Worth getting ArmA2?

[redarmy 422]

I am still quite new to arma.

Arma 3 was my 1st in the series,and i can love it for what it is-the best mil game iv ever played.

I frequently watch youtubers like dyslexci and say to myself, "most of his arma2 vids are much better than arma3".

Why? Is it that thing called ACE? Or something else.

Anyway,i only play single player.In arma3 the performance when in combat is terrible for me,EVERY OTHER MINUTE I HAVE 100FPS!!But on combat with simply 32 vs 32 ai lets say,i go down to about 20fps. This is on altis i will add.

My question is,is arma2 (with its best mods) still better than arma3,and better on performance.

Can i do more with arma2 editor/script/mod wise?

Will it be worth it.

Any thoughts most welcome as i know 99% reading this probably came from arma2.

Thanks

[Smurf 12]

Arma 3 is far better than A2 in everything except on MP performance (for now...) and mod (also for now). Yes, ACE, at least for me, do make a great difference in gameplay so that might be it.

But if you like SP, there is a shitload of content on A2+OA+DLCs.

[Xqi 10]

Well ARMA II: Combined Operations is only 20€, so it won't hurt to try it. Performance wise well...it's ArmA, all ArmA games have some horrible fps drops sometimes. The things you see from Dyslexci are hard to experience without being a member of a clan or community that organizes these events. But just to play the campaigns and the amount of custom missions this game has is probably worth the 20€.

[Bouben 3]

Arma 3 is better performance-wise then Arma 2 while having better visuals. At least on my PC.

[eggbeast 3684]

we're about to re-launch unsung vietnam mod for arma2, and BIS just released the final patch for the game too, so it's a great time to try it out as we're now all theoretically on the same page

[sorophx 25]

Arma 2 has a lot more user-made content. what we have in Arma 3 is nothing compared to how many mods there are for A2.

and ACE is brilliant. they did make a few questionable design decisions over the last few versions of the mod, but still it's the bees knees, and I never launch A2 without it.

other notable mods/total conversions you can play in A2: Unsung, Invasion '44, DayZ and all its versions (like Epoch, which is brilliant) and many many others.

but most of the stuff you have in A2 is already available in A3 anyway (ported over, remade or hacked to work in A3's environment). and A3 has a lot of stuff that A2 doesn't. for example: multiple stances, weapon attachments, separate equipment items like vests, uniforms etc. (hell, A2 without Operation Arrowhead doesn't even have backpacks) - the list goes on.

in conclusion, is it worth it to downgrade from A3 to A2 just to have access to all that stuff? in my opinion, yes. I still regularly launch A2 and fool around on public servers because there are missions (like fireball's Insurgency, which is the best thing in A2's multiplayer ever; or Xeno's Domination; eggbeast's Evolution etc.) that aren't available in A3. and ACE.

[nikiforos 450]

No, if you already own Arma 3 I would say no. Arma 3 looks better and for me personally it's very hard to go back to Arma 2. The only thing that is better with Arma 2 right now is the tons of mods already out there.

[Nexerius 10]

I miss playing ARMA 2 on PR servers. I barely touch ARMA 3 nowadays. I never find a server that has good performance and most of the servers i find are unenjoyable anyways.

I think it would be worth it.

[semiconductor 309]

For now, vanilla Arma 2 is more polished than Arma 3. Plus, it has contemporary setting.

But Arma 2 + A.C.E. is infinitely better than Arma 3 so if you want infinitely diverse, complex, interesting gameplay and not afraid of spending some time to learn — yes, it's totally worth getting.

[araripe 10]

If you enjoy hardcore Mil Sim, ArmA 2 is the best one for you because of ACE and the vast content. ArmA 3 is poorly optimized yet. As I always say, ArmA 3 is for who owns a pretty awesome computer. The graphics below highest settings are horrible. My notebook isn't strong, so I only can run A3 on lowest specs. The game on low seems like a PS2 game or whatever. Games like Far Cry 3 and Dead Island keep beautiful even on low.

I prefer to play A2, because even on medium the graphics are better than A3 on low/medium.

But, if you have money, upgrade your pc and run A3 on ultra. Then, you won't need to think about buying A2.

[sorophx 25]

I agree about the graphics. on lower quality settings Arma 3 looks like ass. even shit like GTA 4 or Titanfall looks better on my machine. I also get artifacts sometimes (but that could be my gfx card overheating)

[mistyronin 1181]

You said that you mainly play SP content; to me it's pretty obvious that at this stage there are way more campaigns and missions for A2 than for A3 ( after all A2 has been alive for more than 5 years ). So if you look for more content ( and more faithful to reality than the A3 pseudo sci-fi ), it's a good option.

In my PC A3 in mid/high settings performs way better than A2 ( which lags at mid-settings ), also the unit movement / graphics are way more realistic in A3.

So again A2 it's worth for the huge amount of available content and its realistic setting, although it's movement is quite robotic style and the graphics are a bit dated.

[DavidCastle 1]

Pretty much everything in Arma 2 is can be moved to Arma 3. If you are not to inclined on the technical aspect of scripting, mission making, or file management, I would choose Arma 2. Since you play single player mostly, you will likely not joining online servers with premade missions. This leaves 2 choices, making your own or downloading them. There are many more high quality SP missions in Arma 2 than Arma 3.

If you like MP, Arma 3 in a heartbeat. Find a community that uses Acre, AGM, and mods to your liking and BAM.

In the end, it's all Arma, just glad you're playing it rather than some Michael Bay FPS =)

[subs17 9]

Arma 2 rocks and so does Arma 1, I still use both. They both have a lot of awesome mods like ACE and very fun SP/MP campaigns and missions.

[redarmy 422]

Pretty much everything in Arma 2 is can be moved to Arma 3. If you are not to inclined on the technical aspect of scripting, mission making, or file management, I would choose Arma 2. Since you play single player mostly, you will likely not joining online servers with premade missions. This leaves 2 choices, making your own or downloading them. There are many more high quality SP missions in Arma 2 than Arma 3.

If you like MP, Arma 3 in a heartbeat. Find a community that uses Acre, AGM, and mods to your liking and BAM.

In the end, it's all Arma, just glad you're playing it rather than some Michael Bay FPS =)

Haha yes,i cannot stomach hollywood/shoebox fps games.I love bad company2,lots of fun with multiplayer with friends.But the decline of the BF series because of the greed of EA pushed me towards arma.And i could not have been more happy with what i found.

I spend countless hours in the editor designing missions for myself while still making them random and replayable through great scripts these kind people have made.

I think im just sad i wasnt taken by this series along time ago,danm marketing and ea/hollywood b***sh** blinded me. Bohemia hopefully never look at their creations as just a pot for collecting money.

Thanks for responses,beleive i will stick with ArmA3 :) possibly look into a clan and start a multiplayer carrear with this franchise.

[araripe 10]

I agree about the graphics. on lower quality settings Arma 3 looks like ass. even shit like GTA 4 or Titanfall looks better on my machine. I also get artifacts sometimes (but that could be my gfx card overheating)

I hope BI will optimize ArmA 3, or at least make the LOW look a bit better. Because the Arma 3's low graphics looks like PSOne and it keeps very laggy. It's impossible to understand.