ArmA 3, in reality, is a shitty game.

[Zealot 29]

Now hold your horses here. I can almost hear you seething with rage at my comment, just about ready to type out your 3000 word essay as to why I'm wrong. But, hear me out.

I loved ArmA 2. I like ArmA 3. But, they're both shitty games.

I've spent a lot of time playing the Arma series, from Cold War Assault until now. I really enjoy the Arma games. I loved them up until ArmA 3, but it has sort of caused me to have a falling out with the series.

 

With all that said, my reasoning for disliking ArmA 3 isn't the same reason it's a shitty game, it simply just doesn't feel really ArmA to me anymore.

 

On to the topic. I think it's finally time that we, not just as a community here at Olympus, but as the entire community of people who play ArmA, face the fact that this series, not just ArmA 3, really and truly are bad games. The idea behind them are great, and the execution (more so in ArmA 2 over ArmA 3) are flawless. We do indeed have one of the best military simulators ever created, and on the grandest scale at that. But, what's the cost? I'm not sure about you, but I've never, ever played a game with the performance issues ArmA has, specifically ArmA 3. And what's the reason for this? Is it lazy developers? Is it an impossible to work with idea of a military simulator on this sort of level? Is it limitations of hardware? No.

It's lack of competition.

Every. Single. Time. that you drop to 15 frames in a town? It's because of this. Lose a gunfight due to desync? Here's your problem! Got desync rammed off the road? The culprit isn't the other driver, oh no. The culprit isn't even Bohemia. The culprit is, well, no one. Because the culprit is the fact that there is no one breaking into the market of milsim games. Sure, you can throw SQUAD at me, but, that isn't even close to the scale of ArmA. Every other successful game has it's competition. CoD has it's Battlefield and it's Halo (could maybe even argue Titanfall). Forza has it's Need for Speed and all those racing games that eventually flop (looking at you The Crew). Fifa has PES. The only other game that really has its market cornered is Madden, but so many people play that game that if it's bad, they'd be forced to change it cause of the money they'd lose. But, what does ArmA have? Squad? It's much smaller. Sure, it's pretty simulator-y, but, show me the massive battles of 100+ people. You can't, can you?

Because you see, Bohemia, while we may curse them every time we get an FPS drop, are actually geniuses. What's the point of fixing a game, if it's the only thing of its type? We can all bitch and whine about ArmA, but do we ever stop playing it forever? No. We just hope it'll get better. But, it won't. Could it? Yeah. Realistically, there is no reason ArmA shouldn't run at 60 fps on low-mid range PC's (at the very LEAST it should run at 60 frames on a high end PC, in a city, with bombs going off everywhere, but it doesn't.). Would a ton have to change? Yeah. I'm no AAA developer, so I can't tell you what the exact issue is with ArmA, but I can tell you that if you really think about it, and quite frankly just look at it, there really is no reason ArmA should have the issues it does. Well, there is one. The work it would take to fix the game would be large, and it would cost a lot of money. But, again, Bohemia are geniuses. Why pay developers to basically rewrite the entire game when you're still making tonnes of money off it? Sadly, there genius is more for their gain over ours, but hey, props to them for being good at business.

 

"Well then, genius, what would it take to fix ArmA?" I hear you say, just as you're about to write the 3000 word comment.

It's simple. But not so simple. A big developer, with a lot of money, willing to take a risk and break into a new gaming spectrum! So, why hasn't it happened? While I may not be a AAA developer, I do know a little something something about money and business, and the reason it hasn't happened is the risk part of the equation. You see, ArmA has been the only thing of its kind ever since its inception. Many players have played since then. If DICE decided to throw a ton of money at a room full of developers and told them to make the game that would destroy ArmA, would I trust them? Hell fucking no. Because I know no different then the shitty frames, the desync, the stupid physics, the quirks of ArmA. And neither do any of you reading this.

But, theoretically, could it happen? Will it happen? It's possible. But it's unlikely. Should competition show up, ArmA would probably outlast them, due to a loyal player base who, as I said earlier, are willing to play through the bullshit because they love the game, and also the fact they have a template already, so fixing the issues would be easier for them then it would be for a company to start from scratch.

 

Oh, and, another person who is a genius? Dean 'Rocket' Hall. Cashed in all that DayZ money (it'll be out by the end of the year!) once he realized how fucked the engine he was making his game on truly was. The only difference is, DayZ is adapting and is actually becoming playable. Why? COMPETITION. Every mother fucker is trying to make a zombie game. That shit right there is my case and point.

 

Pretty huge wall of text, I know. But my theatrical way of writing these things can't be summed up in a few simple words to get my point across, but I'll try to anyways in this cute little TL;DR

TL;DR: ArmA is a shitty game because it's the only game of its type, and the risk/reward isn't there for another company to try and come in. Bohemia is smart in the fact that they don't spend time/resources on fixing the game when they don't need to. Dean 'Rocket' Hall is a genius as well for cashing out of DayZ.

[platinumfire 539]

Ur wrong "drops mic"

[Zealot 29]

Just now, platinumfire said:

Ur wrong "drops mic"

Can't argue with that. You got me. Pls lock post and delete me from the forums.

[platinumfire 539]

Just now, Zealot said:

Can't argue with that. You got me. Pls lock post and delete me from the forums.

Couldn't agree more with that @Talindor you help this man out with his request?

[Talindor 872]

TLDR;

Your barking up the wrong tree, post this to Bohemia or Arma.

[I Am Fuzzy 997]

This is important to all of us. Thank you for making this very informative post. 

[sinister_ 201]

58 minutes ago, Talindor said:

TLDR;

tree

TREEEEEE

[MrMarek 25]

I agree, there are a few milsims coming out that might inspire Bohemia to do something.

Squad of course.

 

I've recently gotten my hands on a very early access version of the game TitanIM, I only have access to it because one of my buddies got his hands on it and he shared with me, if you check their website they won't give out versions unless you're a "selected project" (aka Youtuber, game reviewer, etc) but I recommend checking it out it looks pretty promising.

http://titanim.net/www/

 

(hmu if you want to try it)

[Jeff Chaplin 279]

Did you just call Arma shitty then say that DayZ is becoming playable? DayZ is about the worst game I have ever played it literally is nearly unplayable with the amount of issues it has and it's taken them 3 years to get it to go where it is which is not far at all for 3 years that games a piece of shit

[platinumfire 539]

24 minutes ago, Jeff Chaplin said:

Did you just call Arma shitty then say that DayZ is becoming playable? DayZ is about the worst game I have ever played it literally is nearly unplayable with the amount of issues it has and it's taken them 3 years to get it to go where it is which is not far at all for 3 years that games a piece of shit

This is all true Dayz has been the biggest money ploy since sliced bread. I wonder if the reason were about to get all this new content for Arma 3 in 2017 is because Dayz made them so much money.

[Not Important 209]

K

[Ozadu 20]

No Arma is not a shitty game. Its an incredible, massive, versatile programmable sandbox. Sure when we push it to its limits with 100s of people on a server and thousands to scripts running shit gets a little fucky sometimes. But that doesn't make it bad. Bohemia took a risk by creating this massive scale programmable game. AAA companies don't take risks. They put out the same old stuff reskinned every year because they know it works. The very fact that Arma allows us to create Life servers and King of the hill (2 game modes which more than anything accentuate the issues you described) shows us why it is great and not shitty. What would happen if Battlefield or Call of Duty allowed you to put 100 people on a server and run tons of scripts to restrain, rob, connect to a database, etc.. It would be utter shit, 100x worse than what we have in Arma. And on the other hand, If Arma restricted you to 64 players, had small static maps and didn't allow any scripts to be run on servers it would probably run flawlessly. 

You see, you acknowledge everything that Arma does great but you don't give them any credit. You think Bohemia is some negligent money hungry company just sitting on their sacks of cash unwilling to fix anything because its more hassle than its worth? Well, maybe with unlimited funds they could scrap the whole thing and start anew with the scaling issues in mind but that's not how the world works. If it were then we would all have gigabit internet and dsync and lag would never exist in the first place. Bohemia gives us the freedom to push their game to the limits(I once spawned 360 chickens in a circle around me. Did the game lag? Yes. Do I fault Bohoemia for that? No). And if nothing else, that is what makes Arma great.

[Young Mogul 237]

2 hours ago, Cheshyre said:

I agree, there are a few milsims coming out that might inspire Bohemia to do something.

Squad of course.

 

I've recently gotten my hands on a very early access version of the game TitanIM, I only have access to it because one of my buddies got his hands on it and he shared with me, if you check their website they won't give out versions unless you're a "selected project" (aka Youtuber, game reviewer, etc) but I recommend checking it out it looks pretty promising.

http://titanim.net/www/

 

(hmu if you want to try it)

Actually looks really fuckin cool, if it's really good, I think we should get an Olympus Titan Life server up. That would be fuckin awesome!

[Guest]

Yeah I don't think you'll really see anyone defending ArmA 3. Most folks I've talked too all pretty much agree arma is a shitty ga-.... what's that, 2 new replies....

 

Okay let's show replies..

 

 

Oh fucking Ozadu, nevermind. I'll just go fuck myself.

[Dangus 629]

26 minutes ago, McDili said:

Yeah I don't think you'll really see anyone defending ArmA 3. Most folks I've talked too all pretty much agree arma is a shitty ga-.... what's that, 2 new replies....

 

Okay let's show replies..

 

 

Oh fucking Ozadu, nevermind. I'll just go fuck myself.

Lol. So true.

I always look at replies made whole I was typing, before I post my sh... oh wait nvm. I post whatever I fucking want. But yeah. Arma physics are bad, hitboxxes on shit are broken. Desync is too fucking bad. Part of it could be that there is just a lot of shit to load in, every building is rnterable pretty much, especially on life servers, textures are harder to load in, people are playing from Korea all the way to England. People have shitty computers That lag them, some people have shitty potato run internet. 

 

I could keep going, but no point, the game itself does just end up sucking period.

[Zealot 29]

11 hours ago, Talindor said:

TLDR;

Your barking up the wrong tree, post this to Bohemia or Arma.

I don't know why people always assume topics like these are complaining. I even said I love the ArmA series at the start of my post, and that I highly doubt anything will change. Was simply giving reason and logic to all of the people who we hear daily complain about the game.

7 hours ago, Ozadu said:

No Arma is not a shitty game. Its an incredible, massive, versatile programmable sandbox. Sure when we push it to its limits with 100s of people on a server and thousands to scripts running shit gets a little fucky sometimes. But that doesn't make it bad. Bohemia took a risk by creating this massive scale programmable game. AAA companies don't take risks. They put out the same old stuff reskinned every year because they know it works. The very fact that Arma allows us to create Life servers and King of the hill (2 game modes which more than anything accentuate the issues you described) shows us why it is great and not shitty. What would happen if Battlefield or Call of Duty allowed you to put 100 people on a server and run tons of scripts to restrain, rob, connect to a database, etc.. It would be utter shit, 100x worse than what we have in Arma. And on the other hand, If Arma restricted you to 64 players, had small static maps and didn't allow any scripts to be run on servers it would probably run flawlessly. 

You see, you acknowledge everything that Arma does great but you don't give them any credit. You think Bohemia is some negligent money hungry company just sitting on their sacks of cash unwilling to fix anything because its more hassle than its worth? Well, maybe with unlimited funds they could scrap the whole thing and start anew with the scaling issues in mind but that's not how the world works. If it were then we would all have gigabit internet and dsync and lag would never exist in the first place. Bohemia gives us the freedom to push their game to the limits(I once spawned 360 chickens in a circle around me. Did the game lag? Yes. Do I fault Bohoemia for that? No). And if nothing else, that is what makes Arma great.

But you see, you're complimenting the experience ArmA provides. Not the game itself. And, I'm not sure if you've ever played bare bones ArmA (not many have), but it's not very exciting. And it still runs like shit. The only thing you don't suffer from is desync (if you play solo). I never described Bohemia in a negative light, as you seem to think I did. I called them geniuses. And, I'm not sure if you're aware of the sales of ArmA 2 and 3 (and in turn DayZ) but they've made fucking bank off these games. As I stated, Dean 'Rocket' Hall is also a genius, as he made a shit ton of money off the game as well.

2.7 million people own ArmA 2. Currently, the price is $54.99 CAD (was either $59.99 on release or $69.99, can't remember). We can assume some got it on sale, so we'll say the average price purchased is around $45 CAD.  That's $121.5 million dollars, for the base game.

The DLC is $14.99 for helis, $14.99 for marksman, $45.99 for APEX. So, if I were to buy ArmA 3, then purchase the DLC as they come out, it would cost me $130.96 CAD. If I were only buying the DLC, it would cost me $75.97. Again, lets assume some people got it in a bundle / on sale and say around $60 for all the DLC. We'll say only around 25% of the people who play ArmA have all the DLC (which is probably much less then actually do), which means 675,000 people own ArmA 3 and all the DLC. The DLC cost is $51.279 million dollars.

Add that to the base game, and we have a grand total of 172,779,000 dollars. DayZ has 3.5 million sales, and ArmA 2 OA has over 4 million. I can confidently say, without doing the math, that puts them well over $250m made off this series, probably over $300m. Yet you think that isn't enough money to rebuild from the ground up? Fool, you crazy.

[asdasd123 377]

34 minutes ago, Zealot said:

Fool, you crazy.

Was gonna reply with a 3000 word essay of how you are wrong but you intimidated me and when I said essay I dont mean it as homie or friend I mean the writing thing

Edited December 16, 2016 by R A N D Y

[Moose 316]

You can't really call it a "non complaining" post when you use terms like very very bad and shitty game. But yeah as previously said arma goes places on a scale other games don't.

The moldability of arma is amazing. Arma 2 had amazing mods, I44 was dope as hell. I think it was called warfare mod or something but it basically turned arma 2 into an RTS where you build bases and tank factory's and aircraft factories and take over strategic points. I remember playing that shit for hours with 7 or 8 ki guys on servers that hosted that and battling all over Chernarus.

[Piner 115]

It is the best game I have ever played, in spite of its flaws.  For multiplayer, I honestly believe that it is unmatched.

[Zealot 29]

26 minutes ago, Moose said:

You can't really call it a "non complaining" post when you use terms like very very bad and shitty game. But yeah as previously said arma goes places on a scale other games don't.

The moldability of arma is amazing. Arma 2 had amazing mods, I44 was dope as hell. I think it was called warfare mod or something but it basically turned arma 2 into an RTS where you build bases and tank factory's and aircraft factories and take over strategic points. I remember playing that shit for hours with 7 or 8 ki guys on servers that hosted that and battling all over Chernarus.

Why? I don't just stare at everything under rose tinted glasses. When you love something, as I do this series of games, you have to notice the flaws of it. But, that doesn't mean you don't love it. Are parts of ArmA shitty? Yes, as I stated in the topic. Are parts of ArmA amazing? Yes, as I stated in the topic.

And the game mode you're thinking about is indeed called warfare and I know it used to be a thing on A3 too but idk if it still is.

I'm not sure why some of you guys seem to think you need to sacrifice performance for the ability to make your game its own thing. All of Bethesda / Obsidian's RPG's are extremely moldable, maybe even more so then ArmA, and they ran spectacularly both unmodded and modded, provided the modder isn't a dumbass. And yes, I know you'll tell me they're solo games, but having other players in your molded world isn't what gives you shitty performance.

16 minutes ago, Piner said:

It is the best game I have ever played, in spite of its flaws.  For multiplayer, I honestly believe that it is unmatched.

I would agree that the multiplayer experience is bar none, and it's also been my favourite multiplayer game.

[Mory Mango 686]

[Another One 44]

Just now, Mory Mango said:

kek.

 

[Zealot 29]

51 minutes ago, Mory Mango said:

Corrects grammar, doesn't use proper grammar.

Oh and just so you know, that site also lists 10 more times where using a comma is appropriate, not just the first 3.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Zealot

[Moose 316]

Yeah Skyrim is fun but having 100 people on a server is a different ball game. Half the fun of playing video games is playing with friends not being a forever alone grinding for that top tier dragon bone armor. Mods and a large community give the game replayability. I still get amazed people play csgo to solo que dust 2. I agree arma has some obvious flaws but that's not how you started your post, you started with "let's be honest arma is a really shitty game"

[Mory Mango 686]

12 minutes ago, Zealot said:

Corrects grammar, doesn't use proper grammar.

Oh and just so you know, that site also lists 10 more times where using a comma is appropriate, not just the first 3.

it was a joke dood, someone told me about you using 100 million commas in a post so i responded with that