Arma 3 vs Arma 2 aspects.

[msportdan 10]

Hello

Ive been playing arma 2 for a while now, although i dont go online I've modded my SP campaign with a few AI mods etc. I do like it and its does have some absolute memorable moments, but then mostly followed by some wtf ai trigger scrpit moment!

Im interested in A3 but some questions i would like answered?

* driving flying....is it easier now? especially with helos?

* Ai although ill probably use ASR (like a2) is it better?

* Command menu and commanding in general... is it better?

Is it worth 20£ although im still playing thru A2s dlc campaigns.

cheers

[mihikle 2]

1. Driving/Flying is different, as to whether it's easier, that's for you to decide. I personally find driving a whole lot easier with Physx, but I don't fly much.

2. AI is exactly the same as A2 as far as I'm aware.

3. Command Menu is pretty much the same as A2 (although I've only used it once or twice, i'm probably not the best to argue this point), there is also a voice control mod to command with your voice!

Overall with a few mods here and there A3 is a better game than A2 because there are marked improvements in some areas, however in some areas there has been no/little improvement since Arma 2. Or Arma 1. Or OFP. But that's the ArmA series for you (as amazing as it is). Treat ArmA 3 as an engine with content. Mods are what keeps this game alive, and people are releasing more content daily. If you don't like the future content, there is currently enough mods to recreate your ArmA 2 environment!

[barakokula31 10]

1. Both seem easier to me.

2. AI is somewhat improved compared to Arma 2.

3. Not really, they haven't changed a lot.

[instagoat 133]

Better on all points and improving. 10/10, but I am biased.

[jgbtl292 0]

If you don't like the future content, there is currently enough mods to recreate your ArmA 2 environment!

this is only for the sp mens in the mp you have lose ^^

the biggeste differend is the badest mp performance ever - cti / warfare die deadmatch / tdm to ^^ all die - only koop and the the shity role play ( role play is the onlyst was you can playing with more than 23 fps ^^

and bevor comes dump commenary - i can play on ultra high or on lowest - in mp make this no big different ;)

and no my pc is not full shit - i have one for work and one for play only !

Edited February 28, 2014 by JgBtl292

[dav 22]

I play single player (editor only) and am also massively bias. I pumped hundreds of hours into Arma 3 so far in between job and life etc.

I downloaded the Arma 2 map pack for Arma 3 yesterday and the old Arma 2 maps look dated. I loved Arma 2 but now it's rose tinted glasses syndrome.

There's enough mods available now to be fighting in whatever kit with whatever weapon and attachments you can think of to have an amazing game of Arma 3.

But then again, there's never enough units, weapons, vehicles, mods, that what makes the game so uber.

[yxman 90]

* driving flying....is it easier now? especially with helos?

* Ai although ill probably use ASR (like a2) is it better?

* Command menu and commanding in general... is it better?

Is it worth 20£ although im still playing thru A2s dlc campaigns.

1. its the same (i like the the a2 vehicle movement more)

2. ai is much worse, coop vs ai is unplayable (hints: soldier protection, no supression, 1hit instakiller ai)

3. command menu is nearly the same.

at this moment i would not recommend a3.

[msportdan 10]

hmm mainly positive..

•does A3 have less of the vehicular combat. i mean being controlled by player..

•High command and unit command. still exist?

i like the infantry gameplay of A2 just the vehicles and command annoyed me.

[enex 11]

Rather then give biased critics often based on negatives which is the easiest way to go

I will pick different approach:

*PhysiX support (easier or not easier don't matter) (realistic or less realstic is more important after all is combined arms sim/game)

*AI changelog http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?159711-Development-Branch-Captain-s-AI-Log

*Don't know

[dontknowhow 33]

2. AI is somewhat improved compared to Arma 2.

2. AI is exactly the same as A2 as far as I'm aware.

2. ai is much worse, coop vs ai is unplayable (hints: soldier protection, no supression, 1hit instakiller ai)

I'm curious to know how it is possible to get so different opinions within 6 posts

[Mr. Charles 22]

I'm curious to know how it is possible to get so different opinions within 6 posts

That's because people shitpost all the time and don't even read the OP. AI is definately better and much deadlier in CQC.

[roshnak 41]

I'm curious to know how it is possible to get so different opinions within 6 posts

Two the the opinions are basically the same. The other guy is talking about things that either aren't related to AI or are the same as they were in Arma 2.

[msportdan 10]

it does seem they are on their way to fixing a lot of issues still apparent in A3.. .but is the Ai being looked at?

and some of the most annoying ai vehicle commanding ever seen in a game?! getting captives to follow you and get into a vehicle with you etc etc

Edited March 6, 2014 by msportdan

[roshnak 41]

it does seem they are on their way to fixing a lot of issues still apparent in A3.. .but is the Ai being looked at?

and some of the most annoying ai vehicle commanding ever seen in a game?! getting captives to follow you and get into a vehicle with you etc etc

I wouldn't count on any big changes. You're going to be playing with essentially the same AI as Arma 2 as far as features go.

[paecmaker 23]

Hello

Ive been playing arma 2 for a while now, although i dont go online I've modded my SP campaign with a few AI mods etc. I do like it and its does have some absolute memorable moments, but then mostly followed by some wtf ai trigger scrpit moment!

Im interested in A3 but some questions i would like answered?

* driving flying....is it easier now? especially with helos?

* Ai although ill probably use ASR (like a2) is it better?

* Command menu and commanding in general... is it better?

Is it worth 20£ although im still playing thru A2s dlc campaigns.

cheers

Driving uses physX which I like, I would say flying is easier but its more about personal taste(however blu and opfor still lack fixed wing, but it will come with the third episode).

I would say the AI is mostly the same with improvements in some places and sadly a few steps back in other places(but dont worry, patches will most likely deal with it). Lots of experimentation is however going on right now when it comes to infantry protection(as one complained about), but its gettting better.

Command menu is pretty much the same.

What I have seen there is no high command as in Arma 2.

I personally recommend Arma 3, Altis is just amazing and optimization is so much better than A2(not counting mp). If I must complain about anything its that the medical system is extremely simple compared to Arma 2, and there arent that many weapons/vehicles in the game at the moment. Several vehicles are also copy paste(for example drones are the same for all factions)

[twisted 128]

Arma3 feels like a true evolution, the way your character moves (with different stances) makes a huge difference. so much so that when trying out a2 i just cant get in to it. AI seems to take cover and when you turn their precision down to around 0.3 they put down a lot of fire thats not mad sniper type. flight model isnt what was promised (aka TKOH quality or even approximation theroef). id suggest buying it 100% though.

[starky396 1]

I wouldn't count on any big changes. You're going to be playing with essentially the same AI as Arma 2 as far as features go.

Wrong on that one. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?159711-Development-Branch-Captain-s-AI-Log

[kilroy the nerd 14]

The only notable downsides I find with A3 in comparison to A2 is weaker damage, and less content. Otherwise, I find A3 better in every conceivable way. Optimization is only worse because A3 is fairly fresh compared to A2, whereas A2 has had years to fix it's launch problems, and sometimes bridges still make ATVs do a back flip. The lack of big mods like I44 or ACE is because they haven't had the time they've had with A2 yet.

[roshnak 41]

Wrong on that one. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?159711-Development-Branch-Captain-s-AI-Log

Um, none of those are big changes. They're just refinements to the way the AI already behaves.

VVV Edit:

question is thought...?

...is it worth 30£....

Uh... It depends?

Arma 3 is generally better than Arma 2. The question is, is it better in the ways that are relevant to you? I get the impression from the OP that you are mostly interested in single player and, unfortunately, many of the improvements seem to be multiplayer based.

First and foremost, the campaign hasn't been finished yet, so if that is one of your primary interests, it might be better to hold off.

Zeus is a pretty cool addition, and it seems like a major focus of development, but it has virtually no effect in most single player scenarios.

Since you asked specifically about driving/flying:

Helicopters are pretty much exactly the same. Planes have been tweaked a bit, but they aren't any easier or harder to fly, nor are they more realistic. Driving is now physics based, but it's not a huge change to handling; it still mostly feels like driving in previous titles (although they did add analogue steering).

The addition of body armor is generally okay for multiplayer, but tends to not play nice with the AI, since they don't react in the same way to being non-fatally shot as players do. This tends to make neutralizing AI a bit more difficult than it has been in the past, as they tend to react less to being shot.

The game does have a lot less content overall than Arma 2 did, and there aren't a ton of mods that add high quality content out yet. Vehicles and weapons generally feel very similar. If you are looking for a lot of variety in what you are fighting with and against, then you may be a bit disappointed. The fact that all the factions are basically fully equipped modern militaries leads to less variation in what you encounter and there aren't really any disparities in equipment levels or anything. Basically, everyone has an MRAP, a tank, an APC or two, a transport helicopter and an attack helicopter, and they all perform very similarly. Getting more varied content at this stage is going depend largely on your tolerance for ports and reskins.

On the other hand, the game looks better than it ever has. The lighting engine is amazing, and the new clouds and fog are visually pleasing while also adding complexity to the game environment. The new fog especially is highly controllable and can completely change the way players approach a mission.

There have been a number of usability tweaks to the editor that I am a huge fan of, including a huge leap forward in documentation -- it's generally a lot easier to find out what something does and how to use it from within the game itself --, adding the ability to set a unit or object's elevation without scripting commands, and a number of modules that allow users to access features that were previously only available through scripting commands. Also, a built in debug menu! Splendid Camera can be a pretty useful tool for messing around in the editor as well.

Movement and aiming feel 10,000 times more smooth and natural. The stance adjust and combat pace are really cool additions that genuinely expand your options in combat.

Grenades aren't in the firemode selection anymore! Now we just have to get UGLs out of there.

There are probably a bunch of other small tweaks that I'm forgetting.

This post has gotten really long, and ultimately only you can decide whether or not Arma 3 is worth buying right now, but I've tried to add as much information as I thought was relevant, since it's very hard to decide whether it was worth it before you buy the game and experience it yourself. I hope this post has been somewhat helpful.

Edited March 7, 2014 by roshnak

[msportdan 10]

question is thought...?

...is it worth 30£....

[Frannke 10]

ArmA 3 has more updated Vehicles, Physics(not the best however), and the AI IS infact different not in a good way.. Let me elaborate..

As for the AI, ArmA 2 takes the cake here. Because, Lets take the Takistani Militia for example, They run around with shit guns, and are comparable to your average guerilla fighter.. In ArmA 2, They act as such.. If you shoot at them from a distance for long enough, They will find you, and shoot back, with minimal to no accuracy(Range dependant), But that is, as I can make of it, the summary of all the AI in ArmA 2.. However, in ArmA 3, If you were to place an enemy group 900m away(this is all tested btw), Then shoot at them with a sniper rifle, You will probably miss first shot, They wont.. In ArmA 3, Not only do they pinpoint your exact location... They return fire with devastating accuracy(Like... 2 or 3 shots kill you), Even if they have their little 6.5mm Katiba Rifles(Relatable to FAMAS or Styer) vs your 12.7mm Lynx(AS50 kinda looking things), They win if you dont kill them all 1 shot.. And, to add to thatt, Vanilla ArmA 3 has just as stupid AI as ArmA 2 does.

Immersion can be found, Not with vanilla. The sounds for ArmA 3 do a no better job than whatt ArmA 2 did, They do not really add a *wow* factor.. All it is, is just *bang*.. nothing to it. Also the game is set in a futuristic time, Where most of the stuff they have IS related to real life things, but not like it was with ArmA 2. ArmA 2 had a level of immersion because they had real life guns and vehicles with the same characteristics as their real life counterparts. The landscape was realistic on Takistan, You could relate that to some real war zones like Afghanistan, or Syria.. They even had the right type of enemy units for Takistan and Chernarus.. Everything fitted into a standard of realism. When I look at ArmA 3, I see an Apple Tree with no Apples.

It has all the goods to deliver an awesome experience, But it is kinda like.. BIS just took the awesome out and replaced it with a 'Future' theme, Some like it, some don't. I see the 'Make ArmA not War' contest going on, And all I see is Bohemia admitting they wiped their asses with ArmA 3... They want something to bring it back to fame, Just like what DayZ did for them.

Physics.. They are great, But could be improved.. In example, If you are driving a car, and you bump into a Stop sign... You will enjoy a nice walk. The water physics are quite amazing however, with the Swells and the boats acting semi-realistically to them.. Land physics arent to great though..

All in all, I know I havent covered a lot here, But I kinda hit on a couple key features, In a conclusion, I would definitely recommend the game to anyone only if they will mod the shit out of it though, ArmA 3 is not a game to play Vanilla.. Offline or online.

/rant

---------- Post added at 07:22 ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 ----------

question is thought...?

...is it worth 30£....

Not at all.

I reckon Bohemia just dont care for ArmA anymore, They dont let us have the good shit like Virtual Battlespace 1,2 or 3. They want to sell that to Military orginisations for tens of thousands of dollars.. Fuck, dat. unfair

[paecmaker 23]

ArmA 3 has more updated Vehicles, Physics(not the best however), and the AI IS infact different not in a good way.. Let me elaborate..

As for the AI, ArmA 2 takes the cake here. Because, Lets take the Takistani Militia for example, They run around with shit guns, and are comparable to your average guerilla fighter.. In ArmA 2, They act as such.. If you shoot at them from a distance for long enough, They will find you, and shoot back, with minimal to no accuracy(Range dependant), But that is, as I can make of it, the summary of all the AI in ArmA 2.. However, in ArmA 3, If you were to place an enemy group 900m away(this is all tested btw), Then shoot at them with a sniper rifle, You will probably miss first shot, They wont.. In ArmA 3, Not only do they pinpoint your exact location... They return fire with devastating accuracy(Like... 2 or 3 shots kill you), Even if they have their little 6.5mm Katiba Rifles(Relatable to FAMAS or Styer) vs your 12.7mm Lynx(AS50 kinda looking things), They win if you dont kill them all 1 shot.. And, to add to thatt, Vanilla ArmA 3 has just as stupid AI as ArmA 2 does.

Well actually I tried with the AI. I put myself on a hill with the blufor sniperrifle(not the lynx) and an opfor squad on another hill. The range was something between 500- 700 meters.

I shot and killed the first guy directly and they reacted with a little fire. Well I killed around 5 of them before they retreated behind the hill. They fired upon me but didnt hit a single shot while I just finished them of one by one. I had no changes, no mods and I have not changed their difficulty. You sure you dont have "super AI" enabled? (also the katiba is the ingame version of the KH2002, a chinese weapon)

[13islucky 10]

Not at all.

I reckon Bohemia just dont care for ArmA anymore, They dont let us have the good shit like Virtual Battlespace 1,2 or 3. They want to sell that to Military orginisations for tens of thousands of dollars.. Fuck, dat. unfair

Ah, but VBS isn't actually... I'm sorry, but haven't we been through this a bunch of times already?

Also technically speaking the KH2002 is an Iranian rifle, even if I believe that the one in the Armaverse is Chinese.

[paecmaker 23]

Ah, but VBS isn't actually... I'm sorry, but haven't we been through this a bunch of times already?

Also technically speaking the KH2002 is an Iranian rifle, even if I believe that the one in the Armaverse is Chinese.

Ah, yes you are abolutely right, the kh2002 is definitly Iranian, my memory failed me there so I mixed up the QBZ and the KH2002.

Edited March 14, 2014 by paecmaker

[lugiahua 26]

VBS 2 costs 1,500 USD when it was released, even if you cut it to one tenth still is $150.

It is absurd to compared VBS and ArmA.