Authenticity and Arma 3

[MissionCreep 12]

This has been discussed a lot ... here is an article mainly about EA/DICE Battlefield and some mention of Danger Close Games' Medal of Honor ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/technology/this-is-war-for-a-game-industrys-soul.html

It mentions how far-reaching attempts at authenticity in Mil FPS has become a "dead end". Do people agree or disagree that for BIS given the choice of introducing more authenticity/playability/entertainment value into Arma3, authenticity would probably be the lowest priority?

[progamer 14]

Making Arma 3 less realistic? NO!

Making it more realistic? Yes!

It failed for EA because of the COD, and BF crowd. We do not need those realism hating players in Arma.

[BloodoftheScribe 12]

I agree with ProGamer. I don't feel like hearing the chatter of self entitled adolescence screaming about no scoping AI, and to make them "Sammich".

[MANTIA 55]

The reason I play Arma is because its not like COD and Battlefield.

[progamer 14]

The reason I play Arma is because its not like COD and Battlefield.

The reason MOH warfighter failed was it was marketed toward people who do not like realism. Arma is marketed towards people who like realism. MOH warfighter was marketed towards a casual market, Arma is marketed towards a hardcore market.

[instagoat 133]

None of you read the article, "realism" isn't even a question. Question is values here, I think. What does the game try to say, and as the article states, COD and Battlefield are essentially games to glorify and fun-i-fy war and military combat. Can we justify ourselves in designing and advocating games that turn the most destructive and extreme of human interactions into sport, fun and games?

People should not confuse the authenticity the article talks about with realism. This question isn't about rivetcounting, it's about wether or not this glorifying depiction of war should be allowed a future.

For me as an Arma player, the question is if BI will participate in the average hero versus villain setups that completely go against any law (like CODs storyline shows with its complaints about the characters misconduct against the geneva convention.) established, or wether they will actually try and make a valuable statement with their story. The difference between transformers and a bridge too far, or commando and jarhead, so to speak.

COD has less socio-cultural value than Doom, especially the later iterations of Modern Warfare. They developed games completely in ignorance of the message of the medium, but at large, I think the medium of the computer game is still not well enough understood to actually pin what kind of message you are sending when putting a virtual gun into the players hands and giving him free reign over the death and life of virtual characters.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Do people agree or disagree that for BIS given the choice of introducing more authenticity/playability/entertainment value into Arma3, authenticity would probably be the lowest priority?

I disagree. I think they are doing their best to find the right balance between the three objectives, with more or less success, and with another main objective : keeping its sandbox ability.

[bad benson 1733]

For me as an Arma player, the question is if BI will participate in the average hero versus villain setups that completely go against any law (like CODs storyline shows with its complaints about the characters misconduct against the geneva convention.)

yea. it's pretty clear that since i think MW2 they are just trying to provoke to get publicity. it started with that airport scene i think. just very lame attention seeking.

[MissionCreep 12]

There is a limit to realism/authenticity ... in most millitaries, a majority of time is spent sitting around. :)

Ultimately, Arma 3 is a video game (despite claims made to the contrary) and people buy videogames to be entertained.

Can we justify ourselves in designing and advocating games that turn the most destructive and extreme of human interactions into sport, fun and games?

I see your point, but I think people DO need to dis-associate these games from reality (with or without without changing realism and authenticity)- it is unsettling to me (just me) that people would use a video game as a moral compass. Just as I (and normal/well-adjusted young children) know that dropping an anvil on someone or hitting them with a large mallet is considered humorous on a Sunday morning cartoon, it is not something you do in the real world.

Edited October 20, 2013 by MissionCreep

[progamer 14]

There is a limit to realism/authenticity ... in most millitaries, most time is spent sitting around. :)

Ultimately, Arma 3 is a video game (despite claims made to the contrary) and people buy videogames to be entertained.

The problem is Milsim is now a bad word to use with arma 3 unlike arma 2. You want a fun and unrealistic game? There are literally millions of them out there. Most Arma players, like Arma because it's realistic. Why alienate the entire fan base? Arma players wanting more realism is quite evident by the popularity of ace and ow it's very likely it could end up as maditory for any online gameplay. Arma appeals towards the Milsim, and realism crowd and that's never going to change hopefully.

---------- Post added at 21:23 ---------- Previous post was at 21:14 ----------

Look at the feedback tracker, people want more realism not less.

[chortles 263]

@ MissionCreep: Do you have any idea how many children aren't "normal/well-adjusted"? :(

[antoineflemming 14]

None of you read the article, "realism" isn't even a question. Question is values here, I think. What does the game try to say, and as the article states, COD and Battlefield are essentially games to glorify and fun-i-fy war and military combat. Can we justify ourselves in designing and advocating games that turn the most destructive and extreme of human interactions into sport, fun and games?

People should not confuse the authenticity the article talks about with realism. This question isn't about rivetcounting, it's about wether or not this glorifying depiction of war should be allowed a future.

For me as an Arma player, the question is if BI will participate in the average hero versus villain setups that completely go against any law (like CODs storyline shows with its complaints about the characters misconduct against the geneva convention.) established, or wether they will actually try and make a valuable statement with their story. The difference between transformers and a bridge too far, or commando and jarhead, so to speak.

COD has less socio-cultural value than Doom, especially the later iterations of Modern Warfare. They developed games completely in ignorance of the message of the medium, but at large, I think the medium of the computer game is still not well enough understood to actually pin what kind of message you are sending when putting a virtual gun into the players hands and giving him free reign over the death and life of virtual characters.

ANY FPS game funifies war, including Arma.

[almanzo 144]

ANY FPS game funifies war, including Arma.

With one serious exeption... Spec Ops: The Line. That game openly tries to make you feel like a horrible person for wanting to play a shooter.

---------- Post added at 23:07 ---------- Previous post was at 23:03 ----------

Do people agree or disagree that for BIS given the choice of introducing more authenticity/playability/entertainment value into Arma3, authenticity would probably be the lowest priority?

Btw: why do you present it as contradicting? In my book, more authentic gameplay equals better entertainment. Realism increases my enjoyment in games. I hate casual or arcade style shooters and I enjoy arma mainly because it's more authentic and more realistic. So does most ARMA fans.

[[aps]gnat 28]

ANY FPS game funifies war, including Arma.

No, I don't think typical ArmA missions/scenarios funify war, 1shot 1kill certainly brings the finality of it home, but certainly there are plenty of missions(usually user made) that are definite just for "fun".

@InstaGoat

Great post.

[bad benson 1733]

ANY FPS game funifies war, including Arma.

absolutely. you should see the shit me and my buddies do to our dead bodies when we play coop ;) more sandbox = more crazy "wrong" shit. gta is the best example.

[Robertqx 10]

Making Arma 3 less realistic? NO!

Making it more realistic? Yes!

It failed for EA because of the COD, and BF crowd. We do not need those realism hating players in Arma.

As someone who recently left Battlefield after playing for 8 years (Battlefield 2 had been one of my favorite games, but I didn't really like BC2 and hated BF3), I can't emphasize this enough. The Battlefield community is AWFUL. I mean horrendous. You kind of have to visit the Battlelog forums to understand what I'm talking about (many people on those forums will say the same). It is full of young, (honestly IMO) often vile adolescents and 20-somethings who want instant gratification, like looking down on people who don't buy "Premium," want EVERYTHING nerfed to a comfortable level, get off on "points" ("Headshot bonus! etc.) in games that aren't really meaningful and immersion breaking, have no interest in strategy or tactical or realistic gameplay, want markers indicating where all players on all teams are, permanent scope glare on sniper rifles, etc.

The Arma community is in many ways everything the Battlefield / CoD communities are not. Where Battlefield players run from intellectual complexity and difficulty, the Arma community embraces it.

I REALLY would not want this to change.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Robertqx

[MissionCreep 12]

@ MissionCreep: Do you have any idea how many children aren't "normal/well-adjusted"? :(

Unfortunately for those children, I don't think video games are any more of a trigger than the parenting (or lack thereof), Social Media, TV, movies, books or their surroundings or inborn psychological issues.

[maffa 29]

i want to let the OP know that i am actually reading the article before answering.

---------- Post added at 07:30 ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 ----------

ok now i have read the article. the answer is: it all depends on your audience. People may get sick at walking 5 minutes to get to OA. That will make half the "unpredestined" people fall off. It's the same difference between those who like softair and those who like amusement park shooting ranges: one is a military action that requires all sort of skill and patience, another is immediate satisfaction and the final prize. Many may like both, but they are different activities. How many of our matches (expecially coop matches) end without even knowing how many "frags" we totalled? I play as a medic inside my clan, it's three matches in a row i manage not to shoot a single round. And again this is different if you play in a public server: if i play medic i shoot plenty and most cases i dont even get the chance to heal anybody because wounded people wont wait for me and prefer to respawn.

That's why i think Arma franchises should have stick to it's milsim label. Because it made it different from powerhouses like CoD BF MoH. Once you are lucky enough to have your own niche, and you won the lottery taking a lot of new customers out of a mod, when you try to go mainstream you risk of losing the people you had because you are betraying your perceived values and not taking the new people because you are not enough gamey for their tastes.

There is plenty of people that will parrot "Arma is not a milsim, it's a sandbox" as if it can change something. A lot of people saw Arma as a milsim, and stuck with it because of that. I'm more offended that the new Red Army rifle AK12 wont be presented in any form in a "futuristic" game because they prefer going the clancy-esque path, than enjoying the critter on the ground.

But this apart, you cannot talk about authenticity if you dont put psychology inside a war game. Psychology has so much room both in the immediate action and in the long run. Psychology is what makes armies rout, suppression possible, snipers effective, flashbangs and thermite surprising. And in the long run will gnaw healthy soldiers from inside. Some Bland effects could be reproduced when we play "one life" matches, but almost none of us hardcore gamers would be willing to, because well yes we are hardocre but playing 12 minutes out of 3 hours match on our Arma night is a little too much hardcore, isnt it? And since we armaholics -those fixated with realism- are not so willing to make that extra step i think we know very well the difference between realism and authenticity.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Maffa

[jamsus 11]

In my opinion, and this opinion is builded also watching Youtube commentary videos (jester series, E.G.), what makes Arma3 realism more enjoyable are the players.

Because in Arma you do not win, you play. Is a big - different concept.

You play, you roleplay your being a soldier.

[IGCNightmare 10]

After watching Shac Tac videos and Jester videos I personally love the fact that's it's more realistic over COD and BF. I'm fed up with constant explosions every 2 seconds, it begins to grind on your ears a fair bit.

[DJankovic 401]

I always watched like this... Played COD,and BF3 i started stopwatch and count the time i died... and boom 30 sec. i am dead then it keeps going runing all around map killing and get killed etc etc.

I played Arma with my clan and boom 1:30h(sometimes longer) of intense firefight with insurgents..multiple causalities etc etc. lucky me i am medic and everyone is protecting me :D and yea i get my 5 min of glory when i rescue a guy stop bleeding give him something for pain TNX GLOWBAL for amazing CMS ..and not just run by him hit him with defibrillators and he is up...LOL

Decide by yourself what do you love!