Single Player Campaign/ Purpose and Expectations

[PlacidPaul 11]

I haven't allowed myself to get really hyped about ArmA3 yet. So i haven't read much yet. But i know the campaign is single player, and this is disappointing. But, I very much understand why, and actually think its a good move. But, that's not what should be discussed here.

I'm interested in what long time OFP/ArmA players expect out of the single player campaign. Being that it is not COOP, it should be no holds barred! This is why it's a smart move by BIS. I'm not even sure if anyone gives their campaigns much attention, except (CWC) which was single player.

Should the campaign have a ulterior purpose, besides bringing a immersive dynamic story? I definitely believe the campaign should have a purpose, showcasing the mission editor. That goes without saying right? Every mission should have this goal. SinglePlayer missions should be missions that anyone can make in the editor. This should be the first look at highlighting every cool thing we can do in the editor.

One possible purpose could be to focus on, attract, and cater the new players. This is often done by leading the player, by spoon feeding game mechanics and responsibility. :j: Although even veteran players will need some mechanic adjustment, how many missions will be wasted on this? I really prefer games that throw you in the fire, theses games are nearly dead. But, I find them much more replayable. I believe the majority of armaholics could gag at these "throw away missions", lose interest and put the campaign away. It really depends on how much handholding happens over how many missions. I hope this is kept at a minimum.

Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see what they do. As it seems something they are actively trying to improve upon the past.

My expectations are like i said no holds barred, particularly with the purpose of showing the players how awesome the game can be with the use of the Mission Editor.

Edited January 12, 2013 by PlacidPaul

[Tonci87 163]

It should have many missions so that the player has enough time to dive into the storyline. And it should have a good story+good characters.

[THEBLITZ6794 10]

I think they should be /influenced/ from the cwc campaign. The engine is geared towards large battles at medium-long range. I think this is a reason arma 2's campaign didnt work so well. Great campaign though imo, it just didnt feel right.

CWC held your hand the first level, but the 2nd level turned into a run for your life scenario. The 3rd and 4th and 5th were easy (if I remember the order correctly) while after montingnac was another nightmare. Sure the game got harder, but not in a strict linear sense but more of an average one, as in the last 3rd collectively was harder than the first 3rd, which served well to mix things up.

Many of the missions should be ones only experts can make in the editor I might add. We ARE paying for them after all. Without the missions, surely the game could be a lot cheaper.

In any case, I hope its "no holds bar" that focuses on large battles and patrol actions, with a small side of stealth, ala ofp

[NoRailgunner 0]

If nothing has changed just (re-) read the official A3 introduction/storyline:

Survive, Adapt, Win. A small group of Special Forces and Researchers are sent to a Mediterranean island deep behind enemy lines. However, the mission is compromised and the task force destroyed, leaving Cpt. Scott Miller washed ashore upon the hostile island. In his effort to carry out the mission, he will face the dangers of modern warfare, an unforgiving environment, and the consequences of his own decisions... ... Single-Player Campaign - evolve from a lone prey into a military commander in the open-ended & story-driven campaign.

[SaOk 112]

I would hope to see good story and dense atmosphere. Different moods from desperation to more relax moments. Large scale action, patrolling, sneaking, surviving... Less showcaseing, more orginal creative stuff that would suprise player. Proper challenges, not just walking in park (e.g. having mega batallion of hitect stealth tanks shooting farmers around the map).

[metalcraze 290]

Yep OA was a showcase of the editor basically and it was kinda... meh?

This sounds more BAF/Resistance like and I hope it will be a long campaign. CWC was amazing. 40 missions and yet you just kept going and going.

[Wiki 1558]

What I'd like to have is something similar to CWC campaign and SP missions, something long with the same spirit.

Being a grunt for half the campaign, then climb in rank.

Also, play different kind of people, like in CWC or OA.

And please, no more warfare in SP nor sandbox style missions ( like Manhattan...)

[THEBLITZ6794 10]

Yep OA was a showcase of the editor basically and it was kinda... meh?

This sounds more BAF/Resistance like and I hope it will be a long campaign. CWC was amazing. 40 missions and yet you just kept going and going.

eh it was too short was the problem. cwc was 40 missions or so

[PuFu 4600]

Yep OA was a showcase of the editor basically and it was kinda... meh?

This sounds more BAF/Resistance like and I hope it will be a long campaign. CWC was amazing. 40 missions and yet you just kept going and going.

With the exception that units that are in the same squad are aware of their mates life/death status no matter how far appart are from each other, and no matter if there is a direct line of sight between them. From my own experience with OFP/A1/A2/OA, OFP allowed a better use of stealth than any of the arma franchise products

[paecmaker 23]

I want a dispersed and a dynamic campaign. This is just wishfull thinking but I want the campaign to differ dependable on how good you did in the last mission. I knew there was something like that in Arma 2 to a certain degree but I want more changes(both bigger and smaller changes) in gameplay as well as in the story. Also make it so you can loose more off you soldiers because in Arma 2 you couldnt loose a single soldier except in the last missions.

If warfare will be used in Arma 3 campaing please make it optional, the warfare missions were probably the worst in Arma 2(IMO)

[iceman77 18]

The campaign should be on par with OFP campaigns. I don't care how they do it. Just make it good!

[metalcraze 290]

With the exception that units that are in the same squad are aware of their mates life/death status no matter how far appart are from each other, and no matter if there is a direct line of sight between them. From my own experience with OFP/A1/A2/OA, OFP allowed a better use of stealth than any of the arma franchise products

It's pretty logical and realistic that AIs check on their squadmates.

When playing online we are constantly chatting and any commander is in contact with his subordinates. So it only makes sense for AI to do "X report status" *silence* "well clearly he's down" after ~10-20 secs of him getting shot. Although sometimes it can take up to a minute.

Lone men patrolling a Very Important Object isn't really plausible.

[NeMeSiS 11]

It's pretty logical and realistic that AIs check on their squadmates.

When playing online we are constantly chatting and any commander is in contact with his subordinates. So it only makes sense for AI to do "X report status" *silence* "well clearly he's down" after ~10-20 secs of him getting shot. Although sometimes it can take up to a minute.

Lone men patrolling a Very Important Object isn't really plausible.

His point is that a group does not care if someone else from a different group right next to them suddenly dies. It would be better if all nearby units went into combat mode, not just the 1 group the dead soldier was a part of. While

Though that was also the case in OFP. I think that the reason stealth worked better in OFP was because they messed up the visibility/sensitivity config values since ArmA1, and havent really gotten it right since.

Edited January 14, 2013 by NeMeSiS
No it probably wasnt, oh well

[PuFu 4600]

It's pretty logical and realistic that AIs check on their squadmates.

When playing online we are constantly chatting and any commander is in contact with his subordinates. So it only makes sense for AI to do "X report status" *silence* "well clearly he's down" after ~10-20 secs of him getting shot. Although sometimes it can take up to a minute.

Lone men patrolling a Very Important Object isn't really plausible.

There is a difference between a group of players chatting constantly (sometimes over the normal military protocol i have found), especially when they are preparing to engage, or prepare an attack or operation, and a group of bored to death soldiers, guarding or patrolling around an objective (important or not).

Have you actually spend a real night of your life guarding something like the base you were doing your mandatory(if the case) basic military training?

[metalcraze 290]

Such patrolman wouldn't be a part of a squad where soldiers also abide by formation and engagement rules now would he? When there is a 3 men squad patrolling it would be strange if their buddy just disappeared and only 2 remained.

Nonetheless it's easily possible to make lone patrolmen in ArmA just like you suggest and with their buddies not reacting to you popping whole base of them one by one. So I don't see a problem.

[chortles 263]

One possible purpose could be to focus on, attract, and cater the new players. This is often done by leading the player, by spoon feeding game mechanics and responsibility. :j: Although even veteran players will need some mechanic adjustment, how many missions will be wasted on this? I really prefer games that throw you in the fire, theses games are nearly dead. But, I find them much more replayable. I believe the majority of armaholics could gag at these "throw away missions", lose interest and put the campaign away. It really depends on how much handholding happens over how many missions. I hope this is kept at a minimum.

I have two ideas for this:

#1: Give a pop-up option upon beginning a campaign about whether or not the player needs to learn the controls, with an affirmative answer loading up a tutorial mission (could be a Boot Camp mission)

#2: Just make like other shooters and say "the hell with your immersion," and display new controls onscreen during the course of a mission, just like the E3 demonstrations had when the diving showcase diver enters the SDV, and construct missions accordingly so that these (as opposed to the "Hint System" pop-ups which simply act as context-sensitive shortcuts to the Field Manual) appear only during missions where a certain gameplay element would be encountered for the first time in the campaign's basic narrative.

[wipman 1]

Hi, IMO the SP campaign will be to show the player all the stuff in the game, tanks, units, aircraft and weapons; what are my spectations?, my spectations are more of the same... Spec-Ops vs. The World.

IMO they should divide the campaign into mini-campaigns, the main and longer one should be like 20 missions as grunt, and then have other ones divided in:

- Special Forces (17 missions, 5 before the deployment begins).

- HMMWV Driver/Gunner (12 missions).

- APC/IFV Driver/Gunner/Commander (15 missions).

- MBT Driver/Gunner/Commander (12 missions).

- UH Pilot/Gunner (17 missions).

- AH Pilot/Gunner (15 missions).

- Plane Pilot (12 missions).

To make the SP campaign an epic experience that everyone talks about, players and magazines; turning the game into something that everyone wants to try, as the dope. Let's C ya

[Smurf 12]

With that many missions, I'm not even sure if I would bother to end the game. :j:

___________

What I want?

• 
  
• A stealth mission that goes FUBAR and then turn into explosions and war everywhere.
  
• A "fire from the back of a truck" section.
  
• Lasing targets or some AC-130 action.
  
• A "wait for reinforcements" section, with ever stronger enemies.
  
• Explosive red barrels.
  
• Hot nuns.
  
• A mission where you have to invade an enemy base disguised.
  
• A (some actually) slow-mo breach'n'clear action.
  
• A twist in the plot, with treason and something nuclear. Maybe aliens.
  
• Giving\receive a boost from a companion.
  
• Barely save the same companion from falling, the "Hold my hand!" stuff.
  
• A mission where you walk up a hill and see the sun rising and some beach stuff.
  
• I don't think I neeed to even mention a horse riding section, right? That's a standard for some years now.
  
• A mission where you start just a grunt and end saving the world. Alone.
  
• Paragliding.
  

That is it for now. Maybe I'll remember more original stuff later.

[inlesco 233]

For me, a well-made campaign has to contain eventful storyline with (il)logical twists and well-described characters that player would be able to live in them, breath, wage war around, etc. Instead of some cool-Hollywood-style-SF-bad-ass-hostile terminators of Chernarus who can regain independence almost alone.

Also, a campaign must deliver a [number of] message. Whether it's something simple or philosophical, depends on the developers (IMO, OFP Resistance campaign's idea at the end was that the biggest hero is the one who sacrifices his life for the well-being and bright future of others, overlooking his personal needs. That is, Victor Troska (on the other hand, CWC was more of a showcase. But a quality one)).

Making campaign a showcase of new features and content included in-game is the biggest mistake. Personally, I would never bother playing it. Unless everything fits the storyline perfectly (with zero of gaps).

[Wiki 1558]

CWC (and extensions) had a perfect campaign.

ArmA 1 campaign was quite good but too short - I didn't really enjoyed the Queens Gambit campaigns.

ArmA 2 campaign was good until Razor's leader got killed. From that point, it sucked (especially because of warfare missions and sandbox style missions).

OA campaign had diverse situations, which is good, but I couldn't realy get involved into it - maybe too short, or maybe it was more a showcase than a real story, I dunno.

BAF was quite ordinary and we always led, which is not my cup of tea (I like leading sometimes, but not all the time).

PMC was funny, but nothing epic.

And ACR just sucked: no storyline, sandbox style missions, nothing immersive...

What I really want for ArmA 3 is something like CWC or even ArmA 1 (but longer).

I want long and interesting campaign, good storyline, diverse situation (grunt, squad leader, SF, chopper pilot, plane pilot, crewman) and ABSOLUTELY NO WARFARE NOR SANDBOX MISSION.

just my opinion, but from the moment the player is left alone and the campaign is just "here you are guy: this is your objective, do whatever you want to fulfill it", from that point, we lose immersion.

as said above, in ArmA 2 I just had the feeling that Razor won the war with 4 guys...

[das attorney 858]

I didn't have OFP on PC, but I had the X-Box elite vesion and really enjoyed the Resistance campaign. Victor was just like a regular guy you could relate to and a lot of the action was low key which was really cool.

The setting really bought the campaign to life and made me feel like I was actually in a real place with real stuff going on (as opposed to the more generic terrain of Takistan for example)

As far as npc interaction goes, my favourite ever was KOTOR. The characters, vox and dialogue were really well put together (especially HK-47).

[wipman 1]

With that many missions, I'm not even sure if I would bother to end the game.

My idea of how all those mini-campaigns could be, is take those roles as the backup units that you see arround on the main (grunt & SFs) campaigns, don't you ever asked yourself where do those other guys go to?, or those attack choppers?, or those vehicles that break up from the formation and take the intersection...? those could be the subjects of those mini-campaigns, the support, the aid or the reinforcements; if you only plan to play almost alone MP coops with your klan or a couple of fellas... then you may not want a strong/solid SP experience, but i would want it all. A very solid SP experience and a good MP experience, i belive that get booth is possible.

[ShawnO7 1]

Who are the antagonists in this scenario?

[Alwarren 2767]

Victor was just like a regular guy you could relate to and a lot of the action was low key which was really cool.

Which was also what I thought was so nice about the original CWC campaign - the way you could relate to the character. Just out of basic training, you where pretty much overwhelmed by the game and had a hard time comprehending what was going on. It perfectly mirrored the feeling that Armstrong would have, which created a very unique and convincing attachment to the character. Only slowly did you master the game, basically at the same pace that Armstrong became a real soldier.

I know most people like Resistance best, but for me, it was the CWC campaign because of exactly what I said above. Unfortunately, it will be hard if not impossible to recreate that feeling now that I am a cold killer myself ;)

[Shatter3D_S0uL 1]

Well,my expectations for the campaign are big.I hope that it will let you explore every aspect of the game.

Who are the antagonists in this scenario?

The Iranian forces.