More accessible mission design

[NeMeSiS 11]

How did I get into OFP? Oh the horror - it must've been pure luck!

Or did people suddenly started to have an IQ of a wooden door 10 years later?

BIS should dumb down ArmA to the "complexity" of BF otherwise poor new players won't be able to get into it. Instead they will not play it at all because they already have one BF

God forbid a game being more than a run and gun - that's too frustrating for housewives, BIS must think of everyone.

I think the problem with people crying the most who seem to care about the poor new players who will never be able to get into ArmA (when BIS created ArmA clearly they also created a special human race to play it which has a constant number) - is that the game is too hard for them. They couldn't care less about the new player.

Is it so hard to understand that ArmA is targeted at an audience that likes tactical shooters with realism and multiple possibilities - and if you don't like it you have dozens of other alternatives?

OFP eased you into the game in about 15-20 missions before throwing you in the deep. ArmA2 takes about 3 missions with barely any explanations while having more features than OFP.

OFP wasnt really any easier, but it has a much better learning curve than ArmA2. We have been playing this game for 10 years so we may not need this help to get used to the game, but new players do.

Please take note: I am not advocating to make the game easier, just making a better learning curve through different mission design, not game design.

[metalcraze 290]

But you see - ArmA2 OA has better tutorials than OFP.

In OFP the tutorial was spread across the whole campaign, which unlike OA's one didn't take a single evening (or two) to complete (40 missions vs. OA's 7 of a very much same length)

Surely there were less in-depth single missions but they didn't offer as much explanation as OA's tutorials did.

Something tells me people just ignore them (as they do take quite a long time to complete) - and this is a mistake.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Something tells me people just ignore them (as they do take quite a long time to complete) - and this is a mistake.

I am not sober right now so take this as you will: I forgive those poeple, the tutoroials are boring as shit. CWC capaign? Fucking awesome.

[nodunit 397]

But you see - ArmA2 OA has better tutorials than OFP.

In OFP the tutorial was spread across the whole campaign, which unlike OA's one didn't take a single evening (or two) to complete (40 missions vs. OA's 7 of a very much same length)

Surely there were less in-depth single missions but they didn't offer as much explanation as OA's tutorials did.

Something tells me people just ignore them (as they do take quite a long time to complete) - and this is a mistake.

Granted but the campaign gave you those tutorials when you needed them, rather than rush in 'this is a helo now this is an attack helo' it was "this is a transport helo, use it for a few missions..and now this is an attack helicopter..now this is a plane" or more correctly; this is how you move, this is your perform actions, this is how you shoot weapons, this is how you drive, this is how you command one or two people, this is how you drive a tank, this is how you survive alone, this is how you command a squad etc.

Having spread tutorials actually benefits both the player and campaign with a smooth buildup, learning only when necessary rather than "Here is something to practice for and learn to use in future several missions away!" On the same note it was less overwhelming because all of the information is not being packed into your mind straight from the get go.

Edited October 6, 2011 by NodUnit

[dm 9]

the tutoroials are boring as shit. CWC capaign? Fucking awesome.

10 chars of +1

[hund 0]

Wasn't the armoury meant as a way to ease new players into the game?

I put my 7 year-old nephew in front of the game some time back, and showed him how to move around and get a new armoury mission and so on. The little noobster picked it up fairly fast, and that was his first FPS.

[-)rStrangelove 0]

Someone wants pure action missions, someone can fire up the mission editor (providing he bought the game at all)

[wiggum2 31]

)rStrangelove;2033492']Someone wants pure action missions' date=' someone can fire up the mission editor (providing he bought the game at all)[/quote']

...how many new player are able to do that ?

The campaign should not be "pure action", just some good old "tactical shooter action".

DR for example was good at it !

The first mission was a tutorial and the other missions more straightforward but you could still play it carefully and tactical.

Now imagine the ArmA3 campaign, 3 difficult levels to choose which alter the ingame help & enemy accuracy.

First mission is a tutorial too that explains all that is needed to finish the campaign and the rest with a strong focus on "tactical shooter action".

I think most ArmA veterans will dont care that much about the campaign anyway. For them, the game is a sandbox for modding, mission making and massive MP sessions.

Just give the new players something where they will have fun as long as they dont know about (or care about) all the stuff you can do with ArmA.

[NoRailgunner 0]

@Wiggum

Only the first mission should explain all features that can be used in the rest of the campaign? Sorry but you must have very low expectations of campaigns + missions. Only straight forward instant tacticool shooter action - maybe ok for very few missions but not for the rest of the campaign. If one want to play a braindead campaign he could pick a shooter game and be happy with it, no? Why should BIS dump their mission/campaign gameplay down just for the sake of some shooter-addicted players? Are you nuts?

[ghost101 10]

I think most ArmA veterans will dont care that much about the campaign anyway.

You think wrong. I expect BIS to deliver a quality and challenging campaign and the campaign should be a showcase of ArmA features. With the main campaign, they are saying: "this is the potential of our game, this is what it can do and this is what ArmA it is all about".

With separate tutorial missions and documentation they can explain HOW to play the game. I don't pay good money for tutorial missions and a dumb campaign designed for CoD retards. I've already put in the effort to learn how to play. I want a proper campaign.

[Tonci87 163]

You think wrong. I expect BIS to deliver a quality and challenging campaign and the campaign should be a showcase of ArmA features. With the main campaign, they are saying: "this is the potential of our game, this is what it can do and this is what ArmA it is all about".

With separate tutorial missions and documentation they can explain HOW to play the game. I don't pay good money for tutorial missions and a dumb campaign designed for CoD retards. I've already put in the effort to learn how to play. I want a proper campaign.

This +1

[wiggum2 31]

You really want to play a SP campaign with the annoying Wounding Module and the (at least in ArmA2) bad implementing of stuff like High Command & UAV's ?

The campaign as just a showcase of ArmA features (again...) ?

I hope BIS dont thinks that way...

[Maio 293]

You think wrong. I expect BIS to deliver a quality and challenging campaign and the campaign should be a showcase of ArmA features. With the main campaign, they are saying: "this is the potential of our game, this is what it can do and this is what ArmA it is all about".

With separate tutorial missions and documentation they can explain HOW to play the game. I don't pay good money for tutorial missions and a dumb campaign designed for CoD retards. I've already put in the effort to learn how to play. I want a proper campaign.

I see we are back to stereotyping COD players... you could have left that one out ghost.

Well actualy you pay good money for the SP scenarios, the editor,the armoury and MP as well :)

[ghost101 10]

You really want to play a SP campaign with the annoying Wounding Module and the (at least in ArmA2) bad implementing of stuff like High Command & UAV's ?

The campaign as just a showcase of ArmA features (again...) ?

I hope BIS dont thinks that way...

you have troubles using High Command & UAV's ? Too bad for you.

ArmA is a sandbox, it's unlike any of the games you keep comparing it to. It's very easy to develop perfection in a deterministic environment (ie: a regular full/partial rails shooter). It's not so easy to devise a perfect control system for non-deterministic sandbox (ArmA). BIS are also a very small company and ArmA is a niche game made for niche customers (customers with mental capacities able to dealing with ArmA's quirks).

I understand that and that is why I can accept ArmA's "quirky" features and I managed to play the game fluidly and without too much effort...despite the clear need for many improvements. Improving is what sequels should be about - not dumbing down.

you do realize that many of us here have the capability to play this game the way it should be played, right? we're not all bewildered and dumbstruck by ArmA's interface:

sLhJCJILTto

you do realize this?? :j:

---------- Post added at 11:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------

I see we are back to stereotyping COD players... you could have left that one out ghost.

Well actualy you pay good money for the SP scenarios, the editor,the armoury and MP as well :)

don't take it personally, it's just a convenient generalization. of course there are exceptions. but you have to agree, _most_ CoD players represent the mainstream gameplayer. and mainstream players are not too bright. hence the "need" to make ArmA "more accessible" :)

[Maio 293]

don't take it personally, it's just a convenient generalization. of course there are exceptions. but you have to agree, _most_ CoD players represent the mainstream gameplayer. and mainstream players are not too bright. hence the "need" to make ArmA "more accessible" :)

I didnt. I'm not a COD fan :).I think we should refrain from using derogatory terms when it comes to players who prefer current mainstream FPS type games.

It makes one look arrogant and gives the ArmA community a bad name.

I see a some members use ArmA as a shield against the constant blows and thrusts of the mainstream FPS. It's perfectly understandable. I had a period when I thought ArmA was the best and had this wierd unfounded hate for the mainstream FPS. Then I remembered that once I used to play mainstream FPS games and I enjoyed them. I realized that I was smug, that the hate was useless and after a few matches of COD 4 with close friends in which we goofed around, I dropped the whole crusader mentality. I still don't buy mainstream FPS games because they don't offer me anything that ArmA already has, but I don't act like someone touched me with hot iron when it comes down to mainstream FPS games or fans of the genre migrating over to ArmA :)

All hail Lord Ivan!

[dm 9]

you do realize that many of us here have the capability to play this game the way it should be played, right?

I'm so glad you know how the ArmA series SHOULD be played. Thats nice for you.

The point is, the interfaces and the mission design is clunky and bad (I've been playing the series since the OFP beta, so you can skip all the "omg lern to play newfag" commentary), just because we've been around long enough to be used to them doesn't mean they should be left as they are...

[dmarkwick 261]

I understand that and that is why I can accept ArmA's "quirky" features and I managed to play the game fluidly and without too much effort...despite the clear need for many improvements. Improving is what sequels should be about - not dumbing down.

"Dumbing down" is your description only, and it gets said a lot when people ask about making ArmA more usable and have more diverse content. Dumbing down is your idea of something that has not happened and has been confirmed by the developers as not happening. People shouldn't be precious about "their" ArmA and obstructive to making the product have wider appeal.

ArmA can be almost any game you wish it to be, and there is no downside to providing some wider appeal missions and gamemodes. It's not like the realism players will be affected by them, they just seem to find it offensive that they might exist. Not many of the serious ArmA users ever use ArmA out of the box vanilla, they mould it to their liking in any case. The more flexible ArmA becomes the more diverse and variable the game becomes in any case, why worry about included content aimed at keeping newer players?

"Hardcore" CoD and BF players will not be interested in ArmA, but there is plenty of market available for roping in people who wish for a more gritty game occasionally, that is a good market, the CoD/BF/ArmA crossover market.

[Maio 293]

I'm so glad you know how the ArmA series SHOULD be played. Thats nice for you.

The point is, the interfaces and the mission design is clunky and bad (I've been playing the series since the OFP beta, so you can skip all the "omg lern to play newfag" commentary), just because we've been around long enough to be used to them doesn't mean they should be left as they are...

Bolded and colored for the truth. We don't want the guys at BIS to grow complacent do we :)

I will still buy the game beacuse I am a fan boy/man, the same thing does not apply to people new to the series.

Personally the mission design has never bothered me, but the interface can use a redesign.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Maio

[metalcraze 290]

I am not sober right now so take this as you will: I forgive those poeple, the tutoroials are boring as shit. CWC capaign? Fucking awesome.

I completely agree. I myself would've really wished BIS stopped fooling around with "open world campaigns" and made a campaign just as long and varied as CWC was. It's like BIS forgot that CWC was what in a large part made OFP a legend back in the day.

[ProfTournesol 956]

I really don't want the campaign to be a showcase of the game functions. That was the main mistake of the Harvest Red campaign. They can include demo missions for all the possible stuff (warfare or manhattan-ish missions and so on), but the main campaign must be a REAL campaign, with a real story and NUMEROUS missions, mixing basic ones (transport, patrol etc...) with more complex ones, infiltration with combat missions, tanking with aerial or infantry ones, etc.

[Tonci87 163]

I really liked the Harvest Red Campaign, it was really quite good, but it needed to be looooonger. The first Warfare Mission was ok as well, just to showcase the potential, but the last Mission really shouldn´t have been warfare! They should have made multiple Missions where you are helping out NAPA/CDF, searching for intel about Lopotevs Location, helping the USMC to get back, and finally an EPIC Arrest Lopotev Mission. Putting that all into one giant conquer the whole country warfare Mission was just too much and really ruined the campaign.

EDIT: Because of this I really hope that BIS will make a looooooong Campaign. Remember CWC had 40 Missions! Not 6 or 7 like OA!

[wiggum2 31]

you have troubles using High Command & UAV's ? Too bad for you.

No, i mostly skiped them because they are just bad and feel needlessly in the campaign.

you do realize that many of us here have the capability to play this game the way it should be played, right? we're not all bewildered and dumbstruck by ArmA's interface:

you do realize this??

Please master, tell me about this great capability you and these badass others have. :o

The video shows nothing special and is pretty boring if you ask me.

But again, sure the High-Command module can be fun if the mission is small size and well done.

And believe me, im as far away from most "mainstream gamers" as possible... ;)

Edited October 6, 2011 by Wiggum

[Maio 293]

I think this thread needs to be closed for the following 2 reasons:

1.It's clear that there are 2 sides. The side that fears that ArmA will become to mainstream due to the matter discussed and the side that welcomes change. From my point of view BIS have always tried to please both sides.

2. Due to reason 1, nothing more valuable will come out of this thread and I fear it will end up in a pointless "community civil war" on the matter, which will soon lose it's "let's let the thread go on for a while and see what will happen" entertainment value as well.

If I were a mod, I would close the thread. With an appropriate ending statment of course ;)

[katipo66 94]

The video shows nothing special and is pretty boring if you ask me.

But, but... he was showing us how you fire randomly at a building (with enemy and lots of cover) and send units in a flanking maneuver from out in the open using only grass and bush as cover. :eek:

This obviously requires great skill that no [any other fps game here] player can come to grips with :p

The fact the there is even a thread like this and similar elsewhere is testament to a great game that everybody cares about in different ways... there's capacity for everyone's style of game play isn't there?.

FFS i can run around Chernarus for multiple hours on end just watching the AI go at it, i dont even engage enemy and im happy as larry... but i cant do that all the time, so i enjoy jumping online with other games to get that fast action fix, i cant get that in Arma?

[wiggum2 31]

But, but... he was showing us how you fire randomly at a building (with enemy and lots of cover) and send units in a flanking maneuver from out in the open using only grass and bush as cover. :eek:

This obviously requires great skill that no [any other fps game here] player can come to grips with :p

I thought that are just "real life" tactics ?

30 enemy KIA and two own KIA in ~15min...war is hell.