skyace65

With the DLC expansion coming next year, and possibly a new campaign especially considering it's location. I just wanted to see if we could get a consensus on what everyone did and didn't like about the campaign personally Likes -the feeling of scale with the conflict. -the way missions move the story forward. The first one of survive was done fantastically with how it shows the NATO forces systematically being taken out. and a small detail you don't notice till later, Millers group arriving at Maxwell. -most mission feels very different from each other with what you need to do. Using a Drone, setting up an ambush, stealing a car dislikes -lack of resolution to the story. all we get is a medium ending(status quo) where we find out nothing, and a bad ending (game over) where we find out nothing. And I'd call Game Over a bad ending because even though Miller gets the earthquake device from CSAT, the earthquakes still happen so there was most likely a second one. -Some characters just weren't recognizable enough. Playing though Survive again I can more easily recognize the difference between say Alpha and Charlie leaders, but first time through I could barely tell. I'm not saying each character needs an arc or something but making them a bit more distinct would be nice. -Lack of explanation, stuff like the drones where you're given no instructions on how to use them, there's nothing in the VR courses, and nothing helpful in the field manual. -lack of civilians, I get it in survive, but the fact that there weren't any at all in adapt or Win really ruined some of the immersion. -no real large scale missions. It's always Kerry being stuck with some small part of a mission even once NATO shows up. Want to lead tanks against the airfield? Too bad you're taking out the AA guns. also one last small gripe, but is it just me or does something seem off with Kerry's voice acting? despite what I dislike I still managed to get a lot of enjoyment out of the campaign and if they could fix that stuff I think Bohemia could end up making something amazing.

I think if BI is going to do alien invasion stuff it should be as an expansion to Arma. Just add in some aliens, alien guns, alien vehicles and a quick campaign. Don't make it something big with new human weapons or terrain because then people will complain about splitting the fanbase and having to buy the expansion just for the weapons and terrain.

For me there are 2 major things that matter most 1) take advantage of the open world, that's something The East Wind did fantastically especially in Survive, and is completely lacking in Apex Protocol 2) variety, we've got a ton of weapons and items, show them off That being siad East Wind and Apex have a major shortcoming for me, NO civilian interaction. It completely takes away from immersion in something like Adapt where you play as a bunch of gurillas. And while the lack of civillians in Apex missions doesn't feel as glaring, just walking around a civilian town in the beginning would have done wonders to the pacing and immersion, or maybe even a mission where we meet Blue Cap. As far as story goes I just want something interesting that feels authentic. East Wind was great until the ending which felt stupid, and Apex I feel suffers from bad pacing

I'm just gonna give my 2 cents on my problems with the campaign, lack of team AI aside For starters, it never feels like the campaign never takes advantage of the fact that there's an open world. In Survive in the base game, part of what made that episode work so well is the openness of the world, it felt authentic, you could fly over camp maxwell in the beginning and be back there 2 missions later trying to stay alive, Apex Protocol has none of that, it's a campaign that would work just as well if it was a bunch of levels built individually instead of on an open map. In fact the openness takes away the story in some regards. With Syndikat I was expecting a small but powerful group hiding out in the jungle and a few small shacks in the woods or something, Not an entire army that controls most of the islands! It feels ridiculous and takes away from immersion, which is supposed to be Arma's biggest strength! As for the missions themselves it feels like there should have been more, especially since Eden is out now. I get that we're not going to get a full length campaign like the one in the base game, but for 30 dollars I expected more than this and a lot more variety. Give us missions where we interact with the locals or the police, show us actually going into a mission of a blackbird or parachuting in to a drop zone, just do something! This is especially annoying since the lack of civilian interaction is one of The East Wind was one of it's biggest problems to me, but instead of fixing it, they just keep us away from civilian areas altogether! This campaign had a lot of promise, I thought it would be great to play as special ops guys, some nice variety compared to East Wind, but this is just disappointing.

The devs have said they're still going to do more for Arma 3 after Apex

I believe the correct term is, Tanoga party

maybe if we're lucky we'll get boat DLC after Apex launches

Just going to give my general thoughts What I like about this DLC is that it allows for new things to be done, and different kinds of battles to be fought. The bridge, the thick jungle everywhere, the excavation site, the small cities. these are all things that lead to battles you wouldn't get on the Altis/Stratis and I love Tanoa for it. I'm disappointed at the lack of interiors for some buildings, but overall I'm very pleased with the DLC so far.

I don't see any reason they would need to create new textures, but new materials would absolutely be necessary. I think if they really do want to keep making more content after Apex then moving to Enfusion should be heavily considered at least.

just my quick 2 cents on female avatars. Maybe it's not the biggest demographic out there, and maybe adding them wouldn't open the floodgates of new gamers. But at the very least it makes the game look more welcoming and less like a sausage fest, and if more popular shooters also had the option than over time I think we could start to see some demographic changes. Plus it would give the game more media attention from gaming sites. Second thing. From a campaign perspective female models would be great because right now there's very little to distinguish characters from each other, and very few people in the campaign are memorable. I'm going to be honest, first time playing the game I didn't recognize that Conway was the one you played as in the prologue when you meet him later.

Best- Playing invade and annex and I'm taking some guys to the AO. An enemy helicopter appears in front of us and starts shooting so I drop altitude fast. But it's a flat area and I manage to pull of a crash landing with everyone still alive. The helicopter ended up blowing us up anyway, but our medic survived and revived everyone Worst- Every time I try and set down the ghost hawk just a little to hard and it breaks.

what I wouldn't give for some ships like that to have a massive MP D-Day style invasion scenario.

Something I've been wondering about recently. I know from browsing around here that Arma 3's main problem has been from CPU bottleneck. So I've been wondering, do you guys think that NV link might end up giving a noticeable performance increase? For those who don't know it's a feature Nvidia has talked about for a while and is planning to use with it's Pascal cards next year. Here's what the Nvidia site says about it. "NVLink puts a fatter pipe between the CPU and GPU, allowing data to flow at more than 80GB per second, compared to the 16GB per second available now." http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/03/25/gpu-roadmap-pascal/ Here's the page on Nvidia's website about Pascal

It's implied Miller had something to do with it. But again we don't know what since no answers.

Assuming they do another campaign. Really hope they manage to have the same level of quality as Survive in Arma 3. It dipped down in Adapt with the ridiculous omission of regular civilians in any way, and Win was just too short and an unsatisfying end. Plus we never got to participate in large scale operations, it was always going to the side and doings something else.

Now I'm not a hardware genius. But could Nvidia's NVLink in next years cards give noticeable performance improvements? A link for those who don't know what it is http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/03/25/gpu-roadmap-pascal/

So much this. I love playing invade and annex, but being killed by AI I can't even see that shouldn't see me either is frustrating beyond belief.

I hope we get a new campaign with the DLC. and based on it being a pacific island that seems extremely likely. Yeah I know campaigns not the main focus of the game, but they managed to do a really good job with Arma 3 for Survive and Adapt, and than the story just fell apart at the end of Win....

I really hope they fix the problems arma 3's campaign had. It came so close to being great but fell apart in the 3rd part Also anyone else really want some naval vehicles now? maybe not for full blown naval combat, but an aircraft carrier and some ships to deploy landing craft could be used to make some awesome D-day style invasion scenarios for multiplayer