Singleplayer with epic plot

[maddogx 13]

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 :)

Well, there seems to be a general agreement in this forum that Resistance was the best BI campaign ever, at least I haven't heard anything to the contrary.

If they can recreate the atmosphere and gameplay from that campaign, I think we'd have a winner.

[Tonci87 163]

Well, there seems to be a general agreement in this forum that Resistance was the best BI campaign ever, at least I haven't heard anything to the contrary.

If they can recreate the atmosphere and gameplay from that campaign, I think we'd have a winner.

I agree

[dm 9]

Well, there seems to be a general agreement in this forum that Resistance was the best BI campaign ever, at least I haven't heard anything to the contrary.

If they can recreate the atmosphere and gameplay from that campaign, I think we'd have a winner.

I agree

As do I

[Leopardi 0]

I agree

As do I

I thought it was good, but concentrated too much on leading.

[coder4crack 10]

...Looks like BI just dont cares that much about fun, atmosphere and immersion in their campaigns. They just use them as showcase for the features and modules. They try to hard to concentrate on the "simualtor" part and fail...

And this is why I am worried.

I seems that BIS is just lookign to show off more of their talent with this underwater thingy, rather than make a solid single player campaign with dependable AI

[jakerod 254]

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....

What about the following:

• Your Apache getting shot down and having to rescue the pilot (yourself) in the next mission.
• Hostages being executed.
• Su-25s bombing the village and campaign still continues but with consequences.
• Col. Aziz escaping and the campaign continues.
  

I don't know how people didn't feel like Harvest Red (especially Manhattan and Razor Two) weren't immersive. I kept getting ambushed in places there that weren't scripted. There were enemy patrols and friendly patrols that I kept running into all over the place. I don't like the Rambo SF aspect but to do a realistic attack you're supposed to have 3 to 1 odds which means 40 AI on your team and 10-15 on theirs. Not to mention the fact that there would be a UAV overhead, satellite imagery, air strikes, and artillery at your disposal assuming that the enemy wasn't smart enough to just surrender.

That is why I want ArmA to go back to sometime between WW2 and the end of the Cold War. There wasn't all that high tech crap to help you. You might still need 3 to 1 odds to do a realistic attack but you at least don't have the UAVs and scopes for every guy on your team.

EDIT: I do think that Resistance was probably the best. Unrealistic at times but it had some really fun levels in it.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Jakerod

[Tonci87 163]

I thought it was good, but concentrated too much on leading.

I don't think it is bad to lead AI. It can be a pretty challenging task to keep them alive.

[Leopardi 0]

I don't think it is bad to lead AI. It can be a pretty challenging task to keep them alive.

I think its better when you just are in there in the war, follow orders as a normal soldier and try to survive.

[jakerod 254]

I think its better when you just are in there in the war, follow orders as a normal soldier and try to survive.

I vote for best of both worlds. You're a corporal or sergeant and so if the guys above you get killed you take command but if they don't you get to follow.

[metalcraze 290]

I think its better when you just are in there in the war, follow orders as a normal soldier and try to survive.

No it's better when you have everything. Leading is good since you can apply various tactics to your heart's content.

And Resistance was quickly broken when you got your hands on your first SVD. You could rambo half of missions all alone.

[NoRailgunner 0]

C'mon leading a small team or group with less than 10 or 12 teammembers isn't that awful hard. It will become a bit stressing with 24 or more plus logistics... guess BIS will reduce the leading down to 4 or 6 AI units. Something that will fit into the progress of players + campaign/story.

I don't think that OPFOR on Limnos will be sleepy/daydreaming and simple-minded bots. Cross fingers that BIS mission designers will make a great campaign where the player needs to think about his action/decisions and not only which gun he should use. Perhaps one or two missions with no need to shoot at all? :)

[Sergeantshizzle 10]

Not sure if it's been mentioned, kinda skim-read over the posts.

By the sounds of it, the campaign of A3 will be very much in line with Operation Flashpoint: Resistance, which is a good thing, it was probably the best campaign that came out of OpFlash.

You can count on this being a pretty deep story this time around, Bohemia have mentioned in multiple times in feature-lists and in interviews. Another good thing is that the plot will likely tie in with the gameplay, the concept of Miller seeking out the aid of the locals could mean we see Miller recruiting civilians from towns and arming, which sounds awesome to me.

Fear not, your' campaign is in good hands.

[Baff1 0]

The singleplayer in ARMA has always been boring, because it's just trying to simulate war and that's basically it. CWC was completely different, why go for this imaginationless approach? I'm playing MP for simulating war, and SP for the atmosphere and plot-twisted story. And please, none of that unit commanding. Leave that for MP or some single missions. I just want to be a grunt surviving in an epic story and enjoy it without thinking like mad.

Pretty much I agree with this.

I strongly dislike stroylines that serve only to show off engine features and unit commanding is more often an exercise in tedium over fun.

[Daniel 0]

I'm also an advocate for the "just tag along and hope for the best" experience. Much more immersive and believable than playing the role of a leader at any level. Even when playing in multiplayer squads, LCpl / Fireteam Leader was my favourite role; any higher up the chain and you tend to spend more time on the comms and looking at maps than you do actually getting stuck in.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Daniel

[Variable 322]

Let me support that. BIS campaigns have failed miserably since OFP (that did include lots of leading, just so to remind you guys).

BIS, if you can recruit the mission designers of CWC you should do that, and if not, give the new guys two weeks to research CWC and Resistance campaigns and it's features and instruct them to recreate the immersion, complexity and interest that these campaigns encompass.

[bonchie 39]

I think CWC/Resistance were the best by far as overall campaigns, but Harvest Red was decently well done until the story fell apart with the Warfare missions.

To me, Manhattan was the single most immersive and impressive mission BIS has ever made.

Having briefings back at base then having to pick your insertion points, telling the chopper where to drop you off (having to plan it out based on terrain, etc.), doing the deed, and then escaping for a quick extraction by chopper (sometimes under fire) was amazing. Then when you get back to base it's not just over.

The part where you had to fly out to a small town and raid a house for documents was really cool. Putting the chopper down in the field, approaching the house, then getting ambushed, fighting your way forward toward the woods. It was just all really cool and best of all you used fairly realistic tactics doing it.

I also remember being on foot one time in that mission doing one of the mission goals, being nowhere near the objective, and a random patrol of 12 guys ambushed us.

That's the kind of stuff that is immersive.

Somehow they managed to mix enough scripted events in it to keep the story going as well. If they made a campaign of 15 missions of that scale it would be a winner.

CWC was great but what they did with Manhatten should of been the gold standard going forward for them in mission building.

Instead with OA they went the opposite direction. A bunch of small scale scripted missions in a short emotionless campaign. I never understood that decision.

Since Arma 3 with be more sandbox in it's campaign style I'm guessing we'll see what we saw in Manhattan with multiple objectives, control over transportation resources, and you picking how to approach things. Mixed with a good story that's perfectly fine with me.

Edited October 20, 2011 by bonchie

[Tonci87 163]

I think CWC/Resistance were the best by far as overall campaigns, but Harvest Red was decently well done until the story fell apart with the Warfare missions.

To me, Manhattan was the single most immersive and impressive mission BIS has ever made.

Having briefings back at base then having to pick your insertion points, telling the chopper where to drop you off (having to plan it out based on terrain, etc.), doing the deed, and then escaping for a quick extraction by chopper (sometimes under fire) was amazing. Then when you get back to base it's not just over.

The part where you had to fly out to a small town and raid a house for documents was really cool. Putting the chopper down in the field, approaching the house, then getting ambushed, fighting your way forward toward the woods. It was just all really cool and best of all you used fairly realistic tactics doing it.

I also remember being on foot one time in that mission doing one of the mission goals, being nowhere near the objective, and a random patrol of 12 guys ambushed us.

That's the kind of stuff that is immersive.

Somehow they managed to mix enough scripted events in it to keep the story going as well. If they made a campaign of 15 missions of that scale it would be a winner.

CWC was great but what they did with Manhatten should of been the gold standard going forward for them in mission building.

Instead with OA they went the opposite direction. A bunch of small scale scripted missions in a short emotionless campaign. I never understood that decision.

Since Arma 3 with be more sandbox in it's campaign style I'm guessing we'll see what we saw in Manhattan with multiple objectives, control over transportation resources, and you picking how to approach things. Mixed with a good story that's perfectly fine with me.

This

Manhattan was a great Mission. Its really good without all those bugs from 1.0.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Well thats just the problem (for me at least). You're always an effing SF squad leader, tasked to go there and do all the things (think "Ramirez <insert task here>!11!!1!!" or similar from all the CoDs and BFs and whatever), rather than being some reasonably insignificant cog in the military machine.

I miss the sense of scale and feeling of being part of something bigger that you got in CWC. You just dont get that in ArmA, you're always the badass leading the charge, not the grunt watching the tanks and apcs roll on past your slow/lost ass...

I disagree. Although I would have liked more missions not leading, you started out as a part of the team where you didn't lead at all. Two missions like this, and one transitional one where you lead team because leader was doing something else (getting killed).

And personally I prefer being consistent SF dude, than switching roles. When you wanted to do something on the side, you could do so in warfare missions, like lead more men or use expensive equipment or even take role as commander - very many choices.

As for being part of a bigger picture, both the warfare missions and some of the normal mission portrayed that very well to me. Although based on randomness rather than great battles, my machine could sorta cope with it. And in the warfare missions there were things going on all over the place, if you chose not to "play warfare" and just focus on the main tasks at hand.

Arma1 had the grunt feel. Arma2 had the SF feel. OA had the mixed feel. I prefer Arma2's SF feel not because it was SF, but because it had some role playing elements to it, that tend to really immerse me. Freedom in what you chose to do in missions, and how you approached them, using "same character" approach. Vs way smaller fixed missions (think of Manhattan being broke down to several missions, following the CWC standard), with lack of approach possibilities, using "multiple character" approach. The latter is an immediate "this is a video game" reminder to me.

Can't speak for CoD or BF, I don't play those anymore, they're completely on tracks and thus unplayable.

[maddogx 13]

I would like to see a variation of the Resistance gameplay, except that the player can basically choose whether or not he wants to lead. Applying this idea to Arma3, it could be something like this:

- Player lands on Limnos alone, there are a few lone wolf style missions as an intro.

- Player stumbles upon the local resistance, offers to help them out.

- There are a few missions where the player is part of a squad performing various tasks.

- If the player performs well enough, he is offered the chance to lead a squad. On the other hand, if the player isn't offered such a position, he could demand it. (All using the conversation system in special "in-between" mission scenes at the resistance camp.)

- Depending on this decision, the player may be either squaddie or squad leader in the following missions.

- The decision to take the squad leader position or drop it again could be made at several intervals, or even between every mission.

These in-between missions could also be used as a way to progress character development, since the player can walk around camp and talk to the other resistance members. If the player takes a squad leader position, he would also be included in planning discussions with the other resistance leaders, allowing him to influence in certain (scripted) decisions that have an effect on the following mission.

Taking the idea even further, it could even be made possible to take leadership of the whole resistance, perhaps opening up a separate campaign branch that uses a form of Warfare, for those players who like such things. ;)

[ProfTournesol 956]

CWC was great but what they did with Manhatten should of been the gold standard going forward for them in mission building.

Instead with OA they went the opposite direction. A bunch of small scale scripted missions in a short emotionless campaign. I never understood that decision.

Well, OA took the opposite direction because Manhattan was a very complained mission with all its bugs. It was too complex to be part of a campaign, and i really hope it won't be the gold standard of anything...even if the good part of it (randomness and freedom) can be used on a smaller scale, as it always should.

IMO a good campaign mission shall not last more than one/two hours of playing, and the campaign must be a mix of :

• small and simple missions (transport / recon / patrol etc...)
  
• with more complex ones, based on the freedom principle : you must achieve this goal, find the best way to do it. But one main goal by mission is enough, even if secondary ones may be possible.
  

But what's really immersive is when other things happen, which you're not part of, like the WICT addon. You must achieve this goal, but during your trip other (more or less random) things will happen, which can benefit or spoil your main mission. The war goes on with or without you, but you've got a role to play.

[metalcraze 290]

With open world you can't have good focused missions. The best you can have is killing random patrols and attacking pre-placed enemy bases which is boring and exactly why Manhattan was bad. Another reason being that you could spend 2 hours without firing a single shot there.

The only OK missions about Harvest Red were the ones that were linear (2 at the start and a convoy ambush in the middle) because they weren't about crappy fragging of random AIs.

CWC was awesome because every mission was focused on you doing unique things and the whole mission was built around just that. And the lack of these missions is why AA3 campaign may suck really really hard.

In CWC driving in a tank column you had enemy attacks and counter-attacks while supporting mech. infantry which were put there before the mission but you still had a large degree of freedom for tactics. In AA3 it will most likely be you driving the tank in the country side - oh a random enemy patrol - then another 20 mins of driving over an empty land. Pfft.

Edited October 21, 2011 by metalcraze

[bonchie 39]

I guess we'll have to disagree. I much prefer'd manhattan's style of freedom of ingress/egress mixed with several linear objectives sown together by cutscenes and story elements. Once the bugs were worked out it flowed brilliantly.

I never found it boring and I liked the continued living world feel you got vs. a linear mission where you start in the chopper, land 10 seconds later, fight a 10 minute battle, and head to an extraction point. You get on the chopper and 10 seconds later the screen goes black. It kills it for me. Even in CWC you'd often have complete flights to and from the objective. Those were immersive elements that set it all up.

The tension of the flight home or march back to base was part of the fun for me. Having to re-supply, plan attacks, recon the area, etc. was all fun for me. Not knowing who'd attack you when was immersive.

Certainly more fun then the short simple missions in OA.

CWC wasn't great because it's missions were brilliantly designed. Some of them were pretty crap. It was the story, cutscenes, and atmosphere that made it the complete experience it was. That and of course some good missions as well.

Maybe I'm of a different breed but I enjoy those moments when your not engaged that make you feel like you are part of a bigger world. In CWC there were several missions of this variety that were used to create tension and used as "player controlled" cutscenes with story elements revealed in the process. The one where you drive the truck with your CO to pick up supplies from the light house for example. Or the one where you go on a patrol and all you encounter is four guys the entire time.

Manhattan did the same thing but it was just more fluid. It was basically like five missions in one continual experience with an open world freedom mixed in. There's really not that much difference between it and several linear missions when it comes to gameplay. You just happen to get to choose when and where you engage and the screen doesn't go black to a debrief after each objective is accomplished.

Some things could certainly be done better. Bugs could be worked out. Perhaps a more focused approach in some areas. But overall the template was good IMO.

---------- Post added at 09:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 AM ----------

With open world you can't have good focused missions. The best you can have is killing random patrols and attacking pre-placed enemy bases which is boring and exactly why Manhattan was bad. Another reason being that you could spend 2 hours without firing a single shot there.

The only OK missions about Harvest Red were the ones that were linear (2 at the start and a convoy ambush in the middle) because they weren't about crappy fragging of random AIs.

CWC was awesome because every mission was focused on you doing unique things and the whole mission was built around just that. And the lack of these missions is why AA3 campaign may suck really really hard.

In CWC driving in a tank column you had enemy attacks and counter-attacks while supporting mech. infantry which were put there before the mission but you still had a large degree of freedom for tactics. In AA3 it will most likely be you driving the tank in the country side - oh a random enemy patrol - then another 20 mins of driving over an empty land. Pfft.

I'm not really seeing your complaint. It's the same AI regardless of whether it's random or not. And nothing was truly random in Manhattan either. Those patrols were pre-placed on a set path.

There are already enough shooters that are action, action, action. I prefer a more complete experience and that includes times where you aren't engaged being simulated as well.

When you don't have that you lose the feel of actually being there because war isn't all non-stop fighting. CWC accomplished this by having specific missions where almost no fighting went on flanking the action packed missions. Manhattan does much the same thing. It just does it in an open world environment where the missions don't end after each segment.

Edited October 21, 2011 by bonchie

[CarlGustaffa 4]

With open world you can't have good focused missions. The best you can have is killing random patrols and attacking pre-placed enemy bases which is boring and exactly why Manhattan was bad. Another reason being that you could spend 2 hours without firing a single shot there.

If I want constant action I can get that from other games. Military life, which to me is important in a realism oriented game, isn't about constant combat. Pre-placed enemy bases a bad thing? And then complain about random fights? Randomness is what keeps the mission interesting to replay.

The only OK missions about Harvest Red were the ones that were linear (2 at the start and a convoy ambush in the middle) because they weren't about crappy fragging of random AIs.

Convoy ambush? Guess I missed that (from memory) somehow. I prefer a little bit of everything, rather than the same deal over and over again. I also enjoy the freedom in Manhattan where I can choose at my own leisure how to solve a bunch of objectives rather than play through them linearly. "Crappy fragging of random AIs"? Wtf? :p For me it wasn't even random enough other than in Warfare missions where I chose not to "Warfare" as much.

CWC was awesome because every mission was focused on you doing unique things and the whole mission was built around just that. And the lack of these missions is why AA3 campaign may suck really really hard.

Sounds to me it's just nostalgia talking here. The CWC missions wasn't all that great at all. It was the concept of a free game and the whole atmosphere that made it feel great - not mission design. It was good at the time, but would fail today (for me).

In CWC driving in a tank column you had enemy attacks and counter-attacks while supporting mech. infantry which were put there before the mission but you still had a large degree of freedom for tactics.

So on next playthrough you adopt your tactics to suit existing knowledge about the mission. Where is the surprise in that?

In AA3 it will most likely be you driving the tank in the country side - oh a random enemy patrol - then another 20 mins of driving over an empty land. Pfft.

Sounds pretty realistic to me. Not being attacked doesn't mean they're not there, assessing the situation. I'm sorry, but go play CoD2 or something if you want constant action with sense of action being on the realistic side. Modern warfare isn't at all about how I think you perceive it to be. It's hectic and chaotic when it needs to be, and slowed down and "boring" in other situations. That's realistic.

Personally I loved how Harvest Red managed to include "unconventional warfare" as a limited part of the campaign - something that few others have tried. I'm talking about "teaching others", provide leadership, observing and intelligence gathering - rather than the endless "sneak kill" missions we see in other titles. They don't let us do everything a typical FR team can do, but some of these I have a hard time conceptualizing a mission for. I would love even more of this role playing element, hell I'd even support character skill buildup and development.

Guess I can't have it all - a fantasy based RPG heavily oriented on realism :p I'm sure Skyrim will be pretty good, I just wish I could play it with sense of realism and maybe on Limnos for being a more realistic place :D

[Maio 293]

What Carl said ^^

[Tonci87 163]

What Carl said ^^

me too. :)