User Score
7.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 706 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
    4
    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
    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.
    Expand
  2. 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...
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Sep 26, 2013
    4
    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.
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  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. 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.
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Oct 4, 2013
    3
    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 toWhere 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.
    Expand
  23. Apr 13, 2014
    3
    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
    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.
    Expand
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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.
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.