Arma 3 is too futuristic

[Chairborne 2594]

I'm sure it is, because that's what we're used to. Anything familiar becomes immersive more easily. But I for one, have seen enough of the same equipment in my last 25 years of gaming. Arma 3 is refreshing. And as long as the mechanics and technology is realistic and existing, I really don't mind what the weapons look like.

It's immersive because it's what you would really see on a battlefield nowadays, instead of a weird 3axis wheeled drone with the same remote turret copypasted on any other vehicle, or the "ghost hawk".

If you take a look at all the user developed content you'll notice a wide majority of those is either cold war era or contemporary.

Also, if you don't mind what the weapons look like what difference does it make to you to play with an M4 instead of an MX? Or with an AK instead of a Katiba?

Rolleyes indeed. I see this comment often, and it is essentially an admission by the commenter that they have no imagination. Which is odd for someone who is ostensibly a fan of make-believe.

I'm writing this as a life-long gamer who has been fully immersed in computer games games from Zork to Planetside 2, not to mention tabletop games such as D&D and Traveller.

I can play star wars battlefront and pretend it's a cold war era game, but it's not quite the same as actually playing a cold war era game.

I, like many others as these boards can testify, buy arma because of the contemporary military style and simulation and A3 has been a huge disappointment.

[zukov 490]

to my point of view is little futuristic... i want railgun, and fully functional CSAT soldier hud, xm8, oicw etc etc with a porting of some good assets from a2

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I Lol'd at the thread Title. On a more serious note, however, i like having real things, that exist in real life. For the most part, Arma does that with a few exceptions. While i don't like it, as a business decision i can understand why weapons don't have real names. I'f i'm not mistaken, the MX is basically a modified XCR. The Kajman is probably along the lines of what Russia's next Hind would look like if i had sex with the Havoc. The Ghost Hawk is what they perceived the actual thing to look like, and Armored vehicles for Opfor were Sci-Fi at first, until you realized that they are freshly modified/polished models of Russia's latest Armor in development. Most of these things, are why alot of military systems are lacking a little bit of punch, with a twist of game balance on BIS's part. The new helicopter Taru is a modified KA-226. However, there are some things that bother me about Arma's current equipment, but for the most of it, it's all real, and modern stuff. My only complaint is not using real names, and have more basic content for versatility.

Too Futuristic, however, is if they add a gunship with 4 main rotors. At THAT point, i would be furious with BIS. But lets hope it doesn't go that way. Real Tech, weapons, vehicles, and gear is what i want to see more of. Modern, in my opinion, consists of current developed systems, meaning it doesn't have to be in service, but as long as it is a physical model in our world, i wouldn't mind it being in game, and looking realistic. Some thing's BIS makes needs a bit of work and variation. Other than that, Arma 3 and it's RV4 Engine have ALOT of capabilities you'd be surprised that they have not used. Example, TrueSKY. If they were to fully utilize the software/hardware, you can really pull off the best simulator EVER. OF course though, we can only dream. What BIS does is what BIS does. While we can encourage them, it would be nothing more. I simply hope though, one day we can see a fully immersive improvements to the engine and game content. Time, will tell.

[Chairborne 2594]

cut

Don't you think there is a bit of difference between a couple items misplaced of a couple years and a third of the game based off concept art?

Maybe they weren't 100% precise but they were believable and still you could solve it by using two simple scripting commands if you still weren't satisfied.

In A3 you'd have to do entire factions from scrap, which i think we both know is extremely time demanding (assuming the tools work how they're supposed to... :D ).

Edit: ops, i meant to quote slatts post

Edited October 21, 2014 by Chairborne

[froggyluv 2136]

I think placing those martian helmets on all of CSAT was a mistake, it's really not so bad if you remove them and replace a few with caps. They kinda remind me of a future, souped up version of those funny Israeli hats - good in moderation, but like fighting an army of smurfs if everybody had them. Not much of a content guy as I far prefer gameplay advancements over weapons and vehicles but have to admit I prefer the age of VERY restricted nightvision. Black night has so many good memories of OFP days, of really feeling lost, desperately seeking any source of light to help both travel and decipher potential foes. IMO, 'the Green' is just too revealing and takes much away from the immersion of a good night mission.

That said, I prefer the:

~not dying from 2m drop

~not having AI that can't get behind anything or enter a house while you snipe them all

~not driving civilian cars on the dirt at maxspeed 6mph even at 4x time speed

~not having it rain in the house

~not being able to peek out of a window thats just 3 inches too high

~not hearing "can't get there" from an AI stuck behind a garden hoe

...and much more.

[vran. 13]

OFP and Arma 1 are set on a fictional set of islands that don't exist, Arma 2 is set in 2 or 3 fictional countries that don't exist.

This is half true. OFP islands like Malden, Everon and Kolguyev are based on the real-life terrains of Lefkada (Greek island), Krk (Croatian island) and Tenerife (Canary/Spanish island) whereas Nogova is a fictional terrain but based on Czech Republic scenery and the same goes for Chernarus in A2. Zargabad in A2 is quite clearly Baghdad-inspired and Takistan is basically Afghanistan with a different name. Sahrani in A1 is really a fully fictional island but they probably also drew some inspiration from reality.

[Jona33 51]

How dare BI use a little bit of imagination, I want to pay £50 for the same game over and over, the world is awful...

^^If you didn't guess, that was sarcasm.

[drebin052 324]

Another one of these threads...

All I can say is that I'm glad that BI chose not to continue another game of U.S. Army vs. Iraqi Army-wannabes and We're-Not-Taliban-But-We-Look-And-Act-Like-Them generic insurgents, if only to piss off you "immersionists". Bravo BI! :D

[slatts 1978]

This is half true. OFP islands like Malden, Everon and Kolguyev are based on the real-life terrains of Lefkada (Greek island), Krk (Croatian island) and Tenerife (Canary/Spanish island) whereas Nogova is a fictional terrain but based on Czech Republic scenery and the same goes for Chernarus in A2. Zargabad in A2 is quite clearly Baghdad-inspired and Takistan is basically Afghanistan with a different name. Sahrani in A1 is really a fully fictional island but they probably also drew some inspiration from reality.

I know, but what I mean is the names and country is all made up. No different from Altis.

[lexx 1386]

ArmA3 has the exact right amount of futurism, imo. I wouldn't want laz0rs, but I also don't want that old Murica vs. Russia / Backwater terrorist people schlick again for the next years.

Well, except for that railgun tank. I so much want to have it.

[katipo66 94]

I really enjoyed Arma 3 for a while, i love Altis but currently I'm having more fun back in Arma 2, and IMO arma 2 looks just and plays just as good... I'm not sure if even the RHS mod would bring me back for a look as it would need a terrain to give it context.. CWR2 does a great job for that cold war era fix on it's own.

As far as the future setting is concerned it would have worked for me if it was functional ie bug helmets with full HUD etc but all that futurism just seems cosmetic only.

It would be awesome if BI were to somehow make terrain building as easy as it was for A2 if not easier and just supplied factions (or armies) as DLC, lots of different fully realized factions for all sides, not just super marines and some sand bros with AKs to shoot at, I know there are many retextures out there but I would love to see more unique factions professionally made.

[Gera_CCT 12]

There are mods out there! JSRS 2.2 + AiA (Almost all maps) + Mods of Units and Weapons (lots from ArmA 2)! Use them in Arma 3 engine!

[Westonsammy 1]

I would have liked BI, instead of doing Iran vs NATO in 20 years, to instead have done the U.S. vs China in about 10 years.

With China's modernizing military, and tensions on the rise in the Pacific, I think it would have been more realistically plausible than Bug-helmeted Iranians fighting a half-American half-Isreali frankenstein NATO on a vacationer's dream island run by genocidal Greeks. Also, even though Altis is new, an Asian terrain would have been as well, and would have felt much less silly than the sunny, white-sanded beaches of Altis. Not to mention all the independent factions you could throw in there (Taiwan, Japan, the Korea's, Russia, ect) it would have been a scenario makers dream.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Westonsammy

[devilslayersbane 28]

I would have liked BI, instead of doing Iran vs NATO in 20 years, to instead have done the U.S. vs China in about 10 years.

With China's modernizing military, and tensions on the rise in the Pacific, I think it would have been more realistically plausible than Bug-helmeted Iranians fighting a half-American half-Isreali frankenstein NATO on a vacationer's dream island run by genocidal Greeks. Also, even though Altis is new, an Asian terrain would have been as well, and would have felt much less silly than the sunny, white-sanded beaches of Altis. Not to mention all the independent factions you could throw in there (Taiwan, Japan, the Korea's, Russia, ect) it would have been a scenario makers dream.

They chose not to do this for political reasons. However it is worth noting that according to the game's lore, I believe china is in fact a CSAT member state. One of the big powerhouses of CSAT, in fact. Don't quote me on that, though.

[Westonsammy 1]

They chose not to do this for political reasons.

Yea I was thinking that... maybe for ArmA 4 if that whole situation calms down by then, hm? :bounce3:

[Chairborne 2594]

Another one of these threads...

All I can say is that I'm glad that BI chose not to continue another game of U.S. Army vs. Iraqi Army-wannabes and We're-Not-Taliban-But-We-Look-And-Act-Like-Them generic insurgents, if only to piss off you "immersionists". Bravo BI! :D

Let's just piss off most of the hardcore loyal customers so some casual can have its precious altis life game mode for a couple weeks worth of gaming! :::::DDDDDDDDD

Then when most of the modders will be driven away you'll end up having a very powerful engine and no content to use it with.

Also it's not 2003 anymore, lots of things have happened in the mean time.

[Harzach 2517]

I can play star wars battlefront and pretend it's a cold war era game, but it's not quite the same as actually playing a cold war era game.

Play the game for what it is, not for what you wish it was. Battlefront takes place in the Star Wars universe - why would you want or expect a Cold War experience from it? Why would anyone do that? It makes no sense. It's the opposite of immersion.

I, like many others as these boards can testify, buy arma because of the contemporary military style and simulation and A3 has been a huge disappointment.

You bought Arma 3 for the contemporary military style? Again, you are not making any sense.

[alonso555 10]

I love the "futuristic" setting and CSAT. I hope BI won't change their mind because of people like the original poster.

Rest in peace railgun tank, I will never forget you.

[BL1P 35]

LOL good joke with the first post op. really funny thanks :)

Classics like :-

"with "fantasy" factions such as iranian"

and

"ARMA3 which is a futuristic crap shit"

along with

"this SUPERB VB3 ENGINE"

and not forgetting the best intro ever

"We poor "idiots""

pure class m8 you should write for CNN :)

Edited October 21, 2014 by BL1P

[Jona33 51]

Brilliantly the author of this thread hates the game but has almost finished the final chapter of the campaign, if it's so shite why did you spend hours (because Adapt is hardly short) playing it through to come to the conclusion it's too futuristic.

[Chairborne 2594]

I bought it when it was in alpha and BIS made the premise that content would've been added down the way, without telling us what that content would've been or what it would've looked like in the end.

They're publishing the heavy lifters for the two main factions NOW, a year after the game was released, in a payable DLC that now that i know what it's going to be i'm not going to buy.

Why did you buy Arma 3?

[ratszo 17]

Where's my laser and jet-pack? I still gotta aim a rifle like grandpa did --where's my battle-mech?

[Jona33 51]

I bought it when it was in alpha and BIS made the premise that content would've been added down the way, without telling us what that content would've been or what it would've looked like in the end.

They're publishing the heavy lifters for the two main factions NOW, a year after the game was released, in a payable DLC that now that i know what it's going to be i'm not going to buy.

Why did you buy Arma 3?

And content has been added, the Neophron, Wipeout, FV-270, Kuma and Wildcat, Rahim rifle, all of these have been added post release. If that's not what you wanted then tough shit, they've done what they said they would. (I don't need to break out the actual list of content in the game do I?)

I bought ARMA III because I wanted a good game that would last more than two hours and I would enjoy, that's what I got.

[Harzach 2517]

I bought it when it was in alpha and BIS made the premise that content would've been added down the way, without telling us what that content would've been or what it would've looked like in the end.

They're publishing the heavy lifters for the two main factions NOW, a year after the game was released, in a payable DLC that now that i know what it's going to be i'm not going to buy.

Why did you buy Arma 3?

It was never suggested that cold war assets were going to be added. To the contrary, the devs were pretty upfront about the nature of planned assets. Before and during the alpha phase, this forum was full of discussion regarding the setting of Arma 3.

I bought Arma 3 because of the several thousand hours I enjoyed playing Arma 2. Now I have enjoyed well over a thousand hours of Arma 3, with many more to come.

[EricJ 761]

the game isn't complete either, as I'm pretty sure they have another terrain planned. I personally have never bought any arma game for the vanilla content, its what the community can do with it that has my full attention. I thank the devs for allowing ppl to add to/modify an already great platform

That's why I avoid these topics.. If you don't like it start modding it so you can enjoy the game without some of the things in the game if it doesn't suit you. Granted I have a more gripe about how lazy they were with the vehicles but otherwise agreed.