It does look fantastic and I thought Arma 2 looked great. The PC is really showing its stuff now that we're heading towards the end of the generation. We've had Witcher 2 and now this also to look forward too.
Well, it only took four ****ing years, but now with Metro 2033, Witcher 2, BF3, and now ARMA III it looks PC is FINALLY churning out games that can compete with Crysis graphically instead of deluging us with ugly console ports.
Unfortunately I probably won't be picking up ARMA III since I suck enough at FPS games as it is, and from what I hear ARMA is only for hardcore FPS fans who want a simulation game.
It's looking great, I just hope they make the in game command menus a bit more fluid, stuffing around with those little scroll menus in the heat of a battle is a pain.
Also improve vehicle AI specifically helicopters. Something about apache pilots swooping over the enemy at low altitude instead of hanging back and letting the gunner do the work kinda ruins a bit of the realism.
hmmmmmm RAH-66 Commanche? Fancy bullpup-style rifles? Fancy looking googles with, dare I say, built in heads up display on the soldiers?
Dare I say ArmA 3 is a near-future setting instead of the cold-war or present-day setting we've come to expect?!?!?!
I sure hope so, near-future is not really touched upon, specifically in simulations.
mrbojangles25
At this point it would be logical to move the setting to a more futuristic setting using more prototype weaponry that we see today. ArmA 2 is fine for a modern military sim. They can't just keep milking it.
[QUOTE="1q3er5"]This looks better than BF3. See all those buildings in BF3 I bet most of them you can't even go into and are just spritesFelipeInside
What does something looking better graphically than another have to do with being able to go into buildings or not...???
Well there was a big problem with ArmA 2's buildings but not because of the reasons he said. You could enter maybe 1/5th of the buildings. For a realistic military game this was unacceptable. If you want to emulate urban warfare at all, you need to beable to enter every building in the area.
They fixed this with ArmA 2 Operation Arrowhead. Now entering a city and clearing it means going through every single house. Much more believable and immeserive.
I would think they would have learned after ArmA 1 and ArmA 2 that you need to make all of the buildings enterable.
My PC can't even run Arma 2 decently. The system requirements are just ridiculous and will alienate the game to those who don't have state of the art hardware.
[QUOTE="1q3er5"]This looks better than BF3. See all those buildings in BF3 I bet most of them you can't even go into and are just spritesFelipeInside
What does something looking better graphically than another have to do with being able to go into buildings or not...??? because if I remember correctly in BF2 you could. With the consolization of the BF series the maps seem like they are now actually smaller and more linear than previously in BF2 and earlier. I think that ARMA II/III is actually a better successor to BF2 than BF3 which seems to have shiny graphics but limited scope compared to the older titles
ohhhh! lol i just bought a new laptop to play ARMA 2 and wasnt sure i could max it but now your telling me arma 3 is out? wow I hope i can get to play this on these specs.. Alienware mx17 r3 2720qm (2,20 ghz,6mb 4c) win 7 64 bit 2 gb gddr5 amd radeon hd 6970m with power xpress 6 gb 133 dual ddr3 sdram 500 gb hdd 7,200 rpm 17 inch screen HD 1600x900 dvd drive hope this runs bf3 also at least on medium at 720p
It does look fantastic and I thought Arma 2 looked great. The PC is really showing its stuff now that we're heading towards the end of the generation. We've had Witcher 2 and now this also to look forward too.
Log in to comment