The island is boring.

[antoineflemming 14]

The TWO maps ( if can call them that ) on this game are boring. There's nothing on them. They're just desert wastelands. We need maps like in BF3 and BF4. Urban areas with tall buildings. Frozen tundra's with military bases. Tropical resorts. Interesting places. Empty deserts with a few stone huts are not interesting.

I'm sorry, this is a game where the two islands (not "maps") fit the campaign story. So you're not going to have resorts or frozen tundras, or urban areas with tall buildings. You can request that someone make that though. Simulating reality is not a problem. If you consider that a problem then perhaps this isn't the game for you, as that is the focal point of this game.

Let me ask this: If Battlefield is so perfect, then why come to Arma 3? If Battlefield smokes Arma 3, why not just play Battlefield?

[Harry Canyon 10]

Lol, I didn't say Battle Field was perfect. Their graphics suck. Their movement and weapon deployment is arcadish. Yet, like the mods True Combat, and Infiltration I used to play, it has a lot of good points. Interesting maps being one. Urban areas, smaller maps made for PvP / TvT play. Another is destruction ( though I don't think Arma engine is capable of that ). Some people say the player model is not capable of CQB, but it feels to me like Crysis Wars movement, in which CQB was fine. And I like I said before, Battle Field sells! You don't need HUGE maps. It really depends on what you want. Medium and Small maps would be fine as well.

[iceman77 18]

And I like I said before, Battle Field sells! You don't need HUGE maps. It really depends on what you want. Medium and Small maps would be fine as well.

Play BF then? Speak for yourself about who needs what map size. Though there are several, hundereds infact, cqb scenarios both tvt and coop available.

The options are there to do whatever you like within arma. It just so happens alot of people like large scale, huge maps to play on. Huge maps have been one of the major staples of the series. The community for the most part has very much enjoyed the series over the last ~12 years. Why demand that the game have tiny maps? Is the option not there for you to play anyway you like? Player A can play large scale scenarios. Player B can play COD type scenarios. I don't see the problem.

Some don't like to feel limited on what they can do and where they can go. Some don't mind it and that's okay. They can always play small confined, but highly detailed TDM or coop scenarios (like BF / COD etc). Or they can just go play BF.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Iceman77

[Tacti-Cool 10]

Seems to me like youve got more good to say about Battlefield then you do about Arma. seems like youve made your game choice.

[L3TUC3 32]

BIS and community mappers have made small map like "islands" before. OA's Zargabad and Proving Grounds come to mind right away.

I'm sure they'll make more if they've got a reason to.

[Harry Canyon 10]

Seems to me like you've got more good to say about Battlefield then you do about Arma. seems like youve made your game choice.

Lol, no, I have good and bad to say about both games. You guys seem to have the hardened opinion. As for the community, you mean the 10 people who actually post a lot on this forum? I keep hearing this "we", "the community", where are they?

---------- Post added at 05:52 ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 ----------

BIS and community mappers have made small map like "islands" before. OA's Zargabad and Proving Grounds come to mind right away.

I'm sure they'll make more if they've got a reason to.

Yeah, hopefully they'll make some good ones. I just wish the devs would quit waiting for the community do it, and do some themselves. They are the ones that have the resources, the time, and the money. And their the one's we paid for a AAA game. Their are BF 3/4 players who have praised this game. But they like the maps in BF better. A shame, because this game has better graphics, realism, and weapon / character handling.

[iceman77 18]

As for the community, you mean the 10 people who actually post a lot on this forum? I keep hearing this "we", "the community", where are they?

Oh you mean the ~2 million+ posts? We're here. The question is.. is why are you still here? I certainly wouldn't waste my time on a game I don't like or think is bland. Lord knows I've paid for plenty of them. I tend to move on if I don't like the game. As they aren't worth my time and starting pointless threads about it doesn't help at all.

[Harry Canyon 10]

Oh you mean the ~2 million+ posts? We're here. The question is.. is why are you still here? I certainly wouldn't waste my time on a game I don't like or think is bland. Lord knows I've paid for plenty of them. I tend to move on if I don't like the game. As they aren't worth my time and starting pointless threads about it doesn't help at all.

Oh, weren't you one of the guys that said this is a "sandbox"? Or have you now dropped that opinion, and only large maps are allowed, hmm?

And who said I didn't like the game? Just because I think there should be more variety of maps than just a wasteland desert, doesn't mean I don't like the game. As I've pointed out in other posts.

[MANTIA 55]

Altis is amazing............not sure how someone sees differently. If your comparing Arma to BF4 then that is your problem. Altis isnt suppose to be epic, it suppose to be realistic.

[Harry Canyon 10]

Yeah, well, I could map out my backyard, and that would be realistic. But would it be fun? Probably not. You get my point.

Guess I'm going to have to try and convince some old school modders to get interested in Arma.

[L3TUC3 32]

The devs set out to meticulously recreate an actual greek island and it's a pretty darn impressive achievement. BIS' really good at trying to make their environments as true to life as they can. Smaller but bombastic setpieces, not so much. But that has never been their intention with the arma franchise.

To expect it is pretty hopeful, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Edited November 11, 2013 by L3TUC3

[3instein 10]

@Harry Canyon,

While I do understand your frustrations,try,for a moment,to think about the size and cash input of the two dev teams,Dice/BI.

That,and the fact they are two totally different games catering for different tastes/gameplay, might go a little way to answering your questions.

Mick. :)

[dnk 13]

I am so sick of the desert. Its in every Arma game. Time for some urban combat. Give me some Cities. Buildings. Industrial plants. American / European towns. Castles. Large military bases. Something besides the freakin desert. CQB. You can say what you want about Battlefield, but at least their maps have some variety (and some buildings!).

Chernarus was a desert? Sahrani was a desert? The latter had desert parts, but that's because it included a little bit of every major biome, so I don't get the complaint about that. And Everon was a giant green blob of a map... OA was desert for mostly topical reasons (GWOT).

And frankly Altis isn't a desert. If we're going to throw everything from chaparral to shrubland into the "desert" biome, then, yeah, a lot of maps are going to be "desert" because a lot of the world is "desert" by that definition.

And decent maps are what is REALLY holding this game back.

We have already Altis, Takistan, Chernarus, Sahrani, Fallujah, Isla Duala, Lingor, Podagorsk (a personal fav), etc, etc. You have everything from dense jungles to dense massive cities to shrublands to thick temperate forests to deserts!!!

Another problem is, I see all this talk about Ai. Screw the Ai. Its never going to be good. What you need is PVP, TVT. Now that's a match. I've never understood COOP, and from what I've seen of messing with the Ai so far, they're dismal at best.

It's one of the few FPS games that actually focuses on having competent large-scale AI. That's a huge selling point. That's what a ton of the fans want. Why should we only listen to you? A cursory look at the current games in play (online) shows a few large PvP servers and a few large COOP servers and a whole lot of smaller servers for both (though the smaller ones are mostly COOP). And since most people play SP, I think, it's a clear winner for focusing on AI.

What I'd like to see is some smaller maps, with Urban terrain, and real mission goals, where you don't have drive half an hour, just to get to whatever tree your supposed to defend. This game has potential, the devs just have to realize it. Just look how many copies BF is selling.

Fallujah? Oh wait, community doesn't count in your mind, does it? For someone with such a dismal view of the community (their opinions are moot compared to mine regarding AI, their maps are unimportant, they are small (?) and unengaged (???)), it sure is odd to see you here engaging with it to try to convince it that it is misled about itself and its own desires...

Forget "its a sandbox". Make a better BattleField, which this game is completely capable of, and they will come.

Go play Project Reality then. That's what it comes down to: you don't like this game, you want it to be drastically different and made by a different studio with a different community.

Also, what Iceman said.

[Tacti-Cool 10]

As for the community, you mean the 10 people who actually post a lot on this forum? I keep hearing this "we", "the community", where are they?

Playing Arma 3.

[squirrel0311 16]

Yep! Two totally different games working for different customers. Like others have stated one is a standard FPS, the other is a sandbox. One focuses on convienence and fast paced action, the other focuses on freedom of choice and a more realistic representation.

Have you even checked out some of the larger cities on Altis? Myrina is pretty good. While I agree I'd like to see more content of all different kinds...it's just not what we have right now and not what the team is capable of handling right now.

Instead of flooding the forum with threads all relating to the same thing or complaining about having to wait for the game you payed for because it hasn't gone in the direction you wanted it to go...How about learning to map and mod so you can build us some epic maps!? ...We'll be here waiting...

[iceman77 18]

Oh, weren't you one of the guys that said this is a "sandbox"? Or have you now dropped that opinion, and only large maps are allowed, hmm?

And who said I didn't like the game? Just because I think there should be more variety of maps than just a wasteland desert, doesn't mean I don't like the game. As I've pointed out in other posts.

It is a sandbox and you can play it anyway you see fit. When did i ever say it wasn't? You came here and made a thread about how lack luster the maps are for this gigantic sandbox game after apparently running around on an empty map. Which is funny because I could go right now and populate the entire island with civilians, vehicles, patrols, bases, occupied houses with furniture, make cutscenes, come up with and make any scenario imagineable. maybe throw some addons on top of it all. The sky is the limit... or not. However you like it. Even so, it will never compare to games like BF in certain aspects. It isn't really a fair comparison at that, as they're two totally different games aimed at different crowds.

if you're that hell bent on small islands, then wait for someone to make some, make one yourself, or go play battlefield. Nothing wrong with battlefield at all. It's a great game in its own right. Even if some would disagree.

[maturin 12]

This game is not for people who lack imagination.

[dmarkwick 261]

^^ Hah :) yes I was about to post this. I think there is some projection happening here.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Seems like a "bait" post to me. And based on the other threads, by someone who's grumpy.

Not taking the bait

...... Off to play ArmA3 in a realistic terrain, not some Hollywood concoction.

[dmarkwick 261]

Hey Gnat, your sig strongly reminds me of my old sig from way back....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v15/DMarkwick/SinkMerchantIce1.gif (107 kB)

:)

*edit*

Actually, it did, but your sig magically changed....

Edited November 11, 2013 by DMarkwick

[Tankbuster 1746]

The colours remind me of the gastro enteritus I'm currently recovering from. :)

[defk0n_NL 2]

Although i don't agree with some of OP's statements, I can see where he is coming from.

ArmA is not a game in the general sense of the word. Its a sandbox marketed as a game. I can see how people playing shooters etc, can come to Arma 3 and feel generally disappointed.

I will try and illustrate exactly why it is people feel disappointed and to do that, Lets look at the Arma 3 sales page on steam.

Experience true combat gameplay in a massive military sandbox. Deploying a wide variety of single- and multiplayer content, over 20 vehicles and 40 weapons, and limitless opportunities for content creation, the PC’s premier military game series is back. Authentic, diverse, open - Arma 3 sends you to war.

Leaving alone the hyped up claims about 40 weapons and limitless opportunities, lets just break down the first sentence:

Experience true combat gameplay in a massive military sandbox.

This off the batt is a contradictionary statement. If we are talking about gameplay. then we must be talking about a structured game but then it goes ahead and state its a militarily sandbox.

According to the Wikipedia the general definition of a game is this:

A game is structured playing, usually undertaken for enjoyment

Which this cannot fall under. Its not structured. Its not a game anymore so then mixing three puzzle games into one box and then call it a puzzle.

In ArmA3 you will have pieces that don't fit anywhere particular.

In order for you to experience this true combat game-play you will have to invest time and effort into creating it. Seeing the experience is subjective and does not apply to everybody.

This is what makes it a sandbox over a traditional game.

Couple this with empty multiplayer servers, bad mod support, low fps and technical difficulties

and both the terms "game" and "enjoyment" mixed together can be thrown right outside of the goddamn window.

The barrier that is preventing you to do this is at minimum: learning a entirely new scripting language that serves no other purpose then for ArmA3.

And at a maximum: paying a small fortune in buying modelling software, spending alot of hours scripting, bugtesting etc.

I have spent a little over 500 hours in ArmA 3 alone of which the majority does not consists of which i wish to call "true combat game play".

More along the lines of "Hard labour due to lack of better product, time", where headaches, frustration,anger and depression all play their due part.

To each their own...

Edited November 11, 2013 by defk0n_NL

[ProfTournesol 956]

OFP/ArmA series are games, there are thousands of missions and mods, more than enough to play. No need for complex scripting language to create a basic mission and have fun. The sandbox side of it is that, if you wish, you can have more than what's included in Vanilla. So much more.

[NeuroFunker 11]

And thats the problem with A3. It simulates the REAL world. :p

I live in Texas. I can look out my window and see a desert and a tin shack. Neither of them interesting.

I like the graphics of A3 better than BF3 or 4, but BF3/4 have a lot better game, imagination, interesting maps, CQB, etc.

so, it's not map makers thing, to make interresting CQB maps?

[cozza 24]

lol

OP Complains about deserts.

I haven't played BF4 but BF3 had a hell of allot of desert maps. I think there's probably a few in BF4.