Co-op Campaign: APEX PROTOCOL

[IndeedPete 1038]

So, I finally had a Co-op take on this one with a few clan mates on our dedicated server. We managed to play the first three missions before we (probably indefinitely) discontinued. Unfortunately, my solo impressions were confirmed. Even on the highest difficulty settings, it was a repetitive cakewalk. It felt like some sort of shooting range with voice acting attached to it where time and time again, one has to mow down hordes of cardboard soldiers. We even ran into a few technical issues like duplicated voice acting and triggers not firing - small stuff overall.

 

The only big problem we had was that the game wouldn't continue when the first mission ended. There was a blackscreen and some music playing but nothing happening for minutes. (Probably because one player dropped out at the end of the mission? I don't know.) I logged in as admin and used #missions to load the second one which worked but broke this fancy mission selection lobby screen. After every completed mission we were thrown back to the first one and I had to apply the same fix again. Only that it stopped working from within the lobby after the third mission and kept kicking me from my server. Well, that's where we resigned and called it a day.

 

Another criticism I might add to my ealier impressions would be the replayability. The missions played exactly the same and I even remembered some enemy positions from my earlier playthrough. For example, I've played the first mission three times by now. One time solo when it was on DevBranch, one time solo post release, and one time in Co-op yesterday. The locations were the same and both the amount of enemies and their positions were the same as well. I can't tell if that scaling component worked properly, I didn't see any major difference to my earlier playthrough.

[R3vo 2652]

The locations were the same and both the amount of enemies and their positions were the same as well. I can't tell if that scaling component worked properly, I didn't see any major difference to my earlier playthrough.

 

The lack of replayability is really disappointing, it's always go from A to B, no alternatives. Only in the last mission, the key seems to be randomly placed.

[teabagginpeople 398]

The lack of replayability is really disappointing.

Repeatability is more like it.

Played last week. I had been trying to give the missions a fair go on mp. As if it wasn't bad enough knowing how Predictable it was panning out. some guy on the team who had obviously done the mission before aswell spent the whole time telling us positions. guy gonna be there. Two guys will be there ,don't go there patrol will be there.

I knew he was right about positions but frankly I told him to hush up. It was ruining it for the others that were only starting. That's a failure of bis though not this guy . Whole structure is Just so basic that it's bland.

I feel I have given the campaign a fair chance and way more of my time than it ever deserved.

[R3vo 2652]

Repeatability is more like it.

Played last week. I had been trying to give the missions a fair go on mp. As if it wasn't bad enough knowing how Predictable it was panning out. some guy on the team who had obviously done the mission before aswell spent the whole time telling us positions. guy gonna be there. Two guys will be there ,don't go there patrol will be there.

I knew he was right about positions but frankly I told him to hush up. It was ruining it for the others that were only starting. That's a failure of bis though not this guy . Whole structure is Just so basic that it's bland.

I feel I have given the campaign a fair chance and way more of my time than it ever deserved.

 

 

I knew I read it somewhere..... (SITREP 164)

 

http://imgur.com/a/UlElQ

[dragon01 902]

Talk about false advertising... BIS, you should know you're in trouble when ArmA1's main campaign is more replayable than your latest creation... :) At least in A1, you sometimes had to choose between two side missions and could only play one per playthrough.

[bars91 956]

Talk about false advertising... BIS, you should know you're in trouble when ArmA1's main campaign is more replayable than your latest creation... :) At least in A1, you sometimes had to choose between two side missions and could only play one per playthrough.

 

OFP Resistance was more interactive and sandbox then AP  ;)  Now something like that with Co-Op and SP options as Tanoa locals against CSAT...  :ph34r:

[arziben 23]

OFP Resistance was more interactive and sandbox then AP  ;)  Now something like that with Co-Op and SP options as Tanoa locals against CSAT...  :ph34r:

Why against ? I'd love a CSAT campaign ! Especially one going alongside the East Wind, always fucking things up for Kerry but never actually crossing his path.

[bars91 956]

Why against ? I'd love a CSAT campaign ! ...

 

Me too, but there's this nasty thing called target audience and sells potential projections.

 

In simple words: anything but Tier 1 Operator/US Army/Marines and/or zombies does not sell all that well. That is the primary reason we don't play as anything but that (NATO/CTRG in A3) in most games...

[inlesco 233]

OFP Resistance was more interactive and sandbox then AP  ;)  Now something like that with Co-Op and SP options as Tanoa locals against CSAT...  :ph34r:

While I agree that OFPR campaign was a crowning achievement for BIS at the time, please consider that making a complex co-op campaign takes time. Testing it throughoutly is difficult, too.

 

OFPR had it quirks, too. For ex., in the first mission you had no idea where to go, what to do, etc., except for a waypoint that says your destination is 6+ km away. I wouldn't call this a proper introduction to the campaign in any possible way.

 

But because your average gamer was older and much more patient at the time, no-hints gameplay worked pretty well. I was surprised myself that I made some discoveries in Petrovice, the starting city, like getting your bike from a guy (which's location was not even marked on the map...), stopping by the fuel station, etc.

 

There was lots of room for improvement and I hope BIS will do a sandbox-y campaign next, no matter the difficulties that come with very dynamic missions (QA, dev phase, environment design, locality quirks, etc.). :)

[IndeedPete 1038]

Why against ? I'd love a CSAT campaign ! Especially one going alongside the East Wind, always fucking things up for Kerry but never actually crossing his path.

 

Me too, but there's this nasty thing called target audience and sells potential projections.

 

In simple words: anything but Tier 1 Operator/US Army/Marines and/or zombies does not sell all that well. That is the primary reason we don't play as anything but that (NATO/CTRG in A3) in most games...

 

Exactly. From a story perspective, I loathe US troops in games by now. Not because of a general dislike or anything but just because military games / FPS are so oversaturated with US military. It doesn't mean they shouldn't play a role in Arma, it would be unrealistic if they didn't. But maybe having a different faction providing the protagonist to fight with or against US military.

 

I can understand the reasoning with the sales figures though which is a perfectly fine financial argument. So a fresh perspective on the Armaverse through OPFOR's eyes is probably not something we will be seeing anytime soon.

[dragon01 902]

Well, playing as the US troops might be the main selling point, but a CSAT campaign could be just perfect for an expansion or DLC. As a plus, could placate the Iranians somewhat. :) On the other hand, it's unlikely to happen. It'd require BIS to break from their black and white way of writing. Not to mention it's probably easier to get English speakers than Farsi for VA, though, among other things.

[Wiki 1558]

Well, it's always tricky to play as "the bad guy" (except in MP).

 

For example, in all WW II games, you always play as US, UK or Russian beacause they were the "good guys".

Same for all Vietnam games.

 

Playing a Wehrmacht guy (or worst, a SS) or a vietcong will not only have an impact on sales, but also be considered to be a philosophical issue / morality issue.

 

It's the same here:

CSAT does not have "good" aims. It would definitely be a problem to play as a CSAT member - in official BIS campaigns / missions of course (it's different for usermade ones).

 

Even in RH (which wasn't BIS one) we turned out to join the good side by going AWOL when we discover our superiors are traitors.

[Guest]

What about a campaign with no "good" or "bad" guys, just soldiers in a middle of a big war mechanic, wondering if what they do is legitimate?

[Wiki 1558]

What about a campaign with no "good" or "bad" guys, just soldiers in a middle of a big war mechanic, wondering if what they do is legitimate?

 

That would fit better, however you will still be a part of something bigger - hence if bad things happen, you will have responsability too (and here is the morality issue again) because you belong to the whole that made bad things.

Moreover, it seems people don't like the "whole military only" campaign style - see how much they like guerilla missions.

[IndeedPete 1038]

Well, the WWII strategy game Codename Panzers: Phase One had a perfectly fine German campaign (and a Russian and American one as well). The player was just a regular tank commander doing his job. No Nazi stuff or immoral orders or anything. It was just a (quite interesting) neutral narrative about a tanker in WWII. And CSAT is even a fictional organisation, they could do anything with them. Apart from that, I actually wouldn't mind playing a really evil s.o.b. from time to time. A few months ago, I designed a small PMC campaign for my clan and deliberately shifted our usual ROE to allow for killed civilians. Because well, we played reckless greedy mercenary bastards. It's just a game after all.

[Wiki 1558]

Well, the WWII strategy game Codename Panzers: Phase One had a perfetcly fine German campaign (and a Russian and American one as well). The player was just a regular tank commander doing his job. No Nazi stuff or immoral orders or anything. It was just a (quite interesting) neutral narrative about a tanker in WWII. And CSAT is even a fictional organisation, they could do anything with them. Apart from that, I actually wouldn't mind playing a really evil s.o.b. from time to time. A few months ago, I designed a small PMC campaign for my clan and deliberately shifted our usual ROE to allow for killed civilians. Because well, we played reckless greedy mercenary bastards. It's just a game after all.

 

Yes, it's just alike the SIlent Hunter game serie - in which you command a U-Boat.

Well, it's not "just a game" as it's based on reality.

Plus, you still play (in Silent Hunter or Codename Panzer) someone who fought for the 3rd Reich.

Of course, you can still say "it's just a game", but still, I think there can be a morality issue there.

 

For example, in SH, you must destroy unarmed boats, etc...

[bars91 956]

For example, in SH, you must destroy unarmed boats, etc...

 

Yup - deck gun the poor bastards  :P

 

Still getting nightmares about cigars going *dong instead of *bang  :lol:

[IndeedPete 1038]

Yes, it's just alike the SIlent Hunter game serie - in which you command a U-Boat.

Well, it's not "just a game" as it's based on reality.

Plus, you still play (in Silent Hunter or Codename Panzer) someone who fought for the 3rd Reich.

Of course, you can still say "it's just a game", but still, I think there can be a morality issue there.

 

For example, in SH, you must destroy unarmed boats, etc...

 

And? It is still just a game. It's not reality, not even a documentary with educational purposes or something along those lines. It's purely a work of fiction, regardless whether it's based on real world events or organisations. And as I said, CSAT isn't even a real organisation. BI could pull off whatever they want without hurting anyone's feelings over real events. And to be fair, there even is some OPFOR content in the showcases. I've never heard anyone saying "I don't buy the game because you can play an evil Iranian in these two missions".

[Wiki 1558]

And? It is still just a game. It's not reality, not even a documentary with educational purposes or something along those lines. It's purely a work of fiction, regardless whether it's based on real world events or organisations. And as I said, CSAT isn't even a real organisation. BI could pull off whatever they want without hurting anyone's feelings over real events. And to be fair, there even is some OPFOR content in the showcases. I've never heard anyone saying "I don't buy the game because you can play an evil Iranian in these two missions".

 

I know and I agree with you. I'd like to have a CSAT campaign aswell.

I'm just talking about the fact (in general) about playing a "bad guy", nothing more.

[Guest]

The notion of "good guys" and "bad guys" bother me. For your enemies, you're the bad guy. it's quite usual to hear at news that an army of our "good side" drone'd the hell out of civilians, hospitals or schools. For these civilians, we're the bad guys.

[Wiki 1558]

Hum... would you imagine a game in which you play the whole campaign as a member of al qaeda or isis?

 

And for the record, we don't bomb civilians, hospitals and schhols on purpose. It's usually an accident.

And even if it was the case, we don't force them to take shelter in this kind of buildings.

[IndeedPete 1038]

If well-presented (and not as piece of glorifying propaganda for example), I'd actually play such thing. It could make for interesting plot twists and moral dilemmas. At the end of the day, the games that most touched me were the ones with the best moral twists, the most grey areas. mitrail's right, the world is not black and white. I bet there's even some variety in motives and approaches among different ISIS units. Irrelevant for a game like Arma 3 though. If I was a game dev, I'd go for fictional units anyway. Offers more creative freedom and avoids controversies and complaints by the ever-offended. But a game / campaign where you see yourself as a freedom fighter but the other side views you as terrorist? Why not, sounds interesting. To an extend, East Wind's Adapt chapter even delivered such experience where Kerry and the FIA must have been kind of terrorists from the AAF's perspective. That's why I find campaigns which offer multiple playable characters from opposing sides so intriguing. Sadly, the official content played it safe so far - which is understandable when money's involved.

[Wiki 1558]

If well-presented (and not as piece of glorifying propaganda for example), I'd actually play such thing. It could make for interesting plot twists and moral dilemmas. At the end of the day, the games that most touched me were the ones with the best moral twists, the most grey areas. mitrail's right, the world is not black and white. I bet there's even some variety in motives and approaches among different ISIS units. Irrelevant for a game like Arma 3 though. If I was a game dev, I'd go for fictional units anyway. Offers more creative freedom and avoids controversies and complaints by the ever-offended. But a game / campaign where you see yourself as a freedom fighter but the other side views you as terrorist? Why not, sounds interesting. To an extend, East Wind's Adapt chapter even delivered such experience where Kerry and the FIA must have been kind of terrorists from the AAF's perspective. That's why I find campaigns which offer multiple playable characters from opposing sides so intriguing. Sadly, the official content played it safe so far - which is understandable when money's involved.

 

Totally agree here.

That was what I meant.

Fictionnal, why not.

Based on real events - not that much.

[dragon01 902]

The only question is, why are CSAT the "bad" guys? From what we've seen from them, they're didn't do anything worse than what the US was occasionally caught doing. Indeed, a good idea would be to show that, in fact, CSAT does not have any nefarious goals, they're merely opposed to NATO, being a military like any other. Fooling around with earthquake machines on populated islands isn't very nice, but they could have been shown as having a pragmatic reason for it (not to mention besides AP backstory, these things never seem to cause much damage anyway). 

 

With Nazis or ISIS, we have clear evidence of why they're villains. However, that sort of thing was done by AAF more than anyone else. In The East Wind, they were the real villains, CSAT was in the background most of the time. You went against them only a couple of times, mostly with either FIA or CTRG. I don't know about AP, but it seems like most of the time you're up against Syndikat anyway (who, being criminals and drug dealers, are always a fair game).

[Varanon 892]

Playing a Wehrmacht guy (or worst, a SS) or a vietcong will not only have an impact on sales, but also be considered to be a philosophical issue / morality issue.

 

Not wanting to open a can of worms here, but that is simply not true. See Iron Front. See OFP: Red Hammer. Just because a common soldier is "on the bad side" doesn't mean he's a bad guy. If you want to consider morality, you should also know that war crimes are committed by each and every country in a war.

In fact, from a story standpoint, this can be MUCH more interesting than the usual heroic bullshit that you usually see in games. Characters, even in games, should be on a journey. There were good examples of that in the Armaverse, like David Armstrong in the original OFP campaign that started the war as a green boy and had to grow up very quickly, or as mentioned in Red Hammer, where you start out as a hard-ass Spetsnaz and only later learn that you are basically on the wrong side. But in games, you usually play the heroic guy that starts out a hero and ends a hero. Or, as in Apex, starts without identity and ends without identity.

I personally would love to see an official playable content that retells the story from the other side. I've got a hunch that it will be more interesting