Lack of content in vanilla Arma 3

I'd like you to do a couple of things:

Take out Reskin's from Arma 2 (including guns, vehicles, etc)

I didn't include any on the list except for the An-2 as a civilian plane.

Look at the Focus of ArmA 3's development (has been stated numerous times that stability/features have been at the heart of A3)

And yet still tons of people leaving/complaining about instability.

Take another look at the "futuristic" content of A3 (because most of it isn't. There are companies even developing power armor on the HALO-esque level)

It's futuristic because a.) none/little of it is in use on the battlefield in real life and b.) none of it is technically even real since they renamed everything.

Also take out models from OA that were made from their "Game 2" project.

Why would I bother doing that? I have no problem with their inclusion especially since ArmA 2 was the closest thing they ever released to "Game 2".

almost every bit of content in Arma 2 (and even OA) was recycled from previous projects.

Once again who cares? Why not include it? As I said, I would rather have it in the game and have the option to use it.

but most of the A3 models are fresh and new and actually look good compared to other games.

Don't care once again because the A2 ones still look good to me.

That being said, Arma 3's gameplay is not solely about how the content looks, but I'm willing to bet that people didn't buy Arma 2 CO because the models look great.

No disagreement there.

Arma 3 does exactly what it's supposed to. It provides a good, (mostly) stable base for the community to build on.

Does a terrible job of that. Take a look at the A2 content. Do you notice that 90% of that stuff has been used in conflicts in the past 40 years and some of it even from the past 100 years.? This allows any mod to grab up a few things from it and use it as a starting point for their mod. Now let's take a look at A3. Nothing. Not a single thing that has been used in past conflicts. The littlebird or whatever BS name they renamed it to is the closest thing. Now the engine, sure that can be built upon. But it sure is nice having assets ready to go when you start. I wasn't in CWR2 for the opening days of it, but i'm sure it was nice having the T-72s, BMPs, etc. ready to go and just needing a retexture.

And once again, on the terrain side of things, if you don't want to make Greece or some random military base you're out of luck as far as map objects go. A2 allowed for far more options especially when you consider the fact that they included ArmA 1 buildings with the game. With buildings and plants I could've made anywhere in Eastern Europe or north-west Europe. I could've made a believable US map with them. With just plants I could make almost anywhere north of Italy. Then you have A3; Greece. That's it. Maybe a few places next to Greece. Hell the game doesn't even include barns.

Not only that but it also does what a game is supposed to do and provide vanilla content that (with proper attention to detail) provides for gameplay of multiple styles.

Won't disagree.

I'm aware that Arma 2 and OA had a lot of content; however, when looking at it from a development standpoint, it stands to reason that the library of content in Arma 2 was enormous compared to many development cycles.

It was large but that doesn't mean they couldn't have used it.

Plus, had many of these assets been used in Arma 3, it would have (and don't tell me it wouldn't, because you're lying) brought down the visual immersion of the game which is the most direct form immersion the game has to offer.

I feel more visually immersed in A2 than I do in Arma 3. Partially because of "Mr. Bug Helmet Men" and their tendency to turn into noodles when they die. I dislike the weapon sounds tremendously, for the first time in any Arma game or any game in general to be honest. Sound mod can take care of that though. Chernarus and Takistan are far more immersive to me. To be honest, I think ArmA 3 looks worse in general, performs worse in general, and pretty much everything handles worse in general (especially cars I can't drive one of those for 2 ft before hitting a building). Not to mention the story doesn't make me feel immersed at all. In OFP, ArmA, and ArmA 2 I pretty much started modding so that I could continue the story because I liked them. This one barely even has one to me. Granted I didn't make it more than 5 missions into the campaign but I read about the rest of it and it didn't inspire me at all. I'll keep giving it a shot every now and then and maybe I will grow to like it. I guses I will just work on my tutorials for the terrain people until then... which reminds me. I really wish they would stop making islands. Chernarus was awesome because it was part of the continent. I could come up with far more reasons to be fighting there. None of the A3 vehicles are amphibious either right? The tracked ones anyway right? That's another step backwards if that is true... then the whole forced Steam thing... the lack of ponds... lack of content... I'll stop there.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Jakerod

I feel more visually immersed in A2 than I do in Arma 3. .

Must say, its the way I feel.

Must say, its the way I feel.

I meant to add something after that along the lines of "I feel more immersed in OFP/CWA than in ArmA 3." Which is true. I very, very rarely played OFP after Armed Assault came out and then even less after ArmA 2. I've played more OFP in the past month than I have ArmA 3 in the past year. The game just has this feeling to it that makes it so much better to me. ArmA 2 has it too. I'm hoping that ArmA 3 is to ArmA 4 what Armed Assault was to ArmA 2; it's awkward first stage that didn't quite turn out right followed by a superior stage where everything just came together well. In my eyes; OFP/A2 > A1 > A3. I'm hoping for A4 > OFP/A2 > A1 > A3 some day though.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Jakerod

Look, mate, I get your point. There were a couple of things that were a bit far in my opinion (CSAT's helmets, although the one with the single thing are ok IMO). However, in terms of visual quality, I hated the Arma 2 models. I thought then and still think now that they weren't to the same quality as the terrains built for Arma 2 and it showed. Severely. Granted, they could have gone and updated the models for Arma 3 which they did do for the models that were carried over. I'm not a person who enjoys stagnation. I don't like to see re-used assets in a vanilla game. The problem with the entirety of this thread is that it's all extremely subjective. If you play ArmA as it's meant to be played, which is in depth combined arms combat that requires coordination and teamwork (which I'll admit, the campaign does nothing to promote this really) then you can get immersed whether or not you're fighting using an M16 or an MX. I get that people like Modern and Cold War era gear, and that's fine. I like it too. But to be honest I hate to see the same models used over and over with no real improvements.

As far as performance goes, yes I have my fair share of issues, however, I have more frames on an empty Chernarus in A3 than I do in an empty Chernarus in A2. That's not the only benchmark I use for framerate, but it's normally the one I start with. The funny thing about Arma 3 is that it's more visually pleasing to the (my) eye than Arma 2 is. Arma 2 looks dated, and it feels dated to me. Everything is very sluggish, and feels constricted. The animations are kinda robotic and sometimes even painful to look at. That's not to say that Arma 2 wasn't a step foward in the series, because it was. It was capable of more than Arma 1, but now compared to Arma 3, it doesn't feel as good. That might just be because I'm used to Arma 3, but I played Arma 2 for quite a while.

Also Arma 2 had the AK-47/74, M16/M4, M14 DMR, etc.

My point is, Arma 3 brings new assets to the table. That being said many of these pieces of equipment are prototypes (RAH-66, T-95), but a lot of them are being used (E.G., the M-ATV, Merkava, Patria AMV, FV510, etc.). Names can be changed at will, that doesn't mean that the vehicle doesn't exist. Had they kept the Modern-era/Cold war them going, I'd still be a happy customer, but ArmA 3's facelift was needed.

This is all very subjective, however, and I realize that. That being said, it stands to reason that while it may have been "easier" to re-use Arma 2's content library, it still exists for us to use in our mods and such. The difference being that we have access to upgrade the models as we see fit. Frankly, I'm ok with that. And I hope they do the same thing if/when Arma 4 becomes a thing for Arma 3's content library. All in all, I'm not unhappy with Arma 3, or it's content. It does what it's supposed to do, and provides content unique to the series to do it. I feel like all threads like this tend to end up as pointless arguing, but I feel like the content from Arma 2 has merit. Just not as Arma 3 content.

It would take several minutes to explain and analyze, but the fastest way is to say that A2 has charisma. It has many things that makes it especial, maybe even many of them were not initially planned by the developers. The graphics, which currently are modern, the "older" A2 has something that gives a special feeling, a weird mix of seriousness and danger. A3 is just like any other game.

Edited January 25, 2015 by VanZant

Look, mate, I get your point. There were a couple of things that were a bit far in my opinion (CSAT's helmets, although the one with the single thing are ok IMO).

Then we agree.

However, in terms of visual quality, I hated the Arma 2 models. I thought then and still think now that they weren't to the same quality as the terrains built for Arma 2 and it showed.

Now we don't.

Severely. Granted, they could have gone and updated the models for Arma 3

They should've.

I'm not a person who enjoys stagnation.

I don't either.

I don't like to see re-used assets in a vanilla game.

I don't mind it as long as we get new ones to go with them. Just because the same models are used doesn't mean stagnation.

The problem with the entirety of this thread is that it's all extremely subjective.

Agreed.

If you play ArmA as it's meant to be played, which is in depth combined arms combat that requires coordination and teamwork (which I'll admit, the campaign does nothing to promote this really) then you can get immersed whether or not you're fighting using an M16 or an MX.

Disagreed. I don't. There has to be more to it than that.

I get that people like Modern and Cold War era gear, and that's fine. I like it too.

Agreed.

But to be honest I hate to see the same models used over and over with no real improvements.

As I said before, I don't mind seeing them used over again. However, there are tons of vehicles that they never made. BMD-1/2, PT76, MiG-23, MiG-27, Su-17, Chaparral, SA-9, Hind-A, Mi-2, Sheridan, Hawk, SA-2, An-12, T-62, T-64, BTR-80, Red Eye, CH47, CH53, A6, A4, F111 and those are just the ones I want from the US/USSR and I didn't include variants. Look at Wargame: Airland Battle. There are 750 vehicles in that game which probably includes variants but still there are bound to be at least 100 unique ones. They never did British Cold War stuff or had us fight against Poland or anything like that. There are tons of possibilities. I don't think there has ever even been a French vehicle or weapon in this series (vanilla).

The funny thing about Arma 3 is that it's more visually pleasing to the (my) eye than Arma 2 is. Arma 2 looks dated, and it feels dated to me. Everything is very sluggish, and feels constricted.

Disagreed. Still looks great to me.

The animations are kinda robotic and sometimes even painful to look at.

I agree ArmA 2 needed an animation upgrade. I don't think ArmA 3 provided one though. I would take the old ArmA 2 death animations over the ArmA 3 every guy looks like he died trying to do a backflip/like a noodle/lost all of his bones animations. I would also love to get the old grenade throwing animation instead of the throw a grenade in .25 seconds one we have now. Everything is too fast in ArmA 3. And I know that there are a lot of people who agree with me. Hell the guy who did them probably agrees with me. Not to mention I hate that stupid falling animation that occurs every time you take a step off of something more than 2 inches high. Always fun to watch the AI fall to their death when you shoot them down too. That may have been fixed now I don't know.

That's not to say that Arma 2 wasn't a step foward in the series, because it was.

Damn right you're not saying that! :D

It was capable of more than Arma 1,

Agreed

but now compared to Arma 3, it doesn't feel as good.

Disagreed.

Also Arma 2 had the AK-47/74, M16/M4, M14 DMR, etc.

Not sure what this means.

My point is, Arma 3 brings new assets to the table. That being said many of these pieces of equipment are prototypes (RAH-66, T-95), but a lot of them are being used (E.G., the M-ATV, Merkava, Patria AMV, FV510, etc.). Names can be changed at will, that doesn't mean that the vehicle doesn't exist.

A lot of them don't or have differences. I don't mind the RAH-66 as much because it would allow me to recreate Jungle Strike but that's the only reason why.

Had they kept the Modern-era/Cold war them going, I'd still be a happy customer,

Which is why they should've. You and I would've both been happy. And in the end aren't we the only two people that matter?

but ArmA 3's facelift was needed.

ArmA 3 needs a facelift itself.

This is all very subjective, however, and I realize that. That being said, it stands to reason that while it may have been "easier" to re-use Arma 2's content library, it still exists for us to use in our mods and such. The difference being that we have access to upgrade the models as we see fit. Frankly, I'm ok with that. And I hope they do the same thing if/when Arma 4 becomes a thing for Arma 3's content library.

All in all, I'm not unhappy with Arma 3, or it's content.

Happy for you.

It does what it's supposed to do, and provides content unique to the series to do it.

Disagreed.

I feel like all threads like this tend to end up as pointless arguing,

No they don't! Say that to my face!

but I feel like the content from Arma 2 has merit. Just not as Arma 3 content.

ArmA 4 content then hopefully.

It would take several minutes to explain and analyze, but the fastest way is to say that A2 has charisma. It has many things that makes it especial, maybe even many of them were not initially planned by the developers. The graphics, which currently are modern, the "older" A2 has something that gives a special feeling, a weird mix of seriousness and danger. A3 is just like any other game.

Good way to put it. ArmA 3 took away a lot of the feelings I enjoyed about the series. I really hope I like ArmA 4. I only have one other series I still like and I don't think they're making more of them. Edited January 25, 2015 by Jakerod

Game lacks weapons, clothing, scopes, building types, gore, etc.. And no I dont want mods that get bugged after each update. I want Bis to design way more content.

Agree with you KK. Seems like BIS are more interested in a Dinosaur simulator than a military sandbox. Given the lack of content for the original A3 package, seems a shame they are moving in this direction. Understandable if they are trying to appeal to Life players and a possible dino spinoff.

Yes, the terrain and DX12 effects look shiny, but where are BIS taking this series? A pacific island is probably the last place you would focus on for a military sandbox - did the environment team have too much influence over product direction?

In my eyes, the main feedback about A3 was lack of content (plus the issues with MP performance). The expansion should have addressed those content issues with the environment being secondary to that.

I'm sure they will come back and say assets for the pacific island expansion are being developed by Black Element and external contractors so won't impact the core team...

Our only hope now is that BIS deliver improved littoral operations assets and gameplay, improved AI navigation, improved dense environment combat for AI (i.e. not seeing through foilage) and implementation of DX12 (across cores lol).

Agree on every point. Curious if BI are planning on providing dinos? :)

The expansion will include new assets besides the map itself. Check out the blog on the BI website.

This is exactly my point. New assets need to be created while there is a lack of assets for vanilla game. So instead of making complimentary expansion to the main theme and therefore increasing variety and playability, there will be 2 different themes both lacking in content.

New assets need to be created while there is a lack of assets for vanilla game.

Complementary expansion? Oh yeah, I'm sure BI would look forward to the "we should have had this at launch, so we shouldn't have to pay for this" type of rants.

New assets need to be created while there is a lack of assets for vanilla game.

lack of assets? there is everything you want in vanilla game.

the focus, IMHO, will be in the MP performance now is quite unplayable

Edited June 17, 2015 by Zukov

Complementary expansion? Oh yeah, I'm sure BI would look forward to the "we should have had this at launch, so we shouldn't have to pay for this" type of rants.

Actually, the answer is pretty simple, just quoting Steam Store page should be sufficient:

Conduct a combined arms attack over air, land, and sea, with over 20 vehicles to drive and pilot, 40+ weapons to pick from, customizable loadouts with short- and long-distance attachments, and various types of gear to suit your needs on the battlefield.

I would guess that users able to write down rants should be even able to read the game description before they buy it. Not to mention that current numbers are much higher than it was during the release :icon_twisted:

lack of assets? there is everything you want in vanilla game.

the focus, IMHO, will be in the MP performance now is quite unplayable

Actually there is everything *you* want, let's not boldly speak for others, mmk?

lack of assets? there is everything you want in vanilla game.

Technically you're right, there is one asset of each type but the problem is variety of those assets, especially civilian ones. There is 1 hatchback, 1 SUV, 1 truck, 1 pickup and 1 Apollo-looking civilian man with 2 or 3 different outfits. Yes, civilian stuff is not a priority in Arma and it's great that there is at least something civilian but operating room sterile cities without any signs of life are outright boring.

Actually, the answer is pretty simple, just quoting Steam Store page should be sufficient:

I would guess that users able to write down rants should be even able to read the game description before they buy it. Not to mention that current numbers are much higher than it was during the release :icon_twisted:

Dear Mr Pettka, I am trying to find the answer to this question for quite sometime to no avail. Why bridges in vanilla cannot be spawned as your normal objects but bridge pathways can. The assets are in game but not available to us mortals, is this intentional?

Technically you're right, there is one asset of each type but the problem is variety of those assets, especially civilian ones. There is 1 hatchback, 1 SUV, 1 truck, 1 pickup and 1 Apollo-looking civilian man with 2 or 3 different outfits. Yes, civilian stuff is not a priority in Arma and it's great that there is at least something civilian but operating room sterile cities without any signs of life are outright boring.

me too would like more contents in game, but now the MP performances are very awful i prefer less contents but smooth gameplay

So this is where "the lack of content" threads come to die? :D

So this is where "the lack of content" threads come to die? :D

Yeah pretty much. I'm starting to think there is something going on with bridges. Every time I ask that question, people disappear, stocks drop, natural disasters occur...

Yeah pretty much. I'm starting to think there is something going on with bridges. Every time I ask that question, people disappear, stocks drop, natural disasters occur...

It's because he didn't chime in to talk about bridges. Since he seems to be commenting to the contrary to your claims of a lack of content, it would only be polite to respond in kind.

there will be 2 different themes both lacking in content.

How much assets will the expansion have, do you know this?

How much assets will the expansion have, do you know this?

Nope, but it is not too crazy to assume it will have even less assets than vanilla game.

---------- Post added at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:26 ----------

It's because he didn't chime in to talk about bridges. Since he seems to be commenting to the contrary to your claims of a lack of content, it would only be polite to respond in kind.

Actually I was talking from experience. I did ask Pettka before at least a couple of times and also asked Moricky. There seem to be a gag order on this information by the looks of it.

Nope, but it is not too crazy to assume it will have even less assets than vanilla game.

The lack of content in A3 always stems from the fact that there's too many copy and pasted assets that aren't unique to one faction like the static guns, Titans, optics, grenades, calibre, etc...even the same minigun being mounted on BLUFOR/OPFOR choppers. As long as they don't do this again in the expansion then we're golden*.

* At least I hope so. The fact that we still have the same RCWS turret being used all 3 factions despite A3 being 2 years old from the Alpha makes me sceptical as well...

Edited June 17, 2015 by drebin052
typos typos everywhere

A question comes to my mind, this may be because I am uninformed about assets and scripting, but still...:

Why aren't ArmA 2 (terrain/building) assets included in ArmA 3?

I guess this way we would have seen a much faster Terrain development; i.e. without being dependent on AiA etc.

Where is that "They want to appeal the Life and Dino folks" thing coming from, BTW? I mean it is normal that it pops up regularly, but now I read it more often. Because Tanoa looks like an ideal place for Dinosaurs?

As long as they don't forget the military aspect and as long as those folks stay in their reserves, I'm fine with the situation.

Well, if they release a "Catch the Dino" campaign with Tanoa, we would have interesting times here :D.

Edited June 17, 2015 by tortuosit

A question comes to my mind, this may be because I am uninformed about assets and scripting, but still...:

Why aren't ArmA 2 (terrain/building) assets included in ArmA 3?

I guess this way we would have seen a much faster Terrain development; i.e. without being dependent on AiA etc.

Nothing to do with scripting, just needing to get them up to date to arma3 standards (both in terms of quality and configs). It's a matter of priority and manpower. Just have a look at the amount of work that was put into CUP, and still there are few things missing from the A2 content package .

I sort of feel that for the price you pay for A3, the content is correct. I would have preferred less copy pasted stuff across the different factions (from turrets to static).

PS: this sort of thread seems to be stuck in a loop, reoccurring every few months.

While I disagree about the lack of content in the vanilla game, I can understand wanting to have an expansion that builds on top of what's already there rather than replaces it. I don't necessarily think this will happen with the new expansion, but I can understand where it's coming from. I think they'll be able to use a lot of the smaller models that are already in the game fine, anything smaller than a building, and maybe be able to retexture some models for things that don't quite fit, in addition to new buildings and whatnot. That way we will hopefully see some cool new stuff. At the very least there should be some new vehicles and weapons that will fit in nicely with the rest of the game, surely that's not a bad thing?

The problem with these kinds of threads though is that everyone has a different expectation for what 'should be' in the base game, or how much there is needed before it stops having a lack of content. There's no baseline for how much content should be in the game, because no one else is doing anything like this, so we have nothing to compare it to.

Also the dinosaur comments are pretty funny and very off base. It's really not even that popular a mod, i can guarantee you most people who play the game have no idea it exists, it's just gained a decent amount of exposure on the forums here because it's weird and different.

I decided to post on the sub, without reading it all.. mostly because I understand both sides, but my thing I don't like is lack of class named sides of base buildings.. like there should be a east air factory and a west.. So the 2 don't look alike and of have to retexture to make it different ... im mean really .. there's more civ buildings than any other building and lack any big building all together, but off course I love the game, been playing since ofp... but back then we didn't have DLC .. we had a community popping out lots of add-ons and some cd upgrades that offered more than what arma3 is with there dlc's... I know theres a lot of guys out there like me hard core ofp to arma1,2 and three. and weather you give us things for free or charge us , im sure well all still be here.. but it would be nice , even if you just even out the sides with the same amount of air,tanks,building.. etc...