Do you think BI should have moved the released date further for Arma 3

Many people were a bit dissappointed that they have to wait three months for the full campaign I notice some reviewers were a bit offset that it lacked one. Not only that it is released the same month as Rome 2 Total War another big PC exclusive on steam giving it some major competition.

Yes. The game is alpha state in content. Not just campaigns, but overall the missions, the modes ..lol at the planes. Etc. And they charge full price for half the product. I still love this game, but as it is now it's the weakest tactical shooter Bohemia has ever released. Unless somebody is absolutely huge fan of the series he's better off sticking with Arma 2 or waiting few days for Takedown. I'm sure  Arma III will eventually turn out to be an amazing game..but it will take a year propably at least, maybe more.

No, anyone who was remotly interested in the game has been playing it already for months

Yes, and I do not know why they did not.  

Considering it is an in-house published game, and the profits they made by selling all the alpha, betas, and prepurchase, I do not understand the rush.

Right now, it feels like we were given a map editor, some toys, and left to work to come up with content.  Seems like a ripoff for a full-priced game, and very half-assed on BI's behalf.

I want a full game, not a cocktease.

No, anyone who was remotly interested in the game has been playing it already for months

wis3boi

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

No, anyone who was remotly interested in the game has been playing it already for months

KHAndAnime

Yes, they should have delayed the release. Releasing the game as it is, its like begging for bad reviews. Thats not to say Arma III is a bad game because it isnt, its great! But it could have been incredibly good if they had the time to finish it.

They will release the campaign as a free DLC I heard. Actually if there is no campaign I won't be upset; campaigns are never the key factors in ArmA series.

Honestly I have no clue why so many people are up in arms about this. Bohemia hasn't been praised for a campaign since Cold War Crisis/Resistance. Harvest Red was ambitious but still breaks even after tons of patches. Operation Arrowhead was literally just a collection of unconnected missions that easily could have been supplied by mission makers. The same can be said for the first Arma's campaign and don't even get me started on Queen's Gambit. I doubt Arma 3's campaign will be anything special and after it comes out people will go through the first few missions, see it isn't very compelling and go back to multiplayer or user missions/the editor.

They will release the campaign as a free DLC I heard. Actually if there is no campaign I won't be upset; campaigns are never the key factors in ArmA series.

Ser_Charles

Campaign is in 3 parts. First part is due next month.

It definitely feels lacking right now. I was expecting more by this point.

I got it at the Beta and it was cheap enough,so not bothered the free DLC is coming out and there are some excellent missions on the Steam workshop,and some great fun to be had online.

arma games always feel like they are forever in alpha

they feel just as buggy as the original operation flashpoint... if not worse

the same people who like arma like games like skyrim because it's really big, ignoring the fact that's it's completely unpolished.

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

No, anyone who was remotly interested in the game has been playing it already for months

wis3boi

 

the same people who like arma like games like skyrim because it's really big, ignoring the fact that's it's completely unpolished.

JigglyWiggly_

It's sentences like this that make people think you're a hardcore troll

I don't understand why they had to rush this game out the door. If they would have waited a few extra months to finish the campaign, fix the bugs, and increase performance, the game would have faired much better in critic and user reviews. 

It's also not a good time to release the game considering that GTA 5 is coming out soon, so people would rather save their $60 for that.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"][QUOTE="KHAndAnime"] Why would I want to spend my time with an entry from one of my favorite game series while its in its weakest state? I'd rather play the game once it's a little more developed in all aspects. I personally haven't found any Bohemia game very worthwhile (except for OFP expansion) within a year of their launch. ArmA 2 was particularly brutal and not worth it until years of modding and patches occurred. Once it gets good, it will be dirt cheap. KHAndAnime

You'd get bored with it that fast? :S

I don't care about some editor and a bunch of crap scenarios slapped together in a couple of weeks.

The mods I have installed are already better quality than whatever bohemia has put together.  Like I said I have a single scenario going on the Altis map that's been going on for 3 weeks.  I have control over an entire army and can upgrade and command it like an RTS/RPG hybrid.  Missions within this scenario are randomly generated and it makes use of all vehicle and weapon types.

I'll wait for the masterworks, play that, and actually have the best ArmA experience I can have rather than the most hasty one. And I'll pick up the game for $20 or less in a few months, so I didn't care enough to pre-order the game for $25, I have other games to play in the meantime.

Fair enough, just saying that those who are so dismissive of the beta/alpha and now the full release are acting and showing that they really down't know what state it is in....it's a very meaty game with more content than most games could ever hope for already.  The vanilla content for Arma games is never very high up there in quality.

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"][QUOTE="wis3boi"] because it was half price and the editor was out with the workshop right away. We've got 1500+ mods available right now, and I've had a 3 week long campaign going on one of the islands. I've been playing and modding the game and importing Arma 2 content for months.wis3boi

You'd get bored with it that fast? :S

I don't care about some editor and a bunch of crap scenarios slapped together in a couple of weeks.

The mods I have installed are already better quality than whatever bohemia has put together.  Like I said I have a single scenario going on the Altis map that's been going on for 3 weeks.  I have control over an entire army and can upgrade and command it like an RTS/RPG hybrid.  Missions within this scenario are randomly generated and it makes use of all vehicle and weapon types.

I'll wait for the masterworks, play that, and actually have the best ArmA experience I can have rather than the most hasty one. And I'll pick up the game for $20 or less in a few months, so I didn't care enough to pre-order the game for $25, I have other games to play in the meantime.

Fair enough, just saying that those who are so dismissive of the beta/alpha and now the full release are acting and showing that they really down't know what state it is in....it's a very meaty game with more content than most games could ever hope for already.  The vanilla content for Arma games is never very high up there in quality.

Considering this game won't reach its ideal state anytime soon - yes, I would get bored with the game engine long before the games reaches its ideal state. I got bored of ArmA 2 before it reached its ideal state, and I see no value in playing its vanilla/modded content anymore. Sure tried to play it a bunch of times when it was unbearably optimized, had awful mouse acceleration. input lag, and bugs galore. There are some games are a little too frustrating to deal with when they're buggy, and military shooters and some of the most annoying games to experience bugs in. For example, there were missions that we'd spend hours on just to find out we can't complete them due to some random bug that we couldn't get past.

EDIT: I want to be clear - I think the early purchase opportunities and its current release is a good thing. I just think it's misguided to think all the fans have already been playing the game. I want all of my experiences with the game to be not plagued with the typical ArmA release issues. I don't even care about the campaign - I just know the game engine and miscellaneous content will be improved tenfold over what's available to be played now. I have patience and can wait this time around. I'll just play DayZ in the mean time.

It seems like a really odd decision releasing the game without the campaign when it was already in a position in which anyone who wanted could play it. All they are doing is shooting themselves in a foot when it comes to review scores, not that they matter much to the Arma community anyways. 

I see no reason why they couldn't have delayed the official release a month to sync it up with the campaign's completion. I guess they wanted to get it out the door before BF4 and CoD Ghosts? 

It seems like a really odd decision releasing the game without the campaign when it was already in a position in which anyone who wanted could play it. All they are doing is shooting themselves in a foot when it comes to review scores, not that they matter much to the Arma community anyways. 

I see no reason why they couldn't have delayed the official release a month to sync it up with the campaign's completion. I guess they wanted to get it out the door before BF4 and CoD Ghosts? 

with_teeth26

[QUOTE="with_teeth26"]

It seems like a really odd decision releasing the game without the campaign when it was already in a position in which anyone who wanted could play it. All they are doing is shooting themselves in a foot when it comes to review scores, not that they matter much to the Arma community anyways. 

I see no reason why they couldn't have delayed the official release a month to sync it up with the campaign's completion. I guess they wanted to get it out the door before BF4 and CoD Ghosts? 

lawlessx

[QUOTE="lawlessx"][QUOTE="with_teeth26"]

It seems like a really odd decision releasing the game without the campaign when it was already in a position in which anyone who wanted could play it. All they are doing is shooting themselves in a foot when it comes to review scores, not that they matter much to the Arma community anyways. 

I see no reason why they couldn't have delayed the official release a month to sync it up with the campaign's completion. I guess they wanted to get it out the door before BF4 and CoD Ghosts? 

Travis_Odell

[QUOTE="lawlessx"][QUOTE="Travis_Odell"]The campaign will be shit. Let's be honest. But it's ok because it's a huge game and it's good on the realism.Travis_Odell

tbh, I am expecting it to be incredible, given that they are taking their time with it.

Has everyone forgotten how epic Operation Flashpoint's campaign was?

[QUOTE="Travis_Odell"][QUOTE="lawlessx"] the reason why they even delayed the campaign was to be sure it was worth playing. so it better not be terriblemrbojangles25

tbh, I am expecting it to be incredible, given that they are taking their time with it.

Has everyone forgotten how epic Operation Flashpoint's campaign was?

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="Travis_Odell"] All i'm saying is don't expect your mind to be blown with there campaign. There track record is kind of bad....KHAndAnime

tbh, I am expecting it to be incredible, given that they are taking their time with it.

Has everyone forgotten how epic Operation Flashpoint's campaign was?

I agree CWC, Resistance and Red Hammer where great SP campaigns. The new one for Arma III sounds like it may be similar. From what iv been reading you play as a British spec ops soldier who ends up being left on the island and at the start he has to survive on his own after NATO forces are owned by Iranians.

Most anybody who really cared about ArmA bought it months ago. The actual launch date is irrelevant. 

It will bomb in terms of reviews but that doesn't change much. ArmA to the core community is nothing more than an engine to build their own content with. 

Most anybody who really cared about ArmA bought it months ago. The actual launch date is irrelevant. 

It will bomb in terms of reviews but that doesn't change much. ArmA to the core community is nothing more than an engine to build their own content with. 

Wasdie

Most anybody who really cared about ArmA bought it months ago. The actual launch date is irrelevant. 

It will bomb in terms of reviews but that doesn't change much. ArmA to the core community is nothing more than an engine to build their own content with. 

Wasdie

(Not my opinion, I enjoy playing devil's advocate)

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Most anybody who really cared about ArmA bought it months ago. The actual launch date is irrelevant. 

It will bomb in terms of reviews but that doesn't change much. ArmA to the core community is nothing more than an engine to build their own content with. 

KHAndAnime

(Not my opinion, I enjoy playing devil's advocate)

they probably dont care to put more effort into a section of the series most people ignore completley...arma sells because of two things: a game engine sandbox for people to do their bidding, and now more recently dayZ

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Most anybody who really cared about ArmA bought it months ago. The actual launch date is irrelevant. 

It will bomb in terms of reviews but that doesn't change much. ArmA to the core community is nothing more than an engine to build their own content with. 

wis3boi

(Not my opinion, I enjoy playing devil's advocate)

they probably dont care to put more effort into a section of the series most people ignore completley...arma sells because of two things: a game engine sandbox for people to do their bidding, and now more recently dayZ

Furthermore, why assume that if the campaign was great - people wouldn't buy it for the campaign? If reviews said the campaign was amazing and a must-play, I'm sure they would get MANY sales from it. Think of all the people that ignore the game purely because it's for modding enthusiasts. Think outside of the box mang.

 Are you implying the engine and editor right now is in a perfect state and couldn't be improved in any way?

KHAndAnime

No, not even remotely close to what I said and I stopped reading there basically because what you went on after that had nothing to do with what I was talking about

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]

 Are you implying the engine and editor right now is in a perfect state and couldn't be improved in any way?

wis3boi

No, not even remotely close to what I said and I stopped reading there basically because what you went on after that had nothing to do with what I was talking about

they probably dont care to put more effort into a section of the series most people ignore completley...you

Maybe you're more of a mathwiz, so let's break this down into equations for you

Better Reviews = More Customers = More Money
More Money = More Manpower = More Effort
More Effort = More Potential of a better game (and engine)
Therefore better reviews = more potential of a better game (and engine)

It's stupid to sit here and say that reviews don't mean anything because the game only currently appeals to a small minority that will buy the game irregardless of reviews.


Also, not all text is written in a linear nature so by skipping the rest of the post based on the first sentence, you elude the point of the post - it seems your reading comprehension is a victim to your impatience. Like a book, you aren't necessarily going to grasp the idea of the text in the first sentence. Some texts are meant to be read in their entirety before they're understood. If you took the 3 seconds to read the second question "What particular reason do they have to restrict their audience to a minority modding crowd?", you should be able to infer that my point is that perhaps there's more potential to the ArmA series than an editor and database of missions, and then the point of my post should have been relatively clear to you.

Since you're incapable of inference and need everything spelled out to you like a layman: Money can improve the engine aspect of the game. Obviously there's a good reason to put more effort into the engine aspect of the game - people don't ignore that aspect of the game.

Maybe you're more of a mathwiz, so let's break this down into equations for you

Better Reviews = More Customers = More Money
More Money = More Manpower = More Effort
More Effort = More Potential of a better game (and engine)
Therefore better reviews = more potential of a better game (and engine)

It's stupid to sit here and say that reviews don't mean anything because the game only currently appeals to a small minority that will buy the game irregardless of reviews.


Also, not all text is written in a linear nature so by skipping the rest of the post based on the first sentence, you elude the point of the post - it seems your reading comprehension is a victim to your impatience. Like a book, you aren't necessarily going to grasp the idea of the text in the first sentence. Some texts are meant to be read in their entirety before they're understood. If you took the 3 seconds to read the second question "What particular reason do they have to restrict their audience to a minority modding crowd?", you should be able to infer that my point is that perhaps there's more potential to the ArmA series than an editor and database of missions, and then the point of my post should have been relatively clear to you.

KHAndAnime

Since you've misread my entire point i'll post it again

 

they probably dont care to put more effort into a section of the series most people ignore completley...arma sells because of two things: a game engine sandbox for people to do their bidding, and now more recently dayZ

wis3boi

see that there? In red? The section a large portion of arma players ignore is the campaign.  Why you insist on saying I said people 'ignore the engine', whatever the hell that means, is beyond me.   As for reviews? I really don't care, and possibly couldn't care any less about them.  The series already profits immensely simply on the editing tool alone.  Have you never browsed Armaholic? The steam workshop? Have you never played any of the user campaigns and scenarios not only for arma I and 2, but for this game as well?  They blow everything bohemia puts out, out of the proverbial water. 

What I'm saying is, it should come as no surprise that the company is taking many more months to complete arma 3's campaign...because Arma 1 and 2's campaigns were shitty afterthoughts, like digital diarrhea slapped onto a map, and most players care not about that portion of the series.  Bohemia knows their campaigns suck in arma, and are taking this extra time to polish them up...and not only that, but aren't being dicks like many publishers and charging extra for it.  What, dare I ask, would have changed if they didn't 'release the game' until the campaign was finished? Not much really...any fan of the series like myself has already been playing since June or so, eating up the thousands of scenarios and fully fledged campaigns already available. For all intents and purposes, the game launched in June.  And when the campaign pieces are finally out many months from now....we'll play them when they are ready.  And judging by bohemia's description of the way the campaign plays, I already have a scenario system downloaded that does the same thing.  I'm playing it as I type this, waiting for an air extraction.

Basically what I have gathered from all the BI/ArmA disciples is that it is ok, as a developer, to lack ambition and expect the consumer to finish the work for you if you make a niche product.

I like BI, I like ArmA.  I loved Operation Flashpoint a helluva lot more, but that is ok.

What I am trying to say is that it just feels like we are settling, and that we are hypocrites.  When we get a sloppy port or a game that is not stable at release (looking at you, Rome II), we are all up in arms.  But that is because they have huge budgets with bigger publishers.

But when a niche game like this comes out from a developer that, lets face it, has had many many many many times to get it right, and still hasn't quite gotten it right, we give them a pat on the back, put their work on our refrigerator to enjoy, and finish their homework for them.  40 players on a map and the game turns to a slideshow despite a powerhouse rig? "Ohhhh haha, that's ok ArmA, you're just being you".  Have to make your own scenarios? "Oh, ummmm, we understand...you're differently gifted."  

God forbid they give us a dynamic battle generator for on- or off-line battles...

Basically what I have gathered from all the BI/ArmA disciples is that it is ok, as a developer, to lack ambition and expect the consumer to finish the work for you if you make a niche product.

I like BI, I like ArmA.  I loved Operation Flashpoint a helluva lot more, but that is ok.

What I am trying to say is that it just feels like we are settling, and that we are hypocrites.  When we get a sloppy port or a game that is not stable at release (looking at you, Rome II), we are all up in arms.  But that is because they have huge budgets with bigger publishers.

But when a niche game like this comes out from a developer that, lets face it, has had many many many many times to get it right, and still hasn't quite gotten it right, we give them a pat on the back, put their work on our refrigerator to enjoy, and finish their homework for them.  40 players on a map and the game turns to a slideshow despite a powerhouse rig? "Ohhhh haha, that's ok ArmA, you're just being you".  Have to make your own scenarios? "Oh, ummmm, we understand...you're differently gifted."  

God forbid they give us a dynamic battle generator for on- or off-line battles...

mrbojangles25

Already made

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=167274881&searchtext=dynamic

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=173155826&searchtext=whole+lotta

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=166907884&searchtext=whole+lotta

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

Basically what I have gathered from all the BI/ArmA disciples is that it is ok, as a developer, to lack ambition and expect the consumer to finish the work for you if you make a niche product.

I like BI, I like ArmA.  I loved Operation Flashpoint a helluva lot more, but that is ok.

What I am trying to say is that it just feels like we are settling, and that we are hypocrites.  When we get a sloppy port or a game that is not stable at release (looking at you, Rome II), we are all up in arms.  But that is because they have huge budgets with bigger publishers.

But when a niche game like this comes out from a developer that, lets face it, has had many many many many times to get it right, and still hasn't quite gotten it right, we give them a pat on the back, put their work on our refrigerator to enjoy, and finish their homework for them.  40 players on a map and the game turns to a slideshow despite a powerhouse rig? "Ohhhh haha, that's ok ArmA, you're just being you".  Have to make your own scenarios? "Oh, ummmm, we understand...you're differently gifted."  

God forbid they give us a dynamic battle generator for on- or off-line battles...

wis3boi

Already made

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=167274881&searchtext=dynamic

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=173155826&searchtext=whole+lotta

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=166907884&searchtext=whole+lotta

well I'll be damned...

Thanks, btw!

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

Basically what I have gathered from all the BI/ArmA disciples is that it is ok, as a developer, to lack ambition and expect the consumer to finish the work for you if you make a niche product.

I like BI, I like ArmA.  I loved Operation Flashpoint a helluva lot more, but that is ok.

What I am trying to say is that it just feels like we are settling, and that we are hypocrites.  When we get a sloppy port or a game that is not stable at release (looking at you, Rome II), we are all up in arms.  But that is because they have huge budgets with bigger publishers.

But when a niche game like this comes out from a developer that, lets face it, has had many many many many times to get it right, and still hasn't quite gotten it right, we give them a pat on the back, put their work on our refrigerator to enjoy, and finish their homework for them.  40 players on a map and the game turns to a slideshow despite a powerhouse rig? "Ohhhh haha, that's ok ArmA, you're just being you".  Have to make your own scenarios? "Oh, ummmm, we understand...you're differently gifted."  

God forbid they give us a dynamic battle generator for on- or off-line battles...

mrbojangles25

Already made

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=167274881&searchtext=dynamic

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=173155826&searchtext=whole+lotta

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=166907884&searchtext=whole+lotta

well I'll be damned...

Thanks, btw!

When I kept mentioning to people about buttloads of content that will most likely rip BI's campaign a new one, i wasnt lying.  I've had a3 week long ,real time, campaign on Altis going.  hell, I imported Chernarus into that mod and it runs there as well. 

Since you're incapable of inference and need everything spelled out to you like a layman: Money can improve the engine aspect of the game. Obviously there's a good reason to put more effort into the engine aspect of the game - people don't ignore that aspect of the game.

Maybe you're more of a mathwiz, so let's break this down into equations for you

Better Reviews = More Customers = More Money
More Money = More Manpower = More Effort
More Effort = More Potential of a better game (and engine)
Therefore better reviews = more potential of a better game (and engine)

It's stupid to sit here and say that reviews don't mean anything because the game only currently appeals to a small minority that will buy the game irregardless of reviews.

KHAndAnime

You're assuming this audience cares about reviews and that better reviews will make the more money in the long run due to people buying the game based on high reviews. You're making major assumption. People aren't going to buy a game in a genre they don't like just because it has a higher review. 

It doesn't really matter what you assume. The game launched months ago. They slapped "alpha" after the title and sold it for cheaper but it was a product consumers could buy and judge. The actual date of version 1.0 out of alpha/beta is entirely irrelevant after that. If people wanted this game they would have bought it by now. Nobody who wanted this game would wait for version 1.0 to come out with a higher price tag. That's illogical.

You're putting your faith on written word (reviews) too much for this genre. Reviews didn't sell this game in the past and they won't sell it now. Day Z moved more copies of ArmA 2 than the launch of ArmA 2, the launch of Arrowhead, the DLC, years of modding, and the many steam sales of ArmA all combined ever did. People don't want to play ArmA. Reviews and a very dedicated community constantly creating content and spreading the game via word of mouth did nothing to sell the game. It took something entirely different to even get people's attention.