Well, Arma3's direction proves 1 of 2 things. Either:
BIS is, after all these years, bored of REALISTIC things and wants to try something a little more futuristic or
Realistic isn't selling well enough and they're looking to change the formula hoping to increase sales.

Either way, it's obvious they're NOT making "Arma3: Same Game as the Last Two With Better Graphics." Those looking for that will be disappointed.



The Jedi Master

Whoa, I do love Halo.

@ric: Could you post the info you have on ArmA 3's factions' order of battle, and also explain why the scenarios will be limited to being unbelievable?

Also, since you have this information, please list the units and small arms other than the railgun tank that aren't real or that weren't real on the drawings boards of the 1980-90s. Other than the railgun tank and that transport Havok (itself a believable design), I haven't seen a single thing, but since you have access to this information and are using it to make your judgment, I hope you can provide it for us all.

Your rambling betrays an abject lack of understanding of what "realism" is. There is visual realism, and there is mechanical realism. Now, mechanical realism, in the sense of mechanics as systems, tactics, physics, effects etc is what defines a simulator as a simulator and not an arcade game. Call of Duty has lots of reallife weapons but it will still be more unrealistic than ARMA3 with completely fictional weapons. Because ARMA3 sets out to simulate reality and whether or not they set it in 1970 or 2070 doesn't factor in. Mechanics are what matters and that is key to what a simulation is. The notion that going what-if somehow invalidates the simulation "because it doesn't exist IRL" is quite silly. It's even more ridiculous considering things like railguns and laser guns have been around since the 1980's and enough data exists that we can accurately guesstimate their appearance and effects.

But what you said is that only appearance matters to you, which strikes me as an odd thing to say. What difference does it make that the CoD AK-47 looks photoreal when it doesn't act or sound anything like the real thing whereas the fictional rifle in ARMA3 most likely will act very much like it would if built IRL? But hey, ARMA3 has imaginary, futuristic weapons so it's clearly just like HALO.

In other words, it's unrealistic because you say so.

I remember when the Comanche was cancelled some people wanted them ripped out of EECH by the modders because it would suddenly be "unrealistic" to have them in the game anymore.

Of course, coming from the SFP1/2 community, where modders make planes that never were built let alone simply failed to enter service, and then model them as accurately as they could (I love flying the B-70 for instance), I've always appreciated fidelity over "realism". Maybe it was never built, or just not built yet, maybe because in Real Life it would cost too much, break down too often, fail in rain, whatever, I don't care. I just like seeing something that COULD exist modeled to as high a fidelity (as if it DID exist) as possible.

Of course, OFP and Arma have never existed in real terrain. There is no Everon, to Takistan, no Chernarus. Totally ridiculous names for made up locations that are nowhere on the planet (and never will...you can't someday "build" a new island). Made up factions only backed by real US and Russian units. But that's ok? It's not real, but that gets a pass?

You're cherry picking what aspects must be accurate and what can not and then slapping a catch-all "realistic" label based on that set of criteria, conveniently ignoring all the ones that are contrary to it. Then one thing pops up you're NOT willing to ignore and the realistic label comes off and instead you slap on some equally ridiculous "fantasy" label or something. Then when people point out that attitude isn't very reasonable, you protest.

Might as well say everyone under 200lbs is skinny and everyone over 200lbs is obese, regardless if they're 4'9" or 6'10".



The Jedi Master

In that sense, Limnos will be breaking ground because it is a real place, not a made up place using real terrain contours ( Chernarus for example). ArmA 3 will allow you to actually fight in the cities, as named. They're even mad about it -- apparently the terrain in ArmA 3 will be so realistic that it will threaten the national security of the island. Can't ask for much more realism than that, IMO.

Thanks Tao for again bringing some truth and sensibility to question.


And once again Jedie, you are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansai_International_Airport

jedi means you cant build .. for instance .. sahrani , not a sand berm that can hold an airfield

And why couldn't you build and island like sahrani?

Here's the only thing I want to know about Arma 3...

Can we import the terrain from Take on Helicopters and fight thru the streets of downtown Seattle?


Read that sentence again. Cmon, you know you want that..

I would totally play that even with the low-res details of the Seattle map.