BIS vision for Arma 3 and possible future installations

[fujix 11]

I am curious what kind of vision the developers have for this game. Developers have many times stated that they went with a different direction during development and this is very clear in the gameplay for Arma 3.

Arma 2 was kind of realistic in some aspects as it had game mechanics that tried to simulate realistic situations. Even tho alot of the gameplay was very arcade like (tab lock for example), it had many mechanics that tried to replicate real life.

When comparing Arma 2 to Arma 3 we see that alot of these mechanics have either been removed or that they have been "dumbed down", for lack of a better term. Now dont get me wrong. Alot of things are really good with Arma 3. They have made many improvements to the engine and added alot of very nice new features. But certain design choices have made me wondering what the direction of Arma 3 is.

Some examples are:

Player suppression. When getting shot at your crosshair would start swaying making it harder for you to hit targets.

Wounding system. When a player would be shot in the arm your aim would get worse, adding sway. Getting shot in the leg made you unable to walk. Aid module that rendered you incapacitated. A medic was required to bring you back to "life".

Fatigue penalties. Running long distances increased your sway making you less effective in a firefight without resting first.

Faction asymmetrical balance. Blufor and Opfor had their strengths and weaknesses. Each faction had a unique gameplay.

Probably more stuff that I cant think of now. If others come up with anything please let me know. :)

Now all of the above examples are either completely removed or have been "dumbed down". Player suppression does not exists any more. Introduction of FAKs have rendered medics basically useless. Getting shot doesnt have a penalty except for graphical effects that can be ignored. Same with fatigue. And factions are exactly mirrored creating no unique gameplay between them.

Me personally when seeing the changes in Arma 3 it feels like they are "dumbing down", of if you prefer, streamlining and making the game more accessible to make it more attractive to a more casual playstyle and to the masses.

Now Im not judging BIS, they do what they want after all, but it feels like after the success with dayZ and Arma franchise getting more attention, they are going in a different direction with the Arma to attract a wider playerbase. Now you cant blame a company for wanting to make more money obviously.

So my question to BIS, what kind of vision do you have for Arma 3 and possible future installations? Because the vision has clearly changed from Arma 2.

This is no bash or whine, its a sincere question. Hoping for an answer :)

Edited September 6, 2013 by fujix

[accapella 1]

BLUFOR and OPFOR now atleast have an equal arsenal available. It's up to the mission makers decision to create asymmetrical gameplay. Before you could ONLY create asymmetrical scenarios due to OPFOR gear being hopelessly outmatched and the opfor t90s tanks being nerfed to all hell (some people made research and saw that BIS should've infact had higher armor values configured than the blufor m1a1 tanks).

Fatigue penalties seem to still be there and worse than ever before.

Wounding system is probably to come I hope.

Readding player suppression could be a good idea.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Helari

[Lucasmnunesk 2]

Talking about fatigue its hitting really hard, even as a default civilian you barely can sprint or even jog until you get exhausted.

But from the previous titles i believe ArmA 3 will be adjusted, i believe the development wasn't smooth with those problems that we know, i believe it had even more issues that didn't went public. And BIS seems to be worried about the community they keep in touch and answer some questions, i believe many things that they don't answer is because they aren't sure if they will be able to do, like the Wounding system, since if they promise it people will keep demanding it to be released and whatever.

I'm a little worried with the release and what will come after it, but i still believe ArmA3 will be awesome!

[fujix 11]

BLUFOR and OPFOR now atleast have an equal arsenal available. It's up to the mission makers decision to create asymmetrical gameplay. Before you could ONLY create asymmetrical scenarios due to OPFOR gear being hopelessly outmatched and the opfor t90s tanks being nerfed to all hell (some people made research and saw that they should've infact had higher armor values configured than the blufor m1a1 tanks).

I agree that Blufor and Opfor being at an equal technological level is great. That actually bothered me in Arma 2. Russian hardware was overall older compared to more modern weaponry that Blufor had access to. So in that regard Im very pleased with Arma 3.

The problem in Arma 3 is that the sides are mirrored. Thats a big difference. They can be at the same tech level but still have strengths and weaknesses. Lets do a comparison with Arma 2:

Opfor light vehicles < Blufor light vehicles

Opfor IFVs > Blufor IFVs

Opfor tanks < Blufor tanks

Opfor air < Blufor air

Opfor AA > Blufor air

Ka-52 > everything :D

As you can see each side was strong in different areas making gameplay unique and fun. In Arma 3 both sides are 100% equal. In all areas which is boring imho. Hope you understand what Im trying to say :)

Fatigue penalties seem to still be there and worse than ever before.

Yes fatigue still exists but adds no gameplay penalties. Only graphical which can be ignored.

[chortles 263]

Yes fatigue still exists but adds no gameplay penalties. Only graphical which can be ignored.

Other than the severely reduced sprint times and increased recovery duration for even default loadouts? That's what both Lucas and myself noticed.

[accapella 1]

If you have not noticed the aim sway becomes very dramatic and shooting very difficult at longer ranges.

[fujix 11]

Guys please, there are other topics to discuss sway and fatigue. I know i mentioned both as examples in the op but that was to highlight that game is very different from Arma 2. This thread is more about what direction the series will take with Arma 3 and any future installments. I think we can most of us can agree that Arma 3 plays very differently from Arma 2. Question is can we expect more "mainstream" from the future from Bohemia?

[liquidpinky 11]

Question is can we expect more "mainstream" from the future from Bohemia?

So why didn't you ask that in the first place?

As soon as people give you though out answers you decide to just change the subject or sweep it under the carpet.

Have you thought that maybe mainstream has come more to the authentic or simulator side of things, tired with bullshit arcadey representations of what war should be and want to get a taste of the real deal.

Say Arma never changes but mainstream does?

[fujix 11]

So why didn't you ask that in the first place?

As soon as people give you though out answers you decide to just change the subject or sweep it under the carpet.

Have you thought that maybe mainstream has come more to the authentic or simulator side of things, tired with bullshit arcadey representations of what war should be and want to get a taste of the real deal.

Say Arma never changes but mainstream does?

I did ask it in the first place.

I also replied to what you refer to as though out answers. Some were not really answers to my main question. Main question was future vision about Arma. Not detailed analysis of fatigue, which is discussed in other threads. I dont want this thread to go into detailed discussion on fatigue and thats where this thread was going. Hence my previous post. Do I dont see where I try to change the subject at all. Maybe you should learn to read?

There will of course be a certain amount of players that want a change from say BF or CoD.

A good example is dayZ. Alot of players that got attracted to it was because of the sandbox aspect and that it was unforgiving and hard. 90% of todays games hold your hand where dayZ kicked you in the balls. Many gamers say it as a fresh wind.

But if you think for one second that the mainstream crowd will change for the better you are really naive my friend. Majority will not.

How I see it now, Arma is changing and aligning slightly more towards "arcade" then previous games in the series. I guess it is to attract more casual players to increase Arma playerbase and increase revenue to the company. Which of course, is perfectly understandable even tho some fans do not agree with the changes to the game.

[liquidpinky 11]

I did ask it in the first place.

I also replied to what you refer to as though out answers. Some were not really answers to my main question. Main question was future vision about Arma. Not detailed analysis of fatigue, which is discussed in other threads. I dont want this thread to go into detailed discussion on fatigue and thats where this thread was going. Hence my previous post. Do I dont see where I try to change the subject at all. Maybe you should learn to read?

There will of course be a certain amount of players that want a change from say BF or CoD.

A good example is dayZ. Alot of players that got attracted to it was because of the sandbox aspect and that it was unforgiving and hard. 90% of todays games hold your hand where dayZ kicked you in the balls. Many gamers say it as a fresh wind.

But if you think for one second that the mainstream crowd will change for the better you are really naive my friend. Majority will not.

How I see it now, Arma is changing and aligning slightly more towards "arcade" then previous games in the series. I guess it is to attract more casual players to increase Arma playerbase and increase revenue to the company. Which of course, is perfectly understandable even tho some fans do not agree with the changes to the game.

Naive I am not my friend, I go through life with my eyes open.

I don't necessarily agree the decisions were made on revenue basis, other companies maybe, but not BIS as they are still technically their own publisher.

I think a lot of the dissatisfaction may be caused by the "Snakes on a Plane" syndrome where too much customer input is regarded instead of letting BIS getting on with things and fulfilling their vision for the game.

There are a lot of tickets for them to trawl through that are at best described as shite, must take them an age to just find ones worthwhile to sort.

Some good came out of it but some bad also.

I think the customers interference has become a problem, too many Chefs spoil the broth.

[fujix 11]

Naive I am not my friend, I go through life with my eyes open.

I don't necessarily agree the decisions were made on revenue basis, other companies maybe, but not BIS as they are still technically their own publisher.

I think a lot of the dissatisfaction may be caused by the "Snakes on a Plane" syndrome where too much customer input is regarded instead of letting BIS getting on with things and fulfilling their vision for the game.

There are a lot of tickets for them to trawl through that are at best described as shite, must take them an age to just find ones worthwhile to sort.

Some good came out of it but some bad also.

I think the customers interference has become a problem, too many Chefs spoil the broth.

I get your point about to much customer interference. That might be the case who knows. And yes the clutter in the feedback tracker is insane. Everything from coax mg should be 2½ cm more to the left on tank to OMG sniperrifle OP nerf NAOW!!!111

I think with the success of dayZ there came alot of "new blood" to the franchise. For better or worse. This certainly has increased the playerbase but also created a broader view on what Arma should be.

In one camp you have the milsimers dating back from OFP. Then you have the "hybrid" players. That want some degree of realism but not as much as the milsimers. Then you have players that lean more towards the arcade side. Players that for example think that artificial gun balance should be introduced so no weapon is "overpowered", ignoring real life statistics of said gun.

This is pure speculation but since the Arma playerbase has had such an increase and alot of new players have a very different view on how a game should be (the more arcade camp), I think they try to cater to all the camps at the same time. This ofcourse will fail miserably because you cant satisfy everyone. Not when their expectations differ so much.

And yes it is true that BI are their own publisher and not governed by greedy capitalist scum (;)) ala EA, but they ofcourse like money. As do all humans on this planets.

By changing Arma and make it more appealing to the mainstream crowd, they can increase their revenue. Imho there are signs of this in Arma 3.

Edited September 7, 2013 by fujix

[chortles 263]

Funny thing is, stuff like "coax mg should be 2½ cm more to the left on tank" reminds me of Dwarden's answer as to BI not using real-world licensed names for Arma 3:

creative freedom ... and savior from fanatics demanding that the IR reflector is 5cm to left from chaff ejection port and not 10 as in game ...

I will say this re: "going mainstream"... frankly, one is going more mainstream just by improving the game's "usability", which I recognize is something round-about unflattering about Arma 2. ;)

It's a matter of the details, really, seeing as you distinguish between "the milsimers" versus the "hybrid" players, and how you acknowledge that how DayZ got popular and drew people was by the mix of "it's really sandbox" (I know at least one Arma 3 dev has discussed the difference between open-world and sandbox) combined with an unapologetically brutal gameplay design compared to "more mainstream" games, even if that was mainly "a zombie layer under which Arma 2: OA lay"... yet presented in a format that that, frankly, was more appealing to "mainstream gamers" than a military theme. :p

I would definitely suggest though that there was shift away from "promoting" of "military simulator" and more about "sandbox", in the sense of more acknowledging of just how wildly divergent from "milsim" some modders can get, yet how those modders' work can itself by other players' "gateway" into Arma... for example, I had a friend laughing his ass off when I showed him Hide and Seek:

But he said almost immediately that "it" (Arma 2) looked like PlayStation 2 graphics... ;)

[suprememodder 11]

So why didn't you ask that in the first place?

As soon as people give you though out answers you decide to just change the subject or sweep it under the carpet.

Have you thought that maybe mainstream has come more to the authentic or simulator side of things, tired with bullshit arcadey representations of what war should be and want to get a taste of the real deal.

Say Arma never changes but mainstream does?

have battlefield and call of duty games become more tacticla and complex? no, they've not, so i'm not sure where you base your assumption on. in the late 90s and early ought the simulation genre was the most successful in the game industry but it has all but disappeared due to being financially unfeasible. so once again, where's your evidence that the marketing trend is moving towards more authenticity and realism when it's clearly the opposite?

[metalcraze 290]

If anyone of you have seen today's and any of the recent DayZ devblogs - it's tons more realistic than ArmA3 will ever be. Even with mods.

The video reinforces the fact that whatever vision for ArmA3 as a real milsim that was there - is now gone to DayZ together with the people responsible for ArmA being ArmA.

I mean DayZ got ammo repacking, ballistic armor and items you are wearing blocking bullets and getting damaged as you get shot (compare that to our primitive 100 hp system), advanced wounding system, more advanced attachment system and so on so forth.

And you say DayZ brought in casual players when in fact it's a lot more hardcore than any ArmA game to date.

It's almost as if ArmA3 gets shafted so badly so no "free" DayZ ports to it will ever be on par with a paid version.

[liquidpinky 11]

have battlefield and call of duty games become more tacticla and complex? no, they've not, so i'm not sure where you base your assumption on. in the late 90s and early ought the simulation genre was the most successful in the game industry but it has all but disappeared due to being financially unfeasible. so once again, where's your evidence that the marketing trend is moving towards more authenticity and realism when it's clearly the opposite?

Was just tongue in cheek to get a reaction out of the OP, as it turns out we are further on in the discussion now and things have got more interesting. Catch up, you will like it, or not probably.

@Chortles: The general dumbing down to make it a one man loves all sandbox could be the problem right there. They don't wont to alienate future customer bases by deciding once and for all what they are and sticking too it. I think they should, they need to say "this is milsim sandbox" or in fact whatever they decide what the RV4 now is and stick to it. We will respect them more and they surely then will be able to head in the direction they see fit for the game.

You can't please everyone, but I think at least the devs should be sure in where they are headed instead of bouncing off the wall like they are now.

I think the future setting was to let devs get creative and use assets that interested them, instead of rolling out another M4, another AK, but it seems somewhere they got lost between last year and now.

I still hold high hopes for A3, for it will surely mature into the game most of us wanted or wished for. Just not on release.

[progamer 14]

If anyone of you have seen today's and any of the recent DayZ devblogs - it's tons more realistic than ArmA3 will ever be. Even with mods.

The video reinforces the fact that whatever vision for ArmA3 as a real milsim that was there - is now gone to DayZ together with the people responsible for ArmA being ArmA.

I mean DayZ got ammo repacking, ballistic armor and items you are wearing blocking bullets and getting damaged as you get shot (compare that to our primitive 100 hp system), advanced wounding system, more advanced attachment system and so on so forth.

And you say DayZ brought in casual players when in fact it's a lot more hardcore than any ArmA game to date.

It's almost as if ArmA3 gets shafted so badly so no "free" DayZ ports to it will ever be on par with a paid version.

Dayz is also far from release still and the Arma 3 developers apparently want to make a better more advanced medical system than dayz's medical system.

[metalcraze 290]

In the world of ArmA3 development wishes mean nothing.

I think the future setting was to let devs get creative and use assets that interested them, instead of rolling out another M4, another AK, but it seems somewhere they got lost between last year and now.

All content that ArmA3 has (save for "3D" scopes) was shown way before summer 2012. But past summer 2012 new content was interiors of Chernarus buildings and DayZ clothes and items. Just sayin'

[liquidpinky 11]

In the world of ArmA3 development wishes mean nothing.

All content that ArmA3 has (save for "3D" scopes) was shown way before summer 2012. But past summer 2012 new content was interiors of Chernarus buildings and DayZ clothes and items. Just sayin'

Say away, for a change I agree with you on the majority of what you have said here in this thread. I do feel we have been put to the back of the class while DayZ got priority tutoring.

Does indeed make me wonder if they gimped A3 for DayZ.

[Maio 293]

In the world of ArmA3 development wishes mean nothing.

All content that ArmA3 has (save for "3D" scopes) was shown way before summer 2012. But past summer 2012 new content was interiors of Chernarus buildings and DayZ clothes and items. Just sayin'

This statement is false. The developers have worked on new content past the summer of 2012. Please read Sitrep 21 under "Intelligence".

I'm not expecting users to remember every single piece of info from the devblogs, but making misinformed statements is a no-no.

[purepassion 22]

The video reinforces the fact that whatever vision for ArmA3 as a real milsim that was there - is now gone to DayZ together with the people responsible for ArmA being ArmA.

It's almost as if ArmA3 gets shafted so badly so no "free" DayZ ports to it will ever be on par with a paid version.

You know, I think you would actually have been very unhappy with the "original" Arma 3 direction. Try to finish the picture of a elite special force operator behind enemy lines taking on a hostile island, railgun tanks, swapping enemy uniforms etc etc...

What's also often easily forgotten is that not being professional with assessing your resources and the resulting communicated features can kill a project. It can literally kill it entirely (see Marek's statement). It would be the end of Arma and perhaps even BI entirely if the focus is set on features that can't be properly finished in time and the game can't be shipped within the deadline. This almost happened. Fortunately, someone recognized the problem at some point last year and initiated the re-evaluation.

It might not be the perfect video game of your dream which simulates every little aspect of life, death, war and peace yet. Creating games is a game of compromises.

Having this relaxed external view makes it quite easy to get lost in ideological arguments. (What's a MilSim?) But if you were to be actually involved, you'll see that it's a highly complex project that involves many factors that are widely unknown to the majority of players having certain ideas in their heads.

However, keeping things in perspective is also very nice. Every single one of my friends I introduced to Arma was completely stunned by the sheer size, amount of freedom, possibilities and gameplay potential the game offered them. :)

DayZ however, is a project very different to Arma. It has a much smaller scope and many major hurdles like practically every feature being required to work with AI (which is a crucial aspect that's hindering many features but is not accounted for by many people requesting something) are removed. This results in a much lighter workspace and enables a much more experimental freedom for development. While DayZ might be anticipated and played by a shitton of players, it's much smaller than Arma 3. This is why features can be implemented in DayZ but not in Arma 3.

And yes, it's time for you to realize that DayZ is a major global player in the gaming industry. Arma has and will always be BIS's baby and DayZ is a completely new and overwhelming opportunity.

That last part is borderline paranoia. You're really starting to get delusional in order to find prove for a certain idea in your head you want to be reality, forgetting about many factors that dictate the actual reality.

All content that ArmA3 has (save for "3D" scopes) was shown way before summer 2012. But past summer 2012 new content was interiors of Chernarus buildings and DayZ clothes and items. Just sayin'

Simply and utterly wrong. It's exactly this kind of misinformation that's seeding false conclusions and dangerous `hearsay´ throughout the community.

It was in fact no earlier than after February 2013, when the first ever glimpse of a portion of completely new and extremely detailed content like the Ifrit, the Kamysh, the Marid or the Ghosthawk etc surfaced.

[fujix 11]

In the world of ArmA3 development wishes mean nothing.

All content that ArmA3 has (save for "3D" scopes) was shown way before summer 2012. But past summer 2012 new content was interiors of Chernarus buildings and DayZ clothes and items. Just sayin'

Wasnt this around the time that the development for A3 started taking a "different direction" according to the devs? Where they wanted something else with Arma 3?

Maybe they decided to take a different direction as a company instead of just changing Arma. It could be they saw alot more potential for DayZ and Arma 3 got put in the backseat.

I guess we will never know. I doubt BI will make make an official statement.

What we can assume with almost 100% certainty is that DayZ affected and possibly changed BI. Why we can assume that? Well it generated ALOT of new sales.

Question is if Arma is still top priority AND is the target audience the same? I think they are trying to expand and attract players that normally do not play Arma. From a business standpoint thats the smart thing to do. But we all know to attract a larger audience, there needs be some serious simplification. This will alienate older fans. Not all perhaps but a significant number. We are already seeing it in Arma 3.

All of this is of course pure speculation but there are signs there. The same signs that usually appear in other franchises when devs want to change target audience for their games to attract the masses and increase sales.

I guess we will have to wait and see how a potential expansion for Arma 3 turns out. If they release an expansion, judging by its content and features we might get a clear picture of what this franchise will be in the future.

Btw metalcraze you are right. DayZ is far more realistic and advanced when it comes to certain areas. Medical system for example.

The reason why I think it attracted more casual players is because of the hype. You know it was something new and all the cool kids play DayZ. I have several friends that did not like Arma but started playing DayZ when it got big. These guys usually play arcade games.

@PurePassion

Great post. Felt enlightening reading it.

I get what you mean that some people in the community might get paranoid and get weird ideas (Im guilty of that ;)). But you must understand there is a reason for that.

Pretty much the entire gaming industry has gone to shit if you ask me and alot of other gamers.

I remember back in the days when a new sequel would blow my mind and do everything better. When a game would challenge me. That is a thing of the past now.

When gamers have seen all their favorite games being wrecked so it can attract casuals and generate more revenue most loose faith in the industry. So far BI have been true. They have created games that do not aim towards the greater masses.

But when players start seeing signs they know mean game is changing to attract more players, all past experiences get reminded and of course they get scared that the game they love will be ruined.

Hope you understand what Im trying to say.

Edited September 7, 2013 by fujix

[chortles 263]

@Chortles: The general dumbing down to make it a one man loves all sandbox could be the problem right there. They don't wont to alienate future customer bases by deciding once and for all what they are and sticking too it. I think they should, they need to say "this is milsim sandbox" or in fact whatever they decide what the RV4 now is and stick to it. We will respect them more and they surely then will be able to head in the direction they see fit for the game.

You can't please everyone, but I think at least the devs should be sure in where they are headed instead of bouncing off the wall like they are now.

Ehhh, I don't think that they're lacking direction or "vision" as to what Arma "should" be... it's just that it's not single-mindedly "milsim" (in the sense of "We don't want to risk becoming the next Cliffs of Dover"), and quite possibly informed by BI checking out "how the mainstreams consumes Arma besides ShackTac". Mind you, said vision's implementation is also clearly hampered by hurdles, but I don't believe that lack of vision is one of them...

I think the future setting was to let devs get creative and use assets that interested them, instead of rolling out another M4, another AK, but it seems somewhere they got lost between last year and now.

Mind you, the "use assets that interested them" is exactly why I'm happy with both the future setting and even the emphasis on (and supposed resource allocation towards) underwater... because the "devs actually gave a damn" shows, and those correlate with my interests, therefore my satisfaction level is higher than that of others whose interests were in other areas. :p

I still hold high hopes for A3, for it will surely mature into the game most of us wanted or wished for. Just not on release.

There's jokes out there both on and off of these forums that the whole "early access"/"ongoing post-release development" statements by BI are merely BI finally admitting these about the Arma series. :lol:

Dayz is also far from release still and the Arma 3 developers apparently want to make a better more advanced medical system than dayz's medical system.

This is pretty important in how I view metalcraze's comparisons of DayZ's standalone (read: Rocket's "wants") versus what he claims to be Arma 3-as-implemented... Arma 3 is going to meet its launch date, no matter how many players don't like the 'costs' or what BI had to do to achieve that, while the DayZ standalone is still the equivalent of vaporware where eventually Rocket just dropped the practice of forecasting a release because his claims thereof no longer had credibility.

As for all the people who demanded a release delay... did none of them believe that the prior two delays had already jaded Maruk as a CEO against the idea? That in American baseball terms, Arma 3 already had two strikes against it? Hell, did none of them see "Arma 3 is running against the clock" in DnA's outright stating that Steamworks was in order to ensure a 2013 release and that a 2013 launch was deemed more important than all the players who might not get Arma 3 because of Steam exclusivity?

It would be the end of Arma and perhaps even BI entirely if the focus is set on features that can't be properly finished in time and the game can't be shipped within the deadline. This almost happened. Fortunately, someone recognized the problem at some point last year and initiated the re-evaluation.

... I've been speculating about the possibility about just that, but is this a definite statement that that is in fact what happened behind the scenes that BI have been mum about?