Arma 3 - APEX - NEWS and SPECULATIONS

[graemeshute 218]

Peabot, maybe you should learn to read? That would save you from a lot of unnecessary stress. The Apex campaign was always advertised as multiplayer coop. 

 

If you spend money, you should know on what.

I think he meant that in Co-op you have no AI buddies. You spawn in alone which I can remember hearing co op and with AI controlled units.

[froggyluv 2136]

Peabot, maybe you should learn to read? That would save you from a lot of unnecessary stress. The Apex campaign was always advertised as multiplayer coop. 

 

If you spend money, you should know on what.

 

 Sorry with all due respect thats a horseload of crap -they at most said it was playable as MP co-op but what they produced is clearly a new direction which utterly shuts out the singleplayer. To try and sell that "all this was clear before pre-purchase' is blatant horseshit and only further exacerbates people. Just the fact that they changed the wording in game from 'SinglePlayer' to 'Solo Play' says it all as well as their admission after the fact that they had made a "decision early on that might tick off their core base'.

 

 So please dont try and sell that shoe-shine, this guy has every right to voice his feeling of being duped as maybe we werent lied to, but it was base dishonesty which is the same thing. I try and let this go but people now defending this shady practice and blaming the buyer really pops my buttons

[lexx 1363]

Wasn't really dishonesty, as - except for "it will be a coop campaign" - we had exactly zero information about it. If at all, you could say they didn't talked about the campaign pre-release on purpose, because someone might have expected such reactions.

He on the other hand could have read about it by now, then would have known exactly what he is up for.

[Peabot 0]

I apologize for being pissed, but I am one of the (maybe rare?) people that LOVED the single player story driven campaign in ArmA3. At a time when most FPS games were focusing on multiplayer content and not giving a F*** about a singleplayer campaign, I thought BI really aced it for us loners. For example the line of side missions that let you choose what and where to do them was awesome...and the twists and progress in the plot was obviously well thought through and given a lot of love by people that really cared about the singleplayer content. I've played some multiplayer -love the Capture the Island servers- but even today what i go to play in ArmA mostly is the singleplayer campaign. I think i've played the singleplayer completely through at least 10 times, each time discovering a slightly new angle or approach.

 

I went over some wording that gave me the impression that I got and yes....though not explicitly written so, various things DOES give the impression that there is a singleplayer (not singleplayABLE) campaign content in this expansion. For one thing on steam this game (edit: by this I mean the expansion) is listed under tag "SINGLEPLAYER" among other things. In ArmA3's own tutorial section it mentions "Apex Protocol is a 1 to 4 player co-op CAMPAIGN with TIES TO "THE EAST WIND". To me that is ambiguous at best. What is "ties", if it wasn't put there to imply there is some CONTINUATION of the ealier story? At the very least it would seem to be there only to let people like me jump to my own conclusion without actually being wrong...kind of a dirty tactic.

 

I still stand by my word....if it says CAMPAIGN and SINGLEPLAYER anywhere about the game in my opinion APEX does not provide what those words imply...and therefore it is false advertisement. CAMPAIGNS should be "SCENARIOS" instead. "SINGLEPLAYER" should never exist if it's actually designed from the get-go  to not be played alone, as it obviously wasn't. In short Apex Protocol was a set of Multiplayer Scenarios that CAN be played alone and with elements that ALLUDE to the greater universe that the ArmA3 sp campaign exists in.

 

I would never have bought Apex for close to a full stand-alone price if I knew it was only going to be a new map, a few vehicles, and a few multiplayer scenarios. I would have been quite happy waiting till whenever ArmA4 comes out (if at all) and deciding then if I need it.

[zukov 490]

so the next dlc will be with Tanoa/horizon army

[Wiki 1558]

I wonder whether tehy will make some DLC for Apex - and if yes, what it will be.

 

I hope their PR / Communication guy won't be as bad as it was for Apex.

 

And I really hope they'll make more interesting SINGLEPLAYER missions

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

I wonder whether tehy will make some DLC for Apex - and if yes, what it will be.

 

I hope their PR / Communication guy won't be as bad as it was for Apex.

 

And I really hope they'll make more interesting SINGLEPLAYER missions

Hainan Islands? Maybe some some reaction to CSAT PLA being busted for occupying the horizon islands, which could lead to the mainland? Wouldn't mind mainland jungle setting with more interesting ridges, and stuff? Who knows.

[Wiki 1558]

Is it just me, or does the Launch Trailer seems to have much more awesome and badass moments than what we actually got?

 

The scenes in this trailer seems to provide much more epic moments than the campaign...

 

[lexx 1363]

100% sure there won't be a new map in a DLC. Or let's say- I hope they will not focus on a new map again. There is plenty of room to explore the existing maps some more... And the resources of creating a new map can be used for other content.

 

/Edit: @Trailer: Probably because it was made specifically for the trailer. Makes the disappointment even bigger, imo.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Still waiting on proper naval units to fill sea level/ground based logistics and up armed operations, but besides that, i don't think we can expect much more for Apex.

[IndeedPete 1038]

Is it just me, or does the Launch Trailer seems to have much more awesome and badass moments than what we actually got?

 

The scenes in this trailer seems to provide much more epic moments than the campaign...

 

Yes, the trailer is absolute bullshit. Many people, myself including, already commented on that one. If I wasn't in for the map and modding but just for the playable content, I'd feel scammed by the trailer. Fancy AAA cinematic full of scenes that never occur in-game. I feel the previous Arma / OFP trailers were more down to the ground, even if slightly cheesy at times.

[Wiki 1558]

IMO, the trailer tells a good and interesting story... which we didn't get, unfortunately...

[IndeedPete 1038]

Yep, that's the hillarious part. Like they actually produced MOCAP animations which apparently were only used for the trailer. Boggles my mind. xX

[Wiki 1558]

Yep, that's the hillarious part. Like they actually produced MOCAP animations which apparently were only used for the trailer. Boggles my mind. xX

 

Which ones?

The only MOCAP I saw was the one used for the Keystone extraction cinematic.

[IndeedPete 1038]

Granted, there's a bit of re-use from older titles, a couple of Arma 2 cutscene animations. But also new ones, for example the body drops at 1:03 and 1:07, the badass pistol shooter at 1:15, the guy on the radio at 1:18 (not entirely sure if it's new), or the guy turning towards the camera at 1:26. And generally the AI behaviour (firing out of cover for example) is obviously scripted to an extend where it completely differs from the real gameplay experience. Of course, every trailer does that as trailers are nothing more than commercials that aim for a good first impression. It's just a bit weird that most of these scenes are not actually in the vanilla game.

 

I must admit though, I'm getting a bit over-sensitive when it comes to BI marketing lately since Apex was a bit of a letdown in some areas. I'm judging them harsher than I would any other company out there. Mainly because I see them as a prime example of a fair and reliable games company.

[Wiki 1558]

hum...

Compared to Battlefield or CoD trailers - which all scenes are in the final game - it's not the first time that BIS show up some scenes that aren't in the mission nor the campaign.

 

It's more to show up the game - but it's a bad thing cause these scripted scenes look good and could have been great in some missions.

 

Off topic, but I think BIS should consider hiring somebode for PR.

[froggyluv 2136]

Good post above IndeedPete. Yeah ive had a hard time even starting the game up since campaign debacle where as before i used to basically having it run every day at some point. The thing is, this franchise, though having meandered into strange territory before, has always felt like it had a destined trajectory towards "The Best Godamn Military Game of all Time". Meaning we might not all get All The things, we want, but it would always refine itself more and more into that game a BI Dev once said "woulnd't be possible for another 15 years.." -and i think that was in regards to dynamic destruction.

 

 We need more combat and hit animations - as its just damn impossible for us to do ourselves without going mad. BI tells us they're happy to be going to Mo-Cap day and it raises all of our expectations of what could come out of there -and its this.... This deflated feeling of dread is just hard to shake coming as well from the general acknowlegment that they have "no more story to tell" -thats kinda crushing for those waiting for the pinnacle we  all thought we were all going towards.

 

 Ive never been able to properly articulate what is lacking in Arma but im pretty sure its the rock/paper/scissor strategic element that is in all military games. There is no AI military behaviour outside of flanking, crewman beats a Marksmen even while having lowest skill, tanks dont have any idea which way to face its strong side, Ai soldiers orient themselves away from the enemy, banter is meaningless as in "Go, Im covering" -its just all a random assortment of units -any of which can pretty much beat any others and there is no distinct behaviour nor animations to accompany this.

 

 Guess i thought this is where we were always going and was fine knowing it would be a long slow ride. But now it feels as if they were never planning this and are going somewhere entirely different all along.

[chortles 263]

@wiki: I'm pretty certain that was DnA's brother...

[Wiki 1558]

@wiki: I'm pretty certain that was DnA's brother...

Yeah well, sorry to say that, but the communication around Apex was not that good...

[graemeshute 218]

so the next dlc will be with Tanoa/horizon army

Tanoa is based on Fiji. If you look at the Fijian military is very poorly equipped and would have served better then what we have now-apart from the No story CSAT PLA

[teabagginpeople 398]

Yeah well, sorry to say that, but the communication around Apex was not that good...

Apex communication was pretty standard regards assets the island etc.

Now the " apex campaign". comms got jammed. Perhaps csat.

Was not cool making that kind of change and saying nothing.i mean the non enterable buildings was committed nearly a year in advance..

most the " hardcore" fans this hurt would have bought Apex prior to release to help bis in dev testing. So it was pretty shitty to cold shoulder like that.

Anyway it's done. I think pre ordering of games is a bad idea and I usually never do. arma was an exception to the rule .now it's not. No biggie.

[2nd ranger 282]

Apex communication was pretty standard regards assets the island etc.

 

They announced Tanoa in June 2015, then waited until a month before the Apex release (almost a year later) before revealing any of the other content. That was a mistake. During that time, this thread saw some wild, feverish and oftentimes unrealistic speculation about the expansion content. It just set people up for a massive letdown because we had been left to our own imaginings for a year. Communication is certainly something they need to work on.

[Wiki 1558]

We almost had most of the news 2 months before the release.

The announced the release date 3 weeks before...

[Guest]

Well, while we're at it...

The main issue with Apex com is that there has been a full year between Tanoa announcement and Apex release.

Of course, PCGaming Shows are good occasions to broadcasts news, but for a full new AAA game the wait is more about 6 month than one year. And Apex is only a DLC.

 

Aside of the length, the other issue is that there was 6 months betweens officials announcements (Tanoa trailer in June 2015 -> Scanning the Horizon in January 2016 -> Apex trailer in June 2016).

The hype can't be kept as a high level for 6 months without news, we had to maintain it by ourselves on this very topic.

 

Above that, some informations were misleading (over-scripted Apex trailer, looks good but it might have mislead some non-player about what the game is) or unclear (co-op campain, but a very short and easy one, less content than Arrowhead on Arma 2...).

 

IMHO, they could have announce Apex in January and not before, and spread informations more regularly, with ARG/community events (Marksmen good ol' time), livestreams, more teasers (BF4-like)...

What do you think about it?

[Wiki 1558]

I agree.

 

Providing some news from time to time is better, instead of going silent until 1 month before release. Doing so ain't a good idea.