Photorealism, thy name is ArmA 3.

Yes we know it looks amazing. That ain't stopping me from making yet another thread about the amazing graphics of ArmA 3.

A new island was shown off today along with some new screenshots of the game.

The new Island is called Stratis and is 19 square kilometers large, and it's not even the main island.

I can hear the console fanboys coming now to tell me how artstIyle > technical graphics or how somehow Killzone 3 > ArmA 3 in graphics.

They are all just jealous they don't get 19 square km islands to explore and fight on in an open world and have to settle for corridor after corridor at 30 fps, with a lot of motion blur.

Yeah I'm going to need some 670s for this game...

Beautiful game, although as far as realism and photorealism goes, I think the vegetation has a long way to go

The main island BTW is 900 KM^2

Ah ha, but here's the kicker -- is it fun???musicalmac

Graphcis I don't really care about much... but am jelly of size.

nice real life pictures TC, cant fool me

Yeah I'm going to need some 670s for this game...

mitu123

actually the game is better optimized than Arma 2, so it wont be as demanding as you think, if you can max Arma 2, you can max Arma 3 no problem

Is'nt the Arma series sort of like the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games and Skyrim, in regards to graphics? In the sense that both videos and screenshots can be beautifull, without telling the whole story, I mean;)

Don't take this the wrong way, all my Arma experience is from the Arma 2 demo; and that animation video did look really good.

Beautiful game, although as far as realism and photorealism goes, I think the vegetation has a long way to go

wis3boi

http://games.ign.com/articles/122/1223073p1.htmlnext level Cryengine 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFqNh-hxme8Unreal Engine 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_fbvW0RNjwSquare Enix next generation luminous engine

all three of these will be on another level than Arma III, not to say it won't look good. wait for E3 when epic shows their pc exclusive they have been working on that runs on UE4.

Is'nt the Arma series sort of like the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games and Skyrim, in regards to graphics? In the sense that both videos and screenshots can be beautifull, without telling the whole story, I mean;)

Don't take this the wrong way, all my Arma experience is from the Arma 2 demo; and that animation video did look really good.

MlauTheDaft

Don't take this the wrong way, all my Arma experience is from the Arma 2 demo; and that animation video did look really good.

MlauTheDaft

That doesn't even look as good as Crysis 1. Its scale is what separates it from the rest.

holy dick...that looks like the kinda game i could fly around all day in :P

I never played an ARMA game before somehow,but ARMA3 will be my first one,and after it,maybe I'll try its predcessors...

Looking forward to it,the scale here looks great,and photorealism fits very well in PC tactical military shooters like this...

nice real life pictures TC, cant fool me

HaloinventedFPS

They aren't real life pictures.

You can't tell that's graphics? It's right on their website.

I can hear the console fanboys coming now to tell me how artstIyle > technical graphics or how somehow Killzone 3 > ArmA 3 in graphics.

They are all just jealous they don't get 19 square km islands to explore and fight on in an open world and have to settle for corridor after corridor at 30 fps, with a lot of motion blur.

Wasdie

The pictures were so good I haven't even noticed this part of the OP at first :D

Also,I fully agree with it ;)

Ah ha, but here's the kicker -- is it fun???musicalmac

IsThat's a very silly thing to say to be fair

Of course it's fun. You don't go into these games expecting a CoD game and then turn around and say "This sucks it's too hard". People buy these games to either learn how to play or know already. Just because the game has stunning visuals doesn't mean it has to appeal to everyone.

It's extremely fun for what it is and how it plays. and those screenshots looks fricken incredible. his game WILL be getting my money. They have made such strides and improvements over Arma II

If I booted this game up my computer would probably explode, so I think I'll pass.

This is the game a documentary confused with real life right?

This is the game a documentary confused with real life right?

eboyishere

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

nice real life pictures TC, cant fool me

Wasdie

They aren't real life pictures.

You can't tell that's graphics? It's right on their website.

Im pretty sure he only wanted to say graphics are amazing...

If I remember right,he's the guy who once made the comparison thread between modded HL2 and Uncharted 3,claiming how modded HL2 looks better...

I don't game on PC.

I can hear the console fanboys coming now to tell me how artstIyle > technical graphics or how somehow Killzone 3 > ArmA 3 in graphics.

They are all just jealous they don't get 19 square km islands to explore and fight on in an open world and have to settle for corridor after corridor at 30 fps, with a lot of motion blur.

Wasdie

To be honest you should be better than this and it's a bit silly to stoop so low with statements like this.

Let them say what they want, doesn't somehow change the game in the end.

Yes we know it looks amazing. That ain't stopping me from making yet another thread about the amazing graphics of ArmA 3.

Wasdie

I'm with you, if we can have a weekly [insert best looking exclusive on 360 here] vs [insert best looking exclusive on PS3 here] than we can also have the same amount of threads talking about a game that has a real shot at being graphics king:P

That doesn't even look as good as Crysis 1. Its scale is what separates it from the rest.

hoola

The real difference is that Crysis 1 was trying to be all flash, ArmA 3 is trying to simulate real life as much as possible. The lighting and shaders are far more realistic. At night, if there is no moon it is pitch black and very difficult to see and during the day, the sun has a different effect on each terrain depending on the season and the time of the day. It changes your perspective of the battlefield and makes things more difficult or easier to see for you and the AI.

Who ever said graphics cant = gameplay.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I can hear the console fanboys coming now to tell me how artstIyle > technical graphics or how somehow Killzone 3 > ArmA 3 in graphics.

They are all just jealous they don't get 19 square km islands to explore and fight on in an open world and have to settle for corridor after corridor at 30 fps, with a lot of motion blur.

seanmcloughlin

To be honest you should be better than this and it's a bit silly to stoop so low with statements like this.

Let them say what they want, doesn't somehow change the game in the end.

You take this place way to seriously if you think I actually care what they think.

Arma always looks the same to me in pictures. I don't know why.

who cares if graphics are good if its some crappy pc game no one cares about lol... hermits seeking for attention.[deleted]

That's why it's already the third Arma game. Developers sure love making sequels to games no one cares about lol

Arma II wasn't for me but I'll definitely try this again see if I can get into it.

I've been looking for an excuse to get a 680 anyways

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Yeah I'm going to need some 670s for this game...

HaloinventedFPS

actually the game is better optimized than Arma 2, so it wont be as demanding as you think, if you can max Arma 2, you can max Arma 3 no problem

Hopefully it won't be as buggy as Arma2.

Ah ha, but here's the kicker -- is it fun???musicalmac

[QUOTE="musicalmac"]Ah ha, but here's the kicker -- is it fun???blue_hazy_basic

Total War games are incredibly fun.

Fall of the Samurai is one of the best games so far this year.

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"][QUOTE="musicalmac"]Ah ha, but here's the kicker -- is it fun???with_teeth26

Total War games are incredibly fun.

Fall of the Samurai is one of the best games so far this year.

Looks great, but I can't imagine my rig will run it particularly well. So I guess I'll just stick with ambien.

Ah ha, but here's the kicker -- is it fun???musicalmac

To some, it's the most boring game of all time.

To others, it's among the only FPS they enjoy.

I lean towards the latter, but I still enjoy craptons of FPS.

everything looks amazing these days.

i have been playing the photorealistic mods for gta4 and even that old game is just stunning.

ARMA 2 has ruined other military FPSes for me. I'll probably snag the game when it goes on sale (by then hopefully I'll have upgraded!). Though that hinges on if I have some people willing to co-op with me. I really have no desire to play the game by myself. Legging it and driving around in a humvee for a few hours ain't bad when you got some real humans to talk to.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Yeah I'm going to need some 670s for this game...

HaloinventedFPS

actually the game is better optimized than Arma 2, so it wont be as demanding as you think, if you can max Arma 2, you can max Arma 3 no problem

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"][QUOTE="musicalmac"]Ah ha, but here's the kicker -- is it fun???with_teeth26

Total War games are incredibly fun.

Fall of the Samurai is one of the best games so far this year.

[QUOTE="with_teeth26"]

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"] Almost as fun as Total war games!blue_hazy_basic

Total War games are incredibly fun.

Fall of the Samurai is one of the best games so far this year.

Sorry I thought you were being sarcastic.

my mistake