ArmA II: Operation Arrowhead discussion thread

[NeMeSiS 11]

I know, it's awesome that the developers post in these forums but I also cringe every time thinking of the ingratitude they must be confronted by.

I think they skip 90% of the posts completely, and only read posts of sensible members they already know. Its what i do when i have to read all interesting things in this forum in short amount of time. (And its impossible to read everything anyway, it would take too long, but you would also go insane with all the retardedness here on the internet)

[Fiya 10]

I think they skip 90% of the posts completely, and only read posts of sensible members they already know. Its what i do when i have to read all interesting things in this forum in short amount of time. (And its impossible to read everything anyway, it would take too long, but you would also go insane with all the retardedness here on the internet)

-Like me.

Also, I enjoy the similarities this has to a certain post of the forums. Hehe...

I will like the change of scenery... Bravo BIS.

[waffen 0]

According to the update in the news forum

Please take note: How to best transition and integrate ArmA II and Operation Arrowhead is yet to be tested and it is also not clear how well ArmA II content can work with some of the new features as these require major data modifications as well. Also, combined game would require insane quality assurance (just count all the vehicles, campaign time etc.) which all makes a standalone release much more suitable.

there goes the OFP+RES scenario :confused: (aka GOLD EDITION)

So since it's a stand-alone game and no content from armaII would work to it's fullest

Sigh .. don't forget:

Include all your Modules (ACM, SOM, HC, ALICE, etc.)

Fix the CQB capabilities, revamp it if necessasy

Make all civilians capable of bear arms and include all animations and correct vehicle positions

Female soldiers

[Maddmatt 1]

there goes the OFP+RES scenario :confused: (aka GOLD EDITION)

No. Bundling two games together is not the same as merging them into one game.

[[GLT] Legislator 62]

So since it's a stand-alone game and no content from armaII would work to it's fullest

Where did you read this? :rolleyes: The only thing I'll agree with you is that A2 M1A2 Tusk most likely won't have FLIR because there have to be some modell changes as far as I read.

Expansion will alow to integrate arma2 content in to it, so if you will have expansion and A2 you will not need to run arma2 exe.

[p75 10]

I guess we need to wait for news, interviews, videos.....we are spinning around the same topic for 80+ pages now.....

It would be nice to see some WIP videos.....until that time......there is not much to debate......plans change......

2010 is still far away, lads............

[cjsoques 0]

Who else thinks they should stop making these annoying campaigns that never work even after many patches...the ARMA1 campaign I can't finish because something random always happens that messes everything up, ARMA2 same thing keeps happening to me. OFP is the only campaign I've ever been able to complete.

For Arrowhead they should throw out the campaigns and concentrate more on high-quality single player scenarios, multiplayer, and the editor. This will give them much more time on fixing the base features and issues with ARMA2. I'd rather them spend time on refining features and fixing major problems than making sure the campaign works...which is extremely hard to do due to the dynamic nature of the game.

I mean most of us know beforehand to wait until 1 years worth of patches before the campaign is somewhat playable so we don't even bother. The last feature I care about is the campaign, does anyone else feel this way?

I vote for no more campaigns!

[Blake 0]

For Arrowhead they should throw out the campaigns and concentrate more on high-quality single player scenarios, multiplayer, and the editor. This will give them much more time on fixing the base features and issues with ARMA2. I'd rather them spend time on refining features and fixing major problems than making sure the campaign works...which is extremely hard to do due to the dynamic nature of the game.

Couldn't disagree with you more. Campaigns are the bread and butter of OFP/ArmA series despite some bugs. With latest 1.03 patch & beta patches I've had no problems with the campaign so far and it truly feels pretty massive and epic in scale. Plus the campaigns add much more to the game than just missions: the premise, the plot, units, animations, objects, voice acting...they all come along the campaign and would not exist without them. Modellers, coders and others make alterations due to requirement of campaign designers and vice versa. It's a whole creative process that interacts with the rest of the game design.

Bear in mind that mission designers are not the same as coders, removing campaign would just make them jobless and not accelerate bug fixes in any other way.

Leaving the campaign out would essentially render the game as torso and I'm certain BIS will not make such fatal mistake.

[Fred DM 0]

Couldn't disagree with you more. Campaigns are the bread and butter of OFP/ArmA series despite some bugs. With latest 1.03 patch & beta patches I've had no problems with the campaign so far and it truly feels pretty massive and epic in scale. Plus the campaigns add much more to the game than just missions: the premise, the plot, units, animations, objects, voice acting...they all come along the campaign and would not exist without them. Modellers, coders and others make alterations due to requirement of campaign designers and vice versa. It's a whole creative process that interacts with the rest of the game design.

Bear in mind that mission designers are not the same as coders, removing campaign would just make them jobless and not accelerate bug fixes in any other way.

Leaving the campaign out would essentially render the game as torso and I'm certain BIS will not make such fatal mistake.

this.

[sniper pilot 36]

As long as the voice acting is as priceless as it is in A2, I'll be happy!

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

Campaigns are a plus to this game. They are great to play when no one else is playing MP (within your group/clan).

I prefer playing them instead of reading the morning newspaper with my coffee.

If/when I stumble onto a bug, I simple try another task at hand. Seems to be working pretty good for me...I've yet to have to use "end mission".

I also like the multi direction we can go, I will explore other scenarios the 2nd/3rd/4th ect, time I play it.

[sniper pilot 36]

I also like the multi direction we can go, I will explore other scenarios the 2nd/3rd/4th ect, time I play it.

Don't forget the different ways to fail a mission which turns out some funny or interesting dialog at the end.

If OA was to release without a campaign then it would only be worth 1/4th of what it's worth now. (Well maybe half because I love the US Army)

[sparks50 0]

As long as the voice acting is as priceless as it is in A2, I'll be happy!

INTRODUCING

Tiny, very white white-guy

Known for hes role

as large macho African American

Now returning in

Bohemia Interactive

"Operation Arrowhead"

In the role of

angry fundamentalist muslim

[Inkompetent 0]

Also, do not forget that compaigns fill a very, very important role in showing off use of code. If it wasn't for the stuff shipped with the game we'd not have much of a clue about how to use briefings, the modules, or FSMs.

[4 IN 1 0]

I personal think that they should try going back to the starting point in OFP an try to make things a little bit more straight forward(or Fallout 1-3 like quest based mission selection instead of warfare like...

[p75 10]

Never play the campaign.............

[jonneymendoza 10]

i didn't necessarily mean you. ;) just in general; people here tend to demand every little thing an action-oriented game could possibly ever have, which leads me to believe they know nothing about gaming in general and what is feasible today. makes you wonder what the devs think... :o

Well to be fair. the feature i wish arma 2 have will only make the game more realistic. lets face it guys, when a town gets bombed by a fighter jet, the town usually gets destroyed aka real life so having this in Arma 2 would make the world more dynamic and real.

Tanks as well should also be able to blow holes in buildings etc. Watch "saving private ryan" how cool would it be if you can get a tank inside a hot zone and blow up a building containing enemy ai's inside.

I dont know how easy it will be to implement this in the current engine but if not, its worth a shot on Arma 3?

[Alex72 1]

Tanks as well should also be able to blow holes in buildings etc. Watch "saving private ryan" how cool would it be if you can get a tank inside a hot zone and blow up a building containing enemy ai's inside.

...Hollywood...

[Inkompetent 0]

If it is a building made of concrete you'd at best put a big hole in it. Made of bricks or stones and you probably can shoot quite a bigger hole. Only building you'd 'blow up' would be a smaller wooden house ^^

[jonneymendoza 10]

...Hollywood...

I agree. the guy below me is what i meant.

If it is a building made of concrete you'd at best put a big hole in it. Made of bricks or stones and you probably can shoot quite a bigger hole. Only building you'd 'blow up' would be a smaller wooden house ^^

yes sorry thats what i mean. to have realitsic damage on the enviornment. holes should appear with the correct damage made to it and certain building should explode with certain impact etc.

a tank should at least create a hole in a brick/concrete building but not completely destroy it.

[That guy 10]

What is wrong with the current building damage/destruction model? Can blow up buildings, put holes in the etc.

Its far from life-like perfection, but it does its job quite adequately

regarding both harvest red and OAs up and coming campaign

I really cannot see how people did not like harvest red. it was a great concept. it was well though out and very detailed. i can understand the frustration at being unable to progress due to bugs, or crashes. Also i disliked the idea of a warfare type mission in the campaign (though cant get past Manhattan due to slow processor).

However, technical issues aside i just cannot understand why people just throw it away and call it "shit". What we have here is totally unlike any other game i have played in the FPS genre. Its great.

Additionally a few people have blasted the "story" of arma2 for being dumb or silly or some other non-sence. Ok, fine, this type of game will never have a "story" that will rival other games of other genres (Dreamfall, Deus ex, STALKER, or Lord Of the Rings etc) because of what it is. a tactical battle sim game. I dont think of ArmA2 as a "stroy" i think of it more as a scenario, a theater. After all, making an interesting and engaging story about a war or conflict on its own is very, very difficult with out just making a documentary. Its possible to make great and detailed scenarios, but if there is no one to relate to it just feels bland and forgettable (such happened with ArmA1 and I am going to guess OFPDR). ArmA 2 rectified this by adding in the Razors. you are them in this wild and unfolding warzone trying to accomplish their mission (this is also why i think that the CWC and resistance campaigns were so cool. the missions them selves could be quite bland on their own, but you add in Armstrong, Gowstavski[sp], or Troska and the context of the sense of continuity and identification with the main character and suddenly it becomes a whole other experience).

Now, what was the purpose of all that offtopic mumbling?

well in operation arrowhead, we find our selves in takistan, a country that is oddly enough WEST of Chernarus (closer to Europe) but still desert and full of Afghan's (but whatever, at this point Ill just let that little detail slide)

Yes, sure on artistic merits it sure aint getting an award, and if you want a story about Americans up to their necks in pissed off pashtuns, just turn on the TV

The point is if BIS puts as much effort into fleshing out takistan and the takistani people and the situation surrounding the conflict as they did for Chernarus it will be good. but, if they add in some actual named characters and give them faces and personalities then that will multiply the impact of the campaign

Granted we wont know how the campaign will span out for a long wile now, so we can only speculate about its actual execution.

Since BIS has already stated that the campaign will have a larger scope (armor and air inaddtion to inf) it seems likely they will go more the rout of CWC with multiple characters in different roles through out the game and more likely to have more "linear" type missions (take this area, find insurgent hideout, give CAS to the infantry etc).

As a hope/suggestion, i hope that the campaign (if it follows what i vaguely outlined above) is broken up into mini campaigns for each branch; an infantry campaign (the "main" one), an armor, and an aviation campaigns. why? so that the immersion is not broken by too quickly switching between characters. also because i am a terrible combat pilot, and dont want to be unable to beat the game because i cant fly :D

[p75 10]

I never played any of the campaigns.........never appealed.........I only like the editor........am I alone at this???

[jonneymendoza 10]

What is wrong with the current building damage/destruction model? Can blow up buildings, put holes in the etc.

Its far from life-like perfection, but it does its job quite adequately

regarding both harvest red and OAs up and coming campaign

I really cannot see how people did not like harvest red. it was a great concept. it was well though out and very detailed. i can understand the frustration at being unable to progress due to bugs, or crashes. Also i disliked the idea of a warfare type mission in the campaign (though cant get past Manhattan due to slow processor).

However, technical issues aside i just cannot understand why people just throw it away and call it "shit". What we have here is totally unlike any other game i have played in the FPS genre. Its great.

Additionally a few people have blasted the "story" of arma2 for being dumb or silly or some other non-sence. Ok, fine, this type of game will never have a "story" that will rival other games of other genres (Dreamfall, Deus ex, STALKER, or Lord Of the Rings etc) because of what it is. a tactical battle sim game. I dont think of ArmA2 as a "stroy" i think of it more as a scenario, a theater. After all, making an interesting and engaging story about a war or conflict on its own is very, very difficult with out just making a documentary. Its possible to make great and detailed scenarios, but if there is no one to relate to it just feels bland and forgettable (such happened with ArmA1 and I am going to guess OFPDR). ArmA 2 rectified this by adding in the Razors. you are them in this wild and unfolding warzone trying to accomplish their mission (this is also why i think that the CWC and resistance campaigns were so cool. the missions them selves could be quite bland on their own, but you add in Armstrong, Gowstavski[sp], or Troska and the context of the sense of continuity and identification with the main character and suddenly it becomes a whole other experience).

Now, what was the purpose of all that offtopic mumbling?

well in operation arrowhead, we find our selves in takistan, a country that is oddly enough WEST of Chernarus (closer to Europe) but still desert and full of Afghan's (but whatever, at this point Ill just let that little detail slide)

Yes, sure on artistic merits it sure aint getting an award, and if you want a story about Americans up to their necks in pissed off pashtuns, just turn on the TV

The point is if BIS puts as much effort into fleshing out takistan and the takistani people and the situation surrounding the conflict as they did for Chernarus it will be good. but, if they add in some actual named characters and give them faces and personalities then that will multiply the impact of the campaign

Granted we wont know how the campaign will span out for a long wile now, so we can only speculate about its actual execution.

Since BIS has already stated that the campaign will have a larger scope (armor and air inaddtion to inf) it seems likely they will go more the rout of CWC with multiple characters in different roles through out the game and more likely to have more "linear" type missions (take this area, find insurgent hideout, give CAS to the infantry etc).

As a hope/suggestion, i hope that the campaign (if it follows what i vaguely outlined above) is broken up into mini campaigns for each branch; an infantry campaign (the "main" one), an armor, and an aviation campaigns. why? so that the immersion is not broken by too quickly switching between characters. also because i am a terrible combat pilot, and dont want to be unable to beat the game because i cant fly :D

try and blow a hole in any building using a tank and MOST buildings dont get damaged. you cant even shoot and break through windows in most buildings.

[icebreakr 3107]

p75: same here, never played BIS products in SP, spending time in editor and editing tools is a much better investment of time :)

[nomdeplume 0]

try and blow a hole in any building using a tank and MOST buildings dont get damaged. you cant even shoot and break through windows in most buildings.

Yes and it won't be changed in Arma 2. The buildings are entire objects, and cannot be broken in real-time. The buildings that can take progressive damage are essentially separate buildings: after a certain amount of damage is sustained, the normal model is removed and replaced with the damaged model. This makes it impractical to have realistic damage at point-of-impact, as you'd have to make a new model for every place it could possibly be hit. And then what happens if it gets hit again?

Since damaging buildings is a very, very small part of the gameplay, I feel pretty confident in stating that it will never be possible in Arma 2 even though I have absolutely no proof of that. I'd be very surprised to see it in OA, too.

Also, AI units don't tend to use buildings at all as it currently stands. Maybe OA will change that. So blowing a hole in the building to reveal the enemy within would be a rare event, anyway. And real people shouldn't be silly enough to hide in a building if there's armor around. Unless the RoE forbid damaging buildings I suppose, but then the whole point is moot. :)

---------- Post added at 03:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:09 PM ----------

p75: same here, never played BIS products in SP, spending time in editor and editing tools is a much better investment of time :)

I did play through the Operation Flashpoint campaign because I found it very compelling. The Arma campaign I only played a few missions of; I found them often too difficult to complete and didn't care enough to try harder.

The Arma 2 campaign seems worthwhile, but I find its performance too low compared to standalone scenarios, not to mention the odd bug that can force you to replay lots of it. I do intend to play it a few patches down the road when hopefully it'll be a smoother and more enjoyable experience.

---------- Post added at 03:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 PM ----------

As a hope/suggestion, i hope that the campaign (if it follows what i vaguely outlined above) is broken up into mini campaigns for each branch; an infantry campaign (the "main" one), an armor, and an aviation campaigns. why? so that the immersion is not broken by too quickly switching between characters. also because i am a terrible combat pilot, and dont want to be unable to beat the game because i cant fly :D

This is also something I'd really like. My ideal implementation would probably be to have a single, long, complex campaign, in which you can choose a particular role to play (and thus only play parts of the campaign that that role/character plays a part in). Thus giving you a linear, more immersive progression, and increasing replay value by allowing you to experience the same campaign from very different perspectives -- specops, infantry, armor, aircraft...

For bonus points, allow the player to change role for every mission. That way you can play as an infantryman until you get to a really hard mission, then bypass it by taking on an easier role. An extra idea here would be to add some 'support' roles like transport helicopters and so on, so there's non-combat roles you can use if you really get stuck.