What do you think of ArmA3's futuristic setting?

[ProfTournesol 956]

I think they may have got sick over rivet counters constantly moaning about how their modern day stuff wasn't accurate. (You can check out the 12 years of posts like that on this forum if you want to read some of them). Plus, by making everything up, they don't have to pay out money to companies (trijicon etc) as they did in Arma 2. Also, I suspect a benefit of having weird futuristic stuff is that it's not as attractive for people to steal and post up on turbosquid.

Personally, I'm massively bored by the proliferation of desert/middle east themed games. It's very bland and often is a bunch of tier-one-elite-eddieprice people with obligatory C-130 and thermal sights vs some generic middle eastern guys with AK's. When you say "what those guys were up against", really, we're talking about some of the most advanced armies in the world vs poorly trained and equipped infantry/militia.

That's why an historical setting would have been brilliant. Korean war for example.

[das attorney 858]

Good point. The RV engine seems better for 600mph Sabres/Migs as opposed to trying to simulate modern fighter jets.

Also helis were around (unlike WW2) so they could still be represented. :)

EDIT: And rights/copyright isn't an issue as it would be "a work of historical significance" or something like that and not infringing on current ip blah blah! (Basically it is ok to make games with older mil equipment as you can't get sued - just give it the mil designations etc)

[EddiePrice 16]

It's very bland and often is a bunch of tier-one-elite-eddieprice people with obligatory C-130 and thermal sights vs some generic middle eastern guys with AK's. When you say "what those guys were up against", really, we're talking about some of the most advanced armies in the world vs poorly trained and equipped infantry/militia.

Erm? Thanks...

Seriously though, there is the argument that the amount of gear used nowadays isn't a direct result to combat the equipment and training of a militia. Of course this is a tangent but modern day equipment is used to combat the means by which current insurgent/terrorist/whatever groups fight and the tactics they use, which of course can't be reproduced in ArmA without some clever mission or addon scripting.

Back on topic, in my opinion ArmA2 and Arrowhead were bang on. Sure there was some inaccuracies but as soon as you start making something modern it's already out of date by the time you finish. ArmA2 and OA had enough scope to range from late 80s/early 90s conflicts right up to modern day. This may also be because of the amount of content but I think the focus of it was also right.

[Sub-Human 10]

Personally, I'm massively bored by the proliferation of desert/middle east themed games.

I'd like a more contemporary setting as well, but not another middle east themed one please.

Operation Arrowhead still has the best setting in the entire series... And the Middle East could allow for one of the Isreal v Arab wars or Iran vs Iraq (arguably the bloodiest conflict of the 80s). I don't know why Bohemia has to hammer in NATO or US as the main Blufor.

[das attorney 858]

Operation Arrowhead still has the best setting in the entire series....

I'm not arguing that with you as it's your opinion (which is fine).

I just didn't really like it. Not enough cover, boring samey landscape, lots of quick firefights won at long range (big scope is king) was my experience of OpArrowhead.

[bonchie 39]

I think they may have got sick over rivet counters constantly moaning about how their modern day stuff wasn't accurate. (You can check out the 12 years of posts like that on this forum if you want to read some of them). Plus, by making everything up, they don't have to pay out money to companies (trijicon etc) as they did in Arma 2. Also, I suspect a benefit of having weird futuristic stuff is that it's not as attractive for people to steal and post up on turbosquid.

Personally, I'm massively bored by the proliferation of desert/middle east themed games. It's very bland and often is a bunch of tier-one-elite-eddieprice people with obligatory C-130 and thermal sights vs some generic middle eastern guys with AK's. When you say "what those guys were up against", really, we're talking about some of the most advanced armies in the world vs poorly trained and equipped infantry/militia.

I'd like a more contemporary setting as well, but not another middle east themed one please.

I found Chernerus much, much more interesting then any map they've put out since OFP.

If we accept that ARMA will always be an "alternate universe" setting vs. real wars, I'd want them to do something Vietnam era or Cold War like OFP. Jungles or wooded areas. The modern stuff bores me. When everyone has an ACOG and Javelins it turns into the same boring "take the high ground/shoot stuff 300m away" gameplay over and over.

Altis is a pretty island, but it's terrain features and bareness make for highly repetitive gameplay.

[das attorney 858]

When everyone has an ACOG and Javelins it turns into the same boring "take the high ground/shoot stuff 300m away" gameplay over and over.

Agreed, that's my standard tactic on Altis/Stratis/Takistan - no need to actually enter a town and do CQB when you can pop caps at them from the hills. Like some sort of medieval siege or something.

[IndeedPete 1038]

Yes, I didn't really enjoy the desert theme of OA as well. The landscape was pretty boring and I've struggled to find cool locations in Takistan. It was fine performance-wise though (aside from Zargabad). But I can understand why so many people like this setting. I'm still really thrilled about Chernarus and its Balkan, Slavic, Ukrainian wars setting though. Loved the landscape and atmosphere.

@Sub-Human: That's true, I'd also appreciate another BLUFOR faction aside from plain old 'Muricans. Even if state of the art, they're overused in basically every modern day shooter. Combined forces like ISAF or KFOR would be cool, with units from several countries. Probably too much work though. And if US troops are missing people would complain again, anyway.^^

[EddiePrice 16]

Agreed, that's my standard tactic on Altis/Stratis/Takistan - no need to actually enter a town and do CQB when you can pop caps at them from the hills.

Entirely up to the mission maker to change your experience - sure if you just put down AI they'll come out to play but with some clever tweaking you can achieve any result you want.

Altis is a pretty island, but it's terrain features and bareness make for highly repetitive gameplay.

I would tend to agree, but also would say Altis and Stratis have very little range. Chernarus could be anywhere in eastern Europe and Takistan the middle east, allowing for hundreds of settings and missions. Altis and Stratis are just Greece and couldn't be anywhere else. The same generally applies to ArmA3's stock content. It's almost like you're forced to play the scenario BI layed out in the campaign rather than create your own.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I love Arma 3's setting and era. Everything exists except for a handful of things, but most of those are well built. Kajman for example is the sexiest concept helicopter I've ever seen. Anyhow though, it feels modern. MX is kinda real, based on a mix between Scar and XCR I think. If you didn't notice I think CMMG helped with the designs. Everything else hand held wise is real.

New gun exists, it was just edited by removing the wooden stock and adding a modernized metal one. Forgot the real life name... VSSK? Can't recall. The other guns, no one knows about yet. Hoping for some special off roads.

[haleks 8212]

The modern stuff bores me. When everyone has an ACOG and Javelins it turns into the same boring "take the high ground/shoot stuff 300m away" gameplay over and over.

That tells everything about the current setting : the further you go in the future, the more boring gunfights will be.

Acting as a gunner on a humvee in Arma2 felt so much riskier and funnier than operating a camera from inside a hunter...

[Maio 293]

That tells everything about the current setting : the further you go in the future, the more boring gunfights will be.

Just remove the attachments and limit high tech equipment ;)

Acting as a gunner on a humvee in Arma2 felt so much riskier and funnier than operating a camera from inside a hunter...

True. Trying to hit the bad guys with the Mk. 19 from the SOF humvee while bullets where landing all around me was an interesting experience.

[pappi_man 0]

While Future setting is fine, but too much is spent sitting front of monitor and clicking target to kill. I would love to see another Cold War Era.

[infiltrator_2k 29]

At the end of the day BIS have had their engine so they could have produced everything the consumer wants when premium DLC. They could have created WWII, Vietnam, modern warfare themes and people would have paid for it. I have no idea why Arma has remained in its same stale state it had so much potential.

[I give up 152]

The only futuristic thing with A3 is the year 2035 itself, all the rest is pretty common these days, some even outdated.

Plus, if it was futuristic would not have fatigue, having in consideration the evolution of science and technology, in the year of 2035 the warfighter will be something close of a bionic cyborg and fatigue will be nonexistent.

[St. Jimmy 272]

I don't mind about the futuristic setting or CSAT bugs. Rifles look good to me so I'm enough happy. That Akina ASP-1 also looks nice :)

[Tejkr 13]

I like the futuristic Arma! It's a great base for multiplayer games and anyway, the main thing about Arma, at least why I love it, is the community.

If someone wants to play it seriously, he will download whatever he likes.

But yeah, the bug helmet, it's weird. That's why I don't like using CSAT soldiers, but again, it has been a long time since I played with vanilla units.

[twisted 128]

While I'd prefer modern settings the thing I felt a little flat about was that the systems weren't explored and thought through enough, they feel a little bare bones from fire control systems to missiles to interiors. This ate getting better now and rhs plus hlc plus cup plus blastcore plus a couple other great mods mean we're getting close. And then there's the marksman Dlc which is looking pretty well thought out so far (well the bits we've been told about)

[chrisb 196]

I'm not a fan of the setting, but I don't play it much, so I'm not too concerned. It would have been nice to stick with modern day, but I suppose we have to think, what would have been the point of a whole new game if it didn't change the setting from the previous one. Although it would have been nice.;)

What will A4 (if there is one), be like. Where will that be set, further forward or indeed back in time. Will be interesting to know what they are thinking next for the series. That's if they're thinking about it at all yet, probably not, too early..

[gibonez 18]

Not a huge fan of the arma 3 future setting.

In fact it made me realize something I would much rather have had a real cold war setting.

Arma set in like 1990 or Vietnam would have been fantastic due to the sheer number of experimental weapons that conflict offers not to mention the creative freedom the devs could allow.

There are simply things in the cold war that are impossible now things such as flechette munitions, napalm , 6 round recoiless rifle tanks and 420 mm self propelled artillery.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/2B1_oka.jpg (2805 kB)

Arma in the past is definitely more appealing to me than arma in the future. The future is just far too stale and in turn just ends up being variations of the same thing. That is to say nothing of how gameplay suffers due to the abundance of thermals and vehicle fire control systems.

[spamurai 3]

Honestly,

I can't say I'm a fan.

The theme feels like it's trying too hard to give you the impression of being set in the future, but not far enough to actually be in the future.

What really does it for me is that the major factions lack character. They are composed of a menagerie of pieces pulled together without a common thread between them, except that they are closely related to elements from today.

Like someone went through JANES book of Future Vehicles and just picked out the cool looking ones... especially ones with "Stealthy" aesthetics.

I don't want to be overly critical of the art direction. The art itself is all very well done, the best yet for ArmA. It's just the composition and theme is generic and rather awkward.

I don't feel like the immersive factor has naturally evolved from the time frame of ArmA II into a believable extension of that period.

There really isn't anything "cool"... like not a single vehicle that I am fond of and pick as a personal favorite like I could in ArmA I and ArmA II.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Spamurai

[silentghoust 132]

I think it comes down to the need for more variants in vehicles. If you actually look at the base levels of assets in Arma 2(not counting variants) you might find they are close to in line with Arma 3. However, thanks to variants in Arma 2, you have probably x3 more assets then Arma 3. I enjoy the future concept, I just think more people would if we had things like HQ variant vehicles, medivac hellcats, ect.

[gibonez 18]

It's just the composition and theme is generic and rather awkward.

.

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.

[howzcat 1]

Modern armor. I can be wrong, since I haven't played it much, but the first time I shot opfor it took 6 bullets to the chest...I couldnt believe it. I immediately started making my missions with agm and aggressors just so I wouldn't have to deal with it again :)

[haleks 8212]

It's more like 3 bullets now; still, I recently discovered AGM and I think I'll stick with it. :)