mmaruda

I think the main reason the Flashpoint story was so unique was that it was written when BIS was working with Codemasters. I think they had a large part in this. Now as far as the campaign in Arma 3 goes... It's probably the most polished one BIS ever did. It only falls on it's face when you have to command the AI or defend something but that is just because the AI is just stupid. Personally I don't mind the "unrealistic" story and setting. Sure, a more mature tone would perhaps be better, especially that the setting provides some cool opportunities to explore difficult topics (Arma 2 did that throughout it's campaigns quite well). The thing is though, I have recently been playing Call of Duty Advanced Warfare, and while I hated the story ever since MW2 came out (COD 4 was actually quite plausible), the whole futuristic setting is actually pretty good and makes sense. Now while Arma 3 is far from the cinematic run and gun experience, I wish they put more modern technology in there. I do understand that the hardcore MILSIM crowd would probably be all pitchforks and torches, but personally I never considered Arma a simulation. It's more of a tactical sandbox that allows simulating certain stuff. So yeah, to me it's weird that a soldier in 2035 still uses a magnetic compass and paper map to get around, when even now I have more tech in my phone. I just hope the Tanoa story is going to be something cool. IMHO they could go full Jagged Alliance with that setting as it looks like it's a small country, perfect for some mercenary missions. Anyway, as long as the quality is on par with the Survive, Adapt, Win scenario, I won't complain.

As I said before, I don't really care, but man, you are taking this waaaaay too seriously. Here I was thinking maybe lets have a theoretical discussion, but there you are apparently bothered by some completely different discussion and you imprint all this here. Look man, were are having a chat about Arma. Noone knows those people and Iran you are talking about. Perhaps your are biased towards all the social justice warrior, but as I sais, it's not Reddit. This is a discussion about a game. Calling people 10-year olds and whatnot without even a relation to the discussion... Come on. Also this quote: "It is not a public service provided by public organization funded from your taxes that must follow whatever ideology your government currently adores." Are you American by chance, possibly Canadian? Becasue all around the rest of the world the fact that you are paying taxes does not entitle you to anything. So no, I do not feel entitled that BIS should antyhing in the game. Besides this is "General Discussion" and not the request box. Chill.

Wounding animations would be nice, but unlikely they will happen, however it's completely wrong that the AI does not suffer from their wounds. They wiggle and continue to shoot you like it's cool.

Wow, that is some exageration. You do realise that by hyperbolising your rethoric in such a way, you seem more bothered by the issue, than anyone else? Which post are you actually refering to and who are you do mean in your last two sentences? Because reading that I got the impression you are trying to somehow mix another discussion from some other place in here. It's not Reddit. ;)

For what it's worth, I finally manage to complete the Infantry mission more or less by trial and error. I also made an interesting observation - it seem the sway of the weapon is directly linked to the movement of the chest when the soldier is breathing. The heavier the breathing the heavier the sway. An this is completely WRONG! The movement of a persons chest is in no way linked the movement of their arms. I even tested it IRL out of pure curiosity - took out my ASG gun, aimed down the sights and tried breathing as heavily as I could - nope, I was still able to hold the gun steady. Another observation I made in game, was that when you rapid fire single shots as in tripple tap and more, you are actually more accurate than when carefully trying to place shots. It's like the recoil kicks in after some time, so the faster you shoot the more accurate you are. Weird.

It makes sense, beacause it's a game. Moreover, a game set in a fictional setting. People play this game and among those people are women and they have to play as men because it's too much of an effort to add new models and animate them. Put yourself in their perspective. How would you feel? Or perhaps relate it to yourself directly, how would you feel, if for example there was no representation of your race in the game and the reason someone gave you for it would be that it's too much of an effort to change the texture colors? I know it's not the same from a developer's point of view, but to a simple user it does not matter. This has nothing to do with realism. It just wasn't a priority and it still isn't. Read the thesis - she actually submited a ticket for it and checked for similar issues. Read the findings and the response she got. From an academic perspective with regards to gender studies this was just sad and if she was a fighting feminist, she could have a field day. It's a good thing Arma is not on Anita Sarkeesian's radar. :D Facts are facts though, whether it matters to anyone or not, Arma 3 is not a gender inclusive game. On a side note, it's not only a question of having women in Arma's military. In Arma 3 there are no women at all! Personally I don't care much, but look at the story of Arma 3 and compare it to Arma 2 that treated war in a serious manner without fear of tactling diffucult and sometimes unpleasant issues - war crimes, the mistreatment of women during a war ( that same argument given for not having women in Arma 3 and it was in 2 in the very first mission!), PMCs and making a profit on war, the responsibility of a commander for his men... The list goes on and on. And here we are in Arma 3 with a story that is on par with... Call of Duty and Battlefield. I feel like Arma 2 was a much more ambitious product with regards to a virtual representation a conflict on all levels, whereas Arma 3 is all about the weapon sway and how fast you spit out your lungs after running too much.

Can't this be scientifically tested? Just get a normal guy, have him wear all the stuff, give him a gun, put some sort of motion tracker on the gun (gopro, gyro, whatever), have him run, aim, hold breath etc and than compare results?

One thing I want to say about the new sway system is how it affects gameplay. I tried the Infantry showcase and it's impossible to go through it, even on lower difficulty (and I am good at shooters and I used to be able to murder AI in Arma in ridiculous numbers). Currently it goes like this - when the firefight starts you aim down your sight and instead of the enemy, you are battling the sway. I tried keeping my soldier rested, ditched all the redundant gear (did you know that a chemlight weighs about the same in Arma as full mag?) and moved slowly, yet my poor old apparently World War II veteran soldier struggled to hold his hands straigh. I got the impression that either everyone on Stratis/Altis is suffering from some crazy Atacama Desert heat, or they are just advanced alcoholics. So anyway, I spent about 2 hours trying to complete the mission and I kept dying. Hitting anything with that kind of weapons sway is nothing short of a miracle, though I would agree that it forces you to be more tactical... Or just light everyone you see with everything you've got Murica-style. Grenade lanchers are now the only effective weapon in the game it seems, but I am at least glad they are so effective, since I never really felt the need to use them. But apart from all this, you know what breaks the game for me? While the AI seems really improved, they move tactically, use suppressive fire and all, your buddies die like flies. And you die like a useless old man everytime someone starts shooting at you. It now takes only one bullet for the enemy to drop you, or should I say crazy-rag-doll you. They either have 100% headshot rating, or their ammo is all hollow points. Interestingly enough, to kill the AI you need to land several shots on them or meybe just don't bother and use the grenade launcher. Moreover while the NATO forces seem all tactical and stuff, covering their sectors, using supressive fire, taking cover and all, the CSAT guys rush like a bunch of idiots and still win no sweat. I have also learned to hate the MX rifle - terrible accuracy, horrible recoil, someone clearly took a huge bribe to make this standard weaponry for the army. What I am trying to say is, the game is not only completely not fun, but also very frustrating. It's one thing to face a challange, but here it's hard not to get the impression that the deck is stacked and everyting works against you. I bet my bottom dollar that it impossible to complete the campaign now and I also bet tha nobody bothered to test this system in it. Am I right? My question for the devs is, why the hell you keep messing with all this? You improved the AI, added so many great stuff, and break the game with questionable decisions about a realism feature that everyone was happy with in Arma 2. There is no need to simulate wapon handling to a perfect level, it does not matter and you will never get it perfect. What matters is tactics, so why keep changing the sway? You want to improve realism? Cool, how about fixin the weapon-switch animation? All it would take is for the soldier to put the gun on his back barrel down. Like you know, the military is using 2 and 3-point slings since the stone-age has ended. Maybe work on the stealth system and add some non-lethal takedowns?

I find the new fatigue system rubbish. I hate playing Arma now. I'm not sure if any research was done here, but clearly the effects are all wrong. A trained soldier in Arma is about as fit a fat teenager in a lead suit. Anyway, all debate on realism aside, the game is hardly playable bow. The campaign often has you running for miles and you are expected to fight as well. Good luck with that - Arma soldiers are on the brink of dying from exhaustion now after running (not sprinting) for about 300 meters.

I play a longer session of coop with my friends once every week. So far we had a great time. Most of us agree that the amount of time we have spent so far in Arma 3 for it's price and compared to other games (we're mostly flight simulator oriented, not really hardcore Arma players) makes it GOTY. All of us spent more time in Arma 3 than any other game released this year and despite some shortcomings, each session was immense fun. However, this is basically the only good way to fully enjoy Arma. If anyone just picks up the game and wants to join an MP server and have some fun, the experience will most probably be discouraging. The Life and Wasteland mods are dominating the non-password locked servers and these games are not really what Arma is about, not to mention that even for someone with Arma experience they are very confusing. Arma's main problem is lack of some standard multiplayer mode out of the box, something like Domination of Advance and Secure so that dedicated servers which anyone could join and play PvP could start showing in numbers. It's also a shame that the campaign does not have any coop capability. I suppose this will change with time. Project Reality is something I am looking forward to, some other mods like the recent Alive thing show great promise as well. These thing just need more publicity than the Wasteland stuff.

One thing I believe Arma needs is to have some strong PvP multiplayer mode out of the box. I see this a lot in video gaming channels on YT - people try to play Arma online, go to the server browser and encounter all sorts of things and it looks like a mess and hardly any fun (Life and Wasteland being the main culprits). Most newcomers to the series expect the game to have the same basic functionality as BF/CoD where you just hop into a multiplayer match and have some fun. Currently it's not possible. If you have a couple of friends you can easily get some missions from the workshop and start having a blast, but a lonely newcomer will only get frustrated. I checked the server browser today - mostly passworded servers and only Wasteland-like stuff being available for someone who just wants to quickjoin, and obvioulsy they do not have a clue what is going on. The way I see it, there should be domination-like gamemode on fairly limited areas where you select your loadout via a paperdol menu, spawn and get into the action. Basically what I mean is a standard mode like the ones in say Battlefield, but just that. Gameplay does not need changing (players will figure out how shooting people works here fast), this should never become Battlefield, but it should provide similar functionality to someone who does not have a clue what Arma is all about.

This is complete joke. I have spent like an hour trying to find the sweet spot for the script to actually work and I'm still stuck. The even more ridiculous thing is that if you drive past the crashed car the mission instantly fails, because you ''disobeyed orders'. :mad: And I was waiting almost two months since release for this?!

The latest Cryengine is used to develop a milsim for the US Army (Realtime Immersive). It looks impressive and does have a 3d realtime editor. My personal choice for an engine would be Outerra http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfo3uGPNLd0 It's pretty much the most impressive piece of software I have seen to date.

This is interesting news. AMD is trying to storm the market with this. Many devs have spoken years back that DX needs to go, the recent slow drive towards Linux and new consoles being made with AMD stuff can change the game market significantly as future multiplatform games probably have a better chance of being optimized with AMD and the new API in mind (it's supposed to allow direct access to the GPU memory, whatever it means). I doubt there is any chance BIS is going to do anything about it. Also, knowing simulation developers, it seems a realistic picture that 10 years into the future, when DX and Windows become obsolete and a bottleneck for future hardware, simulation devs will only start to notice the need to change their engines.

The thing is, if a modder makes say a tank model for Arma and and uploads it to Steam and than he decides to make and sell his own game about that tank and use the same 3d model that may cause legal precedence. In any way, the whole license thing is bullshit and I think there should be laws to protect the authors work regardless of such licensing scams (yes scams, because the authors of all those EULAs exploit the fact that most people don't read them and are not aware of the fact they are giving rights to their property to someone who had nothing to do with creating it). I mean come on! All this talk about intellectual property and someone's hard work can become the property of someone else just because he uploaded it somewhere? When I was writing my master's thesis, we were warned constantly not to talk about it and make sure all the concepts and ideas are elusively our own. Someone could come to you house, drink your alcohol and talk about his ideas on a given subject and then when you put that into your thesis, even not intentionally it would still be regarded as plagiarism, if someone could prove you did not come up with it completely on you own. It didn't really matter if it was your house, your vodka and a private conversation - you still had to put a footnote there.