Reality Check

[mbbird 11]

I love arma 3 and all, but the release of the sandbox content really woke me up. It seems to have jolted a portion of you guys too, because some are starting to speak out against the really weird and lazy things BI has had going on lately. Perhaps it wouldn't be brought up at all if the platform were as stable as it maybe should, but nonetheless:

I apologize for the image quality, as 100kb is a tad difficult to work around, but it saves you lot 10 clicks.

Disclaimer: This is called being facetious, thanks. If I offended you, stop, because video games shouldn't do that anyway. I love Arma, but reality check people. To not mention the above would be unfair. The above standing, I'm also excited to make missions/play with this new shit, but again, this can't go unsaid.

Edited September 6, 2013 by mbbird

[mistyronin 1181]

Though I get the point of your post, and I'm partially agree ( even the presentation with screens is quite good ). I can't agree with the manners.

Calling the new models shit to me it's quite offensive, it's true that they are right now repetitive, but shit? The models and textures are quite awesome IMO.

And some 3d modelers have worked on them for hours.

And I do believe that more than laziness, the problem with BI was lack of time ( due to all the facts we already know ). I'm sure that if it was for them,

they would have add more vehicles and the campaign. And judging by the past games, they are gonna fix all the issues and add more content for free.

BTW the screen where you say it looks like Arma 1, in my PC at least, I can see it way better, way better.

[mbbird 11]

Though I get the point of your post, and I'm partially agree ( even the presentation with screens is quite good ). I can't agree with the manners.

Calling the new models shit to me it's quite offensive, it's true that they are right now repetitive, but shit? The models and textures are quite awesome IMO.

And some 3d modelers have worked on them for hours.

And I do believe that more than laziness, the problem with BI was lack of time ( due to all the facts we already know ). I'm sure that if it was for them,

they would have add more vehicles and the campaign. And judging by the past games, they are gonna fix all the issues and add more content for free.

BTW the screen where you say it looks like Arma 1, in my PC at least, I can see it way better, way better.

A few things (and here I was telling myself I wouldn't even respond past the OP):

1. I'm not calling the models shit. Not at all. They're good models. They're also reused and recycled FAR too much. So in a sense, they're of less quality not because of the modeler's work, but because of the content directors' decisions (and subsequent lack of work). That's the purpose of any critiques on the content I have there; the reusing and recycling is obnoxious.

2. A lot of the models and textures we're seeing in the content right now were seemingly created 1 or 2 years ago. The difference between laziness and lack of time is the amount of work pumped out. They had a fair amount of time. Perhaps they have less modelers than I think, but the situation with the turrets, RCWS, drones, ships etc is terrible.

3. I'm referring to the reticle/sprite used for tank guns, not the grass or bushes in the picture in which I reference Arma 1. Another (minor, but boring) piece of content reused across factions.

And finally, yes, we will get copious amounts of post release support. But BI has shown a liking to paid DLC with small amounts of content. EG: Czech DLC (of which a turret and 2 vehicles were directly ported to Arma 3. Insulting), BAF DLC, etc. I'd rather have an acceptable amount of content at release than have to pay $15 to get proper res textures for them some 4-6 months post release. It's a worry and a consideration: BI has done paid DLC before.

[minimalaco 30]

You forget the civilians "factions"....too funny.

civilian1 africans vs civilian1 europe... u mad ????

http://i42.tinypic.com/3026yj9.jpg

[CombatComm1 10]

So you are probably going to get a lot of shit about this post but you are right it needs to be said, and it has, by a great majority of the community. I have seen some of the staunchest, oldest, and most active members here voice dissapointment.

But, I like that you SHOWED it, and sadly it really brings it home in the pictures. The boats especially. I can MAYBE MAYBE like .00001 percent believe in some crazy "In 2016 the US invades Iran and after some nation buildings sells them a crapload of US (western style) chassis blah blah." But WE DO NOT usually give out our best top of the line stuff. We sell our older stuff. And usually not SPEC OPs things like Navy SEAL SWCC boats to them. Honestly I am flabbergasted the Iraqis were sold M1A1 Abrams. Granted not the "fully loaded" version.

BIS have done some amazing things with graphics (environment) and I know they will do more but this is just plain nuts. I dont feel that they need more time I think they need more people but I've already voiced that concern various times. Most of their models are great. A notice a lot more inconsistency with the textures so definitely more artist. But even so the model copy and pasting between factions is so boring, lackluster and uninspired.

The vibe I am thankfully starting to get from the few dev comments since this great (and nessecary) uproar is that they will either help support AiA harder or release more for free as the campaigns come out. We know BIS is capable talent wise. I do at least.

[marcai 1]

Funnily, vehicle textures have been a bit of a bugbear of mine since release. I love flying helos (along with 90% of the community, it seems), and compared to the high-res textures we have on the dashboard of the little bird, the horrible low res rivets that take up a portion of the left side of your vision could be better, especially as it will always be in your line of sight whilst playing. Exterior textures or bits that won't be seen too often can stay this quality, but a quick touch-up would improve the quality of the cockpit greatly, imho.

Same goes for the new tanks, actually. Not played the latest dev build much yet, but in the quick test drive I got I turned out of the Slammer to find that the textures that were immediately in front of me were a bit low res. Again, its not a major issue (or really an issue at all 90% of the time), it's just a small touch that I wish had been implemented to improve polish.

As for OP's post, I had a bit of a giggle, and I assume eve those working at BI could see the humour in it. It does suck that we're lacking in variety at the moment, and I'm sure everyone is aware of it- especially now we can play with all of the planned content for release. It seems a hot topic on the forums at the moment, and so I'm sure it will be addressed in a future patch, or at least in an update. If it isn't, hey, the game's pretty damned modular; I'm sure someone else will do it!

[CombatComm1 10]

Funnily, vehicle textures have been a bit of a bugbear of mine since release. I love flying helos (along with 90% of the community, it seems), and compared to the high-res textures we have on the dashboard of the little bird, the horrible low res rivets that take up a portion of the left side of your vision could be better, especially as it will always be in your line of sight whilst playing. Exterior textures or bits that won't be seen too often can stay this quality, but a quick touch-up would improve the quality of the cockpit greatly, imho.

Same goes for the new tanks, actually. Not played the latest dev build much yet, but in the quick test drive I got I turned out of the Slammer to find that the textures that were immediately in front of me were a bit low res. Again, its not a major issue (or really an issue at all 90% of the time), it's just a small touch that I wish had been implemented to improve polish.

As for OP's post, I had a bit of a giggle, and I assume eve those working at BI could see the humour in it. It does suck that we're lacking in variety at the moment, and I'm sure everyone is aware of it- especially now we can play with all of the planned content for release. It seems a hot topic on the forums at the moment, and so I'm sure it will be addressed in a future patch, or at least in an update. If it isn't, hey, the game's pretty damned modular; I'm sure someone else will do it!

Yah some of the cockpit instrument panels are down right awful, most CERTAINLY from OFP. And then again, some of pretty impressive ie. ghost hawk. It's the incosistancy that bothers me most. Why would you want to bring down your great exteriors or you great main instrument panel texture with a god awful center console or cyclic?

[horrorview 10]

Man, while I don't agree with everything you said, that last image...about the fedoras...oh my god, I've been cackling here like a madman for the last ten minutes. Well played, sir. Well played.

[phlux1 10]

I agree with everything you've pointed out and I want more unique assets, I'm just not happy with the community making out that BIS are worse than hitler over all this. They've allowed people to work on AiA which is a hugely awesome gesture and they've promised more content in the coming months, all for a game that cost me $30. They haven't stopped working on the game and they never will, for people who claim to have played since OFP you all sure have a short term memory. When I bought Arma 2, I immediately stopped playing after a week, I picked it up again over a year later and it had improved dramatically.

The price is right for what is on offer and what BIS are promising, they support the game, they support the community, they do more than a lot of other devs in this regard. We all wish we could have more and what's more is we will get it and probably a lot sooner than a lot of you think.

[HKFlash 9]

While I don't like to beat a dead horse (because this horse about the artist's assets has been beaten to death) I believe that, after this month's 12th, when the game is finally released and the dust settles, Bohemia Interactive will need to do an urgent rethinking and reflexion about the content development.

We are just not used to this: its the first time in the series that so many content has been reused and reskinned. But wait, its not just the vehicles, even the armored crewmen helmets are identical between CSAT and NATO, save for the cammo pattern.

Plans change. Priorities change. But the truth is that in the this series previous games that I did play, Operation Flashpoint and ARMA2, this just didn't happen. Remember the AA vehicles? Tunguska and Avenger, completly different. Or the heavy machine guns, the KORD and the M2. Or the armored vehicle sights for that matter! It really added flavour to each faction and made play them unique.

I believe that Pettka's team has done a great job when it comes to the configuration of the content. Sure there is room for improvement but his team must know the ASRAAM maximum angle of attack, the 6.5 mm round ballistic curve or the maximum speed of a quadbike. But again they are doing a very good job and its such a shame to see that now that BIS gave priority to content configuration, the content artistical assets suffered such a major blow.

Edited September 6, 2013 by HKFlash
Grammar

[bez 10]

I agree with everything you've pointed out and I want more unique assets, I'm just not happy with the community making out that BIS are worse than hitler over all this. They've allowed people to work on AiA which is a hugely awesome gesture and they've promised more content in the coming months, all for a game that cost me $30. They haven't stopped working on the game and they never will, for people who claim to have played since OFP you all sure have a short term memory. When I bought Arma 2, I immediately stopped playing after a week, I picked it up again over a year later and it had improved dramatically.

The price is right for what is on offer and what BIS are promising, they support the game, they support the community, they do more than a lot of other devs in this regard. We all wish we could have more and what's more is we will get it and probably a lot sooner than a lot of you think.

Though I agree with the OP, I must say I agree with you also my good sir.

And I think there are other game bugs and features need fixing before people complain about the amount of content.

[phlux1 10]

I believe that Pettka's team has done a great job when it comes to the configuration of the content. Sure there is room for improvement but his team must know the ASRAAM maximum angle of attack, the 6.5 mm round ballistic curve or the maximum speed of a quadbike. But again they are doing a very good job and its such a shame to see that now that BIS gave priority to content configuration, the content artistical assets suffered such a major blow.

At the beginning of development people were begging BIS to focus on optimization and making the game play well. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Also, the artists have done a fantastic job with Altis and it's easy to see where their focus has been.

[HKFlash 9]

At the beginning of development people were begging BIS to focus on optimization and making the game play well. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Don't point your finger at me, I never asked for optimization though of course I welcome it.

[phlux1 10]

Don't point your finger at me, I never asked for optimization though of course I welcome it.

But why should BIS listen to you specifically and not the overwhelming majority of people at the time? The controls were the main thing that stopped ARMA from ever doing well, it always felt really clunky compared to other FPS games. Obviously there is a lot more depth, but they've shown with ARMA III that they can do it.

Like I said, I wish there were more assets too and BIS have stated that they are on the way. I don't know what else to say, we all wish they were there at release but that's just not how it panned out.

[HKFlash 9]

But why should BIS listen to you specifically and not the overwhelming majority of people at the time?

Did I ask BIS to listen just to me? NO! So stop mocking me about that optimization stuff. I never asked for it. I never asked them to listen only to me.

Like I said, I wish there were more assets too and BIS have stated that they are on the way. I don't know what else to say, we all wish they were there at release but that's just not how it panned out.

Source or it did not happen.

[dezkit 28]

Man. Great post! But I hate red text. You need to make it white Impact with black border.

[marcai 1]

I agree with everything you've pointed out and I want more unique assets, I'm just not happy with the community making out that BIS are worse than hitler over all this.

Whilst I agree with this post in its entirity, the following post I do not:

At the beginning of development people were begging BIS to focus on optimization and making the game play well. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Also, the artists have done a fantastic job with Altis and it's easy to see where their focus has been.

I don't think the community is asking for much when they say "Please can we have a game that we can both play, and also has things to play with?" In fact, that's pretty much what is expected of games: to be playable and entertaining. Yes there was a massive outcry fior a focus on performance but what is performance without content, or vice-versa? People are merely frustrated that they have this pretty amazing game to play with, but very little to give it life as of yet.

[phlux1 10]

Did I ask BIS to listen just to me? NO! So stop mocking me about that optimization stuff. I never asked for it. I never asked them to listen only to me.

Source or it did not happen.

I'm not mocking you, calm down.

http://beta.arma3.com/sitrep-00021

There has been a lot of talk within the community about the release package and assets perceived as missing, most notably more fixed-wing aircraft. We are planning to release more content in patches, besides the campaign itself.

A lot of you should take some time out to read that, it addresses a lot of the issues you all seem to have.

Whilst I agree with this post in its entirity, the following post I do not:

I don't think the community is asking for much when they say "Please can we have a game that we can both play, and also has things to play with?"

No they are not, I'm disappointed too, but it isn't going to ruin my life. They have already explained themselves and there is no need to continue to beat a dead horse, how many threads do we need to have about this?

Edited September 6, 2013 by Phlux1

[HKFlash 9]

http://beta.arma3.com/sitrep-00021

A lot of you should take some time out to read that, it addresses a lot of the issues you all seem to have.

The fixed wing aircraft for NATO and CSAT I knew of a long time ago. It was obvious they would come sooner or later. But I'm not so sure about replacement of current reused content. I'll believe it when they specifically announce it. The statement from Joris is just too vague.

[phlux1 10]

The statement from Joris is just too vague.

It really isn't, it means exactly what it says.

Maybe click the link and read the whole thing, they break down the entire situation.

[HKFlash 9]

It really isn't, it means exactly what it says.

So which content are they referring to exactly, aside from of course the fixed wing aircraft? My interpretation is that its a vague statement. Period. To each their own.

And I understand, no I understand perfectly why they are being vague! They don't want to promise stuff they won't deliver. A wise man once said: underpromise, overdeliver. Let's hope that is the case for this (messy) situation.

[phlux1 10]

They really aren't being vague at all...

[HKFlash 9]

They really aren't being vague at all...

Yeah dude whatever...

[phlux1 10]

During our project review last year, we significantly changed the direction of the project - we feel for the better (details in the blog). This included a significant iteration of what we refer to as the ORBAT - our list of vehicles and weapons. Our priorities changed: building the game up from the infantry level, to combined arms support, and now arriving at the larger war. This led to certain assets being moved down in the priority list, a few being removed, but also entirely new and splendid content being commissioned (Ghosthawk, Darter, Ifrit, Marid, Kamysh, Zafir, etc.). The setting and factions also changed - resulting in assets previously shown on screenshots as OPFOR to become BLUFOR (Hunter, Slammer, Panther, etc.), along with some more faction reshuffling.

A few assets seen in screenshots and other media were taken well before the project review, when Arma 3 was a different game. We remain convinced the changes were for the better. It wasn't optimal to show placeholder and prototype content before we knew we could finish it. This has also led to a renewed stance to public statements - not confirming or announcing content before we are quite sure about it (starting October 2012). Specifically vehicles like the F-38 (as we called it), were only ever placeholder assets taken from Arma 2, and used to showcase flight and the new clouds, as well as to test fixed-wing PhysX. They were meant to be significantly updated or re-done to match, but due to a shift in priorities, not finished in time. There was no ill-intent when showing them - rather overly ambitious goals, enthusiasm and a desire to share development progress.

Adding content post-release is not necessarily new for our games, and a tradition we've stuck with ever since OFP Cold War Crisis. Veterans may remember the free Ultimate Upgrade packages adding major vehicles such as the Su-25, Chinook, Vulcan AA, Kozlice shotgun and more. Another example was the addition of Warfare mode and USMC units to Arma 1. Some of the content will be brand-new and some is finished content shown in the past. Top priority for the artists now are two Close Air Support fixed-wing beasts, one for both primary factions. And there is more cool stuff to come!

And here is the blog entry they talk about which you should all read

This is has all been explained, you are all wasting time and energy, as am I obviously.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Phlux1
grammar

[-=seany=- 5]

I agree with the OP, nice screens to highlight just how ridiculous it looks too. The models are good, but the re-use of assets is insane. Particularly among the tracked vehicles and vehicle turrets. I just don't understand why they have done this. What bothers me more is I really doubt they will do anything about it, I mean it is quite a large part of the game. I don't mind one minor faction (independent) sharing assets, it normally makes sense this way anyway. But all three sharing so much? Please BIS give us some visual variety!

I hadn't even realized yet that all the UAVs are also copies and static defenses too. Very lame and very disappointing. Is there even any logical reason as to why two complete different waring factions are using the same assets?

Aside from look cheap and boring, Friendly fire is going to be an issue.