Arma 2 vs Arma 3 release

[royaltyinexile 175]

Really? Let's see

Yeah, let's see!

:)

[dmarkwick 261]

Except those rounds are invisible and the soldier inserts them into UGL by moving his empty hand through the solid piece of metal.

*weeps*

[bushlurker 46]

Lest We Forget where we came from, and why we're here....

... and how far we've come...

B

[instagoat 133]

Wait what? Does that mean that we can fire 3 Grenades directly after each other without reloading after each shot?

Yes, as fast as you can pull the trigger. The normal soldiers only carry single rounds and not three round stacks, but the three rounders are there to use in missions. I think they're not carrying them because they virtually multiply the volumne of fire by a crazy amount, making them too deadly in view of mission balancing.

[NeuroFunker 11]

Yeah, let's see!

:)

lets bet, he says something like: thats not improvement, thats what should been fixed back in OFP.

[Fulcrum90 10]

Yeah, let's see!

:)

I just read your signature...You really have given up do you? "ARMA 3 IS ONLY THE BASE FOR COMMUNITY CONTENT ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A COMPLETE GAME"

Releasing an unfinished game is one thing, but releasing something unfinished and then saying "Uh its supposed to be that way...We never intended to do anything more" is a slap in the face of long-time fans who are around since OFP -_-

Fuck this makes me angry. BIS had problems, you were forced to release ArmA III early, allright I wont give you heat for that. BIS isnt EA or Activision after all. The 60$ price tag still upsets me, but ok whatever. BUT: Instead of being honest, telling the community that you know you basically released a Beta as a complete game, and giving us a transparent explanation of what to expect for the future, you now start this apologistic bullshit about how the community was always supposed to complete the game. No matter how important addons and community content are, I still expect a rich and diverse game as a foundation, and everyone can see ArmA 3 is far from it. From reskinned vehicles re-using the same parts to the abysmal perfomance, ArmA 3 is not what I thought it would be. And seeing the general tone in this and other forums: Neither does the community.

Therefore: Talk to us. Give us a clear roadmap of what to expect regarding future plans & content. Im ready to wait another six months and pay more money for DLCs, but I want a clear picture of what to expect. I DONT want to read signature by BIS employees bullshitting me about the current state of the game.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Fulcrum90

[chortles 263]

I guess you weren't here for "no promises", huh? :lol:

[astein 10]

I just read your signature...You really have given up do you? "ARMA 3 IS ONLY THE BASE FOR COMMUNITY CONTENT ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A COMPLETE GAME"

Releasing an unfinished game is one thing, but releasing something unfinished and then saying "Uh its supposed to be that way...We never intended to do anything more" is a slap in the face of long-time fans who are around since OFP -_-

Fuck this makes me angry. BIS had problems, you were forced to release ArmA III early, allright I wont give you heat for that. BIS isnt EA or Activision after all. The 60$ price tag still upsets me, but ok whatever. BUT: Instead of being honest, telling the community that you know you basically released a Beta as a complete game, and giving us a transparent explanation of what to expect for the future, you now start this apologistic bullshit about how the community was always supposed to complete the game. No matter how important addons and community content are, I still expect a rich and diverse game as a foundation, and everyone can see ArmA 3 is far from it. From reskinned vehicles re-using the same parts to the abysmal perfomance, ArmA 3 is not what I thought it would be. And seeing the general tone in this and other forums: Neither does the community.

Therefore: Talk to us. Give us a clear roadmap of what to expect regarding future plans & content. Im ready to wait another six months and pay more money for DLCs, but I want a clear picture of what to expect. I DONT want to read signature by BIS employees bullshitting me about the current state of the game.

I just registered to say: Exactly this.

PLEASE Bohemia, communicate with us. The release was a disappointment, but we can be patient and wait for ArmA 3 to get better. But we need some positive feedback, the feeling that you are aware of ArmA IIIs shortcomings and ready to fix them in time. A "roadmap" would be a very good solution.

But right now I hardly see any reactions from BIS, instead signatures that try to tell me that the community is supposed to finish the game. That does not inspire trust for the future.

[chortles 263]

The closest that you'll see to that is SITREPs... I think the reason that they stopped doing "roadmaps" was when they realized that those would be turned around and held against them if they failed to deliver.

[instagoat 133]

I just read your signature...You really have given up do you? "ARMA 3 IS ONLY THE BASE FOR COMMUNITY CONTENT ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A COMPLETE GAME"... etc

Nevermind that his Signature doesn't say anything like that. Plus, Arma has always been a sandbox platform. The reason why A3 does not have cars out of the wazoo is that they didn't have almost six years of development time, and much more engine related work than any previous rendition of the game. They do talk to us, too, much more so than any other developer I know. Did you see their reply to CiA's letter?

Also, consider that the people who like the game aren't on any forum telling everybody how great it is, because they're off playing it. I hope. Because if the whiners are in the majority, we kind of have been ursurped by the self entitlement immediate gratification crowd... oh dear, did I just pull the "Call of Duty kiddies" card? Godwin's law for Arma, I guess...

And there was a time when the community itself stated that BI only delivers the engine, while the community delivers the game. You could see forum sigs like that by users in the 2004 - 2008 ish timeframe. Kinda sending mixed signals here.

[dmarkwick 261]

I just read your signature...You really have given up do you? "ARMA 3 IS ONLY THE BASE FOR COMMUNITY CONTENT ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A COMPLETE GAME"

Releasing an unfinished game is one thing, but releasing something unfinished and then saying "Uh its supposed to be that way...We never intended to do anything more" is a slap in the face of long-time fans who are around since OFP -_-

Fuck this makes me angry. BIS had problems, you were forced to release ArmA III early, allright I wont give you heat for that. BIS isnt EA or Activision after all. The 60$ price tag still upsets me, but ok whatever. BUT: Instead of being honest, telling the community that you know you basically released a Beta as a complete game, and giving us a transparent explanation of what to expect for the future, you now start this apologistic bullshit about how the community was always supposed to complete the game. No matter how important addons and community content are, I still expect a rich and diverse game as a foundation, and everyone can see ArmA 3 is far from it. From reskinned vehicles re-using the same parts to the abysmal perfomance, ArmA 3 is not what I thought it would be. And seeing the general tone in this and other forums: Neither does the community.

Therefore: Talk to us. Give us a clear roadmap of what to expect regarding future plans & content. Im ready to wait another six months and pay more money for DLCs, but I want a clear picture of what to expect. I DONT want to read signature by BIS employees bullshitting me about the current state of the game.

No wonder you're angry if you read the sig and translated it to that.

[NeuroFunker 11]

I just registered to say: Exactly this.

PLEASE Bohemia, communicate with us. The release was a disappointment, but we can be patient and wait for ArmA 3 to get better. But we need some positive feedback, the feeling that you are aware of ArmA IIIs shortcomings and ready to fix them in time. A "roadmap" would be a very good solution.

But right now I hardly see any reactions from BIS, instead signatures that try to tell me that the community is supposed to finish the game. That does not inspire trust for the future.

i do really love, newcomers come here, rage and force bohemia talk to them. Just try it, when your walking in the city, come to anyone completly raged, shout at him, and say: why aren't you communicating to me, say something!21121

[Tonci87 163]

Lest We Forget where we came from, and why we're here....

... and how far we've come...

B

The Irony is that the message of this song can be applied once more :p

[fumanwho 10]

I just read your signature...You really have given up do you? "ARMA 3 IS ONLY THE BASE FOR COMMUNITY CONTENT ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A COMPLETE GAME"

Releasing an unfinished game is one thing, but releasing something unfinished and then saying "Uh its supposed to be that way...We never intended to do anything more" is a slap in the face of long-time fans who are around since OFP -_-

Fuck this makes me angry. BIS had problems, you were forced to release ArmA III early, allright I wont give you heat for that. BIS isnt EA or Activision after all. The 60$ price tag still upsets me, but ok whatever. BUT: Instead of being honest, telling the community that you know you basically released a Beta as a complete game, and giving us a transparent explanation of what to expect for the future, you now start this apologistic bullshit about how the community was always supposed to complete the game. No matter how important addons and community content are, I still expect a rich and diverse game as a foundation, and everyone can see ArmA 3 is far from it. From reskinned vehicles re-using the same parts to the abysmal perfomance, ArmA 3 is not what I thought it would be. And seeing the general tone in this and other forums: Neither does the community.

Therefore: Talk to us. Give us a clear roadmap of what to expect regarding future plans & content. Im ready to wait another six months and pay more money for DLCs, but I want a clear picture of what to expect. I DONT want to read signature by BIS employees bullshitting me about the current state of the game.

hey there buddy. I see that you dont understand english very well, dont worry lots of people have trouble when english is not their first language. Let me help you out a little.

"Arma 3 is a combined arms military game with an infantry focus". This means in english, Arma 3 is a combined arms military game with an infantry focus.

"Built upon appropriate, useful and engaging elements of simulation," This means in english, Built upon appropriate, useful and engaging elements of simulation.

"it's an accessible platform for a variety of official and community playable/sandbox content" This means in english, it's an accessible platform for a variety of official and community playable/sandbox content

"based on the principles of authenticity, diversity and opportunity" in english this means, based on the principles of authenticity, diversity and opportunity.

The sentence "ARMA 3 IS ONLY THE BASE FOR COMMUNITY CONTENT ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A COMPLETE GAME" does not appear anywhere in the sig. And it would be impossible for any native english speakers to read the sig and come to the conclusion that it contains those words or expresses the idea "NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A COMPLETE GAME". You need to be carefull on forums when you dont have a complete knowledge of the subtleties of english as you could easily misunderstand something and come to the wrong conclusions.

I hope this was helpfull.

[royaltyinexile 175]

I... what?

I hope this was helpful.

Yes. I, for one, found it very enlightening, thank you! :)

Best,

RiE

[paecmaker 23]

I just registered to say: Exactly this.

PLEASE Bohemia, communicate with us. The release was a disappointment, but we can be patient and wait for ArmA 3 to get better. But we need some positive feedback, the feeling that you are aware of ArmA IIIs shortcomings and ready to fix them in time. A "roadmap" would be a very good solution.

But right now I hardly see any reactions from BIS, instead signatures that try to tell me that the community is supposed to finish the game. That does not inspire trust for the future.

I guess you dont read any of the sitreps or the sportreps. There they say their plans on what they are trying to implement into the game and similar things. BI has kept us up with development since beta/even alpha thanks to the sitreps and spotreps. Its way more than any other company would have done.

For example in the sitrep released now they mention, campaign(release date will be released this week) Two new weapons, and other stuff.

Also, two BI devs posting here :eek:

[-Coulum- 35]

Yes Arma 3 website actually has some good stuff. For example they have a list of known issues which I assume they aim to fix in the next patch. I don't know how updated it is but Its nice to see them sharing their priorities.

Regarding communication I think the devs are simply being conservative to keep community expectations down and avoid disappointment. It sounds to me like they are working on new stuff in the background but don't want to mention it until they are confident it is going to be ready to release. Take for example the new effect of fatigue on animations. No mention of it as far as I know until it was up to standards.

And people need to keep in mind that just because BIS aren't openly working on something doesn't mean it isn't a goal for the future. Small steps. I think this is especially the case in terms of ai development.

[Smurf 12]

To add to Coulum post, it seems they're doing things right this time regarding documentation, order of process and so on; Cleaning the mess left from previous titles.

It's a nasty job, takes time but it is worthy. More on the long run, which is what they're aiming for.

[-Coulum- 35]

To add to Coulum post, it seems they're doing things right this time regarding documentation, order of process and so on; Cleaning the mess left from previous titles.

It's a nasty job, takes time but it is worthy. More on the long run, which is what they're aiming for.

Exactly. They have to make sure what they have done is solid before they can build off it. I think that's why development has seemed so slow. If Arma 2 was as stable as Arma 3 is right now, I think the jump from arma 2 to 3 would have been much bigger. Unfortunately arma 2 was a mess. If you want a talll impressive building you gotta have a strong solid base to build off of. Arma 3 was about building and cleaning up that base. Its not exactly appealing from a player perspective but its gotta be done.

[chortles 263]

Moreover, such reform had to happen before things finally hit critical mass... think "workarounds pileup".