Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sub-Human

What do you think of ArmA3's futuristic setting?

How do you feel about ArmA3's futuristic setting?  

220 members have voted

  1. 1. How do you feel about ArmA3's futuristic setting?

    • I'd rather have a modern or historic (Cold War) setting
      101
    • I prefer it to the modern setting of previous games
      44
    • I don't care about the setting as long as the game is a realistic simulation
      47
    • I'd like to see a new and improved futuristic setting (no CSAT bug helmets)
      27


Recommended Posts

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

lol its called 'advancement'! :) The military (esp the US military on which most of the ARMA stuff is based apparently) invests a LOT in improving current technology (gotta love the Discovery channel!!). A few advancements that I'm aware of:

1. the simple laser range finder

2. the ability to 'lase' a target for smart bombs

3. smart bombs!

4. the ability to maintain a lock on an enemy target in say an M1A2 regardless of what the tank chassis is doing.

5. UAV's incl the little copter things

You know...little things like that. :)

Whereas in ARMA 3 (say you're doing a domination mission), you:

1. kit up with a uniform, rifle, helmet, ammo, backpack (nothing new there)

2. jump on an army transport heli which looks to be the same as current tech blackhawks (nothing new there)

3. you get to the AO, find and kill the enemy with your rifle and pack. If you're lucky, you may have artillery and air support flown in an A10 (which is 30 years old and about to be mothballed by the USAF). (nothing new there).

you see what I mean? current tech reskinned/renamed.

I would've preferred doing all of the above but with current weapons like in A2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I'll will for the futuristic setting. If it was done for practical reasons ie avoiding the paying of fees for licencing then so be it.

Bug head helmets on the other hand.. I hope go missing in the expansion relegated to the vas for anyone that did like it. Fingers crossed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replying to the first post, I'd definately prefer a modern or historical setting. Cold War in OFP was pretty cool back then.

But the beauty of the islands in Arma3 makes up for it, i'd say. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arma 3 isn't really too futuristic. If anything, it's a mix between 2000s technology and modern technology with some future thrown in. The tanks are basic, the Javelins aren't fully functional, HUD technology is already in testing, stuff like that. I guess one futuristic thing is the standard use of caseless ammo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not first thread about that topic, so I gonna repeat, what someone said earlier - A3 setting is hardly futuristic. Not at all from functional side, except VR, and only a bit as for design (shapes, non-functional hud glasses). More - in real world we can see in development or even in use more fancy stuff, than in A3.

What we tend to call "modern" is in fact the past, we used to.

My vote is - I don't care about the setting as long game provides me fun and is moddable. My all concerns regarding A3 are focused around engine and functionalities, not the particular setting.

Amen, which is why I avoid threads like this. Don't like it? Don't buy it or just learn how to mod or download mods you do like. Sure the setting in some ways is dumb but overall the added functionality the engine gives is much better than before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not first thread about that topic, so I gonna repeat, what someone said earlier - A3 setting is hardly futuristic. Not at all from functional side, except VR, and only a bit as for design (shapes, non-functional hud glasses). More - in real world we can see in development or even in use more fancy stuff, than in A3.

What we tend to call "modern" is in fact the past, we used to.

My vote is - I don't care about the setting as long game provides me fun and is moddable. My all concerns regarding A3 are focused around engine and functionalities, not the particular setting.

Whilst I do tend to complain, I do agree wholeheartedly with you. My main gripe is that BI state that ARMA3 has a futuristic setting however there's nothing 'futuristic' about it - everything replicated here is modern technology dressed up to look prettier.

On the other hand though...there's nothing worse than a 'if you don't like it, don't buy it' comment - by the time we find out the true game, we've already bought it (eg. Elite: Dangerous) and its too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't like it? Don't buy it or just learn how to mod or download mods you do like. Sure the setting in some ways is dumb but overall the added functionality the engine gives is much better than before.

It isn't easy modding a game into another setting. You essentially have to do the same work as an entire game development studio by yourself or with a team of people who have other responsibilities... if you can find one. It doesn't help that BI chose to jump 20 years into the future not providing modders with any sort of base vehicles or weapons for a present day or historic setting. That's part of the reason I liked the Cold War setting so much. ArmA 2 had weapons in it that were 100 years old and plenty of others that are so widely proliferated across the globe that there are some useful contents for almost any mod you want to make.

Edited by PurePassion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The A2 samples are base enough. Maybe not ideal, but they're a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It isn't easy modding a game into another setting. You essentially have to do the same work as an entire game development studio by yourself or with a team of people who have other responsibilities... if you can find one. It doesn't help that BI chose to jump 20 years into the future not providing modders with any sort of base vehicles or weapons for a present day or historic setting. That's part of the reason I liked the Cold War setting so much. ArmA 2 had weapons in it that were 100 years old and plenty of others that are so widely proliferated across the globe that there are some useful contents for almost any mod you want to make.

Sure it is, other than the Ultimaxes (okay the drum mags) are all from VBS1, and all of the weapons in my weapons pack are all from A2 samples (some originals from the A2 Samples pack, and some modified), and the M14 is just a renamed ABR from A3 itself. If you check the start date on my EricJ Release Thread it started early last year, or actually in Decemberish of 2013.

Believe you me it's not even remotely hard, I think the biggest changes from A2 to A3 (and VBS1 since I'm that old) are config entries and other functionality issues that have just simply been added to the existing models. It's to be blunt real fucking easy to adapt old shit to the new engine.

The A2 samples are base enough. Maybe not ideal, but they're a start.

Again agreed, as 95% of my weapons are from the A2 sample models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally i would also prefer a today setting with known Weapons and Vehicles or a setting in some Historical Wars like Korean or Vietnam. But i personal mean, one Problem in Arma 3 is, the Copy and Paste thing done by most vehicles/vehicle parts (RCWS, Turrets, Drones e.g). It feels like, that some ideas where missing, by creating the Units/Vehicles.

Also it feels like, that OPFOR gets the cool stuff. And BLUFOR unimaginative stuff. And there is sometimes some lack of missing Features, witch needs to be handled and delivered by the Community itself (Modularity of the Taru "Xeno Taru Pod Mod" e.g.).

That means not, that BI don't work to improve the game. The new features delivered by BI for free, are great. But as i wrote before, i mean there is some lack of individual content and missing features. And the chosen Setting isn't my preferred choice. Most time i play Mods like RHS Escalation or FFAA 6.0. Since most Weapons and Vehicles in the Mod are known by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I too don't like the "copy and paste" method either especially with the Titans, and some vehicles (that really annoyed me, as there's no "difference" to see and experience. But overall NATO... isn't always that great in real life either but in some ways better, it's just more technologically superior where most foreign design is actually more functional and aesthetics, which like you, I play with some of the Russian iron via RHS (mainly the helos) and quite enjoy them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A perfect example is the lack of weapon resting. When I first got ARMA 3 and fired it up, I grabbed an LMG, headed out to the field, lay down and then asked via chat 'eh, how do I deploy the bipod'...the response was 'you can't'. lol. This is an infantry based sim. Yes there vehicles/aircraft/etc, however the majority of the time you're playing as a infantryman. Key to being able to shoot straight is the ability to control the weapon sway. Yet, BI introduces significant sway but no default method to stop it. I've said it before, and will say it again, I love ARMA 3, however there are some quite obvious shortcuts the devs used and this is one of them. I've now seen it mentioned in the sniper DLC. That should've been released in the original...not left to the community to 'enhance'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comments such as this really surprise me.

It's not about A3's many assets not being real, it's about the fact that they are a very weird assortment of weaponry and a very unbelievable one even for the 2035 setting. The A2/OA settings were excellent, because on top of the generic US/Russia, the fictious eastern bloc factions drew huge parallels with real recent events and had completely believable weaponry. Many assets could be used as-is or retextured to create the standard issue gear and vehicles for so many modded factions, whether real or fictious-but-believable. Present day faction mods feel alien in Altis 2035, whereas in A2 many of them could seamlessly integrate into the Chernarus or Takistan lore without the need to mod opposing factions.

Not saying I would've necessarily wanted another game of "M16s and AKs", but I feel that much more would have been achieved with Altis set closer to present day and an A2-style approach to fictious factions with assets similar to real life mediterranean militaries. Arma 3 is very hard to relate to, and while the complaints about "too futuristic" are misconceived, they stem from this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, Arma 3 is not futuristic. Take On Mars is futuristic.

Arma 3 is fictional.

Weapons, Gear, Vehicles and Tech represented in game are pretty actual, just are represented with fake names and shapes and that makes it fictional.

Now, the primary goal of a MilSim (or any other Sim) is to attempt a replication (as possible) of real situations, when 99% of the content is fictional or fake it takes away 99% of the goal, and obviously, the immersion.

Sim concept does not fit well with fictional/fake things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, Arma 3 is not futuristic. [...]

Arma 3 is fictional.

Arma3 is futuristic.

It doesn't mean it cannot be fictional at the same time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arma 3 ist futuristic since it plays in 2035, and some Vehicles are Fictional Futuristic concepts like the Huron. Futuristic doesn't mean at all, that we need Warp Drives, Laser Guns or any other other Since-Fiction assets. To call something futuristic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see people still talk about 'mil sim' in ArmA 3 context, but then I look at pages like Wikipedia, Bohemia Wiki, even IGN, and see tags like 'first-person shooter', 'tactical shooter' and 'military sandbox'. No mention of 'mil sim' whatsoever so I'm starting to assume it's a made-up term used only here. :p

Only case in this sereis when the 'mil sim' term was used was for ArmA 2, but then even ArmA 2 had pretty 'arcadey' vehicle and aircraft physics and not fully simulated wound system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huron is not futuristic.

2035 is futuristic, in fact is the only futuristic situation with Arma 3.

Also people should learn the meaning of Sim word. Some when they read Sim word expect to see some ferocious enemy jumping out of their screen to attack them while they are sitting comfortably in their chairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Futuristic setting is perfect. Even the CSAT "bug" helmets. I love their entire uniform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either coldwar / older

OR

futuristic scifi... and i mean really futuristic. Not just "next 5 years but already mostly exists"ish . No. Real future. Lasers, plasma and stuff, mechs etc. Similar to Battlefield 2142 for example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the Futuristic setting is perfect. Even the CSAT "bug" helmets. I love their entire uniform.

So do I I just wish there were some more variantions of it to give them some more variety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comments such as this really surprise me.

A few notes on that;

1.) You need to edit that list because there are things on there that aren't in the game.

2.) Wow, that's a short list!

More importantly, I do see your point. I think it is more of a "there is no equipment that interests me" and most of it can't be used for anything pre-2010 and they can only be used in a limited number of conflicts at that. Not to mention we don't have the mlods so we can't alter any of the futuristic and copy/paste BS they put on them.

Not to mention terrain assets are severely lacking... and I hate those damn shutters on the windows!

Sure it is, other than the Ultimaxes (okay the drum mags) are all from VBS1, and all of the weapons in my weapons pack are all from A2 samples (some originals from the A2 Samples pack, and some modified), and the M14 is just a renamed ABR from A3 itself. If you check the start date on my EricJ Release Thread it started early last year, or actually in Decemberish of 2013.

I don't notice any mention of all 20 vehicles you have made or campaigns, terrains, etc. I quickly took a look at the things you did make to make sure you didn't make a ton of stuff :D . I see that you didn't make a full conversion mod but I did want to say nice work on all of stuff you did make! It looks top notch!

The A2 samples are base enough. Maybe not ideal, but they're a start.

Believe you me it's not even remotely hard, I think the biggest changes from A2 to A3 (and VBS1 since I'm that old) are config entries and other functionality issues that have just simply been added to the existing models. It's to be blunt real fucking easy to adapt old shit to the new engine.

Again agreed, as 95% of my weapons are from the A2 sample models.

Yeah probably easier than I realize. My apologies to all of you guys on the negativity of the modding situation. I harbor a lot of negativity towards this game for a lot of reasons, some good and some bad. I had such low expectations of this game and it still let me down. Some times that clouds my logic. Apologies.

A perfect example is the lack of weapon resting. When I first got ARMA 3 and fired it up, I grabbed an LMG, headed out to the field, lay down and then asked via chat 'eh, how do I deploy the bipod'...the response was 'you can't'. lol. This is an infantry based sim. Yes there vehicles/aircraft/etc, however the majority of the time you're playing as a infantryman. Key to being able to shoot straight is the ability to control the weapon sway. Yet, BI introduces significant sway but no default method to stop it. I've said it before, and will say it again, I love ARMA 3, however there are some quite obvious shortcuts the devs used and this is one of them. I've now seen it mentioned in the sniper DLC. That should've been released in the original...not left to the community to 'enhance'.

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

It's not about A3's many assets not being real, it's about the fact that they are a very weird assortment of weaponry and a very unbelievable one even for the 2035 setting. The A2/OA settings were excellent, because on top of the generic US/Russia, the fictious eastern bloc factions drew huge parallels with real recent events and had completely believable weaponry. Many assets could be used as-is or retextured to create the standard issue gear and vehicles for so many modded factions, whether real or fictious-but-believable. Present day faction mods feel alien in Altis 2035, whereas in A2 many of them could seamlessly integrate into the Chernarus or Takistan lore without the need to mod opposing factions.

Not saying I would've necessarily wanted another game of "M16s and AKs", but I feel that much more would have been achieved with Altis set closer to present day and an A2-style approach to fictious factions with assets similar to real life mediterranean militaries. Arma 3 is very hard to relate to, and while the complaints about "too futuristic" are misconceived, they stem from this.

I agree the Chernarus/Takistan thing was almost perfect. The only thing that would've made it more perfect was Cold War setting. It doesn't have to be M16s and Aks. Probably Aks and something else like an FN-FAL though or G3, etc.

Again, Arma 3 is not futuristic. Take On Mars is futuristic.
Arma 3 ist futuristic since it plays in 2035, and some Vehicles are Fictional Futuristic concepts like the Huron. Futuristic doesn't mean at all, that we need Warp Drives, Laser Guns or any other other Since-Fiction assets. To call something futuristic.

Now, the primary goal of a MilSim (or any other Sim) is to attempt a replication (as possible) of real situations, when 99% of the content is fictional or fake it takes away 99% of the goal, and obviously, the immersion.

Sim concept does not fit well with fictional/fake things.

If you call futuristic a helicopter that had the inaugural flight in 1996 and the project cancelled in 2004.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/comanche/

Then,

You are correct.

We should put this whole futuristic thing to rest:

Dictionary.com: of or relating to the future

Google: having or involving very modern technology or design.

Free Dictionary: Of or relating to the future

Merriam Webster: very modern, relating to or telling about events in the future

Wikipedia: The future is what will happen in the time after the present.

ArmA 3 fits all of those.

I see people still talk about 'mil sim' in ArmA 3 context, but then I look at pages like Wikipedia, Bohemia Wiki, even IGN, and see tags like 'first-person shooter', 'tactical shooter' and 'military sandbox'. No mention of 'mil sim' whatsoever so I'm starting to assume it's a made-up term used only here. :p

Only case in this sereis when the 'mil sim' term was used was for ArmA 2, but then even ArmA 2 had pretty 'arcadey' vehicle and aircraft physics and not fully simulated wound system.

Really, I see them use it. http://www.arma2.com/ Arma 3: the latest installment of the tactical military simulation. Says it right there below the British soldier.

Huron is not futuristic.

2035 is futuristic, in fact is the only futuristic situation with Arma 3.

Also people should learn the meaning of Sim word. Some when they read Sim word expect to see some ferocious enemy jumping out of their screen to attack them while they are sitting comfortably in their chairs.

Huron is futuristic. You name me another helicopter that has technology that allows it to stay in the air after having 5 of its 6 rotors blown off.

Either coldwar / older

OR

futuristic scifi... and i mean really futuristic. Not just "next 5 years but already mostly exists"ish . No. Real future. Lasers, plasma and stuff, mechs etc. Similar to Battlefield 2142 for example

I'm all for the Cold War setting or the futuristic setting. However, if it is futuristic, I would prefer it not be called ArmA.

Edited by Jakerod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×