Jump to content
Kydoimos

What Makes a Good Arma Campaign?

Community Poll on Arma Campaign Essentials  

140 members have voted

  1. 1. What are the most important features of a good Arma campaign? Please try to make a limited selection.

    • Freedom - allowing players to do things in unexpected ways, or through optional tasks, etc.
    • Narrative - a compelling and interesting storyline which adds to immersion.
    • Music, Voice Acting - generally, the audio presentation of a campaign.
    • Well Scripted - a campaign that is correctly configured, without RPT spamming and error messages. Spelling mistakes.
    • No 'Rambo' Mechanics - the eschewal of a 'one man army' play style.
    • Authenticity - a strong emphasis on realism as a contributing factor to an immersive experience.
    • Civilian Interaction - a return to interaction with civilians, as in previous Arma titles.
    • Different Roles - a campaign that allows you to assume the different combat roles available (e.g., medic, pilot, marksman).
    • Consequences - in-game consequences for player actions, either in a single mission or throughout the course of several. Multiple endings.
    • Challenging - the feeling of a fair and balanced experience; challenging but not too difficult.
    • Consistency - the evolution of the player and characters in a persistent, evolving environment. E.g., weapon storing.
    • Mods - the interpolation of third-party mods.
    • Cutscenes, Cinematics, Custom UI - generally, the visual presentation of a campaign.
    • Localization - a campaign available with subtitles and text in your native language.
    • Linear - missions that unfold in a manner intended by the designer.
    • Non-Linear - missions that may unfold in a manner not explicitly intended by the designer.
    • Interesting Characters - figures that are well-rounded, fully explored, and generally carefully considered.
    • Variety - missions which are different in setting, approach and execution.
    • Non-Terminal Mission Failures - missions that can still be completed, despite failing certain tasks.
    • Cliches - campaigns that abstain from cliches and formulaic scenarios.
  2. 2. What is your favourite official campaign to date?

    • Arma: Cold War Assault - Resistance
    • Arma: Cold War Assault
    • Arma: Armed Assault
    • Arma: Queen's Gambit
    • Arma 2
    • Arma 2: Army of the Czech Republic
      0
    • Arma 2: Operation Arrowhead
    • Arma 2: British Armed Forces
    • Arma 2: Private Military Company
    • Arma 3: Bootcamp
    • Arma 3: East Wind
    • Arma 3: Apex Protocol
  3. 3. Do you consider yourself new to the Arma franchise?



Recommended Posts

It's gonna be pretty hard to explain but what I mean is that the dialogue is repeatedly using the same line without changes such as "Copy That"

 

To me this sounds more like "please don't do bad writing". :p

 

 

While we are at it... Any native english speaker around who'd like to proofread the text for my soon or not-so-soon upcoming CSAT campaign? 6 missions, briefing + dialogue text. Focus would be grammar and military bullshit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious, how much per line / chunk of text?

I never finished getting all of the quotes from each individual because once I got a couple I realized it was going to cost far more than I'd ever spend on something I would get zero return on. I was in need of 5 major parts, one of which had ~30 lines per mission for a total of 12 missions, and the others ~20 lines per mission. The quotes I got were estimates for the entire project, and the three people who sent me their rates explained that if the work was significantly more difficult than I made it sound or I wanted re-do's, changes, etc it would all drive the cost up. Those three people combined wanted a total of $875 and I still needed 2 more people on top of that.

If Arma had a legal way of allowing me to charge someone to play the campaign, I might have put in the effort and money. But I knew I'd never see a dime of that in return, and based on how certain sectors of this community react to regular missions people put time and effort into I knew it certainly would never be worth it for "fame" or "notoriety."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me this sounds more like "please don't do bad writing". :P

 

 

While we are at it... Any native english speaker around who'd like to proofread the text for my soon or not-so-soon upcoming CSAT campaign? 6 missions, briefing + dialogue text. Focus would be grammar and military bullshit.

Ah, My apologies XD Everything is say i usually screw up and make it sound like a demand :P Im sorry! Its actually not dont do bad writing but i mean avoid repeating it :) I really have no problem with dialogues and was just inserting my 2 cents :D

 

Im not a native english speaker and still is learning english but.... (CSAT campaign? 6 missions + briefing??? Looks like i got something else to look out for :D)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 You could probably convince some local college students from the theatre dept. to do voice substantially cheaper than whats above -tell them its for a featured video game mod and that'll itll be on youtube -thats often enough for them to get excited to have on their resume funny enough. Be sure to tell them 'thousands and thousands' will be viewing. Worked for a fairly well known Mount & Blade mod I was on a team for (PoP).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 You could probably convince some local college students from the theatre dept. to do voice substantially cheaper than whats above -tell them its for a featured video game mod and that'll itll be on youtube -thats often enough for them to get excited to have on their resume funny enough. Be sure to tell them 'thousands and thousands' will be viewing. Worked for a fairly well known Mount & Blade mod I was on a team for (PoP).

I initially tried to go the route of volunteer voice actors or people who did it more as a hobby for a much lower cost. The problem I ran into was lack of commitment. It doesn't work well to have a character's voice change 3 or 4 times during a campaign because people abandoned the project. While I appreciated their willingness to donate their time, I think once they realized how much it actually was they lost interest (or some of them demanded more money than the initial "donation" I was making to them). Getting actual contracts seemed to be the most efficient way to actually get the work completed in a timely manner. Unfortunately it's too expensive to justify. If Arma had a legal and reliable way of charging users $1 to download the campaign so I could recover my costs, I'd pursue it. But I can't do that, not just due to BI policy, but also the policies of the mods used in the campaign.

 

As a result, I have a 90% completed campaign sitting on my hard drive, but without the voice acting, which was meant to be a very key component, it's going to remain there. But I'm not mad about that at all. I have a fun campaign I can now play myself minus the voice acting, which I know how I wanted it to sound anyway so I can use my imagination to fill that in easily. I enjoyed the time I spent making it, but for now it's going to remain just for me.

 

To give an actual example, I paid one of these hobbyist voice actors $50 to submit the lines for the entire campaign for a roll consisting of ~300 lines. I kindly asked them for about half of those lines to do a few renditions so I could choose which sounded best. After two months of waiting I had absolutely no progress and the individual eventually emailed me saying they thought it was too much work and wanted an additional $250 and 4 months more to complete the work...

 

I'm a hobbyist mission maker; I do it for fun, not to be internet famous in the Arma world. Playing with the editor is enjoyable to me (dealing with the opinions of people who play my missions however.....). Perhaps if I were on the other end of the spectrum and cared what people thought of my work and such I'd shell out the money for the "fame" but in my opinion I'd be wasting a ton of money to ultimately accomplish nothing. No one pays me to make missions, but everyone else reaps the rewards of my work right? I'm not interested in throwing my money into a vacuum.

 

The attitudes of certain sectors of the Arma playerbase have soured my experience of releasing missions and other work. Because of that, I have absolutely no desire to spend my money for their benefit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi there

 

i have worked in the past with some fellow community members on my ArmA 2 campaigns and I can only say they did an awesome job with the voice acting. i've pointed out from the beginning that I wouldn't be able to pay them and they accepted nonetheless. The workflow was tremendous and I was mostly in the position of not being able to keep up with them due to RL issues. they responded always quickly and send me the voice files shortly after I've send the lines. Most probably I was lucky to find the right people at the right moment. I don't know but I can't complain about people asking for money or not being responsive. It has taken me 2 years to get the Hammer of Thor campaign done and they sticked with me during the last phase of doing the voice acting and implementing the files. I worked mission after mission and none of them has ever let me down in this regard.  It was fun to do it and I'm grateful to each of them for having participated and their awesome contribution without asking anything in return. My kudos go to them.

My general experience in this regard was after all positive. :ok:

cheers

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To give an actual example, I paid one of these hobbyist voice actors $50 to submit the lines for the entire campaign for a roll consisting of ~300 lines. I kindly asked them for about half of those lines to do a few renditions so I could choose which sounded best. After two months of waiting I had absolutely no progress and the individual eventually emailed me saying they thought it was too much work and wanted an additional $250 and 4 months more to complete the work...

Guess you had real bad luck then. The people I've worked with never even requested being paid up front, which basically set the risk of not getting paid for their work on them.

The attitudes of certain sectors of the Arma playerbase have soured my experience of releasing missions and other work. Because of that, I have absolutely no desire to spend my money for their benefit.

I've released some shitty stuff every once in a while, but never have I seen anyone being hostile or otherwise annoying to me because of that (ok, except for one thing that went on for a few years, but that's a different story and game entirely).

I'm a hobbyist mission maker; I do it for fun, not to be internet famous in the Arma world. Playing with the editor is enjoyable to me (dealing with the opinions of people who play my missions however.....). Perhaps if I were on the other end of the spectrum and cared what people thought of my work and such I'd shell out the money for the "fame" but in my opinion I'd be wasting a ton of money to ultimately accomplish nothing. No one pays me to make missions, but everyone else reaps the rewards of my work right? I'm not interested in throwing my money into a vacuum.

On the other hand, lots of people are spending a truckton of money on their hobby (fishing, driving, model trains, etc). Why making stuff for (arma) games would be much different? I'll guess in the end it really just comes down to how you've set your priorities. IMO if you would do this only to gain internet fame and stuff, you are doing it for the wrong reason anyway (and for the wrong game. Extreme mainstream titles like Skyrim would make much more sense).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i liked the arma 3 campaign not really because the story line, but because you got to control a squad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people don't understand how expensive sourcing voice acting is. I had big plans to do a fully voice acted campaign. Then I got some quotes. Scrapped that project in a hurry because I didn't have hundreds and possibly thousands to shell out for what was essentially community service to Arma players. And we all know asking for donations yields nothing; let's not kid ourselves here, if it's free people will only use it for free.

Although acquiring voice actors can certainly be expensive, there are ways to mitigate costs or even eschew them altogether. Amateur voice acting sites are great places to secure mid-range talent. Some newcomers to the profession will accept a smaller sum, both for experience and for their own portfolios. On the other hand, locating talented voice actors who will work for free can be more difficult. The best place to find those is probably on these forums. Of course, the danger is, if you're not prepared to part with money, pro bono voice actors may find they lack the incentive to provide material for your project. When I first began my Resist campaign, I cast a suitable voice actor to play the part of Corporal Coleridge without the prospect of any financial compensation. Sure enough, half way through the project, their microphone broke and they were unable to continue, leaving me in an awkward position. Therefore, I would highly recommend hiring voice actors; even if what you can offer is minimal. In addition, I would strongly advise against working with voice actors on an episodic basis. Rather, wait until you have everything else prepared and then commission the services of third-party talent. This is because recording material for individual missions will occasionally fluctuate in quality and involve subtle changes in consistency (voice actor's do not always remember the original nuances they have lent to a character on their first performance, unless they revisit their earlier recordings). On top of this, it negates the issue of realising you need more dialogue throughout the course of editing your mission and prevents voice actors leaving you high and dry.

 

I never finished getting all of the quotes from each individual because once I got a couple I realized it was going to cost far more than I'd ever spend on something I would get zero return on. I was in need of 5 major parts, one of which had ~30 lines per mission for a total of 12 missions, and the others ~20 lines per mission. The quotes I got were estimates for the entire project, and the three people who sent me their rates explained that if the work was significantly more difficult than I made it sound or I wanted re-do's, changes, etc it would all drive the cost up. Those three people combined wanted a total of $875 and I still needed 2 more people on top of that.

If Arma had a legal way of allowing me to charge someone to play the campaign, I might have put in the effort and money. But I knew I'd never see a dime of that in return, and based on how certain sectors of this community react to regular missions people put time and effort into I knew it certainly would never be worth it for "fame" or "notoriety."

Indeed, for many professional voice actors, revisions to recorded content will involve further costs. The good news is, such revisions are often not needed, as this tends to be a requisite for the more talented end of the voice acting spectrum. Chances are, you'll be blown away by their first rendition. The quote you received ($875) however, is expensive - but not by industry standards. As I mentioned above, it might be an idea to trawl the internet for amateur voice acting sites and specify your budget (if any) in your audition posts. If you're prepared to listen to hours of audition reels, eventually, you will find some shining stars. I admit though, it is a tiresome and often frustrating task. Be sure to make those posts look as presentable as possible, free of spelling errors, to entice the calibre of actors you're looking for.

And yes, I understand where you're coming from, in terms of recovering expenses. Donations are rare and not everyone will receive your work positively, no matter how hard you work at it.

 

You could probably convince some local college students from the theatre dept. to do voice substantially cheaper than whats above -tell them its for a featured video game mod and that'll itll be on youtube -thats often enough for them to get excited to have on their resume funny enough. Be sure to tell them 'thousands and thousands' will be viewing. Worked for a fairly well known Mount & Blade mod I was on a team for (PoP).

This is a super idea and one which will no doubt secure some splendid voice acting. If your local college has a notice board - pay them a visit! Similarly, local language schools can often help with localization issues.

 

I initially tried to go the route of volunteer voice actors or people who did it more as a hobby for a much lower cost. The problem I ran into was lack of commitment. It doesn't work well to have a character's voice change 3 or 4 times during a campaign because people abandoned the project. While I appreciated their willingness to donate their time, I think once they realized how much it actually was they lost interest (or some of them demanded more money than the initial "donation" I was making to them). Getting actual contracts seemed to be the most efficient way to actually get the work completed in a timely manner. Unfortunately it's too expensive to justify. If Arma had a legal and reliable way of charging users $1 to download the campaign so I could recover my costs, I'd pursue it. But I can't do that, not just due to BI policy, but also the policies of the mods used in the campaign.

As a result, I have a 90% completed campaign sitting on my hard drive, but without the voice acting, which was meant to be a very key component, it's going to remain there. But I'm not mad about that at all. I have a fun campaign I can now play myself minus the voice acting, which I know how I wanted it to sound anyway so I can use my imagination to fill that in easily. I enjoyed the time I spent making it, but for now it's going to remain just for me.

To give an actual example, I paid one of these hobbyist voice actors $50 to submit the lines for the entire campaign for a roll consisting of ~300 lines. I kindly asked them for about half of those lines to do a few renditions so I could choose which sounded best. After two months of waiting I had absolutely no progress and the individual eventually emailed me saying they thought it was too much work and wanted an additional $250 and 4 months more to complete the work...

I'm a hobbyist mission maker; I do it for fun, not to be internet famous in the Arma world. Playing with the editor is enjoyable to me (dealing with the opinions of people who play my missions however.....). Perhaps if I were on the other end of the spectrum and cared what people thought of my work and such I'd shell out the money for the "fame" but in my opinion I'd be wasting a ton of money to ultimately accomplish nothing. No one pays me to make missions, but everyone else reaps the rewards of my work right? I'm not interested in throwing my money into a vacuum.

The attitudes of certain sectors of the Arma playerbase have soured my experience of releasing missions and other work. Because of that, I have absolutely no desire to spend my money for their benefit.

I totally understand your position :) I suppose it all comes down to the following question: 'do I enjoy creating community content enough to spend x amount of money on it?'. Much will depend on personal circumstances and how you view your relationship with the game. I feel the following quote from lexx sums it up perfectly:

 

On the other hand, lots of people are spending a truckton of money on their hobby (fishing, driving, model trains, etc). Why making stuff for (arma) games would be much different? I'll guess in the end it really just comes down to how you've set your priorities. IMO if you would do this only to gain internet fame and stuff, you are doing it for the wrong reason anyway (and for the wrong game. Extreme mainstream titles like Skyrim would make much more sense).

This is how I have rationalized my expenditure in the past. And I would agree, it really has to be something you do because you're passionate about doing it. I firmly believe that this, and this alone, will lend you the piece of mind to rise above the inevitable negativity that arrives from some subscribers - especially if you're a bit of a sensitive soul! As Velocity Overdrive points out, voice acting is not necessarily the 'be all and end all' of user made content. IndeedPete's MERCS is a stunning example of what can be achieved without it.

Anyhow, text wall aside, I personally feel that voice acting is a great way to compliment a well-crafted campaign; though the question of whether or not you are prepared to part with (sometimes sizeable) amounts of money depends on the individual and their attitude towards modding in Arma 3. Mynock makes an excellent point in the posts quoted above. All I can say is, working with volunteer voice actors can be a risky business, whereas hiring them can get expensive - and treading the middle ground is a time-consuming and exhausting (albeit rewarding!) affair.

So, back on topic, chaps :D What does a great campaing mean for you?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something is bugging me since a while... Many people in here are hating on Apex's 7 missions for "always being the same" (which I do not agree with by the way) - at the same time quite a lot folks are constantly saying that CWC is the best campaign. Now a few weeks back I've watched a CWC playthrough from the beginning to the end for some inspiration, and the first thing I've noticed is that basically every single movement in the campaign is a custom mission, which pretty much results in many missions pretty much being exactly the same just with a different story and background. If we look at The East Wind, we got a lot less missions, but every single one of them offers a somewhat unique gameplay.

 

With that in mind, I prefer the A3 campaign way more, because I do not need 30 missions of which half are basically the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something is bugging me since a while... Many people in here are hating on Apex's 7 missions for "always being the same" (which I do not agree with by the way) - at the same time quite a lot folks are constantly saying that CWC is the best campaign. Now a few weeks back I've watched a CWC playthrough from the beginning to the end for some inspiration, and the first thing I've noticed is that basically every single movement in the campaign is a custom mission, which pretty much results in many missions pretty much being exactly the same just with a different story and background. If we look at The East Wind, we got a lot less missions, but every single one of them offers a somewhat unique gameplay.

 

With that in mind, I prefer the A3 campaign way more, because I do not need 30 missions of which half are basically the same.

 

I think that complaint was voiced partly in response to the advertised replayability. And partly due to the lack of asset usage / mission types. While there is indeed a lot of repition in both CWC and Resistance (countless ambush missions...) they overall offer more variety. Apex Protocol didn't even try to hide its repetetiveness. The first mission was literally go to location X and kill Y number of enemies, then repeat. Same for the fifth or sixth where the player has to clear the whole island. It's not bad per se to have some of these missions - if there's an interesting narrative to follow. But to be fair, I was guilty of skipping some of Resistance's convoy ambush missions as well. There were just too many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yeah, but the difference is that in the island mission, they are giving you a bunch of toys to handle the situation. You can go wild with all that stuff and do whatever you want the way you want. Something like this doesn't exist in CWC.

 

The first mission was literally go to location X and kill Y number of enemies, then repeat.

CWC, etc. does exactly the same, just that after you killed a bunch of soldiers or vehicles, the "then repeat" happens in the next mission (keep in mind that the CWC missions are all rather short).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, repeatable on a 30 missions long campaign cannot be compared with repeatable on a handful of missions campaign. And nope, the degree of freedom was very high too, there are often numerous ways of finishing missions in CWC

Moreover, you should actually play CWC instead of watching playthrough. Set the level of difficulty to veteran and don't cheat -use the only savegame available -, then you'll feel the fear.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yeah, but the difference is that in the island mission, they are giving you a bunch of toys to handle the situation. You can go wild with all that stuff and do whatever you want the way you want. Something like this doesn't exist in CWC.

 

 

 

CWC, etc. does exactly the same, just that after you killed a bunch of soldiers or vehicles, the "then repeat" happens in the next mission (keep in mind that the CWC missions are all rather short).

 

Yes, but they again do that in the worst way possible. "Oh look, a random drone, with a UAV terminal inside the cargo, what a charming coincidence!" Not to mention that taking the whole island doesn't make the slightest sense in the narrative and it doesn't even remotely fit the special forces nature of the CTRG. Scouting the whole island, identifying enemy positions and assets without being noticed - I could very well live with that. In fact, that would be believable in the SF context and make sense from a story perspective. CWC might not have such a playground mission, but it doesn't really have to in my opinion. If I want this kind of silly sandbox experience, I can do that myself within five minutes using the editor.

 

CWC might just be better at hiding its repetetiveness. To be fair, every game is somewhat repetetive in mechanics and content. But when I get served just seven missions, I expect some variety. As you said yourself, CWC missions are rather short, probably to keep the complexity at bay or maybe even for narrative purposes. And if it was re-made today, one could probably get away with less but more complex missions. But overall, you got all sorts of infantry action, vehicle-based combat, and even some airborne missions. Apex Protocol has just infantry gameplay, that tiny ride in the LSV aside. And only one type of infantry gameplay - silent Rambo. The lack of vehicle action was something I criticised in the East Wind already, but at least there were some parts where the player got to drive a car, especially in the patrol ops. Or the chance to get an APC in Bingo Fuel. I don't find any of that in Apex Protocol. That (and the terrible always-on MP environment with respawn etc.) is why the gameplay gets mundane so quickly. I was already bored and annoyed at the same after taking the second objective of the first Apex Protocol mission. For me, that doesn't really occur with CWC. And I played a couple of CWC missions just a few weeks ago. Aside from the cheap voice actors and the outdated presentation, it was still really good fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Was gonna watch all those videos and make a point by point why there is ZERO comparison but realized there aint that much time in the world. Of course on the surface they all gonna be "Go there, kill someone" it is a shooter after all. What Prof and Pete said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, repeatable on a 30 missions long campaign cannot be compared with repeatable on a handful of missions campaign. And nope, the degree of freedom was very high too, there are often numerous ways of finishing missions in CWC

 

Well, I am not saying Apex is a masterpiece in unique mission design. Besides, I've also wrote about The East Wind, and not Apex alone. And still sometimes less is more- I could very well live with CWC having only half as many missions. From my time with playing CWC back in the days, I can't really remember it having that much freedom of choice either. Sure some missions are branching, but at the end of the day it's still a linear campaign.

 

Moreover, you should actually play CWC instead of watching playthrough. Set the level of difficulty to veteran and don't cheat -use the only savegame available -, then you'll feel the fear.

No thanks, I ain't 16 anymore and time is precious. The motivation to restart a mission 100 times is long gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind helping anyone with this 'voice acting', some more info would be good, incase i've missed the point but i'm thinking you send me some text, i read said text and upload the recording :unsure:

I'm English, from the North-East of England with a strong accent and i can read :lol: I've been here a few years, so i'm not going anywhere and wouldn't want a penny for the time it takes, I work full time so don't expect instant results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cold War Crisis was kept interesting due to character changes and the pace of missions. The huge amount of scenarios from special forces, gunship missions, being cut off and stranded and becoming resistance fighter (no not the campaign for the expansion), to tank battles and right down to being a POW and escaping. I liked the variable difficulty throughout the campaign. It didn't get progressively harder, just different. It was also spread out across 3 maps which helped a lot. To me that gave me a feel of a universe if you like. Also the ai didn't headshot through thick cover at night from 500 meters with iron sights. 

 

It had it's problems but to me is the most fun campaign. Resistance was fun but didn't quite have the same impact as CWC. Red Hammer I actually enjoyed more than Resistance. I know it was far fetched but it had that same mission variety like CWC. All the other campaigns suck in comparison. Arma 3's campaigns don't hold my attention like CWC did. Although they are infinitely better than the campaigns for Arma 1 and 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the AI didn't head shot as often in OFP as they do in Arma 3, but the complete lack of body armour made most hits lethal anyway. Thrilling on one hand, but frustrating on the other. Especially with that stupid one-save-system. I'm really glad they added the option to save the game multiple times in later installments.

 

Thinking back, I also really enjoyed the PMC stuff from the Arma I expansion, Queen's Gambit. Often overlooked but, as far as I can remember, it had an interesting Tom Clancy-ish conspiracy story, some good missions, and this nice mercenary element between mission with the travelling weapons trader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see something like CoD - Modern Warfare campaign.

It was one of the best SP campaign ever IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the AI didn't head shot as often in OFP as they do in Arma 3, but the complete lack of body armour made most hits lethal anyway. Thrilling on one hand, but frustrating on the other. Especially with that stupid one-save-system. I'm really glad they added the option to save the game multiple times in later installments.

 

Thinking back, I also really enjoyed the PMC stuff from the Arma I expansion, Queen's Gambit. Often overlooked but, as far as I can remember, it had an interesting Tom Clancy-ish conspiracy story, some good missions, and this nice mercenary element between mission with the travelling weapons trader.

Yup the one save feature was annoying. Especially since there was a way to alt tab and delete the save file so you could save again. I played through CWC and Red Hammer before I found that out. I had some frustrating restarts I can tell you :)

 

You know what was worse? The lack of join in play and no respawn on most missions. I played with a coop squad so sometimes there was a long wait if I died early on, or joined the server mid mission. Good times with no DayZ kiddies (thanks Rocket).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Strongly disagree on the 1 save policy being a bad thing. Its THAT exact feature that made those gaming moments so memorable! Unlimited saves is like being allowed to take your move back in chess when you just stupidly gave up your queen -it sucks but damn it's just that much more memorable when you do go on to win despite that. Sure options are good, but a game needs a certain standard of difficulty to stand out especially in the current climate of Ego boosters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We agree to disagree on the save system.^^ I frequently used the SAVEGAME cheat in OFP. I'm also one of these people who presses F5 for quicksave every five seconds when a game offers it. I always thought Arma needs a quicksave button by default. (Would even be fairly easy to script.) But well, now it's configurable in the difficulty settings so everyone can play it according to their own preference. I just hate games that limit me in the ability to turn them off as I please without losing progress. And with the missions becoming longer and more complex in later instalments, multiple saves became somwhat necessary. Or at least autosaves after every task completed, etc. I read a Pilgrimage playthrough can take up to ten or more hours. It would be very inconvenient to only have one save in such mission.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Strongly disagree on the 1 save policy being a bad thing. Its THAT exact feature that made those gaming moments so memorable! Unlimited saves is like being allowed to take your move back in chess when you just stupidly gave up your queen -it sucks but damn it's just that much more memorable when you do go on to win despite that. Sure options are good, but a game needs a certain standard of difficulty to stand out especially in the current climate of Ego boosters.

 

+1

 

We agree to disagree on the save system.^^ I frequently used the SAVEGAME cheat in OFP. I'm also one of these people who presses F5 for quicksave every five seconds when a game offers it. I always thought Arma needs a quicksave button by default. (Would even be fairly easy to script.) But well, now it's configurable in the difficulty settings so everyone can play it according to their own preference. I just hate games that limit me in the ability to turn them off as I please without losing progress. And with the missions becoming longer and more complex in later installments, multiple saves became somwhat necessary. Or at least autosaves after every task completed, etc. I read a Pilgrimage playthrough can take up to ten or more hours. It would be very inconvenient to only have one save in such mission.

 

Yes, but in that case, you don't have the stress of failure.

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

×