Arma starting to disappoint

[Victim9l3 11]

After seeing the latest streamed video of the upcoming gameplay I found myself disappointed.

For one thing, the genericness of it all. They are playing this too safe. Calling Blufor NATO without giving specific armies is something a low budget game would do. That is one of the things that kind of hurt Battlefield 2142. There were no sides to anchor us down. Here we have given OPFOR a semi-real army, but Nato is not. We don't play games just because they feature specific armies like U.S. or BAF but calling everything NATO doesn't anchor us down into something we can connect to. Like U.N. If it's NATO you can still use nation specific things like BAF special forces or U.S. Armor, etc. But in the future it's less anchored. We have to take a few things for granted even if its 20 years in the future. Right now NATO countries all still have their own uniforms and equipment. We have them dressed in U.S. multicam and use them for crew of every vehicle. I will talk about vehicles in a minute. They can still be U.S. Nato forces. Then later add other armies. But so far, only the air vehicles are U.S..

Is there only 1 weapon manufacturer in the future? Why do all the vehicles have the exact same weapons? Look at the vehicle turrets. They all have the exact same design. Opfor, Blufor, greenfor, all have the same mounted turrets. You can tell, because they also have the same vehicles. Boats, subs, ships, are identicle. MG and GL turrets have the same design if not identical. I thought some of these things were the same just so they can give us some content to use, but they remain the same in video of the game.

The armor was what finally did it for me. Why are we using Current Israeli armor as future NATO armor and give it U.S. names.

-The Israeli Merkava is now the M2 A1 Slammer. A U.S. designation as the future of our M1 A2's.

-The Merkava IFV Namer is our future IFV-6c Panther?

I understand that the less than cool names like "slammer" couldn't have a real name because then they would have to show who it belongs to or risk problems with real world stuff.

The Blufor vehicles are too clean and naked. The LAV Marshall which is just a squared out LAV 25 has nothing on it. No equipment, no dirt, no personality. It's just a squeaky clean super generic vehicle. The Hunters too. They look like they just came off assembly line. They don't look like they've been in any wars. Too many of the "cockpit" vehicles are complete waste of space. The Ifrit is twice the size of normal vehicle but fits half the crew. The Opfor vehicles look a little less perfect but that's probably due to the camo pattern. But the Opfor Kajman is a cool idea but it's way to bulky to be an attack heli.

The last thing i'll touch on is the Greenfor camo craziness. No army has everything in its arsenal all camo'd out the same. Uniform, guns, everysingle vehicle, aircraft, etc... It's a little overboard. The ACR DLC was similar but jets were still gray, trucks were one color. etc. The guns even!!! Is the Greenfor so advanced that wasting money on camoing everything the same is no big deal.

Don't get me wrong, I love the game. I hate that I can't use DLC's like BAF and ACR in arma3 (those were my favorite). But it's tough to go back to lower forms of Arma. But the small selection of vehicles (20 vehicels in the finished product) and the genericness off all the armies is a huge let down. Recycling that ALCA again but not any modern vehicles. It's just a let down. It's the future. It's bigger and better. Yet not much selection but so much of the same in all armies. It's just a topic starter, not my sole opinion. I could argue positive things but there is enough of that already. But the negative comments on the board are mostly about trivial things or specific functions or things.

Thanks for reading.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Victim9l3

[dwaight 17]

got the same feeling.

[defk0n_NL 2]

Arma 3 has hardly better graphics then Arma2. They have better Models though.

Arma 3 looks like shit... i mean it literally looks like shit! Everything has a brown hue color throwed on. I have never seen a battlefield in such strict dresscode.

Look for yourselves,

http://www.arma3.com/images/post_images/arma3_alpha_screenshot_02.jpg (341 kB)

http://www.neogamer.de/pics/games/13/pic_1208975549.jpg (255 kB)

Where BF3 has everything in blue. arma went brown lol.

Eitherway. keep it up BIS butt(har har) add some color enhancements please.

[xendance 3]

Arma 3 has hardly better graphics then Arma2. They have better Models though.

Arma 3 looks like shit... i mean it literally looks like shit! Everything has a brown hue color throwed on. I have never seen a battlefield in such strict dresscode.

Look for yourselves,

http://www.arma3.com/images/post_images/arma3_alpha_screenshot_02.jpg (341 kB)

http://www.neogamer.de/pics/games/13/pic_1208975549.jpg (255 kB)

http://www.arma2base.de/content/images/mas_tak_unit07.jpg

Where BF3 has everything in blue. arma went brown lol.

Eitherway. keep it up BIS butt(har har) add some color enhancements please.

Have you ever been on mediterranean islands? The dominant colour is brown, like in game currently.

[aus_twisted 0]

Arma 3 has hardly better graphics then Arma2. They have better Models though.

Arma 3 looks like shit... i mean it literally looks like shit! Everything has a brown hue color throwed on. I have never seen a battlefield in such strict dresscode.

Look for yourselves,

http://www.arma3.com/images/post_images/arma3_alpha_screenshot_02.jpg (341 kB)

http://www.neogamer.de/pics/games/13/pic_1208975549.jpg (255 kB)

http://www.arma2base.de/content/images/mas_tak_unit07.jpg

Where BF3 has everything in blue. arma went brown lol.

Eitherway. keep it up BIS butt(har har) add some color enhancements please.

Don't have a clue what you are talking about.

[TSAndrey 1]

Arma 3 has hardly better graphics then Arma2. They have better Models though.

New textures, new lighting, better rendering, volumetric clouds....

[trent 14]

Arma 3 has hardly better graphics then Arma2. They have better Models though.

Arma 3 looks like shit... i mean it literally looks like shit! Everything has a brown hue color throwed on. I have never seen a battlefield in such strict dresscode.

Look for yourselves,

http://www.arma3.com/images/post_images/arma3_alpha_screenshot_02.jpg (341 kB)

http://www.neogamer.de/pics/games/13/pic_1208975549.jpg (255 kB)

http://www.arma2base.de/content/images/mas_tak_unit07.jpg

Where BF3 has everything in blue. arma went brown lol.

Eitherway. keep it up BIS butt(har har) add some color enhancements please.

I hope people don't focus solely on this guy's ramblings so that they can ignore the very real points brought up by others.

[defk0n_NL 2]

Have you ever been on mediterranean islands? The dominant colour is brown, like in game currently.

So? That doesnt make it look less... shitty (so to speak)

Don't have a clue what you are talking about.

sucks to be you

New textures, new lighting, better rendering, volumetric clouds....

Arma 2 has higher res textures, Trust me if i say im not alone in this, there have been alot of threads about arma 3 being unrealistic in ways.

To spare the flamewars on OP. We better agree to disagree

Edited August 11, 2013 by defk0n_NL

[Rolling 1]

I have to agree with OP, as many others have said the factions seem like clones of one another. Also BIS keep pulling that "quality over quantity" stuff when the content we are getting isn't really all that high quality. I'm not talking about models and textures here, I'm talking about the very poor simulation of vehicles. The weapon systems on all of the vehicles still use TAB lock crap, and rival factions from different hemispheres are using the exact same grenade launchers, 50 cals, and "DAGR" missles. Not to mention magical radar on the APCs, and the fact that all of the stealth helicopters don't have stealth properly represented.

This isn't a sim anymore, as they stated it is a "Military Sandbox". And that really shows, because they haven't improved the simulation aspect of it very much at all.

I forgot to complain about sniper rifles wind not affecting ballistics. :P /rant

Edited August 11, 2013 by Rolling
bleh, typo

[HKFlash 9]

sucks to be you

Sucks to be reported.

[chrisb 196]

Disappointing, yes..

Broken hearted, no.

I/we still have A2 to play.;).

[dwaight 17]

Sucks to be reported.

sux to be med.

[byku 13]

...

I have to agree with your post mate, we get fancier graphics, better first-person-shooter experience, some other improvements, but the simulation aspect of vehicles, any of them, is the same as Arma 2 :(

[jumpinghubert 49]

Arma 3 looks like shit... Everything has a brown hue color throwed on. I have never seen a battlefield in such strict dresscode.

are you shure you doubleclicked the arma3.exe? the color/lighting depends on the time of day and where you set the weather slider. Try it in the editor....if you find the editor lol

[R0adki11 3949]

This is a polite request, please respect the forum rules. Anyone else who tries to de-rail this thread will be banned from the thread and further action maybe imposed.

Thanks RK

[Spectre4813 10]

I think that ArmA 3 is the same as all the other installments in the series. I understand and agree with the original points made in this thread, but I think we can all agree that nobody plays ArmA in its vanilla state or the most part. I for one, think that modders make ArmA what it really is. BIS does a good job with getting the baseline product out the door, but the devs of ACRE, ACE, terrains, units, Zeus AI, and all those great mods make ArmA what we love to play.

[dale0404 5]

I think that ArmA 3 is the same as all the other installments in the series. I understand and agree with the original points made in this thread, but I think we can all agree that nobody plays ArmA in its vanilla state or the most part. I for one, think that modders make ArmA what it really is. BIS does a good job with getting the baseline product out the door, but the devs of ACRE, ACE, terrains, units, Zeus AI, and all those great mods make ArmA what we love to play.

Totally disagree buddy. Within the community I play with we use vanilla Arma and will continue to do so with A3.

[jts_2009 96]

whats wrong with you guys? Graphics, PhysX, lighting... wtf is wrong with you? If you need graphics - go play battlefield 3. I need content, interesting campaign and realism. But what I have seen looks like an arcade-shooter (I know its not, but it starts to looks like it. damn, should I explain everything, so you don't cry?)

Arma 3 has hardly better graphics then Arma2. They have better Models though.

So for you important thing are graphics? Seriosly :butbut: Graphics-f**ker

Edited August 11, 2013 by JTS_2009

[Bashka_IF 1]

whats wrong with you guys? Graphics, PhysX, lighting... wtf is wrong with you? If you need graphics - go play battlefield 3. I need content, interesting campaign and realism. But what I have seen looks like an arcade-shooter (I know its not, but it starts to looks like it. damn, should I explain everything, so you don't cry?)

So for you important thing are graphics? Seriosly :butbut: Graphics-f**ker

Graphics is important in this: if I'm lying in high grass (ex. wheat field) I don't want to be perfectly seen by a sniper 200-300 meters away. it is a big game breaker right now.

Alas...

and blurry ground also.

[Alabatross 1]

The game is bland, but I figured that was just because stratis is a placeholder. I feel like Atlas will have alot more climates and more colorful areas

Graphics is important in this: if I'm lying in high grass (ex. wheat field) I don't want to be perfectly seen by a sniper 200-300 meters away. it is a big game breaker right now.

Alas...

and blurry ground also.

you are very correct here though, I'm bummed about this.

[Qosmius 10]

this post touched my heart..finnaly someone else than me who sees that arma 3 is just a ripoff from arma 2 to milk customers to boost some other project.

only thing they have done so far is adding volumetric clouds, slight better animations to soldiers and reskinned all the vehicles from arma2..

---------- Post added at 17:18 ---------- Previous post was at 17:15 ----------

heck, even the much promised detailed textures is a failure..at ranges over 200 meters the grass fades away just like in arma 2..so if it is grassy on your screen and you think you are hidden. the enemy sniper sees you as you should be lying in a open field with absolutely no cover..the grass just dissapears over distance...also i seen some crazy stuff when sniping ppls from long ranges..some textures become invisible and i see the infantrymen floating in the air behind a invisible hill...not to mention the poorly optimisation which even makes nasa computers bend over for mercy

[Ezcoo 47]

To be honest, I have to agree that A3 is not what I was looking forward to see. The-country-that-you-know holiday islands and futuristic scenario have made me to actually even hate the game a little bit, even though the details themselves are quite nice in A3. I absolutely loved the Chernarussian scenario in A2; the beautiful landscape, dense vegetation, the diverse civilian side, realistic units and weaponry and the story behind everything... It's still the most beautiful and immersive place in the virtual universe that I've ever found. I've spent thousands of hours on Chernarus and still love the map, wouldn't change it at any price. I've recently played A2 only, because I simply enjoy it a lot, unlike A3. A3 is beginning to look like an arcade shooter to me, that's a genre where eg. BF is much better (excluding the horrible techno UI).

[Laqueesha 474]

As much as it pains me to say it, I have to agree with the O.P. here. ArmA 3 has been sadly disappointing so far. :(

I can only hope that they're saving all the good stuff for release and we'll have a completely different game then. I truly hope so.

[Sandy* 10]

After seeing the latest streamed video of the upcoming gameplay I found myself disappointed.

For one thing, the genericness of it all. They are playing this too safe. Calling Blufor NATO without giving specific armies is something a low budget game would do. That is one of the things that kind of hurt Battlefield 2142. There were no sides to anchor us down. Here we have given OPFOR a semi-real army, but Nato is not. We don't play games just because they feature specific armies like U.S. or BAF but calling everything NATO doesn't anchor us down into something we can connect to. Like U.N. If it's NATO you can still use nation specific things like BAF special forces or U.S. Armor, etc. But in the future it's less anchored. We have to take a few things for granted even if its 20 years in the future. Right now NATO countries all still have their own uniforms and equipment. We have them dressed in U.S. multicam and use them for crew of every vehicle. I will talk about vehicles in a minute. They can still be U.S. Nato forces. Then later add other armies. But so far, only the air vehicles are U.S..

We don't have the campaign yet, so we can't possibly know what the Nato forces are story-wise. The fact that they're just called "Nato" in the editor is hardly a big deal...

The Blufor vehicles are too clean and naked. The LAV Marshall which is just a squared out LAV 25 has nothing on it. No equipment, no dirt, no personality. It's just a squeaky clean super generic vehicle. The Hunters too. They look like they just came off assembly line. They don't look like they've been in any wars.

Here is the polish national variant of the Patria AMV in action in Afghanistan. I hardly see much "equipment". So we should get a dynamic dirt system, perhaps washing the vehicles between combat would make for a fun minigame?

But the Opfor Kajman is a cool idea but it's way to bulky to be an attack heli.

The Mi-24 would like you to tell that to him in person.

[enex 11]

BI guys are not here to milk us, that much you should know!

Slight better animations meaning full motion capture soldier while in A2 they are not.

I don't see any reskinned vehicles from arma 2 though?

I just think that this arma 3 experiment have bitter taste because of series of events

that happened to developers.I call a big one "change of majority of leaders in a project"

(We've tried to make clear in the blog; the project was indeed going in a very different direction to being with; in many ways, it was quite experimental.

A change was made, and Arma 3 ended up with a new project lead, creative lead, sandbox design lead, playable content lead, audio lead, two new programming leads, mastering lead, and new marketing communications lead. Perhaps more importantly, the rest of the team doubled in size, adding many great new designers, programmers and more.

The project pivoted towards what we would expect from an Arma sequel. It was during this period of transition that several unexpected external events also hit us, which, as we've in the past explained, made the situation much more difficult. But now the studios are unified is pursuing one singular vision of Arma 3 and the team's long, hard work has resulted in a consistently positive reception in the alpha and beta testing phases. No, not everything is perfect, no, not everything that everyone would like will make it into the launch, but, most certainly yes, the team is in a strong position to deliver Arma 3 now and support it in the future. I see team members busting their asses daily to get things right.

We believe the Arma 3 launch is - set beside comparable products out there - a huge and rewarding package of content together with a legitimate set of engine advancements. Due to the Arma 3 Alpha and Beta, with your support, the game will be our most solid release, by far, and we're committed to supporting the platform long term. Next week, Joris will make further announcements and clarifications about our future content plans, which answer some of the outstanding questions.

Best,

RiE)