An Honest Review

[progamer 14]

Yep, that's exactly my point.

The Outerra engine looks promising for competition to brew. It's the only game engine I have seen do similar things to the RV engine.

[Varanon 892]

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!"

Again: in Vanilla Arma, the tail rotor does not make damage. So you either your shortcut isn't quite as vanilla, or you have copied mods into the Arma data folder. And no, it's not been implemented in any expansion at all. You are running with mods.

[Alwarren 2765]

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.

It's an ACE feature.

[romanshell 11]

Sorry for the profanity.

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?

I do like the realism, somewhat. But there's arguably nothing realistic about the game, with the exclusion of map size and bullet trajectories, unless you play with mods like ACE2 which really help the realism a lot.

The thing is there is a 'fun factor' which comes into play. If it's realistic, great, but when people get bored of pretending to roleplay as a soldier then there will be nothing to keep them in. When Arma2 first came out, the people I met and played with eventually formed a group that I joined. It was vanilla (no mods required), but yet the content they created in terms of missions and the stuff we organized was fairly interesting. I've never had the same amount of fun on Arma2. Have you ever had an organized PvP with about 70 people in it, and yet still be divided up into taskforces/teams that have specific roles to carry out? If you've seen ShackTac, that is a group which might not be as versatile but they at least know how to make fun scenarios, so you can get an idea from that. It wasn't necessarily the mission forcing them to do it, it was more like a mission layout and the people organized it themselves to make it fun. Arma3 needs more of that new elitism and veteran play-style instead of the migration of the junk from Arma2 in the form of Domination co-op servers, self-proclaimed realism units and other hard to manage but inefficient/boring styles of play.

Long explanation about the problems with Arma2 -> Arma3 with proven examples and such:

In comparison, realism units tend to completely rely on their mods for arguably "a big portion" of the realism experience, and then they spend hours and might kill only say '3 easy-mode AI' in a city after a 2 hour long experience. Yet, it's so thrilling, right? You need only to refer to some youtube video and actually watch it to see this.

I see these units as being integrated into Arma now, but they aren't as capable as players who are used to for example deathmatch against other players. They never will be as formidable because they set such low standards for themselves and complain otherwise. The realism people are worried about "ohh does my mic work?" "do my mods work?" *sits 30 minutes organizing into a group*. Like come on people, move it a little.

The last time I joined a coop server considered quality, I sat around making people laugh and attracting new players into the group I was in, for about an hour, while some clan kids and some guy went off in their choppers/armor to kill about 20 AI infantry spawned in some city. Not only did the group take laughably long, but then a few with 1 kill after an hour come back to base and they talk trash randomly about how we are sitting around not being called in. Way to try and be depressing dudes, while we're joking around and laughing and attracting players into our group without even actually playing. Do they think they're simulating being hardcore soldiers? To people with much better statistics (lets just call it that) what do you think that looks like? It's almost like a mental illness. And they wonder why 1 guy sometimes joins and friendly fire kills their entire squad. It's not even considered bad that 1 person managed to do it alone, but mainly bad because some old guy gleefully realizes someone broke the rules and decides to say "HEY! HEY!! YOU!! YOU BROKE THE RULES!!" before banning them about 5 minutes later.

Another irony is, the easy-going (not to be profane) realism loving players complain all the time when the AI is set on Veteran or some skill level higher than that. Why? Because all of a sudden, the AI has a 38% chance to defend its zone, or 38% to wipe you out, instead of something like 5%. Why play coop if the AI is helpless? It'd be funner to have a challenge even if you do get wiped out.. So, AI that is essentially a pile of stones, vs AI with some light AA, light armor, and formidable numbers/tactics defending a town with some capabilities. I guess realism lovers are proven to choose the former. Basically there is a line between being good at the game and pretending to be good at it by being in a so called realism unit or group, no matter what mods you use. Coordinating is obviously something important to be efficient in Arma because of the open nature of the game, but DM players or veteran players are so much more efficient that if you simply unleashed them against a group of such players, it's likely the realism players would all get shot up or all killed by a single grenade as they attempt to form some stupid box formation in a street. It's depressing to see adult players stoop to such low intelligence levels as well. Thus, realism groups should stay in Arma2 and not infect Arma3, because they are pretty much an inferior breed in all aspects, so to speak. Not only that, but you can easily prove how they are detrimental to attracting new players. I've had countless successes introducing new players to DM or vanilla gamemodes compared with getting new players to download mods and join some slow paced self-proclaimed elite realism units, end of story.

Again meh, not to seem like I'm making a well organized or thoguht out essay, but I have a clear perspective about the game and its community and have been around since playing OFP when I was 13 years old so I can kinda tell. Not trying to be 'trolling' or 'profane' but there's really no love lost between me and any realism players even considering I once played in some without issue until getting bored of the repetitiveness.

Edited December 29, 2013 by romanshell

[roshnak 41]

I wish there was competitive 5v5 in CQB

For the love of God, why? This is not Counter Strike. There's simply not that much going on in small scale pvp in Arma.

Also, what are you talking about, easy mode AI? AI doesn't have an easy mode. You seem to be saying a lot of stuff without having any idea what you are talking about. A lot of realism units have some really dumb stuff going on, but it is rarely related to the mission. I'm pretty sure you have never played with a large group of people, because what you are saying does not seem to jive with what is actually going on in the community. If groups aren't playing pvp it's not because they are afraid of bad players realizing they are bad, since individual skill plays a fairly small part of almost any Arma encounter.

Edited December 29, 2013 by roshnak

[romanshell 11]

I would disagree roshnak. AI is settable to be either Recruit, Regular, Veteran, or Elite; with most server preferring Recruit and Regular and scripting the AI accuracy to be lower. Players are now used to such low difficulty/standards they actually have been complaining about having accurate AI now.. It's saddening to see this on Arma3, where it's no longer as clunky and restricted and thus there is no real excuse.

I have been playing since OFP and I think I am credible enough to know what was fun, what wasn't fun, and when the series began to decline in playability (Arma2 era). btw, Counter-Strike is fun, but having CQB in 5v5 style is not exclusively limited to Counter-Strike. I was referring to the general idea of having a gauged system where you can compete with skill instead of sucker into the boring idea that you have to join a realism unit, get mods, and play against boring down-graded AI to be good at the game. That is, without playing the weeded down dynamic open-world co-op missions which dominate Arma's MP today (domination, sandbox, etc). There is no personality and no fun to be had there for many players.

Edited December 29, 2013 by romanshell

[simon1279 51]

BI's CSAT soldiers who are obviously immigrants from some galaxy far, far, away where people have dorky futuristic costumes and can only be taken down with a laser gun or the force.

This definitely yes and i think OPFOR are a good faction but they looks like a kind of Star trek units, which is definitely bad for a game like arma, i can agree with 2035 but actually OPFOR looks like a kind of 3025 units, i'm usually making missions indep. Vs. Blufor

i totally agree with you and i have to admit i like arma 3, i love its engine, but i think main differences between A2 and A3 are: ArmA3 great engine but overall poor game, ArmA 2 poor engine but overall a very great game, even talking about ArmA 2 vanilla without expansions, i've played and still play Arma 3 since alpha release, but i lovely went back to play ArmA 2 regularly which actually is a more enjoyable game than A3, the best thing could be (i know except for modding this will never happen) A2 on the A3's engine

[Harry_Flashman 1]

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.

I disagree completely about an Arma vs BF comparison being more like comparing boats to cars. Take your average lay person, sit them down in front of Arma 3 and BF4 and ask them to explain the difference. After about 30 mins with both, he/she will tell you that both are military shooters, both allow you to operate vehicles, both operate on large maps (Arma 3's is large and "connected", whereas as BF's are smaller and not connected), both offer single player, PvE and PvP etc., though BF is easier to get into, and Arma takes a bit longer. The differences are much more nuanced than they are fundamental (to the lay person). But I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, even though I gave you 1 very clear example of someone who considered both and made the switch to Arma (i.e. me). To me, Arma represented a much better alternative to BF (which in turn is a better alternative to CoD): all 3 were in my consideration set, so all 3 are competitors from my commercial vantage point.

That aside, you actually missed my broader point - which contradicts Arsenal's somewhat: I believe BIS is the one looking over THEIR shoulder at games like CoD and BF and asking themselves how they can attract higher numbers of players. And THAT is why, to a large extent (I believe), they've prioritized easier gameplay and graphics over simulation-oriented enhancements (they WANT the game to be a bit more casual; a bit less hardcore simulation). Now, bear in mind that to believe this you would have to believe that BIS believes it can entice folks to cross-over to Arma from CoD or BF (you know, like I did), which I think they've achieved to an extent already: public Arma 3 servers are full of people who have played, or currently do play to some extent, those other games. Are they the same product? No, of course not. Would BIS like to appeal to the same demographic that allows CoD to achieve $1B in a couple of weeks on shelves. I'll let you be the judge - I know what I believe.

To be successful (at making money, not the most realistic FPS/military sim) they need to appeal to a broader demographic, which is why it makes total sense to take inspiration from other successful shooters. If the hardcore community doesn't like it, the modders will fix those issues over time. But BIS needs/wants more players, and will probably make more money in the near-term by focusing on how to drive more noobs into the franchise than appealing to simulation-oriented needs of older/more seasoned Arma players - who, let's face it, have bought/paid for the product already.

In my eyes their business model makes total sense - and proves (to me at least) that they're looking pretty closely at other shooters for inspiration (and players).

Edited December 29, 2013 by Harry_Flashman

[progamer 14]

Sorry for the profanity.

I do like the realism, somewhat. But there's arguably nothing realistic about the game, with the exclusion of map size and bullet trajectories, unless you play with mods like ACE2 which really help the realism a lot.

The thing is there is a 'fun factor' which comes into play. If it's realistic, great, but when people get bored of pretending to roleplay as a soldier then there will be nothing to keep them in. When Arma2 first came out, the people I met and played with eventually formed a group that I joined. It was vanilla (no mods required), but yet the content they created in terms of missions and the stuff we organized was fairly interesting. I've never had the same amount of fun on Arma2. Have you ever had an organized PvP with about 70 people in it, and yet still be divided up into taskforces/teams that have specific roles to carry out? If you've seen ShackTac, that is a group which might not be as versatile but they at least know how to make fun scenarios, so you can get an idea from that. It wasn't necessarily the mission forcing them to do it, it was more like a mission layout and the people organized it themselves to make it fun. Arma3 needs more of that new elitism and veteran play-style instead of the migration of the junk from Arma2 in the form of Domination co-op servers, self-proclaimed realism units and other hard to manage but inefficient/boring styles of play.

Long explanation about the problems with Arma2 -> Arma3 with proven examples and such:

In comparison, realism units tend to completely rely on their mods for arguably "a big portion" of the realism experience, and then they spend hours and might kill only say '3 easy-mode AI' in a city after a 2 hour long experience. Yet, it's so thrilling, right? You need only to refer to some youtube video and actually watch it to see this.

I see these units as being integrated into Arma now, but they aren't as capable as players who are used to for example deathmatch against other players. They never will be as formidable because they set such low standards for themselves and complain otherwise. The realism people are worried about "ohh does my mic work?" "do my mods work?" *sits 30 minutes organizing into a group*. Like come on people, move it a little.

The last time I joined a coop server considered quality, I sat around making people laugh and attracting new players into the group I was in, for about an hour, while some clan kids and some guy went off in their choppers/armor to kill about 20 AI infantry spawned in some city. Not only did the group take laughably long, but then a few with 1 kill after an hour come back to base and they talk trash randomly about how we are sitting around not being called in. Way to try and be depressing dudes, while we're joking around and laughing and attracting players into our group without even actually playing. Do they think they're simulating being hardcore soldiers? To people with much better statistics (lets just call it that) what do you think that looks like? It's almost like a mental illness. And they wonder why 1 guy sometimes joins and friendly fire kills their entire squad. It's not even considered bad that 1 person managed to do it alone, but mainly bad because some old guy gleefully realizes someone broke the rules and decides to say "HEY! HEY!! YOU!! YOU BROKE THE RULES!!" before banning them about 5 minutes later.

Another irony is, the easy-going (not to be profane) realism loving players complain all the time when the AI is set on Veteran or some skill level higher than that. Why? Because all of a sudden, the AI has a 38% chance to defend its zone, or 38% to wipe you out, instead of something like 5%. Why play coop if the AI is helpless? It'd be funner to have a challenge even if you do get wiped out.. So, AI that is essentially a pile of stones, vs AI with some light AA, light armor, and formidable numbers/tactics defending a town with some capabilities. I guess realism lovers are proven to choose the former. Basically there is a line between being good at the game and pretending to be good at it by being in a so called realism unit or group, no matter what mods you use. Coordinating is obviously something important to be efficient in Arma because of the open nature of the game, but DM players or veteran players are so much more efficient that if you simply unleashed them against a group of such players, it's likely the realism players would all get shot up or all killed by a single grenade as they attempt to form some stupid box formation in a street. It's depressing to see adult players stoop to such low intelligence levels as well. Thus, realism groups should stay in Arma2 and not infect Arma3, because they are pretty much an inferior breed in all aspects, so to speak. Not only that, but you can easily prove how they are detrimental to attracting new players. I've had countless successes introducing new players to DM or vanilla gamemodes compared with getting new players to download mods and join some slow paced self-proclaimed elite realism units, end of story.

Again meh, not to seem like I'm making a well organized or thoguht out essay, but I have a clear perspective about the game and its community and have been around since playing OFP when I was 13 years old so I can kinda tell. Not trying to be 'trolling' or 'profane' but there's really no love lost between me and any realism players even considering I once played in some without issue until getting bored of the repetitiveness.

How the heck do they infect the game and ruin it? BI should be making the game more friendly for players who like realism and players who don't without preferential treatment. Not treating one side like a virus that needs to be killed as you say.

If anything the players like you who don't want there to be equal options for both sides and equal support a should not infect Arma 3. Arma 3 currently seems to have more support for non realism players and needs more support for realism players in terms of content and features.

I was playing Assetto Corsa earlier and I could set the cars to handle all gamey and arcade like or have them handle like a hardcore simulation. That is a lot better than your idea of purging and "infection".

---------- Post added at 00:49 ---------- Previous post was at 00:41 ----------

I disagree completely about an Arma vs BF comparison being more like comparing boats to cars. Take your average lay person, sit them down in front of Arma 3 and BF4 and ask them to explain the difference. After about 30 mins with both, he/she will tell you that both are military shooters, both allow you to operate vehicles, both operate on large maps (Arma 3's is large and "connected", whereas as BF's are smaller and not connected), both offer single player, PvE and PvP etc., though BF is easier to get into, and Arma takes a bit longer. The differences are much more nuanced than they are fundamental (to the lay person). But I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, even though I gave you 1 very clear example of someone who considered both and made the switch to Arma (i.e. me). To me, Arma represented a much better alternative to BF (which in turn is a better alternative to CoD): all 3 were in my considered set, so all 3 are competitors from my commercial vantage point.

That aside, you actually missed my broader point - which contradicts Arsenal's somewhat: I believe BIS is the one looking over THEIR shoulder at games like CoD and BF and asking themselves how they can attract higher numbers of players. And THAT is why, to a large extent (I believe), they've prioritized easier gameplay and graphics over simulation-oriented enhancements (they WANT the game to be a bit more casual; a bit less hardcore simulation). Now, bear in mind that to believe this you would have to believe that BIS believes it can entice folks to cross-over to Arma from CoD or BF (you know, like I did), which I think they've achieved to an extent already: public Arma 3 servers are full of people who have played, or currently do play to some extent, those other games. Are they the same product? No, of course not. Would BIS like to appeal to the same demographic that allows CoD to achieve $1B in a couple of weeks on shelves. I'll let you be the judge - I know what I believe.

To be successful (at making money, not the most realistic FPS/military sim) they need to appeal to a broader demographic, which is why it makes total sense to take inspiration from other successful shooters. If the hardcore community doesn't like it, the modders will fix those issues over time. But BIS needs/wants more players, and will probably make more money in the near-term by focusing on how to drive more noobs into the franchise than appealing to simulation-oriented needs of older/more seasoned Arma players - who, let's face it, have bought/paid for the product already.

In my eyes their business model makes total sense - and proves (to me at least) that they're looking pretty closely at other shooters for inspiration (and players).

What's interesting about this is that Dayz is being made as more of an "anti game" in the sense it does the complete opposite of trying to entice Battlefield players into the game. Dayz is incredibly successful because of this.

Edited December 29, 2013 by ProGamer

[antoineflemming 14]

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.

Well, the t-90s just might be replaced by Arma 3's T-100. The older tanks really would still be around. However, considering the limited factions and Mediterranean area, a super-powered or equal-powered Iran would probably only have the latest Russian tank (T-100), and the AAF would most likely have Western equipment, so old British tanks and aircraft. It's not that far-fetched. What is more far-fetched is the AAF having FN-2000s (Mk. 20s). They'd most likely have M16s or M4s. Osprey would be an old aircraft but, yeah, might be used. However, that's something that is used exclusively by the USMC. The US Army doesn't use Ospreys, so they wouldn't be used in 2035 by the Army. Story-wise, there's no reasonable explanation that NATO or CSAT would be using old equipment other than Western countries maybe not having money to develop new equipment. Then again, they are using some old equipment. Sure, it's newer than now, but there's already a stealth Blackhawk. There's the ACR, which looks similar to the MX. There's Crye Combat uniforms, and Israeli Merkavas and MH-9 helicopters. Besides the T-100 (basically a redesigned T-90) and MX (basically a redesigned ACR/SCAR, US military has been looking for a replacement rifle for a while now), just about everything is modern 2013 stuff. This is really off-topic, honestly, but there's nothing un-modern about the stuff in Arma 3. Now, as far as the cut content goes, they should have just improved the F-35 as it'd still be used. Matter of fact there really is no other appropriate aircraft if the upcoming NATO aircraft is intended to be an American aircraft.

[GReeves 10]

Let's keep discussion of weapon and vehicle authenticity in the thread for that subject please.

In reply to the guy who mentioned complaints about AI accuracy -- I have never said the AI are too accurate. My problem is that they are still 100% combat effective after taking hits while I'm struggling to aim after just one light injury. They also need to react to the impact of rounds instead of the insignificant flinch.

Edited December 30, 2013 by GReeves

[roshnak 41]

Sorry I don't think it was Roshnak who made the comment I was referring to.

Ha ha, no, it wasn't.

Take your average lay person, sit them down in front of Arma 3 and BF4 and ask them to explain the difference. After about 30 mins with both

I can explain the difference in 30 seconds. One is supposed to be realistic, one is not. Alternatively, Arma is trying to be an open-ended military simulator with extensive sandbox elements and a great deal of user content creation, BF is trying to be a highly structured, balanced, competitive multiplayer game that delivers a cinematic experience. Are you honestly telling me you can't tell the difference between Arma and Battlefield almost immediately? Anyone with even a modest amount of experience with video games can do that. Do you think you would have a hard time trying to explain the differences between DCS and Ace Combat?

I believe BIS is the one looking over THEIR shoulder at games like CoD and BF and asking themselves how they can attract higher numbers of players. And THAT is why, to a large extent (I believe), they've prioritized easier gameplay and graphics over simulation-oriented enhancements (they WANT the game to be a bit more casual; a bit less hardcore simulation).

First of all, why, in your opinion, are BIS just now deciding they want to get a slice of the action FPS market? I said it before, Battlefield 1942 was released only a year after Operation Flashpoint, and has been more popular than the Arma series throughout it's entire lifespan. Arma is a niche game and BIS knows it. They've never tried to capture that market before.

Second, what is it that you think makes Arma 3 more casual? Improving the interface and making the movement feel less janky doesn't mean that BIS is trying to compete with Battlefield, it means that they are improving their game.

[romanshell 11]

How the heck do they infect the game and ruin it? BI should be making the game more friendly for players who like realism and players who don't without preferential treatment. Not treating one side like a virus that needs to be killed as you say.

If anything the players like you who don't want there to be equal options for both sides and equal support a should not infect Arma 3. Arma 3 currently seems to have more support for non realism players and needs more support for realism players in terms of content and features.

I was playing Assetto Corsa earlier and I could set the cars to handle all gamey and arcade like or have them handle like a hardcore simulation. That is a lot better than your idea of purging and "infection".

You simply misinterpret.

Sometimes people like myself don't want to deal with the retards. It doesn't matter or have anything to do with 'hardcore simulations' or 'realism', as you seem to think. It's more the fact that you can get friendly-fired or completely set back by how bad some players are. I couldn't care less if you are new, but the players who claim to be so called veterans or think they are some kind of hardcore 1Lt. guy in some random group are just hypocritical when they can't tell the difference between friend and foe. I feel like if you're going to pretend to be a unit, you shouldn't shame them if they actually exist by being shitty in the game. The same goes with imaginary units which claim to be so open, and then if you call them bad players they will get mad and yet refuse any sort of PvP. Yet, most guys like this seem to pretend they're so big and important as they blab on their mic about some retarded thing, possibly just being led on by a troll who couldn't care less about anything but enraging the stupid oaf so to speak. It's really just bad players so to speak en-masse.. I separate bad players from those who simply go for the mods and casual feel because they're highly distinguishable, and they cause problems. Haven't you ever joined an online coop server where some old, high-ranked clan guy started cussing you or someone else out because they went in a chopper? Ironically their entire unit are utter trash at the game anyway so it doesn't seem to matter. It's just that they lack any sort of foresight to see how bad they really are at the game and how it affects others and MP in general. My friends and I get annoyed, to say the least, when people are really 'that bad' and it ends up setting us back, or when someone is 'that stupid' so to speak.

I'd imagine if you've played Arma you've at one point run into one of those old guy types who do pretty much nothing but wait until someone breaks some 'no profanity' rule and then says "HEY!! HEY!! YOUBROKE A RULE. YOU'RE GOING TO GET BANNED! HURRDERR". Like, as if I haven't been trolling since I was like 12 years old on just about every videogame imaginable. I've heard it all. Hell, I've hosted successful game servers when I was around that age. It's just like "herrdurr guyss we runa christian community heree" and they think that their actions are somehow keeping the server afloat by enforcing some stupid rules. The fact that kind of attitude can be found on just about any Arma domination server (which are all trash anyways) just reflects the stubborn and unintelligent mindset of those MP players involved and ruins MP in general for new players.

Edited December 30, 2013 by romanshell

[MrSanchez 243]

Hi,

I personally experience ArmA 2 and ArmA 3 in two different ways.

ArmA 2 is a game that takes time getting used to and is definately not a game that a mainstream gamer would find himself quickly comfortable with, it requires a learning curve where you start to understand certain aspects of the game.

Oh and just for those that say ArmA 2 has bad graphics, imo putting the graphics up all high makes this game look beautiful as it is (without any other mods), but yeah optimization could have been done better (most common issue).

I play ArmA 2 (with ACE) just about every night with my group, and it is just an awesome feeling playing the game, as it is.

ArmA 3, yes the graphics have improved significantly, movement has been smoothed some more and new features like PiP have been introduced and a pretty neat gear interface made up.

To be honest, that's kind of the positive sides for me, most of the downsides have already been discussed, one of the things I quite dislike is the lack of content, yes ArmA has a strong modding community but it feels more like they just put down the base and kind of tell the modders to do the rest, leaving us to downloading shit load of mods to make the game at least feel satisfying. The problem is also the futuristic aspect of the game, 2035, in OFP, ArmA 1, ArmA 2 you are all dealing with modern warfare (& cold war) gameplay, having a typical US section and typical opposing forces e.g. RU and an independent side, usually something alike resistance or a seperate military. With the current setting of the game, NATO vs Iranians, it just feels a bit odd, more of a concept war than a modern war. (Thank god we aren't shooting laser beams at each other). Now obviously this problem is 'solvable' with mods, but then you're off downloading a shitload of mods again, which is unfortunate. Other than that I just can't stand the entire combat system, the weapon system, damage system (shooting bullets in the knee won't force you to crawl for instance), the sounds of the guns, healing et cetera.

Conclusion: This game feels incomplete and BIS seems to be leaving it up to the modding community to complete it and leaving us to downloading tons of mods.

Kind regards,

Martin

[progamer 14]

You simply misinterpret.

Sometimes people like myself don't want to deal with the retards. It doesn't matter or have anything to do with 'hardcore simulations' or 'realism', as you seem to think. It's more the fact that you can get friendly-fired or completely set back by how bad some players are. I couldn't care less if you are new, but the players who claim to be so called veterans or think they are some kind of hardcore 1Lt. guy in some random group are just hypocritical when they can't tell the difference between friend and foe. I feel like if you're going to pretend to be a unit, you shouldn't shame them if they actually exist by being shitty in the game. The same goes with imaginary units which claim to be so open, and then if you call them bad players they will get mad and yet refuse any sort of PvP. Yet, most guys like this seem to pretend they're so big and important as they blab on their mic about some retarded thing, possibly just being led on by a troll who couldn't care less about anything but enraging the stupid oaf so to speak. It's really just bad players so to speak en-masse.. I separate bad players from those who simply go for the mods and casual feel because they're highly distinguishable, and they cause problems. Haven't you ever joined an online coop server where some old, high-ranked clan guy started cussing you or someone else out because they went in a chopper? Ironically their entire unit are utter trash at the game anyway so it doesn't seem to matter. It's just that they lack any sort of foresight to see how bad they really are at the game and how it affects others and MP in general. My friends and I get annoyed, to say the least, when people are really 'that bad' and it ends up setting us back, or when someone is 'that stupid' so to speak.

I'd imagine if you've played Arma you've at one point run into one of those old guy types who do pretty much nothing but wait until someone breaks some 'no profanity' rule and then says "HEY!! HEY!! YOUBROKE A RULE. YOU'RE GOING TO GET BANNED! HURRDERR". Like, as if I haven't been trolling since I was like 12 years old on just about every videogame imaginable. I've heard it all. Hell, I've hosted successful game servers when I was around that age. It's just like "herrdurr guyss we runa christian community heree" and they think that their actions are somehow keeping the server afloat by enforcing some stupid rules. The fact that kind of attitude can be found on just about any Arma domination server (which are all trash anyways) just reflects the stubborn and unintelligent mindset of those MP players involved and ruins MP in general for new players.

Generalizing things after a few bad servers you joined? I've actually only had that problem once. I solved it by parking a car on the roof and then driving off and crushing them. They rage quit. They didn't own the server. But you are generalizing players who like to play realistically, not players who like the game to be realistic. I also have never just hopped in someone helicopter like it was battlefield...

Unless you like to start fights with people or are rude, this behaviour you speak of is pretty rare. You joined a bad server, no need to rant on like everyone is like that.

---------- Post added at 06:37 ---------- Previous post was at 06:31 ----------

Let's keep discussion of weapon and vehicle authenticity in the thread for that subject please.

In reply to the guy who mentioned complaints about AI accuracy -- I have never said the AI are too accurate. My problem is that they are still 100% combat effective after taking hits while I'm struggling to aim after just one light injury. They also need to react to the impact of rounds instead of the insignificant flinch.

Wouldn't an AI discussion be best suited for the AI dev branch discussion? The issues you have speak of have been covered so many times.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?159710-AI-Discussion-(dev-branch)/page155

Edited December 30, 2013 by ProGamer

[roshnak 41]

Stuff about players

Ok, but what does any of this have to do with the game itself?

[KeyCat 131]

...

<Lots of BS deleted!>

Arma3 needs more of that new elitism and veteran play-style instead of the migration of the junk from Arma2 in the form of Domination co-op servers, self-proclaimed realism units and other hard to manage but inefficient/boring styles of play.

...

<Lots of other BS deleted!>

Who are you to decide what other people should play and what missions/playstyles is boring or not!? You are missing one critical thing and I hope you grow up a bit more to be less generalizing towards people...

Things that you may find boring others may find enjoyable and it's not up to you (or me!) to decide what and how people enjoy this or any other game for that matter.

/KC

Edited December 30, 2013 by KeyCat

[andersson 285]

I personally see no big difference between OFP, armed assault, arma2 or arma3. They all offer the same sandbox for me and my friends to do what we have been doing since 2001. And what have we been doing? We make missions and play them. Sometimes it's random sandbox scenarios, sometimes more linear missions.

The author of this thread do have some valid points. Luckily all the games have had their problems that BIS + community iron out over time. Constructive feedback is needed.

But to them complaining about gameplay on servers and missions:

Nothing stops you from making that mission you want, or even start a server for TvT, DM, Coop whatever. Nothing in OFP, armed assault, arma2 or 3 have ever stopped anyone from creating any type of mission, or starting a server.

Was the gameplay better in older VR games? Was it more fun on the servers? Well, it's probably up to the missions created at the time and the players on that server. One cannot blame the core game for that.

Sometimes I have a feeling that players join any public server expecting that "magical" gameplay this game can deliver. No, sadly, it's not that easy out of the box. It really is up to us the players. It has been so since 2001. Name any famous official, unaltered, BIS mission played on servers since ever? Yes, OFP had many good missions, mostly SP, but the ones played in competitive or coop on servers were made by the players.

So please dont blame the game for shitty servers and bad missions. Remember there are no official servers, all of them are put up by a player/group and they did it the way they like it. I personally disagree with most of the server settings and missions, and that's why I mostly play in locked servers with friends/groups I know will give me the experience I'm looking for.

Noone should expect anyone to fix the gameplay you want. But be sure you are not alone in the way you like to play. Create what you like and people will join in and some will stay because they like it! Most public servers will naturally attract new players unknown to the game, and players just out to make a mess for their own twisted fun. That is a bad mix and to keep that one working a strong moderator is needed...

My apologies for keeping this thread offtopic, but I couldn't help myself..

[GReeves 10]

So please dont blame the game for shitty servers and bad missions. Remember there are no official servers, all of them are put up by a player/group and they did it the way they like it. I personally disagree with most of the server settings and missions, and that's why I mostly play in locked servers with friends/groups I know will give me the experience I'm looking for.

Noone should expect anyone to fix the gameplay you want. But be sure you are not alone in the way you like to play. Create what you like and people will join in and some will stay because they like it! Most public servers will naturally attract new players unknown to the game, and players just out to make a mess for their own twisted fun. That is a bad mix and to keep that one working a strong moderator is needed...

This thread isn't about bad missions or the wrong kind of gameplay. It's about the ridiculous lack of content (our only vehicles for BLUFOR are an MRAP built out of glass and a HEMTT truck that, at least for me, is very hard to control steering in) and it's about the vital elements that were in ARMA2 but have been totally abandoned in ARMA3 for no apparent reason (putting gear back into crates after picking it up, AI reaction to injuries, one-shot kills, etc.)

[andersson 285]

Yes I know, thats why I put the apology there. There were many posts above mine that I responded to as they kept going on about their experiences through the VR games, which imho boils down to missions and servers. Which, as you say, is offtopic.

In respons to your thread I did give you cred for constructive feedback. I do know what the thread is about and I agree with you, I just couldn't sit silent about users replying about how to play the game and how it has changed.

Anyroad, once again my apologies.

[GReeves 10]

Okay, no problem. I re-read the last page and now I see what context your post was made in.

[Xalteva 10]

I was expecting ArmA 3 to start where ArmA 2 + ACE stopped,it was not the case sadly !

[mjolnir66 48]

I was expecting ArmA 3 to start where ArmA 2 + ACE stopped,it was not the case sadly !

Thats like saying you were expecting ArmA to pick up where OFP +WGL stopped, or ARMA II to pick up where ARMA + ACE left off, and they didn't, not in the slightest. People are expecting too much from the base game and I'm pretty sure its been the same since every game since OFP came out.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Thats like saying you were expecting ArmA to pick up where OFP +WGL stopped, or ARMA II to pick up where ARMA + ACE left off, and they didn't, not in the slightest. People are expecting too much from the base game and I'm pretty sure its been the same since every game since OFP came out.

True. Moreover other "people" wouldn't like vanilla game to be ACE.

[Deadfast 43]

True. Moreover other "people" wouldn't like vanilla game to be ACE.

Why the "quotes"? Arma series has always been niche, ACE takes it even further. The fact that this is optional is better for everybody.