Arma 3 full analysis - The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

[Polygon 11]

Thread’s title is self-explaining. Since statistically most of the society prefer bad news and make them more popular, let’s start with…

THE BAD:

• - Zero weapon handling simulation (you can turn 360 degrees prone in 0.5 s)
  
• - No gear selection in briefing screen (yet)
  
• - Flawed capacity and weight system (can carry up to 180-200 kg, and even SWIM! Backpacks somehow can contain 3-4 12kg each missiles)
  
• - terrible PhysX implementation (wooden boxes and other misc objects are indestructible, deliver too much damage, vehicles drive and handle like cardboxes etc)
  
• - clunky action menu (watch Dyslecxi’s FFS video)
  
• - no door opening/closing sound, can’t close window shutters
  
• - grenade throwing is bad – you can’t normally control the distance, direction or time till explosion, you can throw 6 grenades in 3 s (WTF – grenade throwing Olympics?)
  
• - inertia-less movement animations, lots of other issues related to anims overall
  
• - no 3D editor or any bigger improvements on 2D variant (no welcome screen to provide new users information on where to look for information, scripting documentation. Missing loadout control, external .sqf/.ext file editors etc)
  
• - no bipod deployment
  
• - no ability to walk inside vehicles / land/drive on ships
  
• - medical system is ruined by spammed FAKs, actual medic’s role is no longer crucial
  
• - no elaborate armor penetration system
  
• - no TOH flying model
  
• - no dynamic terrain grid (so much wasted performance on fixed global grid issue)
  
• - no campaign at release, instead we get a 3 DLC episode pack
  
• - no dynamic sound engine implementation, vehicle sounds simulated inaccurately
  
• - no wind simulation – doesn’t affect snipers, helicopters etc
  
• - lack of logic/rationale while “balancing†– increasing Ifrit/Hunter grenade capacity without increasing any of its parts in size from where grenades are taken. Where do they fit, I must ask? Also, how can a UGV contain 200 grenades without ANY reload/swap packs? (see the August 10th BIS livestream)
  
• - bad performance in MP (still)
  
• - lack of new modding tools
  
• - broken aiming deadzone (inane acceleration)
  
• - no soft shadows, bad/washed out stock midrange terrain textures
  
• - outdated server browser with several important filters missing, no option to favor/save servers
  
• - see the feedback tracker to be shocked even more
  

THE GOOD:

• - most interesting and useful combat stance animation system in history of video games
  
• - graphical, sound, and visual effects improvements
  
• - most advanced and flexible AI in video games because it combines all types of vehicles and infantry together
  
• - underwater exploration / combat inclusion for the very first time
  
• - huge and vastly detailed sandbox landscapes (Altis + Stratis = ~315 km^2 of land alone)
  
• - new scripting commands, editor option sliders and overall better control of mission parameters visually
  
• - splendidâ„¢ tools for mission testing, manipulation, screen capture, config / anim browsing
  
• - PIP and autonomous vehicles
  
• - more (graphics, gameplay) parameters to control in options (however – sound params are very limited – look at how Fallout New Vegas did it)
  
• - Field manual (although it lacks the most basic information on mission editor and where to start etc)
  
• - a great way to handle issues – feedback tracker – so far, the best I’ve ever seen to incorporate free QA
  
• - improved AI (but still flawed in numerous aspects – orientation inside buildings, for example)
  
• - highly detailed vehicles, their interiors/cockpits, useful functionality, infantry, high-res textures, great 3D vegetation / environment props models etc.
  
• - new and more realistic radio protocol
  
• - lots of new weapons, ground / air vehicles (even if some of them aren’t very useful)
  
• - realistic and intuitive vehicle steering (with a bit of a broken wrist at full side turn)
  
• - BattlEye
  
• - understandably much less annoying / game-breaking bugs at A3 full launch compared to its predecessors
  

THE UGLY (AVERAGE):

• - hit & miss GUI – for example, “Exit†button in main menu does not request to confirm your choice, people tend to press on it accidentally
  
• - vehicle damage and building destruction
  
• - pretty bad “futurized†main menu cutscenes from above without any music that would set the mood (is the future depressing?)
  
• - no rivers, underground structures
  
• - underwater lighting / color issues, water does not reflect the surroundings (may impact the performance heavily, though)
  
• - indestrucable side/back mirrors
  
• - lack of usable objects in the editor (cannot place buildings, vegetation etc)
  
• - lack of sounds (birds, animals etc) in the editor
  

That’s it for now. If I’ve missed anything that belongs to any of the sections above, don’t hesitate to suggest.

I will not classify current or future SP/MP playable content because it’s highly subjective, as is the selected A3 setting.

Despite all the flaws and “uglies†of Arma 3, it is still a game worth a try produced by a caring developer and supported by smart community.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Polygon
Made easier to read

[frostwyrm333 1]

-rivers and underground were never promised

-stencil shadows should be removed completely, they eat cpu perormance

-wind is supposed to be working but is not used in ballistics yet

-driving/walking on ships is supposedly WIP

-grenade throwing was also improved afaik

other than that, pretty much I agree, but not that tragic

[nikiforos 450]

IMO you should wait until the release next month before reviewing the game. Ofcourse we know what is missing and what is on but still it would be more fair to wait until next month.

[enex 11]

The good: Physics, fluid and responsive movement (especially indoors) detailed interiors of vehicles.

By the way post seems very thrown all in one bin, maybe we could separate into 2 categories: Graphic, Gameplay?

[afp 1]

One single comment on this one:

hit & miss GUI – for example, “Exit†button in main menu does not request to confirm your choice, people tend to press on it accidentally

Exit confirmation is close to the most stupid thing related to the computers UI. Statistically, 99% or more "exit" clicks are intended, I mean the user really wants to exit the application. He shouldn't be forced to an extra click just because once in a lifetime he may press exit by mistake. There is no big deal at all if "exit" is pressed by mistake. The user will run the application again.

[Fushko 60]

No direct shadows, light sources pass through objects

No walking when swapping weapons

[lesscubes 1]

I generally agree except for-

"- no TOH flying model"

The simplified flight model is just fine for ARMA. Air assets are in game to support the action on the ground, complicating them further will mainly lead to frustration amongst the player base. The game isn't really supposed to be a robust flight simulator.

[byku 13]

- no sophistication in heli/tank/apc/car/titan systems. It all feels simple. Not much authentic feel.

[nodunit 397]

I'd have to say PIP is both good and ugly..good that it is there but ugly in that you gain very little benefit to using it as opposed to the actual optics, it doesn't behave like it in any way.

Further gimped on ground vehicles because you see the weapon and when it heats up, virtually kills the thermal image not to mention does not have any zoom so ultimately unless you're fighting people who are really close..why bother.

[JarmenKeLL 0]

The bad is when you realize even Battlefield 2/3 has more realistic weapon targeting systems than Arma.

[nik21 1]

I generally agree with the OP.

[stormin norman 10]

I agree with the OP 100%.

ARMA 3's Infantry game play seems a little more fluid and dynamic, but some of the features need some more work or be included. Bi-pods are a must have. It's almost pointless equipping a squad support weapon without a realistic "weapon resting" model. You can't "cook" a grenade? It's nice having all these nice new and shinny toys (tanks: jets), but I'd be more interested if the Devs worked on fine tuning the more basic and fundamental features.

[chortles 263]

The lack of cooking is a known limitation that the creative director has outright stated (in an interview with GameSpot, regarding grenade use as of the alpha) but there's no ETA on any grenade changes.

[stormin norman 10]

The lack of cooking is a known limitation that the creative director has outright stated (in an interview with GameSpot, regarding grenade use as of the alpha) but there's no ETA on any grenade changes.

As in, engine limitation? What about working bi-pods? The Devs say anything about that?

[chortles 263]

He didn't say engine limitation, my mistake for using that word; rather it was that grenades were WIP and he gave the lack of cooking as an example of what couldn't be done with unmodded Arma 3 grenades yet. As for bipods:

weapon resting, mantling, collisions (this is definitely very good feature missing and let say design preparation mistake was done there)

* might happen soon or post release , but i don't want promise it until i know we can deliver :)

weapon bidpods, tripods and similar adjustable parts (was put aside due to other priority work)

* might happen post release , but i don't want promise it until i know we can deliver :)

shooting from vehicles (ye i would like this myself and again it was 'put to side to work on other stuff' instead of giving it priority)

* might happen post release , but i don't want promise it until i know we can deliver :)

[pharoah 65]

Good post...agree with everything INCLUDING the reference to TOH FM. I've flown both and prefer TOH. Flying helicopters is an integral part of ARMA and helicopter FMs should reflect how they perform IRL. Flying a helicopter (as IRL) takes skill and practice and should be so in ARMA3. Don't dull down the skills required just for a handful of newbies who don't have 10 minutes to learn it on their own anyway.

[13islucky 10]

Thread’s title is self-explaining. Since statistically most of the society prefer bad news and make them more popular, let’s start with…

THE BAD:

- Flawed capacity and weight system (can carry up to 180-200 kg, and even SWIM! Backpacks somehow can contain 3-4 12kg each missiles)

- no ability to walk inside vehicles / land/drive on ships

- broken aiming deadzone (inane acceleration)

Just a few things:

1. It's being worked on. As of now you can't put rockets in your vest anymore on devbranch and the capacity of bags was somewhat limited. Still WIP, but quite an improvement.

2. Actually this is possible in-game, at least the land/drive on ships. Try this. It's proof of concept, but it works.

3. Wasn't this fixed on devbranch already?(As you can see, devbranch is the place to be.)

For the rest... yeah, most of it seems about right.

[chortles 263]

It seems that Polygon was checking stable branch... thing is, we haven't had a patch there in quite some time, so perhaps whatever's going on behind-the-scenes the internal focus has been on dev branch and stable branch support was deprioritized until launch? We do already know that there's only one more stable branch patch between now and September 12.

Also, 13isLucky, one of the issues is that pettka either isn't aware of the changes going on as far as moving ship simulation or at least isn't sticking them in the dev branch, so those of us interested in maritime simulation aren't exactly getting guidance from BI's end.

[Polygon 11]

One single comment on this one:

hit & miss GUI – for example, “Exit†button in main menu does not request to confirm your choice, people tend to press on it accidentally

Exit confirmation is close to the most stupid thing related to the computers UI. Statistically, 99% or more "exit" clicks are intended, I mean the user really wants to exit the application. He shouldn't be forced to an extra click just because once in a lifetime he may press exit by mistake. There is no big deal at all if "exit" is pressed by mistake. The user will run the application again.

Can you provide any reliable source on this? You're probably talking general software here which has the "Exit" button far away from other buttons to access content, make adjustments, browse etc. This is not the case with A3. In MM everything is too stacked up.

I'm in the dev branch. Aiming deadzone is still broken. Try swaying your weapon right and you'll see how fast it unnaturally adjusts the threshold "safeZone X" defined by AD slider. This wasn't the case in A2CO.

Good to hear weight/capacity will be fixed sometime. Generally, thanks for the insights. Share moar! :P

[tpw 2314]

I personally think A3 has improved radically from A2 in some areas (eg lighting, clouds, animation, underwater, physx, movement fluidity, PIP, overall polish etc), remained frustratingly similar in others (eg AI, LOD/texture popping, interaction menu etc), and seemingly gone backwards in others (eg inertialess turns, huge infantry carrying capacity, instathrow grenades, instahealth medkits, ambient civilians etc). I'm not concerned with content so much as the core experience, because all the beautifully modelled environments/vehicles/weapons mean little if the AI and player interact with them in frustrating and/or immersion breaking ways.

While we're discussing good/bad/ugly, I think it might also be prudent to talk about dividing the bad/ugly problem areas of Arma3 into several classes based on how technically feasible it is to fix them in the short/medium term:

1 -Infeasible: not possible or extremely difficult with the current engine and/or programming resources

eg:

• Dynamic shadows
  
• Running water
  
• Glistening environment after rain
  

2 - Feasible: possible but not implemented, removed, or simply not going to happen for BIS reasons

eg:

• Rain
  
• Inertia for turns
  
• Lakes and puddles
  
• Shooting from vehicles
  
• Wind affected bullets
  
• Dismemberment
  
• Limping
  
• Female civs/combatants
  

3 - Broken: implemented but broken/bugged

eg:

• Different player/AI voices
  
• Aiming deadzone
  

4 -Incomplete: implemented but lacking complete content

eg:

• Missing/placeholder noises
  
• Ragdolls with weird death poses
  

These are just a few things I can think of off the top of my head, and you should feel free to add others or disagree with my categorisation. The point is that we can focus our attention on complaining about and writing tickets for the things that might actually stand a chance of being fixed (ie categories 3 and 4) in the shorter term.

Edited August 12, 2013 by tpw

[mac81 0]

Indeed a lot of progress have been made with A3 as most of you have already mentioned in this thread, but the frustrating aspect especially for veteran players of this sim and maybe not for users comencing now with ArmA is that we are close to the release of the third title of this series and again problems mentioned by the community since ArmA2 haven't been fixed yet, and some of that problems will still be present at the release of the A3 within a month although they've been underlined by the community since the first release of the A3 alpha example (the blurry mid range texture or grass rendering at distance), no need to mention some ACE features like wind deflection, bypods ecc...

Don't dull down the skills required just for a handful of newbies who don't have 10 minutes to learn it on their own anyway.

Don't agree, I think to learn to fly a helo with TOH flight model to get to a good level of confidence that allow you to fly a helo on the A3 batllefield you nedd more than 10 minutes... ...many more!!! So IMO I think the initial idea of BI to have the possibility to decide how to fly the helo TOH style or the usual ArmA style is the best solution to satisfy each player wish about flying.

Edited August 12, 2013 by mac81

[pharoah 65]

yeah but remember this isn't BF3. In BF2 for example it actually took some skill to fly choppers...however EA then nerfed this for BF3 to please the masses. I can understand this because BF3 is aimed at every man and his dog..however ARMA3 isn't. Its a simulator of sorts - you can't model fatigue, real life attributes to weapons, handling etc (for vehicles) and then suddenly dumb down the chopper - that doesn't make sense, to me anyway. My '10 minutes' comment is pure sarcasm...it certainly takes a lot more time to learn how to master the chopper. I've lost many a life on Stratis at the hands of a newbie pilot who hadn't flown before and decided to take a 'hawk full of infantry into the nearest building! lol.

[b00tsy 28]

THE GOOD:

[*]- most interesting and useful combat stance animation system in history of video games

This should actually be in the bad section. The stances in itself are a nice addition, but the way you have to use them is a pain in the butt. You constantly spend seconds to adjust your stances. If you are in low knee stance you have to cycle through all the stances to finally get to a high stance again with a key combo that is far from comfortable. The stances should be on the scrollwheel for smooth and intuitive cycle.

I do agree with the lack of a 3D editor or fundamental improvements to the editor as a whole. They have added some modules now which supposed to make this a bit easier/faster, but there is not a whole lot of documentation about it on how to use them, not much/nothing on the biki.

[Azzur33 1]

"Cooking" a grenade... is that really possible/wise/used in real life? The grenades I've thrown in the army would have been really difficult to pull the pin/handle/throw without pressing the striker lever. An it would have been very stupid.

I love BIS for all the GOOD things in Arma 3, there is a lot of them, indeed.

But also the BAD ones, like listed here.

Many of the features that are not working or a WIP indefinitely or missing completely at the moment are just the result of prioritization.

Some things just HAVE to be ready for the Release or have to be fixed before you can fix a linked problem.

The vehicles and weapons crucial to the campaign and the setting are most important, other things to play with not so important.

So I could accept having less content ...for now.

I would guess that with the release day coming, there is not much hope of getting the BAD list shortened significantly.

But I do know the developement continues after that, and there will be time to experiment, fix and add things "afterwards".

[fragmachine 12]

[*]- water does not reflect the surroundings (may impact the performance heavily, though)

Again, A2 seems to be superior in this case. Hope it's get changed. It is unacceptable to axe the features of the previous builds.

http://www.bistudio.com/english/company/developers-blog/135-finally-water

IMO water looked much more authentic in A2 than in A3. Maybe it is lighting, shader problem? Somewhat it feels like taken out of comics (no pun intended - just my opinion). In A2 when there is not enought of the light source it does look flatter like in A3 but anyway it looks much better in A2 when lighting is in there.

Edited August 12, 2013 by fragmachine