You are preordering the game at a discount, and as a bonus you get to play with the Alpha and Beta.
Wait, what's the deal here? I see an Arma III Alpha on Steam for $32.99. Then I read here about alpha invites. Confused is me. Are people paying $32.99 to test an alpha?
Also turn off post processing to stop it looking cinematic and slow mo/ fuzzy weird while incurring performance hit.
I've been waiting for this for a long time. Played BF2 hardcore, bf3 hardcore, realism mods etc and been frustrated with how twitch based they still are instead of rewarding good tactics. Never really could get into arma II with the ancient graphics though. Nice to finally see a modern update.
In what universe does ARMA II have "ancient" graphics?
Ancient is a bit of a hyperbole. Though it is way behind the curve compared to BF3, COD, etc.
ARMA 2 is from 2009.
Same year as BF2 (actually BEFORE BF2)...so the comparsion should be:
ARMA2 <-> BF2
ARMA3 <-> BF3
No you migth wanna edit your post a bit
You might as well edit yours. Battlefield 2 came out in 2005. 4 years before ARMA2 .....
You might as well edit yours. Battlefield 2 came out in 2005. 2 years before ARMA:Armed Assault, and 4 years before ARMA2 .....
BF2 1.5 is from 2009...all I care about as I don't play kiddie-FPS
No, people are paying $32.00 for alpha access, and beta access, and the full game (when it releases).
They're using a "Minecraft-style" business model. If you support the developers by pre-ordering the game early, you pay a discounted price as a reward (in this case, $32) and you get all future versions of the game, including the final release version.
Once the game leaves alpha and hits beta, the price will get higher (maybe $40), but it will still be discounted for people getting in early. Then, when the game is finalized, the price will finally go up to $50 or $60 MSRP or whatever.
From the store description:
The "Alpha invites", on the other hand, are free passes to the alpha that paid users can give out to their friends for free. It does not have the same benefits as actually paying for the game though; in this case, it doesn't include access to the full game. Just alpha.
Ancient is a bit of a hyperbole. Though it is way behind the curve compared to BF3, COD, etc.
I think graphic quality is very important in a game like ArmA, whose intent is to make these situations feel as real as possible.
I personally feel like every aspect of game development is an art, from foley work and sound engineering, vegetation, character, and architecture modelling, etc....and especially movement mechanics. They all work together to bring you into the scene.
I hope what we see released from ArmA 3 at least looks something like all those videos we've seen. The alpha levels don't necessary look awful, but it looks like something the average modder could throw together in an SDK in about 20 minutes, and the lighting just seems a bit...dead.
I really like the game and all, I just hope the final version gets a little more attention in the environmental department.
What I REALLY like about the alpha is the gun-handling mechanics. Finally, a game makes it feel like you're aiming and shooting real weapon, and also the various movement speeds it allows you (sprint, jog, and walk).
I don't even like military games, but I'm excited about this one.
ArmA II looks fine. In many ways, it's a lot like the Elder Scrolls games: Up close, texture for texture, they're nothing special. Its beauty lies in it's unrivaled scope. Period. It looks well enough, but when you factor in the utterly MASSIVE scale (that simply blows CoD or even BF out of the water), and the sheer amount of unscripted stuff that's going on, it works and looks very good.
...that last shot is my favorite, because it gives a small sense of the scope. Myself, my friend's and my brother's squad are perched at the top of that hill, surveying the village below, as there's a platoon of t-55 tanks and a Hind helicopter somewhere in the area. Every move we make we have to plan. But as you can see, we can go literally anywhere, and approach our objective from anywhere, and the game still looks very good, despite its age.
Looking good, how are the controls? I really wanted to enjoy ARMA 2 I just found the controls too frustrating and I arrived kind of late so there weren't may servers without either far too hardcore players or a few ass clowns that kind of ruined the experience.
Best time I ever had in a shooter was I played BF2 Project Reality in a squad with some Marines (5 or 6 of them). It was awesome and educational.
After turning everything down to High and turning off post-processing and ATOC, everything is looking really good. The vehicle models are exceptionally nice.
A lot of foliage pop-in but when you're standing still the graphics are pretty damn impressive, especially considering the scope of the maps.
This.but when you factor in the utterly MASSIVE scale (that simply blows CoD or even BF out of the water)
If you're the kind of person that gets hung up on graphics and eyecandy and benchmarking tests, you're probably not the type to enjoy the ArmA games anyway.
It's like getting uptight over the latest Paradox strategy game graphics. IF you really care that much, the game probably isn't for you anyway.