Originally Posted by hamzta09
Looks amazing? Uh, okay.. if low res textures are amazing then I agree, mixed in with poor lighting, shadowing, odd physics and netcoding.
Not to mention a completely flat world with virtually no bump mapping or parallax mapping. There's not much visual detail in that game, just post processing. It's also funny how people say "a 2011 game" as if there have been any big enhancements in visual quality since then. The standard hasn't changed.
Originally Posted by Crazy9000
The restrictions consoles need to be able to run it would ruin a game like this. They aren't really an option.
Yep, this is a type of game console gamers will never get their hands on. Even with next-gen consoles in consideration, they'd lose half the functionality of the game due to controller limitations. It might actually sell on console though, because they've all heard of Day Z and its reputation, so they'd think ArmA 3 is more of the same.
The optimization doesn't bother me too much, plus I don't judge it by playing a poorly optimized mod that runs far worse than the actual game (Wasteland). The biggest problem with this game is that it shows no real advancements from ArmA 2. There are some nice new gameplay mechanics like the stance and pace modifiers, plus the unparalleled detail inside vehicles, soldiers look a lot more authentic, but there aren't any big new features that make it stand out as a sequel.
Plus it has less content than ArmA 2 by a long shot. It's still the best mil-sim around, and stands above the crap-shooters that infest today's market, but I wanted MOAR. As in, 3D editor and good AI.Edited by boredgunner - 9/14/13 at 4:22pm