Why Does A Big Budget PC-Exclusive Like Arma 3 Look So...Mediocre?

[QUOTE="KillzoneSnake"]

If you compare it to Shadow Fall it looks dead ugly. I dont care how big the maps are.

uninspiredcup

Agreed, Particularly the multiplayer, Shadow Fall looks terrible. Really bad use of lightshafts and bloom.

Arma 3 (being a big boy pc game) lets you customize it. Even on default it's better.

Looks so bad that it looks better than 100% of current console titles.silversix_

That's not exactly a crowning achievement.

Wow at some of the comments in this thread...

Nah the graphics look good it's just the performance that sucks

It's a simulation. It runs so much data in the background of things you aren't seeing but that keep it realistic. I wouldn't be surprised if it kept track of all AI positions and behaviours even if you're on the other side of the map. Something like GTAV only spawns AI and keeps track of it in a minor distance around the player.

[QUOTE="gpuking"]Graphically aside from nice lighting and models, the rest look like junk sh*t. It's understandable since it's catering for a huge area but still, graphics is graphics. Smaller map games will always look better. If judging by screenshot even some PS3 games look better.uninspiredcup

But it looks better than all console games.

Do you now the video of that GIF and the trackmania map, that looks wicked!

Because it strives for ultra realism. In real life you don't have absurd lens flare, ridiculous lighting, absurd amount of particles all over the place, and other exaggerated effects. No next-gen console game so far has a more realistic look.

uninspiredcup

Like I said, absurd over the top lighting.

Because it strives for ultra realism. In real life you don't have absurd lens flare, ridiculous lighting, absurd amount of particles all over the place, and other exaggerated effects. No next-gen console game so far has a more realistic look.

nunovlopes

and in real life you have robotic animations and streets completely void of refuge or detail?

remember when you last went for a walk on that razor sharp flat surface of a road in real life?

arma looks terrible because it is terrible and has no budget compared to modern titles. Its not a big budget PC game.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

Because it strives for ultra realism. In real life you don't have absurd lens flare, ridiculous lighting, absurd amount of particles all over the place, and other exaggerated effects. No next-gen console game so far has a more realistic look.

BeardMaster

and in real life you have robotic animations and streets completely void of refuge or detail?

remember when you last went for a walk on that razor sharp flat surface of a road in real life?

arma looks terrible because it is terrible and has no budget compared to modern titles. Its not a big budget PC game.

I'll give you the robotic animations, but I don't really count it as graphics, because good animations have nothing to do with hardware, but more to do with budget spent improving them, with motion capture, etc.

As for streets completely void of refuge, yes you have. Just look outside, sometimes you have barren land with just about nothing for miles.

[QUOTE="silversix_"]Looks so bad that it looks better than 100% of current console titles.ReadingRainbow4

That's not exactly a crowning achievement.

[QUOTE="123Sippi"]yeah im sure you know all the tech thats in gta 5lundy86_4

GTA V map is 49 square miles. Or, just shy of 80KM.

Arma 3's map is 270 square KM's.

That's 3.4x bigger.

Hey, sippi.

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="123Sippi"]yeah im sure you know all the tech thats in gta 5lundy86_4

GTA V map is 49 square miles. Or, just shy of 80KM.

Arma 3's map is 270 square KM's.

That's 3.4x bigger.

Hey, sippi.