User Score
7.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 739 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 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
  2. Sep 14, 2013
    3
    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
    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.
    Expand
  3. Sep 12, 2013
    0
    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
    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.
    Collapse
  4. Sep 12, 2013
    2
    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
    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.
    Expand
  5. 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...
  6. Sep 12, 2013
    0
    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
    3
    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 areWhile 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.
    Expand
  8. Sep 12, 2013
    3
    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 warI 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.
    Expand
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. Jul 21, 2014
    0
    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...
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Sep 17, 2013
    0
    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
    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.
    Expand
  19. Sep 26, 2013
    4
    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.
  20. 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
  21. Nov 3, 2013
    4
    WARNING: HONEST REVIEW

    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
    WARNING: HONEST REVIEW

    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.

    Pros:
    - 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)

    Cons:
    - 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.
    Expand
  22. Feb 11, 2014
    4
    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
  23. Sep 13, 2013
    4
    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, andOk 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
  24. 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.
  25. Sep 17, 2013
    1
    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 ''wereThis 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
  26. Oct 24, 2013
    1
    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
    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.

    Regards.
    Expand
  27. Mar 21, 2014
    0
    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 doRecently 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 econsumer.gov 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.
    Expand
  28. Apr 9, 2014
    0
    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.
  29. 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
  30. Sep 13, 2013
    0
    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
  31. Sep 12, 2013
    0
    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
    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.
    Collapse
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.