Arma 2 > Arma 3

[Roy]

Anyone agree?
Not sure if nostalgia is a factor but i massively prefer the settings and equipment of 2(oa) over 3's.

Also something about the shooting feels a lot more accurate and reliable.
I'm sure 3's ballistics are far more advanced and realistic but with everyone packing body armor sometimes enemies feel somewhat bulletspongy, as there is no penalty from getting hit apart from some odd flinch.

If they ever release arma 4 i hope they further advance the ballistics and injury system by knocking people down when they get hit, regardless of fatality.

Also the expanded movement/stances system in Arma 3 always felt a bit underdevolped, although i definitely miss the extra options of mobility replaying arma 2.


I definitely wouldn't say Arma 3 is better than Arma 2 tbh, in some places arma 2 outweighs Arma 3 for me.

[Nebgama]

Yes Arma 2 is way better than Arma 3.

Arma 3 feels off in many ways Arma 2 just has a certain vibe to it that imo Arma 3 failed to capture.

Can't quite put my finger on it but i think it is just the game in general is sub par compared to 2.

[klayman]

Thats why i deleted arma 3. Cant enjoy it. Weapons feel weak, everything is tacticool and much more arcade.

[ot]

hi i have a question is the dayz launcher down or why is it not downloadable anymore

[Svet]

Thought so too, till I took off Nostalgia googles and compared it with the premise of finding truth, instead of something that would satisfy my perception of it

[ash]

Originally posted by s i l e n t r e a a p z:

hi i have a question is the dayz launcher down or why is it not downloadable anymore

This happened to me too but only on chrome, Use bing or any other search engine

[theo]

Setting and equipment yes, totally. This futuristic warfare trend in modern military shooters/sims sucks.
Game mechanics less so, there are pros and cons.
Overall I prefer original OFP over both lol.

[MAKO]

Arma 2 has a more gloomy and realistic combat experience where as arma 3 seemed like it was trying to keep up with the modern day world and the way games were changing even though bohemia could have taken an entirely different approach to the game and just made the functionality of it better.

[Emilio]

Someone please open a Wasteland utes server!!

[John Lemon]

+1
I've always thought the same way.

[Lasac]

never played arma 3 cause the pc i currently have cant really give good fps , but i will say that arma feels much better when put in a setting that resembles eastern europe , arma 1 is set on tropical island (sahrani) and it just feels meh , while arma 2 basicaly nailed its setting

[NerevarineGMSV]

ARMA 3 was a huge disappointment. I bought it late because I read all the poor reviews and comparisons how it sucks compared to ARMA 2. I bought it late, and my PC was beyond the specs at the time it came out. Singleplayer was trash, too scripted/linear, and I didn't dig the mission editor changes, the AI was worse, like some Operation:Flashpoint flashback or like I was playing "SOLDNER". So I played Online and had some fun, but it got boring. Almost no performance issues. But boring, so stopped playing, went back to ARMA 2 which had a rhythm down and all it's bad-arse mods.

Came back years later a couple of times and noticed how performance greatly dipped.
What did they do to the game? Why would it run like garage a computer ahead of the game's time? Were they helping hardware manufacturers sell more hardware? I see the forums people screaming about performance issues and then acting like some beta males "OH well, maybe my 2016 computer sucks I should buy a modern 2017 computer" - W-WHAT? to play this old game? Instead of holding the devs responsible they're all "Yeah it's my fault my GPU invented in 2019 can't run this 2013 game sorry folks, thanks for tips like: update drivers, update to windows 10, and do as you suggest and wait for hardware technology to catchup to this modern game...that came out in 2013."

What an idiotic situation, it defies logic and no one seems to think logically anymore but just take it in the rompus. The devs should not get a "pass for this" because when ARMA 3 came out, people didn't just buy computers for the first time that same year, everyone already had systems from earlier years and playing ARMA 2 already. As in my case I waited too and PC was beyond the recommended specs when I finally picked it up on sale for $4.99 lol. Now you have people with 2020 and 2021 GPUs with like 10GB running all kinds of stuff with ULTRA settings, but when they go to play ARMA 3 brings their systems to its knees and creating all sorts of issues.

What's the solution they're told: "Oh, it's your PC sucks, not the game."
It's like: GTFO already and they just "accept" that.

I'm glad it's on sale again and people are checking it out, so this way they continue to light up the forums complaining. Hopefully, they'll make a enough noise the devs will do something. I would never update ARMA 2 though. I understand the recent update is to help with Windows 11 but I don't trust the dev anymore after what they did to ARMA 3.

ARMA 3 in itself is a grossly inferior game to ARMA 2 when it should have exceeded as typically with sequels, you try to improve on the prior one...if not, then what was the point of the effort? Milking? They've had years to fix/improve it with updates, but instead put out crummy DLCs for things that should have already been in the game or people have modded into it but they try to nerf all that. Whereas ARMA 2 had countless maps, new units/vehicles, plethora of things added by the community.

Imagine if when Quake came out in 1996, "updates" that added 1 or 2 new weapons,a few maps, and few new creatures, somehow resulted in people with PCs in 2006 can't run it, and all id Software/fanboys would say is "you need to upgrade". Upgrade to what?
Why do I bring up QUAKE. Well, do you want to see a joke?

QUAKE's requirements were:
OS: DOS or Windows 95
CPU: Intel Pentium 75MHz
RAM: 8MB if using DOS, 16MB if using Win95 (that should tell you how crummy Windows is if you need to double your ram to play the game)
HD Space: 80MB
Graphics: VGA graphics card

Today, with the re-release/remaster/whatever:
OS: Windows 10
CPU: Intel i5-3570@3.4GHz or AMD Ryzen 3 1300X @ 3.5GHz
RAM: 8GB
HD Space: 2GB
Graphics: Nvidia GeForce GTX 650 TI (2GB) or AMD HD 7750 (1GB)

So we went from mega to giga, and the game looks/feels the same.
Does anyone see this and recognize the problem here? How is this possible?
Who benefits? Nvidia? Intel? AMD? Microsoft?

If you told someone in 1996, the game would be remastered but would need a gaming system invented in "futuristic" 2012 to run it, because it requires everything powered at the level of GIGA (which was unimaginable to many then) than MEGA to even run it...while it would still look/feel the same, they'd laugh at you and cast you out.

This is a problem that continues to get worse overtime and I think it's evident with ARMA 3. I love playing ARMA 2 because my system from "it's future" allows me to max it out with huge epic-scale battles. They last for hours. This is because ARMA 2 still runs the way it did at the time it came out, so you don't need to constantly "upgrade your PC" just to play it. Instead, moderning systems allow you do to more and more because advancing PCs can handle more, so you can have massive armies battling it out across the maps.

... In comparison, the current state of ARMA 3 it's the other way around. It increasingly gets worse over time, starts to stutter, when it didn't before. So you go have to turn down the graphics on advancing PC systems, reduce the army size to the point it makes having giant maps pointless to have. For me, it's to the point it's just 1 squad against another squad on a giant map. Weren't the giant maps so we can have epic battles? Now it's just a useless backdrop that needs to be "fogged" out of sight/mind.

So I stick with the superior and undefiled ARMA 2.

[ZigZack]

Originally posted by Svet:

Thought so too, till I took off Nostalgia googles and compared it with the premise of finding truth, instead of something that would satisfy my perception of it

I started A2 and A3 at roughly the same time. Personally, I’d you’re going the mod route aimed at simulation, A2 has your back (better AI, better UI, better damage model, more features, etc). Only thing A3 has on 2 is that you can barely find anyone to play coop with. It’s to the point that you either go solo or nothing at all, which is why I spend so much time in Squad since it offers a nice balance. It’s very unfortunate really what happened to A2 :/

[ONDIER]

Originally posted by Lasert:

never played arma 3 cause the pc i currently have cant really give good fps

Unless you're running a modern Xeon, EVERYONE gets 10 FPS. It's a full-blown meme at this point. The single-core/thread capacity limit on the engine won't EVER be remedied, which is why Enfusion (?) is basically a ground-up rebuild.

At this stage in my life, I can confidently say BIS won't make another cent off me, as a matter of principle.

ARMA2OA, Project Reality, SQUAD, Post Scriptum, Ready or Not, Six Days in Fallujah (?), et cet. all have something decent on offer (some have not released yet, keep an eye on them though) - I have no reason to spend money on BI ever again, and by the time I do, I'm sure there will be a competitor to ARMA 4 that I would rather invest in without consideration.

Again, it's a matter of principle for me at this point. Some would obviously disagree.

[UmbralPenumbra]

Originally posted by KaiserZandrich:

Six Days in Fallujah (?)

From what I've heard, everything "controversial" is going to be watered down or removed, so I doubt it

[ONDIER]

Originally posted by 4pl8:

Originally posted by KaiserZandrich:

Six Days in Fallujah (?)

From what I've heard, everything "controversial" is going to be watered down or removed, so I doubt it

I really hope not.