Official A3 campaign thread - discussion, wishlists & more

[NeuroFunker 11]

http://steamcommunity.com/games/arma3/announcements/detail/1389655714911114055

BIS, whats wrong with you, really? 3rd part of campaign i will see on summer 2015?

or, maybe i know the answer: you take money from pre-order, so you not intrested to make game fully playable.

+1 dislike. again

грек, может хватит ныть, лучше Ñкажи, Ñколько Ñ‚Ñ‹ потратил денег да Ð´Ð»Ñ Ðº батлам колдам, когда тут тебе предоÑтавлÑÑŽÑ‚ контент БЕСПЛÐТÐО!

Said: stop comaplin, just ask yourself, how much money you have wasted on various BF and COD DLC's, when here you are getting all the goodies for FREE... Sheez, some people here...

---------- Post added at 05:42 ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 ----------

"As a matter of fact, post-release support of Arma III was far better than I feared."

Cuz they unfinished game, and its very bad tendency (AIII, X-Rebirth).

one who could read, KNEW, the game won't come with campains, but become them shipped later for free. Oh and about talking unfinished, you want to have campaign this month, but with lots of bugs and crashes? I tought you don't like unfinished products? Then why can't you wait 1 month at least?

[Grek 10]

Said: stop comaplin, just ask yourself, how much money you have wasted on various BF and COD DLC's, when here you are getting all the goodies for FREE... Sheez, some people here...

0$ iam not fan of this series. You so naive:o

[st!gar 3]

Those were disappointing news.

I can only hope the still-unfinished campaign will be released earlier in one of the beta-patches.

[Alwarren 2765]

Said: stop comaplin, just ask yourself, how much money you have wasted on various BF and COD DLC's, when here you are getting all the goodies for FREE... Sheez, some people here...

While I do agree with the first part, and don't really mind the delay so much, stressing how this campaign is FREE is severely misrepresenting things. The game was advertised and sold as having a single-player campaign from the very beginning up until the announcement that the campaign will be delivered after release. So stressing this as being "free" is jsut misrepresenting the fact that everyone that bought the game as Early Access, or as a supporter edition like me, have already paid for it and are getting it WAY after the fact.

I am not thrilled by the way they deliver the campaign but I can understand the reasoning behind it, and it is better to have a campaign with effort put into it delivered later than a half-cooked mess delivered at release. But this FREE label is misleading, since it isn't. It's paid-for content delivered later.

[windies 11]

While I do agree with the first part, and don't really mind the delay so much, stressing how this campaign is FREE is severely misrepresenting things. The game was advertised and sold as having a single-player campaign from the very beginning up until the announcement that the campaign will be delivered after release. So stressing this as being "free" is jsut misrepresenting the fact that everyone that bought the game as Early Access, or as a supporter edition like me, have already paid for it and are getting it WAY after the fact.

I am not thrilled by the way they deliver the campaign but I can understand the reasoning behind it, and it is better to have a campaign with effort put into it delivered later than a half-cooked mess delivered at release. But this FREE label is misleading, since it isn't. It's paid-for content delivered later.

Well said.

[Grek 10]

The game was advertised and sold as having a single-player campaign from the very beginning up until the announcement that the campaign will be delivered after release. So stressing this as being "free" is jsut misrepresenting the fact t.

Yep (5 chars)

[NeuroFunker 11]

While I do agree with the first part, and don't really mind the delay so much, stressing how this campaign is FREE is severely misrepresenting things. The game was advertised and sold as having a single-player campaign from the very beginning up until the announcement that the campaign will be delivered after release. So stressing this as being "free" is jsut misrepresenting the fact that everyone that bought the game as Early Access, or as a supporter edition like me, have already paid for it and are getting it WAY after the fact.

I am not thrilled by the way they deliver the campaign but I can understand the reasoning behind it, and it is better to have a campaign with effort put into it delivered later than a half-cooked mess delivered at release. But this FREE label is misleading, since it isn't. It's paid-for content delivered later.

i don't understand, why are you saying such obvious thing :p

[Alwarren 2765]

i don't understand, why are you saying such obvious thing :p

Yeah, why do I say such obvious things? I mean, it's not like you somehow wrongfully emphasized the 'free', for example by writing it all in caps :p

[chortles 263]

The emphasis on "free" does suggest something about the state of the industry. :p

[Alwarren 2765]

The emphasis on "free" does suggest something about the state of the industry. :p

Agreed, in this state of the industry, it seems common practice to leave out parts of a game to be sold as DLC or via micro-transactions later (the XBone seems to be particularly guilty of that), and I was quite pissy that I had to pay extra for the "From Ashes" DLC for Mass Effect 3 which I considered somewhat central to the story.

It doesn't invalidate what I said though.

[chortles 263]

We're thinking pretty similarly re: story DLC vs. ancillary DLC -- "The Lost Archives" DLC for Assassin's Creed: Revelations had major implications for the Modern Times portion of the plot, yet Assassin's Creed 3 acted as if it was a given that players had at least watched it on YouTube, i.e. talking about it with no exposition in the introduction (of AC3) to set it up.

[tremanarch 6]

the first part was so well made. No campaign ever was so fluent and fun and good to play!

Just wow!

[foffy 58]

I do hope that if more campaigns are made after The East Wing's three episodes (I assume they will be as DLC), I hope they do take note to the pacing we've already seen. The start of the campaign should be a very basic introduction to the core of a conflict, as well as gameplay types. The only campaign I have played from BIS that does this well is Cold War Crisis (I have not played any campaign of Operation Arrowhead yet). Cold War Crisis and Survive both start you on training wheels, and CWC deserves to be held up because it does this not just at the start of the game, but with each character representing different gameplay types. Resistance started as a by a trial by fire as early as the third mission, as did all three of ArmA's campaigns, and Harvest Red when they start making you team leader. None of these ease the player into getting ideas down pat, but literally throw them at you and hoping you understand them, oftentimes with the player not being given enough information to deeply grasp it.

[NeuroFunker 11]

bis said, they do plan a coop campaign later, so all we have to do is wait.

[chortles 263]

bis said, they do plan a coop campaign later, so all we have to do is wait.

Link or it didn't happen, not least since it directly contradicts Zipper5's prior stance.

[NeuroFunker 11]

Link or it didn't happen, not least since it directly contradicts Zipper5's prior stance.

Sounds nearly like "tits or gtfo" it was before ep1 release i think, some of the devs, dwarden maybe said they do plan to make an extra coop campaign, later after 3 ep's are released, when someone asked, if campaign was coopable.

[Tyl3r99 41]

OFP campaign was the best in the series, lets see if this one blows it out the water :D

[OMAC 254]

...seeing how the first episode of Arma III's campaign is about the same length as the average CoD campaign...

If I remember correctly, this statement is untrue. The campaigns for CoD MW and MW2 were significantly longer than Survive, and offered much more intense arcade combat. The Survive missions, although fun, do not, and should not, offer the same intensity as an arcade game mission, so, in terms of intensity, one arcade mission is equivalent to at least 2 Survive missions. And the Survive missions are, overall, quite short. But the full East Wind campaign will be much better, and 1000 times more realistic, than any CoD campaign, I'll bet, based on the high-quality gameplay of Survive.

---------- Post added at 07:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 AM ----------

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. :)

I agree 500%. It's where my heart is, too. :)

[Alwarren 2765]

If I remember correctly, this statement is untrue. The campaigns for CoD MW and MW2 were significantly longer than Survive

Not entirely sure anymore, but I think the MW3 campaign took me around six hours to play through

[OMAC 254]

I got MW3 for Xbox as a present, and never finished it, as I got tired of the controller and relatively lousy graphics on my non-1080p TV. But I had a lot of fun with MW and MW2 campaigns back in the day. They had a gritty feel with better character development than Survive, and took WAY LONGER than 6 hours to complete, especially on harder difficulties. But comparing Survive episode to full arcade campaigns is not fair. Overall, for 1/3 of the A3 campaign, Survive is about right in terms of length, immersion, and difficulty.

[Alwarren 2765]

I got MW3 for Xbox as a present, and never finished it, as I got tired of the controller and relatively lousy graphics on my non-1080p TV. But I had a lot of fun with MW and MW2 campaigns back in the day. They had a gritty feel with better character development than Survive, and took WAY LONGER than 6 hours to complete, especially on harder difficulties. But comparing Survive episode to full arcade campaigns is not fair. Overall, for 1/3 of the A3 campaign, Survive is about right in terms of length, immersion, and difficulty.

MW3 was about the shortest of the lot IIRC. Never said they were bad, I liked them all although they were completely incredible, and I hated how every time you did something more relevant than poking your nose, something exploded around you... Rapel down the side of a building, and looking up? BOOOM we need to shove another exploding Hind in your face.

[OMAC 254]

Off topic: which was the CoD* game with the ridiculous Hind mission where you are flying through the canyon, blasting everything in sight, and you can't crash no matter what? The canyon walls were like bumpers on a pool table for the Hind. It's a blast when you never run out of ammo! HA! :D

* I think it could have been Black Ops....:j: Yeah, here it is:

Gotta admit I had some fun times with those CoD games, and BF2. But those days are over, as far as I can tell. I haven't even bought Far Cry 3 yet, although I had great fun with FC2. Arma takes up too much of my time as it is. :rolleyes:

[chortles 263]

Ya know, OMAC, it could've actually been interesting had that instead been a 'purely' "driving" mission where the 'combat piloting' is more about setting up gun runs or missile shots dealt out by the AI gunner... like the reverse of BF3's "Going Hunting"*. That's what I recommended in that one "Rail shooting in campaign?" thread. ;)

* I'm still annoyed that "Guns! guns! guns!" was a LIE.

[OMAC 254]

^ ^ Yes, I agree. BF3 is another game that I haven't tried yet. I've got to get off this Arma thing...

;) Just kidding.... HA!

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Do you guys think it would be interesting to see a future medium Aircraft Carrier come into play in the Arma 3 Campaign somewhere?