What's up with new players not wanting the game to be realistic anymore?

[progamer 14]

Oh, sorry, didn't mean to double post. Some guy above, who has now been added to my ignore list, was trying to say everything was totally, realisticly placed on the island. I was just being sarcastic, because we all know thats probably not true. :)

Oh, I bet they were very careful to "misplace" a lot of objects. :p

I didn't say it was perfect, but saying you want to "fight it out on the forums" in a PM is not ok.

[mistyronin 1181]

ProGamer and Crash don't get personal please, or I'm gonna report.

-------

My theory is that they took more or less the setting of the villages in Altis, but they placed the buildings as they thought would be better for the gameplay.

[progamer 14]

ProGamer and Crash don't get personal please, or I'm gonna report.

-------

My theory is that they took more or less the setting of the villages in Altis, but they placed the buildings as they thought would be better for the gameplay.

It looks more like a lack of time, the layout is mostly based off the towns Lemnos but It looks more like a lack of resources and time situation. The development wasn't exactly smooth sailing...

[mistyronin 1181]

It looks more like a lack of time, the layout is mostly based off the towns Lemnos but It looks more like a lack of resources and time situation. The development wasn't exactly smooth sailing...

For what I have read in the sitreps, Altis is the feature that was finished first and polished the most. So I think that the development issues doesn't have affected it.

In fact the devs said that they were really happy with it, even said that is the A3 crown's jewel.

BTW I lived in the mediterranean coast in the past and it's awesome how realistic is ( besides the solar plants, research places, military bases, and all the rest of the scifi stuff ). To me it doesn't feel empty at all' although is true that since the release of it, the devs have removed some things to improve performance.

[chortles 263]

I can safely say though that the devs explicitly tried to get away from verisimilitude with Lemnos, that was even explicitly the reason for the name change to Altis ("in view of recent events, the team no longer feels passionate about using the previous name, 'Limnos', and hopes that the new identity, ‘Altis’, will help emphasize the fictional nature of the game") but the scale mattered a lot and if anything its sheer size I think was Maruk's pet "what he was looking for".

P.S. Fun with distances... according to Moricky, when counting the water and underwater locations apparently the overall Altis terrain is actually almost 1000 km2 with the vaunted 270 km2 just being ground surface area... but seeing as Arma terrains' boundaries are square-shaped, that works out to only 31.62 km by 31.62 km, and 44.72 km from corner to opposite corner... whereas some underwater torpedoes' ranges can exceed the latter, and every anti-ship missile I've seen outranges the latter.

[Crash 10]

ProGamer and Crash don't get personal please, or I'm gonna report.

-------

My theory is that they took more or less the setting of the villages in Altis, but they placed the buildings as they thought would be better for the gameplay.

Oh, its ok. Pro made it to my ignore list. So did Steamtex. End of that.

[progamer 14]

emphasize the fictional nature of the game

From the CiA letter, we see the exact opposite. The developers like making a realistic game.

[mistyronin 1181]

From the CiA letter, we see the exact opposite. The developers like making a realistic game.

I don't see the contradiction. Fiction can be realistic.

Fiction means that it hasn't happened in reality ( for example if you copy BlackHawk down's plot in Tanzania instead of Somalia, you have a nice fiction movie with a realistic plot ).

[progamer 14]

I don't see the contradiction. Fiction can be realistic.

Fiction means that it hasn't happened in reality ( for example if you copy BlackHawk down's plot in Tanzania instead of Somalia, you have a nice fiction movie with a realistic plot ).

Fiction regarding story line and issues with engine limitations have always existed. But it seems new players do not get that. They want a balanced unrealistic arcade game. Sigh.

[ak1287 1]

I think you're making a generalization that you can't defend or prove.

[chortles 263]

That quote was explicitly in regards to story line, I would have thought that you wouldn't have been so disingenuous...

[progamer 14]

That quote was explicitly in regards to story line, I would have thought that you wouldn't have been so disingenuous...

It was not clear it was in regards to the story line.

---------- Post added at 08:16 ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 ----------

Comparing threads from arma 2's release to now, you see this:

Arma 2 just after release: The games not realistic enough. This and that is broken. Arma 1 was better.

Arma 2 farther along the line until dayz: Emphasis on realism. Players want things to be realistic. Make things like VBS. Arma 2 is very realistic. BF and COD suck. Arcade games aren't fun. Mission maker does balance.

Arma 3: just after release: This is not realistic. Fix this. Arma 2 was better. The developers don't care. Mods are good and bad. Up vote realism! Mission maker does balance.

Arma 3 recently: No more realism. Arcade is better. Fix this. Go buy VBS. Realistic is not fun. Battlefield does it better. Realism is bad. Arma shouldn't be realistic. Down vote realism! Bis should balance the game.

Most new recent threads by players new to arma. There are like 5 players on the forums who are really vocal on the forums against realism and a few on the a feedback tracker.

You see? This is my problem right now. Forums took a 180. Will the developers alienate the veteran players? I like arma because it's realistic and many other do as well. Can the developers see past all these new arcade players? Or will they cater to the new crowd?

Edited October 28, 2013 by ProGamer

[ReVee 10]

ArmA is a Military Sandbox Simulator. It will have realism elements, but is at it's heart a platform with which to create your own style of game.

That being said, there is a lot of realism elements that everyone/Most/me/others wants, such as fast roping, some form of melee, a more comprehensive medic system, etc... but there needs to be limits on how "real" they make it. I want to shoot stuff, not lay on the ground for 30 minutes while I wait for a medic to be heli'd in to medevac me back halfway across altis and then have them perform open-heart surgery and THEN..... You get the idea.

I understand the neccesity for SOME realism aspects, but you need to have a line you don't cross. There is more than one crowd now that plays this game, and going elitist won't help.

[chiefboatsret 14]

For a very short time VBS2 Army Lite was available for military personnel and I was fortunate to get a copy. VBS2 is a simulator and as is the general gaming public would not buy it, it is not a game per se and not that fun to play. Arma is a game with its roots in VSB2 but it is certainly not a simulator. To me Arma shines brightest when played with like minded people, where having fun is winning the mission through tactics and teamwork with the least amount of casualties. Going wherever you want on the map and at the speed you like, doing it your way with only the equipment the mission maker allows is what sets it apart. The futuristic part of Arma 3 doesn't bother me because I play MP within a community who's style of play is how I like to play and Arma 3 fits in nicely and we are moving on. Realism, immersion and fun are what you make it, just keep it in perspective though.... When all is said and done, it is just a game.

[maffa 29]

agreed seatrane, that the game is made by the people that play it are like-minded. As with my own clan, we try to make the best out of the little we have at our disposal in order to make A3 as close as 2013 as possible. Some things are lacking, as i dont like MX's and the make believe helos and such. But the way we move is the same as we were moving in A2, the command structure, weaponry distribution, tactical reactions are as close as they were in A3. I miss ACE, the wounding system, advanced ballistic and windage, standard equipment, and all in all i think we moved out of A2 a year too soon at least. But our mission makers like A3 better, sure it's eyecandy, the company is what really makes the game, and i still have A2 and all the mods in my HD to play if push come to shove, so no big deal.

regarding the vocal arcadish people, i hope BIS have a good job structure and they will stick to their mid long term plans instead of changing them to chase the wishes of a few people.

[Cathrynn 10]

ProGamer: Are you able to turn this thread into a poll of what people would like to see in terms of the games direction?

eg...

I want more realism

Realism over balance every time

I'm happy the way A3 is at the moment

I want less realism

...you get my drift.

[mokum 10]

Be happy that u can setup a Arma 3 military simulator dedicated server whit a good mission.

On the forum u can find serious players to play this game on a normal way like in realtime.

The players what u see and play whit are find on puplic servers, i did meet them as well on arma2 and now on arma3.

But be happy that those players are here, they bring $$ to made this game so that U and me can play as well and pay normal price for this game.

Solution for realism gameplay setup a good server for u own or for clan (share the cost) and u will get a good round off gameplay.

[tortuosit 486]

[/color]This is a complete 180 on the feedback tracker these days. Newer player fight against tickets relating to realism, while all the players who want realism already voted on tickets before release and are waiting for progress on those. Any new tickets that come up relating to realism are downvoted heavily.http://feedback.arma3.com/plugin.php?page=Vote/list_bugs

Sure you just don't want to write that you are the pro real elite veteran ultra hard milsim gamer? Please, no offense, just want to tickle you a bit :) To be honest, I am not sure about your assumption. In my experience there are enough new gamers (new forum members that is) who have a preference of realism.

->I wouldn't generalize.

[John Kozak 14]

Arma games have always been realistic. But now players from Dayz and players who first game is Arma 3 fight against having the game realistic while the players from Arma 1 and 2 are off waiting for the game to get more polish and become more realistic. New tickets on the feedback tracker get downvoted by players new to the Arma series for anything related to making the game realistic.

Don't mean to spoil the fun here, but there's plenty of tickets claiming to be "for realism", but being exactly the opposite. Example - the "great" ticket about helicopter physics. A lot of people wrap their wrong assumptions under the word "realism".

These tickets got a justified downvote for me, OFC. I'm not a new player, but common sense is not a prerogative of veterans.

Edited October 28, 2013 by DarkWanderer

[surfer 42]

Played OFP and loved it for its sandbox. Arma 1 & 2 sucked to me, too stiff, to much hindering gameplay, need I mention the AI? That's where I came back to Arma when DayZ made the AI and the stiffness irrelevant. Now with Arma3 I'm really getting the feel for it, animations and gameplay are much more fluid, even the AI is bearable. The things that make it less realistic are the futuristic setup and its weapons that are less effective or userfriendly than today's weapons. Also focusing on symmetric warfare is a big mistake in my opinion.

Anyways I like the idea of the OP joining the Canadian Army!

[antoineflemming 14]

What I don't like the fact that there are people who want realistically simulated weapons, vehicles, aircraft, environments yet don't want realistic-behaving characters in a campaign (and that's a select few). It's great to have simulation, but I don't just want stuff that's realistic. I'd like AI and NPCs to be realistic. Not just experiencing fatigue, but actually using correct military jargon, using correct military formations, actually seeming more human. Currently, AI isn't that realistic as they often are running around everywhere, crossing each others' lines of fire. They should for the most part hold formation (maybe space themselves out a bit more). First thing they should do (this is tactics, but coming from a US perspective) is get in a general line so that they can lay some fire down range in a pretty large kill zone. They shouldn't be running all over the place and dropping prone wherever there's cover if in the open. If in an urban area, I'd rather just have some predefined objects that are specified as cover (I guess that's how BIS does it anyway) and for AI to only go for specific points of cover and the constant running around isn't realistic. It'd be nice to actually have AI popping in and out of cover (quickly using different stances) instead of going behind cover, leaving one side exposed, and then shooting from that exposed area (i.e. being behind a wall to the front, and then facing the side or rear where there is no wall in order to shoot).

Those are just examples, but the point is that there's more to realism than just expert difficulty and no crosshair+no hud, and greater fatigue effects. There's more to realism than just simulation of weapons, vehicles, aircraft, fatigue/speed/loads, sounds, environmental effects, and AI who can calculate everything under the sun. Realism also includes immersion, as some have mentioned before, and immersion isn't just those things I mentioned. It also includes the game feeling real. The term Medal of Honor used, and the reason they were blasted by the media was because I don't think people got what they were saying, was "authenticity". Sure, it's the same thing as realism, but they wanted the atmosphere of their game to feel real, so the characters and equipment looking and sounding real. Unfortunately, they didn't care for that and realism (simulation, like Arma), so it hurt them. That's kinda what I'm saying here. It's good and all to have realistic simulation in a game that's considered by the devs to be a "milsim game". But the AI have got to behave more human like for it to be believable. Maybe they could make some sort of different AI system for their campaigns for Arma 4 (if there's going to be one) or some DLC, and activated through some module.

I think with newcomers, as well as with veterans, what they come to the game for, be it aircraft or armor or infantry stuff, is what they care the most about. So they may not value overly realistic armor simulation if the main thing they get out of Arma is the aircraft simulation. Sure, you've got people who want realism across the board (probably most of your "hardcore" Arma communities). But for some, there's something specific that they want out of the game. Factor in those who think that BI can only work on aircraft or armor or infantry, and then you can sorta see why you have some downvotes. Then, there are those who don't really care for complete realism. But it's not a general "new players hate realism/ old players love realism".

---------- Post added at 14:10 ---------- Previous post was at 14:07 ----------

Played OFP and loved it for its sandbox. Arma 1 & 2 sucked to me, too stiff, to much hindering gameplay, need I mention the AI? That's where I came back to Arma when DayZ made the AI and the stiffness irrelevant. Now with Arma3 I'm really getting the feel for it, animations and gameplay are much more fluid, even the AI is bearable. The things that make it less realistic are the futuristic setup and its weapons that are less effective or userfriendly than today's weapons. Also focusing on symmetric warfare is a big mistake in my opinion.

Anyways I like the idea of the OP joining the Canadian Army!

Near future stuff isn't less realistic if they function like any other weapon. The weapons are weak because BI made them that way, regardless of whether or not they are near future or not. Symmetric warfare is REAL. It's called conventional warfare. There is more to war than just asymmetric warfare.

[marcai 1]

Why is BI making this game a game? Possibly because A1 and A2 before it were games, too. People get up in arms about this, but we play Arma for enjoyment, not for planning actual military operations, ergo it is a game. Next question?

PS, if that isn't enough, A3 has plenty of realism features that were lacking in previous games, people just like to cherry pick unfinished features -ignoring the improvements- and play the wounded hipster card because BI didn't incorporate ACE features as standard. It's getting really old to see the same people spam the same posts with the same comments daily.

[Tacti-Cool 10]

It's getting really old to see the same people spam the same posts with the same comments daily.

This. My feelings exactly

[chortles 263]

Also focusing on symmetric warfare is a big mistake in my opinion.

Whereas I wouldn't be surprised if dealing with OA for years left them unenthusiastic for ever doing an "asymmetrical warfare" Arma.

people just like to cherry pick unfinished features -ignoring the improvements- and play the wounded hipster card because BI didn't incorporate ACE features as standard.

Pretty much what I've thought about a lot of the complaints... at some point, go long enough and it's pretty clear that some things (i.e. certain mods' gameplay mechanics, like SMK Animations) were inspirations for some of Arma 3, some (i.e. certain ACE gameplay mechanics) are currently omitted on account of lack of time/resources for September 12th implementation*, and others (i.e. other ACE gameplay mechanics)... just are probably not agreed with by the devs.

* I'll allow that alternately, due to lack of time/resources for "make ALL the things" the-powers-that-be on the dev team had to prioritize, and as much as those gameplay mechanics' fans may be pissed, the-powers-that-be chose to leave their pet features on the figurative cutting room floor.

This. My feelings exactly

It's pretty much why you don't see me being nearly as complimentary of these forums as some other posters are, and I'm even sympathetic to other forums that are outright derogatory about the BI forums...

[alleycat 28]

This. In some ways, like ballistics and penetration, its at the sim level. Other things, its like they didn't even try. And I think all the sci-fi stuff is them trying to put frosting on a turd. You can't reference what isn't real.

You = frosted turd

Everything is arcade and unrealistic for you guys until dyslexi posts a video proving the trash you haters talk is completely false.