Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MaxiWilliam

revamped the CSAT PLZ !! :(

Do you want Revamped CSAT skin outfit  

80 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want Revamped CSAT skin outfit

    • Yes we want !!!
      37
    • No
      42


Recommended Posts

You mean because BI has already included all the possible military realistic settings in their games? ( Just check how many armies are in the world. And how many wars and backgrounds ). There's thousands of possibilities, and this time BI opted to make an extreme radical change in the series, they betrayed the spirit of the series. And of course that has had a lot of consequences ( for instance the creation of a new game: Take on Mars and the huge delay in A3 content half made with what they got from the previous sci-fi project.

I don't believe I said anywhere that their only option was go to near-future with Arma 3's setting. It's what they chose to do, because they were interested in it. This demonstrates that they are passionate developers, not trying to chase popular trends. How can you say they betrayed the series? It's their damn series! I cannot see someone use the word "betrayed" when talking about BIS and not see complete entitlement. They do not exist to pander to your every desire. They already do listen to us far more than most other developers. They could have looked at Arma 2's mods, which consisted mostly of modern-day weaponry, and said "well, this is what people want, so we'd better make it to get the most amount of sales". But instead what they did was pursue what they had a genuine interest in, and any developer will tell you that is the key to making a great game. They knew that the mod community (with the help of making all Arma 2 assets legally portable) would bring back the "classic" weapons that people unhappy with the new weaponry wanted to see.

Well the main OFP/Arma community seem to always want to fill the same gap: realistic & actual warfare. Even when in OFP the setting was the Cold War or A1 and A2 realistic warfare. For instance you have a lot of reference photos and models and info of Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings, or the American Civil War ( you have even all US Gov. photo archive open ). But people always go to the same.

Two major reasons:

1. Arma as a game is far better suited for actual bullet-shooting guns than it does lasers, space ships, swords, bows, etc. Arma has fixed and rotary wing flight models, and ballistic models. It doesn't have spaceship flight models or laser gun configs.

2. Arma, as a milsim, is going to attract people who are interested in real life current and past military hardware. Of course there are going to be fans of things like Star Wars and LOTR as well, but the most consistent interest among Arma fans is exactly what the majority of addons have been focused on.

But ok, you are right, it's all a coincidence.

Where on earth did I say that? It's no coincidence at all, it follows logically.

I guess I don't see what your actual point is. You're saying BIS should make games that appeal to what the majority wants? Most addons makers make real-world weapons, so most people want real-world weapons in Arma, so BIS should make that and only that? By that logic, BIS never would have made OFP, because a majority of gamers out there were playing arcade FPS games (and they still are!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the "spirit of the series" has ever had anything to do with the setting, which has been radically different in various iterations.

What defines the "spirit of the series" to me is the gameplay, which has remained relatively constant (for better or worse) throughout its history. Arma's gameplay and mechanics are immediately recognizable no matter what the setting. Take on Helicopters is clearly Arma. DayZ is clearly Arma. The game could be about fighting Sewer Aliens on Mars with plasma guns and it would still feel like playing Arma.

It doesn't have spaceship flight models or laser gun configs.

Most importantly, it doesn't handle melee well at all, which rules out a substantial gameplay element in all of those suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing against the future setting and opfor is actually a cool breeze away from Aks and T72s.

When it comes to the uniform I think it would be more fitting as a SF outfit, the uniform is really advanced and most likely not easy to mass produce. Instead they could have a bit more simple version for the average trooper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the "spirit of the series" has ever had anything to do with the setting, which has been radically different in various iterations.

What defines the "spirit of the series" to me is the gameplay, which has remained relatively constant (for better or worse) throughout its history. Arma's gameplay and mechanics are immediately recognizable no matter what the setting. Take on Helicopters is clearly Arma. DayZ is clearly Arma. The game could be about fighting Sewer Aliens on Mars with plasma guns and it would still feel like playing Arma.

Very good point, I agree. To suggest BIS has betrayed the series just because the weapons and vehicles aren't in use in real wars is just silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's what they chose to do, because they were interested in it. This demonstrates that they are passionate developers, not trying to chase popular trends. How can you say they betrayed the series? It's their damn series!

Of course they own the series. And of course it's legal that they do anything with it. But it's also clear that they have made an extreme radical change in the direction of the series, betraying its essence. That change has been recognized by no one else, but Marek Spanel ( CEO of BI ), in fact as he said it was gonna be worst ( but that was passed to Take on Mars )... Who also said that they realized that had to be more faithful to the series.

Although I admire that you are a huge fan of BI, the fact that you try to go blindly far further from the BI positions is a bit weird.

You're saying BIS should make games that appeal to what the majority wants?

You have a problem with your reading comprehension, I have said in this thread like 10.000 times that they should just be faithful to the previous parts of the series.

What defines the "spirit of the series" to me is the gameplay, which has remained relatively constant (for better or worse) throughout its history. Arma's gameplay and mechanics are immediately recognizable no matter what the setting. Take on Helicopters is clearly Arma. DayZ is clearly Arma.

I think you confuse engine and spirit/background.

Day Z or Take on Helicopters although use the same engine are completely different games in essence ( one is a survival multiplayer and the other a helicopter simulator ).

Just check what the websites about videogames, or even what BI devs say about them.

To suggest BIS has betrayed the series just because the weapons and vehicles aren't in use in real wars is just silly.

Yeah, that's why even the BI overlord was talking about not being faithful to the series and so on... To me it's really silly to confuse weapons and vehicles with the settings ( realistic vs invented ). But hey just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it's also clear that they have made an extreme radical change in the direction of the series, betraying its essence.

Extreme radical change? Arma 3 plays just the same as Arma 2, except improved, which is exactly what a good sequel should do. As roshnak said, the essence of Arma is not dependent on whether the lump of polygons you're holding is based on a real life weapon or not. It has zero effect on the gameplay, which is the essence of any game. I feel like you're clinging on to one comment from Marek and drawing it way out of proportion. The biggest change from Arma 2 is in its setting, but even that is not much of a change, unless you compare it directly to the change between Arma 2 and 1, which was minimal. Guns still shoot bullets, vehicles still have wheels and treads. Marek's statement doesn't change this objective truth. I have to wonder, if this is an "extreme radical change" what words would you use to describe Arma 3 if it really were spaceships and laser guns?

they should just be faithful to the previous parts of the series.

Then we disagree here, because I never viewed Arma as a game that is defined by its use of real-world setting, but rather its gameplay. Following your logic, CoD is a more similar game to Arma 2 than Arma 3 is because it has a similar setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Extreme radical change? Arma 3 plays just the same as Arma 2, except improved, which is exactly what a good sequel should do.

Yeah, that's why for instance if in a F1 series, instead of the realistic F1 car, they use a Star Wars Tatooine racer in their sequel, following "your logic" would be perfectly legit and reasonable, as the gameplay would be exactly the same ( to race in a track against opponents, to be the first to cross the line after certain laps ).

Then we disagree here, because I never viewed Arma as a game that is defined by its use of real-world setting, but rather its gameplay. Following your logic, CoD is a more similar game to Arma 2 than Arma 3 is because it has a similar setting.

Just take the box of your OFP, OFP: Resistance, Arma 1 or Arma 2, and read the phrases / synopsis. They all describe the games as about real world setting and realistic warfare.

In fact CoD it's about WW2. But I guess you talk about the spin-off Modern Warfare which is an arcade first person shooter that was inspired in real actual warfare. While Arma was a series of tactic "simulators" based in actual warfare. If you see the difference.

But don't worry that now is trendy to make pseudo futuristic games, you see, A3 was not that "creative", just one more like CoD Ghosts, Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon and if you want to also add the classic Halo, MGS, Unreal or Gears of War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...just one more like CoD Ghosts...

If you're going to compare games, please learn which ones came first.

...Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon and if you want to also add the classic Halo...

Yes, because Arma 3 is very similar to games set in the year 3xxx with lasers and space ships. And, I believe some of the Ghost Recon games had some sort of invisibility cloak, didn't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, that's why for instance if in a F1 series, instead of the realistic F1 car, they use a Star Wars Tatooine racer in their sequel, following "your logic" would be perfectly legit and reasonable, as the gameplay would be exactly the same ( to race in a track against opponents, to be the first to cross the line after certain laps ).
An F1 series is, by name, about F1 cars. Arma is, by name, about war. And no, a realistic F1 car would not handle the same as a pod racer. You're oversimplifying it and you know it. The MX as a fictional weapon performs just the same as any real life assault rifle. Its effective range, it's magazine capacity, it's rate of fire, it's recoil, its noise level, its attachments, need I go on? Let's talk about unit and vehicle roles. Rifleman, sniper, grenadier, AT, AA, all still there with their same purposes. And now you're comparing a hovercraft to an F1 car, as if that's just as similar. Please, you're grasping at straws.
Just take the box of your OFP, OFP: Resistance, Arma 1 or Arma 2, and read the phrases / synopsis. They all describe the games as about real world setting and realistic warfare.

Because those games were about real world settings. I fail to see what this proves. The Arma 2 box says "Ultimate Military Simulator" right on the front, and I would describe Arma 3 in the same way. Cosmetic differences in weapons, vehicles, and uniforms does not change the fact that it's a military simulator.

In fact CoD it's about WW2. But I guess you talk about the spin-off Modern Warfare which is an arcade first person shooter that was inspired in real actual warfare. While Arma was a series of tactic "simulators" based in actual warfare. If you see the difference.

This is the exact point I was making to you, why are you repeating it back to me? The difference between Arma and other modern military shooters is the tactical gameplay. Arma 3 retains that same tactical gameplay, even if its setting is different.

The fact that a mod could simply port over every asset from Arma 2, and remove every futuristic asset, and result in a game that would satisfy your definition of the Arma series demonstrates how arbitrary and superficial your argument is. You know very well the core of what makes Arma is still there, despite what the weapons and vehicles look like. A simple cosmetic change in all of them brings us right back to a milsim based on real life settings.

Edited by vegeta897

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're going to compare games, please learn which ones came first.

Of course, Infinity Ward changed all the game copying Arma 3 futuristic setting. And in three months... It was not a trend. The different companies just made games with similar settings by chance.

Yes, because Arma 3 is very similar to games set in the year 3xxx with lasers and space ships. And, I believe some of the Ghost Recon games had some sort of invisibility cloak, didn't they?

Yeah, MGS or Ghost Recon for instance are in the year 3000, and they all use lasers and space ships.

---------- Post added at 00:49 ---------- Previous post was at 00:44 ----------

It's getting tiring and we are going to much off-topic. It's time for me to conclude the debate.

I'll stick to the words of the BI overlord. You are free to believe whatever you want.

Originally, we were playing around with the idea of bringing the authenticity of the Arma series to a more sci-fi futuristic setting. This resulted in a couple of experiments, even along the lines of Arma meets aliens. However, as I suspect, many of our player base will be relieved that we ultimately decided to adjust the direction. Even though Arma 3 still takes place in the near future, with some prototype tech and vehicles, the game is much more faithful to our previous installments. Our obsession in space exploration is now vested in Take On Mars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have a problem with your reading comprehension, I have said in this thread like 10.000 times that they should just be faithful to the previous parts of the series.

If they were always faithful to the setting of the previous parts of the series, then we would still be playing games about the Cold War.

I think you confuse engine and spirit/background.

No, I'm not. The sentence that you cut out of my quote was pretty important to its meaning.

I think it's strange that you are using the words "spirit" and "background" like they are interchangeable.

Just take the box of your OFP, OFP: Resistance, Arma 1 or Arma 2, and read the phrases / synopsis. They all describe the games as about real world setting and realistic warfare.

In fact CoD it's about WW2. But I guess you talk about the spin-off Modern Warfare which is an arcade first person shooter that was inspired in real actual warfare. While Arma was a series of tactic "simulators" based in actual warfare. If you see the difference.

But don't worry that now is trendy to make pseudo futuristic games, you see, A3 was not that "creative", just one more like CoD Ghosts, Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon and if you want to also add the classic Halo, MGS, Unreal or Gears of War.

No, he's making a valid point against the foundation of your argument.

Is it your opinion that what makes an Arma game is the fact that it takes place in a contemporary setting or that it has "realistic" gameplay?

If you think it's the former, it's hard to argue that games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (Yeah, those games actually do have Call of Duty in the title) and Battlefield 3 and Medal of Honor: Warfighter don't have the same "spirit" that Arma does.

If you think it's ther latter, than I would ask in what ways you think Arma 3's gameplay is less realistic than Arma 2. And how you think the appearance of CSAT's uniforms affects the realism of the gameplay. Because last time I checked, combat plays out pretty close to exactly the same in Arma 3 as it did in Arma 2.

Of course you could think it's a mix of the two, but then it seems pretty hyperbolic to claim that changing one aspect a little bit completely betrays the spirit of the series.

I'm curious, by the way, whether you consider Call of Duty: World at War to be a spin-off or a real Call of Duty game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, MGS or Ghost Recon for instance are in the year 3000, and they all use lasers and space ships.

No, I never said they were. Look at which part of your sentence I quoted.

I'll stick to the words of the BI overlord. You are free to believe whatever you want.
Even though Arma 3 still takes place in the near future, with some prototype tech and vehicles, the game is much more faithful to our previous installments.

Doesn't that support my, vegeta's and roshnak's point that the game is still similar to its predecessors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe your guys debate should take place on a dedicated thread about that, i believe this thread is only concerning the look and feel of CSAT uniforms not the whole setting of the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious, by the way, whether you consider Call of Duty: World at War to be a spin-off or a real Call of Duty game.

Well the "pure" Call of Duty series was about WW2 created by Infinity Ward, then Activision hired Treyarch to do the third installment of the series.

Then Infinity Ward started a spin-off series based in actual combat called Modern Warfare ( even in the CoD wikia is considered a sub-series ) while Treyarch continued with the WW2, creating for instance World at War and later the other spin-off Black Ops.

And now the spin-off of the spin-off Infinity Ward works on CoD Ghosts ( it's even more complicated because in 2009 Activision fired some of the leaders of Infinity Ward for "insubordination" ).

The rest of the post is already answered in my previous post.

Doesn't that support my, vegeta's and roshnak's point that the game is still similar to its predecessors?

It supports my point that it's futuristic sci-fi and that was gone so far that even the devs had to go back and made it more faithful to the series, obviously including a lot of the first project to get it on time ( think that I have already said it like 20 times in this thread ).

Edited by MistyRonin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe your guys debate should take place on a dedicated thread about that, i believe this thread is only concerning the look and feel of CSAT uniforms not the whole setting of the game?

Well, the look and feel of the CSAT uniform kind of epitomizes the setting of the game, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear, if you people get the OPFOR uniforms changed somehow...

There's a reason I play OPFOR: I might not like the Farsi (Russian best OPFOR voice in game) but I love the uniforms. They're properly baller, even if a bunch of people are yelling about them.

Let's be honest: ArmA3 plays like a smoother ArmA2, but it just has a different cosmetic look. Big deal, enemies have a different uniform than what you're used to and use the KH2002. Big. Deal.

Edited by steamtex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, agreed.

Except that I like farsi, and that Iran isn't the evil backwater terrorist country that everyone tries to make it nowadays. (And therefore BI should do something to finally get off of that negative propaganda all around us, even if it won't change the world... Just to repeat myself once more, with BI hopefully reading it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, agreed.

Except that I like farsi, and that Iran isn't the evil backwater terrorist country that everyone tries to make it nowadays. (And therefore BI should do something to finally get off of that negative propaganda all around us, even if it won't change the world... Just to repeat myself once more, with BI hopefully reading it.)

I second this... but still. Ok, maybe don't change the uniforms of the Iranian CSAT. But in the future, if the Chinese counterpart of CSAT ever show up, i want them wearing proper uniforms as they do have in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no one has enabled russian hidden selection for CSAT? for uniform and helmet

10394553_10204260620060776_8085049466593847333_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×