Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Harry Canyon

The island is boring.

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what to think of the island, I must say, I've not been exploring it, playing only multiplayer and seeing how it is, on the way...

My mixed feelings concern mostly that while being bigger than Chernarus, it feels smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. A3 is, get out into that desert and go hold that tree. This is fun?

---------- Post added at 01:51 ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 ----------

I don't know what to think of the island, I must say, I've not been exploring it, playing only multiplayer and seeing how it is, on the way...

My mixed feelings concern mostly that while being bigger than Chernarus, it feels smaller.

It feels smaller because its an empty desert. Chernarus at least had some variety, though it too felt a little empty. Altis / Stratis is an absolute empty wasteland.

Edited by Harry Canyon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can be yeah, what your defending only has as much meaning as you give it, a building can be just as worthless as a plot of land, its all about how the mission is set up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bi made this to be like reality not for tom dick n harry to get 360 noscops off a roof top its made to make u hicke two k to get to an objective n u see how small u r n then haveing team work with ppl u don't even no tats wat so attractive to the game if bi wear to make a urban map it be to small n if it was like the towns now wear u can walk in to everyone off them ud be pissed off looking for an objective hiding in one off the tat the objectives r on the 100 floor n no elevator u be anoyed if u want tall building wear u csn camp n get kills go play bf if tat wat u want

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I'm ready for something fresh.

Maybe SE Asia with jungles or South America. Something besides eastern Europe or desert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Altis, the flat rolling hills are nice... Stratis on the other hand, too mountainous. I like playing out in wilderness, instead of urban combat, so I guess it's just a different of taste.. Currently my fav battle spot is NE of Negades (A bit of North of Kavala). The farmhouses and small patches of trees there kinda remind me of Aliabad terrain from ARMA 2. That is for infantry combat only... for armour/combined arms fight, I guess there are a lot of places to chose from. Not very infantry friendly when there's tanks around. Overall I like it... need to explore more a pick the best battlefield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, one desert wasteland is fine. I'm sure its in someone's tastes. But you can't just have that. Its going to get boring quick. We need BF3/4 style maps, and some good game play modes and MP missions. I used to play a game called Infiltration. It was kind of like Arma, but with small maps. It had capture the flag and such, but it also had missions ( mostly to steal some top-secret documents and then get out alive ). It had a lot of interesting places, everything from a hidden Antarctic science base on the ice, to an old chemical plant out in a small American town. It was interesting, it had imagination.

All we got in this game was an empty desert.

And Pro-gamer and Steam Tex posting in 3..2.. :p

Edited by Harry Canyon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the thing you are not understanding is, Call of duty, battlefield 3.5 are fake. One man armies, that absorb bullets and attack super mega secret arctic bases owned by middle eastern terrorists and Russians don't exist.

Altis does have interesting locations, you have to look for them. I understand that urban combat if pretty screwed up right now, what with AI not doing so well in buildings. And heck, I find the map boring as well. Hopefully the community will come out with some cool maps. But your hope for some type of urban combat like BF and CoD are too far fetched right now. Maybe in the near future. I hope so as well.

Also, try to find a clan or something, playing with random people I find is really uninteresting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, i'm starting to think this game is going to have about the same lifespan as Crysis 3. The characters, weapons, graphics are good. Unfortunately, there's really not much to do with them, and the editing suite is an ancient hell. Wish BF looked better.

---------- Post added at 02:30 ---------- Previous post was at 02:28 ----------

super mega secret arctic bases owned by middle eastern terrorists and Russians don't exist.

Actually, they do, but we don't know about them, because they're SECRET. Lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that really why you are playing this game? For the graphics? I agree, she is beautiful. But its a military simulator. And the missions are pretty good. Have you tried the campaign? I found it really fun. And the missions people create are really good.

Arma 2 is popular right now, because despite how crappily it was made, the bugs are mostly out and we are all used to that engine, and the way it feels. The community will come around once BI decides bugs are worse than a lack of campaign content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah, i'm starting to think this game is going to have about the same lifespan as Crysis 3. The characters, weapons, graphics are good. Unfortunately, there's really not much to do with them, and the editing suite is an ancient hell. Wish BF looked better.

---------- Post added at 02:30 ---------- Previous post was at 02:28 ----------

Actually, they do, but we don't know about them, because they're SECRET. Lol.

People still play ArmA1, and all that had going for it was a crossover desert-evergreenforest-plains-thingy which lacked some truly unique landmarks and places. And mods.

Emphasis on Mods, Canyon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the island to be awesome. I tried playing arma 2 the other day - I don't know how we played with such small "cities" with such a small amount of enterable buildings. I think the best thing that can be done for maps is make more and more micro terrain. Thats what makes a map more interesting in my opinion. That and repetive objects but those are really unavoidable with such a large terrain.

And as always mods will only make things better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm an old A2 vet. But I don't want to wait years for fixes again, and it doesn't exactly look like the good modders are coming in for this one. What would really save this game are some good, medium sized maps (urban, jungle, antartic, with lots of buildings and interesting places ). Places where you could plan missions for PVP, TVT, and not be overwhelmed by the size of the map. Battlefieldish, if you will. Would be a good, quick fix that will bring in players.

Here's an example of an Infiltration map.

We had some more interesting games than this, but its what I could find.

Edited by Harry Canyon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they really improved over Takistan and Chernarus. What were those maps exactly? They were just as deserted as Altis. I went all over Chernarus, and it's 85% empty forests and small farmhouses; most cities are just small <100pop towns, with the largest maybe holding a couple thousand people. I went all over Takistan, and again it's 85% literal desert and hills with a bunch of podunk towns and one or two "large" "cities" that might have a few thousand people living in them IRL.

What is this comparison? The overall urbanization of Altis is the same as its predecessors (as well as Sahrani). The fact that much of the island is flatter is probably due to the devs wanting something with more armor-suitable terrain (armor on the other 2 maps was hellishly rough, and generally required the use of roads). If you don't like the flatness, there's the western 1/3rd of the island with all the urbanization. Personally, I prefer some flatness for infantry, because without it infantry combat is a cakewalk of AI fish in a bowl.

That said, it would be nice to get a proper large city one day (at least a Zargabad map), maybe a somewhat modern one at that. I don't need Shanghai, but I'll settle for anything that could conceivably hold more than 50,000 people and has a built up downtown with most buildings at more than 5 floors (basically, a mid-sized college town by US standards).

Also, I'm pretty sure the western urban area is way larger and denser than anything on Chernarus or Takistan by a factor of 3. You need to look to 3rd party maps to get more (eg Fallujah). I think the real complain is a lack of development of the urban area - it's still low-density (by city standards) and low-skyline, but hey, that's reality. Chernogorsk was unrealistically built up (no way you have 15-story buildings in a city of 1,000 people). If you want a real urban area, you need to do something like Fallujah, where half the map is the city and sprawling suburbs.

So, yeah, I'd LOVE a more developed and larger version of Zargabad for the 1st expansion. I am fully satisfied with the major improvements made for the primary map, though (may I suggest to the devs Izmir or similar).

Edited by DNK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!).

Edited by Harry Canyon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!).

The AI can barely handle the small towns we have now. I'd personally love to see the stuff you're talking about but arma has only ever really excelled at open field warfare, unless it's pvp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!).

Have fun rendering that and having good frame rate bro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, really, if this engine can't render anything more than a flat desert, what good is it? Even Battle Field can do this stuff with ease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a sandbox. It's up to the mission designers to bring immersion. On that note it's not really fair to compare BF to Arma, since you can shoot a hand pistol all the way across the BF maps. In any case, there are far more things that arma can do, that BF can't do... if you want to get down to brass tacks.

Edited by Iceman77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, really, if this engine can't render anything more than a flat desert, what good is it? Even Battle Field can do this stuff with ease.

Reasons why:

1. Because BIS decided so.

2. Because the AI is a bag of terrible when near buildings of any kind.

3. Because VR engine has enough trouble as it is, as we've seen.

4. Battlefield has tiny/actually not as detailed as you think maps. ArmA has to have constant detail, not just a small detailed area surrounded by sort of detailed terrain.

5. It isn't done yet. We might see it later. But for now we stick to Stratis/Altis and any mod terrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The devs need to stop waiting for everybody to do everything for them, and put out an actual GAME. The "its a sandbox, and the modders will save the game" is getting really old. While we have some modders, all I see is little, small stuff, and I sure as hell don't want to have to rely on free stuff, when I paid for a AAA game. Battlefield smokes this game, mapwise. And decent maps are what is REALLY holding this game back.

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.

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.

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

Edited by Harry Canyon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×