Campaign Episode 1: SURVIVE - Feedback thread ** SPOILER WARNING! **

[antoineflemming 14]

I do not want arma 3 to follow the standard shoot the bad guys philosophy games suffer from. Soldiers have to decide contending loyalties especially in a civic group. A civic group has to take measures to prevent itself from becoming more ethnic minded during conflict. There is no good or bad, only a viewpoint from a single side. To beat your enemy, you must understand them.

And how would that look in a game? You want some of the NATO soldiers contemplating betraying their countries to join the AAF who, need I remind, just turned on the NATO forces, butchered their own people,etc? That what you want with them "contending loyalties"?

[progamer 14]

What? Get off your soap box and take your political commentary somewhere else. One, NATO wasn't even formed during either World War. Two, the US calling the AAF "Greenbacks" is no different than all you anti-US guys calling Americans "Yanks". Both sides dehumanize the other. It happens in war and makes it easier to do your job, which is to kill the enemy. War is most certainly about kill this, kill that. That's war. At the end of the day, that's what you're doing. You're killing the enemy. You got a problem with war and the game's depiction of it? Go find another game. The point of the first episode of the campaign (not "the campaign" as if you've replayed the whole campaign) is to end on a cliffhanger where in the next two episodes you will understand the deeper complexity of the conflict. But it's not that complex if you'd do a little digging yourself. Matter of fact, you don't have to. A couple pages ago I did that for you. It's really simple. Iran, Russia, and China have essentially formed their own NATO: CSAT: Canton-Protocol Alliance Treaty. The closest real-life version of that is the SCO: Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Both of these were formed with China at the center. The resurgent Iran is expansive and has imperial ambitions. They seized Turkey when the nation was at it's weakest - forces deployed to another nation on a humanitarian mission, hit by a series of unprecedented natural disasters. The Iranians pushed through Turkey and into Greece. They seized half of that country before being halted by the Jerusalem Peace Accords of 2033 (that's the Jerusalem Ceasefire mentioned in the intro). In the E3 2012 story, the Iranians had captured Limnos/Altis, and this Survive episode was supposed to be the Iranians launching an invasion of Stratis. Now, it's that Altis and Stratis are independent, and the Iranians invade. While Iran is expanding in the Middle East, North Africa, and the Mediterranean, China is growing its influence and taking the Pacific. The "shipped out to the Pacific to play with the big boys" dialogue refers to that: the US and China are in a proxy war in the Pacific, and that is where the US's real focus is, hence why Stratis is understaffed so to speak. THAT is the background. The story has been thought out. It's been revealed for over a year now, and frankly I don't care how the US forces view the AAF as clearly they are traitorous just like many in the ANA and ANP in Afghanistan. So, again, cut the political commentary. If you were playing as the AAF or CSAT, it'd be no different.

? War is not solely about killing the other side. Each side has its own values and beliefs that can overlap. I never said NATO was formed durring or before any world wars. I said they were dehumanizing the enemy which could lead to events like US soldiers taking souvenirs from dead Japanese soldiers. Or propaganda saying the other side is pure evil and not human. When in reality, soldiers on both sides may have not had a choice as to whether or not they joined the Army and what they do. This echos Nazi Germany, while the dehumazing echos Nazi germany and Japan in world war 2.

An example of people thinking like this would be the fighter pilot who used his plane as a shield to protect a British bomber from being shot down and killed. The Nazi pilot and the British pilot survived the war and became freinds afterwards. Morals, ethics and many other values play heavily into a conflict. http://jalopnik.com/5971023/why-a-german-pilot-escorted-an-american-bomber-to-safety-during-world-war-ii

Edited November 3, 2013 by ProGamer

[msy 22]

And how would that look in a game? You want some of the NATO soldiers contemplating betraying their countries to join the AAF who, need I remind, just turned on the NATO forces, butchered their own people,etc? That what you want with them "contending loyalties"?

He must like a 1st Philippines battle of WWII

Edited November 3, 2013 by msy

[progamer 14]

And how would that look in a game? You want some of the NATO soldiers contemplating betraying their countries to join the AAF who, need I remind, just turned on the NATO forces, butchered their own people,etc? That what you want with them "contending loyalties"?

What? Contending loyalties would be for example since NATO is a civic group but could happen in a more ethnic way for a CSAT soldier: A soldier fighting for NATO immigrated to a NATO country from a CSAT country at some time before the conflict. This soldier has freinds and/or family members in a CSAT army or country. The soldier would have to reconcile these contending loyalties. He can do this by ignoring it, refusing to fight, and many other ways.

A conflict is not 2D

It does matter what one side thinks of the other. Without remembering that the other side is human, you go too far and commit war crimes against them, which can fuel hate against your side, create monsters out of your soldiers, and cause problems regarding public relations.

Media is a huge factor these days. Media is far more powerful than any army could ever be and can be your greatest enemy or best friend.

Edited November 3, 2013 by ProGamer

[antoineflemming 14]

What? Contending loyalties would be for example since NATO is a civic group but could happen in a more ethnic way for a CSAT soldier: A soldier fighting for NATO immigrated to a NATO country from a CSAT country at some time before the conflict. This soldier has friends and/or family members in a CSAT army or country. The soldier would have to reconcile these contending loyalties. He can do this by ignoring it, refusing to fight, and many other ways.

A conflict is not 2D

So now he's insubordinate? Ok. Right. Or maybe it could not show that. Because it doesn't need to. What you really want is to show controversy where it need not be shown. You want controversy for the sake of controversy. That's what you want. During WW2 there were a few all-Japanese-American (since they were segregated at the time) units fighting the Japanese in the Pacific. Those units didn't stand down and refuse to fight because they shared common ethnicity with their enemies. So in no way is that the norm. Nor should it be shown as such. Again, what you really want is to show something that makes the "good guys" actually like the "bad guys" and dislike the "good guys". That's what you want essentially. For someone to say "Hey, CSAT's not that bad. It's NATO that's really bad." There's no need for that in this game.

This is offtopic anyway so maybe we should get back to discussing the actual campaign.

[progamer 14]

So now he's insubordinate? Ok. Right. Or maybe it could not show that. Because it doesn't need to. What you really want is to show controversy where it need not be shown. You want controversy for the sake of controversy. That's what you want. During WW2 there were a few all-Japanese-American (since they were segregated at the time) units fighting the Japanese in the Pacific. Those units didn't stand down and refuse to fight because they shared common ethnicity with their enemies. So in no way is that the norm. Nor should it be shown as such. Again, what you really want is to show something that makes the "good guys" actually like the "bad guys" and dislike the "good guys". That's what you want essentially. For someone to say "Hey, CSAT's not that bad. It's NATO that's really bad." There's no need for that in this game.

This is offtopic anyway so maybe we should get back to discussing the actual campaign.

Your not reading or not fully understanding what I am saying. Or your ideology reflects a biased indotrination and/or propaganda. Which if you understand these words, they are not always bad.

You think the dehamanizing of Japanese soldiers was ok? It led to a savagery that did more harm then good and created new enemies. It also contributed towards a eurocentric like viewpoint that in today's world, would cause such a problem with media, that the US would gain more enemies and be in very hot water with the international community.

For a modern day example, look at US drone strikes. It creates more enemies than it kills. And from the UN's point of view, is not ethically ok.

Edited November 3, 2013 by ProGamer

[antoineflemming 14]

Your not reading or not fully understanding what I am saying. Or your ideology reflects a biased indotrination and/or propaganda. Which if you understand these words, they are not always bad.

You think the dehamanizing of Japanese soldiers was ok? It led to a savagery that did more harm then good and created new enemies. It also contributed towards a eurocentric like viewpoint that in today's world, would cause such a problem with media, that the US would gain more enemies and be in very hot water with the international community.

For a modern day example, look at US drone strikes. It creates more enemies than it kills. And from the UN's point of view, is not ethically ok.

I'm not saying that they were or weren't dehumanized. What I am saying is that even though you had the issue where some US forces actually did come from Japan, there wasn't the situation where they refused to fight, which is what you want. You specifically mentioned a scenario where they refuse to fight, as if that's what you are looking for. As well, you mention the dehumanizing of Japanese soldiers on the part of the US but you very predictably fail to mention the dehumanizing of the American and Chinese soldiers on the part of the Japanese. Because most certainly at that time the Japanese were brutal and savage in their treatment of their enemies. The point is that both sides view the other this way. It's not something that's unique to the US or unique to NATO. And, of course, the desire to see this is nothing more than a desire to see the west reflected as this evil racist bigoted side while the other side is viewed as being the real good guys and ones who treat their enemies like they are human. And I say this because you have not once mentioned a scenario where the other side experiences this. You not once mentioned how east and west do this. Your only perspective is on the dehumanizing West. It is not some biased viewpoint that I am coming from. Rather, it is quite unbiased in that both sides do this. It's war. It's the way someone rationalizes killing in the first place. Makes it more agreeable to the person to kill the enemy. I guarantee you it's not just NATO that does this as you are presuming. I understand fully what you're saying. I'm saying that there's no point to having it in the game unless the point is to come from the perspective that CSAT and the AAF are really the good, perfect guys, and that NATO is really the bad/imperfect faction. In other words, it's your point of view that's biased to suggesting that everyone's pure except the US/NATO/the West.

To be clear, the former post was only to challenge the notion of featuring a soldier or group of soldiers who, being originally from the enemy country, refuse to fight the enemy country because of their shared ethnicity. And I used the example of Japanese-American soldiers to challenge that notion as a flawed notion that only seeks to create controversy and to portray one side as imperfect in light of the other sides suggested perfection. To truly be unbiased there are only two options - portray both sides as not dehumanizing/not concerned with possibly fighting relatives, or to portray both sides as doing such. Because one thing you failed to consider is the opposite end of your scenario - what about the relative who is fighting for CSAT? Why should the NATO Iranian-American refuse to fight his CSAT cousin but the CSAT Iranian not refuse to fight his NATO cousin? Why should the restraint/humanizing/insubordination only happen for the NATO side? It's this kind of thinking/rationale that essentially says it's ok for NATO's enemies to dehumanize and show no respect for human life because the only time something's wrong is if the West does it. It's this kind of thinking that exonerates and legitimizes the actions of terrorists, because everytime they do something, they say, "Well, America does this. America does that." You criticize drone strikes as ethically wrong but you don't for one second mention the target of the drone strikes, nor do you mention that it is the Taliban, al Qaeda, N. Korea, al-Shabaab, etc, that commit unethical acts as well. There's this universal call for the US to act responsibly yet there is no call for NATO's enemies to do the same. It's wrong for the US soldiers during WW2 to dehumanize the Japanese but there's no similar calling out of the Japanese for doing worse. For me, as an African-American, it's the same with how a lot of African-Americans treat Caucasians. It was deplorable for a large number of "whites" to participate in and support the slavery of "blacks", yet from the African-American community there is NONE, and has rarely if never been ANY similar calling out of Africans who enslaved their own people long before whites ever enslaved blacks. THAT's my point. It's easy to say "The West does this. The West does that. Show the West doing this or that." Yet there's none saying the same for the East. You come across as yet another Westerner that's disillusioned with the West and one that has come to see the West's mistakes and faults as worse than that of the East, and so being disillusioned, the only ones at fault, and only ones in need of being portrayed as such as the West. That's also a biased perspective. Either BIS needs to not portray this conflict that you want at all, or they need to show it for both sides, as in showing the player encountering Iranians who don't want to fight. Either that, or they can show a somewhat realistic view of how soldiers react, as in making up derogatory nicknames for allies or enemies they see as less-competent (that's what the Greenbacks are considered, green, inexperienced, hence the name greenback. It's not just about their camouflage).

[progamer 14]

I'm not saying that they were or weren't dehumanized. What I am saying is that even though you had the issue where some US forces actually did come from Japan, there wasn't the situation where they refused to fight, which is what you want. You specifically mentioned a scenario where they refuse to fight, as if that's what you are looking for. As well, you mention the dehumanizing of Japanese soldiers on the part of the US but you very predictably fail to mention the dehumanizing of the American and Chinese soldiers on the part of the Japanese. Because most certainly at that time the Japanese were brutal and savage in their treatment of their enemies. The point is that both sides view the other this way. It's not something that's unique to the US or unique to NATO. And, of course, the desire to see this is nothing more than a desire to see the west reflected as this evil racist bigoted side while the other side is viewed as being the real good guys and ones who treat their enemies like they are human. And I say this because you have not once mentioned a scenario where the other side experiences this. You not once mentioned how east and west do this. Your only perspective is on the dehumanizing West. It is not some biased viewpoint that I am coming from. Rather, it is quite unbiased in that both sides do this. It's war. It's the way someone rationalizes killing in the first place. Makes it more agreeable to the person to kill the enemy. I guarantee you it's not just NATO that does this as you are presuming. I understand fully what you're saying. I'm saying that there's no point to having it in the game unless the point is to come from the perspective that CSAT and the AAF are really the good, perfect guys, and that NATO is really the bad/imperfect faction. In other words, it's your point of view that's biased to suggesting that everyone's pure except the US/NATO/the West.

To be clear, the former post was only to challenge the notion of featuring a soldier or group of soldiers who, being originally from the enemy country, refuse to fight the enemy country because of their shared ethnicity. And I used the example of Japanese-American soldiers to challenge that notion as a flawed notion that only seeks to create controversy and to portray one side as imperfect in light of the other sides suggested perfection. To truly be unbiased there are only two options - portray both sides as not dehumanizing/not concerned with possibly fighting relatives, or to portray both sides as doing such. Because one thing you failed to consider is the opposite end of your scenario - what about the relative who is fighting for CSAT? Why should the NATO Iranian-American refuse to fight his CSAT cousin but the CSAT Iranian not refuse to fight his NATO cousin? Why should the restraint/humanizing/insubordination only happen for the NATO side? It's this kind of thinking/rationale that essentially says it's ok for NATO's enemies to dehumanize and show no respect for human life because the only time something's wrong is if the West does it. It's this kind of thinking that exonerates and legitimizes the actions of terrorists, because everytime they do something, they say, "Well, America does this. America does that." You criticize drone strikes as ethically wrong but you don't for one second mention the target of the drone strikes, nor do you mention that it is the Taliban, al Qaeda, N. Korea, al-Shabaab, etc, that commit unethical acts as well. There's this universal call for the US to act responsibly yet there is no call for NATO's enemies to do the same. It's wrong for the US soldiers during WW2 to dehumanize the Japanese but there's no similar calling out of the Japanese for doing worse. For me, as an African-American, it's the same with how a lot of African-Americans treat Caucasians. It was deplorable for a large number of "whites" to participate in and support the slavery of "blacks", yet from the African-American community there is NONE, and has rarely if never been ANY similar calling out of Africans who enslaved their own people long before whites ever enslaved blacks. THAT's my point. It's easy to say "The West does this. The West does that. Show the West doing this or that." Yet there's none saying the same for the East. You come across as yet another Westerner that's disillusioned with the West and one that has come to see the West's mistakes and faults as worse than that of the East, and so being disillusioned, the only ones at fault, and only ones in need of being portrayed as such as the West. That's also a biased perspective. Either BIS needs to not portray this conflict that you want at all, or they need to show it for both sides, as in showing the player encountering Iranians who don't want to fight. Either that, or they can show a somewhat realistic view of how soldiers react, as in making up derogatory nicknames for allies or enemies they see as less-competent (that's what the Greenbacks are considered, green, inexperienced, hence the name greenback. It's not just about their camouflage).

I never said anything about the west being worse than the east. What I was trying to get at, is no side is perfect. War is not just about winning. It's how you fight the war. Winning means nothing if the world hates you. If you do not think about how you fight the war, then you risk loosing the war because of the enemies you have made. Just because the enemy does it, does not make it the right course of action or acceptable in the eyes of the international community.

Things happen we're both sides dehumanize the enemy, though these actions can cause you to have to fight even more people then you have to. Things like this would be heavily considered of the person in charge of the militery was intelligent.

Edited November 3, 2013 by ProGamer

[antoineflemming 14]

I never said anything about the west being worse than the east. What I was trying to get at, is no side is perfect. War is not just about winning. It's how you fight the war. Winning means nothing if the world hates you. If you do not think about how you fight the war, then you risk loosing the war because of the enemies you have made. Just because the enemy does it, does not make it the right course of action or acceptable in the eyes of the international community.

Well my point is that both sides do this. Sure, it's wrong, but it's wrong regardless of which side does it, not just if NATO does it. But it happens and it'd be realistic to portray this happening. Ok. You don't hear any soldiers in the game talking about how they don't want to fight, about how the AAF have families. Apparently that's dehumanizing to you. I fail to see how NATO dehumanized CSAT (they don't even talk about the "ethnic" CSAT in the game) and the AAF in the game to begin with. What? Because soldiers don't refuse to fight the AAF like you said you wanted to see? You say that NATO seems to be dehumanizing the AAF in the game. You say nothing about the AAF dehumanizing NATO. What dehumanizing are you talking about anyway? That's where I say that you want to portray NATO as this imperfect entity in light of a seemingly perfect CSAT/AAF. Because I fail to see where NATO is dehumanizing the AAF simply by fighting them. I mean, should they stop defending themselves and try to rationalize why the AAF turned on them, looking for some excuse about their families or something? That's what I mean. In the story, it's a clear-cut AAF turned on NATO, and now NATO forces are defending themselves. If anything, it's dehumanizing for the AAF to turn on their allies when they're at their weakest point on the island. You don't mention that the AAF turn on and kill men who are about to return to their families. They kill the commander (yeah, spoiler) who most certainly has a wife if not kids as well. You don't mention how the AAF in the game fail to think about the fact that NATO forces have families. That's where I say that you are being biased by seeking a particular portrayal of NATO forces but not wanting to see the same from others. That's where I say you are being biased by suggesting that NATO forces not contemplating their allegiance or not refusing to fight somehow fosters a dehumanizing attitude yet fail to consider that the AAF in the game betraying NATO isn't a good enough reason to fight back. That's why I say you are being biased.

Edited November 3, 2013 by antoineflemming

[2nd ranger 282]

After playing the campaign again, I fail to see the deeper complexity of the conflict. NATO seems to be a very civic force fighting against the very ethnic CSAT. NATO appears to be repeating the similar process of dehumanizing the enemy that occurred durring both world wars that could easily lead to a lack of understanding that they are fighting other human beings. NATO also appears to have a similar behavior towards AAF.

The deeper complexities of the campaign should be thought out first before deciding what events and information the player will receive. War is not always about shoot this or kill that. People may not have had a choice whether or not they went to war and who they fight for.

It's a game. You're taking it, and yourself, way too seriously.

But see you only ever visit a few places. You never once go to the lower half of the island.

That's not true at all. The campaign starts at LZ Connor, which is in the south, and then in the mission Crossing Paths you return to that area, clearing Connor and the cluster of houses to the South of it. There isn't really anything further south than that, except a lighthouse and the Spartan monument.

Just for you, here's a map of the mission locations, including rough indications of the ground you travel in each mission, chopper and car journeys not included. 'Patrol' missions not included either.

[mistyronin 1181]

Either that, or they can show a somewhat realistic view of how soldiers react, as in making up derogatory nicknames for allies or enemies they see as less-competent (that's what the Greenbacks are considered, green, inexperienced, hence the name greenback. It's not just about their camouflage).

I thought that green in this case stand for allied, like in the expression "green on blue". Can also be a word game.

[antoineflemming 14]

I thought that green in this case stand for allied, like in the expression "green on blue". Can also be a word game.

Only talking about the name "greenbacks". It's a jab at their skill level, not just that they have green camo or are green forces. At least that's what I think it is or what it could be. Either way this portrayal that ProGamer is looking for isn't needed for this game. It's a biased portrayal anyway. And it's not universally realistic.

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

Congrats BI, the "Lead" soundtrack is now my favorite ArmA soundtrack! :D

[mistyronin 1181]

Congrats BI, the "Lead" soundtrack is now my favorite ArmA soundtrack! :D

Agree. The OFP modernized theme is awesome. Although it would be also nice to lisen to Lifeless from Seventh in A3.

[chrs 2]

You actually managed to make a campaign that is playable lol, well done!

After previous games and dlc I wasen't expecting to enjoy myself but its playable, looking forward to the next one.

[bonchie 39]

After playing the campaign again, I fail to see the deeper complexity of the conflict. NATO seems to be a very civic force fighting against the very ethnic CSAT. NATO appears to be repeating the similar process of dehumanizing the enemy that occurred durring both world wars that could easily lead to a lack of understanding that they are fighting other human beings. NATO also appears to have a similar behavior towards AAF.

The deeper complexities of the campaign should be thought out first before deciding what events and information the player will receive. War is not always about shoot this or kill that. People may not have had a choice whether or not they went to war and who they fight for.

The "greenbacks" in the story killed half their population committing genocide. They are dehumanized in the storyline because 1) they deserve to be and 2) that's what real soldiers would do facing that realization. There's no political correctness in battlefield dialogue nor should BI pretend there is.

Crying about WW2 dehumanization of the Japanese (who were ridiculously murderous and brutal to civilians) is pointless.

---------- Post added at 12:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 PM ----------

I do not want arma 3 to follow the standard shoot the bad guys philosophy games suffer from. Soldiers have to decide contending loyalties especially in a civic group. A civic group has to take measures to prevent itself from becoming more ethnic minded durring conflict. There is no good or bad, only a viewpoint from a single side. To beat your enemy, you must understand them.

Why do they have to take those measures? Because you say so? In the real world soldiers develop ethnic prejudices against those they are fighting all the time. Especially if who they are fighting are committing genocide.

What BI portrayed is much more realistic then making soldiers into politically correct robots.

[MavericK96 0]

And I had some sound issues with my 7.1 G35. Regular talking (no coms) could only be heard on my left side and when turning my back, face or right side to them I couldn't hear them. Everything else worked fine. Don't know if thats due to my setup but I never experienced this before in other games.

Yep, same issue I described above.

[Grek 10]

Just complete 1st part of campagin. Guys who can explain the dev's logic.

1. Miller ask the group of survivors: Collect guns and equipment -> Only 1 boy loot the dead bodies (player)

2. Lots of veehicles during the campagin (your squad can clean almost all island with this arsenal). But noone is using the captured enemy vehicles.

3. Loot as many as you can. But will be better if you dont use the trucks for transporting ammo to base

4. Completed the mission and get good equipment, after briefing spawned near ammo with default equip (NV googles and silencer dissapeared)

5. Final mission - escape. I see mi-48, shoot him (he landed). Why we need repair the good helicopter? Better if our squad will continue run under rain of mortar fire.

This "sandbox" makes me cry. Really.

P.s. Sorry for my bad English

[progamer 14]

Just complete 1st part of campagin. Guys who can explain the dev's logic.

1. Miller ask the group of survivors: Collect guns and equipment -> Only 1 boy loot the dead bodies (player)

2. Lots of veehicles during the campagin (your squad can clean almost all island with this arsenal). But noone is using the captured enemy vehicles.

3. Loot as many as you can. But will be better if you dont use the trucks for transporting ammo to base

4. Completed the mission and get good equipment, after briefing spawned near ammo with default equip (NV googles and silencer dissapeared)

5. Final mission - escape. I see mi-48, shoot him (he landed). Why we need repair the good helicopter? Better if our squad will continue run under rain of mortar fire.

This "sandbox" makes me cry. Really.

P.s. Sorry for my bad English

Interested why this is as well.

[Grek 10]

Interested why this is as well.

Idk.

This my point of view: Your team loot enemies, they bring their loot to base. During mission you found Kamaz truck and you can bring more loot. And most important: if you bring rebel's weapons, in crates should be rebel's weapon. not NATO.

[bonchie 39]

Just complete 1st part of campagin. Guys who can explain the dev's logic.

1. Miller ask the group of survivors: Collect guns and equipment -> Only 1 boy loot the dead bodies (player)

2. Lots of veehicles during the campagin (your squad can clean almost all island with this arsenal). But noone is using the captured enemy vehicles.

3. Loot as many as you can. But will be better if you dont use the trucks for transporting ammo to base

4. Completed the mission and get good equipment, after briefing spawned near ammo with default equip (NV googles and silencer dissapeared)

5. Final mission - escape. I see mi-48, shoot him (he landed). Why we need repair the good helicopter? Better if our squad will continue run under rain of mortar fire.

This "sandbox" makes me cry. Really.

P.s. Sorry for my bad English

In regards to 5, that'd be highly unrealistic. On the outskirts of a major enemy base, soldiers wouldn't jump into a russian made helo and fly away.

The simplest answer is that the campaign isn't a sandbox. It's a linear, story driven campaign like OFP was.

[Antichrist 0]

In regards to 5, that'd be highly unrealistic. On the outskirts of a major enemy base, soldiers wouldn't jump into a russian made helo and fly away.

The simplest answer is that the campaign isn't a sandbox. It's a linear, story driven campaign like OFP was.

Except that it is way more linear and way less story driven. 3 hours of gameplay with 0 replay value is a joke.

[Grek 10]

The simplest answer is that the campaign isn't a sandbox. It's a linear, story driven campaign like OFP was.

i hope the first part of campagin it was just "intro"

[chortles 263]

Yeah, it was pretty overtly meant to be only a first episode...

[mistyronin 1181]

The simplest answer is that the campaign isn't a sandbox. It's a linear, story driven campaign like OFP was.

lots of the players were asking for a SP linear campaign like OFP ( you can search on this forums ). Which BTW I support.