Official A3 campaign thread - discussion, wishlists & more

[chortles 263]

I don't really comprehend why the Arma 3 campaign wasn't done for coop, most of the time you're in a squad anyway

Zipper5 answered this one, quoting verbatim with boldfacing by me:

Our campaign being single player only is not new information; it has been the case since Arma 3's reveal. Though, that's not to say it's the same campaign it was back then.

There were many reasons for us deciding to go single player only. However, I believe, and I'm sure my fellow campaign team members will agree, that the big reason was as follows: for all of their ambition, and for everything they got right, no one can deny that our previous multiplayer-compatible campaigns were at their most unstable in multiplayer upon their release. Even now, they are not without their flaws. Having to develop the campaign for both a multiplayer and single player environment is a massive undertaking. While I believe the multiplayer element did add something to each campaign's experience - it was originally how I first finished Harvest Red, though I would hardly have called it smooth - the positives did not outweigh the negatives. Their state was, in many ways, unacceptable. We're a small team, comparatively speaking, and we wanted to do better. We had to face the fact that we could not do so if we wanted to go both single player and multiplayer.

On a more personal level, I, for one, am glad we went with the single player approach. That's where my heart has always been with Arma (and, especially, OFP before it). I believe the campaign has benefited significantly from the choice and I am proud of what we have accomplished. And, hey, you'll be able to judge for yourselves soon enough. :)

[Alwarren 2767]

Zipper5 answered this one, quoting verbatim with boldfacing by me:

Yes, but this basically says "we're unable to do a campaign that can be played in multiplayer". Is that a good thing? I don't think so.

[Varanon 892]

just as I pointed out earlier, ' Survive ' is full tactical non-sense to make it look actiony. Not up to Arma's standarts, as I'd like it to be, but if this feels the right direction to take in the future, we'll definitely have to adapt.

of course, OFP CWC was from perfect either. But it transfered a special sense of scale nicely with minimum resources at hand. That's a milestone on its own.

CWC told the story of Armstrong (and other characters later on). Survive tells a very short story (basically can be summed up in one sentence) with no involvement of the main character.

It's a string of unrelated missions. I'm curious to see how it goes on in the next episodes. I can understand that this is an introduction, but they definitely need to step up the narrative and the story, or it will be boring as hell.

As it is now, I can't understand the praises the campaign get. Yes, technically, it's solid, good voice acting, but honestly, no story at all, and what little story there is is happening while you're not there...

Edited November 1, 2013 by Varanon
His name was Armtrong, not Anderson

[chortles 263]

Yes, but this basically says "we're unable to do a campaign that can be played in multiplayer". Is that a good thing? I don't think so.

That's what I got from his post (and admittedly what I boldfaced) but if you want any clarification or elaboration from Zipper5 then go ask him yourself, I specifically quoted him verbatim so as to not mischaracterize any of his post.

[MissionCreep 12]

Opfor has some light armour (APCs - Blufor has none) but doesn't seem capable of deploying it or keeping the enemy from seizing locations where the vehicles are stored.

[Alwarren 2767]

That's what I got from his post (and admittedly what I boldfaced) but if you want any clarification or elaboration from Zipper5 then go ask him yourself, I specifically quoted him verbatim so as to not mischaracterize any of his post.

I understand the reasoning, especially seeing how Harvest Red had its fair share of issues when playing in MP. However, as I said, it doesn't strike me as confidence-inspiring. I appreciate the fact that there is only so much time that can go into testing etc, so I would accept time (or lack thereof) as a reasoning.

Still, I do not see (at least in the first episode) where it would have been so difficult to make this coop-playable. It would have enhanced the experience quite a bit.

Putting the rest in Spoiler tags since I don't want to ruin the experience for anyone.

As it is now, I am quite disappointed by it. The missions seem very isolated and do not really seem to contribute to anything. Take Resistance for example. Basically the first mission after Troska takes over is what everyone in a pinch would do - try to organize supplies, weapons, and ammo. East Wind does neither. It seems to want to have some sort of Resistance feeling (resp. the Armory) but fails to do so since you seem to have different loadouts from mission to mission that are unrelated. There is no such thing as gathering supplies, and once I found out that it doesn't have any impact, the immersion suffered from it and I never bothered to pick up enemy weapons and ammo anymore.

Likewise, none of the missions seems to accomplish anything. A lot of them outright fail (Death Valley for example, or Wet Work), and none has any real impact on the storyline. Kerry seems to be completely disoriented at the beginning, but later on becomes an anonymous grunt who wouldn't need a name at all because it doesn't really matter. I know they didn't want to make Kerry the super soldier that wins the war all by himself, but given there is only a small group of survivors, everyone should matter. Also, losing soldiers is without consequence. The next mission has your full squad again.

Bottom line, there is potential that was sadly let go.

[chortles 263]

You call it merely a "fair share of issues", Zipper5 called it "in many ways, unacceptable" and declared that "the positives did not outweigh the negatives"... though at least he admitted his own bias for SP, if you want to take solace in that much. The key bit to me though from that post is this: "we wanted to do better. We had to face the fact that we could not do so if we wanted to go both single player and multiplayer."

And what exactly doesn't strike you as confidence-inspiring?

[Alwarren 2767]

You call it merely a "fair share of issues", Zipper5 called it "in many ways, unacceptable" and declared that "the positives did not outweigh the negatives"... though at least he admitted his own bias for SP, if you want to take solace in that much. The key bit to me though from that post is this: "we wanted to do better. We had to face the fact that we could not do so if we wanted to go both single player and multiplayer."

And what exactly doesn't strike you as confidence-inspiring?

I am not talking about wanting to do it better.

What I am concerned is that in order to fix the issues, they take away from it. Instead of making an effort to make Co-Op better, they just cut the whole thing out. It would be somewhat acceptable if the end result was better for it, but I don't feel that way, since all the while during play I wondered why I couldn't play this coop - the missions were certainly not that complex. Now, I realize that this is a matter of taste, and that this is only the first of three episodes so it is obviously too early to say I like or dislike the campaign, and as a matter of fact, I do not dislike it at all (just to ward off people calling me a "hater" again. I do not hate Arma 3 nor do I hate the campaign).

Like I said, I am merely concerned that things get cut instead of fixed. I noticed for example that the briefing loadout is gone again. I don't know why, probably there was an issue, and I suppose it will come back eventually, but the whole game fells too much like a construction yard in spite of being called a release. You even get recycled showcase missions as campaign missions.

Personally, I liked Blood on the Sand, Cobalt Files, and Eagle Wing much better than the current campaign episode. Black Gauntlet had more of a story than East Wind, and actually worked quite well in multiplayer.

[Gera_CCT 12]

It's actually from Eagle Wing originally, it's called "Defcon". Two other EW tracks are used in that mission; "Fallout" and "Wasteland".

That explains why Survive was a good one. EW was Fantastic as well

[chortles 263]

I am not talking about wanting to do it better.

What I am concerned is that in order to fix the issues, they take away from it. Instead of making an effort to make Co-Op better, they just cut the whole thing out. It would be somewhat acceptable if the end result was better for it, but I don't feel that way, since all the while during play I wondered why I couldn't play this coop

Admittedly the impression I got from Zipper5's post was "it was already hard enough -- and time-consuming enough -- just making these eight missions and the in-between briefing segments despite the campaign being SP-only... attempting co-op would have just made it unacceptably buggy."

Alternately, if you're viewing it as a "lack of time" thing, you could (based on a bunch of prior dev posts) see a hint of "we didn't even have time to 'make an effort to make Co-Op better' when we only realized after June 25th that we couldn't even get the overall campaign(s) done within two and a half months (September 12), it took us a month and a half of post-launch development to release SURVIVE, and it's already going to take until December -- over a month after SURVIVE -- to release ADAPT" in it...

[Zipper5 74]

Personally, I liked Blood on the Sand, Cobalt Files, and Eagle Wing much better than the current campaign episode.

Thanks for the kind words but, for the record, I am personally happier my work on with Survive than I am with both Operation Cobalt and Blood On The Sand. Everyone wants something different from Arma. As Jay Crowe, our Creative Director, said in today's blog post, Survive is primarily intended to ease those new to Arma 3 into the experience. Though, that's not to say we just disregarded veterans such as yourself. I'd like to think there's something in Survive for both.

I hope you'll find what you're looking for in the next two episodes. :)

[maffa 29]

I have quite a list of bug/glitches/stuff that needs improving:

- general (old story): AI can still do some spectaculat long range shoots with unmagnified sights. This makes the RCO the only reasonable way to make things even, making all other sights totally useless and actually harming. Also they can penetrate concealment and get you just right.

- general: i couldnt hear Miller's voice during briefings, if it werent for the subs i wouldnt understand a thing.

- general (old story): 40mm grenade blast radius is puny. In RL it should have a 5m kill radius and 130 leathality radius. Since a few missions depend on GLs it needs to be adjusted accordingly.

- blackfoot down: it's not very clear where to place the APER mines since there is only a general direction from the enemy vectors, so... uh... why bother bringing them along? I had to repeat the mission 4-5 times to understand a few places where they could be of any use.

- death valley: it's a bad plan, and i think anyone would say the same. If you have to attack a town at the end of a valley you do not stroll inside the valley. The only way to survive is disobeying your TL, take a right uphill cover, draw as much enemy fire as possibile and hope your team will survive the final CQC battle in town. Also, UAV terminal is broken, somehow. I dont get any contextual CONNECT UAV TERMINAL if i dont pick it up from the ground.

- Mike 24 or whatever it is radio station: mortars are pretty useless, and half of my shots wouldnt even fall INSIDE the camp. What was the oint? Showing how useless they are in picking up stationary targets? Moreover, it's pretty lame that your TL wants to actually get out from the base to face the enemies rather than using the convenient watchtower overwatching the enemy attack vector. What's the point?

- Sub mission: can you really bring explosives and weaponry under sea with them keeping on working just like that as soon as you surface? Really?

- Night mission: why is everybody keeping their IR lasers on?

- Last push to Agia: this is ludicrous. As soon as Alpha and Bravo rejoin both squads get hacked down by entrenched enemies, all but a squad leader dont know who. I manage to get a PCML, arrive at the radio tower hill where the Orca should discharge all the soldiers and take it down before it does so, and it lands nonetheless and all soldiers get out in any case. Then my TL force me to run though an artillery salvo and in the mough of some paratroops ( i want to try and take the chopper before he lets the para's down, just to see how hard scripted and arcadey it is). needs better thinking.

I know i forgot something but this is just my first run.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Maffa

[Alwarren 2767]

Thanks for the kind words but, for the record, I am personally happier my work on with Survive than I am with both Operation Cobalt and Blood On The Sand.

I personally find the diversity in the missions lacking, something that I liked about your earlier campaigns. Obviously, this is partly due to the scenario

a small group of survivors doesn't just conjure armour and air support out of thing air, but the result is that the episode is completely lacking any combined arms warfare.

Everyone wants something different from Arma. As Jay Crowe, our Creative Director, said in today's blog post, Survive is primarily intended to ease those new to Arma 3 into the experience. Though, that's not to say we just disregarded veterans such as yourself. I'd like to think there's something in Survive for both.

I feel that this would have better been done in separate missions and tutorials. I did like the bootcamp style missions of Arma II.

I hope you'll find what you're looking for in the next two episodes. :)

So do I. Please don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the first epsiode (except for a few frustrating moments in Death Valley were I regularly got headshotted), and except for one issue, the campaign worked flawlessly for me. But as I wrote earlier, I felt that the missions do not have sufficient influence on what is happening, and therefore feel like a string of single scenarios chained together.

[arewenotmen 10]

I expected to be a bit disappointed with this campaign, but it panned out quite well. The story and storytelling, especially acting, was on a par with the better moments of past OFP and Armas, and I'll probably remember some of these missions for a while, which is a credit to them.

To try and constructively criticise, however, it could have been even more immersive. There's a lot of life and death stuff in there, and maybe our main character is a thorough professional, but the whole thing felt like it should have been littered with 'oh fuck' attitudes. There should be no comparison in any other way, but early CoD games were very good at this, albeit made easier by the fact that they're on rails.

It was a bit short, but hard to know what's coming next, and what's a fair comparison in terms of other games. I suspect it stands up OK.

Stability/reliability was where I was most impressed; I had one bug (no in-mission story continuation) that was resolved by loading a prior save, and that was it. Great progress compared to earlier efforts.

The one bit I thought was impossible was calling in arty on watchtowers. I felt I could have been at it all day and not achieved it.

[Electricleash 133]

if you mean what i think, it's track from Arma 2 PMC campaign, mission where you have to destroy tanks with AS50.

Thanks, You are right it appears to be called called 'Ground Zero'

last in the list.

@2nd Ranger: The track doesn't appear to be in Eagle Wing, listened through the whole lot and it's not Defcon, Fallout or Wasteland.

[2nd ranger 282]

@2nd Ranger: The track doesn't appear to be in Eagle Wing, listened through the whole lot and it's not Defcon, Fallout or Wasteland.

Same track as 'Ground Zero' on the link you just posted. I know it's Defcon because I look through the mission files:cool:

[nicolasroger 11]

I personaly like the campain.

It looks desorganised. It is exactly what you would expect from this turn of event. It's nice that your missions aren't always 100% succesful or useful.

Looking foward for the next episode.

[Tyl3r99 41]

Same track as 'Ground Zero' on the link you just posted. I know it's Defcon because I look through the mission files:cool:

yes i noticed this too!!! its defcon because i used this track in my arma 2 zombie missions! :P

can this simply be added to arma 3 or just port over all the tracks from arma 2???

[2nd ranger 282]

The EW tracks are available in the game, that's how they're played during that mission.

[Grek 10]

wrong thread. sry

Edited November 3, 2013 by Grek

[focher 15]

I'm only on the Blackfoot mission but is there an explanation why the enemy troops speak English?

[bonchie 39]

The island was a british colony before.

[johnnyboy 3793]

I've been on-board since OFP, and am enjoying this campaign. I think its a great job so far. I loved the original OFP campaigns, but the ARMA ones never did it for me. With the exception of Queens Gambit which was pretty good. ARMA 3 works for me on all levels; Editor missions, community missions, addons, etc.. Thanks Bohemia!

[robrogamer 10]

Fav Quote "what the literal fuck"

enjoy mission 1

[ravenholme 50]

Anyone suspect the talk about a build up in the Pacific vs (Presumably) China is a hint for an expansion of some kind?