Single Player Campaign/ Purpose and Expectations

[Sniperwolf572 758]

... 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 ;)

The thing is, A1 and A2 campaigns went off the both sides of the character story scale.

As you say CWC and Resistance had character development. You did not necessarily had to relate to them to get the good story, but you witnessed some kind of development, which made all the difference. The perfect illustration of this is the minor things like cutscenes that showed Gastovski at the start of the game, the mission where Gastovski and Armstrong reestablish contact with the FIA and the Status Quo mission, things which didn't have to be done, but were excellent touches to introduce the characters and the state of things around them.

With ArmaA1 campaign, they went too far with "You're just an unknown soldier in the scheme of things", where nobody around you developed any kind of character or familiarity. Every now and then you were pulled away to the mission select interface to pick your next mission starring a random nobody.

ArmA2 campaigns overshot it on the other side of the spectrum, from get-go you had already developed characters who advanced very little past their initial setup that the writers had for them and the characters did what was expected of them. The first helo ride and advance towards Pusta established that everything interesting about the characters has already happened before the story even started and you should have read about it in the manual if you wanted to know who they are. Cooper also seemed more comfortable speaking Czech than his native language and considering we've been listening to his voice actor already it was kind of a strange experience for me.

We'll see how ArmA3 characters will fit into that scale, but I expect that it will be similar to ArmA2 considering what we know of the story so far.

[Alwarren 2767]

We'll see how ArmA3 characters will fit into that scale, but I expect that it will be similar to ArmA2 considering what we know of the story so far.

I agree.

Harvest Red needed some shaping moment for the characters. I think the story lines where you failed were actually more interesting since it created tension within the team. That is always more interesting to see. I sort of liked Harvest Red until the Warfare missions, but yeah, there was no character arc at all. The potential was there with Valentina and the Doctor, the whole affair with the Speznaz, but nothing ever game out of it. To be honest, I am still not sure what the motivation for the blonde Russian guy was at all.

And, am I the only one that actually liked Robo best of all?

[das attorney 858]

Yes, this seems to be what would go on I think.

Since Miller is some British guy, he most likely would not have an attachment to what's going on at Limnos in the sense that he may have lost his unit/squad and be on the losing side (hence some personal/professional motivation to succeed); but, he wouldn't have any ties to the people on the island and so no motivation based on freeing/avenging loved ones or kicking the Iranians off his own homeland. Unless of course, he's somehow a descendant of the islanders or has some other extremely tenuous connection to Limnos.

If that is the case, the charcter of Miller would be established early on with not much need for progression. This works in some movies (like Dutch in Predator or John McClaine in Die Hard for example) where the protagonists characters don't change much and you learn a few things about them here and there but essentially they are the same people at the end as they are at the start. Both of those movies use good dialogue and action to keep the tempo up and the movie rolling on.

If the main character was some guy from Limnos, you could have more character progression, personal involvement and maybe throw in some stuff about his family/Limnos. This would be more analogous to movies like Star Wars or The Matrix, where the main protagonist is an average Joe and they go on a transformation through learning and deed to discover truths about themselves and better their foes.

I use movies as an analogy as the two different media of film and games for me, is essentially the same as they are both vehicles to tell a tale. (or making up some fluff to justify the action depending on your POV).

I hope as well they don't add in any bullshit motivation or reasons why Miller needs to get the job done. The fact that he's military personnel following orders is cool with me and good enough to get along with. Maybe they'll do some prelude mission where you play Miller in some other theatre of war years before and it establishes a connection with someone who will crop up later. I wouldn't really like to see much in the way of "flashbacks" or anything like that though to show how other characters fit into Millers life and history.

In summary, I think there will not be much going on with the character of Miller, which is ok as long as the script, dialogue and pacing of the voice actors delivery is good.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Das Attorney

[almanzo 144]

I am hoping that the devs do want to tell us a genuine story. That they want to explore a topic, in this case, a future world war 3, to try to understand what that might be like.

To give a great example of what I'd want out of ARMA IIIs campaign, look no further than Spec Ops: The Line.

They wanted to tell a story, they wanted to make you think, to make you feel. They dared challenge us on a different level than just technical difficulty, they asked difficult questions, forced us to take choices, they made us reflect on our relationship with the medium. In short, a masterpiece. That's what I want from ARMA III's campaign. Am I gonna get it, most likely not... But I can still dream...

[-Coulum- 35]

Lots of different people seem to have very different ideas of what a good and bad campaign is - poor BIS will never be able to please everyone.

I personally don't give much care for characterization, music or even plot. My main interest is in "immersiveness", which can be increased by the the listed, but isn't totally dependant on them. Basically my idea of a good campaign would be one in which I feel like I am in those combat videos on youtube and what not. Start as a grunt, work up to SL then staff sergeant or platoon lieutenant. Missions would be fairly straight forward but always randomized a bit to keep the re-playability value, they would also be totally infantry based, however rarely would you ever be a lone squad - you would most often be supported by a platoon or even the rest of the company in some missions. There would be nothing like warfare, and there would be no purely stealth missions (although you would have to use stealth in some missions to help you succeed). the missions wouldn't always rest directly on the players shoulders, but the efficiency at which they are completed should be in the players control, especially in the later game. The player should feel like a team player pulling his weight to help complete the objective. The player's main goal should always be simply to survive however.

That would be my ideal. Honestly though, if you can make me believe I am actually in a warzone, I could care less about characterization and plot twists, it would be satisfactory enough for me. That would require good sound effects, good visual effects, great ai and realistic scenarios that have very little bugs.

Of course the whole campaign is unlikely to match my ideal but that's what the editors there for.

[das attorney 858]

That's fair enough man.

I only really play campaigns for the story. For me, MP provides a better and more challenging gaming experience in the long term, but a campaign is worth playing if done well.

Looking back, I really enjoyed Metal Gear Solid. Some of the more memorable moments for me were the mecha-ninja that screams at the player character to "hurt me more", the weird psychic guy where you had to plug your controller into port 2 and then he couldn't read your mind, and the character of Liquid Snake. His voice was hilarious but seemed to fit in well with the game.

I'd love it if BIS spent a bit of cash getting some cool voice talent in the campaign. I thought Splinter Cell pulled a master stroke in getting Michael Ironside to do vox for the game. I guess they could spend the money elsewhere on other features, but it's something i'd really like to see (in an ideal world, which this isn't obv)!

I know I'm banging on about things like voice acting, cutscenes, characters and motivation etc, but for me it's quite important in a SP campaign to know why I'm doing stuff and what my (characters) motivation is. I suppose I could put up with just missions interconnected by some text in between, but then I would be totally blase about the whole thing and my motivation would just be to complete it, win and move onto something else (or shelve it if I get bored). I'm really saying they should either do sweet FA in terms of 'fluff' or really go for it and make it memorable.

As you say, the editor provides a way of making precisely the kind of missions I want to play, but having something credible and fun presented as a campaign is a way of losing myself in what's going on. I'm not too bothered by including plot twists (plot can by fairly simple and still be fun) as long as the campaign doesn't stagnate (overlong cut-scenes, tedious/badly edited voice overs, samey locations and gameplay are usually the main culprit here I think).

EDIT: I didn't even mention music (Don't get me started on music - I'll be here for hours). If we're talking about it though, the music in Arma is pretty good, especially on OA - very proggy, interesting arrangements and lots of different instruments etc. I wish sometimes that Ondřej Matějka would change the tone on his guitar. It's quite thrashy, with not much middle. I'd like more of a rock tone (put that middle back in and use tube overdrive man)!!

Edited January 21, 2013 by Das Attorney
M U S A K

[NoRailgunner 0]

Maybe it will be close to some heroic SEAL/SAS action-plots (eg "Act of Valor", "Bravo Two Zero") ?

....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... evolve from a lone prey into a military commander in the open-ended & story-driven campaign.

btw wasn't Team Razor borrowed from poor "Tears of the Sun" movie? :D

[wipman 1]

Evolve from a lone prey into a military commander = more of the same.

I don't like to have more than four or five AIs under my command, much less things like CTI or crap like that, empty and thedious as pass the 7 Dande's hells one after another; the CTI appeared on the campaign (IMO) as a filler in absence of a solid history, wich is sad... an EVOlution like mission would (IMO) fit better as full commander mode, at least of infantry... after get some ranks, then you obtain a Fire Team three men at you command and access to the standard weapons of a Fire Team, (CCO & x4 sights, a couple of underbarrel GLs, flares and various nades; two more chevrons will give you access to another Fire Team and special weapons as DMRs, Javs and heavyer weapons, four more chevrons... and you could get a SFs Fire Team and access to SF weapons.

An EVO style would be more dynamic than the CTI, but with an AI commander in charge of the whole thing by each side on the party; so if you go to a city, base or FOB, this AI will send support to the place after a short while, in the form of CAS, ARTI and Engineers (REPair/RECovery) aside of have MED-EVAC at your dispossal if you didn't loose the FOBs/FARPs that gave you access to this goods by the NME AI forces. In this way you could build a more solid history line than just put a damn heartless CTI as last mission/missions, and insert the history on this EVO like thing adding at your command some of the men/women that you'd meet previously during the previous missions. Anything would be better IMO, than more of the "you're drop as a lone wolf into a war and from the barracks you end up as four stars general". That crap suxxx.

[GepardenK 0]

Lots of different people seem to have very different ideas of what a good and bad campaign is - poor BIS will never be able to please everyone.

I personally don't give much care for characterization, music or even plot. My main interest is in "immersiveness", which can be increased by the the listed, but isn't totally dependant on them. Basically my idea of a good campaign would be one in which I feel like I am in those combat videos on youtube and what not. Start as a grunt, work up to SL then staff sergeant or platoon lieutenant. Missions would be fairly straight forward but always randomized a bit to keep the re-playability value, they would also be totally infantry based, however rarely would you ever be a lone squad - you would most often be supported by a platoon or even the rest of the company in some missions. There would be nothing like warfare, and there would be no purely stealth missions (although you would have to use stealth in some missions to help you succeed). the missions wouldn't always rest directly on the players shoulders, but the efficiency at which they are completed should be in the players control, especially in the later game. The player should feel like a team player pulling his weight to help complete the objective. The player's main goal should always be simply to survive however.

That would be my ideal. Honestly though, if you can make me believe I am actually in a warzone, I could care less about characterization and plot twists, it would be satisfactory enough for me. That would require good sound effects, good visual effects, great ai and realistic scenarios that have very little bugs.

Of course the whole campaign is unlikely to match my ideal but that's what the editors there for.

You basicly described the original Operation Flashpoint campaign :) Most people familliar with it wants Arma3 to have a similar campaign

[Wiki 1558]

That's normal, CWC camp was very good.

One of the best campaign in any game I've played.

[mrbenis 10]

I'd like to see a system similar to dark souls where you can be competing agents with other players, or co-op for missions provided you meet in the same 'safe-house' or something. It should be a passive thing, with invading players basicly just getting more supplies or whatever because they sided with a different internal faction.

[doveman 7]

a) I'd like a campaign that doesn't drag my fps down to 17fps or worse. I've been told the reason why this happens in the A2/OA campaigns is the heavy scripting they use but it's pretty poor if the developers can't make the official campaign run well on their own engine. I probably run around 30-40fps average but it goes up to 60fps (I have Vsync enabled) on some missions, which are probably ones with less AI I guess.

b) rather than cutscenes, I'd like to see the resources spent on Picture-in-Picture briefings, whether in the initial briefing screen before a mission or on the battlefield during it. I think they can make the briefing more interesting than just reading a load of text and likewise in mission, it's much better to get an incoming video call with information, new orders than just a line of text telling you what to do next.

[bonchie 39]

I actually liked the sandbox missions in Arma2. Really enjoyed Manhattan and the one before it where you try to capture the guy.

At the end of the day though I've given up on BIS making anything close to CWC's quality. They've had almost a dozen tries since OFP and they just seem to refuse to go back to what the majority want. Don't really get it.

[old_painless 182]

Actually they have some very good community people working on missions and the campaign who has set high standards before (Zipper5 among others, IIRC). So I wouldn't worry too much about the content. One pessimistic angle on this, however, is that such seasoned mission builders probably do not push BI into making a lot of improvements to the editor and its accessibility, as they may be too well versed in the current one.

-OP

[PlacidPaul 11]

I'd like to see a system similar to dark souls

It sounds crazy, but so many shooters could learn something from that masterpiece.

But, I don't think they should, they have so much of their own games to learn from. I just hope they understand what the best was and why. Everyone brings up CWC, but they have heard that before.

One problem with a highly dynamic campaign is that, it has to be good enough to play again for the dynamic parts to be worth the bother. What's the point if the user doesn't know how dynamic it is or ever care enough to go back and see? The player has to be aware that he is making choices and that there are consequences. If you do this with characters, they have to be memorable enough to notice their gone and to understand the impact of them missing.

The other route could be optional objectives, that impact further missions. A little dry and boring. It's not nearly as interesting as good characters dying.

Edited January 31, 2013 by PlacidPaul

[fragmachine 12]

I hope to see an campaign with the story and characters and feel like in CWC and missions should be like in Resistance campaign.

What I don't want to see is ArmA I and ArmA II type of campaign, no team razor and no hollywood borrowed bullsh*t. Bohemia showed not once that they can be creative and make their own content, along with the campaign story, so yea I hope so that ArmA III will be revolutionary to ArmA I and II just like OFP:CWC and Resistance was.

[Ekko 1]

What I don't want to see is ArmA I and ArmA II type of campaign, no team razor and no hollywood borrowed bullsh*t. Bohemia showed not once that they can be creative and make their own content, along with the campaign story, so yea I hope so that ArmA III will be revolutionary to ArmA I and II just like OFP:CWC and Resistance was.

But what was OPF:CWC and Resistance revolutionary to then?

to be, or not to be... revolutionary... that is the question!

[fragmachine 12]

But what was OPF:CWC and Resistance revolutionary to then?

to be, or not to be... revolutionary... that is the question!

Been revolutionary to game industry of course! But thats my opinion at least :)

[Wiki 1558]

I prefered CWC or Red Hammer campaign rather than Resistance.

I really prefer being a soldier and use military gear rather than being a civilian.

I wanna have a campaign in which I can use assault rifle, tanks, helicopters, planes, fastrope, AC-130 etc...

that's why I only make campign with Western soldier, cause I love the gear and stuff they have.