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

[progamer 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.

People seem to think a few changes from Arma 2 to Arma 3 means we should be playing some balanced e-sport game or have Arma become an arcade game like the Battlefield series or Call of Duty series. A major part for most of the players who have been here longer has always been the fact that Arma was realistic. A huge number of players come from the sim audience and others who got fed up playing arcade games and wanted to play a realistic game. Things like the CiA letter indicate BI cares just as much about creating a realistic game as they did in Arma 2.

What do you think will happen to with regards to Arma 3 being realistic? Can BI see through these player? Will they cater to them and alienate the main audience? I may be just over reacting but seems but this concerns me and many others greatly.

---------- Post added at 01:18 ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 ----------

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

Edited October 27, 2013 by ProGamer

[antoineflemming 14]

You're overreacting. But then again BIS may be trying to make the game what it is. A game. Not a mil sim. Sure, it's like between a tactical shooter and a milsim, but I think their direction is to make it a bit more of a game and not hardcore sim. I do believe that they are trying to make it as much a sim as possible, but it is still a game. Also, remember, it's not just realism-fans vs arcade fans. You also have those who want modern-day, 2000-2010 era stuff, calling that "realistic". So there's in essence three groups of people BI has to deal with.

[Pac Man 10]

I believe BI will go with whatever the majority would like, just like with any other game. The old days of BI being independent and catering to the niche crowd are gone. In with the new, and "who gives a fuck about old loyalty" kind of deal. Unfortunately.

[progamer 14]

You're overreacting. But then again BIS may be trying to make the game what it is. A game. Not a mil sim. Sure, it's like between a tactical shooter and a milsim, but I think their direction is to make it a bit more of a game and not hardcore sim. I do believe that they are trying to make it as much a sim as possible, but it is still a game. Also, remember, it's not just realism-fans vs arcade fans. You also have those who want modern-day, 2000-2010 era stuff, calling that "realistic". So there's in essence three groups of people BI has to deal with.

There are millions of games which are arcade games. Now one of the few games that isn't should become that? When the majority of players want the game to be realistic?

Not over reacting. Any new ticket on the feedback tracker these days is downvoted almost %100 for having any relating to realism.

[Crash 10]

Its all about money. I'd be happy if they gave us a lot better mod tools, like Crysis had. Personally, though, I think BIS has made a grave mistake with going with the "majority". The majority are a fickle lot who don't hang around for long. With BF4 out, they'll all be gone in a few days, and its not like I'm seeing many posts from them anyway. So far, all we have is a big, generic sandbox with about 5 different huts, and a few buildings. The vehicles are all sci-fi-ish ( read bullshit ), and the flight models, cockpits, and controls are atrocious.

The one good thing I have seen so far is good bullet penetration and ricochet, but that seems to be only on buildings and not vehicles / aircraft.

Were going to have to wait for groups like ACE for now.

And speaking of ACE, just saw this...

dev-heaven.net/versions/1119

It say OA at the top, but lower it say Arma 3, like its been changed. Then look at the last closed issue. It was 15 days ago and labeled "Out of Scope".

Looks like there's still a light on in the ACE House. One hopes.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Crash

[progamer 14]

Its all about money. I'd be happy if they gave us a lot better mod tools, like Crysis had. Personally, though, I think BIS has made a grave mistake with going with the "majority". The majority are a fickle lot who don't hang around for long. With BF4 out, they'll all be gone in a few days, and its not like I'm seeing many posts from them anyway. So far, all we have is a big, generic sandbox with about 5 different huts, and a few buildings. The vehicles are all sci-fi-ish ( read bullshit ), and the flight models, cockpits, and controls are atrocious.

The one good thing I have seen so far is good bullet penetration and ricochet, but that seems to be only on buildings and not vehicles / aircraft.

Were going to have to wait for groups like ACE for now.

And speaking of ACE, just saw this...

dev-heaven.net/versions/1119

It say OA at the top, but lower it say Arma 3, like its been changed. Then look at the last closed issue. It was 15 days ago and labeled "Out of Scope".

Looks like there's still a light on in the ACE House. One hopes.

The majority with arma are playrs who like realism. The vocal minority are players who hate realism.

[mistyronin 1181]

Uhm, I have been playing the Arma series since OFP's release day and I don't share your perspective. In my opinion A3 is far more realistic than OFP, with a lot of interesting new features ( like the different firing postures, physix, etc. ).

The vanilla games in this series had never been a simulator, just a sandbox game that include some realistic features to make it more fun. That doesn't mean that with some nice mods and playing with a group of coordinated mates you can achieve some degree of simulation... but again, far away from a "true" simulation.

I believe a 100% infantry milsim would be considered really boring for most of the Arma series community, and wouldn't sell enough to make it profitable ( remember that after all, the main goal of all companies is to get profits ). Just imagine spend an hour without a shoot preparing the offensive, having to issue all the reports, etc. You know in RL soldiers just shoot/fight about 1-2% of their time... ( and I would even say, that is a bit exaggerated ).

My suggestion, is that if you really are interested in live a real soldier experience, just join the Army, don't be afraid. I'm sure that Canada has a really nice Armed Forces.

If you don't want to go that far, just wait until some realistic mods are released for the new game.

The majority with arma are playrs who like realism. The vocal minority are players who hate realism.

Where is the scientific data that lets you assure that? And what kind of realism are we talking about?

[progamer 14]

Uhm, I have been playing the Arma series since OFP's release day and I don't share your perspective. In my opinion A3 is far more realistic than OFP, with a lot of interesting new features ( like the different firing postures, physix, etc. ).

The vanilla games in this series had never been a simulator, just a sandbox game that include some realistic features to make it more fun. That doesn't mean that with some nice mods and playing with a group of coordinated mates you can achieve some degree of simulation... but again, far away from a "true" simulation.

I believe a 100% infantry milsim would be considered really boring for most of the Arma series community, and wouldn't sell enough to make it profitable ( remember that after all, the main goal of all companies is to get profits ). Just imagine spend an hour without a shoot preparing the offensive, having to issue all the reports, etc. You know in RL soldiers just shoot/fight about 1-2% of their time... ( and I would even say, that is a bit exaggerated ).

My suggestion, is that if you really are interested in live a real soldier experience, just join the Army, don't be afraid. I'm sure that Canada has a really nice Armed Forces.

If you don't want to go that far, just wait until some realistic mods are released for the new game.

Where is the scientific data that lets you assure that? And what kind of realism are we talking about?

Just kinda a rant in the moment. Though arma has always leaned towards being realistic, that's one of the reasons were all here. But it's just my rant on newer players coming in and wanting an arcade game like BF or COD.

[Robertqx 10]

I only came to Arma because it is different from the arcade shooters, and has a much more sophisticated player base.

[Kerc Kasha 102]

I don't see anything painfully unrealistic with arma 3 other than the medical/stamina system but both of which are more 'unfinished' than 'unrealistic'

it also doesn't help that a lot of 'realism' requests are stuff that will just make the game more tedious and not benefit gameplay in any way

[mistyronin 1181]

Just kinda a rant in the moment. Though arma has always leaned towards being realistic, that's one of the reasons were all here. But it's just my rant on newer players coming in and wanting an arcade game like BF or COD.

Yeah I get your point, but if they own the game they also deserve to be heard. Then BI will take the decisions they believe better for their idea of business.

After all, the future of the series depends more on the actual players than the old ones. Even a realism buff like me understands that.

[progamer 14]

Yeah I get your point, but if they own the game they also deserve to be heard. Then BI will take the decisions they believe better for their idea of business.

After all, the future of the series depends more on the actual players than the old ones. Even a realism buff like me understands that.

BI still likes realism. Players still buy Arma looking for a realistic game. Look at all the Milsim groups and how popular mods like ACE are. Mods exist like arcade helicopters for players wanting more arcade like gameplay. BI seems to be one of the few companies that aren't only in it for the cash.

[ballistic09 241]

Uhm, I have been playing the Arma series since OFP's release day and I don't share your perspective. In my opinion A3 is far more realistic than OFP, with a lot of interesting new features ( like the different firing postures, physix, etc. ).

Drive any land based vehicle and try your hardest to flip it, then come back and tell me if the Physx implementation in Arma 3 is realistic. Spoiler alert: It's nearly impossible.

In terms of realism, I can't help but feel like this game is one step forward in some areas, and many, many, many steps back in others.

[progamer 14]

Drive any land based vehicle and try your hardest to flip it, then come back and tell me if the Physx implementation in Arma 3 is realistic. Spoiler alert: It's nearly impossible.

In terms of realism, I can't help but feel like this game is one step forward in some areas, and many, many, many steps back in others.

If you look into the code, you see it has a config section for Anti-roll bars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sway_bar The current issue is that not every vehicle uses anti-roll bars.

[Crash 10]

In terms of realism, I can't help but feel like this game is one step forward in some areas, and many, many, many steps back in others.

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.

[ballistic09 241]

If you look into the code, you see it has a config section for Anti-roll bars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sway_bar The current issue is that not every vehicle uses anti-roll bars.

Yeah, I don't think a roll bar is supposed to automatically flip a 65 ton tank right side up after it lands on it's roof...

This is honestly the best I've managed to flip a vehicle in Arma 3: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=175770430

And even then, the hunter automatically righted itself after the tank drove off...

[Tacti-Cool 10]

Yeah, I don't think a roll bar is supposed to automatically flip a 65 ton tank right side up after it lands on it's roof...

This is honestly the best I've managed to flip a vehicle in Arma 3: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=175770430

And even then, the hunter automatically righted itself after the tank drove off...

Have you tried putting any MBT next to a wall and turning the turret into the wall? or bumping into another tank? Then tell me its hard to flip a vehicle.

Heres a video:

#realphysx

[progamer 14]

Yeah, I don't think a roll bar is supposed to automatically flip a 65 ton tank right side up after it lands on it's roof...

This is honestly the best I've managed to flip a vehicle in Arma 3: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=175770430

And even then, the hunter automatically righted itself after the tank drove off...

That's why I said there is an issue were not every vehicle should have anti-roll bars.

[Crash 10]

And even then, the hunter automatically righted itself after the tank drove off...

Its the "future"..whoooo... Tanks now have inbuilt jets that automatically go off and right your 62 ton tank when it overturns.

[ballistic09 241]

Then tell me its hard to flip a vehicle.

Well, that's news to me. Every time I land a tank on its roof, it spazes out and flips itself right-side up. You can even see some instances of that happen in the video.

The point I was making is that with the way Physx is implemented, ground vehicles in Arma 3 have an unnatural habit of landing right side up, even when it's not physically possible. I'm quite certain this is by design as it was not the case when the alpha was first released... It's just another example of how realism has taken a back seat for Arma 3. :(

[Crash 10]

Yes, but they made very sure that every shack was in exactly the same place as on the real limnos. :j: And thats according to the "experts".

[progamer 14]

Yes, but they made very sure that every shack was in exactly the same place as on the real limnos. :j: And thats according to the "experts".

What's that supposed to mean? Seriously, do you know anything about the game?

[mistyronin 1181]

Yes, but they made very sure that every shack was in exactly the same place as on the real limnos. :j: And thats according to the "experts".

Not even close to truth. A lot of stuff has been made up for the game. Use google maps to compare with the real island...

BTW double posting is not allowed in this forum.

[chortles 263]

I distinctly remember at least someone from BI, possibly Maruk, emphasizing the inexactitude, at the very least in scale, of "Limnos" (later Altis) after Ivan and Martin's "vacation"...

[Crash 10]

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. :)

I distinctly remember at least someone from BI, possibly Maruk, emphasizing the inexactitude, at the very least in scale, of "Limnos" (later Altis) after Ivan and Martin's "vacation"...

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