Zionist_Wabbit

Without wanting to hurt my mind by reading the enraged comment's posted afore this, I want to say that: Yes. I will be playing ArmA: III, yet that doesn't mean I'm playing just for the realism - I'd also like to say that no game has, or will ever come close to Real-Life Warfare. With the advent of no-pressure-Gameplay, which stems from the ability to either; Respawn, or leave the Game entirely, People take risk's and move about their Gaming experience in such a way that if this was Real-Life, they wouldn't last a moment on the Battlefield, let alone be able to cope with the pressures & emotions that come with that. I hate using 'Realism' as a term, rather 'Real-esk Simulation' - I will be playing it because I enjoy it, as I have with the older Bohemia Int. Games. Yes, I enjoy the varied attempts to create situations that mirror real-life instances, that doesn't mean I'm willing to spend $-- for it. If you were to buy a Game solely for that, other then your genuinely enjoying it, I do feel the Developer's have slightly missed-the-mark (And I'm sure, to some extent, the Developer's them-self could agree with that). TL;DR: Yes. I'm buying it. No. I'm not buying it solely for the attempt's to make it as Realistic as possible.

So as to not bore you all with lengthy re-quotes, I'll bypass it entirely. @NoRailGunner I do understand the alternative ArmAverse, but you cannot disagree many of the things inside of it are eerily similar to real-life Items ECT. Moreso, the concept behind many of the Vehicles, Weaponry & so on are indeed based on expectations, with slight roll-backs to account for many technological flaws with certain aspects. You also mentioned the research behind a war - As I had previously pointed out, the Economy is being factored in quite a lot, so it seems. The entire Plot begins with mentioning the current Economic Crisis, which hasn't gotten better as time has passed. The US is also, according to the Plot & Backround, in a Cold War-esk position with China, and many other NATO European States are leaving the agreement in favour of Russian Oil. Now, the NATO Forces (Which, of course, the Player will be playing as in SinglePlayer / Most MultiPlayer Matches) are both scattered & worried of a War looming in the Mediterranean, and a possible attack from China. -Remember, this is less then a decade before the time-frame inwhich ArmA: III takes place- I very highly doubt the NATO Forces would be able to grow its Armed Forces exponentially in approximately half a decade, let alone develop far more Advanced machinery in that time & mass-produce it, even if they were to have astounding Scientific growth from now.

Not to offend anyone here, but you're being far too optimistic - People in the 1930-50 Era were predicting Unmanned Ariel Vehicles, yet only in the last decade have they become a viable Military tool. As such, you cannot think something will be finished by then based on the current progression in Science. As much as it moves forward, it also moves backwards. The chances of us having developed such items and have them in mass-production & affordable for mass-Military use is simply nonsense. As is, many developed Countries are already cutting Military Budget, meaning many things like this (Assuming they were made & rolled out) would only be in small quantities, possibly only Advanced Special Operations groups having access, not what ArmA in general was designed to be. ArmA was to be a MilitarySim, encompassing the general Military Groups rather then the current Shoot-em-up FPS Games, where you're put into a low-numbering SpecOps team. Now that I've said why they wouldn't be finished by then, shall we discuss the Economic flaws with actually attempting to so? The U.S. is teetering on the brink of Bankruptcy, along with most other Developed Nations, Mediterranean (Where A:III is to take place) being one of the worst-hit areas. The assumption that at the time of War any Nation will immediately come-to & spend Billions on designs created by optimist is simple nonsense. That said, I'm quite looking forward to the game nonetheless, as I'm sure you all are. I like how its currently looking / modelled, focusing more on machine-aided Man-v-Man warfare rather then complete Machine-v-Machine, allowing the Player to become more immersed.

Hmh. I, for one, would quite like to see some sort of in-depth Character Customization implemented. Something along the lines of Nation Selection in the Player Creation screen, which would then display that Nations flag on the breast-pocket of your Uniform, moreso on Weapon's you hold. This'd go equally as well as Clan patches, using Images they've uploaded - Much like they're currently displayed on the 'Player' menu when pressing P. Vehicle Mechanics quite seriously need a re-development. A US HMMWV, for example, struggles to manage a slight incline over 15MP/h, which is simply wrong - As well as BattleTanks, M4A2 TUSK ect, going vlastly slower off-road (When transitioning from Pavement to Grassland) whereas anyone whose seen them would know the entire design idea behind Track-based movement is to gain Traction on all terrains, in theory meaning if anything they ought to gain more traction on Grassland then on smooth pavement. Tutorials need to be enhanced, too. Currently, they're perfect as is, due to most people knowing how to Fly, coordinate, and understand their Roles / Weapon choices, but you can clearly tell the difference between someone whose played for a week, to someone whose gotten the game yesterday. I'd like to see a greatly improved tutorial missions forced onto New Players so they're not getting the wrong impression of the Game due to their being killed easily in their first Multi-Player match / SinglePlayer. Anyhow, they're my personal wishes that I do want to be implemented, but I hold faith the game'll turn out fantastic with-or-without them. See you on the Battlefield, -Wabbit.