what do you think about the game so far?

[jw custom 56]

saying (today/at this stage) that this is already the best ArmA game, doesn't make any sense.

Most likely not to you :)

I will explain eventhough i shouldn't: A3 Alpha in it's current state with the little content it has already runs better for me than any other ArmA title does, is more fun for me than any other ArmA title is, it looks better to me than any other ArmA title does and i'm enjoying this limited version more than any other ArmA title so yes this is for me the best ArmA game

Seems pretty obvious to me and there isn't much to talk about it.

Fine then go away until game is done, then you can return with all your negativity, good day sir.

[WalkerDown 1]

Depends on the Wasteland variant...

The problem (of Wasteland) atm is about the limited contents. If you look at the Wasteland servers online, they are pretty mixed (variants), there's not really a "preferred" one. Most ppl are playing it just because they can launch the game, enter into a server and shoot at everything (that isn't exactly what's arma is designed for.. but the customer is always right! :) ), that mat be fun for a week or two, but after a while it's damn boring.

[HunterUK 10]

My opinion is as follows, The Alpha has come out far to early and should of not been released yet online. The Island is crap and not enough different terrains like in Arma2, and also the main thing like I have said before There was no proper Anti-Cheat to help protect the servers and the community and yes one could have been sorted out between scripts with who ever you were going to use as the Anti-cheat program and the dev & coding Teams. But to charge the customer to play the Alpha version is way below the belt and should of not happened until the final working release.

And also Do's the Bohemia team have a military advisor who helps out with how the game is played eg, Troop movements, vehicles and weapons etc ?

Well thats my opinion put over as you have asked.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Nobody is forced to buy the Alpha.

[Smurf 12]

My opinion is as follows, The Alpha has come out far to early and should of not been released yet online. The Island is crap and not enough different terrains like in Arma2, and also the main thing like I have said before There was no proper Anti-Cheat to help protect the servers and the community and yes one could have been sorted out between scripts with who ever you were going to use as the Anti-cheat program and the dev & coding Teams. But to charge the customer to play the Alpha version is way below the belt and should of not happened until the final working release.

And also Do's the Bohemia team have a military advisor who helps out with how the game is played eg, Troop movements, vehicles and weapons etc ?

Well thats my opinion put over as you have asked.

Dude just....FPDR

Yeah.

[HunterUK 10]

That is True, i will say no more:yay::rolleyes:

[jw custom 56]

That is True, i will say no more:yay::rolleyes:

Thanks, i owe you one :cool:

[Masharra 10]

It feels odd to me that so many say it is the best so far "what do you think about the game so far?

from what we have so far"

Its like bis could stop work now and say "ok done" and all those people would be happy. I mean the thread started did specifically state " from what is currently avail" not potentially or promised but yet to be delivered.

Lots of people are happy with only wheels for a car. I think this kind of thinking is why Infinity ward and activision make so much money every year.

Meh... Current vote - A2 reigns, followed by Mechwarrior 2, then 3. :D

Edited May 10, 2013 by Masharra

[jw custom 56]

Lots of people are happy with only wheels for a car. I think this kind of thinking is why Infinity ward and activision make so much money every year.

I have not noticed the people you are refering to :)

[WalkerDown 1]

It feels odd to me that so many say it is the best so far "what do you think about the game so far?

from what we have so far"

Its like bis could stop work now and say "ok done" and all those people would be happy. I mean the thread started did specifically state " from what is currently avail" not potentially or promised but yet to be delivered.

That's what I mean, it's absurd that some ppl are considering this alpha with the CURRENT contents superior to ArmA2, it's out of any possible logic. It has certainly good potential, but we're light years behind a complete game. These ppl are "blind" or they have no idea of how a finished game should looks like, no surprise that some publishers are selling crap for retail prices: until there's ppl that will buy it, without giving a "value" to a product, they gonna (try to) sell us any **** they wants.

[jw custom 56]

Yeah "what do you think about the game so far?" is hard to grasp :p

[dmarkwick 261]

That's what I mean, it's absurd that some ppl are considering this alpha with the CURRENT contents superior to ArmA2, it's out of any possible logic. It has certainly good potential, but we're light years behind a complete game. These ppl are "blind" or they have no idea of how a finished game should looks like, no surprise that some publishers are selling crap for retail prices: until there's ppl that will buy it, without giving a "value" to a product, they gonna (try to) sell us any **** they wants.

Christ give it a rest wont you? We get it - you don't understand the question, move on. How many times you gonna say the same thing?

*On-topic*

ArmA 3 running ArmA 2 content performs better than ArmA 2.

[Masharra 10]

yea was generalising and exaggerating a bit there, but "general" point still stands.

Also using Arma 3 running Arma 2 content shows a that Arma 3 has no real content of its own. :)

[froggyluv 2130]

LoL -"Only a fool honks in a traffic jam!" ~Apoo.

If I thought a thread was stupid, common sense would keep me out it. Same as if I thought a game was bad and the Developers lying to me, I'd be gone like yesterday. :rolleyes:

That said, enjoying the Alpha quite a bit and pumped pretty hard for the future, especially content. Performance-wise I have no problems unless I try playing on my wife's mid tier laptop -which I don't.

[chortles 263]

ArmA 3 running ArmA 2 content performs better than ArmA 2.

That's what was meant, seemingly -- some people are preferring Arma 3/RV4 because in their opinion it's a better base and a better-built foundation than Arma 2/RV3 was.

Also using Arma 3 running Arma 2 content shows a that Arma 3 has no real content of its own. :)

Cue the "wait for beta" jokes. :p As it is, the dev "Khan" has mentioned that the Editor will later individual unit loadout editing, no ETA but it's a seemingly-confirmed-unless-retracted "thing that we know is set to show up later". :D

Rather amusing though -- Arma 2/OA are now basically content packs for Arma 3... excuse me if I joke that this is a rather interesting "DLC" model, buy the previous games and you can import their content into the newer games. :lol:

[WalkerDown 1]

Christ give it a rest wont you?

No, thanks. :)

*On-topic*

ArmA 3 running ArmA 2 content performs better than ArmA 2.

lol... and this proves exactly what i'm saying: A2 has contents, A3 doesn't have (almost) any (yet), you cannot compare the two. ;)

[Smurf 12]

No, thanks. :)

lol... and this proves exactly what i'm saying: A2 has contents, A3 doesn't have (almost) any (yet), you cannot compare the two. ;)

FFS!

Arma 3 Full won't have the same content as Arma 2 full, so you can't compare them either. Fuck logic!

Hint: This barely has anything to do with content.

[chortles 263]

Sounds like a comparison of the foundations deeming Arma 3 to already have the superior foundation and weighting the foundation more than the content.

[[evo] dan 79]

Sounds like a comparison of the foundations deeming Arma 3 to already have the superior foundation and weighting the foundation more than the content.

^this

Because at the moment there is not much content, and so we largely have to base it upon the foundations. Pretty much every member of my clan who has played A3, comes back with only 1 word, "slick", and so do I. It gets rid of the clunkyness of A2, I like the new animations and adjusting stance, I like the way the inventory is setup compared to the old one, the only thing I don't like so far is the helicopter flight model, but I know that is still changing.

AND

I am amazed it gives me just as many frames as A2, except in woods, despite the fact that my laptop has specs that are below the minimum for both games. Most places I get between 20 and 30fps which is more than playable for me. BIS have done some serious optimisations in order to do that. I hope they continue with this work.

[bad benson 1733]

you guys should stop trying to convince the guy that he's wrong. he just likes to bitch. let him bitch. if it makes him feel better.

[WalkerDown 1]

Sounds like a comparison of the foundations deeming Arma 3 to already have the superior foundation and weighting the foundation more than the content.

ArmA2 is a 4 years old game (and even more if we consider the main issues we're having today), talking exclusively about the engine during this years they have optimized it, and so today we have a better engine (notice: this is true for A2:AO as well, it's not just about A3)... but having a better engine (than 4 years ago) is someway obvious, unless you're a bad developer and you're regressing rather than progressing!

Today we have the same old engine, that has been optimized but maintaining the same core, but that's no way enough to be aligned to the modern standards (see the other threads about the optimization).

So comparing the product we have today, even if it evolved, with what we had 4 years ago, it cannot be considered a success.. it's like (to repeat the same example as some previous posts) build a car, improve only the wheel, and then saying (after years): here's a better car! ...yes, it's better, but after 4 years I wouldn't expect you to improve the wheel only, but the whole damn car starting from the engine.

---------- Post added at 20:09 ---------- Previous post was at 20:08 ----------

you guys should stop trying to convince the guy that he's wrong. he just likes to bitch. let him bitch. if it makes him feel better.

I agree.

[Flash Thunder 10]

Still much work to be done to be honest. Its stable and better looking in some regards but there are still many annoyances in the game.

But at this point the game is still in Alpha of course and when its finally at launch the game should be in a much more polished state.

In the end I still need to upgrade to a modern CPU.

[chortles 263]

Today we have the same old engine, that has been optimized but maintaining the same core, but that's no way enough to be aligned to the modern standards (see the other threads about the optimization).

So comparing the product we have today, even if it evolved, with what we had 4 years ago, it cannot be considered a success.. it's like (to repeat the same example as some previous posts) build a car, improve only the wheel, and then saying (after years): here's a better car! ...yes, it's better, but after 4 years I wouldn't expect you to improve the wheel only, but the whole damn car starting from the engine.

Admittedly the only reasonable 'excuses' that I have in mind re: this are all of the "damning with faint praise" sort. :p But I saw hints of this in the Steamworks announcement... that Arma 3 is somehow both "took longer than many games to develop (edging closer to Duke Nukem Forever-style Development Hell) and a rushed game" simultaneously...

[white 1]

Most likely not to you :)

I will explain eventhough i shouldn't: A3 Alpha in it's current state with the little content it has already runs better for me than any other ArmA title does, is more fun for me than any other ArmA title is, it looks better to me than any other ArmA title does and i'm enjoying this limited version more than any other ArmA title so yes this is for me the best ArmA game

someone here on the forum tested arma 2 content in arma 3 on the same spots with similar settings, and it performed worse. (that can be acceptable, but serves to disprove who says otherwise) considering arma 3 right now has way less content its expected to run better, but like arma 2, there was a big performance hit when the big island came about. well see then.

[metalcraze 290]

Yes ArmA3 performs worse than ArmA2. I also ran Chernarus with the same or at least approximated settings (setting HDR to low too) and there's FPS loss. It's especially visible in forests - in A2 FPS in them is better.

Stratis is less detailed than Chernarus (just compare how much grass each renders and how dense Chernarus forests are) so of course it will run "better".