Arma 1 vs Arma 2 single play

[Bulletstopper 10]

So I missed Arma 1 when it came out and went straight to Arma 2. Played the original flashpoint and loved it.. I really enjoy the single player campaigns. I have sense downloaded Arma 1. My point: I found Arma 1 single player campaign much better then Arma 2's single player campaign. It was as if they had a programmer that knew how to make missions for Arma 1 and then handed Arma 2 campaign to a newbie. Arma 1 campaigns are almost without broken missions as with Arma 2... what a fricken nightmare. I bearly had the strenght to play Manhattan yet AGAIn becuase it kept breaking.... let alone the 1000 other breaks in other missions.. but manhattan... Can you put more tasks in there please..so I can invest more time into it so it can break again... And whats with all the loading in missions... Prime example... hey go ride a bike for 30 second to a transport... stop load...... stop land transport... stop load.... talk about anti immersion... I like Arma 2... but thumbs down to the campaign...Not the story but the missions horrible and not very thought out.

[johncage 30]

yeah everyone knows already.

[BeerHunter 0]

Yep. For some strange reason it seems the developers weren't able to debug their own scripting (and they developed the scripting) or the scripting is so limited in scope that it doesn't allow for error/condition checking that well and released a half baked campaign.

I never bothered with the campaign at all after I started it and found my missions being completed even though I was no where near the objectives and had no idea where I was supposed to go.

Been having a ball in the editor and with custom made SP scenarios ever since.

[jakerod 254]

Keep in mind that the campaign is rather ambitious too. Being able to roam around freely and take on objectives at any time creates a lot of issues. In most other shooters you don't have to worry about it because you're in a virtual hallway.

[Bulletstopper 10]

Indeed most other shooters send you down a one way path... vs Arma and the original flashpoint... The developers pulled of the missions in them well. I just dont think they put in much effort into Arma 2 campaign... it plays so badly...

[oyman 0]

. My point: I found Arma 1 single player campaign much better then Arma 2's single player campaign.

[Windexglow 10]

I never got past 2 missions of Arma's gameplay. The voice acting sounded like a bunch of 11 year old, gameplay was slow and dull most of the time. Storyline wasn't too amazing either; super secret special forces in the middle of enemies and savin the day!

Eagle Wing was a huge improvement; the first mission was terribly boring (How old was that co-pilot? ) but improved after you meet up with that Russian squad.

The part I loved about OFP's storyline was how it unfolded. It had a great introduction and you could see the war evolving. It had a few twists (including options leading to my death)

Arma1's storyline was still fun, but was hard to follow in points. I liked how you switched soldiers for missions, rather than following 1 squad the entire time.

I hope OAs campaign is centered around action and impressive firefights rather than special forces, poorly acted lines, and drama.

Edited January 1, 2010 by Windexglow

[Nazul 10]

Thumbs down for Arma2 campaign as well. Very disappointing playing warfare missions.

The other missions they tried to hard to make them complicated. They should have stuck to KISS - keep it simple stupid like the orig OFP campaign, brilliant and immersive.

BIS KISS

[HyperU2 11]

Haven't played through either one of them. I never played MP in OPF, but once I started to in ARMA I've never looked back.

[jakerod 254]

I actually really liked Razor 2 and Manhattan. The only problem was that they were buggy and weren't random enough to warrant a second play-through.

[Azamato 0]

Too bad I bought the game for the SP Campaign.. wanted my money back :p

It is indeed horrible.. Eagle Wing is awesome though

[GRS 10]

Yes, it's awful. OFP is still where its at for me. Everything nowadays is being the leader of an eleet 1337 ninja squirrel delta ranger team now... Just like EVERY OTHER game out there its a four man squad too... Warfare is fine as a multiplayer game type but should never be put into SP.

Believe it or not, some people don't want to buy a game for the mods and multiplayer. My experience with ArmA and ArmA2 multiplayer is dominantly negative; filled with people who boast about the realism and then play it like CoD. Well, its that or a mission where everyone hops in a chopper and has a chopper battle... lame.

The game itself will be impressive if they fix it, and even for something that is buggier than Clear Sky, it is impressive. But the basic grunt feel that you got in OFP is long gone.

[Alex72 1]

Too bad I bought the game for the SP Campaign.. wanted my money back :p

It is indeed horrible.. Eagle Wing is awesome though

Talk about missing 99% of the game. But hey, thats your right to do so. :)

[Simon C 0]

I liked both campaigns, am I the only one? :p

[Azamato 0]

Talk about missing 99% of the game. But hey, thats your right to do so. :)

I download some single player missions and it's cool to play them so it's not a total disaster :p

I liked both campaigns, am I the only one? :p

Yup :p

[Windexglow 10]

Heh, mission editor and I suppose online is where it's at.

I tried playing online several times, but it feels like you need to read a manual to even play.

[dmakatra 1]

Yes, it's awful. OFP is still where its at for me. Everything nowadays is being the leader of an eleet 1337 ninja squirrel delta ranger team now... Just like EVERY OTHER game out there its a four man squad too... Warfare is fine as a multiplayer game type but should never be put into SP.

Believe it or not, some people don't want to buy a game for the mods and multiplayer. My experience with ArmA and ArmA2 multiplayer is dominantly negative; filled with people who boast about the realism and then play it like CoD. Well, its that or a mission where everyone hops in a chopper and has a chopper battle... lame.

The game itself will be impressive if they fix it, and even for something that is buggier than Clear Sky, it is impressive. But the basic grunt feel that you got in OFP is long gone.

I think the reason BIS chose the elite Delta Team-approach is of two reasons - the amount of freedom it allows the player and how difficult the game can be made. In the semi-asymmetrical warfare approach that is in the Harvest Red campaign, a regular US Marine would never really face a challenge as the US military is vastly superior to the Chedaki both in terms of amount of personnel and equipment. Neither would you be able to give the same freedom-oriented tasks as you give a Force Recon team in missions such as Manhattan.

I liked the CWC-campaign too, it really gave you that feeling of just being a grunt. But the Harvest Red campaign wasn't bad at all (as long as it didn't bug out or started doing High Command stuff which I'm not fond of), it just did something differently.

EDIT: As for ArmA1's campaign - that was just shit. Some missions felt like they'd been done on a coffee break or something.

[trickster1982 10]

I actually really liked Razor 2 and Manhattan.

Agreed, I dont know what comes after manhattan though as every time ive got that far, a new patch has come out & my saves wont load without CTD, so ive never bothered going any further! I havent liked what ive read from others on here so maybe I shouldnt attempt to finish it. I was hoping it would go into a full on infantry combat sim a la OFP, rather than this warfare thing I keep reading about & havent actually played yet

[Takko 10]

I liked both campaigns, am I the only one?

No, I enjoyed the first campaign even more

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I actually loved the Arma2 campaign, but the Arma1 one was very mediocre. I might have been lucky but I haven't run into many of the bugs (except strange things happening in end of Dogs of War).

OFP - Good for its day, but I don't like the linearity it would have today. Stories was very nice, but missions were very broken up into segments. They were "free" in the sense that you could solve them any way you wanted, but not as "free" as Arma2's campaign. Area of operation in each mission was always very very small, especially compared to Arma2's missions. I didn't like the fact that I often had to play a lot of characters. Character development was awesome and unmatched.

Arma1 - Probably the one that failed me worst. It felt like just a bunch of single player short missions stitched together. The optional quests was a nice touch, in that if you didn't take them on, the resulting next main mission would get tougher. It gave you some options in case you ended up in trouble. I didn't like how you were supposed to use teamswitch mid mission to take on other personalities. Broke the "flow", and you ended up with anonymizing (?) the characters you played. Also many missions felt highly unrealistic, where you set out to do goals that you would never attempt in real life.

Arma2 - The best one for me. I don't understand how it deserves so much bashing (other than the bugs of course). Great character development (although not as good as some OFP campaigns). Very nice story, quite on par with OFP. You play the same character throughout the story, what could be more immersive than that? Sure, that means you don't get to be a pilot or tank crew, but that was given as an option in the Warfare missions. Area of operation for missions like Razor Two and Manhattan was extreme like nothing I've ever seen before. Ambitious missions to make, but that approach felt much more believable than splitting it up into tiny OFP style missions. It felt more like a military operation going on and less of a scare game. Military operations is what this game is all about, at least for me.

[stun 5]

For me the thing that killed the Red Harvest campaign was the introduction of Warfare components. It might be great for multiplayer but it felt very wrong in a SP campaign. I actually enjoyed the first half of the campaign (pre warefare) - when it wasn't a slide show that is.

Edited January 3, 2010 by stun

[itax 0]

Ofp and Ofp:r campaings were superb

ArmA 1 campaing sucked only because it had no character development and poor story (queens gambit was better btw)

ArmA 2 campaing was ruined because it had super cheese voice acting + warfare components. When i played the campaing i was like "Wtf...? Am I playing mp warfare against bots?" those missions with warfare components were worst missions in all history.

EW campaing was super :) I actually liked it very much, because it reminded me OFP campaing :D ofcourse it could've been longer :)

[76 0]

ew campaing was super :) i actually liked it very much, because it reminded me ofp campaing :d ofcourse it could've been longer :)

+1.... +2

[sic-disaster 311]

ArmA 1's campaign was good? Really? I freaking hated that campaign.

It's missions were so poorly thought out, and almost always pitted you against an army, and in general their setup was totally unrealistic.

Imo ArmA 2's is way, way better in terms of story and mission setup, but it's the bugs that keep it from reaching it's true potential.

Other then that, Red Harvest is awesome. Havent been able to finish it yet though, i need a better pc to play the later missions.

[Azamato 0]

OFP CWC

ARMA

Arma 2

this is the order in wich i like the campaigns..

OFP was awesome and i was a die hard call of duty gamer when i first played it.

Armed Assault was still pretty cool imo

ArmA 2 is horrible :p but thats my opinion