Cutting out accessibility is one great way of losing members before they can get a grasp on it. You don't have to like that fact, but there it is, and BIS have to sell to as wide a market as they can, but obviously without losing the central theme of the franchise, which is flexibility and customisation.ĪrmA is this: a game that can easily be customised to be as realistic as possible with very few limitations. Lets not forget we are the minority here, most people who will buy ArmA3 will just want to play a game. I'm not suggesting I wish for dumbed down arcade heli flying only, but the idea is for helos to be useful, if you play as a pilot you can assume your avatar to be able to fly a helo.ĪrmA3 has to sell to a mainly gaming crowd. And if you look for helicopter simulation then you look at DCS. I know there is a propensity for insisting that it's a simulator, but really, if you insist on that then you're talking about VBS2. Let's get one thing absolutely correct: ArmA is a game first and foremost. You're against even the option? I cannot fathom how you can label it a lose-lose. I don't want to see ANY part of the game sacrificed for the sake of flying, or making things "easy". Flying is 1/3 of the overall gaming experience. But guess what? The same goes for real life too. Some people may not be cut out for flying, yes.
ArmA is a SUMULATOR, BIS should treat it as such and be as realistic as they possibly can. Adding the option to dumb things down is WAY more work for BIS and splits the community. The game WILL sell, even if the options aren't there.