...Just watched some gameplay of both and yeah... Not impressed.

Reading EAUK and seeing PC elitists whine about whole walls getting blown up in BC2 and then watching RO2 where the destruction doesn't even match the point of impact makes me lol... And the same elitists boast about RO2.

Also, the dev who showed some RO2 gameplay got killed within 5 seconds of spawning (happened about 3 times) and after that he had to use god mode to actually show the game.

Arma 3, while I like open world games and vehicles... This game just failed to impress me, they haven't even implemented decent physics even though the game is supposed to be about as realistic as it gets.

Cool story bro.

Also, INB4 ALIENA, Gnarly & Daedra... And maybe a few elitists who join the forums just to comment on this.

lmao agreed 110%

u jus got +2'd

Finally. I've thought this for a while. Arma looks nice on the scale of it but when you get down to the individual level (where you'll be playing at) it looks shit.

Never heard of RO2 so I won't comment there.

When I watched the gameplays, neither games gave me a "must have" feel or a "holy shit, that's awesome" reaction.

Most of the stuff just seemed really tedious. I understand that ArmA is supposed to be realistic but the dev destroyed two vehicles with 2 rockets from a heli... He was 1.6 miles away and autolocked on them. Sure would be awesome to have some of that MP action, getting raped by fucking everything before you can even see it. The only major progresses the dev could name in terms of the engine were "a fully detailed ocean floor" and "volumetric clouds", oh man, I've been waiting for those for so long and finally they're here!

RO2, first off the graphics don't impress me... I don't give a fuck if it has AA or some fancy DX11 effects, it looks worse than a console exclusive. In the first few seconds of the gameplay (just before he gets killed right after spawning) you can see a couple of trees pop up out of nowhere, also the way the trees move in the "wind" looks fucking retarded... Really the only thing about RO2 that has "stuck" to my mind is the "dual sight" feature where you can use both a scope and irons at the same time... Other than that, it's pretty forgettable... Not to mention the animations are about as good as the ones we've seen like 11 years ago in Soldier of Fortune.

LMAO, post it in the PC section of the BF3 forums.

Ok will do

Done

http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3-pc/1414531-bf3-needs-have.html#post19626009

Oh ya you will have to keep us informed as to how the thread does in there, no way in fuck Ill actually remember to check that shit

lol GB....havent even posted there...same with CG.....although smots getting his panties in a twist again and needs his picture posted to calm down....



EDIT: Their changed to there before Amp kills me.

Lol... also penguins.

Console Kiddies goinna hate.

Arma is not about eye-Poping imersiive graphics, or detailed destruction. It's a war-Sim. It's target Audience is us "No-Lifers" and "Arm-Chair generals" who never play without a clan in tow, And i Assure you Arma 3 will be well received. As for RO- Thats more a Feature thing then quality 1v1 game play.

Have fun with your simple Arcade game play, Have fun with your Mind-Numbing was-rinse-repeat Stock game mode, No server browsing, private servers, and no hope of avoiding lag. You CoD and Bad company humpers are not wanted and not needed in Arma 3.

Al, look at it this way: You suck at every single game you play.

^+1

Meh. I found the Brother in Arms one to be better in terms of "realism." AA3 feels like a mashup of Counterstrike and CoD.