User Score
7.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 733 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 14, 2013
    3
    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.
  2. Sep 12, 2013
    0
    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!!
  3. Sep 17, 2013
    0
    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.
  4. Oct 29, 2013
    2
    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 hasI 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
  5. Oct 24, 2013
    4
    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 seeminglyI 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!
    Expand
  6. Sep 13, 2013
    3
    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 aAfter 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
  7. Sep 16, 2013
    3
    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 featuresWhile 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
  8. Sep 22, 2013
    1
    Pros:
    I will give the game a 1 for the actual idea of such a large sandbox arena for combat.
    Cons:
    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.
  9. Sep 16, 2013
    4
    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.
  10. Sep 12, 2013
    0
    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 clearlyI 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
  11. Sep 16, 2013
    0
    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.
  12. Jan 14, 2014
    4
    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
    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.
    Expand
  13. Sep 18, 2013
    0
    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
    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
    1)physics
    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.
    Expand
  14. Sep 13, 2013
    4
    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...
  15. Nov 17, 2013
    3
    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 aThis 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.
    Expand
  16. Dec 4, 2014
    3
    I can understand why sometimes there are crappy console ports. But when a game is a PC exclusive, i expect good performance. You will not get good performance in this game.
    I was a huge fan of Arma 2, loved the multiplayer, the maps, the scenarios, not so much the campaigns but i felt the game was meant for its multiplayer. I was decently hyped for this game, and it did not at all live up
    I can understand why sometimes there are crappy console ports. But when a game is a PC exclusive, i expect good performance. You will not get good performance in this game.
    I was a huge fan of Arma 2, loved the multiplayer, the maps, the scenarios, not so much the campaigns but i felt the game was meant for its multiplayer. I was decently hyped for this game, and it did not at all live up to my expectations. Mediocre graphics, horrible performance, poor controls, poor single player, decent multiplayer this game is easily a step down from its predecessor. You want a great Military Simulation game? Well Arma 2 is there, and it even has a fantastic zombie survival mod, DayZ, and countless other great mods that come free with it.
    Expand
  17. Sep 12, 2013
    3
    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 cantIve 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. Expand
  18. Nov 13, 2013
    2
    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
    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.
    Expand
  19. Apr 27, 2014
    0
    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
    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.

    tl;dr

    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.
    Expand
  20. Feb 18, 2014
    1
    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 anyThis 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
  21. Oct 5, 2013
    4
    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 lessBohemia 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
  22. Mar 8, 2014
    4
    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 forLet'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
  23. Sep 14, 2013
    4
    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
    0
    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 killUnfinished, 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. Dec 7, 2013
    0
    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 theybig 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
  26. Jan 18, 2015
    2
    January 2015 - several patches later:

    I've played this game 8+ hours now, both the single player and the multi-player, here're my thoughts: - the game is unpolished and suffers from poor User Experience when it comes to menus, communications, orientation and much more. Basically finding a relevant game is difficult to get started, and many of the locally hosted servers have missing
    January 2015 - several patches later:

    I've played this game 8+ hours now, both the single player and the multi-player, here're my thoughts:
    - the game is unpolished and suffers from poor User Experience when it comes to menus, communications, orientation and much more. Basically finding a relevant game is difficult to get started, and many of the locally hosted servers have missing files compared to my installed vanilla version.
    - the game is buggy when it comes to playing in a squad with the AI. The AI is INCREDIBLY stupid and basically you can forget playing coop with a friend, because the supporting team is so stupid that eventually it ruins the entire experience.
    - The reason I give it 3 out of 10, instead of 1 out of 10 - is because the single player campaign works and is enjoyable. But, it is VERY short and replay value is zero here.

    Overall:
    The game was released a year before it ever should have, and the basic interaction with menus, getting into multiplayer, the frame rate from big servers and much much more should block you from playing this game.

    A massive disappointment because it looks great, the sandbox concept is great - but unforgivable that the in-game mechanics fail so hard that it puts a block between you and the play-ability.
    Expand
  27. Sep 13, 2013
    2
    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
    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!).
    Expand
  28. Sep 14, 2013
    2
    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
    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.
    Expand
  29. Sep 23, 2013
    0
    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 contentsSo 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
  30. Feb 13, 2015
    0
    I feel that in order for me to actually be able to review this game, the game would have to be able to run on my system (8 gigs G.Skill Ripjaw, 1090T Black edition processor, AMD 7890 VGU.) For those of you unfamiliar with computers, these are all upper-mid end parts. However, the game does not run. The game was a piece of junk at launch and has not improved in the least bit since then. II feel that in order for me to actually be able to review this game, the game would have to be able to run on my system (8 gigs G.Skill Ripjaw, 1090T Black edition processor, AMD 7890 VGU.) For those of you unfamiliar with computers, these are all upper-mid end parts. However, the game does not run. The game was a piece of junk at launch and has not improved in the least bit since then. I am able to get ~10 fps during gunfights making me a ridiculously easy target. Driving a vehicle? forget about it. ~5fps in a city with more than 5 other players in it. Flying a vehicle? Haven't even bothered to give it a try. This is coming from a computer that can run Counter Strike Global Offensive at around 250 frames consistently.

    I will never buy another Bohemia game again, and I hope that anyone with an AMD CPU reading this does more research than I did before buying this game. What a waste of money.
    Expand
Metascore
74

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
    80
    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
    70
    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
    60
    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.