Could the future setting have been done better?

[MartinFromZeusCommunity 15]

Since I'm not that knowledgeable about IRL guns, my Immersion does not break just because I play with an MX rifle instead of M4/16 whatever they use. I actually I often tend to forget the game takes place in the future at all.

arma 3's future settings just kinda seems very held back to me, apart from some drones and more widespread thermals, the future stuff mainly seems like a skin that barely affects gameplay. 

 

I'm kinda curious if arma 3 could have added more things/mechanics that are typical of future/modern warfare, as opposed to the older combat from the other games.

 

Any thoughts / ideas?

[haleks 8212]

I'm pretty sure we will see a bunch of robots being used by various armies before 2035, for starters...

[lexx 1364]

Yeah, it could have been done better. But then you get the same people crying every day on the forum about how ArmA should be all about the time period between 1980 and 2000 and how everything else is a disgrace to the franchise.

[2nd ranger 282]

The most glaring example is the CSAT uniform and helmet, which serve no function whatsoever. When BIS said that Apex would focus a bit more on the near-future stuff, I thought they meant things like that, where perhaps if you are wearing a helmet with an eyepiece (or even tactical glasses), you would have some sort of heightened situational awareness. Seems like they were just referring to stealth suits and thermal goggles. A campaign based on a small SF unit is an ideal showcase for that kind of stuff.

 

I don't like playing with thermal scopes or goggles, and I find it pretty annoying that you can't avoid using the thermal vision when playing as CTRG or Viper because you have to cycle past it when turning your night vision on and off. But It's pretty pointless having CSAT running around with all this advanced gear that doesn't do anything.

[veles-zv 176]

Since I'm not that knowledgeable about IRL guns, my Immersion does not break just because I play with an MX rifle instead of M4/16 whatever they use. I actually I often tend to forget the game takes place in the future at all.

arma 3's future settings just kinda seems very held back to me, apart from some drones and more widespread thermals, the future stuff mainly seems like a skin that barely affects gameplay. 

 

I'm kinda curious if arma 3 could have added more things/mechanics that are typical of future/modern warfare, as opposed to the older combat from the other games.

 

Any thoughts / ideas?

The blufor rifles are HK m416 and M417 still a M4 as much as a cetme rifle is an HK weapon. The MX rifle is a combination of a few rifles, bushmaster ACR and a few other failure rifles, the F2000 for instance has incorrectly modeled iron sights, the real F2000 uses aperture sights with a large front post not pistol type sights, however i still very much like the F2000, 

[gibonez 18]

The setting could have been fine but the large problem for me was the asset selection for all 3 factions made absolutely no sense and the asset recycling that IS STILL in effect makes all 3 factions feel like souless generic characters.

 

The Western Faction using no upgraded or evolutionary equipment that the west uses now instead they somehow manage to use Israeli MBTs wtf.

 

Same applies to Csat the equipment should have been reflective of what Eastern Bloc nations have historically had outfitted with modernized upgrades but instead in game it fields a completely random roster of vehicles that makes no sense.

[drebin052 324]

The Western Faction using no upgraded or evolutionary equipment that the west uses now instead they somehow manage to use Israeli MBTs wtf.

 

Since every country in the West has been economically crumbling in the Armaverse for the past two decades (with Europe being the hardest hit), I suppose you could possibly handwave the lack of "futuristic" equipment on NATO due simply due to the lack of funds to provide everyone with the latest hardware.

 

You're spot on about the asset recycling though. The copy n' paste syndrome is really getting old and was only exacerbated with Apex. We're not in the Alpha anymore so there shouldn't be an excuse for BI to recycle assets so much.... *cough* like the RCWS turrets *cough*

[chortles 263]

You're spot on about the asset recycling though. The copy n' paste syndrome is really getting old and was only exacerbated with Apex. We're not in the Alpha anymore so there shouldn't be an excuse for BI to recycle assets so much.... *cough* like the RCWS turrets *cough*

*looks over at the... unfortunate lack of variety in LSV mounted weapon options*

 

Not even the 'traditional' complaint about lack of side-specific armament -- the armed LSVs and VTOLs do have an 'asymmetrical' difference after all -- but rather how there's only one armed version each of the Prowler and the Qilin instead of at least versions with the variety of mounted weapons already in the vanilla game. Imagine, for example, if instead of just a 6.5 mm Minigun and a 12.7 mm HMG (I'll allow the Prowler's SPMG .338) there was a Qilin (Titan AT) and/or a Prowler (GMG) respectively...

 

I'm definitely in the "didn't take advantage of the setting or go further" camp; if anything limiting the aesthetic to "upgraded or evolutionary equipment that the west uses now" and "reflective of what Eastern Bloc nations have historically had outfitted with modernized upgrades" I find too close to what was already in A2/OA. Indeed, I was actually sour on Arma 3 as of 2011 because the (now claimed) placeholders made it seem not different enough from Arma 2, and my sentiments on the aesthetic only really turned come 2012 with that year's tweaks and reveals such as the MX series...

[sic-disaster 311]

As far as I'm concerned the future thing could only have been worse.

 

Let me expand on that: I don't mind the setting. I have been playing OFP and ArmA since 2001, and all that time I've been firing nothing but M16's and AK74's and the like. Did I really want to see more AK's and M16's in ArmA 3? Not really. I wouldn't have minded seeing them yet again, but I am also quite happy seeing new weapons, vehicles etc. because there is one important thing that allows me to enjoy them: they still function exactly like the M16's and AK's and T-72's and Hind helicopters and what-else-have-you. It just looks fresh, but it keeps the gameplay intact and greatly expanded on that gameplay with better controls etc.  But this is no Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter or Future Soldier bullshit. This is ArmA with fresh skins (what a relief this must have been for artists at BIS!), new maps with entirely new buildings (what a relief for me to have a map that did not have upgraded buildings that I still remember from OFP:CWC, like I would find on Chernarus!)

 

It is the gameplay that I know and love with a fresh look but with the same believeable functionality (though the body armors are a bit too effective for my liking and I greatly prefer shooting Syndikat troops vs CSAT troops because when they get hit, they go down straight away. Then there are the new NVG's with thermal optics for the APEX SF forces which I don't particularly like but oh well, I can accept it because not everybody has it, and it still limits you in some ways). Without that believable behaviour the future setting would have greatly annoyed me. But this was a breath of fresh air after 15 years of nothing but cold war era and modern conflict equipment, because it pretty much still is that equipment but without the looks of said equipment.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Yes, i agree with the above post, but i find the setting unappealing. It simply doesn't interest me, but it's a matter of personal taste obviously.

[graemeshute 218]

The most glaring example is the CSAT uniform and helmet, which serve no function whatsoever. When BIS said that Apex would focus a bit more on the near-future stuff, I thought they meant things like that, where perhaps if you are wearing a helmet with an eyepiece (or even tactical glasses), you would have some sort of heightened situational awareness. Seems like they were just referring to stealth suits and thermal goggles. A campaign based on a small SF unit is an ideal showcase for that kind of stuff.

 

I don't like playing with thermal scopes or goggles, and I find it pretty annoying that you can't avoid using the thermal vision when playing as CTRG or Viper because you have to cycle past it when turning your night vision on and off. But It's pretty pointless having CSAT running around with all this advanced gear that doesn't do anything.

Perhaps on paper back when they where fleshing out Arma 3 they had ideas of a HUD for CSAT and those Tactical Glasses for NATO. Why model it especially the Tactical glasses if they didn't have an idea behind it. And there are vanilla eyewear and googles. So perhaps there was an idea to do so. But all they now are are just models with no point.

 

CSAT was meant to be ahead of NATO...case point Rail gun Tank. I had hoped for more drones and powered exo skeletons that allowed for either greater speed or increased load carrying capacity. Those do exist based on what DARPA has been messing around with. The Future will be more "smart" weapons. Cyber war and Drones. If anything look at the Texas cop shooting. They killed that nut with a Drone with C4. It was small enough and mobile enough to get close to nail him. And if you ever seen Bad Boys 2 they had an RC car with C4 on it. A mobile small mine that blasted the Cuban soldiers. Talon SWORD exists. Even Russia has a armed tracked Drone.

[graemeshute 218]

*looks over at the... unfortunate lack of variety in LSV mounted weapon options*

 

Not even the 'traditional' complaint about lack of side-specific armament -- the armed LSVs and VTOLs do have an 'asymmetrical' difference after all -- but rather how there's only one armed version each of the Prowler and the Qilin instead of at least versions with the variety of mounted weapons already in the vanilla game. Imagine, for example, if instead of just a 6.5 mm Minigun and a 12.7 mm HMG (I'll allow the Prowler's SPMG .338) there was a Qilin (Titan AT) and/or a Prowler (GMG) respectively...

 

I'm definitely in the "didn't take advantage of the setting or go further" camp; if anything limiting the aesthetic to "upgraded or evolutionary equipment that the west uses now" and "reflective of what Eastern Bloc nations have historically had outfitted with modernized upgrades" I find too close to what was already in A2/OA. Indeed, I was actually sour on Arma 3 as of 2011 because the (now claimed) placeholders made it seem not different enough from Arma 2, and my sentiments on the aesthetic only really turned come 2012 with that year's tweaks and reveals such as the MX series...

Cant agree more. If you look at the General Dynamics Flyer. There is many armed variants. They could have had 3 different armed versions.

 

I maintain and will go to the grave on this. Tanoa sucked up all their time. With all their artists working on the island. As people say it is the best map BIS has ever made. Jay Crowe and I quote said. Its their crowing Jewel. That is a good sign all the energy went into the Island. Further they used content from Day Z. And for what it is its great-Tanoa.

 

But its the chess board and chess needs iots of pieces. Rock paper Scissors dynamics. So things like where is the NAVY. Why aren't there more Drones. Why isn't there amphibious vehicles or better variants on the LSV? I think likely 8 months or more went into that Tanoa. That is why there was never any WIP images of assets of Apex until literally 1 month before full release and an WHAM! Death by content..uses that term lightly. Teh counter arguement was no remember Alpha and cut features thats why they didn't release info.

 

I played half the APEX campaign but I am more intrigued by ARMA 3: Conflict '85. Lets be honest OFP had a believable story with believable fragile characters. Not to say the modern 2035 setting of Apex/ Arma 3 was bad. It was never explored really. And I quote  Syndikat. Again a random faction out of place. People have said where is the people-the civilian populous and story. We are always invading islands with no people and the people are all dudes.

 

I don't want to slam the Devs but I hope Marek Spanel comes out of retirement to handle another expansion or Arma 4. Its like the new Ghostbusters. Ivan Riteman was basically sidelined and we see now its  a huge flop. What Marek did for OFP is what we needed for Arma 3. Story and Reason. The whole build up of CSAT to now be the Chinese with no back story. Again stuff was cut or was never looked at as Tanoa...

[krycek 349]

Feels like a Frankestein game or a stopgap game(A1 gave me this feeling too but back then it was understandable).Apart from some units,what we have doesn't feel futuristic at all.Could be a lack of imagination or BI simply doesn't care at all(copy pasta turrets&same friggin drones for all sides).By 2035 I expect armies to still have conventional units serving together with more advanced ones.Electronic warfare,more developed and integration drones with regular units(UGVs and UAVs),VTOLS,rail guns and so on.

What we have looks to me like they didn't knew what they were doing,they either wanted to go with modern stuff,either with futuristic stuff and the end product is something between the two periods which like I said in the beginning looks like a "Frankie" game.It's like they had a lottery with a bowl of units and chose "this faction gets this,the other gets this".

Apex didn't fixed anything,with the exception of the beautiful island the new units are too few to make the factions have an identity of their own or be more fleshed out.

[bonchie 39]

No. Had they went more sci-fi, it would of pissed even more people off. 

 

I personally think modern warfare is boring compared to the earlier eras. I'd rather have no scope and grainy NVGs then every last soldier having a scope and IR goggles. The fog of war is also less and less believable the further you push things into the future. 

[pharoah 65]

I wasn't/am not a fan of the futuristic setting. I would've preferred they did something akin to BF ie. based on modern day weaponry. The world as it stands right now has enough war and horror to replicate so why not just replicate it? The problem with the futuristic setting is its just their guess which is open to interpretation, etc. You can't argue with current day M4s v AKs, M1A2s v T90s, AH1Zs vs Hokums.

I think the idea was good but the implementation wasn't but that's just my $0.02.

[Phantoms 1]

I agree with the two above posts. Futuristic weapons, vehicles, etc. are just a turn off in a military fighter for me unless it's full blown like Halo, etc. Then you know what you're getting into.

 

Mixing current with future is not a good idea. It breaks the immersion of the game, at least for me.

[angel24marin 34]

I dont dislike this settings, something fresh. And there aren't many totally imaginary vehicles or weapons (most are actual prototypes, but better if there are none)

But could be better. For example less copy pasted things, more variants of the same vehicle (ex Hunter with Titan AT missiles or AA missile, CSAT with his own Titan/HMG/Drones etc. More differentiation between the Chinese CSAT (Apex) and the Iranian CSAT like other helmet (the bug helmet is ugly), new MRAP and IFV (Iran uses Russian vehicles (as a weaker CSAT country that use imported vehicles), but the Chinese should be able to use his owns dessings apart of the Xi an and the Car 95)

I wasn't/am not a fan of the futuristic setting. I would've preferred they did something akin to BF ie. based on modern day weaponry. The world as it stands right now has enough war and horror to replicate so why not just replicate it? The problem with the futuristic setting is its just their guess which is open to interpretation, etc. You can't argue with current day M4s v AKs, M1A2s v T90s, AH1Zs vs Hokums. I think the idea was good but the implementation wasn't but that's just my $0.02.

IIRC Arma 2 get bad press because it was too similar to one of the war of the Caucasus (Chechenia or Georgia)

ArmA 3 could have been an hypothetical invasion of Israel by Iran.

[AJE2 3]

I agree with the two above posts. Futuristic weapons, vehicles, etc. are just a turn off in a military fighter for me unless it's full blown like Halo, etc. Then you know what you're getting into.

 

Mixing current with future is not a good idea. It breaks the immersion of the game, at least for me.

The problem with maintaining the realism of Arma in a future setting is that everyone has a different idea of what the future will look like (Believe me; I've written down enough ideas about future technology and weaponry to describe practically all the equipment a near-future military would need).  I think that where they actually went, a future "backwater" which isn't important enough to get the latest weaponry and instead uses upgraded older equipment, was about as futuristic as they could get without losing too much authenticity.  I'm reasonably happy with the future setting as it is, it's different enough from typical modern day video game settings, and still has enough modern-day features to have realistic combat mechanics.

[lugiahua 26]

IIRC Arma 2 get bad press because it was too similar to one of the war of the Caucasus (Chechenia or Georgia)

 

 

According to whom? I have never came across mainsteam media criticizing Arma2 based on the setting, especially it's a far stretched accusation.

Look at Ghost Recon series, some of them are direct reflection of actual conflicts, for example, both original GR and GRFS depicts a Russia/Georgia war.

[drebin052 324]

^ In fact it was the opposite actually. A2 was too realistic for some "people":

 

 

Sneaky NAPA IRA shooting down them USMC British Army UH-1s!  :D

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Future of warfare is drones and AI.

 

How much love has BI given to those two aspects of the game?

[target_practice 163]

Anyone remember how there were originally going to be tanks with railguns? That got pulled because everyone made a huge fuss about it, even though it wasn't actually that far-fetched.

[joostsidy 685]

I believe a lot of Arma 3 design is based on practical reasons, so I don't try to make sense of a 'vision of the Arma3 future universe', because I don't think it exists.

 

- Originally there was another vision for Arma?, a totally different game, but they abandoned it(?)

- BIS wants to move away from licenced contect: instead of using existing brands of weapons and vehicles, they changed them a little bit to prevent paying for licences

- BIS model makers can have a fresh start on a new type of assets which might be more motivating for them

- With a fictional future setting you can possibly reach a broader audience by avoiding real-world conflicts which might turn off part of the public

- With a fictional setting you have some creative freedom in what and how military hardware is used, for instance give militia's modern assault rifles instead of the standard AK's and using fictional scenario's

- With a fictional setting you have some practical freedom in what and how military hardware is used, for instance using/recycling the same type of weapons for different factions

- BIS probably has lots of ideas about making their assets futuristically functional, but they end up as only models or with understated functionality (wasted potential)

- People sometimes overestimate Arma's capability for military simulation. Things like stealth, radar, missiles cannot be realistically simulated in Arma's scope, because these assets function on a scale of 10's of kilometers, not the small Islands of Arma.

 

In general:

- I do like the fictional / futuristic setting. Sometimes it's very cool, sometimes it's quirky, but ok.

- Sometimes I'm sad that a lot of things feel like 80% finished and there's a lot of wasted potential.

 

Arma is still the most played game in my library so they're doing something right ;-)

[target_practice 163]

Most of the hardware in Arma 3 is or is based off real life hardware.

Also, despite being set in the future, it is set in the future of the real world, and subsequently the use of the identical hardware between different militaries is no more justifiable than in real life. Not to mention that CSAT is essentially the SCO.

Lastly, you say that Arma does not encompass long range strategic elements such as those mentioned. However, the MRLS has a maximum range that extends far beyond any existing Arma terrains.

[angel24marin 34]

Anyone remember how there were originally going to be tanks with railguns? That got pulled because everyone made a huge fuss about it, even though it wasn't actually that far-fetched.

I miss any kind of Arena or other active defense sistems

Actually someone with a Titan launcher can take off a scuad of modern MBTs (Also AI don't help because with a broken track exit the vehicle)

A "DLC" aimed to the heavy armour will be good. That brings CSAT Chinese tank and other vehicles. (Most of the CSAT vehicles are Russian, but Russia don't belong to CSAT), active defense systems for some vanilla vehicles, ATGM cars and a revision of the armour DM and AI.