Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
iceman77

SP "game mode" - There's a vast difference between a campaign, a mission and a GM

Recommended Posts

They should create separate categories for SP game mode and campaigns. And it should be "SP mission" and not "SP game mode". Or again, "game mode" should have it's own category. There's a vast difference in general (IMO) between a campaign, a SP mission and a SP 'game mode'.

Lets say if someone made a great SP mission... there's no way (with logical thinking) that mission will be able to compete with an equally well done campaign or even "game mode". These should be separate categories imo. We wouldn't want to give false hope to people who make a SP Mission now would we? , or are they just for filler?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They should create separate categories for SP game mode and campaigns. And it should be "SP mission" and not "SP game mode". Or again, "game mode" should have it's own category. There's a vast difference in general (IMO) between a campaign, a SP mission and a SP 'game mode'.

Lets say if someone made a great SP mission... there's no way (with logical thinking) that mission will be able to compete with an equally well done campaign or even "game mode". These should be separate categories imo. We wouldn't want to give false hope to people who make a SP Mission now would we? , or are they just for filler?

Eh, I think it's ok.

You have a year to do any of these things:

  • Make a mission - A single year is quite a lot of time to spend focusing on a single mission, so it can be really polished or you can make another mission and make it into a campaign.
  • Make a campaign (2 missions or more) - A single year is also plenty of time to make a campaign, but the time you can spend focusing on each mission cuts into your year, so 2 missions would mean you'd get 6 months of focus for each, 3 mission 4 months per mission, etc.
  • Make a "game mode" - I consider this a thing like Benny's SP Warfare or Whole Lotta Altis. They pack a lot of features and are quite opposite of what a single mission usually is. A game mode isn't story focused. You can make an SP horde mode or such. Make it as wide or as narrow as it's appropriate for such game mode. Warfare and Whole Lotta X missions go wide in using as much terrain as possible, while horde mode could have you holed up in a location.

Yes a well polished 6 mission campaign is going to beat a 1 polished mission, but making six times the missions with the same polish as one mission is a feat that should be rewarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But shouldn't it be common sense that a (more or less short) sp mission would have a harder time to compete?

Besides this, a campaign could still be worse than a well made sp mission... Playing a good mission > playing a boring campaign.

Other than that, I agree that this category could use a more detailed description. It's a very lose definition and could mean a many things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But shouldn't it be common sense that a (more or less short) sp mission would have a harder time to compete?

Besides this, a campaign could still be worse than a well made sp mission... Playing a good mission > playing a boring campaign.

Exactly. So why pit them against one another? On your second point, but lets say the campaign is equally well made (instead of a boring campaign). Then the well made SP mission stands no chance.

---------- Post added at 10:08 ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 ----------

Eh, I think it's ok.

You have a year to do any of these things:

  • Make a mission - A single year is quite a lot of time to spend focusing on a single mission, so it can be really polished or you can make another mission and make it into a campaign.
  • Make a campaign (2 missions or more) - A single year is also plenty of time to make a campaign, but the time you can spend focusing on each mission cuts into your year, so 2 missions would mean you'd get 6 months of focus for each, 3 mission 4 months per mission, etc.
  • Make a "game mode" - I consider this a thing like Benny's SP Warfare or Whole Lotta Altis. They pack a lot of features and are quite opposite of what a single mission usually is. A game mode isn't story focused. You can make an SP horde mode or such. Make it as wide or as narrow as it's appropriate for such game mode. Warfare and Whole Lotta X missions go wide in using as much terrain as possible, while horde mode could have you holed up in a location.

Yes a well polished 6 mission campaign is going to beat a 1 polished mission, but making six times the missions with the same polish as one mission is a feat that should be rewarded.

Even if we have 2 years to make these things, it wouldn't matter. The point is that an well made SP scenario, will never be able to compete against an equally well made campaign. Time has nothing to do with it IMO.

And yes, the person who made 6 polished missions for a campaign should be rewarded... by competing against other campaigns.

Edited by Iceman77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. So why pit them against one another? On your second point, but lets say the campaign is equally well made (instead of a boring campaign). Then the well made SP mission stands no chance.

---------- Post added at 10:08 ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 ----------

Even if we have 2 years to make these things, it wouldn't matter. The point is that an well made SP scenario, will never be able to compete against an equally well made campaign. Time has nothing to do with it IMO.

Why should it stand any chance? A 5 mission campaign is much more time and effort consuming than a single mission of the same quality.

If I made 1 mission in 3 months and someone else made a 4 mission campaign where each mission is of the same quality as my one mission is, they rightfully deserve to be rated above me.

And yes, the person who made 6 polished missions for a campaign should be rewarded... by competing against other campaigns.

Soooo, why would I make a campaign? I can boost my chances by slicing my campaign into 6 standalone missions and boost my chances of winning there. Or I could split them into 5 mission campaign and 1 single mission to cover both categories.

Edited by Sniperwolf572

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But an SP mission that introduces a new kind of game mode would equally beat a Campaign , i think you are not only Speculating on others behalf too much , you are mis interpret the actual possibility of the whole SP , including how much more an SP scenario can allow for and how long a "Mission can take" , i know some mission that are not the same every tiem i play for instance , which could equally be as good as a campaign .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a top tier SP mission, will not be able to compete with a top tier campaign. I'm saying IF BOTH ARE EQUALLY WELL MADE (regardless of dynamics, the type of SP mission, length etc etc). Obviously the one in campaign FORM very clearly will have the upper hand. Campaigns take on a whole new form than Sp scenarios.

---------- Post added at 10:19 ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 ----------

Meh, w/e. Was a logical suggestion that gets shot down. Reminds me of the feedback tracker, or any other forum for that matter LOL.

Edited by Iceman77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, a top tier SP mission, will not be able to compete with a top tier campaign. I'm saying IF BOTH ARE EQUALLY WELL MADE (no mattr the type of SP mission, length etc etc). Obviously the one in campaign FORM will have the upper hand. Campaigns take on a whole new form than Sp scenarios.
IF BOTH ARE EQUALLY WELL MADE
, but if they both equally well made then the SP mission will merit a win as much as the campaign , because for an SP mission with new game mode and dynamics will be just as deserving as a campaign , i see your literal logic thinking , but i think if you shake the salts of reality and dynamics of a judging panel with experience , you will see the likelihood is that all will be fair in MakeArmaNotWar ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, a top tier SP mission, will not be able to compete with a top tier campaign. I'm saying IF BOTH ARE EQUALLY WELL MADE (no mattr the type of SP mission, length etc etc). Obviously the one in campaign FORM very clearly will have the upper hand. Campaigns take on a whole new form than Sp scenarios.

Ok, let's say we have one author with 4 missions that guarantee him a win and another author with 1 mission that guarantees him a win and they are the only ones competing. This means each mission in the campaign is equally well made to the one mission of the other author.

In the current scenario:

  • First guy can put 4 missions into a campaign and win the top prize and second guy can put his mission and he ends as the runner up.
  • First guy can split his campaign into individual missions and will win at MINIMUM 2 of 3 prizes and the second guy might win one or none.

If they were separate, the award pool would be split in some way, even or uneven:

  • First guy can put 4 missions into a campaign and win the top prize of campaign and second guy can put his mission and win the single mission prize (which might be less worth than the 2nd place in the current scenario).
  • First guy can split his campaign into individual missions and will win at MINIMUM 2 of 3 prizes and the second guy might win one or none.
  • First guy can split his campaign into 2 mission campaign and 2 single missions, winning the campaign top prize and 2 of the prizes in the mission category. The second guy would win one of the prizes which again might be worth less than if he won guaranteed 2nd place in the current scenario.

First scenario:

Mixed 1st €50,000

Mixed 2nd €30,000

Mixed 3rd €20,000

vs

Second scenario:

Campaign 1st €35,000

Campaign 2nd €25,000

Campaign 3rd €10,000

Mission 1st €15,000

Mission 2nd €10,000

Mission 3rd €5,000

In a two horse race, which would you rather win? Mixed competition second or mission first?

Edited by Sniperwolf572

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can take more than a year for a single mission. RE Abandoned Armies. If somebody did a mission on Altis, on the scale of Abandoned Armies, with modern features and the same grade of voice acting and storytelling in a super dynamic mission, your average Campaign would have a -hard- time competing. Single missions need to stand out significantly, to compete against campaigns. Overall workmanship, artistry, creativity and gameplay design should count, not really the dimension of the project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can take more than a year for a single mission. RE Abandoned Armies. If somebody did a mission on Altis, on the scale of Abandoned Armies, with modern features and the same grade of voice acting and storytelling in a super dynamic mission, your average Campaign would have a -hard- time competing. Single missions need to stand out significantly, to compete against campaigns. Overall workmanship, artistry, creativity and gameplay design should count, not really the dimension of the project.

Most certainly. Abandoned Armies is a masterpiece. On the other hand a campaign integrated with 4 Abandoned Armies would blow a single Abandoned Army out of the water!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can take more than a year for a single mission. RE Abandoned Armies. If somebody did a mission on Altis, on the scale of Abandoned Armies, with modern features and the same grade of voice acting and storytelling in a super dynamic mission, your average Campaign would have a -hard- time competing. Single missions need to stand out significantly, to compete against campaigns. Overall workmanship, artistry, creativity and gameplay design should count, not really the dimension of the project.

Yeah. And lets say you've an equally great campaign with voice overs, dynamics, alot of time put it and all of that jazz. Simply because of the format the campaign is in would get it most votes.

---------- Post added at 10:45 ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 ----------

On the other hand a campaign integrated with 4 Abandoned Armies would blow a single Abandoned Army out of the water!

exactly, once again.. then why have them in the same category competing against one another? It'd be fairly pointless (or atleast not very encouraging) to make sp scenarios instead of campaigns for this event. I mean, if you're going for the gold.

Edited by Iceman77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
exactly, once again.. then why have them in the same category competing against one another? In short: it'd be pointless to make sp scenarios instead of campaigns for this event. I mean, if you're going for the gold.

13 GOTO 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the second scenario is all good and well. This is how they are doing it officially?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes the second scenario is all good and well. This is how they are doing it officially?

No, but look at the question in the end of that post that's using your logic that there will only be 2 entries, a campaign and a mission by different authors and that BI will judge according to logic that a campaign beats mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive my ignorance. I'm lost on what you're getting at here. I'll need to re-read your post more carefully. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I initially came in agreeing with the OP but I now agree with sniperwolf572. If someone has created a campaign of missions all with equal quality as another person who just made one mission the former should win. There shouldn't be another competition for single scenarios because really there isn't much difference between them and campaigns aside from quantity. And if you put more quality into a single scenario than someone puts into a campaign you are likely going to score higher than them anyway.

The best analogy I can think of is someone walking a running race and claiming they want first place for being the fastest walker out there, while placing last amongst the runners.

Hehe, oh gawd that's a horrible analogy but its the best I could think of.

All that said are campaigns even up for grabs though? is a campaign an acceptable "game-mode" entrance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few other things that I feel are a bit unclear:

First: When does the judging on projects begin? If something was released next week, will that be entered as a contestant or is there a certain date that the content 'should' be released in order to be available for judging? If the case is that it is a certain date, wouldn't that create a problem in the community as far as people not wanting to release their prize project until judging begins, meaning less mods and content until after the contest is over? Example: Something like ACE3 is ready for release but they decide to wait until contest date so it can be a competing mod, meaning us not seeing it till then. (Only an example...don't go around saying ACE3 is coming out.)

Second: What are the rules on unofficial content for the SP Contest? If people are allowed to release a project with any user created addon they wish, this could have certain draw-backs. Example: Someone releases a mission next month with some of the currently available content made by the community. Another person waits until near the end of the contest and releases their mission with all the LATEST available content made by the community. Wouldn't the mission with the latest content have the upperhand? Such as a mission made before the launch of ACE3, and a mission made after and using ACE3. (Once again, only an example. I just really liked ACE.) This would mean a person that is making a mission now would need to continuously keep updating it with new content and following game patches, as there's still lots to be released between now and then. If this is the case, I would be encouraged to wait until near the end of the contest to develop my mission so i could grab up all the latest hot mods on the net and add them into it. I just don't feel it would be fair to judge a mission that comes out now versus one that releases later due to the massive upgrades that could be made available to the one developed later.

Didn't mean to jack the thread, just thought this seemed relevant to this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The contest is a good idea (for both sides), but there is still a lot of things missing in ArmA 3 so you have to create things often with one hand tight to your back. I can not create the same things as I could in ArmA 2 still, not even GPS video is working or working ammo trucks or getting AI to properly walk over piers, etc, etc. Not that I would have any chance in the competition, but with a lot of missing stuff in ArmA 3 it does not make things easier. Also its unclear to me if you are alowed to use prefab scripts made by others or that 100% of the content has to made by you. And I also have the same questions that Siege-A mentioned above me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I can't understand how it would be acceptable to use other peoples already released scripts, unless of course you had their permission/ come to some sort of an agreement with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're thinking in too tight categories. A great Idea goes beyond the boundaries of the "category" it is assigned to. Citizen Kane is not a great movie because it was solely a great drama. Doom was not a great game because it solely was a great shooter.

Novelty and truly great Design go beyond the bounds of genre and mode, so an exceptionally good Idea might not even be able to be classed into a single category, strictly speaking. For example, you can look at "Abandoned Armies" as either a very long singleplayer mission OR a campaign without loading screens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a question Iceman, that got me thinking rigth at the start, but I guess InstaGoat gets the cookie. I got to the same conclusion.

Campaigns are static and usually storydriven, where a loadingscreen is needed for the next mission, because it thinks in separate missions.Which personally I don't like.

I like single scenarios to be dynamic, where the transition between missions are made on-the-fly or not-that-obvious. I prefer the latter. A world, where you decide what to do and where you go: basically giving player greater freedom, and not to think in separate missions and pre-set routes for the player.

I have been developing such an open mission for quite a time now. And this is what I do contest or not. :) Because campaigns kill freedom. Still they are a different approach for the same job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why SP mission would be less than Campaign? I am slowly creating at least 10 hours long mission with cutscenes and all. Harder to make it work, but as single-mission form nothing have to reset during playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm saying IF BOTH ARE EQUALLY WELL MADE (regardless of dynamics, the type of SP mission, length etc etc).

This feels kinda meh in the form of a statement. I get what you're trying to say, but this contest is not solely about production quality of a mission/campaign. You can't disregard dynamics, type etc. A singleplayer mission can easily win over a campaign. Remember that this category will be put under public voting first (which will be rigged as hell anyway as far as I can see it (ie HEY FRIEND VOTE FOR MY THING x100), and only the top 20 entries get to be reviewed by the final jury (Red Cross / BI / Industry Professionals). Now the thing is, missions can be diverse - Let's say you have a mission going on about some civil war, really detailed etc. That can actually score some points over a campaign which describes the generic USMC Invasion of Altis, even though it is equally well made. Simply because the first one is slightly more out of the box than the latter, and hasn't been done as much.

I suppose what I'm saying is, there is no real reason to split campaigns and missions, as both have equal chances. As for game mode, I'm inclined to agree with you - neither campaigns nor missions are a "game mode" in particular, like DayZ. A game mode like Dynamic Zombie Sandbox (as an example) may eventually score all public voting points due to the sheer size, easy access and replayability it grants. There's no way to compare DZS & a singleplayer mission / campaign, as both are vastly different in the end, aswell as game modes will more than likely be able to score more votes, if they've been around / announced a fair time beforehand.

You can probably tell I'm a bit paranoid about the whole public voting system here, but I'm fairly sure BIS got their stuff figured out. We're talking about 50,000 Euros here. I realize public voting is not the end of the line, but having 20 "products" sent away to the jury, whilst considering how voting will be affected by fanbase/friends/acquaintances etc, some great things may be lost due to not being popular enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes ofcourse you can't disregard dynamics and the things that make a mission great to begin with. I guess what I was trying to say from the start; (Giving all else equal quality) The campaign would win simply because of the format it's in. It's much more robust usually. And offers the user a little bit more, outside of the actual gameplay itself (actually being in the game in control of the character). In any case, there are some good arguments for both sides here. BI will do whatever they want in the end though, so I suppose it doesn't matter :p

Kind Regards,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×