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

[mistyronin 1181]

Who was the one that repeats always the same things...etx..etx?................. LOL!! ;)

So you quote me in different contexts and not even keeping the order. Fine... :rolleyes:

As you can see in the posts you have nicely quoted and if you check my profile I'm always giving my opinion, hence the word I repeat the most: IMO, or talking about facts that can be easily checked ( equipment based in actual or prototypes, or different uniforms ).

I do not think that anyone can make a change of opinion ...

Mate, that's really sad.

You know... forums are made precisely to debate, which is to give different arguments about a certain topic in favor and against it to point out fallacies and convince the others proving your arguments with facts. It's quite a standard in democracy ( it was based in the greek Agora ).

Anyway, if you have any personal issue, you can always send a PM :)

[chortles 263]

But to make the judgements that he's doing he must have played the game. I mean you can say that you don't like the futuristic theme without playing, but to talk about movement you must played it.

And IMO there is no point in keep discussing and complaining for days about a game you have decided not to buy. Unless he has some dark motive to do so, like been payed by someone or something like that.

It wasn't (supposed to be) about the game itself, but rather about BI as developers and future Arma games. Pd3's OP was basically "I'm not getting Arma 3 because of the dumbing down, but was this intentional and can I expect this dumbing down in future Arma games?" Hence my own reply to the effect of "it's not dumbed down for want of trying..." (That is, "tried, failed, ran out of time to keep trying, had to ship with it even if it costs us a purchase by Pd3".)

And Pd3 did concede that yeah, he wasn't nearly as clued in to how troubled the Arma 3 development was, which otherwise would have given him context as to why the implementation felt dumbed down to him, and he appreciated being given that context (which I felt was necessary context)... what he was concerned about was dev intent for future iterations.

If you just want to signal your approval of both the implementation and the perceived direction/dev intent, just quote InstaGoat:

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

Edited September 27, 2013 by Chortles

[Deadfast 43]

From the petition:

Movement

To say it clearly, movement was definitely an area in Arma 2 that needed improvement, and for the most part, we agree that the changes in Arma 3 are for the better. However, along the way some of the required features were lost, most notably inertia. Sprinting and stopping is basically instantaneous, with no transition whatsoever.

You see nothing wrong with this.

No words.

Yes, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Defending the animation set up from the previous games of the series (which I all played) as having inertia is simply being oblivious to the fact the animation transitions were badly set up. You never felt in control of your character. I distinctly remember playing a coop mission where 90% of injuries weren't due to enemy fire but people falling off roofs because of uninterruptable transitional animations.

[nettrucker 142]

Reply on the quote.

If they continue on the pace they were on late A2 and early A3, future is bright.

Thanks for your reply very much appreciated.

cheers

[Enrico 1]

You know... forums are made precisely to debate, which is to give different arguments about a certain topic in favor and against it to point out fallacies and convince the others proving your arguments with facts. It's quite a standard in democracy ( it was based in the greek Agora ).

Anyway, if you have any personal issue, you can always send a PM :)

Hi!

There is just only one small particles that perhaps escapes you,my friend.

If i say, for example, that i dont like ArmA III, like ArmA II + OA, because i havent found the same real SIM spirit, like to previous editions, or because the maps look too remains whit little cities or big countries but far from Takistan Maps or Chernarus, and the arsenal is too poor also whit all opticals interchangeable, and that now ArmA III looks like a big pot with many good things and well made but not yet assembled ....... do you have some repute can convice to me that i am wrong?

Certainly not!

Because we are talking about different points of view!

This is the classic.....the glass half empty or half full!

You can answer to me that ,for example,you dont see this problems or that you love ArmA III under all aspects....and it's ok and i i will be glad for you..but convince....it's another thing!

And...not one personal issue whit you.......just i like clarify my point when I say my opinion ... always respecting that of others!

Regards

Edited September 27, 2013 by Enrico

[pd3 25]

Yes, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Defending the animation set up from the previous games of the series (which I all played) as having inertia is simply being oblivious to the fact the animation transitions were badly set up. You never felt in control of your character. I distinctly remember playing a coop mission where 90% of injuries weren't due to enemy fire but people falling off roofs because of uninterruptable transitional animations.

So you're going to carry forth this fallacious rationalization that either we have A2 style movement or we must revert to Quake/Unreal/BF/CoD style non inertial movement?

Neither is optimal, but to be honest it's kind of a disgrace to the series to see a step back in such a manner.

That's such a critical aspect to the gameplay that it should have been a feature that was the least overlooked.

Complications aside, that's a massive change to the dynamics of the game itself.

My main complaint however is with weapon movement over on-foot.

It's a step back in the name of utility, however that doesn't make it a "good" thing for the future of the series.

And incidentally, I've never really had a problem as much with the issues you've brought up as A2 rarely lags that badly.

---------- Post added at 20:42 ---------- Previous post was at 20:39 ----------

But to make the judgements that he's doing he must have played the game. I mean you can say that you don't like the futuristic theme without playing, but to talk about movement you must played it.

And IMO there is no point in keep discussing and complaining for days about a game you have decided not to buy. Unless he has some dark motive to do so, like been payed by someone or something like that.

I don't need to eat out of a toilet bowl to know something is going to taste bad.

I'm sorry, but testimony and seeing things with my own two eyes is enough.

Especially considering I'm very resistant to endorse something I fundamentally disagree with by paying money to firmly assert that it is in fact not to my liking.

---------- Post added at 20:43 ---------- Previous post was at 20:42 ----------

All I'm sayin is that OFP/ArmA never was an hardcore milsim to begin with.

I understand people would like it to go that way, and that's why you have ACE mods and the likes where you die from a heart attack if you sprint for more than 15 seconds.

But the base game is a realistic combined ops simulator focused on infantry. It's not a hardcore daily life soldier simulator. It's not a fully fledged flight simulator. It's not an advanced tank warfare simulator. It's a combined ops sim with a lot of compromises. I know I love it that way. And I know that many other people over the world love it that way.

Man I can't believe we're discussing this now. I remember when ArmA came out, everyone bitched about the body awareness they implemented and how it felt clunky and very different from OFP.

My point again, was that taking features away from the game and not "improving" them and then telling people to "f-off" is a terrible business model.

[Grizzle 0]

Dude, put down the thesaurus and step away. I'm beginning to think this is more about you than the *game*. I hope the mods lock this thread because it accomplishes absolutely nothing.

[dmarkwick 261]

So you're going to carry forth this fallacious rationalization that either we have A2 style movement or we must revert to Quake/Unreal/BF/CoD style non inertial movement?

Neither is optimal, but to be honest it's kind of a disgrace to the series to see a step back in such a manner.

That's such a critical aspect to the gameplay that it should have been a feature that was the least overlooked.

Complications aside, that's a massive change to the dynamics of the game itself.

Hi Pd3. My own direct experience is that movement is altogether more fluid, rewarding and useful than in past iterations. Lack of inertia is something I have not even noticed, as I'm more interested in getting a movement I want rather than a movement I have to counter. To dismiss the new stances (which you did a few posts back) as "red herrings" is doing a terrible disservice to that new mechanic, and my only conclusion is that, until you try it, you simply won't appreciate it, no matter what you watch. The new stances & movement modes more than make up for inertia mechanics, which are IMO not missed at all.

My main complaint however is with weapon movement over on-foot.

It's a step back in the name of utility, however that doesn't make it a "good" thing for the future of the series.

This is in response to turn speeds yes? Again, my direct experience is that it makes movement more intuitive. I know that people don't like it because of the concern that other players will have some sort of twitch advantage, but honestly, I haven't seen that in action. You still need situational awareness, and you still need to accurately aim, and both of those are difficult in ArmA3. Myself, I have my mouse speeds set to *roughly* ArmA2 sensitivity, with the noticeable difference that I do not get a counter-intuitive "dragging" sensation when turning now. I don't turn at lightening speed, because I prefer control over response, which I believe is the trade-off.

I don't need to eat out of a toilet bowl to know something is going to taste bad.

I'm sorry, but testimony and seeing things with my own two eyes is enough.

Especially considering I'm very resistant to endorse something I fundamentally disagree with by paying money to firmly assert that it is in fact not to my liking.

If you don't like it, you don't like it :) if you really like inertia, and really like turn speed limits, then that's your preference. I don't believe it makes for a more "realistic" experience myself, movement should really be intuitive and useful, not obstructive. That being said, there are game mechanics that I wish were different: the loading system & its subsequent movement speed limits, need looking at IMO. The medical system needs looking at IMO. Both of those are very easy fixes if BIS decide to do so, if not, they're medium level fixes by the community and then I guess we're waiting on the next popular must-have reality addon fix to do this.

My point again, was that taking features away from the game and not "improving" them and then telling people to "f-off" is a terrible business model.

I don't believe that's what happened :)