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

[dale0404 5]

Yeah, it is getting to the point where I think that BIS "dropped the bomb" on the whole underwater fighting element. I haven't seen many people actually use it.

[HKFlash 9]

Busy with fish and sea turtles maybe?

Imagine how much more content and features we could have if it wasnt for all the resources being spent on the whole underwater thingie.

Ofc its BIS game and they do whatever they want with it.

But let me put it this way. Underwater was cool for like 10 minutes. It doesnt really add that much. The community has screamed for bipods/weapons resting, advanced medic system, shooting out from vehicles etc for ages, this wasnt really a top of the list feature for the community.

I already said it before, when the armored vehicles came out. Underwater would make sense if it didnt consume the necessary resources for:

• More vehicle turret variation
  
• More unmanned vehicles
  
• More attachments
  
• More multiple rocket launcher variation
  
• More uniforms (CSAT doesnt have a non combat uniform for example)
  
• More grenade/chemlight variation
  
• Armored vehicle interiors
  

In short, it would allow each faction to feel unique. Now its like meh...

What we got instead:

• Sharks
  
• Turtles
  
• Fish
  
• Almost useless SDAR
  
• Underwater mines
  

In this regard I really am disappointed.

[Tonci87 163]

Yeah, it is getting to the point where I think that BIS "dropped the bomb" on the whole underwater fighting element. I haven't seen many people actually use it.

Because it sucks using it.

The AI doesn´t have a clue how to take cover, you can´t shoot while moving, it amounts to a underwater line battle

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?156740-What-is-fundamentally-wrong-with-the-underwater-combat&highlight=diving+combat

And BIS is simpy ignoring the feedback and suggestions on how to make it better.

[chortles 263]

Whereas I actually enjoyed the heck out of the underwater environment and I'm happy... thanks BI! :D

Though with shooting-out-of-vehicles, we do have Dwarden outright stating that that one was explicitly deprioritized internally.

[Smurf 12]

But let me put it this way. Underwater was cool for like 10 minutes. It doesnt really add that much.

Even worst is that you don't even have rivers or lakes so your options for underwater are either gatting in or out of a mission, basically.

And most of stuff we have now (vehicles, weapons) appear on early scrennshots of the game, probably not complete but pretty close to it. So things start to get strange....

[chortles 263]

And most of stuff we have now (vehicles, weapons) appear on early scrennshots of the game, probably not complete but pretty close to it. So things start to get strange....

Even before the big "axed features" drama, it became clear to me that "early screenshots" were no longer even vaguely representative of what Arma 3 would be...

[Bee8190 10]

But let me put it this way. Underwater was cool for like 10 minutes. It doesn't really add that much yet

Let me fix that part there. Surely, we shall not be afraid of criticism but I'm confident that some modder will look into the sea side of things and once they do, sea battles will be just as good as ground battles. I say - patience :)

[chortles 263]

On that front, I'd keep an eye on FFAA 6.0 if I were you :icon_twisted:

[Varanon 892]

Whereas I actually enjoyed the heck out of the underwater environment and I'm happy... thanks BI! :D.

When ? Are there any mission that actually use it ? I haven't seen any, and quite frankly, the underwater combat is "meh" at best.

---------- Post added at 09:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 PM ----------

Even before the big "axed features" drama, it became clear to me that "early screenshots" were no longer even vaguely representative of what Arma 3 would be...

So, how did that become clear to you ? When did it become clear to you that the early screenshots contained content that would not be in the final version ? What gave it away ? Tell us, because I am really curious how you could predict the missing F-35 and Osprey...

[maturin 12]

I already said it before, when the armored vehicles came out. Underwater would make sense if it didnt consume the necessary resources for:

• More vehicle turret variation
  
• More unmanned vehicles
  
• More attachments
  
• More multiple rocket launcher variation
  
• More uniforms (CSAT doesnt have a non combat uniform for example)
  
• More grenade/chemlight variation
  
• Armored vehicle interiors
  

In short, it would allow each faction to feel unique. Now its like meh...

What we got instead:

• Sharks
  
• Turtles
  
• Fish
  
• Almost useless SDAR
  
• Underwater mines
  

In this regard I really am disappointed.

I feel the same way about underwater combat, but you don't actually know that they chose A over B.

Scuba is in the game because they already had most of the tech and assets and code from VBS development. It's a port.

The same can't be said for detailed tank simulation, ATGM FCS or prepared fighting positions, the three things I want most of all for the series.

[byku 13]

code from VBS development

Wrong! :P VBS BIS vs ARMA BIS are totally different companies that have almost nothing in common :P.

[chortles 263]

So, how did that become clear to you ? When did it become clear to you that the early screenshots contained content that would not be in the final version ? What gave it away ? Tell us, because I am really curious how you could predict the missing F-35 and Osprey...

To be quite honest, the fact that we basically had like one or two screenshots or video for the F-35 plus one Osprey screenshot and then sheer, dead silence on them throughout most of 2012 and the first half of 2013, plus the fact that the "C130j" was only ever seen/hinted at in that "extended alpha" list; then again, my opinion of the 2011 incarnation of Arma 3 was essentially "BI, what about this actually justifies a full new game? Because it's certainly not a new engine."

[HKFlash 9]

I feel the same way about underwater combat, but you don't actually know that they chose A over B.

Scuba is in the game because they already had most of the tech and assets and code from VBS development. It's a port.

The same can't be said for detailed tank simulation, ATGM FCS or prepared fighting positions, the three things I want most of all for the series.

Well of course I'm speculating a bit, I'm not a developer nor do I have exclusive in-sight to the development. Speculating (not ejeculating statements like some do) is part of the discussion.

[maturin 12]

Wrong! :P VBS BIS vs ARMA BIS are totally different companies that have almost nothing in common :P.

So I suppose it's utterly coincidental how the developers of VBS have made an engine that is almost exactly the same as the Real Virtuality in ArmA 2? Amazing!

It's been stated that the scuba borrows from the naval development of VBS.

[Varanon 892]

To be quite honest, the fact that we basically had like one or two screenshots or video for the F-35 plus one Osprey screenshot and then sheer, dead silence on them throughout most of 2012 and the first half of 2013, plus the fact that the "C130j" was only ever seen/hinted at in that "extended alpha" list; then again, my opinion of the 2011 incarnation of Arma 3 was essentially "BI, what about this actually justifies a full new game? Because it's certainly not a new engine."

Ok, so we didn't see anything about the Hunter for quite some time (except that it was an OPFOR vehicle at one point). We saw one screenshot of the UAV. So what exactly did tell you that those were going to be in ? There has been silence about EVERYTHING during 2012. And quite frankly, I look at Arma 3 now and I could say the same as you did back then. Because it's definitely not a new engine.

Sorry to say so, but you are making the impression now as if you are fishing for excuses.

[maturin 12]

Well of course I'm speculating a bit, I'm not a developer nor do I have exclusive in-sight to the development. Speculating (not ejeculating statements like some do) is part of the discussion.

Sure, you're speculating, but you're also making a judgment on BIS based on that speculation. Which is precisely why speculation isn't allowed in court. Don't use it in the court of internet opinion, either.

[HKFlash 9]

Sure, you're speculating, but you're also making a judgment on BIS based on that speculation. Which is precisely why speculation isn't allowed in court. Don't use it in the court of internet opinion, either.

Say what? Dude you should get out more.

[maturin 12]

Say what? Dude you should get out more.

Not sure how I offended you.

Also, I know you're not a native English speaker, but that's not how that expression is used.

[HKFlash 9]

Not sure how I offended you.

Also, I know you're not a native English speaker, but that's not how that expression is used.

You didn't offend me. Yet I find your argumentation lacking to say the least. Talking about courts in a videogame forum...

Well I know for sure I won't loose my sleep for failing at using a non-native language expression.

[maturin 12]

It's called an analogy.

[suprememodder 11]

the ugly? animations deform constantly due to how character's feet are glued to the ground. also, no turning animation for intermediate stances.

[metalcraze 290]

Busy with fish and sea turtles maybe?

Imagine how much more content and features we could have if it wasnt for all the resources being spent on the whole underwater thingie.

It's not even underwater that's the issue since it was done a year ago. Remember how they've spent time adding gimmicky 3D scopes a few months back?

OK they look better than 2D overlay but with them comes a ton of issues - like impossible to read markers on scopes, magnification of the area outside the scope which is seen better than the stuff inside the dirty scope etc.

And honestly if you run out of time and you already had to resort to copy paste (see cars) to pad vehicle/weapon numbers what option would you choose?

A) artists making gimmicky 3D scopes that aren't really 3D scopes

B) artists making more vehicle weapons so sides are more unique

I doubt detail and effort wise they are much different but why, why would you pick A?

[chortles 263]

A) artists making gimmicky 3D scopes that aren't really 3D scopes

I've admittedly imagined that the answer was "to dampen the continual demand for Red Orchestra-style magnified optics by implementing something that we can claim is '3D scopes'". Then again, who knows when the call was even made, considering that supposedly the devs didn't even realize that the campaign(s) wouldn't be finished in time for September 12 until after June...

[sektor 2]

So, all in all, future setting backfired, is that the thing?

[WalkerDown 1]

- Spatial sounds are a joke: sometime nor you can't evaluate the distance of a firing weapon, but sometime you can't even figure the direction;

- No progression at all on the anticheat: basically any cheat developed for Arma2 now works on Arma3 (even those ones not script-based, by just changing the pointers);