Singleplayer with epic plot

[NoRailgunner 0]

The story in A2 is based around USMC SF recon team not about the average grunt. The EW campaign was stylish + much more unbelievable. :rolleyes:

OFP campaign missions were not all that great and some people should stop dreaming and try to re-play them with viewdistance set to 2000m (or higher) to see how "big" some battles were... "Part of a small AI group to battle other small(er) AI groups" - would fit better.

[ProfTournesol 956]

The story in A2 is based around USMC SF recon team not about the average grunt. The EW campaign was stylish + much more unbelievable. :rolleyes:

Harvest Red believable mmm.... with the "wrestling super heroes" team Razor, of which nobody can die. Greatest idea ever.

[Leopardi 0]

The story in A2 is based around USMC SF recon team not about the average grunt. The EW campaign was stylish + much more unbelievable. :rolleyes:

OFP campaign missions were not all that great and some people should stop dreaming and try to re-play them with viewdistance set to 2000m (or higher) to see how "big" some battles were... "Part of a small AI group to battle other small(er) AI groups" - would fit better.

The radio messages going on etc. sure did make it feel like you are tiny part in a war going on the whole island.

[dysta 10]

Okay, that kind of thing can be simply define into several ways of "how it sounds epic":

A heroic shooter went through a million of enemy AI?

or

A thousands of player-commanded AI to turn a city into ruin.

or

USS Ford VS Iranian Aircraft Carrier on each side of the island with massive land and air invasions each other?

or just

Raining nukes when player try to escape alive?

Whatever the method of gameplay is, you think it's epic enough to enjoy the game, then go for it. If not, the ARMA3 wouldn't be a smart choice.

[katipo66 94]

I'm just curious on how they will implement procedural gameplay, and if that could be carried through to the editor somehow?

Other than that I'm buying the editor and MP and not really concerned at all about the campaign, to the point where I wouldn't care if they didn't even bother and focused on other areas.

[NoRailgunner 0]

@ProfTournesol did I say that the A2 campaign is believable? :p

@Leopardi

Such additional sound + visual effects/features could be implemented in every mission/campaign. The trick is to make the missions entertaining and keep the right balance between uninspired/"boring" and overdone/"overkill". Guess in A3 there will be a performance limit on how many bigger AI battles can be seen/observed at the same time too...

[jakerod 254]

OFP campaign missions were not all that great and some people should stop dreaming and try to re-play them with viewdistance set to 2000m (or higher) to see how "big" some battles were... "Part of a small AI group to battle other small(er) AI groups" - would fit better.

I agree with this. CWC was unrealistic (Lone spec-op taking out bases, pilot flying 4 different types of aircraft, single squads engaging enemy platoons, corporal becoming a Lieutenant in a matter of months, etc.) CWC did not have big battles going on around you. As NoRail said, turn up the viewdistance and jack was happening. Resistance was the same way. The only thing about them is that they are nostalgic. It was the first game of its type and it was pretty awesome but it was not realistic. There were elements that made it immersive though to some degree.

I kind of wish BI would go back to the Cold War setting and do a full blown Cold War / WWIII setting back in the 80's possibly with the events of CWC touching the whole thing off. Granted that makes the last mission of CWC obsolete but that would be okay with me. It would be nice if it focused on a grunt unit that was all part of a bigger war. I would like there to be characters but I don't want anyone to be safe (I realize that that is difficult). I would also want it to be a dynamic campaign too.

I'm also sick of the whole we're special forces trying to save the world thing. I'm also sick of every weapon I pick up having a damn scope on it. As people have said earlier, in OFP, finding a scope was like Christmas.

[rübe 127]

I kind of wish BI would go back to the Cold War setting and do a full blown Cold War / WWIII setting back in the 80's possibly with the events of CWC touching the whole thing off.[...]

I'm also sick of every weapon I pick up having a damn scope on it. As people have said earlier, in OFP, finding a scope was like Christmas.

Yeah, I can somewhat relate to this: the cold war era has a perfect mix of weaponry for a fun and challenging gameplay. And I'm not sure about the futuristic approach/scenario, with all these toys available...

Plus you can hardly top the atmosphere that comes for free with this scenario. Or is there an equivalent to peeing your pants, just because someone said `speznas`? :eek:

[Dead3yez 0]

I kind of wish BI would go back to the Cold War setting and do a full blown Cold War / WWIII setting back in the 80's

Agreed.

Personally I am not into the high-tech equipment and stuff. Thermal optics, guided missiles etc etc... I just feel it gives a less satisfying gameplay style.

[Tonci87 163]

Agreed.

Personally I am not into the high-tech equipment and stuff. Thermal optics, guided missiles etc etc... I just feel it gives a less satisfying gameplay style.

I agree. Firefights get quite boring if everybody has an ACOG or PSO

[metalcraze 290]

And an in-built range finder that scans the distance every 0.3 seconds

I don't understand why BIS can't go back to CWC design (linear, but a strong focus on mission variety instead of speshul forcez crap we get now where you need to run around doing nothing for hours). I can safely bet that if poll was to be made - this campaign would win with a huge lead. OFP didn't sell 2 mln copies for nothing. And it isn't some "nostalgia", playing CWR2 demo today feels just as refreshing as playing original OFP, in fact even better due to better AI, ballistics and overall gameplay.

It's like BIS lost something.

Edited October 18, 2011 by metalcraze

[dm 9]

re-play them with viewdistance set to 2000m (or higher) to see how "big" some battles were...

CWC did not have big battles going on around you.

They might not have physically been big, but they felt big. You get no sense of that scale in ArmA, you're just John-Ninja-Uber-Rambo taking on the whole world on your lonesome...

I'm also sick of the whole we're special forces trying to save the world thing.

This x1000 again. Its dull, its played out, its trying to compete with the epicness of CoD and BF and whatnot, and its just NOT necessary!

[Leopardi 0]

Okay, that kind of thing can be simply define into several ways of "how it sounds epic":

A heroic shooter went through a million of enemy AI?

or

A thousands of player-commanded AI to turn a city into ruin.

or

USS Ford VS Iranian Aircraft Carrier on each side of the island with massive land and air invasions each other?

or just

Raining nukes when player try to escape alive?

Whatever the method of gameplay is, you think it's epic enough to enjoy the game, then go for it. If not, the ARMA3 wouldn't be a smart choice.

I define it "CWC". Simple fun missions where you are just a soldier doing your duty and attempting to survive but nothing really goes like planned. Not attempting to be the leader of amy and win the war.

[dysta 10]

I define it "CWC". Simple fun missions where you are just a soldier doing your duty and attempting to survive but nothing really goes like planned. Not attempting to be the leader of amy and win the war.

Of course. I would rather stick with simulation if the gaming system can offers. I am already tired of the story things goes along with the mission. There's million of results in a same setting of the warfare, so why bother to script it?

[wiggum2 31]

Its just that commanding and taking care of platoon or company sized groups incl. logistics is for some people too much to handle in realtime.p

I can tell you why most ArmA missions are SF stuff...

Because that is the part where ArmA is actually fun and feels partially realistic !

One friendly group (or maybe 2) and a few more enemys. Going in and kill them all or stay hidden and blow something up, thats what ArmA is all about.

I dont undestand why so many players want "bigger" stuff because thats the part ArmA sucks actually pretty bad.

Just seeing all those AI messing it all up with their unrealistic behaviour is something i cant stand.

A very good mission designer using lots of scripts or mods will maybe be able to get a company vs. company fight done halfway acceptable.

But although such isolated battles can be fun played as a grunt, i cant stand it. It just dont feels right...

For people that only play ArmA it maybe ok, everyone else will get his "large scale" stuff via other games.

I mean, HC plays like C&C if you ask me...tank rush FTW ! :p

[metalcraze 290]

Wiggum have you played CWC?

AI in OFP was much dumber, but missions were better than current SF crap. Even missions that involved actual SF weren't as crappy as Razor Team shit.

[wiggum2 31]

Wiggum have you played CWC?

AI in OFP was much dumber, but missions were better than current SF crap. Even missions that involved actual SF weren't as crappy as Razor Team shit.

I played it, yes (but not the whole campaign).

I dont say that OFP was perfect or even much better, i mean i was not even allowed to play it at the time it came out... :o

At this time i maybe dont cared that much about AI and stuff. But after a few year is the army and with lots of wargame experience i see things a little bit differend.

[NoRailgunner 0]

What about James Gastovski and his "John-Ninja-Uber-Rambo" missions? :cool:

Sorry but some people here are living in the fog of nostalgia and only like to remember the "better" things of OFP. It was a great game for the time (2001) and included some Cold War "feelings" but this time is gone aswell as the Iron Curtain.

With latest news of discovery of large natural gas fields in the Mediterranean Sea one can see the next conflicts between countries and economic + political interests. BIS just need to make the A3 story, characters etc believable and touching. Though, no need to get it overdone or too dramatic or like a Hollywood/US military flick. :)

[Leopardi 0]

What about James Gastovski and his "John-Ninja-Uber-Rambo" missions? :cool:

Sorry but some people here are living in the fog of nostalgia and only like to remember the "better" things of OFP. It was a great game for the time (2001) and included some Cold War "feelings" but this time is gone aswell as the Iron Curtain.

No dude it is not just nostalgia. It's so easy to accuse that everything is just nostalgia. If it was just nostalgia I wouldn't have replayed the game 8 years later.

The problem is not the time setting, it's how ARMA campaigns are made to be just emotionless warfare. "do this and this, only succeeding mission will make you go forward". In OFP everything goes wrong like in real war and you are just a grunt trying to survive, following orders and the story goes forward instead of just another mission after another mission.

[dm 9]

What about James Gastovski and his "John-Ninja-Uber-Rambo" missions?

They make up a small portion of the overall campaign (something like 4 or 5 out of 41 missions), unlike ArmA where you're John-Ninja-Uber-Rambo SF all the freaking time....

[ProfTournesol 956]

I played it, yes (but not the whole campaign).

I dont say that OFP was perfect or even much better, i mean i was not even allowed to play it at the time it came out... :o

At this time i maybe dont cared that much about AI and stuff. But after a few year is the army and with lots of wargame experience i see things a little bit differend.

So maybe you should replay OFP campaigns (CWC and Resistance) 'til the end, with some mods such as Sanctuary's WW4 mod (no scripted AI but a lot of anims / units / config improvements), and on a new system with for example Kegety's dxdll you'll be amazed how it looks and plays.

AI is more straightforward and simple than in ArmA2, but the fun is here.

[Tonci87 163]

The problem is not the time setting, it's how ARMA campaigns are made to be just emotionless warfare. "do this and this, only succeeding mission will make you go forward". In OFP everything goes wrong like in real war and you are just a grunt trying to survive, following orders and the story goes forward instead of just another mission after another mission.

^This

OK, sometimes even in Arma somethingh goes terribly wrong, like the execution of Miles in Harvest Red, or the Mission where you had to make your way to NAPA or CDF Positions (really nice Mission) or even the start of Harvest Red where you play as a CDF Soldier on Utes (Damn that was an EPIC and very promising Intro! I think everybody can agree on that)

War should be confusing, it should be chaos and most of the time thing shouldn´t go as planed. I really hope that BIS can provide that Feeling in Arma 3.

OA was a serious letdown in this aspect. You were literally steamrolling the Takistani Army without encountering any serious resistance. The Tanker Missions were really the biggest joke.

Protecting a Convoy of Bradleys, against what? T34 and a few militias? I think you can send the convoy ahead on its own, it will still work.

And then the Capture the Airfield Mission where BIS just placed a huge pile of Armor on the Airport. You could pick them off one by one, really no challenge....

/rant

I just hope that BIS focuses on the things that made CWC so great: huge diversity of missions, unpredictable story with lots of twists, long campaign, lovable and hatable characters, unpredictable mission design.

[metalcraze 290]

What about James Gastovski and his "John-Ninja-Uber-Rambo" missions? :cool:

Except they weren't "John-Ninja-Uber-Rambo" aka "4 guys win a revolution and liberate a country"/"PMCs fight the conspiracy" at all.

Blow up 3 shilkas. Disable armor. Steal documents. Nothing out of the ordinary.

I bet it's nostalgia - what else?

[NoRailgunner 0]

The story in A2 goes forward too its just a different kind of story around a small SF recon team. I would say if BIS had and put more effort in developing certain characters in A2 through the campaign more players would like it. Of course mission designers would need a bit more time to create more + better missions for such player centric campaigns. The more characters you have to describe/show the more missions you need. Of course the mission scripts/modules should work without any flaws from day of release....

"Time is money" - the producer/publisher said and forced the mission designers to cut the time working on great campaign missions but instead fill the gaps with "awesome cutscenes". Lets see if BIS next "bread and butter" game is only profit-oriented or something more.

[Maio 293]

Ok we can all agree that we have differrent tastes when it comes to mission design... I forsee a long and beautiful "my tastes are better then yours" conversation :)