RipTen - Yeah, I said it. There’s a damn good reason we gave ArmA III best PC game and best sim at this year’s E3 expo. It looks downright ridiculous.
Draw distance, you can has.
"make battlefield 3 looks dated" Guess which game of the two is being held back because of consoles? *flame shield*
LOL *flame shield* Since someone is going to try and TORCH you anyway, why not just "FLAME ON"
Odds are your current PC would be holding this back, too.
If you are implying Battlefield 3, then you are incorrect. DICE is developing it specifically for PC first then giving consoles a lesser version, which still looks to be a great experience.
Yeah, this game is probably gonna be like the last ARMA. Beautiful. But you had to wait till the NEXT gen PC video cards came out before you could max it.
How are the new ARMA games doing anyway? I know when I played the first one it was beautiful for the time but was buggy as hell at first. I think I remember hearing the second one was pretty much the same. Not knocking ARMA or BF3 but these two games have different priorities. ARMA has always been a simulation of combat while Battlefield has been more of an action game. I loved both ARMA and BF2 but played them each for different reasons.
AHA! they act like most gamers know what Arma III is. I never heard of such thing. Just shows how well this game is doing. And the footage still looks like a game. Until it looks like real life or close to it it's not really making anything else look outdated.
yeah, nice try! dated is a strong word especially if being used against BF3 which, isn't coming out yet!
By the look of the first screen shot this I would assume Arma 3 as that shadow on top of the APC is pretty rough. Overall the graphics look good in all of the screenshots but I don't think this will blow away Battlefield 3 (at least on the PC).
don't think so
Between BF3 and ARMA3... one will be highly polished and a joy to play, the other will be a buggy mess with many game breaking glitches (as usual). I know which one I'm going with.
i like your thinking. great time for PC gaming, getting both of these gems. also comparing the two is like chalk and cheese. anyone who has played arma will understand.
: / don't think so.
WOW! Even the thought that you can be playing as a grunt on the ground while another flies cluelessly in that F 35 is mind-boggling. Finally a good reason for upgrading my PC!
I'll believe it when I see it. This was actually the vision Spectrum Holobyte had when they first released Falcon 3.0 20 years ago...it was supposed to be part of the "Electronic Battlefield Series", which would ultimately consist of land combat as well, and all of it could be networked together (this was before internet gaming). Sadly it never got beyond a few flight sims.
So far the closest thing has been Battlefield, but obviously they had to make the planes real slow and operate on tiny maps to make it happen (not to mention water down the flight model all to hell).
If they can pull it off with a realistic flight model, and on top of that make the ground combat not be a boring chore like in previous Arma games, I'm on board.
LOL Falcon 3. You sir, are old. But yeah with games like ARMA the electronic battlefield has been realized.
Um, you can also fly jets in bf3
Yeah, that sounds cool. Warhawk is pretty cool too. I remember this one time I was flying this Warhawk, and a guy running around on the other side of the map had no idea I was flying in it and then I clustered him to death. But then that was years ago, so maybe I'm remembering it wrong.
WOW! I cant Believe its not butter!
I dont see anything in those screenshots that i havent already seen in games like uncharted, maybe the draw distance in those pictures is a little better, but that is all.
Lookin good so far.
What.. That's insane.
Looks absolutely real.. That kind of scares me in a way.
life graphics are overrated! Draw distance and resolution is limited and depending on your eyes sight. No HUD. Too much blur from moving objects.
Then dont play life. Infact why dont you leave life since its so overrated Idiots like you give gamers a bad name
WOOOO! I Love world of warcraft too lets be friends!
ArMA 3 shud be pretty amazing. Simulators are always more advanced.
Advanced - not necessarily fun. I love realistic-styled games, but there's a strong line between requiring skill and not even being able to get into a firefight because you'll die in two bullets from a rifle.
Fun is subjective though. Then again, ARMA's fanbase are pretty hardcore. The amount of pre-mission planning and co-ordination is just insane... not exactly to my tastes, but it still has a niche.
Ive played arma and have been playing battlefield since 1942 pre launch demo. Both games were fun. But nowadays gamers especially here on n4g believe fun exists in arcade type games only. . I believe this stems from the new generation growing up without arcades though and not the games themselves. . if your in your mid twenties or older you know firsthand the awesome experience I speak of. so take pity on the cod generation. they have been deprived.
To say that the Battlefield series is very realistic is untrue. DICE managed to blend fun elements with realistic elements really well in Battlefield, making it extremely fun to all playerbases while ArmA has always been about uber realism to the point that you're just walking around, waiting for an enemy to show up with no true gun fights but rather luck. I love realism in games, but too much just means for boredom.
Advanced? If ARMA hasn't got fully destructible environments and buildings like Battlefield 3 the comparison is mute.
Look.. Battlefield 3 is probably the top game of my year alongside Dark Souls and Skyrim, but Realism doesn't come from just destructible environments. Arma has been known for it's style of gameplay. Hell, go take a look at Red Orchestra. I consider that far more real than the Battlefield series.
That's what sci fi shooters are for!
ARMA 2 is very pretty but just a sloppy game. It's clumsy as hell, has a small and mostly Russian user base, and very little PvP.
I dislike your face so im disagreeing with you and giving you bad bubbles
Change your face.
My PC would explode if I tried to run this on max O.O
my pc would explode the time i put the cd inside =__=
My PC almost exploded if i opened picture of ArmA III
My pc would explode the second I type the word Arm*BOOM*
My brain would explode if this game came out as a CD.
damn.. time for upgrade.
i have windows 98 :(
Patriot Funniest thing I've heard all week hehehe
Actually, I'm pretty good with BF3 and I can only laugh at such headlines.
Yeah, sorry, this headline takes the piss. Screen shots mean nothing. Homefront looked good in screen shots. Gamers are such a stupid breed. Everyone always has to throw their dick on the table and see who is bigger. Just play the damn games and have fun. Who really cares about this crap? Seriously. What does it matter?
Bet it's boring, though.
The most realistic and funnest shooter ever. I play Arma II with mods dam near every weekend during Lan Parties.
Even in it's Free to play un-modded format it's still an awesome game that brings together intense action and a great depth of strategy.
More weapons and vehicles than any other game including BF3.
"Funnest shooter ever"? How old are you, my good sir?
Apparently old enough to enjoy Arma
I have this itchy feeling that the system requirements of Arma3 makes even just recently bought/build computers look dated.
It has got tessellated foliage .... sth i expected frm crysis 2 ......
I know it's kind of out of topic but I need your help guys,I have a pretty decent computer and can run every game I have played so far in high settings.I have a hd radeon 6850 an and quadcore CPU and 6 gigs of RAM but I want to play battlefield 3 went it comes out at it's highest setting and don't think my computer it's gonna be able to handle it so I'm gonna get me a new graphics card,thinking about gettin me the he radeon 6950 but my psu only has 500 watts do I need a new psu too or not? And do you think I need anything else? Your help will be much appreciated.
Depends on the quality of the PSU, but even then, it would be cutting it pretty close. So you're gonna need a better PSU (preferrable 600+ Watts) However, a 6850 should run the game decently, might not max it, but there's a lot of graphical settings which are better left disabled anyways. I'd recommend waiting till the open beta to see how your system handles it, as an upgrade might not really be necessary.
Hey Fat Do you think a 6950 would max it? He has the same setup as me (minus the psu) and I'm purchasing another 6850 since it's gotten pretty cheap, I'm sure that should max it out. Edit: Just read ATi_Elite's post below
If you have two PCI-E slots just buy another HD 6850 and a quality 650-700 watt PSU. This will give you more power than a 580GTX.
You CAN NOT run HD 6850cf with that 500w PSU
Or buy a HD 6950 but DO NOT overclock it or your CPU cause you are at the bare minimum for power.
if it were me i would go for HD6850 cf and a new PSU which would allow for some overclocking and you would be set until DX12 (and that's only if you had to have DX12)
HD6850 Cf = BF3 MAX graphics with 8xAA 16xAF 1080p
HD6950 = BF3 almost max graphics and may have to lay of some AA to maintain high frame rates.
6850 cfx = BF3 max graphics with 8xAA 16xAF 1080p? Not a chance dude tinezedw, if you must stick with AMD I would recommend waiting till the fall to make any upgrade decisions, their new 7 series gpus will be out by the end of the year. in the meantime you could save up some $$ for something that will rock BF3's world.
Lots of people have weighed in to offer advice but you always have that one Ass Clown who doesn't know what he is talking about......Right HydroCooper?
"6850 cfx = BF3 max graphics with 8xAA 16xAF 1080p?..........Not a chance dude"
these were Hydro Cooper's dumb remarks!!!
I know what I'm talking about and I always provide links and not HOT AIR to back up what I'm saying.
If one HD 6850 can run BFBC2 in DX11 mode maxed out with 8xAA 16xAF then surely two HD6850's can run BF3 especially since current gen graphics cards are scaling between 75% - 95% when paired in CF or SLi.
Not convinced well how about a link showing you how well two HD6850's in crossfire handle the most demanding game out Metro 2033.
Recommended Specs for Metro 2033
Processor: Core i7 CPU
Memory: 8GB RAM or higher
Graphics: NVIDIA DirectX 11 compliant graphics card (GeForce GTX 480 and 470)
DirectX®: DirectX 11
Recommended specs for Battlefield 3
Hard Drive Space: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version
OS: Windows 7 64-bit
Processor: Quad-core Intel or AMD CPU RAM 4GB
Video Card: DirectX 11 GeForce GTX 460, Radeon HD 6850
These are the recommended specs for solid game play with some eye candy so if your set-up can handle Metro 2033 then you can handle anything.
Thank you,think I'm follow your advice.
@ ATi_Elite LOL kid, its obvious by your name that you are the ultimate ati fanboy, so lemme correct some of your statements for you and bring things back to reality: First of all, there are no offical BF3 recommended specs yet, you just read the fake ones on the gamestop website. And don't say thats for the alpha, if you do, that will show just how much of a noob you actually are. "HD6850 Cf = BF3 MAX graphics with 8xAA 16xAF 1080p" FALSE TRUTH = 6850 CF - BF3 MAX settings with 2xAA 16xAF 1080p between 30-40 FPS avg Playable but not ideal. 60FPS is what you should be aiming for. Obviously this is just speculation but it is far more plausible than your claims. You also claim other people provide nothing but hot air, but what kind of hard facts have you provided? Have you played BF3 dx11 1080p maxed out 8xAA final version? Metro 2033 is a completely different game with a different engine released a year and a half ago. And 6850 cf cant even get close to 60fps going by the link you provided. If you want to play sub-hd, less than 60fps, your recommendation is fine. But if you want the best you will need much better than 2 cards that are on the low end of the mid-range scale. tinez I suggest you do a little more research before believing someone with the name ATI_ELITE :/
You should be fine with that setup. DON LISTEN TO THE PC ELITISTS IN THIS WEBSITE!. A 3 Ghz quadcore and an HD 6850 can run BF3 on HIGH settings if not MAX, of which you couldnt tell the difference. (This comes from a 4 Ghz i5 2500k + 460 SLI owner)
how the hell would you know? You just said don't listen to PC elitists yet insert your opinion and say it's correct? ::Cough:: pot meet kettle::cough::
When BF3 comes out i want you to take out one of your 460's and see if you can max BF3 out with 8xAA 16xAf at 1080p while maintaining 40fps.
I guarantee that you will not be able to and there is a big difference in the way a game looks when you have a few eye candy effects on versus having them all on.
Crysis DX9 looks like crap compared to Crysis 10.1
seems like a decent rig tinezedw. youre right you definately want to upgrade your psu. if you are thinking of crossfiring i would recommend a 1000w psu. this allows you plenty of power plus room for overclocking your cpu and gpu. heres a good one: http://www.hardwarecanucks.... i would hold off on getting that 6950 right now with amds new 28nm chips just around the corner. i am pretty certain that you would have to crossfire a 6950 to max out BF3 anyway with high levels of AA. just my 2 cents
I'm assuming he doesn't want to spend too much cash for upgrades. I would recommend 750w-850w (Corsair, Antec, OCZ to name a few quality brands), sure you can "futureproof" that much, but 750-850 would be sufficient for a long while. I am betting that 6850 CF will be able to max BF3 (2-4x AA maybe..which is enough) @ 1080p. I haven't got solid info, but it seems the alpha runs well and BC2 is quite optimized (can max out with a single 6850) and since 6850 CF can max out metro with 50-100 fps BF3 should be fine. http://www.youtube.com/watc... This is pure speculation, I'm not saying this as fact.