A3 Campaign - Continuation for Tanoa?

[Wiki 1558]

I Just hope we're gonna get something like CWC - but I doubt it (unfortunately)

[chortles 263]

I have no idea what you have in mind by that, but I wasn't expecting a reprise of CWC/CWA either thematically or in form.

[drebin052 324]

I Just hope we're gonna get something like CWC - but I doubt it (unfortunately)

 

A CSAT version of General Guba that plans to use the

seismic device

for his own nefarious goal of world domination?  :P

[chortles 263]

That sounds a little more Call of Duty than you meant, I'm sure. ;) But in hindsight that also makes CWC/CWA itself sound a bit more CoD than you remember...

[bonchie 39]

At first I was gung-ho about seeing a continuation of the A3 campaign with Miller, etc. 

 

But after playing the Unsung Mod, it made me remember how much I enjoy the 70s/80s era of combat (i.e. Vietnam or OFP era). I'm just bored to death with modern combat. I wish BI would go back in time again with Tanoa, although it's pretty clear they aren't going to. 

[chortles 263]

Unless Maruk changed his mind from maybe a decade ago (an old interview about what would have been Operation Flashpoint 2) you can forget about Bohemia ever doing a Vietnam War game... off the top of my head he said that the only thing you could do in a BI-made Vietnam War game was turn around and go home.

[Wiki 1558]

I hope in Tanoa campaign, we won't be playing resistance once more.

Kind of fed up always resistance / guerilla warfare.

Maybe people like it very much? However, IMO ArmA 2 campaign wasn't really good because of the too much "guerilla sandbox warfare" pushed to its paroxism.

 

I hope we'll get more combined armed operations, spec ops missions, etc...

[chortles 263]

There's fans of damn near every scenario premise, so no matter what Bohemia chooses to emphasize they'll disappoint somebody because Bohemia didn't emphasize their favorite... I do agree in wanting more combined arms operations, but how to present it beyond "not Showcase: Armed Assault" is tricky, though for me the ideal is something that can feel more 'whole-spectrum' than "infantry gameplay with AAA FPS-style support call-ins."

 

For what it's worth, if one had to ask me to give story context for such a scenario, the main one I'd want answered is "how is it that things got to the point where infantry make the difference? What happened in the aerospace and maritime dimensions that led to a ground war possible?" (See how people understandably questioned the arrangement of forces during The East Wind.)

[Wiki 1558]

Well, even if many people despise COD, look at MW1 and 2: the campaign were awesome - same for CWC / CWA.

Just wanna find these kind of campaign in ArmA games.

[2nd ranger 282]

Well, even if many people despise COD, look at MW1 and 2: the campaign were awesome - same for CWC / CWA.

Just wanna find these kind of campaign in ArmA games.

 

KERRY! GET ON THE FIFTY AND TAKE OUT THOSE IFRITS!

KERRY! ENEMY CHOPPERS INCOMING! GRAB THE AA LAUNCHER NEAR THAT WALL AND TAKE THEM OUT!

KERRY! GET IN THE OFFROAD AND SHOOT OUT THE BACK WHILE I DRIVE AND THINGS BLOW UP AROUND US!

KERRY! PUT A CHARGE ON THAT GLOWING SHAPE!

KERRY! TANGOS INCOMING FROM THE WEST! GRAB THAT SNIPER RIFLE THAT HAPPENS TO BE NEAR THE WINDOW!

KERRY! CLEAR THAT ROOM IN SLOW MOTION!

KERRY! WAIT HERE WHILE I KILL THIS SENTRY WITH MY KNIFE EVEN THOUGH WE'VE BOTH BEEN BLASTING AWAY WITH OUR RIFLES FOR THE LAST TEN MINUTES

[Wiki 1558]

Ahahah.

Not really.

 

Look at A2 campaign:

take your team, search the whole map and find 1 guy.

And then, make warfare - build your base, buy vehicles (WTF??!), etc...

 

Not that good.

 

In ArmA 3, I liked some missions in Survive like Blackfoot Down but hey:

during this whole part, we're only a few survivors and we wipe a lot of greenbacks out whereas we're only 20 people? Come on!

Plus, the player almost always has to do the thing too dyring the whole campaign:

 

KERRY! DESTROY THAT CHOPPER!

KERRY! TAKE THAT UAV AND SPOT THE ENEMY! AND KILL THEM!

KERRY! CHECK WHETHER THE DEAD OFFICER IS THE ONE WE LOOK FOR!

KERRY! YOU GO AMBUSH THE CONVOY AND TAKE THE SUPPLY TRUCK!

KERRY! YOU GO ON PATROL AND TAKE OUT SNIPERS, DAMAGED APC, SPEC OPS TEAM, GATHER AMMO AND CHECK THE DOWN ENEMY HELO!

 

See? We're in the resistance / guerilla, but we never (IMO) feel like we're outnumbered nor outgunned.

Never have the feelings we're the rabbit and AAF and CSAT are hunting us down.

 

The whole campaign can be finished in lone wolf mode, like one man army.

 

I'd like to feel like we had in CWC campaign:

-When we had to take and objective, we actually were making combined arms with tanks or APCs, air support, etc...

-When we were beaten, I actually felt like "fuck, everything is really lost, can't do anything on my own, I really must withdraw".

And we had different and specific roles.

In ArmA 3, corporal Kerry is infantry guy who then becomes team leader and then spec ops operator.

WTF??! Ok, in Survive I can understand the guerilla warfare - no other choice, but in Adapt and Win, seriously?

"Ok, we have the base on the factory, not hidden, but neither CSAT nor AAF can ever spot us".

"Ok, you can go around and make side missions - even on your own if you want - and take out multiples enemies, find supplies far behind enemy lines, take out multiples APC / IFV, etc...

"Ok Kerry, we (US command) don't trust you nor the FIA, but you team up with them and go destroy an AA outpost and then report".

....

 

I know there is work behind this campaign, but I never felt really involved - like I was in CWC - and never bought the whole story.

[mmaruda 20]

I think the main reason the Flashpoint story was so unique was that it was written when BIS was working with Codemasters. I think they had a large part in this. Now as far as the campaign in Arma 3 goes... It's probably the most polished one BIS ever did. It only falls on it's face when you have to command the AI or defend something but that is just because the AI is just stupid.

 

Personally I don't mind the "unrealistic" story and setting. Sure, a more mature tone would perhaps be better, especially that the setting provides some cool opportunities to explore difficult topics (Arma 2 did that throughout it's campaigns quite well). The thing is though, I have recently been playing Call of Duty Advanced Warfare, and while I hated the story ever since MW2 came out (COD 4 was actually quite plausible), the whole futuristic setting is actually pretty good and makes sense. Now while Arma 3 is far from the cinematic run and gun experience, I wish they put more modern technology in there. I do understand that the hardcore MILSIM crowd would probably be all pitchforks and torches, but personally I never considered Arma a simulation. It's more of a tactical sandbox that allows simulating certain stuff. So yeah, to me it's weird that a soldier in 2035 still uses a magnetic compass and paper map to get around, when even now I have more tech in my phone.

 

I just hope the Tanoa story is going to be something cool. IMHO they could go full Jagged Alliance with that setting as it looks like it's a small country, perfect for some mercenary missions. Anyway, as long as the quality is on par with the Survive, Adapt, Win scenario, I won't complain.

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

I think the main reason the Flashpoint story was so unique was that it was written when BIS was working with Codemasters. I think they had a large part in this. Now as far as the campaign in Arma 3 goes... It's probably the most polished one BIS ever did. It only falls on it's face when you have to command the AI or defend something but that is just because the AI is just stupid.

 

Personally I don't mind the "unrealistic" story and setting. Sure, a more mature tone would perhaps be better, especially that the setting provides some cool opportunities to explore difficult topics (Arma 2 did that throughout it's campaigns quite well). The thing is though, I have recently been playing Call of Duty Advanced Warfare, and while I hated the story ever since MW2 came out (COD 4 was actually quite plausible), the whole futuristic setting is actually pretty good and makes sense. Now while Arma 3 is far from the cinematic run and gun experience, I wish they put more modern technology in there. I do understand that the hardcore MILSIM crowd would probably be all pitchforks and torches, but personally I never considered Arma a simulation. It's more of a tactical sandbox that allows simulating certain stuff. So yeah, to me it's weird that a soldier in 2035 still uses a magnetic compass and paper map to get around, when even now I have more tech in my phone.

 

I just hope the Tanoa story is going to be something cool. IMHO they could go full Jagged Alliance with that setting as it looks like it's a small country, perfect for some mercenary missions. Anyway, as long as the quality is on par with the Survive, Adapt, Win scenario, I won't complain.

I completely agree. And regarding more modern and futuristic technology, I also agree. Arma 3 takes place twenty years from now, so there definitely has to have been some advancements in between the years. HUD-based compasses, maps, and etc would make sense, and perhaps some more experimental and advanced technology too. XM25s, OICWs - with a lighter build of course, etc.

 

Coilgun tanks pls.

[bonchie 39]

Unless Maruk changed his mind from maybe a decade ago (an old interview about what would have been Operation Flashpoint 2) you can forget about Bohemia ever doing a Vietnam War game... off the top of my head he said that the only thing you could do in a BI-made Vietnam War game was turn around and go home.

 

I'm not asking them to make a Vietnam game. They never do real wars anyway. It's always made up stuff with the names changed. 

 

I'm asking for them to go back to that time frame like we saw in OFP. The lower tech, the iron sights, and nostalgia of that era are just fun. I'm so tired of modern warfare games (it's all anyone makes anymore), with all the heavy armor, scopes on every gun, high tech stuff, and lack of fog of war. Older eras of 20th century warfare are just more fun to play IMO. 

[chortles 263]

Confirmed:

There will be ties to "The East Wind".

[Wiki 1558]

Confirmed:

Good 2 know

[toysoldier 35]

Now confirmed a coop campaign will come!    :239:

[Maio 293]

Now confirmed a coop campaign will come!    :239:

 

"Confirmed" is a dangerous word around these parts... hehe..he :unsure:

[toysoldier 35]

It's not or the BI store is a liar   :lol:  

[OMAC 254]

I would be more psyched to pre-order Apex if they would say that the campaign is designed for SP and COOP.  I can assume, based on past BI campaigns, that SP gameplay is supported for COOP campaigns, but as BI has been emphasizing MP over SP for years now, I have concerns about how awesome and varied the SP gameplay will be.

[Wiki 1558]

I would be more psyched to pre-order Apex if they would say that the campaign is designed for SP and COOP.  I can assume, based on past BI campaigns, that SP gameplay is supported for COOP campaigns, but as BI has been emphasizing MP over SP for years now, I have concerns about how awesome and varied the SP gameplay will be.

+1

I hope they won't give up on SP now.

We have very few games with good SP campaign or missions.

[IndeedPete 1038]

+1

I hope they won't give up on SP now.

We have very few games with good SP campaign or missions.

 

Yes, but the Arma experience is so unique, I want to be able to enjoy it both in SP and MP. And COOP opens some mission possibilities but also closes a lot of them. Classic, lone-wolf, and immersive survival missions we had since OFP in BI's campaigns can't happen in COOP. I still recall how much I shit my pants when I was a child and first laid hands on OFP and came to that mission after the village raid, where Armstrong was separated from his unit and had to make it through the woods on his own.

[lexx 1364]

Not to forget coop requires a different healing / revive system. Sometimes I do reload a lot because of whatever reason- you simply can't do that in coop.

 

My biggest fear is that coop requires a huge amount of additional scripting that drains on the games performance.

[OMAC 254]

My hope is that new Arma Tech will automatically optimize the campaign gameplay for SP or MP such as adding/removing autosaves, changing healing/revive system, adding lone wolf missions, etc.  This is 2016, after all.   ;)  

[silentghoust 132]

Ahahah.

Not really.

 

Look at A2 campaign:

take your team, search the whole map and find 1 guy.

And then, make warfare - build your base, buy vehicles (WTF??!), etc...

 

Not that good.

 

In ArmA 3, I liked some missions in Survive like Blackfoot Down but hey:

during this whole part, we're only a few survivors and we wipe a lot of greenbacks out whereas we're only 20 people? Come on!

Plus, the player almost always has to do the thing too dyring the whole campaign:

 

KERRY! DESTROY THAT CHOPPER!

KERRY! TAKE THAT UAV AND SPOT THE ENEMY! AND KILL THEM!

KERRY! CHECK WHETHER THE DEAD OFFICER IS THE ONE WE LOOK FOR!

KERRY! YOU GO AMBUSH THE CONVOY AND TAKE THE SUPPLY TRUCK!

KERRY! YOU GO ON PATROL AND TAKE OUT SNIPERS, DAMAGED APC, SPEC OPS TEAM, GATHER AMMO AND CHECK THE DOWN ENEMY HELO!

 

See? We're in the resistance / guerilla, but we never (IMO) feel like we're outnumbered nor outgunned.

Never have the feelings we're the rabbit and AAF and CSAT are hunting us down.

The AAF are technically about battalion size. Which is pretty dang small compared to say Iranian army or such. Also there is many cases were you get your ass kicked. You lose what friends you have left in Task Force Aegis when they get wiped out. The FIA is pretty much wiped out near the end as well. If the NATO division didn't show up, you pretty much would of been killed off through sheer attrition.