Lack of realism in official campaign

[dpolwarth 10]

Having played this game up through and into Manhattan I am beginning to find that the missions have a seriously unrealistic quality to them.

The notion that you can jump into any friendly vehicle and take it without signing for it, the idea that you can drive any vehicle despite not being trained for it, and some of the mission assignments break any sense of immersion.

Some of tasks are clearly CIA tasks, not military. My team seem to be made up of people with unusually high talent who can drive any vehicle at all. When you consider that most Americans have never driven a manual gearbox, you get the idea of how dumb this aspect is.

Also, while American scouts do indeed drive Bradley APCs, they each have a specific role and do not swap roles at the drop of a hat.

This whole thing could have been solved with smarter mission creation. Go to a quartermaster to sign out for gear before accomplishing a mission, for example. Little things like that make the whole thing seem more polished and immersive.

Its a shame, because so much attention has gone on the realism of combat, and nothing at all has gone on the rudimentary procedures of army life.

Even the dumbest first-person shooters always have a sequence where you go to the quartermaster to pick up your weapons.

Anyone else feel this way, or is it just me?

[linnx88 10]

Well to be honest, if I wanted to sign for weapons and vehicles and get training, I'd get the Virtual Battlefield Space version of this "game".

I like the Grand Theft Auto feel, I just wish campaign stopping bugs wouldn't be so numerous.

But I agree the whole campaign design feels like a politically correct neocon wet dream...

[Sulu 10]

I agree the campaign is unwashed pants. I hated the fact that there was always a reference to a war going on but you never actually see battles or friendly units. Being part of a special forces unit is dull and has been done countless times, we all bought this game to get a feel of real warfare and that can only be found online.

I truly hope that Operation Flashpoint 2 uses the perspective of an infantry soldier rather than a 4 man army, because for me I prefer a good single player alongside a good multiplayer.

[PlaceboC6 10]

They have to appeal to a broader player base. If they made it too realistic as you suggest, they would probably further cut down on even more players. The difficult gameplay is already enough to scare off many FPS fans.

I personally like the realism and complexity, but we have to remember that the mass majority of the game purchasing fan base aren't always intellectually blessed.

[dpolwarth 10]

Think about other 'dumbed down' games like Call of Duty 4. These games simplify the combat system but make the game feel immersive with all the little military details. In Call of Duty 4 everything felt militarily accurate, right until you started shooting when it turned into just another first-person shooter.

Now compare that to ARMA2. ARMA2 does precisely the opposite. As a game it is utterly, utterly unrealistic until the shooting starts, and then suddenly it becomes ultra-realistic.

COD4 appealed to people who wanted to play at war. They wanted to feel they were in a military unit but didn't want the hassle of learning to fight like real soldiers. The routine of daily military life is easy to replicate and not difficult to play, so they put thta in COD4. By contrast, realistic combat is very hard to play and replicate, and ARMA2 does this exceptionally well. So I put it to you that anyone who wants to play a dumbed-down shooter will not enjoy ARMA2. So why not go the whole hog and design it with the military realism of COD4? Its not actually all that difficult, and most people who appreciate the immersion it adds to the whole gaming experience.

For example: why is Manhattan one big mission? Why not simply break it down into bite-sized pieces that gives the editor much more control over what the user sees. You can then polish it and ensure that the bugs you get in the current giant mission would not happen. You could make it more immersive by obeying military routine (remember the opening of Manhattan when you have to check in at the gate - more like that please!)

In short, people looking for a simple FPS will not like ARMA2. Its a game for people who want realism - and yet its woefully short on realism in so many areas, largely due to crude mission design.

And I totally agree with Sulu - no more Special Ops missions. If you're going to create a warfare simulator, why are we playing a 4-man superteam, none of which have any personality or any particular skills I can fathom that would make them suitable for Special Ops? The only guy who has any particular skill is Cooper who can talk the language. The others are just regular soldiers (with a superhuman ability to drive any imaginable vehicle). I want to be out in a field in a regular unit, not traipsing round aimlessly with slack-jawed rednecks.

The developers just don't seem to have understood their target audience at all. I suspect Operation Flashpoint by Codemasters is going to be the game I will be spending my time on in future when it comes out.

[Alpha-Kilo 36]

When I was in the army, we had to sign for each and every single rifle round and account for each shot fired. In case of a discrepancy the whole unit had to search the firing range for a single missing round. I am very glad that ArmA's training ground is less strict in this respect.

I think the campaign is for showing off what the game is capable of and should be played as something like a hollywood war film - where nobody ever goes to the toilet.

The digging and cleaning of latrines is also not simulated, is it?

But I also respect the wish for the highest level of realism possible. To me it sounds like an idea for a campaign designed to be played with ACE2.

[Kalha 10]

I'm sure they account for every round fired back in the home, but in a war you better get your rounds now or that little bureaucrat in the way may find himself in the hands of the enemy, if not dead, since nobody's able to stop the enemy from all the paperwork.

[mic1184 10]

Before Arma 2 was released there were statements like "campaign will feel more like OFP", which made me looking forward to it really much. the campaigns of A1 had way too much special ops missions in it. the mercenary campaign was nice but it's not what military really feels like. The campaign in Arma 2 is just about the same as the mercenary campaign of Arma 1.

Like dpolwarth stated, i would wish for more realistic missions too. but not in the sense of running to quartermasters all the time. just handle it as in OFP. make a few main characters (a normal infantry squadmember/squadleader, a tank commander, a pilot, a specop) and have the missions assigned to the appropriater character from the start of it (and not so much specop missions, i hated them in OFP and Arma too!)

i really miss the good feeling of being just a little part of a greater army. in the OFP campaign, this was much better.

We can just hope that there will be a official "standard infantry" addon from BI or at least some good user campaigns/missions that let us feel some military daily routine

[Gryphonheart 10]

I can fully agree with mic1184.

I think I'll install OFP:R again. Even with ArmaA II, I really miss it's atmosphere and campaign design.

[the unknown 0]

I have to say the campaign has been improved a big time compared to arma1, the story is good. Its not as good as OFP but thats probally because you didnt expect anyting from ofp since it was the first game.

And about the whole realism factor, gameplay go's before realism. If I have to sign some stupid paper tingy everytime I get a vehicle I would get bored of this game very fast and the campaign would end like the arma1 campaign did for me, afther 2 missions.

[Brons 10]

While I disagree that you should sign out everything you have because of realism, as it makes the game boring, I agree with the idea that the specop missions are boring.

When the second (third?) missions started with the siege of that town and you were getting in there to capture those leaders I was all stoked to get into a battle for a change. Instead of that I completed the entire mission without a single shot because I didn't find any enemies. I was too late to kill the sniper (I was taking my time walking though the town as I didn't want to get hit by the AI's laser guided bullets) and it seemed that the marines already killed everyone.

Now I would've really liked to be on the side of the regular marines and attempt to take the town. And I would have liked it even more if I wasn't in command of a team, too much hassle. There are enough games about special ops and not about regular infantry.

[Master gamawa 0]

Some of you guys need to understand that realism is not the ultimate purpose. Having fun is what games are all about. Realism is just a.. vehicle with which you reach this purpose.

One of the vehicles anyway. Sometimes you need a tank, choke full of HE.

If you want to be realistic... HEY LOOK WHAT'S THAT? A HUGE CAN OF WORMS lemme open it!

How about guard duty? For 4-5 hours each night. Standing in the middle of nowhere waiting for the time to pass? It's very realistic. I was in the army and this is what happens. You just sit there being all realistic and bored.

How about kitchen duties? Base maintenance? Digging trenches? Moping the toilets? Needing to eat, sleep and engage in recreational activities? Writing letters back home? Calling your cheating girlfriend and trying to make your long distance relationship work? How about the ultimate realism? When you are shot and die, the game automatically uninstalls and your serial number becomes useless! No saves too.

CAUSE YOU ARE DEAD, DUDE and you only get one chance in life.

Some people need to realize that we play games to experience something we don't experience every day, in a way that is most convenient to us (in the comfort of our own homes and without having to deal with the boring stuff). We want the action, the adventure, the selected special heroic moments. The gist of what it means to be in war!

If we wanted to experience REAL reality we would just turn our pc off and join the armed forces for real.

Chill out with realism! :)

Especially those of you that have been in wars or the army... you guys are the worst! :)

"Oh my god this is such crap, I WAS IN THE ARMY and I KNOW that this doesn't work like that IT WORKS LIKE THIS! I know better!"

You would SUCK at making games. I am serious!

It's one thing to want sniper rifle to have those knobs that modify range and another to insist on following military protocol!

[Zorg_DK 10]

i've played 3 campaign missions so far. my opinion? it sucks. operation flashpoints original campaign was awesome. the best ever in a game imo. why not recreate that? i'm disapointed and i think i'll skip the single player part entirely and focus only on multiplayer.

[ebud 18]

I still wish someone would go through all these

http://www.mca-marines.org/Gazette/tdgpdf.asp

and make a good realistic campaign or just a simple string of missions based on them.

I personally do not need much in the way of "plot". I'd be happy with a campaign in the style of Combat Mission. Pure military tactics, no plot or storyline, a wargame within a FPS.

---------- Post added at 06:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 AM ----------

i've played 3 campaign missions so far. my opinion? it sucks. operation flashpoints original campaign was awesome. the best ever in a game imo. why not recreate that? i'm disapointed and i think i'll skip the single player part entirely and focus only on multiplayer.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=72888

[Whiskey Tango 10]

Fantastic find Ebud.

Just the sort of resource I was after. I am constructing a campaign and was needing some good reference material.

And back on topic. If the game was to be ultra realistic then your game would probably consist of sitting in a sangar for the duration of the conflict with a fat lazy git who complains about his feet constantly and maybe, occasionally you would see a firefight or two, way off in the distance.

Realism for certain parts, artstic licience for the rest makes for a better game.

life in the military in a combat zone is 98% boredom, 1% extreme excitement and 1% wanking:j:

[Archamedes 10]

When it comes to realism in games you have to draw the line somewhere, i mean signing for vehicles and weapons may push the realism but isn't really neccessary in a game, I mean if there are hardcore gamers out there that just are not satisfied and want ultra realism, join the army.

[maturin 12]

The Manhattan vehicles, for one, were already signed specially to Razor Team.

[Jedo 10]

haha, for a while I kept chosing Hummer as my vehicle, even when APC was available, because I just couldn't get past my own mental wall and think that, maybe, I could actually use those vehicles. The only reason I would ever put Cooper in a tank is because without it the game gets pretty difficult later on - indeed, realistic it is not.

Overall however I find the campaign to be more realistic than anything I've seen before. Use of UAV, long missions, Secops, randomization, different endings, - all very interesting.