Poll - Rather Modern or Futuristic?

[ProfTournesol 956]

Aren't you a bit bored with the same iraq/afghanistan etc type of conflicts already?

I am. Bored to death. I like A3 settings, i only may be personally more inclined to see historical conflicts (Korea maybe).

Arma series is a video game before anything else.

Exactly.

[Wiki 1558]

@PuFu

Because I'm not the only one in this mood - just take a look at the poll results.

[ak1287 1]

@PuFu

Because I'm not the only one in this mood - just take a look at the poll results.

Not by much.

Given the option to be positive, or to complain, people will complain 90% of the time.

[Wiki 1558]

Well, at the very moment,, there are 71 people out of 125 who would have prefered current era.

[ak1287 1]

.... If you add everyone up, yeah.

Technically, you have 58 who are more or less indifferent. You have 15 who refuse to play with 'futuristic' assets, probably because they're reactionary knee-jerkers, as opposed to actually evaluating the systems and assets in the game, and correlating them to what is already in production.

Personally, I see this entire argument as downright laughable. If no one had told me this game was set in 2035, I wouldn't have known, because the assets for the most part just seem like slightly fictionalized versions of current assets.

[pharoah 65]

Somehow my original post got deleted or something. Hmmm

Anyway, I'm against the whole 'futuristic' scenario. The ARMA3 official site states: "EXPERIENCE TRUE COMBAT GAMEPLAY IN A MASSIVE MILITARY SANDBOX. AUTHENTIC, DIVERSE, OPEN - ARMA 3 SENDS YOU TO WAR."

How can you experience true combat gameplay using 'authentic' weaponry but then have futuristic in there as well? I would have preferred they make it based on current weaponry like they have in A2 and using real world situations and scenarios so that we're all familiar with it. I personally can't remember what the helicopter names are. Call a blackhawk a blackhawk. Gimme back my M4.

[OrLoK 20]

Hello there

As to PuFu's comment, I too am utterly bored of the Afghan/Mog/etc desert environ, but I'm more than happy to go woodland (even back to Chernarus) with current day "modern" kit. Stratis, still feels a little too arid for my tastes, but I'm not a sun worshipper.

Personally, I think I would have preferred a setting a bit further into the future for the core game if we *had* to go ahead in time. Think Colonial Marine/Avatar-esque/phased plasma rifles in the 40watt range etc

This leap 40 seconds into the future is, for me, a little *meh* in concept. I don't really get the rationale for it.

Regardless, I'll still play.

And I'll still love it.

Rgds

LoK

[chortles 263]

I agree with this all except for the fact that they chose the Comanche.

Three words: Comanche fanboy dev.

[EliteSniper 10]

I really haven't thought about it that much, but now to bring it up I think more modern times are my preferred choice. I like the M-24, the M-4, and the M-16. I think they should add those weapons in just for the fans. But I don't really mind Arma 3 at all. The only thing I think they need to change is the name of the Ghost Hawk. Real life it's called the Stealth hawk, and it's only used by SEAL Team VI. It was never intended to be a main transport. They should've just sticked with the Blackhawk. Other then that, the game kicks ass, and I can't wait to see the planes.

[chortles 263]

I wouldn't be surprised if pettka's remark on mods over in the "axed features" thread also applies to "modern-themed content", a view from a dev that such mods existing is all the more reason not to expend time, effort and resources on what such mods address.

P.S. EliteSniper, there is no publicly known real-world official designation for the so-called "Stealthhawk".

[EliteSniper 10]

P.S. EliteSniper, there is no publicly known real-world official designation for the so-called "Stealthhawk".

It is for Special forces only. It was not designed for regular warfare. It is designed for night raids such as the Osama bin laden raid, that killed him.

[dmarkwick 261]

ArmA can't keep pumping out the same game over & over again - the devs have said as much. It needs to move ahead and offer new features & content, so the slight futuristic settings & equipments seem fine to me.

Also - the modern content is not lost. Thanks to endeavors like the All-In-Arma mod all the good stuff from ArmA2 can be ported in. Seems like a win-win to me. Speaking personally, the terrain is the most important aspect for me (alongside modding). A believable terrain is a must, Chernarus is the pinnacle for this IMO and Altis looks like being at least the same standard.

[OrLoK 20]

ArmA can't keep pumping out the same game over & over again - the devs have said as much. It needs to move ahead and offer new features & content, so the slight futuristic settings & equipments seem fine to me.

Also - the modern content is not lost. Thanks to endeavors like the All-In-Arma mod all the good stuff from ArmA2 can be ported in. Seems like a win-win to me. Speaking personally, the terrain is the most important aspect for me (alongside modding). A believable terrain is a must, Chernarus is the pinnacle for this IMO and Altis looks like being at least the same standard.

Hello there

The problem is though, at the moment, even though we have "futuristic" gear it does play almost identically to the other Arma games (which is no bad thing in general). But why go futuristic if there's nothing other than the looks which are altered?

As the game stands the "future" vehicles are pretty interchangeable with their "modern" counterparts and don't really bring anything new to the table gameplaywise. (I do realise that the modelling/textures are superior as is physx support etc)

Environment is key in the Vanilla game as DM says, and I think Altis will be superb (if it doesn't kill our FPS).

Mods Like AiA will help bridge the gap, but even .kju's amazing attempts are hampered as there's stuff he cant fix (according to the bug tracker), so whilst AiA is great for the adventurous it's not as good for your more casual player.

Mods will fill the gap as time goes on, but patience has never been an end user trait.

For me, the decision to go "futuristic" (as the beta stands at this time) is a "-1" from me, but the improvements the engine has received outweighs that issue greatly indeed.

I'll play with mods offline and online with vanilla, as in all the other games.

Rdgs

LoK

[Masharra 10]

Meh.. not big on switching out the m4 for the mx series for the next x number of years. I would have preferred they use more of the countries in nato to show variance in weaponry instead of using the "famous" "big" boys all the time. Who knows though, bestfor seems to have no problem being changed but blufor is stuck. static. bloody well the same.

Preference Modern. Its what I have experience with. I can relate to it. Also less work if they decided to use other countries. As it stands now they will have to make future weapons of other countries if they ever decide to expand. (highly unlikely)

[simon1279 52]

I'm fine with A3 i just hope in a future DLC for a non startreck look for the opfor faction, right now i'm just fighting independents

[laverniusregalis 10]

Yeah, I'm getting sick of lugging around AR-15s and AK- weapons and only seeing the Abrams and T-90 as tanks, and Longbow as chopper. Time for a change, I welcome the RAH-66, new tanks, and MX weapons.

[Wiki 1558]

Well, to me, the new vehicles in ArmA 3 are just "new skins": I mean, the Comanche and the Ghosthawk are supposed to be stealth vehicles.

In the game, there is nothing about it, they are as easy to detect as any other vehicle.

[starky396 1]

Much rather have the modern equipment. Really sad how BIS had to change the name of the factions, and also completely screw up the campaign now.

[krazikilla 5]

I hope ArmA4 is situated in Vietnam :D Would also be mostly new stuff for the developers and a damn nice setting for us!

Cold War would also be nice again, kind of back to the roots!

Or even ww2 :)

Edited July 18, 2013 by KrAziKilla

[EliteSniper 10]

WW2, hell no. I get bored playing all the WW2 games out there. Yeah it's nice, but if you want that, go play Iron front. But Vietnam would be awesome. Have some napalm planes, B-52s, Hueys, Pattons, jungle invested area, ahh would be awesome.

[pharoah 65]

WW2, hell no. I get bored playing all the WW2 games out there. Yeah it's nice, but if you want that, go play Iron front. But Vietnam would be awesome. Have some napalm planes, B-52s, Hueys, Pattons, jungle invested area, ahh would be awesome.

I'd love to play ARMA: Vietnam if it were ever officially made. I just wonder how my PC would cope with the jungle and having lots and lots of infantry in it. The VC/NVA primarily had infantry fighting against the might of the US/Aust/Korea until the later years. It would certainly work with Domination ie. just attacking/holding ground for a short period before moving on to the next.

The thought of having to escape on a Huey to avoid being killed in a camp (SF) about to be overrun would be awesome!!

[metalcraze 290]

Well, to me, the new vehicles in ArmA 3 are just "new skins": I mean, the Comanche and the Ghosthawk are supposed to be stealth vehicles.

In the game, there is nothing about it, they are as easy to detect as any other vehicle.

Not to mention that most vehicles share exactly the same weapons.

Instead of picking a futuristic setting and be creative BIS wasted its potential to give everybody same weapons down to sides sharing the same ammo, optics and even loadouts.

[Wiki 1558]

yeah, I can get the point here - not to have an overpowered faction against a weaker one, but it's still weird:

IRL, armed forces ARE unbalanced, so I don't really understand the need to make everything being balanced.

What I would have prefered about ArmA 3 would have been new factions - like French Army or Chinese Army or Tsahal or German Army etc...

[Antigoon 10]

I don't care whatsoever. I only play MP, whether it be coop or TvT, and the thing that makes the biggest difference in my enjoyment of the game are the people I play with. The weapons, vehicle, setting and such are of minor importance to me, compared to having good old fashioned decent teamwork. I don't play on public servers though, but I can imagine the lone wolfers, pro-sniperz and fragratio addicts that frequent all those wasteland and domi style missions, might have issue with it.

[valax 1]

I'm all for the futuristic setting. I guess I'm just tired of the traditional M-16/M-4 vs AK.