Is it any good?
Performance wise, is it any better?
Performance wise, is it any better?
I've got 8mb ram,
Not really. Still shitty as fuck FPS even though it looks like a game from 2006-2008.
I've got 8mb ram, i7-3770K at 4.5ghz and GTX 680 with 4000 MB memory.... still 5-15 FPS. In other words, makes aiming well impossible.
Not sure what your issue is, my computer is somewhat equal and I run it at 40+ FPS unless I'm on a wasteland server or on a mission with a huge amount of shit on the map.
I'm playing on highest settings (still looks like crap).
I play on medium - high with all post-processing turned off and I think it looks and runs great, sorry if it's not your cup of tea but that doesn't call for a temper tantrum. Considering you probably only played Day Z in ARMA 2 I can see why you wouldn't like ARMA 3.
actual in-game images I mean, not PR ones
lol all of those are in-game, the only one that looks like a PR screenshot is the last one.Derp. So we know not to trust your judgement anymore...
1st = legit (you can notice LODs on distant bushes) and looks pretty goodYes, looks alright. Has a lot of not-so-impressive things too, though, like the bushes. And I don't like the distant terrain LOD too much. That's a screenshot taken from a gaming site though, so don't know what settings they're running - the graphics in that screenshot aren't anything to write home about either, in all honesty. Not that there's much going on in it, other than a dude sitting and some plain hills.
Derp. So we know not to trust your judgement anymore...
Yes, looks alright. Has a lot of not-so-impressive things too, though, like the bushes. And I don't like the distant terrain LOD too much. That's a screenshot taken from a gaming site though, so don't know what settings they're running - the graphics in that screenshot aren't anything to write home about either, in all honesty. Not that there's much going on in it, other than a dude sitting and some plain hills.
So what games are cutting edge enough for you to think are NEXT GENERATION extreme graphics?Who was talking about next generation extreme graphics, aside from you just now? How about Crysis, that's a game that looks great and runs better and was released in 2007. Battlefield 3 also seems to look a lot better, haven't played it though. Or FC 3. OFP:DR seems to handle the distant terrain a lot better as well. Or Skyrim. Hard to think of an AAA game released lately that doesn't look better than ArmA 3, but most of them aren't open world so that's just some examples.
The second screenshot looks like it was taken in game from the camera script, first screenshot is clearly not doctored or touched up. Not sure why you're so stingy but your judgement is clearly strewn about, and I think we can already agree that it's not to be trusted either.
Honestly man, if you don't like the game you don't like it, in your mind you think that the blue tint mess that is BF3 looks better and in mind I think ARMA 3 is much better. I thought the graphics in FC3 were very average, same with Dragon Rising. Crysis is an exception, but you're drawing opinions on a game based entirely on the graphics so I probably should have just drawn the line from the start.First, Crysis wasn't based entirely on the graphics. It had good gameplay, much better than yon average shooter these days. FC3 does have average graphics, as does DR, no argument there.
Your judgement is strewn about because you're basing your entire opinion of a game solely on the looks, rather than the gameplay.
I'm playing on highest settings (still looks like crap).
How is saying it looks like crap, which it does, a temper tantrum? It looks nowhere near as good as other modern games, and it certainly doesn't look good enough to justify the FPS. And way to make ASSumptions about things you don't know anything about.
You know, every time you said the graphics were shit. You never said other wise, the apparent position you're in based solely on your posts is that you think ARMA 3 is a bad game and you haven't given any real reasons beyond 'shitty as fuck FPS'.
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, regardless, you're entitled to your opinions and the whole point of this thread was to get more people to play the beta before the 25th, but look! It's out now and now I guess we're talking the graphical quality of Crysis.
Who was talking about next generation extreme graphics, aside from you just now? How about Crysis, that's a game that looks great and runs better and was released in 2007. Battlefield 3 also seems to look a lot better, haven't played it though. Or FC 3. OFP:DR seems to handle the distant terrain a lot better as well. Or Skyrim. Hard to think of an AAA game released lately that doesn't look better than ArmA 3, but most of them aren't open world so that's just some examples.
You know, every time you said the graphics were shit. You never said other wise, the apparent position you're in based solely on your posts is that you think ARMA 3 is a bad game and you haven't given any real reasons beyond 'shitty as fuck FPS'.You know he really got you there. He didnt state that the game in general was shit. He kept repeating how the graphics was bad. Ofcourse it really is easy to misinterpret his posts cause they have a seriuslly angry tone to them.
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, regardless, you're entitled to your opinions and the whole point of this thread was to get more people to play the beta before the 25th, but look! It's out now and now I guess we're talking the graphical quality of Crysis.
You know he really got you there. He didnt state that the game in general was shit. He kept repeating how the graphics was bad. Ofcourse it really is easy to misinterpret his posts cause they have a seriuslly angry tone to them.
Well to be fair, Crysis was focused solely on graphics, stating anything else is blatantly false, it was far from ground-breaking gameplay. And when it was first released it ran terribly, it's had 6 years to be optimized to run better.How is stating anything else "blatantly false"? This sounds fucking silly, because it is, but provide some proof that it's "Blatantly false" it wasn't just solely focused on graphics. I can provide evidence to the contrary - gameplay videos. But I'm sure you can YouTube those. Crysis had ten times more gameplay than any of your CoDs released today. It had lots of pretty groundbreaking stuff, the whole open world GAMEPLAY being one of them. Only game to do that to any kind of comparable level before that was Far Cry. The suit and the powers was also a nice twist to the usual boring shooter gameplay. I don't like playing shooter singleplayers generally, but I liked Crysis 1, because of the gameplay...
Well, whatever, like I said none of it matters anyway we all have our opinions. Not sure why this became the 'which game has better graphics?' thread.
How is stating anything else "blatantly false"? This sounds fucking silly, because it is, but provide some proof that it's "Blatantly false" it wasn't just solely focused on graphics. I can provide evidence to the contrary - gameplay videos. But I'm sure you can YouTube those. Crysis had ten times more gameplay than any of your CoDs released today. It had lots of pretty groundbreaking stuff, the whole open world GAMEPLAY being one of them. Only game to do that to any kind of comparable level before that was Far Cry. The suit and the powers was also a nice twist to the usual boring shooter gameplay. I don't like playing shooter singleplayers generally, but I liked Crysis 1, because of the gameplay...
Yeah, wouldn't want to hit "page 1" and find out, would you? Let me refresh your memory: you started arguing about it with me after someone asked about performance and I said it's still bad for how it looks like.
Not really. Still shitty as fuck FPS even though it looks like a game from 2006-2008.
I've got 8mb ram, i7-3770K at 4.5ghz and GTX 680 with 4000 MB memory.... still 5-15 FPS. In other words, makes aiming well impossible.
I was hyped for arma 3 but only played about an hour of the alpha. it looks amazing, runs awful on my PC but importantly ISN'T ANY FUN. I mean vanilla arma is the most boring game despite the engine being so capable.
only reason I have interest in arma is because of the potential of mods. No I'm not just talking day z, project reality is being working on for arma 3.
How is stating anything else "blatantly false"? This sounds fucking silly, because it is, but provide some proof that it's "Blatantly false" it wasn't just solely focused on graphics. I can provide evidence to the contrary - gameplay videos. But I'm sure you can YouTube those. Crysis had ten times more gameplay than any of your CoDs released today. It had lots of pretty groundbreaking stuff, the whole open world GAMEPLAY being one of them. Only game to do that to any kind of comparable level before that was Far Cry. The suit and the powers was also a nice twist to the usual boring shooter gameplay. I don't like playing shooter singleplayers generally, but I liked Crysis 1, because of the gameplay...
I think you should probably calm down before you have a heart attack there, sport.
Let's go back to page 1 then, shall we:
I'm still not sure what issue you're having, my specs are pretty much the same (actually a bit worse) and I can still run it on high with 30 - 50 FPS. As I previously stated, I guess it is your own opinion, but I agree with Applesauce and others that ARMA 3's graphics are actually quite superior to just about anything else on it's level. Skyrim's graphics were very sub-par, Battlefield 3 was impressive for the first day but then I realized that a blue tint can make anything look nice.
Your overall angry attitude and demeanor certainly leave you in an awkward position, since you repeatedly claim that the graphics are shit and that you get a shit frame rate. Not only is the imagination left picturing you smashing your keyboard, but you're also insinuating that the game itself is bad. Forgive me for confusing your rants and shitty comparisons for a poor review of a game that many of us hold dearly and have been anticipating for years. Maybe I was quick to be defensive, but my initial response was only met with you further complaining about the quality of the game.
Live and let live, you can enjoy your Crysis and Battlefield 3 all you want, but I'll stick with ARMA 3 since I personally find the gameplay to dwarf that of any other game mentioned here.