Kovorix

I didn't said it was otherwise, I just said it was the same scenario as in previous campaigns of ARMA. Just waiting a few days and they are gone wasn't an option, right? Those "patrol" side missions were complete uninteressting they did nothing for the game itself. Manhatten was one of the best missions. You had freedome to choose what you want to do first and in which order. But I understand that most people can't play a game when there is no guidline that tells you what do. It would be a way of telling some backstory of events where the player wasn't involved. But yeah everyone has other aspects of what fun is.

After countless hours of playing ARMA 3 and thinking of the campaign and the campaigns of the previous titles I thought "Why is it allways the same?". It was allways: The americans are going to leave and the enemy thinks it is a great idea to attack now because they sure won't come back. And then the heroic soldier fights off the evil forces of evilness. Kinda boring. It also happens so fast in the first mission you drive your HEMTT and a few seconds later ongoing war, instead of putting some story first. When you look at the prologue it had very little action but it was so good in telling the situation of the island, why not more of it? I wish some more realistic scenarios for a new ARMA or DLC. It doesn't need 100% action, when you want pure action you can play cod or bf. Some missions even without action like some humanitarian aid, driving with a food convoy to give it to the civilians or just some patrolling while listening to some background story. This is just my opinion if you have another one feel free to say it.