Disappointed after 13 years of 'Arma'

[Opticalsnare 12]

What i don't understand is why BI never actually took A3 seriously or its features. We have a setting based in the future but the vehicles and weapons are still pretty basic, like what actual advanced weapons do you see ingame? the vehicles for example,

-No Advanced Countermeasures or Defence Systems

-No Fire Control System

-Tanks from 1990 era are far more advanced than the vehicles in A3, and ArmA 3 is set 45 years later if based on 90 design vehicles for ex

-Air Vehicles are not very advanced either for their time and are somewhat lacking in advanced weapons and again systems

-Infantry weapons are again basic and are the still the same as weapons based on todays weapons which is somewhat interesting because the game is set 21 years from now...

Like how hard would it have been for BI to implement a simple Bipod system for machine guns and sniper rifles, too much work for them i quess.

And then comes the control & command system.

- Nothing still the same as before which is clunky and very difficult to use. For example theres no improved GUI for doing simple tasks like getting into a vehicle or opening a door, planting a explosives etc. Commanding troops is fine but the menu system for other actions (player actions) is very annoying and outdated, this again was brought up by the community in past topics before A3 even in A2 yet BI ignores these requests.

Im just gonna say it and call BI lazy and incompetent, i could sit here all fucking night and go on but im tired and doing other things now, ive turned my back on BI because i honestly see no other reason for the lack of features or the things i have mentioned to be implemented in the first place, to me the genre is dead and they killed it with their own lack of support and negligence.

Because to me this is just another expansion pack but masquerading as new game, and if this is best BI can do these days then i am not impressed and not interested in their games.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Opticalsnare

[dostunuz 10]

I would desperately wanted to play with tanks, armored cars, helicopters and warplanes within "Win" campaign similar in OPF. But after finished you have no idea how disappointed and be sad for this. There is zero immersin in this game so it seems devs only cares DayZ after this moment. Where is the feeling?, where is the action?. Oh wait... we must pay for DLC for this right?.

[laverniusregalis 10]

What i don't understand is why BI never actually took A3 seriously or its features. We have a setting based in the future but the vehicles and weapons are still pretty basic, like what actual advanced weapons do you see ingame? the vehicles for example,

-No Advanced Countermeasures or Defence Systems

-No Fire Control System

-Tanks from 1990 era are far more advanced than the vehicles in A3, and ArmA 3 is set 45 years later if based on 90 design vehicles for ex

-Air Vehicles are not very advanced either for their time and are somewhat lacking in advanced weapons and again systems

-Infantry weapons are again basic and are the still the same as weapons based on todays weapons which is somewhat interesting because the game is set 21 years from now...

Like how hard would it have been for BI to implement a simple Bipod system for machine guns and sniper rifles, too much work for them i quess.

And then comes the control & command system.

- Nothing still the same as before which is clunky and very difficult to use. For example theres no improved GUI for doing simple tasks like getting into a vehicle or opening a door, planting a explosives etc. Commanding troops is fine but the menu system for other actions (player actions) is very annoying and outdated, this again was brought up by the community in past topics before A3 even in A2 yet BI ignores these requests.

Im just gonna say it and call BI lazy and incompetent, i could sit here all fucking night and go on but im tired and doing other things now, ive turned my back on BI because i honestly see no other reason for the lack of features or the things i have mentioned to be implemented in the first place, to me the genre is dead and they killed it with their own lack of support and negligence.

Because to me this is just another expansion pack but masquerading as new game, and if this is best BI can do these days then i am not impressed and not interested in their games.

It's all harder than you think it is. But, they're still working on it, and the only massive difference so far between ArmA2 and 3 was that this time they didn't just update stuff from the previous games enough for people to mostly ignore it, and they also ended up doing an odd kind of 2025-tech thing.

Edited March 24, 2014 by steamtex

[Tonci87 163]

What i don't understand is why BI never actually took A3 seriously or its features. We have a setting based in the future but the vehicles and weapons are still pretty basic, like what actual advanced weapons do you see ingame? the vehicles for example,

-No Advanced Countermeasures or Defence Systems

-No Fire Control System

-Tanks from 1990 era are far more advanced than the vehicles in A3, and ArmA 3 is set 45 years later if based on 90 design vehicles for ex

-Air Vehicles are not very advanced either for their time and are somewhat lacking in advanced weapons and again systems

-Infantry weapons are again basic and are the still the same as weapons based on todays weapons which is somewhat interesting because the game is set 21 years from now...

Like how hard would it have been for BI to implement a simple Bipod system for machine guns and sniper rifles, too much work for them i quess.

And then comes the control & command system.

- Nothing still the same as before which is clunky and very difficult to use. For example theres no improved GUI for doing simple tasks like getting into a vehicle or opening a door, planting a explosives etc. Commanding troops is fine but the menu system for other actions (player actions) is very annoying and outdated, this again was brought up by the community in past topics before A3 even in A2 yet BI ignores these requests.

Im just gonna say it and call BI lazy and incompetent, i could sit here all fucking night and go on but im tired and doing other things now, ive turned my back on BI because i honestly see no other reason for the lack of features or the things i have mentioned to be implemented in the first place, to me the genre is dead and they killed it with their own lack of support and negligence.

Because to me this is just another expansion pack but masquerading as new game, and if this is best BI can do these days then i am not impressed and not interested in their games.

I know what you mean. When I heard future scenario i was first a bit sceptical but at the same time I hoped that BIS would actually use the opportunity to implement some modern systems. Shtora and Arena for Tanks, a proper FCS, modern weapons like the axed XM-25, ATGMs with a Top Attack mode etc. Instead we get a game that for me personally has less value than arma 2 had at it´s launch. For various reasons.

[das attorney 858]

I know what you mean. When I heard future scenario i was first a bit sceptical but at the same time I hoped that BIS would actually use the opportunity to implement some modern systems. Shtora and Arena for Tanks, a proper FCS, modern weapons like the axed XM-25, ATGMs with a Top Attack mode etc. Instead we get a game that for me personally has less value than arma 2 had at it´s launch. For various reasons.

Hi Tonci,

I disagree with you about the value of it's launch versus Arma 2 but respect that you have your reasons. But that said, I agree that Arma 3 is a missed opportunity in the things it could have delivered at launch (future armour systems, comms, more extensive surveillance and cool UAV & helmet cam stuff).

[Sneakson 1]

What i don't understand is why BI never actually took A3 seriously or its features. We have a setting based in the future but the vehicles and weapons are still pretty basic, like what actual advanced weapons do you see ingame? the vehicles for example,

-No Advanced Countermeasures or Defence Systems

-No Fire Control System

-Tanks from 1990 era are far more advanced than the vehicles in A3, and ArmA 3 is set 45 years later if based on 90 design vehicles for ex

-Air Vehicles are not very advanced either for their time and are somewhat lacking in advanced weapons and again systems

-Infantry weapons are again basic and are the still the same as weapons based on todays weapons which is somewhat interesting because the game is set 21 years from now...

Like how hard would it have been for BI to implement a simple Bipod system for machine guns and sniper rifles, too much work for them i quess.

And then comes the control & command system.

- Nothing still the same as before which is clunky and very difficult to use. For example theres no improved GUI for doing simple tasks like getting into a vehicle or opening a door, planting a explosives etc. Commanding troops is fine but the menu system for other actions (player actions) is very annoying and outdated, this again was brought up by the community in past topics before A3 even in A2 yet BI ignores these requests.

Im just gonna say it and call BI lazy and incompetent, i could sit here all fucking night and go on but im tired and doing other things now, ive turned my back on BI because i honestly see no other reason for the lack of features or the things i have mentioned to be implemented in the first place, to me the genre is dead and they killed it with their own lack of support and negligence.

Because to me this is just another expansion pack but masquerading as new game, and if this is best BI can do these days then i am not impressed and not interested in their games.

BI is lazy and incompetent yet they developed Arma 1, 2, 3? :s

[Tonci87 163]

Hi Tonci,

I disagree with you about the value of it's launch versus Arma 2 but respect that you have your reasons. But that said, I agree that Arma 3 is a missed opportunity in the things it could have delivered at launch (future armour systems, comms, more extensive surveillance and cool UAV & helmet cam stuff).

Well I prioritize content and game mechanics over graphics. Arma 3 sure has much better game mechanics than Arma 2 (the stance system alone is an awesome addition) but it really lacks when it comes to playable content.

[hyzoran 17]

What i don't understand is why BI never actually took A3 seriously or its features. We have a setting based in the future but the vehicles and weapons are still pretty basic, like what actual advanced weapons do you see ingame? the vehicles for example,

-No Advanced Countermeasures or Defence Systems

-No Fire Control System

-Tanks from 1990 era are far more advanced than the vehicles in A3, and ArmA 3 is set 45 years later if based on 90 design vehicles for ex

-Air Vehicles are not very advanced either for their time and are somewhat lacking in advanced weapons and again systems

-Infantry weapons are again basic and are the still the same as weapons based on todays weapons which is somewhat interesting because the game is set 21 years from now...

Like how hard would it have been for BI to implement a simple Bipod system for machine guns and sniper rifles, too much work for them i quess.

And then comes the control & command system.

- Nothing still the same as before which is clunky and very difficult to use. For example theres no improved GUI for doing simple tasks like getting into a vehicle or opening a door, planting a explosives etc. Commanding troops is fine but the menu system for other actions (player actions) is very annoying and outdated, this again was brought up by the community in past topics before A3 even in A2 yet BI ignores these requests.

Im just gonna say it and call BI lazy and incompetent, i could sit here all fucking night and go on but im tired and doing other things now, ive turned my back on BI because i honestly see no other reason for the lack of features or the things i have mentioned to be implemented in the first place, to me the genre is dead and they killed it with their own lack of support and negligence.

Because to me this is just another expansion pack but masquerading as new game, and if this is best BI can do these days then i am not impressed and not interested in their games.

I have to agree with this post, the entire setting for ArmA 3, in addition to its' assets, features, etc. they all feel castrated (Possibly because of complains from certain players that the game was 'Too Futuristic' and thus they promptly removed all the cool new ideas for assets in the game (Such as the experimental railgun, and possibly many more things, in my opinion, there is no reason a game can't be futuristic yet still authentic and immersive, it just needs to be done properly) .

Many of the confirmed features and ideas were eventually cut and were not featured in the final game, heck, even the campaign feels like it was cut short. It was as if the entire development of the game was halted mid-development, all their work deleted, and they started from scratch and approached a deadline, so they started reusing alot of assets and materials from older games and recycling other assets ingame and got almost nothing done, and now that the game has been released they don't on finishing anything. I can't help but feel that the game was originally planed to be so much more than it is, and there are so many flaws that could be fixed and features that could be implemented that I feel like we could all see in just a few months were this a collaborative open-source project.

Heck, we didn't even get improvements in performance and hardware utilization from the engine. The engine still stuffs all the labor onto a single core, and craps out after pushing past a certain limit for some odd reason.

All I can is think of is some serious setback happened during development that screwed everything up, BIS is several underfunder/underfunding ArmA 3, or that BIS just doesnt care anymore (executive wise, the actual developers and designers might still actually care) which seems to happen alot these days, decision makers try to put the least amount of funding and effort possible into games and make them barebones as possible. (Alot of games have ended up being screwed up like this when it comes to ACTUALLY IMRPOVING THINGS, Mechwarrior Online, Rome 2: Total War, ArmA 3, etc. Ive been so disappointing so many times lately it makes me lose hope in gaming...)

In the end I wish we had answers to whats going on but unfortunately people rarely get answers for when things go wrong. ArmA 3 has done alot of nice things and Altis and Stratis are really nice (except midrange textures), the lighting is gorgeous, the futuristic setting and creative flexibility is interesting, CSAT are badass, and the new movement schemes are amazing but I feel there is so much missing still.

I think the game had so much potential that was obviously not achieved. I have sorta have OCD when it comes to playing games and I want everything to be perfect, which I realise isnt reasonable to demand, but I just wish that things could have a little more effort put into.

(Off topic: OpticalSnare, are you 'DeclaredEvol', aka 'Blu3Haz3' by any chance, from Unreal and Redrum? Something in the back of my mind is indicating that you are indeed that person. If so, I have a little joke for you: It looks like ArmA 3 pulled as '227' :) )

Edited March 24, 2014 by Hyzoran

[Tonci87 163]

I have to agree with this post, the entire setting for ArmA 3, in addition to its' assets, features, etc. they all feel castrated (Possibly because of complains from certain players that the game was 'Too Futuristic' and thus they promptly removed all the cool new ideas for assets in the game (Such as the experimental railgun, and possibly many more things, in my opinion, there is no reason a game can't be futuristic yet still authentic and immersive, it just needs to be done properly) .

Many of the confirmed features and ideas were eventually cut and were not featured in the final game, heck, even the campaign feels like it was cut short. It was as if the entire development of the game was halted mid-development, all their work deleted, and they started from scratch and approached a deadline, so they started reusing alot of assets and materials from older games and recycling other assets ingame and got almost nothing done, and now that the game has been released they don't on finishing anything. I can't help but feel that the game was originally planed to be so much more than it is, and there are so many flaws that could be fixed and features that could be implemented that I feel like we could all see in just a few months were this a collaborative open-source project.

Heck, we didn't even get improvements in performance and hardware utilization from the engine. The engine still stuffs all the labor onto a single core, and craps out after pushing past a certain limit for some odd reason.

All I can is think of is some serious setback happened during development that screwed everything up, BIS is several underfunder/underfunding ArmA 3, or that BIS just doesnt care anymore (executive wise, the actual developers and designers might still actually care) which seems to happen alot these days, decision makers try to put the least amount of funding and effort possible into games and make them barebones as possible. (Alot of games have ended up being screwed up like this when it comes to ACTUALLY IMRPOVING THINGS, Mechwarrior Online, Rome 2: Total War, ArmA 3, etc. Ive been so disappointing so many times lately it makes me lose hope in gaming...)

In the end I wish we had answers to whats going on but unfortunately people rarely get answers for when things go wrong. ArmA 3 has done alot of nice things and Altis and Stratis are really nice (except midrange textures), the lighting is gorgeous, the futuristic setting and creative flexibility is interesting, CSAT are badass, and the new movement schemes are amazing but I feel there is so much missing still.

I think the game had so much potential that was obviously not achieved. I have sorta have OCD when it comes to playing games and I want everything to be perfect, which I realise isnt reasonable to demand, but I just wish that things could have a little more effort put into.

(Off topic: OpticalSnare, are you 'DeclaredEvol', aka 'Blu3Haz3' by any chance, from Unreal and Redrum? Something in the back of my mind is indicating that you are indeed that person. If so, I have a little joke for you: It looks like ArmA 3 pulled as '227' :) )

I think you pretty much nailed the whole thing.

[Bee8190 10]

BI is lazy and incompetent yet they developed Arma 1, 2, 3? :s

I don't think the devs are lazy, not at all. They'd probably not develop for long otherwise.

BUT I'm damn sure they're advised not to spend too much time on details ( mechanics and features ) as long as it looks pretty, amIright BI management?

IMO arma is treated as a side, secondary product ( and no I am not saying exclusively becasuse of dayz )

Edited March 24, 2014 by Bee8190

[stringstring 10]

Arma3 is the worst game in their franchise.

[soulis6 24]

Arma3 is the best game in their franchise.

See, we can all make objective statements. :)

[Gattobuono 10]

Arma3 is the best game in their franchise.

See, we can all make objective statements. :)

Those statements are subjective, not objective.

[roshnak 41]

Many of the confirmed features and ideas were eventually cut and were not featured in the final game, heck, even the campaign feels like it was cut short.

I'd like to take this opportunity to reiterate that I am still mad about Java.

All I can is think of is some serious setback happened during development that screwed everything up

Like a couple of the devs getting arrested in a foreign country? There have been some statements about other problems with the development of the game as well, but I didn't really follow the process that closely.

ArmA 3 has done alot of nice things and Altis and Stratis are really nice (except midrange textures), the lighting is gorgeous, the futuristic setting and creative flexibility is interesting, CSAT are badass, and the new movement schemes are amazing but I feel there is so much missing still.

This is pretty much it. Arma 3 has a lot of cool stuff. I just wish it had all the cool stuff I thought it was going to.

Arma3 is the worst game in their franchise.

Just so you know, this kind of post would be totally fine if you bothered to put any effort at all into it. As it is, it's pretty bad, though.

[dwaight 17]

Arma3 is the worst game in their franchise.

no...

[sergeantgarbage 10]

I miss Operation Flashpoint.

Voices & music.

Adorable. Memorable. Original. Hilarious. Relatable.

Arma 3? Cringeworthy. Try-hard. Bland. Depressing. Bigoted ("survive" beginning?)

Landscape.

Original. Designed for good gameplay, not just realism.

AI.

Simple. Followed commands. Long engagements. appropriate difficulty, viewdistance.

Visuals.

Consistent. Atmospheric.

Arma 3? Glaring differences in fidelity (models, characters, sky vs ground textures, trees)

Campaign.

Long, meaningful, a sense of journey.

Arma 3? Total sense of disconnect. Don't care what happens at all.

Tried to be concise. Could go on.

Edited March 25, 2014 by sergeantgarbage

[nikiforos 450]

Sergeantgarbage are you still playing this game? I mean if I felt the same I would have uninstalled the game long time ago.

Don't get me wrong,there is many many issues with the game which make me crazy but there is something that keep me hanging in there.

[msy 22]

I miss Operation Flashpoint.

Voices & music.

Adorable. Memorable. Original. Hilarious. Relatable.

Arma 3? Cringeworthy. Try-hard. Bland. Depressing. Bigoted ("survive" beginning?)

Landscape.

Original. Designed for good gameplay, not just realism.

AI.

Simple. Followed commands. Long engagements. appropriate difficulty, viewdistance.

Visuals.

Consistent. Atmospheric.

Arma 3? Glaring differences in fidelity (models, characters, sky vs ground textures, trees)

Campaign.

Long, meaningful, a sense of journey.

Arma 3? Total sense of disconnect. Don't care what happens at all.

Tried to be concise. Could go on.

Only partly agree with your argument about AI. Dev want AI in arma1~3 more complicated than OFP but it turns out that the AI are too disobeyed and unexpectable and uneffectvie which leads to the behavior of AI is much worse than the simple AI of OFP. So I suggest BIS learn from mainstream RTS game about how to make an obedient and effective AI.

[Opticalsnare 12]

(Off topic: OpticalSnare, are you 'DeclaredEvol', aka 'Blu3Haz3' by any chance, from Unreal and Redrum? Something in the back of my mind is indicating that you are indeed that person. If so, I have a little joke for you: It looks like ArmA 3 pulled as '227' :) )

Nope not me.

[marcai 1]

I miss Operation Flashpoint.

Voices & music.

Adorable. Memorable. Original. Hilarious. Relatable.

Arma 3? Cringeworthy. Try-hard. Bland. Depressing. Bigoted ("survive" beginning?)

Landscape.

Original. Designed for good gameplay, not just realism.

AI.

Simple. Followed commands. Long engagements. appropriate difficulty, viewdistance.

Visuals.

Consistent. Atmospheric.

Arma 3? Glaring differences in fidelity (models, characters, sky vs ground textures, trees)

Campaign.

Long, meaningful, a sense of journey.

Arma 3? Total sense of disconnect. Don't care what happens at all.

Tried to be concise. Could go on.

The problem is, those are once again all subjective and unquantifiable statements which have nothing to do with the actual thread topic. I loved the campaign, and I could explain why.. ooooor we could go back to dicussing animations.

[hyzoran 17]

Nope not me.

Strange. He doesn't appear in the forum search anymore, I remember he used to be on the forums. For some reason I thoguht you were him, nevermind about that :P.

Like a couple of the devs getting arrested in a foreign country? There have been some statements about other problems with the development of the game as well, but I didn't really follow the process that closely.

I forgot to mention this as an example, I was thinking about this when I was forming my post. This would indeed be one of them. Even though it was very unfortunate and I am sure BIS put alot of effort into solving the problem. I think that BIS should have pushed the deadline further back as a result. It just feels like their entire development plan became scuzzed up.

[eymerich 11]

Arma3 is the worst game in their franchise.

Disagree.

Arma3 is a step forward about mechanics and graphic.

It's 2 step back about lack of content, compared to arma2.

Also: one year it's passed and to be honest I didn't see any major improvments; not to mention the "new" Bronco which looks like the old A-10 with different engines.

Maybe there is truth in the opinion about Arma3 being a side product of Bis arsenal... :(

Edited March 25, 2014 by Eymerich
typo

[soulis6 24]

Some people in this thread have serious rose colored tactical shades.

No one is stopping you from continuing to play OFP sergeantgarbage, but I disagree with almost all of your comparisons.

As a side-note/thread derailing, does the phrase 'try-hard' piss anyone else off as much as me? I don't even understand, you're faulting something because it's trying and failing? Wouldn't you fault what the actual failing is, as opposed to the trying? Is this some 'i'm so cool for being apathetic', or 'if i never try I can't fail' thing?

@gattobuono, that was the joke. People stating opinions as fact. Just trying to even it out a bit.

[sergeantgarbage 10]

Some people in this thread have serious rose colored tactical shades.

No one is stopping you from continuing to play OFP sergeantgarbage, but I disagree with almost all of your comparisons.

As a side-note/thread derailing, does the phrase 'try-hard' piss anyone else off as much as me? I don't even understand, you're faulting something because it's trying and failing? Wouldn't you fault what the actual failing is, as opposed to the trying? Is this some 'i'm so cool for being apathetic', or 'if i never try I can't fail' thing?

@gattobuono, that was the joke. People stating opinions as fact. Just trying to even it out a bit.

"try-hard" is a colloquial term usually used in social circumstances to catch call people out for trying to be something that they are not ie. American soldiers. Everyone has to be a goddamn marine these days. Stop taking me so literally.

How much better would it be if BI made games about their own region/country? About 7 better, I'd say. Maybe then we wouldn't get the barbaric cornyness of the current dialogue.

Enjoyment may be subjective but artistic integrity is something we all understand. This is why Justin Bieber is derided yet he sells by the truckload.

I love the phrase "rose coloured tactical shades" yes, ofp will forever colour my interpretation of games; it was that good.

[Varanon 892]

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

That's what this thread has become.