Is ArmA III having the OFP:CWC vibe?

[jakerod 254]

I would combine both styles (CWC + Res) in a single campaign. Remember when Nato pulled from Everon and Armstrong was left behind? From there i would switch the campaign to a Resistance style, for some time..

There were good gameplay elements in Resistance, like scavanging weapons and keeping them and your men from mission to mission but if you throw in tanks and helicopters the whole resistance vibe is lost.

That's what I'm expecting. I think that the beginning few missions will be you with the task force and then the task force will be wiped out and it will go resistance style. That would be fun.

[nodunit 397]

...

Spot on, never could put something like that into words but that essentially sums it up.

I'm wondering if the same thing would even have that effect or if it would be declared "Oh they just did the same thing". I don't think the world has moved to an era where everything must be high speed action paced, I think that has more to do with being the most of what is out there and not having a choice really.

[Heatseeker 0]

CWC's vibe was "sim" and "realism". I was in the fanbase when it was in the works. They kept saying "game", but make no mistakes. At the time, it was a most realistic infantry sim around.

ArmA's failure, so far, in my opinion, is that it doesn't feel real enough. The A.I. is robotic and dull-witted, but when it finally wakes up it responds with superhuman accuracy. The soldiers don't seem human, though they LOOK human. It's a weird world where children don't exist. Helicopters handle strangely. Armored vehicles still have hitpoints. Weapons always function perfectly. Vehicles never break down just because vehicles break down. etc. For a sandbox game, it needs a LOT more chaos and humanity.

That rant has little to do with the campaign discussion.

In OFP CWC the soldiers were even more robotic, the simulation was much simpler, there were only 3 diferent civilians that looked more or less the same (no women) and there was no wild life at all, yet CWC 1985 was a great campaign.

[BF2_Trooper 0]

Do you guys want to play a realistic version of Battlefield or do you want to play Fallout 3 set in the modern world? Lone underdog survivor scavinging weapons? Why even bother having tanks and helicopters, let alone be able to drive them. No disrespect guys, but it certainly sounds like you're playing the wrong game.

It boggles the mind that one day people in these forums are complaining about lack of realism, and the next day they're demanding a campaing in which Hollywood style underdog heroes win the day against an overwhelmingly high tech enemy. Newsflash people, in the real world the underdogs havent exaclty been the good guys lately, and even then, it seems very unlikely that they can fight effectively even against Regular third world armies. Look at the Lybian rebels for example. They're only barely surviving because of assitance from NATO assets.

I don't know about the rest of you, but there certainly are challenges with being part of a high tech modern army and being out numbered by a low-tech irregular force. Don't get me wrong, I like games with a "survivalist" feel to them. Wouldnt even mind if the campaign was partly a survivalist game, but I don't think ArmA all about being the dirt poor sandle wearing insurgent. It is, and always has been a Regular armed force Infantry simulator.

Now what would be more interesting for a "Survivalist" style scenario is if both sides are cut off from their main forces and are stuck in this island. Both sides have to scavange for whatever equipment, ammunition they're stuck with, and both sides are fighting purely for survival until they can find their way "home".

Edited June 1, 2011 by BF2_Trooper

[nodunit 397]

I think you misunderstood, CWC both the US and USSR were evenly matched for the most part but the NATO force at the time was too small to deal with them.

The resistance used more squad command earlier than CWC, be it military or militia the game series has always had squad command, the only scavenging was in resistence where taking ammo and weapons off dead soldiers would allow you to use it next mission.

Edited June 1, 2011 by NodUnit

[BF2_Trooper 0]

I think you misunderstood, CWC both the US and USSR were evenly matched for the most part but the NATO force at the time was too small to deal with them.

The resistance used more squad command earlier than CWC, be it military or militia the game series has always had squad command, the only scavenging was in resistence where taking ammo and weapons off dead soldiers would allow you to use it next mission.

Yeah, but I just don't understand this hard-on for being on the side of the low tech underdogs. I mean, I sort of get it and all, but there are challenges to being an apache pilot trying not to get RPG'd and distinguishing between enemys and civilian/friendly units on the ground. Just because your side has the money and the guns does not automatically make you the "bad guy".

[max power 21]

It boggles the mind that one day people in these forums are complaining about lack of realism, and the next day they're demanding a campaing in which Hollywood style underdog heroes win the day against an overwhelmingly high tech enemy. Newsflash people, in the real world the underdogs havent exaclty been the good guys lately, and even then, it seems very unlikely that they can fight effectively even against Regular third world armies. Look at the Lybian rebels for example. They're only barely surviving because of assitance from NATO assets.

I think you're probably succumbing to a common pitfall where you view random voices in the community as coming from one giant monolithic mind. There are many different people in the community that have many different ideas and opinions. The situation is certainly not one that requires and mind boggling.

Yeah, but I just don't understand this hard-on for being on the side of the low tech underdogs. I mean, I sort of get it and all, but there are challenges to being an apache pilot trying not to get RPG'd and distinguishing between enemys and civilian/friendly units on the ground. Just because your side has the money and the guns does not automatically make you the "bad guy".

What hard-on are you talking about? CWC and Res were good stories. Harvest Red was an interesting series of events.

[Daniel 0]

Do you guys want to play a realistic version of Battlefield or do you want to play Fallout 3 set in the modern world? Lone underdog survivor scavinging weapons? Why even bother having tanks and helicopters, let alone be able to drive them. No disrespect guys, but it certainly sounds like you're playing the wrong game.

Massive woah.

Did you play the OFP campaign?

And don't think disorganised Libyan rebels struggling against Gadaffi in a civil war. Think Soviets getting their ass handed to them by the Mujahadeen. That sort of underdog. And the more heavy armour and deadly aircraft the better, just makes those underdog kills and thefts all the sweeter.

Max Power got it spot on about character design, I hope BIS take that into serious consideration.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Daniel

[onlyrazor 11]

Massive woah.

Think Soviets getting their ass handed to them by the Mujahadeen. That sort of underdog. And the more heavy armour and deadly aircraft the better, just makes those underdog kills and thefts all the sweeter.

Who got trained by the CIA and supplied by the USA. Gee, however could they have won? :confused:

[Daniel 0]

Who got trained by the CIA and supplied by the USA. Gee, however could they have won? :confused:

What's your point? Victor Troska was himself ex Special Forces and James Gastovski's US Black Ops team help you throughout the campaign.

[-GR-Operative 10]

Who got trained by the CIA and supplied by the USA. Gee, however could they have won? :confused:

It all came from Pakistan, wich was heavily supported by the USA.

[R0adki11 3949]

Operative;1943433']It all came from Pakistan' date=' wich was heavily supported by the USA.[/quote']

a little bit offtopic.

Ontopic

I do hope Arma3 does have some of the OFP:CWC vibe. I remember playing the OFP demo and was struck by the game play and the feel of the game, if we have something like that with Arma3 i would be very happy :)

[Bouben 3]

Guys, one of the biggest vibe factors in OFP is graphics. It looks so dirty and cluttered and colors are all washed making a great experience. Seriously, graphics wise first ARMA totally sucks against OFP due to colors. ARMA2 is a different story.

Playing OFP right now and am amazed.

[Panda_pl 0]

Edited: lol date.

[froggyluv 2136]

Important safety tip: When coming out of cryogenic freeze -hit F5 before posting :p

I think Arma 3 colors and lighting are a big improvement.

[instagoat 133]

The CWC vibe is:

A well written campaign. With memorable missions. (Doesn´t mean humongously complicated). And enough missions to give the campaign actually a feeling of length and depth. Arrowhead has about 10 missions too few. Ditto for Harvest Red. Everything moves too fast, there is no sense of progression, only jumping.

Again.

Well. written. campaign.

Many. Missions. Memorable. Missions.

No half-assed, kit-bashed, jury-rigged, barely working features. No undocumented or wrongly documented ingame features or mission components. For example, in the final mission of harvest red, you could get a journal entry for a mission that was removed during development. The entry was left in. It annoyed me so much I stopped playing the campaign then.

Show that BI can deliver AAA titles, not just wah wah wah massive sandbox kits the community can repair.

My two worthless cents on the topic :V

Edit: Also, a fantastic soundtrack. Arma 2s soundtrack was just eh. The only track I remember is the chernarussian anthem. While the OFP theme still comes to me in my dreams, figuratively speaking. Music is -extremely- important.

Also Voice Actors (!). The ones in CWC were, at the time, expensive and rather high-profile types. The ones in the arma series, sadly, have been performing poorly. Not to bash their valiant attempts, but everything was overacted (Especially in Arrowhead), awkward, and the voices didn´t fit the characters (black persons speaking with the voices of middle aged white men? Even as a central european, I found that grating.)

Serious money will need to be invested to fix this. I hope BI has the spare change to adress this.

Edited June 23, 2012 by InstaGoat

[Tonci87 163]

The CWC vibe is:

A well written campaign. With memorable missions. (Doesn´t mean humongously complicated). And enough missions to give the campaign actually a feeling of length and depth. Arrowhead has about 10 missions too few. Ditto for Harvest Red. Everything moves too fast, there is no sense of progression, only jumping.

Again.

Well. written. campaign.

Many. Missions. Memorable. Missions.

No half-assed, kit-bashed, jury-rigged, barely working features. No undocumented or wrongly documented ingame features or mission components. For example, in the final mission of harvest red, you could get a journal entry for a mission that was removed during development. The entry was left in. It annoyed me so much I stopped playing the campaign then.

Show that BI can deliver AAA titles, not just wah wah wah massive sandbox kits the community can repair.

My two worthless cents on the topic :V

Edit: Also, a fantastic soundtrack. Arma 2s soundtrack was just eh. The only track I remember is the chernarussian anthem. While the OFP theme still comes to me in my dreams, figuratively speaking. Music is -extremely- important.

Also Voice Actors (!). The ones in CWC were, at the time, expensive and rather high-profile types. The ones in the arma series, sadly, have been performing poorly. Not to bash their valiant attempts, but everything was overacted (Especially in Arrowhead), awkward, and the voices didn´t fit the characters (black persons speaking with the voices of middle aged white men? Even as a central european, I found that grating.)

Serious money will need to be invested to fix this. I hope BI has the spare change to adress this.

^this!

[tremanarch 6]

hmm but i also like the OA approach - some shorter missions you can play over and over again with different strategys.

but yes some ofp 'on your own' style missions should be there ^^ that awesome feeling.

the harvest red approach I also like... difficult to merge all these 3 styles into 1 campaign. I at least would buy for additinal campaigns even if it had no additional content... I always liked them (sometimes they were very difficult like Red Hammer).. maybe some way around the difficulty like: the user can decide to do a all in one extremely hard mission, or maybe does the same stuff differently with 3 missions which may be a bit more boring for pro gamers but perfect fpr beginners to choose...

dunno example: you can conquer a city just so in 1 mission, or make 3 missions where you cut the supply first, then infiltrate second, and thrid maybe bribe some soldiers etc and then conquer the city much more easily...

Edited June 24, 2012 by tremanarch

[jakerod 254]

dunno example: you can conquer a city just so in 1 mission, or make 3 missions where you cut the supply first, then infiltrate second, and thrid maybe bribe some soldiers etc and then conquer the city much more easily...

The campaign for Armed Assault was somewhat like that. You had side missions that supported the overall mission. You could assassinate an enemy commander and it would have an impact on either how the enemy acted in the next mission or how many there were. You could choose to ambush a convoy and make it so there were less guys in the next mission etc. I liked that feature of the campaign but the lack of characters made it feel kind of disjointed and the ending was kind of rushed to me too.

[Smurf 12]

The campaign for Armed Assault was somewhat like that. You had side missions that supported the overall mission. You could assassinate an enemy commander and it would have an impact on either how the enemy acted in the next mission or how many there were. You could choose to ambush a convoy and make it so there were less guys in the next mission etc. I liked that feature of the campaign but the lack of characters made it feel kind of disjointed and the ending was kind of rushed to me too.

Yeah, I don´t recall a single name from A1, all characters were generic.

Anyway, I have faith in A3's campaign.In some interviews they said to be doing some tutorials missions at first and when they presented these "tools" to the player, is up to him to solve things later, not in Red Harvest's way but in a more streamlined fashion. It might be more linear (that doesnt mean "corridor shooter"), but as an intruduction to the game is better this way (less buggy, more control of what is going on by the mission maker).

[frostwyrm333 1]

OFP was good, good pacing, LOTS of missions, very memorable although some missions nothing much special and still good

ARMA seems to be hated but I liked it very much, lots of different and interesting missions, anonymous soldiers - yes, did not matter for me, but storyline still weak, just some conflict reported on the news

ARMA 2 tried to be everything and well... its sort of OK but meh, weak storytelling, unmemorable characters, (warfare?), another problem was probably the first mission, many ppl were incapable of handling night time infiltration/sabotage, also grass in bases... (wtf)

OA was stomping on underequiped army, some parts were good

BAF was ok but short, good narration

PMC was long, some missions were weird and meaningless, only campaign since OFP where I remembered and recognized the characters, perhaps a bit "overdesigned"

As I understand it A3 campaign is supposed to be different (god knows what will it become in the end), I'm sure it will be cool: serious and grim background, proper antagonists, resistance-like gameplay, what they need is to look back at their mistakes and make it more interesting, more design, more distinguishable from generic stuff, memorable moments, to make you feel you really are in WW3

[antoineflemming 14]

OFP was good, good pacing, LOTS of missions, very memorable although some missions nothing much special and still good

ARMA seems to be hated but I liked it very much, lots of different and interesting missions, anonymous soldiers - yes, did not matter for me, but storyline still weak, just some conflict reported on the news

ARMA 2 tried to be everything and well... its sort of OK but meh, weak storytelling, unmemorable characters, (warfare?), another problem was probably the first mission, many ppl were incapable of handling night time infiltration/sabotage, also grass in bases... (wtf)

OA was stomping on underequiped army, some parts were good

BAF was ok but short, good narration

PMC was long, some missions were weird and meaningless, only campaign since OFP where I remembered and recognized the characters, perhaps a bit "overdesigned"

As I understand it A3 campaign is supposed to be different (god knows what will it become in the end), I'm sure it will be cool: serious and grim background, proper antagonists, resistance-like gameplay, what they need is to look back at their mistakes and make it more interesting, more design, more distinguishable from generic stuff, memorable moments, to make you feel you really are in WW3

Once again, the story is NOT ww3 anymore. Don't understand why that's so hard to grasp. The OLD story was a post-WW3 story. The new story is like pre-WW3. In the old story, Europe was occupied by Iran. In this story, Iran only got to Greece. Yeah, everything else you said is true, but for everyone here, it ISN'T WW3.

[Nicholas 5]

Once again, the story is NOT ww3 anymore. Don't understand why that's so hard to grasp. The OLD story was a post-WW3 story. The new story is like pre-WW3. In the old story, Europe was occupied by Iran. In this story, Iran only got to Greece. Yeah, everything else you said is true, but for everyone here, it ISN'T WW3.

Maybe he didn't know?

As far as the story in ArmA III, I hope like hell they do not incorporate Warfare into it.

[frostwyrm333 1]

Once again, the story is NOT ww3 anymore. Don't understand why that's so hard to grasp. The OLD story was a post-WW3 story. The new story is like pre-WW3. In the old story, Europe was occupied by Iran. In this story, Iran only got to Greece. Yeah, everything else you said is true, but for everyone here, it ISN'T WW3.

And how the hell am I supposed to know the story if they changed it every 6 months. Ok, but still, serious conflict, global scale, no goat herders and pumpkin farmers.

[metalcraze 290]

The campaign for Armed Assault was somewhat like that. You had side missions that supported the overall mission. You could assassinate an enemy commander and it would have an impact on either how the enemy acted in the next mission or how many there were. You could choose to ambush a convoy and make it so there were less guys in the next mission etc. I liked that feature of the campaign but the lack of characters made it feel kind of disjointed and the ending was kind of rushed to me too.

It was also much shorter and the missions were way too limiting. You always started like 100m away from your first target and you often had to deal with the mission in one possible way. Which after OFP was a massive letdown.

Like that sniper mission where I had to climb onto the water tower and get ridiculously exposed even though there were nice bushes below but otherwise the mission wouldn't proceed - hnnnnnggg

As far as the story in ArmA III, I hope like hell they do not incorporate Warfare into it.

ArmA2 campaign should be a shining example of how you don't do campaigns.

Though Dwarden (I think) hinted once that ArmA3 campaign is going to be more like BAF (which in turn means OFP Resistance).

I so would love to have limited assets. It makes you think harder and appreciate every soldier you have instead of drowning enemy in gunmeat like it was in Harvest Red.

Edited June 25, 2012 by metalcraze