Official A3 campaign thread - discussion, wishlists & more

[Polygon 11]

Since the recent secretly hinted news regarding the campaign's status have gathered enough attention in a "not-quite" related thread, I decided to dedicate this one for the single object - A3 official campaign.

Currently known stuff:

• campaign will be released after full A3 launch
  
• various military roles to play with
  
• wide array of missions with different playstyle required
  
• hopefully, a storyline worth following with remarkable characters (ala OFP/OFPR)
  
• an intense atmosphere fitting the troubled future that awaits us?
  
• multiple endings?
  

Personally, I'd like BIS to trust us and give an opportunity to fail the main story very early in the campaign (remember OFPR and Victor's bad decisions in every step?). Sometimes, to be innovative, you have to recycle the older and already used ideas, only to made them look reborn!

Discuss what matters (various aspects, campaign's size etc), post your wishlists, concerns, criticism!

[TSAndrey 1]

I hope for non linear mission (so it can play out differently), multiple endings, good storyline and nice action.

[dale0404 5]

You have listed the "known stuff" but some of it isn't known is it? If you are going to compile lists of "known stuff" at least make sure they are accurate. We DO NOT know:

1. Whether various military roles will be played.

2. What the storyline is.

3. Whether the atmosphere will be intense and fitting in with the future that awaits us.

4. Whether the campaign will have multiple endings.

So the only "known stuff" we have at the moment is that the campaign will be released after the full game release.

[NeuroFunker 11]

1. coop

2. coop

3. coop

..

10. coop

:)

[instagoat 133]

I have a suspicion that they're trying to put a logistics and personell management side into the campaign, like the carrying over of gear and men in Resistance. And the way the map at E3 was designed, it looks as if they are also trying to go for a multi-ending, multi-forked storydesign, maybe with randomly designed mini-missions inbetween, using the generators they are putting together?

But seriously, after all the rollbacks after the greek situation, pretty much everything we know about the Campaign is void.

[tom3kb 15]

I have one wish: no warfare missions in campaign (where we must seize whole map or big part of island) in 1 mission (also no warfare features- buying weapons/vehicles/soldiers).

[NeuroFunker 11]

i love warfare missions. Why not have one at very end for fun? You start small, then grow up for a warfare command.

[becario 1]

I only ask for one thing: the possibility of playing the story (the same one) from the perspectives of Blufor, Opfor and Independents. E.g.: Opfor invading the islands, Blufor trying to prevent this, and Independents giving guerrilla-like support to Blufor.

Oh, and a second thing: different roles to play (team leader, rifleman, AT, sniper, field medic, pilot, support...), and not only playing as team leader.

[tom3kb 15]

Good idea with missions for Opfor/Resistance/Blufor in one campaign. Playing always throgh whole campaign as USA/NATO soldier who save the world is boring. Few missions for "bad guys" would be nice.

[Konfyoozed 10]

Coop :D

[nmdanny 22]

Playing as a normal grunt or support class would be nice, for example if there's a combined arms joint mission to capture/attack a base, you could play as an infantry squadleader, a random grunt in a squad following AI orders, a tank commander, CAS jet/attack helicopter pilot, maybe even a transport chopper pilot, where the success of the mission will depend on how effective your CAS is, or how many squads you've managed to airlift to the AO safely.

Playing as the independent faction to aid NATO when they're involved in a campaign mission.

And a good nuclear explosion, for the sake of mods.

[Shagulon 1]

While the campaign isn't finished, and won't be for release, be very aware that it will almost undoubtedly have the planning phase long since completed. Not much point in begging for this mission type or that feature.

[Wiki 1558]

I only ask for one thing: the possibility of playing the story (the same one) from the perspectives of Blufor, Opfor and Independents. E.g.: Opfor invading the islands, Blufor trying to prevent this, and Independents giving guerrilla-like support to Blufor.

Oh, and a second thing: different roles to play (team leader, rifleman, AT, sniper, field medic, pilot, support...), and not only playing as team leader.

+1, that would be a good idea!

And I agree with tom3kb about NO WARFARE IN SP AT ALL!!!!!!

[kylania 568]

ArmA isn't an RTS, I third the "no warfare" requests. :) I don't even really enjoy High Command to be honest. As long as there's no "catch the guy who's driving somewhere on the other side of the map and we won't tell you where but you have 2 minutes to catch him" style missions I'll be happy.

[Wiki 1558]

Well, you just stated what sucked in HR:

warfare in SP plus sucking "sandbox style" mission type.

IMO a good campaign requires an interesting storyline (of course) AND clear and driven objectives - not something like "this is the objective and do whatever you want to fulfill it".

[nodunit 397]

Soo we get word that the campaign will not be part of release and this assumes that we should make a thread saying what ideas we think should be put into the campaign when the game is still going through beta phases and the campaign is likely on back burner because it could potentially be effected by current additions in the testing phase?

Personally I don't mind a linear story...in fact save for a few missions, the one game we all hold up on a golden pedestal, Operation Flashpoint had all of its campaigns linear.

[Wiki 1558]

Yep, and IMO, that's one of the reason that made it so great!

Other reasons were:

-different kind of missions (advance and secure, S&D, convoy ambush, etc...)

-different roles (grunt, SF, tank crewman, chopper pilot and plane pilot - which I always tried to do in my usermade campaigns in ArmA 2)

-we were not always the leader

[NeuroFunker 11]

Well, you just stated what sucked in HR:

warfare in SP plus sucking "sandbox style" mission type.

IMO a good campaign requires an interesting storyline (of course) AND clear and driven objectives - not something like "this is the objective and do whatever you want to fulfill it".

we are talking about sandbox tactic military shooter, and sandbox campaign for it, right? Sandbox means freedom So thats actually the point of sandbox. Not being locked by anything, to stupidly run from obj A to B and thats it. Arma isn't BF or COD. You actually have to think there, to achieve the tasks. Ofcourse there will be some stor driven thing and cutscenes. Arma 2 campaign had some.

But thats i and people like me enjoy most about sanbox. You have a task, you have to complete it. But you get the freedom, to do this the way you want. It was even partialy in OFP resistance campaign. You could betray the fleeing insugrent, then the story goes in a differnt way abit. Or you had the choice, to try to sneak in by yourself in to enemies camp, or assault it with allies.

Since arma 3 will have sandbox campaign, we will hopefully, get much more freedom, to complete the tasks.

---------- Post added at 01:58 ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 ----------

Personally I don't mind a linear story...in fact save for a few missions, the one game we all hold up on a golden pedestal, Operation Flashpoint had all of its campaigns linear.

well, try to betray the insurgent at resistance campaign. Thats not linear.

You have to understand what sandbox and what linear means. Like ive already said, linear are BF and COD. Run run run, shoot shoot shoot, kaboom, there goes the skycraper down. Personally i'm not a fan of hollywood blockbusters in a game. I love to have freedom, to decide, how actually i will do missions. Trying by stealth, or assault with my team. In linear campaign, you are limited by what the mission dosigner gave you. And it's fully scriped. You run over that waypoint, BAM the enemies appeart through the windows etc. Arma has non scripted AI, which can make each turn, differently.

So and you say: nah, we don't need that stuff?

[Wiki 1558]

Yes and no:

A lot of people liked OFP campaign - which was driven and kind of linear.

Not many liked HR - which was sandbox-style.

Moreover, ArmA is a milsim, and IRL soldiers DO follow the orders given, the objectives are clear and defined - as are the means to fulfill them.

It's not sandbox-style when in the army IRL.

So, as ArmA IS a milsim, IMO it should stick to the real life.

[NeuroFunker 11]

arma is not a milsim, VBS is, but it's a military sandbox.

[sqb-sma 66]

I only ask for one thing: the possibility of playing the story (the same one) from the perspectives of Blufor, Opfor and Independents. E.g.: Opfor invading the islands, Blufor trying to prevent this, and Independents giving guerrilla-like support to Blufor.

Oh, and a second thing: different roles to play (team leader, rifleman, AT, sniper, field medic, pilot, support...), and not only playing as team leader.

Ugh, I hate commanding AI in Arma, they're too smart to just follow orders! :D

I would love more missions like flashpoint, fairly linear but if you do one objective instead of another it slightly changes the outcome, a good plot, some good situations, less boring "lead your team, gather resources" crap.

[progamer 14]

Ugh, I hate commanding AI in Arma, they're too smart to just follow orders! :D

I would love more missions like flashpoint, fairly linear but if you do one objective instead of another it slightly changes the outcome, a good plot, some good situations, less boring "lead your team, gather resources" crap.

But without resources like vehicles, weapons, ammo and fighters how far do you expect to get?

---------- Post added at 04:45 ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 ----------

arma is not a milsim, VBS is, but it's a military sandbox.

Arma is a milsim for those who don't have 3000 dollars lying around for themselves and there freinds.

[.kju 3245]

Simple, immersive missions with freedom how to complete them. Aka OFP style campaign.

[tom3kb 15]

I also want to see campaign with many missions. In OFP CWC we had 40 missions, in Resistance 20missions. I know that OFP missions are short, each campaign we can finish in ~10hours. But i would like to see in A3 campaign with ~15-20 missions and with campaign lenght 15-20hours or even more.

[Rydygier 1317]

Let's see. If we will wait for it longer, then we could expect more...

- Ready. I preffer to wait as long, as needed, to get at the end campaign as near to perfection as possible. No irritaing game breakers of half-finished, pushed out in hurry "bag of bugs".

- Immersive. That means in the first place convincing characters with convincing life, whose story, choices, troubles, pains and joys does not leave you indifferent, where you want to see what would happen next. Same as for good novel/movie - I suggest to use help of someone, who is able to write nice, immersive stories. Some writer perhaps? And good actors. Realistic, sounding natural dialogs with convincing voice acting could be more important here, than someone may think. This means importance of well done cut scenes as well. Weaponry, war and rest of military stuff should be only a background, a man and his life should be on the foreground, a center of the campaign should be people, not toys. Toys serve the story, not counterwise.

- Not cliched (original and suprising, maybe even inspiring to deeper reflection). If at the beginning I can guess, what will happen, where it leads and how it will ends, then this is big failure to me.

- Long.

- Multiple choices to make, some hard, each should somehow affect the fabula, character, and chances for success in the main goal (should be such thing, even if not know at the beginning, can be as simple as "survive"). Player's actions really matters (when reasonably should), co-create the future, and changes the shape of the presented world somehow. Player watches consequences of his choices. Only player's character death should end the campaign prematurely.

- Failure is part of the story, not its end. Sometimes may be unavoidable.

- IMHO player should all the time animate single, same character and watch whole story only via his eyes for better identification with the character and to improve growth of emotional bounds between player and the character (its good idea to limit player's knowledge of the world presented to that, what he will see by his "avatar" eyes, no background explanations in form of "thruth revealed from elsewhere"). Perhaps player should to know not only, what main character says or does, but also what he thinks.

- IMHO missions, if convincing, must be of open nature. Not linear, that kills big part of joy to me, but: goal, resources and my mind to figure out, how to achieve the goal with such resources. Same, as in life, sometimes there is not any easy way.

- No artificial, extremely annoying time limits, unless it follows directly and logically from the plot (actual events as only possible reason of haste, and not much of it if any).

Edited August 6, 2013 by Rydygier