If you're going to essentially rehash the same old story - which, like I said, is pretty much what everyone expected anyway - then why go through the trouble of inventing a couple decades of history? Why? This is never really explained, but apparently there are psuedo-Russians afoot: CSAT, some "evil mirror" version of NATO who are essentially a combination of Russians and Iranians decide they're going to join the party.Īs you see, this is essentially NATO vs Russia, but with confusing and frankly pointless futuristic embellishment. Until, predictably, shit goes south.įor some reason, rather than simply wait a few more days until NATO pulls out its remaining forces, the local government decides it's going to start a war. You play the role of a generic NATO grunt who can't wait to go home and get off this rock, and seems to be on the eve of having his wish come true. The story itself kicks off as NATO winds down a peacekeeping mission on a little island nation called Altis, a vaguely Greek island that had just suffered a civil war the years prior. Now, this is essentially what we got anyway, but fabricating over 20 years of history and military technology left many uneasy.
Now let's dive into the specifics, starting with that very story.ĪRMA 3 takes place in 2035, which, I should point out, was originally a contentious element when it was announced way-back-when players were expecting an update to their favorite military sim, with the time-honoured traditions of ex-Soviet hardware operated by Russians or terrorists vs the Euro-American master race.
Otherwise, players had only a handful of simple "showcases" to try out, in which they were tasked with a simplified mission that quickly became boring. ARMA 3 however seemed to heavily skimp on this the campaign was, at first, unavailable at launch, released as 3 "free" DLC over the course of about a year and a half each "free" DLC encompassed a single chapter of a 3-part story. In past ARMA titles, the campaign was integral to the game itself, and was very large in scope and style. Take, for example, the single-player campaign. Even then, however, the overwhelming feeling I get from the game is one of lazy or incompetent development. I personally purchased the game as soon as it was available, but found myself putting it down and simply ignoring it for the next year until it was finally "ready". BIS attempted to pioneer an attempt to early access their game in the alpha stages, which was interesting. Unlike past ARMA games, however, ARMA 3 was released somewhat. Like its predecessors, the ARMA experience remains relatively unchanged, with its primary difference being vastly improved graphics, with a handful of minor alterations and additions - chief of which is probably its underwater warfare component. It released to much fanfare over its amazing graphics and. ARMA 2 was released in 2006, again featuring essentially identical gameplay features, with more minor additions and graphical improvements tacked on. This has, in fact, become pretty much endemic of all ARMA games since, and is one of the game's most negative aspects. The original ARMA borrowed heavily from OFP for many of its mechanics, sprucing up the engine and tacking on more functionality to what was essentially an identical core.
From that initial success was born the Armed Assault series a falling out between BIS and the publisher of OFP saw the Czech studio make their spiritual successor ARMA: Armed Assault in 2006, while Codemasters went on to create Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising in 2009 (which, from personal experience, is a piece of shit). In short, Arma 3 is the latest in a long line of 'military simulation' games from Bohemia Interactive Studio, a Czech-based game developer who've made a name for themselves over the past decade and a half as one of the premiere military simulation game designers, starting with their smash hit, Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis in 2001. I've been playing a lot of Arma 3 lately (Armed Assault 3), and, as usually happens, I've gotten frustrated and pissed off enough to actually vent my anger in verbal form.