Arma 2 vs Arma 3 release

[paecmaker 23]

So this is not a "arma 3 sucks" thread. Instead I am actually curious about how the Arma 3 release is compared to the Arma 2 one.

When I found Arma 2 the game had already been released for over a year so I guess I missed the worst bugs.

However, I have heard some horror stories about Arma 2 release about the game being almost unplayable(even by hardcore arma fans standard) and so on. Arma 3 on the other hand, personally I have had no problem with Arma 3 glitches and my pc can run the game mostly good(a little stuttering in certain places in Altis).

So what are your thoughts?

[Tonci87 163]

Stability:

Arma 3 wins hands down.

The Arma 2 Release (at least in Germany) was full of Bugs, instable, and the MP was laggy as hell. The Campaign was almost unplayable.

Content:

Missions+Campaign:

Well Arma 2 at least had a campaign... but actually I prefer if BIS takes the time to make a good campaign so I´m OK with the decision to postpone the campaign release.

The Showcase Missions in Arma 3 are pretty mediocre and I sincerely hope that they are not representative of how the campaign will be. Arma 2s SP Missions were much better (exept for freedom fighters, that one is still full of bugs).

Firing Drill Missions are a nice thing to try out, but nothing with real replayability or value.

Map:

Both Chernarus and Altis are Masterpieces. But I think that Chernaruss had a very heavy impact on performance, especially in Chernogorsk. Altis seems to run much smooter compared to that.

Weapons:

Arma 3 Weapons are of high quality and come with decent sounds. All Factions have their own Standard rifle. The Weapon count is still a bit low though and the fact that most weapons are fictional and come with fantasy names leaves a sour taste. Some Weapons are shared by all factions wich is quite frankly unacceptable.

Arma 2 had all the gear you would expect from USMC, Russian and Ex-Soviet Block forces.

Vehicles:

This is where Arma 2 really shines. Some vehicles were recycled from A1 but they were up to Arma 2 standards and therefore OK. Arma 2 had 21 fully unique military land vehicles (not counting all the other stuff and all the variants) while those few vehicles in Arma 3 even share some assets (turrets) or simply are copy-pasted (drones, SDVs etc.). In fact BF4 has more unique vehicles than Arma. IMHO this makes the old selling point "Arma has everything you could dream off" invalid. Arma 2 has vehicles for almost every need and situation, Arma 3 doesn´t (e.g. Cargo planes, planes in general, lots of other stuff)

The fact that they went for fantasy names makes it a little bit harder to relate to them.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Tonci87

[NeMeSiS 11]

ArmA3 is more stable and runs a lot better compared to the release version of ArmA2, though ArmA2 had a lot more content at release. With no campaign and a lot less vehicles, weapons and units the ArmA3 release is not as impressive as the ArmA2 one.

EDIT: Ninja'd

[instagoat 133]

Arma 2 was terrible.

The performance was bad, the AI was massively overpowered (spotting you through vegetation, buildings and solid terrain at 500 meters) and then got nerfed massively, of the campaign missions there was not a single one that wasn't in some way broken, some weren't fixed until now because of the intensity of the errors (Mortars in Manhattan, loose ends in the final mission.). Tons of content in game, a large amount of it ported from the abandoned game2 project, the rest from Armed Assault or OFP. High Command didn't work, the medical system was broken, and a lot of gameplay design choices were dubious or plain bad (Razor Team's vulnerability to fire and instant mission failure when one of them died, as an example.), voice acting and general sound design was not up to scratch (either completely overacted or underacted, often very out of character, and often actually without any semblance of acting.).

Arma 3 is -vastly- better than Arma 2 in every regard. None of the vehicles in Arma 2 are up to the standard of Arma 3. None of them had realistic gunsights (Those were not around until OA, and even then they were hit and miss.), there was no gun zeroing/rangefinding in general, no working fog, no working material penetration aside from the handful of fences that appeared to be configured. The AI was completely inept with vehicles, and the new CQB AI was also nowhere near where it was when OA was released, not even mentioning todays standard.

Arma 2 was a victim of overambitiousness. Like all previous games, it took the great OFP concept and nearly pancaked it with a half finished game.

[NeuroFunker 11]

about less weapon count... Don't forget, that arma 2 had same weapons, with diferent attachments. 1x ak-74 kobra, 1x ak-74 pso, 1x ak-74 ironsight, ak-74gp with 3x different scopes varians, ak-74s + same 3xwith ak-74s, - in arma 3 all that can be used on a single weapon, so thats already 6x "less" weapons". All the same goes with other weapons. So russians have akm, akms, ak-74, ak-74s, 1xaksu, 1xaksu kobra silencer, ak-107 with same amount of modifications. 1xSvd 1xksvk, 1x rpk-74 1xpkm and 1xpkp. + 1xmakarov. 1xrpg, 1xmetis About 13 weapons for russians and 2 other same factions. If you put it that way, thats not really much.

Now arma 3 opfor: 1x katiba, 1x katiba gp, 1x trg20+1xtrg20gp 1xtrg21+1xtrg21 gp 1xmk18, 1x zafir, 1xrpg, 1x large cal sniper 1xtitan compact 1xtitan (both sides share the same) 1x rook. about 11 opfor only weapons + 2 all forces weapons. 13x opfor weapons at arma 2 release, and 11x arma 3 opfor weapons at release.

At least opfor looks matched to me in therms weaponry.

[Bee8190 10]

I didn't buy arma 2 right at release so can't really comment but I remember MP was still unplayable due to units warping like hell and massive, 2 minute long desync on near every server, which as I experienced got ported to arma 3 over again. Rocks are still glitchy and game feels very unfinished with some occasional performance hiccups ( in MP only really though ) but A3 release must be considerably better than what any other arma was.

[Ranwer135 308]

But I'd probably prefer both anyway. But Arma 3 is too.....Awesome! If you have Arma 3 and Arma 2: Combined Operations, you can import everything from arma 2 into Arma 3! I'd give ArmA 3 almost 100000/100000, the best game today and forever... ;)

[Smurf 12]

A2 has more things. Way more.

A3 is a better plataform. And is still WIP, going uphill.

[Ranwer135 308]

A2 has more things. Way more.

A3 is a better plataform. And is still WIP, going uphill.

Smurf, please read my first post on this thread. You can import arma 2 stuff in arma 3 which makes ArmA 3 the best game ever made today.

[-Coulum- 35]

But I'd probably prefer both anyway. But Arma 3 is too.....Awesome! If you have Arma 3 and Arma 2: Combined Operations, you can import everything from arma 2 into Arma 3! I'd give ArmA 3 almost 100000/100000, the best game today and forever...

Hehe is 100000/100000 any better than 10/10?:) I think there are problems associated to just bring arma 2 units directly into a3. I personally am a bit OCD about certain thing and it would really bug me that the a2 weapons all have their attachments glued on while a3 weapon are all modular. and that's just one of the many things that have to be changed for arma 2 stuff to fully be on par with arma 3 stuff. But I am still crossing my fingers for this.

Wasn't here for a2 release but from what I have read in reviews it was really bad. But I was here for OA release and even comparing OA to arma 3 I have have to give it to arma 3 in terms of what was a better game.

Only things I can think of that OA+A2 had on A3 are:

• content
  
• missions/campaigns (which sucked the big one anyway)
  
• Wounding effects and treatments
  
• Turnspeed limitations which were poorly implemented - ie broken
  

On the other hand Arma 3 has many improvements

• Way better map - more detail and more size
  
• Improved MP (remember all that warping and choppiness we used to have in OA)
  
• Improved ai
  
• • Spotting distances
    
    
  • Aiming accuracy
    
    
  • Turn speeds
    
    
  • Cover usage (Remember befoe patch 1.59 when ai just couldn't use cover)
    
    
  • 
    

  [*]New stance adjustments system - still could use polish imo but already it is giving me loads more options in combat

  [*]Weapon sway and breathing

  [*]Proper holographic sights

  [*]Tactical pace

  [*]Smoother animations and movement

  [*]Back up sights

  [*]proper zeroing of grenade launchers

  [*]Underwater combat - useless to me but still cool

  [*]Extremely improved bullet penetration system

  [*]weapon attachments

  [*]A much more fleshed out inventory system

  [*]better stamina effects - weight actually plays a factor albeit not a realistic one - but OA weight meant nothing

  [*]Bleeding

  [*]uniform customization

  [*]Weapon customization

  [*]Better effects

  [*]Better Sound

  [*]Better Performance overall (not so much in high ai counts)

  [*]Physics (I know we still have moon gravity but we also have ragdolls)

  [*]And then of course there is all the graphical improvements that I don't really care that much for

  [*]

And I am probably still forgetting things. I am a Gameplay beats content any day of the week for me.

No doubt arma 3 carries over many of the ugly problems in A2 and OA, and not all the improvements are perfected but they are still step forward.

The latest modded version of A2:CO might compete with Arma 3 (Content, JSRS, Blascore, ACE, ACRE, ASR, TPW certainly blow Arma 3 away in several aspects, but even then arma 3 boasts some things modded CO can't such as the stances, the weapon handling, the performance and stability etc.). But in no way does A2 and even OA release even come close to Arma 3 release. I mean A2 didn't even have thermals.

Edited October 7, 2013 by -Coulum-

[Sealife 22]

Not much difference really and you can throw arma 1 in there too .

Basically each release looks stunning but runs like shit , gradually more options are added to degrade the quality and the game becomes stable for all

But not equally as stunning , but thats pc gaming min and rec specs

The biggest change between A3 and A2 is cell size on the large terrain and of course physx , I believe A3 will take a long time to stabilise for the average pc if ever .

In terms of content there is already 100s of addons and im not sure many play with BIS default in any iteration for long do they ?

[dale0404 5]

I made this video just after Arma 2 got released in Germany:

Things have improved since then but the A2 release was a complete fuck up due to having to release the game without it being ready.

A3 on the other hand is a cakewalk compared.

Before people say, hold on the game got released in June 2009, I will quote this from the Wikipedia page:

ARMA 2 (stylized as ARMA II)[N 1] is a military simulation video game for Microsoft Windows, developed by Bohemia Interactive Studio. It is the official sequel to the Operation Flashpoint-series following its predecessor, ARMA: Armed Assault (ARMA: Combat Operations in North America), and preceding ARMA 3. ARMA 2 saw a limited release in May 2009, and a wide release from June 2009 through July 2009.

Edited October 7, 2013 by dale0404

[Tonci87 163]

about less weapon count... Don't forget, that arma 2 had same weapons, with diferent attachments. 1x ak-74 kobra, 1x ak-74 pso, 1x ak-74 ironsight, ak-74gp with 3x different scopes varians, ak-74s + same 3xwith ak-74s, - in arma 3 all that can be used on a single weapon, so thats already 6x "less" weapons". All the same goes with other weapons. So russians have akm, akms, ak-74, ak-74s, 1xaksu, 1xaksu kobra silencer, ak-107 with same amount of modifications. 1xSvd 1xksvk, 1x rpk-74 1xpkm and 1xpkp. + 1xmakarov. 1xrpg, 1xmetis About 13 weapons for russians and 2 other same factions. If you put it that way, thats not really much.

Now arma 3 opfor: 1x katiba, 1x katiba gp, 1x trg20+1xtrg20gp 1xtrg21+1xtrg21 gp 1xmk18, 1x zafir, 1xrpg, 1x large cal sniper 1xtitan compact 1xtitan (both sides share the same) 1x rook. about 11 opfor only weapons + 2 all forces weapons. 13x opfor weapons at arma 2 release, and 11x arma 3 opfor weapons at release.

At least opfor looks matched to me in therms weaponry.

You forgot some:

Opfor had:

AK-47 and variants

AK-74 and Variants

AK-107 and Variants

SVD in two variants

KSVK

Bison

Vintorez

RPK

PKM

PKP

Makarov

Metis

RPG-7

Saiga

RPG-18

and I´m sure I forgot something.

That makes at least 15 unique Base Weapons.

Arma 3 Opfor has:

Katiba

RPG

Zafir

the LMG

The Lynx

Rook

and I think another one

That makes 6 or 7 unique base weapons for OPFOR alone. Arma 2 Blufor had even more stuff.

What I´m trying to say is that every faction in Arma 2 had it´s own unique assets that made every faction different to play. Arma 3s factions basically mirror each other, let´s hope the PvP crowd is happy now.

But I agree that Arma 3 has huge potential. Is is the most stable released version of the Arma Engine so far. I just wished that they would support AiA more actively.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Tonci87

[paecmaker 23]

I made this video just after Arma 2 got released in Germany:

Things have improved since then but the A2 release was a complete fuck up due to having to release the game without it being ready.

A3 on the other hand is a cakewalk compared.

Before people say, hold on the game got released in June 2009, I will quote this from the Wikipedia page:

wow, that choppyness.

[NeuroFunker 11]

You forgot some:

Opfor had:

AK-47 and variants

AK-74 and Variants

AK-107 and Variants

SVD in two variants

KSVK

Bison

Vintorez

RPK

PKM

PKP

Makarov

Metis

RPG-7

Saiga

RPG-18

and I´m sure I forgot something.

That makes at least 15 unique Base Weapons.

Arma 3 Opfor has:

Katiba

RPG

Zafir

the LMG

The Lynx

Rook

and I think another one

That makes 6 or 7 unique base weapons for OPFOR alone. Arma 2 Blufor had even more stuff.

What I´m trying to say is that every faction in Arma 2 had it´s own unique assets that made every faction different to play. Arma 3s factions basically mirror each other, let´s hope the PvP crowd is happy now.

But I agree that Arma 3 has huge potential. Is is the most stable released version of the Arma Engine so far. I just wished that they would support AiA more actively.

ah damn right, how could i forget about my all time favorite weapon, from OFP BW CTI times: Vintorez! :)

[Azzur33 1]

One big difference between A2 and A3 has been the atmosphere, of course. Gloomy (but beautiful) "post-Soviet" Chernarus with high grass (everywhere!) and big forests, against sunny open mediterranean Altis.

All the AK's, UAZ's and the old US-RUS conflict suited well in Chernarus, but not in Altis.

So ...future setting and Iran as OPFOR .. ok. But I still missed some of that good old "rusty" and "dirty" feeling of the vehicles and weapons I've been used to since OFP. All the new clean and shiny stuff from the future didn't feel the same. And the iranians looked like aliens.

But the quality of the units and vehicles is much better in A3 (except that Horrible Hatchback), AI is better, movement is better, everything just seems more solid in A3 than in A2. Performance is ok, can't really compare because the hardware has changed. Stability has been very good. A1 was crashing a lot, A2 sometimes, A3 hardly ever (except the recent MP issue with physx).

A3 didn't make A2 obsolete, which A2 pretty much did to A1, A2 with OA and additional stuff is still looking great and working well and has it's own atmosphere.

A2CO still has a lot of value. And that is not a bad thing. But I do find myself playing A3 (in SP) more than A2.

[NeuroFunker 11]

lately i can't find myself, playing arma 2 anymore. The game feels outdated, clunky. I did enjoy arma 2 for many years, but now when arma 3 is here, this is the new arma for me.

[instagoat 133]

The different factions in Arma 3 are doctrinally different, I dunno where people get the Idea that all factions are "identical".

The only weapons on all sides that really -are- identical are the Mini Spike missiles (ie, the Titan) and the statics, but aside from that, all factions have their own plus and minus factors.

In A2 everybody had functionally identical MMGs, Opfor had no LMG. In A3, there currently are no MMGs (which is good, in my opinion, because we need new animation sets for carrying them. I'd bite my keyboard if I find someone firing an M240 from the shoulder again in this game.), and all factions have their own SAWs with their own distinct design philosophies. Which results in them working differently. Nato also has definitely the advantage in grenade launcher volumne because they use 3GLs. They are not equipped by default with the 3-round enbloc clips, but they are ingame. So you have 3 HE grenades in the tube you can fire as quickly as you can pull the trigger. Two of those per squad and you have a pretty badass volumne of fire.

Nato has MBTs with infantry carrying space and a super-heavy APC. Opfor has a dedicated MBT adhering to classical redfor doctrine, with a heavily armed and lightly armored IFV for transporting the infantry. Blufor recon (AMV) is cannon armed, opfor recon (Marid) has a lighter build and uses an RCWS instead. Granted, the weapons are switched around for those, but you have to keep in mind that the gun on the AMV is different than that on the Kamysh. The Kamysh also can hunt tanks, the AMV can't since it has no missiles.

All factions have dedicated weapons fitting a specialized role. The vehicles they use are functionally and doctrinally MUCH more diverse than they ever were in Arma 2 or even OFP.

[mistyronin 1181]

lately i can't find myself, playing arma 2 anymore. The game feels outdated, clunky. I did enjoy arma 2 for many years, but now when arma 3 is here, this is the new arma for me.

I feel the same, there are so many improvements in gameplay that makes impossible for me to play A2. From the diff stances, the helicopters rough landings ( in A2 they seem made of glass ), the smooth movement, the possibility to dive... And not to talk to the appearance, Chernarus seems now a really sad country with a permanent grim light.

Though I miss some of the content in A2, some kind of AK, the Osprey, Huey, etc.

[Azzur33 1]

lately i can't find myself, playing arma 2 anymore. The game feels outdated, clunky. I did enjoy arma 2 for many years, but now when arma 3 is here, this is the new arma for me.

I do miss a lot of the A3 features when playing A2. I hope the Big mods will come to A3 too, I'd like to see some WW2/80's/90's/early 2000 stuff with A3 for sure.

After that, A3 would definitely be the One and Only Arma for me.

[Tonci87 163]

The different factions in Arma 3 are doctrinally different, I dunno where people get the Idea that all factions are "identical".

The only weapons on all sides that really -are- identical are the Mini Spike missiles (ie, the Titan) and the statics, but aside from that, all factions have their own plus and minus factors.

In A2 everybody had functionally identical MMGs, Opfor had no LMG. In A3, there currently are no MMGs (which is good, in my opinion, because we need new animation sets for carrying them. I'd bite my keyboard if I find someone firing an M240 from the shoulder again in this game.), and all factions have their own SAWs with their own distinct design philosophies. Which results in them working differently. Nato also has definitely the advantage in grenade launcher volumne because they use 3GLs. They are not equipped by default with the 3-round enbloc clips, but they are ingame. So you have 3 HE grenades in the tube you can fire as quickly as you can pull the trigger. Two of those per squad and you have a pretty badass volumne of fire.

Nato has MBTs with infantry carrying space and a super-heavy APC. Opfor has a dedicated MBT adhering to classical redfor doctrine, with a heavily armed and lightly armored IFV for transporting the infantry. Blufor recon (AMV) is cannon armed, opfor recon (Marid) has a lighter build and uses an RCWS instead. Granted, the weapons are switched around for those, but you have to keep in mind that the gun on the AMV is different than that on the Kamysh. The Kamysh also can hunt tanks, the AMV can't since it has no missiles.

All factions have dedicated weapons fitting a specialized role. The vehicles they use are functionally and doctrinally MUCH more diverse than they ever were in Arma 2 or even OFP.

Opfor had the RPK. Don´t you forget one of my favourite Weapons^^.

The 3GL Launcher don´t count since their functionality isn´t in the game and we don´t know if it ever will.

And I ttally agree on new animations for MMGs. They shouldn´t be fired from the shoulder like all the other stuff. Hipfire without the ability to use sights or Weapon rest.

[instagoat 133]

Opfor had the RPK. Don´t you forget one of my favourite Weapons^^.

The 3GL Launcher don´t count since their functionality isn´t in the game and we don´t know if it ever will.

And I ttally agree on new animations for MMGs. They shouldn´t be fired from the shoulder like all the other stuff. Hipfire without the ability to use sights or Weapon rest.

The 3GL is fully functional ingame. It has been fully functional since the release of the alpha. The classname for the magazine is "3Rnd_HE_Grenade_shell". 3 rounders are available for all smoke and flare versions too.

[metalcraze 290]

[*]Better Sound

Wrong. ArmA2 had objects occluding sound. There's no sound occlusion in ArmA3 whatsoever. You can have a whole town between you and an enemy tank and still hear it making it impossible for any vehicles to sneak around using clusters of objects.

Oh hey but ArmA3 got stereo sounds in 1st person... where you still hear gunshot echo inside buildings. What an improvement.

Improved ai

Really? Let's see

ArmA2

- AI learned how to use cover and also bounding overwatch

- AI got improved pathfinding and killzone avoidance as well as having it calculated on multi cores

ArmA3

- AI rotates around faster

That's one massive improvement in 3 years. Maybe in another 30 they will start entering houses for cover.

The 3GL is fully functional ingame. It has been fully functional since the release of the alpha. The classname for the magazine is "3Rnd_HE_Grenade_shell". 3 rounders are available for all smoke and flare versions too.

Except those rounds are invisible and the soldier inserts them into UGL by moving his empty hand through the solid piece of metal.

Edited October 7, 2013 by metalcraze

[Tonci87 163]

The 3GL is fully functional ingame. It has been fully functional since the release of the alpha. The classname for the magazine is "3Rnd_HE_Grenade_shell". 3 rounders are available for all smoke and flare versions too.

Wait what? Does that mean that we can fire 3 Grenades directly after each other without reloading after each shot?

[-Coulum- 35]

Really? Let's see

ArmA2

- AI learned how to use cover and also bounding overwatch

- AI got improved pathfinding and killzone avoidance as well as having it calculated on multi cores

ArmA3

- AI rotates around faster

That's one massive improvement in 3 years. Maybe in another 30 they will start entering houses for cover

Remember I am talking OA here and others are talking A2 1.0. As far as I remember the ai was dead awful at using cover before 1.59 simple as that. They aren't much better now and maybe post 1.59 ai are better but that's not where the comparison is being made.

Ai spotting is massively improved. Before you could be running in circles firing your gun into the air at 200 m and they wouldn't see you. Then you hit one and they instantly blow you away. A3 is a bit more balanced than that - by no means perfect but an improvement. I will also add that the way ai accuracy is effected by setskill is much better than it was in a2 if your interested in under the hood stuff and possibly modding ai skills.

I never noticed any killzone avoidance in arma 2 (ai seemed to walk into the door with three dead budies by it just fine).

As for multicores I don't know the details but I will agree that the ai seem to cause more performance issues in arma 3. But I still believe that A3 ai are better than OA original release and I can therefore only assume better than A2 release.

Bounding over-watch was nice at times but painful at others. and arma 3 ai do a loose and careless form of it anyhow.

CQB in OA was downright laughable when it came to ai. They may still be dumb but at least they are snails any more.

And yes the time it took was ridiculous - but its still an improvement none the less.

As far as sound goes I think arma 3 is pathetic compared to Arma 2 mods. I am not sure about occlusion but what I have noticed is that I am actually able to use sound to locate where an enemy is at close range now. In arma 2 I was not. Improvement in my books. If it not in yours, fine take it off the list, there is still a ton of other positive improvements in arma 3.