their own MP missions, or take the easier option and jump into Domination.

The focus on CTI blinkers people to the vast array of other MP modes out there, but, simply put, CTI caters to the most players who have to have taken down a troop of tanks or a platoon of infantry within 2 minutes of spawning or the time has been wasted.

[chortles 263]

The mechanics for great MP has been provided in this series since the Cold War Assault days - it's just that the vast majority of people don't want to undergo the hassle of either making their own MP missions, or take the easier option and jump into Domination.

The dirty little secret is that like most things I imagine that most people just don't have the creativity to come up with "the next great MP match type concept"*... it's not zombies that took DayZ to the top, especially since there were zombie mods before that!

* Unfortunately BI isn't exempt from this rule either, but of course neither are other game studios.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Oh, of course. But the crux of my point is that poor mission design is what stifles MP, not gameplay itself.

[GepardenK 0]

I know my favorite thing in Arma is the tense and sometimes amazing situations you end up in, its the only game that gets my hearth pumping like hell. After 10 years with the series I still end up in situation were I feel completely overwhelmed, insanely clever or absolutely amazed about whats going on. Even the lackluster campaign in the recent DLC gave me memorable moments I will never forget.

The main reason for this is authentic gameplay (not realistic). Nevermind the realism of it, the fact is that Armas gameplay is set up to create authentic situations and here it succeeds like no other game has ever done.

But Arma2 lacks 1 thing that makes most people not intersted, and thats the thing Cold War Crisis (first game) had in spades: Charm

Edited January 16, 2013 by GepardenK

[RoyTF91 1]

But Arma2 lacks 1 thing that makes most people not intersted, and thats the thing Cold War Crisis (first game) had in spades: Charm

I sadly missed the days of OFP Cold War Crisis, so could you please elaborate on this point? Cheers.

[chortles 263]

Oh, of course. But the crux of my point is that poor mission design is what stifles MP, not gameplay itself.

Unfortunately for Arma 3 design, there's no "magic bullet" fix for "poor mission design".

[GepardenK 0]

I sadly missed the days of OFP Cold War Crisis, so could you please elaborate on this point? Cheers.

Well, It has an amazing campaign with good voice acting and memorable music. The best part is the story though. You follow a squad of inexperienced and naive soldiers during the cold war who gets their world turned upside down when a rouge russian general tries to force world war 3. It manages to create a sense of mystery about the entire situation and later panic as you realize you are figthing a loosing battle. Its epic and personal at the same time, a true classic

[kilroy the nerd 14]

Since players can make missions, it's on you if you can't make or find a good mission.

And you say ArmA 3, not ArmA 2. Did you get into beta? I'd love to hear more about it.

Really, I'm going to get ArmA 3 because if it's anything like ArmA 2, it will be fun. It will be fun for me, I will enjoy, and I will play the content others make because it's amazing. That's about it. The teamwork, open world, scale, and infinite other factors will continue to make ArmA fun for me and undoubtedly others.

[JCDBionicman 1]

You state "...that ArmA 3 multiplayer should be PVP focused," when groups like ShackTac, UO et al have proven quite convincingly that great PVP scenarios are not only possible, but enjoyable in ArmA 2 already.

With regard to public servers, I believe that the reason CTI-esque missions like Domination are so prevalent is because they can be left running on a server with little/no admin input, players can come and go as they please, grab their sniper rifles and AT launchers and lone wolf some AI from a hill somewhere - they don't need to grab 7 other mates and form a squad to get traction. It's possible to parallel this with other games like BF3, where players can go recon and sit on a rock with their straight-pull-bolt-aimpoint-kill-mark-inscribed-M98Bs with little/no team interaction necessary, or run straight into battle and die gloriously within 30 seconds of spawning. In other words, it caters to the need for rapid gratification, and who cares if realism even comes into it? Everyone is SF online.

What I see as a the fatal flaw with the above post is that you see CTI, and CTI against the AI at that, as the only MP mode worth discussing. CTI is probably the most bug-ridden MP mode created for A2. What about small and large scale PvPs, or simple co-ops with only a few reasonable objectives, where the author has provided constraints against "the monotony of military logistics" or where the need for logistics has been removed in totality?

The mechanics for great MP has been provided in this series since the Cold War Assault days - it's just that the vast majority of people don't want to undergo the hassle of either making their own MP missions, or take the easier option and jump into Domination.

The focus on CTI blinkers people to the vast array of other MP modes out there, but, simply put, CTI caters to the most players who have to have taken down a troop of tanks or a platoon of infantry within 2 minutes of spawning or the time has been wasted.

If I'm not mistaken we agree on everything but these:

You should not be required to do the following in order to fully experience multiplayer:

Join a group or clan

Learn how to work a complex in game editor

The reason I only talk about CTI is because that's the only game type that's sufficiently populated. Team Deathmatch and everything else has zero player count, or at the most one or two servers.

Also, coop does count as multiplayer technically, but I fail to see why teaming up to take down AI in a scenario that plays itself over and over and over again is a "thing." For campaign sure, for some cool user made missions sure, but not as "multiplayer, except against the AI hurr durr" I'd imagine it would get old fast. The AI are going to do mostly the same things over and over again, with some minor variances only, seeing as their similar being given the same scenario repeatedly. As said, what alleviates this sort of thing would be playing the campaign or user missions on coop, where each situation is unique. The problem is there's nothing ingame that would allow the average player know that there is some hidden community or otherwise information, game modes, and things he should know about. User made missions in Far Cry and Halo work so well and such communities are huge because everything is ingame, and the editor is user friendly while allowing for a lot of functionality.

---------- Post added at 04:08 ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 ----------

Since players can make missions, it's on you if you can't make or find a good mission.

No, it's on Bohemia, because they didn't provide. Modding is not a substitute for developer made content. It is irresponsible for developers to use the modding community as a crutch.

---------- Post added at 04:14 ---------- Previous post was at 04:08 ----------

I don't think anyone plays ARMA solely because of anything. It's a variety of factors.

Isn't that my point?

Edited January 16, 2013 by JCDBionicman

[EvenLease 11]

Can't wait for ArmA 3! Hopefully it'll be realistic as possible, or at least mods like ACE come around to do it!

[JCDBionicman 1]

Can't wait for ArmA 3! Hopefully it'll be realistic as possible, or at least mods like ACE come around to do it!

Since you seem to like realistic games, why not invest in a commercial copy of VBS2? A hundred bucks (or two if I'm not remembering correctly), but you'll be set for life won't you?

People don't play video games for their realism. Certain exceptions to "realism" will have to be made in ArmA 3, just like in ArmA 2, if the developers want to make the game actually fun to play to the majority of PC gamers. Proof is in that, for example, you can switch out optics on guns on the fly in ArmA 3 while in real life you would have to carefully zero the optic at a firing range before doing so.

Another example would be dealing with injured. In ArmA 2 (and probably 3) you simply treat the soldier, and while this can sometimes be lengthy, regardless of the severity of his wounds he will be able to still fight, and at full capacity once he recovers after some time. While this is unrealistic it's necessary so that games can be wrapped up in a reasonable amount of time, and still it's a lot more complex and cumbersome to gameplay than "hide behind cover" or "magical healthpack." No player wants to wait something like an hour to get back into the fight, and no sane person should for the sake of a video game.

Can you see how certain sacrifices should be made for the sake of it being a video game? I believe a simulation nears reality, but does not mimic it completely. It sort of tries to create metaphorically accurate substitutes for things that players of the simulation simply wouldn't normally have the luxury of taking the time to deal with. In a flight simulator for example, the time for checking the plane for takeoff can be long, as in hours. Also, if the plane needs repairs or something, that can take days. So while the simulation of medical practices may not be perfectly accurate, It's reasonably accurate as far as in how it tries to create a somewhat believable atmosphere of realism while still being playable to the consumer.

[max power 21]

Proof is in that, for example, you can switch out optics on guns on the fly in ArmA 3 while in real life you would have to carefully zero the optic at a firing range before doing so.

This isn't actually true. With the QD scope mounts you can zero it first, and then when you detatch and reattach them they retain their zero.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Also, coop does count as multiplayer technically, but I fail to see why teaming up to take down AI in a scenario that plays itself over and over and over again is a "thing."

The reason I only talk about CTI is because that's the only game type that's sufficiently populated. Team Deathmatch and everything else has zero player count, or at the most one or two servers.

That's a massive claim to make. You may fail to see it as a "thing," but the popularity of CTI scenarios, for example, that you yourself deadpan prove you wrong. For the reasons I listed previously, large scale, pick-up-put-down co-ops are the mainstay of MP, DayZ aside, of course.

The AI are going to do mostly the same things over and over again, with some minor variances only, seeing as their similar being given the same scenario repeatedly.

Another huge claim. Each playthrough in SP is different depending on what the AI do. The same thing occurs in MP. Anyone who claims the AI mostly do the same thing over and over again is pretty much wrong - they give an unprecedented level of replayability versus pretty much every other FPS out there.

You should not be required to do the following in order to fully experience multiplayer:

Join a group or clan

Learn how to work a complex in game editor

I wholly agree - I am stating that in ArmA 2, however, you are best off doing the two points listed above, because there are no popular BF3-esque scenarios in A2. Even if these scenarios were made, I'd find it hard to believe that they would dent the popularity of the large scale co-op.

Your OP can be boiled down to these two requests:

- A robust number of engaging MP PVP missions in the initial release.

- More accessible editor.

BI has hired Celery, renowned for his MP work, so hopefully the first is a go. The second, well, we'll have to see. I sincerely hope functionality isn't sacrificed in the name of accessibility, however.

I still predict that a game mode looking a whole lot like Domination will reign supreme as far as ArmA 3 public MP goes.

[dm 9]

I think some people misunderstand why they actually like ArmA.

People don't play video games for their realism.

Please don't tell me how/why I play games.

To assume such things is to completely invalidate your point.

my point is that ArmA 3 multiplayer should be PVP focused.

Ah, one of those people...

[rye1 21]

If it's PVP focused will it improve CO-OP?

[Varanon 892]

People don't play video games for their realism.

I find it strange to make a poll asking people if they play Arma for realism, and then claim in the same thread that they don't.

Personally, I don't play Amra for the realism, that is true. It's one aspect that I like, but in essence, the reason why I play it can be summed up in a few words: There is no other like it.

I also strongly disagree on the "must be PvP focused". Why ? Just because it will get you more players ? For me, the main focus has always been Coop. Your mileage may wary, and I respect that, but I don't see an overwhelming reason to focus on anything, PvP or Coop, in a game that is as flexible as Arma.

[dmarkwick 261]

I play ArmA because it's non player-centric, in the game I am no more, or less, important an entity than any other in the game. That makes a huge difference to me about how I view the things I see.

[PuFu 4600]

i for one play arma for the sdk, and the infinite number of scenarious possible, and endless possibilities available, be it pvp or coop.

[Dallas 9]

Once you play ArmA, you can never go back.

There's no alternatives to ArmA, only ArmA offers this level of complexity, realism and openness and because of it's complexity there are bugs too. What BI is asking it's AI to do, is a lot more demanding than what other "realistic shooters"(realistic, read modern day shooters) demand from their interactive cinematic experiences(read quicktime events and rendered cutscenes). You have two options. You can either take a forgiving approach to the bugs, as a byproduct of complexity or you can accept simplified gameplay, which so many companies already offer. What I love about Bohemia Interactive is that they never limit their games to what they can deliver at launch, that they continue to patch and improve their products, while allowing their customers unheard access to creating user content.

Where other companies say: Modding is a declining trend.

BI says: Welcome to our editor.

[Tes 1]

agreed. The editor is power of this game.This and the comunity which creates wonders like ACRE, ACE, I44, new units and other islands. We re not plaing your game anymore. Its OUR game. Where other gamers just moan they do stuff to make game better. I started plaing for realism, to get the biggest possible experience of being in real battle.To train myself before Army, like training ground. I joined an organised group who plays it and fellt in love with them. These people are awesome, we even have actual soldiers plaing it. That says smoething. Once you tried multiplayer with a group that knows each other you can never go back. Its like second family.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Let's wait and see if BIS can make some great A3 mp/sp missions incl. optional parameters and how long these mission will be played. As soon as people will find A3 editing/scripting, modding etc userfriendly and easy to learn they will try and make their own scenarios anyway. Server admins do select which missions/mods/addons are active on their servers not BIS!

[On_Sabbatical 11]

I've said it on another topic,and i will repeat it : ArmA is lucky to be unique in its category !

Popular games are successful because they're perfect on what they're claim to be /try to be !

When you pretend that you're making a milsim and want to be popular after,you need to work your game for something beyond "usability" and go for perfection ... it's not the case for ArmA,because the game is developped just to be usable or playable ! i'd say 80 % of ArmA don't play it for its realism or,ceased playing for its realism because the game is ,simply, not inspiring in terms of realism ! When you deal with ArmA as a milsim ,you see clearly that it can't be compared to Air milsims (DCS series for example) in terms of perfection and the sake of detail !

ArmA is a really challenging project and very ambitious,but everything in the game was developped just to "generic" level ! When you complain about "Tank" fights,everyone tells you :it's not a a tank milsim ... when you talk about air fights you get the same answer and so on !

Maybe ArmA needs to redefine itself,in a first step whether it's a "Game" or "Simulation", then what exactly it is : a "Sandbox" that can do any kind of missions or some kind of "all-in-one-milsim.

Edited January 16, 2013 by On_Sabbatical

[feralcircus 2]

I for one will definitely be looking for realism...

The same reason I only ever buy and use driving, flight, combat etc... simulations.

It's always been an interest of mine to try and recreate something in real life as closely as possible in an artificial environment.

I just hope that they build the maps based on the earths curvature (part of an earth shaped sphere with a proper centre of gravity) to make the sky & horizons look and act more realistically instead of an infinitely flat view distance :-s

My daughter plays a Nintendo Mario game where the character is running around on tiny planets. Make Arma maps like that but on a 1.1 scale :-)

Either way I'm sure ARMA 3 is going to be awesome :-)