A List of Questionably Empty Promises

[UltimateBawb 1]

So I've been browsing through the behemoth that is the ArmA 3 guide manual, and have found some very troubling pictures: http://imgur.com/a/egsU4#0.

A list of missing objects:

- KSG-12

- AA-12

- FNP-45 (shown as the Rook-40, but obviously an error)

- Flash hider

- F35B

- ACOG style RCO

I've also found a C130 variant somewhere in the manual. I know many pictures in the manual are from mods, but only those specifically stated to be are and these are not. Honestly not having content specifically mentioned in the game's manual should not be legal.

[Vigil Vindex 64]

wups...

[13islucky 10]

The Rook-40 thing is probably a mistake, but there is a pretty big possibility that the manual shows things to come. Who knows?

[mr_centipede 31]

Dslyecxi's Tactical Guides != game manual

[eymerich 11]

Dslyecxi's Tactical Guides != game manual

No.

It's a product by Bis which come along a game by Bis which explain or give tips on a game by Bis.

The game I have purchased anyway.

So, at least, it should refers to object or weapon already in game.

[bez 10]

I agree there is not as much content like A2 had,

but I also think it has much more content than any other game by far, so I don't think it's a problem.

In my eyes the list of empty promises which really matter, are things like:

Optimization, Streamlined controls, Better AI, you know important things.

In that regard I think A3 is a BIG FAIL, very disappointed from it and the devs.

All the rest is very good IMO, but the rest is not important when the main things are broken / not fixed since like 2001.

This is what all you people should be angry about, not the lack of KSG-12 or what ever.

[zukov 490]

I agree there is not as much content like A2 had,

but I also think it has much more content than any other game by far, so I don't think it's a problem.

In my eyes the list of empty promises which really matter, are things like:

Optimization, Streamlined controls, Better AI, you know important things.

In that regard I think A3 is a BIG FAIL, very disappointed from it and the devs.

All the rest is very good IMO, but the rest is not important when the main things are broken / not fixed since like 2001.

This is what all you people should be angry about, not the lack of KSG-12 or what ever.

also all armored veichles are create in atrocious manner, either the missing animations

[STALKERGB 6]

No.

It's a product by Bis which come along a game by Bis which explain or give tips on a game by Bis.

The game I have purchased anyway.

So, at least, it should refers to object or weapon already in game.

Pretty sure those pictures you posted are from the tactical guide which was written by Dsylexci (so essentially a community member). The game manual itself is the "field manual" available in game. (Or so I would assume)

[UltimateBawb 1]

Pretty sure those pictures you posted are from the tactical guide which was written by Dsylexci (so essentially a community member). The game manual itself is the "field manual" available in game. (Or so I would assume)

It's literally called the "ArmA 3 Tactical Guide." It's released by BIS. No excuses.

[suprememodder 11]

they even have their fictional in-game names. definitely bis endorsed. the least they could do is not sell them back up us as pdlcs.

[ric 1]

I think i have seen this routine before... :)

[accapella 1]

i'm pretty sure more content will come with the free campaign dlc and if not, then with paid dlc.

according to bis the game is still "evolving" which means that there's more to come.

it's a bit questionable to release a game with expected features cut or postponed but arma 3's launch is still probably more finished than arma 2's was because content volume isn't everything.

[[frl]myke 14]

It's literally called the "ArmA 3 Tactical Guide." It's released by BIS. No excuses.

Wrong. It is released by Dsylexci, included to the Game by BIS. Not quite the same.

[Nicholas 5]

Well, the guide is quite misleading. It has Bohemia's logo on it, it even states within the guide that "TTP3 is an official product of Bohemia Interactive". It's a nice guide, but Bohemia Interactive definitely should not be pushing it so hard when it contains a lot of items that aren't actually in the game.

Definitely seems like a lot of free advertisement for Dsylecxi though, I've never been a fan of Dsylecxi (Can't stand his voice) or Shack Tactical.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Nicholas

[ric 1]

Well, the guide is quite misleading. It has Bohemia's logo on it, it even states within the guide that "TTP3 is an official product of Bohemia Interactive". It's a nice guide, but Bohemia Interactive definitely should not be pushing it so hard when it contains a lot of items that aren't actually in the game.

Myke;2504567']Wrong. It is released by Dsylexci' date=' included to the Game by BIS. Not quite the same.[/quote']

have you even read the guide?

[NeuroFunker 11]

About f35, it has been discussed a ton! Show me where BIS promised F-35 for arma 3, and i'll delete my account.

[Nicholas 5]

have you even read the guide?

I have briefly looked through it. Although it does state that mods are in use, and the guide should not reflect the original version of Arma 3, why is Bohemia Interactive pushing it so hard?

[ric 1]

About f35, it has been discussed a ton! Show me where BIS promised F-35 for arma 3, and i'll delete my account.

this often referred to as "false advertising" these are shots from 2 years ago. scroll to the bottom

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/06/07/e3-2011-arma-3-screenshots-deployed/

---------- Post added at 19:13 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------

I have briefly looked through it. Although it does state that mods are in use, and the guide should not reflect the original version of Arma 3, why is Bohemia Interactive pushing it so hard?

sorry mate that question was directed at FRL MYKE

[instagoat 133]

The Guide is pretty clear about not representing vanilla Arma 3. Many of the items shown in it are parts of mods, in fact, and that is mentioned all the time. The ttp was also very likely written and provided with screenshots way before the data lock. None of the nato soldiers have flags, the iranians have the scrubbed flags instead of the CSAT hexagons, and quite a few weapons shown were changed during development.

This is very similar to the OFP manual back in 2001, which showed screenshots from pre-beta builds even (such as the T-72 with the commander's machinegun" and all vehicles had different markings than in the final version. Nobody whined and complained then, at least not so loudly. If this is BI's crime, putting pictures of things that were changed during development into a book that's an explicit cooperation between community members and company, then Arma 3 really doesn't have problems.

Unfortunately it has, so instead of concentrating on arguably outdated screenshot material, maybe be vocal about interesting things, like the bodyarmor or the visuals for tank insides.

[dayglow 2]

this often referred to as "false advertising" these are shots from 2 years ago. scroll to the bottom

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/06/07/e3-2011-arma-3-screenshots-deployed/

2 year old development screenshots do not represent the final game. That's the standard disclaimer with very Dev video and screenshot regardless of the game.

POI can't find anywhere in its Steam page or official website advertising anything that isn't included in the release.

[scorch_052 127]

There are game files for everything you listed minus the F-35 (which has been confirmed as a placeholder). ArmA 3 "releasing" was pretty bs since it really wasnt done yet, but I'm confident that all the things listed will be in the game at some point. Just be patient...

[ric 1]

2 year old development screenshots do not represent the final game. That's the standard disclaimer with very Dev video and screenshot regardless of the game.

POI can't find anywhere in its Steam page or official website advertising anything that isn't included in the release.

And thats ok? showing screen shots from your upcoming game with a F-35 and the all of a sudden remove it...it was already in the game...how many of those screen shots are in the game? (minus the one with the sub)

no matter how you want to justify it it is still being deceptive...

---------- Post added at 19:47 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------

There are game files for everything you listed minus the F-35 (which has been confirmed as a placeholder). ArmA 3 "releasing" was pretty bs since it really wasnt done yet, but I'm confident that all the things listed will be in the game at some point. Just be patient...

patient? that shot is over 2 years old.... plus you missed the fact there is a screen shot with a full size sub behind the diver :)

[NeuroFunker 11]

except thus screes, is there any confirmed information, that F-35B should have been in arma 3?

[ric 1]

The Guide is pretty clear about not representing vanilla Arma 3. Many of the items shown in it are parts of mods, in fact, and that is mentioned all the time. The ttp was also very likely written and provided with screenshots way before the data lock. None of the nato soldiers have flags, the iranians have the scrubbed flags instead of the CSAT hexagons, and quite a few weapons shown were changed during development.

This is very similar to the OFP manual back in 2001, which showed screenshots from pre-beta builds even (such as the T-72 with the commander's machinegun" and all vehicles had different markings than in the final version. Nobody whined and complained then, at least not so loudly. If this is BI's crime, putting pictures of things that were changed during development into a book that's an explicit cooperation between community members and company, then Arma 3 really doesn't have problems.

Unfortunately it has, so instead of concentrating on arguably outdated screenshot material, maybe be vocal about interesting things, like the bodyarmor or the visuals for tank insides.

it is is still unprofessional to release a guide with erroneous information leading to unneeded confusion.

---------- Post added at 19:52 ---------- Previous post was at 19:51 ----------

except thus screes, is there any confirmed information, that F-35B should have been in arma 3?

those shot are taken FROM the game :)

[instagoat 133]

it is is still unprofessional to release a guide with erroneous information leading to unneeded confusion.

---------- Post added at 19:52 ---------- Previous post was at 19:51 ----------

those shot are taken FROM the game :)

Well, think what you like.

As for where the screenshots were taken from, who's not to say that they're from TKOH with Altis ported to it?

Also, I think one reason why shotguns aren't implemented is because they cannot be reloaded the way they are supposed to be (individual shells instead of magazines). The KSG-12 also has the dual magazines. People would be crying if it were ingame currently because these two things do not work presently in the engine, the same way people cry about the gun not being in. No difference as far as BI is concerned, people cry.

Again, there are more worthwhile things to cry about, and they are not as numerous (nontheless important) as people make it attempt to appear.