Campaign was too overhyped?

[zenith777 0]

After so much talk about the campaign being open-ended and so on, I was disappointed by it.

I thought the campaign would have been as long as Cold war crisis or OFP:R campaign, but it took me 11 missions to restore peace in Chernarus.

I thought there would have been more choices (like moral ones) example: "If we destroy this village we will have more control over this area, but the civilians might turn against us. But if we don't destroy it chedakis might use it as a base and they will have more forces available in this territory."

Also Russians had powerful army, but the only times I had contact with them was the mission after manhattan and in dogs of war against few spetznazes.

In my opinion it was very bad choice to have Warfare missions in campaign. Let's capture towns by killing about 3-10 guys at the town and then standing on settlement about 30 seconds. In dogs of war capturing towns often required to kill 1-3 guys and then standing next to settlement. Capturing the towns should have been in my opinion Cold war crisis style missions where both forces try to advance, and the missions would consist about trying to take out few towns or defending em. In that way the campaign would have been much longer too.

Also why bother adding HALO tutorial to boot camp when you don't have HALO in any campaign missions?

Other than that, ArmA II wasn't disappointing.

[abs 2]

I haven't finished the campaign yet, but those criticisms sound valid.

Do you plan on remaking the campaign with your ideas integrated into it?

Abs

[MQ-9 Reaper 10]

Did you complete the secondary objectives ?

[zenith777 0]

I haven't finished the campaign yet, but those criticisms sound valid.

Do you plan on remaking the campaign with your ideas integrated into it?

Abs

Nah my skills aren't good enough.

Did you complete the secondary objectives ?

I tried to complete as many objectives as possible.

Also I was little bit disappointed that there wasn't any missions like Pathfinder in OFP. That would have been excellent recon team mission. (Take out few tanks or AA so that our forces can advance or something like that. The first ArmA II campaign mission was way too easy to be like the pathfinder in OFP)

Edited June 12, 2009 by zenith777

[Nicholas 5]

I hate how much they have Warfare in the game as SP. i think it should have onyl been a MP mission.

[icewindo 29]

I really like the high command feature, but warfare missions in the campaign are just... awkward. If the game is supposed to be a simulation, keep warfare out of the sp campaign and put it into extra mp/sp missions, it's just not realistic and kills the game's atmosphere tbh.

Anyone played the Squad Commander sp mission? That's decent high command gameplay but without warfare stuff, I would have preferred the campaign to be the same in the later missions, high command usage, but no warfare.

[Georg.B 0]

Yeah I was dissapointed with the campaign too. I mean, it was decent length and took me about 30 hours to complete, but they could have masked the Warfare stuff better - it was too jarring.

Also, while Warfare-style open engagement may have made sense when you align with CDF, but when you help out NAPA it makes no sense.

It would have been much cooler if by choosing either NAPA or CDF you chose the campaign style too - choose CDF for open warfare with epic battles, choose NAPA for Resistance-type covert hit-and-run missions where you truly do some guerilla stuff.

[GoOB 0]

Ugh, these warfare bits don't sound overly promising. I can only assume that a "Warfare mission" is more or less similar to the objective of Team Fortress? Keep the enemy away from zone x for y minutes and you win the day. I guess the joke is on me for expecting something along the lines of the stellar CWC campaign.

[Georg.B 0]

Ugh, these warfare bits don't sound overly promising. I can only assume that a "Warfare mission" is more or less similar to the objective of Team Fortress? Keep the enemy away from zone x for y minutes and you win the day. I guess the joke is on me for expecting something along the lines of the stellar CWC campaign.

Oh don't get me wrong, it is much better than CWC or Resistance. It's just annoying that they could have made it even better.

[PhatVybz 10]

i didnt end the campaign yet

but sorry Cold war was the best campaign ever in motignac with the song memory

something was teribly frightened in my mind from that mission ..was like i had to hide

and it ends like "the unknown hero of war" he would have been blessed by usa army but ran from them...

like he had sins from the past still in the memory influanced by the bad

dont ever tell anyone how i feel after that mision..because i would feel naked

That campaign can kill someone...dead by cold war huray dead can dance :D

anyway the new features on A2 campaign looks cool

i just dont know what would have happent if i refused to do stuff like choosing i go back home or not rescueing the doktor and the molestrated woman

---------- Post added at 06:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 AM ----------

Ugh, these warfare bits don't sound overly promising. I can only assume that a "Warfare mission" is more or less similar to the objective of Team Fortress? Keep the enemy away from zone x for y minutes and you win the day. I guess the joke is on me for expecting something along the lines of the stellar CWC campaign.

a gamemode is a gamemode nomatter if it comes out in other games to

because it will be on arma2

we are really lacking ctf or shorttime based TvT games

Edited June 18, 2009 by PhatVybz

[GoOB 0]

a gamemode is a gamemode nomatter if it comes out in other games to

because it will be on arma2

we are really lacking ctf or shorttime based TvT games

Eeh, yes. A game mode is indeed a game mode - I was just asking if Warfare is similar to what the main objective of most, if not all Team Fortress 2 maps. I haven't played ARMA 1 and I cannot recollect ever playing any mission type called Warfare during my rather numerous OFP years, thus I posted my query.

[whisper 0]

Warfare is a bit like CTI, if comparisons must be made

[hund 0]

While I do agree that the Warfare parts of the campaign didn't really sit well with the overall campaign, I think it is up to personal taste really. BIS tried to satisfy everyone, and in a way they did do that. I got my coin warfare and sneaky beaky parts, and people who like Warfare got ... well, Warfare.

However your gripe about not getting to grease the Russians I think is unfounded. In this case BIS stuck to realism, and for that we have to be thankful. In todays political climate, the US and Russia would do everything in their power to avoid open confrontational warfare, since the repercussions of such could very well be drastic. So it makes good sense why the whole affair didn't snowball like it did in Cold War Crisis.

Overall I don't feel disappointed with the campaign as such. For dedicated campaign players, for I assume they do exist, this may not have been the case. For me the forte of the game lies in the modability and the player-created content. BIS makes the system, we make the game.

[Alex72 1]

I havent tested the campaign but i will play it with 3 friends. Did anyone here play it together with full team of real players? How was it?

And yes i agree Hund. BIS created the sword and we swing it as we see fit. :)

Alex

[horror1 10]

i tried the campaign but it was too buggy and the fps drops in towns and villages was annoying for me, now i created my own missions on avgani and afghan village and play them with excellent framerates in arma2 with much more fun.

in my opinion avgani looks way better than any cernarus village let alone that avgani feels like a real city and not like the cernarus cheap industrial citys with lots of empty spaces and still unplayable fps.

[Alex72 1]

How do you play Afghan Village in ARMA2? Just putting it in modfolder as ArmA1?

[Nephris1 10]

Same here.Got bored by Warfare stuff in SP (btw also in the scenarios).

Didnt finished the campaign coz it didnt thrill me anymore after the 4th misison.Of course CWC was sth special coz it was aboslutely new those days,same belongs to its campaign.Neverthelss it still rocks.

So why changing a running system.

A campaign like cwc/res would ve been far enough for ArmAII.

Though a great game what will reach imho OFP after same optimization.

[napalm002 10]

So agree with you. Campaign was too short, uninteresting (on the contrary of OFP or Arma), Why this warfare mod in the campagn ? Just to justify 2 missions with this mod and swap an interesting mission. OFP and Arma have just mission where you have to shoot; clean the area but it was interesting because there was a story behind your mission, and there were not a lot of script...here, the mission are poor of enemy, too much script whith too much bug with them, and the story is too short...

Why the Marines Corp come on an Island with a lot of stuf for just 2 weeks and go out without fight Russian ? ... finally boring. I hope that I could use A10, M1A1 or something like that...but nothing. I hope that bohemia prepare a better campaign !

The game is marvelous but is disapointed by the solo mode.

[ProfTournesol 956]

So agree with you. Campaign was too short, uninteresting (on the contrary of OFP or Arma)

I'm afraid you haven't played ArmA's campaigns which were a complete disaster !

OFP and Arma have just mission where you have to shoot; clean the area but it was interesting because there was a story behind your mission, and there were not a lot of script...here, the mission are poor of enemy, too much script whith too much bug with them, and the story is too short...

What ? OFP campaigns (particularly CWC) were absolutely not only shooting missions, but much more complex and interesting.

[Gemini 359]

Here is my opinion: I would prefer more "little" missions than a few "big" ones. It was the case inf OFP isn't it ? I think I remember there were 15 or 20 missions to complete a campaign...

And in addition, it would be better for performance.

[bonchie 39]

Here is my opinion: I would prefer more "little" missions than a few "big" ones. It was the case inf OFP isn't it ? I think I remember there were 15 or 20 missions to complete a campaign...

And in addition, it would be better for performance.

OFP had like 40+ missions in the campaign. Some where short, others long.

I'm not really sure why BIS keeps trying to push the envelope with the campaigns as far as changing the gameplay alot. They did this in ArmA and it was horrible. Normal missions seem to suffice. Even the open-ended missions are great in Arma2. The RPG elements and decision making are also cool. Why not just go with that line of thinking and put together a decent length, normal infantry combat centered, campaign all the way through?

If they'd of put together a 20 mission campaign, both normal and open-ended/multiple objectives, it would of passed up CWC easily. Instead they fell short again, seemingly attempting to be too different from OFP just when the campaign was getting good.

I have a feeling the next expansion will deliver something we want more.

Edited June 21, 2009 by bonchie

[Gemini 359]

OFP had like 40+ missions in the campaign. Some where short, others long.

It's a bit far for me, I really don't have a good memory :p.