Why is OFP campaign so good and arma2 so bad ???

[MBot 0]

The campaign was a major disappointment for me. Rather short and with very fluctuating mission quality. The fact that about 1/3 of the playtime are warfare mission killed it for me.

In general terms the campaign is very ambitious but in the end the game is unable to meet those demands. The open ended approach of some missions is nice in theory but often creates mission ending situations that are outside the players control, forcing a restart. That is not good gameplay. Additionally the openness creates a big potential for bugs, evident as the campaign is still hardly playable one month after release.

The decision to give warfare such a prominent place in the campaign is questionable, considering its very amateurish implementation. Dedicated RTS games spend a major effort on effective controls, this is a success/failure aspect of the genre. Arma 2's campaign features 1/3 of RTS gameplay that frankly has controls like an mod solution.

The approach with Team Razor that has to survive is understandable from a storytelling perspective but it simply doesn't work in game. For that the AI is by far not advanced enough. Endless times you have to restart a mission because one of your elite Razors gets himself killed and you can not do anything about it. This is not good gameplay at all. It punished the player for things that are outside his control.

The campaign has some good moments, especially when it plays out the games inherent atmosphere. But it is overshadowed by a bad implementation, an endless amount of bugs and ambitions that the game simply can not fulfill. I am not talking about story here, I'm not really interested in the personalities of the soldiers (but it will please those that are). I am talking about mission design and gameplay. In that aspect the campaign is not even close to OFP or Resistance. I can understand the desire to go the open-world route which is really attractive those days. But I think it would have been wiser to go where the games real strenghts are, objective-specific infantry and combined arms operations and this "I'm just one soldier in a big war"-type missions.

In the end I am rather disappointed because of the wasted potential, but that is just my opinion.

[Thunderbird 0]

Some people seem to be blind and excuse the errors, bugs and lack of proper betatesting.

Being blind is not the same than 'excusig errors', I'm maybe blind, or maybe I'm just too lucky to not encounter what the rest of people complain about so far...

Well, let's say that some people are just 'less demanding' than the rest... heh.

Regarding the campaign in question, well, seems that BIS is selling very well ArmA II, therefore we can start to hope for 'An extension' with a new campaign.

Regards,

TB

---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:40 PM ----------

Endless times you have to restart a mission because one of your elite Razors gets himself killed and you can not do anything about it

Of course you can, it is not easy but you still can keep a control over your units by just taking the right decisions.

A simple example:

- If you find yourself under a heavy fire then make sure to use the closest element as a cover by keeping your unit's heads down, then show them the enemy position which they should observe.

- I personally do prefere the formation (8,8) [Compact Column], it allows you to keep a better control over your soldiers.

- If you find yourself in a quite ambiguous situation (like when you attack the main chedaki camp) then don't hesitate to fall back if necessary and strike again once your soldiers are healed and if you have enough of ammo.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Thunderbird

[MBot 0]

Of course you can, it is not easy but you still can keep a control over your units by just taking the right decisions.

Considering the games unintuitive, 8 years old squad control interface and the AI's lack of self preservation, I remain sceptical about this. Let's not even talk about the missions where you are not the squad leader...

[Thunderbird 0]

The 8 years old squad control interface is fine so far and does not represent a subject of complaints, which means that people are quite used to it and are all in all, happy with it.

AI's lack of self preservation

I'm getting the slight impression we don't play the same game, as there have been significant and very visible improvements when it comes to the AI reactions, compared to ArmA AI.

Now they take cover immediately and keep their heads down if they are suppressed.

Of course, this doesn't mean they can't be hit, but at least, they seem to be way more 'human' than before.

Regards,

TB

[Bulldogs 10]

As I asked in a previous post, is this statement true?

"An Uwe Bolle movie is AWESOME because all it needs are some patching and I can fix it myself for free!"

Postal .... that is all

[jctrnacty 10]

I liked the smaller missions where you atack the the village, there is a helicopter support and the f-35 is flying over your head.

I would like to attack the conwoy, to trap the mines on the road, i want to call for artilerry to bomb the base to get rid of heavy armored units.

I didn´t like the invisible snipers, wtf. Itś not open world when you have to follow the predetermined way of completing mission.

I preffer shorter mission of infiltrating or attacking the villages with all the blasts and helicopters flying over my head.

Where are the tank battles? Where is ka-50 in the missions. I want to have at least one mission flying UH-1z or f-35.

I want to be extracted with helicopter. Where is the parachute drop from c-130?

Want more of osprey.

How the f.ck can someone f..k it up so much?

There are limitless options , simply i bought this game to have fun. I don´t have a time and skill to build these missions myself.

[Blake 0]

To me OFP 1985 campaign was fine but not as mature as ArmA 2 in that, maybe owing to the closeness of Georgia-Russian conflict. In a way I've found ArmA 2 campaign so far a bit more believeable even though I haven't finished it yet. OFP campaign felt more like linked linear missions and I feel infantry focus suits the game concept more.

[stun 5]

Just finished the campaign. I simply cannot believe that 50% of it is based on warfare. It was at the point when the warfare missions kicked in the game lost the immersion factor for me. If only the muliplayer missions had stayed where they belonged. Chasing all over the map trying to recapture bases that the enemy AI have captured........and then rushing back to capture a new enemy base, only to have to fall back again to recapture a base - it makes the campaign longer certainly, but surely only die hard warfare MP fanatics could enjoy the tedium of this. I sincerely wish that the sandbox concept introduced in Manhatten had been continued throughout the campaign. I was a bit surprised that half the SP scenarios were warefare based as well. Am I the only ofp/Arma fan not to get excited by warfare?

[Callisto 10]

QFT.

To me the campaigns are secondary. There will come so many missions and campaigns later on and for now you have the editor you should learn - seriously i think anyone buying this game should check the editor out and try learning it cause it brings so much fun to yourself and later to others as you can share the fun you create. But playing online with friends brings the most fun to me personally. You get into situations that are more like experiences than other point hunting shooter. You remember the time you and your mates were lying on a hill waiting for the jets to come before you could move in. You remember it cause it was late and it was turning night in the game. The sun was going down making the sky orange and you all were starting to get pinned down without any chance of moving. At the last second the jets came and bombed the shit out of the enemy and you got away.

Things like that shared with friends makes this the best game around. :)

Hopefully for people liking SP better there will maybe be an expansion with a new campaign. But a campaign will end no matter how long it is and then your in the same position again. However you gotta remember that the community makes missions and new ones will start coming in a steady stream. And they get better and better. Good missions with for example voice over takes time to make but they will come. So if you are an SP player in wait for missions and campaigns - start checking the editor out and download Mr.Murrays guide to learn it. You wont be disapointed because even learning just a fraction of it will let you create fun scenarios to play out. You can make anything randomized so even if your the mission maker and know the basic plot - you still have to play with care and tactics as everything will be more or less random. Just a tips.

Alex

You didn't quote anyone.

[Potatomasher 0]

Am I the only ofp/Arma fan not to get excited by warfare?

No. I was disappointed greatly when i got that far in the campaign and realised that i have to start building some crappy base.

I blame the community about this warfare obsession.

I remember when first warfare mods were released to Arma, most of the guys were "Holy shit this is great".

Now BIS just thinked everyone likes it. Apparently there are many of us who hate that kind of RTS stuff.

[mr_centipede 31]

erm.. dont have the game yet, only demo. warfare is great, if its only a single mission where you want for some not so serious session... in campaign, if its just High Command mode, without the building things stuff it would be awesome... but warfare... hmm... buy units? doesnt seems right...

then again i dont have the game yet... so i'll reserve my judgement later

[stun 5]

I think the campaign might have worked nicely if BIS had just included high command of the resistance forces without the warfare elements. oh well. The campaign feels like the first and the second half were made by different dev teams - and then joined together just prior to release.

[grub 10]

One man's meat is another man's poison......

I agree, SP mission are good when you cannot dedicate to online play. Might I suggest you design your own SP missions using the editor, based around what you look for in a mission? I had the most fun using the editor in OpF, and made some campaigns my brother in law still comments on.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Placebo

[Jingle 0]

Apart from the few bugs I found Harvest Red an awesome campaign, the operation flashpoint campaign was good at its time but doesnt even touch Harvest Red IMO.

[bascule42 10]

Apart from the few bugs I found Harvest Red an awesome campaign, the operation flashpoint campaign was good at its time but doesnt even touch Harvest Red IMO.

Agreed, then again, I hated Cold War Crisis, HR is much much better. Then again the whole game is better. I agree with some comments about the Warfare, its a bit meh...its OK, but...I dunno, I just can;t get into it.

(btw...is there any particualr reason that no one hardly ever mentions Red Hammer?)

[-Paladin- 10]

The first missions of the campaign are great suburb every thing that follows Manhattan(key only disapointment in Manhattan was that you can chose to take a LAV or a AAV), not the one mission after Manhattan that was for my taste good too, the rest after SUX SUX SUX is absolute bullshit, pooooo

why?

easy to say its some sort of C&C where you build billings and harvest villages for dollars than magically units pop up and go fight from factory's(lol).The ai is apsulut stupid your trucks and tanks are driving your own infantry over, your trucks and tanks get somewhere in cites and villages and stuck and are with full speed driving towards a building and not noticing that they drive against a wall or a tank or truck and that the wall/truck/tank dont move away.

its that "hey i go and buy me a tank and a RPG and a sniper and mines and and and" your are a one man army.

in OFP was it one man one station you where a part of a bigger army

you are infantry you fight on foot

you are tanker you fight in tanks

you are SpeckOps you are recon and sabotaging

you are pilot you are flying

and not taking whole army on your own

like OK we have a wooden area we send infantry in and your where playing infantry, after the woods where safe key open space good ground for tanks and your where playing a other character that was a tanker commanding and fighting towards the open ground, with tanks you got deeper in the country.

After that was it like open ground woods we need every thing we have, your where flying a chopper for support as a pilot.

it was feeling real, while now feeling childish and you are asking your self "WTF WHY?"

Thats not military thats childish.

Thats why Arma 2 campaign sux, not the endings or the effort to make them and the ideas they are good Manhattan is brilliant(damn bugs I hate them, I was listening first time i play in manhaten a transmission that the Russians came to town thru speakers and that they wona peace keep or something a spoiler before your even noticed that they will have somtink to do with the story)

Thats one of many reasens why OFP campain is superb.Why the some ideas from Arma 2 are brilant OFP is still bether

Edited August 16, 2009 by -Paladin-

[wamingo 1]

To hell with the campaign, I've downloaded more than 150 multiplayer missions already. And almost all coop. From Armaholic. Yeah they're not uber quality, but so far my little team has had great fun playing.

I've got a mission or two in the making I'll eventually upload - And I encourage EVERYONE to make at least one or two missions (but preferably many more) and upload them all so the world can enjoy them. The more the merrier! And quite frankly, the simplest missions are more often than not the best ones. So go for it! :)

[binkster 0]

IMO people like myself were young when OFP came out. It was easy to get into the campaigns. Now im older and campaigns are boring now.

Does anyone else seem to feel this way?

[jakerod 254]

IMO people like myself were young when OFP came out. It was easy to get into the campaigns. Now im older and campaigns are boring now.

Does anyone else seem to feel this way?

I still like them if they are done properly. The only reasons I didn't enjoy parts of the ArmA II campaign were; bugs, my computer sucking, and unrealistic parts (end) although I chose not to build stuff myself so it seemed a bit more realistic.

[Binkowski 26]

IMO people like myself were young when OFP came out. It was easy to get into the campaigns. Now im older and campaigns are boring now.

Does anyone else seem to feel this way?

I do, when I go back and play them every once in awhile, I'm just not into them like I was back then.

[archsceptic. 10]

I dont think there is any doubt about it, the ofp campaign and the Resistance campaign were adventures, not just campaigns.

The single player aspect in pc games do seem to be getting side-lined more and more - as if we are trying to be pushed into playing online - the redeeming feature with the ofp/ArmA series of games is the editor, otherwise the games wouldn't offer me much as I'm a strictly off-line gamer, for the simple reason when I start up a game I dont know if I'm going to be playing it for 5 minutes or 2 hours.

The real killer for me with the ArmA2 campaign was the "warfare" aspect - I hate it with a passion, for something that is supposed to be a military simulator this can only be described as a gimmick - a gimmick that completely smashes any feelings of immersion - may the God's of gaming spare us this bs in future campaigns.

[Windexglow 10]

I still enjoy ofp's campaign over this game - partly because the voice acting wasn't done by what seems like 7 year olds.

The storyline was better instead of it being AMERICA **** YEAH *insert guitar music here*. I actually felt like I was shaping the situation there, the ripples could be seen before the invasion.

The ability to make choices was also extremely fun. Yet in arma2 it seems a lot more "Go here, do this. Than go here, and do that. Repeat for entire campaign".

ofp>arma1>arma2 in the enjoyment I've had of the campaign. God help us for arma3..

[Binkowski 26]

I agree with you Windexglow, these newer campaigns in ArmA2 and ArmA1 are more being AMERICA **** YEAH! I remember in OFP the American's almost loosing, which was awesome, and resistance was easily my favorite. Not playing as the US for a change was really really nice.

[Second 0]

To me OFP 1985 campaign was fine but not as mature as ArmA 2 in that, maybe owing to the closeness of Georgia-Russian conflict. In a way I've found ArmA 2 campaign so far a bit more believeable even though I haven't finished it yet. OFP campaign felt more like linked linear missions and I feel infantry focus suits the game concept more.

He-He I had pretty much same points with ArmA campaign. I genuinely liked it when i played it thru first time. I was lucky enough to evade most bugs, and had to cheat just one mission thru (that chopper mission).

I have restarted OFP campaign for about 20 times. There are certain missions which makes me to halt. I hate that black op guy, james kustuvituiksi, and piloting missions. Tank missions were almost okay. In that sense ArmA campaign was more solid, it had "vehicle borne missions" but those were mostly optional, while in OFP i was forced to play thru them.

Also campaigns process was much more clear in ArmA. In OFP i felt like i got threw around map and i dont' have glue how i got there (which is ofcourse pretty natural for ignorant grunt).

Then again i've restarted ArmA campaign just 3 times... and ceased it after few missions. Well my interest for whole game dropped quite fast.

So OFP in the end turned out to be better for me. Interesting to see how ArmA2's campaign fares if and when i buy it.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Other than the bugs that seem to have improved by now, the only mission in Arma2 campaign I really disliked was the last one, Dogs of War. All the rest was simply brilliant. Pure excellence. Topped of course by Razor Two and Manhattan, open ended huge time consuming missions (especially the first tries). Even the 4 town warfare style thingy was a nice introduction to the warfare 'style', if you may. Short enough not to pose boredom for the anti warfare folks (myself included), while having a story to it.

So instead of bashing the campaign which I don't think it deserve, I'll rather give a few pointers on what could have made Dogs of War a better mission:

When the mission begins, you are given the option if you want to command or do force recon style. But the mission has nothing to offer in that respect. At least not until very late in the mission. You're pretty much forced to bash cities and fight like the rest. A nice recon mission here could have been:

1) Helping out a logistical transport mission to setup an artillery radar on the site. Smells like an ambush?

2) The AI commander should strive to get some tank operations going while you're out on your mission. And once our tanks starts attacking, enemy starts shelling artillery rounds. Obvious route is radar picked up possible GRAD location. Find it and eliminate it, but now it has moved naturally. Huge russian area to inspect (northernmost region around russian airport), and the blame is eventually put on local guerillas.

3) If player chooses not to command, the whole warfare thingy should have been a background thing. Money shouldn't pour in like crazy, but something we had to request.

4) Once enemy bases were found, maybe a request could be made that you had to come to base to lead the attack, and AI commander would stay clear of such an important task?

5) SOM (secondary operations manager) could have been active during this mission, as long as checks was made to ensure missions was generated in 'vacant' areas. In fact, I'd like to see SOM to be active in Manhattan as well, and maybe as an option in earlier Razor Two, as as introduction to the system.

6) If I choose to take command, it would be nice to actually have the option to start it at the time of my choosing. Fighting for so long in the dark in bad lighting conditions is exceptionally stressful. Maybe waiting until late night would have given moonlight, but the weather would have gotten worse? Some options!

7) Fail to take out an artillery firebase, and we would have problems with enemy artillery. See #6, now there would be basis for using mostly illumination missions during the night. Again, options lead to interesting gameplay, instead of being so fixed in stone. And no, artillery doesn't have to be 'in balance', it rarely is :)

8) A couple of Chedaki mortar sites to clear out.

I mean, even if warfare is the 'main attraction', there should be stuff to keep anti warfare folks busy for a long while until the base is reached and/or the wip transport task is triggered.

I replayed the OFP campaigns using the CWR addon for Arma1. They were probably awesome for its time (could never finish due to game being too difficult for me at the time). I'll admit it was better than the Arma1 campaign. But better than Arma2 campaign? Sorry, not a chance. Nice stories and all, but it doesn't come close to the sensation the Razor mode gave me during their best missions. Arma2 campaign gave you a team - this is you, and this is what you do - and this will be the campaign. Fair and simple. Consistant and to the point. Even better than taking on multiple roles as in OFP. If Arma2 campaign was like this, it would have felt like a copy instead of daring to think new. A whole infantry campaign without ever firing as much as a single AT shot, doing what we did. Bloody awesome if you ask me.