Is Arma 3 authentic?

[max power 21]

@ Max Power

M113 family vehicles are missing for example for US Army, and those are still widely used.

The russians were missing BMP-1 and BMP-2 and the overal use of MK16 and MK17 instead of M16 and M14MBR is another issue.

You were talking about the simplified depiction of modern technology, now you're talking about missing afvs and superfluous rifles. Not sure you're talking about the same thing you were when I replied. If you were talking about missing this or extra that or mk16 or whatever, I would not have replied. I am so out of interest in talking about that I would rather gargle razor blades.

[spooky lynx 73]

I see only one reason for not making a game setting that depicts one of real conflicts - all inaccuracies in the models, textures and equipment sets may be excused by 'it's fiction!' phrase. Without it devs will have to be not so lazy:) So I think there won't be any real conflict set from BIS. All I want from ArmA3 is easy-to-use set of tools with good manuals which will give an ability to make another content for the game just after release of ArmA3.

[metalcraze 290]

Dudes complaining about ArmA3 being too sci fi should watch that Blops2 trailer

[max power 21]

I see only one reason for not making a game setting that depicts one of real conflicts - all inaccuracies in the models, textures and equipment sets may be excused by 'it's fiction!' phrase. Without it devs will have to be not so lazy:) So I think there won't be any real conflict set from BIS. All I want from ArmA3 is easy-to-use set of tools with good manuals which will give an ability to make another content for the game just after release of ArmA3.

Yeah, the devs are lazy, and creativity is just an excuse for not having a million hours in a day. :ok:

[dm 9]

Dudes complaining about ArmA3 being too sci fi should watch that Blops2 trailer

Dudes complaining about ArmA3 being too sci fi should make their own fucking game. Oh wait, they cant.

[Maio 293]

Yeah, the devs are lazy, and creativity is just an excuse for not having a million hours in a day. :ok:

You mean BIS artists don't get 100% satisfaction from which they can extract life force and joy by reproducing real life military equipment over and over again?!

Stop spreading lies! You must be a COD FANBOY!!!!!!!!!

[slatts 1978]

if only you could make your own content in this game....

you could change the units to modern day! :O wouldnt that be epic?

[CameronMcDonald 146]

if only you could make your own content in this game....

you could change the units to modern day! :O wouldnt that be epic?

haxx this have never happen at all in any "Bohemic" gamz gtfo

if arma-sci 3 has railguns with moving trigger finger i am boycott

also if no tunisian army i am boycott :dj:

[instagoat 133]

if only you could make your own content in this game....

you could change the units to modern day! :O wouldnt that be epic?

Except learning how to do that would require extra effort, own creativity, time and dedication. Gratification comes much quicker if you pay a random company a couple of bucks (and even then people will STILL complain about everything that they perceive as being "unrealistic" or "inaccurate".) and get what you want.

One reason why modding isn´t popular nowadays is that all the nerds who got into it in the early to mid 2000s seem to have grown up, and new people usually pick up more popular games because there´s more feedback, and there are more people overall so its easier to assemble modding teams. No, no, we can´t have anything that needs work put into it to be the way we want it. Better complain about it and wait until other people do it for you.

Srsly, Arma 3 is actually trying to be a game this time, with story, background, a more elaborate world, characters... hopefully the first Arma that I, as someone who has studied art, can actually put into the category of "videogames as art" instead of "videogames as accurate depiction of random irl military equipment for the purpose of roleplaying."

And again, a gun is a gun, a tank is a tank, a plane is a plane. Who cares if we don´t have the capacitators to mount a railgun on a tank irl: obviously, the armaverse people have figured it out. Otherwise, the tank wouldn´t exist. Is it within the realm of our possibillities, short term? No, but that is because the research put into the field is marginal by any standard. In the militarized, warlike armaverse, I would guess that more countries are pouring more research money into advanced weapons, leading to quicker and more drastic advances. Any reasoning, however, is kind of moot: you can pretty much argue either way, and in the end, nobody wins and everyone is frustrated.

Just deal with it. Like said before, if you really don´t like it, either start a mod, start your own game, or go to the competition. (oh, wait....) Last option I guess is to not buy Arma 3 at all and stick with Arma 2/ACE2, etc.

Another two cents by me.

[liquidpinky 11]

Just for the record here, some of arent bashing the ideas or being closed minded.

Some of us are in fact in industries that deal with some of the subjects and actually know the score. IE I work in control sytems and power and know exactly what the limitations are.

I am always never disapointed by any game company so far when it comes to falling short on some of the industrial settings as well. Looking forward to see how the Limnos power station comes on. Especially how it actually sounds while inside it.

And for the record I can also make mods myself so can put whatever I like in a game without starting some little begging can I haz in game topic as well.

Bear that in mind before you get carried away in your daydreams and slating people for voicing their concerns. ;)

Also, I am not to worried about the futuristic content at all.

They should in fact go one step further if the Railgun Tank deos have the power capability for a railgun and remove all combustion engines from the other vehicles as they will be obsolete if this kind of electrical powerplant became a reality.

[antoineflemming 14]

Dudes complaining about ArmA3 being too sci fi should watch that Blops2 trailer

Don't even bring that up. But, you're right. That's set in 2025 - 10 years before ArmA3, yet it looks like it's 50 years afterwards. ArmA3 is a pretty probable future when looking at that crap.

[ballistic09 241]

Srsly, Arma 3 is actually trying to be a game this time, with story, background, a more elaborate world, characters...

You mean like Call of Duty?

hopefully the first Arma that I, as someone who has studied art, can actually put into the category of "videogames as art" instead of "videogames as accurate depiction of random irl military equipment for the purpose of roleplaying."

I'm sorry, but why do you even play Arma then? Isn't that one of the main things that sets Arma apart from arcade shooters like COD and BF? I mean, the reason I got into Arma was not just because it had realistic gameplay, but also because it had more authentic weapons and vehicles than other games. Aren't the vehicles and weapons you fight with a key part of the game? :confused:

It sounds like you're looking for a game that offers a cinematic or "hollywood" experience... there's plenty of other games that offer that. :j:

[celery 8]

You mean like Call of Duty?

Or like Operation Flashpoint. You need to play more games if you explicitly associate story and characters with Call of Duty. :rolleyes:

[ballistic09 241]

Or like Operation Flashpoint. You need to play more games if you explicitly associate story and characters with Call of Duty. :rolleyes:

Oh darn, you got me... [/sarcasm] :rolleyes:

Admittedly, I don't specifically buy BIS games for the campaigns... I hear it's hazardous to your health. :p

[antoineflemming 14]

You mean like Call of Duty?

I'm sorry, but why do you even play Arma then? Isn't that one of the main things that sets Arma apart from arcade shooters like COD and BF? I mean, the reason I got into Arma was not just because it had realistic gameplay, but also because it had more authentic weapons and vehicles than other games. Aren't the vehicles and weapons you fight with a key part of the game? :confused:

It sounds like you're looking for a game that offers a cinematic or "hollywood" experience... there's plenty of other games that offer that. :j:

Well, the phrase "videogame as art" isn't the same as "realistic gameplay", "authentic weapons", or "authentic vehicles". It's not the opposite of that, but in most cases that phrase refers to story. Neither does "videogame as art" mean hollywood. And neither did InstaGoat even mention the word "hollywood". Yes, on the technical, gameplay side of things, ArmA has always been realistic and authentic (well, not the Takistani environment and culture...). But what InstaGoat is referring to is the singleplayer, story element. Just because there's a fictional campaign, doesn't mean ArmA is hollywood. Just because it can actually tell a story good enough to be made into a movie doesn't mean it's hollywood. A campaign can tell a story and yet still be realistic and authentic. And, we know that the OFP/ArmA series isn't known for it's singleplayer stories. It's known for being a simulator. I'll put it this way. The single-player stories of at least the ArmA series have been scenarios, with some background information about the immediate island and the purpose of the U.S./British invasion there. You never really know anything outside of what pertains to that island. Which isn't a bad thing, but it's just very localized. With ArmA3, there most definitely seems to be a whole lot more thought that has gone into the story of ArmA3, what leads up to this confrontation on Limnos, who the major players are, the state of the world at this time, etc. Celery can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but regardless of how much story previous games have had, ArmA3 appears to have a much broader scope, and yet much more in depth story than previous games. And, a question: comparing OFP to ArmA3, which one would devs say has a more developed, more thought out campaign story?

[instagoat 133]

I'm sorry, but why do you even play Arma then? Isn't that one of the main things that sets Arma apart from arcade shooters like COD and BF? I mean, the reason I got into Arma was not just because it had realistic gameplay, but also because it had more authentic weapons and vehicles than other games. Aren't the vehicles and weapons you fight with a key part of the game? :confused:

It sounds like you're looking for a game that offers a cinematic or "hollywood" experience... there's plenty of other games that offer that. :j:

I play Arma for a lot of reasons.

My interest in military tactics and operations. Arma is the only game that offers remotely realistic gameplay to that point, with large maps, abillity to command units large and small, and actually having indirect command (ie, the high command function specifically.). I also play it because it doesn´t hold my hand: It expects me to think on my own, make a plan, find a way to solve the problem and then actually (in most cases) solve it myself. To that end, I also enjoy the open world and degrees of freedom one has, depending on the mission (ranging from such free-roaming missions such as Cypher to more tightly regulated multi-unit operations where you need to coordinate with lots of AI units. But even there, no real invisible walls.). Another thing I enjoy is the customizabillity and expandeabillity. Arma is like a toybox to me, that I can open up, set something up quickly, and watch during a break in work, or if I can´t sleep again. Put some units down, place some triggers and waypoints, place bets and start.

As far as gaming goes, I enjoy well told stories. That was one reason why I liked OFP so much: it had atmosphere, it was cinematic, it was artistically well thought out and designed. It wasn´t over the top, it was simple, to the point, focused and as such very well executed.

Also, I am not looking for a cinematic experience per se, and certainly not "hollywood". If you´re referring to CoD, those games annoy me. They are easy, dull, base in their approach of appeal and an insult to any serious gamers intelligence. All they´re good for is short, quick and easy gameplay without real depth or need for thought. It´s point, click, move, repeat. Only real challenge is the MP, I hear, and I don´t dig that. I am into the game parts from times before the internet existed: campaigns and missions.

The realism in Arma I care about is the core mechanics. Solid, realistic AI, provision to design approximately realistic weapons and vehicles, tactically (not so much visually) interesting terrains, and very importantly the abillity to plug and play new content without fuss.

The realism of the equipment, if anything, is a bonus I have stopped to particularily care about around 2008, when it became clearer and clearer in how much trouble Cliffs of Dover was. I re-thought my own approach to realism, and weighed what was really important to me, and what wasn´t. I´m not putting this out here to convince any of the rivet counters, what I am doing is putting my opinion out for people to disagree or agree with, and maybe spark some thought and conversation going towards what I perceive as a healthier approach to realism in games.

Everybody who strictly wants realism down to the last rivet can get it, if they want to put the effort and time in, and learn. Unfortunately, people want things now, they don´t have time, and learning something goes back to the effort thing. Best example is the SixUpdater. When it was released, nobody really understood the documentation, and instead of asking and trying to understand, people began flinging rage around like nobody´s business. The project was brand new and in its infancy, clearly a working prototype (by now a standard of sorts, from what I gather, much improved from the first iterations.) but many people didn´t seem to take that into account, instead expecting a working, easy to use, professionally designed product from the get-go.

When the Bradleys were introduced to ACE2, there was another thing that kind of struck me, where some person who had served in a bradley Unit complained about the models ingame being a mashup of multiple models, to the point of causing a flamewar about it. I understand disappointment to a degree, but I don´t understand drama, tantrums and serious upset, like it´s been regularily occuring everywhere some unit wasn´t realistic enough for some, and particularily on here around Arma 3.

Realistic LOOKING Units are one thing. Important however, in my opinion, is the rig below that constrains within which margins these Units can perform. I could mod M-16s firing JDAMs, for example. Would you still call those "realistic" because the model is spot on and the selector switch moves when switching fire modes?

Contrary to that, if you have XYZ nonexistent rifle firing 5.65mm Nato ammo, you can make that perform realistically by estimating the performance of the model, and then setting the correct ammo type.

Also, I was probably going off on many tangents here, dunno if it´s relevant, I just felt like I needed to put this out. Again, my position in general is that rivet counting is fine, and has its place, but that place is not strictly in game development where it begins to infringe on the potential success as well as the integrity of a game. If you want to see an example of how a game designed by rivetcounters for rivetcounters without regard to the gaming and design aspect looks, check out the IL2 Cliffs of Dover initial release, pre-patches version.

Arma was close to being such a disaster. Arma 2 also had tons of bug problems on release. And to be honest, I can put up with not entirely plausible or realistic units, if it means that I get a complete game on release day at last. Because to be honest, I don´t have the patience and general time anymore to put up with another half or three quarters of a year of patching and bugfixing before receiving a playable game I can show off to my friends.

best wishes

Instagoat

(Edit: Wow sorry for the massive post. I think I´ll hold back from now on, I yap way too much :X )

[slatts 1978]

i just like arma..thats why i play it :p

[tremanarch 6]

I just like the realistic mix of open range and close cities.

[ballistic09 241]

Fair enough InstaGoat.

I was just irked by that one paragraph that I quoted earlier as it sounded like you were advocating dumbing down the game for a more cinematic experience.

To each, their own. :cool:

[Ian560 10]

Shame on BIS for ruining the Arms series with this future stuff...I want the realistic, current time game that we had with Arma 1, Arma 2, and Arrowhead, I mean, isn't that why we all bought it? I don't get why BIS thinks they need to make something completely different than their last game. They had something good, just improve it, don't make this 2230 thing.

Just look at the si-fi helmets...It's just wrong...WRONG!

EDIT: But, hear me out. I don't mind REAL current life advance weapons, vehicles, putting on your own optics, ect...I just don't like the game to be filled with them and set at the date of 2225-2230. I mean, they had it right, Arma 2 was great! Some flaws though, but they could've used ARMA 3 to fix those flaws, improve the game, add new realistic things and advance the ARMA 3 game even further without the future.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Ian560

[slatts 1978]

Shame on BIS for ruining the Arms series with this future stuff...I want the realistic, current time game that we had with Arma 1, Arma 2, and Arrowhead, I mean, isn't that why we all bought it? I don't get why BIS thinks they need to make something completely different than their last game. They had something good, just improve it, don't make this 2230 thing.

Just look at the si-fi helmets...It's just wrong...WRONG!

EDIT: But, hear me out. I don't mind REAL current life advance weapons, vehicles, putting on your own optics, ect...I just don't like the game to be filled with them and set at the date of 2225-2230. I mean, they had it right, Arma 2 was great! Some flaws though, but they could've used ARMA 3 to fix those flaws, improve the game, add new realistic things and advance the ARMA 3 game even further without the future.

its 2030 not 2230...

the guns still fire bullets, the tanks still fire shells(all except one)

theres still wheels and tracks, not hover vehicles

everything is based on present day tech and not made up

so your argument again?

[antoineflemming 14]

Shame on BIS for ruining the Arms series with this future stuff...I want the realistic, current time game that we had with Arma 1, Arma 2, and Arrowhead, I mean, isn't that why we all bought it? I don't get why BIS thinks they need to make something completely different than their last game. They had something good, just improve it, don't make this 2230 thing.

Just look at the si-fi helmets...It's just wrong...WRONG!

Uh, sarcasm or are do you actually think it's 2230? If you bought ArmA1, ArmA2, and Arrowhead because it's set in the modern time period, then you could have just bought MW1/2/3 or BF2/3. Those games are set in the modern time period since that's so important to you. Oh, and what's the point of making ArmA3 if it's the same as ArmA2? If you just want ArmA2 then it's available to you.

[Maio 293]

Oki doki... how about I make a thread in which I will gather the pro's and cons of the design direction of Arma 3 from the community's point of view? That way we will have all the complaints/praises on the first post so that we can avoid rehashing the same pro/con arguments over and over and over and over and over again :) Sensible people will refer to it and think twice before posting, the hill folk wont... and they will look like idiots. (although I doubt their e-persona will suffer)

Yay or nay?

[NoRailgunner 0]

Wrong, A3 aka "Limnos Incident" is set in 2035/07 and within the alternate reality/universe developed by BIS

[onlyrazor 11]

Oki doki... how about I make a thread in which I will gather the pro's and cons of the design direction of Arma 3 from the community's point of view? That way we will have all the complaints/praises on the first post so that we can avoid rehashing the same pro/con arguments over and over and over and over and over again :) Sensible people will refer to it and think twice before posting, the hill folk wont... and they will look like idiots. (although I doubt their e-persona will suffer)

Yay or nay?

Sure, why not? I'll get the waahmbulance ready. :p