Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pd3

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

Recommended Posts

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.)

Every release was better from the previous one from a strict engine standpoint. Of course there were bugs at release but hey, this is Arma :cool:

From a campaign standpoint however it was a train wreck :p

But I agree that Arma 1, even if the campaign paled in comparison to OFP/RedHammer/Resistance, had a good campaign overall (loved the "choices" you had to make about which mission to undertake next), especially when compared to Arma 2 (could never finish that one, too much bugs, even after all the patches). Arrowhead wasn't bad but felt pretty disjointed. And BAF/PMC was nice but shortish.

Hopefully Arma 3's campaign will be up to the task and shine like OFP's campaign shined.

One can dream :)

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

Music to my ears.

Arma is a realistic game, but it's still a game.

If I'd really want to play an hardcore milsim, I'd play VBS.

Edited by HBK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Clearly the next step in ensuring a more realistic modeling of recoils via weapons secured with bipods would have involved dynamic physics.

Eventually this must happen, putting off the inevitable is futile, unless of course we want to see the exact same game come out time and again.

My personal sentiment would be that, opposition to technological advancement needs to be ignored.

The demographics that argue against such advancement in favor of simplicity have all the discriminating taste of landfill seagulls anyhow.

They WILL eventually cave, it's not really even subject to debate. Look at how many people bitch and moan about weapon balance in console based FPS franchises?

They still buy the content, they still play the game. These are the people who complain against technical advancements in gameplay.

Edited by Pd3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what were you even trying to ask with your OP? Whether BI would intentionally make arcadey shooters or whether they'd try for something more realistic? Because I thought the September 12 release already answered that... they may try, but if a game's development is troubled enough, they're willing to ship even without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Yes, comparing a game that is four years old to a brand new game with mods that reflect the community's wishes and intentions is "unfair".

Come on, seriously.

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.

What's under "the hood" though is precisely the problem. I specifically stated I don't care about things that can be changed with addon content.

My problem was with aspects fundamental to the game that degrade the integrity of the experience, especially when you consider the fact that it has been changed to suit more simplistic tastes at the expense of technical (not necessarily gameplay) complexity.

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.

This is not going to change some of the fundamental issues that are being complained about.

Bugs and lack of content are one thing, again, I cannot STRESS enough that I don't care about either of those things.

My complaint is the effective pandering to a less sophisticated gaming demographic via simplification of the controls. I don't have a problem with making the game more responsive, however the problem is there are absolutely no limits or consequences to moving in ways that are effectively inhuman.

This removes the more challenging aspects of the game which were effectively a hallmark of the series.

If you got shot in the back, the solution was not to make players be able to turn around at light speed. You simply had to acknowledge that your tactical acumen was flawed and needed work.

That and one of the biggest draws to the series was the exhilaration from playing knowing you were about as vulnerable as you would be doing it if you were at the peak of physical fitness.

You knew you were a vulnerable HUMAN BEING, that sometimes found yourself forced to make judgment calls that would either benefit or harm you and possibly others.

In changing and effectively limiting the consequences of these human variables in favor of reducing frustration experienced by casual gamers - they have watered down one of the most cherished aspects of the series.

What's worse, they've done it for money, and they've not provided an alternative instead. It's wholly disrespectful considering it was customer loyalty that kept BI alive all these years.

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

I promise you that the sorts of changes necessary to make A3 go from "casual hell" to rewarding experience will not happen via expansion content.

At least I'm extremely skeptical of this.

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

I don't think anyone is going to take it personally, I understand where you're coming from, however I think your reasoning is fundamentally misguided.

---------- Post added at 16:43 ---------- Previous post was at 16:38 ----------

So what were you even trying to ask with your OP? Whether BI would intentionally make arcadey shooters or whether they'd try for something more realistic? Because I thought the September 12 release already answered that... they may try, but if a game's development is troubled enough, they're willing to ship even without it.

Basically

Are they going to essentially give up and toss their arms up in the air and be satisfied with shoveling out games with attractive visuals, with "passable" gameplay dynamics.

Or are they going to learn from their mistakes and make a better focused, more concerted effort to maintain some of the integrity of the series whilst trying to manage their market viability?

That's pretty much it.

---------- Post added at 16:46 ---------- Previous post was at 16:43 ----------

Arma is a realistic game, but it's still a game.

If I'd really want to play an hardcore milsim, I'd play VBS.

That letter completely and utterly reflects my sentiments about movement in A3.

They had the right idea, but didn't quite follow through to making it what it should be.

I don't necessarily like the idea of saying "if you want this go out and buy VBS".

VBS is expensive and saying "if you don't like the fact that X feature that was in the game before but not now - go sod off and buy VBS".

Well, that's just not fair, I understand newer people might be daunted by the series as it was, but forcing that kind of dichotomy onto the older players is just unfair.

Edited by Pd3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically

Are they going to essentially give up and toss their arms up in the air and be satisfied with shoveling out games with attractive visuals, with "passable" gameplay dynamics.

Or are they going to learn from their mistakes and make a better focused, more concerted effort to maintain some of the integrity of the series whilst trying to manage their market viability?

That's pretty much it.

Should've just asked that in the OP then instead of narrowly focusing on the September 12 iteration of infantry movement/handling then. ;) Not least since the "essentially give up and toss their arms up in the air and be satisfied" was what happened with regards to Arma 3, when your OP had you asking about a hypothetical Arma 4 and onward, which (as I've been harping on) is basically unanswerable; "the devs can only promise to aspire to do better" and all that.

All that we can actually verify (through it actually happening) is that "essentially give up and toss their arms up in the air and be satisfied" CAN happen and that if development gets dire enough they CAN go "slash and burn", even into the areas that you might have considered "required".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should've just asked that in the OP then instead of narrowly focusing on the September 12 iteration of infantry movement/handling then. ;) Not least since the "essentially give up and toss their arms up in the air and be satisfied" was what happened with regards to Arma 3, when your OP had you asking about a hypothetical Arma 4 and onward, which (as I've been harping on) is basically unanswerable; "the devs can only promise to aspire to do better" and all that.

All that we can actually verify (through it actually happening) is that "essentially give up and toss their arms up in the air and be satisfied" CAN happen and that if development gets dire enough they CAN go "slash and burn", even into the areas that you might have considered "required".

That's fair enough, but it does pertain to the future of the company and the franchise.

And thankfully I've been made aware of many things, not the least of which that excellent open letter which succinctly expresses the focus of my concerns from another group of concerned fans of the series.

It has all contributed to improving my perception as things are, and how things may potentially turn out in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem was with aspects fundamental to the game that degrade the integrity of the experience, especially when you consider the fact that it has been changed to suit more simplistic tastes at the expense of technical (not necessarily gameplay) complexity.

Uhm, could you tell me which features have been simplified that much? ( and don't tell me the medic system nor the others that the devs have stated were because of lack of time and they are working on them now ).

BTW, for how you express yourself, it seems like if your opinion should be the only one that matters to BI. When not every player of this series shares your personal insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's fair enough, but it does pertain to the future of the company and the franchise.

And thankfully I've been made aware of many things, not the least of which that excellent open letter which succinctly expresses the focus of my concerns from another group of concerned fans of the series.

It has all contributed to improving my perception as things are, and how things may potentially turn out in the future.

The problem is that your OP implied such a hard "demand for a guarantee" that I would have had to answer "I can't guarantee that it won't happen again, so you might as well move on from the series if that's not enough reassurance." :p

Admittedly the drama over the so-called open letter seems to be more of the whole thing being private by a specific community group, although it's one that the devs like (not least because of their beer deliveries :lol:), but truthbetold it doesn't restate much of anything that both the vocal ones at the BI forums and the devs weren't already aware of, and DnA's response pretty much restates a bunch of what I'd been hearing through dev comments as well with the usual "oh hey maybe later I'll be able to drop more bits of what exactly went wrong and how exactly the prior development vision of Arma 3 differed from mine"...

... with what I intepreted as an unspoken "for starters it wasn't actually deliverable". ;) (EDIT: There's very little to go on except Maruk's comment on the E3 floor, but I took it to mean "yeah, we did the 'essentially give up and toss their arms up in the air and be satisfied' thing with movement". That's why you're not getting Arma 3, of course... but realistically, I don't think any forums user here could actually guarantee that it wouldn't happen again for a future Arma title, hence my first line in this post.)

Edited by Chortles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uhm, could you tell me which features have been simplified that much? ( and don't tell me the medic system nor the others that the devs have stated were because of lack of time and they are working on them now ).

BTW, for how you express yourself, it seems like if your opinion should be the only one that matters to BI. When not every player of this series shares your personal insight.

Movement, plain and simple.

Every aspect of the movement (not stances, I'm not interested in red herrings).

Additionally, I'm sorry my tone isn't obsequious enough for your liking, however I'm not being inflammatory either.

It almost seems like you're trying to shame me out of expressing my opinions instead of providing well thought counter-points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Movement, plain and simple.

Every aspect of the movement (not stances, I'm not interested in red herrings).

So in your opinion movement has been too simplified over A2? Are you sincerely saying that you would prefer to have the clunky A2 movement in A3?

No words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in your opinion movement has been too simplified over A2? Are you sincerely saying that you would prefer to have the clunky A2 movement in A3?

No words.

Well, to say that, the OP should try A3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of this reminds me of Red Orchestra: Ostfront vs. Heroes Of Stalingrad, except that the degree of progression between ArmA 2 & 3 is far more nuinanced.

Frankly, I don't know what people are complaining about. The game plays and feels better than at any point in its history, and it isn't the least bit 'easier' by any metric you care to mention. For instance, complaining that one can rambo with an LMG may have some validity, but look at the context - CQB wasn't even a thing in previous versions of the game. It's a small price to pay for being able to move with some agility around urban environs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is that your OP implied such a hard "demand for a guarantee" that I would have had to answer "I can't guarantee that it won't happen again, so you might as well move on from the series if that's not enough reassurance." :p

Admittedly the drama over the so-called open letter seems to be more of the whole thing being private by a specific community group, although it's one that the devs like (not least because of their beer deliveries :lol:), but truthbetold it doesn't restate much of anything that both the vocal ones at the BI forums and the devs weren't already aware of, and DnA's response pretty much restates a bunch of what I'd been hearing through dev comments as well with the usual "oh hey maybe later I'll be able to drop more bits of what exactly went wrong and how exactly the prior development vision of Arma 3 differed from mine"...

... with what I intepreted as an unspoken "for starters it wasn't actually deliverable". ;) (EDIT: There's very little to go on except Maruk's comment on the E3 floor, but I took it to mean "yeah, we did the 'essentially give up and toss their arms up in the air and be satisfied' thing with movement". That's why you're not getting Arma 3, of course... but realistically, I don't think any forums user here could actually guarantee that it wouldn't happen again for a future Arma title, hence my first line in this post.)

Either way, it helps to appreciate the current situation.

I'm glad somebody from BI actually responded and finally offered some transparency to the situation though, even if it is their opinion and cannot speak in any official capacity for the company itself.

However the ambiguity of the whole situation is what prompted me ask questions.

Sure there are no concrete answers, but at least some explanations help fill in the gaps, I'm definitely not asking for miss Cleo to give me a psychic prediction, but some info would have helped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving forward, please keep in mind that "some info" is all that anyone here can actually give you, with some degree of ambiguity thanks to the devs' own ambiguity, and your OP implied that you were seeking something "harder" than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So in your opinion movement has been too simplified over A2? Are you sincerely saying that you would prefer to have the clunky A2 movement in A3?

No words.

Nice false dichotomy.

Have you read any of my posts aside from the original one?

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.

---------- Post added at 17:47 ---------- Previous post was at 17:44 ----------

Moving forward, please keep in mind that "some info" is all that anyone here can actually give you, with some degree of ambiguity thanks to the devs' own ambiguity, and your OP implied that you were seeking something "harder" than that.

Whether I should simply give up on BI as a company.

---------- Post added at 17:50 ---------- Previous post was at 17:47 ----------

It's a small price to pay for being able to move with some agility around urban environs.

This coming from a very specific perspective, and from mine and clearly a lot of others, it ruins the complete experience unless of course you're not averse to the ARMA series feeling more like a mainstream FPS, which I'm not.

If you didn't have a garbage machine, A2 was workable. You had to "think" about what you were doing more, but really if you remove any hardware limitations, that's really just an argument from a position of relative ineptitude.

I don't have much problem with in close fighting in A2.

It's not ideal, but A3 diametrically opposes the basic tactical thinking that were prerequisites for success in the series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as I said... if you were seeking a "harder guarantee than what Chortles is telling Pd3" answer, then I would have had to say "yes you might as well give up if 'may happen again' is too much for you". :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Pd3, if I may ask, how many hours have you played the game to make such judgment?

To me the movement in A3 is a huge step forward in the series, and I have seen that I'm not alone, you can read the post about How good is A3.

BTW I don't see the lost of the transitions as anything dramatic, its just a little feature that I think most of players haven't even realized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But Pd3, if I may ask, how many hours have you played the game to make such judgment?

To me the movement in A3 is a huge step forward in the series, and I have seen that I'm not alone, you can read the post about How good is A3.

BTW I don't see the lost of the transitions as anything dramatic, its just a little feature that I think most of players haven't even realized.

You missed Pd3's point. He's not getting Arma 3 because of it, his OP and the whole point of the thread was "has BI changed so much that I should move on from the Arma series and go look for something else"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not ideal, but A3 diametrically opposes the basic tactical thinking that were prerequisites for success in the series.

I really don't understand what you mean. The same tactics that work in A2 work in A3, and vice versa. Except that you can use the environment - i.e. low walls - properly now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You missed Pd3's point. He's not getting Arma 3 because of it, his OP and the whole point of the thread was "has BI changed so much that I should move on from the Arma series and go look for something else"...

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if the right thread but I didn't want to open a new thread for a couple of questions I have.

I didn't buy ArmA 3 as well but I'm not ranting about the game and therefore I can't be disappointed. I rant only every game iteration comes out and because it's always somehow problematic.

I have some questions to you guys that play ArmA 3 in regards to ArmA2 AI. I'm playing ArmA CO with the official patch 1.62 because I don't have the time to beta test therefore there might be some things in ArmA 2 which have been fixed in the meantime that I'm not aware of.

In any case my questions are more relating to ArmA 3

What about AI convoy driving in ArmA 3 has anybody tested it seriously? And if so has it been improved ?

Does the AI still drive into friendly units killing them meanwhile they would never harm a rabbit?

Does the AI walk through walls ?

Does the AT soldier still shoot infantry with rockets ?

Does the AI still suffer tunnel vision when in close proximity to enemy AI ? In A2 CO they are standing very often next to each other, nearly shoulder to shoulder, without noticing the other AI.

Please don't take that as rant. I don't hate ArmA . . . I hate steam which is different, just to clarify that, so you guys might understand why I didn't buy ArmA 3. Please don't take my Steam hate as reason to start another steam discussion because we've discussed it already to death.

Thanks for respecting that.

I just would like to understand if some of these AI problems have been improved in the ArmA 3 AI.

Thanks for your kind replies.

cheers :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't necessarily like the idea of saying "if you want this go out and buy VBS".

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

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.

Uhm, could you tell me which features have been simplified that much? ( and don't tell me the medic system nor the others that the devs have stated were because of lack of time and they are working on them now ).

BTW, for how you express yourself, it seems like if your opinion should be the only one that matters to BI. When not every player of this series shares your personal insight.

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

I am not sure but i think that you dont accept who somebody else can see ArmA III not like you...that's mind better in all aspect about past editions!!

I do not think that anyone can make a change opinion ... even by force ... let alone a forum!

.........If you start with this principle have already lost ... even if you was right!

...:bounce3:

;);););)

Edited by Enrico

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about AI convoy driving in ArmA 3 has anybody tested it seriously? And if so has it been improved ?

Some improvements made but far from perfect. Now they have the tendency of ramming at each other.

Does the AI still drive into friendly units killing them meanwhile they would never harm a rabbit?

Some talks about that were made on the AI thread these days but I don't know for sure. Today's changelog: Animals should be avoiding roads more now

Does the AI walk through walls ?

Not very often. In A2 they already learned some tricks. Now they even can handle doors and *some* indoors action. Depends on CPU usage too.

Does the AT soldier still shoot infantry with rockets ?

Never been a target of rockets. Nor grenades :j:

Does the AI still suffer tunnel vision when in close proximity to enemy AI ? In A2 CO they are standing very often next to each other, nearly shoulder to shoulder, without noticing the other AI.

Nope! Maybe this is where you can see the more significant changes to the point that now actually is fun to just make a skimirish on a village\town with random parameters. On pre-release at least. The stable version don't have these improvements yet and I'm not so sure they brought it back to the Dev Branch.

Reply on the quote.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who in their right mind would wun over a wittle bunny wabbit? Far better to throw the wheel sideways and mow down half your squad in your 10 ton truck. The AI are dead on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×