Disapointed with the full release content

[Azzur33 1]

Interesting that you recognize that in one direction, but not the other. This is exactly why dialogue is important to A3's development.

Interesting how you interpreted that. You assumed something that wasn't in my message or what wasn't my intention to do at all. That kind of makes me irritated.

Maybe I should have given "the both sides", although you didn't either.

But I thought you did show the "other side" already.

So, there was nothing interesting in that. Now we have the both sides, isn't that dialogue?

Is that a negative connotation? or simply a statement of effectiveness? Because surely you can't audibly hear anyone at all on this forum.

Very funny. What was the purpose of this part of the dialogue?

This is an assumption. If we were to assume BIS knows every issue a consumer thinks, why even allow threads like this?

Sure it is. The assumption is based to the fact that the issues the "loudest ones" are complaining about, are the same.

Maybe you did read that part wrong. It should have been clear that "BIS knows the issues Already, because that Complaining has Lasted for Weeeeeks, how long it will last, no-one knows!".

You are not doing good at that "dialogue" part.

The Opsrey was also in early shots. Also, check the Tactical guide. It was just released and has vehicles not even released in the early shots.

The Osprey was in one screenshot, I see. So, Two placeholder planes. Don't know the "Tactical guide" that much. Isn't that written by the Dsycllsxci, Dsyxlecxi .. . and it was started already at A2 time. The tactics are pretty much the same.

The point still remains.

Please cite the official BIS source for this information.

I could say to this: Please use your common sense.

It's foolish to conclude that a less than perfect critique equals negative thinking.

It IS foolish to conclude that a less than perfect critique equals what I consider as negative thinking.

You really are not doing well at the "dialogue" thing.

You are a pretty good example of what I was writing about in my:

It is really easy to be labeled as a "troll", "yes man" or "fanboy" when having a "dialogue" with a "disappointed one". -line.

There was no dialogue in your post. It was just a counter-attack which had no real target.

I just asked for the constructive dialogue, and you responded with pointless nagging.

[bad benson 1733]

i fail to see how this rethorical circle jerk is gonna help anyone. i think everyone who takes an honest look at the forums can agree that there is both. senseless whining and posts that are only aimed at suppression other posts for whatever reason.

is it that hard to accept the fact that some might disagree with you on the internet? or that not every post can be a highly elaborate, eloquent, self-important piece of rethorical art? even if some "kid" is making a lengthy rage post about MP performance (for example), he/she will have every right to do so as long as it doesn't violate forum rules and MP performance is still jacked (to put it very lightly).

this is not a contest who is the most likeable person or who has the maddest internet discussion skills. this is a public place for everyone to voice their opinions inside the frame of the forum rules. i mean yea please go on. i would be a hypocrite to tell you otherwise but it's also hypocritical to tell people to stay calm and constructive and then go on disecting eachothers posts in lengthy counterposts while advocating that people need to be more on point with their posts.

i myself and porbably everyone else does this shit from time to time but in my eyes it's in no way better than an emotional rage post. it comes down to the same. lots of words for nothing. a post being elaborate doesn't change the intention behind it.

[Azzur33 1]

i fail to see how this rethorical circle jerk is gonna help anyone.

YES! You are right!

So, why do you try to jump into this rhetorical circle jerk, the one that I just tried to jump off?

Why is it so hard to see my posts as valid ones, and not part of a "rhetorical contest"?

PS. If I write something (which I usually do not expect to have dissected and commented), and have them dissected and commented in a way that makes no sense, or has bad misinterpretations or false accusations, shouldn't I respond to that?

Maybe not, it's normally useless. But why it bothers you when I do respond?

You seem to be too biased to see my posts objectively.

PPS. An "elaborated post" may have a point too.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Azzur33

[bad benson 1733]

i can't see where i specifically addressed you. it's not all about you, you know.:rolleyes:

all i'm saying is tolerate other people's opinions and ways (quality) to express themselves and maybe don't focus so much on beating eachother, and all you do is try to turn my post around against me somehow. congratulations i guess. you win. and you also made my point. and welcome to my ignore list...

some people are so aggresively defensive that they don't even realize when they aren't "attacked" by someone. total forum berserk mode...

Edited September 16, 2013 by Bad Benson

[froggyluv 2136]

Well there is an obvious distinction between those who are disappointed and bullet point their perceived inadequacies and those who seem to be on a crusade to just attack, denigrate and sometimes Dev bash at any and every given opportunity.

[HKFlash 9]

Well there is an obvious distinction between those who are disappointed and bullet point their perceived inadequacies and those who seem to be on a crusade to just attack, denigrate and sometimes Dev bash at any and every given opportunity.

Those forum users usually get bash hyped and eventually break the forum's rules and end up banned. Don't worry too much about them.

Edited September 16, 2013 by HKFlash

[Azzur33 1]

Exactly why, not calling A3 a "polished gem" for example doesnt make the "loudest" and "disappointed ones" with valid points, just "complaining." This is exactly why dialogue is important to A3's development. Attacking posters that have a less than perfect viewpoint of A3 makes one a "troll" or a "sychophant fan boy"...while simply defending A3 "full" with open dialogue and information does not. (The same can be said visa versa.)

To be exact and as clear as possible:

I DO know the difference of valid complains and expressions of rage.

Sometimed they do mix in the same post, though.

But I still know the difference of valid complains and expressions of rage.

If the complains are not that valid, or are exaggerated beyond recognition, then they do fall into "rage" sector.

There are issues that are valid, and I haven't seen that much downplaying or missing the point on them.

MP issues, "copypasteturretsandstaticw.", bugs, some performance issues, tweaking issues, all valid.

But "They had 10 years time to fix things, and they have done nothing!" "They are lazy and incompetent" -kind of argumenting is surely not needed.

And those kind of messages should make the "disappointed, but rational and adult ones" react too.

---------- Post added at 17:09 ---------- Previous post was at 16:59 ----------

some people are so aggresively defensive that they don't even realize when they aren't "attacked" by someone. total forum berserk mode...

Yeah sorry, ...but we Do have some "history" in this. Usually the other way around.

And I was already irritated, and my understanding wasn't the best it can be, sure.

[bad benson 1733]

Those forum users usually get bash hyped and eventually break forums and end up banned. Don't worry too much about them.

yup. the so called counter bitching will only create more emotion and the perception that there are elitist fanboys on the other side of the spectrum. monitoring of "manners" and enforcing those is the job of the moderators. in my opinion arguing how valid a way of expression is will just create more empty space between the actual points of criticism.

people who want to be positive should make positive threads and not fuel negative vibes inside negative threads. that's of course just my humble opinion.

[Azzur33 1]

Well there is an obvious distinction between those who are disappointed and bullet point their perceived inadequacies and those who seem to be on a crusade to just attack, denigrate and sometimes Dev bash at any and every given opportunity.

Very well said indeed.

Those first ones can actually help the game. And they should also be against the "crusaders".

[SabotAndHeat 10]

@ Azzure33

It was just a counter-attack which had no real target.

Counter attack...revealing usage of words. You can't have a counter attack without the attack now can you? However, it was not an inaccurate statement. No target was intended, only a generalized statement about posters being aggressive towards people who are voicing discontent over A3.

Wasnt your intent to reply (#644) meant to be a direct contradiction to my post (#641) and more specifically to contradict the freedom to express discontent for A3? If not, I relent (perhaps language barriers?)

If yes, I rest my case.

Interesting how you interpreted that. You assumed something that wasn't in my message or what wasn't my intention to do at all. That kind of makes me irritated.

Maybe I should have given "the both sides", although you didn't either.

Actually, I did. Post (#647) - "(The same can be said visa versa.)"

Meaning for both "defenders" and "attackers" of A3. Again, perhaps this is a language barrier?

Besides, don't be irritated...this is why people talk...because mis-communications do happen.

Stated To Bad Benson: Why is it so hard to see my posts as valid ones, and not part of a "rhetorical contest"?

Because you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Edited September 16, 2013 by SabotAndHeat

[nicklomas 3]

What i don't understand is why people are defending BI, I payed for a game that is unfinished, buggy and lacking anywhere near the amount of content from previous games. Am i not allowed to be annoyed? This kind of behavior is becoming more and more acceptable in the PC gaming world. I had the same problem with Empire: Total War (and Rome 2 now) and it seems that tight schedules and cost are making developers push out a half finished game and marketing it as complete so they make some money. As an Arma/OFP fan since the early days then I wouldn't mind paying in advance to help secure a satisfactory game being released in the end as long as they were honest. However considering the game was sold and an Alpha, then a BETA prior to the launch and they still haven't finished it can only make myself and others a little annoyed.

If anyone disagrees with me then please let me know as I'd like to take all there details and see if they want to buy my car from me. It's a Mercedes but it's going to be different from what i told you and when you buy it from you'll have to wait some time for me to give you the seats and the steering wheel and then in a years time I'll give you the engine at an extra price.

[SabotAndHeat 10]

@ NickLomas

It's a Mercedes but it's going to be different from what i told you and when you buy it from you'll have to wait some time for me to give you the seats and the steering wheel and then in a years time I'll give you the engine at an extra price.

Ha!

I still have faith in BIS though. Just waiting for some news that doesnt qualify as an educated guess.

[bad benson 1733]

i think the problem is that both sides have their extremists. i personally see myself as right in the middle. i'm highly annoyed by arma 3's short comings but i also am used to it by now since i've been with BI from the start, and no matter what they do i can't stop loving arma (wish i could). and also: the game is awesome and a good progression from arma 2.

the difference is that i don't expect from everyone else to accept the short comings just because i am myself able to. i mean honestly. just imagine you have never heard of arma before. it will be just a simple honest look on arma 3 compared to industry standards without all the "arma is like wine"-talk. you just can't expect everyone to see it like that.

to me personally the wine thing is a lazy excuse for bad release management and is also very annoying if you, as a veteran, know issues that are there since ofp and transfer from game to game no matter how many patches are applied. that kind of invalidates the whole wine thing for me personally. the wine has just some nuances to its taste that are still unpleasant in the same way.

i know all the excuses and the reasoning behind things by now. so i'm quite annoyed reading them a lot. sucky things still suck no matter why they suck.

What i don't understand is why people are defending BI

some are just trying to point out that the game has positive sides too in all this release drama. otherwise no one at all would play it. but some are just taking the role of the calm educated guy because it's fun to do. same as with the BI bashers it's best to ignore the extremists.

[windies 11]

i think the problem is that both sides have their extremists. i personally see myself as right in the middle. i'm highly annoyed by arma 3's short comings but i also am used to it by now since i've been with BI from the start, and no matter what they do i can't stop loving arma (wish i could). and also: the game is awesome and a good progression from arma 2.

the difference is that i don't expect from everyone else to accept the short comings just because i am myself able to. i mean honestly. just imagine you have never heard of arma before. it will be just a simple honest look on arma 3 compared to industry standards without all the "arma is like wine"-talk. you just can't expect everyone to see it like that.

to me personally the wine thing is a lazy excuse for bad release management and is also very annoying if you, as a veteran, know issues that are there since ofp and transfer from game to game no matter how many patches are applied. that kind of invalidates the whole wine thing for me personally. the wine has just some nuances to its taste that are still unpleasant in the same way.

i know all the excuses and the reasoning behind things by now. so i'm quite annoyed reading them a lot. sucky things still suck no matter why they suck.

some are just trying to point out that the game has positive sides too in all this release drama. otherwise no one at all would play it. but some are just taking the role of the calm educated guy because it's fun to do. same as with the BI bashers it's best to ignore the extremists.

I agree with you as far as stance on the matter but let me say this.

Pointing out the positives does nothing though while pointing out the negatives puts focus on those negatives, hopefully in order to get them fixed. That's the reason that something like the feedback tracker exists. So much of the rage on these forums is from the personal attacks that almost always accompany some form of criticism or even praise about the game. If people stopped and took a second to understand why people point out the negatives and criticize, they might find that they're goals are both the same but how they go about it is simply different.

I've been here through ArmA and ArmA 2 releases and I understand the shortcomings that generally follow a release. That still doesn't mean that I'm happy to excuse it release after release after release. Eventually you want some resolution to issue's, especially when it entails you buying the same problems over and over again and the problem being known about for years. I've tried to be as utterly respectful as possible when dealing with the developers, yet I've had people tell me to let my sack drop and that I'm a fucking whiner and all kinds of insults, simply because they're to blind to understand my viewpoint and they think I'm insulting them, they're children, God, Allah, and the developers. These forums are turning into a cesspool, not just because of the "Whiners" but because of the blind zealotry as well. Not to mention that Rule #18 is like the PATRIOT Act for the forums.... :rolleyes:

Edited September 16, 2013 by Windies

[bad benson 1733]

they might find that they're goals are both the same

"imagine all the people..." John Lennon :p

[Azzur33 1]

Actually, I did. Post (#647) - "(The same can be said visa versa.)"

Meaning for both "defenders" and "attackers" of A3. Again, perhaps this is a language barrier?

Besides, don't be irritated...this is why people talk...because mis-communications do happen.

This is going to look really complicated, sorry about that...:

Your post #647 is response to my post #644, which was a response to your post #641.

In that response (#644) I gave you the "other side of the coin".

In post #651 I referred to my post #644 with this: "Maybe I should have given "the both sides", although you didn't either (in post #641). But I thought you did show the "other side" already (in post #641)."

To simplify: I'm not a psychic. I can not see your post before you post it.

PS. About the "counter attack" thingy:

1) My post #644 was not in any way intended to be aggressive, or challenging you to any "circle jerk".

I just honestly tried to show a little bit of the "other side". It was not trying to suppress you.

2) It was my humble opinion that the "disappointed ones" are not likely to be fleeing to Steam forums, and that the disappointed ones have indeed been the "loudest" ones.

And if I did not express myself clearly enough: I'm not against valid complaints.

The thing is sometimes the complaints are not that valid. You know that too.

I think I'm free to express my opinions of the not-so-valid complains.

I try to be calm with them too.

The calm wont last long if I have to correct misinterpretations (caused by the "Oh look! Here's another fanboy trying to defend desperately!" -attitude) which are used against me. Too many times I get those "Hold on! I didn't say That!" -feelings when I read the responses to my posts.

So: You have the freedom of expression, as long as it doesn't break the rules, yeah.

But if you think what is constructive, then you'd have to admit that some ways of expression are better than other ones.

Some are not good at all, even if they are within the rules.

---------- Post added at 19:05 ---------- Previous post was at 19:01 ----------

but some are just taking the role of the calm educated guy because it's fun to do.

So the "calm educated guys" don't have any valid points. Ever.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Azzur33

[bad benson 1733]

So the "calm educated guys" don't have any valid points. Ever.

where did i say that? are you even serious? "some" i said "SOME" do it for the sake of it. but i'm starting to think you are one of them... can you be more insufferable? jesus. it's getting constructive in here and all you do is go on with your nitpicky bullshit. i mean you are basically addressing lots of stuff from my post that wasn't even directed at you in a response to a post by another person. you have some serious problems. taking everything like a personal attack towards yourself, that isn't even about you, and ending up with posts that do shit except showing how much you need to win the internet. you're a bit of a drama queen to be honest. and you are not worth my time. i tried to be diplomatic but you just like to make those posts too much. lost cause...

i just said it before but now you're actually on my ignore list. so don't bother addressing me directly or indirectly, if you are looking for a reaction.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Bad Benson
spelling

[instagoat 133]

What i don't understand is why people are defending BI, I payed for a game that is unfinished, buggy and lacking anywhere near the amount of content from previous games. Am i not allowed to be annoyed? This kind of behavior is becoming more and more acceptable in the PC gaming world. I had the same problem with Empire: Total War (and Rome 2 now) and it seems that tight schedules and cost are making developers push out a half finished game and marketing it as complete so they make some money. As an Arma/OFP fan since the early days then I wouldn't mind paying in advance to help secure a satisfactory game being released in the end as long as they were honest. However considering the game was sold and an Alpha, then a BETA prior to the launch and they still haven't finished it can only make myself and others a little annoyed.

If anyone disagrees with me then please let me know as I'd like to take all there details and see if they want to buy my car from me. It's a Mercedes but it's going to be different from what i told you and when you buy it from you'll have to wait some time for me to give you the seats and the steering wheel and then in a years time I'll give you the engine at an extra price.

I am defending them because A: This release is way better, smoother and more playable and polished than any of the other releases. OFP was more buggy on release day, and that says something! B: I trust them to make the right decisions toward fixing the standing issues, even though some things are clearly and blatantly disappointing.

They never made any explicit promises, they admitted that development was difficult and that a ton was scrapped, and they admitted that their new Q+A process will result in content being stripped for not living up to standards. They were not using deceptive advertising, fake target screenshots, overly indulgent and/or misleading trailers or devlog videos, they didn't even cut out the bugs out of their streams and demo videos. I have talked to BI devs at gamescom, and when you ask them about problematic things in the game, you will in the large majority of cases receive a straight answer unless it is something indeed extremely critical. For example, the things I learned about the AI when I visited BI two years ago at said convention.

I too am annoyed that there is still unfinished content in the release. But again, it is nowhere as bad as Arma 2 or Armed Assault, in indeed better than the original OFP (though compared to AA and A2 that release was super smooth too.). What annoys me more is the extreme black/white language directed at the game, as if we were looking at a DR style trainwreck (Where the above mentioned deception in advertising as well as -many- bugs and persisting engine problems took place, and remained unfixed to the end. Re 64 entity limit, memory leaks causing the game to crash after a certain time in big missions even after the final patch, lazy mission design and no modding support whatsoever, to mention a few things.), which I think is -very- harsh to do.

And I find it hard to justify in my mind how this can be so persistently done, by so many people.

[SabotAndHeat 10]

@ Azzur33

I just honestly tried to show a little bit of the "other side". It was not trying to suppress you.

Fair enough.

Believe me when I tell you that I concur with your statement that many people go too far to denigrate A3. But, it has to be available as long as its done in a mutually respectful manner. Primarily, many things one can disagree with are simply matters of opinion. Not, necessarily wrong or right...but no less valid.

Take care.

Edited September 16, 2013 by SabotAndHeat

[chortles 263]

I have talked to BI devs at gamescom, and when you ask them about problematic things in the game, you will in the large majority of cases receive a straight answer unless it is something indeed extremely critical. For example, the things I learned about the AI when I visited BI two years ago at said convention.

I can second what InstaGoat's saying here -- what he was told about the AI was way less flattering than most other dev studios' devs would be allowed to admit (not just about the specific product, but about their development history and practices), but it gives context to why the AI is "still" problematic... because of just how far behind the devs are having to work on AI from.

[ric 1]

I believe several people told me that the sub is a static model, way back in the alpha.

time index 4:55 there are more videos showing subs from VBS2 2.0 look them up if you like.

[chortles 263]

Been there, done that, already read the BISim maritime whitepaper. :D

Truthbetold it doesn't seem that there was ever any evidence of the sub actually being in the game files beyond that one "extended alpha list", so it's probable that the sub was part of the two years of work that DnA and RiE binned.

[Harbinger2456 10]

What i don't understand is why people are defending BI, I payed for a game that is unfinished, buggy and lacking anywhere near the amount of content from previous games. Am i not allowed to be annoyed? This kind of behavior is becoming more and more acceptable in the PC gaming world. I had the same problem with Empire: Total War (and Rome 2 now) and it seems that tight schedules and cost are making developers push out a half finished game and marketing it as complete so they make some money. As an Arma/OFP fan since the early days then I wouldn't mind paying in advance to help secure a satisfactory game being released in the end as long as they were honest. However considering the game was sold and an Alpha, then a BETA prior to the launch and they still haven't finished it can only make myself and others a little annoyed.

If anyone disagrees with me then please let me know as I'd like to take all there details and see if they want to buy my car from me. It's a Mercedes but it's going to be different from what i told you and when you buy it from you'll have to wait some time for me to give you the seats and the steering wheel and then in a years time I'll give you the engine at an extra price.

+1. Agreed.

[eymerich 11]

What i don't understand is why people are defending BI, I payed for a game that is unfinished, buggy and lacking anywhere near the amount of content from previous games. Am i not allowed to be annoyed? This kind of behavior is becoming more and more acceptable in the PC gaming world. I had the same problem with Empire: Total War (and Rome 2 now) and it seems that tight schedules and cost are making developers push out a half finished game and marketing it as complete so they make some money. As an Arma/OFP fan since the early days then I wouldn't mind paying in advance to help secure a satisfactory game being released in the end as long as they were honest. However considering the game was sold and an Alpha, then a BETA prior to the launch and they still haven't finished it can only make myself and others a little annoyed.

If anyone disagrees with me then please let me know as I'd like to take all there details and see if they want to buy my car from me. It's a Mercedes but it's going to be different from what i told you and when you buy it from you'll have to wait some time for me to give you the seats and the steering wheel and then in a years time I'll give you the engine at an extra price.

I am not defending Bis since I am not a fanboy and I like to think with my head.

While I agree with a lot of you about the lack of content, and I am a bit disappointed about this (especially the lack of planes, the lack of infantry weapons, of object, of modules), in my opinion Arma 3 is better compared to Arma2.

Hdr problem are gone (game break, at least for me, in Arma2);

Movements are more fluid and more... "real";

A.i.is 10 times better (did you try a cqc in a city?);

More customization (did you notice the nice thing in Arma showcase: I am referring to the Uav camera);

Graphic are better;

Altis is a masterpiece;

The new artillery units.

Ecxept this, you have a valid point.

In any case: one thing is a mecedes (and one cost too); one other, and different, is Arma3 (25€ or €39 or even now €44).

So at the end it's a game: it will improve in the time.

Let's hope at least this. :)

[FallenPaladin 0]

I`m pretty sure Arma 3 will improve over the next few months. I`m also looking forward to the single player campaign. The missions and story of Operation Flashpoint and it`s addons is still unmatched. I`d love to see something like this in Arma 3.