No doubt it won't sell as good as BF/CoD, but their forums are very active. I think there is a decent player base for it.
Upvote
0
[Game] ArmA 3, for real
- Thread starter Apos
- Start date
No doubt it won't sell as good as BF/CoD, but their forums are very active. I think there is a decent player base for it.
What you guys don't seem to realize is that the animation, movement, ect, will all be over 9000 times better than Arma 2, the producers have already said that this game will do way better. Read some of the PC Gamer things and you will see what I am talking about.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Improvements here and there aren't enough to save a tired old engine. I'd like to see the AI, netcode, performance, etc. getting fixed rather than eyecandy. Good to see BIA is working on changing the clunky movement, but I think ArmA is in dire need of a brand new engine rather than updating to ArmA 2.5 with same problems.
Upvote
0
Haha except that at least RO has 200 players steadily playing it during prime hours every day of the week. Last time I checked the ARMA 2 servers it looked pretty darn empty. Too bad cause there are times I'd like to hop on a coop server.
Upvote
0
I completely agree. The graphics in ArmA 2 are good enough. Most PCs can't max it out. I wouldn't mind if the graphics didn't improve at all.
Upvote
0
I actually fully agree with you.
Even as an ArmA2 fanboy I can see how much Bohemia is going to restrict themselves with the minimum specs. They'll certainly lose me as a customer for the next 2 or so years, not because I wouldn't want to play it but because I don't have much chance of getting a system capable of running ArmA3 in the next 2 years.
Upvote
0
arma2 or oa? cause there are plenty, claiming no one plays arma is just as ridiculous as claiming no one plays ro
Upvote
0
There is many communities playing all kinds of gametypes of ArmA2 including mods. Really, there is no problem to find good bunch of people, servers and mission to play.
Otherwise if you want to just jump onto server, kill dozens of people in couple minutes. ArmA ain't run, run and shoot solo game
Upvote
0
Oh look, another ArmA bash-thread. "Bad AI, bugs, poor movement, hurrr hurr". Heard it a thousand times.
Bad AI, not really. Depends. Sometimes they're smart, sometimes they're stupid. For an sandbox-game, they're pretty good. They can do more than you think, especially with UPSMON and ACE enabled. They flank you, they lean around corners, can drive all of the vehicles in the game, drive the road network from one end of the map to the other on their own etc. Don't forget to take the good things into account.
Movement is actually realistic and works just fine once you get used to it, except maybe in CQB. Don't say "the movement is robotic". Say "I don't like realistic movement" instead. In ArmA you're a human, not a bunny-hopping superman.
Bugs? Sure, but that's because it's a sandbox game and BIS can't possibly take into account everything players do or create. You just have to accept the bugs. No game is perfect.
Bad engine? Not really, it does a terrific job at portraying a large, realistic landscape. However, the engine is very demanding and I hope BIS will create a new engine from the ground up, an engine that's like a mix between UE3 and the current engine. BIS won't do that just yet though, which is a shame. Hopefully they will optimize the hell out of it though. That said, ArmA runs pretty well on my almost four-year old PC, medium settings. People who can't run the game very well even on new PCs must have a lot of spyware and never format their HD, I think.
Small playerbase? Hah, far from. 21 pages of squads right here.
Furthermore, you haven't played ArmA if you haven't played with a squad. That's the way the game is meant to be played. Buying ArmA and not joining a squad is like buying a high-end gaming PC and only playing Minesweeper on it.
Does ArmA have flaws? Sure. Does that mean that it's not the best damn military tactical shooter on the market? No.
Now that those arguments have been refuted, I hope they won't be used again.
As for ArmA 3, I think it comes too early actually. ACE2 was just beginning to get stable... I would have preferred a new engine, but sadly that is not the case. But the soldiers look very realistic and the map looks great.
BTW, I really hope they learned from ArmA 2's flaws, and more specifically: from ACE and ACRE. Everything in those mods should be part of the vanilla game. They have already copied ACE's rucksacks and CQB sights for OA, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
Bad AI, not really. Depends. Sometimes they're smart, sometimes they're stupid. For an sandbox-game, they're pretty good. They can do more than you think, especially with UPSMON and ACE enabled. They flank you, they lean around corners, can drive all of the vehicles in the game, drive the road network from one end of the map to the other on their own etc. Don't forget to take the good things into account.
Movement is actually realistic and works just fine once you get used to it, except maybe in CQB. Don't say "the movement is robotic". Say "I don't like realistic movement" instead. In ArmA you're a human, not a bunny-hopping superman.
Bugs? Sure, but that's because it's a sandbox game and BIS can't possibly take into account everything players do or create. You just have to accept the bugs. No game is perfect.
Bad engine? Not really, it does a terrific job at portraying a large, realistic landscape. However, the engine is very demanding and I hope BIS will create a new engine from the ground up, an engine that's like a mix between UE3 and the current engine. BIS won't do that just yet though, which is a shame. Hopefully they will optimize the hell out of it though. That said, ArmA runs pretty well on my almost four-year old PC, medium settings. People who can't run the game very well even on new PCs must have a lot of spyware and never format their HD, I think.
Small playerbase? Hah, far from. 21 pages of squads right here.
Furthermore, you haven't played ArmA if you haven't played with a squad. That's the way the game is meant to be played. Buying ArmA and not joining a squad is like buying a high-end gaming PC and only playing Minesweeper on it.
Does ArmA have flaws? Sure. Does that mean that it's not the best damn military tactical shooter on the market? No.
Now that those arguments have been refuted, I hope they won't be used again.
As for ArmA 3, I think it comes too early actually. ACE2 was just beginning to get stable... I would have preferred a new engine, but sadly that is not the case. But the soldiers look very realistic and the map looks great.
BTW, I really hope they learned from ArmA 2's flaws, and more specifically: from ACE and ACRE. Everything in those mods should be part of the vanilla game. They have already copied ACE's rucksacks and CQB sights for OA, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Oh look, another ArmA bash-thread. "Bad AI, bugs, poor movement, hurrr hurr". Heard it a thousand times.
Bad AI, not really. Depends. Sometimes they're smart, sometimes they're stupid. For an sandbox-game, they're pretty good. They can do more than you think, especially with UPSMON and ACE enabled. They flank you, they lean around corners, can drive all of the vehicles in the game, drive the road network from one end of the map to the other on their own etc. Don't forget to take the good things into account.
Movement is actually realistic and works just fine once you get used to it, except maybe in CQB. Don't say "the movement is robotic". Say "I don't like realistic movement" instead. In ArmA you're a human, not a bunny-hopping superman.
Bugs? Sure, but that's because it's a sandbox game and BIS can't possibly take into account everything players do or create. You just have to accept the bugs. No game is perfect.
Bad engine? Not really, it does a terrific job at portraying a large, realistic landscape. However, the engine is very demanding and I hope BIS will create a new engine from the ground up, an engine that's like a mix between UE3 and the current engine. BIS won't do that just yet though, which is a shame. Hopefully they will optimize the hell out of it though. That said, ArmA runs pretty well on my almost four-year old PC, medium settings. People who can't run the game very well even on new PCs must have a lot of spyware and never format their HD, I think.
Small playerbase? Hah, far from. 21 pages of squads right here.
Furthermore, you haven't played ArmA if you haven't played with a squad. That's the way the game is meant to be played. Buying ArmA and not joining a squad is like buying a high-end gaming PC and only playing Minesweeper on it.
Does ArmA have flaws? Sure. Does that mean that it's not the best damn military tactical shooter on the market? No.
Now that those arguments have been refuted, I hope they won't be used again.
As for ArmA 3, I think it comes too early actually. ACE2 was just beginning to get stable... I would have preferred a new engine, but sadly that is not the case. But the soldiers look very realistic and the map looks great.
BTW, I really hope they learned from ArmA 2's flaws, and more specifically: from ACE and ACRE. Everything in those mods should be part of the vanilla game. They have already copied ACE's rucksacks and CQB sights for OA, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
Nicely done on "refuting" the argument
PS. Movement is clunky in ArmA 2, haven't played OA. And it is clunky because of the sudden stops in the animations when you reload, change stance etc etc...
Upvote
0
I actually fully agree with you.
Even as an ArmA2 fanboy I can see how much Bohemia is going to restrict themselves with the minimum specs. They'll certainly lose me as a customer for the next 2 or so years, not because I wouldn't want to play it but because I don't have much chance of getting a system capable of running ArmA3 in the next 2 years.
If they can manage to put in some improvements but make it run/look as good as ArmA 2 when the settings are turned back it won't be a big deal. Lets hope they can optimize it.
Xendance;742584 PS. Movement is clunky in ArmA 2 said:
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Beter way would be to use term "random", unless you open profile config and tinker with skill and precision. Once you get the values right it varies between ok to quite good. For the sake of this counterargument let's forget mods and such, as most of A2 complaints are based on face value of the game.
The biggest problem with the movement since OFP has been that unless you can run the game with constant smooth FPS it feels delayed once in a while. If you're used to it (E.G. since original Operation Flashpoint) or you can live with it it's barely a problem, but it can feel quite alienating to a new player. Realistic yes - smooth? Depends more on your rig than in most other games.
That is pretty much one core of the problem when it comes to considering the overall situation. A2 has plenty of players but getting inside the whole A2 gaming community can be fairly alienating task if you're not really sure where to begin with and you're not the most patient person around relatively speaking, even if you have interest for the genre. As much as ArmA has nice magnet for torches and pitchforks most of the basic complaints behind them have some truth in them especially on the single player department. Try not to be unreasonable yourself if we ignore the obvious bashing that's around every now and then
I really hope they they could finally get rid of some of the more ridiculous issues that have been present since OFP. I can understand their reasons to recycle the engine but somehow A3 just has bit too much of a season upgrade ring on it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Words of truth, well said.
ps. Bohemia since first release of ArmA 2 improved animations, optimization and many other things. Actually during beta testing of latest OA patch they changed animation to make them look CoD-a-like. Well, those made an impression of looking smooth, quicky, ninja-like but were totally unrealistic and in fact retarded. Now animations are decent and still realistic. Check Nimsky's video in screenshot/movei section.
Upvote
0
Says one of the people who's always first to bash any CoD/BF/other multiplatform title. Also, what "ArmA bash-thread"s are there to begin with?Oh look, another ArmA bash-thread. "Bad AI, bugs, poor movement, hurrr hurr". Heard it a thousand times.
Yes. Mods don't count as we're talking about the game itself. Claiming the AI isn't broken is simply a lie. I stopped counting how often my tank drivers drove against buildings, suddenly slipped around(possible to due the bad physics) and then exploded, instead of simply driving on the damn road. Additionally SP very much relies on the AI which results in the SP campaign being totally broken as well, as the AI often glitches.
That just senseless fanboyism. Open your eyes please. I walk half of the day outdoors and ArmA2s movement certainly doesn't feel realistic to me. And it's not a matter of realism but of fluidity. If you screw up the very basics of the game like movement, then everything else pretty much suffers from that. In OFP it didn't matter much because everything else about the game was awesome and it was 2001. Now we have 2011 and they still hardly advanced in this department.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Forgive my ignorance, for I have not played Operation Arrowhead. If there are hundreds of people playing online than I'd assume it has the same basic online player base of RO.
Upvote
0
Nope, you can reload while moving and changing stance, and keep looking over the weapon while changing stance as well. And you can quickly 'dive' towards the ground, hop over a fence, and you have three main speeds of movement, etc.
Yeah, good point. Don't get me wrong, the AI can be frustratingly stupid sometimes. But it's only frustrating when you play with AI rather than against AI (small groups of AI are managable though). Overall, the AI is definitely not bad. AI skill is mostly determined by the mission maker by the way. The mission maker can slide the AI skill slider more to the right for a more skilled AI, though most people never do that. /as mentioned, to really get good AI you need third party addons like UPSMON or ACE and I hope BIS will improve the AI in ArmA 3.
That said, the AI is more than adequate for just about any co-op session. I get my enjoyment from the tactics and teamwork, not shooting people left and right. I've played enjoyable missions where I didn't fire a single shot.
Never had that problem. Movement is smooth for me, even on my ancient system.
That is pretty much one core of the problem when it comes to considering the overall situation. A2 has plenty of players but getting inside the whole A2 gaming community can be fairly alienating task if you're not really sure where to begin with and you're not the most patient person around relatively speaking, even if you have interest for the genre. As much as ArmA has nice magnet for torches and pitchforks most of the basic complaints behind them have some truth in them especially on the single player department. Try not to be unreasonable yourself if we ignore the obvious bashing that's around every now and then
The game definitely requires more patience than most tactical shooters and sims, that's for sure. It's silly to buy ArmA and not join a squad, though. Domination is only 1% of the fun you can get from the game. You buy ArmA for the organized co-op or PVP. I mean you didn't buy RO:O for the SP either, right? Same thing. Of course ArmA is not fun in pubbie Domination servers. Every ArmA player knows that. Find a nice group to play with and you'll have a blast.
Thanks for the open-minded post.
Upvote
0