Reality Check

[Bigby Wolf 10]

There is so much win in the OP I can't handle it. You sir have stated what many people have felt in the community. Thank you.

Yeah, +1, he nailed it!

Even mods on other forums are grudging agreeing that the new Arma sucks for lack of content ( not to mention Sci-Fi). I've got Crysis for that.

---------- Post added at 02:13 ---------- Previous post was at 02:12 ----------

Well having in mind that even now some community people are offering themselves to update A2/AO stuff to A3 for free, so we can all have more toys to play.

Yeah, it could had been a reasonable option. But I guess, they had some pride, and wanted to make it for themselves ( a position that I respect ), but they haven't had enough time/money.

Thats good, but BIS needs to step in and help. There's things we can't do, like put the new physics in the old vehicles.

[mistyronin 1181]

Thats good, but BIS needs to step in and help. There's things we can't do, like put the new physics in the old vehicles.

Totally agree, I was just stating that the community is here, willing to give a hand. BI should help them.

[foffy 58]

If I can chip in my thoughts here...I promise I won't try to offend! Honest.

I feel the reuse of content is just another blemish and an indicator that ArmA III, even presently, is undercooked. I have no idea if I am alone on this but despite the fact the game officially launches on Tuesday, it still seems like a beta, a "taste" of the game, with the only central change now is the term you want to give the build of the game. From the campaign, to the delays of the game as far back as 2012, to the asset reuse, to the tragic holding of staff, I feel that it all adds up that ArmA III in its present state still needs to be built upon. This is what Bohemia has said they plan to do, and for the time being I will believe them. They are some of the best when it comes to supporting products. My personal concern is why release ArmA III as "gold" status on Tuesday. Why couldn't the declaration be made for the game when you have a full experience for launch? The fact that the campaign is coming in chunks only shows to me that this is being officially released way too early, as they don't have all of the pillars one expects with a game launch to be in place.

With all of that being said, I am sure they will use the time they have after launch to start dealing with all of this, assuming that the central thing launch accomplishes is a canvas that will no longer be majorly changed under the hood (but still improved upon). I do hope that whatever expansions are released for ArmA III are announced well after the current underpinnings of the game are all changed. I think you would find it hard for people to be down buying more content that just seems like it's all universally shared between everything else. We should not, under any circumstance, see this type of asset sharing and reuse for any future purchasable content for ArmA III. I can buy the setbacks to the game, but to anything expanding on the game, it must be crucial, almost essential, to not repeat this again. I can buy it for launch, but that's because I know the development hurdles Bohemia has had with ArmA III. I can't buy it if they announce new islands and we're seeing this type of concern all over again.

[mistyronin 1181]

Why couldn't the declaration be made for the game when you have a full experience for launch? The fact that the campaign is coming in chunks only shows to me that this is being officially released way too early, as they don't have all of the pillars one expects with a game launch to be in place.

My theory is that its cuz of the same they released the Alfa and Beta, to get more money to fund the game development.

[foffy 58]

My theory is that its cuz of the same they released the Alfa and Beta, to get more money to fund the game development.

I would suppose that too, but it's to also get feedback on a lot of stuff. Even so, ArmA II has been in some fashion on the top sellers on Steam for well over a year, with specific releases varying. I would have assumed ArmA II over the years netted the company a very large return...how much of that was used on ArmA III? I don't want to use money as the argument for issue, because I assume they have more money to put into ArmA III than any of their other projects. Money means absolutely little if you don't have the internal resources and planning to accomplish things. Look at AAA game development: they often have staff into the two-hundreds, and that's low-balling it. I know a lot of people who dislike AAA games because they feel limited in scope and gameplay, but you have so many people working on them...it's a poor use of human resources in that sense. Resident Evil 6 had, and I kid you not, over 500 people working on it, and that game is an incredibly inconsistent, unfocused experience. I would be willing to firmly bet that Bohemia has a smaller staff working on ArmA III than EA does with Battlefield 4, despite the former having far more open gameplay and scope. But again, this all goes down to how internal resources are used. Wiping content and having two main staff members held in another country can be a major setback for a games development. It's why I can understand a bit of the lazy feeling the main chunk of content seems to have, and the pipeline the expected launch content is coming in.

That being said this is to explain past events to reason the present. This should not be replicated in the future.

Edited September 8, 2013 by Foffy

[HKFlash 9]

The mission set by our CEO, Marek Španěl, was clear: do all we can to release Arma 3 in 2013.

Source

It had to do with preventing the graphics/technology from becoming outdated and because a team can't keep itself motivated for years and years of development which I understand perfectly. Unfortunately I can't remember the source of this statements.

[foffy 58]

I do know of the push for 2013. Even so, why September? There are still months before the end of 2013. Wouldn't the game have more fleshing out and content prepared to for launch if say, it officially released in November? I am not saying to hold the entire game back to 2014, but seeing as Bohemia has aimed for 2013 in some fashion, I do expect to see the campaign completed in the year. Why not say "well, we will not have the game out until everything we're cooking up for a launch is ready" instead of having a launch window period? It gives off the impression that things are not really ready. I brought up this point before, but how will reviewers handle the game when it launches on Tuesday? What can they say of the campaign? Assuming it's in episodes that don't feel like actual episodes (they've said very little on how the campaign flows) are reviewers going to hold back on talking about it, or mention the fact that it's only a part and the rest is presently not ready? I know ArmA II was hammered by a number of sites for the buggy campaign, so it's not too far-fetched to assume reviewers will look at that and make a call on it.

[daze23 1]

My theory is that its cuz of the same they released the Alfa and Beta, to get more money to fund the game development.

the problem is now they're really not gonna see a lot of money at launch. I don't think the prospect of paying full price for a campaign-less game is going to motivate too many people that haven't already purchased the alpha/beta.

[mistyronin 1181]

the problem is now they're really not gonna see a lot of money at launch. I don't think the prospect of paying full price for a campaign-less game is going to motivate too many people that haven't already purchased the alpha/beta.

My guess is that they needed urgently the money at that point ( it was when most of the fans bought it ), maybe to hire stuff, pay the voice actors, the translations, or whatever. Btw, people who buy the game will still get the campaign when its released.

[daze23 1]

Btw, people who buy the game will still get the campaign when its released.

might as well buy it right now (it's still at the discounted beta price), or wait for the campaign, when the game might be cheaper/on sale. I'm saying, what's going to motivate someone to buy it on the 12th?

[mistyronin 1181]

I'm saying, what's going to motivate someone to buy it on the 12th?

As far as I now, the only reason to buy it on the 12th is to have the physical copy ( people that doesn't have credit card )

[progamer 14]

Yeah, +1, he nailed it!

Even mods on other forums are grudging agreeing that the new Arma sucks for lack of content ( not to mention Sci-Fi). I've got Crysis for that.

---------- Post added at 02:13 ---------- Previous post was at 02:12 ----------

Thats good, but BIS needs to step in and help. There's things we can't do, like put the new physics in the old vehicles.

What sci-fi vehicles are in game other an the Kajmin and the design of the ghosthawk? The Ifrit is a Russian police vehicle prototype.

[mbbird 11]

What sci-fi vehicles are in game other an the Kajmin and the design of the ghosthawk? The Ifrit is a Russian police vehicle prototype.

Well to be fair, all of the vehicles are feasible, but that doesn't mean reuse of turrets, vehicles, or weaponry across factions is anything more than (unfeasible) fiction.

However while it's a related problem it doesn't appear to be what he's talking about, so don't mind me haha.

Edited September 8, 2013 by mbbird

[lordprimate 159]

I'm saying, what's going to motivate someone to buy it on the 12th?

All the media hype...

[Varanon 892]

Well to be fair, all of the vehicles are feasible, but that doesn't mean reuse of turrets, vehicles, or weaponry across factions is anything more than (unfeasible) fiction.

Yep, and even well designed. For me personally, it's really the copy and paste, especially with the autonomous vehicles, and the similar turrets on some.

[Rough Knight 9]

Far out. What kind of this is the kind of response from ARMA fans. If you guys aren't happy, perhaps BIS have raised the bar of expectation too high in the past.

Personally I am relatively happy with what we have. As mentioned loads of other places, the improvements like MP playability, huge land areas, PhysX etc etc.

I hope to see some more optimisations for performance in the future, my rig is a little sluggish on Altis.

Sent from my GT-I9100T using Tapatalk 4

Edited September 8, 2013 by Rough Knight
Cleanup phone typo's to make some sense.

[dale0404 5]

I think it is fair to say, the game is being released on Thursday and by that I mean THIS Thursday coming. ie, Thursday 12th September 2013. It is about time people stop saying that the launch needs to be delayed because it is coming on Thursday 12th September 2013. Did I make myself clear enough for everyone?

[mistyronin 1181]

I think it is fair to say, the game is being released on Thursday and by that I mean THIS Thursday coming. ie, Thursday 12th September 2013. It is about time people stop saying that the launch needs to be delayed because it is coming on Thursday 12th September 2013. Did I make myself clear enough for everyone?

It's like trying to stop a train with bare hands. As far as I know, the physical game has already been made in the factories and even distributed ( some guy on another post claim that he already has a physical copy ).

BTW the devs had already stated that they will keep working on the dev branch and the campaign will be released ( for free ) in the next months with some additional stuff. So, for all the matters even if the game is released, it would be like if it's still be like a extended beta until we get all the content that was supposed to be on release.

And even after that BI is famous to keep fixing the game and even sometimes delivering some things for free...

[dogbadger 1]

I think it is fair to say, the game is being released on Thursday and by that I mean THIS Thursday coming. ie, Thursday 12th September 2013. It is about time people stop saying that the launch needs to be delayed because it is coming on Thursday 12th September 2013. Did I make myself clear enough for everyone?

Most people are of the understanding that by contributing here they are not actually directly lobbying the developer, and have practically zero influence over them.

The release date may well be set in stone, however regardless ppl still have the right to express thier opinion on when they consider the best time for full release, based on their understanding of the game's situation thusfar.

What you in danger of making clear enough is the fact that you dislike people doing just that.

[Fulcrum90 10]

It's like trying to stop a train with bare hands. As far as I know, the physical game has already been made in the factories and even distributed ( some guy on another post claim that he already has a physical copy ).

BTW the devs had already stated that they will keep working on the dev branch and the campaign will be released ( for free ) in the next months with some additional stuff. So, for all the matters even if the game is released, it would be like if it's still be like a extended beta until we get all the content that was supposed to be on release.

And even after that BI is famous to keep fixing the game and even sometimes delivering some things for free...

I would be happy if someone from BIS finally adressed all the unhappy fans. Maybe announcing some kind of roadmap for additional content. (Doesnt have to be free, Im willing to accept that we only paid for improved gamplay + graphics).

But at the moment it looks like "at some point" we will get the campaign, propably the F-35 will be reintegrated...And then what?

[M2rine 10]

BTW those who think "quality over quantity" checks in and are saying, that they'd rather had 2 well made tanks instead of bunch... they really need some rethinking

Edit

I reckon BIS made some "changes" about it so I made second revision of my presentation so noone can say "it's working now"

Edited September 8, 2013 by M2rine

[OrLoK 20]

Hello there

I think many of us did have very high expectations of what was to come due to the stupendousness of A2 (warts and all).

I think I also over imagined what was to come and I am a little disappointed. But I really do like the game and think its a great step forward.

Its not perfect and many things I personally assumed would be in it (purely my fault) but it is a great game.

Whether it will remain as my goto "sim" remains to be seen, lets see where the future takes us.

Rgds

LoK

[Varanon 892]

But I really do like the game and think its a great step forward.

In what respects, other than graphics ? I see this "It's better than Arma 2" or "It's a great step forward" so often, but while the people that thing Arma 2 was better can point out exactly why they think that way, the "others" can't tell why they think it's better.

[murraywcourt 10]

Quality before quantity is my firm opinions for A3. The static weapons have excellent character animations to go with them, that will also be compatible with a user made KORD mg, in the long run we will have FBI's underlying quality complimented by the quantity made more accessible by the workshop.

[De_little_Bubi 1]

In what respects, other than graphics ? I see this "It's better than Arma 2" or "It's a great step forward" so often, but while the people that thing Arma 2 was better can point out exactly why they think that way, the "others" can't tell why they think it's better.

The gear management for example: http://83clan.com/armaGear/index.html