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

[chortles 263]

For real? :butbut:

I wasn't aware of that, damn.

DnA (project lead) and RiE (creative director) said in the "delayed campaign" announcement, boldfacing mine:

Turbulent Times

This is not to say that the project has been without issue. Arma 3 started life with a very different team and a very different scope and direction. Since 2012, we've seen the number of developers working on the game double, absorbing the Mníšek studio and bringing in a bunch of talented new hires in key positions across all 3 studios. And, later on in the year, we found ourselves in a position to conduct a thorough project review, which fundamentally re-evaluated the direction that the project was taking.

This turnaround was made no easier by some of the unpredictable events of last year. The uncertainty that was produced and the impact it's had - on both a professional and personal level - cannot be emphasised enough. It made a tough time exponentially more difficult. In the end, this process culminated in the successful release of the Arma 3 Alpha, and, despite some tough, pragmatic choices, we believe that it's put us in a much better long-term position.

Furthermore, the project plans, which crystallised last October, did not sufficiently take into account the great impact that public development would have in parallel to our internal milestones. More time went into directly supporting the Alpha and Beta than was planned, leaving less attention for the full game content. While it pushed our relatively small team's resources further, we stiill fully believe in the early access release strategy, and the benefits it has wrought.

How has it taken so long, then? As mentioned above, the project has experienced fundamental changes in terms of its vision, scope, scale, and setting. Put frankly, almost two years of work related to the original direction was binned. Through a process of playing, evaluating, and honest reflection, we found that the original plan was not headed towards what we expected from a legitimate Arma sequel. The changes that were necessary to put the project back on track have been costly and difficult but, ultimately, we feel, worthwhile.

No specifics on the nature of the shit show, of course, considering what I said before about the line between frank and "abandon all hope" or speaking ill of other developers, EDIT: although there was a change of project leads last year (to DnA) with the prior project lead Dan Musil departing for Warhorse Studios; I'm not familiar with the circumstances thereof and won't speculate here.

Again, the salient point that strikes me is that development/publishing-wise they ended up having to put out something, and to do so on time -- and that that was internally deemed a higher priority than "remaining true to what Pd3 considers to be the OFP/Arma spirit", to say nothing of specific features (such as the infamous "firing personal weapons from personal vehicles", an example of items that a dev explicitly said were de-prioritized in favor of other unspecified items). Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if that ends up being the case in future installments... not that the devs won't try, but that they'll only be allowed so much trying, and what you considered "the OFP/Arma spirit" is not sacrosanct, possibly even viewed as an "if we have time" luxury (though as you conceded, its omission here was "not for want of trying").

If you're not okay with the devs having that kind of relationship with their publisher, then you might as well call it quits on the franchise whose name has already farmed out to mobile app games...

I know this seems kind of like a flame-bait'y sentiment, but I genuinely believe millennials as a demographic seem to not really have the same discriminating taste that previous generations had before them.

It's pretty much how Microsoft was able to launch it's console whilst dumbing down and cannibalizing the PC game market to pawn off to relatively newer consumers who had no idea what the industry was or where it was headed prior to them getting involved.

We're seeing the effects now as games like CoD still rely on expanding ring ballistics/weapon handling which is at this point a throwback to the 16 year old rainbow six series.

And yet their core consumer base sees nothing wrong with it. Augh.

I would think of it less as "lack of discerning taste" and more "the millenials don't want what the prior generations did, and therefore Microsoft is in fact 'serving the customer' in following what they want"... :p Edited September 22, 2013 by Chortles

[Enrico 1]

This is ridiculous; utterly and ultimately stilted.

To the author, this is not how you voice criticism. Your posts are self-served, hatred-deflecting rants directed towards a game you've never played and an overtly passionate attitude in upholding a status quo of what you feel a military simulation fps game should be.

Any substance is immediately overshadowed by a waiving banner of contempt. Just the way you worded the thread speaks of poor taste and not one of us could possibly satisfy your agenda. You might as well have had the word, "entitlement" tattooed on your forehead.

How can one seriously offer you a rebuttal? Maybe the well-intentioned, the righteous few, and much more likely, the naïve. Well folks, you are wasting your time with him. You won't be addressed by any developer. Your initial post was a guarantee. My only hope is that others can learn from the fruitlessness of your stone-walled, frothy-mouthed, and highly fencing manner.

Dear reader, and perhaps player about this title!

I have just expressed, maybe in a way too sarcastic http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?164507-So-Arma-3-is-out-now-does-it-set-the-standard-for-future-releases-in-the-series&p=2506636#post2506636,a BIS disrespectful conduct, not only for those who have bought the game at its official release, but especially, for those who have helped, by doing beta testers and financing them in advance.

I do not think i've offended anyone, and in any case, if what I said was somehow not true, i invite you to prove me wrong quietly, preferably in PM for correctness of the other people on this forum.

Being a fan of ArmA ... and a good customer (from 2001 to 2013, i have bought 8 Bohemia titles...so...dont say..NEVER played...plz!) thisn't mind that my only duty is just pay the games without any objection or critics!

Anyway!

I wasn't talk about if you like ArmA III or not,but the negative surprise of an unfinished product surpassing the limit that was accepted by all the previous editions .....falling this time to be unacceptable!

And the disappoint to wait a express patch for begin to be enjoyable!...Sorry if ask too much Failberry!

Regards

Edited September 22, 2013 by Enrico

[Techn0 10]

I applaud BIS for taking a risk and theming the game in the future, I would love to see a sci-fi expansion with lasers, gauss guns and railguns . The new uniforms are really cool. I have read a lot of posts, both here and on Steam about how people cannot play unless the uniforms are authentic. Please that is a ridiculous reason not to enjoy a game. The uniforms fit the theme perfectly.

BIS get my thumbs up for this game. I had hoped they would be a little more daring. To the people who claim this is more twitch based, you are wrong. As a long time player of the Quake and Unreal series (which are real twitch games unlike spam fests like CoD) I can tell you right now, Arma 3 is so far removed from that playstyle. The movement is more fluid and that's about it. if you run in full gear and then aim down sights your crosshair jumps all over the place. I don't know what these people claiming other wise have been playing, but they are just wrong.

The amount of vehicles/assets rivals that of OFP. So lack of content? If by lack of content you mean single player, well you all know that's coming and most of the community play multi anyway. Lest we forget Steam Workshop and all the user made single player content that would provide you with with enough distraction till the campaigns are released.

The performance online is better than Arma 2 on many missions, except wasteland of course. Domination plays well, that Annex map needs optimising and some of the servers themselves have terrible frame rates (something BIS can do nothing about). All in all I feel this was a solid release with enough content for multiplay.I am running the game on an overclocked i5 2500k @ 4.5Ghz

[Enrico 1]

ArmA III Coomercial spot:

Experience true combat gameplay in a massive military sandbox. Deploying a wide variety of single- and multiplayer content, over 20 vehicles and 40 weapons, and limitless opportunities for content creation, the PC’s premier military game series is back. Authentic, diverse, open - Arma 3 sends you to war.

I applaud BIS for taking a risk and theming the game in the future,

I dont applaude,but i must admit that risk is very high!

I have read a lot of posts, both here and on Steam about how people cannot play unless the uniforms are authentic. Please that is a ridiculous reason not to enjoy a game. The uniforms fit the theme perfectly.

Maybe they dosen't like it....but it's a normal reaction...we were used to play whit authentic arsenals and uniforms from frist title "Operation Flashpoint" ( year 2001)...MX Rifles..?? :rolleyes:

The performance online is better than Arma 2 on many missions, except wasteland of course. Domination plays well, that Annex map needs optimising and some of the servers themselves have terrible frame rates (something BIS can do nothing about). All in all I feel this was a solid release with enough content for multiplay.

I'm sorry but the multiplayer is a disaster on all servers with Altis Map, and we know that the cause is a bad optimization of the map...and not only!

But I'm glad to see that for every person who comes out .. there is another who enter.

Now we must to see if the youngs followers,in the passage of time,will become ArmA III faithful or...just a moment to test it!..Here we are where come out the...very high risk!

**My 2cents.

....the gameplay and feeling that breaths in ArmA II OA + ACE Mod it's still superior to comparison of ArmA III !..IMVHO !!

CPU AMD FX 6300 OC 4800 Ghz to stable 85 FPS.

Regards

Edited September 23, 2013 by Enrico

[pd3 25]

@pd3 and nettrucker : come on guys, maybe you should simply try the game to make your own idea ? It's far from being as bad as it may seem by reading all those complaints.

I put money behind products I believe are good.

If I knew somebody that owned it, I could be arsed to mess around with it and test some of the more questionable mechanics myself, however I genuinely don't see how anything I've seen with my own two eyes is somehow going to be magically different when I play it myself.

I knew from just watching OFP being demo'ed that I had to have it.

I trust my instincts thus far, and every time I've suspended my cynicism for other games I've been stung badly.

Thankfully all of those games were steam sales. :cool:

---------- Post added at 19:36 ---------- Previous post was at 19:22 ----------

Again, the salient point that strikes me is that development/publishing-wise they ended up having to put out something, and to do so on time -- and that that was internally deemed a higher priority than "remaining true to what Pd3 considers to be the OFP/Arma spirit", to say nothing of specific features (such as the infamous "firing personal weapons from personal vehicles", an example of items that a dev explicitly said were de-prioritized in favor of other unspecified items). Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if that ends up being the case in future installments... not that the devs won't try, but that they'll only be allowed so much trying, and what you considered "the OFP/Arma spirit" is not sacrosanct, possibly even viewed as an "if we have time" luxury (though as you conceded, its omission here was "not for want of trying").

Shooting from cargo positions has been something that players have wanted since the days of OFP, It surprises me far less that such a feature hasn't been implemented, it's not exactly an easy one to do.

Yeah, it seems like they were fighting a lot of volatility and less than ideal circumstances, I sincerely hope that as an operation they don't end up becoming too bloated personnel-wise only to precipitate a complete re orientation of their motives. Meaning: I hope they don't start focusing their development with the primary intent of supporting a larger employee base. That would likely in my mind constitute the ultimate defilement of the series, and specifically contradict what made BI such an admirable company for leaving the clutches of Codemasters.

It may have already happened at this point, but eh. I would very much like to know what specifically about the project was deemed undesirable, and who was ultimately responsible for that directive.

Through a process of playing, evaluating, and honest reflection

That stinks of marketing people/focus groups, although I could be wrong. On second thought, I may not even want to know. If I found out such types were responsible for certain aspects I would have enjoyed not being part of the game I would probably be pretty pissed off.

I don't necessarily want to say that my values resemble some kind of amorphous set of aesthetics. More a concrete design philosophy that is conducive to the future improvement of the series. It's all very curious, but it very much explains the result.

If you're not okay with the devs having that kind of relationship with their publisher, then you might as well call it quits on the franchise whose name has already farmed out to mobile app games...I would think of it less as "lack of discerning taste" and more "the millenials don't want what the prior generations did, and therefore Microsoft is in fact 'serving the customer' in following what they want"... :p

The problem with that is twofold:

1 - they were never given an option to experience an improvement in technology, granted they are as a demographic wholly ignorant and new to the industry and thus found something that was already old and out of date by the time they experienced it.

2 - it's just bad. Terrible. Awful. No discerning consumer actively desires something that is inferior with full knowledge that there are better things out there. You literally have to be placed in a technological vacuum to think that way. They're basically the north Koreans of gaming. ;)

Edited September 23, 2013 by Pd3

[chortles 263]

Shooting from cargo positions has been something that players have wanted since the days of OFP, It surprises me far less that such a feature hasn't been implemented, it's not exactly an easy one to do.

It just sticks out in my mind because of Dwarden coming right out and explicitly saying that it got put on the backburner-or-dropped during development, and people demanding to know or wondering whether their favored game mechanic was similarly a victim of the chopping block (like Dwarden outright said that "shooting from vehicles" was) with a first-hand "from the devs" statement instead of having to merely infer.

Yeah, it seems like they were fighting a lot of volatility and less than ideal circumstances, I sincerely hope that as an operation they don't end up becoming too bloated personnel-wise only to precipitate a complete re orientation of their motives. Meaning: I hope they don't start focusing their development with the primary intent of supporting a larger employee base. That would likely in my mind constitute the ultimate defilement of the series, and specifically contradict what made BI such an admirable company for leaving the clutches of Codemasters.

Not sure what you mean there, but as I stated before, these days BI is "the publisher", and instead of being the product which the whole of BI's resources are poured into, Arma is (now) merely the "flagship" product, even if it's still resourced more than any of the others (i.e. during alpha or beta I heard from forums users here that supposedly anywhere from three-fifths to seven-tenths of BI devs were Arma 3 devs) and that shift predates DayZ. The nature of that resourcing is disputed on these forums, but I'm not going to weigh in on those claims myself here.

That stinks of marketing people/focus groups, although I could be wrong. On second thought, I may not even want to know. If I found out such types were responsible for certain aspects I would have enjoyed not being part of the game I would probably be pretty pissed off.

No idea just what you mean by "focus groups" here -- considering that some people had actually wanted closed testing in lieu of a public alpha but the devs ended up doing both ("private" testing and the public alpha and beta), although for that private testing they specifically solicited both veteran players and players new to the series. As far as the "vision" stuff, it seems clear to me that the new project lead just didn't agree with his predecessor's tenure, that he'd been brought in because Maruk (as CEO of the developer and publisher) was dissatisfied with the state of the game as of the changeover, and that the new project lead felt that he wouldn't be able to salvage that (at least, not to the publisher's satisfaction within whatever internal deadline Arma 3 now had) and so he had the creative director's acceptance or even agreement in binning the prior development. From Maruk's end though, any dissatisfaction was probably more to do with the game as a whole than any specific feature, i.e. it almost certainly wasn't "evil publisher forces devs to remove Pd3's-vision-of-infantry because he wants a casual shooter"... more like "the game as a whole wasn't to the CEO's liking, as well as late and possibly over budget, and the project lead and CEO of the devs were OK with Pd3's-vision-of-infantry being not implemented if trying (further) would put the game at risk of not launching on the new deadline."

All that I see as a concrete move away from your vision is simply that your-vision-of-infantry was not deemed untouchable by the devs... though I don't know if we'll ever hear the whole story about just what was deemed untouchable and what wasn't.

Again, as I said before -- you not getting Arma 3 is a given, your concern is all about future Arma development, and unfortunately I just can't give any truthfully concrete answers that would be more reassuring. Sorry. :(

(As far as what I mean by "untouchable" -- once upon a time people may have thought that BI would remain "independent" and never go Steamworks and even heap praise on the devs for it, but when push came to shove deadline-wise and the project lead determined that only Steamworks would cut down development time enough to meet that deadline... well, you get my drift, don't you?)

Edited September 24, 2013 by Chortles

[arma2zombies 10]

Good read. Thank you

[bvrettski 10]

Only if 15-20 fps is the standard we are willing to live with.

[rfxcasey 1]

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.

Donno dude, I can still shoot the balls of a nat at 100 yards after sprinting 100 meters with an AR-15. Arma 2 human limitation simulation was always way over done in my opinion, and historically, troops have fought their way out of bad situations through seer will and skill quite often. I actually feel connected with the character now, instead of hopelessly frustrated by a horribly clunky and cumbersome weapons handling, movement and human limitation model that I am always having to make exceptions for, not because its realistic but because its just not done well. Still hard to hit a moving target in Arma 3 I don't see a whole lot to complain about except perhaps more wind effect and bullet drop. If you set the AI on a hard enough setting, you'll easily find yourself planning attach out for the best results else wind up real dead, real quick. We've all experienced our 'WTF' moments in Arma 2 where the chunky clunky movement has overly limited our ability and gotten us killed prematurely. Not to mention AI seeing through cover. If I am laying down in Arma 3 and get engaged the AI will continue to attach my last know position for a time even if I move out of sight. The farther I crawl away the fainter the sound of the shoots coming in my direction as they pelt to bush I was laying under a moment ago.

I'll tell you another thing that seems vastly improved in my limited time testing. Used to be in Arma 2 you'd always have a guy in the squad grab and MG just so he could lay down and engage every targets with laser like precision. The deployed MGs in Arma 2 were always way to accurate and ruined the sim for assault troops whose weapons were much less effective at those ranges. An MG is more of a support/suppression weapon though it sure didn't feel that way in Arma 2. Now in 3 seems that the MGs have a bit more spread and are less controllable as they should be, assault weapons feel more like precision implements as do most modern assault rifles.

Love Arma 2, and however you may choose to belittle people who don't share your opinion, I was quite good at it. Still, I must say that Arma 3 is a hugh leap forward in combat simulation. If you want clunky unrealistic, basically turn based combat strategy, perhaps you should try some Jagged Alliance or some board games like Robotech instead. Arma 3 is still not a run and gun COD or BF3 though BF3 is fun to play. You can't play Arma 3 like BF3 and expect to live long so I think if you're putting it in the same class as those you're exaggerating.

Arma 3 is not Arma 2, which is both a good and bad thing, though I love what they have done so far, with more content and improved AI it will become the new standard as hard as that my be for some folks to except.

Edited September 25, 2013 by rfxcasey

[-RFP-CHykis 11]

I applaud BIS for taking a risk and theming the game in the future, I would love to see a sci-fi expansion with lasers, gauss guns and railguns . The new uniforms are really cool. I have read a lot of posts, both here and on Steam about how people cannot play unless the uniforms are authentic. Please that is a ridiculous reason not to enjoy a game. The uniforms fit the theme perfectly.

Wait WHAT?! The future? Are you kidding? The future without auto zeroing on tanks? Without cumulatives? Cumulatives was on tanks in WW2 lol. In BIS's future tanks don't have it - ow wow FUTURE! Why future? Because of iranian helmets and supermodern camo? Oh lol. It's not even 60-s. Just plus thermals and uavs. Tanks need to bite each other all day to kill - what a bright future! And i don't talking about other aspects.

[Enrico 1]

Hi!

More time passes and greater is the gap between those who see ArmA III a worthy successor or otherwise a alternative FPS, but well away from the series to which veterans were used to!

Is useless to list compare the old editions with the last one.

The difference is remarkable and even a child would understand it.

Whitout doubts BIS have done something innovative, maybe a little out of the expectations .... at least from my expectations for sure.

I dont talking about the usual bugs that we are used to seeing to be correct patch after patch, who knows ArmA knows of these problems and accept them without too many surprises.

But the feeling of a tradition that has been redesigned to make it more attractive to the younger generation, of course, always different from all the FPS on the market but ........ no more a point of reference for those who loved that FPS modern military tactical and real.

There are many things very nice in ArmA III,options..animations...textures quality.... and i am not here to list them because it would be boring, the problem is that all this nice things toghters dosent make a game.

The beta test phase is over and so it's hard to think that the BIS turn back proposing a ArmA III in a game concept to ArmA II.

Perhaps with an expansion? ... Everything can be done ..... but I see it really hard!

The excessive fatigue effect in the running and jogging .. do not tell me that in real life ,after 50 meters jogging with a weight of 15 kg backpack, we are collapsing!

The uniforms default enemies and friends who dress the same tailor! ... So we kill between team mate because the differences are minimal and should not wait .... .. shoot first and later ... Sorry M8!

The weapons of the year 2035? ....There are thousand real weapons in this era and..them invented the prototype of the future!..for what?

The ballistics of bullets minimized! ..... 200mt-300mt-400mt not observed the actual distance of the collimator of the weapons!

The rules applied to the player are not applied to the AI .. this means that they can run whitout fatigue effect .. shoot accurately in all position from very far distance......you cant see them in cover behind a plant...but the A.I...yes!!

The actions to enter and exit doors it's still hard and not smooth....etx...etx

These are just some things that I do not like in ArmA III ...... but the list could to be stretch a lot if we check all bugs about MP---Altis Map drop fps issue--Invulnerability A.I--Danmage Veicols--Target scope but shot the terrain (new edition but with the same bug in ArmA 2)...

Anyway!

Now let's just hope in the future that meets all of the players ... new and old one!

Regards

Edited September 26, 2013 by Enrico

[mistyronin 1181]

Enrico did you played the previous games since the release? And how you judge that "gap", any scientific data or just your personal perception?

Almost all weapons and vehicles in-game are real and the rest advanced prototypes. And I don't see how the uniforms are done by the same tailor, they couldn't be more different ( in fact the only main personal issue I have with this game is the steampunk like uniform for CSAT ).

Anyway I do understand that the game hasn't match the expectations you had, but I don't see much logic in most of your statements, neither in the point that you are repeating them in different threads...

I've been playing for more than 10 years in this series and seriously I don't understand at all this kind of bashing.

[gossamersolid 155]

The deployed MGs in Arma 2 were always way to accurate and ruined the sim for assault troops whose weapons were much less effective at those ranges..

What?

There are no deployed MGs in ArmA 2. The model has a bipod, but that doesn't affect the actual recoil. All that was setup was the prone recoil for most guns was next to none.

[Enrico 1]

Enrico did you played the previous games since the release? And how you judge that "gap", any scientific data or just your personal perception?

Almost all weapons and vehicles in-game are real and the rest advanced prototypes. And I don't see how the uniforms are done by the same tailor, they couldn't be more different ( in fact the only main personal issue I have with this game is the steampunk like uniform for CSAT ).

Anyway I do understand that the game hasn't match the expectations you had, but I don't see much logic in most of your statements, neither in the point that you are repeating them in different threads...

I've been playing for more than 10 years in this series and seriously I don't understand at all this kind of bashing.

Hi!

I am fan Bohemia from the frist title Operation Flashpoint+Red Hammer+Revenge--ArmA+Queen's Gambit--ArmA II+OA+Reinforcement pack..so i think to be a great customer...and before to buy ArmA III....yes! i tested the Alpha edition whitout MP!

I was skeptical but i belived that maybe was just a demo, and whit the official realase , that i could have many other choices...my mistake...i agree!

If you check better you will see that so many users the repeat wat they think in all forum here,and if i am wrong way i will be happy to re-evaluate this title....and yes! Maybe i am little bit pissed but after 12 years as a player i think it's normal!

Ciao!

[EDcase 87]

What you should understand from being a long time player of BIS games is that they keep working and improving the game after 'release'

[Enrico 1]

What you should understand from being a long time player of BIS games is that they keep working and improving the game after 'release'

Hi!

That's mind that ,maybe, between 4 patchs and a expansion, i will see a complety different game?....Because i think that we are talking about 2 different things....but how i saied before:

Now let's just hope in the future that meets all of the players ... new and old one!

Regards

Edited September 25, 2013 by Enrico

[chrisb 196]

Arma 3 has split the playing community in this series. There are the players that side towards realistic game-play, towards the ‘sim’ side if you like (me included).

Then there are the players who side towards the more mainstream easier to use and play side, the game side.

Now I think A3 has gone towards mainstream, but as I have said before, not totally, they sort of landed in a no mans land, halfway (at the moment), neither fully mainstream or fully following its roots.

With patches and dlc’s etc, it may come back toward the original format (roots) i.e. more sim like, but its doubtful. On the other hand it may go further towards mainstream, this is what I think will happen i.e. further away from its roots and into mainstream itself, more gamey.

This is what I think BIS were wanting after they saw the success of BF3, can’t blame them for that, more income/sales.

The players that find A3 really good and think it feels more realistic, would have never played the series heavily modded, that’s where you find the realistic side of this game. If you played more or less solely the vanilla game previously, maybe a few effect mod/addons, then A3 will feel better.

If however you played with mod/addons that boosted the sim side of the game i.e. going for realism, then I/we can clearly see A3 doesn’t fall anywhere near realistic, compared to a modded A2CO game, which favours the more sim side of the game.

Arma 3 takes the opposing route to that, going toward mainstream, far more gamey.

Now its released as a game, for me the game itself is mainstream enough to be called, a mainstream shooter.

That’s simply my view, but it seems to have gone that way, players are most definitely split between the two playing types: sim like, or game like.

[Smurf 12]

Ah no... all this crap about mainstream, going gamey, away from sim (IT NEVER WAS!), decline of the franchise and all that BS because of.... I don't know? (Setting, performance and content aside, doesn't matter on this case) fluid animations, FAKs and spins? And worst, comparations with a 4 year old fine tuned game heavily modded.

Really, JUST THAT! Because if it isn't, tell me what else?

Mirror'ed sides? That goes away with more content, either mods or official.

What matters is what is under the hood, what appears to be good even on this initial state (hint: initial is a key word here). It is almost hilarious to see all those self proclamed "OFP CWC Heroes" speaking how bad A3 is, thought they would have learned by now that release =\= all what you get.

Where were you all on A2 release? It was shit, plain and simple with more broken features than working ones. Then it got patched with fixes, some content, new features. And again with Operation Arrowhead. And again with each new DLC. And I'm not even counting the patches in-between those all. PRO TIP: Replace A2 with A1 or OFP, all the same.

Now, can you tell me that you could go from A2:CO final to A2 and say it's the same thing? NOPE.

What makes you think this time it will be different this time? Hell, even from Alpha to what we have now you can see significant changes all around.

PS: Don't take it personal Chris, wans't aimed at you but to all doomsday sayers ;)

Edited September 25, 2013 by Smurf

[ProfTournesol 956]

I absolutely disagree with ArmA3 being a mainstream shooter.

[sulman 12]

I absolutely disagree with ArmA3 being a mainstream shooter.

I think it's a weird assertion to make. It is no more forgiving than OFP was.

I've been with the series since CWC, and I think this is my favourite release along with Armed Assault (I loved Arma 1 for single player, I still do.)

[rfxcasey 1]

What?

There are no deployed MGs in ArmA 2. The model has a bipod, but that doesn't affect the actual recoil. All that was setup was the prone recoil for most guns was next to none.

Did you really not understand what I meant? Wow, I guess some people just can't put 2 and 2 together. Laying down was the closest thing to a deploy the sim allowed for and greatly effected recoil to the point of, what else would you call it? MGs aren't even that accurate when actually deployed on a bipod in real life, not even by a longshot, especially something like and M60. If that wasn't meant to simulate deployed recoil without actually implementing a deployment system in the sim, then BIS really F'd up on that one as it was even more so impossibly ridiculous for simply lying prone. All this talk of realism lacking in Arma 3 make me laugh when you look at Arma 2. Now you are saying that all troops using MGs were meant to just lean on their elbows when lying down and not even use the bipod, now that sounds realistic. To that point, I reassert that the sim was horribly borked by the ability of a single MG wielding troop to lay down and unload an extremely high rate of fire, killing basically everything with greater then sniper like accuracy leaving the assault troops to twittle their thumbs. Perhaps you didn't play a lot of multiplayer. Go sit down.

Edited September 25, 2013 by rfxcasey

[chortles 263]

For what it's worth, here's a "community letter" that was delivered to BI on 5 August with what is purported to have been DnA's response sent and received today; the community letter highlighting infantry movement, loadout and the medical system as their concerns, and DnA's purported response, which I'll excerpt below:

Firstly, I would like to point out that our wishes to streamline the presentation and other elements of the user experience, such as the installation process, were not driven by business motivations. We felt that a lot of these rough edges were simply not necessary, and standing in the way of enjoyment. There exists no driving force within or above our team which would have us make design decisions just to cater to more players - or to become less ‘hardcore’. Several decisions in the last year have had to be made on the basis of resources, deadlines and actually getting a game released. We sincerely believe the early access program has filtered a lot of stability and performance issues that would have otherwise been with us on release. Are we there yet? No, there are still issues in these categories and we continue to address them.

Of course it is also possible that those involved with Arma 3 now, have a different vision of what the game should be, than those involved over the past decade. There is no definitive balance between authenticity, realism and fun that suits every person. For most of us in the team, we don’t want to make a true (procedure) simulator; Arma is still a game to us. A sim-game, but a game. Don’t get me wrong; we have no wishes to move away from attempting to simulate many elements of the game, because only through simulation can we achieve more dynamic, open and free virtual worlds. But it has to be useful and appropriate. That said, we always try to keep it possible for mods to put forward their own vision. We do realize that in most cases the vanilla core game will dominate the playerbase.

Interestingly, the sections of the game which you highlight, are precisely those which were problem-cases during development. We originally set out to bring them forward in big ways (e.g. combat medicine). But we failed to finish some of these systems, deadlines and resources caught up with us, and we had to dial down the ambitions for the initial release. For our team, the September 12th release did not mean we could rest, as one normally would. We are still working terribly hard on tweaking, fixing, balancing and gathering everyone’s wishes for future plans. Some of the specific issues you highlight have actually already been worked on since your letter was sent, and work on them is still on-going.

My opinion on this may well be biased, but I truly believe that we are much closer to the Arma spirit you seek now than where the project was headed a year ago. Arma 3 then was focusing on a different and specific type of gameplay. It had many exciting ideas, but could not be executed, and to me it was less of a complete military sandbox. Perhaps at some point we can share details on how exactly those plans looked, and what changed.

[Enrico 1]

Quote Originally Posted by DnA

Of course it is also possible that those involved with Arma 3 now, have a different vision of what the game should be, than those involved over the past decade. There is no definitive balance between authenticity, realism and fun that suits every person. For most of us in the team, we don’t want to make a true (procedure) simulator; Arma is still a game to us. A sim-game, but a game. Don’t get me wrong; we have no wishes to move away from attempting to simulate many elements of the game, because only through simulation can we achieve more dynamic, open and free virtual worlds. But it has to be useful and appropriate. That said, we always try to keep it possible for mods to put forward their own vision. We do realize that in most cases the vanilla core game will dominate the playerbase.

If I understand correctly,ArmA III doesn't want follow the way to be a simulator, but even an arcade game, so it's a .....a mixture between reality and shoot 'em up???

If he said that to program a title like ArmA becomes impossible to bring it to simulation level to 100% ..... no one would have objected to this, he's right!

But nobody had asked for it..of course!

Anyway!

Why BIS continue to sale his product like a:

Experience true combat gameplay in a massive military sandbox. Authentic, different.

False:

Experience true---How can to be TRUE if they dont wont to make a virtual reality game....in poor words a simulator!

False:

Authentic---Different word but some meaning about true.

It isn't because the authenticity is something that responds to the truth.

Different? ..... Yes...i agree,but about what?...The past editions? The FPS games in the market today?...I dont know!

I get the impression that they want keep a full bottle of vodka and equally drunk!

They should take a position more accurate to understand exactly what they are selling....or what they want to believe they are selling!

I firmly believe that depending on how the users, so the sales market, it will move, even the look of the game will take away more for a simulation or for the alternative!...We'll see!

Regards

Edited September 26, 2013 by Enrico

[chrisb 196]

Ah no... all this crap about mainstream, going gamey, away from sim (IT NEVER WAS!), decline of the franchise and all that BS because of.... I don't know? (Setting, performance and content aside, doesn't matter on this case) fluid animations, FAKs and spins? And worst, comparations with a 4 year old fine tuned game heavily modded.

Really, JUST THAT! Because if it isn't, tell me what else?

Mirror'ed sides? That goes away with more content, either mods or official.

What matters is what is under the hood, what appears to be good even on this initial state (hint: initial is a key word here). It is almost hilarious to see all those self proclamed "OFP CWC Heroes" speaking how bad A3 is, thought they would have learned by now that release =\= all what you get.

Where were you all on A2 release? It was shit, plain and simple with more broken features than working ones. Then it got patched with fixes, some content, new features. And again with Operation Arrowhead. And again with each new DLC. And I'm not even counting the patches in-between those all. PRO TIP: Replace A2 with A1 or OFP, all the same.

Now, can you tell me that you could go from A2:CO final to A2 and say it's the same thing? NOPE.

What makes you think this time it will be different this time? Hell, even from Alpha to what we have now you can see significant changes all around.

:rolleyes:

_______

PS: Don't take it personal Chris, wans't aimed at you but to all doomsday sayers ;)

Everyone has an opinion, yours is yours and mine is mine, and yes I do know that it was in essence aimed at me or lets say, the likes of me, with the view of A3 I and others have.

But it doesn’t matter, its how I see the series after playing the game the way I have. How you see it, may/will be different, that’s completely acceptable to me, none of us are going to agree on all points.

Provided we bought the game, I did, I like to support BI, they provided the best series of games ever made for pc, of that we can probably all agree.

How we decide to play the game is always going to be different, for each of us players. Plus, we are all allowed a say, its what being here is about, a passion for anything, will always cause arguments. ;)

[Smurf 12]

Sure. And I don't think that our vision for the game is much different, I too wouldn't be happy if this was it's final form.

And that was what I was trying to say on that wall of text.