It doesn't feel the same

What struck me at the campaign was the lack of realism that I felt in it or a sense of smooth continuity. There were so many Hollywood moments, total out of place or logic, like making the base in an open area prone to attacks from the enemy, with chem lights lighting the place up asking to be destroyed, the shot down helicopter wreck, the side missions, the limitation of those side missions specifically at the area you could explore, the inability of the missions to let you drive from one place to another or from one to another without cutting the player out of the action an so on. It was better than the buggy ArmA 2 campaign, but definitely felt cater for newcomers and rushed out the door. Unfortunately the AI didn't help one bit as well. :(

TBH ArmA 3 is a leap forward compared to ArmA 2, of course, minus the assets and some other stuff. Maybe we'll be luckier with the 4th installment.

Played the Arma 3 alpha back in March 2013, never looked back. Arma 2 became a memory, the only thing I miss is Chernarus and that I can experience with mods.

I would really like to see what would people say if BIS chose some modern theme conflict, with the old vehicles, old weapons, with European terrain. Every single one of you would say that they just copy-pasted everything, that those few improvements aren't worth the whole price. I just don't get you people.

I think this future theme is actually pretty fresh and nice. Sure, there are some vehicles that are really missing, for example I really miss some kind of medevac chopper. But overall I think factions are pretty nice, and each one of them feels different.

I don't like the radio. AI just keep repeating same things over and over, they get stuck in a soundloop.

And all the reporting of enemies. Just shoot the bastard, you don't need to write a letter to mom about it.

So I'm using a mod that disables AI banter. Keeps me sane.

Patch 1.26:

I do like the new weapon sway, or the total lack of it, at least sideways sway.

But I wonder if bullet accuracy got somehow randomized. I'm not hitting what I aim at and AI are even worse, enemy AI. And they seem to wait 2-3 seconds after spotting me before they start shooting. Even if they are stationary and looking straight at me.

Anyway, I'm having more fun now with the weapon sway fixed. Just wish they would tone down the fatigue a bit as well.

Arma 3 Alpha:

I couldn't play it. I got 5 fps when I tried. In beta I got maybe 10-15 fps so that was the first time I even tried playing.

I remember playing I&A on Stratis, starting at the air base and AO was the town next to it. I jumped in a car, stepped on the gas, made a high jump from some hill close to the town...only to see 3 players in front of me. I was in the air, I couldn't steer at all. The car landed in the middle of them and with sheer luck I missed all of them =)

Some things in Arma 3 does take skill. Playing a grenadier for example. Dialing in the range of the grenades, aiming, actually hitting anything with them.

Why the default range is 75m I don't understand. That range is too close. Just end up hurting myself. Should be what it used to be, 200m. Any closer and its better to just shoot the enemy or throw a grenade.

Other than Bingo fuel, I can't remember much about the campaign. It was same-same all the way. I can't remember any tanks, choppers, planes. They never got mixed in the battle as far as I remember. Well, Bingo fuel the exception. But just some Gorgons and light armor. Oh yeah, the final assault, calling in airstrikes. That was fun. I felt the game took off a bit there, I enjoyed it. I was hoping there would be more of that but instead it was the end. I mean a big assault, many squads, mixed armor and infantry. Can't remember any air assets tho.

With each new update is arma3 a week without being able to play, they can disrupt all addons made ​​by communities and then need to be redone, the difficult to play arma3 almost abandoning this game.

I don't like the radio. AI just keep repeating same things over and over, they get stuck in a soundloop.

And all the reporting of enemies. Just shoot the bastard, you don't need to write a letter to mom about it.

So I'm using a mod that disables AI banter. Keeps me sane.

Off topic : what mod is that? I'm interested!

Missed a proper campaign.

Bored of guerilla missions and sandbox warfare.

What I needed is a proper storydriven campaign with only military assets - like for example, a military convoy en route is ambushed, intense firefight, CAS inbound, etc...

Realistic warfare like what's happening in Afgha or Iraq.

With each new update is arma3 a week without being able to play, they can disrupt all addons made ​​by communities and then need to be redone, the difficult to play arma3 almost abandoning this game.

Redone?Updated more like it.Welcome to iterative development.

My 2 cents - the missing civilians make the campaign but also many missions feel strange.

What do you need an ROE for if there is just you and your opponent.

The more I think about it, the more I loved the role of being an active person in a conflict who had to make decisions either to help a village out, searching for evidence of massgraves, bombs or specific persons.

In PMC there was a double sided relation to ION which was awesome.

It also felt good to be able to safe a wounded one after an IED with an ambush. It made some epic situations.

ArmA 3 is really nice, it looks damn good and it feels damn good to me. You get a nice giant map and nice toys. The base is really HOT.

But the details (like sooo many empty houses) and the even weaponsystems.

War is not even. Making all systems in every relation even like having the same tanks but with different camos is boring.

One army is better with infantry and their guns, others are using the advantage of the territory and hideouts, and others are more dependent on multiple different systems that are only efficient when working together like a gearbox.

For an example lets take a look at SplinterCell:

Both sides are based on totally different systems. The mercenaries have killing Weapons, Grenades, mines but also detecting sensors, bad visibility, low speed, low agility.

Spies only have electro shockers giving you 3 secs to get your ass out, sleeping gass, some diffuser systems, but high agility, speed, and visibility.

Still both teams can be totally even, when they choose their equipment, skill and tactics to their advantage.

But they also can be totally uneven when not prepared right, missing the skill or tactical knowledge.

This is the point when a game becomes interesting.

Forcing the game to be totally even in every relation (every gun must have an opponent model with the same properties) in my opinion is simply just boring.

But this are just my 2 cents.

Edit: By the way I also have to admit, regarding even or uneven systems - this is something the mission developer /mission hoster and not the game developer should decide.

Simply put the game is cool, but the missions using the toys to make bambambam aren't this much my flavor as it was until now in the series.

If certain rumors I've heard about Arma 3 development are true, then I'm really not surprised re: "lack of focus". Otherwise though, it could be that some of what you sense is the product of a mix of design decisions and development prioritizing (i.e. certain things may have been planned all along but end up released later and necessitating further changes, i.e. sway and fatigue will be tweaked some more when weapon inertia is added).

Yeah, sure. What I mean by lack of forces is the sense of trying to go into two different directions at once. One direction being to simplify things and make them easier (and thus less fun, as in the mounted weaponry and the insane ease they can be operated with, I basicly think they are so OP it makes them no fun even to use), and the focus on making other things harder (I welcome those greatly!)

It definitely seems that at some point a conscious effort was made to make Arma 3 the most "easy to get into" in the series in the sense of "least 'crash course or join a unit' required", not just via the Bootcamp campaign but also the VR Training courses.

I agree, and I must say they have achieved this in a brilliant manner.

Re: the campaign... to be fair, are you really going to be able to get CWR good without flat-out remaking it? I believe the devs may be happy enough with "way better than ARMA II". ;)

For a long time, they did give the impression that the campaign would go a more CWR type of route in ARMA III. One of the most frequent complaints with the ARMA II campaign I can recall and that I agreed with myself was how few of the assets in the game where used in the campaign. Earlier, BIS promised us to be able to fill different roles in the AIII campaign, but sadly they didn't. However, I have a feeling that the reason for having a campaign featuring the player in every role from tank commander, heli pilot, squad leading, piloting a plane and so forth was simply due to the fact that OFP was intended mainly as a single player experience. When it was released, games where way more focused on singleplayer than they are today, and campaigns mattered more. They wanted everything they created to count, thus having it all in there.

I actually think BIS never, ever anticipated how popular and widely used the editor would become. I am pretty sure they kind of added it as an after thought or as a "extra feature" without even remotely anticipating how popular it would become, and I believe the same is true for mods. Sure, they anticipated that some people would play around in the editor or make some mods for the game for their own purpose, but for it to explode like it has? To make it the defining feature of ARMA and OFP's sucess? No, I am pretty sure they never, ever thought it would turn out that way.

Yeah, sure. What I mean by lack of forces is the sense of trying to go into two different directions at once. One direction being to simplify things and make them easier (and thus less fun, as in the mounted weaponry and the insane ease they can be operated with, I basicly think they are so OP it makes them no fun even to use), and the focus on making other things harder (I welcome those greatly!)

Can you please elaborate on how you think mounted weaponry has been made easier?

I think he refers to NATO/CSAT mounted guns (you know, the one turret model BIS applied to 70% of vehicles), and their Night/thermal visions combined to the zoom capacity...

Agree with snow. The balancing act sucks.

One nice not huge change for me would be c sat uniforms. Just cannot stand the alien shaped helmets that look more like a squad alien bug guys running around. it just feels wrong seeing them.

Not only does it feel wrong. It kinda has a jokey feel to it seeing them can't take them seriously. I'm playing nearly a year and it still has not grown on me. Most the other "future" stuff I could overlook

Can you please elaborate on how you think mounted weaponry has been made easier?

Exactly as Roshnak says. In ARMA 2, most of the mounted weaponry where either iron sights or fixed optics. Some had zooming steps, but not incremental zoom. Also, you had no thermal on most of them, and none of the optics did have range information (laser ranging) integrated in the scope itself, as all of the mounted weapons in ARMA III has. Lastly, the gunner was usually either in the open or only partly hidden by armor (a shield in front of the gun, or shields around the entire gunner).

In ARMA III, you are safely inside your vehicle, able to read and adjust for range directly from the optic system itself (or rather, the weapon aiming monitor) and are capable of doing smooth incremental zoom with high magnification capabilities.

One of the coolest things I did in ARMA II was either gunning in HMWW's or using binos or my rifle scope to lead, correct and report efficiency on target to a mounted gunner.

And as I said earlier, ARMA IIIs take might be more realistic, even with current gen tech, but it makes it less of a challenge and less fun. Even ARMA II had assets with simular capabilities, but they where not the norm and considered high value targets/assets. What I am requesting is assets with lower tech that suits the military factions in ARMA, because they provide an interesting game mechanic and provides a type of gameplay that was common in ARMA II, but is close to non existant in ARMA III. I loved that kind of gameplay, and ARMA III's engine is more than capable of it. I would very much welcome HMWWs or an equivalent with less armor and exposed gunners that are at risk of being taken out.

TL: DR: It's more fun to engage targets while at risk yourself, exposed behind a big ass gun in a turret, rather than sitting inside an armored vehicle remotely firing on enemies.

I see what you're saying, but I still don't think that mounted weapons have been made easier to use. The same systems and capabilities were available in Arma 2 and Operation Arrowhead, they were just less common.

Off topic : what mod is that? I'm interested!

Probably this one: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147952-MRB-Voice-Stop

Just cannot stand the alien shaped helmets that look more like a squad alien bug guys running around.

Probably this one: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147952-MRB-Voice-Stop

Yes, thats the one. I also use this http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=24204

So bullets do some damage. To get that OFP/old Arma-feeling.

About vehicle guns. I don't like driving armored vehicles much so my memory can be a bit off but...wasn't there inertia in OFP when in a tank and trying to turn that turret? In arma3 theres only a different mouse sensitivity in action.

Old skool-video

I see what you're saying, but I still don't think that mounted weapons have been made easier to use. The same systems and capabilities were available in Arma 2 and Operation Arrowhead, they were just less common.

Yeah, agreed. Even though most of them had zoom in steps, rather than smooth zoom like we have now. The point is that I miss having some vehicles that are a little more low tech.

For some reason Arma 3 feels more like a game than a military sim. It's not bad but compared to Arma 2 it lacks the immersion factor I've got used to. Sure, some areas have been improved but the actual gameplay is not what it used to be. Maybe it's just me (and my buddys) that are getting too old or something...

Probably this one: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147952-MRB-Voice-Stop

Thanks tpw & Mamasan8! :)

---------- Post added at 19:21 ---------- Previous post was at 19:18 ----------

Based on the Eurogamer article mention of Arma Futura, apparently "a squad alien bug guys running around" was supposed to be OPFOR and not CSAT... :p

And they actually worked on that for a year (or a few months? Can't remember.) before changing their minds.

I have the feeling that using High tech assets would have been funnier against aliens.

As someone who's followed the series from the beggining, I'm glad it doesn't feel the same! All previous Arma's felt like you were controlling your avatar with puppet strings, it was too clunky! Arma 3 is much smoother and it feels more "human." All the mechanics from Arma 2 are there (+ new ones), not sure what the big deal is.

And I know many of you will disagree, but Arma was ALWAYS a game. I've used (and still use) real US military simulators (some costing $12million) and they're nothing like Arma. They're much more complex, require TONS of studying, and are usually stressfull experiences manned by an operator who has to school up on the simulator for months prior to even using it.

As someone who's followed the series from the beggining, I'm glad it doesn't feel the same! All previous Arma's felt like you were controlling your avatar with puppet strings, it was too clunky! Arma 3 is much smoother and it feels more "human." All the mechanics from Arma 2 are there (+ new ones), not sure what the big deal is.

And I know many of you will disagree, but Arma was ALWAYS a game. I've used (and still use) real US military simulators (some costing $12million) and they're nothing like Arma. They're much more complex, require TONS of studying, and are usually stressfull experiences manned by an operator who has to school up on the simulator for months prior to even using it.

Simply curious... What sims do you use?

Many of us knew A3 was to be more user friendly and appeal to more people, it was pretty straight forward. It is more user friendly and it does appeal to many more people.

That's great, I like the fact BI have a good game that's aimed toward mainstream, not however, mainstream.

But for me A2 is the game I'll always play in this series, well unless something comes up and they rewind some. But that's fine, play A2 on the highest settings, tweak the colour effect a little (richer), if that's what you like, and it still looks far better (real), than many other games out there.

I do however think its very mod specific for me, if a mod that I want to use works better in A2 than A3, then its going to be that I go for. Graphics are nice but game-play is far more important for me. That is though, just my opinion, if the same mod worked as well in A3, I'd be playing that instead.

Just personal preference at the end of the day.:)

It's an interesting subject. Yesterday I was playing a bit with Arma 2 and I was trying to figure out what's wrong with Arma 3, why I don't feel engaged in the same way as when I play A2.

In Arma 3 there are obvious improvements compared to its predecessor ( stances, lighting, some effects, smoothness of controls, more detail in textures, etc. ).

After much deliberation my conclusion was the content.

I don't need more vehicles, but more variety. For instance, the turret repetition issue is something that makes me want to practice voodoo in whoever had that idea. I though that was something provisional that would be changed with time, but I was wrong, after practically a year from the release, the clone turrets persist. I wouldn't mind if they use some of the A2 turrets just to give some variety, also some directly manned, not all remote.

The actual vehicles, weapons and uniforms don't feel organic to me. It's not because of the futuristic point, because I love the Gears of War's setting ( it would made an awesome mod for A3 ) or the CoD Ghosts' one. In Arma 3 it seems like if they had made the army with a random selection of the actual prototypes and then copy & paste most of the vehicles, caring mainly about their looks not their functionality. To me the A3 Armies are hardly believable, they don't fit ( maybe the only exception is the AAF ).

There is also the fact that Altis is completely deserted, there's practically no life. No civilians, no women, no police, no paramedics, no bus, no farmer with the tractor ( that has been in all the past instances of the series ), lack of animals, the houses are also empty ( compared to the fruits, carpets, little furniture of A2 interiors ). Like if there has been a virus that annihilated all forms of life.

I'd rather have less vehicles, but with more variety in them, different turrets, a more believable setting, more civilian stuff. And all that can be done perfectly without porting anything from the past games. For example BI could have add the Tigr for the CSAT, maybe a LMV for the AAF, the new Bradley chassis based APCs, or a tracked Stryker, big tilt rotors aircrafts for NATO, some skins for the helicopters to have civil versions of them, etc.

Concerning the campaign. Well although there are a few missions that have some flaws in the plot, the experience was quite delightful, the best since OFP:Resistance. For a little while it made me forgot a bit about the lack or variety, civilian life, and so on.

But well, I guess that what matters the most, the engine seems to have taken a big step forward, which I appreciate. I think that most of the other issues I'll be able to solve them with mods, for instance the awesome RHS RU and US in conjunction with some of the new maps, like Bornholm, can be epic.