SexParty

I love this idea. It's the best possible solution to buying a game and being involved in the Alpha and Beta I've seen to date. Honestly can't say enough good things about this lot and the way they think, honestly. Only buying Alpha because I'm not interested in the extra stuff and it's soo dam cheap.

Again for the hundredth time http://i.imgur.com/3fH2Q.jpg scopes showing your POV instead of black surroundings. It isn't the 90s anymore, graphics and technology are good now. Such an outdated feature.

Since no ones played it you can't comment about it being clunky. Not to mention it's alpha still or close to it so things are very 'subject to change'. I don't really have an opinion on the 3rd person view since I don't use it. The character just doesn't look 'relaxed' to me but since he's 'always' ready to react you could argue there's nothing wrong with that. This video shows it the best I think: http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=16936 Very fluid and quick movements. Nothing is perfect but these improvements are what I wanted from ARMA3 and honestly will be the best part of ARMA3. Fluid movement/animations and great gun mechanics. It looks excellent so far and honestly can't understand how anyone wouldn't be super excited about this after watching that. Makes every game at E3 look sub-par, except for the size and scalability of Planetside 2 which is impressive. This will be a very popular game.

Surely the final game with the highest res textures, everything maxxed and AA on would require a GTX 680 to hit 60FPS average though yeah?

Love it. New animations look pretty good. Hopefully such improvements translate over to indoors and close quarters fire fights for fluid gameplay. Game is very exciting, keep up the good work!

It not being clunky and awkwards indoors.

Sorry guys but you have no idea what you're talking about. The offical battlefield forums are a wash with hatred, complaining and suggestions everyday to make the game slower, more rewarding, more skill based, larger scale and more importantly team play focused. On a daily basis they ask for everything that ARMA has just not of course to the extent of ARMA in some cases. But it's what people want. You can't tell me you know what they want because you aren't them. You can't speak for them and why would you, when they want games to better the same way you do. Team play focused. All the offical battlelog polls are even going against the creators opinions/predictions and in the gamers favor of what they want/what I'm talking about. Battlefield sucks not because it appeals to what it's fans want but because it's fan base has been too loyal to stop and boycott the dam thing ever since it's developers ruined it. But we will see what happens when Planetside 2 and ARMA3 release. I predict a lot of them will leave it for these games. Player stats have already been cut in half since janurary. As for the america's army comments I don't know how much expereince you had with it but it was in no way comparable to battlefield. It was a good middle ground between a casual arcade shooter and a milsim. Like ghost recon and raven shield. Had a lot of arcade elements but also had some good milsim like additions to it.

I agree with female pilots and crew members in games but not with female infantry.

No, you're still missing the point. If done right it can be made accessable and fluid enough to bring in those players. Most battlefield players hate battlefield, they only don't play ARMA because it's too clunky. Make ARMA a fluid streamlined expereince but retain the highly skill based learning curve and keep teamplay necessary to stand a chance against an enemy force and they will ditch battlefield in seconds to play this because it's all what they want. And in reality it's what ARMA fans should want to. A more fluid and realistic expereince indoors and out so the game can progress. Not fast paced bullshit like battlefield but fluid and realistic. I've said it before the game already has the expereince and the satisfaction when using team work and tactics to take down enemy forces and objectives, it just needs to be more accessable. And if done right it would be the number one selling PC FPS with no equal. But in all honesty I don't see it happening. It has the potential with MODs to maybe showcase this but who knows until Alpha. America's Army was slower than battlefield and other casual shooters but still more fast paced than milsims like ARMA and it is one of the top 5 most played online PC games of all time. So don't tell me gamers don't want a slower, higher skill and tactical shooter because they do, thats your proof. They just want it accessable and fun. Something that ARMA just lacks in a lot of the time due to the way the game is structured. I'm not saying lower the threshold but make it more accessable and improve the game so it's more fluid (gameplay, controlls, connectivity etc).

This is the whole problem with typical ARMA players you think you're soo much better than everyone else because you play a slow, complex and deep game. But you're not... It's a great game but a game with many flaws, like all of the big games at the moment. The OP doesn't want ARMA to become COD or battlefield and turn it's back on it's roots, he's simply stating the game has the experience to challenge the blockbuster games. And it does. But it can do it in it's own way, the ARMA way, which has gotten the game to this point. Doesn't need to compromise it's self and lower the threshold, it has the experience already. That's all. All the game needs is to improve gameplay; make it more fluid and make the expereince more accessable; more user friendly, still complex and deep and based on skill but more user friendly and it can take on the big blockbuster games even beat them. People don't want bullshit action and to die every 10 seconds. They don't. The backlash everytime a new COD or battlefield is released proves that. They want a deeper, more rewarding and challenging expereince, they just don't want it to become boring thats all. And ARMA can do that. Whether it wants to or not is up to BI and in part up to it's fans. Personally I don't think it would be a bad thing at all. People aren't as dumb as you think they are and are capable of learning curves and developing skill.

I don't agree. A studio focusing on laptop quality computers being able to play next gen FPS games is great but at no point will it ever be a focus. Games like ARMA 3 and other next gen titles should always be pushing as hard and far as they can go with graphics and physics to develop and advance video games. It's great it a studio supports the ability to play a game on weak hardware through optimisation but never should it be a focus and never should such customers be bale to play the game and remove visual elements from the game that will make it easier for them competativly against someone with max settings enabled. It should be the other way round. Instead the game should be optimisied well enough that poor computers within reason can still play the game just well enough. Honestly think BF3 and it's hardware requirements as badly optimised as the game is, is the way games should be. Pushing the envelope graphically. Because without all the HDR effects, totally messed up gamma and hue settings and horrible character models the game does look beautiful.

Thats pretty neat. Whole thing looks great except the werid head animation of the guy shooting who keeps looking around? Lol.

Ohhhhh thats too good. Lol.

GTX 680 is probably the better bet because it's more energy efficient than the GTX 580 so just wait as suggested. Get a $30-50 after market cooler which will help with OCing in a big way but I mean everything else you have should be totally fine for that resolution. PCI-e 3.0 won't be the new standard for a while so don't even worry about that.

Not talking about strafing in and out of doors or jumping etc. I encourage the idea that you commit to room clearing and make CQC more military and realistic. But with that comes the desire to move like a human and we are fluid and seamless. I don't get caught on doors and walls, I bounce off them, I don't get caught half way through animations etc. We're argueing the same thing you're just intent on defending ARMA being a sim and not becoming arcade like and everyone here wants the same thing. Only thing is everyone else sees room for improvement and mediums in which inspiration can be taken from and you simply outright seem to be defending ARMA. Thats fine but nobody wants what you fear ARMA could become. So don't worry about that. As for the battlefield, don't even bother it's exhuasting thinking about discussing this. The DEVs are out of touch with the community and the game does not reflect what the fans want. A great idea but already done by battlefield to an extent and madden in detail. Maddens ANT technology is excellent at that. Which is what I've been trying to get at, madden is not a military simulation or even an FPS but a lot as far as the mechanics of the game can be learnt from it at a coding level because it's got some of the most realistic human movement seen in any game. And things such as this are what ARMA needs.

Animations might be the same but they look excellent.

You're missing the point. When I walk around in a game and jump etc it shouldn't feel and look like super mario ie a video game, it should feel and look realistic.

Sorry mate but you have no idea what you're talking about. I've got 1000+ hours in AA2 and it is in no way an arcade shooter like the battlefield series. It's not a simulator but it's been the best mix of realism and skill in a fun FPS game to date and every game at the moment could learn a lot from it. Especially when it comes to the grenade system, weapon ballance and accesable medic/damage system. Game wasn't perfect and it was low budget so sure it had some issues but ARMA isn't perfect either and thats why this discussion is being had. And that quote of mine was not reffering to any game, simply stating that ARMA can achieve what I'm takling about if the DEVs want it to. There is no need for a game like this to be great at mid to long range firefights and then lack when it comes to CQC, they are perfectly capeable of making it seamless at all ranges. And as for your BF players don't want the game more realistic? Lol. You're really out of touch with things aren't you. All BF players complain about is wanting the game to be more challenging, slower and more realistic. So no, you're wrong again. Nobody wants a frag CQC grinder except 12yr old COD kids and since they will never play ARMA you don't have that problem.

I'm not pointing fingers but some people don't want the game and to change and only want die hard fans to have input into what direction the new game should take and thats just silly. Everything should evolve and improve over time to do exactly that, improve, not change but improve. Not at all saying I want the game less realistic, I agree with all the fanatics that want to game to be as realistic as possible but what I'm getting at is, in real life, I can sprint dam fast, for long periods of time, I'm incredibly agile and nimble on my feet and am able to move in a CQC enviroment and engage targets at close range very effectivly and quickly which unfortunatly previous ARMAs have been very bad at because of the slow and clunky gameplay, gun mechanics and controlls. Game doesn't have to be anything like battlefield or COD but one thing the game can learn from them is smooth and more seamless controlls, animations and movements, especially in CQC enviroments. I feel exactly the same and have come to the franchise for the same reason. Since Americas Army 2 left my life I have felt very empty and FPS games are boring. Not enough of a challenge and the feeling of killing an opponent is no longer rewarding. Which is what I'm talking about. I want the game to stay realistic, challenging and have a deep learning curve it just needs to become more accessable and fluid because at the moment it's not. Feels too much like a game at the moment and not real and fluid enough because of the movement, animations and gun mechanics.

Take a good look at the new teaser BI just released... To run this on max settings without any 'lag' you're going to need a very fast PC. My current PC is what I would call borderline minimum specs for smooth max settings gameplay. Thermaltake Level 10 GT LCS Thermaltake 850 Bigwater Liquid Cooler Intel i7 2700k @ 5000mhz (liquid cooled) ASUS P8P67 WS Revolution Corsair Vengence Ram 4GB x2 @ 1600mhz Powercolor HD6990 and Sapphire HD6970 tri-crossfire @ 925mhz and 1350mhz Sound Blaster XFi Titanium Fatality Silverstone Gold Strider 1000w PSU P14093 3DMark11 Score. I would start with overclocking your CPU to it's max, then selling your GTX 460 and using that cash and your $400 to upgrade your GPU. Your PSU is small though so that will limit your choices but the new HD 7970 and GTX 680s are both very energy efficient and you should get away with it. That should be then good enough to run the game on max without AA. Then later on if you find your CPU is still holding you back you can upgrade it to 2700k and OC that which should handle the physics fine. But honestly, gone is the time where you could run games on max settings with a single GPU and mid range CPU. If you want things to look pretty and run at 60PFS then you have to pay for it.

More thought and input from the DEV team needs to be put into the gameplay and gun mechanics to accomodate for long range and close range fighting at the same time. Americas Army 2 did it better than any game so far and is proof it's do able. So really it's up to them. But smoother player movement at realistic speeds and realistic weapon handling are needed. I'm yet to see a soldier struggle in CQC enviroments with standard issue equipment so the players in there game shouldn't either. If that means reworking the controlls, do so but it's up to them. It's easily done so we will see what happens and if not, then MOD tools.

Game should be more accessable. Only thing holding the franchise back at the moment but it seems they want it to be more accessable and easier to pick up so hopefully it's done right. Enough with the elitist attitude some of you have that only die hard ARMA players should get to be involved. Game needs to broaden out a bit and it only will, with feedback from players who are new to the series and or also like other games. Obviously you don't want COD idiots opinions but players who loved games like the earlier rainbow six series, early ghost recon series, americas army and even battlefield could all offer a good ammount of insight into the game. Previous ARMAs have been too slow, clunky, horrible at CQC and too simulator like and with feedback from people who want it to retain it's realistic feel but become more accessable it can become a much greater game. Game can take a lot from americas army as far as ballance between long and close ranged combat is concerned, even pace. Game was slow and required thought in open areas but in tighter enviroments the gun mechanics were accessable enough to pick up the pace and fight well CQC. Anyways we will all see soon enough.

You are a fool. I have tri crossfire HD 6970s and BF3 gives them and my CPU a dam good work out. Honestly after looking at the screenshots BI released you're kidding yourself to think that anything less than an i5 2500k and a GTX 580 would play the game at a decent framerate with high (good looking graphics). All new games coming out are going to be pushing and enjoying the new and faster hardware thats available to us and the time of single GPUs running games on max settings is bordering on ending. Doesn't matter though, GTX580s and HD 6990s prices are about to drop and then most guys with decent motherboards and i5-i7 CPUs will be able to take advantage of them. But don't think high settings and GTX 560s are going to be pushing out 60FPS.

Honestly just want a competative and ballanced game like americas army 2. Something thats fun to play, something you can play the same map all day and not get bored of. Unlike deathmatch arcade games like BF3.

Lighting looks good!