It doesn't feel the same

[katipo66 94]

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

Simple, To me, imo the Ai move around a lot more freely in Altis, there are more options for different scenarios in lots of different areas in Altis where as Chernarus felt kinda channelled or linear in a lot of areas due to the heavy foresting and mountainous terrain.

My definition of gameplay varies but generally i like to be involved in largish types of battles that may be spreadout over a 2 to 4k radius (maybe more or less, my memory shot), more settlements within that radius breaks everything up nicely..

Dont get me wrong, i love Chernarus and think thats a masterpiece also, but what do you mean by bad excuse? theres no need for any excuses is there.. i dont know many other games that allow for earlier maps/terrains to be played in their games? i think theres a project to bring Morrowind to Skyrim? i know its a pain in the ass to get it in there via mod, so much so that i dont even bother any more, but if you miss it that much you would put the effort in and be thankful its an option.

[Alwarren 2767]

Simple, To me, imo the Ai move around a lot more freely in Altis, there are more options for different scenarios in lots of different areas in Altis where as Chernarus felt kinda channelled or linear in a lot of areas due to the heavy foresting and mountainous terrain.

To be honest, I can't follow you there. A plain is a plain, and if I look at e.g. Harvest Red's "Manhattan" mission (still one of my favorite in Harvest Red), it was everything BUT linear. Definitely a lot less linear than the East Wind campaign missions. But that doesn't have anything to do with the island, but everything to do with mission design.

My definition of gameplay varies but generally i like to be involved in largish types of battles that may be spreadout over a 2 to 4k radius (maybe more or less, my memory shot), more settlements within that radius breaks everything up nicely..

Sounds good. I am a coop player mostly (well almost exclusively). It's still a factor of mission design.

Dont get me wrong, i love Chernarus and think thats a masterpiece also, but what do you mean by bad excuse? theres no need for any excuses is there..

Sorry for that. The usual argument that is brought up if something is deemed wrong it that "modders will fix it". Chernarus as an Arma 3 map is the work of modders, and sadly, BIS didn't fix a number of issues that are plaguing the game that make importing Arma 2 terrains difficult, with no inland water, no endless terrain, and crash issues.

i dont know many other games that allow for earlier maps/terrains to be played in their games? i think theres a project to bring Morrowind to Skyrim? i know its a pain in the ass to get it in there via mod, so much so that i dont even bother any more, but if you miss it that much you would put the effort in and be thankful its an option.

The Elder Scrolls series is one of the few that embraces modding, just like Arma does. Luckily there are some of these games around still.

[katipo66 94]

Sorry for that. The usual argument that is brought up if something is deemed wrong it that "modders will fix it". Chernarus as an Arma 3 map is the work of modders, and sadly, BIS didn't fix a number of issues that are plaguing the game that make importing Arma 2 terrains difficult, with no inland water, no endless terrain, and crash issues.

Nah i fully understand that, i remember the pain of trying to bring A2 maps into A3 with pond lines etc.. actually i was forced to think about A2 and all the available terrains, its interesting there are hardly any released for A3 yet. And although its not good enough that maybe theres an attitude of "modders will fix it" it is warming to know that the RHS mod is on the way, it would be really nice to have a terrain dedicated for it.

[chortles 263]

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.

Frankly, something about Bootcamp screams "NOT rushed"... which is flat-out odd considering how much more development time The East Wind overall had, unless Bootcamp was actually begun way earlier than publicly implied...

Re: "The size of the island also means that concessions had to made in terms of resolution and how many of the objects actually have an ID."

That should make people reconsider the idea of bigger-as-better re: the map, but I wonder whether the RV-Enforce merge will help with that.

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

To supplement what InstaGoat and roshnak said, the dev team's Twitter account also stated that they were using the (unarmed) offroad's flatbed and MH-9 Hummingbird ("Littlebird" analog) benches for testing the firing-from-vehicles mechanics. Also, sling-loading was supposed to have hit dev branch this week... but they had to reallocate resources towards the MP problems in the v1.26 patch.

[-Coulum- 35]

Regarding the Altis vs. Chernarus debate, to me, altis is the better map. It has far more low level details than chernarus. small ridges hills and deflades, many many objects, many unique objects etc.

Chenerus you get in a firefight in a town and its basically the same as getting in a firefight in any other town. Get in a firefight in a forest and it feels the same for any other forested area. Basically there is very little variation between the alike terrains. Every forest is the same, every village is the same, even the fields are the same with their rows of bushes and low stone walls. On altis, unless its the exact same place, everywhere is different, whether it be in a town a forest, the mountains or the open. There is always some rock or ridge or structure that makes an encounter unique even if its technically in the same terrain type, if that makes sense. If you look at Chernerus from a low level perspective its not nearly as interesting. And since I play only small scale infantry really, I am always low level.

Now I do much prefer the theme and feel of Chernerus. And if it had as much detail I would prefer it over Altis. But it doesn't. Altis is the best map by BI to date imo.

Edited August 29, 2014 by -Coulum-

[Haystack15 10]

It seems when people talk about what map is better, theres always a bias in their reasons.

Like:

Chenerus you get in a firefight in a town and its basically the same as getting in a firefight in any other town

How does that differ from Altis?

Is every building in Altis unique? No Copy and Paste? Because I could find the same chapel in 5 different towns on the map. Same goes for Arma 2. I can also do the same with houses and stores in both games.

Get in a firefight in a forest and it feels the same for any other forested area. Basically there is very little variation between the alike terrains.

How is that so too? What you see the same tree pattern in every forest? How can one forest be different from another?

On altis, unless its the exact same place, everywhere is different, whether it be in a town a forest, the mountains or the open. There is always some rock or ridge or structure that makes an encounter unique even if its technically in the same terrain type, if that makes sense.

I don't see how that works too...

Some "rock" or "Ridge" changing the way encounters are happening. If that's true, then it seems placing "rocks" in the middle of your encounters will remedy everything.

Atlis and Chernaurs are both great maps. But no matter what it comes down to, both maps have copied and pasted buildings & objects, and a few really "unique" ones.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Haystack15

[-Coulum- 35]

How does that differ from Altis?

I am well aware that there is alot of copy and paste in both maps. But com'n haystack, would you rather fight in a village on altis or Chernarus. Which one do you think you would be able to explore fully quicker. The amount of different objects on altis far outnumbers that of chernarus. And that leads to exponentially more ways that these objects can be uniquely combined to form a scene.

Some "rock" or "Ridge" changing the way encounters are happening. If that's true, then it seems placing "rocks" in the middle of your encounters will remedy everything.

I think you are taking me a bit too literally. Basically there is much more options on altis, and much more interesting options. There car wreck, buildings, building interiors, ditches, compounds, alleyways, sidestreets, balconies, high plants (whatever those are), stone walls, playgrounds and more that can be combined to make a very unique scene. In chernarus its basically beside the red house, the green house, the picket fence, the chicken coup or the low stone wall. Doesn't give you much options to make a variety of uniqe scenes. Add ontop of it that Chernarus usually lacks any form of microterrain smaller than a soft hill where as Altis has ridges, ditches etc. And even forsest and open ground in altis is interesting and somewhat unique. Not sayin Chernarus didn't have interesting geography, but 80% of the map was just flat smooth fields or forsests with absolutey zero oppurtunity to use the contours of the ground to your advantage (in a small scale infantry fight.).

Who knows, Maybe what I say is a bunch of bull, but I am positive Altis provides me with more interesting infantry combat and its not because I like the setting better - I don't. The reason, I theorize, is because altis has more variety in objects and lowlevel terrain details, which leads to more complex, interesting and unique scenes and scenarios.

Edited August 29, 2014 by -Coulum-

[Varanon 892]

Not sayin Chernarus didn't have interesting geography, but 80% of the map was just flat smooth fields or forsests with absolutey zero oppurtunity to use the contours of the ground to your advantage (in a small scale infantry fight.).

Honestly, if you look at Altis, a LOT of it is just plains with broken down walls, something you blame Chernarus for. But the first two things that I noticed about Altis was the immense flatness and the broken down walls. And then the car wrecks. The towns are much better on Altis since they also now have realistic sizes, but if you compare Chernogorsk with Pusta, you will find two completely different towns on Chernarus. OTOH, you will be hard pressed to find such difference on Altis.

While both maps have their pros and cons, I have to say that what you list there in your post as disadvantages of Chernarus also Altis very well, too. Oh, and I invite you to sit beside a pond in Altis... oh wait, there is none ;)

And as a final thought, comparing Altis and Cherarus is not really the subject of the thread.

[Alwarren 2767]

Chenerus you get in a firefight in a town and its basically the same as getting in a firefight in any other town. Get in a firefight in a forest and it feels the same for any other forested area. Basically there is very little variation between the alike terrains. Every forest is the same, every village is the same, even the fields are the same with their rows of bushes and low stone walls. On altis, unless its the exact same place, everywhere is different, whether it be in a town a forest, the mountains or the open. There is always some rock or ridge or structure that makes an encounter unique even if its technically in the same terrain type,

To be honest, when I read this, I can't even decide whether you are serious about this or if this is a joke. "even the fields are the same with their rows of bushes and low stone walls." sounds like the perfect description of Altis' open fields. "Feels the same" is not an argument, it's a subjective impression that cannot even be verified, and besides is completely devoid of substance. Enlighten me please in how far the fights in forests are all the same on Chernarus but not on Altis, objectively.

@Chortles

Frankly, something about Bootcamp screams "NOT rushed"... which is flat-out odd considering how much more development time The East Wind overall had, unless Bootcamp was actually begun way earlier than publicly implied..

I don't know whether either was rushed or not rushed, and I didn't mean to imply either. The point I was trying to make is that the bootcamp mini-campaign did more to introduce the scenario than the main campaign did. You suddenly see how AAF handles "damage control", something that you need to be told in the main campaign. While this sort of perspective can be used effectively to create dissonance between different parts of a campaign (if you for example play on either side of the conflict), nothing like that happens in The Easy Wind; you always play Kerry. If the last mission of bootcamp had been part of the campaign, or at least had been played as a cutscene, it would have given way more context to the way that the bad guys are presented in the East Wind campaign.

For Arma 2 and Arrowhead, the "proximity" to current events were enough to be able to project your own experience, or what you see on the news, into the scenario. We all can see what happened and is happening right now in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and especially what happened in Lybia (Colonel Gaddafi vs, Colonel Aziz, that connection is not hard to make). This gave the Arrowhead campaign enough context to know what is going on. If I look at CSAT, well they all look and sound (and speak) Persian, but (correct me if I am wrong) none of the entries in the online manual mentions anything about CSAT's background, leaving everything sketchy and kind of ioslated. CSAT are the bad guys because they appear red on the map.

When I said I have an issue with the future scenario, that is exactly what I mean. It's not that the game plays in 2035, but it is the isolation of the world it represents from the current world that makes it hard for me to get into it and fill the blanks. I mean, I was totally invested in the Mass Effect universe when I played those games, which is by far more alien and much weirder than 2035, but the background is there, the history, the lore.. things I thoroughly miss in Arma 3.

I notice that people like to bash me for my preference of Chernarus over Altis, but apparently, nobody really has anything to say against this point.

[windies 11]

Good points Alwarren and Varanon. The immersion factor in ArmA 3 is nowhere near what it was in ArmA 2 and it stems from some of the reasons you guys brought up.

[chortles 263]

I don't know whether either was rushed or not rushed, and I didn't mean to imply either.

I on the other hand most certainly did! I allow for the possibility that the devs privately had Bootcamp planned/in development for longer than publicly admitted (especially considering the team's tendencies when it comes to news/"promises"), but nevertheless I agree that Bootcamp does the "show, not tell" that The East Wind didn't... though I get the sinking feeling that it took until Bootcamp before someone decided that they had the time to actually think of the lore...

If I look at CSAT, well they all look and sound (and speak) Persian, but (correct me if I am wrong) none of the entries in the online manual mentions anything about CSAT's background, leaving everything sketchy and kind of ioslated. CSAT are the bad guys because they appear red on the map.

Everything about this screams "we're not allowed to say Iran anymore"... though I also distinctly remember CSAT being a fictionalized SCO, albeit with 2035 China seeming to hang back and provide guns (i.e. the Field Manual alludes to the Zafir being an allegedly shanzhai Negev) with other CSAT troops being the vanguard, and the Russian references people have found in the files have also implied that at some point BI was considering more overt Russian participation in CSAT.

As far as The East Wind, I'd also suggest that although the writer(s) didn't flesh out CSAT when they had the chance, they also passed on chances to do so by making CSAT the front-and-center antagonist way earlier than the 'reveal' in "Tipping Point".

When I said I have an issue with the future scenario, that is exactly what I mean. It's not that the game plays in 2035, but it is the isolation of the world it represents from the current world that makes it hard for me to get into it and fill the blanks. I mean, I was totally invested in the Mass Effect universe when I played those games, which is by far more alien and much weirder than 2035, but the background is there, the history, the lore.. things I thoroughly miss in Arma 3.

To me, this makes the case for taking "the Arma concept" out of a real-world setting at all and just going whole-hog on the fictional... if BI had writers anywhere near the quality and resourcing (most importantly, in time!) of Bioware.

I notice that people like to bash me for my preference of Chernarus over Altis, but apparently, nobody really has anything to say against this point.

In my case, it's because I'm perfectly fine with both so I have no dog in that fight. :p Edited August 29, 2014 by Chortles

[froggyluv 2136]

Prefer Altis for many reasons but the main one being simply gameplay. There more nooks and crannies to fight out of, there's actual vertical fighting from ridges and cliffs, the AI infantry can traverse rocky and difficult terrain far better, houses while barren are more suitable for AI and gunfights then the 1 furnished room cabins of Chernarus, more unique areas that I find on occasion, water is a functional moveable environment as opposed to a static lake that's just an obstacle.

Really the only thing that I miss and liked from Chernarus were some of the majestic looking forests -but I don't miss the punch me in the face orange trees that escaped from the Van Gogh museum. Also I would agree that Altis looks less "wartimey" though certain color filters aka "ReallsBrown" really do the trick for me. Takistan was just outright dull affair for me as it just seemed like an FPS saver and nothing more. Furnished hookahs and throw rugs don't really impress me -especially if grenades can't even scratch one.

All in all, it's a totally subjective affair as to who prefers what -as subjective as "where do YOU prefer to vacation", so fighting or bashing each other over it is pretty silly.

[instagoat 133]

I think the Arma lore is so fragmented that it'd be more difficult to tie together than the whole of the MGS canon.

Personally, I would favor a reboot with Arma 4, going back to the middle of the cold war, roundabout the 1960s. With a small south american conflict with CIA and USSR supporting both sides, overshadowed by the larger events (cuba crisis, or going back to earlier dates, bay of pigs invasion.). And I mean, whole reboot. Take the world history, and fit in a string of coherent events. Maybe revisit the Nogova Island republics with a new campaign, similarily good characters, and a common thread to tie everything together from the outset.

I haven't finished east wind yet, so idk if the story gets better/more coherent, but a certain occurrence in the prologue bootcamp campaign and the presence of the tempest "device" thing (which I have not looked at yet, so please, no more screenshots or hints or anything. I've also not even been in the biodomes yet because I want to find out why they're there via the campaign. And even if they're not in there, please don't tell me.) makes me suspect something out of a 1950s pulp science fiction short novel.

I dunno if a reboot would be a good Idea, though, because mostly I think about it since I would like to see an early cold war arma next. You'd have to retcon that into the canon.

[JackBender 10]

I think the Arma lore is so fragmented that it'd be more difficult to tie together than the whole of the MGS canon.

Personally, I would favor a reboot with Arma 4, going back to the middle of the cold war, roundabout the 1960s. With a small south american conflict with CIA and USSR supporting both sides, overshadowed by the larger events (cuba crisis, or going back to earlier dates, bay of pigs invasion.). And I mean, whole reboot. Take the world history, and fit in a string of coherent events. Maybe revisit the Nogova Island republics with a new campaign, similarily good characters, and a common thread to tie everything together from the outset.

+1000

[onlyrazor 11]

I think the Arma lore is so fragmented that it'd be more difficult to tie together than the whole of the MGS canon.

Personally, I would favor a reboot with Arma 4, going back to the middle of the cold war, roundabout the 1960s. With a small south american conflict with CIA and USSR supporting both sides, overshadowed by the larger events (cuba crisis, or going back to earlier dates, bay of pigs invasion.). And I mean, whole reboot. Take the world history, and fit in a string of coherent events. Maybe revisit the Nogova Island republics with a new campaign, similarily good characters, and a common thread to tie everything together from the outset.

I haven't finished east wind yet, so idk if the story gets better/more coherent, but a certain occurrence in the prologue bootcamp campaign and the presence of the tempest "device" thing (which I have not looked at yet, so please, no more screenshots or hints or anything. I've also not even been in the biodomes yet because I want to find out why they're there via the campaign. And even if they're not in there, please don't tell me.) makes me suspect something out of a 1950s pulp science fiction short novel.

I dunno if a reboot would be a good Idea, though, because mostly I think about it since I would like to see an early cold war arma next. You'd have to retcon that into the canon.

A timeline reboot would probably result in a lot of unused technology, though. People may give Arma 3 flak for things like the thermal-optics-everywhere thing, but back when OA was getting released, this was a hot feature. Same goes for NVGs and NV scopes, as well as lots of that tacticool tech.

That said, returning to an OFP-like timeline might not hurt. They'd still get conventional warfare and the average rifleman would be balanced out by getting nothing but a rifle, a compass and a set of boots. Things like TI and NV would still be around, but they'd be limited in use to units like pilots or spec ops. One would think that kind of balance would be agreeable to everyone. To be fair, it's probably a bad thing to give up on an attempt at some creative freedom and return to M16 manshooting, but I would seriously love to see a 1989 expansion for Arma 4 or whatever comes next.

I trust BIS to take this in a sensible direction, though. /rant

Edited August 29, 2014 by OnlyRazor

[chortles 263]

To be fair, it's probably a bad thing to give up on an attempt at some creative freedom and return to M16 manshooting

FLAMESHIELD ACTIVATED: "It's ironic that the kind of stagnation and repetition CoD gets panned for, Arma gets lauded for."

But seriously, "M16 manshooting" is part of why I've stayed away from most of the Arma games except Arma 3.

[mr burns 132]

A timeline reboot would probably result in a lot of unused technology, though. People may give Arma 3 flak for things like the thermal-optics-everywhere thing, but back when OA was getting released, this was a hot feature.

Even going back to cold war woudn´t render thermals useless at all - frankly the only reason why thermal was such a hot & pressing issue during the OFP & ArmA years was that it was missing from tanks (same as with FCS), more or less rendering them down to quite mobile catapults!

When Bohemia finally stepped in and did thermals, adding them for rifle scopes, is another story.

[froggyluv 2136]

Like the new tech but only when it's extremely limited and hard to get such as a Res VS Guerilla type affair. Still like ironsights as it just feels the most satisfying when lining up sights properly. Of course if we were to get fully fledged 3d scopes....:rolleyes:

[pooroldspike 129]

I like Arma3, but I like dear old Arma2 (with Arrowhead) better for a couple of reasons-

It's difficult to say exactly why, but Arma2 just FEELS right and looks right, and plays more comfortably.

Arma2 lets us create missions with current vehicles and equipment that we see on the news, covering Syria, ISIS, Donetsk, Gaza and any other trouble spots, whereas Arma3 is set in the future with largely fictitious weaponry on a couple of Greek islands.

[mr burns 132]

Like the new tech but only when it's extremely limited and hard to get such as a Res VS Guerilla type affair. Still like ironsights as it just feels the most satisfying when lining up sights properly. Of course if we were to get fully fledged 3d scopes....:rolleyes:

Ambushing full blown russian convoy to steal some rpg´s and mostly binocs - ring any bells? :D

[onlyrazor 11]

Even going back to cold war woudn´t render thermals useless at all - frankly the only reason why thermal was such a hot & pressing issue during the OFP & ArmA years was that it was missing from tanks (same as with FCS), more or less rendering them down to quite mobile catapults!

When Bohemia finally stepped in and did thermals, adding them for rifle scopes, is another story.

To be honest, I was trying to guide the discussion in my diabolical master plan to turn Arma into a First/Third person World in Conflict game. That's another plan spoiled by these troublesome forum users.

[chortles 263]

To be honest, I was trying to guide the discussion in my diabolical master plan to turn Arma into a First/Third person World in Conflict game. That's another plan spoiled by these troublesome forum users.

You mean "if it weren't for those meddling kids​!" :lol:

[froggyluv 2136]

Ambushing full blown russian convoy to steal some rpg´s and mostly binocs - ring any bells? :D

Ah, one of the most memorable and satisfying missions of all time.

[katipo66 94]

Geez, so out of boredom I fire up Arma 2 for the first time in about 6months, jump on one of my whole map missions on Chernarus 'jus for a laugh' and "Bam" it fucken hooked me again!, i cant beleive it, she looked a bit dated at first but that didn't last long, in fact she holds up quite nicely, didnt i see a mod that makes all buildings enterable? Anyway the initial thing I notice I missed the most from A3 was no backpack and gear ability and character models.

Anyway I been playing it all week!!? Damn this game, I thought I had finally got tired of the whole series, now I'm caught in a loop, 6months of Arma 2 and then back to Arma 3 lol, I'm gonna remove the whole series from my system, I'm hopless... I'll just tweak my mission first!!

[quadrono 10]

I played every game in this series, from OFP to Arma 3. Arma 3 is the best, hands down and by far.

I have a steady group of guys, 10 or 12 all told and we get on almost every night and have a freaking blast. We laugh and yell and curse and scream and generally make life miserable for anyone unlucky enough to not be on our team. Arma 3 makes that possible, I have over 1400 hours logged with these guys, and wouldn't trade a second of it for Arma 2 PVP.