Mixed or average reviews - based on 38 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 20 out of 38
  2. Negative: 2 out of 38
  1. Sep 23, 2013
    There is no doubt that Arma III is realistic. In fact, it is the best combat simulator on the market. Is it fun though? For me, I found it an exercise in frustration at times. Games need to entertain me, not frustrate me.
  2. Sep 23, 2013
    Arma III is the best representation of realistic warfare I've seen to date, and I for one can't wait to see what the community cooks up for it. For now, however, it is a bit too skinny for its breeches.
  3. Sep 13, 2013
    For now, I think it means you're better off sticking with Arma II. Underwater missions, accomplished vehicle physics, an impressive array of player stances and fantastic visuals can't make up for a too-big map full of nothing and a handful of missions most computers and servers can't fully handle. I'll tell you what though, Arma III is going to be a great game in 2015.
  4. Nov 22, 2013
    Arma 3 seems to have a lot to offer in terms of multiplayer, but still not so much for the player looking to the single player experience.
  5. games(TM)
    Oct 23, 2013
    This is a sandbox first, and that's what you should base your buying decision on. [Issue#140, p.110]
  6. Oct 18, 2013
    Arma 3 is as much a tool as it is a game, and it is by far the best tool Bohemia has created so far. Its not perfect though, and it's still a product for a very specific audience. I wish a few compromises had been made to make it more accessible and fun.
  7. Oct 11, 2013
    Although it's by far the most realistic war game ever created we can't ignore the fact that -as it is at this moment- ARMA III is incomplete. It feels almost like it's in a beta phase.
  8. 70
    Arma 3 demands much of the player's ability, forcing him to make the best possible experience. It is the player who has to entertain itself using the tools that Bohemia Interactive provided.
  9. Sep 22, 2013
    The most realistic and versatile soldier sim ever made, but also the most bug-ridden and inscrutable – with an initial release that is missing a lot of promised features.
  10. Sep 18, 2013
    Arma III’s complexity is a double-edged sword. It takes a long time to comprehend, but once you’re comfortable enough with its mechanics to take advantage of them under pressure, you’re able to engage in a kind of large-scale tactical combat that’s simply not offered elsewhere.
  11. Sep 16, 2013
    It's a two-faced game that seems to be too complicated, old fashioned and unfair to new players. But it has a fascinating part when well-organized gamers play co-op and multiplayer matches.
  12. Sep 12, 2013
    Buy into Arma 3 now and you’re buying into many promises. Bohemia’s pledge of a coherent campaign, its promise of a wider array of military toys to play with, and its intent to tweak and update AI errors, scripting issues, and pathfinding problems. But these promises are backed up by thousands of the world’s most dedicated players, people who’ve spent years crawling through Arma 2’s rough terrain to find the comparatively even ground of Arma 3. Buying Arma 3 at launch is buying a promise, then, but few games are so meticulously realised, or show so much promise.
  13. Oct 17, 2013
    The game that Bohemia Interactive has released isn’t finished. It’s pretty at rest, but not always attractive in motion. At no point does it want to make itself clear.
  14. Sep 12, 2013
    ArmA III has kept me busy for months, and its final version made me feel ambivalent. On one hand we have a great technological leap, on the other - poor content. Sure, ArmA III isn't your regular shooter that needs to have an interesting, long campaign - it's a game that lives through the community - but it's a pity, that the gamers were given so little to work on. Arma III was supposed to be great, and right now is only promising.
  15. Oct 31, 2013
    With Arma 3, Bohemia made a big step towards a unified platform for its military shooters, but at the same time took two steps back in regards to actual game content. Only the most hardcore fans will enjoy Arma 3 in its current form.
  16. Sep 13, 2013
    Arma III raises the interest of the franchise and improves a many points from previous episodes ... but we're still waiting for the solo campaign to finally confirm this positive trend.
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 934 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Sep 12, 2013
    Great graphics
    Giant terrain Cons: Lack of content Bugs Lack of modding tools (available ones are obsolete) Lack of proper
    Great graphics
    Giant terrain

    Lack of content
    Lack of modding tools (available ones are obsolete)
    Lack of proper modding documentation
    Lack of support
    Full Review »
  2. Sep 12, 2013
    First of all: the actual score is only to compensate for the blind fanboys who are giving this game a 10. Not in their wildest dreams is thisFirst of all: the actual score is only to compensate for the blind fanboys who are giving this game a 10. Not in their wildest dreams is this game deserving of a perfect score. In fact, a reasonable score would be something in the 3 to 5 range.

    Full disclosure: I bought the game when the alpha was first released. Not only that: I got the "Supporter Edition", which is supposed to get be every bit of content, including future paid DLC. I even got my name in the credits for being one of the first 500 to buy it!

    Since then, not much has improved. This is basically an unfinished game... according to "Dwarden", one of the developers who constantly posts on the Steam Community Discussions for ARMA 3, Bohemia Interactive's games are like "wine", and they get bette over time. Well... months have passed, and I still see something that shouldn't be considered a full release. This is still an early alpha build, at best.

    The game lacks content. There are few vehicles and they all look pretty much alike. The game is also supposed to take place in the 2030s, and the only available jet looks like it came straight out of the 1970s.

    The sound effects and voice acting is awful and not realistic at all, even though this is promoted as a "simulator" rather than an actual game.

    The interface is terrible and not intuitive at all. Perhaps one of the worst aspects of the game. It's really something you have to see for yourself... on gameplay videos, that is. You'd be shocked by how bad it is.

    Altis, the "huge open-world" environment of the game, is a dead, uninteresting place. Towns all look the same. Houses have no furniture. The few inhabitants are all in beach clothing for some reason (do people actually work in Altis?). It makes you wonder why there's a military conflict to take control of the island in the first place.

    The poor optimization of the game deserves an essay of its own. Really, it's baffling how at this day and age something like this can be accepted by the gaming community. The game runs HORRIBLY on the most high-end PCs out there, no matter how low the settings are. Arma 3's shortcomings on this regard are well documented. Just Google "Arma 3" and "FPS". The game uses an ancient engine that despite being incredibly heavy doesn't even manage to make the game look as good as something like Crysis 3, Battlefield 3, The Witcher 2, Metro: Last Light, etc..

    Things get worse when you go online. You'll get about a third of the framerates you get in "single-player".

    Oh yes, and I added quotes to "single-player" because... there's no actual single-player campaign yet. Just a bunch of showcases (small demos) that were there from day 1 of the alpha.

    So what are you left with in this "fantastic" military simulator, since multi-player is pretty much unplayable? Well... load up the map editor and die of boredom.

    It's as if Bohemia Interactice is asking the community to save this train wreck with custom scenarios and the like. Why? because Bohemia Interactive failed at releasing a proper game.

    Of course, they don't lack excuses. "Part of the development team was in jail for some time". "Bohemia isn't as big as EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Valve, etc.". "The game will get better". Just to name a few.

    Well I don't care. If you're ambitious enough to release what's supposed to be "a futuristic military simulator in a huge open-world environment", that game better deliver. Especially when you're charging the same for it as those other companies charge for their well-polished games.

    Anyway, that's my rant. Don't make the same mistake I made. This game is not worth your money, or more importantly, your time.
    Full Review »
  3. Sep 12, 2013
    Compare to the other games, with the right players it can achieve more, we don't need call of duty fans
    to play this game and say, "Omg this
    Compare to the other games, with the right players it can achieve more, we don't need call of duty fans
    to play this game and say, "Omg this game sux ballz, i cnt run faster, i cant shoot anything omg"
    so, if you hate a Real and intense game play don't buy this game, it need communication and team work,
    which simply no kid in cod has ever done before
    Full Review »