Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Wiki

Campaign Episode 3: WIN - Feedback thread ** SPOILER WARNING! **

Recommended Posts

Well, that plot does make some sense, although it still has holes a whole...truck can go through. Like,

if CSAT was there just to test, then...why we're they there in the first place? Why not testing in Mongolia or somewhere. It's the equivalent of NATO testing a top-secret weapon in a cave in Afghanistan

Because it's along the Mediterranean ridge, and it's quite well hidden (just like a cave in Afghanistan :p).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because it's along the Mediterranean ridge, and it's quite well hidden (just like a cave in Afghanistan :p).

Yeah, while earthquakes in Iran or China are entirely unprecedented :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, while earthquakes in Iran or China are entirely unprecedented :P

Yes, but if I were an evil faction creating a WMD I wouldn't be testing it in my own country, possibly causing major damage to my own infrastructure.

However, there's the neutral state of Altis, which isn't exactly in a good spot. Even if there's a major earthquake everybody would be too busy with the deadly civil war and the NATO withdrawal to be suspicious of any possible involvement of a third faction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is, again, a point (although, Americans didn't have a problem with testing nukes in their own yard!).

I'm not arguing against you, simply pointing out that the storyline is somewhat flawed - at the very least, lackluster...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing troubles me

It is clear that Miller and the "boss" behind him (UK gov?) clearly knew about the incoming counter attack, yet why they choose not to inform other NATO countries for a proper defense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing troubles me

It is clear that Miller and the "boss" behind him (UK gov?) clearly knew about the incoming counter attack, yet why they choose not to inform other NATO countries for a proper defense?

IIRC at the end of episode 2 you find out that

Noone has ever heard of Miller, so he may not have been UK SF at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then his identity is cleared up in Win. You're not told explicitly who he is, but it's heavily implied that he's legit, just perhaps working to an agenda that is not entirely known to the Americans. Of course, if you go with the 'Miller' ending, it seems like the British government doesn't give a damn about what happens to the NATO task force on Altis, if indeed Miller is a 'good guy'.

Edited by 2nd Ranger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But then his identity is cleared up in Win. You're not told explicitly who he is, but it's heavily implied that he's legit, just perhaps working to an agenda that is not entirely known to the Americans. Of course, if you go with the 'Miller' ending, it seems like the British government doesn't give a damn about what happens to the NATO task force on Altis, if indeed Miller is a 'good guy'.

Heh, i finished the campaign yesterday and i have absolutely no memory of that. I am afraid that this campaign isnt going to leave the impression that CWC did. :p

Overall i liked it. Though it did lack the ambition that ArmA2 had, or the plain fun of the original OFP missions. I also feel like it ended just when the story got going.

I replayed CWC last Christmas, and the missions are just very well balanced and always fun to play. Compared to ArmA3 missions where i frequently have to clean up an entire enemy army alone because all my allies prefer to die within the first 3 minutes (Not just because of my shitty commanding, other squads as well). Also, conversations and character building in OFP was a bit better, even though they were barely present compared to some other games.

Edited by NeMeSiS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good campaign, it doesn't stand up to OFP level but still very enjoyable. Story was actually pretty good for me, of course it had some silly moments like sergant leading the final attack or AAF attacking NATO during thier withdrawal for no apparent reason(couldn't they wait?), but I liked superweapon motive and open ending, everyone is now wondering who Miller was, that's actually awesome :) I really liked final missions, especially in ending A, when you transport reporter to Nikos, seeing all those civilians moving around, it really gave "life" to Altis, you definitely BIS should put more of those "peaceful" moments, it really adds immersion to story I still remeber "Alert" mission from CWC :) I really hope the story will be expanded in future DLC's. Oh, and I like future setting. It gives many possibilites to expand armaverse, most of you probably don't agree with me but I think it was good decision to put this into future. I hope we are going to see some more content soon though.

Thank you Bohemia :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Devs, it's possible to remove the heal action from James, i have wasted one first aid kit unnecessarily assuming it would save him from death?

you can take as many as you can from the other deads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...] or AAF attacking NATO during thier withdrawal for no apparent reason(couldn't they wait?)[...]

I guess this was Miller and his men (undercover ofc). They started the conflict and later did everything possible to draw it out (Mike-26, sabotaging the invasion, etc.). He needed this chaos so he could get his hands on one of those CSAT devices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what do you think the real ending?

Definitely the "Miller ending", for several reasons:

1. Unlike the other one, it's an open ending. It's also a lot less boring and abrupt.

2. You get more information about what was going on behind the scenes, e.g. that Miller was apparently after the mysterious "device" all along.

3. Miller got the device and escaped, which is an obvious setup for a sequel.

Btw. I just got around to finishing the campaign yesterday. On the whole I have to say I wasn't really blown away by it (for several reasons), but the Miller ending actually turned it around somewhat and left me curious for more.

Especially the final epilogue mission, which I think I'll play again a few more times, primarily to see if there are more secrets scattered about the island, but also because it's extremely atmospheric.

I actually like the fact that you can't save during that mission, because it functions kind of like "permadeath", making it all the more exciting. My last playthrough - where I finally managed to escape - actually got my adrenaline pumping several times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the real ending matters; whether or not Altis or Stratis sways its favor to NATO or CSAT, I don't think we will hear much of the islands in the series ever again, other than being told that there was a conflict. The same thing with Kerry; whether or not he lives or dies doesn't matter, I doubt we'll see or hear from him again (and if we do, then we'll at least know that the possible ending where he is permanently killed is not canon).

Remember ArmA II and Operation Arrowhead? There were references to Takistan in Harvest Red (before OA came out. It's the same thing with ArmA III; there are references to the Pacific), but in Operation Arrowhead, there was hardly a mention of Chernarus; whether or not Chernarus was freed did not matter, but we do know that the ending where the Chedaki + Russians lost was canon due to the fact that BI had to reuse assets from the CDF for the UN, so they explained that the Chernarussians, having quelled a civil war (status quo; no change in government), were helping in peacekeeping operations, but I doubt they wanted to do that and would've rather left the ending to Harvest Red more ambiguous. I have a feeling that BI won't, if they do re-use the assets for the AAF in a sequel, have the AAF in the sequel this time even if those previous assets were made specifically for them in the first campaign. BI will probably give these assets to some other faction, probably European since the equipment was mainly from a mixture of European countries (maybe a part of NATO? Or another new faction for Blufor/Independent?).

I think Miller, however, will definitely be in a sequel to the story. He is practically the main focus of interest and most of the events that occur during the campaign are a result of his doing; he was the one who instigated the events on Stratis for some unknown reason, he was the one who gave misinformation to the FIA and he was the one who delayed NATO forces from proceeding. This was all in an effort to get that tectonic device, for which we still don't know why he and his CTRG team acquired, but I can guess what.

Edited by Jinzor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the real ending matters; whether or not Altis or Stratis sways its favor to NATO or CSAT, I don't think we will hear much of the islands in the series ever again, other than being told that there was a conflict. The same thing with Kerry; whether or not he lives or dies doesn't matter, I doubt we'll see or hear from him again (and if we do, then we'll at least know that the possible ending where he is permanently killed is not canon).

Remember ArmA II and Operation Arrowhead? There were references to Takistan in Harvest Red (before OA came out. It's the same thing with ArmA III; there are references to the Pacific), but in Operation Arrowhead, there was hardly a mention of Chernarus; whether or not Chernarus was freed did not matter, but we do know that the ending where the Chedaki + Russians lost was canon due to the fact that BI reused assets from the CDF for the UN, explaining that the Chernarussians, having quelled a civil war (status quo; no change in government), were helping in peacekeeping operations. I have a feeling that BI won't, if they do re-use the assets for the AAF in a sequel, have the AAF in the sequel even if those previous assets were made specifically for them in the first campaign. BI will probably give these assets to some other faction, probably European since the equipment was mainly from a mixture of European countries (maybe a part of NATO? Or another new faction for Blufor/Independent?).

I think Miller, however, will definitely be in a sequel to the story. He is practically the main focus of interest and most of the events that occur during the campaign are a result of his doing; he was the one who instigated the events on Stratis for some unknown reason, he was the one who gave misinformation to the FIA and he was the one who delayed NATO forces from proceeding. This was all in an effort to get that tectonic device, for which we still don't know why he and his CTRG team acquired, but I can guess what.

It would be nice to also see the story develop from the point of view of one of the Millers guys or Miller himself. Considering Miller was the lead character when Arma 3 was announced, we could see the original story of CTRG arriving on Altis, helping the FIA, relationships between Stavrou, Miller and Nikos being fleshed out. Then proceeding to tie into The East Wind by showing the CTRG point of view. Regrouping with Kerry, doing missions that they did in the background, to the final showdown at the "device" facility and the extraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Honestly the whole campaign I felt like I was playing the support character that misses out on everything but has an interesting story. It wasn't a bad campaign, mind you, but I felt like I was missing out on the bigger picture.

Playing as CTRG would probably have been more exciting plot wise, but I guess It'd remind everyone too much of Arma 2's Razor Team, sent on a special mission to do something very specific rather than participating in the whole conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be nice to also see the story develop from the point of view of one of the Millers guys or Miller himself. Considering Miller was the lead character when Arma 3 was announced, we could see the original story of CTRG arriving on Altis, helping the FIA, relationships between Stavrou, Miller and Nikos being fleshed out. Then proceeding to tie into The East Wind by showing the CTRG point of view. Regrouping with Kerry, doing missions that they did in the background, to the final showdown at the "device" facility and the extraction.

Agreed, and I think the sequel should actually allow you to play as Miller or one of his CTRG subordinates, preferably Miller (that way you get to call the shots and make the important decisions, like in ArmA II. Could even get a co-op option for the sequel's campaign going where other players assume control of the rest of his squad so that they don't act like absolute idiots and more like the special forces that they're supposed to be).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. Honestly the whole campaign I felt like I was playing the support character that misses out on everything but has an interesting story. It wasn't a bad campaign, mind you, but I felt like I was missing out on the bigger picture.

I think that was pretty much the idea. but I still think they could have given us more closure at the end

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. Honestly the whole campaign I felt like I was playing the support character that misses out on everything but has an interesting story. It wasn't a bad campaign, mind you, but I felt like I was missing out on the bigger picture.

Playing as CTRG would probably have been more exciting plot wise, but I guess It'd remind everyone too much of Arma 2's Razor Team, sent on a special mission to do something very specific rather than participating in the whole conflict.

I think that was pretty much the idea. but I still think they could have given us more closure at the end

Ben Kerry story goes like some sort of teenage movie where the hero can't take a hint.

A guy with no clue about anything is abandoned by the big daddy and stumbles into a bunch of cool SF guys, who like him at first but then he becomes a nuisance.

He proceeds randomly go out on patrols on his own instead of just making a montage, and thus he becomes the respected leader of the Altian guerrillas.

When he returns home, his new clique refuse to talk to anyone but him.

His daddy Crossroads has mixed feelings between treating him like a child he left behind who has no clue about anything and yet he still lets him take charge of his guerrilla friends and at times, he lets him drive his car instead of him.

At the end of the story, our daft and naive hero spells it out to us how he has no clue what's been going on through his entire adventure.

He's worse than the most spec-op brodude characters are, because he's insanely capable of incredible feats of leadership and courage, yet he can't put basic 2 and 2's together and refuses to question anything at any point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how whenever he asks he starts asking questions Miller's like "No, be quiet. You can't know" and he's perfectly fine with that most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be nice to also see the story develop from the point of view of one of the Millers guys or Miller himself. Considering Miller was the lead character when Arma 3 was announced, we could see the original story of CTRG arriving on Altis, helping the FIA, relationships between Stavrou, Miller and Nikos being fleshed out. Then proceeding to tie into The East Wind by showing the CTRG point of view. Regrouping with Kerry, doing missions that they did in the background, to the final showdown at the "device" facility and the extraction.

I don't think a prequel is the way to go, at least from the CTRG point of view, as that would kind of ruin the mystery which is the most compelling part of the story (in an otherwise standard plot). Certainly Miller could be used sparingly in sequels as an enigmatic, Half-Life G-Man-esque figure, but I think Jinzor is probably right that we won't hear much about this particular story in future, except in a passing, allusionary way, (like the events of Black Mesa in the Half-Life sequels), which I think is a compelling way of adding depth to a story. Keep the audience guessing, basically.

On the other hand, I would welcome a prequel if it was from the AAF or CSAT point of view. When BIS announced the episodic format, I was kind of hoping each episode would focus on a different faction, and it would have been a refreshing, if not bold approach if the entire thing had been from the AAF or CSAT perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the other hand, I would welcome a prequel if it was from the AAF or CSAT point of view. When BIS announced the episodic format, I was kind of hoping each episode would focus on a different faction, and it would have been a refreshing, if not bold approach if the entire thing had been from the AAF or CSAT perspective.

Zipper5, the guy who made Operation Cobolt and Blood on the Sand (campaigns for ArmA II and and OA, which perfectly tied in with the stories of the vanilla campaigns, all with multiple endings as well), should definitely do that for ArmA III! The player could play as an AAF soldier, initially against NATO (since CTRG started the conflict between NATO and the AAF, he could potentially show how that was done; did CTRG fire at some NATO, and then at some AAF, which led both to think that they were shooting at one another?). When the events of Survive are over, he is transferred to Altis to deal with FIA insurgents, who might convince him to side with them at one point (multiple endings; one where he is on the NATO/FIA side and wins (Kerry helps NATO), joins NATO/FIA side and loses (Kerry helps James), stays with the AAF and wins (Kerry helps James (yes, I know AAF are hostile to CSAT during "The End", but that can be changed)), or finally stays with the AAF and loses (Kerry helps NATO)).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zipper5, the guy who made Operation Cobolt and Blood on the Sand (campaigns for ArmA II and and OA, which perfectly tied in with the stories of the vanilla campaigns, all with multiple endings as well), should definitely do that for ArmA III! The player could play as an AAF soldier, initially against NATO (since CTRG started the conflict between NATO and the AAF, he could potentially show how that was done; did CTRG fire at some NATO, and then at some AAF, which led both to think that they were shooting at one another?). When the events of Survive are over, he is transferred to Altis to deal with FIA insurgents, who might convince him to side with them at one point (multiple endings; one where he is on the NATO/FIA side and wins (Kerry helps NATO), joins NATO/FIA side and loses (Kerry helps James), stays with the AAF and wins (Kerry helps James (yes, I know AAF are hostile to CSAT during "The End", but that can be changed)), or finally stays with the AAF and loses (Kerry helps NATO)).

You do know that Zipper worked on the Arma 3 campaigns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×