When is this game going to be good?

[carnage-twg 10]

I paid for the full game and all of the feature's and content that were marketed and sold along with that full game.

Do I go to a steakhouse and order a prime rib and when I get a shitty chuck steak just say "Oh I guess I wasn't promised a prime rib but rather any piece of meat when I ordered."? Is that logical, to be completely ambivalent and ignorant about getting what I paid for?

How far do you really want to go to justify your bias at this point?

So we should be getting more quality for the lack of quantity we are receiving am I right? So why is it that everything that's not graphics is either the same, nonexistant or a dumbed down version of what we had in ArmA 2? Like the First aid system, no weapon resting or bipods, no vehicle interiors etc...

You explain to me how we are getting more quality, and please don't just say the graphics are pretty or the texture's are higher res. Where is this so called quality that should be trumping quantity right now, because I sure don't see it.

---------- Post added at 19:27 ---------- Previous post was at 19:23 ----------

Well at least my circular snare of logic actually contained some "logic" rather than petty opinionated insults about classification of "gamers".

It is plastered everywhere that game content is subject to change. Such is the nature of companies that allow you into the alpha/beta with early purchase. I'm am 100% sure they wanted to get those features in. Something happened along the way, and they had to make a decision. This is not going to be the first or last company that has to make these types of decisions in an open alpha/beta. If you buy into the alpha/beta, everyone should expect something like this. If you do not want to get caught up into it, don't buy into the alpha/beta and wait for full release where they have already locked down what will and will not be in the game. Then you can make your voice heard by not purchasing the game because something else was promised.

As to your steakhouse, if you went into the steakhouse and the menu clearly stated that your prime rib could be substituted with something else, would you still order the prime rib?

Bottom line: Nothing is guaranteed in alpha/beta stages of games. Even games that have closed testing periods change what will be included in their game. Gamers don't always get to see that organic process as it happens.

I'm sorry they dropped <insert item here>, but them's the breaks. There were a lot of things they dropped that I was hoping they would include, but I understand some of the reasoning behind it. I hope that they fix/add it in the future.

[windies 11]

LOL. You just don't get it mate. First off -how exactly am I biased? I payed 30 dollars for a game I enjoyed -so what? Second, again, I am not saying older gamers are 'better gamers' -lol. It was in reference to the accusation that I have low standards. The point was, I know what type of games I like after 35 years of gaming, so being accused of low standards is just laughable.

You like unfinished games that are released early and contain small amounts of content with cut content along the way, and you're trying to tell me you don't have low standards or are not biased? Seriously man, could you make this argument any easier?

You seem to think that because you like something, that entitles you to be able to set the standard for everyone else. Take a lesson from your own book, stop acting entitled.

---------- Post added at 19:50 ---------- Previous post was at 19:48 ----------

It is plastered everywhere that game content is subject to change. Such is the nature of companies that allow you into the alpha/beta with early purchase. I'm am 100% sure they wanted to get those features in. Something happened along the way, and they had to make a decision. This is not going to be the first or last company that has to make these types of decisions in an open alpha/beta. If you buy into the alpha/beta, everyone should expect something like this. If you do not want to get caught up into it, don't buy into the alpha/beta and wait for full release where they have already locked down what will and will not be in the game. Then you can make your voice heard by not purchasing the game because something else was promised.

As to your steakhouse, if you went into the steakhouse and the menu clearly stated that your prime rib could be substituted with something else, would you still order the prime rib?

Bottom line: Nothing is guaranteed in alpha/beta stages of games. Even games that have closed testing periods change what will be included in their game. Gamers don't always get to see that organic process as it happens.

I'm sorry they dropped <insert item here>, but them's the breaks. There were a lot of things they dropped that I was hoping they would include, but I understand some of the reasoning behind it. I hope that they fix/add it in the future.

That doesn't mean that we have to support and or justify those decisions as consumers however.

[Smurf 12]

Well the game is done now. And look at those vehicles. Sure playing as infantry is smoother... until you encounter absolutely ridiculous superhuman abilities of soldiers. But having any kind of combined ops mission is boring since everybody has exactly the same vehicles and weapons on them.

I even bet people will be blowing up these "new" vehicles which will be friendly under low light / bad weather conditions since they are indistinguishable between blufor and opfor. Both visually and in loadouts.

No blue on blue cause "Magic Radars" :cool:

But I agree on the combined ops being kind of boring now not only because of the similarities of the vehicles but also because of the whole GUI you have to use while combating which is pretty.... boring. And I can't agree on superhumans thing.

Potential? There would've been potential if the game was a step forward not a giant leap back. You can't be sure it has the potential to ever be on par with ArmA2 with many features simply not being in the engine anymore.

Leap back, why? Sun, spinning, medics? We got that, what else?

What features are out engine wise?

I certainly do (and I guess BIS too since they keep making them even though the results are absolutely terrible). I want a good SP content for once. But I guess it doesn't matter?

They work as first contact of the game, feature demonstration and to use in Expos. And they do pretty well on those, they're not THAT bad as you make them sound to be.

[froggyluv 2133]

A. Even though the restaurant isn't open, we have a menu. We know what they're going to serve even though they aren't open.

B. How does being picky have to do with getting what I ordered? Are you just trying to justify giving me a shitty chuck steak in lieu of the prime rib I ordered? Basically you're biased and supporting either bait and switch tactics or false advertising, for what?

C. No it's not, they're 2 different cuts of meat and represent two different qualities.

D. Do you cry forever when you get a meal you didn't like? Do you write non-stop articles of disgust and picket the front door? If I was that displeased I'd either fight for my monies back or just never go there again.

Arguing over if it's the same meat or not is infantile and not going to waste my time there. There are plenty of issues that were total immersion breakers for me in the previous series which if they hadn't been addressed, I wouldn't have bought or I would have waited. 10 new tanks or 8 new jets wouldn't make a difference to me -if the AI was the same. Would have been just like giving me all sorts of side orders (Fries/salad/chips) with the same beat meat.

Doh!

Different people have different priorities but if I was that disappointed I'd just cuss them out ONCE, leave, and wouldn't waste my time or tears on them again.

You like unfinished games that are released early and contain small amounts of content with cut content along the way, and you're trying to tell me you don't have low standards or are not biased? Seriously man, could you make this argument any easier?

You seem to think that because you like something, that entitles you to be able to set the standard for everyone else. Take a lesson from your own book, stop acting entitled.

First off, if you know Arma games -they're NEVER finished. I've been around for crying sessions of every one of the OFP releases. And again, cutting content doesn't mean a whole lot to me -that doesn't necessitate low standards. There you go again throwing out insults without knowing all the facts. I don't care if they add 100 new units if the AI still walk around CQB like headless chickens or "can't get there" because of a .1m wall in there way. How about dying after a 6 inch drop or bodies lying like planks about the air because 1 toe is suspended from a guard tower. I already have a game with 1000 units, VBS2 and it blows compared to Arma series in my opinion. So before you try and brand people as having low standards because they don't share the exact priorities you do -try and learn the facts.

Edited September 4, 2013 by froggyluv

[carnage-twg 10]

That doesn't mean that we have to support and or justify those decisions as consumers however.

I don't dispute that right of yours. What I do dispute is that you seem to feel entitled to what was promised early on in the game development. You specifically said

I paid for feature's that I've now learned are cut, content that has been cut, the promise of a campaign at an unspecified future date and an overall generalization or sterilization of stock content for the purposes of quality that for all intents and purposes will not be there come launch.

You paid for no such features. If you want to fight for those features, fine. They may get included in the future, but at this point in time, however, it is unlikely that they will be included in the final release. We have free DLC that will fill some of the gaps, hopefully some other DLC that will add things like AO did (probably will be pay-for, however). If you do not want to support those types of decisions, though, I would recommend against buying into pre-release versions of a game.

[Velvet_Llama 10]

We are at the point where the game is going to be released and they've even dumped all of the final content for release into the dev branch. The excuse that "This is a Beta" is getting old because in a week it will be released.

If we were at this point back in say April when there was time to address things before launch, yeah I might agree with you. We're in September now and the game is a week away from release. I paid for feature's that I've now learned are cut, content that has been cut, the promise of a campaign at an unspecified future date and an overall generalization or sterilization of stock content for the purposes of quality that for all intents and purposes will not be there come launch. Trying to justify it just shows ignorance over principle at this point or the power of video game addiction.

I agree that the development of this game has not been without disappointment- I think the devs would (and have) agree(d) with that. I also don't think there's anything wrong with holding BI to a high standard- that helps to ensure that they also hold themselves to a high standard in their work. Yet I really have to disagree with your statement that you are paying for cut content. As others have pointed out, it is clearly stated upfront that content is subject to change. I understand that it is frustrating paying for something, assuming it will be part of the final product, and then finding out it's been cut. But you have to look at it this way- you paid less than full price for the game. Part of the reason for that lower price is the fact that you are taking on somewhat of a risk by purchasing the product before its finalized and you know exactly what you'll be getting. I was willing to pay before knowing what the final product would be based on my enjoyment of BI's previous products, but I still knew that there was the chance that the game could turn out to be a mess and then I'd be SOL. To me the risk was offset by the lower purchase price and early access. Just my take.

[windies 11]

I agree that the development of this game has not been without disappointment- I think the devs would (and have) agree(d) with that. I also don't think there's anything wrong with holding BI to a high standard- that helps to ensure that they also hold themselves to a high standard in their work. Yet I really have to disagree with your statement that you are paying for cut content. As others have pointed out, it is clearly stated upfront that content is subject to change. I understand that it is frustrating paying for something, assuming it will be part of the final product, and then finding out it's been cut. But you have to look at it this way- you paid less than full price for the game. Part of the reason for that lower price is the fact that you are taking on somewhat of a risk by purchasing the product before its finalized and you know exactly what you'll be getting. I was willing to pay before knowing what the final product would be based on my enjoyment of BI's previous products, but I still knew that there was the chance that the game could turn out to be a mess and then I'd be SOL. To me the risk was offset by the lower purchase price and early access. Just my take.

Sure I get that, I took a risk buying it, I'm fine with that for the most part. Does that mean I should just give up on it? I shouldn't say anything, try to enact any change or voice my thoughts or opinions? I get annoyed because people act like it's fine, it's what BI does, they release unfinished games. It's getting worse though instead of getting better. I know I'm not the only one who feels this way either, that's obvious from all the other threads both on these forums and others.

Maybe you're right though, the better path is to shut up and take it, "Thank you sir may I have another".

[dmarkwick 261]

I get annoyed because people act like it's fine, it's what BI does, they release unfinished games.

It's also rather annoying to see so much impotent rage because people simply did not understand what they were buying, and have decided that they are somehow duped. Handy tip for the future: only buy released products. Maybe you could have been spared such disappointment.

The rest of us low-standard encumbered BIS sycophants will just use the product in imaginative and entertaining ways. Sadly (for some) ArmA is mostly about what you can put in, not just about all the nice toys.

[Varanon 892]

It's also rather annoying to see so much impotent rage because people simply did not understand what they were buying, and have decided that they are somehow duped. Handy tip for the future: only buy released products. Maybe you could have been spared such disappointment.

Geez, yeah, how could people have expected to see things like a campaign, or jets, or more than copy/pasted UAVs in the game... I mean, of course people do not understand what they bought. They thought they would buy a game.. how stupid of them.

And I'm with Windies, why do people act like it's fine ? As I also said on multiple occasions, I can understand why BIS did what they did, and with all the problems they had in the past, it's understandable that the game isn't fully finished and the campaign will be released later. But I honestly fail to understand what is to defend ? You can understand, you can sympathize, but don't tell me it's brilliant if it's just OK.

The rest of us low-standard encumbered BIS sycophants will just use the product in imaginative and entertaining ways. Sadly (for some) ArmA is mostly about what you can put in, not just about all the nice toys.

Guess what, I will also do missions for Arma 3, like I did for Arma 2 (and continue to do for Arma 2). But I hate the typical notion where everyone takes the "community content" for granted and just comes up with smug comments like "You get out of it what you put in" or similar nonsense. You might not believe it, but some people probably "just" want to play the game, strange as it may sound.

[dmarkwick 261]

Geez, yeah, how could people have expected to see things like a campaign, or jets, or more than copy/pasted UAVs in the game... I mean, of course people do not understand what they bought. They thought they would buy a game.. how stupid of them.

Well there you go. An example of not understanding what they bought. If they wanted to buy a game - they should have waited until it WAS a game and then made a decision IMO. An informed decision.

And I'm with Windies, why do people act like it's fine ? As I also said on multiple occasions, I can understand why BIS did what they did, and with all the problems they had in the past, it's understandable that the game isn't fully finished and the campaign will be released later. But I honestly fail to understand what is to defend ? You can understand, you can sympathize, but don't tell me it's brilliant if it's just OK.

As explained earlier, you wish to buy a game based on final content - buy the game when it is final content.

Guess what, I will also do missions for Arma 3, like I did for Arma 2 (and continue to do for Arma 2). But I hate the typical notion where everyone takes the "community content" for granted and just comes up with smug comments like "You get out of it what you put in" or similar nonsense. You might not believe it, but some people probably "just" want to play the game, strange as it may sound.

There are shitloads of games where you you "just get to play it", you might know that ArmA is a different product. Speaking personally I never played any vanilla default content. If it sounds smug to you then I guess I can't do anything about that - nor do I particularly care either way. It seems the boards are full of people complaining that all the gameplay isn't spooned to them, and all the toys they wished for didn't materialise. Take a look at some Shack Tactical Youtube videos for examples of what ArmA3 represents.

[pharoah 65]

Just to put it into perspective:

1. I absolutely LOVE this game as it is. Yes its not perfect but its still leaps and bounds better than anything else there. However:

2. there are things that simply MUST be fixed eg. bipod/weapon resting, clunky menu system.

I've already invested almost 100 hours in this game so far which is about to skyrocket. Others have invested WAYYYY more time than I have. If it was really crap, we wouldn't have invested as much time in it.

I would rather have it released as it is now than wait 12 months for a polished release. Again not perfect but getting there. The good thing is that the devs support mods which is what will get this game to greatness.

[windies 11]

It's also rather annoying to see so much impotent rage because people simply did not understand what they were buying, and have decided that they are somehow duped. Handy tip for the future: only buy released products. Maybe you could have been spared such disappointment.

The rest of us low-standard encumbered BIS sycophants will just use the product in imaginative and entertaining ways. Sadly (for some) ArmA is mostly about what you can put in, not just about all the nice toys.

What rage? Do you think because I post converse to the status quo that I'm raging? It's a simple fact that if you accept less while expecting more, you have lowered your standards. If that somehow offends you, don't do it then. Seriously, I'm sorry if it offended you but it's the bitter truth for some of you.

I understood what I was buying, and I understood the risks. Is it really raging now to seek a better product though? Is it really raging to want a higher quality, especially when the developer insists that is why there are less assets and content? All I want is a better product, while it seems you are content with apparently sitting in stasis or regressing. I'm sorry that seeking a better product offends some of you, I guess we should all be content to copy pasta content and assets.

[dmarkwick 261]

What rage? Do you think because I post converse to the status quo that I'm raging?

Wassamatter, sweeping generalisations good enough for others but not for you?

Learn.

[windies 11]

Wassamatter, sweeping generalisations good enough for others but not for you?

Learn.

What sweeping generalization? All I see is a piss poor flame bait in lieu of a good argumentative response to my above statement.

*edit* Learn.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Windies

[clifdenhill 1]

it's ok for some ppl to express how great they think the game is but if some ppl are disappointed with the game they should keep it to themselves? Seems like alot of that going on.

[Varanon 892]

Well there you go. An example of not understanding what they bought. If they wanted to buy a game - they should have waited until it WAS a game and then made a decision IMO. An informed decision.

Ok, so the promise of a campagin and such doesn't count anymore ? Right. And what about the game's store page that used to mention how many weapons and vehicles you would get until it was removed at one point ?

Again, not wanting to bash BIS for their decisions, but don't sell them as good. Sure, the alpha/beta had a "subject to change" sticker on them, but I bet all of us "veterans" made a guess at how a successor to Arma would like like, didn't we ?

There are shitloads of games where you you "just get to play it", you might know that ArmA is a different product. Speaking personally I never played any vanilla default content. If it sounds smug to you then I guess I can't do anything about that - nor do I particularly care either way. It seems the boards are full of people complaining that all the gameplay isn't spooned to them, and all the toys they wished for didn't materialise.

Spooend ? See, that's what I mean with smug... that attitude of "If you want to immediately jump into game, go play with the CoD pigs". You know, those CoD guys do get their game "spooned" to them.

And speaking personally: I did play vanilla default content. Like, the campaigns of OPF, Resistance, Arma 1 (yes, even that), Arma 2, Arrowhead, BAF, PMC and ACR. I never finished Arma 1 (was too "unpersonal" to me), "Harvest Red" (which I loved until they spoiled it with two consecutive Warfare missions, which I found rather cheap), and ACR (which was just plainly boring). But I did play all the other, and most of the single player missions that came with those games. And contrary to what most people seem to think, I liked them.

Take a look at some Shack Tactical Youtube videos for examples of what ArmA3 represents.

I do know what Arma is about, thank you. Even if my join date doesn't suggest it, I was here since OFP. It just bugs me that suddenly, everyone is a mission and content designer, since, you know, you have to do it all yourself if you want to play Arma

[twisted 127]

I like arma3 a lot, and am enjoying altis and exploring the need assets. but Alwarrens post in particular resonated with me. the release has revealed some holes lhat the status of beta cannot cover. id like it if bis could clarify what expectations can be here...

[dav 22]

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

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?

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.[/.

I couldn't care about your religious beliefs, your unaware of the immersion, you are unimpressed in the massive face palm of a multiplayer, I get that, but don't have a go at me because I am heavily immersed in the tight single player. I'm sorry but your lacking immersion in the game, hence your list of complaints brother..

[windies 11]

Ok, so the promise of a campagin and such doesn't count anymore ? Right. And what about the game's store page that used to mention how many weapons and vehicles you would get until it was removed at one point ?

Again, not wanting to bash BIS for their decisions, but don't sell them as good. Sure, the alpha/beta had a "subject to change" sticker on them, but I bet all of us "veterans" made a guess at how a successor to Arma would like like, didn't we ?.....

See I don't want to bash BIS either. I've given credit where credits due like with Altis and with the UAV/UGV's and how smooth their implementation was compared to ArmA 2. That doesn't mean that I'm not gonna point out the critical flaws within the game though either, or with their decisions. I just want a quality product is all.

[dmarkwick 261]

What sweeping generalization?

you either have extremely low standards or you have a cognitive/confirmation bias for anything with the words Bohemia Interactive on them.

Here ya go.

---------- Post added at 00:22 ---------- Previous post was at 00:15 ----------

See, that's what I mean with smug... that attitude of "If you want to immediately jump into game, go play with the CoD pigs". You know, those CoD guys do get their game "spooned" to them.

Well you made that into what you typed. No wonder you think me smug if you decide to imagine things like that.

[dav 22]

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

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?

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.

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.

A step back from Arma 2? Are you serious? Arma 2 is over, bar a few die hard vets clinging to its dated looking engine. This is where it's at, if your so annoyed with the game maybe you should delete it instead of making a ton of points like you have it down to a "t", and guess what? the Devs know what's wrong, they built the game didn't they? Did you build it or do you think they are incapable of fixing the issues you have? I'm sick of all the whining on these forums, the game is in great condition compared to A2 which was a total mess for quite a while after its release. These forums are full of critique and its getting mind numbing, where's the proactive clan building? Where's the positivity for the epic battlefield that is Atlis. Instead it's " my body moves too fast considering I am carrying an RPG launcher", get over it.

[windies 11]

Here ya go.

---------- Post added at 00:22 ---------- Previous post was at 00:15 ----------

Well you made that into what you typed. No wonder you think me smug if you decide to imagine things like that.

First of all that's not a generalization, it's a judgement. I cast a judgement based upon a set of parameters that I left up to you to decide if you fit into. That is kind of the antithesis of a "sweeping generalization".

The game will be released with what we have right now, and if you can say you are perfectly happy with the cut and paste content, simplified feature set, and general buggyness, then you either have extremely low standards or you have a cognitive/confirmation bias for anything with the words Bohemia Interactive on them.

Quote the whole thing next time instead of trying to cherry pick part of a statement to fit your misguided and ignorant point of view.

[dmarkwick 261]

First of all that's not a generalization, it's a judgement. I cast a judgement based upon a set of parameters that I left up to you to decide if you fit into. That is kind of the antithesis of a "sweeping generalization".

Lol, you really want to descend into semantics? OK whatever. Got to love internet arguments right? ;)

Quote the whole thing next time instead of trying to cherry pick part of a statement to fit your misguided and ignorant point of view.

The whole quote reveals exactly the same thing. Perhaps even more so actually.

Anyways, the discussion seems to be going OT and into flaming.

[chrisb 196]

A step back from Arma 2? Are you serious? Arma 2 is over, bar a few die hard vets clinging to its dated looking engine. This is where it's at, if your so annoyed with the game maybe you should delete it instead of making a ton of points like you have it down to a "t", and guess what? the Devs know what's wrong, they built the game didn't they? Did you build it or do you think they are incapable of fixing the issues you have? I'm sick of all the whining on these forums, the game is in great condition compared to A2 which was a total mess for quite a while after its release. These forums are full of critique and its getting mind numbing, where's the proactive clan building? Where's the positivity for the epic battlefield that is Atlis. Instead it's " my body moves too fast considering I am carrying an RPG launcher", get over it.

There are a few views regards A3 and all should be able to say on the forum here.

There are many epic battlefields in A2 & indeed Arma. Altis is a stunning achievement, but there are other terrains that can give as much or more immersive game-play.

Alwarren is right regards the movement I would say, also I think the vehicles handle like a bowl of custard. The AI is pretty much the same stock AI we have always had but with tweaks, many that have been around for years but in mod/addon form. They are still incapable of being a realistic enemy without the further need to mod, nothing wrong with that, modding is great, but don’t blame players who think it falls short in some respects.

It may not fall short for others, but that’s only based on where they came from with A2 (if they played the series). However, others who have a really great A2 setup, realistic combat, credible enemy forces (AI), then of course A3 is going to fall well short, certainly in my eye's..

Its quite possibly the fault of us the players for wanting what we all independently imagined would be produced, when in-fact the game has gone in another direction, I feel, not others maybe. But it should be allowed to be said, if someone is un-happy.

Look, the game is what the game is, no changing that, its where it was always going to be, I’m sure.. Some are happy with the type of game it is now, some are not, that's life..;)

I would still have bought it, BI deserve the support, for its past and present projects.. Nothing against BI, they do what they need to, I would not argue with that.:)

___________________________

Edit:

One thing I would say is great, 'performance', its been a real surprise to be able to put this on my old A2 pc and watch it perform as well as A2, that's a positive improvement. Problem is I bought a new pc in anticipation of struggling..:(

Edited September 5, 2013 by ChrisB

[roundtable 10]

this is my first time in this forum, and english isn't my mother tongue, pardon me

first of all, i was played arma II, a lot. and pre-purchased this arma III because i like arma II. and i'm a vanilla player. (i doesn't use mods not because i doesn't understand about installing mods, i'm just playing alone)

i dont know about you all, but i got a mixed feeling about arma III

on the positive way, it has a great optimization. far far better than arma II. and i like altis, a lot. it was better than a middle east dessert.

but on the negative way

it has too much cut content, too much copy paste (how the hell the english LMG, turkish IFV, and israel assault rifle on the opfor?? the only iranian thing in iranian side is KH 2002, what i was facing then? an iranian army or mercenaries?) why BIS not implemented other iranian arms? iranian jeep? iranian tank? iranian airforce? iranian has a lot of them, check the wikipedia then

and when i checked arma 3 launch site,

i realized, arma 2 had more more content than arma 3. how the hell we got a new sequel, which a less content than the previous one?

and for BIS, if you're planning making arma III with these 4 faction (1 for civ) and you only got these small number of weapons and vehicle, just dont. it will be strange if we are facing the enemy with the same weapon and the same vehicle with us.

movement feel strange, AI still stupid, can't change weapon while walking, why there is a bipod when we can't use that, the tank can't climb, helicopter control like an R/C, swimming isn't game breaking, uav isn't game breaking, it's feels like this game isn't a sequel, it's just a patch engine with less content

and i feel hate when the dev think "we can't fix this, let the mods fix this" things

campaign in free dlc, why the hell campaign isn't in release post? what i know so far is arma III only available in steam which is digital, there is no negative way in business to delayed a date for releasing a game.

maybe it's my time to search about mods in arma III. too bad, even vanilla server is rare in asia -___-

Edited September 5, 2013 by roundtable