56 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >
 |
| 56. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 24, 2011, 04:47 |
SectorEffector |
|
|
It sounds like the Beaver and the Hamster are in on the ArmA madness together!
but ones a communist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 55. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 21, 2011, 07:29 |
CommunistHamster |
|
|
YES
Edit: Seems like a whole new engine if they're using PhysX, which can only bode well. Bottom up design of the interface rather than sticking with every quirk of the engine that started with OFP.
They seem to be going for quite a futuristic vibe this time too, at least from these pictures. Quite a change of tone. Hopefully they'll still have the Independent faction.
High hopes for this one, I've had some amazing experiences in Arma 2 Co-op and PvP.
This comment was edited on May 21, 2011, 10:39. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 54. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 21, 2011, 04:07 |
Muscular Beaver |
|
|
eunichron wrote on May 20, 2011, 14:39:
Jerykk wrote on May 20, 2011, 04:27:
It seems to me that the primary distinction between the games is that ArmA is much more realistic than CoD/BF. When you say ArmA is not realistic, do you mean it is not realistic at all or it just isn't a perfect representation of reality?
The primary distinction is intent. CoD/BF try to be realistic in aesthetics only, ArmA tries to be a good representation of reality (I'm not going to say perfect because short of virtual reality that would just be impossible anyway). ArmA's problem is that in its attempt to be as close of a representation as possible, it misses the mark entirely and becomes unrealistic. It's exacerbated by the civilian players who think it is a perfect representation of reality, because they saw on the Military channel once that the Army uses the same technology to train (because obviously, when you're dealing with life and death situations you want to use video games to prepare [that's sarcasm btw]).
I'm not going to say it's impossible for a game to be a good representation of reality, but ArmA is not it.
Oh come on...
Of course ArmA is nowhere near completely realistic - BECAUSE ITS STILL A GAME!!!
Even me as a realism-nut wouldnt want a completely realistic game because you would need a 2 year training for that.
If you want more realism (but still not that realistic that your own sweat might make you slip and kill yourself), play with ACE2, which is actually developed by actual military members of different countries. Everyone knows that vanilla ArmA isnt super realistic, but its still far more realistic than anything else out there, especially in tactics, strategies, weapon systems, communication and AI, yes AI.
If you want the most realism, go play Warfare on an ACE2 server, and even better yet, join a clan so you will have the most realistic teamwork and combat you can have of any game out there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 53. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 21, 2011, 03:53 |
Muscular Beaver |
|
|
fatguy wrote on May 19, 2011, 14:35:
*please have good pvp multiplayer this time*
*please have good pvp multiplayer this time*
*please have good pvp multiplayer this time*
???
Ever played Warfare?
Of course ArmA sucks on those maps that try to simulate CoD or CSS. Has been forever and always will. Never understood why you want to play such maps in ArmA anyway... Thats like wanting to drive the towing tug on the airfield instead of the fully loaded and ready to fly AH-64. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 52. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 20, 2011, 22:17 |
eunichron |
|
|
SectorEffector wrote on May 20, 2011, 20:47:
"I can not find any redeeming value in computer simulations for real-world training."
oooohhhh I'm betting aviation is one  I think actually aviation is the largest sector for simulators. I personally favor any airline pilots i've met that love playing flight sims to practice on their off time. I'm pretty sure they train AH-64 pilots / other mil-avaiation on using the 30mm gun in a Simulator before they ever fire off live ammunition.
Haha, well you got me there, but the flight sim genre is far more advanced (has been around a lot longer) than the ground sim genre, and I think it's slightly easier to do successfully.
60 people on each side is roughly 2 platoons, which isn't bad, but most large operations are conducted on a company or battalion level, which would be anywhere between 300 (company) and 1,000 (battalion) units, not including assets like artillery and aviation. When they can start modeling battles on that scale, then I'll be impressed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 51. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 20, 2011, 20:47 |
SectorEffector |
|
|
"I can not find any redeeming value in computer simulations for real-world training."
oooohhhh I'm betting aviation is one I think actually aviation is the largest sector for simulators. I personally favor any airline pilots i've met that love playing flight sims to practice on their off time. I'm pretty sure they train AH-64 pilots / other mil-avaiation on using the 30mm gun in a Simulator before they ever fire off live ammunition.
I will admit, so candidly.
ArmA with a smoother engine but the same mechanics would be insane. Frostbyte ArmA
could be the end all.
Sidenote: I play full scale battles with air and land and infantry in the 60's per side and I get good FPS in ArmA II
9800GTS on i7
Shits even better in 3D.
I'm just glad you didn't say Operation Flashpoint: DR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 50. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 20, 2011, 19:39 |
eunichron |
|
|
SectorEffector wrote on May 20, 2011, 15:18:
Post whatever game you think does a better job then ArmA with its full scale battles.
If you're talking purely from a large scale battle point of view, then I would say Battlefield. Obviously the game mechanics are not realistic, but the engine is there to support the kinds of combined arms and small unit tactics we use. That was my biggest gripe with ArmA, you can not have a full scale battle (battalion v. battalion with their various assets) without bringing even the best systems to a grinding halt. They try too hard make it look realistic without making it the true sim it could be.
I would actually enjoy ArmA a lot more if they used an outsourced engine (like Frostbyte) and focused on refining the things that it does do well (accurate ballistics, accurate models, etc.). Refine the commo and call for fire components to be more fluid (soldiers are people too, we don't talk like robots). Work on the AI so you don't have squadmates standing out in the open when you're getting shot at. You said they had advisers on board to consult, and with how it turned out I would seriously call in to question the quality of their advisers, because it seems to me like they just read a bunch of TMs and FMs and didn't think to consider how they are applied, or discarded, in the real world.
As for the sims that are used for training; I didn't intend to insult anyone, but any combat arms unit I've encountered does not use those sims. We had one mantra out of many, and that was, "Train like we fight," and that means doing FTXs, live fire exercises, combined unit training, and full scale training exercises like JRTC and NTC. I can not find any redeeming value in computer simulations for real-world training.
[EDIT]
I do like that they are adding more unconventional themes with the DLCs. I haven't played any of them, but the PMC DLC at least looks interesting, and different, as most games that include representations of PMCs tend to portray them as evil mercenaries.
This comment was edited on May 20, 2011, 20:30. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 49. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 20, 2011, 18:54 |
Trevellian |
|
|
Teddy wrote on May 19, 2011, 22:18:
Darks wrote on May 19, 2011, 15:54:
Dude, did you not read what I wrote accurately? That I what I said, the new M16A2 version was designed purposely with the three round burst. Read what the hell I wrote, I did tell it accurately, you just can’t read accurately. The newer M16s where made to keep soldiers from wasting ammo. 
In fact I know this first hand, I spent 11 years in the Corps and that is one of the first things you learn about the weapon when going through weapon training.
My guess is he's just being asinine because you wrote M16 instead of explicitly M16A2. Self-proclaimed military buffs like to try and use that sort of thing to make themselves seem more knowledgable even when it's a trivial distinction.
Actually it had nothing to do with being a military buff at all.
I simply wanted to nitpick since he gets so testy in these Arma threads and it was a miniscule error. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Republic
-TrevellianC22
Planetside 2 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 48. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 20, 2011, 18:08 |
SectorEffector |
|
|
bigspender wrote on May 20, 2011, 03:55:
awesome graphics check
awesome vehicles check
being able to play the game cause the controls aren't shit... not check...
i really hope they make the controls more accessible - it doesn't have to be COD/BF controls (which are perfect if you ask me when it comes to fun shooters) I don't mind a bit of realism.
but the old ARMA's and even first flashpoint, the controls are so shit it feels like its a job and not a game. you aren't having fun, you are working.
Clearly not a diehard simulator fan. Gonna guess you played IL-Strumovok and gave up when you realized you don't hit A to fly faster and B to slow down.
Sometimes I really don't want battlefields controls.
Now smoothness in the movement, I'll definitely say ArmA's biggest flaw animation wise is the sluggishness.
Controls wise, I think its pretty expected for having so many options. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 47. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 20, 2011, 15:18 |
SectorEffector |
|
|
eunichron wrote on May 20, 2011, 14:39:
Jerykk wrote on May 20, 2011, 04:27:
It seems to me that the primary distinction between the games is that ArmA is much more realistic than CoD/BF. When you say ArmA is not realistic, do you mean it is not realistic at all or it just isn't a perfect representation of reality?
The primary distinction is intent. CoD/BF try to be realistic in aesthetics only, ArmA tries to be a good representation of reality (I'm not going to say perfect because short of virtual reality that would just be impossible anyway). ArmA's problem is that in its attempt to be as close of a representation as possible, it misses the mark entirely and becomes unrealistic. It's exacerbated by the civilian players who think it is a perfect representation of reality, because they saw on the Military channel once that the Army uses the same technology to train (because obviously, when you're dealing with life and death situations you want to use video games to prepare [that's sarcasm btw]).
I'm not going to say it's impossible for a game to be a good representation of reality, but ArmA is not it.
I'm just gonna say after speaking with another person who has served actively in Iraq multiple times, they loved the game. They really even loved the level editor! They don't regard it as the "Simulator thats SO REALISTIC YOU CIVILIAN KIDS CAN FEEL IT 100%" but
for Military buffs, its awesome. And. It's a fucking game.
When I say Mil Sim, I mean Mil Sim, that doesn't mean it has to pass your test of "DID IT MATCH MY EXPERIENCE"
Then with your "No Self Respecting Unit"...
Please don't insult other players that have served and enjoy the game who apparently tell me some of the custom missions we play are scarily close to the actual engagements they based them upon, and they just about took the same action in suppressing their opfor targets.
Or...
Post whatever game you think does a better job then ArmA with its full scale battles.
until then.
Thanks for serving. (srsly)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 46. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 20, 2011, 14:39 |
eunichron |
|
|
Jerykk wrote on May 20, 2011, 04:27:
It seems to me that the primary distinction between the games is that ArmA is much more realistic than CoD/BF. When you say ArmA is not realistic, do you mean it is not realistic at all or it just isn't a perfect representation of reality?
The primary distinction is intent. CoD/BF try to be realistic in aesthetics only, ArmA tries to be a good representation of reality (I'm not going to say perfect because short of virtual reality that would just be impossible anyway). ArmA's problem is that in its attempt to be as close of a representation as possible, it misses the mark entirely and becomes unrealistic. It's exacerbated by the civilian players who think it is a perfect representation of reality, because they saw on the Military channel once that the Army uses the same technology to train (because obviously, when you're dealing with life and death situations you want to use video games to prepare [that's sarcasm btw]).
I'm not going to say it's impossible for a game to be a good representation of reality, but ArmA is not it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 45. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 20, 2011, 13:36 |
SectorEffector |
|
|
Nothings more real then going out there and doing it right?
If you have a problem with the prebuilt missions or the bad voiceacting then please remove yourself. Gameplay and Graphics / aesthetics are way different. Some games require them to be unified to work, while games like ArmA just works with its sandbox possibilities.
Whatever elitist view you try to pull with the military background, it doesnt matter.
IN THE STATE OF PC GAMES
there is no better a tool to simulate wargames with any sense or realism.
Thanks for serving though.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 44. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 20, 2011, 04:27 |
Jerykk |
|
|
Comparing ArmA to CoD/BF is hyperbole, as they are completely different games. It's ok that you didn't get that, because the point remains; ArmA is not realistic.
Now you're just confusing me. You originally stated that ArmA was not realistic at all, then went on to state that it was no more realistic than CoD/BF. When I contradicted that comparison, you then claimed it was simply hyperbole. So, you now agree that ArmA and CoD/BF are completely different games but that ArmA is not realistic. So what exactly distinguishes ArmA from CoD/BF? They are all modern military shooters where you play as American soldiers fighting against terrorists and communists in Eastern European or Middle-Eastern countries. It seems to me that the primary distinction between the games is that ArmA is much more realistic than CoD/BF. When you say ArmA is not realistic, do you mean it is not realistic at all or it just isn't a perfect representation of reality? If you're saying that it isn't realistic at all, then your original claim was not hyperbole and was simply inaccurate.
I've found that hyperbole works best when it is clearly a gross exaggeration within the context of the conversation. Your entire post consisted of you claiming that ArmA was not realistic. You then stated that ArmA was no more realistic than CoD/BF. Given the context of the post, readers have no reason to believe that the statement was intended to be hyperbole instead of a genuine belief.
This comment was edited on May 20, 2011, 04:38. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 43. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 20, 2011, 03:55 |
bigspender |
|
|
awesome graphics check
awesome vehicles check
being able to play the game cause the controls aren't shit... not check...
i really hope they make the controls more accessible - it doesn't have to be COD/BF controls (which are perfect if you ask me when it comes to fun shooters) I don't mind a bit of realism.
but the old ARMA's and even first flashpoint, the controls are so shit it feels like its a job and not a game. you aren't having fun, you are working. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________________________________________________
Adults are just children that are allowed to make their own decisions. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 42. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 20, 2011, 03:11 |
eunichron |
|
|
Jerykk wrote on May 20, 2011, 02:59:
I know what hyperbole means. I'm not sure how it applies to what you actually said. Hyperbole is used to grossly exaggerate something, either positively or negatively. Saying that ArmA is no more realistic than CoD or BF isn't a gross exaggeration. It's not even an exaggeration. It's just an inaccurate claim. Saying that CoD or BF are completely realistic combat simulations and the best games ever made is hyperbole.
Comparing ArmA to CoD/BF is hyperbole, as they are completely different games. It's ok that you didn't get that, because the point remains; ArmA is not realistic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 41. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 20, 2011, 02:59 |
Jerykk |
|
|
eunichron wrote on May 20, 2011, 01:43:
Jerykk wrote on May 20, 2011, 01:23:
If you enjoy ArmA, that's fine, but don't for a second try to convince yourself that it is a realistic simulator. It is no more realistic than CoD or BF.
That's a bit of a stretch. ArmA may not be completely realistic but it's definitely more realistic than CoD or BF. For example, in real-life, if you get shot, hiding for a few seconds won't magically remove the bullet and heal the wound. Those things happen in CoD/BF but not in ArmA.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole
I know what hyperbole means. I'm not sure how it applies to what you actually said. Hyperbole is used to grossly exaggerate something, either positively or negatively. Saying that ArmA is no more realistic than CoD or BF isn't a gross exaggeration. It's not even an exaggeration. It's just an inaccurate claim. Saying that CoD or BF are completely realistic combat simulations and the best games ever made is hyperbole. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 40. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 20, 2011, 02:04 |
Chazix |
|
|
Darks wrote on May 19, 2011, 13:30:
The issues I have with the game are not just the realism, it’s the way the stupid AI sees you and kills you in one shot, and they don’t ever seem to miss. Sorry, but in real life no one kills you with one shot; they usually will shot at you missing several times before hitting their target. This is especially true when you are shooting at long range.
Not really true though. I've played through the single player campaigns of all of these games and that only happens on very very very rare occasions. And even if they do surprise you and hit you with the first shot they hardly ever kill you with it.
Usually you just get shaky hands have to listen to your dude mumbling "ahh shit dat urrtss" every 20 seconds.
There are plenty of legitimate complaints to be made about Arma. So I dont think you need to over exaggerate or pick on tiny little things like "The M16 shouldn't have full auto!!!"
The games are horribly buggy, the Physics are broken, The command menu is clumsy. Why not complain about these instead? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 39. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 20, 2011, 01:43 |
eunichron |
|
|
Jerykk wrote on May 20, 2011, 01:23:
If you enjoy ArmA, that's fine, but don't for a second try to convince yourself that it is a realistic simulator. It is no more realistic than CoD or BF.
That's a bit of a stretch. ArmA may not be completely realistic but it's definitely more realistic than CoD or BF. For example, in real-life, if you get shot, hiding for a few seconds won't magically remove the bullet and heal the wound. Those things happen in CoD/BF but not in ArmA.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 38. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 20, 2011, 01:23 |
Jerykk |
|
|
If you enjoy ArmA, that's fine, but don't for a second try to convince yourself that it is a realistic simulator. It is no more realistic than CoD or BF.
That's a bit of a stretch. ArmA may not be completely realistic but it's definitely more realistic than CoD or BF. For example, in real-life, if you get shot, hiding for a few seconds won't magically remove the bullet and heal the wound. Those things happen in CoD/BF but not in ArmA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 37. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 20, 2011, 01:02 |
eunichron |
|
|
SectorEffector wrote on May 19, 2011, 23:58:
Listen, military or not. It's based of an epic mil sim VBS2, and I can only say the missions being unrealistic should be minor compared to the fact that you can design your own engagements, play with friends, and even engage enemies at believable distances.
Play Call of Duty and your in a michael bay movie. fuck that.
or
Play ARMA 2 ( with the right custom mission online with other mil vets ), and you have an absolutely wonderful experience. Esp when the vet's designed the levels themselves.
Don't eat the frosting of the cake and decide the insides not for you.
Those "military simulators" are a fucking joke. I can tell you no self-respecting unit uses them. In my 4 years in we used sims twice, the first was a call-for-fire sim, the second was a qualification range sim. They were so completely useless that we never went back. They are about as realistic as unicorns and dragons.
If you enjoy ArmA, that's fine, but don't for a second try to convince yourself that it is a realistic simulator. It is no more realistic than CoD or BF. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
56 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
