Discussion on "Axed" Features

[gossamersolid 155]

Lads, could you, please, stay on topic of this thread? We all know that discussing axed features is a hot topic, feel free to do so in other thread.

I personally could ensure you that there is at least dozen of developers reading most of the threads. I know that not responding may sound harsh, but keep in mind that we try our best not to overpromise and any response could be taken as a promise of something. It takes hell lot of time even to write a response and word it correctly to prevent some false hopes. And, as most of you have already noted, our time is of the essence :icon_twisted:

As requested, we can continue the discussion in a different thread.

I don't have a list of "axed" features written, but here's a list of "confirmed" features prior to us getting A3:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?119512-Arma-3-Confirmed-features-info-amp-discussion

The most frustrating thing for me at this state of ArmA 3 is that the game basically feels like a buggy version of ArmA 2 with very little changes to gameplay.

For me, I hate to see features that a lot of people have requested for a very long time go un-implemented, but instead we get a rather useless feature such as underwater combat (which BIS seemed to be trying to push since the early reveals back in 2011).

I'm not sure why I was expecting ArmA 3 to be a different game from ArmA 2 when ArmA 1 and ArmA 2 are nearly identical gameplay wise as well.

Edited July 10, 2013 by GossamerSolid

[byku 13]

Well... in my opinion although some parts of Arma 3 are so much better that Arma 2, there are some issues which imo are worse. Helicopter physics, flares, weapon control in helicopters(mi-48 in this regard) weapon collision inside buildings, and still waiting for some major gameplay addons(armor simulation as an example... or the oh so famous weapon resting). Bit disappointed for now. I really do hope that realism is keyword in Arma 3. It feels simply less sophisticated than Arma 2.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Byku

[Masharra 10]

The impression I get is that "Authenticity" is more of a keyword than realism.

[-ghost-tf 12]

IMO the only parts in arma 3 that are better then arma 2, is graphic wise. And the problem now is I dont give a shit about graphics if the core gameplay is messed up, nice features in arma 2 have either been completely removed in arma 3 or dumped down (good example is the medical system). I have always liked the arma series for the tactical, teamwork based and realistic aspects. It made the game unique, and stand out from all the other "mainstream" shooters out there, but with arma 3 it feels completely different, it feels like playing counterstrike (fatigue, lack of inertia, weapon handling etc etc). All these issues and the lack of communication from devs about wether these issues will be fixed or not, really give the impression that the game is going on a different path, to please a different audience. And then there is the futuristic setting.. I dont like it, but was willing to accept it (because mods can fix it) IF the core gameplay was good, since that is all that matters, content can always be added/changed by mods. But core gameplay atm is a big dissappointment, mainly because I (and im sure other people too) get the impression that priorities are not right.

[keefehb 0]

The impression I get is that "Authenticity" is more of a keyword than realism.

I wouldn't pay much attention to "authenticity" or "authentic". It's just producer/marketing buzzword nonsense.

For example you never "remove features" to make it "simpler", you "streamline" to make it "accessible".

[TSAndrey 1]

You have to remember that the time difference between A2 and A3 is "only" 3 years. Games can barely improve in 2 years, which seems to be a standard for todays copy-paste shooters like COD and BF! Arma 3 has improved significantly over A2, but your expectations are a bit too high. You are asking for this super perfect game which is better than A2 in every way and has everything fixed and polished. It's impossible to make a game like that this fast, especially since A3 had some project issues(greek incident, DayZ, new project lead).

[gossamersolid 155]

You have to remember that the time difference between A2 and A3 is "only" 3 years. Games can barely improve in 2 years, which seems to be a standard for todays copy-paste shooters like COD and BF! Arma 3 has improved significantly over A2, but your expectations are a bit too high. You are asking for this super perfect game which is better than A2 in every way and has everything fixed and polished. It's impossible to make a game like that this fast, especially since A3 had some project issues(greek incident, DayZ, new project lead).

3 years is a long time actually considering they were working off of a fairly mature engine. I know there were problems with greece, but that is 2 developers (who now work on DayZ anyways if I'm not mistaken), not the entire development team.

I know I was obviously expecting too much out of it, but I still hoped to see a couple new features that would contribute to the gameplay:

- Weapon resting (like come on... less "realistic" games have it)

- Shooting out of passenger positions (I can do this in battlefield 1942, why can't I do it in arma?)

[Masharra 10]

You have to remember that the time difference between A2 and A3 is "only" 3 years. Games can barely improve in 2 years, which seems to be a standard for todays copy-paste shooters like COD and BF! Arma 3 has improved significantly over A2, but your expectations are a bit too high. You are asking for this super perfect game which is better than A2 in every way and has everything fixed and polished. It's impossible to make a game like that this fast, especially since A3 had some project issues.

Not asking. I would suggest you look at http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?119512-Arma-3-Confirmed-features-info-amp-discussion Quite a few things were (at the time) confirmed.

Now perhaps our expectations are too high. Perhaps but is asking for it to not be worse too much?

[TSAndrey 1]

3 years is a long time actually considering they were working off of a fairly mature engine. I know there were problems with greece, but that is 2 developers (who now work on DayZ anyways if I'm not mistaken), not the entire development team.

I know I was obviously expecting too much out of it, but I still hoped to see a couple new features that would contribute to the gameplay:

- Weapon resting (like come on... less "realistic" games have it)

- Shooting out of passenger positions (I can do this in battlefield 1942, why can't I do it in arma?)

I know, but I think people are asking for too much. All of a sudden, people want A3 to be the best game in the universe and have every possible feature they can think off. Some of them should have been in A3, but BI doesn't seem to have the resources to pull it off yet.

[Tonci87 163]

It makes me sad to see what was initialy planed for Arma 3 and what it became in the end. This could have been the best game ever.

[-ghost-tf 12]

I know, but I think people are asking for too much. All of a sudden, people want A3 to be the best game in the universe and have every possible feature they can think off. Some of them should have been in A3, but BI doesn't seem to have the resources to pull it off yet.

Ofcourse people want arma 3 to be the best game in the universe, but that is not the case right now. People are not asking for completely new features, its mostly features/bugfixes that have been asked for since OFP. People are concerned because the game in current state is on alot of aspects worse then arma 2.

[papanowel 120]

It makes me sad to see what was initialy planed for Arma 3 and what it became in the end. This could have been the best game ever.

We can still have faith for it, I'm also a bit disappointed but we still have a few months left to polish and tweak some features.

My biggest concern is about AI.

[fragmachine 12]

3 years is a long time actually considering they were working off of a fairly mature engine. I know there were problems with greece, but that is 2 developers (who now work on DayZ anyways if I'm not mistaken), not the entire development team.

I know I was obviously expecting too much out of it, but I still hoped to see a couple new features that would contribute to the gameplay:

- Weapon resting (like come on... less "realistic" games have it)

- Shooting out of passenger positions (I can do this in battlefield 1942, why can't I do it in arma?)

I guess BIS doesn't have enought programmers for RV4 - and that is not good. It does not help the gameplay, because changes you've mentioned needs to be applied on the engine level - without resources they do not posses - there is no will in doing so - at least that is what im afraid of.

I won't be surprised if people will comeback to ArmA 2, right now even OFP with mods like FFUR or ECP REDUX is still enjoyable :biggrin:

We can still have faith for it, I'm also a bit disappointed but we still have a few months left to polish and tweak some features.

My biggest concern is about AI.

Problem is within BIS announcing "this and that" over past three years. But "this and that" been changing everytime the new lead designer has been assigned. No consistency among the project is not good IMO.

Edited July 10, 2013 by fragmachine
typo

[HKFlash 9]

The problem with the lack of programmers is that familiarizing them with the engine is not a quick process. A badly familiarized/poorly teached programmer will only create problems i.e. bugs while an artist in the same situation is unable to have the same negative impact on the game.

[twistking 204]

though i mostly agree with what was said about, i want to point out, that at least the infantry aspect feels greatly improved over arma 2. of course there are still tons of bugs and missing features (armor simulation, weapon resting), but i and my more casual co-op buddies are already very happy with arma 3 in this regard. of course knowing that it is beta and hoping that everything sees more refinement and that missing features still get implemented.

well, on the other hand i am a little bit disappointed, that so many of the old archaic issues of all arma games since ofp are still untouched. clunky action menu and clunky squad commanding, clunky AI movement, total lack of authenticity and gameplay mechanics for targeting guided weapons, cardboard-box view for apc, medic system that offers neither realism nor interesting gameplay...

i guess everyone has it's own top 10 of archaic (read: bad) features of arma;)

but i want to add something to the debate:

if you read the end-credits of big AAA titles, you must come to the conclusion, that it is somewhat impossible to build the game we all are hoping for with such a small team and sell it to such a moderate price.

that is why i want to repost a suggestion, i made in the wishlist thread some days ago. this was aiming at vehicle features and polish, but it can be applied to all features and gameplay mechanics still lacking in arma 3 beta.

Hello,

i have a wish, that sound a bit strange at first:

Less official vehicle content for release, but higher quality content + high quality dlc

Let me explain: I'm really excited how well arma 3 is coming along. On dev branch we now have animated vehicle doors and some implied animation for getting in and out of vehicles. This is still WIP obviously, but this is already a huge thing for immersion and makes the world much more immersive. The light vehicle are all very well designed and you really want to try out every vehicle. see how it looks, see how it feels when driving, because driving is so much better than in previous game (still not perfect though).

in arma 2 + oa + dlc we had this huge amount of vehicles and this was good, but there wasn't anything exciting about them. remember when you first installed arrowhead or any other dlc and tried the new vehicles. they were decent, but they didn't make you want to jump in them and try out every model, because they were just new models with new configs.

in arma 3 it is already different, because each of the light vehicles has that special thing about it and when i tried the new aniamtions today, i decided to write this post!

as you may know, the devs said, that heavy armor (tanks and apcs) won't get that special love, but after seeing how much better the light vehicles are compared to previous games, i suggest:

give us only the amount of vehicles, we need for that "arma experience". one type of vehicle for every faction should be enough. greens could perhaps even used reskinned, slightly modified vehicles from red or blue.

but give that special treatment to every type of vehicle:

modeled interiors for tanks and APCs and all other armored vehicles.

unique gameplay mechanics for every vehicle-role

animated rear hatches for APC and basic animations for units getting in / out of the hatch.

animated cockpit doors, proper HUD and fully functional cockpit for helicopters

truly unique sound for every vehicle

truly unique handling for every vehicle

better damage model

high quality everything!

as a side effect, there would automatically be high demand for content dlc. ;)

in short: cut content, cut bugs. but: add gameplay features, add gameplay depth, add polish

give us (more) high quality vehicles as dlc: if bis maintain the high quality of heir light vehicles with all their dlc vehicles people will be happy to pay a little extra for well modelled and detailed extra firepower!

Edited July 10, 2013 by twistking

[fragmachine 12]

in short: cut content, cut bugs. add gameplay features, add depth, add polish

give us (more) high quality vehicles as dlc: if bis maintain the high quality of heir light vehicles with all their dlc vehicles people will be happy to pay a little extra for well modelled and detailed extra firepower!

That would be a great idea but only if BIS modelers/artists could instantly became experienced RV4 programmers. Don't get me wrong - I don't bashing on the idea itself, I would prefer to see much more powerful engine capabilites in features as well as in performance area - but BIS doesn't have resources - enought programmers.

As to vehicles/armies etc. We already have seen in the past high quality work from modders on vehicles/whole armies/even total conversion mods. I would expect from BIS to have more experience with their engine - so priority is to make it the best engine out of all previous ArmA games.

BIS really did wrong thing announcing things that weren't even implemented.

[clifdenhill 1]

Well I wish we could have more features also but I'm not sure alot of features is what makes the game enjoyable.

If you look at other shooter games (bf3, cod, etc.) They don't have most of armas features but there still fun to play. They also have bigger dev teams and budget but don't have 3d interiors, volumetric clouds, ai, editor, mod tools, underwater environments, etc.

I think what BIS may need to do is have official coop & pvp that includes most the features arma offers into a fun game with all your friends.

[yamajin82 10]

The game has always been improved by modding, no matter the release state. It sucks that BIS can't add all the features we want but at least somebody will add in a lot of them. I just want a good game experience and I don't really care who gives it to me.

[HKFlash 9]

The game has always been improved by modding, no matter the release state. It sucks that BIS can't add all the features we want but at least somebody will add in a lot of them. I just want a good game experience and I don't really care who gives it to me.

Getting tired of this argument because it simply doesnt reflect the reality. The 3D interiors for armored vehicles wont come with modding for example. A new animation system wont come with modding.

Modders are great people that create some excellent content without receiving a cent but they should not be seen as the solution but rather only part of it.

[twistking 204]

BF3 might not have detailed interiors, but their tank's "first person view" has really high production value: It is not realistic, but it is authentic at least. It gives you the feeling of driving a powerful machine. Arma's cardboard-view tanks are neither realistic nor authentic.

What arma still lacks are gameplay mechanics and features: Looking through the titan's (guided missile) sight and having the white diamond pop up immediately is not a gameplay mechanic, it is the game asking you: "Do want to make this tank explode? Left click for yes!"

BF3 multiplayer is actually stuffed with gameplay mechanics. They are ridiculously unrealistic, but there are tons of features and gameplay mechanics for every weapon system. I would even go so far to call BF3 a complex game in multiplayer. Complex, but ridiculously unrealistic. BF3 balanced all this mechanics solely for a balanced pvp experience and to directly promote teamwork. Arma should and already does balance their game mechanics for realism, which will indirectly also promote teamwork. Pvp is a more complex matter, i guess. Problem still is the sheer lack of mechanics in arma. See the example of titan missile...

Edited July 10, 2013 by twistking

[doln 10]

I enjoy the underwater, I really do, but I feel the time should have been spent on many other things.

Also, bring back the railgun tank.

[krazikilla 5]

1. weapon rest

2. TOH flight model

3. shooting out of vehicles

4. new medical system

5. armor simulation (infantry and vehicles)

6. moving inside vehicles

7. 3d interior of vehilces.

Yes indeed, everyone has his/her own small list. I also would strongly like: less content like vehicles, guns, diffrent soldier and camo.

More features, which we request since years. You can later add more content with 10-20€ DLCs which even brings you more money. Most annoying for me, that for lot of this stuff there are ADDONS, which just needed to be implemented as default by BIS...

[-=seany=- 5]

I think statements that Arma3 is worse than Arma2 are wrong and not helpful. I don't think there is any part that is more "dumbed down"

well, on the other hand i am a little bit disappointed, that so many of the old archaic issues of all arma games since ofp are still untouched. clunky action menu and clunky squad commanding, clunky AI movement, total lack of authenticity and gameplay mechanics for targeting guided weapons, cardboard-box view for apc, medic system that offers neither realism nor interesting gameplay...

i guess everyone has it's own top 10 of archaic (read: bad) features of arma;)

I would agree with this ^ though. It is disappointing to see some of the old things that people have indeed been crying out for ignored and remain the same. My biggest gripe of this area would be modern vehicle gunnery (Gunships/ tanks/ apc/ planes etc). What baffles me is these things have been done perfectly by mods, so all they need to do is basically make an official version of these mods and there you go (tank FCS for example). Things are never as simple as they seem to the lay man I know, but I am sure it would not be that hard. Some things you can't just change because it will make the game very different, eg things like Fatigue and medical system. you can't just make these hardcore, it is unrealistic to expect so. You risk alienating a large portion of your fan base.

But....with things like advanced advanced gunnery systems/ weapon resting etc. No one would complain about these additions so I wonder why they remain untouched and unimplemented. ( I believe they couldn't upgrade the helo physics due to an unacceptable performance hit?)

Arma3 is fantastic, the visual changes to the game are immense. The environment feels and looks really nice. These alone are worth the admission for me.

It is not surprising though to see people are a bit disappointed that core mechanics that have need a polish or an upgrade are going to remain as they have done for over a decade, in some cases.

[Tonci87 163]

Let me quote my post from here

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147740-Helicopter-physics-impressions-simplified&p=2421050&viewfull=1#post2421050

The Arma 3 development is a history of dismissed features.

Lets look at what we have

+Better movement system

+Better Lights

+PhysX and ragdoll

+Diving

+New fog

+new scopes

+PiP

+a few new options to adjust the graphics

-Even worse FM for helicopters than in A2

-PhysX and ragdoll not beeing that good, for example you can take a turn at 100 km/h without flipping your car, it is incredibly hard to flip a vehicle, even if you flip it it will righten itself.

-Diving doesn´t really have a meaning since the underwater combat sucks, mainly because the underwater AI sucks.

-No Rain as of yet

-Pip doesn´t really add anything to the gameplay

-We still have Bugs that date back to OfP

-still no 3D Editor

-No weapon resting

-Still an HP based armor system

-Bad midrange textures

-Ai still doesn´t know when it´s best to keep the head down

-vehicle AI doesn´t know anything about vehicle tactics (helicopters flying above the target zone instead of attacking from a distance, armored vehicels too stupid to turn their front towards the enemy)

-Still horrible driving AI

-There are still no shadows from other lightsources than the sun or the moon.

-completely ruined Sourround Sound

I could go on and on.

I hoped for Arma 3 to raise the Arma franchise to a whole new level, instead of that we got Arma 2 with shiny graphics, a few improvements and new models.

[nomadd 66]

A3 is an improvement in graphics, but right now I am disappointed with what I see overall. The eye candy is nice but the core features need some serious work. I know this is still beta so holding judgement until the final game is released.

-the AI is a mess

-terrible pathfinding, collision with objects,

-AI will walk through rocks,walls etc then get stuck

-AI will easily get stuck on the terrain with nothing around them

-AI will get stuck in animation loops

-AI will completely ignore the inside of buildings when in combat, unless scripted

-AI skill settings are broke ( this should be an easy fix), at range (300m) non-sniper, AI is insanely accurate

-the above is also because AI sees player through tree trunks,walls,etc. They should not be able to track the player but they can

-weapon/player collision mainly in buildings

-modules that still do not work in MP

I could keep going, in some ways this is a step backwards from A2. I know a number of things have been axed, 3deditor was a big one I was looking forward too.

I am actually ok with features getting put on hold , if that means BI will begin to address some of these issues. The eye candy is nice, the features are nice but it comes down to the game play. I would like BI to fix alot of these problems and some of these problems have been around a long time. I don't want BI to leave it up to moders to try and solve them. The moders have done a great job of overcoming a number of these issues in A2, but we as consumers should not have to rely on them to fix this stuff.

As for the features I am so use to game companies promising everything and delivering very little. This seems to be the norm any more.