Arma3: Metascore 73 | Spelunky: Metascore 91 | what the fuck?

[windies 11]

Well I would disagree but that is another discussion entirely.

I think what people must understand is that Dwarden is not saying "We didn't deliver? Tough shit, go somewhere else" but rather "We didn't deliver? We tried and are continuing to try. If that's not good enough maybe somewhere else will be". He is actually being honesty rather than trying to reel you in and sell you on something that the devs are unable to deliver at this point in time. I don't think the devs are ignoring feed back. I think its rather that they simply do not have the resources to act upon all of it just yet or in some cases it is just not high on their priority list. This is not an excuse for the quality of the game. But it is the truth of the situation. Dwarden is being realistic.

I realize that it must be frustrating and I know that more than once I have gone on an "arma drought" where I just give up on the game and don't play for a couple months straight because I get fed up with all the flaws. But what else can we as customers and BIS as developers really do to fix the past? BIS has limitations, and that's not going to change any time soon. If you can't handle it then don't handle it. Its as simple as that.

Well for one thing, Dwarden needs to try to be clearer in his responses. A lot of what he posts requires the reader to try to extrapolate what he means because the message is very unclear. His posts are very hard to read and because of this they leave a lot to interpretation, which may or may not be what he means.

If they don't have the resources to fix the game, if that's what all of this boils down to, then why release it and then be astonished when you get bad reviews and negative criticism because reviewers and consumers don't have the same jaded outlook? There are aspects of ArmA 3 that make it seem like they really tried to improve upon past games like the movement and attachments as well as graphics, and then there's areas where it looks like they threw something at a wall or just reused concepts and idea's from previous games like The action menu, or the lack of first aid, the copy pasta content between factions, etc...

I think that we all realize that ArmA 3 had a lot of problems on the road to release, but there are things that have been ignored since the beginning of Alpha that are still being ignored. By ignored I mean not even acknowledged or given a plan of improvement to help alleviate concerns. All we know about the first aid system was that something grand was planned and then it was dropped. There's no information about what it would have been or what they intend to do about the current first aid system. The new attachments system is a bane for weapon modders who want to create custom attachments, and ways to fix it and the fact the problem exists has been voiced since the beginning of Alpha, yet there hasn't been anything said about it by the developers.

Then you have constant performance problems due to the nature of the engine and how it works. The MP performance problems and the AI performance drops as well as personal problems I have noticed like terrain detail being set over standard causing immense stuttering on certain parts of the island while in other area's it's completely smooth or the fact the game actually uses over 5gb of memory due to the way it addresses memory through the file mapping API which leads to horrendous stutters in certain situations where a lot of texture's are trying to be displayed, like in larger cities with multiple different types of units, which causes constant swapping and disk thrashing. Yet the developers will tell you that the game wouldn't benefit from 64 bit addressing, even though I've shown it to use over 6-7gb of memory usage to Dwarden himself. I'm not saying it would be some massive FPS boost, but it would probably alleviate a lot of the stuttering, a lot of the texture loading issue's and could also help with pre-loading of mission assets rather than streaming, which would also alleviate a lot of stuttering issue's.

I'm not about thrashing BI for the sake of thrashing them, but I didn't purchase ArmA 3 to hold their hand and make excuses and tell them it will be alright every time development gets a little challenging. The burden shouldn't be on me to wait until they deign time to fix issue's or even acknowledge them, but rather on them to fix those issue's or at least acknowledge them. Sure it's going to take time, I'm not saying fixes should be instant, but the burden should be on them to do it in a timely manner rather than on the consumer to sit and accept it. Also, I could do without crepuscular rays if it means that a solution to attachments gets explored or a better first aid system gets looked at. I would prioritize core functionality and game play issue's before I consider working on making the game look "prettier". I think that a large chunk of the issue's come from poor management and prioritization. I think deep down, that is what a lot of people have issue's with because it's about the only transparent thing that the developers can't hide because it's an aspect of every part of the game and you can see what gets prioritized versus what doesn't.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Windies

[Tonci87 163]

when we have budget of 100s millions be sure there will be more PR than articles on main media and some trailers ...

until then we prefer to spend that on workforce ...

Good answer

But it makes me wonder how big the budget actually is/was since you still seem to be short on workforce :868:

[antoineflemming 14]

Maybe they should be saying it isn't like xy game from the beginning, I would imagine any serious review on Arma 3 would state this fact? A review on anything should always include potential if it's applicable, a lot of sales have been made due to an items potential, like a home, land, and in terms of gaming possibily some indie games are sold on their potential?

Anyway anyone serious about buying a game should check out a wide range of reviews and take all of them with a pinch of salt.

They don't need to say "It's not like X Y game". These reviews aren't basing anything on any other game but Arma 3. So, please. It's not something they should be required to say, and neither should they automatically hold the position that Arma 3 is anything special compared to other shooters. They certainly are not obligated to feel like Arma 3 is better than any other game. It's the job of marketing to market the game based on potential. The reviewer's job is not to take the place of marketing. It is to accurately portray the state of the game. If they want to end the review by suggesting some pick up the game regardless of the score, based on potential, that is fine, but they should NOT review and score the game based on anything other than the state of the product that they are reviewing. Maybe you have some other idea about what a review is supposed to do, or what Arma 3 is, but it is not God's gift to man. And reviewer's are not obligated to try to help sell the game. A review of a home isn't the same as a sale of the home. A review of a home should honestly tell you the state of the home when you will be purchasing it, not tell you how great the average home will be after someone does some serious work on it. Same for Arma 3.

[calin_banc 19]

1. Big budget doesn't equal a good game;

2. There's one cost with and employee working at those big companies and another one compared to the smaller companies, especially as you move east;

3. The fact that you put $250 millions in a game is irrelevant when that game sales over $1 billion in a few days time;

4. Star Citizen has raised roughly $20 million and it looks far more complex than other games with budgets well over that (including ArmA);

5. Bohemia might have made a smart move if they remained in the Alpha or Beta for longer, just adding content and ironing out bugs, make changes to the MP side (including interface), modes, editor and so on, making the game more and more complex while gathering more money from people who will gladly buy the game when they saw how nice was shaping out to be.

[zimms 22]

Star Citizen far more complex than Arma?! Isn't that the spaceship hangar screensaver?

Sure, they promised a lot, but that's it.

[St. Jimmy 272]

5. Bohemia might have made a smart move if they remained in the Alpha or Beta for longer, just adding content and ironing out bugs, make changes to the MP side (including interface), modes, editor and so on, making the game more and more complex while gathering more money from people who will gladly buy the game when they saw how nice was shaping out to be.

Yep they really shot in their own leg with the release. This review is bit different.

[calin_banc 19]

Star Citizen far more complex than Arma?! Isn't that the spaceship hangar screensaver?

Sure, they promised a lot, but that's it.

That says who, you? They have around 2 years time to put everything together and I bet the end result will be great. Tell me, which vehicle in ArmA 3 is as complex and as good represented as a ship in Star Citizen? Can you get in a vehicle with a proper animation? Can you freely look around the interiors of all vehicles? Can you shoot from them? Do they have upgradeable parts or are they affected be the laws of gravity in the same manner as they are in SC (the movement of the ship is simulated by how much impulse a thruster gives, of course, handling being affected as some parts are damaged)?

Anyway, the games are not the same, but at the moment, the amount of content in the game is pretty limited - talking about ArmA now, and somewhat buggy at times. Of course, great progress has been made engine side compared to ArmA 2 (even Day Z stand alone looks good), but the game is not quite ready to launch for the masses - or else the critics and gamers might "hit" you bad, as they do already. Half a year if they remaind in development more (at least), with adding stuff like units,vehicles, bipods, ability to shoot from the vehicle, better sounds (some are just awful), improve the AI, the multiplayer experience and so on, would have made a great impact on the quality of the game AND gather more attention from the press and gamers - finally an ArmA game that is almost perfect from the beginning. It is perhaps of little relevance that the situation will improve over time, a lot of players would just move on considering it a bad software and never look back. You may say (and the producers) "fine, their loss", but the loss is also of the game - bad press again, bad misconceptions, lower income to Bis (and yes, they DO deserve more than what the game sold until know).

Edited October 7, 2013 by calin_banc

[windies 11]

Yep they really shot in their own leg with the release. This review is bit different.

One thing that review shows is that as a newcomer the game can be confusing as hell and without tutorials or good missions to help you understand aspects of the UI it's very frustrating.

[dale0404 5]

Yep they really shot in their own leg with the release. This review is bit different.

I have actually replied to that review.

[antoineflemming 14]

I have actually replied to that review.

As did I. The only thing that white asterisk could be is the heal icon... Also, while he's a bit extreme, yeah, the game does feel incomplete to me.

[Tonci87 163]

AS much as he is right regarding content, he definately was the wrong person to test the game. It is quite obvious that he just isn´t into the sort of gameplay Arma provides. He even went as far as to say that Arma´s only purpose is to serve as a sanbox for other Mods, specifically DayZ.

[Dwarden 1124]

what to think about review with very old (year or more) screens from the game ... :(

[dale0404 5]

what to think about review with very old (year or more) screens from the game ... :(

Yep, I think we may as well disregard that "review". I certainly am. And before someone says but he has some good points... read the whole review again and then tell me he knows what he is talking about.

[Smurf 12]

That looks like your average Joe parachuting into Arma with no clue whatsoever about....anything.

It's not a good review but it is a good feedback on showing some things that aren't right and we can't see it because we already spent too much time with these games. Take note.

[windies 11]

Yep, I think we may as well disregard that "review". I certainly am. And before someone says but he has some good points... read the whole review again and then tell me he knows what he is talking about.

Does he know what he's talking about in terms of ArmA? No. Does the game do a good enough job of teaching him or explaining to him what he needs to know? Obviously not if he thinks that the White Asterisk is some sort of "enemy presence detector".

He has some great points, even some that I don't think he realizes or you realize that he put forth inadvertently. And yes, he doesn't know exactly what he's talking about as far as ArmA is concerned, he's not elite. Is that his fault? Or is it the fault of the game for not having the proper way of teaching aspects of the game to new gamers?

[calin_banc 19]

Stuff like that should have been in the game. The showcases may be fun, but the cheating AI will scare away players (more in the infantry, open ground showcases, but also in the combine arms). Moreover, wouldn't hurt some online servers kept and maintained by Bis. This will allow players to experience all the game mods (obviously, play on which one they like more) at a proper FPS.

[Fulcrum90 10]

Yep, I think we may as well disregard that "review". I certainly am. And before someone says but he has some good points... read the whole review again and then tell me he knows what he is talking about.

Of course you do....I on the other hand welcome that more and more reviews are critical. The biggest german Gameschannel on TV (formerly with MTV) also said ArmA III is nice, but for 60$ its unfinished and empty.

And it is.

[metalcraze 290]

Disagree. More features/content etc = more potential for bugs and problems= more work to be done. Sounds like BIS went too big (Not only the 2 years but in arma 2 as well) and had to take a step back and reconsider their approach - because of the magnitude of their budget / team.

They took their step back so hard it's back to ArmA1 level of features.

I personally see more than enough good in arma 3 to wade through the shit. Plus they have my money already and there is no other game with the same goals so I'm here to stay.

Good for you. Then there's no reason for BIS to ever improve the game either. They certainly haven't done anything to bring it back to ArmA2 level of depth in the past 7 months and it doesn't seem like they are planning to.

People are happy with it as it is so why bother.

I also find it ironic how BIS hired Dslyexci to do promotional videos and yet in reality he and Shacktac don't even seem to touch ArmA3, sticking with ArmA2 almost exclusively.

[Smurf 12]

A2 level of depth..........lol

Shacktac sticking to a heavily modded game instead of using a just released and incomplete one, who would known?

Or you are focusing on the things you want to focus and ignore everthing else or you have a really twisted view of things.

[Tonci87 163]

My Group is still on a heavily modded Arma 2 too. In fact we yet have to play a big mission in Arma 3. Guess we can´t play without ACE^^

[-Coulum- 35]

They took their step back so hard it's back to ArmA1 level of features.

Well if you see it that way yeah unfortunately they have. You know how every one is saying that Arma should redo their engine or features of their engine. Well do you think thats going to happen over night with no noticeable negatives? Yep they are taking a step back in many ways but I am trusting it is a necessary step back so they can once again move forward.

Good for you. Then there's no reason for BIS to ever improve the game either. They certainly haven't done anything to bring it back to ArmA2 level of depth in the past 7 months and it doesn't seem like they are planning to.

People are happy with it as it is so why bother.

I also find it ironic how BIS hired Dslyexci to do promotional videos and yet in reality he and Shacktac don't even seem to touch ArmA3, sticking with ArmA2 almost exclusively.

There is no reason for BIS to ever improve their game period. But that doesn't mean they won't. They did for arma 2. They are in arma 3. Maybe not as fast as you or I would like but they are.

I am not saying I am happy with the release, trust me I am just as disappointed as you. I wanted suppressible ai, ai that could use and defend from cover, realistic weapon handling based on weight, bipods, wind, armour, the whole deal. But I realize that's not within reach of BIS just yet. So "I am wading through the shit" enjoying what I can discussing what could be improved and how and looking forward to the future. The release was poor and below expectations - 5/10. There I said it. Now I am moving on.

If BIS aren't self motivated and need the complaining of random people on the internet to spur them into action then I thank you because you represent what I want to see in the game very well, and I apologize for not joining you in the crusade. But I don't think that is the case.

Edited October 7, 2013 by -Coulum-

[Ceds 10]

BI really held the standard of military sandbox/skies the limit type for quite a long time, starting with OFP. The standard that has been well reached by other titles and I strongly believe Bohemia really need to re-evaluate their direction. They're stepping on the turf of commercial/mainstream, but it's really not their playing field. Never has been. That's why I loved OFP. They wanted to be different and they weren't afraid. This mainsteam rubbish does nothing but temporarily buff BI's wallets, fill servers full of script kiddies and and scare off the loyal series fans.

Just seems like BI want to play ball with the big kids, when they had the biggest playing field to begin with.

For it's time, OFP was wonderfully complex. I had it figured, that future releases would see more complexity and realism. Yet, BI went the other direction in a desperate attempt to grab a younger audience. By the time ArmA 1 was scheduled for release, my best memories of OFP were those of the audacious modding community and how excited we all were when BAS announced new addons, etc.

And yet, A3 has maintained what I consider 'unnecessary complexity' from OFP (Ref: Action Menu; Unwieldy grenade throwing) and when you look at the paramount features of VBS2.0 and wonder how they can develop such simple solutions and so arrogantly give A3 the scraps.

But, suddenly! Altis. Which is every bit what the modding community had been after since OFP. For me, Altis is a real beacon of hope that BI devs haven't lost the plot and they still believe in their true product. Huge scale, huge potential.. Bottlenecked by stupid repetitive mistakes. Honestly, there's no point boasting 270km island when I'm in a mad rush, navigating the action menu to open a house door.

Perhaps imagine how A3 would do without editing capabilities and work from there?

[GottyPlays 10]

what to think about review with very old (year or more) screens from the game ... :(

yeah look at the pics while he is describing the gameplay...

[katipo66 94]

Maybe you have some other idea about what a review is supposed to do, or what Arma 3 is, but it is not God's gift to man. And reviewer's are not obligated to try to help sell the game. A review of a home isn't the same as a sale of the home. A review of a home should honestly tell you the state of the home when you will be purchasing it, not tell you how great the average home will be after someone does some serious work on it. Same for Arma 3.

No because I know a review is only someones opinion, so when researching a game I look for a wide range of reviews And take note of the commonalities, common sense really.. A review is not advertising that has rules and regulations, it's simply a review and should be treated as such, any differently then maybe there are other issues at play.

[Reuben5150 2]

imho my only comment was that there are only like 3 scores below 50 who gather all the negative about Arma 3

(QT3 is actually quite nasty to every title so i assume stuff like Colonial Marines and DNF got 5%)

people ignore the massive difference of magnitude of budget / teams behind BF3/4 vs Arma 3 ...

and lot of people simply expect they get what they got in other games , from A to Z ... not realizing it will be just another clone of clone of clone

Yes, bf3 and 4 an attempted clone of cod, you know those guys lost the plot at bf3 and 4 doesn't even deserve to be called a military shooter anymore, it's all scifi now.

When it comes to bf I know a thing or two, and any reviewer that praises it is either getting paid or is totally deluded.

Arma now remains the only option IMO for military base games, I couldnt care less about reviews ratings etc because of this.