The shortcomings of ARMA 3.

[2142general 10]

Hello everyone.

I would like to get a few things off my chest regarding ARMA 3 and the developers. This is a longish post, so if you're not going to read it, don't bother responding.

Let me start off with the big one. The problem that’s been the bane of the ARMA series for the longest time. Performance. Or rather the lack of optimization.

This is a problem I’ve first encountered in ARMA 2. Even though I’ve picked up the game a number of years after it’s initial release, I could not understand why the game just wouldn’t run smoothly. From what my friends tell me, at the release of ARMA 2 you were lucky to play at 20 fps on a high end machine (online). Now ARMA 2’s been out since 2009 and you’ll still find it difficult to sustain steady 60 fps in an online match - however, offline you won’t have any problems on a modern machine.

Very little has changed.

When the Alpha of ARMA 3 came out on Steam, I, like my others, bought it. I was initially surprised by the lack of optimisation, but the watermark kept reminding me that it was only an Alpha release - the dream of 60 fps multiplayer was still alive. When the Beta launched and supposed “performance†fixes came, I didn’t notice a difference. I asked my friends and people I knew who were fans of the series, if they had noticed a boost in performance - “no†was the universal answer. The “final†release and many patches that were to follow (to my great disappointment) did not change anything about the game’s atrocious performance.

To my surprise I’ve read a number of posts defending the lack of optimization. I cannot understand this. I think it should be in every developers best interest to make sure the game is optimized for a wide spectrum of machines - from the bottom, right to the top end.

What do I mean by optimized? You should be able to tweak in game settings to achieve smooth 60 fps, as long as your machine meets the “minimum†requirements. PC gamers pride themselves in being able to customize their games and get the most out of them at the highest framerates, while the consoles are usually strictly limited to 30 fps and “upscaled†resolutions (last generation at least). To quote a reviewer “prmaguiar†whom I sympathise with (from Metacritic):

The poor optimization of the game deserves an essay of its own. Really, it's baffling how at this day and age something like this can be accepted by the gaming community. The game runs HORRIBLY on the most high-end PCs out there, no matter how low the settings are. Arma 3's shortcomings on this regard are well documented. Just Google "Arma 3" and "FPS". The game uses an ancient engine that despite being incredibly heavy doesn't even manage to make the game look as good as something like Crysis 3, Battlefield 3, The Witcher 2, Metro: Last Light, etc..

I cannot fathom an excuse for this… Because there isn’t one.

Now, I would like to move on a next big issue that’s been bugging me since ARMA 2…

Player movement and physics.

Player movement is something that should be tuned to near perfection, otherwise its flaws are quickly exposed. Unfortunately ARMA 3 fails to improve on a previously flawed system. I think everyone can attest to being killed by “physics†in an ARMA game. For example, ARMA 2s doors could instantly kill you - if you happen to be standing in the “wrong†place.

Well, good news guys! ARMA 3 doors no longer kill you! Hang on… If you read that about any other game, you’d do well to steer well away, because if doors were killing people, you can bet there’s bigger problems out there.

Movement still feels clunky, you can glitch through walls, slide down stairs - to your death - teleport inside rocks, randomly die inside stationary vehicles… Sure, microstances are a really cool addition, but they are not enough to be the saving grace of player movement in this game.

Did Nvidia pay you guys just for their logo on the game? I mean sure, vehicles handle better, but let me put it in perspective.

ARMA 2s vehicles felt like you were driving a rock. In ARMA 3, you’re essentially driving a block of wood. Sure it’s not as stiff and heavy as before, but - if I do say so myself - a block of wood is still quite far away from an actual vehicle (this is regarding land vehicles, only). Imagine a 27 tonne APC rammed by a 1 tonne family car - at 100 KMH… Who do you think’s walking away from this one? Nobody! Both will explode.

My third point is quite important for anyone who enjoys night ops…

Light in ARMA 3 (just like in OFP and ARMA 2) goes through solid objects. Yup.

I’ll let these images do the talking. The second image is a mockup by NodUnit (bug reporter). Amazing mockups showing how the system SHOULD work.

Basically, dynamic shadows do not exist.

I would also like to state that night vision scopes and sights aren’t realistically implemented but I’ll save my breath as it’s nowhere near as big of an issue as no dynamic shadows.

My fourth and last point will include a number of smaller issues.

The map.

Big empty, no soul, every town feels the same, flat, open… I know it’s realistic and based on an actual island, however, from a gaming perspective, Chernarus offered a much more diversity in the combat. You had forests, open plains, towns, hills… Here you have open fields and a town or two (which all look alike by the way).

Grass not rendered beyond a certain distance - this makes hiding in the grass as sniper impossible. Picture explanation:

Destruction of buildings.

When blown up, buildings “collapse†as if by controlled explosion, even if you just shelled it with some 40mm. There’s no dynamic destruction, something that can be found in other modern games.

Future setting is also a minor gripe of mine, but whatever.

I would like to say something to BI and anyone who’s delusional enough to disagree.

The day that EA, DICE or whomever, decides to use the Frostbite/Cry engine for a military simulator is the day when ARMA series dies. Only reason why it hasn’t happened yet? Simple. There’s not enough money to be made in the sim market v.s Battlefield/action FPS market.

Why? Because they have the means (mainly engine capable) of delivering a realistic sim.

Feel free to argue otherwise.

[metralla 19]

Hello everyone.

I would like to say something to BI and anyone who’s delusional enough to disagree.

The day that EA, DICE or whomever, decides to use the Frostbite/Cry engine for a military simulator is the day when ARMA series dies. Only reason why it hasn’t happened yet? Simple. There’s not enough money to be made in the sim market v.s Battlefield/action FPS market.

Why? Because they have the means (mainly engine capable) of delivering a realistic sim.

Feel free to argue otherwise.

Totally agree with this last said, it hurts other game company does not want to risk doing a combat simulator like ARMA but the immersion and realism that technology can offer in these times. I am also sure that if this happens is the end of the ARMA series.

Look no need to be angry with this game because everything that you have here with all the weaknesses and strengths of the game definitely some end in the game engine, RV4 is not able to make the impact that many would like to see in the game. I also hoped that the new set of weapon system had a dynamic destrucion .... but this game engine that is not capable of doing these effects.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Metralla

[the_demongod 31]

Wow. Seeing those mocked up pictures is insane. If it actually looked like that it would actually make flashlights useful instead of just position-revealing boxes of uselessness. That was a great visual.

[maddogx 13]

This post really only sums up a variety of issues that are already being discussed elsewhere, and have been for a while.

Now that you have this burden off your chest, I don't see anything new or worthy of a separate discussion thread here, therefore: :padlock: