When is this game going to be good?

[Varanon 892]

There is content but no for release, which is more a milestone and a window of sales before the release of BF4, GTA5, COD and next gen consoles; of course, not the same public but you can get some people. Arma - as always - will be the game it was meant to be in about one year.

I know. The point is just that when the news got out that the game was going to be released without a campaign, the general consensus was "It's not good, anyway". I just refuse to see this as a valid argument. It's an excuse, and a bad one too.

I know that the campaign will come later as DLCs, and I sincerely hope that it will be good, but sorry, saying "no problem about no content because it' would be bad anyway" is just not an argument.

[Smurf 12]

I know. The point is just that when the news got out that the game was going to be released without a campaign, the general consensus was "It's not good, anyway". I just refuse to see this as a valid argument. It's an excuse, and a bad one too.

I know that the campaign will come later as DLCs, and I sincerely hope that it will be good, but sorry, saying "no problem about no content because it' would be bad anyway" is just not an argument.

I was talking more about the MP stuff but it wasn't clear about that. What sadness me is they're, at this point, not providing tools nor easy ways to the community to complete this part; UI both out and in game, mod management. But it appears to me that they will tackle these and other problems (including legacy ones, which probably are the most problematic ones to deal with; and the little ones, like today's AI talking thing) this time as A3 is officially an ongoing long term project. Just the fact they are admitting and telling that change things. And this is what I meant when I said that the game have a strong base now; A3 is kind of good ATM and will improve upon that.

I'm looking forward to the campaign. BI SP content is good, even the bad ones are worth a look. But it is clear that they could not deliver a campaign when part of the game is still WIP, AI being the most critical part (and it is improving) so I can understand the decision otherwise we would end with a even worst case of "early Red Harvest".

[windies 11]

What I'm slightly worried about is that the push to get ArmA 3 out the door is so that they can put more people on DayZ standalone. I couldn't really understand why it was such a big issue to get ArmA 3 out, I mean whatever is going to be developed for it is going to be developed for it so time and resources would be spent irregardless of whether or not it's released and they already have it for sale and have had it for sale for months now. I'm sure they will support ArmA 3 but I kind of feel like ArmA 3 is gonna get the support of say a "Take on" release and DayZ is gonna get the "ArmA" support. That is why the announcement of the cut feature's and weapons and the campaign was worrying to me.

Also the excuse that the community will do BI's job for them once again is getting old. I get that there are things that are very specific that they can't allocate time for, but for christ's sake, thing's like bipods not being implemented in a War Sandbox that literally has them modeled but non functioning and it's been this way for years and we're just like " Yep Community will come to the rescue!"? It just gets old and it's a terrible mentality to uphold.

[sandman1980 18]

Seriously i think this game is not for you. You don´t understand the essence of this game. You want a BF or CoD game, but Arma series are more more complex. First, you want a guided play? go and look singleplayer missions. But you want a MP experience, no? look, that SpanishSurfer said, Benny Edition Warfare or Invade and Annex, or +DM4 by murcielago, etc. But wait! the people take so much time preparing the gear... IS A MILSIM!!!! not an arcadish game. And finally THE GAME IS STILL IN BETA FASE! Let them a couple of months before release and we have a countless multiplayer missiones and modes.

I tried again, I ended up getting bored of waiting for people to leave the base, they stood there for a good 20 mins. So I spent 10 mins driving across the map to the objective but for some reason the wheel decided to come off just for going over a big bump.......... aren't these military vehicles made for that? I ended up killing myself, going back to the base and everyone was still there lol. Eventually we all got in a helicopter and left to an objective, got there and had no clue what was going on, there were no enemies and all of a sudden the objective was updated and we all got in a helicopter or two and went to another object.

By which point I got bored and quit, another lame ARMA 3 experience...

I'm just gonna wait for Dayz on this map tbh lol, the game is not good, you're basically buying a poorly optimized engine and an SDK where you have to wait for the community to do the work the developers should have been doing and that's making a game. I loved Minecraft and played a lot of SWG Pre CU back in the day and still play EVE Online to this day, I'm not against open ended games....... however the world is so static, there aren't any physics, chairs stay static on the ground. So it isn't like you can go world building or do something like a sandbox game, you've just got a boring lifeless island with fuck all to do in it because every single server sucks.

I keep getting the same answer "it's only a beta"..... well the game comes out soon, I doubt there will be a lot of stuff added between now and then.

Also, why does my perspective change to like a few inches off the ground when I'm running up a hill? I go for a run daily and up lots of hills and I don't suddenly change to being the height of a dog.

[dav 22]

I personally played the Beta with a ton of mods but in the end for my own reasons, I kept only one or two. The BIS content is just pure quality. Without the base game there wouldn't be anything to mod in the first place. I hear allot of complaining about the game but I agree with the above post, your probably not playing the game properly if your unsatisfied. The multiplayer yeah, is a massive face palm but the single player content from the maps to the animations, skies and ai is amazing, it really is. Track Ir it up with some voice activation and you have Rainbow Six Rogue Spear 2013, it's a dream come true. Call me a fanboy or whatever it's just the game is really hard, really challenging and when your playing a mission on expert with two lives/two squads, its the best thing ever. It's not action packed like Battlefield it's slow kills that take caution and patience to achieve. There are certainly a few things here and there that could be tighter but hey, on the grand scale of things, this is a prayer answered for many hardcore sim enthusiasts.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Dav

[zukov 490]

Seriously i think this game is not for you. You don´t understand the essence of this game. You want a BF or CoD game, but Arma series are more more complex. First, you want a guided play? go and look singleplayer missions. But you want a MP experience, no? look, that SpanishSurfer said, Benny Edition Warfare or Invade and Annex, or +DM4 by murcielago, etc. But wait! the people take so much time preparing the gear... IS A MILSIM!!!! not an arcadish game. And finally THE GAME IS STILL IN BETA FASE! Let them a couple of months before release and we have a countless multiplayer missiones and modes.

Wasteland is MiLSIM? ;) the truth is ARMA 3 doesn't have PVP gameplay made by devs stop have fun with your boring AI

[Stu340 10]

Wow I didn't think I'd find a post like this one, especially after spending the last 4 hours playing the game! This was a much needed retreat from the spawn killing tw*ts of COD and BF ect ect.

I wouldn't have given it a second glance, but was asked to host some servers, so I thought it was only right to check it out.

Great game that requires thought ;)

[Tacti-Cool 10]

Wasteland is MiLSIM? ;) the truth is ARMA 3 doesn't have PVP gameplay made by devs stop have fun with your boring AI

If theres not a suitable PvP Mission, then MAKE YOUR OWN You cant expect the Devs to cater a game to YOUR specifications.

[fujix 11]

If theres not a suitable PvP Mission, then MAKE YOUR OWN You cant expect the Devs to cater a game to YOUR specifications.

Not everyone are able to create their own missions. Least of all complex MP missions that usually require good scripting skills.

Edited September 4, 2013 by fujix

[cadmium77 16]

I love this game, but if you're going to play it online then you must be in with a good clan or whatever. Preferably a server/clan that has tight teamplay and expectations of regular behavior on your part. SimHQ forum for example has a pretty mature crew that demand team play and from what I've seen they have great online games.

[big_t 1]

I kind of agree with the OP that the current multiplayer lacks structure or objectives. The closest I got was capture the island which is fun BTW.

I read on a review once that BIS is a studio that makes really great platforms and sort of just gives it to the community and says "here is this amazing format, do what you want with it" I kind of agree with that assessment, and I'm ok with that. Actually it's really fantastic because normal people can create unique missions.....but!

This Issue for me is: There needs to be a single cohesive application or menu that lets you manage and search for new game types and mods (not the current system). And you shouldn't have to delete and re-download mods , they should be all in one folder that is are accessed by the particular game type as you need them. I download some mods then could not log on to a regular game, ok that really needs some attention :). Why not only load up the mods or add ons that you need for the particular mission or game type?

Everything is there, and the community builds the missions and mods, we just need the vehicle to deliver to the people.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Big_T

[calin_banc 19]

There needs to be a single cohesive application or menu that lets you manage and search for new game types and mods (not the current system). And you shouldn't have to delete and re-download mods , they should be all in one folder that is are accessed by the particular game type as you need them. I download some mods then could not log on to a regular game, ok that really needs some attention :). Why not only load up the mods or add ons that you need for the particular mission or game type?

For ArmA 2 and Take on Helicoptes, Play with Six did just that. Probably they are gonna add ArmA 3 support as well after the launch.

[chortles 263]

Play With SIX has long had Arma 3 support.

[suprememodder 11]

agreed in general. simply screaming "sandbox omg pwnzorz" doesn't make your game good. with this much content being released, i'm still gett bored with it.

well, back to modding the game...

[accapella 1]

While liking arma alot (mostly due to playing it with a good group) I disagree with many of the fanboys here. Arma 3 is no doubt a badly optimised game. People with specific hardware might get ok FPS while for others the game is unplayable. Large scale multiplayer missions will dip your fps further, especially due to amateur scripting with the lack of BI optimised cti and zone capture missions. Further, the game needs some small scale missions where you can experience actual large scale combat instead of a large scale conflict where the players are fighting kilometers apart.

What I expect (and no doubt many others expect) based on feedback to and statements from the devs is atleast some streamlined, professional quality missions that offer some "staple combined arms gameplay" to enjoy.

Sadly the arma train is heading at terminal velocity straight for the deadline barrier. When a game lacks a campaign and content on launch and some players are still getting terrible fps in game I think things are being hurried along a bit too much.

[Alwarren 2767]

your probably not playing the game properly if your unsatisfied.

Oh, I see. If I have an issue with the game, then I am too stupid to play it. Right. Thanks for sharing.

The multiplayer yeah, is a massive face palm

Could say the same, if you are not satisfied with the multiplayer you're probably not playing the game properly. Sounds familiar? Yes? Sounds reasonable? No?

this is a prayer answered for many hardcore sim enthusiasts.

I don't believe in God.

At this point, I am starting to think you might actually be sarcastic here. Hardcore sim enthusiast? Taking 180 degrees turns at full speed with a launcher, sniper rifle and 100 kg backpack? Zero time acceleration and deceleration with said load? Rotating in place when prone? Cars that have magical flip-back? No wind? No weapon collision? Machine guns and EOTech Sniper rifles being the king of CQB? Magic FAK's?

So, really, I can only conclude that you are being sarcastic.

[clydefrog 3]

At this point, I am starting to think you might actually be sarcastic here. Hardcore sim enthusiast? Taking 180 degrees turns at full speed with a launcher, sniper rifle and 100 kg backpack? Zero time acceleration and deceleration with said load? Rotating in place when prone? Cars that have magical flip-back? No wind? No weapon collision? Machine guns and EOTech Sniper rifles being the king of CQB? Magic FAK's?

When you put it like that, what is actually realistic about Arma 3 that most other military fps games don't have? I'm trying to think of one thing. lol

Ok I thought of one:

You can look about while you're running

anything else?

I'm semi serious but I'm actually finding it hard to think of much that makes it realistic and a "sim". In fact one of the main things I can think of right now that makes it more "realistic" than other shooters right now is you don't unlock weapons by killing people.

Edited September 4, 2013 by clydefrog

[pharoah 65]

what would actually be great is if we got a dev or three to jump on these forums and actually respond to us, the customers. I see direct responses in the SITREPs that get published but thats one-way communication. BIGANT is a company that is developing Don Bradman Cricket 14 and their CEO (I think) regularly responds on the forums plus some of his devs about questions, etc. They don't just leave us to post frustration here without some sort of response from them. Yes I know, it can be a double-edged sword to respond to forum queries, esp frustrations, but you will always have rational and irrational posters....the main thing is communication. If there is a technical reason why the bipods/weapon resting was left out...then say it. If you couldn't be bothered to do it because you don't think its worthwhile, say it (but go run and hide! lol...j/k). Forum regulars will debate it ad nauseum but atleast it'll be based on fact/truth rather than conjecture. BIS...PR is very important in this digital world. Releasing something that isn't 100% finished because you need the $$$ to fund further development would go a long way if you actually stated it. Heck, why do you think there are so many player-funded games under development?

[clydefrog 3]

I'm pretty sure one of them replied addressing why bipods and resting was left out, and they said it was because of "poor decisions" or something like that.

[thx1137 10]

Forgetting about bugs for a bit, like all software those that BIS think they can address will be. From what I have seen with A2 they have a good patch history.

Besides arguments about whether something does or doesn't work(Videos could be useful for those that can), One of the problems I see on these forums is that some people expect authentic behaviour and weapons and can't enjoy the game if they feel that objective isn't being met. Personally I sympathise with that but because I love realistic games to a fault but I guess my expectations are lower because this isn't supposed to be a simulator (BIS have a simulator offering and this isn't it). It is a game. It does not actually prevent us being able to play it as a tactical simulator. At most it just changes the tactics and usually only pretty slightly.

We all want Arma to be "more" but I can pretty much guarantee you BIS aren't not doing things people want to piss everyone off.

Does anyone actually think ARMA III is a step backwards from ARMA? Vanilla, no mods and forget bugs (A3 is not released yet and very little trivial software is "complete" before a patch or two. I see A2 had tons fixed after release).

[clydefrog 3]

All I really want personally is it to run well for multiplayer (it runs well enough in the editor, but clearly not on MP) and for the AI to not be morons, that's it. What is the biggest use of Arma by it's playerbase? Multiplayer COOP. Where does this game fail the most at the moment? Multiplayer COOP by having bad performance and poor AI.

[Minoza 11]

If theres not a suitable PvP Mission, then MAKE YOUR OWN You cant expect the Devs to cater a game to YOUR specifications.

We're not really talking about personal specifications here, we're talking about structured MP game modes that are missing, no SP campaign either (coming post release). We're left with showcases for release and once again, community to the rescue story.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Minoza

[Varanon 892]

One of the problems I see on these forums is that some people expect authentic behaviour and weapons and can't enjoy the game if they feel that objective isn't being met.

You're oversimplifying. It's not only people that expect authenticity. It's also people that expect more PvP modes. Or more content. More SP missions. More jets. Saying it's only people that expect authenticity is plainly wrong.

The name Arma sets a certain set of "rules" that a predecessor needs to follow, and if those aren't met, people will be disappointed. Which part of this set of rules you pick yourself is individual, but it's general that you will not be satisfied if those rules aren't met.

Does anyone actually think ARMA III is a step backwards from ARMA? Vanilla, no mods and forget bugs (A3 is not released yet and very little trivial software is "complete" before a patch or two. I see A2 had tons fixed after release).

I do think it's a step back, yes. Even without bugs and mods. There was just more content in Arma 2 (and I even don't include Arrowhead). And it did things right that Arma 3 does wrong.

Edit: This does not mean that Arma 3 can't become what I would like it to be. There's not much missing for me personally, but right now, the missing parts mean that I still prefer Arma 2 over Arma 3.

[thx1137 10]

I said:

One of the problems I see on these forums is that some people expect authentic behaviour and weapons and can't enjoy the game if they feel that objective isn't being met.

You said:

Saying it's only people that expect authenticity is plainly wrong.

Who is wrong?

[Alwarren 2767]

Does anyone actually think ARMA III is a step backwards from ARMA? Vanilla, no mods and forget bugs (A3 is not released yet and very little trivial software is "complete" before a patch or two. I see A2 had tons fixed after release).

Yes, I do.

Graphical updates are all fine, but I expected a different game. I was a bit skeptical when I heard "accessibility" but the general tenor among devs was "not dumb it down". There are a lot of features in Arma 3 that sounded good on paper, but in the end, what counts is what YOU expect from a game. What is it that gives YOU enjoyment of a game?

Why do I think it is a step back? If I had to nail it to two major issues is have, these would be movement and emphasis on lone wolfing.

Movement

I cannot stress enough how artificial I think the movement is. Yes, yes, it's totally smooth and stuff, but that is not the point. Camera.sqs also had "smooth" movement, still it is nothing but a floating camera. Jay Crowe said in an interview that Arma "still has a human skeleton", but what we have here feels like said skeleton has been beaten into shape to allow for "smooth" movement, not the other way around. This starts with simple things like the speed of certain animations (go prone and then one step up into sitting - the speed at which the guy gets his legs around is ... weird). Movement and transitions have become extremely short just to compensate for engine difficulties. This makes movement look weird and unnatural.

Also, movement is completely inertia-free. There is no acceleration and deceleration when you start to sprint. You don't get faster, you don't get slower, you just binary-jump from standing to sprint. Changing direction is instantaneous. The sad part about it is that if you use the anim viewer, you will see that there ARE animations for changing direction while sprinting/running, and they look perfect, but they are not used.

Loadout does not affect movement at all. It affects fatigue, but not movement. You will be able to precisely turn around in almost zero time even with 100 kg of backpack and a launcher, while holding an anti-material rifle in your hands that magically passes through obstacles. Your rotation speed is not impeeded at all, and you can still zero-to-hero sprint from standing position (not for long, granted, but that is fatigue).

I do like the new stances and adjustments, they're a great addition.

I also know that everybody is totally excited about the whole "smoothness" aspect, because it is all so "fluid", but I don't care about that. I want something that feels authentic, realistic, natural, and movement in Arma 3 feels neither of those. Sure, when you're just wearing normal clothes, that might not be an issue, but it certainly is once you start having gear on you. I don't like the movement, period.

Lone Wolfing

What I mean with this is the emphasis on being self-sufficient. Any player can easily carry around:

- A sniper rifle and ammo

- An assault rifle and ammo

- A backpack with missiles and ammo

- A launcher

Not that you'd need the assault rifle, just pack an Eotech on your GM6 and you're set for CQB as well.

FAK's allow you to escape almost any negative side effect of getting shot, and since there are plenty in any vehicle or dead bodies, you must play pretty gung-ho to ever run out of them. The penalties of injuries are rather minor anyway, and all the effects are gone (except for a bit of shake that is easily rectified by going prone and/or holding breath, which you usually do anyway) once you FAK yourself (no pun intended). FAKs are IMO one of the major game breakers, and before anybody says I can remove them, I cannot do that in e.g. the official campaign, or custom missions; only in my own.

Since the early days, carry capacities have been reduced by making certain things heavier and reducing the backpack capacities, which I welcome greatly. Still, it is possible, as an AT soldier, to carry a good number of missiles around. It isn't a problem to pack four AA missiles, and if you ask an AA infantryman (as I did), you'll know that they usually carry ONE missile around (a stinger in this case), and have an ammo bearer carrying a second one. Not four. The AA soldier becomes self-sufficient, and it reflects in the "Men (Support)" not being in the standard groups. The same goes for machine gunners, and anyone else. And you can easily become the AA/AT-Sniper-CQB-Samurai-Lone-Wolf-Warrior because you can simply pack enough stuff.

At this point, I can only assume that the major reason for this is Wasteland, because it completely contradicts the way that previous ARMA games forced you to cooperate, and it also completely contradicts the way that reality works.

Bottom line

Yes, I think these issues are a step back from Arma 2. I am NOT majorly concerned about the lack of content, so Vanilla vs. Mods isn't an issue, because the mods are there and there will be more. I am not too concerned about the scenario either, or how Altis is missing any of the deep dark forests that Chernarus had. I am concerned about the directions that certain key aspects of the game took, sacrificing realism for "accessibility" while, at the same time, disregarding said accessibility by still having that dratted Action menu.

I am concerned how a lot of people (including devs) say how mods will fix things, how ACE 3 will make it work for the realism freaks, but ACE 3 will not be able to alter some of the core mechanics like the movement. I am concerned that teamwork has become less of an issue, and I dread to see my whole squad run around each with a launcher on their back. Now, you might say "just don't do that", but then, why make it possible in the first place? Why would you NOT pick up the first launcher you find, knowing that the penalty for it is a slightly higher fatigue (which is negated by lowering your weapon and switching to tactical stance - you won't have ANY fatigue) and no side effects on your movement?

It all doesn't add up.

So yes, Arma 3 is a step backward for me. Your mileage will vary (obviously does), but since you asked "does anybody actually think Arma 3 is a step backwards", the answer is still yes.

EDIT: Didn't realize this would get so big, so if you read it all up to here, respect :) Also, please note, I don't want to belittle anybody's work. I don't think that the work done is bad. I do think some of the design decisions where wrong. I wish they were done otherwise.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Alwarren