Opinions in the Future Setting

[theevancat 277]

So I've seen a few comments about the future setting, with a few people saying that they'd rather have current day than future. Now, I have no problem with either. I like both the future war and the current era. So, in the name of curiosity, I'd like to see what the opinions of the community were. Why do you like it? Why don't you?

[JamesSaga 1]

I like the setting and understand why it was done (creative licence)

I hope they keep using assets that are or will be in service. (prototypes)

[Gudsawn 93]

I'm not sure where people got this idea of a "future" setting from, or at least in the way most people think.

Most of the weapons/vehicles in Arma 3 are based on old designs (some even dating back to the Vietnam era). A lot of the content you'll see in Arma 3 is actually being brought into service in the real world. It was the same with Arma 2 - a lot of the vehicles were based on concepts and were not actually in service. However, as time went on most of these vehicles started to be used in the real world.

You'll find that a lot of the content is a 1:1 replica of real world designs but, due to licensing issues, can't be given the same name.

For example, recognise this, this, this, this, or this?

More can be found here:

Is Arma 3 authentic?

Edited February 17, 2014 by GDSN

[theevancat 277]

I definitely understand that the vehicles are replicas of real ones, but they do look "futuristic" indeed. This makes me think that they were chosen to match the setting as opposed to making the setting around stuff they've already implemented.

But what was the issue with licensing going from Arma 2 to 3? There didn't seem to be a problem for 2, or even other BI projects that came out recently like DayZ.

[xx_fr0st-w0lf_xx 10]

I dislike the future setting and will go as far to say that it is the fundamental problem in arma 3.

1) Loss of Immersion

When in the deserts of takistan or the wilderness of chernerus there was always a sense of immersion. The story taking place felt authentic and believable. You could be watching the news on some troops in Afghanistan and get the urge to play some OA. I don't feel immersed playing in a random greek island in 2035, sorry.

2) To many Funds

Okay even if all this futuristic stuff exists where does all the funding come from? Everyone and their mothers could now afford these ghost hawks and infrits? The cost to produce these vehicles specifically seem mind boggling. I do not mind all this expansive (garbage) gadgets to play with, but where are the more cheaper alternatives?

3) The disappearance of Pre 2035

So lets say all this future crap exists and everyone on the damn planet can afford it, the final game changing question is where is all the old stuff. Did every m4 and ak disappear? did humvees enter a parallel universe? Even if I'm showered with 2035 stuff why can't bis include a few 2014 guns/vehicles so that we can be slightly familiar with some content.

These 3 reasons combined make arma 3, in my opinion, less fun then it's predecessor.

[krycek 349]

I dislike the future setting and will go as far to say that it is the fundamental problem in arma 3.

1) Loss of Immersion

When in the deserts of takistan or the wilderness of chernerus there was always a sense of immersion. The story taking place felt authentic and believable. You could be watching the news on some troops in Afghanistan and get the urge to play some OA. I don't feel immersed playing in a random greek island in 2035, sorry.

Fully agree on the whole greek theme,you basically have 3-4 types of houses and if you saw a town you saw them all.I don't even want to go exploring or try different towns,I just set up ops on a few cities and that's it.Lemnos/Altis is great for vacation,but it's plain boring for a large conflict or as a sandbox island for different scenarios.

Tbh for me the whole Iraq/Afghanistan type of terrain in games was enough too and it run it's course.Going with a more eastern style terrain like Chernarus would have been great.

On your point 3 you actually have some 2014 gear(in fact much older) like the Kamaz,M-ATV,F2000 rifle,Fennek,Patria AMV,HEMTT and so on,in fact apart from a few gizmos/prototypes I wouldn't call the gear in A3 even moderately futuristic.

Regarding the OP questions yeah I like more futuristic warfare,not to the point of something silly like everyone fighting with lasers and spaceships but I would have expected even more high-tech stuff,cyberwarfare,more drone advancements for ground/air and so on.Was getting bored carrying an AK or M4 and drive a Humvee or UAZ for the million time.

[odie0351 67]

I have very mixed feelings, on the one hand I like it because in my opinion it gives a little bit more room for fictional conflicts and such. In fact I really wish that BIS had fleshed out the futuristic aspect a little more because for me a completely fictional or prototype vehicle or weapon system would be far more believable than contemporary vehicles/weapons in places they don't belong,like merkava's and namer's with American crews...in 2035:confused: if anything they should have just pimped out an abrams model a bit more and used it instead.

On the other hand I don't like the future setting because as others have said, it really does kinda break the immersion of the game. Not to mention BIS using the setting as an excuse for the main factions using some of the same assets, like the UAV's and turrets:(

[Corvinus 35]

I have to say that I quite like the futuristic theme of A3, even more, the setting was a pleasant surprise for me back when the game was announced (of course some questions were raised about authenticity, mainly with fictional designations of existing vehicles, but it's a minor issue in my eyes). Why? Because honestly, over the years I (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this) grew weary of the "sands and AKs" theme almost as much as of WW2 theme. I would even prefer if BIS would go even more futuristic/alternative reality, for example XM1202 or (less extreme) Abrams CATTB instead of Merkavas in US service, just for the sake of seeing something new. After all, people who complain about lack of M16 rifles, AKs and Afghanistan can always play Arrowhead, Arma 3 with corresponding mods or any other of thousands of games with the "modern war on terror" theme.

PS: Yes, I actually do like the look of CSAT helmets. Those twin HMDs were clearly designed with "rule of cool" in mind, and in real life they would interfere with wearing glasses or goggles, but other than that the design is pretty viable.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Corvinus

[almanzo 144]

I agree with Frost wolf.

I don't have a problem with the futuristic tech as it is... What I have a problem with, is the total lack of low tech weaponry and vehicles. The only "low tech" vehicle we have is the resistance off road, and even that is a fancy modern truck with an M2 mounted on it's back. And it seems like the civillian population have a lot of dough too, except for the utility vehicles, all cars are top model cars with all the extra equipment you can throw on 'em. In a scenario where the economy has gone down the drain, as it is in the ARMA III main campaign, it's quite an immersion breaker the fact that every single thing you see in game is freakin expensive. The locals go around looking like they are all working in modeling, no one seems to do any work. No construction workers, no police men, no fire men, no women at all. Every single civillian on Altis looks like a rich american tourist enjoying to flash his cash.

Must be the worst hollyday ever though.

[semiconductor 309]

I personally dislike the futuristic setting completely. Apart from what was already said, it just feels boring and unimmersive: some parts like turrets just copy-pasted among factions, some vehicles are slightly redesigned versions of present-day ones, there is too few of them and they don't really look like they belong for the same faction even if they actually do. Similar issues with weapons. Also, TWS everywhere.

Each time I play Arma 2 I imagine how wonderful and diverse Arma 3 could have been if BIS decided to improve Arma 2 content and add new stuff and long-awaited features instead throwing everything away and starting from scratch. Heck, even if BIS had ported stuff from previous games, Arma 3 would have been much more enjoyable game.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Semiconductor

[zimms 22]

Fully agree on the whole greek theme,you basically have 3-4 types of houses and if you saw a town you saw them all.

And you can't say the same about Takistan/Chernarus? It seems you created this argument to fit your opinion.

I don't even want to go exploring or try different towns,I just set up ops on a few cities and that's it.Lemnos/Altis is great for vacation,but it's plain boring for a large conflict or as a sandbox island for different scenarios.

[...]

I think Takistan/Chernarus were much more monotonous. In Takistan you had your valleys and Chernarus is wooded hills and fields all over. The terrain on Altis varies much more, you have a hilly (N)W and a much more open and flat E for example. Imho you can create more diverse scenarios on Altis.

If you say you like the e.g. Eastern Europe themed landscapes more than the Greek, then that's your opinion and a valid one. But I don't think Altis is bad in itself.

[krycek 349]

And you can't say the same about Takistan/Chernarus? It seems you created this argument to fit your opinion.

I think Takistan/Chernarus were much more monotonous. In Takistan you had your valleys and Chernarus is wooded hills and fields all over. The terrain on Altis varies much more, you have a hilly (N)W and a much more open and flat E for example. Imho you can create more diverse scenarios on Altis.

If you say you like the e.g. Eastern Europe themed landscapes more than the Greek, then that's your opinion and a valid one. But I don't think Altis is bad in itself.

Takistan yes,Chernarus no,look around that place and you'll find more variation than 3-4 different type of houses.Although I didn't specifically mentioned Taki I said Iraq/'stan run it's course imo referring to maps like these in other games or A2,but yeah compared with Taki,Altis is a lot better.

[mihikle 2]

ArmA is really what you make of it - If you're disappointed with the future setting, use mods from the past and use AiA or A3MP. You bought the game knowing it was a 2035 setting, so don't start complaining when it is a 2035 setting. Seems a little stupid in my opinion. There's many hundreds of mods out there to put this game in a modern setting. and in not very long there will be more mods to put it in virtually all time zones like WW2 and Vietnam.

[squirrel0311 16]

Well I really think this topic is a dead horse and I hate to beat it yet again…but since it’s up I guess I’ll state my view.

Personally I love the future setting, although I enjoy some of the old vehicles and weapons I think for the most part….the old stuff is well…OLD. I welcome the “artistic freedom†or whatever you want to call it that allows a setting in which countries are given goodies that in realistic modern times they wouldn’t be able to afford, achieve, or both.

Anytime I hear someone bring up the words “Immersion kill†in relation to the future setting, I like to get a better understanding of what they’re talking about.

Are you referring to the Arma 3 single player campaign?

Or

Are you talking about Arma 3 content as a whole game?

If you’re referring to the single player campaign then I might agree with you. I haven’t really played much of it so I can’t say too much about it.

However, if you’re referring to the Arma 3 content…well then that’s a whole different story. I don’t think you can compare a new release vanilla game against one that has been around for many years with countless mods and content carried over from a completely separate game….unless of course you only look at A2 vanilla vs. A3 vanilla. (Which is what I will be using for comparison.)

As I said before all the junk in the previous games has been done before and I kind of feel like it’s day has come and gone. Arma 2 came out in…2009? I don’t remember any of the vehicles being prototypes except maybe the JSF, Viper, and Venom; although I don’t really remember what vehicles were in the vanilla and what vehicles were add on.

I dislike the future setting and will go as far to say that it is the fundamental problem in arma 3.

1) Loss of Immersion

When in the deserts of takistan or the wilderness of chernerus there was always a sense of immersion. The story taking place felt authentic and believable. You could be watching the news on some troops in Afghanistan and get the urge to play some OA. I don't feel immersed playing in a random greek island in 2035, sorry.

2) To many Funds

Okay even if all this futuristic stuff exists where does all the funding come from? Everyone and their mothers could now afford these ghost hawks and infrits? The cost to produce these vehicles specifically seem mind boggling. I do not mind all this expansive (garbage) gadgets to play with, but where are the more cheaper alternatives?

3) The disappearance of Pre 2035

So lets say all this future crap exists and everyone on the damn planet can afford it, the final game changing question is where is all the old stuff. Did every m4 and ak disappear? did humvees enter a parallel universe? Even if I'm showered with 2035 stuff why can't bis include a few 2014 guns/vehicles so that we can be slightly familiar with some content. These 3 reasons combined make arma 3, in my opinion, less fun then it's predecessor.

1. Although I don’t have any real problem with the current maps, I agree that I hope they add more.

2. Well as I stated before, I don’t know in exactly what context your speaking but for the most part…

You ask where all the funds come from? I suppose that could be a valid “immersion†point but personally I think it’s looking a little too deep into the story.

If you really want to know then I’d say you could assume that as before in the real world... no one learned their lesson.

We could say that the countries involved in all these economic crises managed to stay afloat… things didn’t necessarily get better but they sort of panned out…. However, because things weren’t allowed to completely fail, the politicians began their own massive campaigns to reassure the people that there was never any need to worry. Once the sheeple shut their eyes the governments went back to spending spending spending! …Which in turn dug a deeper hole. In short… they weren’t broke before but now that they have all these new toys…they are.

3. As I said I haven’t played much of the single player campaign so I’m not sure if you’re referring to something more specific involving the independent forces but on a whole I think it’s fairly reasonable why you wouldn’t see any HMMWVs or M16/AKs.

They’ve been phased out.

So far Arma 3 seems to be focused mainly on the frontline units in combat… These units are the first ones to get the good stuff. Depending on how much money they want to *spend*, (*there’s that word again*) it’s entirely possible that they managed to swap out all the old service rifles with the new MX series. I’m sure the M16/AKs are still around but you won’t find them on the front line. The same goes for HMMWVs they’re probably kept back home for utility purposes on base or they’ve all been sold in government liquidation auctions. In fact, the HMMWVs are already being phased out so by 2035 I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that they quite rare to see in service anywhere.

I have very mixed feelings, on the one hand I like it because in my opinion it gives a little bit more room for fictional conflicts and such. In fact I really wish that BIS had fleshed out the futuristic aspect a little more because for me a completely fictional or prototype vehicle or weapon system would be far more believable than contemporary vehicles/weapons in places they don't belong,like merkava's and namer's with American crews...in 2035:confused: if anything they should have just pimped out an abrams model a bit more and used it instead.

On the other hand I don't like the future setting because as others have said, it really does kinda break the immersion of the game. Not to mention BIS using the setting as an excuse for the main factions using some of the same assets, like the UAV's and turrets:(

For vehicle assignment I agree that there are some dumb choices…same with the turrets but to me that isn’t a huge deal since countries sell stuff to each other all the time.

Although the Leopard 2 is accurate for Greece, I think most people would have rather it been saved for a German Forces DLC. I think the Israeli vehicles and guns could have been given to the Altis forces… Perhaps as a last ditch effort by Israel to save some of their equipment and continue the fight later… The equipment made it out but the crews never did?

I too would have liked to have seen an upgraded Abrams Tank ( Crew of three, Auto loader, Caseless ammo, 120mm “at leastâ€, 7.62mm coaxial, .50cal Commander.)

However one thing to remember is that in the game they are listed as NATO not US… I saw some people getting pretty upset over how American the NATO forces looked…I won’t get into all that but I can say as I did in my weapons list that it would have been kind of neat to pick the best type of vehicle from each of the real NATO forces and add it to the NATO force in the game. (e.g. XM1203 NLOS, Leopard 2, FRES, Marshal variant (anti-air), Marshal, Hunter or foxhound…ect…)

What I have a problem with, is the total lack of low tech weaponry and vehicles. The only "low tech" vehicle we have is the resistance off road, and even that is a fancy modern truck with an M2 mounted on it's back. And it seems like the civillian population have a lot of dough too, except for the utility vehicles, all cars are top model cars with all the extra equipment you can throw on 'em. In a scenario where the economy has gone down the drain, as it is in the ARMA III main campaign, it's quite an immersion breaker the fact that every single thing you see in game is freakin expensive.

Again I think this is probably of a failure to acquaint yourself with the time setting than it is an inaccuracy in the game. You have to remember that the year is 2035. Technology is getting cheaper and more common by the day; things that seem like extra luxury features today will probably be seen as standard by then. Just think about a cell phone in 1999 vs. a cell phone today. If you want to see your low tech vehicles just look along the roadsides or in the field…that rusted husk of a car or truck is all that’s left. As for the weapons…some of the icons are still around (M2, Mk18)

PS: Yes, I actually do like the look of CSAT helmets. Those twin HMDs were clearly designed with "rule of cool" in mind, and in real life they would interfere with wearing glasses or goggles, but other than that the design is pretty viable.

I agree. I know some people have said how stupid it is that Iran would have something like that but I disagree. Iran is always coming up with some sort of high tech futuristic JUNK in an effort to seem more technologically advanced than what they really are. Case in point… http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/02/us-defense-experts-unimpressed/

[Belbo 462]

I'd rather say: Yes, it's a future setting. But is it a futuristic setting? No:

Let's see: It's 2014 (2013 when the game was published). 2035 is exactly 21 years in the future. If we go back 21 years, we get the year 1993. If you'd take a look at the difference between 1993 and 2014 (in general technology and military technology) you may get an impression of what 'future' in these relations may mean.

I think Arma 3's future settting is not so far from a probable future prediction. Changes in military technology don't come all that quick: call for proposals have to be made, a fair amount of time is spent on testing equipment and so on.

That way it's a future setting in all probability. It's not a futuristic setting, with laser guns, magical transport methods and robots. That would've been terrible. I think BI balanced it quite well.

On a side note: Back To The Future II plays in 2015. Which is next year. Just think about it in regards of contemporary imaginations of how a not-too-distance-future may look like.

[lukio 18]

I don't really see it as "futuristic" but more of a "what we've got right now or will be standard in 5-10 years".

Had it been anything else, we would see 1000s of posts complaining at how the vehicles, equipment and setting is completely outdated and that BI needs to get a "reality" check. Still there are some people who want back their trusty M-14 and a bucket for a helmet and that's what mods can do, but in general I like the step forwards that BI took and how they presented a pretty good overview of the capacities of a modern day army.

[xx_fr0st-w0lf_xx 10]

Each time I play Arma 2 I imagine how wonderful and diverse Arma 3 could have been if BIS decided to improve Arma 2 content and add new stuff and long-awaited features instead throwing everything away and starting from scratch. Heck, even if BIS had ported stuff from previous games, Arma 3 would have been much more enjoyable game.

I could not have said this better myself.

The loss of immersion is in regard to the content. I cannot play this game and compare it to anything I have seen before. And for me *personally* I do not have motivation to play on a random greek island 21 years in the future.

Also to put things into perspective, how many mods were there for arma 2 which focused on future technology? Yup......not many. Now look at arma 3 and tell how many mods focus on contemporary warfare? I can count at least 5-7 per page.

In the end it boils down to nothing more then opinion.

[antoineflemming 14]

So I've seen a few comments about the future setting, with a few people saying that they'd rather have current day than future. Now, I have no problem with either. I like both the future war and the current era. So, in the name of curiosity, I'd like to see what the opinions of the community were. Why do you like it? Why don't you?

Unnecessary topic, we've had this discussion many times before as well as heard the heated opinions of many. There was no point to making this thread. All it will accomplish is being another closed thread because people got too heated and ended up throwing insults at one another.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Unnecessary topic, we've had this discussion many times before as well as heard the heated opinions of many. There was no point to making this thread. All it will accomplish is being another closed thread because people got too heated and ended up throwing insults at one another.

Agreed.

[Maio 293]

Unnecessary topic, we've had this discussion many times before as well as heard the heated opinions of many. There was no point to making this thread. All it will accomplish is being another closed thread because people got too heated and ended up throwing insults at one another.

Agreed.

Indeed.

IF you do want to continue the discussion in a calm manner, please use this thread.

Closing thread before its mesmerizing song of discord attracts more users.