Average User Score: 7.3Sep 12, 2013First 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.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.2Nov 10, 2011I'll admit I bought this game out of pure hype. Graphics were supposed to be good, but they are mediocre at best. Textures are terrible and soldier models look like toys. The cover system is glitchy as hell. Proning is also a difficult task at times. It's hard to have fun playing this game, but at least it's not like recent COD titles. 6 ou of 10 sounds fair enough to me. Don't buy it unless it's on a sale or if you're a diehard fan of this franchise (which I ain't).… Expand
Average User Score: 2.4Nov 10, 2011Let me start by stating I am NOT a Battlefield fanboy. In fact, I couldn't care less for BF3 as of now, since I'm one of the thousands of Steam users boycotting EA's Origin. And I didn't enjoy Bad Company 2 either. That said, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is a bad game in almost every aspect. I don't much care for the dated graphics: they still look rather acceptable and make for a smooth experience on my also dated rig. Now to tthe actual game modes. The campaign manages to be shorter than MW2's (which is to say, it's REALLY short). If only it had a nice story like its predecessors, though, it would be a good campaign. It doesn't, and you get bored despite the epic scale the war raging around you has reached. It's all been done before, some missions are almost carbon copies of MW and MW2 ones. It's cliche-ridden, full of predictable "scenes" where your character barely survives (you get knocked down with a scripted explosion, some NPC helps you up, the camera tilts as if to show you're dizzy, then you're fully recovered and back on the frontlines). There are no real plot twists or anything memorable in this campaign whatsoever. I played on "veteran" difficulty and felt the AI was pretty good though. But it is in no way an actual challenge. Now for the multiplayer mode... this deserves a little background. When I bought MW2 upon launch, I hadn't read any previews about it. I just bought it because I was still hyped from COD4, which had an amazing campaign and awesome multiplayer. So I had no clue MW2 wouldn't be getting dedicated servers. I was in for a MAJOR disappointment. I was like "MATCHMAKING??? REALLY???" But the worst thing was, maps were terrible, felt like carousels with annoying players (a maximum 18 of them, to be precise) running around with no tactics or teamwork at all. TERRIBLE stuff. I only managed to endure a couple hours of it, and vowed never to buy a MW game again. But then it was announced MW3 would be getting dedicated servers again. Being fond of the campaign storyline as I was, and hoping the multiplayer would go back to what it was in 2007, I immediately broke my word and pre-purchased it. Then, just a few days before launch day, I read an article at GameSpy saying dedicated servers wouldn't be ranked (meaning you can't level up or unlock guns, items, etc on them) and once again, the player limit would be 18, which is utter garbage. If COD4 had 32 players (some DEDICATED servers allowed even more somehow), why can't we have those 4 years later? Maps also look and feel terrible. MW3's multiplayer is a BORING and frustrating experience. I cannot even understand how this game appeals so much to the masses. It's not entertaining at all. Also, with no leaning AGAIN, gameplay is horrible. Bottom line (multiplayer-wise) is, MW3 = MW2 with even worse maps. The only thing remotely good about this game is the Spec Ops mode, which doesn't even come close to making MW3 worth the 60 bucks I spent on it. This game should cost 10 USD, tops. No joke. I'll tell you what IS a joke though. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.… Expand