Questions about SP experience

[Wiki 1558]

hi guys.

I've asked these questions already, in another thread, but didn't have any answer - even not a "dunno".

So, in the SP campaign and/or mission, will the warfare mod be included?

I hope it won't, cause, if it may be a good thing in MP, I DO think it DOES suck in SP experience.

I really didn't enjoy that gamemode in SP.

Any news about it?

About the campaign, don't we have any news about it?

Cause the pitch of the game is strange: if I read it properly, we are going to be a lonewolf on the island, trying to rech friendly lines...

Is there any chance to have a campaign like back in old days, a long campaign, and not always commanding?

Not that I don't like leading a team, but it was much more better to begin as a private, following the orders and then climb in rank, instead of leading a team from mission 2 to the end of the game...

ANy chance to have something like this?

thanks, Wiki

[[frl]myke 14]

Ok, i give this thread another chance. Deleted posts which weren't related to the threads topic.

I strongly advice to re-read the OP and stay on topic. Any further derailment will be "awarded" with infraction points.

[NoRailgunner 0]

How one today (outside from BIS HQ + office) should exactly know what kind of A3 campaign missions are done or in progress? Just hope that BIS are doing their best to make an awesome SP experience that is much different + unique to all those action shooter/movie stories. :)

Solo Campaign - Evolve from hunted prey to military commander in the varied, gameplay-driven, singleplayer campaign

[DeclaredEvol 10]

Not off topic... we're talking about Warfare.

[enforcer4100 10]

hi guys.

So, in the SP campaign and/or mission, will the warfare mod be included?

I hope it won't, cause, if it may be a good thing in MP, I DO think it DOES suck in SP experience.

I really didn't enjoy that gamemode in SP.

well if you don't like than just don't play it :s

why should they remove a gamemode if YOU don't like it and have the ability NOT to play it?

[ProfTournesol 956]

well if you don't like than just don't play it :s

why should they remove a gamemode if YOU don't like it and have the ability NOT to play it?

Meh, he didn't want to remove any gamemode, he just want warfare not being included it in the campaign. And i wholeheartedly agree with this.

[Wiki 1558]

@ProfTournesol

thanks to agree with me

@enforcer4100

as said, it's just in the SP missions and/or the campaign.

I really didn't like it nor think it was valuable for the SP gameplay/experience - and if not mistaken, a lot of people didn't like the warfare mode to be included as solo missions - or in the campaign for 3 major missions...

so, I just hope this gamemode WON'T BE in SP missions/campaign - and I'd like someone from BIS to confirm it won't... or at least, give us informations about it...

[jakerod 254]

I wouldn't mind some SP missions with it but I don't want it to be in the campaign. Although I didn't think it was as terrible as everyone else did in HR.

[froggyluv 2136]

. Although I didn't think it was as terrible as everyone else did in HR.

Just playing the Warfare based part of HR now (ASR/Suppression/LOS/Blastcore) and I'm enjoying it very much. Then again, I like High Command missions tho I must admit being told I'ma get 25 bucks everytime I kill an enemy is kinda strange... What am I a welfare case Commando?!

It should have been tailored for the context of the mission at hand rather then generic Warfare.

Edited June 27, 2012 by froggyluv

[jakerod 254]

...I must admit being told I'm get 25 bucks everytime I kill an enemy is kinda strange... What am I a welfare case Commando?!

It should have been tailored for the context of the mission at hand rather then generic Warfare.

Yeah I think that would've been better. It would be nice if they improved warfare to be a bit more realistic. They should move away from the base building / money routine and just try to make it so you have a limited amount of units. Then I really wouldn't mind it in the campaign. But just doing regular missions would be fine with me. I really enjoyed BAF and that had no warfare in the campaign so if they can pull off a longer version of BAF I would be happy. Although at the same time, I do agree with the OP. It would be nice to not always be in command but to be part of the squad and play different roles. Essentially I really think that each campaign since CWC had it's good elements.

CWC had the interesting story, length, characters, and multiple roles.

Resistance had the manage your equipment and men aspect.

Armed Assault had those support missions which I liked the concept of. I think that you should play as an actual character though not just some random soldier.

HR had the cool political elements behind it.

EW had a good story.

OA had the different roles and the choice aspect.

BAF had the open world roleplaying and squad management.

PMC had the interesting story with a couple of good moral choice moments (so did HR).

Each had their negatives though.

CWC being unrealistic (but more realistic than anything else we had at the time)

Resistance was unrealistic after the third mission.

Armed Assault had the lack of characters, felt rushed, and missed a huge plot twist opportunity that would've been amazing.

HR had the if a team member dies you lose aspect and the Warfare (which a lot of people don't like but as I said I didn't mind too much)

EW was short but really had no design flaws.

OA was short and felt like you were just rolling over the enemy.

BAF was short and one of the missions was quite odd.

PMC I wasn't a fan of the overall gameplay especially since one of the terrains didn't run well on my system. It did have some cool missions though too.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Jakerod

[ProfTournesol 956]

Then again, I like High Command missions tho I must admit being told I'ma get 25 bucks everytime I kill an enemy is kinda strange... What am I a welfare case Commando?!

It should have been tailored for the context of the mission at hand rather then generic Warfare.

That made my day :)

Yes, warfare per se is enjoyable, but in the SP campaign it simply breaks immersion too much for me.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I never enjoyed "warfare" as a gamemode. Not in SP, MP, or any of its MP offsprings. At the same time, it brought a hell of a lot of ambiance to the last mission, where the name of the game was still warfare, but we had specific objectives enroute to complete - it was up to us if we wanted to "play warfare" or not, even if one of the objectives pretty much required the use of heavy equipment. The mode populated the map with (semi) relevant action, enabling us a huge area of operations, with enough dynamics to keep replayability interesting. As good as the character development in old OFP was, I don't consider each mission all that great (compared to todays possibilities). So, I'm not a fan of it as a mode, but it does provide a lot to the game and campaign. My major issues are that of money (wtf?) and being forced to lead. I haven't seen much "warfare" like approaches where I'm just part of the team, playing it out on a major battlefield with tons going on around me where the game still keeps an eye out on what happens to the player and the rest of his team.

Given the dynamic approach to Arma3's campaign, I'm kinda expecting to see more of this, but I also hope it will take a different approach to it.

[katipo66 94]

SP Warfare would be awesome if they just provided the capturing mechanic... And the option to layout custom bases, I.e. One side gets barracks and light only, another side has barracks only and also the ability to specify how many units a building can provide.

I think I read somewhere (e3 interview?) that the campaign will again jus be a showcase for game features? Hopefully they"ll invest in some voice actors this time.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Katipo66

[-Paladin- 10]

I think the Arma 3 campaign will be a mix of Manhattan mission and DayZ game play.

So you have the mission to do what every you have to do on limnos.

Manhattan mission style is getting tasks done like get ammo for resistance gather Intel intercept a enemy officer or patrol at a certain time and date and maybe even a "you have to chose kill the officer or free resistance fighters but you cant do both mission´s" and the effect shown latter of you decision.

From DayZ you have survive aspect sneak around gather ammo and food medicine. reckon the area and familiarize with the area.

I even think that DayZ mod is a secret Test to look how the spawn system for enemy's work or will work. You know arma 3 will not waste recurses on rendering million of units(that you cant see or will never see) at one time but spawn them in place when the player gets close. Oh and maybe a even a test for the new medical stuff.

So that s what I think arma 3 campaign will be. A Mix of RPG(interaction with NPC´s getting equipment) and Stealth shooter (you are alone and a whole army against you).

Like a Metal Gear Arma: Limnos Eater.

[katipo66 94]

Well they did mention procedural gameplay, interesting to see how that plays out... Hopefully we'll be pleasantly surprised :)

[metalcraze 290]

Meh, he didn't want to remove any gamemode, he just want warfare not being included it in the campaign. And i wholeheartedly agree with this.

Exactly.

I think the Arma 3 campaign will be a mix of Manhattan mission and DayZ game play.

I seriously hope not. The other big problem with Harvest Red was that you had to waste a hour moving around on foot not shooting anyone only to deliver something. That was Boredom Incarnate.

Manhattan was awfully boring.

[giallustio 770]

I agree with you Wiki...The last missions of HR were so boring for me...

[-Paladin- 10]

I seriously hope not. The other big problem with Harvest Red was that you had to waste a hour moving around on foot not shooting anyone only to deliver something. That was Boredom Incarnate.

Manhattan was awfully boring.

For me both are total FUN. The walking searching, hiding, talking this is Special forces work.Not knowing if you get ambush. Ruining around and shooting every thing that moves is total boredom Incarnate for me, every game has this booooooooorring. Some ppl like blue others like red.

[froggyluv 2136]

For me both are total FUN. The walking searching, hiding, talking this is Special forces work.Not knowing if you get ambush. Ruining around and shooting every thing that moves is total boredom Incarnate for me, every game has this booooooooorring. Some ppl like blue others like red.

Couldn't agree more. So many times when I get caught in a "Oh, this is a traveling mission"..when I get caught with my pants down and get ambushed. So many games out there just put you right in combat and keep you there till mission end -that is the opposite of thrilling, build up or suspense for me.

If DayZ players can get jived all the while not encountering combat for hours.....

[NeMeSiS 11]

Exactly.

I seriously hope not. The other big problem with Harvest Red was that you had to waste a hour moving around on foot not shooting anyone only to deliver something. That was Boredom Incarnate.

Manhattan was awfully boring.

You could just take the chopper or a vehicle. I even let the AI drive me around while i reread my objectives/notes/conversations if i couldnt be bothered to pay attention the first time i was told something. Why would you move around of foot? :p

[osram 1]

I dont care about SP. Better make it safer against Cheating and concentrate on MP....

[Steakslim 1]

Now now, we have people who only play sp and never touch mp, lets not get greedy.

[giallustio 770]

I play only MP but the BIS campaign is a "must-play" :)

[metalcraze 290]

You could just take the chopper or a vehicle. I even let the AI drive me around while i reread my objectives/notes/conversations if i couldnt be bothered to pay attention the first time i was told something. Why would you move around of foot? :p

Because not every destination in missions can be reached via a road. Some quests involve you looking for something too. Often in forests.

The main problem however was that in missions pre-warfare the area of operations was big but there was almost nothing to do and you encounter like 5 enemies per hour at best (once I didn't encounter any enemy for like 2 hours)

Tactical planning was also out of a question since you had to deal with enemy encounters immediately, instead of planning the approach to whatever objective (or defending whatever). This also often made Sykes the most useless char in the group since all encounters were under 200m.

And of course when warfare came whatever tactics there could've been went out of a window.

If BIS wants to make ArmA3 campaign interesting they should adapt limited assets gameplay from Resistance/BAF with the variety and number (to fill the huge map with "action" better) of missions from CWC, which btw were a showcase of what the game offered. And if it was enough for 40 missions back then - imagine how many missions we can have in a campaign now with all the new features added in 10 years time.

Edited June 29, 2012 by metalcraze

[ProfTournesol 956]

I dont care about SP. Better make it safer against Cheating and concentrate on MP....

So why bother posting here ?