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.

So there has been a lot of complaints on the board about Arma 3 and I can agree with most of them. Unfortunately fixing all the stuff people complain about is not possible. So maybe a short list of problems that when fixed would make this game near perfect gameplay-wise. 1. The new inventory system. It's better but far from good. What would be perfect? Something like Jagged Alliance 2 1.13 had with a clear visual system as to what is where. Currently in Arma 3 we only have a list of what's in the rig, pack or uniform. And seriously the ability to put mags or medkits in the uniform has to go. Did BIS even try to check if it's possible to put a 5.56 mag into a BDU pocket? Hint: it won't fit. 2. The new equipment customisation system is awesome. Why are there no loadout selection screens out of the box in this game? Do I really need to see everyone gathered around the Virtual Ammo Box each time a start a coop mission? 3. Visual damage system on vehicles. This mostly concerns tanks. In Arma 2 when you damaged a tank, you could clearly see it. There was smoke, the barrel of the gun was bent and such. Now you can shoot all you want at a T-100 and you won't even know if you have taken it out of action till it blows up (and that can take a lot of rounds). Just add some damage decals or something when you hit them and that should do it. 4. The medic system. Everyone knows about it... Simple fix: when you are hit, you start to see the effects we now have and if you don't bandage, you fall unconscious and only a medic can help you. If you bandage, you are still wounded and less effective but can still carry on. Only a medic should be able to fully heal you. 5. Add shotguns. That's it. Five things to fix.

I have yet to see a mission where you can actually customize anything in that section. I do understand that this list seems to be just another one, and my personal preference, but to be honest, I just compared Arma 2 to Arma 3 and added stuff that Arma 3 is lacking with regards to its predecessor - that is why shotguns are there and bipods are not. The inventory thing is just something common sense - BIS advertised it in almost every video pre-alpha and did not really do anything to show it off out of the box. The inventory in mission briefing sucks - you have to find it first, you have to figure how to script it in mission to actually work (maybe that's why there are no missions that use it?). No showcase mission or coop that came with the game takes advantage of one the major features.

Personally I don't like the way BIS is going with A3. I trusted them to be one of the last PC and community oriented developers out there, but clearly someone got lost in all this. The graphics of A3 look amazing on the screenshots, but once in-game, it's still the same engine with it's flaws hitting you in the face with a blunt stick - the shaders and eye candy is there, but the performance problems and general feel stays the same. The new inventory system is a dated design on arrival - you want to know how it's done, go play Jagged Alliance 2 (released in '99 or something). And then there is the big feature of customizing gear, which you have to do by script hacks like the ammo box - not very new player friendly. Really that hard to add a loadout screen out of the box? Then there is a long list of axed features and each time you mention it on the forums a moderator comes and demands you provide a source confirming it was promised. Not really a nice approach to customers. Now there is all the content thing and payware mods suggestion and I feel like Arma 3 was a project of great expectations that failed to some extent. We were hoping for a new game on par with some AAA releases and we got basically more of the same with some slight improvements. Not really more user-friendly in some aspects, not really always immersive in other. People often suggest that BIS lost interest in Arma and moved to DayZ for better profit prospects, but personally I doubt it. Why? Because if they did, that would be the stupidest thing they could do. Arma 3 currently gets more publicity than DayZ and most people got bored with the zombie games a long time ago. It was popular because it was something new and it was free. Noone I know plays it anymore and they would most definitely not pay for it, even if it was more polished and hack-free. DayZ is yesterday's news and the current delay pretty much makes it DOA. My guess is that Arma 3 was an overambitious project from the start and too much effort went into making the island itself - which is awesome, but to be honest the game could just as well use the Tarkistan map and I would not make much of it. It's not an exploration game and the map just results in someone going "hey, this is impressive" from time to time when in multiplayer, but does not really add much to the game-play. The list of features that is required to make this game what we had hoped for is long and has been posted a million times here (fastroping, bipods, ability to shoot from vehicles, working stealth to name a few). All of this has been either ignored, or dismissed as impossible to implement. Case in point, when I remember the initial presentations of the game on E3 and other shows, I feel like we have been promised golden mountains and people eagerly jumped on board when the per-orders started only to get just Arma 3 (you know, as in still the same Arma, but with a +1 to features and GFX). I still enjoy the game a lot and had some great experiences in multilayer, but to be honest, I could as well have those in Arma 2 as well. I know the game will keep being developed, but I fear the "golden mountains" will not arrive. We'll probably see some DLCs with new missions, some vehicles and weapons, a new map and that will be it. So basically content is pretty much all we can hope for, if BIS didn't even bother to add an official loadout selection menu to show off one of their most advertised features.

BIS can add something and I am sure that every reviewer will be firmly aware that the campaign will come later. The problem is, the reviewers job is to write about the game as a product and present their opinion in more or less objective way to tell the readers if the game is worth buying. Noone will wait for all the features to get implemented and all the promised stuff added. The reviewer is not a BIS fan by definition, hell, they can even not like Arma games at all. What they will write is how the product that is on the shelves and ready to be sold plays. If a game is crap they will write it's crap instead of saying "it's crap at the moment but will get fixed in a couple of months", because that is not something you can take for granted. Especially if the game was sold before release with a lot of features advertised that got cut out or delayed. That kind of thing actually suggests the devs are not so trustworthy from a possible reviewers standpoint. Not to mention they do not really give a crap about what kind of sandbox Arma is, how many mods it has, or what kind of trouble BIS has to deal with. They rate a product and what it offers out of the box. And people buy that product often because they read a good review. It's a market, you spend your money and expect to have fun, not wait for months to have a descent experience. BIS has been long enough in the business to realise that, so I do not understand the decision on cutting out features just to make a release. I am not bashing at BIS, but we have all been here for quite a while, we are fans, reviewers mostly are not and there are some that actually made their names for being merciless towards game companies, if they screw up. With the current situation the release might turn into a spectacular failure. That means BIS will only make money of fans and not broaden their customer base which in turn will result in resources to further develop the game. Not to mention by the sound of what some people write here, a few fans could loose trust towards the devs. I am starting to think that the project suffers from bad management. Someone mentioned that Arma 3 team is like 70 people and that is small compared to the big studios. Now the big star of this year's E3 was Witcher 3. They have 90 people working on the game. I am not trying to compare these games by any means, but clearly the 300+ dev team requirement to make a AAA title seems a myth.

How much proof do you need? This has been reported countless times, there is a video a few pages back in this thread (which implies you do not follow the discussion here). Currently the AI is near blind at close range and cannot see you or properly react to you presence unless you are directly in front of them (like they have a fov of 10 or something). There have been significant improvements to the AI since Arma 2, but some new stuff got broken and is seriously affecting gameplay.

So this year they decided to make up for it an release 3 of them - Arma 3, DayZ and Take On Mars. I personally doubt DayZ Standalone will make much money - the hype is gone and I doubt this version will offer a significantly different experience than the free mod. And the Mars thing? Duh.

-Delaying the campaign just sends a message to a potential customer "give us you money and take this unfinished product, we promise to finish it". Sorry but, apart from long term fans, who is going to swallow that? Does anyone buy a car full price without the gearbox, because the dealer promised to install it later? BIS is shooting themselves in the foot and the reviewers will eat them alive and bad reviews mean one thing: apart from the people who already bought a per-order at reduced price, not many people will but version 1.0. -The armory is actually one thing they could have ditched, I don't know single person who ever spent more than 5 minutes there. -Shooting civilians an POWs is also against the "Whateva Convention", lets take that out too. Has there ever actually been a war, where all those rules were adhered to? The Geneva Convention is pure fiction. -The editor is the heart of Arma, but not everyone want's to spend hours making missions and some stuff cannot be done without scripting and some people just don't have the time or mental capability to learn the editor inside-out. I am too old, and too undereducated to get the whole scripting stuff, not to mention I don't have time for that, I just want to play the game, not have to make it and then play it. Sorry, but that is the kind of attitude a developer should also recon with. Personally I can wait for Arma 3 to get fixed/finished/better/whatever, but I cannot help but feel disappointed and somewhat cheated. I have bought the supporter edition and that wasn't because I wanted some stupid forum badge. I truly believed that simulation gaming could make it out of the closet and into the mainstream and I saw Arma 3 as a potential game that would lead the way and I wanted to do whatever I can to help BIS make it. Now it looks like the dream won't happen, because Arma 3 must be released. Period. This kind of reminds me of another game. IL-2 Cliffs of Dover ring a bell? Anyway, Poochie is right. You cannot call the game finished and ready for release, when it lacks key features that were supposed to be in it. It's still going to be a beta really, with BIS adding and fixing stuff from time to time. Anyway, what am I supposed to do with Arma 3 past release that I cannot do now? How is "releasing" it going to make what we have here better? Have a larger map and some tanks? I already have it through All-in Arma.

Not to mention the MP component is not a streamlined out-of-the box experience in Arma. Maybe they have been trying to do something about that recently and that is why all the balance discussions popped out, but it's a wild goose chase if you ask me.

The whole point of discussing such things here is because some features simply need to be in the core game. Otherwise this forum would be dead and we'd all be over at Armaholic.

I was actually shocked by the assumed lack of a campaign on release. This brings me to a point where I am seriously concerned about Arma 3 when it hits the shelves. I understand the game has been delayed a looong time now (initial reports mentioned a release back in 2012, but then things happened). The problem here is that a lot of stuff that was promised gets cut out of the final game on release, to the point where it seems all we will get is the larger island and some tanks. A lot of features were promised and got axed - the helo FM, fully animated cockpits for vehicles and other minor things, but the game at this point could also use some small features that would make it feel complete. A more universal vaulting animation is in order, the action menu needs a revamp, you cannot switch weapons while on the move (there is a mod, now why hasn't anyone though about it in the first place?), bipods are not deployable, weapon animations could use some polish and then there is the AI which still need some serious work. I am not going to discuss stuff that was requested by the community ages ago, like a proper medic system or the ability to fire from a car. What am I trying to get at here? Well it's simple. The game is far from being complete. The whole Alpha and Beta thing gave me an impression that BIS wants to release a polished and well working Arma game for the first time. They got the publicity thanks to DayZ and ShackTac and Arma finally became a recognized franchise in the mainstream PC gamerwerse. A lot of new people got attracted to it and the community seems to have grown significantly. So again, I felt like BIS is trying to do whatever it takes, to get good reviews on release and make it easy for the new crowd to enjoy the game instead of struggling with the interface and bugs. But axing the campaign? I get that not many people from the community actually enjoyed campaigns, as the real deal is online coop, but to a new person to the series, the first steps in a new game is the single-player campaign. From a purely mainstream point of view, this is a shot in the foot. I get that many people don't care since Operation Harvest Red sucked in general, but Arrowhead, PMC and BAF campaigns were awesome. So are they now counting on the Steam Workshop and user made missions to carry the game for all the Arma neophytes? I do not see that happening. Case in point, Arma 3 can really fail on release, since I can imagine what the common opinion presented by reviewers will be that BIS is selling an incomplete game at full price, with little more content than in the Beta and the worst part will be, that the people who pre-ordered not only had earlier access, but paid less than those who will dish out the full price for another Beta. To avoid any sort of misunderstandings here - my post is not a rant, I can wait for the campaign, but I would not want to see BIS get the smallest amount of hate for this, and some people will simply not give a damn about arguments that games like this are complicated and difficult to make etc. and they can't be blamed for that - it's a customer market after all. Also, doing stuff like this, is BIS desperate or something? Cause it certainly feels that way.