Co-op Campaign: APEX PROTOCOL

[Callsign 128]

I agree with a lot of the sentiments above. I think the thing that drew me to OFP in the first place all the way back in 2001 was the realism and the story - and those fitted together because the assets were built around the story - not just being added for balance or gameplay - look at how neatly the assets fitted the story in A3CO BAF DLC - we even had a female character! I think what we've seen is BIS switching from focussing on SP to MP because that's where the numbers of players apparently are. I just don't think that's really the case, or that that's what BIS should be focussing on.

I think where BIS has fundamentally gone wrong recently with SP is in how they've presented the Armaverse and the increasingly equivocal nature of not just the character's motives, but with what you're actually playing (read fighting) for. Why are CSAT even bad guys - other than explained in the last APEX cutscene? There just seems to be no direction in the Armaverse or a big picture that's presented to the players, nevermind the fog of war that they're using to mask the gaps in things.

Unfortunately I think this then feeds back into the mission level detail - I mean, who did we even play as in APEX??? Why did BIS create a whole load of tropical units and then only use the CTRG ones? You didn't even get to use the VTOL or ride in it in the campaign! The 'natural disaster' that is the whole reason for NATO being there only eventually gets called a tsunami mid to late way through the campaign in a cutscene - we weren't told that in all the press build up and trailers. It's the clarity that's missing from the story telling.

Arma 2 (for example) did well in that BIS set the scene for why you were playing, you had a clear purpose in the story. It didn't matter that then changed as the Russians joined in. Now the Armaverse just seems like one big plot-twist without resolution.

As a DLC campaign this is actually what I was hoping for in terms of what you (in CTRG) would be doing. I just wish that it wasn't framed in the MP style gameplay and I wasn't playing alone - that's not realistic and BIS know this. I kinda hope CTRG continue to track down the other devices and we discover a big picture to things. It just feels like they created a lot of content asset wise, but then haven't made the most of them. I mean, Tanoa is the most coastal/ maritime setting we've had and all we get is a new boat and a jetski.

As for SP Showcases, I really wish they'd do more of them, they don't have to be quite as elaborate the the FFV one (though that was really good), but why have all these assets if you can't show 1) how to use them, and 2) set the scene for their use in the Armaverse.

Rant/ rambling monologue out. :P

[Varanon 892]

 the Challenges, which are a primary SP element of the game in addition to the Showcases and campaigns

 

Given that showcases are basically just marketed as "demos", the challenges and campaign are, in fact, the only single player content in Arma 3, which is a big disappointment.

[Varanon 892]

 Instead, they are mostly about timing and memorizing the pattern, something that contradicts a game were usually each run of a mission is different.

 

Spot on. In fact, this is exactly what I wrote back when the first challenges were introduced.

[cpl_den 12]

Here are my thoughts/criticisms on the Apex Campaign.

 

Story

I personally think that a lot of potential was missed. Missions were very short and could be completed in a few hours even alone. Hoped it connected more to the East Wind campaign or more background elements were explained regarding Tanoa.

 

We only got to see a few remote villages of Tanoa and not what the whole location had to offer.

 

For trying to make this as casual as possible, not many background/story elements were explained.

 

Gameplay

For the relatively short story, I thought the missions and cut-scenes were well designed. There was a good attention to detail such as placing objects in the background etc. Objectives were OK too.

 

THE RESPAWN SYSTEM. WHY?! I understand dying in the campaign and restarting from last save (It was perfectly fine during Eastern Wind) but WHY is there respawn in a single player part game. Every time I died whilst playing alone, I wanted to uninstall Arma and kill myself in real life. During jungle combat, EI would spot me way faster and a lot of time would get the jump on me. Say I died 5 times moving in a jungle path, WHY DO I HAVE TO WAIT A TOTAL of 2:30 minutes looking at the map. This is very immersion breaking, pointless and a waste of time. Not to mention it means 0 penalization other than self-frustration whilst waiting 30 seconds over and over again.

 

Not to mention that in singleplayer, you can miss action/objectives by being dead. For example in the 1st or 2nd mission, have to clear a compound. I died but whilst respawning the AI, moved in and cleared the compound for me.

 

Please never do a system like this for single-player content again. At this point I would rather not play the campaign than go through the respawn system again. 

 

Aiming for Casual Audience

Skimming through this thread and playing the campaign, I have noticed and it seems that respawn system/campaign was designed/implemented for casual plebs and to give the campaign a wider audience. 

 

According to Steam achievements:

0.2% Have completed the campaign with friends

0.2% Have completed it alone

0.5% Have completed campaign (Killed Warlord)

 

Surely if it was designed to have such wide appeal or making it incredibly easy, a larger number of players would have completed it?

 

Graphics

Tanoa looks beautiful.

 

Sound

Background sounds and weapons make the story fairly immersive.

 

Overall summary

Short story with missed potential. Worst respawn system I have ever seen in a single-player part of a game.

[metalcraze 290]

Also, the reason some of them feel like inferior versions of campaign missions is because they came before them. Most infantry showcases started out way back in the Alpha, then were adapted a bit and reused in the campaign.

 

I think that the real reason people don't play showcases is that they don't realize they're playable. There's literally no indication that "discover the range of fundamental ArmA gameplay" means playing actual missions and not, say, tutorial videos or faction showcases. Missions were always under "Scenarios" folder, which has now been relegated to user content. I think it might be throwing off new A3 players, even if they're not new to ArmA series in general.

 

Even if the name is off-putting it's not the true issue of them being representative of their name.

Try playing scenarios from previous games and A LOT are replayable with many offering you alternative ways to deal with them (I mean even OFP scenarios are being remade to this day for every ArmA). Even those where you are just a grunt do not feel like a choiceless railroad and can often go sideways. Ambush from OFP being a good example of something so scripted yet so replayable. Case in point they feel like a well thought-out MISSIONS with a lot of effort being put into that little bit in between start and finish. Plus Steal the Car and Ambush both start with tutorial messages but do not feel like dull tutorials at all.

 

In ArmA3 they do not feel like missions at all. They feel like short techdemos of some gimmick (save for a few).

Infantry? Ho ho check out these new voice overs and look at how we scripted AI to behave like you are playing Call of Duty - to suddenly run into your gunsights from the nearby bush as you move along a railroad!

SCUBA? Check out this underwater environment by clicking on three mines and... that's it. Now do some not-ArmA lone wolf rambo'ing on the shore

Vehicles? Drive a car along this path then shoot up a base using it, rambo style.

Night? Run around shooting and blowing up things, and stupid enemies totally believe it's an army invading. Sigh.

 

That's just a few examples of how bad Showcase design is.

 

It's way more than just a name

[Wiki 1558]

Hum...

I disagree here. All the showcases were not that bad.

Fixes Wing, Attack Chopper, Combined Arms, Armed Assault or Firing From Vehicles were quite decent IMO.

I'd like to state 2 things:

1) Apex brought new assets but we never see them. Here, a SP showcase would have been useful to... well, showcase them.

2)As there are new assets, they should have been integrated in the campaign - and not only in cinematics (like the CSAT VTOL) or just put on the map (like the NATO VTOL).

BIS created them, so please make them useful!

For example, make a mission (showcase or in the campaign) in which we play as Blackfish gunner as we must secure a crash site or something...

[dragon01 902]

There's a problem with making a Blackfish mission: its very, very frustrating to use right now. It'd still be better if we had an SP mission with it, more people would complain and hopefully bully BIS to fix these issues. :) First of all, "stabilization" is just about the worst thing of that sort BIS had ever done and lead computation doesn't work without a vehicle to target (a problem when you're shooting at infantry), you also don't have access to all weapons in any of the stations and finally, the default loiter behavior sets flight altitude ATL not ASL, making for a bumpy ride. A lot of things need to change for a Blackfish mission to be viable.

In ArmA3 they do not feel like missions at all. They feel like short techdemos of some gimmick (save for a few).

That's because this is exactly what they were designed as. Back in the days of ArmA3 Alpha, all the missions you mentioned were created to develop the "gimmick" in question. The showcases you listed are glorified test scenarios which were the first missions to be seen in ArmA3. The showcases that were added later are much better and more suitable for being called actual missions. Not on-par with what ArmA2 offered, but not bad, either.

 

Note that achievements don't measure replayability. They measure whether someone completed them once. They're pretty easy, for most part, so it's unlikely that people started any them (well, Night, maybe, that one can be though) and didn't finish. I think that if they were called "missions", then people would really play them some more. Also, it could help BI, too. They'd not be making "showcases" anymore, but "missions", which could help get them out of the "showcase" mindset.

[lexx 1331]

Stabilization isn't the only issue. Afaik with a too low view range, you won't be able to see objects on the ground anymore- and technically the Blackfish needs to fly really high.

[dragon01 902]

I'm running a view distance of about 3 klicks and it's fine. Really, if you want to be doing aerial combat of any sort, you'd better have it set to at least that much. Low-VD players are just out of luck.

 

I've got good results from 500m altitude and 1000m loiter range, so it's not all that high, either. Sure, 500m is a lot by ArmA standards, but the real AC-130 can operate from even greater altitudes.

[metalcraze 290]

Hum...

I disagree here. All the showcases were not that bad.

Fixes Wing, Attack Chopper, Combined Arms, Armed Assault or Firing From Vehicles were quite decent IMO.

Read the whole post, these are just exceptions that only reinforce the rule.

Also 0.5% campaign completion among 2.5 mil ArmA3 players in a whole month?

What a massive success, bravo BIS, what an accessibility!

But don't worry, just keep SP content going down the drain, maybe ArmA4 campaign will be so accessible it will make Apex look like a work of a genius, seeing how suddenly PMC is no longer the worst.

Making a campaign worse than PMC is a true, unquestionable achievement.

[Variable 322]

Respawn: Always, Limited, Disabled Revive: Always, First Aid Kit, Medic Only, Disabled

Although a bit of a "closing the stable after the horses escaped", since people who already played the campaign are not likely to repeat it, it's good to see this. Thanks for listening BIS.

[dragon01 902]

Mustard after dinner, as we say in Poland, but thanks anyway. :) I might be more inclined to buy Apex now. Now fix the other issues we've been complaining about...

[IndeedPete 1038]

*snap*

 

Whoops, wrong thread.^^ I shouldn't have multiple forum tabs open. :rolleyes:

[old_painless 182]

Yes, us SPers still need a Save option - missions are clearly calibrated to be played with teammates. Please ?

 

-OP

[Variable 322]

Yes, us SPers still need a Save option - missions are clearly calibrated to be played with teammates. Please ?

-OP

Make that saves and AI teammates.

[froggyluv 2130]

 It takes less than 5 minutes for me to add SP teamates and saves into the mission - what does that tell us about them even giving it a moments thought?

[IndeedPete 1038]

 It takes less than 5 minutes for me to add SP teamates and saves into the mission - what does that tell us about them even giving it a moments thought?

 

Yeah, that boggles my mind as well. If it wasn't encrypted, I'd have done that after the first time encountering respawn in SP. And the reasoning "we don't want to maintain two versions" seems dishonest at best. Missions made for SP don't necessarily run in MP, but I've never heard otherwise. Sure, there might be some CO-OP features that require two or more people. Such as the popular radio mods out there, or the revive for instance. But since Apex Protocol can be played alone already, it all sounds like a cheap excuse.

Just set it to proper SP and make the "Play Solo" button throw a "Do you really want to play Solo? CO-OP Drop-in-out will not be available!"-message, and that's it. Some of the biggest problems with this campaign would be gone in no time.

[R3vo 2652]

Yes I agree, that way I can skip the boring "run from A to B" parts by accelerating the time again :D

[chortles 263]

And the reasoning "we don't want to maintain two versions" seems dishonest at best.

Not so much to me, but that's because of how often 'one version only''s been an overt reason for decisions (i.e. hiding the 2D editor behind a Ctrl+O keybind, and no more Lite DLC).

[IndeedPete 1038]

Not so much to me, but that's because of how often 'one version only''s been an overt reason for decisions (i.e. hiding the 2D editor behind a Ctrl+O keybind, and no more Lite DLC).

 

There are two fundamentally different editors so I can get behind that. But there's just one campaign that already runs fine on a single host machine. I'm doing a long shot here, but based on my modest editing experiences I'd assume it's very hard to create something that runs on a local host server with just one player but at the same time doesn't work in regular SP. From what I can see (which is very limited because I don't have access to the source code), they only need the MP environment for respawn and CO-OP drop in/out. Both features that mean absolutely nothing to SP players.

[old_painless 182]

 It takes less than 5 minutes for me to add SP teamates and saves into the mission - what does that tell us about them even giving it a moments thought?

 

Hm, I actually had a Save option in the pause/Esc menu. But even when using it, there was subsequently no option to resume or revert to that save. If anyone could share a magic trick for enabling Saves that actually works, I would be thankful

[fn_Quiksilver 1633]

There are two fundamentally different editors so I can get behind that. But there's just one campaign that already runs fine on a single host machine. I'm doing a long shot here, but based on my modest editing experiences I'd assume it's very hard to create something that runs on a local host server with just one player but at the same time doesn't work in regular SP. From what I can see (which is very limited because I don't have access to the source code), they only need the MP environment for respawn and CO-OP drop in/out. Both features that mean absolutely nothing to SP players.

 

you should be able to get the source code, or at least re-construct it, using loadfile command in console.

 

would have to do some digging but assuming they used normal MP architecture, starting  with description.ext and the event scripts would be a good first step.

[IndeedPete 1038]

you should be able to get the source code, or at least re-construct it, using loadfile command in console.

 

would have to do some digging but assuming they used normal MP architecture, starting  with description.ext and the event scripts would be a good first step.

 

While I like to dig in BI code when I can to learn all sorts of new things and about best practices, I'm not that interested in proving anything.^^ It's just that the forced MP sounds more like a concious design decision than a solution to an actual technical problem.

[R3vo 2652]

Today's SITREP highlights this voice procedure guide here. One thing I immediately noticed is, that according to this guide, 90% of the by BIS used words in the campaign radio messages are incorrect.

 

Thought that's kinda interesting...

[dragon01 902]

Yeah, that seems to be the case with most ArmA campaigns to date. Not to mention things like Arty and CAS support requests are completely out of whack. They should use something like this procedure instead, with various additional "effect" types to account for calling in different round types. It wouldn't even require all that much more input than it does now. CAS would, but it'd also give you much more control on what the plane will target and with which weapons.