It doesn't feel the same

[iceman77 18]

It hasn't felt the same since CWC and Resistance.

[Wiki 1558]

Agreed

[dav 22]

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.

That's 35 forty hour weeks which is like playing a game full time for half a year, fantastic contribution to humanity right there!

If Arma 3 ran smooth as butter all the time it would be epic, but sadly it doesn't. Ponds and rivers, waterfalls and puddles, ice bergs and snow, none of which is there would make a big difference to the environment.

[Sub-Human 10]

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.

There's not much of a better way to phrase this. The recent developments in Ukraine make the Chernarus scenario more and more interesting.

[five_seven5-7 56]

IMO Arma 3 looks like for Chris Costa / devgru wannabes, leaving aside all atmospheric involving the war. And the FIA fell short, Victor Troska would turn over in his grave.

I felt that there was more sense in the prologue of outrage towards the AAF and CSAT against civilians, approaching spiritually CWC and Resistance.

In Arma 4 please make a reboot.

[bouda118 10]

Agreed

[2nd ranger 282]

It hasn't felt the same since CWC and Resistance.

To be honest, I think this is mainly because OFP had something I can only describe as a "crappy charm". I don't think that essential quality could be recaptured even if someone did a Black Mesa and remade Flashpoint in the Arma 3 engine.

[bad benson 1733]

To be honest, I think this is mainly because OFP had something I can only describe as a "crappy charm". I don't think that essential quality could be recaptured even if someone did a Black Mesa and remade Flashpoint in the Arma 3 engine.

totally.

but also on the other hand ofp was pretty revolutionary at the time.

at least for me personally this pattern of "doesn't feel" the same applies to video games in general. i guess once you get older it just doesn't have such a big effect on you anymore. especially when the sequels basically do the same but just change the setting (no judgement here) but give you the same fomular for the actual gameplay.

arma 2 is easy to lump in with ofp since the whole setting, as opposed to arma 1 which is barely mentioned as positive in these kind of discussions, makes it easier to project ofp onto it. just the looks alone. if you ignore all that esoteric stuff and look at gameplay and polish, you have no choice but prefer arma 3, not to mention the AI. today i can't believe i had fun shooting AI lying prone in the middle of the street in arma 2.

it's a bit like with dayZ for me. at first it's so new and you can't get enough of it because the unknown implies so many possibilities. but once you understand how it works and can predict most experiences you will have it loses a lot of its initial impact. after that it's just a chase for the old thrill.

another thing is the assets. the arma 3 ones are better than the older ones hands down. but with higher resolution comes a bigger danger of having everything look too clean. noisy low res textures leave a lot to the imagination. i know it's weird but i always felt that way about modern games where the artists don't go the extra mile to add dirt and wear details. i miss the days of cube shaped heads with just a diffuse texture. you needed some imagination back then to make it look good ;)

[calin_banc 19]

totally.

but also on the other hand ofp was pretty revolutionary at the time.

at least for me personally this pattern of "doesn't feel" the same applies to video games in general. i guess once you get older it just doesn't have such a big effect on you anymore. especially when the sequels basically do the same but just change the setting (no judgement here) but give you the same fomular for the actual gameplay.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it's a bit like with dayZ for me. at first it's so new and you can't get enough of it because the unknown implies so many possibilities. but once you understand how it works and can predict most experiences you will have it loses a lot of its initial impact. after that it's just a chase for the old thrill.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

another thing is the assets. the arma 3 ones are better than the older ones hands down. but with higher resolution comes a bigger danger of having everything look too clean. noisy low res textures leave a lot to the imagination. i know it's weird but i always felt that way about modern games where the artists don't go the extra mile to add dirt and wear details. i miss the days of cube shaped heads with just a diffuse texture. you needed some imagination back then to make it look good ;)

It's mostly because new ones add some polish to the old ways, but not actually adding something truly new. Implement stuff such as Euphoria, proper physics for vehicles and higher vehicle details and functionality (like the whole open door - passenger gets in - close door animation for instance), proper medical and heath system, shooting from vehicles and weapon resting, etc. and you'll get excited like a new born over this. :D

Also, some wear and tear plus dirt are in the game. Also for OPFOR and Independent ARs as you can see, the barrel of the gun is seen through those "vents" which is a nice little detail. Plus de radio chatter and voice acting in the campaign is from a completely different league compared to previous games. So is the driving and physics to the vehicles. Plus visuals of course and I think somewhat performance as well. Got to give them credit for that.

[/img]

[/img]

[bad benson 1733]

Also, some wear and tear plus dirt are in the game.

well. not worth mentioning though.

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/921267395591576785/90F9F081C8F29DB1B91AE961CCF707BCF875360C/

looks like freshly unpacked to me. i know there is a generic scratch texture on it but that just makes it look like marble or something. it's a matter of taste i guess. i like weapons to look way more used like in real world pictures. arma 2 lacked that too though.

[calin_banc 19]

You need PBR to make the assets look good all around (check some ships from SC in PBR, they're jaw dropping) and I'm not sure the engine supports it. Probably some scratches, dust or mud accumulating (or getting clean ) over time depending on weather and terrain can be implemented along side with wet surfaces, water drops on windshields, glasses, etc. However, like always, more pressing matters are thought to be the priority. :D

[Wiki 1558]

CWC had a good and solid campaign / SP missions.

The other ArmA don't. Some missions are good, but not the whole campaigns. All in all, they are quite dull and as interesting / good as BF3 or BF4 campaigns...

[iceman77 18]

To be honest, I think this is mainly because OFP had something I can only describe as a "crappy charm". I don't think that essential quality could be recaptured even if someone did a Black Mesa and remade Flashpoint in the Arma 3 engine.

I think it's also about the fact that we'd never seen anything like it at the time. In my experience, the scale, AI that essentially has a brain (not scripted) and the sheer amount of overall content overwhelmed me. Typically regarding things we like; the first experience will usually always be the "best". I call it nostalgic bias.

[Westonsammy 1]

I think it's also about the fact that we'd never seen anything like it at the time. In my experience, the scale, AI that essentially has a brain (not scripted) and the sheer amount of overall content overwhelmed me. Typically regarding things we like; the first experience will usually always be the "best". I call it nostalgic bias.

^^^^^^^

THIS

I myself was not impressed with ArmA 3, after having played ArmA 2 for many years. But when I showed off ArmA 3 to some of my friends, (who were avid PC gamers but had not tried out ArmA before) they couldn't believe their eyes. They thought that ArmA 3 was the greatest thing ever, despite my attempts to point out BI's shortcomings on the game.

I think that us ArmA veterans often forget that ArmA does much more than literally any other game on the market does right now, not to mention it is one of the only milsim-style games out there. ArmA is still quite impressive if you aren't used to it.

This is not to say though that we should be satisfied with ArmA 3, I sill think we should pester BI constantly to keep them on their toes ;)

[calin_banc 19]

That's because much hasn't changed during the years, being basically the same game (fun as it may be). It's not due to "getting older". :)

[mamasan8 11]

OFP had a totally different approach to most things, comparing to other wargames.

Just take the music. I was expecting rocknroll or metal. Instead you get this weird, nice melody that just fits perfectly. The music makes the scene feel old. Like I am in the countryside, in the 80s. The color scheme that was there and still is, watered down colors, also fit perfectly.

Then theres the scale of it all. Tanks, choppers, planes, infantry, all in one game and pretty well done.

And the voice-acting and story...top-shelf stuff.

Perfection on so many levels.

But... there was one thing that bothered me. Performance. Usually it didn't matter because aiming was quite snappy even when the game ran at 17 fps, if I turned off the shaders. But that was and still is the achilles heel.

Arma 3 is supposed to be in 2035 but I just don't get the feeling it is in the future. Feels more like 2010. Theres just no advanced systems.

Grenade launchers...computers can calculate the trajectory and area of impact in milliseconds. Why would we have to bother with doing it manually? Same with artillery. It should be more 'point and click' IMHO. Point at where you want the charge to land, computer calculates the rest. That stuff has existed for years. Then, in RL, theres glass that stops grenades etc but ingame it seems like windows are made of plastic.

Does not compute.

[devilslayersbane 28]

Arma 3 is supposed to be in 2035 but I just don't get the feeling it is in the future. Feels more like 2010. Theres just no advanced systems.

Grenade launchers...computers can calculate the trajectory and area of impact in milliseconds. Why would we have to bother with doing it manually? Same with artillery. It should be more 'point and click' IMHO. Point at where you want the charge to land, computer calculates the rest. That stuff has existed for years. Then, in RL, theres glass that stops grenades etc but ingame it seems like windows are made of plastic.

Does not compute.

I don't know why'd you expect NATO with a failing economy to actually give regular soldiers these systems. Albiet, some options like this should be in-game (I'm guessing that's what the artillery computer tries to be), but they're there when they make sense. So you have an MRAP with a Remote weapon station, well, have fun in a burning hunk of metal because I've got a rocket! You have to also remember that at it's heart, ArmA is still a game and you have to be able to play either with someone or against someone and not be able to auto-range your grenade launcher. Most of the NATO equipment in ArmA 3 is considered "old" anyway, just play through the campaign's opening.

[chortles 263]

They thought that ArmA 3 was the greatest thing ever, despite my attempts to point out BI's shortcomings on the game.

I think BI stepped off the gas a bit because they realized how many PC gamers were like this... :p

I think that us ArmA veterans often forget that ArmA does much more than literally any other game on the market does right now, not to mention it is one of the only milsim-style games out there. ArmA is still quite impressive if you aren't used to it.

This too -- if anything it's a skewed perspective to not recognize how far and away different basically any Arma is from "literally any other game on the market", whether in the 'milsim' aspect (despite BI explicitly not aiming in that direction for A3) or in the sandbox aspect.

Most of the NATO equipment in ArmA 3 is considered "old" anyway, just play through the campaign's opening.

The problem is that CSAT gear visually might be more "2035" but their gameplay isn't appreciably different from NATO gear...

[Alwarren 2767]

I don't know why'd you expect NATO with a failing economy to actually give regular soldiers these systems.

Well, seeing how CSAT is an up and rising economy and don't have that kind of equipment either, it somewhat makes this a moot point.

---------- Post added at 18:55 ---------- Previous post was at 18:51 ----------

The problem is that CSAT gear visually might be more "2035" but their gameplay isn't appreciably different from NATO gear...

As in, "not at all". They have the same ammunition, the same sights on their grenade launchers, basically identical equipment if only by name. And some of the equipment is just re-skinned NATO equipment. They even all use the same goddam turrets on everything.