Immersion, propaganda and a clean story.

[Luomu 10]

I liked Harvest Red. Russians not automatically the bad guys, ambiguous atrocities, interacting with civilians and your character even spoke chernarussian some times! Pretty good I thought, would the game even include civilians if it was made by some US company.

OA was a bit more standard fare. A humanitarian mission against a crazy brown guy, no ulterior motives? Yeah right.

In any case the stories in sim games are just thin backdrops to let us play with virtual plastic soldiers. In reality there are no good wars and when was the last time two evenly-matched armies clashed?

[LJF 0]

Okay I was wrong lol, just played Harvest Red again and it was pretty cool :) However, is it just me or do none of the maps for ArmA feel like warzones? I mean they're awesome and very immersing but they just don't fit with the soldiers/tanks etc the way that those same things do in real warzones.

[katipo66 94]

:confused:

The original ARMA2´s main campaign ( Harvest Red ) has all that - mass graves, ethnic-cleaning/murdering, civil unrest, political assassinations, etc.

The author seems to have played OA´s "campaign" and thought all "series" is like that. (when in fact, OA´s campaign is the only one shallow and sanitized as he says - I dont consider the ARMA1 campaign a campaign at all.).

Maybe the point is, it didnt matter, for me i wasnt connected to the story, my buddies or my character... it just felt sterile, but thats just my 5cents... i dont love arma for its campaigns anyway.

[zoog 18]

HBut yeah I don't really know, it's hard to describe what it is, perhaps it's not the content, because I didn't really feel that attached to the ArmA2 campaign either, maybe I just wish they'd set the games in real locations.

It might sound silly, but maybe it's because you're older now? I know I have it with games in general, when I was younger I could lose myself in a fictional world of most games, but currently most of those (nostalgic) moments or feelings are missing from games I play. And that's not just because the games have changed.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

I do enjoy the fictional settings but mostly because they keep semi realistic approaches to their new nation creations.

To be honest I don't think I'd enjoy it as much if it were set in real Afghanistan or Georgia.

[Sky999 10]

I probably wasn't paying enough attention, but the campaign in OA didn't make much sense to me, I never really understood why I was fighting the war? Some dictator in the Middle East's men kills a geologist and acquires some scuds, so the entire might of the US, CZ, German, and UN armies have to go falling into the region and engage in massive scale tank battles and city bombings....for what exactly? Why does it concern the US, the German, the Czechs or the Chernarussians? I can understand the UN, but the rest didn't seem to have any interest being there. :confused:

I'll also add that there didn't seem to be much opposition to Colonel Aziz's rule. The amount of militia and civilians who rallied to support him didn't do the idea that he was a harsh dictator any justice either. We never found any mass graves or anything like that, so what was all the fuss about?

Edited July 22, 2010 by Sky999

[MengJiao 10]

I probably wasn't paying enough attention, but the campaign in OA didn't make much sense to me, I never really understood why I was fighting the war? Some dictator in the Middle East's men kills a geologist and acquires some scuds, so the entire might of the US, CZ, German, and UN armies have to go falling into the region and engage in massive scale tank battles and city bombings....for what exactly? Why does it concern the US, the German, the Czechs or the Chernarussians? I can understand the UN, but the rest didn't seem to have any interest being there. :confused:

I'll also add that there didn't seem to be much opposition to Colonel Aziz's rule. The amount of militia and civilians who rallied to support him didn't do the idea that he was a harsh dictator any justice either. We never found any mass graves or anything like that, so what was all the fuss about?

It think its a problem of scale. If you simulate WWII you don't get a game where one tank company runs the story. If you simulate a big war in a small country (perhaps inherently unreasonable) then you can have what the player does at the tactical level make a big difference.

[rekrul 7]

I have to agree with OP. The campaign consists of mission examples loosely tied together while it should of been the showcase and what the mission-creators strive to achieve.

You never really get "into" any of the characters and you only play them for one mission and then you're done more for less so you don't get a relation to any of them.

Edit: Oh yeah, and I really miss that "small peg in a big wheel" feeling.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Rekrul

[jakerod 254]

I probably wasn't paying enough attention, but the campaign in OA didn't make much sense to me, I never really understood why I was fighting the war? Some dictator in the Middle East's men kills a geologist and acquires some scuds, so the entire might of the US, CZ, German, and UN armies have to go falling into the region and engage in massive scale tank battles and city bombings....for what exactly? Why does it concern the US, the German, the Czechs or the Chernarussians? I can understand the UN, but the rest didn't seem to have any interest being there. :confused:

I'll also add that there didn't seem to be much opposition to Colonel Aziz's rule. The amount of militia and civilians who rallied to support him didn't do the idea that he was a harsh dictator any justice either. We never found any mass graves or anything like that, so what was all the fuss about?

It probably had nothing to do with the idea that he was about to launch said scuds at an oil-rich neighboring country and invade. Last time I checked the US, CZ, Germans, and UN were involved with the Gulf War which is pretty much the same exact situation. Obviously the Chernarussians weren't there but that is because they are fictional. Takistan is right next to them though and so them being there makes sense. Especially since they are part of the UN.

[Katrician 0]

I've been trying to think of why the series has always felt fake to me in terms of the story and setting.

They all feel like propaganda (I know they're not and I'm not saying they are, hear me out here): they all present a sanitized, watered down and "clean" version of war. Instead of unrest, a little racism, religious tensions, violence, oil, politics and a whole host of other stuff all Arrowhead shows us is a bad guy with WMD's getting taken out by the good guys with some equipment that the army will never use. There's no flavour, it's like eating two pieces of plain bread: it looks like a sandwich on the outside, but sure doesn't taste like one.

Legal issues comes to mind if you imply to reflect "real" war, and promoting a game where U.S troops cause deliberately harm to civilian would not be sale attractive; this game is more a toolbox where you are free to depicts events as you like, if you have the skills in mission editing. I guess they have focused on releasing a bugs free game, and did the campaign at the end of the project; plus I would say making myself a single mission, it demands enormous time to make things you take for granted, so I can imagine how much time and devotion it takes for a campaign. On another note we are acquainted with two permanent wars since 2001, you have been feeded with infos, footage, movies etc... so it's normal if all those things felt like déja vue; plus I think the Takistan landscape is boring/depressing if you compare with ARMAII, I don't talk of the game representation but of landscapes in general.

I can't help but feel detached and isolated from all the characters and story in ArmA1 through Arrowhead, and pretty much the entire universe. Anyhow, just my thoughts, what do you all think?

For me and a lot I presume we've got haunted by OFP, and never felt the same with ARMAII and OA for me at least, off course when OFP was released in 2001 it gone where no games before achieved; now ten years laters we are used to "have it all", I mean we are accustomed.

[Sith 0]

Thank you for watching this AAN broadcast. As always, we'll keep you posted on the latest developments.

[icewindo 29]

Well I would say it's no secret the campaign quality of BIS games hit the dirt with ArmA and it's successors. Harvest Red made it better than ArmA1, but it was insanely bugged even months after release and felt half-baked in the later missions, like they were quickly dumped in (warfare stuff...).

OA? Only played the first real 2 missions yet (the very first one was no mission, but a cutscene), but it seems my suspicions about the announcement when the same guy who did work on Harvest Red would work on OA, were well placed. I really dunno why they do it, but they leave all the good stuff that was in OFP/RES, the end product being dull and without touch.

Where's the weapon management that was introduced in RES? Remember the joy of finding a SVD or NVGs, carefully placing them into the truck for later campaign use? Where's the strive to survive? The idea of getting everyone out safely...

Some of the stuff isn't that hard to include. Why not write some diaries/letters home for a change, to identify with the characters? Anyone remembers who they actually played in the ArmA/OFP series? For OFP, I could answer this question with ease.

ArmA1, well... forget it... In ArmA2, I've think I've heard some names, but only remember the most annoying voice actor ever (the same dude that appeared in QG) .

OA seems to follow ArmA1, so same situation.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Icewindo

[jakerod 254]

Well I would say it's no secret the campaign quality of BIS games hit the dirt with ArmA and it's successors. Harvest Red made it better than ArmA1, but it was insanely bugged even months after release and felt half-baked in the later missions, like they were quickly dumped in (warfare stuff...).

OA? Only played the first real 2 missions yet (the very first one was no mission, but a cutscene), but it seems my suspicions about the announcement when the same guy who did work on Harvest Red would work on OA, were well placed. I really dunno why they do it, but they leave all the good stuff that was in OFP/RES, the end product being dull and without touch.

Where's the weapon management that was introduced in RES? Remember the joy of finding a SVD or NVGs, carefully placing them into the truck for later campaign use? Where's the strive to survive? The idea of getting everyone out safely...

Some of the stuff isn't that hard to include. Why not write some diaries/letters home for a change, to identify with the characters? Anyone remembers who they actually played in the ArmA/OFP series? For OFP, I could answer this question with ease.

ArmA1, well... forget it... In ArmA2, I've think I've heard some names, but only remember the most annoying voice actor ever (the same dude that appeared in QG) .

OA seems to follow ArmA1, so same situation.

I know the names of the guys in ArmA II and OA. In ArmA, in only remember three names Cpt Armstrong, Torres, and William Porter. I don't think guys in that campaign were supposed to be that memorable which I think was a big problem there. I still enjoyed some of it though.

There would be no reason to do weapons management in the Armed Assault, ArmA II, or the OA campaign. You are being supplied by one of the biggest militaries in the world. I agree there could be more character stuff but I found the campaign to be very enjoyable and for the first time since OFP and OFP:R I will probably play the entire thing over again. Not that ArmA II's campaign wasn't good it was just that my computer didn't handle parts very well.

The only thing I would do differently about the OA campaign is to make it so that you have the ability to play as whoever you want in each mission. That way you can play as Graves the entire campaign, or Herraras, or Drake, or Pierce. Or if you want you can play whoever you want each time. I thought the campaign was going to be that way but I guess not.

[Grizzle 0]

It might sound silly, but maybe it's because you're older now? I know I have it with games in general, when I was younger I could lose myself in a fictional world of most games, but currently most of those (nostalgic) moments or feelings are missing from games I play. And that's not just because the games have changed.

I think you have a valid point. I imagine if I was younger I might care more about the story, but at my age I've read/seen/heard every story there is to tell so all I really care about is having a few hours of fun making believe I'm a soldier fighting to stay alive, regardless of who/where/when or why. I don't need more impetus to play beyond that.

If I want to sink my head into a story I'll read a book. Still the best way to convey an alternate reality IMHO.

[IronPants 0]

I think it's clear that the primary intent behind the OA campaign was to show off the new stuff, rather than tell a story. I expected more interaction with the locals and more gruntwork, given the intro and the direction Harvest Red went.

Resistance is still the benchmark of excellence for BIS campaigns, largely because it's such an immersive story. I think Harvest Red comes in second place, marred by the sudden and immersion-breaking warfare mechanics.

[Ragingbear505 10]

I will say that I was pleasantly surprised with Cooper in Arma 2. A bilingual black guy in a war game who is apprehensive about the leadership role thrust upon him but maintains a high degree of professionalism, who isn't ghetto as hell, does not shout something everytime he kills someone, and is disturbed by some of the deaths that he sees? Holy shit.

I do wish that they would have explored some of the relationships between the men a little more. Like Scarlett never got much shit for being Navy, Robo was just a douche bag and pretty much got away with it without any banter from his teammates, and Sykes was just a statue most of the game.

[ediko911 10]

Those guys? Alright.. Coopers voice was so annoying that I pressed fn+f8(mute all sound) every time he made a long speech. More so I was feeling that I was in a kindergarten group rather than a squad. I was thinking that army makes men out of boys, obviously I was wrong since exact the opposite was happening with that machine-gunner and medic.

That was the biggest flaw in Harvest red. That and warfare... and bugs, and the storyline.... other than that the whole idea of the campaign was good. The missions without preplanned objectives felt great, shame there was no normal grunt action with good characters.

[vini_lessa 10]

I will say that I was pleasantly surprised with Cooper in Arma 2. A bilingual black guy in a war game who is apprehensive about the leadership role thrust upon him but maintains a high degree of professionalism, who isn't ghetto as hell, does not shout something everytime he kills someone, and is disturbed by some of the deaths that he sees? Holy shit.

I do wish that they would have explored some of the relationships between the men a little more. Like Scarlett never got much shit for being Navy, Robo was just a douche bag and pretty much got away with it without any banter from his teammates, and Sykes was just a statue most of the game.

This. For good and for bad.

[nkenny 1057]

First mission of Red Harvest had (what was hinted at) rape victim, mass graves, crude interrogations, and more.

To identify the problems:

1. No colourful scenes that build character. Therefore there is little build up of tension BEFORE the shooting starts.

"I spy with my little eye something starting with G"

2. Awful voice acting, worse still a utterly impersonal and unintuitive command interface. You could get away with it in 2001. Not so today.

"oh no 4 is down"

3. Warfare and derivative game modes does a terribly bad job of making players invested in the little people.

In other words; Introduce more talking/joking around or cutscenes to build tension. Make characters you can relate to that do NOT act/talk like robotic automatons. Give it a human touch. Recognize that 'ultra freedom' does not necessarily make it a better story.

Overall I think BIS are doing a fairly good job, perplexing and frustrating as the loss of storytelling technique is. Recent releases are much better than Arma1-- and with the new periodic DLC's mission designers have a chance to continuously practice their art.

-k

[icewindo 29]

I know the names of the guys in ArmA II and OA. In ArmA, in only remember three names Cpt Armstrong, Torres, and William Porter. I don't think guys in that campaign were supposed to be that memorable which I think was a big problem there. I still enjoyed some of it though.

There would be no reason to do weapons management in the Armed Assault, ArmA II, or the OA campaign. You are being supplied by one of the biggest militaries in the world. (...)

See? Talk about a narrow point of view. Why limit the campaign just to (active) soldiers coming of the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave with full support?

In OFP, we had Armstrong fighting alone with the Resistance at some point in the campaign, without any U.S. support. In Resistance we had an army (sf) vet horrified by war who had to make to a stand with what few people who would join him. The next morning the sky was grey... I felt a rat... a traitor...

Red Hammer might have not been by BIS, but still, it portrayed the war also on the russian perspective.

Those guys? Alright.. Coopers voice was so annoying that I pressed fn+f8(mute all sound) every time he made a long speech. More so I was feeling that I was in a kindergarten group rather than a squad. I was thinking that army makes men out of boys, obviously I was wrong since exact the opposite was happening with that machine-gunner and medic.

That was the biggest flaw in Harvest red. That and warfare... and bugs, and the storyline.... other than that the whole idea of the campaign was good. The missions without preplanned objectives felt great, shame there was no normal grunt action with good characters.

This. I had similar thoughts.

To identify the problems:

1. No colourful scenes that build character. Therefore there is little build up of tension BEFORE the shooting starts.

"I spy with my little eye something starting with G"

2. Awful voice acting, worse still a utterly impersonal and unintuitive command interface. You could get away with it in 2001. Not so today.

"oh no 4 is down"

3. Warfare and derivative game modes does a terribly bad job of making players invested in the little people.

In other words; Introduce more talking/joking around or cutscenes to build tension. Make characters you can relate to that do NOT act/talk like robotic automatons. Give it a human touch. Recognize that 'ultra freedom' does not necessarily make it a better story.

Full agree on these points. I'm not asking for a Mass Effect 2, but seriously, a little well written character stuff wouldn't hurt. Technically, the voice acting in OA was abit better than in ArmA2. Minus 10 points for the use of the annoying Cooper/QG voice "actor" in the first cutscene though. (see ediko911s post above).

Overall I think BIS are doing a fairly good job, perplexing and frustrating as the loss of storytelling technique is. Recent releases are much better than Arma1-- and with the new periodic DLC's mission designers have a chance to continuously practice their art.

-k

They're no hobbyists, I don't think they should "practise" on paid products. If I want to practise for work, I sign up for certifications, other training or read something up in my free time if need be. But releasing one mission/campaign after another, with "the next one being better"? That's bad.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Icewindo

[MengJiao 10]

I will say that I was pleasantly surprised with Cooper in Arma 2. A bilingual black guy in a war game who is apprehensive about the leadership role thrust upon him but maintains a high degree of professionalism, who isn't ghetto as hell, does not shout something everytime he kills someone, and is disturbed by some of the deaths that he sees? Holy shit.

I do wish that they would have explored some of the relationships between the men a little more. Like Scarlett never got much shit for being Navy, Robo was just a douche bag and pretty much got away with it without any banter from his teammates, and Sykes was just a statue most of the game.

Sounds good. I've never played the campaigns though I've played all the versions of Opflash/ARMA since 2002.

Writing stories is hard enough when you do it in the medium of a

book or possibly a movie. It's undoubtedly much, much harder to write good

stories for a game campaign and I don't play games for stories -- for that

I read books or watch movies.

A good game campaign should (in my opinion) not be about characters primarily but about interrelating the wins and gains from different steps and stages and aspects of the operational environment. For example choosing whether you want higher commands to do broad reconnaissance or a narrow but focused reconnaissance that possibly gives away where you are going next. Or whether you act on a peice of human or signal intel and give away ot the enemy that you have sources. Whether you move slowly with good supply or quickly to exploit even with poor supply. Those should be in campaigns and characters should be in books.

[icewindo 29]

Writing stories is hard enough when you do it in the medium of a

book or possibly a movie. It's undoubtedly much, much harder to write good

stories for a game campaign...

That's why many developers hire external writers to write a script these days.

(...) Those should be in campaigns and characters should be in books.

Again, narrow point of view. Why can't we have both? It worked in Operation Flashpoint Resistance.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Icewindo

[MengJiao 10]

That's why many developers hire external writers to write a script these days.

Again, narrow point of view. Why can't we have both? It worked in Operation Flashpoint Resistance.

Sometimes it works. OpFlashpoint had a lot going for it in that it had a definite local setting. It was modeled only in an ironic or even satirical way

on the real world. That makes stories work better if the players are supposed to busy themselves blowing up parts of the imaginary world.

Settings such as OA has are nearly impossible for good stories. The demand for the latest high tech gear combined with strong echoes of real world turmoil basically wrecks any chance at a good story since it leaves no room for irony or satire.

You can either have high tech gear and go with a farce (the usual choice in games) or an intense local scene and go with irony and satire (as I think OpFlash Resistance did).

If I had to write a good story in the OA world, I would make it very savage and very low tech, a tribal war with a horrified central government finally taking sides. Irony and satire would rule and high-tech-obsessed gamers would never buy it and BIS would go out of business since most gamers seem to prefer advanced weapons no matter what...ie even if they wreck the story. High tech weapons might make a good McGuffin in a Mercenary tale of savagery, but that's another story.

[nkenny 1057]

Sometimes it works. OpFlashpoint had a lot going for it in that it had a definite local setting. It was modeled only in an ironic or even satirical way

on the real world. That makes stories work better if the players are supposed to busy themselves blowing up parts of the imaginary world.

Settings such as OA has are nearly impossible for good stories. The demand for the latest high tech gear combined with strong echoes of real world turmoil basically wrecks any chance at a good story since it leaves no room for irony or satire.

You can either have high tech gear and go with a farce (the usual choice in games) or an intense local scene and go with irony and satire (as I think OpFlash Resistance did).

If I had to write a good story in the OA world, I would make it very savage and very low tech, a tribal war with a horrified central government finally taking sides. Irony and satire would rule and high-tech-obsessed gamers would never buy it and BIS would go out of business since most gamers seem to prefer advanced weapons no matter what...ie even if they wreck the story. High tech weapons might make a good McGuffin in a Mercenary tale of savagery, but that's another story.

Exactly.

Think about this.

- In Operation Flashpoint getting a weapon with full auto capabilities was an achievement.

- Getting binoculars was a major reward.

- GPS unheard of

- Scoped weapons were rare.

- M4 + Aimpoint? or a SILENCED mp5? and all of the above? man you were REALLY SF.

Compare this to a normal game of arma2...

-k

[jakerod 254]

Exactly.

Think about this.

- In Operation Flashpoint getting a weapon with full auto capabilities was an achievement.

- Getting binoculars was a major reward.

- GPS unheard of

- Scoped weapons were rare.

- M4 + Aimpoint? or a SILENCED mp5? and all of the above? man you were REALLY SF.

Compare this to a normal game of arma2...

-k

That's a really good point. I do kind of miss that but I don't think that type of stuff would ever happen on the modern battlefield. That is kind of why I want a WWII or Korean war game. Or an all out Cold War 1985 style.