SP Campaign

[Ferrando 10]

I was very impressed with "Warfare" concept of Arma2, and how it seemlessly meshes RTS and FTP elements.

Alas, we have all experienced numerous bugs in the Campaign. It is really not surprising given the evident ambition behind it.

However, why not build a campaign with simplified triggers, and mission success markers? For instance, don't make the mission developments hang on a character dialogue script or a similar routine. Instead, why not go for territory capture or a mission critical object destruction, things that can presumably be easier to program? Then all the dialogues and events could or could not unravel w/o the player being stuck in a mission that doesn't end.

Also, it may be better to break the missions into a number of smaller ones. Good example is FOB Manhattan. If that one was split into two or three missions it would be easier to avoid bugs. Same applies to DoW.

Overall, IMHO missions where you are given an objective, such as capture a village or destroy a unit provide better fun and are less prone to bugs than missions where there are tons of time critical events and dialogues.

Finally, even though it is a feature of real warfare, please don't put time limitations in missions. It sucks to get instructions to find and grab someone in 20 minutes.

I am aware that this would reduce the experience somewhat, but simplifying the campaign objectives and missions along the RTS lines (remember C&C series where you usually needed to destroy the enemy construction yard to win) would avoid the frustrating confusion when something didn't trigger a mission-critical event. And I think atmosphere can still be created w/o complicated scripts and dialogues.

Also, why not think about enabling a "force triggers" console command that would allow the player to initiate a routine that wasn't triggered for some reason. An example would be the start of DoW mission.

[Jimmy the Saint 10]

You have a good point and it's actually something I've been wondering too. The missions in OPF were broken down into many parts/pieces and I didn’t see any problems with that.

But maybe the developers wanted to go "over the top" this time and wanted to show off what the ArmA 2 engine is capable of and how manifold missions can be put altogether into one complex campaign with different progresses.

[Kramxel 10]

I guess it's a tradeoff....

Complexity (with bugs attached) vs Simplicity (nearly bug free)

I honestly prefer the complexity and the freedom of choice that the engine allows!

Much more than the heavily scripted/limited traditional missions... see COD...

[Ferrando 10]

I guess it's a tradeoff....

Complexity (with bugs attached) vs Simplicity (nearly bug free)

I honestly prefer the complexity and the freedom of choice that the engine allows!

Much more than the heavily scripted/limited traditional missions... see COD...

What I was trying to say is you can get complexity and freedom of choice if you keep campaign structure, especially the triggers simple.

For instance, Badlands mission is good in that you are required

to take 4 villages. It is rather simple to program mission success criteria but you get the freedom to choose when, how and with what forces to execute the mission. Contrast that with the Prizrak task where many users have reported Prizrak missing or being invulnerable. My point is that the mission competion trigger should not be killing or not killing Prizrak but something else that is not bug prone.

[Kramxel 10]

What I was trying to say is you can get complexity and freedom of choice if you keep campaign structure, especially the triggers simple.

For instance, Badlands mission is good in that you are required

to take 4 villages. It is rather simple to program mission success criteria but you get the freedom to choose when, how and with what forces to execute the mission. Contrast that with the Prizrak task where many users have reported Prizrak missing or being invulnerable. My point is that the mission competion trigger should not be killing or not killing Prizrak but something else that is not bug prone.

Everything is bug prone... the difference is that city taking is not so bug prone as the other thing you compare it to.

Just because it's more polished doesn't mean It's bug free....

[gromov 10]

In my opinion adding the RTS elements (earning money, building base, respawning units) is completely mistake in SIMULATOR game, in the whole idea of OFP/ARMA series. I still can't believe BI spoiled this wonderful plot and atmosphere of the campaign in the last two missions... There was no more special operations, only total mess... I hope it will never happen again in the future.

[Jimmy the Saint 10]

I agree, the RTS elements remove the tension filled encounters of the old OPF infantry simulator gameplay "where you've "just" been one part of a relatively small group of units) to a certain degree. I mean while playing the RTS missions, it just doesn't feel like maneuvering Up Close and Personal through the battlefield and on top of that, RTS mission seem to be "clumsy".

I also wish there would be more (private) servers with the classical "Player vs. Enemy A.I. COOP" Missions.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Jimmy the Saint

[nyran125 10]

make your own campaign. youll have more fun, with less bugs and youll be able to trigger things the way they should be triggered:).

I agree having a single player campaign that works flawlessly is so important for new players because thats where new players will FIRST go to, you should never release a game that has a buggy single player campaign because the people that would of liked to have a go at multiplayer or the editor mode will never touch the game again after only a few days.

They wont wait around for 3 months for the bugs to be ironed out. Bohemia missed a golden opportunity with these awesome graphics to tap into some players that never even heard of operation flashpoint or Arma 1. Those players though once they play the single player game will never ever look at ARMA again.

Also NEVER underestimate word and mouth communication, it spreads to people that wanted to play Arma 2 but wont, because friends have said how buggy it is. I know people that hate Arma2 (I love arma 2 by the way , ONLY because of its editor mode) and they have never even played the game. Thats how word and mouth works. Bohemia really need to look at that in the future, the single player mode in games that want to be over the top successful ,needs to be flawless on release and the editor mode could probably get the updates. It kills off new players like wild fire. Maybe have 2 single player modes in future, one small completely fun bug free version and a huge comlex version aswell.

Imagine call of duty on release with a buggy single player game, nobody would even play it. The first thing i always do when trying a new game is go straight for the single player campaign. After thats done i go to multiplayer. Other players do it the other way round. While playing counter strike i had a random guy saying to me that Arma 2 sux, yet hasnt even played it,lol. Just on something hed heard about the single player game form someone else.

Edited September 4, 2009 by nyran125

[Blake 0]

I was very impressed with "Warfare" concept of Arma2, and how it seemlessly meshes RTS and FTP elements.

I must say I absolutely HATED warfare missions. All else in the campaign was immersive and felt more realistic & personal, but warfare almost ruined it for me.

Operation Arrowhead will hopefully not repeat this mistake...

[hamis 0]

I agree having a single player campaign that works flawlessly is so important for new players because thats where new players will FIRST go to

New players,eh?I have played games for 20 years and have never touched MP and never gonna touch.Hopefully community is going to make lots of SP campaigns,like they did for OFP.And hopefully BIS is going to remake that part of campaign.I'm playing A1 for a while,waiting for more mods and patches.

[Ferrando 10]

I agree, the RTS elements remove the tension filled encounters of the old OPF infantry simulator gameplay "where you've "just" been one part of a relatively small group of units) to a certain degree. I mean while playing the RTS missions, it just doesn't feel like maneuvering Up Close and Personal through the battlefield and on top of that, RTS mission seem to be "clumsy".

I also wish there would be more (private) servers with the classical "Player vs. Enemy A.I. COOP" Missions.

But the great thing about Arma2 is that you can have both...I also enjoyed being just a part of the unit, having to obey orders etc. On the other hand, I also enjoyed deciding about the resources, axes of attack etc, and unlike RTS and some strategy games like TOAW in Arma2 you can "personally" observe the operations you conceived of.

Think of it this way, you start as Sergeant and end up as a Colonel. But two things BIS need fixing up because it is unprofessional to release games without them: 1) thorough testing to identify and remove bugs; 2) comprehensive documentation (no need to have a printed guide, just include a pdf file on the DVD).

[jw custom 56]

New players,eh?I have played games for 20 years and have never touched MP and never gonna touch.

Really... omg if you just knew what you were missing out on ;)

[Blake 0]

But the great thing about Arma2 is that you can have both...I also enjoyed being just a part of the unit, having to obey orders etc. On the other hand, I also enjoyed deciding about the resources, axes of attack etc, and unlike RTS and some strategy games like TOAW in Arma2 you can "personally" observe the operations you conceived of.

Think of it this way, you start as Sergeant and end up as a Colonel. But two things BIS need fixing up because it is unprofessional to release games without them: 1) thorough testing to identify and remove bugs; 2) comprehensive documentation (no need to have a printed guide, just include a pdf file on the DVD).

RTS missions can easily be included in SP missions but in campaign they are really out of place and make in movie terms "bad pacing" for the campaign. The other option is to include additional separate Warfare-style campaign.

Starting as sergeant and ending up as colonel sounds unrealistic in game covering of few weeks or months of combat. But again, in RTS-style extra campaign it could work so you gradually get more responsibility. Operation Arrowhead could additionally have this style of campaign so one could play as warlord of the "Northern Alliance" etc.

But creaming on the cake would be campaign that combines best features of 1985 Cold War Crisis, Resistance & first part of Harvest Red.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Blake