Arma 3 compared to Arma 2

[SFsoldier 10]

Hi fellow Arma fans. I'm a big fan of the whole series and really enjoyed Operation Flashpoint. I still play Arma 1 sometimes, Arma 2 is one of my favourite games and I just got Arma 3.

Comparing Arma 2 and 3 I find Arma 3 is quite a lot different from 1 and 2. This thread is for people to comment on differences between Arma 1, 2 and 3 and how they like or dislike them.

My first impressions of Arma 1 and Arma 2 were wow this is absolutely incredible. First impressions of Arma 3 were not as favourable. Good frame rate and very smooth on my system but the combat not so impressed.

1 The crosshair is not as good or useful as A1 and 2.

2 Using a scope on a rifle it wobbles around far too much. I can hold a rifle scope much more steady than that in real life.

3 The grenade launcher is hard to aim and use.

4 The blood and wound effects are not as extensive or realistic as A1 and A2. I think A1 has the best blood and wound effects.

5 The graphics look a bit plain and not as interesting as A2 which has great post process effects which seem to be lacking in A3.

6 Some of the vehicles and aircraft are made up.

7 No campaign on release.

8 Combat feels more arcade console style.

The good.

1 Runs well on my system with good fluid frame rate.

2 Good sound effects.

3 Huge environments.

I just got Arma 3 recently and those are just my first impressions. Will comment more when I get to know the game better. I know Arma 1 and 2 very well and I think those are absolutely incredible. I know a lot of people like Arma 3 better than 2 but I'm not so sure. Different yes. Better? I suppose that is a matter of opinion.

Edited October 26, 2013 by SFsoldier

[mistyronin 1181]

There are dozens of threads in this forums about that. I do believe that if every new A3 player opens a new one the forum is gonna be flooded.

[instagoat 133]

Literally -none- of the vehicles are made up. Fine, the ghosthawk is based on an interpretation of an aircraft the public only has seen a wreck of, but that's it.

The rest of your points have been adressed so many times over, I´m getting nauseous at the incessant repetition that people seem to find necessary. The scope doesn't wobble too much. Shooting is easy in this game, what is the problem? In fact, the shake isn't big enough under certain circumstances.

"Combat feels arcade console style" <- wat? Are we playing the same game? Let me guess, it's "arcadey" because you can move now, and use cover, and equip gear and attachments, etc?

Also, what part about the grenade launcher is hard to use? Set it to range, estimate distance of enemy from that range, holdover, shoot, pop. On target, every single time. Range setting like this was not in Arma 2, in fact in no arma game before. By the way, set the range zeroing with pg up and down.

So, yeh. Idk, I don't get you.

[chortles 263]

There are made-up craft, but the Mi-48 and Ghosthawk designs are both derived from real-world "modern" (2013) aircraft.

[ProfTournesol 956]

8 Combat feels more arcade console style.

I disagree, in fact i feel it's much better.

[progamer 14]

There are dozens of threads in this forums about that. I do believe that if every new A3 player opens a new one the forum is gonna be flooded.

As evident with things like the CiA letter, the developers still care a lot about making the game realistic. Though things take time to fix and change, they are a smaller dev team than most and the game will be supported for around 5 years.

[metalcraze 290]

Nah the differences are even simpler than that:

ArmA2 was a labor of passion. The amount of features in it proves BIS wanted to make a giant quality leap from A1.

ArmA3 is just a quick cash in. Which is also proven by the "campaign" episode 1. There's not a single new feature and a ton missing.

[SFsoldier 10]

Those are the first impressions of Arma 3 from a very experienced Flashpoint, Arma 1 and 2 player. No need to get snooty because you disagree. The scope wobbles far too much for me it is ridiculous. As I said I can hold a real rifle in real life much more steady than that. You like Arma 3 fair enough I'm not sure I like it.

I'll play it some more but the lack of realistic blood and wounds are turning me off. A1 and A2 good but A3 you shoot a guy in the head and there's not a mark or anything. Pretty stupid. Would like to see realistic combat with realistic wounds.

---------- Post added at 18:16 ---------- Previous post was at 18:14 ----------

Nah the differences are even simpler than that:

ArmA2 was a labor of passion. The amount of features in it proves BIS wanted to make a giant quality leap from A1.

ArmA3 is just a quick cash in. Which is also proven by the "campaign" episode 1. There's not a single new feature and a ton missing.

That's exactly the impression I'm getting. But A3 is still quite good and should only get better.

---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 18:16 ----------

The main thing I am disappointed with in Arma 3 is the lack of realistic wound effects. Arma 1 and 2 were quite good but Arma 3 I've noticed less blood and wound effects. Some characters seem to be completely devoid of any upper body wound effects at all. You shoot a guy in the head and there's not a mark on him. You can't make a realistic combat game without realistic combat and the consequences of it on the participants. Try to justify it any way you want but it is not at all realistic. It's Playstation Xbox arcade console style. Reminds me of Far Cry 2 and looks similar.

[Greenfist 1863]

I don't get the scope wobble lament. Is it any differect from A2? I think that there's more magnified scope action in A3, so when you're used to use more ironsights in A2, you run into more scopes in A3 and think the wobble has increased. I don't know, haven't played A2 in a year.

"5 The graphics look a bit plain and not as interesting as A2 which has great post process effects which seem to be lacking in A3."

What? Are you running a ton of mods on A2 or playing a different game than me? Care to elaborate? :confused:

Edited October 26, 2013 by Greenfist

[dm 9]

ArmA3 is just a quick cash in.

Yes, a 3 year long "quick" cash in...

There's not a single new feature and a ton missing.

This just proves that you're butthurt about the removal of the performance hogging and unreliable scripted systems compared to A2. A3 has plenty of new features, you're just too blinded by rage to see them.

Also, protip: if you hate A3 so much, don't fucking play it. A2 still works perfectly well and seems to fulfill your needs nicely...

[progamer 14]

Yes, a 3 year long "quick" cash in...

This just proves that you're butthurt about the removal of the performance hogging and unreliable scripted systems compared to A2. A3 has plenty of new features, you're just too blinded by rage to see them.

Also, protip: if you hate A3 so much, don't fucking play it. A2 still works perfectly well and seems to fulfill your needs nicely...

The game has had more setbacks and problems durring development then most games.

[antoineflemming 14]

Yes, a 3 year long "quick" cash in...

This just proves that you're butthurt about the removal of the performance hogging and unreliable scripted systems compared to A2. A3 has plenty of new features, you're just too blinded by rage to see them.

Also, protip: if you hate A3 so much, don't fucking play it. A2 still works perfectly well and seems to fulfill your needs nicely...

Uh, I'd agree with you, but the scripts are still performance hogging...

[chortles 263]

It seems more a rage than "Arma 2" is so clearly not coming back, going forward, while Arma 3 is seemingly the now-intended direction...

[da12thMonkey 1943]

5 The graphics look a bit plain and not as interesting as A2 which has great post process effects which seem to be lacking in A3.

PP effects like the HDR bloom that resulted in radioactive cows and oversaturated interiors, and that headache-inducing motion blur?

Personally I'm very glad for the improvements Arma 3 has made over Arma 2 in those areas.

[St. Jimmy 272]

+++++ Graphics, lighting, new rain etc. omnomnonmnomnmonomnmomonmonnmomn

+ Movement & stances

+ Finally I can use GL

+ Not fucked up campaign (yet). Couldn't enjoy Arma 2 campaign at all.

+ Underwater

+ Attachment and gear system

+ Many enterable buildings

+ AI feels improved

+++ Following metalcraze's crusade

+ Penetration system

- Too much weapon sway

---- Medic/wounding system. AI shoots back accurately after the first hit. The biggest problem for now.

- Less vehicles and weapons than in Arma 2 which I can understand why

- Sounds fade too quickly and some other sound problems

- No women

[ProfTournesol 956]

+++++ Graphics, lighting, new rain etc. omnomnonmnomnmonomnmomonmonnmomn

+ Movement & stances

+ Finally I can use GL

+ Not fucked up campaign (yet). Couldn't enjoy Arma 2 campaign at all.

+ Underwater

+ Attachment and gear system

+ Many enterable buildings

+ AI feels improved

+++ Following metalcraze's crusade

+ Penetration system

- Too much weapon sway

---- Medic/wounding system. AI shoots back accurately after the first hit. The biggest problem for now.

- Less vehicles and weapons than in Arma 2 which I can understand why

- Sounds fade too quickly and some other sound problems

- No women

Agreed 100%, with a - no furnitures at all

[paecmaker 23]

+++++ Graphics, lighting, new rain etc. omnomnonmnomnmonomnmomonmonnmomn

+ Movement & stances

+ Finally I can use GL

+ Not fucked up campaign (yet). Couldn't enjoy Arma 2 campaign at all.

+ Underwater

+ Attachment and gear system

+ Many enterable buildings

+ AI feels improved

+++ Following metalcraze's crusade

+ Penetration system

- Too much weapon sway

---- Medic/wounding system. AI shoots back accurately after the first hit. The biggest problem for now.

- Less vehicles and weapons than in Arma 2 which I can understand why

- Sounds fade too quickly and some other sound problems

- No women

Agreed but adding

- sometimes it feels like you are playing as a chainsmoking alcoholic than a well trained soldier(about the breathing whenever you run 10 meters).

[progamer 14]

Arma 3 has not had enough time to mature. I went back and looked at Arma 2 forums posts just after its release and it had many forums posts like Arma 3 has now. But down the line things got much better and more realistic, and the same will happen with Arma 3. Just takes time which apparently people don't have anymore :(

Just wait and have patience, that's what tons of people are doing who were around with Arma 2's release.

[fumanwho 10]

Nah the differences are even simpler than that:

ArmA2 was a labor of passion. The amount of features in it proves BIS wanted to make a giant quality leap from A1.

ArmA3 is just a quick cash in. Which is also proven by the "campaign" episode 1. There's not a single new feature and a ton missing.

Every thing you said is factually and demostratable wrong. I dont see how it is in any way acceptable for you to post something so far from the truth. Making things up a is stupid and pointless tactic that never acheives anything but pointless forum arguing. This forum is now dumber and less usefull as a place of discussion because of your actions and your wrongly held belief in the power of overexaggerated forum whine campaigns.

So you have a few otions in how you respond

1. Personal attack

2. Reword what you posted as if that some how deals with your bs

3. Move the goal post by bringing in others things i am not talking about.

4. Ignore my post

5. Play the victum card

6. Declare that there is conspiracy against "truth telling"

7. Reply with a post full of backseat game developing and simulation fever.

8. Play the customer card.

9. Play the "dont talk about what i posted. Talk about what im mean card"

There would be a number 10. But you posting a "hey i didnt mean it i just didnt think my post through" is not going to happen ever.

[icewindo 29]

Every thing you said is factually and demostratable wrong. I dont see how it is in any way acceptable for you to post something so far from the truth. Making things up a is stupid and pointless tactic that never acheives anything but pointless forum arguing. This forum is now dumber and less usefull as a place of discussion because of your actions and your wrongly held belief in the power of overexaggerated forum whine campaigns.

So you have a few otions in how you respond

...

I'd go for the emotional disappointment card and I can't blame metalcraze so much for that since I have similar thoughts on some aspects.

A3 shouldn't have been classified as a "full release" right from the start, more like "early access" right after the beta. A complete game is a complete game imo and not something you complete by (free) DLCs.

[chortles 263]

Arma 3 has not had enough time to mature. I went back and looked at Arma 2 forums posts just after its release and it had many forums posts like Arma 3 has now. But down the line things got much better and more realistic, and the same will happen with Arma 3. Just takes time which apparently people don't have anymore :(

Just wait and have patience, that's what tons of people are doing who were around with Arma 2's release.

How's that for perspective, eh?

[progamer 14]

How's that for perspective, eh?

What do you mean?

[chortles 263]

Just your own looking back on Arma 2's own release and seeing that it too had a bunch of complaining early on and that the game itself differed noticeably from what it became later (with the real possibility that some people's Arma 2 nostalgia is for what it became years later and NOT its release state)...

[laverniusregalis 10]

Hi fellow Arma fans. I'm a big fan of the whole series and really enjoyed Operation Flashpoint. I still play Arma 1 sometimes, Arma 2 is one of my favourite games and I just got Arma 3.

Comparing Arma 2 and 3 I find Arma 3 is quite a lot different from 1 and 2. This thread is for people to comment on differences between Arma 1, 2 and 3 and how they like or dislike them.

My first impressions of Arma 1 and Arma 2 were wow this is absolutely incredible. First impressions of Arma 3 were not as favourable. Good frame rate and very smooth on my system but the combat not so impressed.

1 The crosshair is not as good or useful as A1 and 2.

2 Using a scope on a rifle it wobbles around far too much. I can hold a rifle scope much more steady than that in real life.

3 The grenade launcher is hard to aim and use.

4 The blood and wound effects are not as extensive or realistic as A1 and A2. I think A1 has the best blood and wound effects.

5 The graphics look a bit plain and not as interesting as A2 which has great post process effects which seem to be lacking in A3.

6 Some of the vehicles and aircraft are made up.

7 No campaign on release.

8 Combat feels more arcade console style.

The good.

1 Runs well on my system with good fluid frame rate.

2 Good sound effects.

3 Huge environments.

I just got Arma 3 recently and those are just my first impressions. Will comment more when I get to know the game better. I know Arma 1 and 2 very well and I think those are absolutely incredible. I know a lot of people like Arma 3 better than 2 but I'm not so sure. Different yes. Better? I suppose that is a matter of opinion.

Allow me to respond to your cons:

1. Good. Crosshairs are crutches.

2. That seems to mostly apply to long range optics (because of a lack of weapon resting) or when you're tired as hell.

3. Zeroing.

4. A1's blood was like pasta sauce.

5. Uhhh.... Whatever you're on, where can I get some?

6. They're allowed to do that. Besides, it's all based off of current tech, save maybe the Kajman.

7. 1st part of the campaign is about to come out in 5 days. It's already on the dev build and 99% playable.

8. It's called not being clunky as hell.

It's ironic that you want a fantastic crosshair so you don't need to use the sights but hate the "console" like gameplay.

Edited October 27, 2013 by steamtex

[chortles 263]

More to the point, the crosshairs not being as "useful" is by overtly-stated design, even though it's also more useful than the Arma 2 one in "jumping" to indicate muzzle obstruction.