Verisimilitude of Arma 3

[-Coulum- 35]

People just need to open their eyes and minds, do a bit of research on the equipment provided in game and then use a bit of imagination to adapt the situation that occurs on Altis to a previous similar event in our own history while remembering that the Armaverse does not run parralel to our own.

Yes, I must agree and in addition, nothing in arma 3 is really too futuristic to "simulate". Simulations are all about predicting what would/could/should happen in an event you have never gotten to observe in real life. When I was studying civil engineering we had tonnes of simulations of bridges/structures and how they would fare in certain conditions. No ones ever made a 50 metre bridge made out of A single block or 50 foot thick iron before, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible to simulate. Same goes for a futuristic weapon, vehicle armour, etc. Even if no one has done extensive testing on it, as long as you know the physics behind it it is possible to simulate it. Nothing in arma is so futuristic that you can't do basic physics to see how it would interact with the virtual environment around it.

Tying all that back onto topic, the "futuristic setting" is not why arma 3 isn't a simulator.

"keeping their loyal fan base happy"? *cough*

A good read. But why then do you think BI continues to provide the vast amount of support and possibly controversial features? Is is purely love of their game and having a vision for what they want it to be? Maybe constant updates means constant sales? What do you think?

[chortles 263]

because the game doesn't seem to feature the exact equipment used by the United States circa 2003

Funny thing is, that is quite a few people's complaint about Arma 3...

As for the game not being set in dusty desert Bumfuckistan I can understand peoples frustration at not being able to play yet another game set in almost complete desert brown/tan colours but hey, let's just forget all the other conflicts that have occured around the world over the last 25+ years and the multitude of locations they have occured in. I relate Altis to something like the Panama or Grenada conflicts; trouble in paradise style scenarios.

When someone's complaining that the SP campaign was too much guerrilla and not enough of what Iraq and Afghanistan are like, there's no winning...

P.S. Funny thing re: the "trouble in paradise" concept, I'd actually thought that Queen's Gambit somewhat hit on that! Mind you, this does in part seem to be why people are anticipating a "Pacific Theater" expansion...

[gibonez 18]

As for the game not being set in dusty desert Bumfuckistan I can understand peoples frustration at not being able to play yet another game set in almost complete desert brown/tan colours but hey, let's just forget all the other conflicts that have occured around the world over the last 25+ years and the multitude of locations they have occured in. I relate Altis to something like the Panama or Grenada conflicts; trouble in paradise style scenarios.

People just need to open their eyes and minds, do a bit of research on the equipment provided in game and then use a bit of imagination to adapt the situation that occurs on Altis to a previous similar event in our own history while remembering that the Armaverse does not run parralel to our own.

Atlis reminds me of Israel to be Honest.

The flat land, arid climate, the merkava and Middle eastern Coalition.

[chortles 263]

Yes, I must agree and in addition, nothing in arma 3 is really too futuristic to "simulate". Simulations are all about predicting what would/could/should happen in an event you have never gotten to observe in real life. When I was studying civil engineering we had tonnes of simulations of bridges/structures and how they would fare in certain conditions. No ones ever made a 50 metre bridge made out of A single block or 50 foot thick iron before, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible to simulate. Same goes for a futuristic weapon, vehicle armour, etc. Even if no one has done extensive testing on it, as long as you know the physics behind it it is possible to simulate it. Nothing in arma is so futuristic that you can't do basic physics to see how it would interact with the virtual environment around it.

That, and when a lot of real-life hardware is in the game -- heck, even 6.5 mm is a real round, right down to config comments about the 6.5 mm rounds in the game deriving from 6.5 mm Grendel, which is a real-life caliber with real-life published statistics -- it's certainly presenting authentic content that didn't entirely come from the devs' imagination, whether or not it's realistically simulated (i.e. armor penetration values), the latter of which is closer to to what means "simulator or not".

A good read. But why then do you think BI continues to provide the vast amount of support and possibly controversial features? Is is purely love of their game and having a vision for what they want it to be? Maybe constant updates means constant sales? What do you think?

Depends on how you define "support", though at this point I actually consider the prior BI games to be in the "depreciated value indie" category (not least because there was a BI Humble Bundle with 'em) that the blogpost describes, while if anything it's Arma 3 that's treated by BI as a "premium" product which is generally still sold at a "premium" price point (oh-ho, sounding a little AAA there)... not sure just where I'd fit DayZ SA in between those, though clearly its revenue has given BI some degree of buffer/insurance against worrying about Arma 3 sales, and who knows where Take On Mars and Arma Tactics fit in even if they're profitable.

I do distinctly remember one interesting bit I though -- I noticed via Steam Chart player counts that well-promoted updates or other key "release news" would mean player count upticks at the very least, with possibly but presumably intended accompanying sales upticks, and I would dare suggest that such a finding was behind the heavy promoting of Zeus as a "free DLC" even though it was in practice merely one part of an otherwise normal update. I can't say that more updates means more sales, but it certainly can mean "more opportunities for headlines with which to remind people of the game's existence". (Context: For the most part, since the Zeus reveal Arma 3's generally had a steady uptick in both average and peak player counts, even while discounting the anomalous month of May 2014 due to the Steam Free Weekend/accompanying 40% discount, not least since the next month had a pair of brief 50% discounts.)

As for "developing systems for future products" -- the bit about BI actually planning an RV/Enforce merge into a single multi-platform engine (with Arma 3 as the implicit final "pure RV" game) does suggest a possible explanation for BI's emphasis on engine-supported solutions in Arma 3 and aversion to just using SQF like modders can/do: if a hypothetical Arma 4 would be on this engine merge, then better that as many systems/game capabilities as possible be carried over without reliance on a scripting language that may have been superseded by the capabilities from Enforce.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Funny thing is, that is quite a few people's complaint about Arma 3...When someone's complaining that the SP campaign was too much guerrilla and not enough of what Iraq and Afghanistan are like, there's no winning...

P.S. Funny thing re: the "trouble in paradise" concept, I'd actually thought that Queen's Gambit somewhat hit on that! Mind you, this does in part seem to be why people are anticipating a "Pacific Theater" expansion...

I've actually heard some people groaning about the Hunter and how they just want US vehicles deployed in Afghanistan right now like Humvees!!.....*facepalm*

Some people don't even realise that both the Namer APC (Panther in game) and the Patria AMV (Marshall in game) have both gone through US military testing to determine eligibility for upgrade/replacement programs.