Campain quality in ARMA

[Flash Thunder 10]

I knew the campaign would be like that once I saw the first trailer.

Ugh.

F THIS FING SHOOT HIM!

BIS get new script writers.

[maturin 12]

PMC is a sideshow.

I thought OA was pretty good.

[los18z 19]

"lets face some uncomfortable facts here: most combat arms dudes are utterly devoid of character. their whole existence can be summed up with the "3 Bs" (booze, boobs, and balls [either their testis, or sport balls/sporting]). other wise known as the "stereotypical soldier guy" (asshole)."

This is about as assanine a statement as one is going to find on the internet...

[That guy 10]

are you in the military? are you in the combat arms? are you deployed with these guys?

if yes to the above, than you have an amazing unit, and i wish to transfer there immediately. i really wish to be in a unit that is made up of RESPONSIBLE ADULTS, and not muscle headed man children

[almanzo 144]

are you in the military? are you in the combat arms? are you deployed with these guys?

if yes to the above, than you have an amazing unit, and i wish to transfer there immediately. i really wish to be in a unit that is made up of RESPONSIBLE ADULTS, and not muscle headed man children

I've served in the norwegian army, and yes, a few of them was like that, but most guys was good guys. One of my room mates is now working in silicon valley, another one is about to finish his med studies.

I don't buy it. Most people are not assholes. US Army might recruit more amongst poor people than amongst rich, but that doesn't necessary mean that they are stupid and vulgar.

[^Th0mas^ 10]

well we squashed many of the bugs in Harvest Red campaign and hopefully resolve some in future :)

Good to hear! I`ve played this game since release, but havent played a single campaign yet because I want most bugs to be solved before I play it :) .. So there are people still waiting to play it or play trough it once more! :D

[sick1 13]

I would just like to thank all the guys who made the PMC campaign. It's well made and alot of fun. To the guys who said the voice acting was weak, understand that in real life people don't have perfect speaking voices. Great work BIS!

[Sky999 10]

Was it really necessary to have the characters start accusing another of being 'racist' and saying 'that's just not on' during a firefight. I have toa admit that had me rolling my eyes and thinking 'Erm guys...we're being shot at here...'

1. I think they would have more important things on their mind, like shooting the guys trying to kill them.

2. I think your average PMC/Soldier has more on his mind than whether his fellow soldier's are loving every race on the planet.

3. If calling your adversary a 'Dirty Taki *astard' warrents a grilling from your squad, then I feel sorry for the guys who have their multicultural commissars watching over them during battle..

Edited December 4, 2010 by Sky999

[Maciek95PL 10]

[...]and any real life "character development" that does occur surly does not happen on the front lines, or wile riding in a chopper to an LZ. it all happens at the chow hall, or in the bay, or in the many hours of mind numbing waiting around for something to happen. all things that we never see in game, simply because they stupendously boring.

Do you want to play a mission were you have to go from the tent you are living in to the chow hall, and have a chat with a couple of the guys in your squad about which actresses boobs are the best? or about how much the food you are eating sucks? of about how much you hate your squad leader because he makes you do work?

of course not! because its boring! [...]

And I'd really like to see such a thing. Of course just as a little thing between missions, but imho it would make game much more reliable. You could know characters better, empathize in the world better.

[almanzo 144]

I would just like to thank all the guys who made the PMC campaign. It's well made and alot of fun. To the guys who said the voice acting was weak, understand that in real life people don't have perfect speaking voices. Great work BIS!

Haha, it has nothing to do with "perfect" voices. They are bad because they don't sound like real people, but more like caricatures.

[Undeceived 392]

I think you're exaggerating a bit here! Of course they sound like real people, dude.

The recording quality is good and also the performance of the actors!

[sick1 13]

Haha, it has nothing to do with "perfect" voices. They are bad because they don't sound like real people, but more like caricatures.

I think the reason why people are confused, is that its this PMC employs different races and nationalities. It works for the PMC campaign, but I will admit some of OA's main characters did not sound American. IF bis wants a good American voice, I will lend them mine for free. :)

Also while i was in the military, alot of guys had goofy voices. Not everybody has a Michael Ironside or jack Bauer voice. Most guys in the military have very young voices. If you compare the voice acting from this very low funded studio to the mega dollar main stream player, its going to fall short.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Sick1

[almanzo 144]

My point has nothing to do with sound quality. Of course the sound quality is good, and if it has not been good, it could still be well performed. And again, using the same voice actors for different roles in the same universe is a bad idea.

I've done some voice acting myself, and it is very difficult work.(I am not implying to be any better than those given in PMC, as you would expect professionals to outperform amateurs.)

To have good dialogue, you need two things... Believable lines, as in a conversation that sounds like a real conversation witch could have occurred between characters in the given situation, and actors who behave realistically according to the scene and lines given to them.

This is in fact very hard. Writing scripts are equally hard as well. To make up a conversation between two people and imagining how that conversation would be between to fictional characters in a fictional environment or scene is a difficult task. If this is not done properly, proper voice acting is impossible.

To give a small example that states this quite clear, while under fire and a real threat of losing your life, it is very unlikely for someone to talk about what groceries to buy later on, or telling a ghost story. It is equally unlikely for someone to tell a line like "Incoming fire, take cover" in a undramatic and calm voice.

The first mistake is of course not going to happen, but the latter might, and serves as a good example of what bad voice acting is.

This is also why cheap dubbing of foreign movies are capable of destroying a good movie, because it renders it unbelievable and makes it harder to relate to the characters.

To have an engaging story you are more or less required to have characters that are easy to relate to.

However, this is not the only point made in the initial post of this thread, it's rather a minor theme.

There seem like to be a general assertion present however, concerning the "hero" factor, where the main character are confronted with a disproportionate enemy to fight (like I said about the mission where you and your friend fight of over 10 tanks with an anti material rifle for instance (other examples occur throughout the campaign)). Quite alot of people have stated that this is something most people want, and that this is more of a selling point. I beg to differ quite frankly.

First of all, this was not present in OFP, and OFP was a commercial success. It also had elements of proper voice acting and good character development. Stating that ARMA2 is not OFP does not serve as an excuse for a bad campain. It is possible to make a good campaign around private military companies even though it does not resemble OFP at all.

Do I have to remind you all about the fact that the ARMA engine is famous for it's focus on realism? I find it rather ironic that the campaigns given by the developers does not reflect on this fact one least bit. And a more direct response to "that guy"s statement:

the reason you have such ridiculous odd is simple. reality isnt fun (for most people) in a game. if the engagements in arma were realistic (in the iraq/ afghan war context) you would have a platoon or two worth of men shooting sparatically for 5 hours to get 10 baddies wile taking only a single WIA. and the baddies manage to escape with any WIA or KIA

i guess it comes down to the AIs. BIS could make a more timid, life preserving AI that runs and hides more than shoots, but then people would bitch that's its not fun. i dont like the man vrs whole fucking world missions either, but be real here.

I know there is a balance between realism and fun, but armas selling point has been the fact that it is a simulator, and the most realistic engine out there! OFP was alot more realistic, and is one of the most successful games in history, and at the same time very entertaining. The terror the sound of a BMP gave us in OFP was due to the fact that it required skill and strategy to counter it... Being able to take out ten fucking armored vehicles from short distances renders the whole point stupid. You can of course adjust the realism level to make something more fun or engaging, but you'll still have to keep it believable... And again, why is PVP so popular in ARMA if people don't value a decent opposition? Not to mention the numerous coop groups like shacktac, marsoc, SSG and so forth? ACRE mod, and ace mod for Christ sake. The community seems hell bent on making the arma experience MORE realistic than the core game. Please don't tell me that realism makes things less attractive... It's the whole point with the series.

And as to your comment about soldiers, boobs, balls and beer... I've commented on that before. These people are responsible for other peoples lives. They are required to kill other human beings, and be able to make decisions than can and will have terminal consequences for other human beings. Soldiers might be presented as mindless brutes by popular media, but I have more faith in our men and women serving than that. In addition I have the honor of knowing fine men and women who have served my own country in Afghanistan, and quite a few who serves in other armies through my experience with marsoc. Concerning the political aspect of these conflicts is another issue, which has nothing to do with the people serving in them.

As I stated earlier, the idea of making a campaign around PMCs is simply brilliant, and has the potential to spark a real debate around the use of PMCs. As we have seen the recent years, computer games has the ability to spark much debate. PMC has sadly enough been more or less unnoticed. A good campaign could have done something to this.

As a matter of fact, most of the campaign ideas BIS has come up with have had major potential. Red Harvest being the one who at least got a few of these things right...

OFP was enough to recruit a firm, stable and enormous community and the original campaign has alot of the honor for that. A new campain with the same level of quality will undoubly more than double the sales and add tonns of value to the arma universe...

Edited December 5, 2010 by aLmAnZo

[st!gar 3]

I've served in the norwegian army, and yes, a few of them was like that, but most guys was good guys. One of my room mates is now working in silicon valley, another one is about to finish his med studies.

If you were conscripted, that doesn't really count. It's a special kind of person that gets attracted to a military career, and semi-unwilling conscripts does not count towards that category.

I don't buy it. Most people are not assholes. US Army might recruit more amongst poor people than amongst rich, but that doesn't necessary mean that they are stupid and vulgar.

Oh, really? You know this for a fact? Have you ever served in the US Army? Or are you just guessing, based on your own life-experience? Because if so, you're not that much better than the person you were arguing with.

Was it really necessary to have the characters start accusing another of being 'racist' and saying 'that's just not on' during a firefight. I have toa admit that had me rolling my eyes and thinking 'Erm guys...we're being shot at here...'

1. I think they would have more important things on their mind, like shooting the guys trying to kill them.

2. I think your average PMC/Soldier has more on his mind than whether his fellow soldier's are loving every race on the planet.

3. If calling your adversary a 'Dirty Taki *astard' warrents a grilling from your squad, then I feel sorry for the guys who have their multicultural commissars watching over them during battle..

Absolutely not. It's because you are expected to behave professionally that there's no fucking excuse to yell racist slurs at the enemy.

Edited December 5, 2010 by St!gar

[Sky999 10]

Absolutely not. It's because you are expected to behave professionally that there's no fucking excuse to yell racist slurs at the enemy.

They're being shot at by the enemy, I think respecting their feelings as a race go right out the window at the point they are trying to fire projectiles into your vital organs...

I think it's a sad position they would find themselves in, if they have to kill the enemy but watch themselves carefully to make sure they don't 'offend' the enemy at the same time.

[almanzo 144]

If you were conscripted, that doesn't really count. It's a special kind of person that gets attracted to a military career, and semi-unwilling conscripts does not count towards that category.

Have you ever served in the US Army? Or are you just guessing, based on your own life-experience? Because if so, you're not that much better than the person you were arguing with.

First of all, we had our share of volunteers and professionals through the people serving as officers. In addition to that, alot of our guys volunteered to serve in Afghanistan. Out of all the people I've served with who would be considered from your criteria, only one was like this. He was I think a first lieutenant or something, and he was one of these though guys. Slept with a gun under his pillow during exercises and stuff... The soldiers complained on him because he used to yell at us without any reason at all, and the result was that he was denied access to the base for 3 months.

So to answer your question, no, I have not served in the US army, I've served in the Norwegian army. But let as for one second pretend that you are right, that US soldiers more often than not, are like the BBB stereotype. That just seem like very irresponsible of the USA. How could you ever rely a country security or even some peoples lives in the hands of a few, stupid people. These people are tasked with objectives where they are responsible for their own and other peoples lives, a task which should not be taken lightly, and you are suggesting that the people performing these tasks more often than not are idiots?

If this is true, USA have a huge problem.

[2nd ranger 282]

Haha, it has nothing to do with "perfect" voices. They are bad because they don't sound like real people, but more like caricatures.

Yeah the main problem is not so much the voice acting is bad (except for those guys in the 'Trial by Fire' mission.... jeez) but the dialogue being clunky. The standout example being Frost's truly horrendous narration in the BAF campaign.

NOBODY talks like that. People may write like that, those people being high-schoolers, and I guess you could say that his narration is him reading from his shitty war journal or something, but when he actually starts talking like that in the PMC campaign and is subsequently nicknamed 'Poet', that was a bit much. So BIS if you could release a patch where Frost's name is changed to 'shut up faggot' then that would be great.

(I'm kidding of course, I liked the PMC campaign but bad dialogue is a pet peeve)

[MrXToTheN 10]

While the newer campaigns are less realistic or likely they sure are more fun IMO. For me the fun factor seems to get bigger with every DLC.

ArmA II's campaign was kinda meh. I really liked OA's. BAF's I haven't played much yet and PMC's is great so far (I'm at mission 7) except for some annoyances. The missions "Confirmation" and "Elimination" are my favorites so far.

I understand that some(most?) people here would like to have more realistic missions, but I appreciate that Bohemia tries to make the missions more fun (while still retaining there own style).

[giuppo 1]

Hi everyone,

I agree with this topic, some things are missing in Campaigns since Operation Flashpoint (CWC, Red Hammer and Resistance).

I have discovered and enjoyed OFP with campaigns; I have tried MP some years later only.

When I got Arma2, I have been a bit disappointed by Harvest Red. Missions have been different of other campaigns of OFP, It's not bad, I have found good missions, but it’s different. But it’s not that again: Problem is when I saw “END†after less than 10 missions! Even if missions are long, with a lot of objectives, this campaign is too short.

Next, with arrowhead, I expected a lot. I was hearing that it was an ofp style campaign, in mission style maybe, but not in number of mission: just 8! I have really thought that it was just a “demonstration of new features†and not a campaign with a storyline.

And I don’t talk about cutscene for the both campaigns.

Recently I have got BAF. A lot of single mission, I’m glad of them. Quality is here. I started the campaign, still good new ideas… But, 4 missions!!! Is it a joke? Do you call that a campaign???

Do I need to remember you that CWC has 44 missions, 44! Red Hammer and Resistance: 20 about. After played them, we knew how to use all weapons, all vehicles, each part of the islands, many ways to complete objectives, all of this well integrated in the storyline and missions by missions. I haven’t feel this with arma’s campaigns.

PMC’s campaign is already better, I have liked and enjoyed it: we have cutscenes to link each mission, a scenario, characters, good and simple missions, all differents with challenges (I will not talk about the realism here)… But again, when I began to feel the story, to be in… I got a “Endâ€, after 11 missions only.

My request is simple: to have LONG campaigns, with more than 20 missions would be already nice. We can find many good campaigns made by users, with generally less than 10 missions but I can understand it because they don’t have (I guess) all the stuff/time necessary to do more. BIS has, and we pay for, that’s why I am (we are?) a bit disappointed.

[royaltyinexile 175]

Hi everyone,

PMC’s campaign is already better, I have liked and enjoyed it: we have cutscenes to link each mission, a scenario, characters, good and simple missions, all differents with challenges (I will not talk about the realism here)… But again, when I began to feel the story, to be in… I got a “Endâ€, after 11 missions only.

You should remember, of course, that CWC was created over years of development time, with a much larger scope than, for example, PMC. We always push our resources as far as they'll stretch (and sometimes too far!) on every project we develop.

What you've mentioned above was the design brief for this content - linked missions (narrative), simple objectives, characterisation, cutscenes, etc - so I'm really glad that you've liked and enjoyed it (I will not 'talk about the realism here' either :p).

Of course, perhaps you are yet to play through the multiple endings... ;)

RiE

[giuppo 1]

I have seen 3 ends for now, and i have some ideas to find others.

Even if many ends are a good idea for a campaign, I still find that 10-12 missions campaign is too short.

I would like to spent more than one week (to not say couple of days) to discover and complete a campaign.

If you need more time, please take it!

[Cookieeater 10]

You should remember, of course, that CWC was created over years of development time, with a much larger scope than, for example, PMC. We always push our resources as far as they'll stretch (and sometimes too far!) on every project we develop.

What you've mentioned above was the design brief for this content - linked missions (narrative), simple objectives, characterisation, cutscenes, etc - so I'm really glad that you've liked and enjoyed it (I will not 'talk about the realism here' either :p).

Of course, perhaps you are yet to play through the multiple endings... ;)

RiE

Yes but you already have most of the content made for just creating a campaign, such as models and textures. All that is required is voice work, and a good scriptwriter and mission maker. I'm pretty sure you can gain heavy money off of making DLC story packs such as something like EW. Look at GTA IV's DLC packs, all they add are a few weapons and vehicles and a new storyline, but the main focus is the storyline, not the new weapons or vehicles. And Rockstar can create very good and immersible storylines. People who play ArmA II aren't solely just people who want a simulator, they're people who love the realistic gameplay and a well thought out storyline.

a2hnXgrnlUQ

I think this would make a really good campaign, a newly trained soldier that comes to a U.S. Army combat outpost, and you would have constant ambushes by the Takistan militia during the day and night. On some parts you would venture out to the local village to try to interrogate the locals about the whereabouts of the Takistan leader operation in the region in where you and you're squad are supposed to kill. It would be a grim and gritty look on the war in Afghanistan that a lot of games IMO fail to grasp with their hoo-rah Marines coming in shooting everything.

[Ulanthorn 10]

BIS has a tradition of never using real wars or real locations for this kind of wargames. This is in fact a very good decision. It gives more freedom in storyline and takes away a lot of risk, especially in ongoing wars like that in A-stan that we (the West) will loose soon. But before it is completely lost it is declared a victory like in Iraq.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Ulanthorn

[Cookieeater 10]

BIS has a tradition of never using real wars or real locations for this kind of wargames. This is in fact a very good decision. It gives more freedom in storyline and takes away a lot of risk, especially in ongoing wars like that in A-stan that we (the West) will loose soon. But before it is completely lost it is declared a victory like in Iraq.

Thats why we use blatant rip off names such as Takistan instead of Afganistan ;).

[maturin 12]

Thats why we use blatant rip off names such as Takistan instead of Afganistan ;).

I thought that was a ripoff of Pakistan. With architecture in the mosques that could be Uzbekistan. And a military junta with Scuds and tons of outdated armor like Saddam. See what's happening here?