Author Topic: ARMA 3 Beta  (Read 4136 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tibe

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1335
  • Infamy: 287
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Bishop
    • View Profile
Re: ARMA 3 Beta
« Reply #30 on: June 26, 2013, 07:33:38 am »
0
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.
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.

Offline Artyem

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1218
  • Infamy: 264
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Knight
  • SODOM Shaman
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Dracul / Raven / SODOMY
  • Game nicks: Artyem
Re: ARMA 3 Beta
« Reply #31 on: June 26, 2013, 09:37:27 am »
0
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, 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.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Sordida asinum latronibus sumus

Offline Xant

  • Finnish Pony
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1552
  • Infamy: 803
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: ARMA 3 Beta
« Reply #32 on: June 26, 2013, 09:53:51 am »
0
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.

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.
Meaning lies as much
in the mind of the reader
as in the Haiku.

Offline Artyem

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1218
  • Infamy: 264
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Knight
  • SODOM Shaman
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Dracul / Raven / SODOMY
  • Game nicks: Artyem
Re: ARMA 3 Beta
« Reply #33 on: June 26, 2013, 10:12:27 am »
+1
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.

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:

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'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.

EDIT:

Back on the primary topic!

The changes made from the Alpha to the Beta certainly seem to have greatly effected the gun play and combat mechanics.  Cover is much more essential and timing your shots while trying to maintain some stamina to steady your aim really does bring a whole new level to the gameplay itself.

I love the new Independents, since one of my primary issues with ARMA 3 is the futuristic element in itself.  The Greek Army has a more modern day look to them, since the NATO forces look like ordinary futuristic soldiers (I dislike the new rifle BLUFOR units use) and the OPFOR units look like Cobra soldiers from G.I. Joe.  I guess their look and weapons seem a bit more realistic to me, as do they to the guys I play with.

I haven't really fucked with PVP yet, but the Co-op is great, I just wish I could find a decent revive script or a more involved medical system (hopefully a version of ACE or something similar will come out soon).  Being able to heal yourself without sitting up is pretty amazing too, since I can pull a bullet out of my liver while laying behind cover.  Unlike ARMA 2 where you'd have to stand up and expose yourself to enemy fire.

From what I did play in PVP, I noticed that the Wasteland servers are very laggy, which is seemingly due to the large amount of shit being spawned and kept on the map at once.  This was initially an issue with ARMA 2 as well, but over time it was fixed and Wasteland could run like a charm.  I expect it won't be too long before we have the same with ARMA 3.  What I mostly look forward to getting into though is Island Life and Warfare.  Insurgency would be pretty sweet on this new engine, too.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 10:22:55 am by Artyem »
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Sordida asinum latronibus sumus

Offline Teeth

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 2550
  • Infamy: 1057
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Bishop A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: ARMA 3 Beta
« Reply #34 on: June 26, 2013, 10:15:33 am »
+4
Fuck off, Crysis was one of the rare recent shooters I actually enjoyed in singleplayer.

Offline Artyem

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1218
  • Infamy: 264
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Knight
  • SODOM Shaman
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Dracul / Raven / SODOMY
  • Game nicks: Artyem
Re: ARMA 3 Beta
« Reply #35 on: June 26, 2013, 10:25:21 am »
0
Crysis was pretty fun, but I didn't enjoy the multiplayer that came with Warhead or any of the mods that accompanied it.  I gave up on most shooters after Call of Duty:  Mediocre Warfail 2 came out, since it was such a monstrous piece of shit.

Call of Duty 2 will forever live on in my heart as one of the greatest SP games that I've ever played.  Sometimes I still have urges to re-install it and give it another spin.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Sordida asinum latronibus sumus

Offline Banok

  • Duke
  • *******
  • Renown: 521
  • Infamy: 215
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: ARMA 3 Beta
« Reply #36 on: June 26, 2013, 10:31:26 am »
+1
crysis 1 had the most underated multiplayer...

Powerstruggle was an simply awesome mix of battlefield and c&c. played that shit for hours and hours, barely anyone else appreciated it.

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.

Offline Artyem

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1218
  • Infamy: 264
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Knight
  • SODOM Shaman
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Dracul / Raven / SODOMY
  • Game nicks: Artyem
Re: ARMA 3 Beta
« Reply #37 on: June 26, 2013, 10:35:27 am »
-1
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.

I agree entirely, vanilla ARMA sucks pretty badly.  I can't play ARMA 2 at this point without ACE and a plethora of other mods, and even then I need at least 2 other people to have fun.

I never really played ARMA for the PVP, it's always been about the co-op, and apparently not many other people play it for that reason.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Sordida asinum latronibus sumus

Offline Vibe

  • Vibrator
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 2528
  • Infamy: 615
  • cRPG Player Madam White Queen A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: ARMA 3 Beta
« Reply #38 on: June 26, 2013, 10:46:40 am »
+2
Dunno, Arma 3 ran decent enough so far in Alpha, haven't tried beta as I'm away on vacation. Had a lot of fun teamkilling my people in Wasteland (by accidentaly pressing G for inventory) or just camping gunshops/bridges with remote explosives.

Offline TheAppleSauceMan

  • Duke
  • *******
  • Renown: 553
  • Infamy: 39
  • cRPG Player
  • dear god I hate throwers
    • View Profile
    • Look and you'll enjoy.
  • Faction: Dracul, RUFF RYDERS
  • Game nicks: Dracul_AppleSauce_FieldBauss | Wiff Khalifa | U_Having_A_Giggle_M8
Re: ARMA 3 Beta
« Reply #39 on: June 26, 2013, 11:34:22 am »
0
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...

Fair enough, making such a broad statement may have been a bit much. But I simply said that because Crysis is generally seen as a benchmark for graphics. I don't really know anyone who thinks "Crysis" when they think of games with amazing and/or revolutionary gameplay.

Well I can't disagree with that, CoD is shit. But that's not saying much even then, almost every game has more gameplay than that diluted series.

I don't think that's groundbreaking in the slightest, there's been many open-world games before that, with a much more open world, with much more going on in them. Far Cry was most definitely not the only game before it to do open world gameplay on a comparable level, there's been many other games to do that open-world gameplay on a much higher level in fact. I'm not saying nobody liked the single-player, that's obviously not true. But I really don't think any of what you mentioned it had was groundbreaking, because other games before it have done any number of those things in a vastly superior manner.

But lets get back on topic, this got out of hand. We're here to discuss our opinions on Arma 3, not de-rail and talk about the gameplay of Crysis. (not to point fingers and say I'm not guilty of this, I am)
I'm rock, nerf paper, scissors is fine. Welcome to c-RPG.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Xant

  • Finnish Pony
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1552
  • Infamy: 803
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: ARMA 3 Beta
« Reply #40 on: June 26, 2013, 05:58:22 pm »
0
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.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


I can run it on high with decent FPS too. My main problem with ArmA 3's graphics is that the engine is way too unoptimized. If it looked like it did on Ultra and ran like it did on Standard, I'd be happy.

I'm insinuating nothing. I only mean what I say. That seems to be hard to understand. You've made about fifteen ASSumptions about me and my opinions so far that have all been incorrect, so how about you stick to what I've said instead of trying to find some insinuations that only exist in your mind.
Meaning lies as much
in the mind of the reader
as in the Haiku.

Offline CaveSquirrel

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 199
  • Infamy: 40
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Ayween_the_Quail
  • IRC nick: CaveSquirrel
Re: ARMA 3 Beta
« Reply #41 on: June 26, 2013, 06:03:51 pm »
0
Just figured out it has that option of choosing graphics and so on by Hardware.

Says it could run on Ultra for me but having like 15 to 20 FPS.

On High it runs well. Only played the parcours though.

Offline Sagar

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 463
  • Infamy: 279
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Pawn
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Bogumili
  • Game nicks: Sagar
  • IRC nick: Sagar
Re: ARMA 3 Beta
« Reply #42 on: June 29, 2013, 10:33:39 pm »
+1
This is very useful ArmA 3 Beta Performance Tweaks and Settings Guide
http://day0.com.au/forum/arma/355-arma-3-beta-performance-tweaks-and-settings-guide

Offline Vibe

  • Vibrator
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 2528
  • Infamy: 615
  • cRPG Player Madam White Queen A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: ARMA 3 Beta
« Reply #43 on: June 29, 2013, 10:54:55 pm »
+1
Also note that if you play Wasteland and get bad fps it's most probably because of the mission itself.

Offline Molly

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1860
  • Infamy: 693
  • cRPG Player Sir Black Rook A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
    • For the glorious Khorin...
  • Game nicks: Molly
Re: ARMA 3 Beta
« Reply #44 on: June 29, 2013, 10:58:36 pm »
+1
You all realize it just went from Alpha to Beta?

Kinda stupid to argue about graphics or in-depth performance, dont you think? -.-

If it goes like this with MBG-alpha... God help us...
When west germany annexed east germany, nobody moved a finger too.