Believability in the missions

[Farks 0]

We're already 99% guarranteed to get realistic weapon performance, vehicles, etc. But it's just as important to make everything in the missions believeable. For example, I stopped playing the Resistance campaign when I realised how rambofied it was. I mean, some random farmers on Nogova stealing tanks from the Soviets...? Comon...

Ok, I know you sometimes have to break realism boundaries for gameplay reasons, but things like that are way overboard if you ask me. Parts of ArmA was the same.

My fav campaign is the original CWC. Because it had the most realism in it's missions. There were only a handful of missions in Rambo style, but they still made sense. But for the most part you were working togheter with at least one squad, which added at least as much to the military and realism atmosphere as the weapons, vehicles, etc.

[Kirq 0]

I know what you mean. I stoped playing Arma campaing on the mission where I had to destroy 4 tanks by myself O_o

[mattxr 9]

Resistance Campaign was awesome.. imo..

Didnt you hear about the extermist pirates in africa captured and took over a ship with about 20 T72s in it.

Plus is a game not a simulator lol.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Where did you get this?

Quote[/b] ]We're already 99% guarranteed to get realistic weapon performance, vehicles, etc.

There are some other campaigns and missions around - you should try them first before making decisions. As mission developer you cannot please all people. Some people say urban combat is better, some say its better to fight in open terrain, others like tank fights without any air activity etc. Try making missions with content you like, there are some tools & addons ready to use.

[Farks 0]

Where did you get this?

Quote[/b] ]We're already 99% guarranteed to get realistic weapon performance, vehicles, etc.

There are some other campaigns and missions around - you should try them first before making decisions. As mission developer you cannot please all people. Some people say urban combat is better, some say its better to fight in open terrain, others like tank fights without any air activity etc. Try making missions with content you like, there are some tools & addons ready to use.

Well, judging from the realism in OFP and ArmA, we have no reason the expect anything less, right?

I know people have different tastes, I'm just saying I think it's a bit pointless making all this realism if the combat scenarios are unrealistic.

[Pulverizer 1]

You can't make realistic scenarios with OFP/ArmA AI because they have less tactical sense than a broken cinder block. Simple as that.

Take a single tank vs infantry platoon for example, it just goes "me rush enemy infantry alone at flank speed all guns blazing kekekeke!" while it could be doing something like "lets see, there's some enemy infantry in that direction... oo thears a nice hill. ima sit there and pepper them with the coax from a nice stand-off distance".

Any other scenario, tank vs tank, inf vs inf, mixed vs mixed etc will work equally badly because the AI just doesn't have any logic beyond reacting to immidiate threats that they see and even that works so-and-so because they don't understand cover, supression, flanking or anything.

<rant off>

Anyhow, I guess the scenarios could still be more believable and less batshit insane than sending one lone SF guy to take out a tank depot or a big ass convoy etc

[Perun 0]

In Arma 2 will be something called microAI which will made AI infantry more realistic, but I don't know how much better will be for example tank battles. In flashpoint I'm able to shoot off whole tank batalion if I take good cover behind some hillside when whole profile enemy can see is muzzle . When AI from Arma 2 will be able to this it will be more then good.

[wamingo 1]

A reminder that believability and realism are not quite the same.

From google which said it better than I could:

"Realism is bound by the confines of the real world, and is thus fairly rigid. The rule of believability is logic, and thus is inherently more flexible than realism."

[sk3pt 0]

Didnt you hear about the extermist pirates in africa captured and took over a ship with about 20 T72s in it.  

I heard it was 33 T-72's.

[Rak 0]

Resistance Campaign was awesome.. imo..

Didnt you hear about the extermist pirates in africa captured and took over a ship with about 20 T72s in it.  

Plus is a game not a simulator lol.

Well there's a difference between "using" that ship and pointing AK-47's to the heads of the crew to make them do that for you . . .

On topic: TBH I don't think there'll be much believability than ArmA or QG in ArmA2. You're fighting in a "special" squad, you're reviving teammates and stuff.

Being in a "special" squad in ArmA means = destroy 50 infantry and 10 tanks by yourself. Also, I don't believe AI will be "tactically" challenging either.

[lugiahua 26]

What I believe "Believability" is the plot

The Arma1 plot just not making sense.

US could just launch some B-52s for carpet bombing and wipe out whole SLAs. Or set a few batteries of MLRS and M777, blow everything blocks the Marines...

Hope Arma2 has better plot than ArmA1

[mattxr 9]

What I believe "Believability" is the plot

The Arma1 plot just not making sense.

US could just launch some B-52s for carpet bombing and wipe out whole SLAs. Or set a few batteries of MLRS and M777, blow everything blocks the Marines...

Hope Arma2 has better plot than ArmA1

Not true, no country in this modern age would flattern a city like this, since ww2. There would be a lot of key airstrikes but none carpet bombing cities.. thats just makes you a terroist lol.

Although i think the USA did this to afganistan after the 9/11 attacks... but they wernt on the cities

[sparks50 0]

For me its a bit of a letdown that the campaign will be played as special forces characters. Nothing beats being a grunt in the big picture.

I hope we can at least get some more believable special forces missions than the usual "take out 4 tanks and wipe out this city" approach of Arma.

Theres plenty of sources on how real life operations has gone down, just try to replicate parts of it

Anyway, we still have the campaigns from people like Rejn, Otk group, UgolSkosa and other so called amateurs whose content by far beats any official campaign. Thank god for the community.

[Migel 0]

I mean, some random farmers on Nogova stealing tanks from the Soviets...? Comon...

Ok, I know you sometimes have to break realism boundaries for gameplay reasons, but things like that are way overboard if you ask me. Parts of ArmA was the same.

Well im dutch so u can give me a luger and i kill an unsuspecting german officer for u ...however controlling a t72 is whole different matter. I dont even know how those things look like in real life.

Still....the sole reason t72s have such a bad name these days ( they even had change some t72 modifications to t90 to get better sales ) comes solely from the late battles in which they are being controlled by crew that had less than 6 hours training and fire rounds from stone age. So technically it would be possible for a resistance to rise up against a rather unorganised and unsuspecting enemy. Of course in real life i would have prefered to destroy the tanks instead of bringing devices that can be heard from miles away to my secret base of operations controlled by people like myself who never saw the inside of that type of tank .

But I know exactly what you on about. All the missions in arma, exspecially the bonuses, put me in situations where i had to kill entire groups of superior geard enemies with limited supply of weapons. I mean for 1 man to slow down a convoy of 6 vehicles is ok. But to be able to completely destroy 3 trucks, 2 tanks and a apc with 1 mine and 2 rpg in other to save the day is not something i see in war documentarys like "Ross Kemp goes to afghanistan "

[sudayev 27]

Yes! Victor Troska style that's what I've been missing in Arma!

There was something special in OFP guys. Victor Troska, James Gastovski, Guba, Col. Blake, Dave Armstrong, R. Hammer, S. Nichols and Lukin. Something you like about them. You cant say that about Arma characters because there were no characters in arma.

[H00t74 0]

You want realism.. Ok, sit/walk around in a town. DO it for a few hours and then we will toss in a 2 minute firefight.

[Pulverizer 1]

You wan't to make an argument, make sure it's not a straw man argument.

Personally, I'd love the game to be so realistic that it would have a 6 month tutorial part and when you finally get into some action and get shot to death you have to buy a new copy and start all over.

[sparks50 0]

Realistic missions doesn't have to be game play killing, many user-made missions are proof of that.

[Michael_Wittman 0]

On the carpet bombing I think he has a point...

Modern warfare is very fast and brutal...normal soldiers dont have a chance against modern weaponary....modern tank optics force quite tricky deceptions....even though arma has not implemented thermal vision.

This game could have been the perfect game if they based it on WWII...it could have portayed something like the battle for Crete. Imagine...no ultra 120mm guns...no smart-ass missiles...RPGs with only range for 200m...

[NoRailgunner 0]

People have to know about their possibilities in different situations and have to use their skills. Lets hope ArmA2 will get some new things instead of old black and white painting.

Quote[/b] ]ArmA 2 features a player-driven, branching campaign. Your actions have consequences! Win the hearts and minds of the warring factions inside Chernarus, or play them off against one another! Your choices will shape the future country. Ultimately, you decide which faction (if any) survives to rule. Will you establish a lasting peace, or kick off a final war?

[wolfsblut_ 0]

Personally, I'd love the game to be so realistic that it would have a 6 month tutorial part and when you finally get into some action and get shot to death you have to buy a new copy and start all over.

This is exactly the perfect gameplaying-scenario and what would me threatened to death: to spend more money on BIS.

[dentist guba 0]

yeh, i think the small team of well defined characters should make it more engaging than ARMA, i guess the fact that they knew that this game would definately be ARMA 2 helped.

[Second 0]

People have to know about their possibilities in different situations and have to use their skills. Lets hope ArmA2 will get some new things instead of old black and white painting.

Quote[/b] ]ArmA 2 features a player-driven, branching campaign. Your actions have consequences! Win the hearts and minds of the warring factions inside Chernarus, or play them off against one another! Your choices will shape the future country. Ultimately, you decide which faction (if any) survives to rule. Will you establish a lasting peace, or kick off a final war?

Now i'm really scared what they say about campaign. Are we having story-focused and "adventureous" campaign where we do jobs for, errr, factions? Sound role playing game without role to play, so it would just mean finishing "quests".

Here's basic "quest" structure (hope i don't spoil the game):

1. Village X doesn't like village Y, so if you like village X to like you, you go and murder village Y, or at least it's head man.

2. And while your at village Y and about to start your mayhem, you learn that they dont' like village X as they stole village Y's firewoods. And so they wishes that you would instead murder village X, and bring their firewoods back (they are in pink truck as village Y's elder tells you). As a return they would like you. You can also steal just their truck and not do mass-murdering stuff, but then Village Y doesn't like you as much.

3. Oh they hardness of decision making!

Scared yet?

[Michael_Wittman 0]

[mattxr 9]

BIS should do a WW2 game after arma 2 would be awesome. I knw there is a lot of them out there but not on this scale