Why are the scenarios so unrealistic?

[Tyrant-0 10]

I know how this looks - a whopping one post, and a title that at first, looks like troll post. But I am legitimately curious.

A preface: the only experience I have with previous Arma games is the free demo for ArmA 2 - which I appreciated for its attempts at accuracy, but ultimately found hilarious. I was unable to split up fireteams, simple soldiering techniques such as bounding overwatch, suppressing fire and break contact were mostly non-existent, enemies were woefully unrealistic (see you at 1 klick in heavy brush, but not hear you walking behind them on crunchy gravel?) etc. I appreciated things like realistic bullet physics (superbly done!), teammates that were constantly communicating, if not very helpful in a firefight, and realistic damage models. In the end, I didn't see a compelling reason to move away from my old school Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six -- I wasn't impressed enough to pull the trigger on buying Arma 2, but saw enough promise to invest in Arma 3 (especially for the price they were asking for the Alpha). The mod community alone will likely make the game worth the price of admission.

That said, playing the scenarios in the Arma 3 alpha/ beta -- I am once again frustrated. Many of the details are right... but the big picture is way off. Weapons sound very realistic (I'm overjoyed that I can identify what I'm being shot at with based on the sound alone - great job). The handling is much less clunky than Arma 2, and many other small improvements.

The Bottom Line Up Front: many of the scenarios in the Beta do not represent realistic military scenarios - ether conventional or unconventional. Instead, they put a special operator, alone, with kit that is not appropriate for the mission or terrain at hand, and ask them to do something that would often take between 8 and 20 men to accomplish in real life. The end result is a game that feels far more "Hollywood" than is advertised.

Let's just take the "Night" showcase as an example. Why in the world am I alone? This is easily the job of a 4-man amphibious special ops team -- if not more. I'm facing an overwhelming force, expected to make contact with the enemy, and draw fire. Yet I'm alone? Talk about a James Bond moment. A 4-man fireteam would not only increase my odds of survival, but create a much better distraction, and be more effective at engaging the enemy. Yet they just send one man...

Next, let's look at the kit brought on the mission. Large, open, arid terrain; night time operation, ambush techniques are required for success. Where is my night vision? At the start of the op, it is a little too bright to be using it, but what if things go wrong and I'm stuck out there for a bit? With such long sight lines, limited cover and concealment and such an overwhelming enemy force, why am I not given optics more suited to the terrain? Rather than a DMR with a 4x scope, I'm given a carbine with a red dot? Rather than a LAW, I'm given a couple of satchel charges? Where is my first aid kit? Close air support is out of the question, and if I get injured, I'm going to have to suck it up for the foreseeable future, but I'm not given any sort of blowout kit? If the game wanted to FORCE me into close quarters (a bad idea in such open terrain), why did they send me with an unsupressed weapon? Flash hider, even? No such luck.

I understand weight is a huge consideration in such an operation, but again, it raises the question - why am I alone out there? A 4 man fire team, you can have 2 guys with a LAW, one grenadier, one marksman and everyone carrying a satchel charge. It isn't just common sense, its vastly more realistic than the scenario presented. 4 - 8 men could distribute kit items among themselves, attack multiple objectives at once, put more fire down range, and leave just as small a "footprint" as one man. It's why SOF operates in small fireteams in the first place. Give those 4- 8 men longer-range weapons with suitable optics, blood-stopping kits and NODs, and you would actually be on the right track.

Don't even get me started on the SCUBA and Vehicle showcases. They are laughable at best, and undermine the notion that the game is a simulator, as opposed to CoD with better bullet physics and no regen health. It looks like 13 years later and Ghost Recon is still the game to beat...

I understand the scenarios are meant to showcase improvements and features within the game, and aren't meant to be a replacement for the campaign mode found in the full game. But all they are showing off to me is the same reason I was reluctant to buy Arma 2. Realistic bullet physics, attention to detail on things like mag sizes, and 1-3 shot kills, do not make a game realistic. Put Battlefield on "hardcore" mode and it has all of the above. What was the reasoning in making the scenarios as unrealistic as they are currently? Will the campaign improve on the lack of military realism, or will it be more of the same with a story attached?

Thanks for your time - and feel free to set me straight on any errors I may have made above.

[Smurf 12]

Hi and welcome!

Because they are indeed showcases, supose to be tight and fast, focused on single aspects of the game. Think on them as a glorified tutorials :).

The real missions\campaign are a little more grounded but as a game, it will still have some unrealistic bits to keep some action flowing and the enemy forces always will be in a greater number (not to a COD ratio, much less), afterall they're not humans. With that said, A2 campaign was kind of good, BAF (A2 DLC) one too and most single missions featured in A2 were great.

By comments from Devs on E3, the A3 campaign is aiming to be more similar to the old OFP and those "successful" A2 missions instead of some "Special Tier 1 Operator" thing.

For more realistic stuff you can always count on community made missions, there are a lot of people like you that make them. Same for MP, try realism focused units and you may get what you want.

[giorgygr 61]

@about scenario setup

..i think it's just a different point of view and balancing. (i.e having a team of friendly AI with you it will be IMPOSSIBLE to make a stealth approach)

@on the others..

I m really sorry man...

This game it's STILL a game and NOT a simulator-and i m afraid it will remain as is to attract players/fans of other games.

Me and the clan (*ARMA2CO era) we were using a mod-pack of about 6-7 mods (without counting the islands of course) to enrich the game

with MORE *simulation elements..because *Simulation elements we only have..

[PartyHead 10]

Aw well you get that.

Edited June 28, 2013 by PartyHead

[Laqueesha 474]

I'd have to agree with your assessment of the "Night" mission. I was perplexed as to why I was alone, and not properly-equipped for the mission. It's 2035, and special operations forces go into battle without night vision?

[OrLoK 20]

Hello there

It's a difficult one this. I can give you a heap of guesses why the missions are unrealistic, but they'll only be assumptions and might rile some folk.

As smurf says, don't worry about them. The community always manages to cater for all ones mission needs, from those that love "action" missions to those who love "milsim" missions.

I often find myself editing existing missions to suit my particular playstyle and that's the beauty of the arma series and the relative ease of use of the editor (+scripts).

Don't be afraid to mess around in the editor (although there are modules missing atm).

Lastly check out the user missions area in these very forums. There's loads of good one available already.

TL;DR? The missions have to appeal to a vast audience so they'll be neither one thing or the other imho.

Rgds

LoK

[froggyluv 2136]

Artistic license I'd suppose. It's the conundrum of a futuristic game , as it very well me be that in 2035 most wars between superpowers will be from behind a monitor and drone joystick yet I doubt most people would enjoy that game :p

Personally, I remember the OFP/Res pitch black night missions fondly yet really can't recall any missions that were entirely NVG based -just lacks that visceral punch I suppose. Perhaps they should have named it Nightime Lighting Showcase as not to disappoint though in todays times, someone is always disappoint...

[OrLoK 20]

Go back to CoD and Battlefield then.

Really?

You may disagree with the chap, but at least give a decent reasoning. OP may have dropped the C-bomb first but there's no need to pursue it.

oh well..

I do agree with OP that on some missions one would expect a little more assistance but again user missions are the way to go IMHO, although I do personally enjoy the bundles missions in A2/A3 etc.

Rgds

LoK

[PartyHead 10]

Aw well you get that.

Edited June 28, 2013 by PartyHead

[gunso 10]

yup, i agree with partyhead.

I play OFP and arma series because of the large map and how it lets me choose my own approach not fixed path like in other fps games. For someone just joined and his 1st post is to complain about a game in beta phase and suddenly comparing it to cod and bf, you all know where this thread is heading to.

[St. Jimmy 272]

I like how those showcases are easy to get in and have quick fun and I don't need to control the AI which I hate the most. Those all alone scenarios should have coop mode to have fun with more friends because those missions aren't really suitable for one man.

[freakjoe 3]

Really?

You may disagree with the chap, but at least give a decent reasoning. OP may have dropped the C-bomb first but there's no need to pursue it.

oh well..

I do agree with OP that on some missions one would expect a little more assistance but again user missions are the way to go IMHO, although I do personally enjoy the bundles missions in A2/A3 etc.

Rgds

LoK

I absolutely agree with you. Also, I do not think that the "unfitting" equipment for example that you're given for a scenario is something that is going to be changed after beta. So bringing up that he's complaining about a game in beta phase is rather pointless. And in what way does his post count matter in this situation, gunso?

[zimms 22]

As already stated, the showcases are what they are called. Showcases for certain aspects of the game. In case of the night showcase, BIS wanted to show us the new lighting at night. That's why we don't have NV goggles.

@about scenario setup

..i think it's just a different point of view and balancing. (i.e having a team of friendly AI with you it will be IMPOSSIBLE to make a stealth approach)

Yeah, I think there is still a bug. I was playing the command showcase yesterday. I hid with my team on the southern hill and wanted to wait to draw the enemy in, since as intel said they are split into an advanced element and the main force.

I put my whole team in stealth mode and ordered them to hold fire. Yet at some point my triggerhappy DB of an MG gunner decided to start shooting at the enemy, so I ordered everybody to light 'em up.

Those poor guys from the enemy scouting team didn't last 2 seconds, but when the main element arrived, they already knew our position.

[EDcase 87]

I know how this looks - a whopping one post, and a title that at first, looks like troll post. But I am legitimately curious...

Because its a GAME and we don't care that its "not realistic to be on your own" in a mission.

Learn to make your own missions and you can do almost anything you can imagine.

This game has some bugs and problems but still has more freedom, complexity and scope than any other game ever made so sorry but if you don't like it then stick to Ghost Recon as you said...

Edited June 26, 2013 by EDcase

[chrisb 196]

Buy an Arma 2 box set, gold edition etc.

Arma2OA is just a better game for what your wanting to re-create. I haven't played the scenarios or any other campaign, BIS or otherwise, so can't comment on them. But from what you say, sounds like the 'Editor' is the place for you, make anything happen as said already in the thread here. Its the best thing about the game anyway, imo.

Make sure your set comprises at least; Arma/Arma 2/OA/BAF & PMC/ACR, its all well worth the money and any combat type is achievable in the Editor..:)

[andersson 285]

I think Tyrant-0 bring up a relevant question. Since armed assault too many missions do have some strange setups. Personally I play on veteran with all help off and I ask myself very often if I, or anyone, would ever do what I'm supposed to do in RL. Sure it's a game and yes every mission can be won. But my entertainment is not to "achieve" a win, but the gameplay itself. When I'm stuck in a situation that is stupid without a reason it's not fun for me. That very same situation but with a more believable story is much better, sometimes it is supposed to be hard. But to "plan" a difficult mission that is 95% failure when it seems obvious that a few changes could even the score? That only leads to frustration.

Nothing wrong with a hard mission, but make it feel like I fail, not the mission itself.

That's why I stick to usermade missions, or play the old OFP classics in CWR2 (buy A2 for that mod, you wont be disappointed. The CWR and res campaign.... oh yes.)

edit: in all fairness, A2 had better mission than armed assault and I enjoy quite a few, so I guess the full A3 will give a better experience than the showcases.

Edited June 26, 2013 by andersson

[Uglyboy 10]

Seriously, it's a showcase mission, with the sole purpose to have you take a look and apreciate the improvements made in the lighting department, which actually was pretty fun, mostly because of the limitations that were forced on you. But want to know what great about this game? You can take that mission, edit it, put your fireteam in there, your NVG and play it all again. But i'm sure it won't be as fun.

[xyberviri 1]

You all are coming off on the OP all wrong, everyone is suggesting how "awsome the arma series is because of the powerful editor and the ability for any player to edit the missions..blahblahblah" but glossing over the fact that as a whole the community has historically known that most of the single player missions are either buggy or broken in some aspect.

Everyone knows this for a fact, the issue is not that the Op should have realized that they can edit the mission, the issue is that as a player that is new to the series the OP should not have to edit the mission to make it work.

Half of of the time missions are designed so that you have to go stand on the x for the suprise, but as a gamer everyone knows dont stand on the X because its a target, however the mission breaks because you didn't stand on the x..

After pulling the trigger and buying PMC, because i actually wanted to play though the missions, my first experience in the first mission was being told to go some where, then once i got there i was still told to go there, after just standing there for 5 minutes, while my time npc m16 sniper killed every "man 300m N by NW" i seem to be spotting with my eagle vision, i went back to where i started, at that point i was told to move to the next rally position and was one shot killed by a npc i never saw.......the irony is that i can spot units from 300m+ but didn't see the dude standing right over there.

broken trigger, unbalanced AI, unfun game play, this is on normal, normal campaign and no mods....

i restarted that mission same thing....

that is arma single player in a nut shell

Edited June 27, 2013 by xyberviri

[Sneakson 1]

They're just showcases.

[Tyrant-0 10]

Hey guys - thanks a lot for the replies. Sorry it took me so long to get back here. Real life kind of got in the way for a while.

I appreciate what everyone had to say - even the guys calling me out for the Battlefield/ Cod comparisons. Either way, I stand by what I said.

It's important to understand that I am definitely NOT bashing Arma. I do not regret my purchase. But at the same time, am a little frustrated.

I have been tinkering around with the editor for some time now, and really believe this is where I'm going to get my money's worth out of the game. True - you need to watch some Youtube videos for an hour or so before you get a basic handle on it, but I don't mind a learning curve.

And I fully appreciate the fact that these are, indeed, showcases. I even agree with some of you that say I'm a bit too nit-pickey on them. But if all they wanted to do was show off the lighting, couldn't they have just added a benchmark mode that did that? Or a video? The water effects, lighting effects, etc are excellent, especially for a game that still has so much polish left to go. But I don't need to sit through a glorified "challenge" mode to appreciate them to their capacity.

I guess it boils down to this: I don't want or need ArmA to be super realistic - but I want it to suspend my disbelief (as Ghost Recon, SWAT 4 and Rogue Spear did before it). If the campaign mode can't do that then... it's disappointing (and I fully understand the "showcases" are a far cry from a campaign, but they are all I have to make assumptions on at the moment). But not a deal breaker.

The real issue is that the things they get wrong are the easy things. Not the hard ones. They nailed what a UH 60 sounds like in the distance, the range and velocity of a 5.56 round, the handling and recoil of a 9mm pistol. The things they got wrong (kit, force size and terrain considerations) aren't things that you need an Army veteran with 5 years in the special forces community to point out -- they are things any 20-something who took a semester of ROTC knows better about.

I know I can fix it myself in the editor (and don't worry! I have :) ) . I know countless other military vets are fixing it as I type this on their multiplayer servers. My question is, if it's so easy to fix in the first place, doesn't add anything to the scenarios -- but detracts from those who know better, and takes away from the claim that this is more detail-oriented and realistic than the competitors, why didn't BI do it from the start?

Edited June 28, 2013 by Tyrant-0

[ghostnineone 10]

Holy shit guys, I think some of you need to duck in case that whoosh comes back at you.

I agree with OP, saying it's "a showcase" mission doesn't really mean anything. You can showcase night lighting with a more realistic scenario and have it remain quick and to the point and showcase whatever they are trying to showcase is. Telling him about the editor is not really the point either. The point is that the campaigns, single missions, etc. should be done in a MORE REALISTIC way, so that one does not HAVE to use community made missions or the editor to play a mission that reflects a real life operation.

edit: and to make it seem like it's...you know, actually simulating something that would actually happen.

[surfer 42]

Thanks OP and Xyberviri, so much truth in it!

[metalcraze 290]

OP is very spot on.

And "these are showcases" are not an excuse.

There's a "commander" showcase but it doesn't even allow you to command properly.

It's pretty much "drive there, now we are telling you to go and take cover behind those rocks and if you don't you are screwed because the mission is balanced with you putting all your soldiers there and nowhere else".

And all other showcases are very much "action action action" that makes no sense. Even the night showcase has you running around firing at everything that moves (why not make a good sabotage mission?).

Infantry and combined arms? Heavily scripted CoD-like missions. Only a step away from "0:05 get back into the war"

"Steal the car" showcase? Linear scripted railroad. Has nothing on OFP's shorter mission of the same type where car position and spawn point were different each time.

Chopper showcase was the only OK one (due to non-linearity) but I can't say "best" because even this showcase is hurt by "AKSHUN!!" with timed objectives a la GTA minigames.

The problem is that showcases are very reminiscent of PMC DLC campaign design (AKSHUN!! at the expense of everything else! who cares that RV engine can't handle this because it's made with a slow paced gameplay in mind) and since ArmA3 has the same mission designers - chances are that's how ArmA3 campaign will be ruined too.

Edited July 5, 2013 by metalcraze

[Mac 1]

I thought the same thing as you at first, then I realized they are just showcases trying to display the new features (like lighting at night, hence why we probably don't get NVGs in that mission)

If you're like me and enjoy realistic gameplay try joining an Arma unit that promotes realistic gameplay

[ravenholme 50]

I'd have to agree with your assessment of the "Night" mission. I was perplexed as to why I was alone, and not properly-equipped for the mission. It's 2035, and special operations forces go into battle without night vision?

Because it was a Night showcase, not a proper Night Operation. You can't see all the nice lighting changes (new night ambience, chemlights, explosions, fires, etc) if you're running around with Nightvision on.

They talked about this in several Pre-E3 videos including the Livestream, where they mentioned they'd updated the night lighting and now their mission designers were making every mission at night to show that off.

Again, the Commanding Showcase was to showcase (funny, that) how to command your units (a tutorial, basically) and then to advise you on how to effectively command them in a small battle, because ArmA 3 is doing it's best to refine the formula and thus appeal to newcomers without experience with the series. Note, in nearly any scenario with troops approaching from the direction they did in that showcase, the advised deployments would've been very effective, thus suggesting to newbies how they might want to consider the lay of the land when commanding troops.

And so on and so on for every Showcase mission, they are showcasing aspects of the game, rather than being proper story/mission based ops, hence why each Showcase op is focused around a particular aspect of the total whole that is ArmA 3

Edited July 6, 2013 by Ravenholme