Is the game dumbed down?

[Harbinger2456 10]

Did not have to read much to say yes.

In a lot of ways to me it feels like a cheap knock off of ArmA rather than ArmA.....

Its like if the devs of WarZ tried to make a ArmA rip off to cash in on the series and left lots of content out and dumbed it down this is what it would be.

Hopefully down the line it gets better.

Have to agree. Half of it feels like "Hey, COD makes money, lets copy it", and the other half feels like they just ran out of time and money. There were a few good fixes that were years in coming, but the rest is just bleh. I think at this point, the best we can hope for is the community modders make some good mods and scenarios to fill in the MASS AMOUNT that was left out.

[Varanon 892]

Well I might argue that it might be possible to cram 60 grenades into a backpack. I haven't tried it, but it doesn't sound "unrealistic". I might agree with a weight-movement penalty for that though. I don't suggest the game cannot be improved :) I only suggest it's not dumbed down.

I think carrying 60 grenades is pretty unrealistic. Have you ever heard of something like that ? Apart from the weight and volume (which might fit into a large backpack), no one in his right mind would carry that many explosives around.

The current load limits, besides making the balancing much harder, also favor lone-wolfing. In general, I consider lone wolfing dumbing down, since it removes vital aspects of the original series, namely, the reliance on others. The devs always stress the fact that in Arma, you're not a super soldier, but a tiny cog in the whole war machinery. But the loadouts allow total self-sufficiency: You can fulfill the role of a sniper, machine gunner and AT soldier at the same time. You make certain roles totally useless, like the medic, any kind of ammo bearer, or even the normal rifleman, because you can carry multiple loadouts (sniper rifle and machine gun, plus rocket launcher), and all without any noticeable penalty.

I don't know, but I call that dumbed down.

But as you mentioned mission design, I would hazard a guess that for the most part, unrealistic loadout/movement issues arise from missions that have an initial weapon + ammo grab in the form of ammo crates yes? Weapon crate grabbing is not really good mission design for realistic missions IMO.

No. The good part about the Arma series was always the fact that dead enemies do not leave random "loot drops" like in other games. If you kill an opponent, you can nick hist stuff. All of it. So in essence, if you put enemies on the map, these are walking ammo boxes. It gets worse if you place a vehicle, you actually need to make sure you clear the cargo of all of them, or the problem is magnified ten fold.

It doesn't matter whether you restrict the players initial gear, he can always acquire more. And the fact that he will be able to carry it all creates an imbalance. He doesn't even need to consider what to take. he just picks up everything he comes by.

So in essence, the current loadout limits combined with the FAKs create one-man armies. Arma was never about those, and the authenticity of such one-man armies is not only doubtful, but totally out of the window.

So yeah, the game IS dumbed down.

---------- Post added at 08:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 AM ----------

And yet they've had HOW many years to study this?

As I said, it's just a guess. It might be totally off the mark

---------- Post added at 09:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 AM ----------

How can the game as a whole be considered dumbed down when the mission makers / scripters are ultimately the ones who dictate just how authentic, real or un-realistic scenarios can be? Whether or not to use FAKs or writing a "realistic" wounding system etc. Whether or not to have respawns. Whether or not a medic can even treat such terrible wounds to begin with. How much and what types of weapons and ammo can be carried. How units handle damage.

Mission makers have no impact on whether you crawl or run when being shot in the leg. So how would the mission maker change the authenticity of a scenario ? Just removing the FAKs does not change the fact that wounds do not have any impact on you besides a bit higher weapon sway which is easily compensated, as metlakraze correctly mentioned.

The whole idea that removing FAKs from the mission would compensate for everything is simply an often-presented misconception. It doesn't change a thing, it's just a convenient buzzword brought up by FAK fans.

I consider some elements in the game changed rather than dumbed down. Honestly, in one example concerning the FAKs, what's the difference between a medic healing a person up so they're all fine & dandy or using a FAK?

The difference between Arma 2 and Arma 3 is:

In Arma 3, you can take a FAK, and be back to almost perfect health in 3 seconds. You don't need a medic for it.

In Arma 2, you can't heal yourself. You need to get a medic to check you over and heal you. In the meantime, you are unable to fight and. Also, leg damage will make you crawl, and with the First Aid modules, there's even a state where you become incapacitated and have to be dragged out and treated by a medic.

They're both far from realistic ( to an extent ).

I'll now pull the "It's a game" card. If it were totally realistic, you'd be shot, and spent 6 weeks in a hospital with a lot of other dudes, and maybe come out with a permanent disability. The medical system in Arma can only approximate the real thing. So, you think that taking a FAK and being at 75% health is closer to reality than the Ama 2 system ? Sure, none of them ie realistic, but the Arma 2 system is much more complex, and closer to reality. Hence, the Arma 3 system is much more simplified and not even close to authentic. Hence, the game is dumbed down (and before you say "But it's only the medical system, see my previous post about the loadout for another good example... and I didn't even get into the turn speeds)

Hypothetical - *gasps* BI recently put in the command allowDammage (not really, they did that long ago). The game's dumbed down! Because players now have the OPPROTUNITY to be invincible!

allowDamage is just a tool for specific situations, for example, to get around problems in cutscenes, or to prevent the usual total carnage when you have AI paradrop and their chutes explode on impact.

And as has been said before, the medic system is just one of many problems.

[David77 10]

Mission makers have no impact on whether you crawl or run when being shot in the leg. So how would the mission maker change the authenticity of a scenario ?

Sure we can...

The problem is, is that I'm looking at it not from a consumers "out of the box" point of view. I'm looking at it from the perspective of an avid scripter. Still though, users can dictate very much the authenticity & realism.

Comparing Arma2 to Arma3 is like comparing 2 bad apples. Not that they're bad, but they both are far from being truly realistic.

Edited September 20, 2013 by David77

[Varanon 892]

Sure they can...

How so ?

Edit: Ok, since you edited your post:

Care to elaborate how this will work ? You say an avid scripter can do that. I'm not a total noob when it comes to scripting, but I think that's a bit stretching it. You can't really. Not reliably. So basically, you are saying I'm wrong, but if asked why, you just throw in some vague comments.

So thanks, you still didn't disprove me.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Varanon

[Azzur33 1]

The current load limits, besides making the balancing much harder, also favor lone-wolfing. In general, I consider lone wolfing dumbing down,... You can fulfill the role of a sniper, machine gunner and AT soldier at the same time. ...you can carry multiple loadouts (sniper rifle and machine gun, plus rocket launcher), and all without any noticeable penalty.

I don't know, but I call that dumbed down.

A lone wolf with a sniper gun, machine gun and launcher, and with the ammo ...?

A crippled lone wolf that is. Fatigue effects right away, not being able to sprint.

One man army until you get shot.

60 grenades, why not. It's about 30 kilos. Useless though. You can't lonewolf long with that loadout.

Lots and lots of FAKs, why not. You'll still suffer, and die from a good hit, no matter how many FAKs you carry.

Dumbing down, how?

You can do a dumb thing by acting like an one man army and getting killed carrying too much stuff you have no time to use anyway.

You can do a clever thing to work as a squad and have differend members having differend roles carrying their own stuff.

(Yes yes yes yes. There should be a better medical/wounding system. Bleeding of course. More effects when severely wounded. But I have no doubt about this: There will be a better medical/wounding system, there will be bleeding, there will be more effects when severely wounded. For me, it doesn't matter who will make these work, but I'd prefer that would be BIS (at first), though. Modules maybe, so you can decide to use them in your missions if you like them or not. A2 module was kind of bad.)

Edited September 20, 2013 by Azzur33

[rangerpl 13]

This is an often quoted misconception. Yes, you can remove them from YOUR missions, but every mission will still use them. It's not only about the missions I make, but all the others that let you run around with healing potions in your backpack. The FAKs are currently fundamentally broken, making medics useless roles, thus dumbing down the gameplay.

Holy shit, so it's not enough for you to play your own missions without FAKs, you gotta tell everyone else how to play the game too?

[David77 10]

Holy shit, so it's not enough for you to play your own missions without FAKs, you gotta tell everyone else how to play the game too?

Ikr. It isn't enough that everything is customizable. It isn't enough that there will be plenty of scenarios without FAKs. It isn't enough that players can choose how realistic they want to play the game. It's just the fear that some other editing enthusiast just MAY opt to leaving these things available in their missions. The fear that *gasps* other people will be playing these missions. Oooh noes!

[Variable 322]

Holy shit, so it's not enough for you to play your own missions without FAKs, you gotta tell everyone else how to play the game too?

Calm down. All we want is the Arma 2 first aid module, or something in the lines of it. Then everybody will be happy. The current system is flawed for people who play Arma due to its complexity and depth.

[David77 10]

Calm down. All we want is the Arma 2 first aid module, or something in the lines of it. Then everybody will be happy. The current system is flawed for people who play Arma due to its complexity and depth.

Right. So there's no people who've played the game for over a decade for it's complexity & depth, that don't mind the current system? What was so deep & complex about the first aid module to begin with?

[3instein 10]

Fur FAK's sake. I just hold on to the belief that the game is like a good Scotch and gets better with age.

One small peeve is when I start a mission/scenario or whatever I have to first open my inventory and dump half my stuff.Smoke rounds/chemlights/NVG/ in a day scenario carrying a weapon with no GL? Is this the mission designers non attempt at detail,or not having a loadout editor?

Mick. :)

[Tonci87 163]

Don´t forget that every car, military and civilian, has 4 FAKs in it. Simply removing them from the player loadouts isn´t enough.

[rangerpl 13]

Ikr. It isn't enough that everything is customizable. It isn't enough that there will be plenty of scenarios without FAKs. It isn't enough that players can choose how realistic they want to play the game. It's just the fear that some other editing enthusiast just MAY opt to leaving these things available in their missions. The fear that *gasps* other people will be playing these missions. Oooh noes!

For some reason, a lot of the people here can't stand the fact that the game (err... simulation) is being played by a more casual userbase (hence the whining about DayZ kiddies).

Don´t forget that every car, military and civilian, has 4 FAKs in it. Simply removing them from the player loadouts isn´t enough.

I'm fairly sure those are just bandages. Unless something's changed and I'm not remembering right.

Ah, you're right. They are FAKs after all. Aren't they somewhat ineffective though? I recall not being able to fully heal with those. What's the difference between them and medikits?

Edited September 20, 2013 by RangerPL

[maddogx 13]

I'm fairly sure those are just bandages. Unless something's changed and I'm not remembering right.

They're FAKs. There's no such thing as a bandage in the vanilla game. ;)

[-ghost-tf 12]

For some reason, a lot of the people here can't stand the fact that the game (err... simulation) is being played by a more casual userbase (hence the whining about DayZ kiddies).

What we are asking for is an improved medical system in the form of an optional module that can be placed in the editor, similar to the arma2 system. How is that going to affect you or any other casual player? What negative would it bring to you guys?

I'm fairly sure those are just bandages. Unless something's changed and I'm not remembering right.

Ah, you're right. They are FAKs after all. Aren't they somewhat ineffective though? I recall not being able to fully heal with those. What's the difference between them and medikits?

Wait what? You are defending the current medical system but you dont even know how it works? At least thats what I make up from your post, correct me if I'm wrong.

[David77 10]

This is shaping up nicely. I especially like the bleeding out part.

[Varanon 892]

Holy shit, so it's not enough for you to play your own missions without FAKs, you gotta tell everyone else how to play the game too?

Sigh...

No, I don't.

I could of course explain to you now that it's about choice, and how I want to play without (while not limiting others how they play the game), but the way you wrote your reply shows my pretty clearly that no matter what I write, it's lost on you.

---------- Post added at 11:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 AM ----------

Ikr. It isn't enough that everything is customizable. It isn't enough that there will be plenty of scenarios without FAKs. It isn't enough that players can choose how realistic they want to play the game. It's just the fear that some other editing enthusiast just MAY opt to leaving these things available in their missions. The fear that *gasps* other people will be playing these missions. Oooh noes!

You are deliberately twisting my words. And I am still waiting for you actually answer my question, but all I get from you is sarcasm, ridicule and vague "I see things from another perspective" kind of nonsense that has absolutely no foundation in reality and you are just using buzz words to avoid answering, simply because you can't answer.

keep your stupid sarcasm for yourself. If you are not able to discuss with arguments, don't discuss at all.

---------- Post added at 11:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 AM ----------

For some reason, a lot of the people here can't stand the fact that the game (err... simulation) is being played by a more casual userbase (hence the whining about DayZ kiddies)

The only one whining here is you (elitism and all).

Get over it, there are people that have different opinions that yours. If you think that yous are more valid, then argument your case, but that's something you people can never do, you just ridicule, whine and throw around vague sentences that have no foundation.

[Variable 322]

Right. So there's no people who've played the game for over a decade for it's complexity & depth, that don't mind the current system? What was so deep & complex about the first aid module to begin with?

Of curse there are. But a lot of people who play this game for a long time now wants it to keep its reputation. I just don't see why would anyone object to just adding the Arma 2 first aid module back. As a module, it's optional.

[rangerpl 13]

Wait what? You are defending the current medical system but you dont even know how it works? At least thats what I make up from your post, correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not defending it, I'm calling out people who don't want others to play missions with it. If you don't like the medic system, script a substitute or just don't play the game. I don't care much for the new medic system but I don't start whine threads about it.

The only one whining here is you (elitism and all).

Get over it, there are people that have different opinions that yours. If you think that yous are more valid, then argument your case, but that's something you people can never do, you just ridicule, whine and throw around vague sentences that have no foundation.

I don't recall whining about anything, all I do is call people out as elitists for saying shit like "DayZ is bringing horrible people to the community" and suddenly everyone is butthurt. And trust me, I don't care about your opinions. Play the game as you please, just don't ram your playstyle down other people's throats.

I could of course explain to you now that it's about choice, and how I want to play without (while not limiting others how they play the game), but the way you wrote your reply shows my pretty clearly that no matter what I write, it's lost on you.

Clearly I'm too much of a stupid casual kiddie to be able to engage in dialogue with you.

Edited September 20, 2013 by RangerPL

[David77 10]

You are deliberately twisting my words. And I am still waiting for you actually answer my question, but all I get from you is sarcasm, ridicule and vague "I see things from another perspective" kind of nonsense that has absolutely no foundation in reality and you are just using buzz words to avoid answering, simply because you can't answer.

keep your stupid sarcasm for yourself. If you are not able to discuss with arguments, don't discuss at all.

I'll clue you in on something. The earth doesn't revolve around you. It was a blanket statement. On another note, This is turning out nicely. With the bleeding out & stuff. That's just the beginning & doesn't even include any official patches.

[-ghost-tf 12]

I'm not defending it, I'm calling out people who don't want others to play missions with it. If you don't like the medic system, script a substitute or just don't play the game. I don't care much for the new medic system but I don't start whine threads about it.

You still havent answered my question, how is an optional first aid module going to affect people that like the current medical system? Afterall that's what people are asking for in this thread, but you completely ignore that question and jump to excuses like script it yourself. If you dont care about the medical system, and this thread is another "whine thread" then why dont you stay out of it?

You know all the "whining" in these kind of threads is ussually just heated discussions caused by people like you posting unreasonable replies.

I don't recall whining about anything, all I do is call people out as elitists for saying shit like "DayZ is bringing horrible people to the community" and suddenly everyone is butthurt. And trust me, I don't care about your opinions. Play the game as you please, just don't ram your playstyle down other people's throats.

Where did Varanon say that "DayZ is bringing horrible people to the community"? Where is he trying to ram his playstyle down other people's throats? Again, you are just trying to provoke a heated discussion, just so you can say how much "whining" is going on in these threads.

---------- Post added at 11:38 ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 ----------

I'll clue you in on something. The earth doesn't revolve around you.

Another one who doesnt gets it. What part of: It would be an improved medical system in the form of an optional module dont you understand?

[sektor 2]

Ok, if Farookaaa can script better medical system than developers, why don't they act on that? They just can't rely on community to fix the game so much.

[-Coulum- 35]

@David77 & RangerPL

I think that everyone is well aware that missions and mods can make the game more complex and get rid of "dumbness". But the fact is, aspects of the game, in its current state are dumbed down. The title of the thread is "IS the game dumbed down". Not "Will all possible variations of the game be dumbed down". Of course mods and missions will change things. But, just as I don't consider Dayz to be arma or ACE to be arma or PR to be battlefield, I don't consider mods of arma 3 to truly be arma. I know that modding is a huge part of the game, but the gameplay and complexity created by those mods are a product of the modder's hard work, not BIS.

By your logic, Arma could be a 1:1 clone of COD, but with an editor and mod-ability, and you guys would still consider it not to be dumbed down. That's ridiculous. You can only defend BI so much. And I don't even think BI necessarily wants to be defended. If it is their goal to dumb the game down a bit to get more people playing... Mission complete.

[sulman 12]

Have to agree. Half of it feels like "Hey, COD makes money, lets copy it", and the other half feels like they just ran out of time and money. There were a few good fixes that were years in coming, but the rest is just bleh. I think at this point, the best we can hope for is the community modders make some good mods and scenarios to fill in the MASS AMOUNT that was left out.

I think that's terribly unfair.

Firstly, out of the box, Arma 3 is arguably more difficult than any other BIS game, with the possible exception of Armed Assault; it is not forgiving in the slightest. Secondly, the devil is in the details, and the huge amount of effort that has gone into the movement system and AI improvements (particularly pathfinding and animations) are certainly noticeable if you compare them to Arma 2, which seems rather crude in comparison.

Urban combat is so much better in Arma 3 there's no contest. Go back to Arma2:OA and play some scenarios to compare. Pay particular attention to how the AI interacts with the environment. It's night and day.

As for focusing on the healing module; really all that gave you is the incapacitation mechanic; there was nothing remotely realistic about the rest of it.

[NeuroFunker 11]

still lots of pages, and nothing constructive, one fraction keeps saying: FAK iz BAAD, arma 3 sux just because of that! Second fraction is asying: NOO! Arma 3 rules, it can't suck just because of FAKs, which can be removed from the mission! Serisolly, i think the arma 3 haters, holding on "faks", like on latest fortress, since most of other stuff they were complaining, is not a big deal at all.

Can enyone tell me, whats to point in talking about FAKs any further? It's not like the devs are trying here to defent the current system, but it's just community vs community, what should this bring at the end?

[sulman 12]

still lots of pages, and nothing constructive, one fraction keeps saying: FAK iz BAAD, arma 3 sux just because of that! Second fraction is asying: NOO! Arma 3 rules, it can't suck just because of FAKs, which can be removed from the mission! Serisolly, i think the arma 3 haters, holding on "faks", like on latest fortress, since most of other stuff they were complaining, is not a big deal at all.

Can enyone tell me, whats to point in talking about FAKs any further? It's not like the devs are trying here to defent the current system, but it's just community vs community, what should this bring at the end?

It's finding a feature you don't like and declaring that the game is flawed because of it. It is rather dreary.