"Sanitize" - just plain wrong

[Fred DM 0]

that is a load of crap! reaction to your 3 points:

1) indeed they are not easy, they are insanely hard and very unrealistic!

2) what you are forgetting here is that I can choose not to lead the squad. I like to follow orders as a soldier and feel te be part of a squad instead of leading one. but this usually means that the AI will take the given approach (beeline to waypoint indeed) and die. you should be able to play these missions without leading the squad... it doesn't make sense that the mission really needs the player's craftiness! an operation like in these missions is carefully planned so it will take minimal casualties, so the mission should be made that way! no way will the american army choose to clean out a village of enemies if it risks the lives of at least 4-5 special ops... if that is the case then they won't commence the attack at all!

3) for some missions i need about 20 times at least, that's insane!

To each his own. I suggest you try FarCry, HL2 or Doom 3. Also Counter-Strike is a nice MP internet game.

There is no way to get very "realistic" on any computer currently available to the average consumer and I don't know how long it will take until it will be possible, but if you don't like the OFP or ArmA approach I suggest you stick with playing Mario or something. If you want a shooter FPS where you can ignore stuff like "leading a squad" there are options like mentioned above. Ghost Recon Advanced What Ever is very pretty, maybe you could like that, on the new xbox?

Your head will not hurt because you have to lead a squad, just shoot the hundreds of enemies and you can accomplish the mission.

I don't think ArmA was ment to be like that originally and I'm happy about it since I can play a game which makes me think a bit, but as I said, there are other, different games that require less thought and a very fast mouse finger instead of both. Which is nice.

you sound just like another "better-than-thou" ArmA guy. but you've completely missed the point. you talk about leading your squad to victory, that's all fine.

except that many missions offer you the choice of either leading or following. now, most games of this kind put you in charge. take the Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six series for example.

what i thought was truly amazing in OpF was the fact that you were just a simple soldier (much like in real life) following orders and supporting your squad. and in OpF it worked well. plenty of (early) campaign missions had you following orders.

now in ArmA, we've got the same thing, which would be great, except for this tiny little detail: many missions don't work out very well if you're just following orders. take the Sanitize mission for example. not only does team B get slaughtered, even your own team will run to its death if you decide not to take command.

so please stop with all that "you ain't good enough for this game, go play CS" crap. that's so 2001.  

oh, and one more thing: i've completed that mission a number of times with zero casualties in my team. but what good is that if the mission still doesn't end?

[Ligur 0]

you sound just like another "better-than-thou" ArmA guy. but you've completely missed the point. you talk about leading your squad to victory, that's all fine.

except that many missions offer you the choice of either leading or following. now, most games of this kind put you in charge. take the Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six series for example.

what i thought was truly amazing in OpF was the fact that you were just a simple soldier (much like in real life) following orders and supporting your squad. and in OpF it worked well. plenty of (early) campaign missions had you following orders.

now in ArmA, we've got the same thing, which would be great, except for this tiny little detail: many missions don't work out very well if you're just following orders. take the Sanitize mission for example. not only does team B get slaughtered, even your own team will run to its death if you decide not to take command.

so please stop with all that "you ain't good enough for this game, go play CS" crap. that's so 2001.

oh, and one more thing: i've completed that mission a number of times with zero casualties in my team. but what good is that if the mission still doesn't end?

Yeah sorry, I re-read my post and admit I sounded like an asshole. I honestly didn't mean to come out like that, guess I was in a bad mood when I wrote it.

I get your point and feel like a moron right now. But I've had this "wow I'm just one of the guys running around, and OMG, the AI is handling most of the battle!!!" in ArmA, like I did in OFP.

Anyway sorry for sounding off like a moron. Maybe I've just been really lucky with the missions this far, it appears almost everyone has a different experience with the campaign. Often very, very different. Sanitize is CERTAINLY a mission that needs a lot of involvement from the player to complete succesfully, but there are others that only need the player to more or less stay alive and stay low to complete. Also it is an auxiliary mission: if you want to lead the guys and think about it, play it, if you don't, don't play it. Derr.

If my brain is not totally shot, I think OFP and all the additional campaigns had a lot of both. This far, ArmA has included missions that need me to do basically everything, and then others where I haven't really done much else than eat dirt. I like the variety and the _option_ to take an auxiliary mission where I am required to do and think everything on my own.

[Fred DM 0]

you sound just like another "better-than-thou" ArmA guy. but you've completely missed the point. you talk about leading your squad to victory, that's all fine.

except that many missions offer you the choice of either leading or following. now, most games of this kind put you in charge. take the Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six series for example.

what i thought was truly amazing in OpF was the fact that you were just a simple soldier (much like in real life) following orders and supporting your squad. and in OpF it worked well. plenty of (early) campaign missions had you following orders.

now in ArmA, we've got the same thing, which would be great, except for this tiny little detail: many missions don't work out very well if you're just following orders. take the Sanitize mission for example. not only does team B get slaughtered, even your own team will run to its death if you decide not to take command.

so please stop with all that "you ain't good enough for this game, go play CS" crap. that's so 2001.  

oh, and one more thing: i've completed that mission a number of times with zero casualties in my team. but what good is that if the mission still doesn't end?

Yeah sorry, I re-read my post and admit I sounded like an asshole. I honestly didn't mean to come out like that, guess I was in a bad mood when I wrote it.

I get your point and feel like a moron right now. But I've had this "wow I'm just one of the guys running around, and OMG, the AI is handling most of the battle!!!" in ArmA, like I did in OFP.

Anyway sorry for sounding off like a moron. Maybe I've just been really lucky with the missions this far, it appears almost everyone has a different experience with the campaign. Often very, very different. Sanitize is CERTAINLY a mission that needs a lot of involvement from the player to complete succesfully, but there are others that only need the player to more or less stay alive and stay low to complete. Also it is an auxiliary mission: if you want to lead the guys and think about it, play it, if you don't, don't play it. Derr.

If my brain is not totally shot, I think OFP and all the additional campaigns had a lot of both. This far, ArmA has included missions that need me to do basically everything, and then others where I haven't really done much else than eat dirt. I like the variety and the _option_ to take an auxiliary mission where I am required to do and think everything on my own.

alright. we basically agree then.

just for the record, i did manage to successfully end Sanitize before 1.05. so i know it's possible.

what bothers me, in general, is the unfinished, unpolished feel of the campaign. i admit, patch 1.05 made some improvements, but i expect all missions to end if i've completed my objectives. apparently this is not the case even in v1.05.

this game will have a real hard time in north america if those issues aren't sorted out by the time it will be released there.

[boecko 0]

what bothers me, in general, is the unfinished, unpolished feel of the campaign. i admit, patch 1.05 made some improvements, but i expect all missions to end if i've completed my objectives. apparently this is not the case even in v1.05.

this game will have a real hard time in north america if those issues aren't sorted out by the time it will be released there.

I second that.

I filed a bug for this mission after i played it.

http://bugs.armed-assault.net/view.php?id=2204

Respawning of the soldiers at the place which is sweeped already? Pfft.

Compare that to 06Ninjas.EDEN from ofp.

regards

[Fred DM 0]

what bothers me, in general, is the unfinished, unpolished feel of the campaign. i admit, patch 1.05 made some improvements, but i expect all missions to end if i've completed my objectives. apparently this is not the case even in v1.05.

this game will have a real hard time in north america if those issues aren't sorted out by the time it will be released there.

I second that.

I filed a bug for this mission after i played it.

http://bugs.armed-assault.net/view.php?id=2204

Respawning of the soldiers at the place which is sweeped already?  Pfft.

Compare that to 06Ninjas.EDEN from ofp.

regards

i'm pretty sure the spawning is not a bug, though, just bad mission design.

there are other missions in which enemies spawn from out of nowhere. i believe this is to "simulate" soldiers exiting nearby buildings. if you've noticed, many of the buildings in ArmA don't have interiors or doors.

[boecko 0]

For me:

Bad mission design == bug

If this should "simulate" soldiers exiting nearby buildings, a message from Papa Bear would be quite nice, to get some atmosphere.

BTW: I've played this 'Ammo Depots'-mission minutes ago. OMG

[boecko 0]

I've unpacked the ca.cpo (campaing) and edited this mission in the editor.

The only thing, what i've changed is to insert a "Search & Destroy" - Waypoint (speed:restricted,combat mode) before the normal vanilla-WP.

Instead of going in like the cavalry, the squad actually survives now and can meet with beta squad.

Where was the QA?

[Fred DM 0]

Where was the QA?

"You're it."

seriously, if it's that easy to change, somebody didn't do their job.

[Infam0us 10]

Stop your negativity please ... there's plenty of other missions to play

[Fred DM 0]

Stop your negativity please ... there's plenty of other missions to play  

au contraire; the campaign is short enough as it is. ignoring missions only makes it shorter. no way.

[andersson 285]

I just played this mission. I really miss 1985........

[karantan 0]

Well well well, the more I read such threads in this ArmA dedicated forum, the more and more I get depressed. Lucky me then I didn't buyed ArmA (yet), yes?    

For me:

Bad mission design == bug

I know you've writted 'for me', but this is not a bug, it's just a,,,bad mission design. Or maybe even some sort of incompetence?

I'm reading some are urging the others not to criticise too much BIS and their work - the campaign and its missions in this case, but I think this is not the right and correct approach; reading such debates helped me alot to make some personal decision(s) about ArmA if nothing else, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. And beside, why not to criticise them, while some 'reviewers' on some sites are/can be so 'smart' e.g. so vicious and even unfair towards the user missions and campaigns; they don't forgive even so tiny and/or insignificant mistake; heck, one of my missions get criticised even for such things as misspelling and for the 'eastern' english voice accent ... And god forbid if by any chance they find some bug ... I'm really courious how those 'reviewers' would rate this "Sanitize" mission and the campaign as a whole? So, why to give BIS any 'discount'.

[sander 14]

Hi,

By working your way around the village to the high ground overlooking it, it is possible to pick off all the troops occupying it from a distance. Then once the village is clear one can link up with the Bravo squad, arrange a skirmish line facing the village and have the AI kill off all spawning enemies at leisure. It can be done both when commanding the squad, but also all by yourself after the other three AI have been slaughtered trying to charge the village in the best tradition of captain Stark of the 22nd cavalry (Les tuniques blues).

Regards,

Sander

[redface 1]

In 1.05, I have not encountered any spawning enemies.

too bad, I just experienced my first major letdown in playing the ArmA campaign

I just want to document this, since it is hard to cull something like an objective walkthrough from the polemical threads concerning the campaign:

in 1.05, in the campaign mission "Sanitize" the enemy can still spawn right in front of you ...

as soon as the second team attacks, you get a "join waypoint" towards the other team which gets slaughtered. as soon as you reach it, you get a waypoint to "seize the city" again which you already had seized ... with enemies visibly spawning in the middle of the village, 1 right in front of me ...

probably the mission designers did not think it very likely that the whole of your team would die so quickly

in the campaign, you are not assigned as leader, so there is no way to better position your teammates

[redface 1]

please vote for this bug to be fixed in the community bug tracker

so that this can be fixed in the US release & related patches