So Arma 3 is out now, does it set the standard for future releases in the series?

[pd3 25]

Since this iteration in the series, is for all the critical aspects that matter a "done deal".

Is this going paradigm going to set the standard for future versions?

I'd rather know now than waste any time hoping it might get better and BI hasn't permanently sold out.

I seriously don't even care about the lack of content or bugs on release, or performance issues, these are things that can be remedied by the community and improvements in technology. The fundamental gameplay changes, specifically relating to weapon handling are what fill me with the most dread.

I understand you guys at BI have got to make money, but I mean for the love of god could you make a "traditional simulation gameplay model". And then a scaled down one for the (I'm trying really hard not to use derisive epithets here) "people" who come from other games?

I haven't seen much of the release, but what I have from a pure mechanics standpoint is massively disappointing. I'll be honest I probably won't even buy A3, perhaps If there is by some twist of fate a way to rectify some of the more abhorrent features that come standard without having to go full ACE-level complexity. I mean the guns don't even seem to have any appreciable "wobble" to them anymore, not only can players aim with pixel perfect "stop on a dime" precision, but they're all like walking RANSOM rests.

I don't want to play a moddable version of Call of Doody, I want Arma.

I'm kind of done being pissed off at what a wreck this game turned out to be in my opinion, and the perceived motives and individuals critical in making this happen, I just want to know if I should simply not bother anymore.

[artemas 1]

A lot of long-time arma players are very much welcoming the changes to controls, and to weapon handling. What exactly is 'unrealistic' about it? That there isnt wobble? Jesus, have you even played the game?

[pd3 25]

Miniscule compared to ARMA 2, which again, is part of a prevailing design narrative of removing or heavily mitigating simulated human constraints and limitations.

While I understand some more of the nooby players had a real hard time with some of the "stiffness" associated with ARMA 2, and even I didn't find it to be ideal, this is the diametric and hyperbolic opposite.

This is like playing a deathmatch shooter. What "is" realistic about it at all? Period.

The entire point behind the series was that you simply couldn't via player dexterity, maneuver yourself out of poorly planned situations. Strategic thought was an absolute must where human limitations simulated in game left off.

I'm not seeing any of that now, or considerably less than there should be.

Lack of inertial simulation in weapon handling is a massive disappointment, it seriously was the next logical step. Elimination of dead zone, by all accounts, it plays like unreal or another similar game of the genre sans jumping.

There is very little incentive to be tactically skillful in the way that it was originally meant to be done in the series. It's a lot of twitchy garbage now, and when you can twitch your way out of bad situations, there's not much incentive to have to think about what you're doing to the same degree.

It's now heavily compromised in order to eliminate the frustration encountered by players who are accustomed to this as a result of playing other games.

What I simply want to know is; is this it?

Is this the way the series is going from here on out, because if it is, then I'll save myself a lot of time and money and be done with it now.

[Smurf 12]

Play it first, don't go by some comments on this boad. ;)

The only downside on movement is the lack of a limit to the turn rate.

Can't go back to A2.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Smurf

[David77 10]

I haven't seen much of the release but what I have from a pure mechanics standpoint is massively disappointing. I'll be honest I probably won't even buy A3 ...

...

I'm kind of done being pissed off at what a wreck this game turned out to be in my opinion, and the perceived motives and individuals critical in making this happen, I just want to know if I should simply not bother anymore.

The game is fine. There are alot of veterans to this series enjoying Arma3. What do you mean by "appreciable wobble"? Dead zone aiming? That's available.

Some things that are different:

* There are first aid kits available, but many mission makers will simply take them out of their scenarios / ammo crates.

* The movement is more fluid. Not BF fluid (fake) but just more fluid in general.

* Many new additional commands for scripting / map making.

* The editor is more convenient than ever now. The config viewer, GUI editor, debug console, & functions viewer are built right in, 1 click away. Run commands ingame, real time for testing, very simply etc.

* Weapons attachments - people complain about the lack of weapons, but there's also numerous weapon configurations due to the attachments. So instead of 20 versions of the same gun in a crate theres ~5-6 different guns. You add attachments to make it the gun you want.

* Improved graphics (given)

* Missing the bicycle, only one plane is available atm, plenty of helos are available.

* 2 Islands. Altis & stratis. Altis is as huge as you'd expect from the series.

* It's not miniscule at all compared to Arma2 ... :rolleyes:

There's more good things, and some bad I'm sure, if I sat here and dwelled on them I'd be able to give you more info.

[pd3 25]

Play it first, don't go by some comments on this boad. ;)

The only downside on movement is the lack of a limit to the turn rate.

Can't go back to A2.

That's enough to kill it for me right there.

And IMO, too smooth considering that and no inertial penalties.

[Smurf 12]

Neither have A2, which is pure bad all around when comes to movements.

If that is enough to make you not play the game, oh well. You are missing much if you like Arma.

[pd3 25]

Neither have A2, which is pure bad all around when comes to movements.

If that is enough to make you not play the game, oh well. You are missing much if you like Arma.

I personally liked having to make a choice between pinpoint accuracy or reacting quickly.

A2 had that, there's no reason why that mechanic could not have been refined.

I managed to play A2 just fine, I wager the main source of complaints about it come from people who were as bad as they claim it was, TBH.

I'm not missing much, again. I simply want to know if this is how it's going to be from here on out.

[katipo66 94]

So, you mean you haven't even played it!?

There will be enough people that will come and confirm your fears for you, but it's a shame you won't try it for yourself, Its not fair to compare it to cod/bf.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Katipo66

[marcai 1]

And then a scaled down one for the (I'm trying really hard not to use derisive epithets here) "people" who come from other games?

I don't want to play a moddable version of Call of Doody, I want Arma.

Your elitism is showing. It may shock you, but people can enjoy games other than Arma and still be human beings of worth, you know? I'm one of those "people" who've enjoyed a bit of CoD in the past, and you can enjoy it in the same way you can enjoy TF2. Not every game has to have buckets of realism to still be a valid and enjoyable experience. In fact, quite a few people like games more because they're not 'real' and enjoy the experience as escapism.

Elimination of dead zone, by all accounts, it plays like unreal or another similar game of the genre sans jumping.

Deadzone is an option. Frankly I find it horrible to have on, and makes playing the game quite awkward, so I'm glad it's not on as standard. I've had a few tests and turned it off, although if that's a thing you simply cannot play without, it's still in.

As for there being no 'wobble' when aiming, I'm not sure where you've been reading. Plenty of people say the total opposite that there's far more weapon sway than there should be when shooting. You get a good idea of just how much there is when you're stood/kneeling with binoculars out, swaying like a drunkard with parkinsons. You can lay down and/or hold your breath to greatly reduce the effect of weapon sway if that is the complaint you've heard, but that is -imo- a good decision. You don't tend to wave your gun around when its actually planted on the floor and you're not breathing.

The 'twitch shooter' argument is somewhat nullified by the kind of fire fights you have in Arma. You're fine spinning around on a dime if your opponent is directly behind you, but when they're 400m away on the opposite mountainside, spinning quickly isn't going to let you win the fight, or even get an accurate shot off without some player skill.

Tl;dr: Most of what you've said is totally subjective on what is and isn't best for the game going forward and based off of what other people have said rather than your own experiences, and so are hard to directly address.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Marcai

[instagoat 133]

The same argument could have been brought up when A2 introduced reloading on the move. "Oh now you don't have to think about reloading anymore and its much less strategic and plays like counterstrike, durr, gonna quit the series forever..."

You still have the choice between pinpoint accuracy and reacting quickly, but the game points much more naturally now. It is fun to do CQB now, and not a hack-eyed, pants-filled-with-bricks getting stuck in doorways mess. Fair enough if you like a game for its actual shortcomings and flaws, but don't upset when those flaws get alleviated and leave you without that artificial barrier to fluid gameplay.

Also this aloof treatment of new people "coming in from other games" as you so politically phrased it is beginning to get on my nerves. This arrogant elitism and rivetcounting is what made the IL-2 community nosedive, and IL2 CLOD with it, since their devs listened to their community. BI has made the right choices insofar that they are now finally trying to make the GAME enjoyable, rather than just slapping the same old mediocre game over the same brilliant concept over and over and hoping that people will forgive the flaws.

This isn't 2001 anymore, you can't get anywhere with just a brilliant gameplay concept, you also need to deliver a brilliant game along with it! Imagine Portal with shitty, convoluted controls, unresponsive and artificially nerfed movement system, bad performance and obtuse and half-finished level design. But I guess those titles are too "gamey" and "Cod" like for the simuladurr master race (And no offense to the people working hard on making the hard side of the game harder and more realistic, my beef is with this blatant and time-wasting vitriol that is constantly thrown about for no other reason than to justify flawed and obsolete Ideas and concepts.) to consider as having things relevant to Arma 3, since it isn't a game, but a hard-core military simulator... right?

If you don't like it, alright. Nobody cares but the balance sheets of BI. What you all who are posting these things are trying to achieve is beyond me. Shame BI into acknowledging that everything they did in the past three years was wrong and you are right, and that they're sorry and they will fix everything and add blood groups and eye-wiping simulation and wet socks simulation and individual inertia simulation for every thread of fabric and screw on your vest? I dunno, really. Why?

Edit: As far as OP's question is concerned: Yes, I do really hope so!

[DarkFriend 10]

I don't know half the words you used in the post. Must be one of those people you are referring to...

[dmarkwick 261]

Wait for a demo version. I don't know what sort of answer you were hoping to get here, but complaining of gameplay stuff you haven't tried is unhelpful IMO.

[Harbinger2456 10]

To all those people who complain about "wobble". Have you ever fired a real rifle? The only time there is "wobble" is when the shooter is not paying any attention to the weapon. And its not really "wobble", but just gentle sway from walking and moving. When you are alert and "hipping" the rifle, there is only the most miniscule wobble, barely noticeable. When you are aiming down the sights, there is no wobble. At this point, there would only be wobble if you had a scope on it, and it would increase with magnification. At 4x, its very little.

If anything, "wobble" in this game is highly exaggerated. How do I know this? Because I live in Texas, and have been firing and practicing with weapons (especially my AKM ) all my life.

[pd3 25]

The same argument could have been brought up when A2 introduced reloading oonn the move. "Oh now you don't have to think about reloading anymore and its much less strategic and plays like counterstrike, durr, gonna quit the series forever..."

You still have the choice between pinpoint accuracy and reacting quickly, but the game points much more naturally now. It is fun to do CQB now, and not a hack-eyed, pants-filled-with-bricks getting stuck in doorways mess. Fair enough if you like a game for its actual shortcomings and flaws, but don't upset when those flaws get alleviated and leave you without that artificial barrier to fluid gameplay.

Also this aloof treatment of new people "coming in from other games" as you so politically phrased it is beginning to get on my nerves. This arrogant elitism and rivetcounting is what made the IL-2 community nosedive, and IL2 CLOD with it, since their devs listened to their community. BI has made the right choices insofar that they are now finally trying to make the GAME enjoyable, rather than just slapping the same old mediocre game over the same brilliant concept over and over and hoping that people will forgive the flaws.

This isn't 2001 anymore, you can't get anywhere with just a brilliant gameplay concept, you also need to deliver a brilliant game along with it! Imagine Portal with shitty, convoluted controls, unresponsive and artificially nerfed movement system, bad performance and obtuse and half-finished level design. But I guess those titles are too "gamey" and "Cod" like for the simuladurr master race (And no offense to the people working hard on making the hard side of the game harder and more realistic, my beef is with this blatant and time-wasting vitriol that is constantly thrown about for no other reason than to justify flawed and obsolete Ideas and concepts.) to consider as having things relevant to Arma 3, since it isn't a game, but a hard-core military simulator... right?

If you don't like it, alright. Nobody cares but the balance sheets of BI. What you all who are posting these things are trying to achieve is beyond me. Shame BI into acknowledging that everything they did in the past three years was wrong and you are right, and that they're sorry and they will fix everything and add blood groups and eye-wiping simulation and wet socks simulation and individual inertia simulation for every thread of fabric and screw on your vest? I dunno, really. Why?

Edit: As far as OP's question is concerned: Yes, I do really hope so!

Mad are we?

What a lovely cornucopia of strawmen you've erected in this response. Reloading on the move, you're trying much too hard.

They haven't fixed anything more backpedalled on design philosophy and oversimplified for the sake of accessibility. I'm not the one spewing vitriol here buddy.

Again the system as it exists is a diametric opposite, there is nothing in it's place.

I would say you're probably angry over my saying discontent with A2's weapon handling was largely rooted in ineptitude, and that players from other fps games appreciate less complexity.

I'm not going apologise for that. Enjoy other games, don't allow their design philosophy interfere with the

dynamics of this game.

I've made up my mind on A3, again considering this "was" the only moderately serious military fps on the market - I'm wondering if I'll have to wait for this market niche to be filled again.

I've only prejudice against users from other less sophisticated games as they've had a remarkable influence on eroding the complexity of certain factors by nature of their own intolerance.

It's pretty logical if you've become accustomed to a certain standard of gameplay.

[Telefrog 10]

To all those people who complain about "wobble". Have you ever fired a real rifle? The only time there is "wobble" is when the shooter is not paying any attention to the weapon. And its not really "wobble", but just gentle sway from walking and moving. When you are alert and "hipping" the rifle, there is only the most miniscule wobble, barely noticeable. When you are aiming down the sights, there is no wobble. At this point, there would only be wobble if you had a scope on it, and it would increase with magnification. At 4x, its very little.

If anything, "wobble" in this game is highly exaggerated. How do I know this? Because I live in Texas, and have been firing and practicing with weapons (especially my AKM ) all my life.

Agreed. A little weapon sway while moving is realistic, but having fired weapons as a civilian and in the military, there's no need to have a "wobble" when you're still.

Arma 3 is much better at replicating shooting mechanics than Arma 2. It's a good mix of realism and gameplay action.

[pd3 25]

To all those people who complain about "wobble". Have you ever fired a real rifle? The only time there is "wobble" is when the shooter is not paying any attention to the weapon. And its not really "wobble", but just gentle sway from walking and moving. When you are alert and "hipping" the rifle, there is only the most miniscule wobble, barely noticeable. When you are aiming down the sights, there is no wobble. At this point, there would only be wobble if you had a scope on it, and it would increase with magnification. At 4x, its very little.

If anything, "wobble" in this game is highly exaggerated. How do I know this? Because I live in Texas, and have been firing and practicing with weapons (especially my AKM ) all my life.

I own a vz 858 tactical.

There is always a certain degree of it and when you're physically exerted, under duress and flush with adrenaline they increase.

The point is, nobody is going to walk around perpetually in a tight tactical shooting stance. Even if the first shot is well aimed, sustained fire is not. Having to twist to line up a target will have an adverse impact.

Doing so would exhaust you quickly, no even when sighting up a shot there is always inconsistency, and again it worsens as physical and environmental variables change.

The whole point of simulating them is to intentionally make the game more difficult and reflect the challenges inherent in a combat environment.

As it stands now, it appears as if players are nothing more than ransom rests on legs.

I don't know what is worse, that or a dynamic aiming cursor found in BF and COD series games.

[NeuroFunker 11]

just another "convince me to buy" thread. You have 200+ messages on forums, you probably not the first day here, so you had enough time to read, what do people say about arma 3, and make your own vision, if it's worth to buy or not.

This will just grow into another "arma3 sucks because..." thread, if not already.

---------- Post added at 20:38 ---------- Previous post was at 20:36 ----------

Mad are we?

What a lovely cornucopia of strawmen you've erected in this response. Reloading on the move, you're trying much too hard.

They haven't fixed anything more backpedalled on design philosophy and oversimplified for the sake of accessibility. I'm not the one spewing vitriol here buddy.

Again the system as it exists is a diametric opposite, there is nothing in it's place.

I would say you're probably angry over my saying discontent with A2's weapon handling was largely rooted in ineptitude, and that players from other fps games appreciate less complexity.

I'm not going apologise for that. Enjoy other games, don't allow their design philosophy interfere with the

dynamics of this game.

I've made up my mind on A3, again considering this "was" the only moderately serious military fps on the market - I'm wondering if I'll have to wait for this market niche to be filled again.

I've only prejudice against users from other less sophisticated games as they've had a remarkable influence on eroding the complexity of certain factors by nature of their own intolerance.

It's pretty logical if you've become accustomed to a certain standard of gameplay.

you say, you didn't play arma 3 yet? How do you wanna know then, whats simplefiled, whats not?

[pd3 25]

just another "convince me to buy" thread. You have 300+ messages on forums, you probably not the first day here, so you had enough time to read, what do people say about arma 3, and make your own vision, if it's worth to buy or not.

This will just grow into another "arma3 sucks because..." thread, if not already.

---------- Post added at 20:38 ---------- Previous post was at 20:36 ----------

you say, you didn't play arma 3 yet? How do you wanna know then, whats simplefiled, whats not?

You didn't even read my post, and then replied, what a shame.

I'm set on not purchasing the game lest it be free, or super bargain bin, and by some miracle have some of my concerns mitigated one way or another.

I do not see that happening.

I would like to know if further degradation of simulation elements will be standard from here on out.

For some bizarre reason, people think that's conducive to progress given the nature of the series, replete with all the hyperbole and irrationality they can muster.

I don't know what the deal is with these respondents, I don't honestly care if they enjoy the game in it's current state. I think it's bad as is. I'm confident in that assertion.

[Tonci87 163]

I consider Arma 3 an unfinished product that was released early to get sales before BF4 gets released and christmas season starts. I hope that future Releases are more complete

[chrisb 196]

They haven’t sold out, they simply moved towards a mainstream market, and yes, I would think this would be the pattern of things to come, if they make an A4.

However, A2 feels far more realistic when compared to A3, just my opinion. A3 is a game (semi mainstream, if you like, they sort of landed half way), BIS answer to BF3 or indeed 4, well sort of. Whereas A2 is a crossover game/milsim, without being a training tool, I also have VBS2 to compare.

Now, modded A2 is unbeatable I think, can’t be touched by anything, I expect it may never be. It’s the last of the series in that particular vain, that’s what I believe anyway.

I am sticking to A2, for that realism, feel and enjoyment. A3 looks and moves better, no doubt, just its too gamey, a sort of sophisticated larger scale shoot-em-up.

This is just imho.

[pd3 25]

They haven’t sold out, they simply moved towards a mainstream market, and yes, I would think this would be the pattern of things to come, if they make an A4.

However, A2 feels far more realistic when compared to A3, just my opinion. A3 is a game (semi mainstream, if you like, they sort of landed half way), BIS answer to BF3 or indeed 4, well sort of. Whereas A2 is a crossover game/milsim, without being a training tool, I also have VBS2 to compare.

Now, modded A2 is unbeatable I think, can’t be touched by anything, I expect it may never be. It’s the last of the series in that particular vain, that’s what I believe anyway.

I am sticking to A2, for that realism, feel and enjoyment. A3 looks and moves better, no doubt, just its too gamey, a sort of sophisticated larger scale shoot-em-up.

This is just imho.

Agreed on all counts from my perspective.

Sad the series sinks into the mire of the LCD the way it has, but I'd rather not waste time on it.

A2 does have some stiff player movement when negotiating tight environments, and misstepping or such a blunder is annoying.

However unless one has an absolute shite computer or no adeptitude at all, the aiming movement in A2 is much more appropriate.

I saw in some video on YT, some guy actually insinuating a great deal of thought was required to not be killed in A3, yet it's painfully obvious you can weave like a rabbit in a dead run, or about face at inhuman speeds.

What a joke.

Had we "smoother" movement without FPS insanity, and IMO inertial properties to weapons, A3 would be ok in my opinion.

I supect as you do that there are too many individuals that would find that too challenging.

These people similarly don't like being consigned to the tactical reality they may create for themselves, which IMO, is the most enjoyable part of the series.

[Harbinger2456 10]

They haven’t sold out, they simply moved towards a mainstream market, and yes, I would think this would be the pattern of things to come, if they make an A4.

However, A2 feels far more realistic when compared to A3, just my opinion. A3 is a game (semi mainstream, if you like, they sort of landed half way), BIS answer to BF3 or indeed 4, well sort of. Whereas A2 is a crossover game/milsim, without being a training tool, I also have VBS2 to compare.

Now, modded A2 is unbeatable I think, can’t be touched by anything, I expect it may never be. It’s the last of the series in that particular vain, that’s what I believe anyway.

I am sticking to A2, for that realism, feel and enjoyment. A3 looks and moves better, no doubt, just its too gamey, a sort of sophisticated larger scale shoot-em-up.

This is just imho.

Yeah, I'm waiting for them to port over all the A2 assets. All I really want out of A3 is the new infantry movement, the new lighting, and maybe the UAVs. Was watching some YouTube videos of the UAV's in action the other day and was pretty impressed. Just wish the graphics were better. As for them catering to the DayZ and Wasteland crowds foremost, you really can't blame them for wanting to make some money. We old A2 crowd, just like DCS flyboys, are pretty niche. I imagine DCS is going to cave into its investors one day too. I was shocked that I saw a mod saying Wags had actually been in talks with Outerra. VERY INTERESTING! You can't survive on the business of 200 odd people alone.

@PD3 - Wait for ACE and the many mods that are coming man. Give it some time. I do hope ACE is going to make a comeback.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Harbinger2456

[pd3 25]

Well, agree I suppose with exception of "selling out", as that is precisely what catering to a mainstream audience at the expense of the core audience is.

[NeuroFunker 11]

You didn't even read my post, and then replied, what a shame.

I'm set on not purchasing the game lest it be free, or super bargain bin, and by some miracle have some of my concerns mitigated one way or another.

I do not see that happening.

I would like to know if further degradation of simulation elements will be standard from here on out.

For some bizarre reason, people think that's conducive to progress given the nature of the series, replete with all the hyperbole and irrationality they can muster.

I don't know what the deal is with these respondents, I don't honestly care if they enjoy the game in it's current state. I think it's bad as is. I'm confident in that assertion.

ehm, did you read latest report in With Marek Spanel? He clearly said, they gonna support the game, for at least 2 years. If thats not an answer for you. And by the way, if you said, you ain't going to buy arma 3 anyway, why bother then?

---------- Post added at 21:23 ---------- Previous post was at 21:19 ----------

They haven’t sold out, they simply moved towards a mainstream market, and yes, I would think this would be the pattern of things to come, if they make an A4.

However, A2 feels far more realistic when compared to A3, just my opinion. A3 is a game (semi mainstream, if you like, they sort of landed half way), BIS answer to BF3 or indeed 4, well sort of. Whereas A2 is a crossover game/milsim, without being a training tool, I also have VBS2 to compare.

Now, modded A2 is unbeatable I think, can’t be touched by anything, I expect it may never be. It’s the last of the series in that particular vain, that’s what I believe anyway.

I am sticking to A2, for that realism, feel and enjoyment. A3 looks and moves better, no doubt, just its too gamey, a sort of sophisticated larger scale shoot-em-up.

This is just imho.

depends, on what is untouchable for you personally. If we talk about graphics, physix, animations, infanatery close combat, no mods, can bring arma 2 on arma 3 level, for example.