how-to block ads
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| ARMA 3 Who has gotten a chance to spend a good chunk of time with the game? I was considering dropping $45 on Steam for beta access. But I never ended up pulling the trigger on it. I thought about it but just never did. After reading some reviews on ARMA 3, I don't really think I missed out on anything with ARMA 3 in it's current form.
"I'm mostly happy with the graphical performance I've been getting on the three configurations I've been playing Arma 3 on. The caveat being that my framerate varies based on where I am on the map, the number of objects and enemies, and if I'm playing online. On a Core-i7 X990 at 3.47 GHz and two AMD Radeon 5970s on Very High settings, I've gotten 17-25 FPS on one single-player mission and 40-50 on another. Multiplayer is where I found the least-consistent performance. On a Core-i7 870 and GTX 780, I can get 55 FPS in a tight, six-player scenario on Very High, but 20 in a large-format mission like Wasteland."
"Tinkering with Arma 3's 25 configurable video settings allowed me to improve these numbers a little, but even dialing down the quality to standard or low on my rigs barely helped while playing large multiplayer missions. The scripting or complexity of some scenarios simply seems to bottleneck performance regardless of your settings. Some specific actions also consistently produced framerate dips for me, like turning 180 degrees with high draw distance, driving at high speed into a city, or right-clicking into gun optics for the first time in an area."
--PC Gamer, ARMA 3 Review (»www.pcgamer.com/review/arma-3-review/)
I have a hard time swallowing 17-25fps(or 40-55fps if I'm lucky) on an i7 and Nvidia 780/Titan setup. That's shitty performance no matter how you look at it. In my opinion, that's a huge drawback and something that would likely keep me away from both buying and/or playing the game. If I can't get decent framerates(17-25fps SUCK) out of my "relatively" high end PC hardware--i5 2500k & GTX 780-- there's no point in buying ARMA 3 until it's optimized much, much better than it's current build/state. 17-25 fps is really not an enjoyable experience for me. Some people might be okay with that but I just couldn't.
I understand there's a decent game hidden underneath all these nagging issues like poor performance on high end PC hardware, piss poor AI x 1,000, overly complicated commands menu, much better than ARMA 2 but still not entirely perfect/desireable and clunky character animations, etc. I understand the game really shines when playing it with a medium or large group of friends where everyone is communicating and working together. But what if you can't always have an ultra friendly and cohesive group to play? From what I'm surmising, you're basically now staring directly into the cold, murky, lonely, "Hell" side of ARMA 3. This side of ARMA 3 is frankly... worthless.
Anyways, PC Gamer gave ARMA 3 an 84/100 : "A significant step forward for the king of military simulation offset by inconsistent graphical performance." | | |
|
 BKayracPremium
join:2001-09-29
Madison, WI | I looked at a stream or two on twitch the other night.
Streamers were getting HORRIBLE FPS, and the guys I was watching have some serious rigs.
That right there should give the game an awful review. | |
Reviews:
·Comcast
| Honestly, I was thinking that an 84/100 seems quite a bit too high for a game that, just a mere 30 seconds ago, the reviewer was stating how ARMA 3's performance was basically, in lay-mans terms aka realistically: stunningly shitty. But they went on to say that he/she was "mostly happy" with their 17-25fps... ON an Intel Core i7(albeit Clarkdale) AND Nvidia GTX Titan!
Sorry but that's terrible, terrible performance!! From what I read, I find it incredibly hard to justify a score even close to an 84. | |
3 edits | reply to TruSm0ke
I have had a lot of fun with Arma 3 since jumping in when they made the Alpha offer. The full game runs fine on my 2 year-old quad core (I-7 3.4GHz with 8 GB of RAM and a Ge-Force GTX 560 Ti) which runs at around 60 fps and dips down to around 35 fps when water surfaces or lots of explosions are present. Note that performance can be quite crappy if the guy who is hosting the session has a poor or limited connection. My group has players from across the US and Canada and one guy in the UK. We really don't have fps issues or lag issues as long as the guy hosting the session has a low latency connection.
The group that I run missions with does a mix of missions that we have created ourselves or have downloaded from Armaholic or from the Steam Workshop. Lately, we have been running the Dynamic Universal War System which is nothing short of spectacular for creating an unpredictable campaign type of experience. It's a nice break from playing the "canned" gaming stuff for the PC that is currently out there.
There's no question that parts of the game are not "mature" at this point. For instance, the AI that you are given to command will sometimes be kind of obtuse, but that is slowly improving as they update the game. The mission editor has improved greatly since the Alpha, but the task editor sometimes does not work as expected and so it's necessary to manually edit a few of the mission scripts to get it to work as expected.
At this point, there's really nothing that I would call a deal-breaker as far as gaming performance goes. It's very different from arcade-type fps games, but in my opinion it offers a lot for those who are interested in running some challenging scenarios.
--
"The dog days are over... The dog days are done..." | |
|
