Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
progamer

Realistic vehicles with fake names or unrealistic vehicles with fake names?

What would you rather have?  

103 members have voted

  1. 1. What would you rather have?

    • Fake names, realistic vehicles and weapons
      56
    • Fake names, unrealistic vehicles and weapons
      8
    • Other (please specify)
      9
    • Real names, realistic weapons and vehicles
      29


Recommended Posts

Considering Arma 2 drew in thousands before dayz with words like Milsim and realistic and now Arma 3's sudden change is troubling. No one cared whether or not things were balanced in Arma 2.

I don't see how balance has anything to do with what I said.

Russia Vs. USMC was pretty balanced in Arma 2, clearly in ARMA 2 OA opfor vs. blufor was not balanced but I believe that was somewhat intentional.

I personally prefer symmetrical warfare as some of us like the play the game as sides other than just super blufor.

EDIT: just to state, I do not like the current method of doing it where essentially the sides are the same with very little differences but both sides should be on equal footing (or CSAT having a fair upper hand due to the setting) but I don't want to go back to the days of blufor having remote control everything while opfor has a single AK to share amongst each other to fulfill the power fantasies of wannabe military enthusiasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really was hoping for better differences in factions, yeah.

Why do both factions have tracked SPGs? Why didn't it go like we thought it would - NATO gets a modified Marshall with an artillery system, CSAT gets the thing they do now.

I love how AAF was supposed to be inferior to the other two faction yet they have better stuff in some cases. And the new CSAT jet will likely be at the same level as the AAF jet.

Yea, it doesn't feel like realism is as big as it was in Arma 2. We all thought Arma 3 would take Arma 2's realism to the next level. The game is still young but the developers haven't really aid much regarding this and all these new players from various other game who think realism isn't fun have come to the game. If weapon and vehicle names were copyrighted I don't see why modifiying the name slightly wouldn't be ok.

They have said another project evaluation like the one that changed the game from being Arma 3: "halo edition" is coming. Maybe things will change, maybe they won't.

---------- Post added at 03:52 ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 ----------

I don't see how balance has anything to do with what I said.

Russia Vs. USMC was pretty balanced in Arma 2, clearly in ARMA 2 OA opfor vs. blufor was not balanced but I believe that was somewhat intentional.

I personally prefer symmetrical warfare as some of us like the play the game as sides other than just super blufor.

EDIT: just to state, I do not like the current method of doing it where essentially the sides are the same with very little differences but both sides should be on equal footing (or CSAT having a fair upper hand due to the setting) but I don't want to go back to the days of blufor having remote control everything while opfor has a single AK to share amongst each other.

I loved playing as Opfor, it dodn't feel like I was playing a balanced game. It felt like that's just how things were in real life and I had to use superior tactics to win and not be just as stupid as the enemy. I don't see how you thought it wasn't fun being Opfor, people coming from boring balanced games often complained from time to time but they were in the minority.

Realistically Russia has some pretty advanced vehicles and weapons currently that could rival US weapons. Take a look at the new Russian Terminator 2.

---------- Post added at 04:03 ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 ----------

I don't think Chernarus was ever changed for "gameplay".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The poll shows people want the mortar on the merkava and want the weapon to be like the current real world version. So RO2 messed up because it was realistic? Arma 3 should continue Arma 2's realistic direction.

If anything, the poll shows that <some respondents> (not people) want the mortar on the Merkava, but at the same time, also want an unrealistic name for the Merkava....

This poll is yet another in a long line of polls on this forum that essentially asks:

  1. - Do you want better stuff?
  2. - Do you want shitter stuff?

By mentioning "fake names" as a prerequisite in both choices, you invalidate it as a choice and turn it into a constant.

What do you think people were going to click on?

Considering Arma 2 drew in thousands before dayz with words like Milsim and realistic and now Arma 3's sudden change is troubling. No one cared whether or not things were balanced in Arma 2.

For the record - I see you very active on these forums asking for realism, and in post #49 you say that since DayZ it's all fucked. My question to you is where were you when all this was happening?

You have strong opinions now, but as far as I can see, you said fuck all in 2012 when DayZ became massive and changed the development of Bohemia games forever.

Besides, if it wasn't for the interest of DayZ, we wouldn't have interpolation of player avatars and ai in MP, lineIntersects, and a whole bunch of features and funding that made Arma 3 interesting. (I believe that stuff was scheduled for inclusion due to the popularity of DayZ - Unfortunate for PR:A3 that released in 1.59 and not 1.60). Hopefully, some of the love from DayZSA can be shared back into Arma in due course (but that's another story).

I really don't care if the Merkava is called "Merkava Mk 4" or "Big Steve's Fruity Wagon" or whatever. The game is set 22 years in the future and as far as I'm concerned, I bought it with that knowledge and it's their prerogative if they want to play about with the gear people use in the game..

I'd prefer that they work on physical simulation of the game world as opposed to making really good Airfix models of things.

Edited by Das Attorney
effed up maths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said dayz ruined anything. It was a nice example to how popular modding is in Arma. Though any large amount of popularity draws in player crowds that are used to e-sport like games and other players that are not. Arma 3 is far more realistic in many ways but some people seem to think the date it takes place means no more realism and don't want realism anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the record - I see you very active on these forums asking for realism, and in post #49 you say that since DayZ it's all fucked. My question to you is where were you when all this was happening?

You have strong opinions now, but as far as I can see, you said fuck all in 2012 when DayZ became massive and changed the development of Bohemia games forever.

Besides, if it wasn't for the interest of DayZ, we wouldn't have interpolation of player avatars and ai in MP, lineIntersects, and a whole bunch of features and funding that made Arma 3 interesting. (I believe that stuff was scheduled for inclusion due to the popularity of DayZ - Unfortunate for PR:A3 that released in 1.59 and not 1.60). Hopefully, some of the love from DayZSA can be shared back into Arma in due course (but that's another story).

Holy moly, this. It's disingenuous to talk up newcomers-due-to-DayZ as somehow like "anti-realism invaders" while omitting how much DayZ excited and inspired the devs themselves within BI, with Maruk not just loving the money that DayZ brought in (that's a given as BI's CEO) but also loving the DayZ gameplay concept as a player... and how it had a very real effect on not just Arma 3 development but even Arma 2 development*.

@ Das Attorney: Some of it has already made its way into Arma 3, even if it's but 'little' trinkets so far such as environmental objects, the October 31st "SURVIVE" update changelog mentioned that the added small objects were "courtesy of the DayZ stand-alone team", so in that sense the parallel developments are already paying dividends.

* i.e. metalcraze complaining that v1.6x development was being driven by stuff that didn't have to do with what the milsimmers were playing but instead catering to under-the-hood features used in DayZ mod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It brought more scrutiny, caused a large push for quality resulting in many things missing from Arma 2 and other disabled or gone because Arma 2's solution wasn't engine based. Arma 2 and OA were also not thought very highly of by the developers...

Edited by ProGamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly can tell you that BI drew their own lessons-learned about Arma 2 (with regards to future development) even before "the DayZ phenomenon" peaked, though one would pretty much have to parse just about any dev's posts for the last year and a half to get a composite picture thereof... some of what we're seeing in Arma 3 (release version) was already in essentially identical form as early as E3 2012 or before, but people were pushing for realism (or rather, what they thought realism meant) as far as back then too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I certainly can tell you that BI drew their own lessons-learned about Arma 2 (with regards to future development) even before "the DayZ phenomenon" peaked, though one would pretty much have to parse just about any dev's posts for the last year and a half to get a composite picture thereof... some of what we're seeing in Arma 3 (release version) was already in essentially identical form as early as E3 2012 or before.

Weren't they at one point bored of making a realistic game and wanted to make a sci-fi game? Then they went futuristic with Arma 3 so quality didn't have to matter as much and they cold make there fantasy game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weren't they at one point bored of making a realistic game and wanted to make a sci-fi game? Then they went futuristic with Arma 3 so quality didn't have to matter as much and they cold make there fantasy game.

>Coilgun on a tank

>2035

>Takes place after a large war of some kind and after economies go to hell

>'Sci-fi'

Hmmmmm... Seems more plausible than you'd think....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weren't they at one point bored of making a realistic game and wanted to make a sci-fi game? Then they went futuristic with Arma 3 so quality didn't have to matter as much and they cold make there fantasy game.
All I'm aware of on that front is Maruk saying that the prior direction of Arma 3 was more overtly sci-fi than what we ended up getting.

As for the bored of what you call realism part, on the other hand... guess you never heard of the devs originally not wanting to make a sequel to OFP but rather a Wild West RPG, or Maruk talking about prior "overambitiousness" on the part of BI as a flaw of pre-Arma 3 game development, most significantly in regards to Game 2?

One of the possibly more important results of "BI's internal lessons-learned" may be with regards to the idea that Arma 2's non in-engine solutions were deemed unacceptable for Arma 3 and that a more fundamental reworking of the engine was desirable, but that this desire (to break down and thereby properly build back up) ended up running up against a certain release deadline...

Edited by Chortles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Other:

Realistic Names and Realistic Gear

Sure, I'll see about adding it to the options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Real names would end the "Its not a real vehicle so it shouldn't be realistic!" stuff we are facing.

Voted.

Edited by Grek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see the stuff they can name to receive the proper names but for example the slammer being renamed the Merkava would be stupid as that's the Israeli designation for the tank - the US would give it its own designation, you know, like they've done for every other vehicle they've used from another nation.

Most things (like those still in prototype stage or do not have a real military designation) will be copyright infringment if they used the real name. It wasn't a problem in A2 because while an AR-15 is copyrighted, an M4a1 is a military designation. Same reason they used the military designations for the Humvees instead of calling them Humvees, the only one that seems like it might be an issue is the Land Rover Defender but I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Kerc Kasha: If the Colt vs. Bushmaster case is anything to go by, manufacturer name (that is, inclusion of manufacturer) can be a copyright issue as opposed to naming a weapon solely by military designation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they behave realistically, then I don't whatever it's called as long it's military like designation. ie no gun named "5.56mm Hello Kitty Rifle"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Kerc Kasha: If the Colt vs. Bushmaster case is anything to go by, manufacturer name (that is, inclusion of manufacturer) can be a copyright issue as opposed to naming a weapon solely by military designation.

Surely there is no legal problem naming something as close to what it is called in real life whether it's a designation or manufactures name. Names are a huge part of immersion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manufacturer names are trademarked and copyrighted. Military designations are public domain. So you can name something an M16, but if you name something a Bushmaster ACR without endorsement or licensing in a commercial product, you'll get your pants sued off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bushmaster ACR without endorsement or licensing in a commercial product, you'll get your pants sued off.

Magpul Masada ACWS also registered trademark? and how NATO classified this rifle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually hate this fake names, very much immersion is lost by it.

When in Arma2 i said to my mates - Careful, enemy BMP 400meters East- or Get down, Shilka is standing on that hill over there.

I now can only say:

Careful, enemy uhm.. armored, armed Personal carrier standing over there OR uhmm, there is a AA thingy, ahm.. smth like a shilka! get down.

Annoyng like hell - my brain is fighting hard against remembering this fake names.

Also when i say in some public servers things like: littlebird, or comanche, lot of people have no idea what i mean..

I mean Pawnee, how.. weak is this? or Blackfoot? :( :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually hate this fake names, very much immersion is lost by it.

When in Arma2 i said to my mates - Careful, enemy BMP 400meters East- or Get down, Shilka is standing on that hill over there.

I now can only say:

Careful, enemy uhm.. armored, armed Personal carrier standing over there OR uhmm, there is a AA thingy, ahm.. smth like a shilka! get down.

Annoyng like hell - my brain is fighting hard against remembering this fake names.

Also when i say in some public servers things like: littlebird, or comanche, lot of people have no idea what i mean..

I mean Pawnee, how.. weak is this? or Blackfoot? :( :(

Well if I remember correctly, none of the vehicles in Arma 3 are really named BMP or Shilka so you'd have to learn the new names all over again anyway. (However I can't find what the BTR and the Tigris were actually modeled after...It could have been the Ukranian BMPV-64...but I don't think it is.)

Besides, if someone you're playing with doesn't know what a little bird, blackfoot, bmp, shilka, apc, ifv, aav, or tank is.....then all you have to do is simply tell them. That's not your fault or the game's fault. It's just theirs for not knowing the basic lineup but like everyone else... they will learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to see the stuff they can name to receive the proper names but for example the slammer being renamed the Merkava would be stupid as that's the Israeli designation for the tank - the US would give it its own designation, you know, like they've done for every other vehicle they've used from another nation.

Most things (like those still in prototype stage or do not have a real military designation) will be copyright infringment if they used the real name. It wasn't a problem in A2 because while an AR-15 is copyrighted, an M4a1 is a military designation. Same reason they used the military designations for the Humvees instead of calling them Humvees, the only one that seems like it might be an issue is the Land Rover Defender but I'm not sure.

The US using a Merkava is only slightly more likely than the US using a T-90. BIS should have at least made a tank that was unique to the US instead of just recycling something they already had. I mean there are photos of the autoloaded M1 CATTB with an upgraded turret and new gun on the web, they should have just used that. Using the Merkava was just lazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guys dont forget to vote (link in my signature)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×