User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 699 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. 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 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.
  2. Sep 14, 2013
    ArmA 3 has a great premise and pulls some things off well like better player movement, better graphics and PhysX support. In this case However the cons outweigh the pro's.

    The lack of optimization to the game is really showing in the third iteration. The constant stuttering and chugging because the game demands more memory that the 32 bit architecture just can't give, The terrible
    hardware utilization of the engine, expecting users to have 10ghz single core CPU's to counter act the aging Real Virtuality engine's lack of proper multi threading and parallel processing and the general buggyness of the overall game. Lack of content and the copy and pasted content that is there leads to ArmA 3 feeling like it was rushed out the door rather than released on time and in a better state than past ArmA games. The lack of a campaign at launch just further signifies how far Bohemia Interactive is on development of ArmA 3. While Bohemia Interactive is known for supporting their games far after launch, One has to wonder exactly how long they can afford to support ArmA 3 with all of the core issue's that it has before DLC's are needed to boost revenue.

    I would recommend this game only to the hardcore ArmA player who can overlook the shortcomings and the bugs that once again plague an ArmA release. While there are definite improvements in some areas of the game, they are too few and far between to make up for the lack of quality in aesthetics and overall content, the terrible performance of the game and the overall incomplete feel and buggy state that it is in.

    Now with the recent announcement of paid for mod content, it seems that Bohemia Interactive is looking for the easy way out via the community. For a game that they say wishes to rely on the community for most of it's content rather than developer made assets, making an announcement for then charging for those mods is something of a slap in the face. I have rescinded my previous score of a 5 and given it a 3, which I feel is befitting of both the quality of the game and reflective of the developers present choices.
  3. Sep 13, 2013
    No content, poorly optimized, multiplayer has sync issues and 9 out of 10 servers suck, it takes so long to find a good game. Just not impressed, it's basically an engine without any game...
  4. Sep 12, 2013
    I've never given a review less than a score of 4, but for this i have to. The main issue is complete lack of optimization. I have access to many computers, since i build and sell them. So far i have tried, 11 different machines, all varying in performance, from the very bottom end, to the very top end. The performance issue's with this game are horrific. Usually that wouldn't justify a score of 2, yet one of the main contributors is that BiS have had no-end of complaints about FPS problems back with Arma 2!, not to mention the endless amount of threads created in the beta.

    It's just incredibly lazy.
    IMO, the first and foremost priority is making a game run well across many machine variants.
    This is pretty much a complete joke, especially with the amount of warning they had.

    The realism factor and the feeling that you are actually 'there' has disapeared with all the guns/vehicles being 'made up'.

    The weapon sounds are very weak and dont really sound like actual guns.
    This was an issue with arma 2 as well until you used JSRS mod or the like.

    BiS prize themselves with their huge map they created, 'Altis'
    It is massive.
    However, 75% of it is completely flat.
    There is no forest areas, very little cover and very little variation.
    The whole 'greek island' feel to it is very wrong.
    Chernarus was a much more realistic and dense fighting area.

    i've had all the arma's and must say im most disapointed with this one.
    The developers just didn't listen or prioritize.
  5. Sep 12, 2013
    I brought ArmA during the Alpha, did not see any single player campaign, waited for the beta, did not see any single player campaign. Thought hay it will appear on release day... Nope... no single player game. Apparantly BI are going to do all us Single player fans a massive favour and release it in 3 FREE DLCS the first of which will be ready in October....Single player has clearly stopped being important enough to consider for the release version, its now a DLC. BI, I have a message for you..."By the time you see the cash.. it will already be too late for Arma 3"... My first ever ZERO vote since a menu saying coming soon offers no gameplay at all.... Well done... Expand
  6. Sep 12, 2013
    Poor optimization. Most of the vehicles are the same for every faction with minor differences. Only 1 jet in the game and its on the Independent faction... You would think Bluefor would get at least one jet at launch... but its not like you can even use the jet on Altis because of the insane fps drop while flying. I get 50-60 fps in editor but as soon as i join multiplayer i get about 20-30 fps.
  7. Sep 12, 2013
    I got operation flashpoint cold war crisis when i was about 14 for Christmas and it is in my top 10 favourite games ever. In my opinion opflash resistance has some of the best written story and poignant characters in gaming, it certainty rises above what is expected of the genre (its sad how under appreciated it is). it was a moving story about sacrifice and defiance. It just shows how war games have shifted towards multiplayer with single player becoming an after thought. Not only did the campaign get delayed but i can't even see any single player missions. what, do you expect the community to make them for you?

    Altis is a boring featureless barren wasteland. Its arid and sparse. It has no picturesque rivers, ravines, forests, hills, mountains. I guess choosing a Mediterranean setting made this inevitable, but then why choose it? If they didn't want to make another eastern European forest environment, then what about a jungle location like in Indonesia or south america. At least that way the map wouldn't drive me to tears at how boring and flat it is. I can fly a helicopter at an altitude of around 15-25 across the map without even having to gain altitude, that is how flat altis is

    In the editor i still can't see any fixed wing aircraft. Now I'm sure that this will be resolved quickly, but it got RELEASED ie came out of beta and just like the campaign, its not there! Bohemia, if the game wasn't ready then you should have kept it in beta, if only for symbolic reasons.

    so then what exactly did i get for my £29.99. I basically got a platform, a framework that hopefully the glorious arma community will flesh out with custom maps, mods, addons etc. But then i could have just stuck to arma 2 which already has these things, and i would have saved my money. arma 3 is unfinished yet is apparently released, its graphics are virtually the same as arma 2, except with an uninteresting setting. Arma 3 achieves nothing that couldn't be done in arma 2, and so will only serve to split the community. It wounds me to write such a negative review because cold war crisis and arma 2 are some of my favorite games.
  8. Sep 16, 2013
    While there are a few areas where the series took a step forward, graphics and physics, there are many areas where the game is just not finished or even took a step back. My first problem is the map. While the map is huge, it doesn't seem to have the character of Chernarus and it doesn't feel like a place where you should be fighting a war. I realize that BI wanted to showcase new features with water, but I just think it's kind of strange to be fighting on a Greek island. There's just something about those post-Soviet states that just makes it feel like you should be fighting there. The next problem is just the overall lack of attention to detail. A great example of this is the Xbox 360 control scheme that is on the game. While you can edit the scheme by basically disconnecting the controller and putting it back in as a generic one, you would expect that the scheme that the developers made would be pretty good. Unfortunately that is not the case. Flying or driving vehicles can be very interesting with this control scheme. somehow I don't think the helicopter is supposed to shoot whenever you turn left and vice versa, but it does. Also, I just feel that they could have waiting until the single player campaign was finished to release the game. People would have waited. Releasing it without one has just made people angry. Another rather puzzling element is the lack of jets in the game (except for one that's from like the 60's). I was looking forward to some awesome air battles above the terrain (which is beautiful from above), but unfortunately there are no jets for the NATO or Russian factions. Another common complaint is the framerate issue. I haven't been having those problems and in my opinion that is more of a computer issue than a game issue. I do realize that they post the hardware requirements that the game needs to run, but those are MINIMUM requirements and you shouldn't expect it to run perfectly on the lowest settings. When you buy this game you should know you need something a little more powerful to run it and for it to perform well. I know that BI will improve this game over time, but I'm reviewing the game as it is now and unfortunately it just isn't very good at the moment. I will update my review as BI updates the game Expand
  9. Sep 13, 2013
    After all the hype and the excellence of ARMA 2 I couldn't wait to get my hands on ARMA 3. The game has progressed in a postive way, graphics, PhysX support, smoother gameplay (movement) and you can now actually swim! Though all this is let down by the fact that the game has no campaign and it is optimized worse than its predecessor. Simply unplayable at 20 FPS with low settings using a high-end gaming desktop. Expand
  10. Sep 12, 2013
    While BIS still hasn't lost the skills of crafting nice areas to fight in everything else in the game is sadly a letdown. All sides are basically the same, wielding similar weapons with a difference being as little as the same vehicle in different camos. And that's together with the amount of content being really poor compared to previous games in the series. A lot of gameplay features are either very simplified or simply gone. What's worse is that this time the release version of the game has no campaign at all and the singleplayer content is represented as showcases and challenges which are badly designed and simply not interesting to play. In addition to this many of years-old bugs aren't fixed still.

    All in all simplifications and poor amount of content may appeal to new players/arcade shooter fans who do not have any expectations but ArmA vets should not expect to find an ArmA game here.
  11. Sep 13, 2013
    20 fps in multiplayer modes, despite having 80+ fps in singleplayer
    No campaign, you can only download and play custom missions made by fans
    A lot of bugs even after so many patches and testing
  12. Sep 12, 2013
    This game is no better than Arma II. To be more sad this game is even much worse than previous part. I bought in alpha stage so didn't loose too much money but this title is pure money waste!!
  13. Sep 14, 2013
    When this game looks, plays, and has the same amount of content as the alpha version for twice the price you have problems. Doesn't seem like this game was finished at all.
  14. Sep 12, 2013
    Ive been watching the developement since the start and all i could recall till this day were steps backwards. Steps backward in performance, AI, overall engine, almost everywhere.. It is still the same old bad performing arma engine. Especially when you are a top notch AMD user, stay away.. Clearly Intel was favourited here. The gunplay still has that clunk-ish feel to it and so on. I cant give it a higher score then 3, this is rather a big hit in the face to me. Collapse
  15. Sep 12, 2013
    Unfinished product, bugs, poor performance with hi end PC, Arma 3 is a promise of something, but they take money for a promise, not fair. A lot of missing contents for the most disappointing game of the year.
  16. Sep 17, 2013
    No single player. That sums up Arma 3's position. It doesn't care about the single player experience. Not in the least. So you can take your single-player, solo gaming fool self on out of here. We don't want your business.
  17. Sep 13, 2013
    i played many year OFP... and i play Arma 2 from release. Why ppl get 50% FPS drop in mult just create mission in editor, everything is fine 60fps, put it to mult and create local and you will have 30FPS and drops wtf my point is why the past builds are better? with better graphics, psychics, effects, performance than release version Sounds in A3 are wierd too, try ToH sounds its made by same sound recordist, because this is not the game what i play in FOCUS test before 1 year this is one big crap. And making game with style CTRL+C/ CTRL+V is every unit with same turret etc. Greenforce is copy of ACR DLC to A2, amazing its pandur with different camo. and biggest question, why the is not here real unit names Merkava had turret in past, even on screens and Dwarden say its only showoff Where is awesome psychics for heli, cars etc. Where is awesome particle effects for MLRS, artillery etc. Why this game is worse than builds before one year, maybe more Expand
  18. Sep 16, 2013
    As it stands this isn't fit for release, it's a playable demo. This is exactly why I try games out before I buy them since if I'd paid money for this I'd be furious. There is NO campaign until it's released as free DLC. No single player campaign no reason to play so it scores 0/10 for being a 10gb install of big fat nothing.
  19. Sep 12, 2013
    This is just depressing, the game is almost unplayable thanks to the fact that they haven't fixed any bugs since the beta. If you're looking for a game with substance (and content they promised evryone) then don't get Arma 3, stick to arma 2.
  20. Sep 12, 2013
    Not a very solid release. Lack of content. Buggy. Seems almost identical to the beta. I had high hopes after previewing the alpha, beta phases, but I was disappointed to see the retail release was exactly the same as the beta.
  21. Sep 13, 2013
    Ok lets be honest here. The concept for this game is great. However the execution is awful. My main issue is awful FPS in multiplayer. We are talking 15-25 max in a multiplayer game, sometimes less. You ever try to aim at something with less than 20 FPS? Nearly impossible. I have logged over 500 hours since alpha came out and almost nothing has changed. Very buggy, some weird physics, and bad sound effects. Still feels like an alpha to me. This game could use another year in development. Seems like there was a lot of laziness and corner cutting. I would rather have a game like this delayed until it is really ready instead of a half assed "full release". Not a single piece of new content released with the full version. Very disappointing. Expand
  22. Sep 18, 2013
    I was really looking forward to this game but yeah... I am slightly happy but massively disappointed.
    1)It has good graphics but what on earth is going on with the optimization? I got Intel i5 3570k, 8gb of ram, a lot of free space on HDD and ATi 6950 SOC graphics card and I get average of 30-50 fps on minimum to standard graphics. Are you serious? I get on maxed out graphics average of
    20-30 fps. This is completely stupid.
    2)The amount of vehicles suck also there are not that many weapons.
    3) maps are rather boring. Nothing interesting.

    Well yes it has good points to it like
    2)soldiers instantly drop to the ground when they get killed in arma 2 you shot ai in the head like 10 times and then it took another 10 secs for him to drop down to the ground)

    0/10 disappointing game.
  23. Sep 14, 2013
    There's rarely ever any Australian servers. There's no single player campaign (at this stage, why even release the thing if there's no campaign yet?). It's very poorly optimised to the point where 25 fps is a blessing in multiplayer. Sync issues near constantly. Gunplay feels clunky and low-impact.

    I truly can't recommend this as a finished product. Should've stayed in Beta imo.
  24. Sep 12, 2013
    Unfinished, various bugs, too heavy and too old engine. AI is worst than previous chapters, AI see you from behind so stealth approaching is almost impossible, Guns inflict ridiculous damage: when a target is hit it make a move as if hit by a small stone, it turn himself in your direction and shot in total ease. You need also 4 5 shoots for push off the target, most of the times he kill you first. AI is not able to use repairs also. They tend to run from point a to point b and vice versa, also in open field in the middle of a shooting. some times they go prone without a definite logic. there are four speeds and movements still to remain inaccurate in some situation (as in the buildings. this product seems a joke. a step backward on all sides. Expand
  25. Sep 17, 2013
    This would be a fun game... if it was playable.

    So many angry customers on forums because you can't get more than 20-30fps with a gaming rig. This problem has persisted throughout closed beta yet the developers ignored it. It's a flaw with the arma engine, existing since the first arma.

    All they did with this game was make it look pretty while keeping all the existing problems from
    previous games. It still does not have proper multicore support.

    DO not support these developers and do not purchase the game. Stay far far away.
  26. Sep 14, 2013
    It's unfortunate that so much as said about how well ARMA 3 performed and in an early tech demo it was stated by the dev team that this game could be run on 1 nvidia 560ti (1gb) video card .....clearly this is not the case. The platform and the way certain aspects like animations work is fine, however the frame rate ruins the entire experience, When running on my test machine, AMD FX8350, 32 GB Ram, 256gb OCD SSD 560mbps, NvidiaGTX780 3gb I am lucky to get over 20fps on solo scenario missions, and frequently when playing with one other player co-op this dips to 10 frames on the larger Altis mate. Sound effects seem to be ok, and content of weapons etc is fine. half of the video settings don't seem to make much difference to frame rate whatsoever, and the Graphics card is showing 10% utilisation.

    Overall a very poor expereince and as some others have said here already, Stick with Arma 2 until 2015 when bohemia has finally fixed majority of the bugs and actually hashed out the graphics
  27. Sep 14, 2013
    I don't know how someone can put a 10 to this game, It runs like rubbish on a GTX 690, FX 8150, 16gb ram, Win7 64bit and on a SSD, in singleplayer i get 17-30 fps and multiplayer 11-21fps its completely unplayable in this state, also changing setting from ultra to low made no change in frames what so ever.
  28. Sep 17, 2013
    This game is a total let down. People should not score this a 10 although it does have the potential to be a 10 if it had a more modern optimized engine, but that's just not the case. I've played this since alpha stage and its the same poor performance game on release as it is when it was an alpha. I followed the performance issues since the beginning and the devs all said ''were working on it'' but still to this day i get the same fps and poor performance since alpha 10-15 fps on multiplayer is unacceptable. The excuse all the fanboys say is arma is cpu intensive well arma may be cpu intensive but it doesnt use the cpu intensively at all 20% cpu usage and 5% gpu usage says otherwise. The whole point of alpha and beta is to fix all the bugs before release well bohemia released this broken game and i guess they plan on fixing it later. There's no single player campaign. Buy the game at your own risk but I hate to say I told you so after. Google Arma 3 poor fps and you'll see for yourself. This game had the potential to be the greatest game on the market but do to poor optimization, and poor management this game is a failure. This should still be in Alpha with all the issues this out of date engine has. Anyone that scores this a 10 is simply a fanboy or a dev. This game is garbage and should have never been released without more optimization or better yet and more up to date engine. Its a polished arma 2 that will take forever to run smoothly and when it does finally get optimized you'll be lucky to get 30 fps on multiplayer. Shame on you BIS.!!!!!!!!!! Expand
  29. Sep 14, 2013
    First of all lets be clear user generated content is user generated content which can be horrible quality or great, but very short. That content is ADDITIONAL content. Not the main content.

    This being sad Arma 3 doesn't have any SP/COOP content. On launch day there is no campaign (probably will be added later on in episodic (arma 3 is now episodic game...)). "Showcases" is a few
    missions and that's about it. Pretty much what can save this game is DayZ, Wasteland and if users will feel like doing so some missions. From what I've played only 3 of 15 missions were seriously good. The rest are bleh. That's a major issue with this game. I'd say HUGE issue.

    Problem #2. Their big island Altis and optimization. It seems that no matter how good your PC is optimization for that region in particular is non-existent. Because of that all users' missions were very close to being unplayable for me without setting graphics to carbon boxes level. I thought that with all those operations flashpoints and previous armas developers can finally learn to optimize their games for "current gen PC hardware". Not to that illusive date in the future where there will be Arma 6 or something and when people will finally be able to play arma 3 without framerates issues.

    Overall atmosphere gameplay in general. Even I (fat guy) can run longer distance before starting seeing world through blood lens... are those guys in the game soldiers or what? It take 3-5 seconds of running and than bam! Your guy is tired and here comes heavy breathing and blood lens (sort of speak)... as for weapons and sounds they sound absolutely the same as any other arma or OFP I remember. Absolutely nothing new here. Problem is game suppose to take place in the near future (2030 or something like that)... what's the point of making military game in the future where everything is the same? Where are guns which allow you to shoot from corners without looking/leaning? Where is that rubber ball with controllable camera which police and maybe military are using now to check out what's going on in a room? Where are good gadgets?

    Now lets go over good things. Graphics is actually pretty nice if you're playing on a small island with graphics on high level. Those graphics are nice! No doubt about it. Another cool thing combat stances. But lets be honest pretty much every casual non-hardcore-arma-fan is going to use Z, X buttons to change stance. So for those who can heavily increase sales of the game that feature is pointless. One user created mission Dynamic War System should go as a part of arma 3 default package! It is the only thing that can save consumers who love sp/coop content in a game. Bohemia had to stop doing their "campaign" and help that guy to increase quality of that mission. Aaaand to be honest I can't say I like anything else in the game.
  30. Sep 22, 2013
    I will give the game a 1 for the actual idea of such a large sandbox arena for combat.
    Everything else but the idea.. it just lacks on sooo many levels since the early days. Yet I am still a fan.. but when you have noticed through the years that it is not getting any better.. excuses get old.. and so has this series.
  31. Sep 13, 2013
    In a nutshell? DREADFUL!
    This.. this... thing! Can only be one of the worst BI efforts to date. Now, don't get me wrong, I own all the other ArmA's and they were some of the best games I've played. Arrowhead for example, while having some issues, was amazing fun and well done.
    This on the other hand is awful. There is NO (zero!) single player campaign (to be added later while it will be
    free, until then the game is shallow without it). Some of the "designs" are very strange, like bullets that can go through plate steel and concrete walls.
    This is by far the worst ArmA yet. The players (lol) marking this up at 10's and 9's are either Devs or pure blind fanboys that only want multiplayer and hate on you if you speak up!
    Please don't get caught out, and stay clear til this game is finished. You'll only end up upset and let down.
    TRM. (PS. It gets 2 instead of zero because the graphics aren't half bad... Apart from the grass/trees shading not working right and crawling over rocks makes you look like your going up a mountain's north face!).
  32. Sep 14, 2013
    I would give this game a 0, but I gave it a 2 for the fact that it has the potential to be good... if I could play the multiplayer.

    The single-player tutorial missions are perfectly playable with a good frame-rate, but on entering multi-player I get around 8 FPS. Which makes the game pointless. What's more, the developers flatly IGNORE this issue, even though it is the biggest issue on
    their feedback tracker.

    My PC specs are above the recommended specs but I cannot play this game. I really should be getting a refund.
  33. Sep 16, 2013
    Very disappointing for a highly anticipated game of this significance. There is limited content and generally feels and looks like a enhanced graphics and terrain dlc on arma 2. Definitely came out too early and doesn't deserve any higher than a 5.
  34. Sep 23, 2013
    So much wasted potent. It's obvious that BIS intended ARMA 3 to be more of a platform for the community than a game. But without solid content on its own, it won't draw many new comers and the higher system requirement will prevent some ARMA2 community from transitioning. As a result, ARMA 3 will be slow going. 0 as it is now. Potentially a 8 or 9 a year or two down the road, when contents are there and the price drops. Expand
  35. Oct 5, 2013
    Bohemia Interactive are so frustrating. They never deliver a complete game. Arma 3 looks beautiful in so many areas, like terrain, solider models. But it irritates in others like driving physics, lack of intuitive controls, dumbass ai. I so want B.I. to succeed with Arma 3 but if they keep failing to fix the same old problems, people will eventually give up on them and return to the less satisfying but working games that are BF4 and COD:Ghost. Arma 3 needs a lot of fixing and refinement. Expand
  36. Jan 14, 2014
    ArmA III is, unfortuntely, a failed experiment to launch the franchise in a new bold direction. Perhaps calling it a failed experiment is too harsh, but what do you call it when a bunch of hardcore arma vets (myself and my clan) who loved the arma franchise, stop playing it and go back to ArmA II with only putting less than 15 hours into ArmA III.

    Well, it says a lot, and I mean truly a
    lot, about the game when a new member of our clan who never played ArmA II absoloutely love ArmA III. It speaks wonders about the games streamlined appeal to those who never played ArmA II before. We even got a member who didn't like ArmA II but loves ArmA III. That's because to its credit the new one is a lot easier to get into and a lot more user friendly.

    ArmA III is naturally going to be judged and compared to its previous title. Some people tend to forget that ArmA I and II were both launched in a very bad state while lacking a lot of content, but it was accepted by the community for what it is. ArmA III has gone down the mainstream road without adopting a new approach for the mainstream community. The standards were raised for the next title in the franchise yet the developers didn't deliver.

    The main issue here, when comparing the launch of the previous titles, is that the developers have consistently said they were aiming less content, more quality. An approach that they've taken very seriously to the detriment of the new title. We are just starting the New Year and the developers have done very little for the game, content wise. The pace is a lot, lot slower than previous titles. One might attribute this to the higher quality being put into ArmA III, which may be true, it may indeed lenghten the process.

    But how long has ArmA III being in development? How many shuffles and re-designs did it undergo? There is no doubt about it; its a rushed job. The fact that the game released, yes, RELEASED, with hardly any content to call it a game and without a campaign is a joke. The first episode of the campaign is also, personally, a major disappointment. The developers also seem more focused on showcasing community missions rather than issuing development blogs.

    We are not being fooled...

    Another miscarriage in the arma franchise is the creative design and the cons of bringing the series into the future. We've got a creative designer who is dreadful, just dreadful, at what he does. The armor/uniform designs of the units are horrendous, the vehicles they decided to put in are failed prototypes that have no chance of appearing in any future warfare and it seems that rather than being put into the future, the whole concept of warfare took a step back.

    I will say to its credit that Altos is, while somewhat barren, is indeed a wonderful landscape to play on. The graphics are wonderful and the optimisation done in the post launch period has been fantastic. The AI itself, while not up to the standards of ASR-AI (mod for ArmA II) it has certainly improved over the vanilla AI.

    But, the devs can't be forgven for taking a much loved franchise and turning it into what it is now.
  37. Sep 26, 2013
    Fun, but there's no content yet. I love the game play, but its a little awkward not having a campaign to base most ratings on. The scenarios are just for getting a feel for the game, and the multiplayer hasn't really developed yet. In the future it might be better, but right now it's not very playable, should have held in beta quite a bit longer.
  38. Sep 29, 2013
    This is basically the same poor engine as their older titles with added details to bring your computer to its knees. The developers don't care for this game at all it's just pandering to a niche following with no standards.
  39. Oct 24, 2013
    Placebo effect is great in some reviews, that's why I will put 1 to this, to balance it.
    Reality is that this game is just a shame. I am a fan of Arma series or, better, if it could be playable.
    This just CAN'T be playable. Many people here are affected by placebo effect. I have tried EVERYTHING posted here, change in FPS was just minimal. FX-8350 and GTX580 (SLI) here. I score 10K+ at
    3DMark11 but I can't play good Arma 3 LOL.

    I have really TRIED every single thing, from command lines to .cfg files, to all game options of course.
    Changes are minimal. I can play all games perfectely. They just play smooth. This doesn't.
    Not just it does (AND NEVER, no matter which settings) barely use around 40% CPU and maybe 45-50% GPUs power but it just can't do more.
    It is the same exact engine of Operation Flashpoint. They just put some polish in it (and it even look worse than Arma 2, really nice job).

    This is just a shame and not, this is not because it is an early version, as it was not the beta or the alpha state.

    This game just CAN'T go well, and don't tell me to change CPU. I don't have to change CPU, it is an high end one. It is Bohemia that has to change, and completely.
    Fortunately metacritic scores quite get the point. 6.X is good for it, it can't deserve more, it is ridiculous to pay for this NOT optimized at all product and many people still are at Bohemia Interactive side. It is not because the game is HUGE, it has nothing to do with it. It is just bad programmed.
    20+ players are just the standard nowadays and no matter how much good the server is, it will just do low FPS but, anyway, it manage to be hard also in singplayer with little buildings in front of you. Altis of course is far worse that Stratis making it almost unplayable with 20+ players (lol what's the point in having a 219083109km² map without an engine that can't handle effectively more than 20 players?)

    Please, do a flavour to yourself, DO NOT BUY IT and don't believe there are optimizations around that can '''fix''' performance. NONE OF THEM ACTUALLY WORKS. It is the game!
    JMTC of course but I am forced to post this to community, it is a moral duty.
    Thanks for reading.

  40. Oct 24, 2013
    I have waited patiently for a very long time with Arma 3 and the final product is nothing short of average. Everything seems to be lacking from the gaming content all the way to the modding tools. It's a complex product which you cannot master overnight but after many hours of playing; it just doesn't feel like it's worth the effort. For those that have paid full whack for a seemingly unfinished and unsupported product; it's a real kick in the teeth.

    The enjoyment is just simply not there and with Battlefield 4 round the corner; either save your money and time for that or if you want a realistic sim; join the Army instead!
  41. Nov 3, 2013

    Arma 3 is one of the biggest titles in 2013 offering large play areas and realistic gameplay on a massive scale. Unfortunately, there are so many issues with this game right now it is almost impossible to give it a better rating than 4/10. While this game is indeed a large step forward in the Arma series, it is also a large piece of disappointment. Let me skip
    straight to the point.

    - Large scale, large play area
    - Great graphics (with the exception of some smoke/fire effects)
    - Greatly improved radio chatter over it's predecessor
    - AI behaves slightly better than in it's predecessor
    - Greatly improved campaign (over it's predecessor)
    - Realistic engagement distances
    - Some weapon customization
    - UI improvements
    - Great editor (as usual with Arma games)

    - Large scale (wait, what? see below)
    - Terrible performance the game engine does not feel right for this kind of game Arma 3 promises large scale war however the game engine cannot handle anything near large scale, a simple scenario of a firefight between 10 squads of infantry (5 squads each side) in a town results in less than 24-32 FPS on a i7-4770/GTX Titan system (perhaps we will be able to run this game properly in 10 years, I believe Vertical Sync option was implemented just to troll people because nobody can run it)
    - Lack of content compared to it's predecessor
    - No campaign on release
    - Similar engine issues as with previous Arma games (bad collisions, AI can walk through walls, AI cannot drive vehicles properly and so on)
    - The environment is rather boring, houses have no furniture (I realize furniture can be added via the editor however there is even no module/script that will auto populate houses with furniture and adding it manually is PITA)

    It feels as if this game has great potential however at it's current state it is barely playable. Do not expect much from this game. Being an Arma player I still do enjoy this game however I am quite disappointed.

    NOTE: I have tried improving the game's performance by doodling with the graphics drivers and settings however no matter what settings I put, this game will still perform very poorly.
  42. Nov 17, 2013
    This game has potential, but at the current state it's awful. It has has no content. MP doesn't work properly servers lag and the game is unplayable. This is the worst optimized game. single player is being released as DLC, this is not acceptable. In short you just have nothing to do in this game. Even showcases are broken and full of bugs, developers don't even no how to properly make a simplest things, absolutely no AI in this game, no physics too.
    Just do not buy it, do not support such lazy devs. Wait until they fix the game and if they'll fix it then buy it.
  43. Sep 26, 2013
    This game lacks content and any real objective. You'll find yourself running around flat land for the majority of the time. Very boring game and the performance is horrific.
  44. Nov 3, 2013
    Good looking game with a lot of cool features. I pre-ordered the game when it was still in alpha. It is released now and the controller support is still limited. For me it is unplayable. No Y-axis inversion option for xbox controller. Until this issue is fixed I can't play the game. Before people start crying M&K, say what you want but I game with a controller and when I spend my money for a game I expect it is to be my choice how I play it. Expand
  45. Feb 11, 2014
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The game isn't terribly bad, but it's not great. It's not worth 60 dollars in my opinion. There is a lacking of physics to the game, even if they added rag dolling, it's just stale. Some of the sounds aren't great either. The ACP.45 sounds like a gust of air followed by a firecracker. It's not well optimized either, and IT'S A PC ONLY PORT. I have a 770 GTX, a this-gen GPU that can run BF4 54-60 FPS ultra. It can't handle ultra one bit. I get 30 FPS on average on ultra, and always 30 FPS in vehicles regardless of graphics settings. Some elements aren't even realistic to this 'realistic' shooter. They ignored dual-render scopes, and the PIP is very laggy, even on ultra. My final statement [spoiler] it sucks ass for its price. [/spoiler] Expand
  46. Dec 7, 2013
    big fan of the series, in fact i think ive already gave a score for this game, think was positive score, but now i changed my mind, after all these years i realized (the hard way) that bohemia is synonym of mediocrity, they didnt work the game AT ALL, i have 300 hours of playtime on arma3, and i can assure u it gives headaches and anger, anger because i know they can do better, but they like it the easy way, fooling their fans, anyway, the only remarcable thing is the ilumination work, maybe the sound effects too, the rest is just lame, 0 PERFORMANCE QUALITY, no midpc user friendly (and not talking bout me ;D) they forgot to test the game, da!!; never saw so much wasted potential in a game, compared to previous arma releases (1 and 2) the AI is the WORST AI EVER period f**** period, sometimes (frequently id say) they act very erratic, the just don't give a s**t bout you, and they ruin ur game, and if u dare to forget the AI and try the MP then its almost unplayable, too much lag and 0 optimizations, can't believe i was waiting for this, the animations are very poor for a game with a very capable engine, but u know what makes me more angry? the minor flaws, yes, those minor flaws that i just cant understand their existance, u "alt+tab" while in game and the menus GUI etc goes to hell, u can't even see the server list correctly LOL, some servers don't appear at all, but if u copy the ip from ur navigator or anything then suddenly appears xD, but then u remember u cant do the alt tab thing, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarr,i spend 15-30 minutes to find a server to connect, and the list of bugs continues... the game is just broken, the only ones capable of reverting this calamity is the modding comunity, they already started and thats what made me have 300 hours in this game. anyway, can't give more than a 5. Expand
  47. Mar 8, 2014
    Let's be fair, the game is still (one year since the first alpha release) in early development, much like an alpha, the irony, it stutters constantly, bad CPU/GPU-utilization for the majority of AMD/Nvidia GPU:s and AMD/Intel CPU:s, few weapons, vehicles, low-res vegetation, textures, poor physics (no recoil for armored vehicles or rifles, but most important the lack of suspension for light vehicles) and to why anyone would pay full price for this early build, remains a mystery, if you need to play ARMA, you're better of with ARMA 2. Expand
  48. Nov 13, 2013
    I loved Operation Flashpoint, ARMA, to some extent ARMA II and for sure Iron Front Liberation 1944, but ARMA III....

    The landscape is at best dull and featureless. It reminds me of Delta Force from 1998....

    The driving is the same as before, only now I drive in mostly fantasy vehicles (or at least completely unknown and perhaps planned-for-the-future vehicles) that I have no
    emotional relation to whatsoever save that I don't like them (gut feeling). They are pretty much the same for all sides in the game, with the exact same weaponry I guess to "balance" and make each side equally strong (read: boring). In short; I don't like them at all.

    The small arms are ALL boring. It's all futuristic weapons. There is not one rifle in this game that I would have wanted in real life (and I am a gun nut...). They have more realistic recoil and better sound, but.... blaahhh. No thanks.

    Uniforms are rather cool, with different camo options that are actually rather nice, but... they are all ultra futuristic and to me at least that is a big no no. You can also take a uniform from a dead guy (even if you killed him with canon fire) and put it on in about 0,1 second. So you can enter a house, change uniform and exit all in a few seconds. And they call this a war simulator....

    Aircraft. Futuristic choppers. At least one fixed wing aircrafts..... I was not intrigued and didn't bother checking this feature out properly.

    Single-player campaign. No such thing.

    Single-player scenarios. No such thing.

    MP campaign/scenarios. No such thing.

    You are left to make all of this yourself. Ironically this might be no big deal though, because their scenarios and campaigns in the other games they have made all SUCKS, so you would have ended up making them yourself anyhow.

    The editor is superb, so you can do a lot with this game, if you want to and if you can stomach all the futuristic features.

    Optimization. I don't know. It works okay on my PC, but I have never tried it with many units.

    A. I. It's pretty much the same as before, only now the enemies run away much easier (I think), and then after some running change their mind and come running back again. So in effect they e. g. run away up the side of a hill, turn halfway up and come back down. So I have the time to finish their other team members off, and then wait for the runners to return so that I can shoot them too. I have no idea if that is supposed to be good A. I. or not. I don't like it though.

    Graphics is good, but I feel like "what's the point when the landscape is that featureless and boring"? It's like "the one tree over there is really nice".

    This game is unfinished, and doesn't appeal to me at all.

    This is a game that I will not play.

    I return to (a still rather bugged) Ironfront Liberation 1944, and if I wish to be shot dead by a guy with an AK with iron sight 400 meters away about 1 second after I peek out a window, I can play ARMA II. :-)

    What are these game makers up to? It went downhill from Operation Flashpoint. Better technology. Better software. Worse games... go figure.
  49. Oct 29, 2013
    I truly hate the MMS genre, Arma 3, however is something different. It's got some interesting concepts, sadly all of which are taken out poorly. The multiplayer is pretty decent, but the maps are so huge and open, that it is impossible to find anybody. The campaign is something I do not mean to ever play, considering it's a MMS, and the campaign by MMS nature, will be god awful. There has to be something in this game though, and there is! The level editor! Problem is, that it isn't very good if you genuinely want to have fun and mess about though (like me). It's graphically sound, but with the optimization issues I noticed, you will need a very, very good gaming tower to run at anything over standard. This is a beautifully sound game if your into MMS games, or a fan of modding. as a base game though, this will offer most gamers nothing. Imho this is a waste of money. Expand
  50. Oct 4, 2013
    Game overall would be an improvement upon ArmA 2, if it wasn´t for the worst performance which is a deal breaker, the website promises 60VS60 warfare but if you try servers with 30 or more players your fps will dip to below 20´s with recommended hardware, will only get 30 or more fps if you have a 5ghz processor, and if you are lucky to find a good server.

    Unless they overhaul their
    netcode and lack of proper multithreading this game is a no-no to anyone that does not have a 5ghz intel cpu. Expand
  51. Oct 4, 2013
    Where to start...I've played all the Arma-series games OFP and its expansions. Arma 3 being realistic? I would disagree. Shooting an AI 3-5 times before he dies doesn't seem realistic to me. Wasn't like that in previous games, it is like that now. I would say that is evne more unrealistic than BF3/COD which I consider arcadegames. For something to be called a simulation, it needs to simulate something. AFAIK, only ballistics are simulated. Driving vehicles feels way worse and arcadish than in Arma 2 for example.

    If you played previous versions, you should be used to the AI cheating when shooting by now. A machinegunner is more accurate from 500+ metres than a sniper. Standing up. Very realistic...or not.

    The content? If it isn't made by the community...well, you'll get bored within the week. The weapons ingame, theres like 5 of em, just different models or extensions. You have the MX-platform and the Katiba-platform (main assault rifles) and 5 variations of em, some sniper rifles, 2-3 AT and AA launchers and thats pretty much it. Bare minimum.

    I bought the Alpha version. It was crap back then, beta version, well, at least it ran on my machine, release is on par with beta. Half the FPS compared to Arma 2 I'd say. Sure, Arma 3 looks better but does that matter when it is unplayable, running at 5 FPS? In SP with 100 AI I'm getting 10-25 FPS, in MP I'm lucky if I get more than 13 FPS. It is usually around 5-10 FPS. In Arma 2 I have 20+ FPS at highest settings in MP.

    You are getting a beta version here. Content is coming later, campaign, weapon or two, aircrafts etc

    Stick to Arma 2 if you know whats good for you.
  52. Jan 3, 2014
    as always, all bugged, modding tools are the same as ever, and are crap, still no tools for animation, oxygen and visitor still crap as always, I'm with bohemia from the beginning OFP, Arma, Arma2 OA CO, but really I'm wrong to buy Arma 3, I had hopes that it would improve but I see that it is always the same, sell a junk, then the community has to improve a lot of effort to make it playable, as in all previous versions, with many mods to correct and better everything will be okay to play, and that will be within 1 or 2 years at the community end their mods and fix and improve everything that is wrong with the game, as always.

    I really get tired of this, at least would have to provide good tools to do the mods, to tools has made people in the community are better than those provided with the game, not give them shame?
  53. Jan 21, 2014
    Worst game I've ever played. Bare bones in terms of content. The campaign is utterly stupid. Super marksman enemy AI from the first Arma game is back. Perfoms like crap. Campaign missions are awful. Worst game in the entire series not worth the price of 59.99 not even worth the price of the early alpha that I paid for if I could get a refund for this garbage I would. This is the last Arma game and the last game from BIS I will ever purchase. Expand
  54. Feb 25, 2014
    TL;DR: This is alpha quality work at a final version price. BIS maintains that this game is like "fine wine" that "ages well" when actually it's more like cheap wine that you need to take home and mix with fruit juice and a pound of sugar to be in any way drinkable. Arma 3 is yet another great concept that in practice is totally undermined and destroyed by what is either laziness or incompetence from the developers. Wait a year from now. Maybe the modders will fix this lazy incompetent mess and Arma 3 will be a playable game like Arma 2. Until then, just play Arma 2

    A lot of people lead reviews by saying this game "has potential"... which is a really polite way of admitting that, right now, it absolutely sucks. It also does not reflect well on the game or on segments of its fanbase that well-deserved criticism is met with accusations of being a "Call of Duty" fan or a console kiddy or other supposed slurs on the critic's intelligence. I've been playing this series since Flashpoint and y'know, it's always been bug-ridden, poorly implemented, and heavily dependent on its modders to even be playable- BUT the series has been just good enough to be worth the aggravation and massive time-sink necessary to make it work... until now.

    The AI is horrible. For a game that involves realism in combat, where damage is more realistic and is dependent on squad tactics, the AI NEEDS to be competent if not excellent. Instead, the AI is incapable of navigating the terrain without getting stuck, incapable of responding effectively to fire and totally lost inside of buildings - no, literally, lost inside. God help you if your AI decides to use a grenade because he'll just kill himself.

    The "Action menu" is STILL in the game and has been combined with environmental add actions that are even worse than in previous games. Face a door and click the action menu key... now watch as you transition to your handgun instead of opening the door because the action triggers are inconsistently placed by an incompetent dev team. This has been a major problem since OFP and it's actually worse now.

    You will lose many many many games, not because you made a mistake or were unlucky, or for legit gameplay reasons, but because the AI is totally- and I mean totally- incapable of doing what the game *depends* on it to do.

    The devs have taken to claiming ARMA 3 is a "toolbox" (when they're not insisting it's a game not a simulation- or conversely, that it's actually a simulation not a game- what they call their game depends on which set of their errors you're pointing out) in defense of it lacking a campaign. Fine. But what you get for "tools" is laughable- there's a handful of armor, vehicles and equipment, but it's basically just re-skinned copy-and-pastes between factions. Basically everyone shares assets with superficial cammo differences.

    Did you think ARMA 2 had bad optimization? Well, the dev team topped itself with ARMA 3 being even clunkier, slower and more bloated. Seriously, everything about this game/simulation when it comes to optimization looks like a rough draft of code rather than a finished product. It will slam even high-end machines to a halt because of poor usage routines, bad scripting, and other lazy shortcuts.

    What about mods? Well the modding community is a brilliant one, we've got some really really good people who really should get credit for making ARMA remotely popular (or playable). But BIS is depending on modders, not to expand the game, but basically to make the game WORK. No matter how good the mod team is, it's still less efficient and effective to try to fix a broken AI with an addon as opposed to fixing the core code. BIS is content to be lazy and coast on its unpaid modders, but there's only a handful of people who work on AI/game core issues (a lot work on maps and missions, but core realism/errors are another matter) and they seem pretty tired of doing this stuff. It's also a pretty sh*t thing for BIS to do, to release a full priced game with barely any content, crappy optimization, an outdated engine and terrible AI- but then expect the modders to bail them out of trouble. Well... maybe it ain't gonna happen this time. Hell, maybe they can't pull it off this time, even if they want to.
  55. Mar 21, 2014
    Recently I bought the game ARMA 3 in order to play online with my little brother while I am deployed. I spent $65.00 on the game, and played it for about a week. On March 14 2014 I tried to log into a server to play with my brother to find out the anti cheat engine battleye had given me a global ban. I tried to contact battleye to get the issue resolved, and got a response stating they do not unban anyone, and that I would have to buy a new copy of the game on a new STEAM account in order to play. I found this very frustrating as I just got done spending $65.00 on the game, and did nothing at all that could even be considered cheating. I then contacted the customer support at Bohemia Interactive. The representative told me to contact battleye, that Bohemia Interactive had no say in the matter. I tried to recontact battleye and got no response so I emailed the representative at BI back. I asked for their assistance in getting this issue resolved and again explained the situation they stated that they did not care, and this was not on them because I could still play the single player version of the game.

    I have recently been in contact with many players (currently 32 players exactly) who claim to have the same exact issue with the game. This appears to be a well thought out ploy of toss the problem back and forth to get more money out of the game. One of the players I have spoken with online and over the phone has stated he purchased multiple copies of the game, and recorded multiplayer game play to the point he would get banned for nothing. He contacted battleye and after ignoring him for a month they responded that their product will never ban a player that is not cheating, and the issue is now locked so no further emails from his email address will be replied to.

    Buyers look out for this ARMA 3 is a very fun game to play, I wont get on here to say not to buy it just know what to expect if you are caught in the same trap. Currently I have taken the following actions against BI

    Contact STEAM file a report
    Contact my bank file a complaint of fraud
    Contact MasterCard file a complaint and request a chargeback
    Contact the BBB file a report
    Contact file a report

    I would suggest anyone caught in this trap to do the same. Also keep BI in the loop each step of the way, just because their actions are unprofessional does not mean unprofessional attempts to make this right will work.
  56. Apr 9, 2014
    I always played the Arma games for the campaign and creating my own scenarios, with the odd mod. It seems Arma III is a poorly made game with a terrible campaign that its only use is with online mods.

    Terrible game, bought at Alpha thinking it would improve, its now 2014 and the game is still looks and feels like its in development.
  57. Apr 27, 2014
    Giving this a zero because this buggy game does not deserve the average 7.2 user score. In reality, a 3 or 4/10 would work. Why? - 25 fps average on the newest and greatest hardware (everybody complains about FPS on this unoptimised Arma enginge) - Your guy gets tired within 3 seconds of aiming - DESYNC. Cars and people constantly flying across the map - Sound of engines will not go away until you exit the server some times.
    -I am good at every FPS and this game has the most awkward shooting mechanics and even when you do hit your target they don't count half of the time. This game makes Battlefield 4 "net code" look like a work of art.


    This game is only good when you have friends to play with and if there's a USER MADE mod that you like. I didn't spend this much money on my computer to deal with horrible optimization and bugs that have been in the game since Alpha and Arma 2.
  58. Feb 18, 2014
    This game could have been great, but the engine is horrible and does not utilize the GPU as it should, i have an i7 2600, 12gb ram and a gtx 780 and i get 20-30 fps no matter if im at absolute lowest settings possible or the highest possible. The only reason this game is even geting a 1 from me is cause of some of the great mods. I would not recomend anyone supporting this company with any money cause they keep releaseing games with this subpar engine that belongs in the 1990´s and not 2014. Expand
  59. Jul 21, 2014
    Trust the negative reviews, folks. Have a look at the profiles of the 10/10 reviewers and you'll see that the majority of them are fresh accounts. So either they're total nubs, or worse...
  60. Jul 27, 2014
    Absolutely laughable optimization. The game is a joke. There are mil sims games made in 2004 with way better optimization and tons of features A3 simply doesn't have. You can't even knife someone. The problem is, the developers are only in it for the money it seems...they say, we're working on it, but no one stops and admits, the engine the gane is sitting on is 1o **** years old and simply can't be better optimized without completely removing and upgrading to a new engine for the Arma serious. Some have said this can't be done, but DayZ just announced they're doing just that. Tossing the old engine for a fresh new shiny engine. So if DayZ can do it, way can BI? Joint Operations from Novalogic released in 2004 is a far superior game in nearly every single aspect except graphics. Just after the game was released, the dev team focused solely on optimizing the game and did a great job of it. This is why I say A3 is just laughable. I am done supporting this incompetent excuse for a game company and watch them laugh and sip coffee while their game runs like ****
    Also, they just released an "add-on" which should have just been free, but they sell it for 2 or 3 dollars and claim they sold over 1 million copies, this would give the impression that theres a new fresh injection of cash in the dev coffers for optimizing the game, no? They release an update recently 1.24 I believe and it's actually made the game worse. BI is a joke, I have zero respect for them as a game company.
  61. Apr 13, 2014
    Pros: I like the graphics. The environment is nicely done with weather, clouds, vehicles, planes, animals and sounds. The voice acting in the campaign. Neg: So called AI. If I shoot an AI from far away with suppressor, or let a bomb off, the AI in the vicinity knows exactly where I am. Some shot right away in my direction. If I wouldn't have dialed down the accuracy, I died instantly. It renders bushes, smoke and other sorts of cover useless, it's only eye candy. I realized they don't see behind bushes, houses hills. They just know your position. When I retreat hidden, there are many ways where I possible went, but AI knows exactly where I went.

    On the other hand, sometimes you can shoot an AI next to another and there is absolutely no reaction.
    I miss an AI that behaves convincingly. To me, the AI in single player mode makes the game a deal breaker. It was just not fun.

    I never felt the need to help the people of the Islands. The towns have less life in them than the fake towns in the US for atomic tests.

    The use of tanks as a commander was easier in OFP. Tanks get stuck in trenches. Have problems climbing hills.
  62. Jun 9, 2014
    I'm fine, thanks. And you? Как дела? (Kak dela?) - inf Как ваши дела? (Kak vaši dela?) - frm Как поживаешь? (Kak požyivaješ?) - inf Как поживаете? (Kak požyvajete?) - frm Спасибо, хорошо. А у вас? (Spasibo, horošo. A u vas?) -frm Спасибо, хорошо. А вы? (Spasibo, horošo. A vy?) - frm Спасибо, хорошо. А ты? (Spasibo, horošo. A ty?) - inf Long time no see Сколько лет, сколько зим! (Skol'ko let, s Expand
  63. Sep 12, 2013
    Ive been watching the developement since the start and all i could recall till this day were steps backwards. Steps backward in performance, AI, overall engine, almost everywhere.. It is still the same old bad performing arma engine. Especially when you are a top notch AMD user, stay away.. Clearly Intel was favourited here. The gunplay still has that clunk-ish feel to it and so on. I cant give it a higher score then 3, this is rather a big hit in the face to me. Collapse

Mixed or average reviews - based on 38 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 20 out of 38
  2. Negative: 2 out of 38
  1. Mar 26, 2014
    There's something about Bohemia's world-building that inspires people. Importantly though, Arma 3's vanilla content now stands on equal footing with those third-party inspirations. It's still a little rough around the edges, but it's a darned impressive package nonetheless.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.