No Bipods or ability to carry two rifles - Are you kidding me!?

[metalcraze 290]

There's some kind of realism in BF3 too. In fact in some regards more than in ArmA3. Like loadouts, movement and suppression. And bipods too, which according to people in this thread are exclusive only to simulators whatever that may be.

[clydefrog 3]

There's some kind of realism in BF3 too. In fact in some regards more than in ArmA3. Like loadouts, movement and suppression. And bipods too, which according to people in this thread are exclusive only to simulators whatever that may be.

Yep, add to that more realistic sound, more realistic weapons, more realistic vehicles, climbing over obstacles, damage, physics and probably quite a few other things. Obviously Arma has some things that are more realistic than BF3 too.

Edited September 15, 2013 by clydefrog

[marcai 1]

Don't forget procedural destruction for buildings. Would *love* to see that.

[CaptianDumbo 10]

BIS have also said it is a combined arms simulator. But we shouldn't use the excuses to go play VBS if you want realism or certain features because who has the money for them and all there freinds to afford that?

Since when has saying Arma could learn from VBS been a bad thing? The FT shows people want things similar to VBS.

Funny because I never mentioned anything about VBS and I have no idea what your talking about. I simply stated my observation that BIS said that Arma 3 was going to be a "military sandbox" and not a simulator anymore, but I still think Arma 3 could be considered a simulator (in my personal opinion).