What do you think of ArmA3's futuristic setting?

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

"I think it is more of a "there is no equipment that interests me"

This is pretty much what it all boils down to; opinion.

[pharoah 65]

There will always be features missing for one reason or another.

Yes thats fine...but this is PRIMARILY an infantry based sim, and being able to use a bipod (which IS modelled mind you...just superficially) is key to that, esp for LMGs and long range weapons. It shouldn't be a 'DLC'. Its like saying 'here buy our car, but you'll have to buy the brakes as a separate DLC, and until its released you have to rely on your mates to help you' lol.

astounding. However, rant aside its still functional I guess.

[jakerod 254]

Yes thats fine...but this is PRIMARILY an infantry based sim, and being able to use a bipod (which IS modelled mind you...just superficially) is key to that, esp for LMGs and long range weapons. It shouldn't be a 'DLC'. Its like saying 'here buy our car, but you'll have to buy the brakes as a separate DLC, and until its released you have to rely on your mates to help you' lol.

astounding. However, rant aside its still functional I guess.

I don't know. I do feel like it is one of those things that should be a key feature of the game or expansion but not because it is necessary. I haven't felt like I needed one in my 10+ years playing this game or any of the other games I have played. I simply like my DLC to be more like the ArmA II DLC. I would rather wait for expansions for new features like this and get full factions and campaigns in DLC.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Yes thats fine...but this is PRIMARILY an infantry based sim, and being able to use a bipod (which IS modelled mind you...just superficially) is key to that, esp for LMGs and long range weapons. It shouldn't be a 'DLC'. Its like saying 'here buy our car, but you'll have to buy the brakes as a separate DLC, and until its released you have to rely on your mates to help you' lol.

astounding. However, rant aside its still functional I guess.

Your analogy is moot given you do NOT have to pay for bipods/weapon resting as they are features and BIS does not charge for adding features; only content.

[I give up 152]

Honestly I don't care if is futuristic, fictional or whatever.

I do care about a mode of military gameplay called COOP (wich was the core of Arma) and I just did a search in game server browser and (after a exhaustive search between all those MMORPG servers) I have found four (4) servers running this game type that had no password, without heavy mods/addons and having a couple players inside. I have found 4 playable servers. There are a few more running military COOP but have password and/or are running a ton of mods.

This means that if I was a new player without any mods wanting to have a COOP military gameplay experience I would had 4 servers IF I had the luck of finding them.

This is normal for a game that has as key word "Experience a True Combat Gameplay in a Massive Military Sandbox" ?

I dont think so and in my opinion this game as military concept for gameplay (futuristic or not) does not have chances to succeed.

[gibonez 18]

Honestly I don't care if is futuristic, fictional or whatever.

I do care about a mode of military gameplay called COOP (wich was the core of Arma) and I just did a search in game server browser and (after a exhaustive search between all those MMORPG servers) I have found four (4) servers running this game type that had no password, without heavy mods/addons and having a couple players inside. I have found 4 playable servers. There are a few more running military COOP but have password and/or are running a ton of mods.

This means that if I was a new player without any mods wanting to have a COOP military gameplay experience I would had 4 servers IF I had the luck of finding them.

This is normal for a game that has as key word "Experience a True Combat Gameplay in a Massive Military Sandbox" ?

I dont think so and in my opinion this game as military concept for gameplay (futuristic or not) does not have chances to succeed.

Yea PVP and TVT modes have dominated arma 3 and Imo thats a good thing. Shooting bots is boring.

[lexx 1363]

The poll is lacking a "I like Arma3 the way it is"-option. Because I like it how it is and I like the CSAT helmets and I don't mind the weapons nor the vehicles. I like the setting a lot more than the generic stuff from Arma2. Also I like that it looks futuristic, but not super over the top sci-fi (which I would not like at all).

[Sandy* 10]

The poll is lacking a "I like Arma3 the way it is"-option. Because I like it how it is and I like the CSAT helmets and I don't mind the weapons nor the vehicles. I like the setting a lot more than the generic stuff from Arma2. Also I like that it looks futuristic, but not super over the top sci-fi (which I would not like at all).

Despite my criticism, I've still enjoyed the vanilla content one way or the other. My biggest issue though is the lack of variation in certain asset categories. If you want an armored car with an MG, the only option is one with a remote system and an excellent camera. Same goes with static heavy machineguns. If you want powerful anti-air "emplacements", the only options are mobile AA that are also a total killer against infantry.

Here lies the problem with mission-making. If you want to make missions that don't rely on electronic gizmos enabling you to detect and shoot enemies much easier and over much larger distances, you simply have to rule out several assets from what is already quite a small set. There are no alternatives.

It would only make sense for the factions to have the good old reliable stuff in reserve (or for AAF, even in use, Altis having been ravaged by years of war). Arma 3 feels really theme-driven instead of having any sort of thoughtful insight into its own fictional setting. Of course we can just scrub this off by saying Bohemia didn't have the resources to create more weapons and vehicles, but in that case I would've personally preferred them making some of the lighter assets with manned turrets and iron/reflex sights instead of remote-MGs and hitech cameras.

[gibonez 18]

Despite my criticism, I've still enjoyed the vanilla content one way or the other. My biggest issue though is the lack of variation in certain asset categories. If you want an armored car with an MG, the only option is one with a remote system and an excellent camera. Same goes with static heavy machineguns. If you want powerful anti-air "emplacements", the only options are mobile AA that are also a total killer against infantry.

Here lies the problem with mission-making. If you want to make missions that don't rely on electronic gizmos enabling you to detect and shoot enemies much easier and over much larger distances, you simply have to rule out several assets from what is already quite a small set. There are no alternatives.

It would only make sense for the factions to have the good old reliable stuff in reserve (or for AAF, even in use, Altis having been ravaged by years of war). Arma 3 feels really theme-driven instead of having any sort of thoughtful insight into its own fictional setting. Of course we can just scrub this off by saying Bohemia didn't have the resources to create more weapons and vehicles, but in that case I would've personally preferred them making some of the lighter assets with manned turrets and iron/reflex sights instead of remote-MGs and hitech cameras.

They could even bring old stockpile weapons and put them in and it would make sense.

Take this weapon for example.

Old Vietnam Era Recoiless rifle in 106mm. The Department of Defense recently put a purchase order to modernize the m40a1s currently in stock. The improvements are probably to the aiming system replacing the old optics and removing the .50 cal spotting rifle.

The end plan was to mount them on MRAPs and as they would be perfect for the long range engagements of Afghanistan.

Good weapon systems will always come back even if its 2030 we will still see AK platform rifles, rpg7s and countless other "outdated" weapon systems in the battlefield.

So it would absolutely make sense if they brought them into Arma 3 .

[sektor 2]

I like the setting a lot more than the generic stuff from Arma2.

I'm no naive english speaker, but i think "generic" is not the word you should be using for Arma2 stuff. Authentic would be more appropriate.

[lexx 1363]

And yet it is generic.

I am so happy we don't have to fight russians or desert people with ak and pitchfork for once.

[sektor 2]

I always fought against West, maybe you could try that for a change.

[lexx 1363]

I can't change the whole single player campaign. Well, I can if I spend a truckton of time on it, but I don't want to.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Here lies the problem with mission-making. If you want to make missions that don't rely on electronic gizmos enabling you to detect and shoot enemies much easier and over much larger distances, you simply have to rule out several assets from what is already quite a small set. There are no alternatives.

this disabletiequipment true;

This goes a way to helping mitigate what you are talking about but I fully understand your point and quite agree with it.

[Jona33 51]

I really like the default setting, but if anything it should be expanded so the CSAT helmets actually have a purpose etc. My 2nd choice would be very old-school, 70s to 80s, proper cold war stuff with no technology. More cool with the US v Russia thing when done well (e.g. RHS) but cannot think of anything more dull than being the US shooting at Middle Eastern insurgents. It's just not at all interesting to me. I guess my view is lots of fancy tech (but used well by mission makers), or nothing at all.

[subs17 9]

Hopefully one day we'll see a return of current in service equipment and older weapons from A2/A1 because the futuristic setting is not as good to me since it takes the sim away from sim in some cases and is more scifi themed. Back with A1/2 when we had ACE mod for those versions of Arma I could relate to the equipment/weapons since it is in service or was at some point and also you could check out the equipment capabilities and with mods like ACE you had the ability to use those capabilities. With a futuristic version we see unrealistic weapons or capabilities and moves away from the original sim Arma and I'd consider arcady. By adding a marksman dlc how can it be regarded as realistic when the weapons are scifi perhaps they could at some point model something that is in service today that would give such a dlc credibility. Ideally I'd prefer if Bis worked alongside Eagle dynamics and made the ultimate FPS/hardcore sim that kicked arse than head in the futuristic scifi theme that its heading in. It wasn't that long ago I saw a video of an Arma 2 mod that accurately simulated real life artillery including using maps and compasses and the original sim did in some missions actually force the player to resort to using a map and compass.

[gibonez 18]

It wasn't that long ago I saw a video of an Arma 2 mod that accurately simulated real life artillery including using maps and compasses and the original sim did in some missions actually force the player to resort to using a map and compass.

Was it ace ?

ACE artillery was amazing it made artillery truly powerful not unlike real life but due to the complexity it was a viable option for TVT and co-op modes.

The artillery computer of arma 3 has got to go.

[Corvinus 35]

Authentic would be more appropriate.

I'm not a native English speaker either, but I wouldn't describe Arma 2 as "authentic". US Army with SCAR as issued rifles? AF RF with BTR-90, AK-107, yet using steel pot helmets, some no-name LBVs, outdated T-90 and Ka-52 models? All of that can hardly be described as "authentic". Arma always had this "alternative reality" vibe in it.

[Sandy* 10]

I always replaced SCARs with M16/M4, and being completely oblivious to any shortcomings in the Soviet/Russian vehicles, it was always authentic enough for me. Though I'm not sure if this is what sektor really means, as he clearly misunderstood what Lexx said.

[Nicholas 5]

Doesn't matter to me as long as it doesn't go overboard futuristic like Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare. Most of the weapons and vehicles in ArmA 3 are based on actual weapons or prototypes. As long as the gameplay remains the same, and it doesn't go too far into the future, it's fine with me.

[odie0351 67]

My problem with the futuristic setting isn't so much the idea of experimental or fictional equipment, but that even with all the other options available we still have stuff, NATO faction Vehicles in particular, that have no business being in game...at least not with NATO. Take the Merkava/Slammer for instance, even though the game is set in 2035, a primarily American NATO force is operating a 60'sh year old design that it never used in real life, and never will. Why not put a little more effort in and actually make a feasible "futuristic design" like what we have with the T100, which is still lacking itself *cough*barrel launched ATGM's*cough*, but at least it's original. I kinda like fictional vehicles like the MI48, BTR-K and T100, or prototypes that never made it to production like the Comanche/Blackfoot, or even real world vehicles that make sense, like the Leopard 2 EVO/Kuma, but the Merkava and its derivatives don't make sense. If FIA were the ones using the Merkava it would still be a stretch, but it would still fit better than in its current iteration as a American MBT. I understand that the Merkava models were already made before the big story change happened and BI didn't want to let that work go to waste, and its not to say I don't like the Merkava, I just don't like it being used as an American work horse when we could've had something much more appropriate, even if it ended up being a "Wipeout style" dolled up Abrams.

Turret sharing is another big thing that pisses me off about the futuristic setting, instead of taking advantage of the opportunity to get creative and make some interesting and unique setups BI decided to cut corners and give everything the same damn turrets. Think we're all pretty well familiar with that particular can of worms so that's all I'm gonna say about that.

As for other futuristic things like everything having thermals and such, hate to break it to ya but that is the future. Right now every tactical aircraft in the Marine Corps has FLIR, Cobras, Hueys, Ospreys, hell even the old CH-53E's have FLIR, and it ain't going away anytime soon. On my first deployment every vehicle in my platoon had at least one if not several thermals, mostly old PAS-13's and fancy little ones(I forget the name) that you could mount in front of your RCO to use with your rifle, and MRAPS with thermals mounted on a extendable mast. That was 2009, my second deployment we had TOW Systems upgraded to linkup with a sweet little LCD screen in the cabin of our Humvee's so vehicle commanders could see what there gunner was looking at. I can only imagine what kinda fancy shit we're gonna have by the 2030's so I'd say that thermals wise at least, ARMA 3 is pretty moderate with such things. If I'm gonna whine about something unrealistic in that department, its gonna have to be comm's, Muthafukka's on "walky talky's" chatting with each other 15 miles away calling in fire missions and shit haha.

Overall I don't mind futuristic, It just frustrates me how much wasted potential happened due to either lack of imagination, balancing or cutting corners.

[pharoah 65]

cutting corners.

honestly.....thats my take. 'just copy and paste, pretty it up and push it out so we can get some cashflow coming in....don't worry, the community will fix it' :) On the other hand though, we got early access to ARMA 3, Stratis, Altis, plus new stuff over the period its been released. If I had to go back....I'd still buy it...whinge, but still buy it. I guess its the old 'bird in the hand' cliche.

[Sandy* 10]

The thing with thermals and highly magnified scopes/cameras is that they make up some really questionable gameplay. This is all apples and oranges, I know, but there are a lot of groups both casual and milsperg who share the same mindset.

You can have nice scripting and mods for the AI, but they really have no idea how to prevent their detection by these fancy gadgets while moving and fighting. Giving the AI the same toys might boost their detection and firing ranges, but they remain just as stupid as before. I've never played any TvT except conservative ones with iron sights, or reflex/ACOG at best, as anything else is frowned upon. It's much more fun trying to find and shoot the enemy with the good old stuff than having gadgets do 2/3 of the job for you.

So even if A3's futuristic setting is realistic, do you guys actually find it any fun?

[gibonez 18]

The thing with thermals and highly magnified scopes/cameras is that they make up some really questionable gameplay. This is all apples and oranges, I know, but there are a lot of groups both casual and milsperg who share the same mindset.

You can have nice scripting and mods for the AI, but they really have no idea how to prevent their detection by these fancy gadgets while moving and fighting. Giving the AI the same toys might boost their detection and firing ranges, but they remain just as stupid as before. I've never played any TvT except conservative ones with iron sights, or reflex/ACOG at best, as anything else is frowned upon. It's much more fun trying to find and shoot the enemy with the good old stuff than having gadgets do 2/3 of the job for you.

So even if A3's futuristic setting is realistic, do you guys actually find it any fun?

Yea this is why I think a Cold war setting would be the best for Arma from a purely TVT pvp standpoint.

Lots of variety of weapons but little to no thermals and everything requires experience with the particular tool.

[Corvinus 35]

...

Overall I don't mind futuristic, It just frustrates me how much wasted potential happened due to either lack of imagination, balancing or cutting corners.

Good points, and I agree with your entire post.

Except that "BTR-K" and "T-100" aren't fictional, but belong to the "prototypes that never made it to production" category, and Mi-48 is just an atrocity.

So even if A3's futuristic setting is realistic, do you guys actually find it any fun?

I know I do. Arma3 has its flaws, but I would never buy it if it were another "AK/M16/Abrams"-fest.