I like how they are moving from a fictitious island to a real world region even though it's set in the year 2034?

"Blighted by the long tail of a deep-rooted economic crisis and sliding toward the threshold of war, beleaguered NATO member-states stand weakened against an ambitious, resurgent Iran.

Flooded with profits from the rich export markets of a resource-thirsty SE-Asia and the rising price of oil, bolstered by strong ties with China and strategic entente with Russia, Iran sought to expand its influence.

Deployed under the auspices of a swift humanitarian response, Turkey – decimated by a series of devastating and unprecedented natural disasters – fell within months to ruthless Iranian Armed Forces. Iran’s aggressive expansion – spilling over into Greek sovereign territory – was brought to a halt in Rhodope Prefecture with the ratification of the Jerusalem Peace Accord of 2034, which crystallised a new strategic front along the shorelines of the Aegean Sea.

With the US locked into its own proxy-wars against aggressive Chinese expansionism in the Pacific, with each year more member-states leaving NATO on the promise of Russian oil, the fragmented alliance faces the growing risk of a global conflict that they can ill-afford."

Iran allied with Russia, yeah right...

Both sides have Israeli weaponry and there's not a word about Israel and it's supposed stance on this supposed conflict is at least very wierd. Iran with Israeli weaponry it's also wierd if not "comical".
All previous setting/scenarios from BIS (from OFP to ArmA2/CO) were much more interesting and plausible/belivable, at least IMO...

Hmmm...that's...interesting....

Doesn't say Iran is allied with Russia, just that they have a "strategic entente," i.e., Russia isn't resisting Iranian expansionism. That's not necessarily unbelievable. Global politics could shift considerably by 2034. An expansionist China is certainly a possibility as well.

That said, good catch on the Iranian soldiers using the Tavor. That is... weird. I hope they offer some explanation. It is produced under license elsewhere, though. The Iranians have also used clones of foreign weapons before -- for example, see the DIO 5.56. But still.

I will say after three games put in places that can't be found on a map, it's nice to see them put one in a real world location.

Here you can find the map from ArmA II...it wasn´t fictive, only the name...

I think Takistan was a real place too in terms of satellite imagery, though I'm not sure anyone ever found exactly where it was. IIRC, somewhere in either Afghanistan or Pakistan.

I must say that I'm mostly excited over the new UI. I liked the one in "new" operation flashpoint and I'm hoping for something equally good including commanding of platoon size elements.

A slightly futuristic campaign sounds ok, as long as it's not all "magic" sensors and space weapons. I also hope the plot and voice acting has matured a bit from arma 2.

-C-

When oil really starts to run out, all sorts of weird is going to happen. Be sure.

Yeah, I don't really like this futuristic setting with invented weapons (e.g. that Ka-50/Mi-28 hybrid? Like, WTF?).

IMHO, I found that the campaigns in BI's games got progressively worse (at least from the immersion point of view) with each game. I really loved OFP, thought ArmA was bland (with the newsreels instead of a personal story), but found Arma2 even worse, while the OA and expansions were just terrible. I think it has partly something to do with who the enemy was. While in OFP (and partly ArmA) you were fighting an ideological enemy (e.g. the Soviet Union), it ended up with mirroring real conflicts and fighting some ragtag insurgent units in some desert I couldn't care less about. What's the challenge with all the advanced weaponry against a bunch of barely armed guerrillas in converted pickups, really?

Central Europe, Cold War, 'nuff said. Great setting out of the box, and scads of DLC/expansion opportunity off a single primary release.

Yeap, I agree and I also hate the futuristic setting and really hate the invented weapons such as the "Hamok" or the futuristic weapons such as rail guns. I won't expand on this even because I'm tired of discussing this.

Regarding the BIS games (OFP/ARMA/ARMA2/OA) campaigns I have the following oppinion:
OPF campaigns (CWC and Resistance) were and are BY FAR the best campaigns and the main reasons were the "lovable" characters where the playing could easily get under those "character skins". Those campaigns storylines were also very well designed, thrilling and specially BELIEVABLE.
In ARMA1 (Armed Assault) the setting was very BELIVABLE but unfortunally there wasn't any kind of "symbiosis" between the player and the playable characters. BTW, who was or were the playable characters and what are their names?
In ARMA2 (first release) the campaign seem and did have lots of interesting features such as "detailed" characters there was a considerable level of work into trying to get the player into the "character's skins". Besides this campaign was Co-Op playable (up to 4 players) which is IMO a major PLUS! But unfortunally this campaign had LOTS OF BUGS in it's initial release, the map of Chernarus was (and still is) very heavy on the hardware and in the end we had the WARFARE missions which completly broke this campaign for me. Most of Arma2 campaign missions that didn't use WARFARE were quite good inded when the bugs weren't present, that is! This campaign was considerably shorter than the OFP campaign.
The Operation Arrowhead campaign was IMO perhaps the best campaign after OFP because you could play diferent missions in diferent roles such as Infantry soldier, SpecOps, tanker and pilot and it was Co-Op playable and finally it has IMO a very good plot/setting. Unfortunally this campaign was VERY SHORT (7 missions max) and the charaters weren't very detailed and "lovable" and there isn't any significant "symbiosis" between the player and the playable characters in this campaign.
The BAF (British Armed Forces) campaign had IMO a good plot and interesting missions and there was a considerable "symbiosis" between the player and the playable character (Brian Frost) but unfortunally this campaign was TOO SHORT (4 missions only!!!) and it wasn't playable in CO-OP!!
The PMC (Private Military Contractor) campaign was IMO a major VOMIT!! So I won't elaborate any further regarding this campaign.

Regarding ArmA3 campaign: Futuristic setting with futuristic/imaginary weapons and a campaign that isn't playble in CO-OP and aparently it's your character alone against an entire enemy armed force which dominates the "world"(island) with some RPG elements of ArmA2 initial campaign. Humm, we'll see but so far for me it's a big: NO thanks....

Preview materials clearly state "Evolve from hunted prey to military commander".

Would be too much fun for an FPS: cold war gets hot==>"instant sunshine" released==> game over

Not exactly.
There were large dozens of conflicts which were "by-products" from the cold war. Examples of these are the Indochina and Vietnam war (which IMO would be great scenario to be modeled in ArmA games), Afghanistan (Soviet intervention), Korean war, Iran Iraq war, Pakistan versus India conflicts, several African conflicts such as the Portuguese Colonial War or the Bush Wars (South Africa versus Angola), etc, etc, etc...

And there were also many covert operations that happened during the cold war which many of them were far from being "cold".
Also during the "cold war" period there were also other conflicts which weren't related to the cold war (at least directly) such as the Falklands war.

So as you can see, the "cold war" has PLENTY of settings/scenarios which could inspire an "ArmA3 campaign" (or any other future ArmA game campaign) that doesn't envolve "instant mushrooms of death"!

Besides the OFP:CWC and Resistance campaigns modeled NATO versus Warsaw Pact campaigns that while imaginary they were at the same time VERY BELIVABLE and again without the need of using the "instant mushrooms of death" (well at least or unless you lost the CWC campaign that is).

As long as the game engine includes real weapons, I am interested. If ArmA 3 doesn't come with M-16s, AK-47s and the conventional USA/Russian troops that use them, it offers nothing for me no matter how much the engine is improved. Sure modders can backfit the stuff I like and want, but when I buy a game, I prefer that it actually be something I like and want to play without relying on mods to give me what I like and want. I never played any of the campaigns. I liked single missions and preferred multiplayer with close friends on a home LAN. ArmA 2 is pretty cool, but the delivered missions (single and multiplayer) have never equaled the enjoyment I got from OFP/Resistance. The user made missions and addons for OFP have never really been equaled either. I still have 6 PCs that can run OFP for hosting LAN parties with my old friends. We always play certain stock missions and a few user made missions that we have never grown tired of playing and replaying. I have tried the mods that allow retrofitting OFP content into ArmA 2. It is cool, but not as cool as playing the original game. Give me all of the CWC/Resistance material upgraded to ArmA 2 or ArmA 3 standards, and I would be one happy camper. I am still waiting to see what ArmA 3 ultimately supports, but from what I see right now, this will be the first sim in the series I don't buy.

As long as the game supports realistic ballistics and weapon modelling, and overall a better virtual combat experience, I'm sold. 5.56mm/7.62mm bullet rounds will still fly the same in 10, 20, 50 years from now.

I gotta ask, Why do people think a Search and Destroy (Vietnam) Military
conflict would make a good FPS?

For me, personally, because it has the potential for enthralling and immersive missions. Operate in a hostile environment (in other words, keep your head down for as long as possible), seek out the target, destroy it and vanish again.

Far more interesting to me than taking half the freakin’ world on or fortifying and fighting back wave after wave of onrushing enemies.

The problem is that it seems almost clear by now that there won't be any M-16s, AK-47s, M-4s, etc... Instead you will get all sorts of wierd weaponry such as TAR-21s, FN-2000s, etc... which seem to be used by both sides. I hope to be wrong regarding this but I strongly believe that I won't!

Therefore I completly agree with you and I even add that regarding mods that it will take YEARS before we have a complete set of present time or past weaponry and units for both sides if we rely on modders to deliver this and this if we ever get that from the modders. What I mean is that I'm pretty sure that we will see a modded M-16 in ArmA3 but a "lone" M-16 is almost usefull as NO modded M-16 at all -> We need all sorts of other weapons and units that will make the M-16 (or the AK) "usefull" and therefore that this weapon would make any sense in ArmA3.

For the same reasons that a Search and Destroy (Afghanistan or Iraq) Military
conflict does make a good FPS!

a recent developement in take on helicopters means it will pick up any arma2 installs and then allow you to use that contect in TOH, so, if they carry on down that route with arma3, it may .. MAY .. be able to pick up any arma2 installs and allow you to use that content, which would give you the present battlefield equipment that everyone wants.

From what I see regarding the features of ArmA3 the best ones (at least IMO) are the ability to change/choose uniforms, choose helmets and/or other kind of headsets and other clothing (a bit similar to Hidden and Dangerous 2) and the ability to change sights in weapons like for example chaging from ironsights to ACOG and so on and I doubt that these abilities will be present in for example a ported (from ArmA2) M-16A4 or regarding to clothing in any ported (from ArmA2) units/soldiers.

no they wont be, they'll just be exactly like they are in arma2, which doesnt really bother me, you dont see many troops switching sights during ops anyway!

*head scratch*

Seriously, you guys know that the F2000 and TAR-21 are real guns right, currently in use around the world? They aren't weird space guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EUCOM_Slovenian_Armed_Forces_F2000S.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pakistani_F2000.JPEG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:India_Para.jpg

Personally, after ArmA II and its add-ons, I don't have any expectations or high hopes for another ArmA campaign. I really don't care. Don't know why, but I guess I was simply expecting something else and ArmA II +++ never managed to match my expectations. The stock ArmA II campaign was great in theory (at least up to the warfare part). But apart from its complexity and many bugs it also never managed to grip me. Neither did the others. The only exception was the Eagle Wing mini campaign, which I really enjoyed.

If I'll pick ArmA III up, I'll do it for what ArmA really is to me: an open world tactical shooter that I really enjoy firing up from time to time for the odd single player mission. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have to say that I really like the new setting of ArmA III though. Definitely something different for a change. I'll keep an eye out for this. Screenshots look amazing! But then again, so did/does ArmA II.

Yes, I know that but I also know that Rail Guns will be present in ArmA3 equiping tanks (and perhaps other units as well).

Besides, FN2000s and TAR-21s being used by both US and Iranian Forces is just as realistic as weird space guns!

Looks like they're doing the Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter thing...but I think I liked it better when it was Republic Commando.

Rail guns are almost ready for naval ship deployment, so tanks are probably possible within 20 yrs.

As for weapons being used by the other side, as soon as things are widely exported black market acquisitions become easier, so while it will be irritating from a gameplay perspective (I always hate having the same equipment as the enemy, no matter the game, because of the confusion on the battlefield) it's certainly not "as realistic as space guns."

When it comes to telling the future, it always boils down to people suck at it. The most brilliant scientists and philosophers always get it wrong. Arthur C Clarke, the man who did some of the best work in that area, thought that within 30 years of the first moon landing we'd have permanent moon bases and space stations with large populations and tourism, along with intelligent computers that still took up an entire room!


The Jedi Master

Not nearly the same thing (equiping warships and/or tanks with rail guns). Since Warships are BIG they have powerplants powerfull enough to "feed" a rail gun and these kind of (powerfull) powerplants aren't present in tanks for obvious reasons. I would say that it we would need to see a major leap in powerplant tecnology in order to see an effective rail gun equiping something as "small" as a tank!





One more reason why I hate the ArmA3 setting! While it's possible to have a good aproximate guess to what will happen in the very near future (2 or 3 years max from now) it is IMPOSSIBLE to even have an aproximate guess to what will happen in 20 or 30 years from now - Trying to guess or to say what will happen in 20 to 30 years from now (which is what happens in ArmA3) falls in the realm of SCIENCE FICTION (SCI-FI). So no matter what some say or will say, the ArmA3 scenario/setting is SCI-FI, period! And for me ArmA is everthing but a SCI-FI game - Unfortunally BIS transformed the ArmA series into a SCI-FI shooter with ArmA3!

Your analogy to Arthur C Clarke (and his 2001 and 2010 work which I enjoy very much BTW) is a very good one inded.

Why is no one willing to do Desert Storm?