Why was ARMA 3 set in the future?

[bezzer 13]

Hi guys,

 

A friend and I have been talking about this quite a bit recently. The only criticism he had about the game was the setting. He felt it was a weird choice to set it slightly in the future he felt it was unnecessary and led to some weird weapons and vehicles. To an extent I agree with him BUT I don't mind It as much. We came to the conclusion that we hope the next one is set in the present day as technology and weapons seem to have come a long way since the arma 2 days and we would enjoy it more. Thays just our opinion. My actual question is what was the developers’ reason for the semi futuristic setting? Do we know anything at all about the future of arma? (Next game etc.)

 

Thanks.

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

A3 itself had an uncertain development. 

 

was called 'ArmA Futura' for awhile, with some futuristic sci-fi themes, then in the last ~18 months guided back toward something more classically ArmA. That change of direction consumed some resources and time, hence their need to cut some content in order to publish in 2013. More than once, scrapping A3 entirely was on the table, during development.

 

So yea, it feels futuristic because it was designed with aliens, flying saucers, rail guns, laser tanks, etc in mind for awhile.

[bezzer 13]

A3 itself had an uncertain development. 

 

was called 'ArmA Futura' for awhile, with some futuristic sci-fi themes, then in the last ~18 months guided back toward something more classically ArmA. That change of direction consumed some resources and time, hence their need to cut some content in order to publish in 2013. More than once, scrapping A3 entirely was on the table, during development.

 

So yea, it feels futuristic because it was designed with aliens, flying saucers, rail guns, laser tanks, etc in mind for awhile.

 

 

Okay, that makes a lot more sence I think.. Glad they changed their mind. Thanks for the responce

[chortles 263]

The source for what mdcclxxvi described would be several interviews, including one with Arma 3's producer and former project lead, and before that a years-ago one with the CEO and other Bohemia personnel that elaborated:

After Operation Arrowhead, Bohemia decided to do something quite different, something science fiction, combining the talents of the acquired Altar Games studio in Brno (UFO trilogy) and Arma. "Fighting aliens, that was the concept," he says. "It was not a direct sequel originally but we wanted to experiment a bit - to crossover between the two genres we had in the company."

That's when Å panel picked the Greek island of Lemnos for the setting, albeit for something called Arma Futura rather than Arma 3. The design apparently changed towards something more RPG but still science-fiction and apocalyptic, rather than fighting aliens in real-time strategy battles on smaller islands. It could be a one-man show on a big chunk of land, the team decided. But as time wound on, it became less and less science-fiction and more and more Arma 3.

At least there you know where the Greek island thing came from. ;) Although the interesting version about this one is that it sounds like it wasn't meant to be a first-person game at all at first, i.e. possibly more in the vein of Arma Tactics...?

[LykosMactire 298]

Hi guys,

 

A friend and I have been talking about this quite a bit recently. The only criticism he had about the game was the setting. He felt it was a weird choice to set it slightly in the future he felt it was unnecessary and led to some weird weapons and vehicles. To an extent I agree with him BUT I don't mind It as much. We came to the conclusion that we hope the next one is set in the present day as technology and weapons seem to have come a long way since the arma 2 days and we would enjoy it more. Thays just our opinion. My really question is what was the developers’ justification for the semi futuristic setting? Do we know anything at all about the future of arma? (Next game etc.)

 

This topic might be really dumb but we will see.

 

Thanks.

in the topic of ArmA III as we already know it. Everything in the game exists in modern time (Except the MX and the Stealtier NATO vehicles that are not the ghosthawk, also the flying fish "Kajman") The CSAT helmet not many know is the same thing as the helmet from ArmA II's MVD, just with a bunch of tech built in, if you look hard enough you can see the similarities. 

[katipo66 94]

The CSAT helmet design ruins it for me, it maybe based on real tech but it looks wrong in this setting imo, anyway i never use CSAT in any missions, they just look to ridiculous. 

[bezzer 13]

The CSAT helmet design ruins it for me, it maybe based on real tech but it looks wrong in this setting imo, anyway i never use CSAT in any missions, they just look to ridiculous. 

 

Completely agree.

[chortles 263]

it maybe based on real tech but it looks wrong in this setting imo

A recurring issue in this community, the disparity between what real tech looks like and what people expect "real tech" to look like, i.e. how much real-world hardware got mistaken for fictional...

[haleks 8204]

I really don't mind the CSAT design (if you don't like it you can always shoot at AAF, Eden even added resistance units to OPFOR and INDEP), but what bothers me about them, is that their high-tech gear doesn't have dedicated features nor makes any difference compared to conventional equipment. Sure, you can always emulate that with setSkill, but that doesn't do it for the player(s).

[katipo66 94]

A recurring issue in this community, the disparity between what real tech looks like and what people expect "real tech" to look like, i.e. how much real-world hardware got mistaken for fictional...

 

The helmets simply look stupid imo, i dont really care what the real tech looks like or hold any expectation.. it just doesnt fit the rest off the setting, thats including their scalely exo suit, it completely ruins my immersionz and so i never use them in any scenarios, thats just my humble opinion and realize there are those who think that they look awesome!

[Mozkelby 39]

I can completely agree with this. I was hugely dissapointed to hear Arma 3 would be set slightly in the future, and to this day I still wound not define it a 'realism' simulator due to its slight tinge of futuristicness. It would be great if BI could set the next Arma at present date, and use the REAL names of vehicles and REAL names of weapons.

[Tyl3r99 41]

i hope arma 4 or whatever it could be called is in an interesting era like western or something. 

 

maybe ww1 or even... civil war 

[gibonez 18]

I also wonder if licensing had anything to do with the decision ?

 

If you notice the trend to go to futuristic settings or past settings in order to avoid licensing weapons and vehicles seems to be popular at the moment.

 

That being said can companies license military designations ? Take colt for example do they hold the license for the m16 rifle.

 

 

That being said.

 

Hopefully Arma 4 takes place in a tangible real life setting be it a modern,fictional cold war setting, vietnam or if Bohemia is super duper daring WW2.

[chortles 263]

With apologies in advance for repeating some of what I've previously replied to others...

I also wonder if licensing had anything to do with the decision ?

I'd always interpreted the Eurogamer interview as meaning "no" insofar as the 'future' aspect; Bohemia was just making a different game to begin with (the same year as Operation Arrowhead's release, so about two years before the DayZ mod had any influence on Bohemia's plans) and whenever they decided to change gears and announce Arma 3 the leadership presumably chose to retain/incorporate a bunch of what was done for Futura, i.e. the article attributes the Mediterranean setting to this.

 

(Similarly, DnA/Joris-Jan's stated in a dev diary that the setting for Apex was chosen in part because they'd already been trying to do a Pacific setting for some prior, since-cancelled projects.) 

If you notice the trend to go to futuristic settings or past settings in order to avoid licensing weapons and vehicles seems to be popular at the moment.

Not surprising, going fictional both is one less budgetary cost and frees the developer from possibly having to run marketing/in-game specifics by the manufacturer, especially after what I describe below; that last part may or may not have to do with how much real-world hardware ended up in Arma 3 with fictional names/histories (ironically sometimes as successors to their own real-world counterpart).

That being said can companies license military designations ? Take colt for example do they hold the license for the m16 rifle.

I know that Battlefield 3 leaned on both military designations and fictional names, but its unlicensed depiction of the AH-1Z, UH-1Y, and V-22 Osprey got EA a C&D from Textron (parent company of their manufacturer), for which EA pre-emptively sued Textron only to settle out of court, the case dismissed with prejudice.

[drebin052 323]

to this day I still wound not define it a 'realism' simulator due to its slight tinge of futuristicness.

 

Going by those standards, you should rule out previous Arma games set in contemporary settings too since they had a lot of futuristic and unrealistic equipment choices:

 

- BTR-90s being used by the Russian Ground Forces even though it was never selected in favour of the BTR-82A

- KSK troops with Glocks instead of the P8

- MTVRs being used by the Army instead of HEMTTs/FMTVs

- Apaches (albeit only after Eagle Wing) and F-35Bs being used by the USMC, in 2009 no less

- Shoulder-launched (!) version of the Metis-M being used by the Russians and Takistanis instead of the RPG-29/RPG-32

- PVS-7s NVGs being worn by all factions

- Russians with U.S. M22s instead of B-8/B-15 binoculars

- Frag grenades were correct, but all factions used the same M18 smoke grenades

- SCAR family replacing the M16/M4 in U.S. Army service even though the IC competition was only just starting at the time of OA's release (and ultimately cancelled in 2013)

- AK-107 completely replacing the AK-74M as the Russian service rifle despite it failing in all trials

 

...and so on. There's still more to list.

 

A3 definitely has its problems with the excessive copy & paste in regards to stuff being shared by the all the factions, but the setting or its use of fictional names for real equipment is hardly one of them.

 

Especially considering how the previous games set in a contemporary setting didn't even have realistic equipment choices to begin with; or is it because they're only regarded as being realistic because they had AR-15s/AKs in them?

[Mozkelby 39]

Going by those standards, you should rule out previous Arma games set in contemporary settings too since they had a lot of futuristic and unrealistic equipment choices:

 

- BTR-90s being used by the Russian Ground Forces even though it was never selected in favour of the BTR-82A

- KSK troops with Glocks instead of the P8

- MTVRs being used by the Army instead of HEMTTs/FMTVs

- Apaches (albeit only after Eagle Wing) and F-35Bs being used by the USMC, in 2009 no less

- Shoulder-launched (!) version of the Metis-M being used by the Russians and Takistanis instead of the RPG-29/RPG-32

- PVS-7s NVGs being worn by all factions

- Russians with U.S. M22s instead of B-8/B-15 binoculars

- Frag grenades were correct, but all factions used the same M18 smoke grenades

- SCAR family replacing the M16/M4 in U.S. Army service even though the IC competition was only just starting at the time of OA's release (and ultimately cancelled in 2013)

- AK-107 completely replacing the AK-74M as the Russian service rifle despite it failing in all trials

 

...and so on. There's still more to list.

 

A3 definitely has its problems with the excessive copy & paste in regards to stuff being shared by the all the factions, but the setting or its use of fictional names for real equipment is hardly one of them.

 

Especially considering how the previous games set in a contemporary setting didn't even have realistic equipment choices to begin with; or is it because they're only regarded as being realistic because they had AR-15s/AKs in them?

I guess we all have our definitions of a 'realistic' game, I clearly am quite strict about what I label as realistic.

[bezzer 13]

Found this in an old post. He makes some good points. Another point raised which I agree with, is the lack of improvements in the AI which is a real immersion killer at times.
 
"Besides that I don't much care for the futuristic theme, the OPFOR look like aliens, the independent look like normal current military and the BLUFOR look like an in between compromise. No more M4's and M16's, no more AK47's and RPG's, now it's "MX's" whatever the hell those are and failed prototype helicopters."

You can read the rest here: http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3827961#ixzz41Znv6G6k 

[war_lord 934]

The real reason was the need to get out of paying royalties then any artistic directions. in the time between Arma 2: OA and Arma 3 arms manufacturers got a lot stricter about depictions of their weapons. 

Not really an issue for me nowadays, we have some good modders working on bringing in modern content.

[Kiika 2]

Someone used their imagination and created Arma! 

[gibonez 18]

The real reason was the need to get out of paying royalties then any artistic directions. in the time between Arma 2: OA and Arma 3 arms manufacturers got a lot stricter about depictions of their weapons. 

Not really an issue for me nowadays, we have some good modders working on bringing in modern content.

 

This raises the question obviously gamers do not like the Futuristic setting in Arma or even Call of duty. Sales were down in COD future warfare for example; So how will developers get around this?

 

Gamers tend to generally like a realistic setting but they now have those pesky royalties to deal with so perhaps they will look into the far past.

 

Setting a game in the middle of the cold war or ww2 should eliminate all royalties I don't see how any company can file a trademark on something like the m7 priest or king tiger tank or even a ma16a1.

[chortles 263]

Setting a game in the middle of the cold war or ww2 should eliminate all royalties I don't see how any company can file a trademark on something like the m7 priest or king tiger tank or even a ma16a1.

Don't count on it being that simple, even if the filer shouldn't (or would lose if the developer/publisher chose to fight it in court). Heck, the HK416 name was due to H&K getting sued by Colt for originally naming it the HKM4.

[Joe98 90]

The CSAT helmet design ruins it for me............................... anyway i never use CSAT in any missions, they just look to ridiculous. 

 

 

I use CSAT as enemy but I too hate the helmets. I also hate the re-breather

 

The solution is to use other uniforms and helmets

 

The CSAT officers uniform, with a small back pack to hide the decorations, looks very good.

[chortles 263]

CSAT Modification Project is that way.

[gibonez 18]

Don't count on it being that simple, even if the filer shouldn't (or would lose if the developer/publisher chose to fight it in court). Heck, the HK416 name was due to H&K getting sued by Colt for originally naming it the HKM4.

 

Jesus.

 

Copyright and Trademark law is a mess.

[Imperator-TFD 4]

I love the fact that BI went with a different direction in Arma 3 and introduced weapons/vehicles that aren't typically seen as modern or 'realistic'. 

 

Why?  Because even if BI went with the apparently sooo modern AK/M4 /Humvees everywhere approach that people seem to have a raging hard on for we all know that mod groups like RHS/ACE whatever would still go and create their own versions probably because the picatinny rail count on the M4A3 is incorrectly depicted or because the flash hider on the AK wasn't the correct type or whatever other rivet counting crap people whine about.

 

My only gripe is that because of various reasons already stated the project had to do a bit of copy/pasta in regards to things like static weapons, uavs and RCWS mounts on early vehicles.  I recognise that it would take manpower/manhours to fix these but it's still something I'd love to see.  Take the RCW off the Kuma and use it on the Strider for example.