Anyone else concerned about ARMA 3 launch September?

[ItsEdwards 1]

Hence why he said relatively. Last I checked CWC isn't an ArmA game either, it's more the spiritual predecessor no?

[Sheepdog 4]

I am not concerned at all. I get a solid 60-80 frames EVERYWHERE at this point on Arma 3 even with 70 players on at once. The game is very responsive and works well. Is it missing some features? Yes, but I think people will have a change of opinion when things are released in September.

The big thing to remember is people are basing Arma 3 vs Arma 2 (modded), there are so many mod's floating around for Arma 2 it's incredible. The best part is, a lot of that work is coming to Arma 3. In a year from now Arma 2 is going to be an after thought to the thing's Arma 3 is going to be capable of delivering.

[L3TUC3 32]

Hence why he said relatively. Last I checked CWC isn't an ArmA game either, it's more the spiritual predecessor no?

The only reason the game series is not called OFP any more is because Codemasters still owns the trademark after BIS broke off from them. If this were not the case, then we would be playing OFP named games from BIS instead of Arma.

[fragmachine 12]

Hence why he said relatively. Last I checked CWC isn't an ArmA game either, it's more the spiritual predecessor no?

It was build on the very first incarnation of the RV1 engine, basic mechanics are the same. The only difference is in some improvements, graphics and the campaign that at OFP was better structured, organized and had better gameplay than A1/A2 campaigns. IMO it was much more engaging and it really make sense, like a very good-written movie scenario with different characters stories behind it, but without hollywood bullsh*t.

[chortles 263]

To be clear, the original OFP is essentially a spiritual prequel to the Arma series -- or the Arma series are "Operation Flashpoint successors in all but name" -- to the point that the v1.99 patch changed its name to ARMA: Cold War Assault.

Have a timeline of their combined histories, in fact! (Warning: Spoilers and the lead-up from TOH to Arma 3 is almost certainly retconned out.)

[Alwarren 2766]

Wow, sounds like A2 sucked.

I don't understand. People loved A2, but A3 has better graphics and animations and it's the worst batch of code on the internet. Sheesh...

That's because everyone always needs to think in superlatives when trying to make a point. Bloody useless.

Arma 2 had its quirks, especially at launch, but we're not at launch anymore. Arma 3 has to compete with Arma 2 as it is now, with all the mods. Just pretty graphics doesn't do it, and there has been zero change in the animation system itself, only the anims have been shortened to hide the isses that system has (see the ridiculous grenade throwing).

I could go on for hours why I currently very much prefer Arma 2 over Arma 3 in spite of the pretty graphics (which aren't that badin Arma 2 to begin with). But that doesn't matter because it all goes down to taste.

These exaggerations (worst game evarr, 100x betta than Arma 2) really bother me, because they are all wrong. (hence the term exaggeration).

What bothers me most though is the way we treat each other (this is not pointed at you BadHabitz, it's a general thing). There are genuine concerns from some people, and they are called "whiners", "butthurting", and other friendly terms. There are people that do not share these concerns that are called "boot-lickers", "fanboys", etc. The tone on the forum has degraded a lot, and it's time we show each other some effing respect

Now, on the subject: I am concerned about the release. I feel that reviews will be less than stellar because there is little player content provided, only a handful of missions for both single and multiplayer. Granted, the community made content is abundant, but let's not forget that not all of it is good, as a matter of fact I would say that real quality missions are hard to find. A potential new customer or reviewer will have to search a good while until he will find something that is polished, working, and enjoyable. Without a campaign, I'm afraid that critics scores will be lowered and that a lot of them will not recommend the game.

---------- Post added at 10:26 ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 ----------

Sure, we are reading.

Cool, so is rain back in again (I noticed in the "live stream" that it was not greyed out in your build)? And loadout selection in the briefing?

What about optics, are you going to add any thermal optics? I reported a rather ugly bug with them a while ago.

[BadHabitz 235]

Arma 2 had its quirks, especially at launch, but we're not at launch anymore. Arma 3 has to compete with Arma 2 as it is now, with all the mods.

That's not really fair. A2 is a mature game. Just like when I bought Sims 2 for my daughters, and then all of the expansions... but when Sims 3 came out it was just as basic as the base Sims 2 game. A sequel is never going to have the polish and content that a mature game with expansions has.

I happen to like A3 the way it is and the way it's going. Call me a fanboy? You might make a case for that, but I'm not going to be biased in my observations. I just like the game to the point that I'm not going to scream that the sky is falling just because BI hasn't solved my pet peeve.

And I'm not too worried about critic reviews. I doubt most of Arma's sales in the past have been the result of critic reviews. This series spreads by word of mouth across the internet. But, I would hope a critic gives a good review and goes on to say they can't wait for the campaign to be released.

[alx 20]

I have no worries for the game at all. I do have worries about the destructive, entitlement driven community here that appears to be heavily populated by teenagers (or those with a mental age of a teenager). I suppose it's to be expected from computer game geeks. Stick to your guns BIS team.

[Alwarren 2766]

That's not really fair. A2 is a mature game. Just like when I bought Sims 2 for my daughters, and then all of the expansions... but when Sims 3 came out it was just as basic as the base Sims 2 game. A sequel is never going to have the polish and content that a mature game with expansions has.

When I decide to play a game, I don't think "Well, Arma 2 sucked at launch so I am not going to play it now and play Arma 3 because it sucked less at launch". I am going to base my decision on the current state of either game, and that will almost always go in favor of Arma 2 (also because I just can't stand Stratis anymore). So yeah, it might not be exactly fair, but it is the realty of how things are measured in reality.

Call me a fanboy?

*sigh* I explicitly did not call anybody anything.

You might make a case for that, but I'm not going to be biased in my observations. I just like the game to the point that I'm not going to scream that the sky is falling just because BI hasn't solved my pet peeve.

These are exactly the kind of exaggeration that I meant in my post, and it makes me wonder if you have read it past the line that you quoted.

Just because someone complains about something in the game does NOT mean he considers everything shit. Just because someone says the game is fine doesn't mean he wants to have pettka's babies.

And here we go again. You need to call my concerns "pet peeves", and when I complain, I am complaining that "the sky is falling". That is exactly what I mean with mutual respect. The concerns I raise *matter* to me. They might not matter to you, and hooray for you if they don't. You might actually like the way you can rotate on the spot, I don't. Respect my opinion if you expect anybody to respect yours.

And I'm not too worried about critic reviews. I doubt most of Arma's sales in the past have been the result of critic reviews. This series spreads by word of mouth across the internet. But, I would hope a critic gives a good review and goes on to say they can't wait for the campaign to be released.

Good review? Actually, I hope for honest reviews. Because reviews are a source of information, not advertisement. They should say what is right as well as what is wrong.

How many base their opinion on critics reviews I don't know, but if they were of no concern, people wouldn't read them, and I am quire sure they do.

[Varanon 892]

The tone on the forum has degraded a lot, and it's time we show each other some effing respect

This!

It ties in with my pet peeve on the forum, namely that arguments given are usually drowned in such degrading posts, i.e. when I say I'm concerned and give arguments for why I am concerned, my arguments aren't countered, they are ridiculed or I am called "dumb".

That's not really fair. A2 is a mature game.

Oh, but it is fair to say A3 is 100x better ? A3 is the successor of A2, and as such, it has to measure up to that legacy. So any comparison between A2 and A3 is not only fair, it's natural to draw such comparisons. And right now, (of course, IMHO, your mileage may wary), A2 wins this comparison outright. Sure, A3 looks better, A3 feels "smoother" (although this has been misused as an "argument" why A3 is better so many times it's ridiculous), but in the core, A2 and A3 are the same games, the same hitpoint system for tanks, the same AI (granted, some improvements made recently), the same technology. So the only merits of A3 is it's graphics and smoothness and the tiny amount of features added (underwater combat, weapon attachments etc). That alone doesn't make a game. Content wise, A3 is lightyears behind A2, and I'm not even talking about modding, but vanilla content.

I just like the game to the point that I'm not going to scream that the sky is falling just because BI hasn't solved my pet peeve.

Pet peeve ? Missing campaign (to be delivered later), perceived "dumbing down" (FAR less realistic compared to A2), less content in terms of assets (ONE jet ? And one that looks as if it has been taken from ACR), and a hole bunch of design decisions I can't really understand (long standing bugs not fixed but tiny new features introduced that basically don't serve anyone and are sometimes even removed from subsequent builds).

It's not as if my pet peeve hasn't been solved. It's a hole bunch of things that I personally think are either not solved at all, or took a step back. This has nothing to do with pet peeves, it's conceptual problems that wind their way through the whole game.

I doubt most of Arma's sales in the past have been the result of critic reviews.

Indeed. It sold despite critic reviews. However, if the plan to release it ASAP is because of the upcoming over-hyped BF4 and COD:G, and the next-gen consoles, then this rushed launch resulting in potentially bad reviewer scores due to missing content (it will probably receive better scores than previous titles because it's no longer the crash-fest A2 was in the beginning), will only diminish sales. I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to delay the release to after the hype bubble, then...

Don't get me wrong, I still think A3 will become a good game, and knowing BIS's after-release support (which I hope is going to be more like OFP and less like ACR) might be able to fix a lot. And of course, the famous "Community to the rescue" will work too (although I wonder why this card is so often played by people that are NOT modders NOR mission makers... I guess it's easier to cry "community to the rescue" if you are not the one doing the work)

---------- Post added at 11:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 AM ----------

I have no worries for the game at all. I do have worries about the destructive, entitlement driven community here that appears to be heavily populated by teenagers (or those with a mental age of a teenager). I suppose it's to be expected from computer game geeks. Stick to your guns BIS team.

Ahh, great. Thanks for making my point about name calling. Very opportune timing, too.

[ShotgunSheamuS 1]

I guess what I'm saying here is that a huge influx of players paid for ArmA 2:Combined Operations just to play Day-Z. They had otherwise ignored ArmA 2 for over three years, never having given any thought to the game. Many had no idea what to expect of ArmA, some may have had the wrong impression of why an ArmA game is different. So, Day-Z gave exposure ArmA would not have had otherwise.

Seeking to maximize attention for ArmA 3, imagine the attention that ArmA 3 would get if Day-Z was available in ArmA 3 at release. If we know how many people bought A2:OA for it, how many additional sales of A3 would we generate purely because of it.

Maybe we don't need Day-Z specifically. But ArmA could really use the essence of whatever sparked so much attention because of it. I think ArmA has always lacked that special something that simply showcases ArmA really well to potential players, right out of the box, rather then relying on end user content to maybe succeed at it. I muse over how difficult it is/was to get players interested in playing ArmA. I joke that there is no way to show someone that addictive "thing" that makes ArmA fun. If you were objective and honest, you have to admit that watching a lot of the published YouTube videos of others playing ArmA, makes ArmA appear understandingly boring to many potential players. They can't see what makes it fun. Even I can't see it in the videos, and I know exactly why the events of the video were posted. Not even watching good YouTube such as video of ShackTac games really does it well most of the time. I have to tell people that you won't see it in video, you have to play ArmA to get ArmA.

Day-Z is an anomaly, there are lots of viral video on YouTube of the crazy stuff that can happen playing Day-Z... things that players can obviously see are fun and it makes them want to play ArmA. They get it.

Once players has a foot in the door, once they are convinced to buy and install ArmA 3. Then you can expose them all of the rest of the game. Things they would've overlooked and passed by without knowing it. Even the Single Player Campaign when it's done

This will not really help as much as you believe it would. Firstly, let me make an example. one of a few friends I have that play ARMA because of DayZ. He even preordered ARMA3 like I did, and I believe most other DayZ players did as well, and this is because of Wasteland mod. Wasteland is basically DayZ, just without the shitty implimentation of annoying zombies. And also you get geared up much faster than DayZ which makes it great for short play time. So ARMA surely is getting its sales from those same people, but heres the real kicker. That friend of mine, has never even touched the showcases, even in ARMA2, he has never even taken a look at what ARMA has to offer, so really, pointless. Will have to face the fact that not everyone will buy into ARMA series, but the modding is a great scene of attraction. Throwing in DayZ official game with ARMA3, I dont know... Perhaps ARMA3 owners can get into beta testing? Not that I really think the majority of ARMA players really give two shits about DayZ, I know I dont, the concept is ruined by competative players who think they are playing the hungar games, instead of an actuall zombie appocolypose... but meh.

However dont think the devs arent trying to make ARMA 3 more accessable to new consumers, ARMA 3 has pretty much undergone a small change, a change to be a tad little less complex, and a little more easier to pickup and play... So it will depend on thew devs, but if anyone is going to like ARMA, I personally think it will be because of the SP campaign, and not because I can play DayZ if I own ARMA 3.

[chortles 263]

ShotgunSheamuS, you missed his point that "Maybe we don't need Day-Z specifically. But ArmA could really use the essence of whatever sparked so much attention because of it." Because it sure wasn't (just) zombies, as the nod to Wasteland shows...

Indeed. It sold despite critic reviews. However, if the plan to release it ASAP is because of the upcoming over-hyped BF4 and COD:G, and the next-gen consoles, then this rushed launch resulting in potentially bad reviewer scores due to missing content (it will probably receive better scores than previous titles because it's no longer the crash-fest A2 was in the beginning), will only diminish sales. I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to delay the release to after the hype bubble, then...

Problem is that BI can't predict when the hype bubble will go away and thus can't count on that, only know when it's hitting and count on that... and truthbetold, if as you said "it will probably receive better scores than previous titles because it's no longer the crash-fest A2 was in the beginning"... then that would just end up validating the decision to focus on polish and stability. :p

Then again, as I've said before, I've interpreted some of the dev comments as implying that the game development had passed a point where a third delay (counting both the summer and winter 2012 delays as the first and second) wouldn't help... and as the Steamworks announcement said, "get this game out in 2013" came right from the top.

[DarkDruid 96]

What I meant was, that the features that dont make it into the final release, does that mean we wont be seeing it in the future? For example the mid range textures suggestion, or shooting from vehicles request is a better example. If launch release comes, and we dont see these features, does that mean we wont get it, or is there still a probability?

I can't mention the exact features, but I'm pretty sure there is still some probability. As Joris mentioned in the stream yesterday (or it was in the chat? I'm not sure now), almost everyone in the team are going to work on Arma 3 for long time after the release. Of course, campaign will be our highest priority after the release of the game. But we don't plan to end our support even after the campaign release.

[chortles 263]

I would add that only a few functionalities were outright axed, and those were in fact announced quite some time ago -- while Dwarden in the "axed" thread ran through a bunch of the high-profile stuff and at least one of them was a case of being outright told to work on something else, but that's only de-prioritizing and not axing.

[bando 1]

Do you have a link to the axed thread?

[chortles 263]

Here's the relevant post where Dwarden responded specifically to individual feature requests... notice how "might happen post release , but i don't want promise it until i know we can deliver :)" is used verbatim (almost copy & paste-seeming) three times with two other responses being almost identical in wording to that. :p

For what it's worth, if I recall correctly, the "axing" re: 3D editor was re: the idea of an officially accessible 3D editor and the prior project lead's "axing" was basically to say that it wouldn't be improved beyond what was already discovered in Arma 2.

[Bee8190 10]

Oh, but it is fair to say A3 is 100x better ? A3 is the successor of A2, and as such, it has to measure up to that legacy. So any comparison between A2 and A3 is not only fair, it's natural to draw such comparisons. And right now, (of course, IMHO, your mileage may wary), A2 wins this comparison outright. Sure, A3 looks better, A3 feels "smoother" (although this has been misused as an "argument" why A3 is better so many times it's ridiculous), but in the core, A2 and A3 are the same games, the same hitpoint system for tanks, the same AI (granted, some improvements made recently), the same technology. So the only merits of A3 is it's graphics and smoothness and the tiny amount of features added (underwater combat, weapon attachments etc). That alone doesn't make a game. Content wise, A3 is lightyears behind A2, and I'm not even talking about modding, but vanilla content.

100% spot on.

When it's been said that arma 3 will be focusing more on quality then amount of assets I was looking forward to that and approved of that direction.

So we got top work on visuals, lighting, models and textures, animations and also scale of the main island as well performance, all that have been improved a lot compared to arma 2.

Another great news is that walking on moving objects seems to be being worked on; thank you very much and I am looking forward to that.

Now fair enough but many of us were looking forward to bit more significant changes within the engine especially, most that are known from feedback tracker. The game received top sound samples this time

around but due to engine limitation or whatever the reason for it is, the engine doesn't seem to use them well enough. Same with vehicles, while audio samples are again great

( mostly; although I still dislike HEMTT, kamaz, and panther sounds [ Hunter + marshall needs some fair tweaks also] ) the vehicle interaction with terrain is still very, very basic, physx or not.

I won't even talk about the hitpoint system in 2013...An absolute disappointment.

I don't even blame the devs though and I think it's fairly apparent that the management is at fail here, mismanaging the resources ( or better yet, managing those very well but elsewhere, not on arma3 ) and it has been apparent for while now that the dev's are overworked and really tired, just check the live stream , Jay Crow were as hell exhausted. ( and still did fine job answering question's and thinkinh what the community would be mostly interested into)

Bigger studio as well dev count can't come soon enough from what I see to be honest

[chortles 263]

Varanon, re: "smoother" -- you call it "misused", but from the experiences of the players who I've played with and gotten feedback from, I think the difference in opinion comes down to them giving that "smoother" feel a lot more weight than you do (you're the one calling A3 graphics better so I won't even make that comparison).

Bee8190, just remember that sounds are explicitly WIP and the current state is not what I call "intended final state", even if they give us no roadmap/timeline/ETA on changes.

As far as "dev's are overworked and really tired"... they don't get to yell back at us the way that Rocket yells back at his followers, they have to resort to things like "continue to beat that dead horse". :p Though truthbetold, realizing that they were the subject of a recurring joke about the livestream-that-wasn't probably weighed on their minds while making that recording... :(

[chrisb 196]

I said I’m not too concerned regards Sept 12th, because I think they have more or less completed what they set out to do (second time around), that’s make a shooter to sell mainstream, not a true successor to the series, more a step forward (graphics wise) but also a step to the side, toward larger sales (nothing wrong with that).

A3 is polished, it looks good, but it simply isn’t a realistic mil/sim type game, don’t really want to call it that because this series are games, not mil/sims. If we label VBS2 as a mil/sim (which it is), then the arma series can only be classed as games, with a heavy lean towards mil/sim.

A3 is a game with very little in the way of a mil/sim lean, it leans toward mainstream gaming if anything, in particular MP mainstream gaming.

That’s why I’m not concerned, it seems they made what they set out to do, after the live-stream, it sort of makes me think that even more. I get the feeling they know what they made, just that they don’t want to admit it has been made a lot more user friendly, plus the game-play has been watered down to suit that.

When you look at it in comparison to the series in general, its different in format, for those that don’t see that, play the other games in the series for a while, in a realistic 'sim' type manner, I think it should become apparent that A3 can't be played the same way, it doesn't behave the same. Its just my view, I know players will disagree, that's everyone's right, I'm just looking at it from the way I play, which is as realistic as I can make it without it being as dull as VBS2, which I also have.

That said, it may not seem that way for everyone, that could be because, deep down some players wanted it simple, but simple is not what this series was about, its complex for a reason, that reason is, it borders a true mil/sim like VBS2.

I don't care that they stepped toward mainstream, well I do, but what can I do about that 'nothing'. Its not what I would play, but we have A2, so at least I can (and do) play that.

Its just that I really would like them to say what their intention was originally for the game, then did it change or was it always that way.

I have my own thoughts, that is it changed after BF3 was released.

[fragmachine 12]

So the next ArmA should be more realism-oriented product just to compensate the fact that A3 is more mainstream-oriented product? Anyway I can't find other excuse to call realism-oriented game not mainstream just because it is more realism-oriented - other than harsher gameplay.

I'll wait for Ultimate ArmA mod or next ArmA iteration anyway. Im still stick with A2 with ACE and such. It is not a bad game, it is still playable :)

[marcai 1]

A few paragraphs ranting about the game being 'mainstream'...

I don't care that they stepped toward mainstream,

2009:

"I play Arma II. You've probably never heard of it" :cool:

I've seen this argument everywhere and I just don't get it. "Nothing's changed since A2 apart from improving fluidity and visuals, but it's more mainstream than A2 so I won't play" just seems a silly argument, as one one hand people are saying nothing changed, whereas on the other they're stating that it's so different that they won't be playing it. Is a game being upopular a thing to enjoy for some? Is the draw of hipster-gaming that strong? The term 'accessible' is often demonised, but more often than not it's the removing of redundant features and improving interactivity. To use a gaming metaphor for the level of change, we're not talking Morrowind-to-Skyrim armour simplification here; more just the removal of Morrowind's infuriating weapon stats making you miss.

Arma 3 is lacking a lot of the vehicle and weapon variation from A2, granted, but I'd hardly say that the changes are so gargantuan to warrant anyone to say it's a massive departure from the series. The functions that are missing from A3 were also missing in A2, and those that were in A2 but not A3 have been discussed at length on these very forums with input from the devs saying they will be working on it (Namely the wounding system). Of course, we are also overlooking the fact that A3 will likely have more content and a more stable gameplay experience at release than A2 by far, making it a rather objectively better platform to build off of than A2 was at release- meaning we have many years of mods and DLC to look forward to, to push the boundaries of what is and isn't possible in Arma further than we currently see.

Naturally I won't change your opinion with this post, nor the opinion of others who are in the same frame of mind as you. My post is as much to you as anyone else reading to counter-point doom-and-gloom arguments that seem to be cropping up on the forums. Arma 3 has a lot of missed potential for features and improvement, I cannot dispute that, but it also ticks a lot of the boxes that it needed to. Imo A3 is a huge leap forward in terms of improving the visuals and removing some of the clunkier/slower features that have been the bane of the game's popularity without adding much to gameplay; even if not a huge leap forward in new content.

[Varanon 892]

I would add that only a few functionalities were outright axed, and those were in fact announced quite some time ago -- while Dwarden in the "axed" thread ran through a bunch of the high-profile stuff and at least one of them was a case of being outright told to work on something else, but that's only de-prioritizing and not axing.

It doesn't really matter if the functionality/assets were announced. Some of them were announced, some of them were shown or implied. Nothing wrong with axing in general, since we all know (again) that the reality of bluishness are harsh, but it's the amount of features that were promiesd/hinted at/implied/shown in screenshots and subsequently axed and the amount of old problems that were carried over that IMHO creates the biggest sense of disappointment for most people. It's also not really important WHY things were axed, if something was expected to be in, and subsequently isn't, there's always going to be disappointment. But this especially is something a lot of people have a difficult time understanding, and in missing to understanding resort to name calling and slandering.

---------- Post added at 01:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:26 PM ----------

"Nothing's changed since A2 apart from improving fluidity and visuals, but it's more mainstream than A2 so I won't play" just seems a silly argument, as one one hand people are saying nothing changed, whereas on the other they're stating that it's so different that they won't be playing it.

For some people (and that includes me), things that have been remove were considered (by me and others) as being vital to the game. This includes (for me) things like the carrying capacity (which, BIS be praised, is being worked on), the medical system, the turn speed (lie on your belly, in Arma 3, you can spin 360 ° in less than half a second, try that in real life, on grassy terrain and not a breakdancing mat), all of which turned to focus of team play towards lone wolf play (everyone is self sufficient).

So, if it were true that A3 would be just A2 with updated graphics and fluidity, I would be happy. But your assessment that "we" don't play it because it is more mainstream is simply a false "accusation". It's not because it IS more mainstream, but because it was also modified to be more mainstream, somewhat "betraying" (and note, I write that in quotes, it's meant to be overdramatic) the legacy of Arma.

[fragmachine 12]

@Marcai Well, obviously I've played all ArmA games including OFP both campaigns and I can tell what is more engaging for me and what not. I've tried all along with A3 Beta and all I can say that overall I prefer A2 setting (Chernarus) with OA mechanics modded with ACE. Sometimes I play OFP and Resistance just for the campaign. And when I want to admire the views I play ArmA 3 - but until there will be a proper ACE mod. Something that off-set me from this game is the setting (really nice place doesn't fit really well a war horror) and the futuristic timeline. Somewhat it is mainstreamed but it isn't the fluid animations or improved graphics what it makes the game "mainstream" but the gameplay that is strictly different. And gameplay isn't something as basic that it get changed just because of the stance adjust :biggrin: AI in A3 tend to risk their lives much more than in A2 for instance.

Anyway funny quote about "hipster-gamers" - I don't consider myself an hipster-gamer just because I like to play epic classic games. And who always starts to throw this "hipster" non-argument to talk? It is always some pissed banana kid-mainstream gamer. Very unmature, because if someone speaks his thought on what he likes and what not he automaticly gets pinned with "hipster" - wow how smart of them.

And I agree that it have alot of improvements in graphics, animations, engine, AI (but sometimes it goes too far). But it feels much less authentic and plays the same. The opposite was why the titles were so epic.

For some people (and that includes me), things that have been remove were considered (by me and others) as being vital to the game. This includes (for me) things like the carrying capacity (which, BIS be praised, is being worked on), the medical system, the turn speed (lie on your belly, in Arma 3, you can spin 360 ° in less than half a second, try that in real life, on grassy terrain and not a breakdancing mat), all of which turned to focus of team play towards lone wolf play (everyone is self sufficient).

So, if it were true that A3 would be just A2 with updated graphics and fluidity, I would be happy. But your assessment that "we" don't play it because it is more mainstream is simply a false "accusation". It's not because it IS more mainstream, but because it was also modified to be more mainstream, somewhat "betraying" (and note, I write that in quotes, it's meant to be overdramatic) the legacy of Arma.

Well put, exactly my thought.

Edited August 11, 2013 by fragmachine

[defk0n_NL 2]

I could go on for hours why I currently very much prefer Arma 2 over Arma 3 in spite of the pretty graphics (which aren't that badin Arma 2 to begin with). But that doesn't matter because it all goes down to taste.

:yanked by myself:

Edited August 11, 2013 by defk0n_NL

[marcai 1]

Anyway funny quote about "hipster-gamers" - I don't consider myself an hipster-gamer just because I like to play epic classic games. And who always starts to throw this "hipster" non-argument to talk? It is always some pissed banana kid-mainstream gamer. Very unmature, because if someone speaks his thought on what he likes and what not he automaticly gets pinned with "hipster" - wow how smart of them.

In the same paragraph, you accuse me of being immature for poking fun at a preference for certain games, then use the term 'mainsream gamer' as a derogatory term to imply immaturity. I'll just let that sink in a second.

Now as for the spinning and medical system, hell yeah I want those back. The thing is, to me they're relatively minor additions in the gameplay. One bullet tends to drop you, two or three if you're lucky. I agree that a more in-depth medical system is far cooler, but compared to, say, vehicle physics or infantry AI behaviour, I'd argue it's hardly *the* key feature for devs to focus on. Spinning around on the floor is an issue, but in a co-op game the chances of spinning 180 degrees perfectly and landing some shots on a target straight away are rather slim. Again, a feature I would prefer to be in, but one that I've yet to see having any major gameplay impact. Carrying capacity is being worked on, as you said, so I'll forget that for now. Overall -again, my opninion vs yours here, so rather fruitless- I'd not say they're game breakers. Things I want? Oh hell yes. Enough to make me take my ball and go home? Not at all.

Somewhat related side note: As well as a wounding system, shooting at someone's gun/hands to disarm them would be awesome. If locational damage gets implemented at any point soon this would kick ass if possible.