It doesn't feel the same

[Haystack15 10]

To me the A3 Armies are hardly believable, they don't fit ( maybe the only exception is the AAF ).

I thought I was the only one who felt the AAF was a somewhat solid force.

[chortles 263]

Which is ironic when you realize that that's what BI chose to treat as "the third party".

[devilslayersbane 28]

It's an interesting subject. Yesterday I was playing a bit with Arma 2 and I was trying to figure out what's wrong with Arma 3, why I don't feel engaged in the same way as when I play A2.

In Arma 3 there are obvious improvements compared to its predecessor ( stances, lighting, some effects, smoothness of controls, more detail in textures, etc. ).

After much deliberation my conclusion was the content.

I don't need more vehicles, but more variety. For instance, the turret repetition issue is something that makes me want to practice voodoo in whoever had that idea. I though that was something provisional that would be changed with time, but I was wrong, after practically a year from the release, the clone turrets persist. I wouldn't mind if they use some of the A2 turrets just to give some variety, also some directly manned, not all remote.

The actual vehicles, weapons and uniforms don't feel organic to me. It's not because of the futuristic point, because I love the Gears of War's setting ( it would made an awesome mod for A3 ) or the CoD Ghosts' one. In Arma 3 it seems like if they had made the army with a random selection of the actual prototypes and then copy & paste most of the vehicles, caring mainly about their looks not their functionality. To me the A3 Armies are hardly believable, they don't fit ( maybe the only exception is the AAF ).

There is also the fact that Altis is completely deserted, there's practically no life. No civilians, no women, no police, no paramedics, no bus, no farmer with the tractor ( that has been in all the past instances of the series ), lack of animals, the houses are also empty ( compared to the fruits, carpets, little furniture of A2 interiors ). Like if there has been a virus that annihilated all forms of life.

I'd rather have less vehicles, but with more variety in them, different turrets, a more believable setting, more civilian stuff. And all that can be done perfectly without porting anything from the past games. For example BI could have add the Tigr for the CSAT, maybe a LMV for the AAF, the new Bradley chassis based APCs, or a tracked Stryker, big tilt rotors aircrafts for NATO, some skins for the helicopters to have civil versions of them, etc.

Concerning the campaign. Well although there are a few missions that have some flaws in the plot, the experience was quite delightful, the best since OFP:Resistance. For a little while it made me forgot a bit about the lack or variety, civilian life, and so on.

But well, I guess that what matters the most, the engine seems to have taken a big step forward, which I appreciate. I think that most of the other issues I'll be able to solve them with mods, for instance the awesome RHS RU and US in conjunction with some of the new maps, like Bornholm, can be epic.

I completely understand what you're getting at here. I must admit, this is the only thing that I am somewhat dissappointed in with arma 3. NATO air assets and ground assets don't correlate well, and while I can definitely see a modified ACR or SCAR series of rifles being used in the future, it feels like their vehicles don't match their infantry. I guess my biggest point here is that the 2 main factions, NATO and CSAT are too alike. They both use the same arty platform, they both use the same .50cal turret, and the same gmg. This isn't planetside, the AAF are not some 3rd party company supplying weapons to both factions in exchange for resources. I like the hunter and the ifrit, I like the Kajman and the blackfoot, I FUCKING LOVE the AMV-7 marshall. Seriously, it is my favorite vehicle in the game. It's kinda funny my favorite nato vehicle is the one that ISN'T reused. Even the Merkava is pretty cool. I don't mind most of the content. However, I do mind that the merkava base is used for the tracked APC, the artillery platforms and the AA. I don't mind CSAT's uniforms, but please keep the bug helmets to their spec-ops. I really enjoyed the campaign, I really enjoy the vanilla content, but it's not diverse content. Granted, I'm EXTREMELY happy that it's not a bunch of copy/paste content from Arma 2 like Arma 2 did with arma 1. And thank you bohemia for not using that old blackhawk model. now if we could get proper 7.62 miniguns on the ghosthawk it would be wonderful...

[miketim 20]

Same.

Some people act like Bi couldn't have done the arma 3 method of less stuff, higher quality, but with conventional content that is interesting

But they could have... No real good reason not to

Like, they could've made current or conventional or whatever else stuff in the same arma 3 high quality, as much as some act they couldn't have

[Rarkhan 10]

I had the same feeling when i began playing arma3 i didn't like the futuristic theme etc, so what did i do?

I ported all the maps from arma 2 to arma 3 i downloaded arma 2 tank packs etc etc, i just changed it to what i prefer.

And guess what, i love the game now, because the Arma 3 engine with Arma 2 theme is just amazing.

[chortles 263]

Same.

Some people act like Bi couldn't have done the arma 3 method of less stuff, higher quality, but with conventional content that is interesting

But they could have... No real good reason not to

Like, they could've made current or conventional or whatever else stuff in the same arma 3 high quality, as much as some act they couldn't have

More like "at some point, it became too late to do that AND meet the release date", especially when the project lead declared Steamworks was enforced specifically to save development time. Even if you don't believe his claim (that Steamworks was the only way to ensure that the game shipped in 2013), the excuse itself does suggest something about how much "ship something at all" was prioritized.

As for why it could be too late? Simple: they decided years ago not to do "current or conventional or whatever else stuff in the same arma 3 high quality" and none of the project leads noticeably changed course on that.

[Pyronick 21]

However, I do mind that the merkava base is used for the tracked APC, the artillery platforms and the AA.

The IFV and howitzer make sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava#Merkava_Howitzer_Sholef

[Varanon 892]

After much deliberation my conclusion was the content.

I think you really nailed it there.

I just need to look at the static weapons, and the autonomous vehicles. There is one UAV model, one UGV model, and one quadrotor model. The differences are just in the paint. Hell, place three UGVs next to another and switch on your nightvision, and you are hard-pressed to see a difference between them. It just doesn't feel right. That is my major gripe with the content of A3.

Plus, the scenario doesn't connect for me. When the Alpha came out, we had Blue vs. Red, with Green being thrown into the mix at Beta release. At release, there was no campaign, so the factions, even though they had names, were still as uncharacterized as they were when they were Blue, Red and Green. Even after the campaign, you still have no real clue about CSAT (you get more connection to the AAF, but even those are lacking character). I'm not saying all should be NATO vs. Russians vs. Towelheads, far from it. But as it is now, there is no identity. No background. No character to the factions. Why do I fear CSAT ? Because their icons appear red on the map. That's it. With the AAF I'm at least told they are d*cks (Staff Sargent Addams FTW, there's more characterization in his rantings about AAF than there is about the whole CSAT in the whole game).

And, I'm in full agreement with MistyRonin, the lack of life on Altis is staggering (no pun intended). Civilians are limited to men in shorts all driving the same car with it's rear view mirror torn off.

So, to sum up my problems with A3:

- Copy/Paste

- No connection to the setting

- No background assets (civilians)

[Tonci87 163]

I think you really nailed it there.

I just need to look at the static weapons, and the autonomous vehicles. There is one UAV model, one UGV model, and one quadrotor model. The differences are just in the paint. Hell, place three UGVs next to another and switch on your nightvision, and you are hard-pressed to see a difference between them. It just doesn't feel right. That is my major gripe with the content of A3.

Plus, the scenario doesn't connect for me. When the Alpha came out, we had Blue vs. Red, with Green being thrown into the mix at Beta release. At release, there was no campaign, so the factions, even though they had names, were still as uncharacterized as they were when they were Blue, Red and Green. Even after the campaign, you still have no real clue about CSAT (you get more connection to the AAF, but even those are lacking character). I'm not saying all should be NATO vs. Russians vs. Towelheads, far from it. But as it is now, there is no identity. No background. No character to the factions. Why do I fear CSAT ? Because their icons appear red on the map. That's it. With the AAF I'm at least told they are d*cks (Staff Sargent Addams FTW, there's more characterization in his rantings about AAF than there is about the whole CSAT in the whole game).

And, I'm in full agreement with MistyRonin, the lack of life on Altis is staggering (no pun intended). Civilians are limited to men in shorts all driving the same car with it's rear view mirror torn off.

So, to sum up my problems with A3:

- Copy/Paste

- No connection to the setting

- No background assets (civilians)

^this

[lukio 18]

I guess I'm one of the few people here who really enjoy A3 far more than A2.

• Fluid infantry movement
  
• Adaptable stances
  
• "Modern" weapon systems, things that are in use nowadays, not from Vietnam Era or First Gulf War.
  
• A more distanced combat experience with drones and recon playing a much greater role
  
• Modern vehicles like the MRAPs and Fennek
  
• PhysX implementation
  
• Better driving simulation
  
• Visual fidelity
  
• Two quite large maps (in comparison to Utes / Chernarus) that offer a multitude of terrain and operational possibilities
  
• Accessible buildings
  
• SDV / diving + underwater combat (yes an LHD or other similar naval vessel would be nice to have)
  
• RotorLib implementation
  

Who seriously wants to throw this all away and prefer to play A2 with all it's limits?

[Varanon 892]

Who seriously wants to throw this all away and prefer to play A2 with all it's limits?

Sigh... you just didn't get it, did you ? Please re-read.

[the_demongod 31]

I too prefer A3 over A2 in most respects. Everything in A3 is much more fluid, from animations, to infantry movement, to AI radio speech. The A2 color scheme was kind of dark and grey (I assume to complete the Europe image) which was cool and gave the game character, but it also made everything seem a little dead. The lighting, etc. is much better in our sunny Mediterranean islands, and they look really nice. I only wish I could go around with 12,000m view distance all the time, the game looks amazing when you can see so far. Unfortunately that usually results in a framerate of about 1-2. My biggest gripe with Arma 3 is the lack of advanced weapon systems. And what I mean by that is that they don't seem advanced to us. Every single guided missile in the game is guided by tab locking and firing. That's all there is to it. It makes every single missile feel exactly the same. What we need is some more realistically modeled systems to make the weapons feel less flat and static. Imagine if heat seekers in jets were fired like they really were (

). Imagine if we had a MANPADS in Arma 3 like we had in Arma 2 with the Stinger and Igla/Strela (can't remember which). What if you had to lock targets via a radar cursor?

What if we had a realistic forward facing radar for fighter jets? A RWR for CAS jets (a Radar Warning Receiver is a small screen that shows the direction and threat level of nearby radar emitting sources. It looks like this. The close in to the center, the more of a threat. The Diamond means it is the biggest current threat. The Dome over the symbol means it is the most recently spotted contact. The ^ over the U means it's an airborne threat, and the U is the specific type of vehicle emitting the radar waves. It wouldn't be that hard- it would just be an in-cockpit radar screen that didn't update very fast, and only showed contacts that emit radio waves (anything that has its own radar). These changes would completely change the way we flew jets, used missiles, helicopters, etc.

Here are a few relevant threads I have written on the subject:

Air to Air Missiles, and why they need to change

We need worse weapon systems

Cheers

[Alwarren 2767]

• Two quite large maps (in comparison to Utes / Chernarus) that offer a multitude of terrain and operational possibilities
  

I beg your pardon? Chernarus had WAY better variety of terrain than Altis, in spite of its size. There is not a single large, dense forest on Altis anywhere.

Don't get me wrong, I like Altis, it manages to capture the Mediterranean look perfectly, but there is little variety in terrains. It's mostly plains or gentle hills, very little forested area. For me it's about the same as the step between Elder Scrolls 4 and 5. It looks better, but you can't go 100 meters in Skyrim without hitting a road, while you can actually get lost in Oblivion's forests.

Who seriously wants to throw this all away and prefer to play A2 with all it's limits?

You are missing the point entirely. This is not about one game being better than the other. Arma 2 had way more assets to play with, more things that weren't actually needed for a strictly military game. You can paint a MUCH more believable picture with Arma 2, because it has actual civilians, actual life outside of the military.You could populate a town with civilians that looked like they were LIVING there. Granted, not all houses were enterable, but then, at least they weren't all empty and devoid of any furniture. There were tracktors, busses, actual cars, and there were modules which helped you populate a map with ambient life. Exactly this ambiance is entirely missing in Arma 3. I remember how I laughed at Dragon Rising's explanation that "all civilians have been evacuated from the island" to explain the lack of civilian life, yet this is exactly what we are seeing right now. And don't tell me there is civilians, there is just guys in shorts. There are no hunters, no wood workers, farmers, fishermen, priests, police officers, businessmen, nothing of that kind. THAT is one of the few things that really still annoy me about Arma 3, and one of the major reasons why I am involved with CUP.

And, as Varanon said, the scenario is lacking. Regardless of what you think about the campaign (I already said I have mixed feelings about it, some parts I liked, some I didn't), but the scenario itself is not very well fleshed out. You hardly get anything in terms of exposition. You have to be TOLD that the AAF are assholes, you have to be TOLD that CSAT is a thread. There is absolutely no proof for it. We have to take someone's word on it. In Harvest Red, (again whatever you may think about that campaign), you WITNESS women being raped, you SEE what the Chedaki did to the population when you find the mass graves, and you actually witness the killing of one of your team member. There is a genuine reason to hate the Chedaki and to perceive them as the evil guys. There is no need to tell you; you hate them, for what they do, not for what you are told.

And CSAT? What actually IS CSAT? I is never explained in the campaign (don't tell me to read through the manual; I want this to be part of the narrative, not some settings document). There is just a clip collection as the into which may or may not contain information.

Actually, the bootcamp min-campaign does more to introduce the setting than anything else in the entire Arma 3 arsenal. And that shouldn't be like that.

[zimms 22]

I honestly don't understand people who say Chernarus had more variety than Altis. I get that you liked the setting more and Chernarus is a great map without doubt. But it's hills and forests, that's it.

On Altis you have the hills in the NW part of the island, a huge city, flat terrain in the middle (yes, lots of) and you even have a desert. Oh and don't forget that all that water now also has some gameplay value.

[Alwarren 2767]

As for why it could be too late? Simple: they decided years ago not to do "current or conventional or whatever else stuff in the same arma 3 high quality" and none of the project leads noticeably changed course on that.

There is no need to make apologies for the facts. People seem to mistake criticism on the game with an attack on BI or an attack on the game itself, like the gentleman I just replied to. I can perfectly understand the reasoning behind certain decisions. A statement like "we had to cut XX" or "we didn't have the resources to do YY" is perfectly valid, and most people that utter criticism of the game do not even dispute that.

However, understanding WHY something is as it is doesn't mean you have to like it, and it doesn't preclude anyone from stating that. It is a fact that there are next to no civilian assets in the game. Period. Whether that is because adding them was too expensive, not planned, or whatever, does not matter. It is as such. And that isn't an ideal situation. And people are stating their discontent with that.

---------- Post added at 16:17 ---------- Previous post was at 16:01 ----------

On Altis you have the hills in the NW part of the island, a huge city, flat terrain in the middle (yes, lots of) and you even have a desert.

You have mostly flat terrain all over the island. There is not a single large dense forest on all of Altis. Very little industry, and no railroads. Chernarus towns were smaller, but Chernogorosk and Elektrozavorsk had more big city feel than anything on Altis. Terrain size is all nice if it actually offers something that you cannot get with a smaller terrain, but Altis hardly offers anything that Chernarus doesn't.

On the minus side, Altis seems to be stuck in the war-torn look with a ridiculous amount of car wrecks and destroyed buildings that make it difficult to do anything that should display an intact culture. The car wrecks are particularly annoying since you cannot get rid of them (you can hide them but once you try to park in that space they still collide with other objects). The size of the island also means that concessions had to be made in terms of resolution and how many of the objects actually have an ID.

Don't get me wrong, I love Altis. It's a wonderful island, and just because I criticize certain aspects of it doesn't mean I don't like it. I made one mission that I put on a specific place just for the stunning view you get from the mountain top. But it doesn't change the fact that one of the things I miss the most are large forests, industrial areas, railroad tracks, and the other little things that made Chernarus great. Like, lakes and ponds.

Oh and don't forget that all that water now also has some gameplay value.

Glad you mentioned water, since it was completely taken out of the island itself. Except for the marsh area, which is at sea level, there is no water to be found anywhere. No more ponds or lakes.

[captncaps 26]

I do like ArmA3 more, there are just so many improvements over ArmA2.

But then there is the content, don't get me wrong, I feel like it's enough, but everything is too similar, even across factions.

I mean, if the MX is that super rifle for the NATO, sure why use other ones? But why does CSAT basically have the same rifle with a different skin and name?

That really annoyes me! War ain't even! (also applies to every other object the armies have)

What I also think is annoying is the NEAR future setting.

I think for a game you have 3 possible settings: Present, Past, Future

But BI chose a mix between Present and Future, and that is what kills the game for me.

Also probably the Islands, the missing Modules, missing Civilians, missing Medic system (make it at least ArmA2 like, please!)

Also then, the Armies, they are just so unpersonal.

In ArmA2 it was (cherno)russians vs USA. I know who is who and I am happy.

In ArmA3 we have NATO and CSAT. That tells me what?

The NATO consists of many countries. I don't wanna play as many, I want to be someone, and not anyone! Also they all look like americans! Really BI?!

And the CSAT, they are clearly from somewhere around the middle east, telling from how they look. But who are they really?!

[lukio 18]

I beg your pardon? Chernarus had WAY better variety of terrain than Altis, in spite of its size. There is not a single large, dense forest on Altis anywhere.

Don't get me wrong, I like Altis, it manages to capture the Mediterranean look perfectly, but there is little variety in terrains.

Altis has some quite dense forest in the NW, Stratis has tons of forestry. If you mean Altis does not look exactly like your beloved Chernarus, well then I guess you are right. It has far more variations and of course is set in the mediterranean which would make a huge mixed forest like in Chernarus look very unrealistic.

Exactly this ambiance is entirely missing in Arma 3. I remember how I laughed at Dragon Rising's explanation that "all civilians have been evacuated from the island" to explain the lack of civilian life, yet this is exactly what we are seeing right now.

Not missing that personally, I guess for some people atmosphere and ambiance is really important and yes to this degree A3 has a bit less to offer. Then on the otherhand I remember stuff like this being turned off in A2 because it hampered performance (that was a while ago maybe things changed).

[JackBender 10]

I've played all BI games since Opf, and I gave up arma 3 in only two weeks, it got really boring, really...

_ Empty houses, the feeling of seeing the same thing all over the map, empty seas, same factions and we don't even know what the hell they're doing here.

And I really didn't liked the futiristic aspect of it. I didn't feel concerned for a second about the setting of the campaign. Even if the graphics or animations have really improved since arma 2, the weapons animations still doesn't look so smooth to me for a 2014 game; but perhaps that's because of the same base model used in 1st and 3rd pers...

I think I would have enjoyed much more that game if it was in a nowadays conflict, or even a remake of previous arma games, and more polished. I really prefer small maps and better fulfilled environments.

But I still look from time to time about what's new in the addons community because this game has a huge lot of potential and I hope it will get better.

[Alwarren 2767]

Altis has some quite dense forest in the NW, Stratis has tons of forestry. If you mean Altis does not look exactly like your beloved Chernarus, well then I guess you are right. It has far more variations and of course is set in the mediterranean which would make a huge mixed forest like in Chernarus look very unrealistic.

"Quite dense", as in, patches of trees with lots of air in between. And please stop making things up. I've been in the Mediterranean several times, there are dense forest there. Forests that you can get lost in.

Then on the otherhand I remember stuff like this being turned off in A2 because it hampered performance (that was a while ago maybe things changed).

It was never like that.

[eymerich 11]

A3 is better than Arma2 except for a serious lack of content.

My 2 cents...

[katipo66 94]

I loved Chernarus with it's hills and forests but Altis is a far better map in terms of gameplay and settlements everywhere, also you can still play Chenarus in A3 so no drama, the games moved on, but it's so awesome you can still play A2 assets in A3!?

[sniper pilot 36]

Shooting from vics has -def- been announced for A3 now. What about slingloads? We're getting those too.

Woa woa woa... When did this happen? Source?

[roshnak 41]

Woa woa woa... When did this happen? Source?

It was announced with the Helicopter DLC.

http://www.bistudio.com/company/developers-blog/465-roadmap-14-15-dlc-strategy-blog

Under The Details: DLC Strategy

For example, introducing the ability to fire from vehicles in Arma 3 Helicopters, we open this functionality up to everybody who owns Arma 3. New DLC helicopters and playable content will then build upon it and showcase it.

Edited August 28, 2014 by roshnak

[Alwarren 2767]

I loved Chernarus with it's hills and forests but Altis is a far better map in terms of gameplay and settlements everywhere,

What is your definition of "gameplay" and how is Altis better than Chernarus? Just because of more settlements?

also you can still play Chenarus in A3 so no drama, the games moved on, but it's so awesome you can still play A2 assets in A3!?

Which is only possible through the tireless effort of modders, so the awesomeness is somewhat lost to me, especially since BIS successfully evaded fixing a few critical bugs like the ponds not working or switching maps causing a crash. As the argument goes, "modders will add this" or "modders will fix it" was, is, and ever will be, a bad excuse.

[Bouben 3]

The modded Chernarus has bugged LODs and bad lighting in Arma 3.