Campaign Ending *Spoilers*

[jakerod 254]

I read about the ending to the non-US version of ArmA and how certain events unfold between two of the sides.

I just finished playing the US version and now I am really confused and/or if I am right, pissed off.

*SPOILERS Below*

You come across the civilian camp and the guys tell you about how the RACs killed all the people in the town and how the North saved them. Then you are attacked in the next mission (with the same briefing?) by the RACs at the camp. You continue to fight off the SLA and you take over the capital. Then it goes into its little stupid narrator mode. William Porter explains that the SLA guys were dressed up as RACs. My question here is... Were they really SLA guys? If they were why did the civilian lie? Was he SLA? And why if they were SLA would you change it around from what the other versions have where the RACs are the bad guys? Thats the part im pissed off about.

[Guggy 0]

Dude, I agree 100%. I really REALLY wish they had left the News Reports as well. The new ending was really a downer for me

I mean I guess it can be argued that the narrator simply read or heard reports that the SLA guys were in RACs uniforms, and the reader can deduct that he was confused. But if a player who hasnt seen the other endings is able to deduct that kind of message, then they truely are a greater man than I!

[nate77 0]

Good, at least I wasn't the only one who didn't understand the ending. I think this was one of the most poorly made missions in the campaign. Hopefully BIS cleans it up a little, and adds a new breifing for the second part of the mission. Because after I found the camp my character switched to some guy who had to drive the hummer and join up with the rest of the men. I think it should have just stayed with the main player. So overall very poorly designed cutscenes and mission to end what was a pretty enjoyable campaign.

[xnodunitx 0]

The ending could spawn an interesting betrayal mod, it would make sense to me that the RACs were indeed responsible for civilian killing and merely blamed it on the SLA.

Considering the SLA attacked first, Torrez saying he had a good reason and how US forces were not supposed to be attacked, it all adds up if you think about it.

And during one of the cutscenes if you recall, William said that there was some thought amongst the south on wether or not the US was to blame for what happened.

[Guggy 0]

The ending could spawn an interesting betrayal mod, it would make sense to me that the RACs were indeed responsible for civilian killing and merely blamed it on the SLA.

Considering the SLA attacked first, Torrez saying he had a good reason and how US forces were not supposed to be attacked, it all adds up if you think about it.

And during one of the cutscenes if you recall, William said that there was some thought amongst the south on wether or not the US was to blame for what happened.

Yeah, I can see what you mean. And a mod for that WOULD be alot of fun

My main problem with the campaign can be summarized by the one little Text intro you get after a mission. It tells you that the unit DID have a reporter attached, and she died during the SLA attack.

Now, I dont think most players with the US version know who the hell Marian Quandt is, and even less know how hilariously grotesque her bodytype gets if you try and mod it in any way! For all intents and purposes, she was a story at the end of the newspaper. Not even the obituaries. Hell, she was stuck in the middle of the Classifieds.

I dont just want to say "OFP rox ArmA sux" because I dont believe that at all. But the OFP campaign at least played on some human elements (IE guys being killed sucks ass, especially when you dont know if you're even in a war, etc.). And once more, that can be summarized by the inclusion of the bonus mission in OFP where you drive around and meet the other Vets for a drink at a local pub.

If you tried that with ArmA, you'd be left wondering "The hell is this guy? Think I may have teamswitched to him at one point..."

I havent delved into it at all, and I really should do so. But are those News reports still in the US version? Has anyone noticed? I HAVE noticed that the little "Intermissioins" are misnamed to stuff ending with .PBO when you review the campaign mission list. Does anyone have any idea?

[nopulse 0]

I was very disappointed in the ending. I mean with OFP you had in game cutscenes at the very least. And I thought as well the very last mission in OFP where after the war you drive up to meet your friends that were in the war. I thought that was a nice touch. I wasn't impressed with the narration scenes. Felt cheap, like how EA did in game cutscenes for Generals and Zero Hour!

During the last mission when the RACs were attacking I was like cool, maybe there will be more missions, but nope! Here's an interesting theory. What if Torrez wasn't the person attacking in the beginning and it was the RACs dressed up like SLA's and started the whole thing. I mean the civilian even stated the RACs were the ones responsible, something about the king. And the camp wasn't even guarded.

Is there actually an option when you get to the camp and talk to the civilians? I remember something about if you wanted to leave and not get involved to hop in the striker, otherwise stay and protect the civilians. I had all my men in the striker and hopped out to talk to the civilians.

[Matte_PL 0]

Can someone upload vid from end of US and A version on youtube?

[Second 0]

And what about those US soldiers who were supposed to be in US already (about week before attack) but died at first day of war in Gorazol... Or is that mentioned in US version atall?

There was bad smell of rotten eggs: Nobody was innocent in that war: SLA, RACS or US.

[Billy-no-mates 0]

Guys just forget the campaign it's a waste of your life unfortunately, just go on to user made missions/campaigns at least some thought has gone into these, it's sad i know but thats life.

[Hoot1988 0]

Is this the same campaign as the one shiped with the UK 505 version? or has this got the extra US stuff init? completedthe campaing in 1.05 so im nt sure i seen much of waht ur talking about.

[Maddmatt 1]

The campaign seemed to have some good ideas in it, it just wasn't done well at all. I do wish more work went into the campaign.

The campaign doesn't even use most of the island!

[Yeb 0]

I think the northern part is not used in the campain mainly because of the performance issue, well, just my guess.

[airborne_hk 0]

I just finished the campaign.

I must say that the first part of the operation could be a perfect chance to develop deeper and further on this ill-scripted campaign. However BIS ruined it!

Com'on BIS, what's wrong with you guys? Eye candy can't make the game more playable, but the storyline did! The ArmA campaign is far from par with OFP.

I think I'll try to extend the campaign myself, focusing on the continue conflict between RACS and US.

[Maddmatt 1]

I think the northern part is not used in the campain mainly because of the performance issue, well, just my guess.

They did use the northern part, just not all of it.

[Luciano 0]

I'm sure the OFP campaign had somthing to do with Codies. Its just no way that the people who made OFP campaign could make such a thing as the ARMA campaign. Just no way....

[W0lle 1050]

Luciano keep your Codemasters praising at yours or for their forums, I'm getting tired of it already (again).

Your post has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

The only campaign Codemasters hat their fingers in was the Redhammer one... and I won't comment that any further here.