Disapointed with the full release content

[mistyronin 1181]

What will you say if the additional content is like the tank situation we have now?

More of the same chassis?

Well it's quite a clever economic strategy in real life, if you have the same chasis, you have the same spare pieces for all of them, and solve the mechanical problems fast.

For example the Merkava itself ( Slammer! ), it's a pretty good example, here you have some derivatives.

So it's realistic, and seem to be what armies are aiming to right now. And I'm sure that has allowed the devs to give us most of the vehicles with good quality. Same why the Patria is having so much sells around the world, due to its modularity.

If it wasn't for that fact we may even had less vehicles. Though I hope variety will come in the close future.

[St. Jimmy 272]

So it's the futuristic approach that actually hitted hard on content-wise. People might be happy with this amount of vehicles if some of the vehicles wouldn't be just copy and paste weaponry. Vehicles look cool and fresh but some variety is needed.

[defk0n_NL 2]

Gnat;2490680']Great content to ArmA3

Can't compare it to ArmA2OA' date=' that was like 3 games added together over a longer period.[/quote']

this should have been the fourth :/

[Tyl3r99 41]

this should have been the fourth :/

I agree

[soapsurfer 12]

So it's the futuristic approach that actually hitted hard on content-wise. People might be happy with this amount of vehicles if some of the vehicles wouldn't be just copy and paste weaponry. Vehicles look cool and fresh but some variety is needed.

Totally this. I like them quite much. Sure there is some bug fixing need but overall they look good. Not enough variety is the only problem for me.

[chortles 263]

I disagree and my word-of-mouth promoting of Arma 3 to others outside of this forum was specifically on the basis that it's not the fourth.

[Tyl3r99 41]

Ok to sum things up... Is this going to improve or get worse... To me things went up and down ever since "no campaign on release" and " only 1 jet " thing was announced..

Now it's the variety problem, lack of quantity and IMO not the final release one bit.. This is the extended beta in my words.

It's not the final until the 3rd episode of campaign is released

[comp_uter15776 1]

I really think this isn't much of a problem. A lot of people here are forgetting that ArmA 3 isn't even released yet and you're saying how unoriginal it is, how little content is has, and how the others surpass it. Well, A2 and A1 were both quite horrific on launch, and A3 is miles ahead of the game in this respect. You say that there are xyz number of vehicles in ArmA 2/1, but that's with patches, potentially DLC, and other improvements.

Whilst not wishing to defend the whole of BIS so to speak, as I do also wonder what could have happened in 3 years to result in this, but I'd much rather have improved core engine features than content for release. Once release is out the door, then BIS can create content, as it is a hell of a lot more difficult to change core aspects of ArmA 3 once it is out, whereas adding more content in is easier by default.

People also take for granted that the transition from beta to final feels minimal because that's what the devs have intended it to be. If nobody had been permitted to play through an alpha/beta and A3 was just launched out of thin air, everyone would be happy at the content for now. It's because the content right now has become the normal, so to be excited about more content there has to be.... more content. Newer content. This would have been that content had we not been present for alpha and beta.

The campaign... ehh... I'd rather they also polished it so that it was worth playing, not rushed but instant. Chances are I wouldn't be too phased by it anyway upon release as I'd want to play through some cool content with friends instead, so SP will naturally take a backburner.

People will whine when things aren't present early enough, then whine when they aren't up to standards.

tl;dr - You should only judge the A3 release on the release versions of A1/2, not their final or after-release states.

[down8 30]

You all have to remember that most of you paid 25€ for A3 (if you paid more, it's because you wanted to). And for that money, I think you got more content than you will get from most 50€ titles! Also, BI will add more content with patches later...

This.

But I'm not surprised about this type of posts anymore. Although there is some fair critics, all the whining is over the top for a guy that's supposed to love the game. But it seems to be standard all around internet...Whining no matter what is the most popular sport.

I guess a lot of people that love the game have time to play it, but not to non-stop complaining on a forum.

PD: copy paste??

[daze23 1]

A lot of people here are forgetting that ArmA 3 isn't even released yet...

release is next week, and they already sent a version to the press. I'm guessing that version's more or less what's in the dev build, plus a few more 'showcases' (and hopefully some kind of tutorial/boot-camp). people on these forums are obviously fans of the series. we'll soon see what the 'mainstream' gaming-press thinks of the content at release

[comp_uter15776 1]

release is next week, and they already sent a version to the press. I'm guessing that version's more or less what's in the dev build, plus a few more 'showcases' (and hopefully some kind of tutorial/boot-camp). people on these forums are obviously fans of the series. we'll soon see what the 'mainstream' gaming-press thinks of the content at release

Not exactly the largest point you have. I decided to go against saying "is just released" because well, it isn't. Semantics, really.

The idea still stands. It's not even/only just being released and already you're comparing it to an end version of ArmA 2 or 1 which let's be honest, has taken many years to perfect.

[EvEnLeaSe44 0]

"boohoo its not what i wanted, wahhh"

A lot of entitlement in here today... sad stuff.

The amount of content and detail (altis) we've gotten, is well worth the money we spent. And they promise to release more free content. Sounds good to me.

[Kieran 11]

I'm sure the missile for the Opfor anti air vehicle is just a placeholder.. LOL

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/903258706275147639/A1BCA55352B5E9FEC7923C34D6DC8DDFB07F785B/

[GottyPlays 10]

So it's the futuristic approach that actually hitted hard on content-wise. People might be happy with this amount of vehicles if some of the vehicles wouldn't be just copy and paste weaponry. Vehicles look cool and fresh but some variety is needed.

i think instead, that the futuristic approach is a tactic to minimize the effort in dev terms, like the weapons...how can we complain that the mxm (for example) is not simulated so well? its difficult to find users that have actually tried these guns (if these guns actually even exist, im still not sure but this is ot) ...now they have the excuse (i cant find other words really) to do whatever they want with the ballistics, and the result is same exact behavior for various faction weapons. if they stuck with the good old arma 2 assets, they had to spend more time to fix ballistics for every weapon.

and the same goes for the vehicles i think, why try to replicate existing vehicles when they could "re-invent" other ones as they please?

this IMHO is why we have content like this now.

I'm sure the missile for the Opfor anti air vehicle is just a placeholder.. LOL

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/903258706275147639/A1BCA55352B5E9FEC7923C34D6DC8DDFB07F785B/

Wow! that's why vehicles have so few ammo.

[PartyHead 10]

I think if they haven't released the official arma 3 mod tools already they should, and should have awhile ago so the community modders can get started making some great content.

[[evo] dan 79]

I am somewhat disappointed with the game.

Pros:

Love Altis, absolutely wonderful place to explore

The game is pretty stable

Content that is in is done to a high quality standard.

Cons:

Way to much copy and pasting as regards weapons systems on vehicles. Wish they had a bit more variety when it comes to that.

I doubt many of the vehicles have been throw out around the time of the 'incident'. So I assume they only really had to change the Greek units to AAF, whilst the other two sides, I guess they just prioritised Altis's models over combat models.

Lack of TOH, although after the TOH 1.05 dumbing down of expert so K&M user's could fly on expert, I am not sure this is a bad thing (the 10 frames loss too)

[hikarum 1]

I'm sure the missile for the Opfor anti air vehicle is just a placeholder.. LOL

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/903258706275147639/A1BCA55352B5E9FEC7923C34D6DC8DDFB07F785B/

Sheesh, that thing is huge compared to the launch tube.

[[aps]gnat 28]

this should have been the fourth :/

How many more times do you want BIS to recycle old models and shit!! ffs

Only us modders can get away with that .....

[Logan9773 10]

What I would like to know is what have they been doing for the past X amount of years?

EXACTLY! One wonders.

[ric 1]

all of you arguing about the content should ask your self what would you prefer if you had a choice a few years ago when A3 began development

A. Arma 3 is released as it is going tobe or close to its current state ...or

B. Arma 3 is really nothing more than a major overhaul of the RV engine to make it scalable removing all the performance issues of A2 and adding a new robust power curve but having NO new content just the same stuff from A2 but the future DLC would consist of new highly detailed maps with full phyzX implementation along with more DLC to follow with highly detailed armor,weapons,objects etc

for me it would be B. I would be happy to pony up $60 everytime DLC was released fully knowing my ejoyment was going tobe rock solid, unfortunately content to me represents putting the cart before the horse :( right now the performance issues in MP are very disheartening and only so much of it can be fixed.

[maturin 12]

ArmA 3 still delivers more content than most $60 games.

...but NONE of you paid $60. You paid $30-40, and if you can't stomach the incremental drawdown in the amount of content because of all-new models and development difficulties brought on by unforseeable Greek circumstances and the implementation of new tech you were ALL bitching and whining and begging for, think of it as a small collection of DLC focused around terrains, controls, animations, scuba, graphics and core gameplay updates. Because at the usual market rate of new content in the modern gaming industry, you have a big bargain.

[minimalaco 30]

ufff......

[mbbird 11]

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?163264-Reality-Check&p=2491409#post2491409

My new thread is relevant to this one, but I felt it deserved it's own spot for a while, and it will keep this thread perhaps less cluttered.

[horrorview 10]

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?163264-Reality-Check&p=2491409#post2491409

My new thread is relevant to this one, but I felt it deserved it's own spot for a while, and it will keep this thread perhaps less cluttered.

Hehehehe....fedoras. :p

[CombatComm1 10]

all of you arguing about the content should ask your self what would you prefer if you had a choice a few years ago when A3 began development

A. Arma 3 is released as it is going tobe or close to its current state ...or

B. Arma 3 is really nothing more than a major overhaul of the RV engine to make it scalable removing all the performance issues of A2 and adding a new robust power curve but having NO new content just the same stuff from A2 but the future DLC would consist of new highly detailed maps with full phyzX implementation along with more DLC to follow with highly detailed armor,weapons,objects etc

for me it would be B. I would be happy to pony up $60 everytime DLC was released fully knowing my ejoyment was going tobe rock solid, unfortunately content to me represents putting the cart before the horse :( right now the performance issues in MP are very disheartening and only so much of it can be fixed.

I 100% would agree except for 2 things.

1. They shouldent have to pick and choose between content quantity and balance. Plenty of other companies can make it happen in 2 years. Especially if they reuse assets. I understand they are a small company but DayZ was a great success for ARMA 2 and when you are this ambitious you need to manage your project better and ensure you have the right time, resources. (Espcially of the human variety)

2. While I would gladly fork up SOME, not 80 for more MODERN armament (I wont spend a dime on BIS idea of the future as I am not impressed) I will not and we all SHOULD not have to pay a cent to see vehicles or features that BIS themselves have showcased/confirmed to be in the game TO SELL COPIES. That is false advertisement, that gets under a lot of peoples skin and that is something I expect from EA, not BIS. ie Osprey, F-35, ToH flight model. Although I would probably still have bought the game I for one would have at least thought twice before buying the game if I had known this was a ruse.

Edited September 6, 2013 by CombatComm1