I give up!

[GTDAWG 10]

ARMA 3 had promise but its really the worst of the whole bunch!

buggy and lacks any true focus.

the support isn't what it used to be aswell.

Time to move on and hopefully someone will come out with a sim that ISNT SO BUGGY.

[StrongHarm 13]

In honor of your double post (way to go out dramatically!)

OK.. I'm not one to look a gift troll in the mouth.. but I just have to say.. do you understand the scope of a simulation like this?

Watch this clip and consider the possibility that you might just be one of the non-contributors that Louis CK is talking about:

[pooroldspike 129]

I can see GTDawg's point of view, I bought Arma3 thinking it'd be better than Arma2, but it's not better as far as I can tell, or am I missing something?

[marcai 1]

I can see GTDawg's point of view, I bought Arma3 thinking it'd be better than Arma2, but it's not better as far as I can tell, or am I missing something?

Let's not make another objective 'I think x is better than y' thread. A3 brings plenty of impovements to the table and you'd have to be willfullly ignoring the features of the game to not see them.

[StrongHarm 13]

The scope of A3 is so much larger than anything ever done in a MilSim. As a mission developer ( Close Air Support ) I can tell you that the BIS developers are not just people trying to make a buck. These people love what they do, and they do it to use it. Although A3 has been in the top 10 Steam games almost since day1, it's still continuously expanding and I know it will continue to do so. Rome wasn't built in a day.. and A3 is INDEED the Rome of MilSims. People who will never see the true scope of A3 and prefer 'games with guns' are equivalent to those looking for a diet soda that doesn't taste diet.. reexamine your standards or remain confused.

And if you want something more from A3.. the beauty is that BIS cared enough to provide a development environment so you can make of it what you will. Try my missions out and see.. I simply used the command reference and figured it out as I went.. it's really not hard. My imagination was greater than my apathy.

[RED SOLDAT 10]

One more stupid moron trying to teach the developers how bad their game is. BIS doing a great job.

[Tyl3r99 41]

the problem is once somone goes... oh this isnt better etc etc a majority of people jump on whats called the band wagon!!

at first i had doubts but... now im liking it... game gets better by every update... its only because your playing almost all the time you dont notice the difference

[PenguinInATuxedo 18]

I can see GTDawg's point of view, I bought Arma3 thinking it'd be better than Arma2, but it's not better as far as I can tell, or am I missing something?

Hmm now are you comparing agianst A2 with ACE and a raft of other mods? Vanilla A2 vs Vanilla A3 and A3 wins hands down by far, the biggest difference that also goes the way of A2 is that it has a lot more content people are comfortable with.

Personally I like the future setting since it's more likely modders will create from real sources instead of inventing there own weapons of war.

[DJankovic 401]

Ohhh NOOOO...Dont gooo!!!!

( Nobody Cares you can`t change evrybody opinion of the game,there was no need to post this tread you could just leave and come back when you think arma 3 ready to play on your standard)

[b00tsy 28]

Overall ArmA 3 is much better (or better potential), but there a lot of things the devs needs to do still. I like how they gave an effort to make editing easier with much more modules (even though I rarely use them). Back when I first started playing arma and tried to make my first mission it was a frustrating experience and very time consuming, they made a step in the right direction in ArmA3. Obviously the graphics and physics are much better and the maps are better. The AI has better pathing and behavior, when they do what they are supposed to do, but to often the AI is still buggy and can still mess up missions. Having civil AI pretend to be on opfor side gets them completely borked out if you use joingroup. And still sometimes (specially long missions) AI can get unresponsive or they get stuck somewhere. And there are features from arma2 that are still not working in ArmA3 even though it has tickets about it that were assigned to a dev over a year ago (like the GPSVideo)... still nothing.

My only gripe with arma3 atm is that it can't handle AI on the map. Where in ArmA2 I could easily have 150 AI running around (@60 fps) on the map and a ton of static objects, in ArmA3 you get a slideshow @ 20 fps if you use 100+ AI... and mind you, on a 270km map. In ArmA3 you are basically stuck with a bunch of spawning AI at one location, cos it can't handle a full map mission with things going on all over the map. In practice you could just as well play on a tiny map cos you wont be using a large map unless you leave it empty or choose one location at a time. In other owrds, performance sucks, unless you play a small light mission with spawning AI. Thats why they made the campaign in ArmA3 with all small missions and spawning AI, to hide the fact that performance sucks to no end if you use persistent AI.

[marfiuss 10]

its better then arma 2.

[[frl]myke 14]

Pointless thread is pointless.

-Closing-