What do you think of ArmA3's futuristic setting?

[IndeedPete 1038]

Yea due to the strange vehicle selection and lack of recognizable equipment every single faction just feels generic and vapid.

All 3 factions lack any personality and it makes it hard for the player to feel invested at all.

That's true. CSAT is an interesting concept yet it is totally underdeveloped. They're supposed to be an equal opponent to NATO yet they're presented as the typical terrorists from the Middle East, just with fancy equipment. Lots of potential flushed down the toilet. What bugs (pun not intended, yet welcome :D) me the most is that they only have like three different faces; six if you count the Asian ones as well. How are creators supposed to make decent story-driven content from that? Not enough variety for me. It kills immersion when all main characters and NPCs look exactly the same. Unless you want to create an adaption of Star Wars' Clone Wars.

[das attorney 858]

Unless you want to create an adaption of Star Wars' Clone Wars.

They definitely don't have the same marksmanship "skills" of Stormtroopers though! ;)

[IndeedPete 1038]

Well, that must be the improved CSAT helmets then! :D

[das attorney 858]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_Evil_Marksmanship

!

[IndeedPete 1038]

So, by that logic one could argue that Corporal Kerry is not a main character because he can be killed by AAF and CSAT forces which act like trained soldiers (driving aside)? :D

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

That's true. CSAT is an interesting concept yet it is totally underdeveloped. They're supposed to be an equal opponent to NATO yet they're presented as the typical terrorists from the Middle East, just with fancy equipment. Lots of potential flushed down the toilet. What bugs (pun not intended, yet welcome :D) me the most is that they only have like three different faces; six if you count the Asian ones as well. How are creators supposed to make decent story-driven content from that? Not enough variety for me. It kills immersion when all main characters and NPCs look exactly the same. Unless you want to create an adaption of Star Wars' Clone Wars.

Given I've played both Bootcamp, and the Campaign, I honestly cannot see why CSAT is portrayed as "terrorists". They are far too Armed, far too Organized, and far too smart to be terrorists. Also, don't forget the story line. CSAT consists of Iran, China, and i believe Funded by Russia. They wouldn't be using Russian gear otherwise. We just haven't been given enough of the story line to really get into yet, not only that, but I can see how anyone who hasn't played the Campaign or read the story line could automatically think that a faction speaking Farsi and being Opfor means terrorist. But it doesn't.

[IndeedPete 1038]

Terrorist might have been the wrong word. It's true, they're too well armed for simple insurgents. Yet they play a way too generic, faceless role. They are in the game because NATO needs an opponent, might as well have been Russians, Chinese or whoever. It doesn't have any impact on the story. What's missing are details about the faction and its background and at least one good character in the East Wind campaign. Someone who represents the faction.

[-=seany=- 5]

I don't mind the future setting. Though I do find it a bit ironic that they used to complain about not wanting to be forced to "recreate the Abrams etc the nth time"... then they go and copy and paste every other object in Arma3 when they finally got their much desired creative freedom... hmmm

I don't really mind what the next era they choose is.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Terrorist might have been the wrong word. It's true, they're too well armed for simple insurgents. Yet they play a way too generic, faceless role. They are in the game because NATO needs an opponent, might as well have been Russians, Chinese or whoever. It doesn't have any impact on the story. What's missing are details about the faction and its background and at least one good character in the East Wind campaign. Someone who represents the faction.

There was one... but we killed him. lol

On a serious note, i agree, CSAT does need kind of a back story, all we know is that they are slowly replacing NATO, and adding up to tensions that could throw the entire world into war... Which, given the setting, would be World War 3, no? So Arma 3... WW3... If BIS does it right they could pull off a really, really interesting campaign for Arma 4. Bug suits... when they got rid of the aliens, they should have got rid of teh exo-skeleton looking bug suits too, and gave them standard Iranian uniforms. that's just my opinion though.

Modern... What people's definitions of Modern seem to be appalls me really. Cold war and Modern are two different things. One can argue, but Modern far surpasses anything Cold war related. Granted, some things from the col war are carried over to modern, but have probably been long, "Modernized". SKS anyone? Compare the version seen around the cold War era, and look at the modern versions today with rails. They are a ton better in terms of handling characteristics and appeal as well. I would love to see Modern stuff. M-ATV is really good, i feel it's a great addition to the Arma series. That's a Hunter for those that don't know. RAH-66 is ok, i guess, i mean i'm i doubt the military has those collecting dust in a hanger somewhere, maybe they're secretly being used. Ghost hawk, real, only problem there is NATO wouldn't simply have rag tag engineers using top notch Stealth helicopters in 2035. Ok ok, but seriously, i want to see more modern existing stuff. Modern in terms of now, modern. V-280 Valor, stuff like that.

[kremator 1065]

Love the setting ... however needed to be a further 1000 years in the future! Not enough pewpew.

A future where everything is just a copy/paste of everything else. Perhaps 3D printing REALLY takes off.

[killzone_kid 1331]

I am not thrilled about it. If this was an excuse to not to port all available arsenal from previous games to Arma 3 then you may say I hate it. Also do not find modern gadgetery exciting as gameplay goes. More autolock this smart that, pretty sure this will save a lot of lives in real war, but as game goes this is incredibly uninteresting. Point and click, boom, you've won, neeeext. So far BIS kept it on the edge with introducing real prototype vehicles and weapons and I have to say it was interesting to discover they do actually exist in real world. But as realism goes, something as simple as AK47 or RPG7 should have been in the game because those weapons will still be used in conflicts 100 years from now. So all and all I have mixed feelings. I prefer the improved engine but I do not like the setting or the content and I am pretty sure a lot of people feel the same way.

[spamurai 3]

If you are going to do "futuristic" then do it. I don't care if you have laser guns and mecha-walkers, you can do science-fiction without giving up on a realistic premise. I would be interested in that. However, it doesn't fool me when you dress-up a CH-47 helicopter with a "stealthy" geometry for the hull and call it a CH-67. It feels uncreative and kinda lazy.

That said, you have a very "future soldier" aesthetic to one faction (CSAT), one conventionally modern (NATO) and then even cold war (AAF). This mixing of themes also doesn't help with the overall integrity of the atmosphere.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Spamurai

[theevancat 277]

I like the future setting (yes, even vanilla CSAT because I think they're cool as hell.) However, I think there's a lot of squandered opportunity. Stuff like the cut railgun tank. It's 2015 and we havs lasers and railgun testbeds. By 2035, we are planning to have those operational in regular service. So there's a lot of cool stuff that they could have done but didn't.

[Gutsnav 13]

If you are going to do "futuristic" then do it. I don't care if you have laser guns and mecha-walkers, you can do science-fiction without giving up on a realistic premise.

:p Mecha walkers are ridiculous, they have no advantage over an MBT or helicopter. Infantry with AT would take those things out in seconds lol

[gibonez 18]

Anyone else feel that when they initially started working on Arma 3 they were aiming for an Israeli vs Iran setting ?

Atlis looks and feels like Israel then there is the Tavor, negev, and merkava to factor in.

The Israeli setting would have surely made for a fantastic setting much better than the current one especially since it would have allowed for some sweet asymmetrical warfare in the mp.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Anyone else feel that when they initially started working on Arma 3 they were aiming for an Israeli vs Iran setting ?

Atlis looks and feels like Israel then there is the Tavor, negev, and merkava to factor in.

The Israeli setting would have surely made for a fantastic setting much better than the current one especially since it would have allowed for some sweet asymmetrical warfare in the mp.

Altis looks like Greece my bad.

[gibonez 18]

Altis looks like Greece my bad.

Perhaps It does but the environment looks like Israel to be especially the towns they remind me of Israeli settlements.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Have a look there : http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?185359-A-vacation-on-Altis-or-To-Limnos-and-back-again&highlight=limnos

[gibonez 18]

Have a look there : http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?185359-A-vacation-on-Altis-or-To-Limnos-and-back-again&highlight=limnos

Yup you are right.

Looks beautiful.

[mistyronin 1181]

Perhaps It does but the environment looks like Israel to be especially the towns they remind me of Israeli settlements.

http://i.imgur.com/TofDNY1.jpg

It looks practically like most of the north-Mediterranean coast villages, from the Eastern coast of Spain to Israel.

http://www.eyeonspain.com/userfiles/image//20090627091648__mg_0055_6_7b.jpg (329 kB)

In Mallorca you can even find a huge radar like the one in Altis:

[mosh 0]

something as simple as AK47 or RPG7 should have been in the game.

I don't like the futuristic setting. I wish there were some modern weapons. I wish lots of stuff from previous titles was in it. I like Altis. I like some of the improvements. But really this seems like Arma 2 stripped down with fancier graphics to me. I feel BI is going backwards more than forward.

As usual though, the modders and scripters made this game what it is today. Without them this series would be dead.

[theevancat 277]

I don't like the futuristic setting. I wish there were some modern weapons. I wish lots of stuff from previous titles was in it. I like Altis. I like some of the improvements. But really this seems like Arma 2 stripped down with fancier graphics to me. I feel BI is going backwards more than forward.

As usual though, the modders and scripters made this game what it is today. Without them this series would be dead.

I mean, at the end of the day there are some modern weapons like the F2000 and TAR-21 called different names, IIRC, so BI wouldn't need to pay for naming rights. I don't think they went as all in as they could and made some creative new designs. MX sorta counts, and so does the Katiba. But they could have done so much more, while still maybe having the FIA use old M4s or something (which would be older and more obsolete by the time period.)

[Stubaf. 10]

I am not sure if anyone has followed the ongoing war in Ukraine the last few months, but I have and I have also learned a lot about the stuff that is in action even now or will be within the next few years. Arma 3's futuristic scenario is EXTREMELY simplified and superficial.

There are no Active Protection Systems, which are in action even today (Trophy, Arena), not even ERA, which is 70's technology, really. No airburst munitions, no precision ordonance, no real automated long range weapons systems, no thermal camouflage, it is really just Operation Flashpoint without iron sights and a UAV here and there. And honestly, that even makes sense, because in 2035 infantry will be toast even quicker than it is today (the few months in Eastern Ukraine have caused about the same fatalities as Iraq and Afghanistan combined!) Designing an infantry combat simulator set in 2035 is a pretty dumb idea, honestly, so no, I don't like Arma 3's futuristic setting. It could have been interesting, though probably not a lot of fun gameplay wise if done properly.

BTW, most if not all of the stuff I've mentioned is either in development or in action right now, who knows what will be around in 20 years.

That being said, I still can appreciate Arma 3 for what it is, even if its premise is flawed and highly unrealistic.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Stubaf.

[pharoah 65]

My understanding is that BI chose a futuristic setting with futuristic weapons/aircraft/etc so that they don't have to pay licence fees to every man and his dog for replicating current technology/weapons/etc in the game ie. its a licensing issue.

Unfortunately though...thats the problem. I love ARMA - its an awesome sandbox sim. However, because the future isn't here yet, their interpretation (or prediction) of the 'future' is open to debate, and unfortunately this is where it falls short ie. ARMA 3 is basically modern day combat using existing technology (or even old technology) with reskinned weapons/vehicles. Tell me how diff the MX is to any modern auto rifle. Same with all the heli's and jets. We're supposed to believe that in 20 years, we still haven't improved the basic helicopter design, jet design, rifle design, tank design, truck design for the better? As someone said above, its Arma 2 with better graphics and reskinned weapons!! lol.

Funny...I would've thought that by 2035 (with all the investment in the military), we'd have:

1. greater load carrying capacity for standard helicopters

2. better weaponry (I mean...the FFAR was designed originally in WW2 and is still 'dumb' yet we pack it on the choppers)

3. maybe some sort of exoskeleton to enable infantrymen to carry more?

4. increased use of robotics? the US Army uses some sort of robodog to transport ammo, etc

5. better artillery?

6. better thermal imaging for infantry (other than standard NVGs)

Ok, maybe its just me but we've advanced a heck of a lot in the last 20 years...but BI assumes in the next 20 years we will stop developing new tech and just reskin the current tech.

Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE Arma 3 but my points above are still valid.

[Jackal326 1181]

...better weaponry (I mean...the FFAR was designed originally in WW2 and is still 'dumb' yet we pack it on the choppers)

If it hasn't been replaced in the last ~70 years, why would they replace it in the next 20? :D