Arma 2 had too much content? Dayz effecting Arma?

[progamer 14]

Just though this would be interesting to know in regards to content in Arma 3. I may have interpreted this wrong though.

http://www.arma3.com/news/report-in-marek-spanel-ceo#.UmLJHmt5mSM

"For Arma 2, we took everything we could from ‘Game 2’ in terms of content, and adopted a more conservative approach to the technical side of things. The library of content present in Arma 2 is simply overwhelming, and in hindsight might not be commercially justifiable for a single game. Then there was of course Ivan Buchta’s terrain masterpiece, Chernarus, which only later got its full recognition due to the DayZ phenomenon. Unfortunately, though, the majority of the general audience and media did not care much about sheer scale of Arma 2. Instead, they were disappointed with performance, lack of polish, and the bugs."

So we might never see Arma 2's level of content again? Why don't we have to community update Arma 2's content for Arma 3 as a dlc?

"Hence now, with Arma 3, our focus is much more on quality over quantity. It’s definitely going to be interesting to see how the game will be perceived in the end. We’ll find out in the coming weeks, but we hope to be bringing the most polished and stable Arma game ever at launch."

The media focus brought by Dayz affected Arma 3's development positively or negatively?

[PuFu 4600]

Dayz is not affecting the content, not really. But this has been discussed before quite a few times: Arma2 content (and most saying ArmA is actually saying A2:CO and maybe even DLC content) is a mix of ArmA1 updated content, Game2 content, OFP content, VBS2 content and finally some new content. Most content for A3 is a new. minus some houses and some other stuff like the buzzard.

[progamer 14]

Dayz is not affecting the content, not really. But this has been discussed before quite a few times: Arma2 content (and most saying ArmA is actually saying A2:CO and maybe even DLC content) is a mix of ArmA1 updated content, Game2 content, OFP content, VBS2 content and finally some new content. Most content for A3 is a new. minus some houses and some other stuff like the buzzard.

I know but he says the media wanted better quality, and that's why arma 3 has to have high quality. He also says arma 2 had too much content for a single game.

[chortles 263]

Mind you, you can count that DLC content as part of CO due to the "Lite vs. paid" DLC model... but yeah, it's pretty overt that Arma 2 was essentially a piling up of content, and even Arma (originally "OFP Rearmed") used revamped OFP: CWC assets... but the sense that I got from this devblog is that internally Game 2 is actually looked on as a failure with fundamental issues instead of something to aspire to. As far as the lack of "Arma 3 Rearmed" as even a paid DLC...

Originally, we had an idea that was similar to Take On Rearmed. Unfortunately, upgrading the Arma 2 massive content library to Arma 3 standards is beyond what we can do in reasonable time. So instead, what we are going to do will be similar to Arma 1: we are going to release the entire Arma 2 library to the community and allow them create any derivative work within Arma 3. More details will be announced very soon.

TL;DR: Maruk (as CEO) is willing to allow modders to utilize the content for modding purposes, but isn't going to allocate time/resources into an official port.

As far as the "quality over quantity" talk, BI (i.e. Jay Crowe) was talking that up as early as E3 last year back when DayZ was still a nascent phenomenon that BI didn't seem to know what they wanted to do with, suggesting that this direction had been conceived of even before DayZ and based on the internally-perceived "lessons of Arma 2".

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Ahaha, Arma 2 had too much content for one game? I still don't see it, but maybe that's just me. It is after all an open sandbox.

[progamer 14]

There also "authenticity" being pushed now unlike arma 2 were saying Milsim was fine.

[maffa 29]

BUt this still is no reason not to give the comunity the most widespread weapons and vehicles around. No one will die if they manage to produce some high quality M16 or AK74, leaving the least spread weaponry and vehicles apart.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I want to see the most modern, or in development weapon for each faction, pack from BI. Since it is 2035 in the Armaverse. FN-Scar anyone?

[HKFlash 9]

Dayz is not affecting the content, not really. But this has been discussed before quite a few times: Arma2 content (and most saying ArmA is actually saying A2:CO and maybe even DLC content) is a mix of ArmA1 updated content, Game2 content, OFP content, VBS2 content and finally some new content. Most content for A3 is a new. minus some houses and some other stuff like the buzzard.

And the KA-60 and the Mi-48 cockpit which is the AH-64 pit...there's alot of recycled stuff in A3, just not as much as in A2.

[maffa 29]

I want to see the most modern, or in development weapon for each faction, pack from BI. Since it is 2035 in the Armaverse. FN-Scar anyone?

many would like to stick with 2013 and get free from the 2035. giving them basic instrument to do so would be a great help.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Would be nice to have the M-16's refurbished. Wait no,it would be better for them to make new models from scratch.

[maffa 29]

yeah, just porting them wouldnt do, really.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Also, it just occurred to me, how much time it would take. New sounds and all. But hey, maybe after all the campaign is released and they've nothing else to do.

[progamer 14]

yeah, just porting them wouldnt do, really.

Having a community member do it for free? Could some of this content we see be left over from the original sci-fi arma 3 path? Because people want current weapons, normaly used weapons and vehicles.

Arma 3 will likely never see weapons and vehicles on the scale arma 2 had apparently. Even though community members would do it for them as a free dlc...

Edited October 19, 2013 by ProGamer

[Fulcrum90 10]

ArmA 3 has enough content. Its just that ArmA 2 had too much content.

ArmA 3 is running fine. Its just that Arma 2 was running too good.

ArmA 3 has distinctive enough factions. Its just ArmA 2's factions were too distinctive.

Are we really going to argue in that direction?

[Make Love Not War 10]

Quantity, quality, cheaply; pick any two. But, I'll agree that all this talk of 'authenticity' does make me a nervous panda. Of course, for purposes of gameplay and the overall sanity of users and developers alike, some - or even many - things have always needed a certain level of abstraction within Arma, but that doesn't mean we should just forego the idea (and the ethos that comes with it) of Arma as a simulator.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Make Love Not War
brevity and style

[Alabatross 1]

Instead, they were disappointed with performance, lack of polish, and the bugs."

good.

[chortles 263]

many would like to stick with 2013 and get free from the 2035. giving them basic instrument to do so would be a great help.

It's called "we are going to release the entire Arma 2 library to the community and allow them create any derivative work within Arma 3."

yeah, just porting them wouldnt do, really.

Truthbetold there are modders' models that far exceed the Arma 2 models in quality and looking "up to Arma 3 standard 3", the difference is almost painfully noticeable, so I can see why Maruk wouldn't want to put resources/time into porting if he didn't already intend to (the point of that response by Maruk being, he didn't and he's not going to now).

As with DarkSideSixOfficial, it's possible as a "campaign released, nothing else to do" thing, but even if it happens it's pretty clearly an low priority on the internal priorities hierarchy, and as we've seen from the defenders... that approach has its fans. ;)

good.

+1; Jay Crowe (as creative director) declared addressing performance/polish/bugs a major priority instead of just... well, really, I can't find any meaningful direction that they could have expanded on "Arma 2 style" when Maruk, DnA, Crowe and others' remarks imply an internal view of Arma 2 as having deep, fundamental flaws (embodied in Arma 2's release state) and their decision-making on Arma 3 ("performance, polish, bugs" over content, Steamworks, the 'alpha'/'beta'/release schedule, holding tight to that schedule even after it turned out that the campaign(s) wouldn't be done in time for the launch date...) being based on that internal view.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if their decision-making was also based on observation of other games that they saw parallels to Arma 2 in, i.e. focusing on defeating CTDs over rivet counting... I'm looking at you, Naval War: Arctic Circle. :icon_evil:

Edited October 20, 2013 by Chortles

[maffa 29]

Having this content out of the box is not the same as having to scavenge for it and try it and see compatibilities etc.

I have not surrendered yet to the fact that A3 is a futuristic shooter with next to none link to todays factual warfare. New graphics: yeah! new engine: yeah! Less buggy: fuck yeah! Some official content linking it to todays weaponry? It's not poor old maffa requesting this. It makes sense as an historical POV, because huge caches and stockpiles of weapons and vehicles cant be dumped away in a 20 year course.

And because just by adding a few of those, out of the pack, will let all those not used to modding to enjoy games both in SP and in MP based on 2013.

If i wanted to host a 2013 warfare server i should force all those wishing to be in to have weapon and vehicle mods, instead of vanilla A3: is it right?

Stop treating modding as if it were a natural part of Arma. It is not, much more when we all know all the new people coming in with A3. Some people (i.e. a LOT) know nothing of modding, will have hard times in installuing a simple mod, let alone scripting, hosting particluar scenarios or making new stuff. It's advanced stuff, both making and using it properly.

Out-of-the-box is not like modding. Stop predending that relying to mods is easy and convenient, because it is not.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Maffa

[ProfTournesol 956]

Stop treating modding as if it were a natural part of Arma. It is not, much more when we all know all the new people coming in with A3. Some people (i.e. a LOT) know nothing of modding, will have hard times in installuing a simple mod, let alone scripting, hosting particluar scenarios or making new stuff. It's advanced stuff, both making and using it properly.

But it is a natural part of ArmA, and always was. Harder than before, for sure, but newcomers have to learn as we did before.

[chortles 263]

Maffa, modding is the "basic instrument" that you requested. Oh, what's that, you meant "out-of-the-box" Arma 2/2013-style content? The whole point of me posting Maruk's remarks multiple times in this thread alone was to show that BI's CEO has stated that BI's policy is not to do that.

[becubed 24]

If i wanted to host a 2013 warfare server ...

You shouldn't do it in a game set in 2035 :)

[maffa 29]

You shouldn't do it in a game set in 2035 :)

Hardly a game anymore; just a ambitious poorly half developed and user unfriendly FPS construction kit.

Half the threads are done by people pushing their own agendas for things that should normally be found inside fully released games and then some more.

I have the precise feeling that the lack of 2013 weaponry and vehicles will spectacularly backfire on BIS. I hope they have deeply thought about it and have several serious reasons not to include these absolutely obvious items.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Maffa

[chortles 263]

"Unfortunately, upgrading the Arma 2 massive content library to Arma 3 standards is beyond what we can do in reasonable time."

There's your answer right there. As for not including 2013 weaponry and vehicles in the first place... they long ago decided on the 2035 setting over two years ago and the winter 2012 revamp kept it.

[progamer 14]

If Arma 2 failed or wasn't good enough, would we be here now?

---------- Post added at 20:02 ---------- Previous post was at 19:59 ----------

We don't need to go down the MOH: Warfighter path were the developers couldn't decide weather it was marketed towards hardcore or casual players, and weather it was a realistic or arcade game. Arma should be realistic and lean more towards the hardcore market rather than being stuck in limbo and making no one happy.