ARMA 3 - Dropped out features

[instagoat 133]

Uh, all of this is pointless to mention. The F-35 was a placeholder, the Slammer merk was likely dropped for quality reasons (I hope, the tacked on gun looks not as good as the dedicated rigs on the other tanks, for example). What was really dropped:

Fully customizable Uniforms.

Real world setting

A cubic ton of addons/clothes/etc after all the rollbacks

Likely a fair bit of campaign content.

Bombs on cars.

And thats about it, I think.

Edited December 25, 2013 by InstaGoat

[Nicholas 5]

Real world setting

Likely a fair bit of campaign content.

The real world setting was never dropped. The island is still based on Lemnos, they simply changed the name to Altis due to the political pressure from Greece. They also completely rewrote the campaign because of this I believe. It was never "dropped".

[Tonci87 163]

Let me just say this. They didn´t really promise that all this dropped stuff would be in the game. But they implied it would.

I mean look at this:

This screen is labeled: Arma 3 Ingame

http://www.armaholic.com/datas/users/e3_teaser_arma3_screenshot_1205_32_4.jpg

And there were forum posts from BIS staff quite frankly promising all kinds of stuff like the ToH FM, JAVA etc...

Now the real problem is that they told us that they waited until the Beta to tell us that all this stuff won´t be in the game, a.k.a. after they already got our money.

IMHO that was a very shady thing and I really didn´t expect that from BIS. :(

[windies 11]

Let me just say this. They didn´t really promise that all this dropped stuff would be in the game. But they implied it would.

I mean look at this:

This screen is labeled: Arma 3 Ingame

http://www.armaholic.com/datas/users/e3_teaser_arma3_screenshot_1205_32_4.jpg

And there were forum posts from BIS staff quite frankly promising all kinds of stuff like the ToH FM, JAVA etc...

Now the real problem is that they told us that they waited until the Beta to tell us that all this stuff won´t be in the game, a.k.a. after they already got our money.

IMHO that was a very shady thing and I really didn´t expect that from BIS. :(

That's what I mean about hyping things up to sell it then letting the cat out of the bag later that they were basically empty promises or "wanted" features that supposedly they didn't intend to be taken as fact or promises when they had things like "in game screenshot" tagged on them and such, which is exactly what BI did in this case. We can sit and argue the semantics of implied vs promised vs implemented vs wanted etc... and it will get us nowhere. Irregardless of how you want to label it, BI "referenced" that certain things would be in game and then after the game was "sold" they eventually let it out that most of the "referenced" feature's would not make it in. It's a very shady thing and something I'm not at all happy with and has changed my view of BI as a whole.

[disco.modder 116]

A cubic ton of addons/clothes/etc after all the rollbacks

Tell me more about this.

[Ash712 1]

Let me just say this. They didn´t really promise that all this dropped stuff would be in the game. But they implied it would.

I mean look at this:

This screen is labeled: Arma 3 Ingame

http://www.armaholic.com/datas/users/e3_teaser_arma3_screenshot_1205_32_4.jpg

And there were forum posts from BIS staff quite frankly promising all kinds of stuff like the ToH FM, JAVA etc...

Now the real problem is that they told us that they waited until the Beta to tell us that all this stuff won´t be in the game, a.k.a. after they already got our money.

IMHO that was a very shady thing and I really didn´t expect that from BIS. :(

^THIS.

It's a great game, but it is NOT what was basically advertised to us for YEARS.

I'm not mad about it, but the game we got as a release is STILL not finished. It's a BETA, and it's lacking content.

[Tonci87 163]

^THIS.

It's a great game, but it is NOT what was basically advertised to us for YEARS.

I'm not mad about it, but the game we got as a release is STILL not finished. It's a BETA, and it's lacking content.

Never, in the whole history of Arma did we have such a lack of content.

Usually I never preorder games, or buy them on day 1. I made an Exeption with Arma 3 and bought into the Alpha immediately. I didn´t even care if it would be full of bugs. This decision was completely based on how much I trusted BIS to deliver an amazing game, full of new toys to play with. On top of that I really wanted to support them, help test the game and influence the Dev process by giving feedback (got almost completely ignored, so much for having an impact on the development of the game).

BIS was the Developer I trusted the most back then. I´m not so sure any more.

There are some weird things going on with BIS for some time.

ToH still seems to be filled with Bugs, one of my friends can´t even get it to run.

Carrier Command is pretty much dead.

And now Arma 3 is in a state that I deem unworthy for an Arma game.

[novahot 1]

I dont want to beat again a dead horse, but this screenshot was labeled and it explains hardly with the excuse to test the flight model with a F-35. I know they changed their focus in development, but only with the official announcement while beta state I realized, Arma 3 will not be a full game for a long time. Would I`ve bought the alpha nevertheless?

It`s okay for me as BI is still a very open company, if not the most open developer out there, but ...

I read the Make Arma not War contest as a bypass for lacking content. Fair enough. But I`d loved if they would have spend have of the price money on a concerted communty approach. The best modders, skinners and coders in a semiofficial team to realize an official and free content DLC. I love most of the addons out there but I don`t like too much using addons for core features.

[[evo] dan 79]

Never, in the whole history of Arma did we have such a lack of content.

Usually I never preorder games, or buy them on day 1. I made an Exeption with Arma 3 and bought into the Alpha immediately. I didn´t even care if it would be full of bugs. This decision was completely based on how much I trusted BIS to deliver an amazing game, full of new toys to play with. On top of that I really wanted to support them, help test the game and influence the Dev process by giving feedback (got almost completely ignored, so much for having an impact on the development of the game).

BIS was the Developer I trusted the most back then. I´m not so sure any more.

There are some weird things going on with BIS for some time.

ToH still seems to be filled with Bugs, one of my friends can´t even get it to run.

Carrier Command is pretty much dead.

And now Arma 3 is in a state that I deem unworthy for an Arma game.

^I think this hits it on the head for me. At least I still have Battlegoat to trust, and they have delivered more than BIS has, and their new game is only in early access. They made the jump that I expected BIS to make, but it seems BIS fell at the first (Zombie) hurdle.

I also remember what they did with TOH, lots of people complained the flight model was too hard, so they made it a lot easier to fly in the last patch - and this was people who always flew on the lowest difficulty in MP. I loved to play on the hardest flight model (so did my clan mates), but people always complained that it was too hard, it took the challenge away from it for us, so we stopped playing it and now the TOH community (which I was one of the few mission makers for a while) is pretty much dead, just go have a look at that section of the forums if you don't believe me. Its probably this reason also that we lost the TOH flight model, simply because most people who played it online, put it on the lowest difficulty and not just because of the frame rate hit (I think most of the hit was from the cockpit interaction, or at least thats what I used to encounter).

[defk0n_NL 2]

So much good points have been raised.

Alot of things were indeed referenced by BIS before arma 3 alpha.

It would not been such a big deal if they had been upfront about it or kept people in the loop about current development decisions.

Its always changelogs and lip service at the forums. They need to keep it real and give it how it is.

It might create less hype but at least you wont piss off loyal customers.

The people who would rather receive current development decisions then a community guide or a developer interview.

[artisanal 22]

It would not been such a big deal if they had been upfront about it or kept people in the loop about current development decisions.

I interpret your "about it" as "about the dropouts".

As honorful as it might appear, if they did this, the press would have torn them into pieces (at least way more than they did at the release), and I'm not even talking about the community itself...

So yes, it would have been a fricking big deal for them.

[instagoat 133]

This obsession with "dropped out features" is borderline fetishistic. Do you -want- to feel bad about the game? If this had been a first game in the series, this would've been an excellent start despite the troubled development. Arma 2 had so much content because it collected and borrowed assets over three development cycles, from no less than five games across two platforms. Arma 3 borrows none of the weapons and only a few (critical, yes, but only a few) vehicles. For Arma 2, the only custom made vehicles I can think of are the Apache and the Afghan style ZIL limousines. Welp.

Hurr the content is lacking. No it isn't, because (maybe aside from the still broken commander on the Panther IFV) this time vehicles are more complex, more polished as far as config and features, and while pretty much all of the current Units ingame are kitbashes from the BAF soldiers, they're finished to decent quality overall without breaks in quality (The Russian soldiers and Taki soldiers in Arma 2 come to mind as counterexamples.).

What I'd complain about is lack of thoroughness and bravery in implementing the vehicles to spec (lacking mortar in the merkava, no ATGMs in the MBTs, no dedicated twin autocannon turret on the BTRK, etc), but this is not the same as "lack in content". Gameplay content was tight, but the campaign is slowly moving in too, and we're getting new toys along with it. The editor has been enhanced with many useful things that people seemingly disregard for whatever reason (such as the config library, which everyone ignores, since I still see people asking for classnames of things on the forums. Its right there in the game.).

But eh.

[Tonci87 163]

This obsession with "dropped out features" is borderline fetishistic. Do you -want- to feel bad about the game? If this had been a first game in the series, this would've been an excellent start despite the troubled development. Arma 2 had so much content because it collected and borrowed assets over three development cycles, from no less than five games across two platforms. Arma 3 borrows none of the weapons and only a few (critical, yes, but only a few) vehicles. For Arma 2, the only custom made vehicles I can think of are the Apache and the Afghan style ZIL limousines. Welp.

Hurr the content is lacking. No it isn't, because (maybe aside from the still broken commander on the Panther IFV) this time vehicles are more complex, more polished as far as config and features, and while pretty much all of the current Units ingame are kitbashes from the BAF soldiers, they're finished to decent quality overall without breaks in quality (The Russian soldiers and Taki soldiers in Arma 2 come to mind as counterexamples.).

What I'd complain about is lack of thoroughness and bravery in implementing the vehicles to spec (lacking mortar in the merkava, no ATGMs in the MBTs, no dedicated twin autocannon turret on the BTRK, etc), but this is not the same as "lack in content". Gameplay content was tight, but the campaign is slowly moving in too, and we're getting new toys along with it. The editor has been enhanced with many useful things that people seemingly disregard for whatever reason (such as the config library, which everyone ignores, since I still see people asking for classnames of things on the forums. Its right there in the game.).

But eh.

I´ll just ask you polietly to remain silent and to stay out of this thread. You are defending BIS in every Thread where someone dares to say something negative about them, you are a fanboy and your "defend them no matter what they do" attitude is actually very counterproductive.

"It´s still Alpha", "It´s still in Beta" "wait until the Final" Does this sound familiar?

Well quite frankly I´m really pissed off by this "they will fix it eventually" attitude. Who can promise that they will fix it eventually? When will that be? The houses don´t even have fucking furniture in them and despite that they still aren´t all fully enterable.

Arma 3s vehicels do have some new assets, but those asset are shared and reused across so many vehicels EVEN ACROSS FACTIONS that it simply sucks. Some Assets are pure jokes. I think even if I tried I wouldn´t have been able to come up with such a bad design for an static AT/AA launcher.

The MLRS fires AA missiles for fucks sake!

Don´t get me started on the reused assets from Arma 2 (like the cockpit of the OPFOR Heli and the BAF/ACR vehicels).

Community input doesn´t even remotely get the attention it deserves.

Everything has made up names and I still didn´t get a sensible explanation for that. They could have used military designations such as they did with Arma 2, no one can make them pay for that.

I don´t want to feel bad about the game, I bought it to feel good with it. I really want Arma 3 to stand out not only among the games of the series but also as an example of how to make an interesting and challenging FPS.

Currently the only things where Arma 3 stands out is the new movement system and Altis. Everything else is pretty much Eye candy or still not up to it´s possibilities.

I bought Arma 2 a week after it´s release. Yes it was full of Bugs but I didn´t care. I simply screwed around with the editor or took vehicles for testdrives in the Armory. I had so much fun! I can´t say the same about Arma 3...

Edited December 28, 2013 by Tonci87

[archbishop lazarus 24]

When BI$ announced that this game will be available through $team, it was already obvious for me, that A3 wont be a quality product. They simply wanted quick profitssss... With minimal amount of work. They did their stupid advertising campaign by promising all those things, and then by the "early access alpha and beta". It was very successful, lots of people "eaten the bait", and paid tons of money for - it turned out - nothing. What BI$ released to the community as "final", is an early beta at best. Its simply outrageous. Totally clear that the development was rushed; you can feel that the developers wanted to get it done as soon as possible. You can also feel that they did their "work" without motivation, like when someone works in a factory, and doing the same monotonous thing all the day. I also think they didnt even plan to add the majority of those advertised features.

OFP and Arma2 were gems. But A3... A shame. BI$ betrayed the whole community.

Moderators can remove this post, I dont care. But this is the truth.

[instagoat 133]

I've gotta agree with Tonci that my last few inputs weren't the most productive. Yes, I get invested in trying to see the positive sides about the game. However, I'm doing this because of the heat the game is getting in parts, in my opinion undeservedly. That doesn't mean that I do not see the flaws of the game. I have a long list of things that would need addressing, some of them things people at large have complained about for a long time. I agree that the kitbashed and partly re-used assets are disappointing, but again, this game didn't have 7 years of varied development behind it. Instead it had 3 years with a complete rollback halfway in.

I realize that I am coming off as an annoyed fanboy (I am, don't get me wrong, Arma is the only game I really am invested in.), and that it grates people. However, the negativity is coming off just as brash, and in the end we're getting nowhere apart from fights.

With the buildings, because it is such an important point: I don't see how cluttering them with furniture is pushing the game forward with gameplay. It only matters for players anyway, since the AI cannot even -use- buildings (The AI engine needs a complete rebuild from the ground up with some cutting edge help from some european or US university AI lab, I think, but I doubt we'll see that.). I can see the immersion side of it, but Arma 3 with its many flappings left and right with story design decisions into ever more fictitious terrain isn't doing so well in that regard anyway that I have decided for myself to discard that factor altogether for the base game, since its not salvageable at this point anyway.

I think why I am not complaining about the problems aside from posting on the tracker and occasional conversations elsewhere is because of a bit of pragmatism. We're not dealing with a titan games studio like Valve or Bethesda here, so I try to be happy with what I can get.

Because if I wanted to be bitter, I would complain about the kitbashed Uniforms, Vests, Rucksacks and other personal gear in Arma 3 (No less than six Uniforms/Clothes use mesh from the BAF soldiers. And the sculpting and texturing quality of which is well behind DayZ Standalones Items.) and the lazy implementation of vehicle weaponry, as well as the lack of code provision to use the new ballistics system for bodyarmor, which is a massive oversight.

But again, there are enough people complaining about how bad they find aspects of the game. So I am just as loud in the other direction. However, I would object to the suggestion that I am whitewashing the game. It has its problems, I see them, but I also see that this is a firm step forward for the series. So, my two cents.

And again, apologies for being so grating and annoying at times, I get emotional too on the internets

[Tonci87 163]

No Problems, we all do that, especially if it is about something we really like :)

Not everything is bad about Arma 3 but sometimes I really wonder what they were doing the last few years since the release of OA (especially since Arma 3 Development was supposed to be well funded and especially the 3D Artists! They had time to work on new assets since the release of PMC, or ACR, what have they been doing? Interiours and stuff for DayZ SA?)

Edited December 28, 2013 by Tonci87

[roshnak 41]

I think why I am not complaining about the problems aside from posting on the tracker and occasional conversations elsewhere is because of a bit of pragmatism. We're not dealing with a titan games studio like Valve or Bethesda here, so I try to be happy with what I can get.

I understand this point of view, but from the other side of things, if we don't let BIS know that we expect more, then they will just keep doing what they are doing, thinking everyone is content with things the way they are. By and large I think Arma is making good strides, I just don' think they are big enough. There just haven't been that many core advancements in this series over the last decade. Obviously we are all posting here because we like this game, except maybe Archbishop Lazarus, and we aren't complaining because we want the game to fail.

[[evo] dan 79]

I understand this point of view, but from the other side of things, if we don't let BIS know that we expect more, then they will just keep doing what they are doing, thinking everyone is content with things the way they are. By and large I think Arma is making good strides, I just don' think they are big enough. There just haven't been that many core advancements in this series over the last decade. Obviously we are all posting here because we like this game, except maybe Archbishop Lazarus, and we aren't complaining because we want the game to fail.

^this, I think we bitch because we love it, and we want it to be great.

[Degman 73]

lol

-F-35

-MV-22

-Various Patria AMV variants (NEMO mortar version, etc...)

-Uparmored M2A1 slammer with commander machine gun

-The Astute class submarine

-XM-25

-Kel-tec KSG

-Flash hiders/amplifiers

-Railguns

-Many alternate textures for vehicles and weapons. (The opfor L-159 for example)

-Women in bikinis

-etc...

And thats not even including any of the cut features from that HUGE list of confirmed features that BI released when they announced Arma 3. (Which seems to have been erased from the internet...) Features like the 3d-editor, ToH flight model (not sure about this one), and an improved medical system.

Seriously, why would someone remove already finished stuff from game that already has too less stuff than it should have ? What's the point ? :( I really would like to have some F-35B, MV-22, Railgun, etc. in game. I hope they will add the missing stuff in the next versions of the game.

[disco.modder 116]

So the game got Simulation of the Year by PC Gamer: http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/12/27/simulation-of-the-year-arma-3/.

I guess BI thinks they're on the right track now, they're probably going to forget the community even more.

There has been many good points raised above and reasons as to why I started this thread, I dont really have anything to add. Just look at all that content on the 2nd post in this thread, which has been quoted above. So the question's raised: would you not want to play with all that goodies? And another thing Im really curious about is, who were the people that said the content mentioned above like the railgun, sub, etc weren't "fitting" or would "break" the game?

Edited December 29, 2013 by Modder

[NeMeSiS 11]

who were the people that said the content mentioned above like the railgun, sub, etc weren't "fitting" or would "break" the game?

There was a very vocal group since the very first

(at the end it looks railgunny like or something) that threw a hissy fit because it was too futuristic for their taste, so i guess BI toned it down a bit after that, while still keeping the 2035 era.

That decision somewhat disappointed me, i would prefer to either get some real fancy toys to play with, or just full on realistic cold war era equipment. Now it feels like they couldn't decide between the 2 and it became really bland, which is a missed opportunity.

About the missing stuff that was in older screenshots: I think that they didn't want another buggy release like ArmA2* and they decided to throw out everything that wasn't finished enough and focus on polishing the core content that we got now. Remember: Showing something in a screenshot doesn't tell you shit about its development state, except that the model is done. I still hope that we will get some of the things that were previously shown and that they are still working on finishing the content.

*You can laugh and point at the ArmA3 bugtracker all you want, but compared to ArmA2 1.0 ArmA3 plays like a dream.

[Nicholas 5]

When did they scrap this stuff though? During alpha? Beta? They state that the alpha and beta are not a representation of the final game.

Many of you get angry when the developers don't share what they are working on, I can understand why they don't like to share the stuff they are working on when there will be a reaction like this. Imagine you never seen that screenshot, would you really give a shit?

[NeMeSiS 11]

When did they scrap this stuff though? During alpha? Beta?

Since we never got to see it: Pre-alpha. ;)

[disco.modder 116]

So a small group of people changed the whole path a game developer was taking? They didnt even bother what the community has to say in it, they just follow that minority of people apparently?

Edited December 29, 2013 by Modder

[NeMeSiS 11]

So a small group of people changed the whole path a game developer was taking? They didnt even bother what the community has to say in it, they just follow that minority of people apparently?

This was in early development, Hence no ingame footage in that trailer. I think this was so early in development that at that point they only had to make some minor model changes to 'change the direction'. From other early vids it was clear that they were testing a lot of stuff* to see what could work and what wouldn't. Also, i don't know if it was a minority, but as the series is usually mentioned in the same sentence as 'realistic' i think they didn't want to push it too far. In any case it doesn't explain most of the 'dropped features'.

*like the 'dress in enemy uniform to infiltrate their base', which sounds cool but at that point was so unfinished that it was even worse then simple scripting solutions i have seen or i could write in a couple of minutes.