Preference of Arma 2 equipment

[zooloo75 833]

I'm just hoping to see some sort of upgraded M4 inspired weapon.

[ravenholme 50]

Futuristic stuff are a very bad idea IMO. Sure there is no futuristic was simulator out there, but that's really because there is no other war simulator out there at all. We still need a proper modern war simulator. The futuristic one can wait until 2030 for all I care (by that time it wouldn't be futuristic, though, but again I don't actually care :)).

I know a lot of people that are really frustrated by the direction taken. Some refuse to buy the game as a result. I'll play it anyway because I like the realism, but I must say I'm disappointed. Now we'll be forced into waiting for people to make mods (if they ever do, as so far the amount of modding seems rather minimal compared to what I expected), and of course go through the hell of getting people to play together with the same mods on the same server.

Uhm, ArmA 2? The game they did before this one? Base game focuses on a US vs Russia conflict in the current day, also has Afghanistan-esque expansion pack? You might want to check it out.

[OrLoK 20]

Hello there

I'm not a fan of the modern equipment but they are lovely models indeed and although modern, once one gets in game, they play the same as any Arma2 gear so I personally can happily overlook the fact they're not my preferred timeline. TBH my preferred arena is WW2 but i still love vanilla A2.

As others have said, mods can and will bring current day kit to the game and hopefully BiS will be able to tweak the A2 assets to fully work with .kju's AIA mod.

Anyhoo, the reason I posted is that some have made references to content being cut/dropped. Is there any basis to this or is it just supposition ans assumption?

Rgds

LoK

[Fa11en 10]

Great first post, really constructive.

[Sneakson 1]

I'm just hoping to see some sort of upgraded M4 inspired weapon.

MXC... with... A BLACK PAINTJOB?

Mind blown, right?

[b00tsy 28]

My only real problem with the future setting is that I don't have an idea about the story/conflict behind it and thus can not easily create (and immerse myself) storyline missions that will fit the ArmA3 setting. In ArmA2 it was easy to create a story around a mission as you know everything about the conflict in Afghanistan and the taliban etc. And also when I walk around on Stratis is just different then walking around in Takistan as you have no real life situation/conflict taking place in Greece and thus can not immerse myself as I could in the afghanistan setting. Hope that makes sense.

[Nikko 10]

My only real problem with the future setting is that I don't have an idea about the story/conflict behind it and thus can not easily create (and immerse myself) storyline missions that will fit the ArmA3 setting. In ArmA2 it was easy to create a story around a mission as you know everything about the conflict in Afghanistan and the taliban etc. And also when I walk around on Stratis is just different then walking around in Takistan as you have no real life situation/conflict taking place in Greece and thus can not immerse myself as I could in the afghanistan setting. Hope that makes sense.

I feel the same way but look forward to mods using the new engine, that's the great thing about ARMA :)

[galzohar 31]

Uhm, ArmA 2? The game they did before this one? Base game focuses on a US vs Russia conflict in the current day, also has Afghanistan-esque expansion pack? You might want to check it out.

You are completely missing the point, my man. You might be buying the game for the new units, but most people (at least of those I know personally) do not!

You see OFP as some cold war game, ArmA 2 as US vs Russia and OA as afganistan-esque. I see OFP/ArmA 1 as some old engines that are not good enough for proper realistic simulation, ArmA 2 a huge step towards realism that started to be more playable, OA as yet another step in the right direction, and then ArmA 3 as a whole new set of awesome improvements to how realistic the simulation can get. As for units, I still prefer the modern stuff, as we have plenty of real life data (and for some also experience) on how they work and how they're actually used in combat in real life. Some (probably a lot more than just "some") don't need that "new" feeling with the units/story. They just need to see the features they didn't like get improved: Animations, weapon modularity, uniform changing to name a few important ones from the list.

And that is why going back to ArmA 2 is not a solution, as it means I have to lose all the new features that make ArmA 3 so much better. The fact I have to "pay the price" of using futuristic crap that isn't really used anywhere IRL and sometimes doesn't even exist even on paper is definitely a disappointment. Not enough to stop me from buying the game, but it definitely stops some people I know from buying, and it definitely makes my life more difficult when I want to make cool missions people will like and find/organize people to play them with.

All in all ArmA 3 is still an upgrade over ArmA 2. But I think it would have been much more successful if they kept it in modern days using equipment that is actually being used by real armies and real terrorists in this day and age.

[ravenholme 50]

No, I'm not really. Each ArmA game has had a different scenario. You want a scenario that they have already covered in a previous game, ergo, you want that previous game. Every game has had engine improvements, and people still play the previous games if they want Cold War (OFP), or brushfire-esque conflict (ArmA 1), etc etc etc.

They've also steadily been advancing in time, they hit the present day with ArmA 2 OA, and now they're going beyond, it just happens to be in a new game.

Basically, deal with it. Some of us don't want ArmA 2 in a new skin, because if I wanted a game series like that, I'd go play the endless spew of CoDs and Battlefields. I want games that do something different every time, not just regurgitate the same sides with minor differences in different geographical locations. Future NATO vs Future Iran is something I've not seen before (nor the Mediterranean setting), and I want to see more. I really hope BIS will continue with this vision they have for ArmA 3 rather than listen to the people who want a Arma 2 2.0

[Masharra 10]

No, I'm not really. Each ArmA game has had a different scenario. You want a scenario that they have already covered in a previous game, ergo, you want that previous game. Every game has had engine improvements, and people still play the previous games if they want Cold War (OFP), or brushfire-esque conflict (ArmA 1), etc etc etc.

They've also steadily been advancing in time, they hit the present day with ArmA 2 OA, and now they're going beyond, it just happens to be in a new game.

Basically, deal with it. Some of us don't want ArmA 2 in a new skin, because if I wanted a game series like that, I'd go play the endless spew of CoDs and Battlefields. I want games that do something different every time, not just regurgitate the same sides with minor differences in different geographical locations. Future NATO vs Future Iran is something I've not seen before (nor the Mediterranean setting), and I want to see more. I really hope BIS will continue with this vision they have for ArmA 3 rather than listen to the people who want a Arma 2 2.0

Arma 4? Mechs?

[ravenholme 50]

Arma 4? Mechs?

I suspect not, since they tend to keep things pretty grounded in reality and Mechs are just targets. (The Kajman being the only revealed vehicle with no real traceable origin other than a proposed project design by a Russian Design Bureau)

They might go 2020-ish and do some kind of South China Sea conflict for ArmA 4, or maybe they'll do that as an expansion for ArmA 3 and set it in 2035. Or maybe they'll bow to the demand of the people who want ArmA 2 2.0 and just remake another modern day combat simulator, as if we don't have enough.

[Masharra 10]

Did some checking

cod - 2025, bf3- 2014, bf4 - 2020, crysis3 2043, some of the most "realistic of the latest shooters" seems to me like they are following the trend.

[NeuroFunker 11]

Y

All in all ArmA 3 is still an upgrade over ArmA 2. But I think it would have been much more successful if they kept it in modern days using equipment that is actually being used by real armies and real terrorists in this day and age.

did you miss this post on pourpose? http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?132745-Is-Arma-3-authentic

[ravenholme 50]

Did some checking

cod - 2025, bf3- 2014, bf4 - 2020, crysis3 2043, some of the most "realistic of the latest shooters" seems to me like they are following the trend.

CoD and Crysis realistic now? Okay.

[NeuroFunker 11]

CoD and Crysis realistic now? Okay.

lol i actually missed that one

[Masharra 10]

CoD and Crysis realistic now? Okay.

In certain aspects yes. Also note that word "MOST"

For example.

Arma 3 you can carry 100+kg and still sprint.

CoD you can not.

CoD wins realism battle there.

Crysis most cover can be penetrated by either enough bullets or a higher calibre. Trees can be cut in half by heavy mg fire. The physics overall is much more smooth and realistic. (atleast on the part of the non superhuman ai)

To simply dismiss a whole game as unrealistic because it makes no blatant attempt at being realistic is short-sighted. I also note you skipped over my main point of the timelines.

Simply put most new popular shooters are just about at the same timeline as Arma.

[ravenholme 50]

Probably because of the saturation point of shooters set in the current day, people are getting fed up of the same "Modern Day US Army versus Russians/Middle Eastern Terorists" situation that has been used over and over again. And yes, Crysis might have a more realistic physics simulation, but it uses a different, licensed engine and in the later games, is far less ambitious in what it tries to do with that.

CoD does it's bit by restricting soldiers to two weapons and two weapons only. ArmA has done that (plus heavy weapons) since forever. In Beta, naturally, they haven't worked out the weight limits to impose because they haven't finalised gear weighting, so I'm not really seeing how CoD is doing ANYTHING better there, because in CoD you can carry around a .50 cal sniper rifle and an assault rifle, whereas that is just not possible in reality, and certainly not in ArmA 3, and that's without any finalisation.

Especially as the ArmA 3 beta is actually mislabelled - it's not actually feature complete so is still technically Alpha. (Armour is lacking, Aircraft are lacking, they're still adding and finalising features, etc)

[NeuroFunker 11]

^lolwut

[ravenholme 50]

^lolwut

Can't tell if you're referring to me or Masharra :p

[Masharra 10]

Im not arguing better. Im just saying it has its realistic features/ moments.

See MW3's opening level the extraction via seahawk (I think its the opening levels) or just about any fast rope sequence.

Look at Medal of Honor Airborne sequences. The airborne units are actually attached via static line. albiet they dont land correctly. but hey Im not expecting them to be the most realistic thing out there.

oddly enough on watching a video one can botch the landing and land straight down.*note they actually have modelled reserve chutes* Not sure if it has actual negative consequences.

or the ugv's from mw3 which look deceptively like the ones from the sword program.

Or the native without need to be scripted working ac-130 gunships

As for generic enemies?

Hmm bf2 had the EU, US, and Russia team up against China and the middle eastern union? Also " The game also takes place in different fronts, as the Middle East and China are being invaded by US and EU forces, and the United States is being invaded by Chinese and MEC forces."

CoD?

Allies - U.S. Navy · U.S. Air Force · U.S. Army Rangers · U.S. Navy SEALs · United States Secret Service · LAPD · FBI · SDC · People's Liberation Army · Panamanian Defense Forces · Mujahideen · UNITA · ISA · Colossus Security · Tacitus Corporation · Yemeni Army

Enemies-Cordis Die · Mercs · Yemeni Militia · SDC · People's Liberation Army · ISI · Yemeni Army · Zombies · Panamanian Defense Forces · MPLA · Tropas · Batallón Dignidad · Menendez Cartel · Soviet Armed Forces · Mujahideen

alas that is offtopic

Its funny that you say this

"I want games that do something different every time, not just regurgitate the same sides with minor differences in different geographical locations. Future NATO vs Future Iran is something I've not seen before (nor the Mediterranean setting), and I want to see more. "

As the factions in arma 3 thus far are essentially the same sides with minor differences.

I feel no stark difference like I do in Arma 2/OA.

You know when you are fighting as US, Russian, Chedaki, Guerilla, Insurgent, Takistani Milita. I will concede that we are in beta and they probably arent fleshed out yet + more factions to come.

That being said I have my preference but it wont stop me from enjoying the game in its futuristic settings. I am a mission maker afterall. Ill make my "present" day scenarios on my own. I particularly liked making my Purity missions though they didnt capture the "emotions" I was looking for. "Relatively peaceful Libya is thrown in to turmoil because of unrest in neighbouring countries, specifically Chad. Chad remains plagued by political violence and recurrent attempted coups d'état. The situation has caused thousands of refugees to flood the southern districts of Libya, unfortunately, the local rebels are clashing with the incoming refugees and criminal elements. Libyas' military, unfortunately, is in its infancy and can not cope with these issues at this time. Thus Libya has asked the Russia Federation to supplement its forces with training and border patrol. Russia has assigned 18th Independent Motor-Rifle Brigade to Ghat District and this is their story."

Edited July 6, 2013 by Masharra

[purepassion 22]

Don't let it get out of hand and morph into a wild dispute about Arma vs other games or it'll make "click" :padlock: really fast as there are already tons of other threads to post this in, as well as for the "I like the futuristic setting vs I don't like the futuristic setting" discussions which lead to nowhere. :rolleyes:

[Masharra 10]

Don't let it get out of hand and morph into a wild dispute about Arma vs other games or it'll make "click" :padlock: really fast as there are already tons of other threads to post this in, as well as for the "I like the futuristic setting vs I don't like the futuristic setting" discussions which lead to nowhere. :rolleyes:

Noted. OP You dont have to solely depend on BIS to supply you with present day scenarios. Numerous mission makers and mod makers are making new mods, updating/porting old ones to arma 3. I know when Arma 3 gets more stable and gets a proper medical system I will make missions utilizing "present day tech". Its what I can immerse myself in and what I aim to immerse others in.

All in all its not quite as horrible as it may seem.

[ravendk 25]

ROTFL ! This gotta be the tropic title that had me giggle the moste :D

Honestly, im not the biggest fan of future stuff, but honestly, c'mon its not like its spacelazor eXtream :) Theres allready loads of M4's released by public and im sure more stuff will come very soon. Infantry and Weapons are allready a thing thats getting created, look at CAF and SFP for instance.. theres allready alot of current gear. I dont belive this is any reason to panic, the modmakers are propperly 'just' holding back the loads of stuff they got for now :)

[chortles 263]

As for units, I still prefer the modern stuff, as we have plenty of real life data (and for some also experience) on how they work and how they're actually used in combat in real life.

Somehow I would not be surprised if this is actually why BI's creative leads "went 2035" -- kind of like how the Assassin's Creed III devs who worked on "Tyranny of King Washington" reported being invigorated by the freedom of no longer being bound by history unlike the main story (which in the AC games is more of "what went on behind the scenes of the history that you know" than regular "alternate history"):

When I spoke with the DLC's mission director, Ubisoft Quebec's Hugo Giard, I suggested that it must have been cathartic to not be constrained by the realities of history when developing "The Tyranny of King Washington."

"It was a blast," he replied. "During pre-production, imagining new scenarios for each of these characters, whether they be this time good guys or bad guys or whatever, all of that was a lot of fun to do." He said just like in the main Assassin's Creed games, real historical figures provided "a jumping-off point." But without the need to research and consider trivia like who died at what battle, they were able to take the creative license much further than the teams behind the main games can.

"Once we jumped in there, I mean, as storytellers and as mission designers we were free to come up with any ideas that we wanted to," he said. "We could explore, you know, we could go crazy!"

The "crazy" definitely came through. So far only "The Infamy," the first of the DLC's three parts has been released, but it includes hallucinogenic tea leaves, a Crysis-style cloaking mechanic, packs of spirit wolves with deadly jaws, and an extraordinarily evil George Washington. He's even got the Apple of Eden, an important relic in Assassin's Creed lore, and he's using it to manipulate reality.

None of that would have been possible if Giard and his team at Ubisoft's Quebec Studio had had been limited by the rules of fiction grounded in history, as opposed to the fictionalized history that "Tyranny" is.

[Masharra 10]

Somehow I would not be surprised if this is actually why BI's creative leads "went 2035" -- kind of like how the Assassin's Creed III devs who worked on "Tyranny of King Washington" reported being invigorated by the freedom of no longer being bound by history unlike the main story (which in the AC games is more of "what went on behind the scenes of the history that you know" than regular "alternate history"):

When I spoke with the DLC's mission director, Ubisoft Quebec's Hugo Giard, I suggested that it must have been cathartic to not be constrained by the realities of history when developing "The Tyranny of King Washington."

"It was a blast," he replied. "During pre-production, imagining new scenarios for each of these characters, whether they be this time good guys or bad guys or whatever, all of that was a lot of fun to do." He said just like in the main Assassin's Creed games, real historical figures provided "a jumping-off point." But without the need to research and consider trivia like who died at what battle, they were able to take the creative license much further than the teams behind the main games can.

"Once we jumped in there, I mean, as storytellers and as mission designers we were free to come up with any ideas that we wanted to," he said. "We could explore, you know, we could go crazy!"

The "crazy" definitely came through. So far only "The Infamy," the first of the DLC's three parts has been released, but it includes hallucinogenic tea leaves, a Crysis-style cloaking mechanic, packs of spirit wolves with deadly jaws, and an extraordinarily evil George Washington. He's even got the Apple of Eden, an important relic in Assassin's Creed lore, and he's using it to manipulate reality.

None of that would have been possible if Giard and his team at Ubisoft's Quebec Studio had had been limited by the rules of fiction grounded in history, as opposed to the fictionalized history that "Tyranny" is.

I can understand that but arent we already in an alternate timeline. They already went "crazy" A2. Or do you mean in terms of weaponry and such? They still constrained themselves then... And Iran vs West war isnt all that implausible once you ignore the Greece nonsense. Heck replace Greece with Israel and you actually have a somewhat believable but fantastical plot.

Fortunately we dont know the story of the campaign yet so we may be pleasantly surprised.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Masharra