Campaign Quality Has Stepped Down A Notch

[derfalpha 0]

Is it me? Or does the campaign generally feel tacky?

a) The fictional politics are obsurd. How can such a microscopic island afford all that hardware without being part of a greater realm? Why would they even be stupid enough to attack US forces? There is also no sense of territory with regards to the campaign.

b) Every mission is far from military simulation because you always end up with 30+ kills when you debrief, which should be worthy of a Medal of Honor. I don't mind the odd heroic mission with bogus objectives, but I want the majority of them to make me feel like it's a hard war, not a turkey shoot.

Bah, i'm just waiting for some mods to roll in, especially an Objects Addon pack so I can play around building my fantasy airbase.

[Kopijeger 0]

The "microscopic" thing must be attributed to the limitations of hardware. Current hardware cannot handle an reasonably-sized island at this level of detail, so we must assume it is actually much larger in order to be able to support such forces. For that matter, this was worse in OFP. Kolgujev is so small (ca 10x10 km) that you have to wonder how the resistance was able to remain hidden when you'd be able to search all the island in a single day with a single company. Suspension of disbelief is required here.

As for the matter of the campaign, I agree. I had some ideas for a better scenario: Presume that Sahrani is like Cuba would have been if it had been politically divided in the manner of Korea. The two states go to war for some reason, and the initial missions feature clashes between the two. They should be evenly matched in hardware, and have little heavy equipment. It should be mostly infantry and light armoured vehicles, with small numbers of old-fashioned tanks, like T-55s, T-62s, AMX-30s or M-48s, and a few old-fashioned aircraft, like Mig-21s and A-4s. After a while the US decides to intervene against the party they like the least. Then you'd play with US special forces conducting sabotage and recon, before a MEU lands and they together with the local allies push to gain control of the entire island. This seems to me a far more reasonable and realistic scenario compared to the current one. The campaign in general seems rather lazy and sloppily made.

As for the question of player heroics; I agree, but I do not believe significant progress can be made in this area unless great strides are made towards creating better AI, one that can be given general instructions and then act autonomously in a realistic and reasonable manner.

[derfalpha 0]

this was worse in OFP.

Not if we consider that the enemy was the USSR. We know they had significant military resources, which was what they had obviously shipped to the OFP islands.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Yepp, the campaign is horrible

[Kopijeger 0]

Not if we consider that the enemy was the USSR. We know they had significant military resources, which was what they had obviously shipped to the OFP islands.

I was referring solely to the geographical scale of the islands, which has nothing to do with the hardware available to the different sides.

[Spokesperson 0]

If you check the south of the island you'll find oil fields. That should explain a lot. But I think it's a bit strange that such a small island has a king. The rest is great. Plot was superb.

[Kopijeger 0]

No, it does not explain the fact that the north has more military hardware than the south when the south is supposed to be wealthier. Also, I found it slightly strange that the airfield in the south is paved, but the two airstrips in the north are unpaved (one on the eastern side of the island, another on a smaller island east of that again).

Do you really think it "superb" that the North invaded at a time when they would be sure to draw the US into the war, and that the RACS attacks you without rhyme or reason (even if they south is tyrannic, it is ridiculous to attack your allies with such a weak force) just as you are about to make the final push? And that there are seemingly no consequences for the South?

[Stryder 0]

Question: Apart from the unrealism of the politics and such are the missions of CWC/RH caliber? Are they as ridiculously fun as OFP and RH and Resistance missions were? Is the story decent (apart from unrealism)?

[Fred DM 0]

I found it slightly strange that the airfield in the south is paved, but the two airstrips in the north are unpaved (one on the eastern side of the island, another on a smaller island east of that again).

why should that be strange? the north doesn't have fixed wing aircraft. the US stationed in the south do.

[Kopijeger 0]

Most would say no. There are a couple of missions that are reasonably large in scope and decently designed, but the majority are either simplistic, and/or poorly thought out, and several were heavily bugged, but this seems to have improved with the latest patch.

[5cent_at_NY 0]

It's just European's mindless hatred for America. also, as someone from BIS said they want to "portray" that "war is not good". In their mind,

*US Forces = villain, warcoholic killing machine.

*Many dead bodies of Americans in battlefield = real war.

*American always seeking another war for their military industry and oil.

Funny enough though, since BIS is providing the "simulator" for soldier training (they have USMC and National Guard as big client). and whole SP gameplay of ArmA is too easy and most of them are "rambo" type of mission (player can be always the last stand guy). I mean, you BI guys who working for military want to tell how war is hell and unreasonable?

gimme a break. you guys forgetting the fact that those who serving for their country is also an ordinary people. and they doing their best to protect their country and their family...

oh sh!t. I forgot this forum is full of European!

[Fred DM 0]

It's just European's mindless hatred for America. also, as someone from BIS said they want to "portray" that "war is not good". In their mind,

*US Forces = villain, warcoholic killing machine.

*Many dead bodies of Americans in battlefield = real war.

*American always seeking another war for their military industry and oil.

Funny enough though, since BIS is providing the "simulator" for soldier training (they have USMC and National Guard as big client). and whole SP gameplay of ArmA is too easy and most of them are "rambo" type of mission (player can be always the last stand guy). I mean, you BI guys who working for military want to tell how war is hell and unreasonable?

gimme a break. you guys forgetting the fact that those who serving for their country is also an ordinary people. and they doing their best to protect their country and their family...

oh sh!t. I forgot this forum is full of European!

what does that have got to do with the quality of the campaign?

you seriously think BIS wants to shine a bad light on the US Armed Forces? i think you have paranoia...

[Kopijeger 0]

why should that be strange? the north doesn't have fixed wing aircraft. the US stationed in the south do.

Because BIS has decided to give the North the Su-34 (in real life, a technologically advanced heavy strike fighter that is only now coming into service in the russian air force). It would likely not agree with unpaved runways, and at any rate it seems unlikely that they would not be able to afford a paved runway even if they are less wealthy than the South. As for the southern airfield, it seems more likely to be a joint civilian/military one than one constructed for the benefit of the US forces.

[5cent_at_NY 0]

what does that have got to do with the quality of the campaign?

you seriously think BIS wants to shine a bad light on the US Armed Forces? i think you have paranoia... ?

oh, I just wanted to say why BI has implemented a campaign like that way. Talking about realism is nonsense in ArmA. Because the whole game is aimed for fun base. However, I can see so many ppl here misunderstanding what a real war is...

[Heatseeker 0]

Anyone starting their own campaigns? The editor is great to set up screenshots and throw units at it but can even be used to create missions, campaigns and stuff.

If not i wouldnt mind reading some fictional Sahrani stories from some creative users out there .

[skimbo 0]

For me the campaign sucked big time.

I was hoping that annoying female reporter would be shot (fortunately BIS came through on this one! ) and the gimp in the news studio needed a rpg up his arse also.

Far to short and bugged with missions that couldn't be finished as some script/vital element could not be completed for whatever reason.

For me BIS shining moment was with the Op Flashpoint resistance add on - absolute genius.

I'm no beardy role playing gamer but I loved the idea that people who survived missions with you gained experience and stayed with your through the game and the fact you had to scavenge for your weapons with hit and run tactics.

I hope the cold war mod guys can convert resistance - here's to you!  

Skimbo

[lilwillie 47]

I was pleased with the campaign. It was a good cross of missions. I thought each could be played multiple times in different ways. Some where buggy, I will give that, but where still enjoyable.

I thought the story was decent. It made me wonder what would happen next. Which way they wanted it to go. Interesting they left you hanging in the end. You really have no idea what will happen on the island after the war ends. That right there gives anyone wanting a very open book to write their own sequel to the story.

I hope to try that myself. Maybe the people who disliked the campaign should give a shot at continuing the story where it ended. It could give everyone a lot of fun stories to follow.

[zinc 0]

Anyone starting their own campaigns? The editor is great to set up screenshots and throw units at it but can even be used to create missions, campaigns and stuff.

Yeah, if you are a flipping programmer. it's about as user un-friendly as they come. The commands should be in menu format and a plethera of scripts should already be available for people to use in the editor.

Simplistic missions are a doddle to setup, but where's all the documentation and examples for everything else? Where are all the example tutorials and template missions explaining how to use the game logic? It shouldn't be left to the community to 'fill in the gaps'

As for the campaign, I stopped playing it after the third mission. Who knows, I might even play the game again three or four patches down the road, providing all the graphical and AI issues are resolved to my satisfaction that is.

Don't get me wrong, OFP has only recently been uninstalled from my computer since I bought it all those years ago, but ArmA looks and feels extremely out-dated compared to recently released games. It's akin to playing a game from the 90's.

Please don't reply with links to ofpec tutorials, my issue is with the editor support.. or should I say lack of. What's the point of having an editor when only a few percent of people who bought the game can use it to it's full potential?

[Heatseeker 0]

Anyone starting their own campaigns? The editor is great to set up screenshots and throw units at it but can even be used to create missions, campaigns and stuff.

Yeah, if you are a flipping programmer. it's about as user un-friendly as they come. The commands should be in menu format and a plethera of scripts should already be available for people to use in the editor.

Simplistic missions are a doddle to setup, but where's all the documentation and examples for everything else? Where are all the example tutorials and template missions explaining how to use the game logic? It shouldn't be left to the community to 'fill in the gaps'

As for the campaign, I stopped playing it after the third mission. Who knows, I might even play the game again three or four patches down the road, providing all the graphical and AI issues are resolved to my satisfaction that is.

Don't get me wrong, OFP has only recently been uninstalled from my computer since I bought it all those years ago, but ArmA looks and feels extremely out-dated compared to recently released games. It's akin to playing a game from the 90's.

Please don't reply with links to ofpec tutorials, my issue is with the editor support.. or should I say lack of. What's the point of having an editor when only a few percent of people who bought the game can use it to it's full potential?

Nope, the editor is very user friendly and simple, you dont have to be a programmer or advanced scripter to pull a few good missions and cutscenes together (the OPF CWC campaign was pretty much script free and it rocked).

More than you need to know can be found here, @ofpec and with the help of the biki .

And no, Arma doesnt look outdated compared to recently released games, even with all its world detail it actually looks better. I think BIS goal was to create something that doesnt just look great but that also looks real alike .

[icebreakr 3157]

Heatseeker: i'll release a MP mappack with a story, but playing it at campaign doesn't matter. Currently I'm working on random situations so mission will be different on each start.

[zinc 0]

More than you need to know can be found here, @ofpec and with the help of the biki .

And no, Arma doesnt look outdated compared to recently released games, even with all its world detail it actually looks better. I think BIS goal was to create something that doesnt just look great but that also looks real alike .

Thanks for your comments, although I was expecting this type of reply from someone who'd been here since the ArmA forum was launched. I'd much rather have my question answered by one of the programmers, my issues are with the editor, I could quite easily live with the 'rest' of the problems.

In response to your 'outdated' comment - How long as 'Farcry' been out for? I think that looks a little better graphically than the recently released ArmA in my opinion, oh... and it runs faster with full settings on my machine, much faster!

I have to disagree, it doesn't look or feel 'real', mainly due to the horrible graphical issues which spoil the emersion experience. I don't want to see trees being 're-drawn' every time I look through the lense of my sniper scope thank you, or textures missing if I turn around too fast.

In reality, the game is not a 'finished' product by any stretch of the imagination.

[Heatseeker 0]

In response to your 'outdated' comment - How long as 'Farcry' been out for? I think that looks a little better graphically than the recently released ArmA in my opinion, oh... and it runs faster with full settings on my machine, much faster!

I have to disagree, it doesn't look or feel 'real', mainly due to the horrible graphical issues which spoil the emersion experience. I don't want to see trees being 're-drawn' every time I look through the lense of my sniper scope thank you, or textures missing if I turn around too fast.

In reality, the game is not a 'finished' product by any stretch of the imagination.

You are mixing current ArmA issues with graphics, FaR Cry was a simplistic good looking toy game due to its graphics being like..well... good looking plastic toys (toy models). The overall artwork in Arma is of a much more refined and detailed quality (i.e. a single Arma rifle looks better than any far cry vehicle).

But this is Off topic...

Have you tried editing a mission for any other game (even Far Cry)?

There is always a learning curve, Arma can be very simple and very complex, it depends on what you are trying to go for. Complexity doesnt always make things all much better though.

If you dont have enough motivation to make a simple mission or wrap some objectives to an end mission trigger and write a briefing then dont... there is quite alot of editing information out there and people willing to help those who go for it.

Its really not as hard as it seems!

Im not saying that making a good campaign is easy but compared to other games its a breeze and should increase your understanding and admiration for the game alot.

Give a try, you might end up hooked and loving it .

[zinc 0]

But this is Off topic...

Have you tried editing a mission for any other game (even Far Cry)?

There is always a learning curve, Arma can be very simple and very complex, it depends on what you are trying to go for. Complexity doesnt always make things all much better though.

If you dont have enough motivation to make a simple mission or wrap some objectives to an end mission trigger and write a briefing then dont... there is quite alot of editing information out there and people willing to help those who go for it.

Its really not as hard as it seems!

Im not saying that making a good campaign is easy but compared to other games its a breeze and should increase your understanding and admiration for the game alot.

Give a try, you might end up hooked and loving it .

I was just using 'Farcry' as an example, which in my opinion was an exeptionally 'polished' product on release.

As I mentioned, simple missions are no problem to setup for me in the editor. However, when it comes to doing something a little different - where is the editor manual and FULL tutorial which deals with ALL the commands including example missions? that should be within the editor for a start, I don't want to go hunting on the internet to find out about basic commands and their uses.

It's a lot easier for people to get their head around the game logic if they can get 'hands on' learning experience by looking at 'other peoples' mission design rather than reading it from a manual.

Personally, I'd like the whole campaign de-pbo'ed and available in the editor (No, I'm not doing that myself) but it should be made available as a starting point for people who have spent their hard earned cash on this game. the editor is a great selling point in my opinion and should be exploited to it's full potential. Without it, I wouldn't have even purchased OFP nevermind ArmA.

In respect of your 'motivation' comment, I have plenty of that! After all, I did work in the industry in the mid to late nineties designing computer games and I would certainly have much more motivation to be creative if the editor side of the game was supported as it should be.

Everything is a complete 'fiddle' when using the editor, you should be able to design a 'complete' mission from start to end without leaving the editor and messing around with files.

Anyway, we both have our own opinions about the game. I've made my point so I'll shut up now.

[Turtlefarm 0]

Personally, I'd like the whole campaign de-pbo'ed and available in the editor (No, I'm not doing that myself) but it should be made available as a starting point for people who have spent their hard earned cash on this game. the editor is a great selling point in my opinion and should be exploited to it's full potential. Without it, I wouldn't have even purchased OFP nevermind ArmA.

I actually tuned the original missions in OFP after completing the campaign so many many times. De-pbo and re-pbo worked well with some tiny tool I found from the Internet (I'm sure you know this though...). I don't really mind that the original campaign is not available in the editor straight away, it might just be too tempting to make a little 'fix' if you get stuck. As we all OFP fans are well aware, the fun comes with sweat and tears. Oh the feeling when you finally complete a mission after hours of trying. But after completing the campaign like a 100 times, you might want to try something new.

I've had OFP installed on my computer almost from the day it came out, and I still have it right here, although I needed to reinstall it because I updated my system (I even played it through again just before Arma was released less than a month ago). I guess I can safely say that I've completed every mission in OFP every way imaginable. And I do believe that I'll soon play it yet again. Just have to fix the campaign even harder.

I do agree that the campaign in Arma is far from being as well designed and compelling as it is on OFP, although it has it's moments. The overall physics seem to be a bit more realistic in arma than in OFP. The main lack for me is that in Arma I never really relate to the faith of the characters mainly because their personality and feelings etc. really never stand out from the story. In OFP the story was build together by those cut scenes which also revealed just a bit more about the main characters, their personality and their place in the whole conflict. By getting to know characters involved in the conflict, it was much easier to get sucked into the whole game.

In OFP Resistance this was even pushed to the next level, as the story played even greater role in the whole game. So in that sense OFP Resistance was more like a war-rpg rather than a war simulation. Or in a sense, an interactive movie. That's why I just love OFP, not so much the overwhelming arsenal of vehicles and weapons (which are of course one thing to love), nor the vast landmass where it's really up to you and your imagination how you want to complete a mission, but it's all about the amazing story.

In Arma the characters and the whole storyline seems very superficial and that's why I can't seem to get into the game. Sure I play the missions but the whole story stays a bit made up (which it of course is, but it shouldn't feel like it) and distant. The random news flashes sure don't help. It just seems like the guys at BI focused on remaking the whole world and physics, but they forgot to make the campaign. So they just slapped it on in the last minute so that we'd have something to play.

Sure I, and most likely every other OFP fanatic out there, had high expectations about this game. We don't need more BF2's or HALO's or FarCry's in this world, they have their own audience. If you want to blow everything apart without thinking or planning, go play those games instead. This is about war simulation (read=no huge fragscores). Since it's more than clear that this game is more or less to be considered as OFP2 (say what you want but you can't completely deny this), I thing we had some reason to expect this game to continue the great OFP saga. In a way it did, the game it self is great, just the campaign is poorly planned. Even with all it's bugs, Arma's world is a clear advance from OFP. God forbid, OFP had many bugs even after it's last patch, but after v.1.96 it was very much playable.

I have to say that this game left me waiting for add-on campaigns more than OFP did, although I'm not really sure if I'd but an add-on for Arma if they ever release any. I don't know if I can trust BI to be able to make a decent campaign, not after this. After all, I'm not sure who actually designed the campaigns in OFP...

[Tracer 0]

For me BIS shining moment was with the Op Flashpoint resistance add on - absolute genius.

I'm no beardy role playing gamer but I loved the idea that people who survived missions with you gained experience and stayed with your through the game and the fact you had to scavenge for your weapons with hit and run tactics.

I hope the cold war mod guys can convert resistance - here's to you!  

Skimbo

So much so, that after over 2 years of not having OFP/RH/Resistance on my HDD. I'm now replaying the whole thing again from the start!

Must be age, but it's good to not be able to remember every damn mission and outcome

Compaired to ArmA (i've already commented on the empty campaign) the pure love that BIS poured into OFP et al is what made that baby turn out what it eventualy did.

ArmA is premature, the engine is there, but the campaign makers weren't!