Lack of content in vanilla Arma 3

[enex 11]

As you said - they were variants not new assets ; )

[devilslayersbane 28]

As you said - they were variants not new assets ; )

True, but there were a lot of side assets, like the mobile helipad that are free too.

[metalcraze 290]

about DLCs: Features free CONTENT PAID

More like - DLC won't be multiplayer compatible for people who don't buy them if we won't include supporting features into the base game.

A forced solution, nothing more.

Plus those features were promised to be in the base game 3 years prior to release. And yet we get only SOME of them together with paid-for Train Simulator-grade crap.

*unique*

I wouldn't use that word when talking about ArmA3. APCs and Cars are essentially copy-pasta when it comes to game mechanics - and a really bad one - 0 difference in loadouts and exactly the same turrets on all of them. Unmanned vehicles are just horrible reskins. Everybody uses the same SDAR and SDV. Same grenades for each side. Differences between assault weapons are mostly visual. Even calibers are the same for both CSAT and NATO. Ghillie suits are just recolors. Same NVGs for everyone. Examples can go on and on and on. I mean even the goddamn Merkava still lacks an MG despite the tank 3d model having a holder for it right above its turret.

Missions and campaigns play like some amateur mission maker quickly put them together. Zero creativity, hours of pointless filler.

And a real-time 3D editor? Where did you see that one?

ArmA3 is the laziest job on BIS side thus far. Even ArmA1 wasn't as horribly lazy. I mean - the building destruction that was finally added in ArmA2 is gone.

Even goddamn lakes are gone.

Maybe they will be added in some $20 lakes DLC though I dunno since apparently BIS has moved from making DLCs that were at least somewhat excusable to completely pointless shit like 2 guns per DLC. But hey at least in other $60 games those cost 3 bucks tops not 16.

[babylonjoke 22]

@metalcraze

I did the same mistake of calling them lazy once, then I started realize that there are so many factors to consider when talking about developing a game that "lazy" doesn't fit.

I just think their art team has been unfairly outsourced (or even the whole god damn game) <---- which I hope is not going to happen for expansion <---- We all want the same dayz quality assets!

For the 3D editor, yeah, It's kinda stupid that we have Zeus but not a 3Deditor for mission

[enex 11]

More like - DLC won't be multiplayer compatible for people who don't buy them .

new engine features created to support our DLCs are not 'locked' to those products. Rather, these improvements contribute to Arma 3 as a whole; they're available automatically to everyone who owns the game. In short, features are free, content is paid, and our objective is to prevent any split in the MP player-base.

http://www.bistudio.com/blog/arma-3-roadmap-201415

[chortles 263]

BI announced in today's blog that they are prototyping an official 3D editor.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

BI announced in today's blog that they are prototyping an official 3D editor.

They actually stated this I think at least once in one of their reports regarding Zeus. I honestly cannot wait for this so I can finish building my Forward Air Base.

On another note regarding the topic at hand, opinions are opinions. If he wants more stuff, than that's fine. Some agree, some don't. However, he has a point, though it's been discussed, it's no surprise given one would expect the same vehicle with 2 different skins would eventually be replaced by another vehicle, removing the skin from that vehicle and getting rid of it, only leaving one faction with it. Now, it's not exactly the same, but it's similar enough to be an annoyance. The only difference, for example, take the AA and Artillery, is the Engine sounds and bottom sounds, and I suppose the texture. Otherwise it's the same thing. And to be honest, there are some really good looking real life turrets out there in development right now, I honestly can't see why BIS didn't take some of those designs to use on at least one asset to make it fully different, even with ammunition type and such. The absolute most annoying I would have to say is the Atrillery. Look at the name, and it may piss you off slightly. Schorcher. Then, something that sounds like soaker. That's about the most damn annoying thing.

In terms of hand held gear, they started diversifying them after awhile. Let's take DMR's and LMG's. MK200 moved from Blufor to the AAF, leaving NATO with only the SW-MX. Then Opfor stopped using the ABR and moved to the Rahim. NATO's MXM used to be 7.62 compatible in te Alpha, but later was removed leaving nothing different from the rest of the MX series other than the Stock, and Barell length. Though, it is the most attractive version of the series. Of course throw a different color (black) on it and call it Special Forces Compatible. As for the launchers... There are a total of 4 in game. 2 of which are shared through all the factions, and 1 of then shared between NATO and AAF, which is acceptable, given are AAF used to be cooperating with NATO.

Back to Vehicles, quad bikes with different colours are kinda fine, but it'd be better if there were some variety in recon/squad style traveling vehicles. Anyhow though, it could maybe be improved from between the Expansion and after the Marksman come. Though of course, that will bring up a bigger argument of paying for the Expansion for a ton of content, and leaving other behind with the same things, only being able to stare at the new things it brings, and not be able to use them in game.

We will have to see.

[devilslayersbane 28]

More like - DLC won't be multiplayer compatible for people who don't buy them if we won't include supporting features into the base game.

A forced solution, nothing more.

Plus those features were promised to be in the base game 3 years prior to release. And yet we get only SOME of them together with paid-for Train Simulator-grade crap.

I wouldn't use that word when talking about ArmA3. APCs and Cars are essentially copy-pasta when it comes to game mechanics - and a really bad one - 0 difference in loadouts and exactly the same turrets on all of them. Unmanned vehicles are just horrible reskins. Everybody uses the same SDAR and SDV. Same grenades for each side. Differences between assault weapons are mostly visual. Even calibers are the same for both CSAT and NATO. Ghillie suits are just recolors. Same NVGs for everyone. Examples can go on and on and on. I mean even the goddamn Merkava still lacks an MG despite the tank 3d model having a holder for it right above its turret.

Missions and campaigns play like some amateur mission maker quickly put them together. Zero creativity, hours of pointless filler.

And a real-time 3D editor? Where did you see that one?

ArmA3 is the laziest job on BIS side thus far. Even ArmA1 wasn't as horribly lazy. I mean - the building destruction that was finally added in ArmA2 is gone.

Even goddamn lakes are gone.

Maybe they will be added in some $20 lakes DLC though I dunno since apparently BIS has moved from making DLCs that were at least somewhat excusable to completely pointless shit like 2 guns per DLC. But hey at least in other $60 games those cost 3 bucks tops not 16.

http://armedassault.wikia.com/wiki/AMV-7_Marshall

http://armedassault.wikia.com/wiki/MSE-3_Marid

http://armedassault.wikia.com/wiki/AFV-4_Gorgon

Please tell me which of these is copy-pasta. I see 3 unique APC's. Each one has it's own pro's and cons. The only thing that isn't extensively unique is the turret on the Marid and the turret on the Gorgon (the Gorgon is somewhat acceptable for lore reasons, as the AAF was receiving equipment from both NATO and CSAT). I mentioned the single Underwater rifle, didn't I?

The Merkava received a gun turret on the Urban Purpose variant (which can actually survive a t-100).

I enjoyed the campaign, although it did feel a bit linear. I enjoyed the presentation of the story. Even though the plot itself could've been better, I was more immersed into it because the characters were actually believable. It wasn't some Arma 2 halfway done voice acting.

Also let me know of any game that doesn't pretty much negate differences between assault weapons.

You mean You can't make your own mission in real time in Zeus? Wow was I misinformed or what (granted it's not's the 3d editor that people were expecting, but we'll be getting that too).

And yeah, because Firing from vehicles, weapon resting, bipod deploying, sling loading, and advanced flight models really suck nor are they important additions to the game. And bohemia wasn't/isn't generous at all by giving those features to you for free, leaving the premium content (a few go-karts, couple of helos, and soon to be 7 weapons priced at $25 for the bundle is way too much) completely optional for you to buy. Heck, they even let you try it out before hand. I'm sorry for the sarcasm (well, really only sorry for the fact that it may offend you) but you've got some really high expectations.

Plus, I the thing I remember everyone on every server I went to the day of release was how stable Arma 3 was. It was most likely the most stable release the series has seen thus far. I'm not trying to lie and say that Arma 3 has had the most diverse content ever, but you're being super cynical and refusing to see where the game actually did really well for no real reason. Actually no, you're reason is that your entire state of happiness apparently relies on how diverse and cheap the content is in a video game that you had no say in in terms of design yet you bought anyway. This is how you sound. Sorry if that comes off as rude or bullying, but seriously it's not the end of the world.

[metalcraze 290]

Please tell me which of these is copy-pasta.

All 3. They differ visually but mechanically they are the same plus-minus minor stuff. Like all 3 are amphibious, all 3 carry 8 passengers, all 3 share the same weapon setup save for Gorgon... Until you realize it's just a recolored CSAT missile turret. Now load up Bradley and BMP-2 from ArmA2 and compare them.

as the AAF was receiving equipment from both NATO and CSAT

But that's exactly that - we learned about it around release when it became apparent the game is full of re-used stuff for opposing forces. Last minute excuse for the lack of content

You mean You can't make your own mission in real time in Zeus?

what's worse is that Zeus felt like BIS took their own properly done VBS2 real time editor (that is there for something like 7 years) and then cut out all the mission saving/making stuff from it along with seamless 2d/3d editor interface transition - leaving only the object placing in 3D with a simplified interface...

And yeah, because Firing from vehicles, weapon resting, bipod deploying, sling loading, and advanced flight models really suck nor are they important additions to the game.

If only most of them weren't promised 2 years prior to release and not delivered up until now. And instead of making sides varied - BIS added 2 choppers despite rotary wing aircraft being fine actually. And made them overpriced too.

ArmA2 had features added with DLCs too. Except for 12 bucks you had a whole new side, new features, new vehicles, new infantry, new guns and even mini campaign and missions together with some small map thrown in - added to an already varied game. Now they ask 16 bucks for 2 choppers and that's it. Guess realizing that millions of people are willing to pay 30 bucks for an ArmA2 mod that is never going to reach a properly done stage seriously spoiled BIS.

You'd think swimming in cash compared to the small budget they had for OFP/ArmA1/ArmA2 would mean a massive game but it's the opposite.

Edited January 21, 2015 by metalcraze

[vran. 13]

I think BI are in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' kinda situation. They shake things up a bit by giving you a new type of terrain and setting (mediterranean-based, futuristic), yet you want more of the same old Eastern European theme. They make the largest island ever in ArmA series, yet you cry about 'bad performance' and wish for smaller or even segmented maps. They make diving possible in the game opening new tactical possibilities, yet you consider it 'just a gimmick'. They release the campaign as a free DLC, yet you still cry for lack of content (of course let's pretend mods and community missions don't exist :p ). They improve the flight model and give you new aircraft, yet you complain on the price of the DLC. They give you 'karts' like the community wished for, yet you consider it 'out of place' and 'a disappointing move'. They add a fatigue system to the game, yet you cry how annoying it is not being able to sprint everywhere. They make backwards compatibility possible in their game (not a move most other developers would do - many don't even allow modding of their game), yet you complain about the lack of ponds.

Man, what an ungrateful bunch the ArmA 3 general forum community is... ;)

[enex 11]

VBS and Bohemia interactive are two different companies and they do not share same resources.

I wanted to post that to avoid confusion that can create because of similar name.

THe question craze is why despite copy pasta, lack of real 3d editor, 2year old promises,

expensive dlcs (your opinion), only 3 helicopters* why are you still here?Why do you post

and why don't you spend your money on something more valuable to you.

*3 helicopters, ADVANCED FDM, SLING LOADING, FIRING FROM VEHICLES, SUPPORT MP MODE, VR TRAINING, OBJECTS

(just copy pasted from a3 site hence caps)

[froggyluv 2130]

I think BI are in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' kinda situation. They shake things up a bit by giving you a new type of terrain and setting (mediterranean-based, futuristic), yet you want more of the same old Eastern European theme. They make the largest island ever in ArmA series, yet you cry about 'bad performance' and wish for smaller or even segmented maps. They make diving possible in the game opening new tactical possibilities, yet you consider it 'just a gimmick'. They release the campaign as a free DLC, yet you still cry for lack of content (of course let's pretend mods and community missions don't exist :p ). They improve the flight model and give you new aircraft, yet you complain on the price of the DLC. They give you 'karts' like the community wished for, yet you consider it 'out of place' and 'a disappointing move'. They add a fatigue system to the game, yet you cry how annoying it is not being able to sprint everywhere. They make backwards compatibility possible in their game (not a move most other developers would do - many don't even allow modding of their game), yet you complain about the lack of ponds.

Man, what an ungrateful bunch the ArmA 3 general forum community is... ;)

Good God so much this ^^^

Reminds me of my 4 yo son -ask a year for a ninja turtle, get it, look at the ad that comes with it and immediately start obsessing about another turtle that he has to have.. The great thing about preferring Arma 2's setting over Arma 3 is -you can still play Arma 2!

[UkropyPrivyet 32]

LINK

I believe it was made by antoineflemming.

Maybe, however some of the stuff in that picture are definitely in the files, as I pointed out, the SF green uniform that the "5th SFG" guy is wearing can be seen in the files, but it isn't in the game itself.

If you think Arma 3 is the only game to ever have shown concepts that don't make it into the game, I'm dumbfounded.

Nah, it's not, but that doesn't make it acceptable to cut a content and give no reason when they were shown in recent pictures at the time that I had bought the game.

Show me one single point there that is categorically untrue. Do you not count the m4 and m16 in ARMA II as separate weapons? Because one's basically a short version of the other and that's my counting logic, if the model is substantially different, there you go.

As to your "all the guns are the same", surprise surprise, all guns in real life are the same. They all shoot bullets, have triggers, have stuff you can attach. They do different amounts of damage based on the calibre, and they have different recoils. Just about every gun in the world works on the same basic principle. What else do you want? In addition, I deliberately avoided counting stuff that is directly copied and pasted. I'm not denying that there is generic copy and paste (the Static weapons being the most obvious example), and obviously some armoured vehicles use the same chassis (and or turret), therefore I didn't count the both sochor and the scorcher.

Also you accuse me of lying, and then you end your reply to me with a flat out lie. You know full fucking well I didn't count the colour variants last time (because I specifically mentioned it and you replied to that part of the comment) so get off your hypocritical high horse and deal with it. You are not entitled to anything more, you bought a game, you were given a game. The game works. There is no obligation to give you more stuff because you feel shortchanged.

*Missed out an SMG for each faction as well.

The M4 and M16A4 do not have any functional difference in game, so no they're not to be considered different rifles. However, the M4A1 has fully automatic instead of burst fire, so it is a functionally different rifle and should be counted as one as it does not perform in the same way as the others.

As for your comment on all guns being the same? I see you COMPLETELY glazed over my argument and skipped straight to the "I've never held a real gun in my hands, much less fired one" chapter. No, all guns are NOT the same. That's the thing with calibers though, is that they made the guns the same god damn caliber as the enemy's counterpart so that everything was COMPLETELY, PERFECTLY, 100% balanced rather than giving one gun an advantage in one usage and another an advantage in a different situation. The fact that they're the exact same is so god damn bland. There's no variation in the weapons! On top of this, they're all horrendously underpowered and can take five or six shots to kill (especially weapons like the TRG-21 and MK20,) so everyone just picks up the Zafir and puts a scope on it the only gun that truly breaks the mold, but in a way that makes it incredibly overpowered (because it's extremely light, extremely powerful, and extremely accurate.) As for color, sorry if that wasn't you, but I've talked to quite a few people who have legitimately tried to pass off the MX black as a whole new rifle. Am I not entitled to anything more? Maybe I'm entitled to a god damn refund then, because this isn't a fucking game, this is an engine.

Says who? Did the Steam page say it would have vehicles or weapons that it ended up not having? In what way is he entitled to more content? If he's entitled to that, why isn't anyone entitled to anything they please? Not being happy with how much content the game has doesn't mean you're entitled to more. I wish there was a large submarine in Arma 3. They talked about underwater combat and operations, why only one mini sub? Am I entitled to another submarine, just because it would fit in the game and I want it really badly?

Did the steam page? No, did Bohemia? Yes. They claimed there would me many more things in the game than there are, but so much of that content just got up and left, which is a shame.

Either way, with the list above I'm pretty happy with what I got out of my $30.

I'd have ABSOLUTELY no problem if they listed this game as a $20 game as it was in early beta, but this is NOT a $60 game and if you say it is you're fooling yourself. Anyone who pays $60 is a fool and is getting scammed.

All 3. They differ visually but mechanically they are the same plus-minus minor stuff. Like all 3 are amphibious, all 3 carry 8 passengers, all 3 share the same weapon setup save for Gorgon... Until you realize it's just a recolored CSAT missile turret. Now load up Bradley and BMP-2 from ArmA2 and compare them.

But that's exactly that - we learned about it around release when it became apparent the game is full of re-used stuff for opposing forces. Last minute excuse for the lack of content

what's worse is that Zeus felt like BIS took their own properly done VBS2 real time editor (that is there for something like 7 years) and then cut out all the mission saving/making stuff from it along with seamless 2d/3d editor interface transition - leaving only the object placing in 3D with a simplified interface...

If only most of them weren't promised 2 years prior to release and not delivered up until now. And instead of making sides varied - BIS added 2 choppers despite rotary wing aircraft being fine actually. And made them overpriced too.

ArmA2 had features added with DLCs too. Except for 12 bucks you had a whole new side, new features, new vehicles, new infantry, new guns and even mini campaign and missions together with some small map thrown in - added to an already varied game. Now they ask 16 bucks for 2 choppers and that's it. Guess realizing that millions of people are willing to pay 30 bucks for an ArmA2 mod that is never going to reach a properly done stage seriously spoiled BIS.

You'd think swimming in cash compared to the small budget they had for OFP/ArmA1/ArmA2 would mean a massive game but it's the opposite.

This entire comment, so much. Seriously. Everything is the exact same mechanically and many of those things are based on horribly flawed mechanics (the car handling definitely comes to mind, it's as if they just got rid of power steering sometime between 2013 and 2035.) A lot of those things that have been promised STILL aren't delivered to this date, such as bipods and weapon resting.

DLC is another place where this game is put to shame by ArmA II. Seriously, $15 for two helicopters or $15 for a whole new map, campaign, a bunch of new weapons, character models, vehicles, and other such things? It's a no-brainer which actually is a better bargain.

[devilslayersbane 28]

All 3. They differ visually but mechanically they are the same plus-minus minor stuff. Like all 3 are amphibious, all 3 carry 8 passengers, all 3 share the same weapon setup save for Gorgon... Until you realize it's just a recolored CSAT missile turret. Now load up Bradley and BMP-2 from ArmA2 and compare them.

Why should I have to? From a gameplay standpoint it really comes down to what am I going to use? Yes, they differ visually but also in terms of performance, loadout, and expansion of situational awareness. From a gameplay standpoint, choosing one out of the 3 is actually quite difficult. I have the marshall which has the sleekest profile of the 3, meaning that the silhouette will be harder to spot from a distance. Not only that but all three crew positions can turn out, allowing for exceptional situational awareness at the cost of some safety. However, it also has a medium-level armament meaning that if I run into anything bigger than myself, I'm in trouble. Then You have the Gorgon. It has the most armor, and best armament but sacrifices situational awareness by not allowing the gunner to turn out, limiting his view. It also has the most noticable turret meaning that you're relying on the camouflage of the vehicle to break up your silhouette. Finally you have the Marid. It has the lightest armament, just a .50cal and a GMG, but it makes up for it in it's maneuverability and medium armor. It also has no positions that can turn out meaning that your view is fairly limited, which is multiplied by the lack of a dedicated commander. However, should you run into enemy armor in the Marid, it's best that you unload your squad and let them take care of it, as you won't do much to anything larger than an MRAP.

All of these subtleties really bring out the depth of ArmA 3's content as you have to change your playstyle to fit the vehicle you're driving/flying. ArmA 3's often been criticized as dumbed down, but on many aspects I beg to differ. The only thing that could be more advanced is the medical system. Although, I'm really glad I don't have to rely on the AI to get me up during the campaign, I still remember the horrors from arma 2.

[purepassion 22]

Hey FR4NCH3K,

we've had this exact discussion multiple times before with every answer to your concerns. Though since not everyone can be aware of everything, I'll explain a few things to you. Of course, things like mistaking a crude community-made photoshop mockup for official content could have been avoided by some research but some reasons are not directly apparent to everyone who hasn't closely followed the development of the game.

First of all, I can understand where you're coming from. Especially people who are relatively new to the community and started with Arma 2 can be quick to feel this way. Let me tell you something, Arma 2 gives you a wrong impression when it comes to amount of content. Most of the stuff that was in Arma 2 was a collection of Arma 1 models, old Game 2 concept models and naturally new assets. It was essentially the result of many, many years of collective effort across multiple development cycles.

Another of your major concerns appears that you remember content that was shown in the very early stages of the game when it wasn't released and prototypes such as the F35 or the Osprey were shown. But do you know that these were unaltered assets from Arma 2? Yes, this was no new content but just placeholders from Arma 2. Instead of simply throwing these in, the dev team decided to wait and created 2 new jets (Neophron and Wipeout). Personally, I am very happy to see that quality was valued over quantity.

Concerning assets like the railgun tank, this is a result of game design. Not many people actually know this but the game underwent a pretty radical change of design along with a new project lead. A majority of the team felt that the initial concepts of Arma 3 were heading in a too futuristic direction and predicted that a large portion of the community would not be happy with it and thus seemingly "unrealistic" weapon systems like the railgun tank were removed from the design scope. After that design change and before Arma 3 was available to any form of purchase, it was pretty clearly communicated what kind of content we can expect to see in the game.

Next up is legacy content available in the game files. You say you're paying for that content but it's not there? Well, you're speaking about it, so show us the classnames. What is stopping you from creating a small config file to enable it? (like other people already did) It is common for WIP or unused assets that were produced but don't fit into the design to be kept in the game files as legacy content.

If you are unhappy with the amount of content that is the game, you can make use of our wishlist thread, start creating content yourself, download content from the community or simply wait until the development team has finished the content they are constantly working on. What we have right now is what the dev team could achieve in the given time with the given resources. With the much higher fidelity and complexity we have in the game compared to Arma 2, don't you think it's only normal to have less quantity?

Above all, remember that Arma 3 and the dev team's vision for it isn't even near its completion. Features and content are still being worked on and will be delivered.

Additionally, I would appreciate if you and everyone else could try their best to keep the discussion civil and mature, or else I don't see this thread being open much longer.

Edited January 21, 2015 by PurePassion

[almanzo 144]

*snip*

What a nice and level headed response! Thank you, good sir.

[Jona33 51]

The M4 and M16A4 do not have any functional difference in game, so no they're not to be considered different rifles. However, the M4A1 has fully automatic instead of burst fire, so it is a functionally different rifle and should be counted as one as it does not perform in the same way as the others.

As for your comment on all guns being the same? I see you COMPLETELY glazed over my argument and skipped straight to the "I've never held a real gun in my hands, much less fired one" chapter. No, all guns are NOT the same. That's the thing with calibers though, is that they made the guns the same god damn caliber as the enemy's counterpart so that everything was COMPLETELY, PERFECTLY, 100% balanced rather than giving one gun an advantage in one usage and another an advantage in a different situation. The fact that they're the exact same is so god damn bland. There's no variation in the weapons! On top of this, they're all horrendously underpowered and can take five or six shots to kill (especially weapons like the TRG-21 and MK20,) so everyone just picks up the Zafir and puts a scope on it the only gun that truly breaks the mold, but in a way that makes it incredibly overpowered (because it's extremely light, extremely powerful, and extremely accurate.) As for color, sorry if that wasn't you, but I've talked to quite a few people who have legitimately tried to pass off the MX black as a whole new rifle. Am I not entitled to anything more? Maybe I'm entitled to a god damn refund then, because this isn't a fucking game, this is an engine.

Ok then, I'll take the MXM off the list as it's only a model change. But the SW allows you to use 100 round magazines so are we counting that as a change? Sure a lot of weapons are similar, but how can you differentiate them in a meaningful way, apart from weight and inertia values?

Actually I agree with you, I've no idea why CSAT and NATO both use 6.5mm, it would make sense if CSAT and the AAF or NATO and CSAT did since the AAF is presumably buying equipment from each one. The damage is a whole different thing, and seems to be some glitchiness (with hitboxes) combined with no wounding means you have a binary dead or combat effective. Nothing inbetween, really we need a first aid system like the one from ARMA II, punishment for getting shot but not an endless button clicking process. However if everyone is using the Zafir that sounds like poor mission design, and to be honest if fatigue has been turned off that will happen because then there's no punishment for it. The mission maker should actually limit the number of machine guns everyone uses, instead of simply sticking VAS/VA/Whatever in.

[UkropyPrivyet 32]

Of course, things like mistaking a crude community-made photoshop mockup for official content could have been avoided by some research but some reasons are not directly apparent to everyone who hasn't closely followed the development of the game.

I followed it pretty closely, buddy. I've been following the development since well before it was an alpha and bought it within the first week that it was available for release. However, I wouldn't call it crude in any way, especially considering that the Multicam rendered in it is much closer to reality than the Multicam that's in-game.

Most of the stuff that was in Arma 2 was a collection of Arma 1 models, old Game 2 concept models and naturally new assets. It was essentially the result of many, many years of collective effort across multiple development cycles.

Yes, I understand this, and I've dabbled about a bit in ArmA I as it's the game that originally got my interested in the series, but even though a lot of the models in ArmA II are recycled concepts, the weapons each have a unique feeling to them even if they are in the same caliber. Hell, even the SCAR-L feels very different from the M4A1 and other 5.56 rifles in the game. In ArmA I it was the same way, but ArmA III has clearly deviated from this path quite a bit because even though all of the art models and all that are built from the ground up, they all feel like the exact same underpowered rifle with overly exaggerated recoil and a menacingly awkward fire rate. I'd be completely content with the small amount of content in game if each thing felt like it was unique in some way, but as stated, everything just feels the exact same.

Another of your major concerns appears that you remember content that was shown in the very early stages of the game when it wasn't released and prototypes such as the F35 or the Osprey were shown. But do you know that these were unaltered assets from Arma 2? Yes, this was no new content but just placeholders from Arma 2. Instead of simply throwing these in, the dev team decided to wait and created 2 new jets (Neophron and Wipeout). Personally, I am very happy to see that quality was valued over quantity.

I understand that everything about the V-22 and F-35 is from ArmA II (except for maybe the textures, which looks pretty far off from the ArmA II textures.) The thing about that is though: It would have been perfectly fine to incorporate the F-35 into the game because, hell, if the worst MBT somehow managed to replace the Abrams and stay unchanged up until 2035, then I'd figure the Joint Strike Fighter, which is projected to be in use still by that time, would fit well with the futuristic role because it definitely looks and acts the part.

Concerning assets like the railgun tank, this is a result of game design. Not many people actually know this but the game underwent a pretty radical change of design along with a new project lead. A majority of the team felt that the initial concepts of Arma 3 were heading in a too futuristic direction and predicted that a large portion of the community would not be happy with it and thus seemingly "unrealistic" weapon systems like the railgun tank were removed from the design scope. After that design change and before Arma 3 was available to any form of purchase, it was pretty clearly communicated what kind of content we can expect to see in the game.

I know it went through a massive design change and got a new project lead that changed (and frankly, messed up) the game. I know that people were upset with the futuristic setting because, to be honest, I was one of them. But here's the thing: when it underwent the massive design change, the design team didn't start from scratch and instead just kept going with what they had. The adapted the T-100 to have a normal gun (which I'm fine with) and, without changing too much of the supposed backstory, scattered the Israeli gear around in a way that COMPLETELY destroys any possibility of the lead-up events actually having happened. To go with this as well, the game is still set in 2035 and because of that, it gives it the half-baked feeling I've been talking about. They put it in a futuristic time period, but they didn't actually add anything futuristic (at least not to the multiplayer at least, because the end of the campaign was pretty far off the rocker, Mr. Tesla.) Everything exists and has existed since the 90s, if not further back in some cases. Nothing feels futuristic in the game, but it doesn't feel right because it's not correct for a near-future or modern day conflict either because looking at the design, the Iranians are in 2035, the AAF are 1990s America, and the Americans are in 2014 but they decided to go pants-on-head with their weapons acquisition by adopting a foreign made and frankly worse main battle tank, a rifle from a no-name tin metal AR manufacturer, brought back a failed concept of a light recon helicopter and replaced the Apache with it (even though the holy point of the Comanche was to go hand and hand with the Apache, off topic a bit, but why the hell was the cockpit of the AH-99 moved to the front? It's really awkward to fly like that, however I know it was a last minute decision since it happened maybe two patches before release.) I mean, everything about the American military is all wrong. The U.S. Military has some pretty specific rules among hire-ups, and one of those is that the US Armed Forces will never adopt any sort of fighting vehicle or rifle that is not manufactured domestically, and I'm pretty sure the Merkava, Namir, Patria, and Marksman anti-aircraft module are not made here in the United States.

Next up is legacy content available in the game files. You say you're paying for that content but it's not there? Well, you're speaking about it, so show us the classnames. What is stopping you from creating a small config file to enable it? (like other people already did it) It is common for WIP or unused assets that were produced but don't fit into the design to be kept in the game files as legacy content.

I'd show you them if I knew anything about file IDs, but it's not a huge secret that a lot of the character customization devices that came out before the official one showed the content. As I've said, the worn fatigues and SF Green uniform are two that were pretty prominent in the customizers, at least for my friends and I. As for legacy content, what's stopping me is the fact that I can't use it in game. I would absolutely love to have legacy content enabled, but I'd never be able to connect to a server because mods might as well be dead outside of very small, very tight-knit communities that I frankly do not have the time to get into (I don't have enough hours to dedicate to playing video game bootcamp and online shooting drills.)

If you are unhappy with the amount of content that is the game, you can make use of our wishlist thread, start creating content yourself, download content from the community or simply wait until the development team has finished the content they are constantly working on. What we have right now is that the dev team could achieve in the given time with the given ressources.

My suggestions would either be considered too futuristic or too far in the past and would be considered too radical. Hell, if it were up to me the entire NATO vehicle line as well as firearm lineup would be completely scrapped because frankly, they're not futuristic, they not modern, they're not old school, and they don't make any sense. As I've hopefully pounded in by now, the entire vehicle lineup for NATO is horrendous and a thousand times worse than what we currently have in service, so might as well just tack on some future stuff to the Abrams and Bradley to make them look like they're more space-age.\

With the much higher fidelity and complexity we have in the game compared to Arma 2, don't you think it's only normal to have less quantity?

Yeah, that would make sense if the items in ArmA III were actually more complex instead of just being the same system in a different shell over and over again. They're beautiful textures and models, but they're mechanically the same and they do not bring any joy or sense of realism to use.

Above all, remember that Arma 3 and the dev team's vision for it isn't even near its completion. Features and content are still being worked on and will be delivered.

Oh I understand that they are not, but I'll never get to see the final product in all its thought-to-have glory because at this rate everything is going to be overpriced DLC (2 helicopters = $15.00, 7 rifles and 2 MGs - $15.00, both are ridiculously overpriced for what you're getting.) And the premium content pass supposedly isn't going to cover full scale add-ons anymore, which makes it not even worth getting.

EDIT:

Ok then, I'll take the MXM off the list as it's only a model change. But the SW allows you to use 100 round magazines so are we counting that as a change? Sure a lot of weapons are similar, but how can you differentiate them in a meaningful way, apart from weight and inertia values?

Actually I agree with you, I've no idea why CSAT and NATO both use 6.5mm, it would make sense if CSAT and the AAF or NATO and CSAT did since the AAF is presumably buying equipment from each one. The damage is a whole different thing, and seems to be some glitchiness (with hitboxes) combined with no wounding means you have a binary dead or combat effective. Nothing inbetween, really we need a first aid system like the one from ARMA II, punishment for getting shot but not an endless button clicking process. However if everyone is using the Zafir that sounds like poor mission design, and to be honest if fatigue has been turned off that will happen because then there's no punishment for it. The mission maker should actually limit the number of machine guns everyone uses, instead of simply sticking VAS/VA/Whatever in.

MX would be the only one left as the MXC and MXM are the same, I guess I'll concede the MXSW since it does have the larger magazine, but other than that it's just the same rifle. recoil, same unbearable fire rate, same ineffective wounding ability. As for how we can differentiate them: It's simple, do it based on how they actually handle and work. All MX rifles and Katiba rifles handle the exact same way. The Katiba is, effectively, the MX with a new model and skin. They should be distinct. For instance, maybe the Katiba (being a bullpup with a longer barrel on average) is more accurate, but also weighs more, takes longer to reload, has a bit slower fire rate (to keep up those accurate shots), less recoil (as the action is all right in your shoulder) and, given the shorter magazine model, only holds 20 or 25 rounds to try and keep it a bit more competitive with the MX weight-wise. The MX, the counterpart, would be lighter and, combined with the standard rifle configuration, would recoil harder than the Katiba. Since the MX also only has a 16" barrel (At least it looks like it, maybe I'm wrong) it might be a bit less accurate, but the fire rate could be ramped up a bit to make it a better mid range, suppressing fire weapon. Not a bullet hose like the PPSh, but more close to the modern M4A1 at around 900 RPM or so.

As for ammo, you do understand why they did it right? NATO's main enemy is supposed to be CSAT and the AAF's main enemy is supposed to be the FIA, so they each have weapons that perform the exact same way so that no creativity is needed to balance the factions on an infantry level, because they have the same rifle for all intents and purposes. 6.5 caseless could make sense for CSAT since they're pretty damn futuristic, but NATO is more grounded in modern day (though not reality) so it would make more sense for them to go with a conventional rifle cartridge, though if it had to be different from 5.56 it could be something a bit more interesting like .300BLK (would make the rifle ballistically worse but a much better choice for as a suppressor host, or maybe something like 6.8 SPC which is an amazing middle ground between 7.62x39mm and 5.56x45mm.

The game mode I am talking about is currently the most popular game mode being played, aka King of the Hill. Personally I don't like the current way that equipment is gained in KoTH as you unlock the best gun in the game at level 18 and one of the worst rifles at level 30 or so, but I'm not working on that so I don't have any say in it. In reality, though, it's not their fault for not controlling the amount of GPMGs and LMGs, it's Bohemia's fault for making the LMG and GPMG so much better than the other choices. I mean, the GPMG has negligible recoil up to 200m or so and they're way too lightweight when compared to their real life counterparts, not to mention they have the fastest fire rates which make them a pretty obvious choice for close quarters as you can just spray from the hip and easily destroy your enemy.

Edited January 21, 2015 by FR4NCH3K

[Jackal326 1158]

And the premium content pass supposedly isn't going to cover full scale add-ons anymore, which makes it not even worth getting.

Then don't get it. I hear Battlefield: Hardline needs more people to complain about its lacking content, why don't you go over to EA's forums and cry more.

[UkropyPrivyet 32]

Then don't get it. I hear Battlefield: Hardline needs more people to complain about its lacking content, why don't you go over to EA's forums and cry more.

Good to see you followed the moderator's comment to keep the discussion civil. Don't worry, I don't plan on buying it because, in essence, the premium content thing that they're pulling with ArmA III right now is on level with Battlefield's premium content system.

[Jackal326 1158]

My reaction probably was over the top.

You stated yourself that you bought the game within the first week of its release, at which time the Steam page clearly listed what was currently in the game, and what future content was planned. Can I ask why you bought the game? Did you expect it to be exactly like ArmA2 but with updated graphics? Was it for the prospect of modding?

[enex 11]

In battlefield you can't play with DLCs you didn't buy in arma you can.Be it weapons or vehicles.SO no it's not on the level

on battlefield.If it would be on the same price level could hold some water but is cheaper then battlefield premium.

Why would you say that?

[babylonjoke 22]

7 rifles and 2 MGs - $15.00, both are ridiculously overpriced for what you're getting.

I don't get this...

Actually 9 weapons + various attachments as 15 $ DLC would be a damn good price, because deal with it, they ain't gonna add any new free asset to the game <<< (at least not 9 weaps)

But I'm afraid we will get much less

[UkropyPrivyet 32]

My reaction probably was over the top.

You stated yourself that you bought the game within the first week of its release, at which time the Steam page clearly listed what was currently in the game, and what future content was planned. Can I ask why you bought the game? Did you expect it to be exactly like ArmA2 but with updated graphics? Was it for the prospect of modding?

I bought it because I had faith that the developer of the game would release another outstanding title as they have in the past, but this time in an environment that is incredibly unique and with the lands being populated with soldiers clad in interesting, semi-futuristic gear. Instead, what I got was an island that is 65% brown, 10% city, 5% green, and 20% unusable, physics-defying salt-flat that does not actually mimic how real salt flats handle vehicles. On this island is a mish-mash of compromised-in models that were made for a long since gone version of this game that are neither futuristic nor interesting. I went in hoping for a unique experience, but what I got was ArmA II with less content that is incredibly bland, but hey at least it's shiny, right?

In battlefield you can't play with DLCs you didn't buy in arma you can.Be it weapons or vehicles.SO no it's not on the level

on battlefield.If it would be on the same price level could hold some water but is cheaper then battlefield premium.

Why would you say that?

It's cheaper than battlefield premium for now but too will change in time I'm sure. Just as this game held water to other titles when it was $20 in early beta but is now utterly crushed by other titles now that it's in the standard price range. Sure, you can't play with other players if they have the DLC in Battlefield, but at least in battlefield the meat of the gameplay, infantry combat, embraces the fact that it is in no way realistic as well as (at times) provides a decently fulfilling selection of unique weapons, whereas ArmA III shamelessly tries to claim that it is incredibly realistic while taking five bullets to the chest without even breaking a sweat from what is essentially a gray shape-shifting blob of a rifle that detects the color of the uniform that the holder has and shapes itself into the rifle of his faction.

[Jackal326 1158]

I bought it because I had faith that the developer of the game would release another outstanding title as they have in the past, but this time in an environment that is incredibly unique and with the lands being populated with soldiers clad in interesting, semi-futuristic gear. Instead, what I got was an island that is 65% brown, 10% city, 5% green, and 20% unusable, physics-defying salt-flat that does not actually mimic how real salt flats handle vehicles. On this island is a mish-mash of compromised-in models that were made for a long since gone version of this game that are neither futuristic nor interesting. I went in hoping for a unique experience, but what I got was ArmA II with less content that is incredibly bland, but hey at least it's shiny, right?

Well then maybe you shouldn't have bought it in the Alpha stage. I made the same mistake with ArmA1. I loved OFP, I must have put thousands of hours in playing MP, making missions and helping develop addons. ArmA1 rolled around (and I pre-ordered it) and it took quite a while for most of my squad at the time to transition over and because it took a long time for mods to come out for the first year or so I found myself hating the game - not through any fault of the game in particular, but because I had such high expectations for it and it fell so short. I was very disappointed. After a time though, as more of my friends made the leap to "next gen" as it were and as more mods came out, the game gradually became sculpted into an experience I enjoy. Some people (I imagine you may be one such person) would make the argument that the game should have been perfect upon release and my (and the community's) transition should have been a flawless and smooth one.

A similar thing happened with ArmA2, only the initial "lag time" between launch and mods was much shorter due to have a more experienced community and BI on board with updating their toolset and overall being a bit more clued in as to what the community needed (it wasn't necessarily what they got, but they tried. The game itself seemed more appealing as well.

I wont argue that ArmA3 was in many respects a step backward. The futuristic setting was a turn-off for many people (not a big fan of it myself, but I knew there would be mods to address that - eventually). Other people were put off by the apparent jump in the system requirements (not going to go into that here, I don't understand most of it myself, all I know is I haven't updated a part of my PC in 3 years and I can run it fine).

A game is what you make of it. If you play it with the mindset that "this game is going to suck", then it will regardless of whether its any good or not. No single game is perfect, but played with the right combination of mods, you can polish any turd.

At the end of the day, we can all type on the forums until our fingers fall off. Will BI listen to us? Maybe. Will they do anything about it in the immediate future? Probably not. Will there be an ArmA4 and in what direction will it go? Who knows. Do threads like this help? I'll leave that one open...

Edited January 21, 2015 by Jackal326