Silencer 0 Posted January 19, 2002 I'm trying o find what makes a mision popular? is it the... Cut Scenes Smart Al good Scripting Mission briefing & story line Mission gameplay Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MP 0 Posted January 19, 2002 All of the above... But espechally the Briefing, after all you have to let the player know excatly what is going on. Story line depth is also a key factor in my book. You may follow the briefing as to what is going on but I also like to see a bit of variety when playing a mission. E.g Somthing might happen that was not expected. Like the campaign mission "Search and Destroy". You start off with one hour to find and destroy the Scud but you only end up with five or so minutes... I think many of you will agree with me on this one... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silencer 0 Posted January 19, 2002 would you guys mind any cut sceness? becuase I have a complete mission finished dosen't have any cut scenes but has a 2 page long story and briefing.The mission is very short in terms of distance to get it.But its really hard to successed it... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
red oct 2 Posted January 19, 2002 as long as you stay away from missions simmilar to any red hammer campaings there ok with me Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silencer 0 Posted January 19, 2002 how are the red hammer mission about... I'm planing to make a campaign...where russia is taking back the kojugev iland whichi s infested with unkown terriosts force with help from the US side too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sgt_Wilson 0 Posted January 19, 2002 Hi, Being a newbie, I was wondering the same thing. I found some tantalizing suggestions at: Misson reviews But I could not download a single mission (both the good or bad ones), anyone else had any luck? Although I did stumble across this, while getting the above url: Tutorials Hope this helps? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Placebo 29 Posted January 19, 2002 Didn't we have one of these threads a couple of days ago? I'm sure it's there somewhere Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WKK Gimbal 0 Posted January 19, 2002 Keys to a good missions are the same as to a good movie experience, in my book. 1. Involvement. You gotta se the point in your mission and feel that it's a goal worth achieving, compared to what you may have to go through to achieve it. A good example: Red Dawn. Damned Ãf I would let that bastard to Guba ever get away! My first thought: If that evil geezer is ever gonna get to his boat, it'll be over my dead body! It's like letting Osama run away - no chance! A bad example: Red Hammer, the mission where you have to race like a madman to free the resistance leader. My first thought: You don't risk the lives of three soldiers to potentially save one. BAD MATH! It's war. War has casualties. But you attempt to save more lives than you lose. ------------------------- 2: Realism. Very important! Inserting a single Black Op to take out a huge and very important target is not realism. Black Op's perform small sabotage tasks behind enemy lines, and preferably get out without anyone ever knowing he was there - i.e. avoiding all combat. A worse example: "Breifing: Ride your tank to the enemy base, assassinate the general, steal the Hind and then blow up the island." Well, who in the army are trained for both tanks, helicopters, sniping and covert ops? These are all very specialized skills. If you are a tank gunner, you don't know the slightest thing about starting up a chopper (which actually is a rather long procedure), and even less about engaging a target with it. Don't ever make it possible for the player to get into a situation where he can deal with all enemies on the island. When you're a crawling Black Op, a T80 is damned scary! When you're a chopper pilot, Shilkas are the nightmare! If the player ever get's above all threats, the mission loses realism and becomes boring. 'Godmode' simply sucks. ------------------------------ 3: Player choices: Don't dictate everything the player must do. Give him some free room to choose what path to go and what combat mode he want to use ... unless he's a grunt. Then you want a CO that is well scripted, and don't stop in the middle of the mission. Not even once in a 1000 replays! Don't take the power away from the player by too many boring cutscenes. Keep them short and dramatic. This is a game, not a Polish movie! ------------------------------- 4: Element of surpise: Let something unexpected happen. Look at the 1985 campaign. Half the missions end up being way off plan, because the enemy had a card up his sleeve. That is very important. If the briefing gives the entire mission away, it feels kinda hollow to play it. ------------------------------- 5: Bug free: Playtest your mission 500 times if necessary. Or keep it simple. I'd rather play a simple mission with zero scripts, than a huge mission with fancy scripts and lots of bugs. Or a framerate of 2 FPS because the designer put in 300 extra houses that didn't add anything to the gameplay. Keeping within these simple guidelines should be a help to make a good mission. If in doubt, look at BIS' 1985 missions, for how they are structured and balanced. They are the best missions ever made for this game ... still. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damage Inc 0 Posted January 19, 2002 God damn you're an expert Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
reaper 0 Posted January 19, 2002 A good mission all depends your opinion. I think the basic elements of a good mission are a detailed briefing, and I'm not talking about 7 pages of worthless text, I'm talking about a briefing that explains what you need to do, why you're doing it, and explaining the situation. You also need a good story line, if you have that its not necessary to have an intro or cutscenes. A well written story line can be way more effective than a fancy intro. Intro and custcenes are also a matter of opinion. I can't count the number of missions that I downloaded where you watch a 20 min intro, start the mission, 2 min into it you have a useless cutscene, 2 min of fighting and its over. It seems alot of people spend more time on their intros and cutscenes than the mission itself. This is supposed to be a war sim, not a movie sim. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sith 0 Posted January 20, 2002 Gimbal...couldnt have said it better myself Cutscenes are easy to mess up, and hard to get right... If you're making a campaign, you'll need at least one cutscene between missions to keep the player connected to the story. Make sure you have alot of variation in it. Most of the cutscenes will have to be short in order to keep the game going, but you can add a longer cutscene every now and then to inform the player about some important/spectacular happening outside of his missions. Sometimes you can have 2 missions without a cutscene inbetween, but this'll require you to put more of the 'story telling' in the mission itself. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm planing to make a campaign...where russia is taking back the kojugev iland whichi s infested with unkown terriosts force with help from the US side too.<span id='postcolor'> IMO the name 'terrorists' is a bit weird if you're talking about a conflict with a military opponent...and is the US on the side of these guys or the Russians? Anyway, for this kinda campaign I'd personally go for guerilla style warfare from the side of the 'terrorists'. Assuming you're one of the Russian soldiers, you could take the Afghan conflict back in the 80s as example (your idea sounds very similar), with the Russians using big equipment and lotsa firepower, and the 'terrorists' ambushes and hit & run tactics. This really opens up alot of interesting new possibilities. Untill now, most of the campaigns faced you with an enemy of a strength similar to your own (big armies facing off using standard large-scale combat tactics, with tanks, choppers, etc). Having to fight an enemy that doesnt use this 'open field' -style warfare, but one that uses sneaky tactics and strikes when you least expect it, can make for some really tense missions. Here's an example of what the missions throughout the campaign could be like... Early on in the campaign there'll be alot of casualties on Russian side, due to the fact that their army size and tactics are vulnerable to the guerilla tactics used by the enemy. Missions where convoys and patrols will get ambushed, units sabotaged, and more stuff like that. Later on, the tactics will change to counter this, and the missions will be much smaller scale, almost like guerillastyle warfare. You'll have to hunt down enemy troops, supplies and (mobile) bases, mostly infantry and specops work...very cool stuff IMO I personally prefer a campaign where you play the role of just one specific soldier, that's not some super-human specops/tank/chopper/everything dude To be just a grunt would be great for your campaign I think, because they can be deployed in just about any campaign situation you can think of. Combine this with the points from Gimbal's list and you'll have a sure winner on your hands Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dangus 0 Posted January 20, 2002 One of the big weaknesses of this game is the very fact that a soldier can fly a plane, drive a tank, fly a helicopter, pilot a boat, run an AA gun, fight as infantry, and use anti-tank weaponry like an expert(all with zoom that should not be there!!). Spec Ops guys could probably do all of the above, they are very select troops who are capable of a huge range of things. Regular grunts are a MUCH different matter entirely. I would like to see, most likely in the next OFP game, or at least an add-on, where there are more character types, and their level of proficiency with various implements is based on what their skills should be. Tank and other vehicle operators should be capable of driving vehicles more capably, use fuel more effectively, and should have better situational awareness whilst in vehicles. Special view modes when not turned out are not realistic and should be able to be disabled by a server as well. Pilots of helicopters should be good with helicopters, pilots of A-10s should be good with planes, grunts should be good with rifles, machinegunners with machineguns, and probably the single most important of all, AT soldiers should be the only grunts who are able to use AT rockets with any sort of accuracy and have any sort of familiarity with where to hit the armor at. Others could use them, but you could implement unsteadiness to them just like sniper rifles have in Deus Ex.... Specialization in general would improve this game. Also, seperate campaign sections for the different types of gameplay. An air campaign, an infantry campaign, a tank campaign, a spec ops campaign, etc. As far as multiplayer missions go, the single most important element to me is respawn. Flying around as a seagull is not fun, and with no join in progress options, it can take a long time before you get to play again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaptQ 0 Posted January 20, 2002 also the name is important. something cool like infinite justice Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silencer 0 Posted January 20, 2002 the reason the US is helping the unknown force,basicly they think that russia is jsut invading countrys,causing trouble.The US dosen't know that the unkown force is killing the civilans there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WKK Gimbal 0 Posted January 21, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Dangus @ Jan. 20 2002,19:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Spec Ops guys could probably do all of the above, they are very select troops who are capable of a huge range of things.<span id='postcolor'> I seriously doubt that. Spec Ops spend so much time training for special operations (duh), that they would have no time to learn the skills of flying a gunship. It's not the same as driving a car, ya know - or even the same as flying a civi helicopter. The controls are far more advanced, not to mention the radar and weapons systems. That takes years upon years to master, and very regular training to keep the skills sharp. Furthermore, it costs millions to pay for the training. It's not for their blue eyes pilots are rescued behind enemy lines. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sith 0 Posted January 21, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Special view modes when not turned out are not realistic and should be able to be disabled by a server as well.<span id='postcolor'> This is already possible And as for the unit capabilities, this can all be done in OFP (except for the weapons handling), simply by locking certain vehicles (driver/gunner positions) for certain units... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John C Flett 0 Posted January 21, 2002 A good mission should place enough responsability on the player that failure or success comes down to them. However, the Red Hammer route of doing everything on your own, Rambo style isn't much good either. The balance is difficult to achieve. Also I prefer the kind of mission with several smaller, easier objectives to the single, massive battle style. I tend to think the former have more scope for skill while the latter are more about luck. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
