Is ARMA 3 a serious game ?

[KalpaGunarathna 0]

Here is the thing Im doing a research on serious games. Serious games are games which focus on other than player entertainment. Like learning something from the games. (Simulation games can be in this type). For the research I have an experiment to do using a good serious game. Here are the problems I have encounterd with following games.

 

COD, Battlefield : Entertainment games. Not serious games.

America's army : Yes it can be a serious game. Because US military has used this for training and soldier recruitment. It is ok.

VBS : Virtual Battle Space is the ideal game. Because it primarily used as a military simulation not just entertainment. But the problem is they dont issue a civilian copy of the game.

ARMA 3 : This is more like VBS. But im not quite sure ARMA is an entertainment game or a serious game where you can learn out of it.. Is it a serious game ???

 

And is there other suggestions for me to use as a serious game in my experiment ???

PS: i havent played any of the above except for COD and Battlefield.

[IndeedPete 1038]

Maybe you should start with defining solid criteria for when games are to be considered serious before actually categorising any.

[joostsidy 685]

I would guess that serious games are designed specifically to be educational or have educational elements. I believe that Arma is not such a game. It is designed purely for entertainmaint, any educational value of for instance military tactics and hardware is purely coincidental.

[St. Jimmy 272]

It can be very serious game with some mods like ACE but it can also be entertaining one. Arma is a platform and sandbox. I'd say vanilla Arma is entertaining.

[IndeedPete 1038]

I would guess that serious games are designed specifically to be educational or have educational elements. I believe that Arma is not such a game. It is designed purely for entertainmaint, any educational value of for instance military tactics and hardware is purely coincidental.

 

Actually, Arma 3 has been evaluated under these educational aspects not too long ago: https://www.edu-gaming.com/reviews/18-action/288-arma-3

[toysoldier 35]

Americas Army 1-2 was "serious" but AA 3 and 4 are just arcade shooters!

[Jackal326 1181]

Its rather a grey area to be honest as it rather depends on how you use it and what you do with it. I have learnt a LOT from playing the ArmA series due to my involvement with a group of players who are mostly ex-military and teach real-world tactics to the group for use in-game. Whilst I'm not trying to say I'm fully qualified as an expert on small unit tactics, I have a good understanding of the principles I've learnt by playing the game with those guys, and wouldn't have learnt otherwise. That said, its not necessarily something I'd have learnt from just playing the game. On the other hand with mods such as the Star Wars mod(s) et al, there is of course a fun aspect to the game that is there too.

 

As to other suggestion for fun games to use in your research, perhaps a flight-sim such as 'Flight Simulator X' or the WWII themed 'IL2 Sturmovik'?

[Richie 330]

It can be anything you want it to be, quick run, shoot and die or full on tactical missions, if you imagine it then it can be done.

[Deadly Dodo 10]

Arma is a game where it offers both sets of content, gamemodes like King of the Hill often show a faster pace more run and gun style of play due to the close combat and focus on killing and pushing people out of the zone. Whereas gamemodes like invade and annex focus on movement and grander strategy using far greater areas and takes a more serious approach, if you decide to join a milsim unit you would find one of the most serious environments where there usually is a focus on teamplay, movement and co-ordination.

 

Most of it does depend on who you choose to play with, King of the Hill can become quite tactical and slower paced when working as a team and moving together and Invade and annex can become run and gun like when people have a rush mentaility.

The problem is that it's hard to tell what you mean by serious, because if your looking for light hearted but teamwork based gameplay then Invade and annex is best for you, but if you expect more you have to join a group.

[Gunter Severloh 4067]

Being open ended and a sandbox as it is, it can be as serious and educational as you want it, the community has proven that in the series, imo i think Arma has an advantage

over other games for the sake of its capacity to allow you to do anything, be it simple, or extremely complex, for a mission, in a mission, assets, tools, code, ect,.

[zukov 490]

cod and battlefield have a multiplayer

 

Arma no

 

about the word "serious" for a game is a nonsense

[nikiforos 450]

You get bored of other games within maximum 1-2 years? With Arma and with some good imagination you never get bored. Creating missions in editor with different kind of scenarios will always refresh the game for me plus excellent mods coming in all the time.
Of course there are some technical issues like performance but playing small/medium scenarios will allow you to enjoy the game.

[instagoat 133]

Well, Arma 3 has the following features by default.

 

Infantry Combat:

 

Accurate weapons simulation, internal, external and terminal ballistics. Materials based penetration, bullet deflection and object damage.

Weapons Customization (Mission relevant tools only, no camo, decals or other nonsense.). Bipods, Lasers, Flashlights, Optics.

Modular Loadout system, Clothes, Backpacks, Vests and Plate carriers, Helmets and Facewear.

Accurate fatigue modelling. Soldiers loaded down with equipment will not be able to move cross country at high speed, transport vehicles and pace setting become important.

Physical Suppression model for player and AI.

Advanced AI system in general. AI uses firepower, maneuver and terrain against the player, employs smoke, grenades and suppressive fires and coordinates with other units to dynamically engage their opponents.

Complex stance and movement system allows for use of cover and concealment while keeping personal weapons employed. No dynamic sticky-wall cover system, all hiding is done manually.

 

Vehicle Combat:

Armour type and thickness based penetration model. Rudimentary modelling of module damage to vehicles (Fuel tank fires, Burst tires and thrown tracks, damaged elevation and rotation gears on turrets, etc)

PhysX based driving physics. Currently less than perfect.

Realistic vehicle optics combined with realistic thermal imaging simulation. Basic modelling of ballistic computers, gun stabilizers and rangefinders.

Firing from vehicles: tank commanders can turn out to employ personal weapons and binoculars. Crew in cargo positions of open topped vehicles and helicopters can use their personal weapons (including grenades) to engage the enemy while embarked.

 

General realism:

Accurate and decently modelled map navigation tools, compass, grid squares and map markers. GPS and other cheats are available, but can be added and removed at the complete discretion of the mission maker.

Advanced weather system including wind, rain, layered fog, changing weather conditions as well as real-time day-night cycle.

Detailed night sky, with stars accurate to the location of the map. Stars can be used for navigation in absence of map and compass.

Realistic modelling of tracers, including IR tracers.

IR markers and lasers for navigation, target and LZ marking and IFF purposes.

Wild animals, such as bees or rabbits. Both are not particle effects or props, but feature their own AI systems.

All terrain features are modelled with various degrees of cover and concealment. For example, a tank hiding behind a tin-sheet building and a wooden fence can be easily shot straight through the building with AP shot, while a tank hiding behind a row of stone buildings will be safe. Infantry hiding behind thin brick wall will have to worry about heavy machineguns or squad MG with AP ammo, but not about pistols or grenade fragments.

 

The most realistic missions are generally community made missions, BI missions often are faster paced and bombastic for the sake of first impressions.

 

I think that's a decent rundown of what Arma can offer, but it's by no means extensive or complete.

[KeyCat 131]

Good summary instagoat!

 

As others already said - A3 is as serious as  you make it and you can use it as a learning tool for quite a few military skills.

 

/KC

[en3x 209]

I take simple approach.Arma is a game with realistic attributes.Some people think that serious games like

arma 3 are boring (why would you walk so long?That's boring).However some people find that fun so

they play it.

[jw custom 56]

If you wanna play ArmA 3 seriously i'm quite sure you can find like minded here.

[babylonjoke 22]

From my understanding of "serious" I find cs:go thousands of times more serious then Arma, it has at least a multiplayer and internationally followed competitive battles. 

Arma has no multiplayer PVP and there's absolute zero competitive gameplay and offers mostly frustration. A massive ammount of frustration. 

If you wish to start a competitive game you couldn't because the ammount of bugs and glitches which makes the game more about luck rather then skill and challenge, not talking about the dysinc.


Now if you think "serious" means that "military doctrinate fascism gameplay bollocs" where you can't shot without "order" (otherwise you'll get banned) in coop missions (which I would understand in certain situation but not freakin always) I think it's just plain boring. 

It doesn't challenge you. There's no freakin skill involved, no focus. It's just follow orders. And tell me for which reason "follow orders" can be anywhere challenging or fun.
 

[St. Jimmy 272]

From my understanding of "serious" I find cs:go thousands of times more serious then Arma, it has at least a multiplayer and internationally followed competitive battles. 

Arma has no multiplayer PVP and there's absolute zero competitive gameplay and offers mostly frustration. A massive ammount of frustration. 

If you wish to start a competitive game you couldn't because the ammount of bugs and glitches which makes the game more about luck rather then skill and challenge, not talking about the dysinc.

Now if you think "serious" means that "military doctrinate fascism gameplay bollocs" where you can't shot without "order" (otherwise you'll get banned) in coop missions (which I would understand in certain situation but not freakin always) I think it's just plain boring. 

It doesn't challenge you. There's no freakin skill involved, no focus. It's just follow orders. And tell me for which reason "follow orders" can be anywhere challenging or fun.

Well you missed the point of serious completely. Btw you shouldn't always fire when you've a chance to kill a guy. I guess you haven't played airsoft either. You've to think for your team and time things or the whole battle/mission can be screwed up by the guy that shot in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[babylonjoke 22]

Well you missed the point of serious completely. Btw you shouldn't always fire when you've a chance to kill a guy. I guess you haven't played airsoft either. You've to think for your team and time things or the whole battle/mission can be screwed up by the guy that shot in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Ok, you are maybe right, but screw a dude because missfired and didnt say "sorry" is absolutly bollocs.

I might have missed the point, but you missed mine: You can't just apply real life tactics and military doctrine in a videogame. They just don't work damn right. And that's why you don't see any MP or PVP online. And that makes me mad because I wasted 50€. 

I remember I was in a clan in A2 and we were studying fency real life tactics and tryed to apply them into battle. No need to say that they were totally useless and most of the time it was just a waste of time.

Training were you had to walk for 10 kms and do nothing more. I mean what's the point of that?

Ok, might be cool play Arma in this way for someone! But then call A3  "roleplay game", because that's what it is in most of the clans. And it's far from seriousness. I mean just because you "respect" your commander it doesn't make the game "serious". Or just because you do your job in the team (like the medic-healing and the gunner-firing)

I've seen CS:GO ESL tournment, and these guys were really serious, they were challenging each others and making tactics that worked in the game and their skill was amazing. 

What you fail to understand is that ANY GAME litteraly can be serious, it just depends on the attitude of the players.

A3 community just fail to understand it.

 

[St. Jimmy 272]

Ok, you are maybe right, but screw a dude because missfired and didnt say "sorry" is absolutly bollocs.

I might have missed the point, but you missed mine: You can't just apply real life tactics and military doctrine in a videogame. They just don't work damn right. And that's why you don't see any MP or PVP online. And that makes me mad because I wasted 50€. 

I remember I was in a clan in A2 and we were studying fency real life tactics and tryed to apply them into battle. No need to say that they were totally useless and most of the time it was just a waste of time.

Training were you had to walk for 10 kms and do nothing more. I mean what's the point of that?

Ok, might be cool play Arma in this way for someone! But then call A3  "roleplay game", because that's what it is in most of the clans. And it's far from seriousness. I mean just because you "respect" your commander it doesn't make the game "serious". Or just because you do your job in the team (like the medic-healing and the gunner-firing)

I've seen CS:GO ESL tournment, and these guys were really serious, they were challenging each others and making tactics that worked in the game and their skill was amazing. 

What you fail to understand is that ANY GAME litteraly can be serious, it just depends on the attitude of the players.

A3 community just fail to understand it.

 

Quote from the OP: "Serious games are games which focus on other than player entertainment. Like learning something from the games. (Simulation games can be in this type)."

 

The thing is if can you learn something from the game that you can apply IRL, not how competive and fun the game is. You can take every game seriously but OP said serious game = a game you can actually apply in your military/life. So CS isn't serious game.

Instagoat pretty much summed up the serious part of Arma 3. Map reading and navigation is maybe one of the best skill you can apply or learn from the game.

[bad benson 1733]

Ok, might be cool play Arma in this way for someone! But then call A3  "roleplay game", because that's what it is in most of the clans. And it's far from seriousness. I mean just because you "respect" your commander it doesn't make the game "serious". Or just because you do your job in the team (like the medic-healing and the gunner-firing)

I've seen CS:GO ESL tournment, and these guys were really serious, they were challenging each others and making tactics that worked in the game and their skill was amazing. 

What you fail to understand is that ANY GAME litteraly can be serious, it just depends on the attitude of the players.

 

good points. i always felt like there was no real difference between those military communities using strict rank structures and what life players do. the one "play" soldier the others "play" cop and robber.

the point is: degree of "seriousness" of squad =/= quality of tactics and firefights. i have witnessed that myself several times. being invited to those kind of games. always quit when i realised it was yet another patrol holo deck with no decent firefights just strolling acting like a soldier shooting occasional small AI groups. not saying there is no good inbetween being done by some good people though.

 

i also agree on the CS comparison. just because a game is faster or has different health system doesn't mean it doesn't require tactics. "even" COD flag based modes are known for fast team coordination and stuff.

 

at OriginalPoster: if you want to focus on game mechanics you should take InstaGoat's post or look for some other feature lists of the arma series. if you ask me though, "seriousness" is the wrong thing to look for if you focus on game mechanics. then it's more about different types of realism and the difference between perceived realism and actual simulation and stuff.

 

as far as i can tell for many arma players it's more about immersion. hence the shit storm about semi future setting. slower walking speeds doesn't make a game more serious. it makes it easier to immerse for people who like to feel like a real soldier in some way. it also explains why 3rd person view is still popular.

 

i personally would enjoy simply arma's engagement distances alone compared to most games even if my character was a pony and my gun was shooting rainbows.

 

that point becomes more clear if one looks at your list of games. all those games share the pseudo realistic military setting (i think you call them military shooters) so the people drawn to that dig them just from an atmospheric visual perspective. real world weapon models, uniforms, vehicles etc.

 

i mean look at DayZ. THAT game is "serious" (i think you mean realistic by some standard). makes you fucking have to eat and you get sick. and much more micro management stuff i gladly am ignorant of. yet it is not in your list eventhough i wouldsay that jsut as a game minus setting and visuals, it's much more "serious" than arma.

 

as someone said earlier. make some proper criteria and your list will magically change into something more meaningful.

 

if i was you and if "serious" was a given then i would focus more on the human element. look into the practices of those communities with rank structure and life communities and see what qualifies as "serious". it's way more about how you play the game than the game itself.

[polar bear 10]

Yes ARMA 3 is a serious game and I have learned a lot about quad bikes from it, for example, that you can drive one off a cliff and not get hurt.

I'm going to try it out IRL this weekend, now that ARMA 3 taught me you can do it safely.

[jw custom 56]

Ok, might be cool play Arma in this way for someone! But then call A3  "roleplay game", because that's what it is in most of the clans. And it's far from seriousness. I mean just because you "respect" your commander it doesn't make the game "serious". Or just because you do your job in the team (like the medic-healing and the gunner-firing)

 

What you fail to understand is that ANY GAME litteraly can be serious, it just depends on the attitude of the players.

A3 community just fail to understand it.

 

Sounds like you don't understand that 'serious' means different things to different people. Too me it mainly means teamwork, and yes teamwork can apply to most games but as a part of this community i can't understand that <_<

 

Sounds like you had some bad experiences, thats not the games nor the community's fault!

[KeyCat 131]

Training were you had to walk for 10 kms and do nothing more. I mean what's the point of that?

 

To prepare you for the real thing :D

 

 

've seen CS:GO ESL tournment, and these guys were really serious, they were challenging each others and making tactics that worked in the game and their skill was amazing.

 

I think you are missing the point! You are comparing it with E-sport i.e competitive gaming for prices (or fun).

 

/KC

 

[babylonjoke 22]

Fact is that if you are talking about game machanics, you need to learn something from ANY game. The fact that you can read a 3d compass on a map (which you might be dumb if you werent able to read it before) doesn't mean the game is serious.

Yep, I'm comparing with E-sport, are you saying that it's not serious? And what you see it's not "FUN", it's satisfaction. 

And yes, these are my opinion. Just like the rest of millions player who doesn't like the "type of seriousness" of Arma 3, which is a community factor, not a game factor, and that's what freaks me out