So is Bohemia giving up on persistant sandbox COOP campaigns?

[BF2_Trooper 0]

So from what I can gather from the E3 presentation the main campaign is Singleplayer only, and it seems to be IMO because the devs think that it would be a more stable less buggy open world experience.

The campaign in ARMA 2 vanilla tried to give us a persistant open world campaign that could be played coopertavily. But that became really buggy because of COOP. And then it seems that the campaigns in the one expansion and DLCs following vanilla became less and less cooperative and presistant but we seemed to have got a less buggy experience. They also got just a little bit linear, not much, but enough for one to notice that there were certain restrictions with where one could roam and how long you could take completing a mission.

So does this mean COOP will only consist of standalone missions and game modes in ARMA 3? Or can we still expect some COOP campaigns but not persistant ones sort of like in the Ghost Recon games?

Edited June 11, 2011 by BF2_Trooper

[metalcraze 290]

AA2 campaign sucked really hard. Why do you care?

I'm more interested in getting a campaign that is both realistic and challenging for once (and with OA and BAF BIS was starting to get back on the correct track) without tech-buildings spawning tanks out of thin air with which you spam enemy towns or boring "speshul forcez" either playing CoD or doing FedEx for 2 hours without firing a single shot

If not including coop into the campaign means that they will spend more time on actually polishing it instead of quickly throwing it together like it was in AA2 - then coop is a reasonable casualty.

[maturin 12]

Yeah, all we did was bitch about Arma 2's persistent sandbox coop campaign.

Maybe they should focus on making specific missions in the campaign coop compatible and forget about doing the whole storyline that way.

[Zipper5 74]

It's the same as with anything: devs do one thing, people hate it, devs fix/remove the problem, people hate it. You just have to be sure you're pleasing the majority.

[katipo66 94]

Looking forward to this campaign, and I've never played an arma campaign right through as they never appealed to me but this one will be different I hope as I believe they have implemented thier procedural gameplay into it.

[metalcraze 290]

It's the same as with anything: devs do one thing, people hate it, devs fix/remove the problem, people hate it. You just have to be sure you're pleasing the majority.

Not really. Do you hear the bitching about CWC campaign? Safe to say it gets a nearly universal praise

It didn't have a sandbox. It wasn't coop.

It had a linear progression - and yet had a free approach to interesting and war-like missions.

And it had a plot as well.

Since then BIS tries to just make players to make it fun for themselves themselves more and more. And it doesn't last. For some reason they don't try to make another CWC-like campaign and I don't understand why?

People remember CWC 10 years later, people remake CWC missions and campaigns 10 years later.

People forgot about Just Cause 2 a week after getting tired of doing nothing just like with many "sandbox" games.

Edited June 11, 2011 by metalcraze

[RozekPoland 591]

I hope it still will be possible to play custom-made campaigns in coop mode.

[Jelliz 10]

I think it's a good move for the campaign to be SINGLE-PLAYER only. Nevertheless, I hope that BIS is going to keep possibility to play custom made campaigns in coop mode. That would be a good question to developers.

COOP campaigns can(EDIT: probably) be made as they can be made now. I cant see any reason whatsoever that they would change that.

I guess the reason for them making a singleplayer campaign is to provide a stable(read: minimalizing bugs) singleplayer experience for firsttime users that play the game in singleplayer mode before taking on multiplayer.

[Flash Thunder 10]

Make your own Coop campaign or download the several campaigns that will likely come out after release.

No problem.

[Cyteless 10]

I've got no problem with a less open campaign. In a real combat operation, you wouldn't go touring the sites before completing a mission objective :p

While that is a bit of an exaggeration, I figure if the main character is stranded on an occupied island, he's going to want to get the objective done as quickly and safely as possible, as opposed to yomping around the countryside, avoiding minefields and sniper fire.

As far as co-op is concerned, I think removing it will help narrow down the problems BIS will face, and will hopefully offer a more stable experience.

Co-op can always be done in custom scenarios anyway.

[BF2_Trooper 0]

People forgot about Just Cause 2 a week after getting tired of doing nothing just like with many "sandbox" games.

I can honestly say that I had many memorable moments in sandbox games such as Fallout 3, Far Cry 2, and to a lesser extent GTA Vice City. The only thing that I was longing for in those games were human team mates that I could coordinate missions and share experiences with. I kinda thought "Game 2" would be that open world sandbox COOP game I was longing for.

[metalcraze 290]

There's a big chance you will never play them again though.

[Innomadic 10]

There is evidence that co-op campaign is being given the boot? Where exactly?

[MrXToTheN 10]

The thing i really dislike about most ArmA campaign missions is the fact that you have to kill dozens of enemies with a single fireteam. Is that supposed to be realistic? At least it's not fun to me. Would be better to be part of a huge assault that is controlled by AI (some missions are like that).

Or less enemies that you have to kill all by yourself and more recon.

[Steakslim 1]

There is evidence that co-op campaign is being given the boot? Where exactly?

E3 demonstration videos. Campaign is singleplayer only. Note only the campaign. Any comments about custom mission not able to have COOP is just someone going full retard.

[Cookieeater 10]

If anything, i'd be grateful if ArmA III's campaign had a coop mode such as Halo, where another player spawns next to the main character whenever the mission starts, yet doesn't have any significant role in the game.

[PuFu 4600]

I can honestly say that I had many memorable moments in sandbox games such as Fallout 3, Far Cry 2, and to a lesser extent GTA Vice City. The only thing that I was longing for in those games were human team mates that I could coordinate missions and share experiences with. I kinda thought "Game 2" would be that open world sandbox COOP game I was longing for.

Game2 = ArmA2 (or the former OFP2)

You can make your own sandbox type game using A2, taking advantage of the all the modules provided, and with a bit od scripting

If you ask me, a proper campaign, with a strong background storyline, allowing multiple choices and developments based on your actions is what it is needed. Let the coop games fill the MP if it is needed

[max power 21]

I don't know if the fact that ArmA 3 has been announced to have a single player only campaign means, as TOP put it, BIS is 'giving up on coop campaigns'. It means that whatever Miller is doing, it's not conducive to multiplayer. BAF wasn't coop, PMC was, Arrowhead was sort of, Eagle Wing obviously wasn't. ArmA 3's isn't. Maybe they have decided not to make anymore, but I don't think that just because they haven't included it in ArmA 3 at launch means they will never do another one.

[Alwarren 2767]

There's a big chance you will never play them again though.

The problem with most sandbox games is that they boot you out into their open world with no clear goal. Sandbox gaming can be a lot of fun, but there needs to be an overall thread to follow, otherwise it becomes faffing about with no apparent goal.

At no point in a game should the player be left to wonder what to do next. If that happens there is a design flaw. A sandbox game is particularly vulnerable to that problem. Plus, the "sandboxing" has to be optional. You should be able to go on with your main story line without ever deviating from the path.

[Trauma.au 10]

It's the same as with anything: devs do one thing, people hate it, devs fix/remove the problem, people hate it. You just have to be sure you're pleasing the majority.

You seem pretty negative to me, I like this change. I've never finished an Arma SP campaign before, maybe this change in direction will change that, I hope so.

[Zipper5 74]

No, the SP campaign has the potential to be significantly better without relying on it being MP compatible. And I'm speaking from experience.

[nodunit 397]

You seem pretty negative to me, I like this change. I've never finished an Arma SP campaign before, maybe this change in direction will change that, I hope so.

Doubt his comment was to you specificly as much some of the community in general, for example people wanting changeable equipment and uniforms, they get it then cry about how someone wearing something out of place could ruin it and so on.

[metalcraze 290]

I don't think people ever cried that they wanted to customize their avatard like in some social MMO?

Or have I missed something?

People that cried that they want dead bodies fall into retarded postures are not the same people that don't think that better visuals = better gameplay but rather want better gameplay instead of unneeded stuff like PhysX, ragdoll, shaders 10.2395.0a etc.

Meaning that by making ArmA3 look like it just gets a visual overhaul (and PhysX and ragdolls = visuals) while not improving much gameplay-wise (like working more on AI or borrowing features from ACE) - BIS seems to upset the other part of community.

Edited June 12, 2011 by metalcraze

[nodunit 397]

Pre Arma2 people were tossing suggestions back and forth that something like soldner would beat neat, Arma2 comes around this persists, changebale equipment is announced in Arma3, possibly uniforms. Suddenly there is a blowup of how people might dress in vibrant outfits and whatnot in multiplayer. Basicly damned if you do damned if you don't.

Besides BI has already stated that a new animation system is in the works which could mean more fluid movement and so on, we're getting render to texture which has been a big thing for a long time now, a 3D editor which people have been damn near begging for, and physics can offer more than simply eye candy pending how it gets used.

Edited June 12, 2011 by NodUnit

[metalcraze 290]

Again animations and render-to-texture are barely more than graphics improvement.

There was nothing wrong with AA2 animations. People just cried that they can't stance-bunny-hop like in BF2 and thus get killed (like they aren't killed even more in BF2).

I can't see how pushing boxes around with an APC is more important than adding something as basic as weapon resting like in ACE which is there for a long time now - but what do I know?

Back when stuff was suggested there was not much vocal opposition because those were just suggestions BIS seemed to ignore. But now that we can get a platoon of pilots attacking a platoon of divers in the desert despite what mission maker intended instead of, say, AI that doesn't ignore another friendly squad being attacked 100m away - surely it may upset a few people?