Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mrcash2009

Campaigns - Do You Think They Promote This Game Or Not?

Do you think the campaigns hinder or help promote this game/SIM?  

87 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think the campaigns hinder or help promote this game/SIM?

    • Yes, it draws people in to looking further into what Arma is all about under the hood
      55
    • No, I feel it turns people off the game as they dont give it a chance to look deeper into the game
      26
    • Campaigns are pointless, promote this game with scenarios only and promote the editor more
      6


Recommended Posts

Simple realy,

Whats your view and feelings about the campaings in Arma/Arma2?

Select what you think, and post what you feel.

Thanks.

(Typo in the title god damn it).

My view,

I would rather have scenarios, tightly created to maximise the moment and keep from having large bugs and issues, seeing as this is the first thing you try (or most) when new to it. The scenarios could then be also a tutorial for the editor in some way, maybe BIS should not only with videos as they have been but in some way have a few missions all ready built for the editor with some notation and in some way have a set of scenarios that pull people to the editor.

I also think they should (like EW campaign) get 3rd party scripters in to do this as beta testers also, to iron out issues.

It reminds me of George Lucas, he may have helped event things and push the industry with Star Wars, and there are his baby, but directing them hes not so good :)

Edited by Placebo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want people to be driven by the game, you need campaign with the quality of CWC and RES, sadly A1 failed to do so and A2 is something in between, voted 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ι would prefer more small missions instead of a few big ones, where you play different army roles like in Operation Flashpoint, that ultimately work towards the campaign goal.

I mean Manhattan was great as a whole but it would be even better if it was divided in 5 or 6 parts. Less demanding on our pcs, less chance to break due to a bug, easier to replay in case something goes wrong, more replayability (especially for our fav parts) etc etc

How I imagined the campaign variety:

1. Spec Op missions (infiltrate, scout, search and destroy, sabotage, steal shit)

2. Grunt missions (attacking installations, holding areas, patrolling, massive organized attacks)

3. Chopper pilot missions (attack, transfer personnel, evac and medic missions)

4. Airplane pilot missions (dogfights, bombing)

5. Driver missions

6. Paratrooper missions

7. Medic missions

8. Armored vehicle missions

9. Squad leader mode for all the above missions

10. various modes: Lost squad, prisoner, behind enemy lines style missions plus the choice to play the whole campaign in co-op mode.

and finally an Optional High Command mode

This game style doesn't even need dialogue and cinematics. Just a tight mission briefing and the rest is intense action. It would be easier for the developers and more beneficial to the players.

Also, having the chance to play all those different roles would prepare players for multiplayer.

I have no real complains to be honest..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The campaign shipped with the game is ok I suppose with some decent highlights, but I much prefer Bardosys "chesty puller" campaign, its much more like the original OFP campaign where your just a lowly grunt in the field playing your part :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want people to be driven by the game, you need campaign with the quality of CWC and RES, sadly A1 failed to do so and A2 is something in between, voted 2.

I agree. Campaigns are great, especially for players that are not part of the community and hence does not realise the potential of the game. I think we all started out playing the CWC campaign now didn't we?

What BIS need to do is get their priorities straight. They need to focus on a solid campaign, but if they cannot divert enough resources then they should keep it as simple as possible. Big, ambitious campaigns like Harvest Red (missions like Manhattan for example) are all good. The problem lies that with ambitious campaigns comes a large amount of potential bugs. Bugs that BIS' horrible QA department can't fix properly before shipping the game. This alienates players that are not used to the game, and the word will be spread that the game is buggy - alienating further potential players.

Campaigns are vital for the ARMA-games as a way of introducing players, but BIS needs to learn how to polish the campaign and sort out bugs. If they can't, then they should aim lower down. The key-word of campaign making should be polish, polish, polish. Everything else is a bonus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If campaigns and missions are well done and the storyline is plausible you will draw many people into playing and re-playing it.

SP missions are good to show + introduce (new) features and get the player familiar with it.

There are missions concepts + designs that work only for SP or MP.

It seems that BIS dont have anything like a QA department or a good testing team. Armed Assault release was the worst release. Arma2 had many bugs on release and still there are many....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find that ArmA II's campaign has been useful in teaching me how to do many things I did not know how to do before, but that wasn't really through playing it, it was through opening it up myself and looking at the scripting and the mission itself in the editor.

While I do think that ArmA II's campaign was good (and that ArmA's sucked, but we all know that), I do think that it still didn't live up to the excellence that BIS produced with their two campaigns for OFP; Cold War Crisis and Resistance. I've found that the way that ArmA II's campaign works has left much potential for things to go wrong, given their open ended nature and extreme amounts of heavy scripting to make missions dynamic. The word "scripted" here doesn't apply to Harvest Red as it does to other FPS games' campaign experience, but there is still a lot of complex scripting involved. Plus, you also have the performance issues which largely only exist when playing the campaign due to all the scripting going on, plus all that's going on in the mission as you play.

I do like Harvest Red, but I think CWC and Res did a much better job at showing people what OFP was all about, than Harvest Red did at showing what ArmA II was all about. I would say that it's mostly useful for learning how to do FSMs or using the new conversation system. Therefore, I'm forced to vote for 2. Don't forget, however, that neither CWC nor Res worked perfectly this soon after release either. ;)

Edited by Zipper5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vote 1, I wouldnt buy it without a campaign.... dont play much MP, dont have the time to get that good :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted yes. If BIS relesed something with out a campaign, most people would just go"WTF" and not buy it. I like a good campaign, but i spend alot of time just messing around in the editor as well.

sure new units and stuff are great, but they need a context to be used in. same applies for most mods and addon packs.

the mods i look forward to most are the ones with tied in single player experiences, like the I44 waigt at rhine (how ever its spelled), Valhalla, Nightstalkers, or the new Conspiracies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Voted yes. If BIS relesed something with out a campaign, most people would just go"WTF" and not buy it. I like a good campaign, but i spend alot of time just messing around in the editor as well.

sure new units and stuff are great, but they need a context to be used in. same applies for most mods and addon packs.

the mods i look forward to most are the ones with tied in single player experiences, like the I44 waigt at rhine (how ever its spelled), Valhalla, Nightstalkers, or the new Conspiracies

Agree 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted yes. In my opinion the campaign and the single missions are crucial, if people will like the game or not, especially concerning people new to ArmA. If you buy a wargame you never heard of before or maybe throughout a friend. The first thing you gonna do is fire up a single mission to see what's up. You try understand how to play the game. once familiar with the controls the next step is you play the campaign. What I personally disliked was the warfare missions in the campaign of ArmA II. I just don't like it. In the OFP campaigns you felt part of something really big but you were just a normal grunt for half of the campaign. No responisbility of commanding a squad to quickly, you just followed you're AI team leader and tried to stay alive until you adapted to the gameplay. Than you started commanding. There were more than 30 missions in the campaigns. I could easily identify myself with the main characters. Which I couldn't in ArmA I nor in II. Great storylines. ArmA I under that aspect was a fail- Much better Queens Gambit, but it was miles away from the OFP campaigns. In my opinion the importance of a good campaign in a wargame shouldn't be underestimated. I believe the game stands and falls with it's campaign in the first place especially to newcomers. What I loved in OFP was the mission objective were just a few. Take the town for e.g. I had my utmost fun when I had to take a town. No uberlong missions where a lot of design flaws can come in. I loved the "simplicity" of the missions sometimes. Don't get me wrong I love long and difficult missions, for e.g. remember "unimpossible mission" that was one of my favourites. Well in any case I believe that BIS could make a hell of a campaign for OA if they would go back to the roots and give more importance to the Singleplayer campaign as they did with OFP. A strong storyline and a grunt character where you can identify yourself as it was with Armstrong.

Kind regards

nettrucker:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont see how a campaign would stop people from looking deeper into the game, if you dont like it you can still use the editor/MP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted 3.

I personally would never buy a game based on the campaign. I never finished CWR or Arma's campaign, and to be honest... I've only played about 1 hour of the Arma 2 campaign. I did try EW though and liked it... actually finished it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted 1. Although for Arma I'm mostly in it for the editor, I like playing through the campaign a few times. For those not already familiar with Arma and editor, the big pluss about a campaign is that it shows you how it can be done. Being able to de-pbo (sad the tools doesn't ship with the product at release) campaign and scenario missions, is a great tool to get interested and find usable examples of code and mission files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont see how a campaign would stop people from looking deeper into the game, if you dont like it you can still use the editor/MP.

What did you do when you first bought OFP? Did you immediately checked out the editor or did you first played the single missions and campaign? Not everyone is into mission editing. I started getting curious how it's done, after I finished the campaign and played all single missions.

Kind regards

nettrucker:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good campaign and interesting scenarios may serve as a welcome for some who enjoy those aspects of ARMA2 but for me multi-player is where it's at. I have had the most interesting, exciting and satisfying gaming experience playing with my squad-mates from my unit. It's what I have been looking for in gaming all along. The core game, editor and the great work of the modding community coupled with a team of like-minded mil-sim aficionados to play with/against IS ARMA2. Looking forward it can only get better. I voted 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither....

Wheres the 'Advertising' option.

voted none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What did you do when you first bought OFP? Did you immediately checked out the editor or did you first played the single missions and campaign? Not everyone is into mission editing. I started getting curious how it's done, after I finished the campaign and played all single missions.

Kind regards

nettrucker:D

I think i actually tried the editor before i finished the SP campaign, but i do that with almost every game. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What did you do when you first bought OFP? Did you immediately checked out the editor or did you first played the single missions and campaign? Not everyone is into mission editing. I started getting curious how it's done, after I finished the campaign and played all single missions.

Kind regards

nettrucker:D

I went to the editor, i thought is was very interesting and then when i got a little bored with the editor i went to the campaign and found another enjoyable area too :D

Good old times.. I don't want to lose those special feelings OFP gave me.

I'm between 1 and 3.. if i vote i might vote 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×