Disapointed with the full release content

[Flaky 10]

So sick of all the complaining about not enough content. Look at most modern game design where the bones of the engine remain the same for years on end and each $100 iteration is essentially a reskin with one new gameplay innovation. In comparison we have Arma 3, in which whole segments of the engine have been totally rewritten and we receive painstaking updates to cater to the whims of the community. Performance, AI, lighting, physics, animations, steam integration, sound, radio protocol, modules, view distance, textures, shadows, anti-aliasing, the list goes on and on. Hell the entire method of segmenting the release was a huge innovation. And an unprecedented success. I personally have had at least a couple of suggestions addressed, and I can't even bother my ass to create a feedback tracker account. And yet with every release there seems a hysterical sense of entitlement and betrayal about something which we are supposed to be testing in exchange for a reduced price point. And a childish lack of patience and appreciation for the unique trials faced by the developers for an enormous chunk of development. I really hope someone writes a book about the development of this game, to serve as a unique reminder of the changing nature of our media landscape. It would be a resource of remarkable value for future game developers and historians alike. Actually, scratch that I just hope these guys remember to take some well deserved time off from the 12th after several years of effort. Not that that would likely pass without criticism from some within the community.

[antoineflemming 14]

im happy with all the new content. That will be enough for a bit. Then tons of mods, and DLCs later, will expand it for us even further.

Well, I'm expecting that we will see the rest of the content with launch or with the first campaign episode. And this is because I just saw that there will be Russians after all in the game, and they aren't listed as one of the factions in Arma 3. The argument could be made that they are CSAT, but their UI pic has them as independent, and they wear the Russian flag and not the CSAT flag. As well, there's going to be an OPFOR-friendly paramilitary force (if you remember the pic with Nikos and the guerrillas in gray with the red arm band and the shemaghs from a year or 2 ago, well that's them).

Edited September 5, 2013 by antoineflemming

[katipo66 94]

There's enough to get started, sometimes things don't go to plan, maybe other reasons that can't be discussed, who cares... hard to knock them when they are delivering something that has the potential to please everyone eventually.. final release is the beginning of another Arma journey all over again, this time on the mighty Altis, that island alone makes up for any lack of other content Imo.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

and who gives where those models came from? weren't all the models bis property? weren't everyone happy with the models? i was, i have a2 from like 1 year and i still i have some veichules to try...they could port these again and add them to arma 3...the story of quality/quantity don't keep up alot..

Yea right, like more than half of people on these forums wouldn't be singing the tune of "BIS you so lazy re-using Arma 1 models again in Arma 3", "why am I paying again for the same old models" etc. etc. in order to bulk up the content of the game. People already bitch enough about the re-use of decent quality models from ToH and ACR, never mind if they started using god-awful looking ones like the Arma 2 X-35B, M-16s and Abrams.

It's all very well having them as free DLC or offering greater assistance to AiA to enhance the old content so we can get it for free - but that's an entirely separate development model to recycling Arma 2 assets as core Arma 3 content and is an entirely separate issue to what is being discussed in this topic.

Fact is many people around here seem to expect BIS to have delivered an equal number of brand new models for Arma 3, fully implemented with PhysX, decent crew anims (many individual get-in/out anims, inverse kinematics for controls etc.) and all the other enhancements that BIS have made to vehicles, in order to go 1:1 with the number of assets that were accumulated during Arma 1+2's lengthy development (which as I pointed out adds up to twice the time taken to develop Arma 3). These people are kidding themselves.

As it stands, we have roughly half as much brand new stuff added to the Arma series between 2010/2011 and 2013 (2/3 years) as was added between between 2003/2004 and 2009 (5/6 years). My maths isn't quite what it used to be but that seems roughly like half the content in half the time... which overall means the rate at which BIS has made new content has remained roughly constant over the past ten years :j:

[metalcraze 290]

Think that's a fairly broad breakdown of where the huge list of Arma 2 content originated. Some of it might be wrong, but what I remember of various pics of Arma 1 and Game 2 content it seems that a lot of recycling got done in previous titles, and Arma 3 has many many more new assets built from the ground up to a correct standard for the game.

There's nothing wrong with taking old content and updating it with better textures and more detail overall (which however isn't the case with L-159). What matters is the end result. ArmA2 had 5 sides and all were mostly unique.

ArmA3 basically has 1.5 sides.

You don't see a lot of complaints about takistani content being recycled on Altis now do you? That's the point. If it fits it fits.

When sides are not only "balanced" to be 1:1 copies of each other even down to loadouts but also look the same - it just doesn't fit. There's simply no excuse that makes it fit.

I think there's even a screenshot showing A2 MLRS vehicles in ArmA3 firing rockets. Yet they got replaced by a crappy frankenstein's monster that makes zero sense in a final version.

Edited September 5, 2013 by metalcraze

[fujix 11]

There's nothing wrong with taking old content and updating it with better textures and more detail overall

Pretty much this. I see alot of people trying to justify Arma 3´s content state with "Arma 2 had alot of reused content". Thats not the point. As metalcraze said there is nothing wrong with taking older assets, improving them and adding them to a new game if it makes sense.

What alot of us complain about is that pretty much all the new content is copy paste of each other. There is almost nothing unique with the current factions. Arma 2 had great asymmetrical balance. Blufor and Opfor were truly unique. In this regard, Arma 3 content is a joke and when developers say that they are going with "quality over quantity" it feels insulting. Same marketing bs that AAA developers say when their new titles have less and less content.

And tbh I dont really see what this so called quality is. Vehicles are pretty much the same as in Arma 2 except new models (no interiors etc). Also take the cockpit from the Blackfoot for example. It looks the same as the Apache in A2.

Edited September 5, 2013 by fujix

[-=seany=- 5]

... where to start?

guess we're bad bad for allowing AiA and supporting it ...

is it fair to count all A2 vehicle variants against A3 non variants (or as some who count CO vs A3 (technically 2 games and 3 DLCs))

nonsense about models c&p (w/o even opening them to compare shapes)

anyway ...

there is some valid critic (wish it was more of that and less ranting) and things and changes are coming but as there is certain 'no promises' policy

i can't promise ;) but i can grin and throw on you goodies {hint who remember me saying stuff coming}... :p

there is lot to fix, improve and deliver ...

Pretty annoying (and insulting) to see a Dev calling our complaints about using copy and paste for all the turrets as nonsense...Within 2 minutes of dropping all the new content onto and airfield to take a look at them, you have a double take and go..."did they really just do this"?

You are saying that they didn't copy and paste the AA turret, the APC turret, and the Artillery turret? (not to mention a lot of other assets).

I can't believe that given no time constraints or other issues we are not aware of that the Arma3 Devs/Modellers/project lead would really choose such lazy asset design and be happy with it. I'm sure they would have wanted unique units. If they didn't, then they are very out of touch with what most Arma fans (and gamers in general) would want or expect.

Aside from looking ridiculous, Target IDing is not going to be easy.

[dm 9]

there is nothing wrong with taking older assets, improving them and adding them to a new game if it makes sense.

Except it takes time... where does that come from?

And dispite what you guys want, BI might not want their build full of ALL THE THINGS just becuase some people on the forum do...

[jgbtl292 0]

greatest shit ever !

[fujix 11]

Except it takes time... where does that come from?

Oh I dont know, during the development maybe?

[dale0404 5]

Oh I dont know, during the development maybe?

I guess you don't keep up with the development process then?

[fujix 11]

I guess you don't keep up with the development process then?

You mean the whole "we decided to do something else" part? What does that have to do with anything? He asked when they should find the time to create content for the game. I replied during the development process.

[Dwarden 1124]

seany, no you read it wrong, it was about some people claiming the A3 content is mostly C&P from previous projects ... (arguing with the L-159 model)

[fujix 11]

seany, no you read it wrong, it was about some people claiming the A3 content is mostly C&P from previous projects ... (arguing with the L-159 model)

I think most people are complaining about the new assets being C&P. Like blufor armored vehicles sharing same hull except for the AMV and the same turrets on multiple vehicles on both sides. That you cant deny :)

[GottyPlays 10]

Except it takes time... where does that come from?

And dispite what you guys want, BI might not want their build full of ALL THE THINGS just becuase some people on the forum do...

And despite what you think, people won't change ideas just because some people on the forum do

[metalcraze 290]

Updating older content takes less time than creating new one from scratch in any case.

Reuse (but update) old content if needed, just make sides unique.

For example M2 Browning is in service for 80 years now and will not go anywhere anytime soon. It's very plausible that many of the outstanding tech in use today will be in use in 20 years.

Seeing stuff like Bradley with better / A3 style camo texture in its unique place will be much more pleasing than taking chassis from Marid and turret from Kamysh and calling it a new vehicle.

[trent 14]

seany, no you read it wrong, it was about some people claiming the A3 content is mostly C&P from previous projects ... (arguing with the L-159 model)

Can't remember anyone claiming that. And they'd certainly have been drowned out by the multiple posts & threads pointing out the C&P between units.

[D_wolf 1]

I hope we get additional content after the game gets it's official release on the 12th September. I really hope Bohemia Interactive isn't planning on releasing the stuff that should be released on the official release day as a future PAID DLC.

Because unfortunately that's pretty much how the game industry works nowadays :( :(

[froggyluv 2130]

I think this "omg it's the new arma" feeling is missing because you, me and many many other people have been playing around with the alpha and later the beta so far and we get used to "new" stuff so quick that this most recent staging of content isn't that much that all (many, some, a few) of us have expected. If you'd preordered this in March and would get the first personal sight on it next Thursday, I think many of us would have exactly that feeling, at least for the first few months, weeks, days, hours (depends on your expectations)

But now it's a bit like getting one of your x-mas gifts in mid november and on x-mas eve one may think "oohhh, you're telling me that's all I get???"... be assured, I feel similar about that.

This is a huge point. People get desensitized to the 'dollar a day' gifts as opposed to someone giving you a lump sum of money at the end. I guess that may be why I'm still so amazed with the final product as I have barely played any of the vehicles in game and have seen only a dot of Altis. But to be fair, Beta testers are supposed to 'break the game', testing everything to give the best feedback.

[eymerich 11]

I don't know.

On one side I feel a bit sad for devs: imagine them come here and read the critics on this forum, some times expressed in a very rude way...

Because of that I can understand some replies of the Devs here even if i can't really say I agree with them (I am refering to the Post in which Bis is doubtful about continue to support the AiA project)..

On the other side, I can't deny i am a bit sad about the content itself since i was really expecting more.

I like the mobile artillery, the Ai is smarter than ever, the graphics are really improved (no more Hdr problem) and Atlis is a masterpiece.

But I have to agree that the unit are too similar in both sides (and I think that they armor should be revised at least) and, compared to Arma 2, the content has been drastically reduced.

One example for all: how can I perform an Halo jump if I have not the plane to eject? I know: i can do that even without the plane but from a game which claim itself to be a simulator i was expecting more (and it's hard to me understand the reason some content of arma2 wasn't ported inArma III).

Or think to the class "object" released in Arma 2 and compare them to the Object released in Arma3: i think we all agree that Arma 2 had more content than Arma 3. And I am not sayng Arma 2 Co: just the first Arma2.

In any case, I hope Bis would consider the importance to continue to support the AiA project considering it could be the answer to most of the critics I have read here and hope they will consider the critics (there always after a game is realesed) acting accordingly.

[zeep 3]

For the price i paid to get Arma3 beta Alpha then, there is no disappointment at all.

[Tyl3r99 41]

The issue I have is the arty tanks and the aa tanks and some others.. It really really looks like they haven't put as much effort into it as they think?? I dunno but it's so obvious it's scary.

Arma 2 vs arma 3

I'm undecided at the moment as a3 gets my vote on the gameplay itself graphics engine etc

But a2 gets my vote on the content and variety

---------- Post added at 18:15 ---------- Previous post was at 18:09 ----------

Just picture this,

You have a piece of paper and cut it into a simple rectangle for arguments sake, then cut out some different turrets etc...

Now, place a turret cut out on top of the rectangle.. Here you have your first tank... Now remove the turret cut out and put on another here is your 2nd.

That's how bad it looks

[danny96 79]

For the price i paid to get Arma3 beta Alpha then, there is no disappointment at all.

Yeah I bought it in first minutes after alpha was released and it was worthy. But still when you talk about content - each side should have unique vehicle weapons (Why all sides have same RCWS model?!) and vehicles should differ with each faction. Each side should have it's pros and cons - But now It's like everything 100% same. This is thing that's probably not gonna be changed. Well, looks like modders will have to finnish the job.

[TSAndrey 1]

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...

[Tyl3r99 41]

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...

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

More of the same chassis?

---------- Post added at 18:46 ---------- Previous post was at 18:44 ----------

There also isn't a lot of weapons regardless of attachments

The NATO has pretty much 1 type of gun and the odd smg.

---------- Post added at 18:47 ---------- Previous post was at 18:46 ----------

If all these new features were on arma 2 then fuck me... That's a game!

Attachments In arma 2

Rag doll arma 2

Im

---------- Post added at 18:49 ---------- Previous post was at 18:47 ----------

If all these new features were on arma 2 then fuck me... That's a game!

Attachments In arma 2

Rag doll arma 2

Improved ai in arma 2

HDR lighting in arma 2

Altis in arma 2 (would actually fit)

I could keep going but I might make myself weep ;)