Where is going ArmA III?

[Enrico 1]

Hi!

I understand that ,these days, ArmA III topics on the forum is full, but what I'm wondering is .... but veterans loyal to ArmA, what do you think about this edition .........?

Are satisfied or perhaps hoping for a change from the BIS into something more familiar?

Maybe an expansion that puts everyone agree?

Personally I see a good FPS compared with other titles on the market, but the real ArmA ,for me, is complety another thing,the improvements alone dosen't make a title that was a reference point for a tactical military FPS .... not for me!

I do not speak about what's missing, and had been promised and advertised the official release of the game.....but the feeling that something unique has disappeared like if the desire to renew has taken too much out and we are at a competition title that look like ArmA...but it's not.

This is just my 2 cents opinion...and I hope to be a democratic forum!

Regards.

[Gera_CCT 12]

Well, i for myself am waiting for something like AiA + ACE 3 + ACRE + JSRS + Blastcore + Other Mods to fully enjoy this game. Even my commutity are not motivated and we are starting to think to go back to ArmA 2 for some more time

[EDcase 87]

Its still early days...

There are already many missions and addons available but much more will come.

This game will keep expanding and developing. Not only by BIS but the community also.

It is a sandbox that different groups can build their play style upon.

The main thing BIS has to work on now is get the foundations of the game working properly and then build assets etc from there.

Things that are fundamental to everyday gameplay like the inventory, command menu, AI, etc still need work.

ARMA3 gameplay has already improved from ARMA2.

Soon all the toys will follow....

[metalcraze 290]

BIS has cut out a lot of features from the game and butchered what remained to a point where ArmA's unique character is almost gone and the game is reminiscent of an arcade shooter on a big map.

Maybe mods will improve it to the point where it's enjoyable again, maybe not if BIS destroyed too much.

But as it stands - ArmA3 has nothing that made previous games great.

[big_t 1]

BIS has cut out a lot of features from the game and butchered what remained to a point where ArmA's unique character is almost gone and the game is reminiscent of an arcade shooter on a big map.

.

What makes you say that? The actual mechanics and such seem much better in Arma 3 . Arma 2 feels more skittish and glitchy. As far as I know the ballistics are the same.

[tmp95 16]

A3 game play (smoothness) feels definitely better to me than A2 - But AI has issues and I don't understand why some of the best A2 AI mods techniques and knowhow wasn't just incorporated into A3 - How BIS didn't look to make sure simple (yet complex, working and effective) patrol infantry options aren't included. That UPSMON type mod wasn't looked into using in-house (within the editor itself). I don't understand.

[Smurf 12]

Here we go again...

Brace yourselfs.

[twisted 127]

[/color]I'm enjoying arma3 immensely. I believe bis have got the game into a very good starting point.

it dues need more bulding up of its framework now. infantry, vehicles, weapons, fatigue, medical all now need to be evolved . id like bis to be more transparent about their plans and not to give in to the very vocal but actually not so large mob of whiny bitch-men screaming its too hard make it easier quite so often.

[frag 0]

I personaly think that the reason why the community is not all WOW with Arma 3 is really easy to explain.

Operation flashpoint was a brand new genre... WOW

Arma was not a new genre, but the engine was impressive for that period... wow

Arma 2 extracted the last few drops of originality, and the engine started to show ages comparing to all the shinny new engines around... fun

Arma 3 is plain outdated. There is nothing there that will light up a new fire, because there is nothing really new ... delivered on an outdated engine.not bad

Do not get me wrong I still like the game, but I do not really feel like the game is up to the actual era ... Offering an ok, but blend satisfaction.

Arma 4 will need to be on a new engine from scratch. An engine not offering strong physics, a fully destructible environment and an AI that cannot find their walking path efficiently will not make anyone speechless in front of their computer in 2013. Plain simple: We got a simulation based on an outdated engine, offering not much new ...reason why people are not so excited about it.

[minimalaco 30]

+1

Basically that's it

[metalcraze 290]

id like bis to be more transparent about their plans and not to give in to the very vocal but actually not so large mob of whiny bitch-men screaming its too hard make it easier quite so often.

Don't forget to disregard the fact that ArmA3 is also the lowest rated game in the whole series by users of Metacritic (and also reviews from mags)

Which kinda tells about the state of ArmA3 a lot better than this thread. If it's such an awesome improvement why even "mainstream" crowd towards which A3 is catered first and foremost does not appreciate it?

What makes you say that? The actual mechanics and such seem much better in Arma 3 . Arma 2 feels more skittish and glitchy. As far as I know the ballistics are the same.

Discussed to death in 'dumbing down' thread. Scroll down in 'General' A3 forums.

Edited September 25, 2013 by metalcraze

[mistyronin 1181]

I compare Arma 3 to all the previous games; and I see a huge leap forward, a lot of potential to be developed from it. I do believe that people don't realize how many improvements has this new title, from the smooth movement, CQB to lightning, etc.

People seem to stack to the amount of units and vehicles. That of course has to be improved, but its better to first have a proper and stable basement and then build in it.

IMHO this game can and should last for 4-5 years, time enough for BI to develop all its potential ( starting for sea warfare, with more ships, mines, choppers ASW, landing crafts, more planes, new armies, a better medical system, an improved armor impact system, flash-bangs, etc. ).

And while doing that, BI could start thinking and working in the new engine that will be the root in upcoming years for new games for this series and future spin offs ( I do think that a parallel WW2 Arma, a successor to Iron Front, should be done but from inside BI ). Because being realistic, a good engine can't be developed in a couple of years, it requires a long time.

[rfxcasey 1]

I personaly think that the reason why the community is not all WOW with Arma 3 is really easy to explain.

Operation flashpoint was a brand new genre... WOW

Arma was not a new genre, but the engine was impressive for that period... wow

Arma 2 extracted the last few drops of originality, and the engine started to show ages comparing to all the shinny new engines around... fun

Arma 3 is plain outdated. There is nothing there that will light up a new fire, because there is nothing really new ... delivered on an outdated engine.not bad

Do not get me wrong I still like the game, but I do not really feel like the game is up to the actual era ... Offering an ok, but blend satisfaction.

Arma 4 will need to be on a new engine from scratch. An engine not offering strong physics, a fully destructible environment and an AI that cannot find their walking path efficiently will not make anyone speechless in front of their computer in 2013. Plain simple: We got a simulation based on an outdated engine, offering not much new ...reason why people are not so excited about it.

Can't say I agree with this comment. One of the nicest things about Arma 3 is it still feels like Arma 2 only much smoother and refined. The firefights so far have been a blast for me as have the explosion effects from grenades, mortars and the like. The UAV stuff seem very good as well. All in all, If Arma 2 was as refined as 3 in respect to movement/gunplay and such, it would have been almost perfect. Nice to be able to import Arma 2 content into 3 as well.

Do things need to be added, yes, thought the sim has great potential as I see it. Hopefully others see that potential as well and develop more content. If 3 had the same level of content and development as 2 I think there would be no agreement. I do miss the tall tree forests in 2 though, hopefully we'll get some more maps based on more woodland type environments. Keep the faith, modders are doing amazing work these days and Arma 3 is a good engine to build on so far.

[dm 9]

Don't forget to disregard the fact that ArmA3 is also the lowest rated game in the whole series by users of Metacritic (and also reviews from mags)

Well thats just all bullshit...

A3 is currently on 74, which ties it with Arma 1 and puts it ahead of Operation Arrowhead (73). Only A2 (77) was/is ahead in terms of score (but A2 has 38 reviews, A3 only has 21 so far).

I enjoy your constant stream of "facts" to try and make the game look bad.

If you hate it for being "dumbed down" so much, why don't you do us all a favour and ragequit the game series. Then at least we wont have to watch your constant drivel on here...

[dmarkwick 261]

A few people have some pet issues, and because their particular pet issues seem unresolvable to them, they announce that the whole game is dead.

I've been playing some scenarios that show me that, minor issues aside, the gameplay is pretty much the same. I'm getting the same gameplay I got from ArmA2, with different setting & units. In some areas I'm getting better gameplay, in particular the movement system, more enterable buildings, better lighting & weather effects etc.

To be clear: I do believe some areas of the game can, and need, to be improved. Medical system could do with some vanilla love, and some variance in vehicles & equipments would improve gameplay even more, and if you're a story-led player, then a campaign will improve the situation also. But they seem to be not getting in the way of still enjoying this game as much as I enjoy ArmA2, such that I don't fire up ArmA2 any more. Chernarus I miss though :)

Something to bear in mind, a lot of us were much younger when OFP came out, and OFP represented a new type of game. As ArmA has progressed & we get older, I think a little of some of the wonder has faded. I still think of ArmA as the best game out, but the wonder of discovering a new kind of gameplay is obviously not there. This can manifest as disappointment in small issues IMO.

[Deadfast 43]

Well thats just all bullshit...

A3 is currently on 74, which ties it with Arma 1 and puts it ahead of Operation Arrowhead (73). Only A2 (77) was/is ahead in terms of score (but A2 has 38 reviews, A3 only has 21 so far).

Don't forget the user reviews though! Ones like:

0

This game is no better than Arma II. To be more sad this game is even much worse than previous part. I bought in alpha stage so didn't loose too much money but this title is pure money waste!!

0

First of all: the actual score is only to compensate for the blind fanboys who are giving this game a 10. Not in their wildest dreams is this game deserving of a perfect score. In fact, a reasonable score would be something in the 3 to 5 range.

...

0

So this no! Graphics is good, but to me the same crap as ARMA 2....

[sektor 2]

Maybe it is stupid to think like this, but why Bohemia didn't implement all the great mods that give more immersion, more features, and generally make the game more like a simulation? Most popular mods were always either adding more realistic features (damage, sounds, explosions, AI) or most authentic modern or historic armies, vehicles and guns.

[hbk 0]

I've been playing some scenarios that show me that, minor issues aside, the gameplay is pretty much the same. I'm getting the same gameplay I got from ArmA2, with different setting & units. In some areas I'm getting better gameplay, in particular the movement system, more enterable buildings, better lighting & weather effects etc.

This. Oh very much this.

The game is awesome.

Of course said game is still in beta and lots of stuff could be improved (not a big fan of FAKs for example, but this has more to do with limited wound and heal mechanics than FAKs themselves).

But the core gameplay is very much the same as previous games in the series, and being able to play with such level of graphical fidelity and view distance (on a rather average comp by today's standards) with a movement system that feels so good and responsive while still keeping the series DNA of mostly realistic simulation is just ... good :D

[rundll.exe 12]

I don't know where this game is going, but I have faith in it that it will replace A2 within a year. I'm playing A2 until this forums start being constructive again, and all the whiners about performance or content have left or given up.

[dm 9]

Maybe it is stupid to think like this, but why Bohemia didn't implement all the great mods

Because it is legally impossible. There is so much IP complexity, that "just implement the mod" is impossible if BI wants to continue to exist as a company.

[Maio 293]

Arma 3 will evolve just like A2 did. I still think people are a little to quick to judge this particular title. The open Alpha and Beta have been both a blessing and a curse I'd say.

[gonza 8]

I compare Arma 3 to all the previous games; and I see a huge leap forward, a lot of potential to be developed from it. I do believe that people don't realize how many improvements has this new title, from the smooth movement, CQB to lightning, etc.

People seem to stack to the amount of units and vehicles. That of course has to be improved, but its better to first have a proper and stable basement and then build in it.

IMHO this game can and should last for 4-5 years, time enough for BI to develop all its potential ( starting for sea warfare, with more ships, mines, choppers ASW, landing crafts, more planes, new armies, a better medical system, an improved armor impact system, flash-bangs, etc. ).

And while doing that, BI could start thinking and working in the new engine that will be the root in upcoming years for new games for this series and future spin offs ( I do think that a parallel WW2 Arma, a successor to Iron Front, should be done but from inside BI ). Because being realistic, a good engine can't be developed in a couple of years, it requires a long time.

Totally agree whit that

I don't understand some people.

Arma 2 and Arm 3 are the same !!!

IA improvement (sometime bad but most of time Good)

Lighting system

Particles

Scuba

Altis !!!

CQB. / close combat

Drones (I was septic before trying but it's really cool !)

Character movement (Really better)

inventory system

Steam workshop

...

My deception is about physix for the moment (vehicles collisions, aircraft and parachutes flight model.) , that there is no improvement on radar system and the hitbox is not good (you can kill someone by firing in is foot). (but it perhaps it could be tweak later)

But BIS said that it is an infantry game so …

I play arma 3 night by week (while the alpha start) on a private server and, ootch, when you have some good Missions makers in your team (Or GameMasters on VTS) the experience is really awesome.

The problem with Arma is that the enjoyment depend with who you play.

I don’t like play on publics servers because the experience is so much betters with 20 friends (and Acre).

If you don’t like the game perhaps you are not playing with good guys.

There is always people who said that "it was allays better before".

Edited September 25, 2013 by gonza

[krycek 349]

I enjoy your constant stream of "facts" to try and make the game look bad.

If you hate it for being "dumbed down" so much, why don't you do us all a favour and ragequit the game series. Then at least we wont have to watch your constant drivel on here...

The same could be said for you,if you enjoy it so much why don't you play the game instead of defending A3 in every thread where someone doesn't agree that A3 is the Holy Grail?

As for me,I'll wait and see what direction they take with the content and AI fixes.I haven't regretted buying their games,but the c/p content,lack of it in some areas and some ancient AI issues in driving and flying took it's toll.I'm not buying the "it will be fixed and improved in next Arma version" line anymore.

If they fix or at least improve those AI issues,add more content and actually do something about that c/p nonsense in patches/dlcs I'm ready to put paper again for A4 at release date.Yes I know that Ofp/Arma games had rough start everytime and they do get supported long after release but it seems some issues aren't addressed and they rear their ugly head in future Arma versions too.

[NeuroFunker 11]

anything differend to this thread? http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?164507-So-Arma-3-is-out-now-does-it-set-the-standard-for-future-releases-in-the-series ?

[metalcraze 290]

Well thats just all bullshit...

A3 is currently on 74, which ties it with Arma 1 and puts it ahead of Operation Arrowhead (73). Only A2 (77) was/is ahead in terms of score (but A2 has 38 reviews, A3 only has 21 so far).

Since when OA is a sequel and not an xpack?

Don't forget the user reviews though! Ones like:

Ones like all those 10/10s

So what? All games have people giving silly 0s and 10s on any site that allows ranking. However real rankings balance it out.