Arma Neither This Or That Nor One Or The Other

[roshnak 41]

You have played A3, lets say simplicity in play, dummy heals, run anywhere with any weight without consequence, driving, AI, multi shots to kill.. I'll finish there.

Overall its the feel of A3 when compared to playing A2CO, if you can't see the difference then you weren't playing A2CO to its fullest potential, I can't change that, but A3 is a lite version in every respect, but that's only my view, based on the way I play the game.

What are you even talking about?

I'm going to ignore the "simplicity of play" comment, since I'm assuming it was just a preface to the actual gameplay aspects you mentioned.

Arma 2 had the same "use heal action to restore a portion of HP" mechanic that Arma 3 does. All Arma 3 did was add another intermediate level healing kit that is carried by individual soldiers. Arma 2 also had an optional medical system module that was complete garbage. All it did was turn killing shots into incapacitating shots Left 4 Dead style.

The weight and fatigue system has already been covered, but I'll reiterate. There was no weight system at all in Arma 2, and you could literally jog forever. Prior to the introduction of the new fatigue system, Arma 3 had the exact same weight and fatigue system that Arma 2 had.

Driving is exactly the same as it was in Arma 2. Exactly the same.

From the outside, the AI are almost exactly the same as they were in Arma 2, with some minor improvements.

Multiple shots to kill -- you mean BI's attempt to approximate the body armor that people are wearing in game? Have you tried shooting unarmored targets? They die just as fast as people did in Arma 2. There are certainly problems with the body armor simulation, but do you think it was more realistic to treat civilians wearing T-shirts and shorts as having the same level of protection as soldiers wearing plate carriers and helmets?

When was the last time you played Arma 2 without mods? Because, as far as I can tell, you think vanilla Arma 2 is a game that it isn't.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I wouldn't say DCS an Arma are not the same thing, they are both Military Sandboxes. Their difference comes in their focus. The strongest point of DCS is Fixed Wing, I used to play LOMAC and Flaming Cliffs, i'ts good when combined. Arma's Strongpoint is Infantry. DCS's weak point is Infantry. While it's there, it's not that great and as stated, a joke, but it gets the job done. Same for Arma, it's weak point is Fixed Wing. While it's there, it's terrible, but it gets the job done. I'm glad both titles have both things. The only thing left is improvements. Both are great in what they focus on. What I meant when I said like DCS, is more on the simulation scale. Take for example, render distance. That can be improved in the RV Engine using sub pixels. How about, fixed wing? It can be improved to, all they would need however is manpower/time. Of course though, the game I was referring to was a Future Arma title, of course Arma 3 isn't going anywhere but where it is intended to. DCS is another story, they are far and few, but are working on advancing all aspects of warfare. With EDGE, they actually achieved quite a face lift in regards to close range visuals. It can be better of course, but the firs priority in any Simulator in exsistance should always be FPS, and functionality of core aspects.

[KeyCat 131]

Driving is exactly the same as it was in Arma 2. Exactly the same.

Really!? IMO driving feels alot better in A3.

/KC

[mobile_medic 43]

They are apparently working on an updated (not new) graphics engine that should allow for more detailed terrains and better hardware usage, but it has been in development for more than 4 years and as far as I know there is no ETA on the release.

Actually, it is new, and it is due out (tentatively) in the next month or so.. at least a beta and NTTR map along with it.

But, yes. DCS is a dual core engine, still. one core for audio, and one for everything else. So, it suffers from some of the same bottlenecking issues that you can observe in Arma. However, I've not had near as much trouble with DCS as I have Arma in that regard. I am interested to see what happens with performance when EDGE 2.0 drops (and stabilizes in the months following). It will still be a dual core engine, but hopefully the new rendering engine will bring some tangible improvements, and not just (long overdue) visual updates.

[Sandy* 10]

What I meant when I said like DCS, is more on the simulation scale. Take for example, render distance.

Eh, I'm completely lost with these buzzwords. What is "simulation scale"? Surely render distance is an engine feature, and for DCS, specifically made to fit a flight sim with the cost of ground detail, just like I explained. For a ground vehicle simulator, they'd want to sacrifice that (useless) draw distance in favour of detail. I take it that you aren't talking about the simulation of human eyesight either, which would be another can of worms considering both games and something that Arma isn't doing any worse with the game's nature in mind. A videogame that can be an awesome infantry combat sim and an awesome flight sim at the same time is nothing but a dream for now.

EDGE will indeed be a big facelight for DCS in terms of graphics, but the ground will still be too flat and featureless to even dream of anything like Arma's terrain is for infantry/vehicle combat. The only thing that DCS simulates to high degree is the operation of the main modules' aircraft, and these are planes that get released with a pricetag of 50 USD a piece.

[froggyluv 2130]

yeah slowing down the speed of movement without a sign of exhaustion(no animations)Masterpiece.....hilarious....sorry but ACE had a lot better System than that(and is not realistic too+ it was optional). Every Arcade/RTS/Sport/FPS game have exhaustion with animation and not forces the Charackter in to a simple SlowMotion mode.

Dude ACE had my guy bellyflopping in exhaustion after a trip to the fridge...

[almanzo 144]

I know there's a story behind the Karts addon, but I have to tell you, when I saw BIS had added go-karts to Arma my heart sank. I haven't played Zeus so I can't be too critical and I'm sure it's fun and makes games more dynamic, but I really did wish BIS had focused more on existing content and fixing the engine and ironing out the bugs before simply adding another feature. Of course playing god in a game will attract new blood and more revenue, but I stand to what I initially said and that's IMO at least, Arma is neither one or the other. If BIS are going to create a realistic infantry experience then they need to follow that on with other elements of the game to give it a definitive genre.

I must say that I find this a bit... odd. For me, I actually welcomed Karts, even though I would have hoped for a different civillian asset... And this is not because I am a "altis life" player, I can't stand Altis life. This is simply because I find the civillian faction important for the game, and especially for mission makers. One of my biggest annoyances with ARMA II was how civillian women wheren't able to drive cars or even ride as passengers. I needed a female character for a campaign I was making, civillians have both tactical implications and narrative value.

Secondly, regarding Zeus. Zeus does cater to quite a large and important part of the core community as it makes it easier for coop communities to make and control missions on the fly. There is a reason for MCC's sucess, and while I still prefer MCC over Zeus, I still understand why BIS introduced Zeus.