Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GReeves

An Honest Review

Recommended Posts

They do have competitors. Activision and EA, two of the most known.

None of these are producing a competitor game. In fact, there has not been a competitor made since OF:DR, and that failed because of the engine it was made on.

As for the AI "problems", none of the issues present were not present in other games. Play Arma 2 vanilla and you`ll experience the same. Why people insist on making the AI "less accurate" is beyond me. They are challenging in CQB, and their reaction times on veteran are pretty much spot on. (I do not alter the AI sliders in any way.) When playing, as long as I get decent FPS, I feel having been killed in a fair manner most of the time now: I made a mistake, I paid for it. Peeking around the same corner twice will get you killed. Hanging around in the open for a long time will get you killed too.

The protection system is inadequate, yes, we know that, we are pressuring the devs to do something about it. But once that is implemented, people will start to whine again no doubt because of the armor protection. 5.56 is a weak cartridge, even in real life you get soldiers complaining about its effectiveness. 5.56 weapons have little recoil, though. With the FN2000 or RHs M4s for example, I have no problem stringing off four to six round bursts at 150 meters with no magnification and getting a kill on a static target. Getting a moving target is more difficult, but moving targets at least dont shoot back.

We have a more advanced armor penetration system now with potential for expansion. It is not as comprehensive as ACEs, but it doesnt need to be to be good. All we need now is better damage handling. In fact, the ballistic simulation in this game is far superior to Arma 2s.

The crates are only buggy because they are often by default loaded beyond capacity, so if you take an Item out you cant put it back in. So what.

Re vehicles: you can run over trees with the mraps. Just dont crash into them at 30 kph. In US Army testing they tore an axle off an MRAP just by braking hard. The video is on youtube, too. These things are not invincible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWBBnpwqsR0

Running them into a stone wall or tree at 50 or even 20 kph would do some damage. Yes, wheels should be a little more resilient, as well as the engine. But making them impervious to the ridiculous punishment we can subject them to ingame is also no solution. Bad driving should be punished just as much as bad cover exploitation and tactics. Slow is smooth and smooth is fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still prefer Arma3 over Arma2.

Why no one mention the hdr bug in arma2 (for god sake vanished in arma3) which destroyed completly my game experience?

The feel of movement in arma3 is still better than arma2, too "woodden" in my opinion....

Even the Ai, which is far from perfect in Arma3, it's better than arma2 (but I admit: i am using mod).

The only thing that lack in Arma3 is content: damn, still arma2 vanilla had more weapons and units and objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

The only thing that lack in Arma3 is content: damn, still arma2 vanilla had more weapons and units and objects.

Again, content that was collected over a timeperiod of almost seven years, five finished games (OFP, OFP:R, OFP:E, Arma and VBS2) and one abandoned project (Game2). Arma 3 was not developed over seven years, and did not have the benefit of three development studios (BISIM, BIS and Black Element) independently working on content.

Pretty much only the Takiban, US Army and US Marine Units were completely made from scratch. The rest was present before (The Russians for example were first shown back in 2004, for example.). Nobody complained about ports then, for some reason. But eh. EH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do love ARMA, and sometimes play it, but i never stick with ARMA 3. Too low FPS, little variety in vehicles, NO FIXED WING AIRCRAF?!

And i might be one of the few that thinks this, but some of the movements you can do is really weird. I feel that the crouched run is out of place somehow.

AI is absoloutely terrible, and i try to avoid everything with them. I really thought AI would be better in A3, but no...

Also, the daytime on Altis and Stratis is too bright for me. It hurts my eyes to play the game in daytime, and if i turn brightness/gamma down/up it makes the game look terrible.

Houses are also an eye-sore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, content that was collected over a timeperiod of almost seven years, five finished games (OFP, OFP:R, OFP:E, Arma and VBS2) and one abandoned project (Game2). Arma 3 was not developed over seven years, and did not have the benefit of three development studios (BISIM, BIS and Black Element) independently working on content.

Pretty much only the Takiban, US Army and US Marine Units were completely made from scratch. The rest was present before (The Russians for example were first shown back in 2004, for example.). Nobody complained about ports then, for some reason. But eh. EH.

I Disagree.

I wasn't talking about content released after years but content in Vanilla.

Arma2 vanilla (V. 1.02 to avoid any misunderstanding) had more content than arma3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I Disagree.

I wasn't talking about content released after years but content in Vanilla.

Arma2 vanilla (V. 1.02 to avoid any misunderstanding) had more content than arma3.

And that's what InstaGoat is saying. Most of the vanilla content in Arma 2 was stuff that was ported from Arma 1, VBS2, OFP:E, OFP:R, and OFP. Vanilla stuff. And that, even though it was more content, most of that "more" content came from previous games. Being that Arma 3 is set in 2035, the stuff is new, and therefore from scratch, and therefore consists of fewer content than Arma 2 vanilla.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason why I'm still playing this game is because there is no competition.

If there's another arma game released in the future I won't play it, there's just no way I'm giving such incompetent developers any more of my money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, ProGamer seems to be in the wrong thread. I said nothing about turning while prone.

To those who claim ARMA3 graphics are so superior that they can't ever go back -- that argument doesn't apply to us people who have lower end computers like me who can only run this game with THE lowest settings. I can run almost any other modern game on medium or high settings except for ARMA series, the third ARMA especially.

Also I never said that AI should be less accurate. My problem is that they are still perfectly combat effective after taking multiple five five six round to center mass while I am unable to aim after any hit anywhere on my body.

Last posters-- I think that guy meant no fixed wing for anyone but independent which is silly.

---------- Post added at 15:52 ---------- Previous post was at 15:49 ----------

Not sure if I'm allowed to mention other series here but I was following development of Ground Branch for awhile. I'd prefer that game over ARMA since it caters more to my game style but they have made very little progress over like a decade of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graphics is such a trivial thing to be concerned about in two games that look quite good. Then again it also seems strange to me how many people complain about lack of assets when so few advancements have been made in core game mechanics since OFP. Graphics are one of the only things that consistently advances from game to game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A2 is better than any previous or present game in the series, for me, but only when its modded up. If serious ‘mil/sim like players’, that’s a player who likes realism without the boredom of vbs2 and without the crazy A3 game-play, if that player wants serious realistic war gaming but with the joy of it remaining a game and not becoming a true simulator (training tool), then A2 is the game for you.

However, if graphics and a more gamey game-play style, is your thing, then A3 is the one you want, it certainly stops well short of bf madness.

I play A2 with a group of friends, its great, better than any other game out there in this genre, there again there’s only BI making this genre really. But A2 modded with a good mix of ai mod/addons (if your not lucky enough to have KAI) and the experience will be completely different and far superior to A3.

Movement with SMK in A2 gives more or less all you’ll need, plus various other bits and pieces such as st-movement/collision some of the ‘proper’ bits, also effects etc, etc. Plus of course a really good ai mix that suits your game (as said) and whatever forces/equipment etc you want from the vast amount of content available.

Spend time setting A2 up and you’ll never be able to put A3 above A2 in all honesty, A2 will win out hands down, if realistic war gaming is something you like. O.k. the graphics of A2 are not the best, but really, if your playing this series the likelihood is your after some realistic war gaming, when did graphics become important in that!

Oh and a bacon sandwich to whoever said BI needs competition, that’s a very true statement, they do, but they’re unlikely to get any within the next few years, but maybe, just maybe, something will pop up 4/5 years ahead, who knows, we can hope though.

All of the above is said based on a player using the editor, to make and play your own missions/campaigns or those of the group you play with. Can’t say regards the BI campaigns, never played any other campaigns/missions, other than mine or the groups, so not sure which is the best there, but going off game-play, surely A2 must win out there too.;)

Just my view..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh and a bacon sandwich

I'll take you up on that.

Totally agree with what you said in your post. I guess in the end it's up to personal preferences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we (the moderator team) are often accused to censor critical voices and not allow any negative comments about any BI product, followed by this logic i should now close down this thread. ;)

But seriously, really like the opening post, well phrased and problems clearly identified. This is something the developers could work with. Please feel encouraged to continue on this level, A3 definately needs it. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly, ProGamer seems to be in the wrong thread. I said nothing about turning while prone.

I replied by explaining why some things were as they were and then kind of ranted a bit. Should I have started my own thread with it?

---------- Post added at 02:15 ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 ----------

A2 is better than any previous or present game in the series, for me, but only when its modded up. If serious ‘mil/sim like players’, that’s a player who likes realism without the boredom of vbs2 and without the crazy A3 game-play, if that player wants serious realistic war gaming but with the joy of it remaining a game and not becoming a true simulator (training tool), then A2 is the game for you.

However, if graphics and a more gamey game-play style, is your thing, then A3 is the one you want, it certainly stops well short of bf madness.

I play A2 with a group of friends, its great, better than any other game out there in this genre, there again there’s only BI making this genre really. But A2 modded with a good mix of ai mod/addons (if your not lucky enough to have KAI) and the experience will be completely different and far superior to A3.

Movement with SMK in A2 gives more or less all you’ll need, plus various other bits and pieces such as st-movement/collision some of the ‘proper’ bits, also effects etc, etc. Plus of course a really good ai mix that suits your game (as said) and whatever forces/equipment etc you want from the vast amount of content available.

Spend time setting A2 up and you’ll never be able to put A3 above A2 in all honesty, A2 will win out hands down, if realistic war gaming is something you like. O.k. the graphics of A2 are not the best, but really, if your playing this series the likelihood is your after some realistic war gaming, when did graphics become important in that!

Oh and a bacon sandwich to whoever said BI needs competition, that’s a very true statement, they do, but they’re unlikely to get any within the next few years, but maybe, just maybe, something will pop up 4/5 years ahead, who knows, we can hope though.

All of the above is said based on a player using the editor, to make and play your own missions/campaigns or those of the group you play with. Can’t say regards the BI campaigns, never played any other campaigns/missions, other than mine or the groups, so not sure which is the best there, but going off game-play, surely A2 must win out there too.;)

Just my view..

Arma 3 took the OFP route. Gameplay over realism. They have said they wanted to make it more like OFP. But for players who liked Arma 2 and how it was more realistic, Arma 3 is not a replacement. Hopefully BI will go the Arma 2 direction for Arma 4 and then just alternate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your misinterpretating my post. You have to understand the term "a new competitor" as another dev who would make a semi- military simulation with quite big maps and so on (i.e. "a DIRECT competitor").

I understand your point though. ArmA is a FPS, like the other famous games you're suggesting. But they are not of the same kind. It's as if you'd compare Mario Kart to Forza or pCARS.

Not to be overly pedantic, but any game that is considered an alternative to Arma (i.e. one that is in the same consideration set as Arma for someone considering a shooter - or non-shooter, for that matter, is a competitor). While CoD and BF are technically very different games, based on in-game chatter I'm quite certain that many current Arma 3 players also play either BF or CoD, or both. And, that's probably exactly why BIS improved the look of the game as a priority, and made the whole thing a tiny bit less simulation-oriented -to attract an influx of new players who would not previously have considered the clunky and complex Arma of old. That's of course also one of the cons of the game - now we have to deal with preteens and foul-mouthed teenagers on public servers, which I'd imagine is less of an issue on Arma 2 servers.

---------- Post added at 00:38 ---------- Previous post was at 00:36 ----------

Is this seriously the reason you are choosing Arma 3 over Arma 2?

Yep. And BIS is obviously counting on a lot of other players making the same decision as graphics is the most improved aspect of the old game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arma 3 took the OFP route. Gameplay over realism. They have said they wanted to make it more like OFP. But for players who liked Arma 2 and how it was more realistic, Arma 3 is not a replacement. Hopefully BI will go the Arma 2 direction for Arma 4 and then just alternate.

In what way is OFP less realistic than Arma 2?

Also, Myke, for what it's worth, I understand why a lot of threads get closed, as they frequently devolve into pointless circular arguments.

Edit: Harry, that kind of is overly pedantic. Call of Duty and Battlefield are not at all direct competitors to Arma, any more than Sim City and Unreal Tournament are. Heck, they are barely competitors to each other. Also, what is all this talk about Arma 3 being less simulation oriented? It's still essentially the same game as Arma 2.

Edited by roshnak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In what way is OFP less realistic than Arma 2?

Also, Myke, for what it's worth, I understand why a lot of threads get closed, as they frequently devolve into pointless circular arguments.

Edit: Harry, that kind of is overly pedantic. Call of Duty and Battlefield are not at all direct competitors to Arma, any more than Sim City and Unreal Tournament are. Heck, they are barely competitors to each other. Also, what is all this talk about Arma 3 being less simulation oriented? It's still essentially the same game as Arma 2.

I think you're dismissing CoD and BF as competitors too quickly - clearly Arma represents an alternative to either (BF in particular) - by any reasonable standard. Switch to cars for second: A BMW M5, an Audi RS7 and a Porsche 911 Carrera 2S could all be considered competitors in that they often compete for the same buyer (and cost about the same). But an M5 has 4 doors and is RWD, the Audi has AWD, and the Porsche has 2 doors and an engine in the back. On paper, all are very different cars - but they compete for the same wallet. Yes, technically they're very different, but you'd be mistaken if you think that all 3 manufacturers aren't looking over their shoulder constantly to learn from the others - and trying to attract buyers in the process. BIS would LOVE the sort of player count found in CoD and BF, and it's therefore no coincidence that the series has become better looking and more accessible. Like it or not, Arma is competing for (some) of the same players. Thankfully, private servers and mods will keep most of the CoD crowd at bay, but I suspect we'll see a greater influx over time from the BF crowd. Heck, I'm one of the guys that migrated entirely from BF to Arma about a year ago. And previously I migrated from CoD to BF. I shudder when I think of CoD these days - glad they're behind me; but I take an active interest in BF, though I still haven't sprung for BF4; Arma 3 is keeping me busy/entertained, where Arma 2 did not.

Edited by Harry_Flashman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dice and Infinity Ward are not looking over their shoulders at BIS. Battlefield and Arma do not try to do the same things. They target a different market. We are not comparing BMWs to Audis, we are comparing boats to cars. The only things about Battlefield and Arma that are similar are that they are both first person shooters, and they both feature the military.

Furthermore, you are missing the point of Artisinal's post. He suggested that BIS needs someone else to make the same kind of game as Arma, a realistic military simulator, to push them to make their realistic military simulator better. Not that the success of Battlefield, which has been around for almost as long as Arma/OFP, and been more popular than those games throughout it's entire lifespan, is pushing BIS to make their game less realistic.

This is like comparing Falcon 4.0 and DCS to Crimson Skies and Ace Combat. They are simply not trying to accomplish the same things, and the things that Ace Combat does do not affect what DCS does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arma 3 took the OFP route. Gameplay over realism. They have said they wanted to make it more like OFP.

I saw you posting this several times now, but that just doesn't make any sense : OFP didn't choose between gameplay and realism, it was simply the first iteration of the game and, in a sense, it was very ambitious, and aiming at realism with what the engine and hardwares could do at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He suggested that BIS needs someone else to make the same kind of game as Arma, a realistic military simulator, to push them to make their realistic military simulator better.

Yep, that's exactly my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote Originally Posted by ProGamer

Arma 3 took the OFP route. Gameplay over realism. They have said they wanted to make it more like OFP.

I've always thought like this, but I also feel it was a good decision. Arma3's engine with Arma2 content is amazing as well. It's pretty much the same only much more fluid and immersive due to the physics. I remade an account here even though I pretty much played OFP when I was 13 and have been around Arma for quite some time, so try to hold me credible for what I can contribute. There are still a few factors to consider when you look at the Arma2->Arma3 process with the immersion of realism lovers:

1) Arma2 really boomed with the idea of easy-going coop, with the innovation of Domination (co-op mission with the idea of using the whole map dynamically, but is typically boring as fuck due to the settings applied) and similar coop style missions. Soon emerging mods like ACE2 and thousands of user created mods helped really spark interest in having a so called 'realism scene' as well.

2) Arma2 soon gave birth to a bunch of easy-going realism lovers who eventually grew comfortable with their mods; mainly ACE2, Acer, and other immersive modsets. This means that realism lovers on Arma2 still love to mod Arma2 even considering how old it is, or are simply glad that they set up their quite intensive mods in order to play with their buddies. Still, mods were considered good enough for most realism lovers and vanilla gameplay was mostly considered a mixture of boring and unplayable.

--------

Looking back: OFP was really innovative, but if you played it in multiplayer you'd notice a difference.

--------

1) In OFP, there was a competitive scene. Groups would compete in CQB and CTI maps (close quarter battle, capture the flag, zone holding, and more casual capture the island). People really were taught and knew that to play OFP, you were expected to be the guy who kills 12 AI soldiers and blows up a T72 tank with 2 rockets.

2) Mods in OFP were obviously the first of their kind, and the first ACE or other mods could never really achieve full realism due to graphical limitations. This led to a favoring of mostly vanilla gameplay and mods on multiplyaer servers were kept to a minimum; or scripted completely into downloadable missions to avoid the hassle.

---------

Now: Arma3 is a mixture of good graphics, fluid gameplay, better infantry and movement mechanics.. numerous improvements, yet it doesn't have that clunky realism feel of Arma2

---------

1) There is a re-emergence of some DM/TVT/HOLD servers, which were mostly prevalent in Arma1 and OFP, and a decent amount These were and now are some of the only strongholds where new players can learn the mechanics of competitive play. This means a balance between the realism lover fiddling with his mods (e.g. "Oh, sorry for the FF dude" "Oh shit theres 5 AI on easy mode, time to apply tactics" "How do I equipt my weaponnnhuehue") and new/veteran players who will learn how to properly play the game.

2) There are still those easy-ass systems of coop missions such as Domination which attempt to use the whole map and actually just shun away players who want actual gameplay experience. An example of this is when a mission is dynamically assigned to take a new town randomly. All of a sudden, there is a need to get to the AO. Let's say we avoid the clan/group issues and anyone can fly, and you make it to the AO fairly quickly in a helicopter. Odds are, there are already a handful there in their own (possibly restricted to clan/group) armor or support units and they have already killed the easy-mode 20 AI units that spawned in there. That, or some randie guy who thinks he's all that flew by in his jet and bombed them all as the AI were spawned in a huge cluster. So.. after walking 1000m in about 5 minutes, people are already asking for evac and you might have realized you wasted 30 minutes doing nothing at all.

------

My opinion:

------

I wish there was competitive 5v5 in CQB, or platoon vs platoon (team vs team) type battles where there were things like a set number of lives or a number of points you need to achieve as a team by completing objectives. This coop shit just seems like something that should be left behind in Arma2 as we progress to Arma3.. I'm sick of the typical "Oh, sorry for the FF dude" "Oh shit theres 5 AI on easy mode, time to apply tactics" "How do I equipt my weaponnnhuehue". I really like the DM/PVP coming back in Arma3 but it still hasn't fully replaced the shitty domination and easy-ass system of coop missions. At least make some cool shit like back in OFP where there were unique and specialized missions where you had goals and pre-placed items. The whole dynamic sandbox shit was/is boring and should have been abandoned in Arma2 where it pretty much spawned from.. Coop is not inherently bad; but what happened to the fun shit like DEFEND CHRISTMAS HILL - just a spam of units assaulting a hill and it was hell, or those maps covered in tanks where you only have AT and you have to kill about 10 of them, or just the servers where AI settings are actually high and it's considered difficult to carry out a simple and non-laggy mission. Time to move on and create fun game-types guys. In Arma1 one of the funnest experiences I had (albeit somewhat laggy) was on a coop server with a mission called Take The City (1000 AI). The AI was pretty versatile, and there were actually tons of them in the city. This wasn't just fly in and take the city from 10 easy-mode AI like the usual so called 'elite' Arma2 unit does, that was some hardcore fun stuff that I can't bother typing out. This shit, in comparison, is boring; to someone who only has played Arma2/Arma3 they might get the whole stale atmosphere and dump the game as a pile of trash. That, or join a realism unit, and they never do anything fun like organize PvP scenarios or gameplay against players; they are also tending to be afraid to do PVP because it would break the morale of their bad players to lose against some other group. Imagine if you could choose your 5 best for a squad and pit them against 5 others, or just do a full on war/comparison of groups? That would be fun.. that's what popular FPS games have. I hate COD and consolegames, but I love PC games with the exception of easy and casual stuff. Arma has degraded alot into something boring; though Arma2 is realistic I don't want to see any of those easy-going faggots who joined Realism units to migrate over and infect the Arma3 scene. I'd rather see some fun and creative missions than some crap like that. Sorry for the long post, but I type really fast and I had a long opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And that's what InstaGoat is saying. Most of the vanilla content in Arma 2 was stuff that was ported from Arma 1, VBS2, OFP:E, OFP:R, and OFP. Vanilla stuff. And that, even though it was more content, most of that "more" content came from previous games. Being that Arma 3 is set in 2035, the stuff is new, and therefore from scratch, and therefore consists of fewer content than Arma 2 vanilla.

Sorry, I misread your post and I apologize. :)

In any case, even if it is set in 2035, adding more contents of old games would be a good thing (not to mention that the only fixed wing - I have read, 'cause i don't have the Czech Dlc - has been ported from arma2).

Also, I don't think that an m16, a t-90, an m2a2 or an Osprey wuold be died in 2035: at the opposite such position to justify the "lack" of content in arma3 seems, in my modest opinion, quite debatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish there was competitive 5v5 in CQB, or platoon vs platoon (team vs team) type battles where there were things like a set number of lives or a number of points you need to achieve as a team by completing objectives. This coop shit just seems like something that should be left behind in Arma2 as we progress to Arma3.. I'm sick of the typical "Oh, sorry for the FF dude" "Oh shit theres 5 AI on easy mode, time to apply tactics" "How do I equipt my weaponnnhuehue". I really like the DM/PVP coming back in Arma3 but it still hasn't fully replaced the shitty domination and easy-ass system of coop missions. At least make some cool shit like back in OFP where there were unique and specialized missions where you had goals and pre-placed items. The whole dynamic sandbox shit was/is boring and should have been abandoned in Arma2 where it pretty much spawned from.. Coop is not inherently bad; but what happened to the fun shit like DEFEND CHRISTMAS HILL - just a spam of units assaulting a hill and it was hell, or those maps covered in tanks where you only have AT and you have to kill about 10 of them, or just the servers where AI settings are actually high and it's considered difficult to carry out a simple and non-laggy mission. Time to move on and create fun game-types guys. In Arma1 one of the funnest experiences I had (albeit somewhat laggy) was on a coop server with a mission called Take The City (1000 AI). The AI was pretty versatile, and there were actually tons of them in the city. This wasn't just fly in and take the city from 10 easy-mode AI like the usual so called 'elite' Arma2 unit does, that was some hardcore fun stuff that I can't bother typing out. This shit, in comparison, is boring; to someone who only has played Arma2/Arma3 they might get the whole stale atmosphere and dump the game as a pile of trash. That, or join a realism unit, and they never do anything fun like organize PvP scenarios or gameplay against players; they are also tending to be afraid to do PVP because it would break the morale of their bad players to lose against some other group. Imagine if you could choose your 5 best for a squad and pit them against 5 others, or just do a full on war/comparison of groups? That would be fun.. that's what popular FPS games have. I hate COD and consolegames, but I love PC games with the exception of easy and casual stuff. Arma has degraded alot into something boring; though Arma2 is realistic I don't want to see any of those easy-going faggots who joined Realism units to migrate over and infect the Arma3 scene. I'd rather see some fun and creative missions than some crap like that. Sorry for the long post, but I type really fast and I had a long opinion.

1. The mods fix everything philosophy.

2. No engine support.

3. There's no game to go play instead of Arma, it's a niche game with no competition.

4. Don't like things to be realistic? Why are you playing Arma in the first place?

5. The people who like realism are more likely to play as a team. Ever played wasteland with ACE?

6. You think realism groups hate PvP?

Edited by ProGamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Due to the invincible AI in ArmA 3, I tried ArmA 2 yesterday. Razor four ran head-first into the tail rotor of Starforce 21 and promptly died. Alt-F4-ed out again. Time spend: 15 minutes.

I think I'm going to get another copy of Skyrim or something...

Blaming a problem of ACE on Arma 2 ? Speaking of silly arguments.
The tail rotor will not harm you either in Arma 2 nor in Arma 3. Since I don't believe that someone with a join date of 2005 and 2000 posts doesn't know that, I can only conclude that you are constructing this argument intentionally ignoring the facts.

I just tried my "Vanilla" shortcut and sure enough: got shopped up by a tail rotor myself. So either BIS Implemented this in one of the expansions, or ACE features have "infected" my normal game.

But to satisfy you: The meat-grinding happened on the second flight on the campaign mission "Razor 2". On the first flight another member of razor got stuck behind the non-meatgrinder side of the helicopter tail and required additional orders. "Damnit, moon-moon!"

I remember back in the OFP era, the VME / PLA mod released an AI modification that did some pretty sick stuff, and improved the AI's (urban) skill immensely. Biggest suprise came when I was fighting tanks inside a city, and suddenly they all drove off to the next hill, and started shelling buildings from there for a good couple of minutes. Mindblowing!

How does one (me?) start making AI "do stuff" ? Could I simply write a sqs or sqm to influence AI behaviour? If it were that simple, I would assume people would've already done so.

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  

×