Campain quality in ARMA

[kyfohatl 10]

I'm jumping in the middle of the calls of hatred here, but I just wanted to say that unlike most posters here I actually enjoyed the vanilla ArmA2 campaign (not talking about OA/BAF/PMC because I don't have them). I have seen several games that claim they can have a highly variable story depending on player's actions, and yet, when I get to the end part, it seems that the main ending is almost universally simillar doesn't matter what you do. That is; like Mass Effect, your actions only determines the fate of side storylines such as the survival of side characters. However, doesn't matter what you do, the game ends with the death of the main villan, your characters survival and victory of the "good". This has always been quite dissapointing for me (though mass effect may be excused, as it is a triology).

Harvest red was one of the very few campaigns in which the core plot could be completely altered, that is:

ranging from your team getting owned and enemy winning to total enemy anihilation and sucess of the razor team,

all of which was dependent on the many choices you could make during the game. The missions were generally very open, allowing player to excersise tactical approaches from many different angles and ways and I found the difficulty to be quite well balanced (I played through on vetren). I also had the prievelage of starting late (since initially I was too busy learning about the editor), when patches had adressed most problems, so I had a smooth playthrough with some really minor bugs. The voice acting... well, I didn't mind it too much, though I must admit it was a bit too cheesy.

[jakerod 254]

I never really thought that OFP or Resistance were that realistic. Tank Commander going from M60 to Abrams with no real training. A pilot flying three different types of helicopters plus an airplane. Being promoted from Corporal to Lieutenant over the course of exactly two months (April 14 to June 14 (Prima Strategy Guide that came with OFP: Gold Upgrade)). There were plenty of battles fought where you were attacking against unrealistic numbers. In resistance, fighting all those tank battles is not very much like a guerrilla group nor is your men's ability to fly helicopters and drive tanks. That being said I still loved both of those campaigns and I do feel like the OFP feeling is missing from ArmA II to some degree but it could just be because it was the first game I ever played like that.

Red Harvest was a lot more realistic to me. I think it was one of the best stories because it was a lot more complicated.

I was kind of expecting and hoping that the CDF were responsible for the Genocide though. similar to how the RACS were seemingly supposed to be in Armed Assault

. They did screw up elements of the campaign like the Warfare part and the team member death thing but I can't think of any campaign I would rather play from any game that came out in the last 5 years or so and probably longer. Operation Arrowhead was well done too since it gave a more diverse set of missions. I liked the story for the most part but wish they would have made it so you can go through and pick which character you want to play as in each mission similar to Blood Sweat and Tears from ArmA I.

Overall point: they have made mistakes in every campaign that they have ever made in regards to realism and fun but they have been very tiny ones. OFP was an amazing game with an amazing campaign, especially for its time and that is probably fogging your glasses a bit.

OFP:CWC- First of its kind, multiple characters

OFP:RH- CWC from a different perspective.

OFP:R- Good story, some cool campaign mechanics

ArmA- Team Switch kind of a plus, seemed to have a really good story initially but kind of got dumbed down on release.

ArmA:QG- PMC part was pretty good, SF part had one interesting level in my opinion.

ArmAII:RH- Realistic, Multiple Endings, Gray/realistic story instead of normal Black and White

ArmAII:EW- Cool concept altogether

ArmAII:OA- Multiple Perspectives, Decent story, could have used more character development, multiple paths to completion and a branching campaign.

ArmAII:BAF and PMC*

*Note: I haven't played BAF or PMC campaign yet.

[kyfohatl 10]

Gray/realistic story instead of normal Black and White

That's another point I was trying to make, but you summed it up much better. Too many games have one side (usually your side) whose every member is loving and caring of their fellow human brothers and sisters (and whose leader has a big halo on his head) and the other side filled with psycopathic murdrers and rapists. Ok, I've done some exageration, but I just wanted to point out that the "black and white" thing is getting a bit repetative.

Also I forgot to mention EW. That campaign was awsomn... probably one of the best campaign s I've played. The cheesy voice acting was usually amusing.

[jakerod 254]

That's another point I was trying to make, but you summed it up much better. Too many games have one side (usually your side) whose every member is loving and caring of their fellow human brothers and sisters (and whose leader has a big halo on his head) and the other side filled with psycopathic murdrers and rapists. Ok, I've done some exageration, but I just wanted to point out that the "black and white" thing is getting a bit repetative.

Also I forgot to mention EW. That campaign was awsomn... probably one of the best campaign s I've played. The cheesy voice acting was usually amusing.

I feel that the chedaki were obviously the bad guys, but when it came to NAPA and the CDF it was more gray. I was never sure who to pick.

[metalcraze 290]

What was so realistic about Harvest Red? A heroic-like recon team of 4 people starting a revolution in the whole region? And then warfare missions which are anything but realistic - what was BIS thinking?

CWC was way more realistic. And better. It had what? 40 missions (and that's a single campaign) - all of which had something different in them, they were varied and creative (especially that survival mission where you were left in the forest all alone with enemies closing in on you from all sides or the one where you were escaping from captivity and the game offered you at least 3 ways to do that - and then you had to find a way back home using stars - these two were the highlight of CWC for me). You were commanding tanks, you were flying planes and choppers, you were working as a saboteur deep behind enemy lines, you were just a faceless grunt and, finally, you were even retreating from overwhelming russian forces - all of it felt like there is indeed war going on.

They seriously watered down this in AA1 and in OA it was like a casual road movie where you just ride from point A to point B, shooting all enemies, without any problem.

The problem here is that BIS forgot how to make games, instead leaving us with just a sandbox called editor (which is a great fun though) and a few reasonably creative single missions - the only remnant of that "golden" CWC age.

Edited December 9, 2010 by metalcraze

[Wolfrug 0]

What was so realistic about Harvest Red? A heroic-like recon team of 4 people starting a revolution in the whole region? And then warfare missions which are anything but realistic - what was BIS thinking?

Why the hell do people keep babbling on about "heroic 4-man teams"? There was NOTHING Rambo-esque about Razor Team! Seriously. Think about it. What missions in particular are you thinking about where Razor does something amazing single-handedly? There are none! Either they do covert ops behind enemy lines (e.g. first mission), participate in an attack together with the USMC forces (e.g. the Zernogorsk city mission) regular spec-ops works in the vein of "find enemy leaders/base somewhere in the area" (e.g. Manhattan: you were NOT expected to assault that base by your own. Besides, all it had to it was a single BMP and a handful of soldiers!), etc etc.

The Warfare missions were an abstraction, which further disproves your idea. The abstraction functions the same way as regular RTSes do: in an RTS there's the idea that an army is invading this or that spot, even though the "army" is constantly being "built" at base. Therefore, Razor did not single-handedly do anything, they merely worked together with a sizeable NAPA/CDF force to complete their objectives.

Consider this: at the end of the campaign, no matter what ending you got, Razor team's efforts are classified. Do you really think it would be possible to classify their actions if they were such god-like Rambo people that they single-handedly changed the course of history for Chernarus? Sure, they influenced events strongly, they helped, a lot. But this was necessary for us to have some kind of game to play. Nowhere is there a suggestion however that Razor is doing anything particularly heroic or over the top - the largest single contribution they can make to the effort is to find all the pieces of evidence on Operation Cobalt. Which, really, is kind of what special operatives DO.

So yeah. Rant over. :mad:

Regards,

Wolfrug

[jakerod 254]

What was so realistic about Harvest Red? A heroic-like recon team of 4 people starting a revolution in the whole region? And then warfare missions which are anything but realistic - what was BIS thinking?

CWC was way more realistic. And better. It had what? 40 missions (and that's a single campaign) - all of which had something different in them, they were varied and creative (especially that survival mission where you were left in the forest all alone with enemies closing in on you from all sides or the one where you were escaping from captivity and the game offered you at least 3 ways to do that - and then you had to find a way back home using stars - these two were the highlight of CWC for me). You were commanding tanks, you were flying planes and choppers, you were working as a saboteur deep behind enemy lines, you were just a faceless grunt and, finally, you were even retreating from overwhelming russian forces - all of it felt like there is indeed war going on.

They seriously watered down this in AA1 and in OA it was like a casual road movie where you just ride from point A to point B, shooting all enemies, without any problem.

The problem here is that BIS forgot how to make games, instead leaving us with just a sandbox called editor (which is a great fun though) and a few reasonably creative single missions - the only remnant of that "golden" CWC age.

They really didn't do anything that heroic. There have been many people on this board who have suggested that Harvest Red is quite possibly the most realistic special forces operation seen in a game. I didn't really like the warfare aspect but it didn't totally suck. I just chose not to command and went about doing the objectives.

CWC was not that realistic. It was much more realistic than any other game for its time but there were tons of levels and ideas in it that didn't make sense. I mentioned several in my earlier post. Ex. Promotion from corporal to Lieutenant in two months, flying 4 different aircraft, taking on an entire armored company with 4 tanks when you were not defending. Typical doctrine is only attacking when you have a 3:1 ratio in your favor. That was quite rare in OFP. Yes they were working with limited men in the beginning but it doesn't take two months for a carrier group to get some place.

I do think that CWC was probably the most fun but it was not that realistic. Not to mention we expected a lot less back then.

[Zipper5 74]

Not to mention we expected a lot less back then.

These days I find that I enjoy simple concepts executed flawlessly a hell of a lot more than most others. I can play an attack-this-town-and-extract mission over and over so long as each mission has a different, high-quality execution.

It's only when I play a half-assed version of that concept do I get bored quickly. :p

[Stagler 39]

These days I find that I enjoy simple concepts executed flawlessly a hell of a lot more than most others. I can play an attack-this-town-and-extract mission over and over so long as each mission has a different, high-quality execution.

+1 to that mate. The simplest mission concepts are always the most fun to play. Its like when an abundance of objectives come in or the scope of the mission is overstretched that muddy the experience,

[-Snafu- 77]

I never really thought that OFP or Resistance were that realistic.

I agree. I mean, really fun and enjoyable, but realistic? I didn't think so.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Snafu

[jakerod 254]

These days I find that I enjoy simple concepts executed flawlessly a hell of a lot more than most others. I can play an attack-this-town-and-extract mission over and over so long as each mission has a different, high-quality execution.

It's only when I play a half-assed version of that concept do I get bored quickly. :p

I agree with. I enjoy simple concept ones but I also like the bigger ones as well. A lot of people had wanted the big open map missions with many different objectives since OFP (ex. Abandoned Armies or SP: Commander) and when we finally got it a lot of people complained about it. I will admit there were some execution flaws but I really didn't run into anything that terrible when I played. It seemed more realistic to me than most OFP missions did. Just like Snafu said, they weren't the most realistic back then, but they were really fun and realistic enough that most didn't mind. Not there are people who complain that there is a bolt missing in the door.

[Banderas 0]

Well, I agree with Jakerod that CWC wasn't utterly realistic, it was very good back then because it was the very first, unusual to other gaming experiences at that time. Also, CWC campaign was a big, long tutorial up to almost the mission where you had to take off and navigate your A-10 with Capt. Nichols in the cockpit. Everything was new, you can't bring back the very fist feelings, just like MoHAA or CoD can't bring back its very first glamorous feelings by now, except for those who get to play video games for the first time. In my country there's a phrase/saying for this situation, "Every joke is new only for the newborn".

In fact, CWC campaign was much more black/white style -crazy, bloodthirsty, psycho Russian general whose (private) army of likely bloodthirsty soldiers slaying the local population for no apparent other reason but because they are evil commies in a need to slay unarmed, begging people, but naive, humanitarian, indigant, US soldiers come to their rescue. Voice acting and conversation lines were also deemed childish and bad by many (no swearing at all? calling the other "meathead"? come on...) .

Also that there are 40+missions, some of them can be played out in 5-6 minutes, there are few actually long missions I can remember, about 10 maybe out of the 40 (played through CWC at least 5 times).

I think that the biggest factor in CWC being the "etalon" for all campaigns came after was the shock value it was bearing to players (and I'm still under its influance since 2001). I think it's a mistake to judge later campaigns if one don't strip this effect from himself/herself.

With the Armed Assault campaign BI tried to change the black/white setting to a more grey area, although for some reason left unanswered (rushed release? lack of conception and time?) it was left untapped, then cut away with the statement that the attacking RACS at the end was indeed a modern version of Skorzeny's commandos, SLA dressed in chocolate chips to make confusion (which is on the other hand would be a very cunning and beleivable tactic to happen).

Rahmadi conflict was highly inconceivable for me: why wasting foot soldiers on a tiny island to blow up enemy stuff when with two F-15E Strike Eagles all that crap could be blown off from the surface of the planet? But there were nice touches in that too (enemy agents disguised as civilians among the population in the last mission on Porto).

Queen Gambit's story a lot found unbelievable (good prince chased away by evil sister princess and later helped to throne by mercs), but not counting the happy ending (even was a bad ending if I remember), story like this happened in real life not once, where a benevolent leader was betrayed in a form by scummy, power-hungry people. Overally I liked that campaign.

Arma 2's Harvest Red is a nice, finished all-round story, with a bit of black/white balanced with grey if you listen enough. You have the turd Chedaki laying waste and hate in a country torn by civil war, but you have on the other side NAPA, who also has their hands bloody on the local Russian population. From the player's point of view, you can decide if you lower your moral standards and recruit them for your help, or to list them equally unlawful as the Chedaki and bust them where you can. You can also go send the CDF to f- themselves for their dillettantiness, or can be work with them with a mutual respect. Also, contrary what most people beleive, the Russians are not the bad guys in this scenario, but rather a victim of trickery, and seemingly the valid peacekeepers.

On a sidenote, most people think that in A2 the USMC and the Russian Army are balanced, well that's an utter bullsh*t I can tell you. Try to compare their vehicles and you'll se what I mean, except for Abrams of course, but BMP-3, BTR-90 against AAV-7, LAV-25? Or Tunguska against Avenger Humvee? Or flying tank Szu-34 against F-35 with two bombs and two Sidewinders? I think considering the equipment only the ranking would be (starting with the weakest) NAPA -> CHDkZ -> CDF -> USMC -> AFRF.

I didn't play through OA and the two DLC's campaign yet, so I don't judge them.

All in all, you can't expect that you'll be "shocked" again like the first time you contacted the world of OFP, it just won't happen. Try to look at things from more than one point of view, or if you still don't like, go ahead and make something better.

P.S. fun fact: the voice of Pvt./Cpl./Lt. David Armstrong, Jonah Lotan also plays Navy Hm2 Robert Timothy 'Doc' Bryan in the TV series Generation Kill

Edited December 10, 2010 by Banderas
weeding out typing mistakes

[Alwarren 2765]

Personally, I liked Harvest Red a lot. I liked the open maps and finish-as-you-like objectives, and the opportunity objectives scattered about. The only part I disliked was the warfare stuff, it didn't really fit IMO, but then, I never was a fan of anything High Command related, I don't really think it works all too well.

Maybe that's because I played it in multiplayer.

[Zipper5 74]

P.S. fun fact: the voice of Pvt./Cpl./Lt. David Armstrong, Jonah Lotan also plays Navy Hm2 Robert Timothy 'Doc' Bryan in the TV series Generation Kill

That's a pretty cool fact. I can't believe that out of the many times I've watched GK I've never noticed, but now I hear that it's definitely him. Thanks for pointing it out! :D

/offtopic

[johncage 30]

the campaign sucks. please don't listen to the 12 year olds that only play sandbox and multiplayer and never understood or appreciated the beauty of single player. thank you

[jakerod 254]

the campaign sucks. please don't listen to the 12 year olds that only play sandbox and multiplayer and never understood or appreciated the beauty of single player. thank you

Which campaign? We've talked about 10 so far.

[almanzo 144]

There isn't much more to say Jakerod, exept that you are very wrong on one point: The reason CWC was great was not only becouse the game was new.

Main thing that got my attention was the character development, and the genuine feel that the developer where trying to show us how terrible war is. And well, characters did swear in CWC all the time. But they did feel like humans, and not action heroes.

For some of us, having usable vehicles was not something new with OFP. I've played through the campaign of Codename eagle more than once when OFP was released, and I still find CWC to be amongst the best campains I play.

The graphics is not something to cheer for, but I regularely play the campains still. In addition to the character, the focus on variety from mission to mission, the feeling of being part of a bigger war effort (especially that!), the balanced opposition are all contributors to this.

And again, Harvest Red is the best among ARMA and ARMA II's campains, but it is far from CWC or Red Hammer.

[Zipper5 74]

the campaign sucks. please don't listen to the 12 year olds that only play sandbox and multiplayer and never understood or appreciated the beauty of single player. thank you

Nice. Everyone who has a different opinion to you is a 12 year old that doesn't understand the beauty of single player. I've made many missions, privately and publicly, and I enjoyed the PMC campaign. Sure, it has issues, but it didn't outright suck.

[Coffeecat 10]

I liked the campaign. the gameplay was fun, that was what counted for me!

[kyfohatl 10]

Personally, I liked Harvest Red a lot. I liked the open maps and finish-as-you-like objectives, and the opportunity objectives scattered about.

+1. I loved how you had so much choice to do what you want. Though I must say I did enjoy the warfare missions alot, probably because I'm an RTS freak as well, and the warfare missions had a nice touch on that kind of gameplay.

Even though I've said several times that I enjoyed Harvest Red, I must admit one thing: At the moment I'm playing through Operation Cobalt, and I think it's better done. I'd still rate EW higher, but I do think Cobalt was done better than HR. I don't know why excatly, but it just feels more enjoyable/interesting eventhough I enjoyed HR quite alot. I haven't gone very far through it yet, so I can't make I solid judgement here, but from what I've seen, I can say it is an excellent campaign (probably the best user-made one). Congrats to zipper5 for this masterpiece (@Zipper5: Man, I wish I had skills like yours. At the moment all I can come up with are a whole bunch of over-comlicated scripts that don't work)

[Stagler 39]

I personally didnt like the warfare missions. The best missions for me in harvest red was the first one at night, the following mission, and the one after Miles gets killed. They were short enough for me not to get annoyed and I enjoyed completing all the tasks.

[johncage 30]

the harvest red campaign didn't make much sense. everyone was just flying everywhere, no frontlines. didn't much feel like a battle, which imo, is what ofp/arma is all about.

[nkenny 1051]

the harvest red campaign didn't make much sense. everyone was just flying everywhere, no frontlines. didn't much feel like a battle, which imo, is what ofp/arma is all about.

I've already given my opinion on campaign quality elsewhere. Its wroth noting that a true contermporary going-for-broke war in between two modern nations wouldn't look very much like WW1 in the first place.

Not only is our communications vastly superior, but the most telling issue is that most modern western armies simply lack the manpower to maintain extended frontlines. Which means that until the ultradeadly munitions and hightech deathmachines are spent (unlikely) thus creating a need for the vast drafted armies of before-- classic frontlines are unlikely on the modern battlefield.

-k

[That guy 10]

the harvest red campaign didn't make much sense. everyone was just flying everywhere, no frontlines. didn't much feel like a battle, which imo, is what ofp/arma is all about.

because that is what is known as a COUNTERINSURGENCY. asymmetric warfare. not force on force anymore

[wipman 1]

Hi, focus the main campaign on a SOCOM team deceptionated me, unable me to use my choosen or custom face also deceptionated me, don't focus the campaign on standard infantry was also a deception; another big deception is that you never retreat (aka turn back and keep advancing) because you don't have the resources needed to deal with what you've in front.

The copletely leak of the support (CAS, Arty, MED-EVAC, "engineers") during the campaign is also a big deception for me and something as bad as unrealistic; and the history line is/was boring and didn't make much sense. I also agree that the warfare missions should had been on the SP missions and not placed on the campaign. In my opinion there could be many things to do for make a entertained campaign or campaigns (one for each section of the armada, infantry, recon, snipers, tanks, choppers, airplanes) aside of allow character customization options and some freedom of choice in the campaign, like weapons choice depending on the chain of command. Let's C ya