pvt_ryan

OMG COD much? Just kidding, but I think this feature would be nice. It doesn't even have to be that complicated.

Perhaps, but we really have yet to see how much NATO does or doesn't want war (but I guess it'd be logical to put our money behind the paradigm that they merely defending against the Iranian aggressor). And I don't know, potentially jeopardizing your diplomatic security is not something that a nation preparing for war would want to do, especially since none of those countries are remotely strong enough to sustain an independent war effort.

This is certainly a good enough explanation in itself. Russia has in fact been developing a whole series of pipelines from Siberia into Eastern Europe and beyond, not only to reach new markets, but also to flex their political muscle. Indeed, being dependent on another country for fuel (of all resources) is certainly justification for much political influence.

That's a bit over the top. This is just me giving you the benefit of the doubt, but- for someone who appears to have been in this community much longer than I have- you seem strangely unaccustomed with the fact that this is a community that just loves discussing the detailed aspects of games, and that is not meant to be an affront to the developers. Indeed, I'm sure many here would like to think that the developers very much appreciate this aspect of this community at times. As far as I can tell no one in this thread is criticizing BIS for their storyline (not least because we hardly know any of it yet!), we are merely speculating as to how one might reconcile what little we do know with the present political situation. If you have that much of problem with speculation, then no need to participate.

I just think that, any potential anti-Islamic motives aside, the Israeli state would have to at the very least renounce any kind of alignment with NATO for them to attain a reasonable status of neutrality (for any alliance with NATO would surely make them the most obvious target for Iran given their proximity). That decision would of course be quite extraordinary and would have to be justified somehow. I don't know though, signing a peace treaty in Jerusalem definitely implies either neutrality or that the battlefield of Israel has already run its course, so to speak. Economically? There's an interesting idea... Well, I should mention that nuclear weapons aren't Israel's only military asset, but you have a point I suppose. Still, even if Israel was forced to make peace with Iran by account of MAD, that doesn't explain why they would want to supply Iran with weapons (especially since that would alienate NATO, which they will have depended on for political support for decades at that point), and that's the whole reason we're having this discussion. Perhaps I didn't phrase my post optimally, but I meant to argue that a tense peace arrangement would be the best one could foresee, far short of a de facto alliance or any kind of cooperative relationship as others have implied. Ah, my mistake then. Of course it's a big assumption, but one solely based on the intel we've seen so far (which lends itself to assumptions at best). The fact that Iran is clearly making a Westward push would merely suggest that they would be on the offensive; I wasn't trying to involve current political matters in that judgment.

The idea of Israel making peace with and supplying Iran (which to my knowledge would remain an Islamic state- though not an Arab one- in the 2030's) seems more than a bit absurd to be honest. Aside from the obvious and yet profound ideological barriers, Israel's nuclear armaments also all but eliminate such a possibility as others have mentioned. Sure, Iran seems like it may be well on its way to its own nuclear program, but that's irrelevant since Iran would ostensibly be the aggressor, since mutually assured destruction would presumably lead to a stalemate. I'm not trying to perpetuate a simplistic paradigm for viewing what is a complex situation, but let's face the facts: both Israel and Iran are about as politically polarizing as you can get, and the fact alone that each has a strong agenda of its own is arguably enough to preclude seamless cooperation between the two states. Either way, I think that the developers have quite a tall order ahead of themselves if they hope to reconcile the political situation ARMA 3 with that of the present (ignoring the fact that ARMA seems to exist in a parallel universe anyway) in any kind of convincing way, but if anyone can do it, I think BIS can.

I would laugh, but all I can muster is a facepalm...

:butbut:

I could not disagree more. In my experience BF3's immersion factor is very much damaged by many of its maps pseudo-urban setting, in which buildings (that the player may neither enter or destroy) only serve as borders for out of bounds areas and as devices to funnel players into chokepoints. One could argue that it's virtually the same cagey map philosophy that CoD is based around. But that is neither here nor there; clearly ArmA will be going for a more authentic feel, and I don't mind it at all if that means that they stick to cities of a more manageable size. I think that a game like ArmA would be fine if around 80% of the buildings were enterable, but that's no reason to not aim for any better!

I think you're about right on the PC version, but BF3 does not even play as well as the BC series on console. A lot of BF fans hate BC, but it simply plays well on console.

Fair enough, I just figured that with how gung ho (or on top of things, however you want to look at things) the moderators around here seem to be regarding locking threads, I thought this thread would be a goner...

The real question is why this thread hasn't been locked yet.

But why should ArmA 3 delay release when DICE managed to put out a flawless iteration of BF3 without delaying its release? /sarcasm

Perhaps I was too vague. I'm not going to commit to saying any of its rivals have better animations, but BF3's vaulting (along with the transitions in and out of prone, and even running) animations are pretty silly looking. I'm not meaning to say that ArmA's current animations are superior; rather, I think BF3 leaves an awful lot in the way of room for improvement regarding animations (and in fact I would say that the actual in-game content is a lot less convincing than what that video contains (as was the case with many of the teasers for the Frostbite 2.0 engine).

1. Choke points are mindless meat grinders that have no place in modern warfare IRL or in a simulator in my opinion. 2. Unlocks are for gamers with short attention spans. 3. BF3's animations are actually not that great, and I prefer some degree of bodily inertia. All reasons why BF3 was quite disappointing in my humble opinion, and why I think BF3 is the last game among the BF series that ArmA should be looking to imitate. Above all, though, I'm most surprised that this thread is still open. XD

Haven't been able to read every last post yet about people's concerns regarding the kinetic energy theory's ability to predict stopping power (although I do understand the criticisms), but the question beckons- how else would you simulate it? Sure, you say wound depth and size, etc. but how do you predict that? I mean, surely you don't actually test guns performance (even on ballistic gel) so how exactly do you represent that in a numerical format that a computer program can understand? Randomness, or what? and more difficult, how do you simulate this in a way that demonstrates the disparities in different rounds' performances over range? At some point I feel like you either have to go off experimental data (which of course is much more expensive and time-consuming), or accept a flawed theoretical formula for what it is.

Yeah, I agree that Total War has appropriate music, and that rock music might not be the best choice. Perhaps Skyrim was not a good example, since to be fair they do incorporate some chanting which does add some flavor, but for me for a score to have a true medieval immersion factor (which of course isn't what the more fantasy-oriented Elder Scrolls series is going for), the production needs to be a little less refined (I find that a more raw sound works better for historical settings). What I foresee for ArmA 3 is a fusion between typical orchestral music and more futuristic electronic influences, which of course are present in BF3's score. I think this is quite likely because there simply isn't any other genre of music that can accompany epic combat sequences so well while maintaining a serious tone, and it may be thought that electronic motifs would parallel the game's setting (near future). I for one wouldn't be opposed to having ambient music in the game, as long as it's ambient in style as well as presence, but really there aren't a lot of other options.

inb4someonesuggestsdubstep OT, I agree regarding the trend of increasingly generic, over-produced orchestral music being used in the media, and I think this is also evident in the video game world- I think many people would cite Skyrim's soundtrack as an example.

Couldn't have put it any better myself. I'm not sure how you would go about getting measurements with regard to "wind factor", though. Bullets with high velocities and aerodynamic shapes such as sniper boat tail rounds would naturally be affected by the wind less in such a way that what compensation is needed may already be accounted for, as there is less time for faster bullets to be pushed off course by the wind.

Well I've heard that their decision to use Limnos was partially motivated by that exact aspiration. Although in real life it apparently snows on the island very rarely, other than that, it does offer a lot of environmental diversity. Of course, another thing you won't see are jungles. Although I'm not sure if you mean different parts of a map having different climates, or the same map actually going through climate change. :confused: :D

Yeah, I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. The thing is that we don't perfectly know how rounds behave in real life... but yes, like everything else in a computer program such as a video game, eventually it would be reduced to numbers. I still think more accurate/complex/realistic numbers would be more interesting.

Oh, ok, haha... my mistake. Thanks for the info. Well, knowing that I think it would definitely add to the immersion.

To be completely honest I don't think wind would add to the immersion factor unless it was graphically evident in the movement of flags and vegetation, and not just something that affected ballistics but was only detectable using some kind of equipment (to minimize any effects on performance). I'm not sure which of those the OP is asking about, but it's clear which one would affect performance less. However, like I said, I think the high performance version wouldn't add much, and although it would of course be awesome I don't know how costly it would be to simulate leaves and grass and such flowing in the wind.

Well, let me first say that I think that female soldiers would indeed be a nice addition to the game (especially since its setting is futuristic and therefore a society possibly if not probably more progressive with respect to this issue, and for that reason I think the otherwise significant realism argument against the inclusion of female combatants holds much less water). That said, victim blaming, really? Not to go off on a tangential diatribe, but it's grating enough to hear that little catchphrase over and over again in the context of other more serious gender issues... anyway I don't believe that this qualifies as an instance of victim-blaming regardless, and I really don't think that dropping such connotation-heavy buzzwords contributes much to the argument. The discussion is already politically charged enough without them, and using such powerful words unsparingly only serves to dilute their meaning. At any rate, I think it would be a cool thing to have in the game, and if any FPS community is mature enough for it, I guess it would have to ArmA's.

Seconded. Although I do realize the setting is futuristic to allow for creative liberties to be taken by the developers, if I was making an sandbox/simulator FPS, I'd first prioritize guns that are currently in use with actual countries' armed forces (especially countries like US, China, Russia, etc.), and then go on to include some classic firearms (like the M1911, G3, FAL, maybe even an SKS variant) and also more recent ones (ex. PDW's, SCAR, HK416/HK417, Abakan, etc.). Though of course above all you want an interesting balance of weapons that behave differently enough from each other to justify their place in the game. Some individual weapons that I'd love to see that may or may not have been mentioned yet are the Israeli MTAR-21 carbine assault rifle, Finnish TRG-42 sniper rifle, the Polish Kbs wz. 1996 "Beryl" assault rifle or its "Mini-Beryl" carbine variant, and something from the Serbian company Zastava, and all of those fit with the Eastern Europe/Mediterranean setting. Some of my Russian favorites include the AS Val/VSS Vintorez, PP-19 Bizon, MP443 Grach, AK-105, and PKP Pecheneg.