Arma3: Metascore 73 | Spelunky: Metascore 91 | what the fuck?

[dale0404 5]

Not interested in metacritic, its bollox.

[nuxil 2]

Not interested in metacritic, its bollox.

i usually dont care about thouse scores myself, but i have to say. in this case.. its indeed bollox.

A game released without a campain. lack of content, vehicles with clone turrets. same uav on both side. same static weapons, gosh, and the list goes on.

To me. it looks like this person who wrote the review of the game is a fanboy without a objective eye.

Imo it should have received a score way below average.

Dont get me wrong. i like the armaverse. i just dont think aram3 was ready for released at the current state.

Edited October 2, 2013 by nuxil

[tpw 2315]

Not all reviews have been negative. This guy calls a spade a bloody shovel as far as software is concerned, and he gives Arma 3 9.5/10.

http://www.dedoimedo.com/games/arma3-first-review.html

[Bee8190 10]

My opinion? Not trying to be a di**khead here but the game in its current state should be grateful even for 5 from 10.

I do like the game and I am aware of its relative potential thanks to modders ( once again indeed ) but vanilla has never been the cutting edge nor ever felt finished, neither well polished. Giving it good score because modders will finish the needed detail and content is not fair; imo obviously.

As of current, everything in game is just too rough. From optics, content, zero immersion sounds, still wonky physx and ragdoll, m. textures, damage / hitpoint system to performance issues....the pool just massive, unfortunately.

On the other hand, arma is also one of the games that could easily reach 10/10 in its target market if it weren't for half assed attempts. I for one would like to enjoy the game in full rather sooner than in two years when as well another installment might be on its way.

[antoineflemming 14]

Surprisingly, most of the PC centric reviewers gave fair assessments. Pretty much all of them mentioned the Sandbox Element of this game that no other game has, as well as the longevity it will provide. The Graphics, etc. But of course, the complaints were all the same too. No campaign, short crappy missions, so-so sound design, and spotty performance (I still think more to do with the avg perception that this simulator should perform the same as your avg controller shooter, which is ridiculous.)

Well, performance is performance, regardless of the reasons why it performs a certain way.

---------- Post added at 22:24 ---------- Previous post was at 22:16 ----------

About the same really. As always those who enjoy the game mostly get on and enjoy it.

Those armchair developers/experts point out anything and everything that seems wrong to them, but is clearly the end of the game/series/BI Studio. The forum has seen all the threads - "there isnt enough content" / "weapon/vehicle/soldier xyz is missing" / "why isn't it using 2357459123 cores" / "why isn't it using all my 897563242 GB of RAM" / "my fps is terrible" / "BI should switch to engine xyz" etc etc - a million times before.

"The dogs bark, yet the caravan rolls on" - Marek S. quoting Sun Tsu.

Yes yes, merely pointing out that user scores on metacritic are bullshit. You can look at the aggregated review score, certainly, but even that is pretty messed up. I am chill, totally chill.

Got it. Oh, and the caps was meant to add extra emphasis, not to simulate shouting lol. I say Arma 3 deserves like a 7.5/10. It's pretty far along development wise, what is there is sufficient, but it really is like a phase 2 beta, and I say that because there's stuff that's just unfinished in the game, release content that is, things like the boonie hats with the same desert texture, the reaper masks, the open shemag that has messed up UVs, the khaki/tan shemagh that doesn't fit the head while the hiddenSelection-enabled olive shemagh is perfectly fine (except for no rvmat and low quality texture). And then there's the performance issue, which I really wish there was a solution to. But I think that given past Arma games, the published recommended settings really should have been more in-depth as well.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Well, performance is performance, regardless of the reasons why it performs a certain way.

By that rationale, we should demand 120 fps from FSX because performance is performance! Despite the fact that it's simulating hundreds of ai planes and thousands of sq miles, and persistent real world weather patterns.

If you try to put one and two together and you still come up with the conclusion that Arma 3 absolutely should be getting 60+ fps at all times without question, then you're failing at a 2 piece logical puzzle.

Comparing apples and oranges is only going to waste your time. Until you start comparing your apples to other apples, you're never going to be happy.

[roshnak 41]

I don't understand, was I supposed to be surprised that Spelunky was a good game?

[MavericK96 0]

By that rationale, we should demand 120 fps from FSX because performance is performance! Despite the fact that it's simulating hundreds of ai planes and thousands of sq miles, and persistent real world weather patterns.

If you try to put one and two together and you still come up with the conclusion that Arma 3 absolutely should be getting 60+ fps at all times without question, then you're failing at a 2 piece logical puzzle.

Comparing apples and oranges is only going to waste your time. Until you start comparing your apples to other apples, you're never going to be happy.

The problem with your argument is that regardless of what ArmA 3 is doing, regularly getting 25 FPS or less is unplayable. It may not be realistic to expect 60 FPS, but to deny that ArmA 3 had serious performance issues at times is grossly naive.

[Ezcoo 47]

I read some of the reviews (from every group: the ones with good, average and bad scores) and I think they were pretty objective and accurate actually. What also caught my attention was that almost every reviewer was pretty familiar with the series already, mentioning that they had played previous games of the series even quite a lot, and most of them were familiar with the importance of community (mods & missions) to the game. Haven't read the reviews of other games, but I don't really see any issue in those reviews.

I kind of like Arma 3 myself, but I don't play it almost at all because to me it's still unfinished product with severe lack of content in terms of both gameplay (eg. advanced MP missions like MSO and Warfare) and playable content, (eg. units, maps and objects), so I'd give it 5/10 now. But I'm sure that the score will keep getting better all the time, and after 2-3 years I'd probably give it 9/10 or 10/10. Just like A2, it's now better than ever, and I'd give it 10/10. Well, 9/10 otherwise but it has Chernarus so it has to get 10/10! :D

I was going to write here an analogy about Arma and good wines but apparently ProfTournesol has done it already :p

[antoineflemming 14]

By that rationale, we should demand 120 fps from FSX because performance is performance! Despite the fact that it's simulating hundreds of ai planes and thousands of sq miles, and persistent real world weather patterns.

If you try to put one and two together and you still come up with the conclusion that Arma 3 absolutely should be getting 60+ fps at all times without question, then you're failing at a 2 piece logical puzzle.

Comparing apples and oranges is only going to waste your time. Until you start comparing your apples to other apples, you're never going to be happy.

It's so funny how all you guys who kinda marginalize the performance issues always jump to extremes. No one is demanding 120 fps. Performance IS performance, as 120 fps is 120 fps. 60 fps is 60 fps. That's going to be smooth regardless of what game you play. 10 fps is 10 fps, and will be sluggish regardless of what game you play. THAT is what I mean by "performance is performance". The factors that affect performance change from game to game, but the frames per second pretty much feel the same regardless of what game you're player.

So, it's because of this that I say that there's nothing wrong with critiquing a game on it's performance. Because performance (as in what the game feels like at a certain FPS) won't feel different for one game as opposed to the other. The thing to remember, though, is that even when critiquing performance, graphical fidelity can balance that out. For Arma 3, not sure if that would help as it's really other things, and not just graphics, that impact performance, so you'd have to look at how the game runs with AI and complex missions as well. For games like Crysis, it'd maybe help as the performance is tied almost solely to graphics.

In case you still don't get it, I'll give you an example. Say I'm testing two games on a certain range of hardware, and I get X fps on game A and Y fps on game B, running the game in similar situations. A bunch of factors go into why I'm getting said fps. Not doing any kind of comparison between the games, I can still rate the game on the kind of performance I get in game A or game B. I'd rate the performance of a simple 2D shooter better than that of Arma 3. Why? Because that rating isn't relative to Arma 3's performance. It's not a comparison. It's an objective review of the game. No, that shooter wouldn't end up with a higher score than Arma 3 anyway, because it wouldn't have a lot of the other things that Arma 3 has. Where Arma 3 would maybe slump when it comes to performance, it'd make up for with graphics, realistic simulation, sound, lighting, sandbox capability, modding support, backwards compatibility, in-game editor, etc.

Oh, and finally, maybe you don't understand why I say even rate performance. Maybe it's not that important to you, or maybe you run every game great so it's not something you consider. But it's important because when all is said and done, people want to be able to play a game. Doesn't matter how good the graphics are, how good the sound is, how much they can mod. If they can't actually play the game, then they'll move on to another game that they can play, or they will get new hardware so that they can play the game. Performance is probably the most important factor into whether or not a game is playable.

So, if a game is rated on spotty performance, it's not because they think it should run at 120 fps. It's that the game on their hardware or range of hardware experiences spotty performance. Period. Because spotty performance is spotty performance. Just like great performance is great performance. That spotty performance may actually be relatively good for Arma 3, but it's still spotty performance. Dog food may taste better than dog crap, but it's still dog food. 20 fps may be relative good and expected for Arma 3 but it's still 20 frames per second (seconds don't change depending on the game. A second is a second. X fps will still be X fps regardless of the game). Doesn't matter if there are justifiable, reasonable explanations for it.

[GottyPlays 10]

Well, frankly i have seen reviews on this game that probably the writers did not even try, i've read that "with the integration of steam workshop you can easily install MODS created by the awesome community"

Since when? lol i have to find that one..

[Ash712 1]

#1. You should judge games by your own experience/opinion of it, and not the what masses say ;)

#2. Maybe because ArmA 3 is still basically in BETA (contrary to being branded as the "release version"), as its missing the SP campaign and other features still etc..

^*I'm not hate'n, but that's the real truth of the situation if you can see beyond PR speak*

[bad benson 1733]

for me the worst part is that most of MP is not really playable at the moment. i know that some people say it's due to bad scripting but that's just not true if you compare it to arma 2. a lot of missions that run well in arma 2 run horribly in arma 3. same methods that worked once don't work anymore because the game somehow is much more demanding in MP when it comes to AI or object count. some people go way to easy on the game and i don't mean they should hate on it but finding excuses for obvious fuck ups is just ignoring reality.

i was actually surprised by some reviews and i think that's due to the reviewers being arma players to a certain extent. my theory is that some people, who unreasonably defend the game at any opportunity, don't actually play it fully. i'd think it's all fine too, if i would just write some scripts and fool around in the editor. but really going out there and playing MP in big games is just not fun with 15 fps. not because it's a number on a chart but because it's fucking hard to aim with 15 fps ;)

the most frustrating part is the unused potential in the series. and that over years. as i always say. this game would be mind blowing, if BI would get more organized and had the courage to clean it up severely. i don't blame them for all of it. it's huge task in some regards. although in others, not so much. that's why my feelings about it are always 50/50. i hope they will go all the way some day.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

I'm seeing you guys talk about 10-25 fps issues. And I'll agree, if performance is that bad for you in a bottlenecked way, It's not good at all. I may have been hasty without gathering your guys' experiencees. But from most of the people I see that bitch about it, they're generally complaining about performance around 35-45 fps, which is exactly the kind of playable performance I've been enjoying in Arma 2 for years.

When I came over to Arma 3, I got better performance than A2. And the servers I frequent (The ones I have a hand in setting up directly) don't have any issues at all. For instance, I regularly play on the OFPS.net server that sits full most days running benny's latest. (so tons of vehicles, and shit tons of AI) And it's performance has always been pretty rock solid unless the rounds bleed into the 6-7 hour range.

So yeah, if you guys are getting 10-25 fps, I really do feel sorry for you guys, and I hope it gets fixed for you soon. But if anyone is bitching because they want their solid v-synced 60 fps (which is by far the most common from my perspective), I stand by everything I've said.

[antoineflemming 14]

I'm seeing you guys talk about 10-25 fps issues. And I'll agree, if performance is that bad for you in a bottlenecked way, It's not good at all. I may have been hasty without gathering your guys' experiencees. But from most of the people I see that bitch about it, they're generally complaining about performance around 35-45 fps, which is exactly the kind of playable performance I've been enjoying in Arma 2 for years.

When I came over to Arma 3, I got better performance than A2. And the servers I frequent (The ones I have a hand in setting up directly) don't have any issues at all. For instance, I regularly play on the OFPS.net server that sits full most days running benny's latest. (so tons of vehicles, and shit tons of AI) And it's performance has always been pretty rock solid unless the rounds bleed into the 6-7 hour range.

So yeah, if you guys are getting 10-25 fps, I really do feel sorry for you guys, and I hope it gets fixed for you soon. But if anyone is bitching because they want their solid v-synced 60 fps (which is by far the most common from my perspective), I stand by everything I've said.

Wait, you mean 30 - 45 FPS not on low or standard?

[MavericK96 0]

I was playing a fairly straightforward mission earlier and I was getting dips below 20 FPS, regardless of video settings. So yeah, it's not "bitching/whining" about 40+ FPS, it's a serious issue for a lot of people that can make the game unplayable at times.

[Harbinger2456 10]

No one gives a fuck about user scores.

I think I see the problem...

[dunedain 48]

I think I see the problem...

Nope, user scores are even worst than game reviewers'. Just look at Company of Heroes 2, it got wrecked by an angry mob of Russians...

[dmarkwick 261]

A large portion of user scores will tend toward 0 or 10, with not much in between :)

[Dwarden 1125]

i'm very saddened by the lowest score on the MC being QuarterToThree which really surprised me ...

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

It's not over yet. Arma 3 can still win this.

[Cindy 10]

i'm very saddened by the lowest score on the MC being QuarterToThree which really surprised me ...

Im not surprised. And i really don´t get it when you people that work in the game industry decides to make a futuristic war in greece, thats like... what?

The servers are gaping empty already. The lack of content... Its not Arma...

The audience wants Iraq packed with vehicles and weapons, quantity over quality (in armas case). We want to create scenarios that we can relate to.

We want to stationary a big fleet with hangar ships and submarines in the persian gulf and play the war we see on TV!

The coalition have to work itself inland while the opfor defends (with ied´s and clever ambushes).

The coalition could make some advantage to bomb a powerplant to cut the power for opfor (who has lack of nightvision etc)

The opfor could use the civilian to make it harder for coalition to reach its goal.

And on and on...

You have the tools, but you decide to make futuristic greece with no content at all...

FPDR

*edit*

I have to give you that the engine seems very polished and the customizable infantry thing is really good.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Cindy

[Cathrynn 10]

Im not surprised. And i really don´t get it when you people that work in the game industry decides to make a futuristic war in greece, thats like... what?

The servers are gaping empty already. The lack of content... Its not Arma...

The audience wants Iraq packed with vehicles and weapons, quantity over quality (in armas case). We want to create scenarios that we can relate to.

We want to stationary a big fleet with hangar ships and submarines in the persian gulf and play the war we see on TV!

The coalition have to work itself inland while the opfor defends (with ied´s and clever ambushes).

The coalition could make some advantage to bomb a powerplant to cut the power for opfor (who has lack of nightvision etc)

The opfor could use the civilian to make it harder for coalition to reach its goal.

And on and on...

You have the tools, but you decide to make futuristic greece with no content at all...

FPDR

*edit*

I have to give you that the engine seems very polished and the customizable infantry thing is really good.

Er, no... I for one do not want quantity over quality: I would like - and this applies to all games - stability first and foremost, then quality (which ties in with stability), followed by assets to play with as things progress and mature. War is war, the land it's fought on irrelevant, what's important is how the simulation/game deliver's in terms of timing, tension and gameplay - Arma 3 does these things in spades!

[dunedain 48]

i'm very saddened by the lowest score on the MC being QuarterToThree which really surprised me ...

Well apparently Arma 3 still got twice the score he gave Company of Heroes 2 and Total War Rome 2. He rated Sleeping Dogs and Max Payne 3, the same as Arma 3, and gave a perfect score to Brutal Legend and Saint Row IV... :j:

[krycek 349]

Nope, user scores are even worst than game reviewers'. Just look at Company of Heroes 2, it got wrecked by an angry mob of Russians...

CoH2 was a mess and had low ratings before the angry mob of russians stepped on it.No amount of patching will save that game because it's broken at it's core(gameplay,engine).This was also reflected in Rome 2 with dumbified gameplay.

@Cindy,A3 setting is actually a plus for me,it's not Chernarus but I'm glad they didn't jumped on Iraq/'stan theme again.