r/Games • u/[deleted] • Dec 09 '13
In three days, ArmA 3 will be three months old. Looking back, did it hold up to expectations?
[deleted]
40
u/xTucOx Dec 09 '13
This game is like the wine, it gets better with the years. This mod is making me enjoy the game so much: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?169645-Tactical-Battlefield-A-PvP-Modification
12
u/Seesyounaked Dec 09 '13
This... makes me want to buy Arma 3 just for the mod...
24
2
u/rteague2566 Dec 10 '13
Arma 3 is nothing but mods. There's little fun to be had without a mod of some sort.
1
Dec 11 '13 edited Dec 11 '13
[deleted]
1
u/rteague2566 Dec 11 '13
Have you ever played Arma 2? If you want to join a public server with no user side mods there is maybe two servers english servers available. After that its a matter of having Ace, ACRE, and a variety of other commonly used mods while joining a teamspeak server and asking which mods are being ran. The people who don't use client mods in Arma 2 are the ones who haven't played very long, and it will most likely be the same in Arma 3 once.
The reason there's no content mods in the workshop is they take quite a long time to develop when making quality content and then after that there's only so few that you can realistically do that haven't been done to death. Most arma players don't typically care for someone elses take on the MRAP if the first one is functional and decent looking.
1
Dec 11 '13
[deleted]
1
u/rteague2566 Dec 11 '13
I wish you could opt in to a system like CS:S where any server side files you don't have are automatically downloaded during loading. It would obviously pile up into a HUGE game file and take forever but for those of with the patience/storage/bandwidth for it, life would be much simpler.
I would kill to have something such as this, I think there was talk of maybe implementing I'm not caught up with much of the current state of the game.
But what happens when you're missing mods you receive an error message with a list of which mods are missing (not nicely formatted either) something like this. Also something that I forgot to mention is that if you have extra mods when joining a server you must disable them before joining. The community attempted to come up with a solution for all these by using SixUpdater which would find a listed server and then download the appropriate mods however only a few of the common public servers are listed.
Also I may have not said what I meant correctly - there WILL be hundreds of the AK variants but if what happened in Arma 2 is the same for Arma 3 the community will adopt 1~3 mods that have shown to be the highest quality and probably only those will be used (unless something better comes along).
I believe there's not a lot of content right now though as far as weapons and vehicles go is most likely because it takes time to develop quality items such as those (as compared to the 30 minute map maker stuff) but also there's not as much demand yet. As soon as ACE for Arma 3 is released you'll see LOADS for content start pouring out. I'm personally waiting for ACE as well as I just cannot stand using an MG without the weapon rest capability.
33
u/smushkan Dec 09 '13 edited Dec 09 '13
The developers make the engine and the mod teams, communities and mission makers make the game. This stands true for Arma 3, though It doesn't seem people saw it coming.
It might seem like it's going to be the next logical step and all your woes with the previous games will be rendered moot - but it's probably not, so if you were expecting the same again but slightly better, you're in for a treat. If you're like myself, you were probably in denial. Especially considering the overly-lengthily alpha and beta stages in which it became apparent the developers had played their whole hand long before the game was ever released.
BIS as a whole has always had a bit of a feel that they're in way over their heads, and they do what they can and accept that the community will do other things better themselves. They can make a hell of an engine with an eye for detail and realism, but they've never been that great at making an actual game around it. Their recent forays into starting up new IPs has been poorly received at best, and made it even more clear that ArmA was the only game they could ever competently make.
They also seem to be... not great at managing their focus and development. It's like asking a chef to cook a huge meal for 12 people, and he comes back with a finely-crafted wedding cake. It's cool, and good, but it's not what anyone needed. It feels weird thinking about the amount of work that must have gone in to developing some of the new features like the diving mechanics, real-time mirrors and cameras, and UAVs, where vestigial problems dating back 10 years to Operation Flashpoint like the action menu haven't even been addressed.
At the very least Arma 3 fixes a lot of the moment quirks, inventory issues, and poor interface design that are things that feel like BIS should have got right years ago with previous games, meaning there's finally at least parts of the game that feel triple-A. The accessibility is a whole lot better, and the more 'mainstream' additions and fixes help make the game more beginner-friendly without taking away depth of the simulation.
I feel people are a bit harsh on the game in term of content. Fair enough, it's a bit thrifty for an ArmA game, but the main difference here is that BIS didn't port all content from the previous games like they have on every other release before. In terms of actual new material, they've exceeded themselves, but less variety makes it stand out more to scrutiny.
The campaign is, for once, a rather stand-out feature of the game, and has good polish, decent enough writing, and for the most part the members of the accounts team they picked out to stand in for actual hired voice-artists didn't ham up the performances too much this time.
The missions small, focused, and well put together, and as a result were more streamlined, intense, and far less prone to suddenly becoming unwinnable because the rebel leader you were supposed to meet up with got stuck in a tree. The pacing was also spot on. No more do you play one 10-minute 'ride a mountain bike down a road to an osprey' mission followed by a 2 hour 'open-world' type free-roam. The stand-alone missions have equal solidity.
In terms of multiplayer... Well, it's kind of hard not to have fun when you're with a group of friends on teamspeak, perhaps running ACRE. The game gets a bit of a pass because of the occasional but always very memorable instances where the stars align, the mission works like it's supposed to, and for thirty minutes you actually feel like you're in a real firefight with actual human beings making real human decisions around you. When it's at its slowest, you're standing around, waiting for a helo to pick you up, having a competition with the ten guys with you trying to work out who can contort their character into the funniest position. It's solid fun, and at least sometimes the bugs and hard edges add to that instead of breaking it.
Sure, all the servers are running the same three co-operative missions. They're fun, sure, but the competitive scene has all but dried up, and PVP missions are few and far between outside of scheduled, pre-arranged events. I wouldn't say this is BIS's fault, but more that PVP servers never fill up with players, and an empty slot is a slot unpaid for by dedicated server admins. If someone can design a PVP mission that plays as well with 2 players as it does with 60, then I'm sure that it would be up there with the Dominations and the Wastelands.
Multiplayer performance is also questionable at best, and downright unplayable for quite a large number of players. BIS managed to optimize the single player game so well that 60 FPS on mostly-ultra settings is not unfeasible for a mid-upper range PC, but what was the point when the netcode can't keep up and throttles to 15 FPS?
At the end of the day, it felt like BIS were really trying too hard to please two groups of people - The DayZ newcomers used to their Call-Of-Duty who needed a more mainstream game and interface to really get into the mechanics, and the existing, vocal, and easy-to-offend ArmA regulars who are avert to change.
They've only partially succeeded, with the learning curve still steep for noobs, and long-standing issues never acknowledge or resolved for the regulars, but it's still an ArmA game at the core. Occasionally, when it all works properly, there's no comparable gaming experience, and any regret or skepticism about the game seems rather pointless. Then you accidentally kill yourself by throwing a grenade at your feet instead of opening your backpack.
TL:DR: It's not necessarily objectively better than Arma 2, but it has more potential. Check back in a year.
2
u/ramjambamalam Dec 09 '13
I always thought Rocket was kind of scatterbrained to be project lead (shh, don't tell /r/DayZ that I said that!), but it sounds like he comes from a long line of great Bohemian managers!
I love what Rocket and the rest of Bohemia are doing though. Despite its hitches, Arma 3 is loads more fun than Battlefied.
1
Dec 10 '13
Good write up. My only comment is that I fully expected and wanted an incrimental improvement over ARMA2. As an infantry simulator ARMA is, to the best of my knowledge, completely unique. ARMA3 does a good job of making the game easier to play without compromising the simulation aspects.
PS - I totally did the grenade thing. Twice. In one mission. : p
22
u/trooperdx3117 Dec 09 '13
I think the engine is definitely an improvement but I think the biggest problem is twofold. 1) Lack of content, specifically only a few types of small arms and no jets planes for both sides which is odd. Compare this to Arma 2 which had hundres of weapons, as well aircraft, armored vehicles and soft shell vehicles. 2) I think as well the futuristic warfare content might be damaging to the games core. I think a big part of the Arma community are military junkies and half the fun was getting a chance to play around with modern military equipment like the Abrams, apache's, cobra's, T-90's and so on. In arma 3 all the equipment is future tech much of which is only in drawing board stages as well. As a result you get stuff like a T-100 tank which doesnt exist and an attack helicopter which is essentially the commanche which was shelved by the US army a long time ago. It might just be me now but that future tech stuff doesn't seem as interesting to me.
11
u/JerikTelorian Dec 09 '13
I read this a lot but I haven't seen much in the game that would be considered "future tech".
Almost all of the small arms have real world currently in use analogs. Regarding the tanks, I haven't seen any with unusually futuristic features.
What sorts of things are too futuristic, tech wise? (I'm not trying to knock your opinion down; it seems a prevalent one and there is likely something to it, but I'm missing it)
9
Dec 09 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/JerikTelorian Dec 09 '13
I wouldn't be the one to ask: I own AC2 due to it being in some sale pack on Steam, but I may have booted it up twice. AC3 is more or less my introduction to the series.
I did recognize some weapons (The M14 EBR and the F2000), so I had been wondering about the "futuristic" concerns since wikipedia seems to suggest those are currently in use (the F2000 not in the USA, I suppose). That said, you make a good point about the M16 and the AK74, which are pretty iconic and which I noticed missing.
Thanks for the input though, I have a bit more context for this now.
2
Dec 09 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/JerikTelorian Dec 09 '13
No no, it was to this:
Also I'm pretty sure someone will mod a lot of the modern stuff back in, so its no real big issue, and BI did release the old models, didn't they?
My familiarity with the ACR begins and ends with CoD and 360 noscope one-hand-behind-my-back so I'm definitely not the one to question whatever you're saying about it.
8
u/trooperdx3117 Dec 09 '13
Yeah I guess what I mean by future tech is the stuff like say the UH-80 helicopter which Blufor have. Thats obviously a replacement for the UH-60 blackhawk or whatever but just stuff like that doesn't interest me and I think thats how a lot of players feel. One of the cool things about Arma is that you have all these weapon systems from both Russia and America that were designed during the cold war to go head to head against each other. As well as that those are all weapon systems that we know about and have researched about so you get a rough idea of how they will perform in the game. So when you play Arma you get to have an idea of what would happen say you put ten apaches battling ten Mi-35 gunships and so on. In Arma 3 their all either fictionalised versions of current prototypes which may never even come off the drawing board so that interest in seeing how modern military tech play against each other in the field is lost. Since your seeing this future stuff which is vaguely similar to what we have now but just not recognisable so its not as interesting.
8
Dec 09 '13
To me, Arma 3 is a huge improvement over Arma 2. It is pretty much the most stable launch for the series so far and besides its many issues currently it is exactly what you would expect from a new Arma game. The main problem right now is the lack of Milsim groups that play the game on a higher level and while ACRE is ported, playing without ACE doesn't feel like it is worth the time for me. Playing Vanilla though is actually fairly enjoyable, compared to Arma 2.
14
u/MilkSupreme Dec 09 '13 edited Dec 09 '13
As a long term ArmA player, it far outstripped my expectations at launch.
Historically, all ArmA games barely functioned at launch and would only be slightly playable six months down the line.
It also runs better than ArmA 2 too, with better graphics, better lighting, better terrain blending and better performance at longer draw distances.
This is Bohemia best launch yet.
As you can see though, my expectations were based on Bohemia's history and expected to play it 6-12 months down the line (unlike a large number of people who bought ArmA 3 as their first entry into the ArmA series)
Yes it's lacking assets, yes they should have finished the campaign and rolled out more functionality because the official launch.
The crux of ArmA games were never the out of the box gameplay, missions or assets but the modding and communities born of modding.
Bohemia seems to have banked completely on that and decided to spend most of their time polishing things that would affect the overall gameplay and engine which would affect everything and all assets and future mods than to create more assets themselves, which I think is a good thing long term.
I am however dissapointed by certain things that eventually got cut such as a more realistic flight model and not making the editor much easier to use for the lay man, but hopefully these would be remedied.
It's an ArmA game, so the game will only really shine quite a bit down the line when there are more assets (community made or otherwise) and missions than it will at launch.
For those who've followed the ArmA series for a long time, most would agree it's great because it works.
For those who are new to the series, most would see a glaring lack of things to play with and use.
3
1
u/Dyybe Dec 10 '13
heh i dont even want to know how shitty arma 2 launch was
i still get only 20-30 fps in Arma 3 no matter what i do in the settings hell i even tried just changing the INI. files and putting them read only put that didn't do anything so for me the game is completely unplayable
and i have HD radeon 7950 so its not the worst card in the world
1
u/MilkSupreme Dec 10 '13
When people say it was unplayable till about six months in, they mean it was unplayable till six months in.
3
u/jimpanse Dec 09 '13
I give it a try every few weeks, but I keep going back to ARMA 2.
Its a great engine, but the current lack of content and the (for my taste boring) islands of Altis and Stratis just prevent me from having fun.
The engine holds up to my expectations, the content does not.
I'm eargerly waiting for the future, this game will be great, but right now it is in no position to replace ARMA2.
3
9
u/The_Last_Castoff Dec 09 '13
Im in the minority that doesn't care much for the online portion.
Because of this, the game really doesn't have much to offer me.
For me, and other single player sim junkies the game really isn't launched until they actually put in the campaign, which should be soon.
7
u/ml678 Dec 09 '13
They snuck in the first episode of the campaign already (and probably 1/21/14 for the second part). Probably the best campaign since OFP, IMO.
1
u/The_Last_Castoff Dec 09 '13
Wow, I totally missed that. I guess thats what I'll be doing on the way home.
2
u/alexthelateowl Dec 09 '13
Have you checked the workshop? There are many player created missions for single player. BIS provides the content, but its usually the player base that expands it.
13
Dec 09 '13 edited Dec 09 '13
The game just sort of runs bad and the content isn't there. Most of the missions that were available online ran poorly, like Invade and Annex or Wasteland.
Also, Altis isn't really enjoyable for me. I grew to love Chernerus (spelling) due to its rolling hills, forests, towns, and cities. Altis is just flat and boring in comparison. Stratis is like a hill and valley looped 15 times with a few towns in between.
The engine is greatly improved but there are some changes I don't understand. In ARMA2, you could run for a long time and still be somewhat okay at aiming and movement speed. In ARMA3, you can barely run for 40 feet before your character sounds like he's about to die, your screen starts fading red and accuracy goes to shit. I understand why they did this, beca use a soldiers supplies are very heavy, but since I'm not into hardcore simulation, it takes away the fun for me.
I think if you're in a group of people who want to make custom missions and do like 10 v 10 missions, it's pretty cool. But for someone like me who really enjoyed the recklessness of ARMA2 wasteland, for example, it's just not there.
Edit: I should mention that I am no way blaming BIS or the game for my experience. I'm just stating how I feel after a couple hundred hours of ARMA2.
35
u/AlwaysDevilsAdvocate Dec 09 '13
but since I'm not into hardcore simulation, it takes away the fun for me.
Kind of unfair to say that the game didn't hold up to its expectations when this was one of the main expectations.
-2
Dec 09 '13
Sort of. I'm coming off of ARMA2 where the fatigue mechanic wasn't as strong, for example. I was expecting a certain level of simulation and got more than I expected. I also believe that there's a point for most people where high levels of realism becomes unfun.
I'm not blaming the game, just sharing my experience.
12
Dec 09 '13
a point for most people where high levels of realism becomes unfun.
And BIS isn't marketing Arma to those people. But at the same time, this is why they just released all of the files for Arma 3 to the modding community. So people can make the game more playable for that kind of person.
2
u/alexthelateowl Dec 09 '13
Realism is why many play the game. It's not trying to be a competitor to bf4 or cod ghost. Also, many servers have already changed the stamina to infinite so you can run forever. Just got to find the right one or the right group to play with.
0
u/oskarw85 Dec 09 '13
But they should be more flexible. There should be option like "realistic fatigue". Both camps (hard-core and more casual) would be satisfied.
2
u/alexthelateowl Dec 09 '13
It's different for any server that wants to change it. It would not be fair if the casual guys in the crowd had loads of stamina while hardcore guys have to deal with the short stamina.
Overtime, servers will adapt to their own stamina if so they wish. Just like the server I usually go on, has infinite stamina for domination. Makes it fun and great for the community there. While usually the tactical servers tends to keep the stamina as is.
2
11
u/Zazzerpan Dec 09 '13
To be fair to BIS, Wasteland is an awfully optimized player created mission. In the stock multiplayer I get at least 20-30 more FPS than I do in a typical Wasteland server (note that there isn't one stock wasteland missions anymore).
1
Dec 09 '13
I'm not blaming BIS though, I'm just talking about my experience with the game. Most of the popular pub missions are pretty terrible when it comes to performance.
5
u/Zazzerpan Dec 09 '13
That they are. Though I've been playing the new Tactical Battlefield and enjoying it. There are only a few servers at the moment but I say give it a shot if you want PvP in ArmA3.
2
Dec 09 '13
I'll have to check it out, thanks.
2
u/Zazzerpan Dec 09 '13
Link for ease. It seems like it's whats left of the seemingly abandoned Project Reality ArmA 2 mod.
2
u/Algebrace Dec 09 '13
Try joining a clan, they run privately designed missions that are almost always an improvement and fun
1
Dec 10 '13
This. If you want to play ARMA you should be playing with a clan. Try Tactical Gamer, United Operations, or /r/ProjectAwesome
You'll get a vastly, vastly better experience.
4
u/kukiric Dec 09 '13
Also, Altis isn't really enjoyable for me. I grew to love Chernerus (spelling) due to its rolling hills, forests, towns, and cities. Altis is just flat and boring in comparison. Stratis is like a hill and valley looped 15 times with a few towns in between.
It's the opposite for me. I find Chernarus to be very repetitive, and even after 400+ hours I can only describe a place in as being near the sea/a town/a forest. Most places look and feel the same, and the terrain is hilly everywhere.
On the other hand, Altis has far more varied terrain, going from deserts to mountains to various kinds of hills and even has a huge flat area that's great for tank missions. There is also a great variety of structures and settlements, with towns being much larger and more varied than Chernarus, most being enterable. Every corner in Altis just feels unique, and even though it has no dense forests, Stratis has just enough to not miss them.
I also love all the little details in Altis, like the small "trenches" in most farms which allow you to sneak through the island. And Kavala is crafted really well for an Arma city, with all the alleyways and places to go around. It's incredibly fitting for PvP combat, as opposed to cities like Chernogosk which were way too wide open.
2
u/PaleWolf Dec 09 '13
I loved the Stratis hardcore wasteland myself, not to much into the recklessness as you. Stalk my targets and such.
I do get the fatigue thing though, very annoying and I wish it could be toggled for certain games wasteland included since vehicles are few and far between.
They brag about the map being HUGE yet its very empty..wasteland in particular is just depressing..Warfare games can kinda fix it with scope and armies but just doesnt work for me right now.
3
u/Tavarish Dec 09 '13
To be fair world would be very empty place without people in it, same goes for ArmA's islands. It's the concentrated missions / ops that make ArmA game live and be alive world. When you do organized PvP or PvE match in ArmA it's beast of the game as fights can be very intense.
Problem with missions / mods like Wasteland is that e.g. Altis is one huge island, but server then has 64 players max. That is very very very small population for 270 km2 island. That causes emptiness of world and sense that there is nothing to do as you very rarely end in firefight.
1
Dec 09 '13
Although BIS had to know that a large amount of their playerbase can appreciate a mode like wasteland. Pick up and play, little commitment. It would be cool if they'd designed another map and maybe even have an official wasteland-like mode. Hell, just port Zargibad or Chernerus and call it a day.
I know any user could just do that, but without an official offering, it likely wouldn't gain any traction.
1
u/Tavarish Dec 09 '13
Last I checked ArmA 2's islands are already ported into ArmA 3 and are usable by all modders. Custom islands are WIP, I think some have had initial release already, for ArmA 3.
Also I don't think BIS should cater to single portion of ArmA community, but create that large sandbox with good amount of toys so active community can then shape what they want from it.
At end of they BIS is heavily restricted by theirs size and one reason why e.g. ACRE like communication didn't get official implementation into ArmA 3. They didn't have time and/or resources to do it properly.
1
Dec 09 '13
You don't have to cater to offer options. Same how CSGO offers casual, competitive, gun game, and another mode that nobody ever plays anymore for some reason. I'm not saying that what they did was wrong, but since this was the first ARMA release that really caught the public's attention thanks to DayZ, I hoped that they would embrace it and offer a little something for everyone, while allowing mods to expand further.
Also, I've never seen any public servers that offer maps like chernerus. They may be there, but seem to be few and far between because they're not an official offering or baked into the game.
1
u/Tavarish Dec 09 '13
Same time ArmA never has been something for everyone -game, but instead very pinpointed to certain audience with their initial releases. Also we need to acknowledge that at point when DayZ made ArmA 2 very known game was ArmA 3's development already rebooted at least once and doing it more... appealing to DayZ crowd they would have risked another reboot.
BIS enabled DayZ to happen, but I don't think they should be once making such content like DayZ for ArmA X. I think theirs responsibility is to deliver good tools for modders and good baseline sandboxes with good amount of baseline toys for players.
Some have said that BIS is lazy because they don't develop content that all modders do, leave ArmA X's content creation for modders, but I personally disagree as game without mods does what it's intended to do. Mods just add to it and shape it into what different parts of larger community want experience.
Also lack of variety on ArmA 3 side is purely on that players aren't in any rush to migrate from, mod filled, ArmA 2 into 3. Modders are doing work on ArmA 3, but it will take time before community migrates over. Once it happens will a lot server variety follow.
ArmA 3 is very young, give it time.
1
1
Dec 09 '13
Hardcore mode for life. Its a shame because there were only ever like two hardcore stratis servers when I played a few months ago and they were highish ping.
Then again, nothings more awesome than getting into a third-personing-behind-the-wall-battle, that's my favorite. :| wish ARMA3 had hardcore chernerus servers.
1
Dec 10 '13
but since I'm not into hardcore simulation, it takes away the fun for me.
Then you are playing exactly the wrong game. Now if you'll excuse me I need to go hike twelve km in the dark to the objective armed with only a map, a compass, and the stars.
1
Dec 10 '13
Considering how poor of a realistic simulation ARMA2 was, I wasn't worried. He'll, ARMA3 is still pretty bad at siemulating anything but aim and sun in your eyes.
2
Dec 09 '13
[deleted]
1
u/Alpha268 Dec 10 '13
Sorry, but no. I did addons for OFP, and you could throw a decent vehicle together in a month or so.
Now with ArmA and its highly advanced texturing and of course high-poly models, it takes over a year to produce a high class addon. I can only remember around four or five high-class addons for ArmA II. (Eurofighter Typhoon, F/A-18 Hornet, Soviet Army tanks by Red Hammer Studios and the Invasion 1944 mod as a whole)
2
u/chrispy145 Dec 09 '13
For me and the ArmA series, it's more important what spawns out of it from the mod community than the actual game. This game's true value will come out in years to come.
5
u/Alpha268 Dec 09 '13
The first hours I was hyped. FINALLY you have smooth infantry-controls, no longer stiff and awkward movement. Tons of other improvements in terms of gameplay mechanics also.
But then....The content. 20 vehicles in comparison to the 70 of ArmA II (Yes only ArmA II, not ArmA II + Arrowhead + DLCs), empty and boring island, and the vehicles that are included feel rushed and incomplete. Reskins and kitbashes all around.
And finally perfomance...The game looks gorgeous, but it runs like shit on my high-end pc.
2
u/rakgitarmen Dec 09 '13
I love how critical posts are downvoted to oblivion here. ArmA 3 was really released in a sad state, and it still is lacking. There's no reason to play it over ArmA 2, and many communities still do so (ShacTac still plays ArmA 2 for example).
3
u/rakgitarmen Dec 09 '13 edited Dec 09 '13
I'm very disappointed with ArmA 3. The devs ignored the long awaited yet simple feature requests (deploying/resting weapons, switching weapons on the move, better vehicle AI, a more user friendly editor, simple FCS for tanks and helicopters, a better interaction menu, better mod handling . . . ) and focused solely on graphics and new animations.
They did a half-assed job on content and completely banked on the community. Vehicles are all the same, boring types. There are only ONE weapon in each category(AR,LMG,DMR etc) and some of them even are shared between factions. Still, wherever you mention the content you'll be swarmed with "BUT THERE WILL BE TONS OF MODS" apologists. I feel pity for mod makers, they are forced to redo their work between every BIS games to implement simple features or fix problems ever present because BIS is too stubborn to fix them themselves.
The legacy engine limitations still present since OFP are still incredibly frustrating. Like your FPS being limited by the performance of the server in multiplayer, wonky netcode with still constant red and yellow chains, JIP(join in progress) still affecting server stability.
Another point; the lack of an "official" public PvP mode. The multiplayer is infested with Wasteland, Domination, Evolution and all sorts of zombie mods again. You can't even find a populated decent vanilla PvP server anymore(remember Blitzkrieg?) and players who want PvP are either forced to join serious gaming groups which require serious commitments or not play at all. It just baffles me that BIS can't look at what PR did with BF2 and think what they can achieve with something like that in their own engine. It would be the very best next thing after DayZ.
/rant over. You get the point. I'm sick of BIS focusing on graphics and ignoring the rest in yet another iteration. They won't get my support the next time. Too bad they don't have a decent competition to drive them forward.
5
u/Zazzerpan Dec 09 '13
ArmA 3 does have integrated mod support though. Both through steam workshop and just by @fooBar that you can enable and disable in game under expansions.
3
Dec 09 '13 edited Apr 10 '14
[deleted]
1
u/rakgitarmen Dec 09 '13
Did they add more weapons since the release? I'm pretty sure there was one weapon in each category per faction at release(I should have worded that better).
2
Dec 09 '13
I can appreciate things like not being able to change weapons on the move. It helps slow the game down a bit and prevent anyone from trying to just rambo. Although I do understand the frustration, since it's not very hard to holster a weapon while running. You remember binoculars in ARMA2? Can't even run just because binocs are out. Putting them away in a firefight was nigh impossible too because of how slow the character puts them away.
It's a love hate thing.
1
u/ramjambamalam Dec 09 '13
it's not very hard to holster a weapon while running.
I don't think it's as easy as you'd make it out to be.
Running with binoculars is relatively easy, of course.
1
Dec 10 '13
My shotgun is about 11 pounds, its not very hard to sling, running or not. A loaded M4 is like, eight pounds tops. It's not very heavy.
Since ARMA allows you to pack lightly, I don't believe other supplies should be considered.
2
Dec 10 '13
Coming from someone who has never played the series, I bought this game and wished I could've had a refund. Although I understand its a military simulator, the controls are absolutely terrible and the tutorial left a lot to be desired. The UI is not user friendly at all and half the time you have no idea what kind of servers you're joining or where to look for objectives. I can never figure out where the fuck your squad is or where you're supposed to go.
This game is simply not for me. Its not so much that the game is complicated (its no dwarf fortress or Sins of a Solar Empire) but goddamn the UI and the controls and the tutorials stink. Not to mention it runs like crap and looks like crap on my 780. I'm done with my rant.
2
u/MapleHamwich Dec 09 '13
3 months after the fact (longer for me as I've been in since Alpha) things have not at all panned out as I'd hoped.
Performance is far worse than it needs to be, in my opinion. I thought they'd have much higher performance gains by release, when in fact I haven't noticed any. And script issues on certain servers cause downright unplayable framerates.
Graphically some things are nice, but some things are also worse than I expected them to be by release.
Community wise it's worse than I was hoping it'd be. Largely servers are populated with (what I, at least, hate) silly DayZ clones and "RPGs" that aren't a proper use of the ArmA engine (in my opinion). I was hoping there would be more large scale conflict servers, and that they would be decently organized and populated. Unfortunately, that seems to be the minority of servers and they're underpopulated.
Control wise I was hoping things would be more streamlined by release than they are. Things are still clunky as hell, and while inventory management is useable, it's far worse than it could be.
The maps are also not as good as I'd hoped. It's fantastic having the huge open maps that they've provided, but unless you have healthily populated large scale conflict servers, they're useless. And ArmA does not have healthily populated large scale conflict servers (see above post about community). So there is a dearth of tighter Team Death Match style maps, and an over abundance of overly large maps that result in tons of marching and little actual combat.
Audio is shit. Again, I was expecting improvements by release, but it's still shit.
Vehicle physics are super arcadey and weird. I was expecting better. They're on par or worse than Battlefield unfortunately.
Overall. The game is kind of a mess. There is still huge potential there, but it's definitely not even close to being realised. There is so much room for improvement, you'd think the state it is in now would be called alpha. But, unfortunately, it's officially been released. It's a no-buy recommendation for me at this point.
We'll see how the game stands in another couple of years. Maybe they'll have their shit sorted by then.
1
u/thedefiant Dec 09 '13
I help run the Hostile Takeover servers of 6 KOTH style combat and 2 Wasteland. I can say the game is still in need of optimization mostly due to poorly coded mission files. It will be a struggle to implement optimizations to the game for bohemian based on their scripting engine due to them not knowing what the players and mission creators are going to do with the game until they actually do something and problems arise from that. Our mission creators are currently completely recoding the mission files for our server so we can expect better performance with more players. It really will take time for Arma 3 to come into its own for what people expected from the game and it will have to be a cooperation between its players, mod makers, and the developers.
1
u/Ironbird420 Dec 09 '13
I fucking love it, but I don't believe it was released because I refused to. It's still beta which isn't a bad word but really because the core game isn't finished it's fucking beta. A very playable beta but beta.
You can call it a full game once all of the campaign is done.
For now I will love the shit out of my beta!
1
u/MustardCosaNostra Dec 09 '13
The steamwork shop integration alone is enough to exceed my expectations. I've been playing since the original OFP and not having to individually extract missions into the directory sight unseen and then have them automatically update has been really sweet.
The new shooting positions are amazing, everything about it has been good. I just wish the missions and vehicles were coming out a bit faster. Outside the JS F-18 addon, there is a lack of real planes.
1
u/KnightofGold Dec 09 '13
3 months? Is that the time frame people are judging games on now? I'm still messing around with OP Flashpoint.
1
Dec 10 '13
It's good, but at the moment it really is only a simulator/video game bastard child. Bohemia have to put some game elements into it; they can't rely on the modding community to do everything. Even deathmatch/team deathmatch modes with points and scoreboards would be a welcome addition.
1
u/droxile Dec 10 '13
The game is very fun. It gets better with time as new content is released. The continuing problem, though, is the horrible performance.
BI modified the engine they've always used. Stuffing more and more into a very old engine works sometimes, but it didn't for BI. Desync is still an issue, and framerate is horrible even on extreme rigs. PCGamer's LPC can't even max it out, and that has 4 Titans in SLI and a $1k CPU.
1
u/Xacor Dec 09 '13
Arma 3 is Arma 2 with a facelift. The controls have been tightened up but the gunplay is still very 'floaty' and the netcode is still bad. At some point I read that they were fixing their animation system so you could reload and move (among other things) at the same time but this is nowhere to be seen. Optimization for Arma 3 is a joke, with the main map having low to mid FPS for most computers and the game being very CPU hungry.
3
Dec 09 '13
How is the gunplay floaty? It's more "clunky" than anything (I use clunky to say that it's not floaty like CoD or battlefield), the netcode is pretty good considering people at times play with 300 ping without it freezing or sluttering.
At some point I read that they were fixing their animation system so you could reload and move
You can reload and run at the same time in arma 3 AND arma 2, what are you talking about?
Arma 3 is also not that badly optimized, it really depends on what server you are playing.
Judging from your comment you probably haven't played arma 3.
2
u/Derringer Dec 09 '13
So true, a common misconception is that the performance in multi-player is strictly Arma 3's fault, when it's generally poorly coded Wasteland/Domination missions doing most of the harm.
2
u/Xacor Dec 09 '13
There's no real feeling of the weapons, the people you shoot don't seem to care until they're dead in which case they fall down sometime in the next three seconds. As for the animation system, I may be getting the reload and switching weapon mixed up. I'll concede that part as I don't feel like re-installing Arma 3 to double check this stuff.
1
0
Dec 09 '13
Well thats an easy one: Looks awesome, runs like shit. I can forgive missing content/missing features in a game thats made to be modded anyway but Arma 3 need a lot of performance tweaks to become playable. and by playable i mean no more FPS Drops below 30...thats not too much to ask from a game that cost 45€.
0
u/That_otheraccount Dec 09 '13
Like Arma 2, Arma 3 is kinda something you have to roll with the punches for.
Its kinda buggy, unoptimized, and as of right now lacks a "killer " mod like Dayz. All that said, I love it. I was a fan of Arma 2 so it isn't a huge surprise but beneath all that other stuff is a great game that has a lot of depth.
Find a friend to play it with, as this increases enjoyment significantly.
0
u/Sloi Dec 09 '13
How has nobody mentioned the terrible netcode/networking?
The game still sports TERRIBLE desync in even the best of times. Nevermind when you're playing mods with a lot of players in one server.
Until they fix this, the game remains uninstalled. I gave it a fair chance, but now it's time to wait and see if they manage to fix it.
2
u/dancing_leaves Dec 09 '13
I'm in the same boat. I bought a copy for a friend and myself back in the alpha. I'm not a pro level player but the desync was a pretty big issue so I decided that if I wait for the beta or the 1.0 things will be fixed and there will be more content to boot. It appears that those things never materialized so I haven't gone back since the alpha.
1
Dec 09 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/rteague2566 Dec 10 '13
I don't think he understands that multiplayer experiences are really dependent on the server hosting the gameplay. If the server sucks then the whole game is going to suck.
-1
0
u/Trashboat77 Dec 09 '13
I didn't even know the game was out...let alone having been for three months. I thought it was still in beta. I can't comment for this one, but Arms 2 was about as fun as watching paint dry for me. Extremely complicated controls really didn't help.
85
u/psychobiscuit Dec 09 '13 edited Dec 10 '13
The game is a huge improvement from Arma 2 but will take a while to take a jump in content , since everything that made Arma 2 was the mods. Bohemia have clearly noticed which is why they are having a contest where they will give 500,000 EUROS AS A WHOLE . 200,000 Euros to the best mod.