OFP Vs Arma SP Campaign

[djackl 0]

I think anyone coming from OFP wouldn't really dislike the Arma campaign that much - it's got plenty of action and the story really isn't that bad.

I do sympathise for someone new to it all though; it's not a great showcase for the game. I'm playing Perpetua at the moment, and this is like Flashpoint of old - long intros and cutscenes, deliberate showcasing of the island's prettier features using long transportation sequences; it's fantastic.

In terms of poor mission structure (insurmountable odds etc) I don't like it when this happens, but OFP and Resistance were hardly immune to this either; OFP had plenty of very tough 'sneaky beaky' missions as Gastovsky, and some of the command missions in the latter part of CWC were bloody hard going. The airfield attack in Resistance stands out in my memory as being phenominally hard. Anybody remember 'Return To Eden' in CWC? It is meant to be hard going, but boy had I forgotten exactly how hard!!

Attacking fixed defences with a squad of 10-12 men, usually unsupported (no APC or armour) is extremely hard going. OFP, Resistance, and ARMA all require you to do this sometimes several times in one mission - so I don't think Arma is unique in this respect.

Sounds quite hard going.

[Cannon Fodder 0]

It's a tough one to call - if it was always simply a matter of who has the odds in their favour, where would the feeling of accomplishment lie? I think ArmA, like OFP before it, always throws the balance in the enemy's favour in order to introduce the element of having to try EXTRA hard, to come up with that particularly brilliant strategy, to succeed. In theory.

In practice, both games' AI are tremendously randomised and even the most simple of encounters can go either way. It largely revolves around the minimisation of risk and while the games adhere to a certain degree of realistic military doctrine, a lot of it is more to do with having an understanding of how 'the game' works and how to exploit every advantage available to you.

In OFP, you actually felt as though your lack of force multipliers was due to your isolation as NATO didn't wish to get overtly involved - that many of your attacks against seemingly insurmountable odds were a symptom of being under equipped and under staffed. Similarly, Resistance had the same feeling in that the excuse for your frequently daring raids was the lack of equipment and striking targets of opportunity characteristic of guerilla warfare. ArmA, by contrast, shouldn't have any of these constraints. The opening few missions where you are getting pounded without support are somewhat believable, but as soon as the Marines arrive and yet you still don't have access to air support or even much armour... It's crazy.

Take 'Armoured Fist' (shamefully included as both a single mission and a campaign mission without difference) - 3 tanks take on 2 heavily defended bases, and attack a multitude of enemy armour without air or infantry support. You have access to repair trucks but it feels like a cheap solution to a designed-in problem. It's possible but only because of the fact that you can 'cheat' with your support units and keep yourself and the rest of the column 'topped up'. What happened to attacking in force and numbers and SIMPLY keeping yourself and the team arrive? As though that wasn't a challenge enough!

Or the mission where you support the troops at Tardag with your Cobra, and end up taking on 12+ enemy armour on your lonesome (ALL of whome are capable of shooting you down) when your other Cobra (who would probably just get shot down anyway) escorts two empty Blackhawks back to base! It's insane. Where's the logic in that? You end up just taking your time, popping out from radar cover, letting a hellfire off, popping back behind cover and repeating, all the while your comrades on the ground get slaughtered. Any attempt to aggressively attack and you get shot down, and because the choppers appear to be made out of foil, one shot to your tail rotor will send you down in a smoking heap, so you have to keep a distance...

What about that bit at the start of the last mission with the missle firing BRDM? You disembark from the Stryker, start moving up, it gets blown up, half the squad dies in the explosion... So you try again, move up with the AT soldiers into the village, using it as cover, all the while the rest of the squad (and Stryker) stays back, you take out the BRDM and advance but the Stryker gets knocked out by the enemy MG nests! Where is the support? Where's the ability to advance and attack without having to skulk around like frightened school kids? You're supposed to have nearly the entire island under control by that point and STILL you get a huge amount of trouble from a couple of MG nests and a BRDM. Give me strength! Where's the excuse this time?

THEN the RACs attack in perhaps the most poorly explained twist of all time. The death camps? The possibility of being used by the Kingdom? The question of who the US should supoprt? Misplaced trust etc? All noble ideas and very relavent to present issues but the reason for the RACs attack is just so poorly laid out you're left scratching your head. They blame you for the genocide? That they perhaps didn't want you discovering the POWs in the North? Who knows! It's never elaborated upon and just ignored in the greater scheme of things. An ally's attack of your unit is a BIG thing - here it just seemed like a distraction.

PLUS it all feels so distressingly small time. A lot of the engagements in OFP felt like they were part of something larger. By the time I advanced into Corazol as part of Counterattack, it was just myself and the squad - no other support units. Just one squad to clear (one of) the biggest town in Sahrani, teeming with enemy. Utterly ridiculous. Where was the tense, street to street fighting that these maps are surely designed for? Where was the relieving of pinned down support units on street corners and the crack of sniper fire? Such a missed opportunity!

Go and download the Perpetua campaign and see how it SHOULD be done.

[efefia 0]

I found the ArmA campaign to be just sort of ok, nothing special but it keeps you busy for a little while when bored. I can actually only remember one mission from the campaign (I played through it slowly from Dec '06 to around Feb this year), the one where you have to cut off the beach landing followed by a wave of armour, I had the harrier's fly in literally just as a BMP had me pinned down. That single mission is probably one of the best single moments that I've had in any game on any platform. Just a shame there wasn't more of that throughout the rest of the campaign.

[Sevan 0]

Quote[/b] ]A lot of the engagements in OFP felt like they were part of something larger.

Yes! but the ArmA campign is completely missing that feeling entirely.

[Lamont 0]

Comparing the ARMA campaign with the OFP campaign is an insult to OFP

ARMA campaign can be better compared with Tetris or Pacman. Both keep you busy while bored, but probably the later wins.

[BloodOmen 0]

Im praying that Queens gambit is more like OFP. And more like Blood, Sweat, and tears ( I actually enjoyed that mission )

I also agree with that point that OFP's battle felt like everything you done, effected the game, each hit you made reduced the enemy numbers.

As well as the voice acting / music SEVENTH !!!!!!! Was totally kickass in OFP, but sucked it ArmA

[daniel von rommel 0]

Seventh is dead I think

Too bad they was very good

[DUTCH-BUDDHA 0]

opf rocks whit missions and campain arma sucks big time missions work not good and campaine sucks also not like the new m16scope u candt overlook the vieuwe ak aimes  better bicos of not having scope also big disepointet that ai can look tru busshes and soot like sharpsooters even when a bmp drifes by u and 1km futer stops u let exsplote the satselcharge and the bmp not totaly exsplotes he turnse his main cannon and soot u richt a way how is that posbel if he dident hear u sooting u chest press a butten and he now richt a way wher u are hope flaspoint2 whill be much better and not whit new age wepons but more cold war wepons

[Beagle 684]

I only served 18 months in a recon unit in the Bundewehr but I think that the ArmA "campaign" just missed a military feeling....the missions and setups reminded me more of some mercenary "the wild Geese" scenario...so it's no wonder that BIS finally turns it into a mercenary campaing in the Addon.

What I'm mission most in ArmA is any kind of recon mission that procedes an offensive mission.

[CzingerX 0]

My 2 cents.  First, the start of the Arma story was really tough. Lone wolf. Snipe some 30 guys on a water tower etc.  Towards the end it got better when the reinforcements arrived.  After the last mission, the guy in the cut scene said something like I can't wait to go home and have some beers etc.  Then that was it.  No credits popping up, and it threw me back to the mission campaign listing page. I thought I heard that I would atleast unlock all the Armory stuff if I completed the campaign.

[the unknown 0]

Comparing the ARMA campaign with the OFP campaign is an insult to OFP

ARMA campaign can be better compared with Tetris or Pacman. Both keep you busy while bored, but probably the later wins.

Compareing the arma campaign with tetris or pacman is a insult. :P

I played the first missions of the CWC campaign again and it feels, well good I tink what i am missing in arma is the lack of the story or someting like that. In the first mission in ofp you roughly know what happened and whats going on, in ArmA you are driveing around in a hummer you get attacked and afther like 10 seconds you are orderd to retreat I was totally confused about what the hell the story was.

Edit: Gramar fixes

[meatpeople 0]

I'm just about finished the ArmA campaign, and I have to add my voices to the discontent here. It does very much feel that it was rushed out the door without much thought given to the campaign or much given in the way of testing.

Mind you, I think the intention to develop a campaign of the caliber of OFP was there, and the work underway. The standalone mission 'Blood, Sweat and Tears' seems to be an outtake from the campaign - it makes reference to the camp built by engineers on the other end of the island (which, though a horrible mission, was included...). The dialogue between the SF guy and the dude in civvies seems to imply some kind of relationship. There's banter there that's too familiar to lack a backstory. Similarly the use of two named commanders (the SF guy, the Infantry guy) and the implication that they have a friendship implies more backstory too.

Further to this the method of having auxiliary missions that directly impact the main mission is a great idea, and is obviously wasted on the campaign as it stands. I can't believe the intention wasn't there to deploy it more usefully.

As to whether Codemasters would have had a positive influence on BI, it's hard to say. They can obviously demand a level of quality, but conversely the publishers can also demand substandard material be released in order to make a profit. What they may have had (this is conjecture, I don't know if publishers do this) is alpha- and beta-testing abilities beyond BIs'. This may have added to the polish that OFP had. Mind you, the quality of Red Hammer (CM) vs Resistance (BI) makes that debatable.

Given the rushed state the campaign was released in, BI obviously felt they had to push what they had out the door. The ANN news bits seem to me to be just used a glue to hold the very basics of a plot together. It wouldn't surprise me if we saw a 'rerelease' of sorts of the campaign as it was intended. The use of 'William Porter' as their everyman infantry grunt in the PR blog, and no mention of him in the game is a bit of a giveaway to this possibility. Well, here's hoping anyway, because it could be a great campaign.

(Edit: remembered BS&T mission name.)

[stegman 3]

I thought the campaign was ok.

OK, not as good as CWC and there were no characters at all (except Cptn Armstrong, the RAC officer and those bloody annoying reporters and that rubbish anchorman! ).

*************

**  SPILOER  **

*************

The only thing i didn't like about the campaign was the confusion of the last two levels.

Then when you managed to finish it, the island becomes "united"....but didn't the RACS turn out to be bad guys too?  Or was that just one squad?

I think we need to create an alternative final mission and ending.  Probably one where you capture the evil president AND the potently evil king.  This would then pave the way for a new ruler of united Sahrani:  the Queen (as in Queen's Gambit).

****************

[leckig 0]

I actually like the campaign! i like that the missions are short, well, some of them could be a bit longer I think. I did not really play the OFP campaign much, must have been real good!

[Sevan 0]

Quote[/b] ]I only served 18 months in a recon unit in the Bundewehr but I think that the ArmA "campaign" just missed a military feeling....the missions and setups reminded me more of some mercenary "the wild Geese" scenario...so it's no wonder that BIS finally turns it into a mercenary campaing in the Addon.

What I'm mission most in ArmA is any kind of recon mission that procedes an offensive mission.

. Completely agree. The campign is devoid of any military feeling. Even though OPF wasn't fully realistic in this area, you still got the feeling of military procedures. In one part of the OPF campign, one mission had you defend, another then counter-attack and scout, then the third one actually attack the enemy positions. The ArmA campign is full of totally unrealistic military situtions and rambo style operations.

It obvious that the campign wasn't given priority.

[pmd 0]

Quote[/b] ]

*************

**  SPILOER  **

*************

The only thing i didn't like about the campaign was the confusion of the last two levels.

Then when you managed to finish it, the island becomes "united"....but didn't the RACS turn out to be bad guys too?  Or was that just one squad?

****************

i had the same thought about that too... wtf was up with that anyways!? all of a sudden RACS guys are shooting at me and they didn't even explain that at all!?!?!?

it depends how you really look at it.

if your wanting a storyline and all that jazz... then yea... the campaign sucked something fierce. it seemed like it would be pretty good in the begining, but in the middle you start to notice that it's not really about anyone. towards the end it's just mindless mission after mindless mission! I'm a huge "fanboy". i admit it... i loved OFP and i still love ArmA even with all of its problems and cheaters on MP.

compared to OFP Resistance... the single player story was just heinous  

i must of played all of the OFP campaigns about 4 times each.

but like i said... it depends how you look at it.

if you look at it at a commanders point of view then the campaign is pretty good. i got the feeling that it was about being in charge of the war. you were making the tough decisions, you were the one putting these men in harms way, you had to stop the north from invading!    

the last mission is simply you deciding everything. you pick who and what your going to send in next.

all in all i would give the SP a 5/10. it couldn't figure out what it wanted to be  

Quote[/b] ]

*************

**  SPILOER  **

*************

The only thing i didn't like about the campaign was the confusion of the last two levels.

Then when you managed to finish it, the island becomes "united"....but didn't the RACS turn out to be bad guys too?  Or was that just one squad?

I think we need to create an alternative final mission and ending.  Probably one where you capture the evil president AND the potently evil king.  This would then pave the way for a new ruler of united Sahrani:  the Queen (as in Queen's Gambit).

****************

EDIT: someone said they liked the music in OFP (so did i) so heres a link of all the songs and more from Seventh

http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=179

there all free!

[Hoot1988 0]

a agree with many that the ArmA campaign lacked a storyline, characters, and a good understanding of the games engine.

is anyone making another campaign, a re-do of the story?

[weedomatic 0]

I remember many NPC-names from CWC and colleagues, but not even one from the ArmA campaign. Might be I am getting old, but that certainly is not the main parameter here.

[Hoot1988 0]

from the trailer and the blog i assumed wed be playing William porter, but hes not mentioned in the campaign at all. cept in that cut scene with the captain shouting Porter where the hell are you!

[p0giewan 0]

OFP wins hands down. The immersion level just isn't the same in Arma and as people have said.. too many rambo type missions... plus the frustration factor of the enemy being able to spot you 200 metres away in a bush in the dark within 3 seconds of firing a silenced rifle

Only other thing that really bugged me was the secondary missions.. 1st noticed it with "blow up the convoy"... many of them are just rehashes of the SP standalone missions which just feels lazy on BI's part.

Aside from this.. I still love the game... but this falls heavily down to what the community produces rather than BI. I just hope Queens Gambit is an improvement on the official SP missions and campaign.

[THE_BLITZ 0]

im guna start the AA campaign tanight. i would like to say that i loved the cwc and res campaigns. cwc had a confused feeling, then intense, then the denfinitive mission (after monty), then the invasion of malden, the ca, the res almost dead, and the scud on kolgy. intense game! great ending (actually 2 but u no wut i mean)

[sv5000 127]

I got about 1/2 thru the AA campaign several months ago and stopped playing. I only finished the rest of it this morning, becasue I wanted to have it done before I install QG and play its campaign.

I found the AA campaign to be rather boring and tedious.