what is this game ?

[highfly 10]

Well, I'm gonna say it as I think: I don't like (at all) how the campaign, and missions, evolve.

First missions are soooo beautiful & enjoyable, why is it that after some time you get in that game of all genres (capture the flag, real time strategy AND even a bit of city management...) that is finally of no genre at all ?

I mean, I want to play ArmA, the son of Flashpoint, neither command & conquer, nor Battlefield.

what's this capture the flag thing inside MY war simulator ?

what's this (completely obscure) high command module inside MY war simulator ?

what's that poor slider of "city management" ? Is it some simcity too ?

what's this "buy unit" thing ??? I buy a unit at war ? and it appears just like this ? c'mon, give me my squad and I'm taking all the island.

Are you sure I should not send 3 farmers in the fields to make food, build a goldmine to make money, and of course an iron mine so the factories can work ?

That's not the game I wanted.

I don't want to capture flags, nor command whole armies, I want to play a campaign as a soldier/spec op/tank unit/chopper unit, eventually squad leader, just like it was in OFP.

Now this game becomes some kind of a hybrid mutant... Did the commercials at BI say "hmm we should put some capture the flag stuff in order to sell more copies, who cares if we suck all the spirit out of this game, money counts" ?

I'm not going to finish the campaign, I'm not going to finish the single missions, I'm going to play user made single missions where you take care of your ass, and maybe a squad's ass, but not a whole army over 10 cities... that's nonsense.

Sad, cause a good chopper mission is excellent in Arma2, a good infiltration mission is also excellent, the game environment is in credible, but the content BI did put in the game is... just off the road.

Just wanted to share my frustration :) Now I go back playing!

Edited September 25, 2009 by highfly

[Simon C 0]

Just wait for some of the more enterprising mission makers to put together a campaign, they always do. :)

[highfly 10]

I'm talking about BI here, they sell the game and make the money, it should not be up to voluntary developpers to make this game a great one... (hmm to think about it, the idea is commercially nice: make a good environment, let the community make the content, take the money :-) But that's not how it's meant to be! a game should be enhanced by its community, not made by the community (or if yes, then the basic environment should be free too, just like the content)

[Beagle 684]

I really like the diversity that ArmA2 gives to us. It just has what OFP and ArmA were always missing. All what BIS did with ArmA2 was listening to the community wishes and forging it into ArmA2.

I dont see what is wronmg with it.

[Aelin 10]

highfly,the campaign is just the trailer of the game,the real big fun comes with mp,mods,custom mission and your fantasy with the editor

[Murklor 10]

The game is hard candy wrapped in fudge, covered with sprinkles and topped with a cherry.

Fired from a howitzer.

I missed what the rest of your text was about.

[Red_Barron 0]

c'mon, give me my squad and I'm taking all the island.

:(

Really?

A whole squad to take out an entire island?

what's this (completely obscure) high command module inside MY war simulator ?

I don't want to capture flags, nor command whole armies...

I'm going to play user made single missions where you take care of your ass, and maybe a squad's ass, but not a whole army over 10 cities... that's nonsense.

(the bold was my addition to his quote)

Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture? Which is more nonsense, the first or the last quote?

This is the kind of mindset I find really disappointing and sad in the community, and coop mission makers especially who go this route (one squad taking out a ridiculous amount or difficulty of objectives for the size of the group, which is usually only completable with the aid of respawn). While I understand it has deep roots from back in the OFP days when we were all younger, but it is time to grow up a little I think.

While I understand commanding whole AI armies in Arma is not everyone's cup of tea (including mine), I am glad the engine has the capability to do so. The High Command module makes that possible (as well as smaller scale operations in the same vein). An army taking 10 cities is more plausible, at least in a force vs. objective ratio (though the time taken to complete it in Arma would be compressed into hours instead of days/months/years), than a squad taking an entire island.

But the High Command Module isn't the point. Both ways of going about it are on the extreme side. It would be nicer to see focused player made missions with "realistic" and complex goals than have your 8 man squad clear out cities X, Y, and Z (or the simplified clear the island with your 8 man squad).

[ProfTournesol 956]

Well i mainly agree with the posts above. Warfare may be a cool feature, but shouldn't be mixed with a classical campaign, it kills the immersion.

Something else that isn't in the "Ofp" feeling is the "Razor team concept". The spirit of the best Ofp campaigns (Cwc or user made ones) is "the story of an ordinary soldier in an extraordinary situation". That's immersive. Razor team is for kids and kills immersion too IMHO.

[jw custom 56]

....but the content BI did put in the game is... just off the road.

WTF :confused:

[Alex72 1]

More possibilities is a bad thing? Hm ok.

It is all packaged in there, and it gives you room to expand your gameplay when the urge or curiosity sets in. Whats wrong with that i dont know. Clearly is however that a lot of options in a game apparently confuses a lot of people.

[highfly 10]

More possibilities is a bad thing? Hm ok.

It is all packaged in there, and it gives you room to expand your gameplay when the urge or curiosity sets in. Whats wrong with that i dont know. Clearly is however that a lot of options in a game apparently confuses a lot of people.

Too many possibilities surely is a bad thing, it's always best to concentrate and specialize on a part, and make it the best you can. if you want to make it all, you lose the essential. That's my opinion.

The more specialized you are, the more achievement and the best quality you can get. A soldier can be good soldier but very poor commander, cause that's not his job.

This game's lost OFP sprirt, and that's sad, cause the first missions of the campaign were so much promising, and everything get lost with badlands and high command stuff (which is a hudge bug maker also)

---------- Post added at 10:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 AM ----------

OR

make it for everybody: one campaign where you're soldier up to squad leader, one campaign where you're commander, we should have the choice at least.

[Herbal Influence 10]

what's this capture the flag thing inside MY war simulator ?

This was in BI games since they first came out in 2001?

what's this (completely obscure) high command module inside MY war simulator ?

I love high command, played this a lot since mfcti ... (2003?) with hundreds of cogamers.

what's that poor slider of "city management" ? Is it some simcity too ?

It shows how great and open this game is.

Why do you care what others like to do with AA2?

Ok - you said, you just been frustrated ... and just wanted to bash around?

Just thinking about my new signature: "If BI games are too open for you, you may be too narrow ... ."

---------- Post added at 10:38 ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 ----------

I'm talking about BI here, they sell the game and make the money, it should not be up to voluntary developpers to make this game a great one... (hmm to think about it, the idea is commercially nice: make a good environment, let the community make the content, take the money :-) But that's not how it's meant to be! a game should be enhanced by its community, not made by the community (or if yes, then the basic environment should be free too, just like the content)

You understand the thought of "Web 2.0"?

User delivered content? Wikipedia? Forums like these?

I love BI for giving us such an vastly open game for this comparably little money. It is "little" money to me, because I add (economically - to measure its value) that content, they allowed (better: made possible) the community to add.

It's vast, great and endlessly.

Every taste can be respected ... and realized.

Even yours.

And - by the by - BI steadily enhances the game. Like they did since 2001.

---------- Post added at 10:41 ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 ----------

---------- Post added at 10:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 AM ----------

make it for everybody: one campaign where you're soldier up to squad leader, one campaign where you're commander, we should have the choice at least.

You have all the choices.

Just take a look at the current server list.

Edited September 26, 2009 by Herbal Influence

[ProfTournesol 956]

Just thinking about my new signature: "If BI games are too open for you, you may be too narrow ... ."

Mmm....it depends on what "open" means to you. IMO warfare isn't what make this game "open", even if some of us may appreciate it.

[russian_takeout 10]

for me, i am glad we have CTI and CTF. even in the campaign, these missions were fun. the only thing wrong with them, is that they evolved way to fast for me. in order to see some action in last mission, you had to speed up and meke it to the flag before the AI. after playing ARMA 2 since the release, i still dont know how to command the whole army... dont realy care about that.

great game, no complaints

[Herbal Influence 10]

Mmm....it depends on what "open" means to you. IMO warfare isn't what make this game "open", even if some of us may appreciate it.

Open for everything the machine can?

There are always new mods & missions & addons ?

[Arma-2-Guru 55]

Well, I'm gonna say it as I think: I don't like (at all) how the campaign, and missions, evolve.

First missions are soooo beautiful & enjoyable, why is it that after some time you get in that game of all genres (capture the flag, real time strategy AND even a bit of city management...) that is finally of no genre at all ?

I highly agree, like you I enjoyed the first missions up to when I completed Chernogorsk and had to find that guy, then it just piles up so many objectives and when you get to one you get a radio message saying they've left town or some stupid shit.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Sgt Cresswell

[highfly 10]

:(

Really?

A whole squad to take out an entire island?

hmm, no that was just a way of talking, meaning I like to be given the squad I need for the mission coming. Not wondering: should I buy a sniper or a machine gunner ? If you lead a squad at war, you have the men they give you, no super magic incredible units shop, that was the point.

You understand the thought of "Web 2.0"?

User delivered content? Wikipedia? Forums like these?

come one, don't be ridiculous, keep to the subject, and please read my post before answering. If you had, you would have understood I love the community, and all the good they make for this game. All I'm saying is that BI's content lost its spirit.

I highly agree, like you I enjoyed the first missions up to when I completed Chernogorsk and had to find that guy, then it just piles up so many objectives and when you get to one you get a radio message saying they've left town or some stupid shit.

haaaa thanks, at least someone who reads my post before attacking and understands my point :-)

Edited September 27, 2009 by highfly

[Red_Barron 0]

hmm, no that was just a way of talking, meaning I like to be given the squad I need for the mission coming. Not wondering: should I buy a sniper or a machine gunner ? If you lead a squad at war, you have the men they give you, no super magic incredible units shop, that was the point.

Now that I can get behind. That is an essential element to the way I play. The missions we play have your men, roles, and load outs determined before hand. As part of the "whole squad to take an entire island" mentality I was addressing at first (and mistakenly thought you were talking about), your second point here is just as valid, and along the same lines.

Of course, predetermining load outs for players (and AI if that's how you do it) means more workload and thought on the Mission Designers end. It is far too easy to just drop an everything weapons crate and let them have at it. It also lets the mission designer throw a much heavier force at the players than what they should be going up against.

[highfly 10]

yes, but in OFP, I remember having once finished an infantry mission with an enemy chopper. That was unfair battle, cause with the chopper, I was way stronger and they had not a chance. But in order to get that chopper in this infantry mission in which I was definitely not supposed to get one, I had to run a long way, find an enemy base, steal that chopper, and then kill them all. That was such a great fun! I had won this chopper cause I went to take it by foot far away. I didn't go in any magic shop.

That's the OFP spirit that's been lost in ArmA2 (IMHO)

[Gunter Severloh 4054]

Lets not forget the game has an editor too, if u dont like certain missions then why play em, make your own.

[seedo81 10]

man this game is for people that want to experience the real war zone

its for smart strong men

[The_Captain 0]

Warfare may be a cool feature, but shouldn't be mixed with a classical campaign, it kills the immersion.

Agreed. The beginning of the campaign put me in somewhat-realistic command of team razor, and I expected this feeling to continue to the end. I would have preferred the last two campaign missions to either:

1) Put me in command of only team razor, with AI controlled supporting resistance units, to accomplish the story objectives.

2) Put me in command of team razor, with high-command resistance units given to me by the campaign, to accomplish the same objectives.

I don't want: flag capturing, unit purchasing, base building, respawning enemies, supply trucks, and warfare mode in my campaign. If BIS wanted a warfare campaign, it should have been separate from the main story campaign.

Maybe someone could mod the original campaign to behave like this... :)

[Bulldogs 10]

I have to agree with that too, although the thread title should be "what is this campaign?"

I love the campaign, but don't want Warfare missions in there. Not because the Warfare missions aren't good, but because I can load up a warfare mission single/multi-player anytime I want, I don't want to be forced to play Warfare missions in the campaign.

I think the whole warfare thing could have been done better in the campaign if you didn't see the towns you had to capture, and you weren't allowed control over the AI, but instead you were told that so and so town is being attacked and needs help, or attack so and so town to liberate the people, and put a little backing into it, as in the commander actually says to you "Scouts reported Zabugabba has a large enemy force moving their way, We need your help as my mother lives in that town and she..." well, you get my point, just put a little more story driven thing in it to actually make you feel like you're fighting a war.

[Herbal Influence 10]

I have to agree with that too, although the thread title should be "what is this campaign?"

Right. I did quite mistunderstand it all until now. :o

I never ever did "campaign". I am completely wrong in this thread. :confused:

[highfly 10]

Agreed. The beginning of the campaign put me in somewhat-realistic command of team razor, and I expected this feeling to continue to the end.

I don't want: flag capturing, unit purchasing, base building, respawning enemies, supply trucks, and warfare mode in my campaign. If BIS wanted a warfare campaign, it should have been separate from the main story campaign.

Maybe someone could mod the original campaign to behave like this... :)

three thumbs up!! That's my exact point ;)

cheers