Arma 2 VS Arma 3! You chose!

[Belbo 462]

And tbh, the only time I don't get better performance from A3 is when I'm playing single player. Multiplayer is smooth as hell for me.

I second that. Playing on crappy servers with highly unoptimized missions is not something that's to be blamed on the game.

[iceman77 18]

We don't have Arma 3, we have Arma 2.5. Arma 3 is the same as Arma 2 but with new textures, possibilities, bugs and less performance.

Welcome to sequels everywhere...

[Alwarren 2767]

Not too long ago I would have voted "Arma 2", but now, it's Arma 3. The only real bummer for me still is the lack of contemporary content, I still do not like the future scenario, but things are moving on that front. But with the fatigue and weapon inertia and all the new features, I am sold on Arma 3 as a platform.

Just needs:

- Contemporary Armies

- better medical system

- PONDS!

[PlacidPaul 11]

Not too long ago I would have voted "Arma 2", but now, it's Arma 3. The only real bummer for me still is the lack of contemporary content, I still do not like the future scenario, but things are moving on that front. But with the fatigue and weapon inertia and all the new features, I am sold on Arma 3 as a platform.

Can I just copy and paste what he said, my feelings exactly! Which is impressive, since A2 is such a beast.

I'll only change the order and add one

Just needs:

- PONDS! (reasons being AiA)

- better medical system

- knockdowns added to damage system

- Contemporary Armies

Edited October 18, 2014 by PlacidPaul

[Revichev 10]

The strange thing is, arma 3 has better fps for me then arma 2, yea i know it's weird. But that aside, the arma 3 engine is much better and now with the AiA mod i can play arma 2 content in a new and better engine so what do you want more then that. And btw, rhs escalation mod is coming out withing 10 days so can't wait. Then Arma 3 will be complete for me.

[MrHuachuca 10]

I agree but mostly mods and ports make it better with content details :o

Not too long ago I would have voted "Arma 2", but now, it's Arma 3. The only real bummer for me still is the lack of contemporary content, I still do not like the future scenario, but things are moving on that front. But with the fatigue and weapon inertia and all the new features, I am sold on Arma 3 as a platform.

Just needs:

- Contemporary Armies

- better medical system

- PONDS!

[Varanon 892]

I would say Arma 3 but for one detail that weighs heavily on my perception of the game: I hate the fact that you need about four bullets to kill someone in Arma 3. It might be more realistic with body armor and so on, but I just don't like it. In Arma 2, if you hit someone with a 7.62 even over long range, he dropped. In Arma 3, you need to do that three times.

I remember doing 800 meter shots in Arma 2 with an M110, and while I missed a lot, it made the shots that hit more satisfying. In Arma 3, I need to pull that off two, three times, and that's just peeing me off...

Of course, all that Alwarren posted too... especially the medical system... (in fact, that's my only pet peeve remaining from the Alpha days, hehe)

---------- Post added at 02:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ----------

- knockdowns added to damage system

Yes, indeed

Edited October 21, 2014 by Varanon

[dekster 1]

I'm not a hardcore player, and often I prefer just playing vanila content and loging onto a public server.

This makes me disappointed in Arma 3, the graphic stuff is better, the controls, I don't really know... however, what I really don't like are the sounds and futuristic and unreal content.

Arma 2 now looks old graphic wise, but as a game, it was much better as a package, certainly the pre-OA version, I absolutly loved that game.

Unlike most people I liked the sounds of Arma 2, compared to Arma 3, they're not as cinema like, but they were very distinctive and it was much easier to locate where the sound is comming from...

A game I also found very enjoyable, was the most updated version of IronFront, looked very polished and was a joy to play in multiplayer. Just a pity, practicly no-one plays the game.

[DJankovic 401]

Mybe update poll and add Arma 3 Futuristic settings,Arma 3 Realistic settings like in (OFP,Arma,Arma2)

[valentinbk 10]

ARMA 2 for me, A3 is awesome, but nothing has topped the battlefield experience that is A2+SLX+JTD Fire and Smoke for me so far.

[araripe 10]

I like both, but no one plays A2 anymore. Then, I need to prefer Arma 3. But, in fact, I love both the same way. Arma 2 is the best one for a great and immersive single player experience. But Arma 3 does more than great in the multiplayer, bringing something very addicting. The only big problem of A3 is the MP optimization itself. If you get 40-50 fps in the campaign, you'll get less than 20 frames in the mp. Sad but true.

[pappi_man 0]

I would stop playing ArmA 2 completely if they would just add Save/Load MP feature from ArmA 2 to ArmA 3.

[sanguinius51 11]

RHS Escalation?

Why does this thread continue?

[pd3 25]

I can't really say one is objectively better at this point.

A3 is growing on me, although A2 is unequivocally better for many reasons when it comes to simulating large scale battles.

A3 is fairly well optimized graphical fidelity considered, and even moreso if you use a custom memory allocator and GMF.

The AI in A3 can range from "meh" to impressive at times depending on various circumstances considering there are no scripted events when playing a dynamic scenario.

I prefer A3 for smaller scale squad based type stuff overall.

A3 keeps getting better as the devs work on it so I am constantly having to review my opinion of the game.

They're both good for different things for me at this point.

And A1 is just... It was a necessary step to get to A2 and thereon to A3. It was not well optimized although we did get some great terrains that I still use to this day (avgani and fallujah).

It wasn't spectacular, but it was definitely an important milestone in the history of the franchise.

And this series wouldn't be anywhere it is now without OFP, which holds a special place in gaming nostalgia to me. BI took a pretty big risk and deviated from market trends, and fought an upward battle from no less than PCGamer at the time when it was released. Had it not been for the success that OFP enjoyed inspite of those challenges, we may not have any of these successive editions in the series.

I hope that BI continues that spirit of exploration as further games in the series and updates are released.

[Dirtylarry 10]

Never played Arma 2, only got it for dayz so my vote is on Arma 3

[KeyCat 131]

And A1 is just... It was a necessary step to get to A2 and thereon to A3. It was not well optimized although we did get some great terrains that I still use to this day (avgani and fallujah).

It wasn't spectacular, but it was definitely an important milestone in the history of the franchise.

There was some very important things added in A1, namely JIP and streaming terrain.

/KC

[-Renegade- 10]

I've been mulling this over in my head lately, trying to figure out which I preferred and why

Arma 3 has the looks and the stances and all the things you'd want if you were going to build a modern Mil-sim

Arma 2 though had soul, I bought it late on, but was immediately hooked ... the sheer atmosphere drew you in to play more.

yup it also had a few years of content to make it more full.

But yeah A3 is just missing that "soul" it's hard to define, dunno if it's just A3 is so bright and clean and modern..

Maybe I want my war to be dark and loud and painful and DIRTY and difficult and just .. war ... not paintball.

Regardless .. I voted A3 ... because .. I hope oneday

[andersson 285]

I call it the "HALO-factor". I don't recognise the futuristic HALO vehicles or weapons so it's more of a game than an immersive escape into war. Sure it's all possible prototypes, but it still doesn't work for me. Now with AiA islands and RHS it's slowly turning back to what I can relate to, rainy pine forests with spetsnaz and fields with T-72s.

And yes I voted A3. It's all about the engine. Get rid of a few annoying bugs and it will be playable again.

[JdB 151]

I would have to separate my feelings here.

I feel that I prefer to run ArmA2 because of some of the mods for it which I like very much, but since that's somewhat cheating as I should be voting the core games (ArmA2 without OA) rather than the modded ones as a game and as a next step (progress) in the series overall I prefer ArmA3 so that's what I voted. Overall it feels better for me (and I don't mean that in the sense that the game is "easier", rather it plays more fluently imo).

[devilslayersbane 28]

The only thing I want in arma 3 atm, is yurapetrov's blackhawks/seahawks.

Edit for sake of clarity towards thread relevancy: These blackhawks are just gorgeous, and I'd love to see them properly ported to A3 to replace the A2 blackhawks. I've made most of my points earlier in the thread IIRC. But now, with FFV coming into play, I'd definitely like to see a revival of the blackhawks.

[MrHuachuca 10]

Agreed! It would be more interesting just to see arma 2 dlc in arma 3..... operation arrowhead in arma 3.

The only thing I want in arma 3 atm, is yurapetrov's blackhawks/seahawks.

Edit for sake of clarity towards thread relevancy: These blackhawks are just gorgeous, and I'd love to see them properly ported to A3 to replace the A2 blackhawks. I've made most of my points earlier in the thread IIRC. But now, with FFV coming into play, I'd definitely like to see a revival of the blackhawks.

[nikiforos 450]

I just wonder why people look back instead of forward. Arma 2 is history, missions and islands should be history as well. IMO it would be much better if we all focused on new islands and new mods instead of eating old food.

I can undestand the nostalgia but as time progress so should we . With that said for me Arma 2 will never be installed in my computer again and I only look forward for new stuff. And by new stuff I'm not talking of futuristic ones.

[Alex-X-xSQ 10]

i loved arma 2, back in its time, now after arma 3 is there, i can't even touch it anymore, everything feels so rough, movement, physics, gameplay mechanics etc, arma 3 feels more like a real shooter now, but a hard one with fatigue and stuff.

[Rydygier 1309]

I just wonder why people look back

Because of "old, good times" feeling mostly, I guess. But the nature of nostalgia is bitter. There is no real return to the past, because each experience changes us irreversibly. At least for me that futility is true, not really for those, who still playing A2 or, the more, OFP. Those people apparently still get there, what they are looking for. I do not, since I saw A3.

[Gutsnav 13]

Something that I noticed the other day is that in Arma 2 you could see misty mountains in the distance (most noticeably in Takistan), but in Arma 3 you can't. Bummer, but it's only a little thing :P