View Full Version : OFP Vs Arma SP Campaign
BloodOmen
Dec 13 2006, 22:39
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/welcome.gif I was just curious to see what people thought about which Campaign was better. Operation Flashpoint: Cold War or Armed Assault.
Personally in my eyes, Operation Flashpoint: Cold War was far better than Armed Assault, for these reasons:
- The Storyline was far more developed
- Alot more missions
- Alot more interesting twists
- Better Characthers
- Better Storyline Interaction
- Better Beginning & Ending Movies
Why i didnt like ArmA's Campaign compared to OFP:CW
- It was way too short
- It had a terrible ending & Beginning
- Nothing was explained in the storyline ( Wont say anymore, due to spoilers)
- Characters werent devloped at all.
- Missions were too short and sudden
- Everything was far too plain....
Now give us your view http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
P.S
I would also like to hear what Placebo thought of this, as he is a valuable member of the community, and we dont hear alot of his thoughts.
you said it all http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
SandVoss_NL
Dec 14 2006, 00:39
I completely concur! The new campaign is a big back of ****. I find it highly disapointing. The characters remain flat and are not developed, completely unlike the characters from CWC, and especially Resistance's Troska. Worse off, the missions are extremely unrealistic. The idea that u have to charge at 4 armoured units guarded by infantry using a reloadable AT4 and a satchel is ridiculous.
The campaign was obviously rushed, just made as something to add to the game so that it can be sold as a full game(and charge the full price accordingly), and not just an engine with some ready made units. I supose with ArmA were really just given the means, but the community has to make the ends itself.
Not that I want to be totally negative. I love the new ArmA, the engine has many fixes that I wanted OFP to be improved on. I think in about a years time this game will really start to reach its potential, with new patches and lots of new addons and mods!
My biggest problems with the campaign (besides the broken triggers I kept encountering) were the first and last missions.
The FDF mod for OFP did an EXCELLENT first mission for their Campaign. You were just sent out on a daily routine, didnt have to fire a shot. It set the stage for the coming campaign. In ArmA, in contrast, you are told to go investigate a lil' ruckus. I was expecting some drunk guy to have pulled a pistol in a bar or whatever... AND INSTEAD FIND A T72 TANK AND GUNMEN SHOOTIN' UP THE PLACE! Horrifying!
And the final ArmA mission was just awkward. The Mission Briefings for the last and 2nd to last missions were the same, damn it! I wasnt sure if I had encountered a bug with the briefings or what. And the mission construction was just awful, a waypoint says "Investigate the camp" but points to a bigass field... just a very awkwardly constructed mission.
Soldat32
Dec 14 2006, 07:27
Must agree with you on all accounts OFPs standard campaign was outstanding.It really sucked you into the story.ARMA's is seriously lacking.
OFPs CWC had heart, spirit and soul. (Red Hammer; Resistance)
ArmAs....?
Hmm, you people are all talking like you've finished ArmA, so i'll ask.
How the hell did you pass "The Great Battle"?
ExtracTioN
Dec 15 2006, 10:35
Tottaly agree ARMA campaign sucks quickly made it sucks OPF campaigns rule over Arma's campaign http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Zorbtek
Dec 15 2006, 11:42
I was really surprised to see a campaign in ArmA be less story driven than the huge story that was included in the 1985 and especially the Resistance campaign.
The AA campaign starts off like I just hit fast forward in a Star Wars movie, and am suddenly watching the clone war. I was expecting a wealth of cutscenes for an introduction to the campaign.
- The blackhawks dropping the troops off on the island, a better introduction to the Island, an overview of the situation just like we saw in the 1985 campaign... "As the only NATO presence left in the area, it is our job to respond."
There was nothing like that. It was just click click boom. More and more I'm seeing ArmA was made in a very short timeframe.
This does not really dissapoint me however. I think we're likely to see an expansion pack - we have the 1985 and resistance campaigns being beefed up and ported into ArmA, we have the mod community eagerly anticipating those mod tools. All these wonderful things will happen.
SandVoss_NL
Dec 15 2006, 16:30
Yeh I agree, there are no cutscenes at all! Just some very, very short clips. With the Resistance campaign, the first couple of missions are only cutscenes or you traveling around, it was all about setting the scene. Now your dropped into the deep end right away, there is no psychological buildup or anything. So dissapointing.
Hmm, you people are all talking like you've finished ArmA, so i'll ask.
How the hell did you pass "The Great Battle"?
shift + [NUM-] + endmission.
before that, tried until stuffed.
Deadfast
Dec 15 2006, 17:16
I was very dissapointed with the ArmA campaign.
In OFP you knew the soldier you're playing as. You knew his name, you knew his oppinion about that war (thanks to notes before every mission) and so on.
In Resistance I even felt sad, when I sew the main character's death (sorry, don't remember his name).
And of course I have to mention about the bugged ending http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif .
To be honest, I don't basicaly mind, as I bought this game mostly for editing and mutliplayer game http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif .
But a good news, at least for Czech and Slovak players, is that creators of CSLA mod are now focused to ArmA !
For the ones, who don't know this mod here's something about it:
CSLA mod 1.0
<ul>
Several retextured units
Few singleplayer missions
A campaign, that was just a bit worse, than original one
CSLA mod 2.0
About 400 brand new units
Lots of singleplayer missions
And of course a great campaign, that was probably even better than any other campaings
Save/load function for campaign, that you can use unlimited times
Artilery script
Suply box drop script
Helicopter extraction script
Rolling (just like the one now in ArmA)
Corner leaning
and so on ...
[/list]
Looking forward for ArmA stuff http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Operation Flshpoint: Cold War Crisis all the way.
The Armed Assault campaign i personally think is rather crap.
BloodOmen
Dec 15 2006, 18:04
Im really looking forward to see Cold War & Resistance Rearmed. Itll be very interesting to see if they pull it off or fuck it up.
Capo di tutti Capi
Dec 15 2006, 20:19
True, the Flashpoint's campaign was far better then the campaign from Arma :-( Like others said, the Flashpoint's campaign really gave u the feeling of being part of the game ,something that Arma seems lacking....Good thing there are plenty of people who make good missions, and afcourse we still have multiplay, but I would have expected more from BIS http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif
Igor Drukov
Dec 16 2006, 12:39
I stopped playing the campaign on mission 2 where you're sent alone with an AT4 to wreak havoc behind enemy lines. Whoever the mission-designers were, they should look up the meanings of "immersion" and "realism" in a dictionary.
SandVoss_NL
Dec 16 2006, 12:50
Amen, Igor. That's what just what I did and how I feel.
Hmm, you people are all talking like you've finished ArmA, so i'll ask.
How the hell did you pass "The Great Battle"?
shift + [NUM-] + endmission.
before that, tried until stuffed.
Hmm, Shift + Num - does nothing, let alone the "endmission" part.
stainer
Dec 18 2006, 09:41
Hold left shift and Num pad '-' at the same time, release, then type 'endmission' without the quotes.
CWC was a far better campaign, with a logical progression and real involvement and tension. ArmA's campaign was just too obvious as to what would happen.
I've played through about half the campaign. For the most part, missions were simplistic and didn't showcase the abilities of the editor in the way that Resistance or several of the user made campaigns did. Also had problems getting some to complete.
Still, I'm happy with ArmA. Most of my time is spent creating my own simplistic missions anyhow. Love that guard waypoint. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
What's worrying is when mainstream gaming sites come to review ArmA. They will highlight the lacklustre campaign as a major negative, while for the community this is secondary. And before anyone says "reviews don't matter". They don't matter to long time players, but they do matter to a developer trying to attract new buyers and attempting to make a profit. Which in the longrun will have an affect on Game 2.
i understand most of the stuff people are comlaining about here. but i have to disagree with the "character development" part.
the fact that you're not forced into the skin of some soldier with his own character/opinions etc. is perfect in my opinion.
perfect because i'm convinced that ARMA is supposed to be a simulation. imagine people complaining about Flight Simulator, IL2 or silent hunter III not having enough character development.
when you play a simulation YOU should become the character.
anyway i never liked games or whatever other media telling me what to think or feel.
for the same reason gordon freeman never opens his mouth in half life. it leaves the player to make up his/her own mind.
the original flashpoint campaigns are a good example why this character thing is not always a good idea.
the 1985 character was a complete dork. mostly because of the voice acting.
the red hammer character was better but he just HAD to turn over to the "good side" half way through the campaign didn't he? guess i should have seen that one comming but it still sucked!
the resistance campaign was pretty good all in all. but it felt much more like a game than a simulator.
BloodOmen
Dec 18 2006, 15:29
The CWC Characthers were soo much better than anything from Arma lol.
I liked the voice acting,define which characther from CWC you said sounds liked a " Dork " i personally thought they all sounded good.
The soviet twist was brilliant, i really enjoyed that.
The resistance campaign had to be the best, the game really got into the character.
Im very much looking forward to CWC & Resistance Rearmed http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
NeMeSiS
Dec 18 2006, 18:50
*may contain spoilers*
What ArmA misses (imo) are those moments that made OFP so memorable. After all, everyone who played CWC remembers the 'i spy with my little eye' conversation, and it was nice to see the same characters in different mission, it really 'pulled' you 'in' the game. The first few CWC mission really trew you in the game, you had no idea what was going on and where you should go, it felt like war. ArmA on the other hand..
Its more like, walk here, go there, shoot those people, OOOOH PLOT TWIST! *end campaign*
In ArmA ive seen what? 1 character? And you only saw her in cutscenes, everyone else where just anonymous and disposable. The ingame conversations (especially at the beginning of the campaign) is (partly) what created the athmosphere, and ill never forget names like kozwloski (spelling? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif ) or berghof, and of course the names of the playable characters, but in ArmA.. Well.. There is noone to forget..
Oh, and the sidemissions sucked, they felt like someone made them in 5 minutes, they are quite ridiculous and dont add anything to the game (hell, they distracted even more from an almost nonexistent atmosphere).
Deadfast
Dec 18 2006, 19:43
The ArmA's campaign lack any relationship between player and character.
The team-switch makes it even worse.
If you die in some mission and then switch to another team mate who are you playing as in another mission.
Also it doesn't fits to me, that normall soldier is doing special mission deep behind enemy lines, but I can get over it. But it's totaly out, that same soldier is flying with heli or driving a tank !
You may say that it's a different soldier, what I personaly think so too, but it's never mentioned ingame.
I don't even remember someone mentioning character's name.
Maybe I'm wrong, so please correct me.
Actualy only name I remember is codename "Crossroad".
This is so odd against OFP. Even after 2 years, when I've played OFP, I still remember the name of one of 4 main characters - David Armstrong.
The CWC Characthers were soo much better than anything from Arma lol.
what are you talking about? there are no characters in ARMA...that's what i said i find so cool about it.
Quote[/b] ]I liked the voice acting,define which characther from CWC you said sounds liked a " Dork " i personally thought they all sounded good.
i was talking about david "dork" armstrong. i can't point my finger at it but i never wanted to identify with this character. there were a couple of good voices in CWC (the captain, the lieutenant, etc.) but just as many bad ones. (i.e. fowley, the guy who asks you if you "filled your shorts" at the beginning of the campaign...*shudder*)
generally i like the voices of ARMA better. they sound more believable. except for that sahrani officer that's interviewed at some point in the middle of the campaign...he's totally overacting. and of course the german voices are horrible but that was to be expected.
BloodOmen
Dec 19 2006, 00:54
Well its your preference, your entilted to it.
Personally i rather have characters who get into the story, and yeah ofpforum, kozwloski,lukin,troska, those names were damn sweet, really suited the game, dunno how but it did http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Again, CWC & Resistance Rearmed is going to kick some ass if its made correctly http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Stealth3
Dec 19 2006, 02:51
I believe its Gavstosky (sp). Anyway Im pretty sure its with a G.
Anyway I agree with you all that the OFP campaign is a blockbuster while the ARMA campaign is a lackluster.
Its pretty obvious very different people worked on the campaigns. It makes one wonder if it was Codemasters who indeed pushed quality into the OFP campaign.
Edit 1. Its Gastovski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Flashpoint
twisted
Dec 19 2006, 03:19
I stopped playing the campaign on mission 2 where you're sent alone with an AT4 to wreak havoc behind enemy lines. Whoever the mission-designers were, they should look up the meanings of "immersion" and "realism" in a dictionary.
i agree. that's to me the biggest point - if its combat simulation then make the campaign and missions in a realistic setting and with same odss and situations as in a real life conflict.
But then with OFP i found the user made missions and campaigns greater than the offical ones (specifically Retaliation and PMC FURY and a few others) and never got around to completing the official campaigns as good as they were. But they were great.
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/pistols.gif
blackdog~
Dec 19 2006, 04:02
I was really disappointed with the ArmA campaign... would have preferred the traditional format... hated the way one had to complete the same mission three times as a different person on the battlefield... ruined the fun and motivation to complete the campaign for me...
CameronMcDonald
Dec 19 2006, 04:06
Hmmm. Armed Assault's campaign was horrible, I hated it. Thank god we can make our own.
NeMeSiS
Dec 20 2006, 09:06
I believe its Gavstosky (sp). Anyway Im pretty sure its with a G.
I ment the 'Have you filled your shorts Kowzloski' (when you land on everon with a chopper)
'Like i said, you are a nutcase kowzloski', when you are in the back of a truck and kowzloski starts talking about his love for the m16 ('the m16a2 blabla, perfectly balanced and only weighs 5 pounds, how can you not love it?'
Not the special forces guy http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
And hey, the fact that i still remember (part of) those conversations show how much they ment (to me) for the atmosphere.
Stealth3
Dec 20 2006, 16:39
I see, my bad then.
Well it was great for the atmosphere.
I believe its Gavstosky (sp). Anyway Im pretty sure its with a G.
I ment the 'Have you filled your shorts Kowzloski' (when you land on everon with a chopper)
'Like i said, you are a nutcase kowzloski', when you are in the back of a truck and kowzloski starts talking about his love for the m16 ('the m16a2 blabla, perfectly balanced and only weighs 5 pounds, how can you not love it?'
Not the special forces guy http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
And hey, the fact that i still remember (part of) those conversations show how much they ment (to me) for the atmosphere.
that say´s it all, the OFP campain was made with love. the arma one looks like wuickly drewn together by an amateur
Sc@tterbrain
Dec 22 2006, 09:35
The campaign was pathetic.
-To get to the end I had to use the old ofp cheats to end the mission when I had killed everyone/completed all the objectives and the triggers didnt' work.
-Muchos bugos.
-Storyline. Was it written on a cocktail napkin? And near the end what was that twist that goes nowhere? Half-ass, the hole thing.
Bloodomen,
unfortunatly you are absolutly right with that what you have
written. I bought ArmA at 30.11.06 and was so disapointed
about the campaign.
The fact that I bought ArmA was that I was totally impressed
by the Flashpoint campaign and expected something new
special.
I only played three missions of the ArmA campaign.
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif
Where are all the scripts they made for Flashpoint, the
athmosphere and the drive - I name the ArmA campaign just
loveless.
But I hope that BIS will modify the game, all of it, to that what
Flashpoint was and is.
I really hope ... Seraph
Edit: With this game it is a love-hate relationship ... at BIS,
high expectations generate high sensibility.
Please take steps.
sluggCDN
Dec 29 2006, 18:49
I played through OFP's campaign 3 years ago. What really kept me in the OFP realm was the MF CTI mod where you can have a brand new conquest campaign everytime you play. It all comes down to clearing cities of enemies. Using the phrase from Blackhawk Down - the moment a bullet goes over your head politics go right outta the window.
In my opinion the character development in Cold War Crisis was just a crock of shit - the most rediculous script with cheesy political agenda twist to it, predictible and unoriginal. You know, in the last two years we really had a chance to see what the real meaning of the "Fight of Good vs. Evil" is. Iraq is the main example. I actual would give BIS thumbs up for not making yet another "Bad Ruskies vs. Good Yankees" cheese fest. It now looks more like the Americans make a bad decision siding with a corrupt political regime/monarchy that in the end turns against its benefactor and bits him in the ass. Very realistic - again the real world example could be CIA support of the revolution in Iraq which was led by Saddam who later became USA worst enemy. Again CWC campaign story was done really slopy, I saw better full-conversion mods done my modding community. Detachment from the character is good - I personally don't like playing a heavily brainwashed grunt...
I didnt like the Arma campaign... as far as i know in most games anyways if their is a single player campaign you will play a 1 or a couple of characters who go against it all and live (or die) at the very end.
Arma doesnt have this you are just a random all the time their is no introduction of who you (or your multiple characters) are in my opinion i dont liek team switch in the campaign you should be playing as oneman not 9 in a group.
Ofp CWC was alot more realistic such as the second mission i think it was. you clear out a town but sadly have to fallback due to a large platoon of t80s comming over the hill in real life who would actually stay?? and the routine patrols/guard duty that you did one or two of in the CWC campaign really added an atmosphere to the campain reminding you that you were a soldier doing soldiers tasks. not some uber trooper on the front constantly pwning commies!
although Arma has much much better graphics than OFP i find that OFP is still actually a better game for single player activities however i am expecting Arma to get much better over the year with the updates and such http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Operation Flashpoint: Cold War FTW!!!
ArmA campaign was crap.. it had nothing too it.. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif
The old OFP:CWC campaign was far better than what we got in the ArmA.
And i am not talking about the background of the campaigns - i am not saying i want another Cold War scenario, that's not what i want.
What i mean is: where is the ArmA's Armstrong? and Kozlovski? and other characters?
...i am not saying that i want the old characters back, but you got my point - there is absolutely nothing which will allow the player to believe to anything what is happening in the ArmA campaign, everything is so flat, frigid, and sterile.
You even feel that when you go over the next little hill, you will see that the world around you is EMPTY (because the game won't let you to forget that you are playing a game) - i had this feeling in all of the ArmA missions, but in old OFP i sometimes felt a tension of not knowing what is hiding behind another hill, town, or forest.
I think that ArmA campaign is VERY POORLY elaborated.
...and don't talk to me about realism. If you insist, then realism is also that you are there - the feeling that it's like you are there, that you aren't playing a game - without this, there is nothing such as realism.
So don't try to convince me, that the ArmA campaign is good only because it has some very minor similarity with the real world events like in Iraq, or anywhere else.
What we got is an MP game with a few boring SP missions (in this sense of words, i wouldn't be afraid to compare it to Battlefield 2), and that is sad - i think everyone expected more than that.
AUS_Twisted
Jan 2 2007, 12:07
If I had never played OFP CWC, Resistance and ArmA and then had the opportunity to play all the campaigns in a close time frame OFP CWC and Resistance would easily come out on top for me especially if you were a offline player who enjoyed campaigns and single player missions.
Realy not sure how this game will be looked upon regarding non-Ofp players...I mean, we Opf players know what the comunity will do for this game but out of the box!?! Sorry to say, can't realy suggest anyone to buy this game...for a long time yet...unless some patches comes along and changes things around... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif
Guess you got my opinion, all campaigns (almost all usermade as well) are better then ArmA...sorry BIS!
/Abbe
Lustypooh
Jan 10 2007, 23:27
I agree. AA SP campaign (and included missions) are plain awful. Some of the missions rank lower than the cheesiest fan missions. Gee, how many times do I need to be a truck driver?? BORING
At least in OFP we had some good SP missions to play through before fans came out with some quality missions.
AA kinda feels like my PS3. Great system but I got to wait months before I can play anything that really shows off the system http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
MassDriver
Jan 11 2007, 02:05
Quote[/b] ]Personally in my eyes, Operation Flashpoint: Cold War was far better than Armed Assault, for these reasons:
- The Storyline was far more developed
- Alot more missions
- Alot more interesting twists
- Better Characthers
- Better Storyline Interaction
- Better Beginning & Ending Movies
Why i didnt like ArmA's Campaign compared to OFP:CW
- It was way too short
- It had a terrible ending & Beginning
- Nothing was explained in the storyline ( Wont say anymore, due to spoilers)
- Characters werent devloped at all.
- Missions were too short and sudden
- Everything was far too plain....
Now give us your view http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
This *is* my view http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif. You've said most of it. Other issues have been pointed to in this thread, like:
- few realistic missions, if at all (e.g. regardless of the orders, sending a simple soldier somewhere in *alone* to take down 2/3 of the enemy's forces is ridiculous; there really should have been at least two people sometimes, or one should have been designated as a type of special forces combat specialist, and even these would at least pair up in teams when it's just narrowed down to heavy engagements - and even then, why so early on? it's a game; it should be like a good movie with oneself taking part in it, one should gradually be taken into the action, not thrown into it right from the beginning without real means of orientation, except when it's part of the story, but in ArmA, it isn't)
- seemingly "artificial" missions to show some of the game's (new) properties, like blowing up bridges or entering nice new cities, swimming etc.; missions seem "forced" in general, this has been said, too
Simply said - the ArmA campaign doesn't make fun if one knows the original OFP campaign(s), which were very well made indeed.
funnyguy1
Jan 14 2007, 16:18
OFP: CWC > ARMA
I rate any mission from oryginal CWC higher than the missions from ArmA all together!
Okay... Here it comes! ArmA's campaign was better! I'm not too fond in stories and personalities... i want WAR! And ArmA's campaign gives that + story in ArmA's campaign had very nice twist btw... Primary missions usually consentrates on massive battles. And Secondary missions were arcadish (yet guite fun) volunteer-based so there is no pressure to complete them with blood-taste in mouth (that thing totaly ruins even best story...)
CWC-campaign had nice atmosphere, even that it is best campaign (i counted all user-made campaigns too) for OFP, but it still pales to brutal and imerssive virtual war in ArmA... Half of CWC campaign's mission were something that i don't like "black-op" (aka James Bond), piloting, tanker... Blaaah. ArmA's chopper mission (Great battle) was nice for it didn't force me to stay in the chopper, and the massive battle on ground just kept me flying all-over for spectating happenings.
There was serious bugs, but i take them lightly, even those which prevent me from completing mission as there is that endmission trick.
So i seem to be those "few-and-proud" http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif (please don't take this as flaming, take it more like a sarcastic/ironic note)
gregorygreghalstead
Mar 22 2007, 08:21
OFP CWC all the way! There's nothing to it and nothing can beat it.... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif The plot was great, the atmosphere was great and the missions were great too, just perfect except for a couple of bugs here and there http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Played Arma and did this..... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/goodnight.gif
I believe this thread is absolutely right, the Cold War Crisis was much better than this bag of **** that Bohemia has presented us with, but I would like to point out one HUGE difference between ArmA and OF:CWC, Bohemia worked with Codemasters, yes you heard me, Codemasters, on CWC but they were without their help on this one, if I had one thing to say, this is nothing but a resurrected OF with a bad storyline and better (not by much however) graphics.
Heatseeker
Mar 27 2007, 23:02
I believe this thread is absolutely right, the Cold War Crisis was much better than this bag of **** that Bohemia has presented us with, but I would like to point out one HUGE difference between ArmA and OF:CWC, Bohemia worked with Codemasters, yes you heard me, Codemasters, on CWC but they were without their help on this one, if I had one thing to say, this is nothing but a resurrected OF with a bad storyline and better (not by much however) graphics.
CM made (and sold) the Red Hammer campaign... BIS made the resistance expantion..
If they didnt focus on a SP campaign this time its problably because time and resources had to be put on more important things, the engine http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif .
Your statements lack credibility since you claim Arma has not much better graphics compared to OPF...
Got to put the OFP one first. Better plot and it just seemed longer. Still enjoyed the Arma one but not as good as OFP.
Big Ofp Fan
Mar 28 2007, 08:45
Well thats a good question.
ArmA has a new Engine/complete reworked engine but a campaign with nameless hero. Ofp is still a good game, graphics are out of date but the campaign has a good story and tells from different perspectives.
Well... I think BIS has looked, before they released/worked on the campaign for arma, to the community and has see that so much good people make good missions, good campaigns and good addons. Maybe BIS thought that the Com will add this what they want in all way's and BIS deliver just the base for that.
Ok I say the CWC stories (res included) are better than the ArmA. It tells you about the conflicts, the people, the destinies of the poeple. I feel really with the virtual poeple.
In the ArmA campaign I feel nothing, I just a soldier who runs from objective to objective between breaking news, too bad. Its now our part to do such things like in CWC http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
I agree with the general tone of the thread, the campaign in ArmA is awful. After the excellent CWC and Resistance it was a huge disapointment. While I could respect the decision to portray a anonymous war without any in depth characters, the lack of atmosphere, imersion and most importantly mission quality has totaly broken the campaign. It is a pity as the initial setting is quite good, there has been much potential.
After playing the incredible CWC campaign ( or even the great demo mission ) I got such a fan of OFP that I kept looking for community missions, mods and buyed the Resistance addon later ( and ultimatly ArmA ). The campaign was what got me hooked.
If I was new to ArmA, I would have probably shelfed the game after the campaign and never get it out again. I spent some bucks for a couple of hours of medicore entertainment. Nothing bad about that, but that wouldn't have build any customer loyality. Fortunatly I started with OFP and know what is possible, but how many new players were turned away ?
Let's hope that BIS are working on a kick-ass addon with the real campaign.
Let's hope that BIS are working on a kick-ass addon with the real campaign.
Here, here. Perhaps once they've got the engine etc sorted that will happen. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
i have to admit my disappointment as well. i was under the impression that our guy william porter was going to be the protagonist of the campaign and that BIS was using the blog as a preface for the story, and especially for the character.
and now that they didn't, all i can ask is why? why all the trouble? they could have revealed screenshots and features in many other ways instead.
ok, this is probably again one of the issues that we'll never get to know, so i won't end this with speculations, but instead i hope there is still more for us to come.
I believe this thread is absolutely right, the Cold War Crisis was much better than this bag of **** that Bohemia has presented us with, but I would like to point out one HUGE difference between ArmA and OF:CWC, Bohemia worked with Codemasters, yes you heard me, Codemasters, on CWC but they were without their help on this one, if I had one thing to say, this is nothing but a resurrected OF with a bad storyline and better (not by much however) graphics.
CM made (and sold) the Red Hammer campaign... BIS made the resistance expantion..
If they didnt focus on a SP campaign this time its problably because time and resources had to be put on more important things, the engine http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif .
Your statements lack credibility since you claim Arma has not much better graphics compared to OPF...
Hmm..I probably was a bit hasty there, but still, my computer has to play on the lowest graphics setting, so it is a bit of a letdown (PC World+Dell Computers=A Bad Day)
Connors
Mar 31 2007, 13:55
ArmA's campaign isn't the main part of the game and we still have room for a resistance like expansion
Well I do think the arma campaign could be better, It had wasnt as bad as most people say it is. If you just play throught the main mission without doing the aux missions, You can really see a good storyline and is really fun.
nominesine
Apr 1 2007, 21:14
In the beginning of this thread someone stated that the OFP Campaign had "heart, spirit and sould". I agree completely. I also believe that those elements were added by Codemasters (because that is what a publisher is suppose to add, before allowing a product to be released).
I'm aware of the fact that most people in here dislike Codemasters (I share that view, btw) but the finetuning of the campaign is one thing that worked better when the game was released by a more commercial producer.
But if I have to chose between a good campaign and a game that is open to suggestions from the moding community, I would chose the later. That's where BIS's strength lies - not in making campaigns.
In the beginning of this thread someone stated that the OFP Campaign had "heart, spirit and sould". I agree completely. I also believe that those elements were added by Codemasters (because that is what a publisher is suppose to add, before allowing a product to be released).
I'm aware of the fact that most people in here dislike Codemasters (I share that view, btw) but the finetuning of the campaign is one thing that worked better when the game was released by a more commercial producer.
But if I have to chose between a good campaign and a game that is open to suggestions from the moding community, I would chose the later. That's where BIS's strength lies - not in making campaigns.
why the negative attitude towards CM? apart from them using StarForce copy protection on some of their games, i can't think of any reason for disliking them.
anyhow, has anyone noticed that the upcoming US release by Atari is being advertised as having brand new, never before seen cutscenes? does that mean the campaign will be reworked for the US release in May?
I agree!
I played the three OFP campaigns and enjoyed them all.
I liked the solid characters and storyline in the OFP campaigns, but I don't think ArmA's campaign is poor because it doesn't have these things. After all, a good collection of short stories can be as entertaining as a long novel. If it's well written.
I think the main flaw in ArmA's campaign is that it feels rushed -- it is very rough around the edges, it can be disjointed and confusing. Minor flaws like spotty translations, bad voice acting, glitches in missions, ill-explained story, confusing objectives, inconsitent details -- there are piles upon piles of these minor flaws and the campaign ends up looking very unpolished. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
(Sure, the OFP campaigns had minor flaws too, but they were few and far between.)
If this had been a fan-made campaign I would've deleted it after playing a handful of missions.
Like so many others, though, I'm still glad I have ArmA, mostly for multiplayer. It just seems like a waste that such a lackluster campaign was put on top of an otherwise excellent game engine/system.
Xtreme Serb
Apr 5 2007, 11:52
i feel that in almost every mission are have to commnd, i didnt like this where as in CWC u were a soldier who progressed up the ranks.
in RES you atleast got rewards for your command, such as u get a big cache of weapons for going about an idea correctly.
the unknown
Apr 5 2007, 15:28
ArmA Campaign? what ArmA campaign?
O you mean the collection of missions with out any storry or people in it where you need to play one mission before the other.
and as far for the best campaign CWC cause with Resistance I lost all my weapons and expert people halfway trough because of a bug.
I wonder why you people dislike the campaign so much. It's true that the story isn't so much character-driven as before in OFP campaigns, but I think BIS just wanted to focus on the conflict itself, not on single characters. Well, I have to admit, that it didn't work so good this time, but the missions are nice, aren't they? I have played a dozen missions so far and they're normal BIS SP mission -quality in my opinion. And I've found no bugs so far, perhaps the 1.05 patch helped with it.
The campaign has a different style, which doesn't suck the player into the story so well but I kinda enjoyed the "AAN News"-sections, because they give a nice overview sight of the situation. And I also spotted Cpt. Armstrong there, which surely was a nice surprise, only if he was the same guy.
It's true that the campaign has a "mission pack"-feeling, but I'm pretty confident that BIS will make another, better campaign to "calm down" the fans. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Somebody said that if this was a fan-made campaign, he/she would have deleted it. Really? I've played only a few user-made campaigns in OFP that would have beaten this one, so I think it's going to be a long time before a ArmA -campaign as good as BIS one appears, after all.
Well, I have about 10 missions left to play so my opinion might change. If so, I'll post some new comments. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
a lot of campaign missions are way too simple, too. very little work has gone into them. take the "Sanitize" mission for example. it's a simple 1 or 2 waypoint operation. there are no alternatives, nothing happens when your team is almost wiped out. further examples of way too simple mission setups include the chopper attack missions (there's a few of them), the transport helo mission, the sniper mission, and others.
there are almost no cinematics in the campaign missions. i'm talking about the actual missions here, not the TV news sequences. compare this to "Blood Sweat and Tears", which has a number of very atmospheric cutscenes.
i could go on, and i probably have in the past http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif . hell, you can go and play the fan-made Perpetua campaign and it has a better feel than the original one.
jantenner
Apr 6 2007, 10:57
i think i will never bother to play the arma stock campaign again.
the pmc campaign which was quite simple was far better imo.
whereas in ofp i replayed some campaign missions a few time. even years after finishing. ofp demo also hab a very good mission, which i played quite often.
llama9000
Apr 11 2007, 01:24
I've just finished the ArmA campaign for the first time... overall I feel it's average, and about half as long as expected. The campaign has never quite reached the fear factor in OFP (like the Everon retreat for instance). Only the "Dawn of Hope" mission came close to the near despair I experienced (All friendlies painted, used up my last M136 on the BMP before the harriers arrived... phew).
And then, just when I thought the game was at a turning point in the last mission I got to "The End"... should've been written as "The End...?" LOL... There's obviously plenty of story material to go on with.
I've played a bit with the editor, and I'm going to try the Perpetua campaign as well. Man, this game is begging for an expansion! I really do hope the next upgrade would bring us a new campaign http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif Hell, I'd even be happy with episodic downloadable missions continuing where the campaign left off!
Anyway, thanks for a pleasant experience. I shall look forward to the mission editing... and the new campaigns, official or not http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Bootleg Soldier
Apr 12 2007, 01:35
I actually feel quite sorry for the team who created the campaign because they must by now (well ages ago) realise that the campaign was a resounding flop and every time someone new buys the game they get battered on the head in here for it being crap (btw don't think that i'm defending it, it was crap and people have a right to say that at any time).
It'll get like a footballer not wanting to read the papers after a bad game http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif but the difference is footballers get to put it right the next week and usually get critised only once for one performance (unless a string of bad performances occur),
Which led me in a nutty, unrelated way to thinking (and wondering) why nothing has really happened on the mission front, i mean ok, one or two bug fixes that means the missions are playable, but why wasn't more content added sooner ie the cutscenes that are being promised in the American version, are they that amazing that the world has to see them all at once. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
From my point of view (i could be wrong please correct me)tarting up and improving the campaign and single missions should be the easiest update to apply to this game as it's not essential that everyone has the same version (because it's SP) it's just a matter of getting the content out there for people to use.
BUT this argument only holds water on two accounts, one that there is a specific (in the job description) team dedicated to the mission making (not just everyone chipping in at the last minute) then it's a case of finishing the job at hand and not just start on the next campaign for any expansion that may come out as this one deserves to be of a higher quality.
Secondly if the mission makers have had to be reassigned to bug fixing http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif this is obviously more important and will get no argument from me.
I really think that the idea of the story and campaign could work it's just not actually a story at the moment and as a result not really a campaign, for me this is the worst part of the game, (the rest is great as i have told everyone i know) and i have only limited myself to a couple of rambling posts on the subject each time i have tried to get into the swing of the campaign.
I guess i'm just wanting BIS to be the best at mission making and not rely on the community, so many great ideas came out of OFP from some very talented people and i had hoped that this could be taken on board and used.
ArmA is my http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/inlove.gif at the moment and i don't want to do http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif to my http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/inlove.gif , i have faith and will continue to hold it.
Best regards
Bootleg
Cormega
Apr 26 2007, 20:02
you said it all http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
I agree, nothing I can add really! Hopefully OFP2 will be better!
Fred DM
Apr 28 2007, 12:01
you said it all http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
I agree, nothing I can add really! Hopefully OFP2 will be better!
or an add-on for ArmA. i have not yet gotten my money's worth out of ArmA so i really hope there will be an expansion with some good singleplayer content (new campaign, good single missions). i'd even lay down some money for a remake of the original campaign, but it would have to be faithful from the 1980s era weaponry to the uniforms and the dialogue. maybe add a few more things to it and call it "Deluxe" or "Director's Cut".
=BFP=Cheetah
Apr 29 2007, 09:03
There is the Cold War Rearmed MOD in progress which will bring back the OFP campaign as well as some weapons and stuff.
Keep in mind that there are numerous campaigns for ArmA. Even now, after 2 - 5 months there are some pretty good campaigns, remember that campaigns are time consuming to make. And it could be that the patch 1.06 (together with the US release) will have campaign improvements.
A good campaign is Perpetua (http://www.ofpec.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=36&topic=28671.0) by bardosy.
Cormega
Apr 29 2007, 14:49
OMG, I just read 5 pages of threads that all say the exact same thing!! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
The ArmA campaign is just horrible. I never felt involved. It all felt extremely anonymous and boring...
CWC and Resistance on the other hand, are two masterpieces. Thank god for CWR.
KimTuomi
Apr 30 2007, 07:54
In OFP, my evening and nights were really, really long! You know the feeling "I just quickly check out the NEXT mission... just FEW more minutes"...
In ArmA, I simply DO NOT WANT to play the campaign missions. Especially because of the really annoying bugs here and there. Also the AI seems to be "top-shot"; they just nail you from impossible distances and it seems that player never really can hide. This kills the fun of playing!
OFP: 10/10
ArmA: 3.5/10 (sympathy vote, due to great graphics and better engine)
I really hope we get a damn good expansion disc... like, uh let's say, uhmmm... Like RESISTANCE ! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif
Average Joe
Apr 30 2007, 15:49
The Campaigns fake american accents crack me up beyond infinity, Is there not enough out-there to ya know...speak american!
gregorygreghalstead
May 7 2007, 17:50
I believe in all sense that we've been ripped off...They should have gotten this game out 2 years earlier with the Mission Editor and that alone for half the price so the community could create a better campaign, FDF's a great example.
I played the campaign with one or 2 missions reached the part of being sent to whack some SLA armour after the intial attack...with AT4 and a stachel charge? WTF
Quit and uninstalled the game, pulled out my OFP Goty and played tht instead..
CWC had just about everything right...immersion, realism, etc..it made me want to try a mission again and again when i failed but ARMA is just a plain ripoff...
The only time i'm reinstalling this game is if BIS fixes it to an acceptable level....
or when someone with half a decent brain and understands ths game decides to bring it back to it's original glory and wht it's players first loved it for with a great campaign,
CWC ReArmed is something I'm looking forward to.
With Regards and No Disrespect to anyone,
Halstead
pukey123
May 9 2007, 15:31
To all who are disappointed in ARMA Combat Operations: In 2008, Codemasters, the outlet for OFP, CWC, and not Atari, will be coming out with Operation Flashpoint 2. I am generally pleased with the new game, but am confident that when Codemasters/Bohemia Interactive issue the successor to CWC, you will be pleased. For your information. pukey
Callsign
May 9 2007, 15:36
To all who are disappointed in ARMA Combat Operations: In 2008, Codemasters, the outlet for OFP, CWC, and not Atari, will be coming out with Operation Flashpoint 2. I am generally pleased with the new game, but am confident that when Codemasters/Bohemia Interactive issue the successor to CWC, you will be pleased. For your information. pukey
do you know something we dont about codemasters and bohemia interactive working together again? last time i checked they had split their partenership and their OFP2 is a different beast to GAME2 by BIS
bootneckofficer
CzingerX
May 10 2007, 10:35
I got the U.S. version today. Looks like they have it from a soldiers view rather than the reporters view point. Looks like there trying with improving the main campaign some already. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif Hopefully more will come soon in some patch's. I agree, OFP singleplayer campaign was amazing.
LOLMEHGAWD
May 13 2007, 14:46
If I knew how much Arma's campaign sucked-- I would of never bought the damn game. It was such a crock of shit.
--Half of the campaign was broken. I dont even want to talk about the near end missions.
-- The AI actually feels WORSE than the AI in OFP. In OFP, my guys would actually be able to kill stuff, and the enemy AI wouldnt have the ability to track and kill me miles away behind a row of thick bushes
--6 years later, it feels and even looks almost like the exact same damn game as OFP. Movement controls are awkward, actions are very unresponsive, and the squad command stuff hasnt changed AT ALL. The interface has a very very steep learning curve that is very clunky, and just a pain in the ass to deal with in a game.
I was really hoping for another OFP-like campaign with fixes to all of the issues I had in OFP that I thought were the cause of 2001 technology limits. All ArmA is, is OFP with a shiny new graphics engine that IMO isnt that much of an improvment over some of the graphics mods for OFP out now.
I think it's actually good that the squad command interface hasn't changed - that was a pain to learn it in OFP and I'm glad I don't have to do it again.
And - even though I agree that the campaign sucks @<hidden> - I still like ArmA. Hopefully, the bugs get fixed soon, though - I seriously hope those are the things that are being worked on.
You can, however, download user-made SP missions for ArmA - some of them are good. I did the same thing after completing the campaign, since it was short and uninspired.
Jakerod
May 14 2007, 16:14
I think it's actually good that the squad command interface hasn't changed - that was a pain to learn it in OFP and I'm glad I don't have to do it again.
And - even though I agree that the campaign sucks @<hidden> - I still like ArmA. Hopefully, the bugs get fixed soon, though - I seriously hope those are the things that are being worked on.
You can, however, download user-made SP missions for ArmA - some of them are good. I did the same thing after completing the campaign, since it was short and uninspired.
It has changed a bit. The whole Red Team, Green Team, Blue Team thing doesn't work as effectivly because it doesn't let you press "Select Blue" or anything like that anymore. You can only assign colors you can't select a whole team by pressing one button which kind of pisses me off because it would make commanding a Platoon or Company a lot easier.
I'm sorry, I didn't know that. I tend to only play SP missions, there I didn't see any changes.
US and Euro versions are basically the same, the storyline is shite, the original OFP:CWC was insane as all hell, and had a great replay value, more to the bundle..
A lot of great points, and nothing over-the-top.
People are hitting the nail on the head, and nothing more is to be said.
------------
As for ArmA in general, beautiful game, and cannot wait for some insanely developed SP missions...and COOP missions that bring that feeling of actual "realism"...
Jakerod
May 15 2007, 16:56
I'm sorry, I didn't know that. I tend to only play SP missions, there I didn't see any changes.
Thats all that I have played so far too.
the unknown
May 17 2007, 17:22
The whole Red Team, Green Team, Blue Team thing doesn't work as effectivly because it doesn't let you press "Select Blue" or anything like that anymore. You can only assign colors you can't select a whole team by pressing one button which kind of pisses me off because it would make commanding a Platoon or Company a lot easier.
Hold spacebar you get a selection ting on the top right of your screen there you can select the groups by pressing the middle mouse button.
Jakerod
May 17 2007, 18:20
The whole Red Team, Green Team, Blue Team thing doesn't work as effectivly because it doesn't let you press "Select Blue" or anything like that anymore. You can only assign colors you can't select a whole team by pressing one button which kind of pisses me off because it would make commanding a Platoon or Company a lot easier.
Hold spacebar you get a selection ting on the top right of your screen there you can select the groups by pressing the middle mouse button.
Awesome im going to go try that. Thank you
Red Oct
May 19 2007, 00:01
this game has its pluses, but i have more negatives in it.
the campaign (story wise) didn't bother me too much, could have made it better by putting in proper cut scenes and not these still shot pictures w/ a narrator. gameplay wise the missions suck. its like Red Hammer, but worse. though it has a few fun missions
things i hate most about this game's campaign:
the AI is the worst i have ever seen. Waay worse than in OFP. in OFP troops on the ground were decent. though they couldn't navigate inside buildingsthey did fight well outside. in ArmA the AI very unbalanced between horrible and unfairly difficult enemy AI is down right brutal. no matter your location, whether your behind a car, house, tree, whole forest, bush bolder, 1m or 500m away, they magically know thats where you as well as anybody in your squad are located and in less than .00001 seconds they have their AK's sights lined up on your head and in one shot your dead. you would think that if they enemy is that vicious surely the AI you command must as brutal. WRONG! there is not a word in the human language i can describe just how dumb your fellow soldiers are. where as the enemy are ruthless murder machines your soldiers get their asses handed to them each time you tell them to attack that soldier or this soldier. its pathetic. when under the command of the AI, he will gladly march us off into a meat grinder w/out so much as telling us to get down, or stay alert. in OFP the AI officers were great. the first mission where you take Morton is a perfect example.
the Control sceme is another thing i despise. the only way i have been able to figure out how to get the gunner in a tank to switch from the main gun to machine gun is to switch to the command mode and press F key. for aircraft its even worse. you can't select targets w/ the mouse cursor because you don't have a cursor, unless your going to switch to command mode which is a pretty bad way for you the pilot to give targets to your gunner, this method is only available if you have the gunner under your command. otherwise you have to scroll through targets using the tab key. your no longer able to strafe your helicopter side to side, and fixed wing aircraft can't turn the nose on their horizontal axis using the rudders. i heard realistically aircraft can't do that at high speed. if so, than flying in this game really got a whole lot harder.
the sound is kinda bad, the gun shots don't bother me too much, its the vehicles sound really bad, there really isn't any change in the sound as you throttle up or down. in flashpoint for xbox bis put a awsome sound for the t80's engine, i loved it. then theres the radio chatter you will hear from your soldiers as the locate enemies, and bark orders. ofp's radio chatter wasn't good, but it was very tolerable. in Arma it just gives me a head ache.
lastly, where the hells all the vehicles, no M60 tanks, no Bradleys fighting vehicles, no t80's, no t55, no hind, no chinhook, no kioha and no apachi
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif
to sum it up, if i knew anybody looking for a fun and realistic military game, id tell them to stay away from ArmA for the moment. maybe in the future, this game will get a overhaul and become on par w/ flashpoint or hopefully even better, i really hope so too, i want this game to be awsome. instead get Flashpoint elite on Xbox.
w/ ofp elite you get:
nice graphics, not as good as Arma, but a hellava lot better than the vanilla ofps graphics. infact, i would even go as far as saying this port is better than its PC original
none of this troublesome AI
more vehicles
better campaign
some of the nice features seen in Arma, smoke and fire from destroyed vehicles, watching choppers spin out of control if you shoot the rear rotor blade, delayed detonation on the west hand grenades, they even bounce off of other objects.
after completing CWC you can unlock resistance. don't get Red Hammer, but Red Hammer was crap anyway. you do get the bonus vehicles that did come w/ the expansion. and you even see them in use in the CWC campaign. that was something that kinda seemed odd to me that bis included the nice vehicles and didn't bother to use them in any of them in Red hammer or resistance.
liljb15
May 23 2007, 01:22
I choose ofp hands down (mainly ressistance) the arma didn't pull me in, but what's really sad are those side missions seriously I could make those side missions and I suck at the mission editor. The arma story had so much potential it's a shame they blew it.
before i considered the people complaining about the ArmA campaign only whiners. but in the last two nights my view changed drasticaly.
it began with the mission after the marines arrived. I had to clear Corazol. And if i write i, i mean it...
it startet right, but when the heavy support should take out the hardware it went down the drain. The choper got shot down immediately by a T-72 the Abrams got stuck and also got destroyed by a single '72. Accordingly all infantry outside my team got killed by SLA tanks.
Those things were reproduceable, not just coincidences.
Had to put my squad to stop, in a safe place, and took out all tanks on my own, with salvaged rpgs. Took me at least 100 reloads, 20 saves, and the whole night.
Next night i was puzling with the Big Bang mission where two trucks needed to be destroyed. i was puzling not with the military task, but with the game itself. found a pretty lame solution, by throwing the missions concept overboard, and grabing a grenadelauncher and taking out the trucks...
The main mission after that was a bummer again. Go to a place, wait for the AI cannon gunner to take out every vehicle, wait 10 minutes for a BMP that got stuck and was late. Mission finished.
It got even worse after that. 1st Side misssion: A landing operation on the North coast, with 3 patrol boats, 2 zodiacs and 3 abrams, obviously transported there on zodiacs...
2nd side Mission: Guarding a group of engineers to build a little town in enemy territory.
Are those insider jokes?
Have you seen any missions so blatantly stupid or bugged in CWC or Resistance? i can't remember.
I think codemasters had something to do with why the OFP and OFPres campaigns are so different.
Not that they worked on the campaign, but I'm sure they pushed BIS to make something good.
ARMA campaign is a joke, it makes sinmgle player useless.
Berghoff
Jun 1 2007, 18:32
Hmm, I enjoyed Red hammer more than ArmA campaign. I find it strange after CWC and Resistance suddenly BI comes with ArmA type of campaign. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif
JagdPanther101
Jun 2 2007, 17:10
I liked the campaign until the last mission. That seemed REALLY forced and bad... The ending story bit was also kinda lame, I thought...
My biggest disappointment in the campign is the complete lack of realism. Solo Rambo operations, always operating independent of your squad (when you do have one). Some of the missions, no military in the world would assign some of them. The engine itself is amazing. I don't know why the campign wasn't designed to reflect its emphasis on simulation.
TheKaing
Jun 13 2007, 00:38
I would have to say OFP campaign is way better then the Arma Campaign, I played the Arma campaign twice just to make sure. storyline in OFP was a alot better to Arma however i did like how you could select your own missions in the Arna campaign.. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/pistols.gif
I think anyone coming from OFP wouldn't really dislike the Arma campaign that much - it's got plenty of action and the story really isn't that bad.
I do sympathise for someone new to it all though; it's not a great showcase for the game. I'm playing Perpetua at the moment, and this is like Flashpoint of old - long intros and cutscenes, deliberate showcasing of the island's prettier features using long transportation sequences; it's fantastic.
In terms of poor mission structure (insurmountable odds etc) I don't like it when this happens, but OFP and Resistance were hardly immune to this either; OFP had plenty of very tough 'sneaky beaky' missions as Gastovsky, and some of the command missions in the latter part of CWC were bloody hard going. The airfield attack in Resistance stands out in my memory as being phenominally hard. Anybody remember 'Return To Eden' in CWC? It is meant to be hard going, but boy had I forgotten exactly how hard!!
Attacking fixed defences with a squad of 10-12 men, usually unsupported (no APC or armour) is extremely hard going. OFP, Resistance, and ARMA all require you to do this sometimes several times in one mission - so I don't think Arma is unique in this respect.
BloodOmen
Jun 22 2007, 11:32
I dont know how anyone not coming from OFP can like ArmA's campaign http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif
Hopefully Queens Gambit will make us http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/inlove.gif ArmA's SP http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif
So far obivous that most of us if not all think ArmA's campaign sucked http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
STRYKER555
Jun 24 2007, 02:54
Well thanks guys for letting me know Arma's campaign suck balls. I wonder if BIS will fix the campaign (I doubt it) and make it more memorable.
I have been playing the single missions in Arma and man they are HARD, mainly because of the enemy AI who seems to have uncanny accuracy and have echo location hearing so they find u quickly even without LOS. OFP enemy AI was good enough they were a challenge to deal with plus friendly AI were very good and could take care of themselves well, in Arma friendly AI turn corpses very quickly because the enemy AI ARE superior marksmen.
Anyway Arma has proven itself to be a good investment I really like the game compared to HUGE letdowns like GRAW, R6:Las Vegas, and some others. If theres one aspect Arma is superior to OFP and thats the Multiplayer aspect I love MP games whether PvsP or COOP.
ColonelSandersLite
Jun 29 2007, 07:07
You guys know something?
I started the campaign back in the days of the first patch (german version was unplayable due to a copy protection problem before that). I got up to the mission where you're supposed to lure the enemy armor into the town and blow the bridges and kill them, then retreat. The game and campaign had so many bugs that, to me at least, it was literally unplayable.
I restarted playing the campaign during the 1.07 beta from the begining. I was bored and wondered if the massive list of bug fixes made it actually playable now. Now I'm on the last mission. I have to say that it *has* gotten a LOT better between release and now. Sure, it's still dry, kind of boring, unrealistic, etc. At least it's possible to actually play it now though and the missions are at least possible to actually do now. It's still a hard campaign, but not impossible any more.
Anyways, yes, the CWC campaign was by far the better of the 2. I disliked a large portion of the red hammer campaign, but some of the missions in there have to rank as some of my favorite missions of all time. The first half of the resistance campaign was pretty good, the last half got a little too unrealistic for my tastes though.
While I feel the arma campaign is generally bad, I still have to admit that it's loads better than some of the campaigns the community released for ofp. Sure, there was a few great ones, but to be honest there where some real bad ones too.
funnyguy1
Jul 7 2007, 20:34
I agree with ColonelSandersLite...
But despite the 1.08 version, missions don't end sometimes, sometimes the squad that was supposed to jump in your truck decides to walk to the objective on foot etc., so you have to replay the missions in order to go on.
So EVEN with 1.08 it's sometimes hard to play it, which with the mentioned disadvantages makes it even worst.
I was dissappointed so much with ArmA's campign that I went and replayed both cold war crisis and resistance.
Sure, OPF had some pretty tough, against-all-odds missions. But most of the mission in OPF SP were simple attack an enemy position. In ArmA they have tried being more creative creating some more unique mission, but it just doesn't work. Too many Solo Rambo operations, or compeletly unrealistic situations.
example:-sneak into a base with a rocket and satchel charges alone and destroy 3 vehicles without being spotted.
-take 2 Humvee and a few men and knock out a tank column.
-snipe 30 troops at close range, by yourself.
Completly unplausible situations. No military would assign missions like this. I wish they had an actual military advisor helping them design the campign. Or, they could have taken the simple OPF mission formula, attack position A then position B. You would have thought BIS would have learned alot making these games, instead of going backwards, in terms of campign design.
The whole point of ArmA, unlike traditional FPS games, is that you as an individual are nothing. It's about everything else around you. I would go as far as to say, that unless your in command, you should not be able to affect the outcome of the battle. In the ArmA campign your too overly put into the center of attention.
daniel von rommel
Aug 8 2007, 12:16
I was dissappointed so much with ArmA's campign that I went and replayed both cold war crisis and resistance.
Sure, OPF had some pretty tough, against-all-odds missions. But most of the mission in OPF SP were simple attack an enemy position. In ArmA they have tried being more creative creating some more unique mission, but it just doesn't work. Too many Solo Rambo operations, or compeletly unrealistic situations.
example:-sneak into a base with a rocket and satchel charges alone and destroy 3 vehicles without being spotted.
-take 2 Humvee and a few men and knock out a tank column.
-snipe 30 troops at close range, by yourself.
Completly unplausible situations. No military would assign missions like this. I wish they had an actual military advisor helping them design the campign. Or, they could have taken the simple OPF mission formula, attack position A then position B. You would have thought BIS would have learned alot making these games, instead of going backwards, in terms of campign design.
The whole point of ArmA, unlike traditional FPS games, is that you as an individual are nothing. It's about everything else around you. I would go as far as to say, that unless your in command, you should not be able to affect the outcome of the battle. In the ArmA campign your too overly put into the center of attention.
I agree
They could have done better with the bigger units limit in ArmA http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif
I think anyone coming from OFP wouldn't really dislike the Arma campaign that much - it's got plenty of action and the story really isn't that bad.
I do sympathise for someone new to it all though; it's not a great showcase for the game. I'm playing Perpetua at the moment, and this is like Flashpoint of old - long intros and cutscenes, deliberate showcasing of the island's prettier features using long transportation sequences; it's fantastic.
In terms of poor mission structure (insurmountable odds etc) I don't like it when this happens, but OFP and Resistance were hardly immune to this either; OFP had plenty of very tough 'sneaky beaky' missions as Gastovsky, and some of the command missions in the latter part of CWC were bloody hard going. The airfield attack in Resistance stands out in my memory as being phenominally hard. Anybody remember 'Return To Eden' in CWC? It is meant to be hard going, but boy had I forgotten exactly how hard!!
Attacking fixed defences with a squad of 10-12 men, usually unsupported (no APC or armour) is extremely hard going. OFP, Resistance, and ARMA all require you to do this sometimes several times in one mission - so I don't think Arma is unique in this respect.
Sounds quite hard going.
Cannon Fodder
Aug 10 2007, 14:57
It's a tough one to call - if it was always simply a matter of who has the odds in their favour, where would the feeling of accomplishment lie? I think ArmA, like OFP before it, always throws the balance in the enemy's favour in order to introduce the element of having to try EXTRA hard, to come up with that particularly brilliant strategy, to succeed. In theory.
In practice, both games' AI are tremendously randomised and even the most simple of encounters can go either way. It largely revolves around the minimisation of risk and while the games adhere to a certain degree of realistic military doctrine, a lot of it is more to do with having an understanding of how 'the game' works and how to exploit every advantage available to you.
In OFP, you actually felt as though your lack of force multipliers was due to your isolation as NATO didn't wish to get overtly involved - that many of your attacks against seemingly insurmountable odds were a symptom of being under equipped and under staffed. Similarly, Resistance had the same feeling in that the excuse for your frequently daring raids was the lack of equipment and striking targets of opportunity characteristic of guerilla warfare. ArmA, by contrast, shouldn't have any of these constraints. The opening few missions where you are getting pounded without support are somewhat believable, but as soon as the Marines arrive and yet you still don't have access to air support or even much armour... It's crazy.
Take 'Armoured Fist' (shamefully included as both a single mission and a campaign mission without difference) - 3 tanks take on 2 heavily defended bases, and attack a multitude of enemy armour without air or infantry support. You have access to repair trucks but it feels like a cheap solution to a designed-in problem. It's possible but only because of the fact that you can 'cheat' with your support units and keep yourself and the rest of the column 'topped up'. What happened to attacking in force and numbers and SIMPLY keeping yourself and the team arrive? As though that wasn't a challenge enough!
Or the mission where you support the troops at Tardag with your Cobra, and end up taking on 12+ enemy armour on your lonesome (ALL of whome are capable of shooting you down) when your other Cobra (who would probably just get shot down anyway) escorts two empty Blackhawks back to base! It's insane. Where's the logic in that? You end up just taking your time, popping out from radar cover, letting a hellfire off, popping back behind cover and repeating, all the while your comrades on the ground get slaughtered. Any attempt to aggressively attack and you get shot down, and because the choppers appear to be made out of foil, one shot to your tail rotor will send you down in a smoking heap, so you have to keep a distance...
What about that bit at the start of the last mission with the missle firing BRDM? You disembark from the Stryker, start moving up, it gets blown up, half the squad dies in the explosion... So you try again, move up with the AT soldiers into the village, using it as cover, all the while the rest of the squad (and Stryker) stays back, you take out the BRDM and advance but the Stryker gets knocked out by the enemy MG nests! Where is the support? Where's the ability to advance and attack without having to skulk around like frightened school kids? You're supposed to have nearly the entire island under control by that point and STILL you get a huge amount of trouble from a couple of MG nests and a BRDM. Give me strength! Where's the excuse this time?
THEN the RACs attack in perhaps the most poorly explained twist of all time. The death camps? The possibility of being used by the Kingdom? The question of who the US should supoprt? Misplaced trust etc? All noble ideas and very relavent to present issues but the reason for the RACs attack is just so poorly laid out you're left scratching your head. They blame you for the genocide? That they perhaps didn't want you discovering the POWs in the North? Who knows! It's never elaborated upon and just ignored in the greater scheme of things. An ally's attack of your unit is a BIG thing - here it just seemed like a distraction.
PLUS it all feels so distressingly small time. A lot of the engagements in OFP felt like they were part of something larger. By the time I advanced into Corazol as part of Counterattack, it was just myself and the squad - no other support units. Just one squad to clear (one of) the biggest town in Sahrani, teeming with enemy. Utterly ridiculous. Where was the tense, street to street fighting that these maps are surely designed for? Where was the relieving of pinned down support units on street corners and the crack of sniper fire? Such a missed opportunity!
Go and download the Perpetua campaign and see how it SHOULD be done.
I found the ArmA campaign to be just sort of ok, nothing special but it keeps you busy for a little while when bored. I can actually only remember one mission from the campaign (I played through it slowly from Dec '06 to around Feb this year), the one where you have to cut off the beach landing followed by a wave of armour, I had the harrier's fly in literally just as a BMP had me pinned down. That single mission is probably one of the best single moments that I've had in any game on any platform. Just a shame there wasn't more of that throughout the rest of the campaign.
Quote[/b] ]A lot of the engagements in OFP felt like they were part of something larger.Yes! but the ArmA campign is completely missing that feeling entirely.
Comparing the ARMA campaign with the OFP campaign is an insult to OFP http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif
ARMA campaign can be better compared with Tetris or Pacman. Both keep you busy while bored, but probably the later wins.
BloodOmen
Aug 13 2007, 00:27
Im praying that Queens gambit is more like OFP. And more like Blood, Sweat, and tears ( I actually enjoyed that mission http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif )
I also agree with that point that OFP's battle felt like everything you done, effected the game, each hit you made reduced the enemy numbers.
As well as the voice acting / music http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/inlove.gif SEVENTH !!!!!!! Was totally kickass in OFP, but sucked it ArmA
daniel von rommel
Aug 16 2007, 20:06
Seventh is dead I think
Too bad they was very good
DUTCH-BUDDHA
Aug 17 2007, 22:41
opf rocks whit missions and campain arma sucks big time missions work not good and campaine sucks also not like the new m16scope u candt overlook the vieuwe ak aimes better bicos of not having scope also big disepointet that ai can look tru busshes and soot like sharpsooters even when a bmp drifes by u and 1km futer stops u let exsplote the satselcharge and the bmp not totaly exsplotes he turnse his main cannon and soot u richt a way how is that posbel if he dident hear u sooting u chest press a butten and he now richt a way wher u are http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif hope flaspoint2 whill be much better and not whit new age wepons but more cold war wepons
I only served 18 months in a recon unit in the Bundewehr but I think that the ArmA "campaign" just missed a military feeling....the missions and setups reminded me more of some mercenary "the wild Geese" scenario...so it's no wonder that BIS finally turns it into a mercenary campaing in the Addon.
What I'm mission most in ArmA is any kind of recon mission that procedes an offensive mission.
CzingerX
Aug 20 2007, 00:27
My 2 cents. First, the start of the Arma story was really tough. Lone wolf. Snipe some 30 guys on a water tower etc. Towards the end it got better when the reinforcements arrived. After the last mission, the guy in the cut scene said something like I can't wait to go home and have some beers etc. Then that was it. No credits popping up, and it threw me back to the mission campaign listing page. I thought I heard that I would atleast unlock all the Armory stuff if I completed the campaign.
the unknown
Aug 20 2007, 04:17
Comparing the ARMA campaign with the OFP campaign is an insult to OFP http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif
ARMA campaign can be better compared with Tetris or Pacman. Both keep you busy while bored, but probably the later wins.
Compareing the arma campaign with tetris or pacman is a insult. :P
I played the first missions of the CWC campaign again and it feels, well good I tink what i am missing in arma is the lack of the story or someting like that. In the first mission in ofp you roughly know what happened and whats going on, in ArmA you are driveing around in a hummer you get attacked and afther like 10 seconds you are orderd to retreat I was totally confused about what the hell the story was.
Edit: Gramar fixes
meatpeople
Aug 21 2007, 09:34
I'm just about finished the ArmA campaign, and I have to add my voices to the discontent here. It does very much feel that it was rushed out the door without much thought given to the campaign or much given in the way of testing.
Mind you, I think the intention to develop a campaign of the caliber of OFP was there, and the work underway. The standalone mission 'Blood, Sweat and Tears' seems to be an outtake from the campaign - it makes reference to the camp built by engineers on the other end of the island (which, though a horrible mission, was included...). The dialogue between the SF guy and the dude in civvies seems to imply some kind of relationship. There's banter there that's too familiar to lack a backstory. Similarly the use of two named commanders (the SF guy, the Infantry guy) and the implication that they have a friendship implies more backstory too.
Further to this the method of having auxiliary missions that directly impact the main mission is a great idea, and is obviously wasted on the campaign as it stands. I can't believe the intention wasn't there to deploy it more usefully.
As to whether Codemasters would have had a positive influence on BI, it's hard to say. They can obviously demand a level of quality, but conversely the publishers can also demand substandard material be released in order to make a profit. What they may have had (this is conjecture, I don't know if publishers do this) is alpha- and beta-testing abilities beyond BIs'. This may have added to the polish that OFP had. Mind you, the quality of Red Hammer (CM) vs Resistance (BI) makes that debatable.
Given the rushed state the campaign was released in, BI obviously felt they had to push what they had out the door. The ANN news bits seem to me to be just used a glue to hold the very basics of a plot together. It wouldn't surprise me if we saw a 'rerelease' of sorts of the campaign as it was intended. The use of 'William Porter' as their everyman infantry grunt in the PR blog, and no mention of him in the game is a bit of a giveaway to this possibility. Well, here's hoping anyway, because it could be a great campaign.
(Edit: remembered BS&T mission name.)
stegman
Aug 31 2007, 13:34
I thought the campaign was ok.
OK, not as good as CWC and there were no characters at all (except Cptn Armstrong, the RAC officer and those bloody annoying reporters and that rubbish anchorman! ).
*************
** SPILOER **
*************
The only thing i didn't like about the campaign was the confusion of the last two levels.
Then when you managed to finish it, the island becomes "united"....but didn't the RACS turn out to be bad guys too? Or was that just one squad?
I think we need to create an alternative final mission and ending. Probably one where you capture the evil president AND the potently evil king. This would then pave the way for a new ruler of united Sahrani: the Queen (as in Queen's Gambit).
****************
I actually like the campaign! i like that the missions are short, well, some of them could be a bit longer I think. I did not really play the OFP campaign much, must have been real good!
Quote[/b] ]I only served 18 months in a recon unit in the Bundewehr but I think that the ArmA "campaign" just missed a military feeling....the missions and setups reminded me more of some mercenary "the wild Geese" scenario...so it's no wonder that BIS finally turns it into a mercenary campaing in the Addon.
What I'm mission most in ArmA is any kind of recon mission that procedes an offensive mission. . Completely agree. The campign is devoid of any military feeling. Even though OPF wasn't fully realistic in this area, you still got the feeling of military procedures. In one part of the OPF campign, one mission had you defend, another then counter-attack and scout, then the third one actually attack the enemy positions. The ArmA campign is full of totally unrealistic military situtions and rambo style operations.
It obvious that the campign wasn't given priority.
Quote[/b] ]
*************
** SPILOER **
*************
The only thing i didn't like about the campaign was the confusion of the last two levels.
Then when you managed to finish it, the island becomes "united"....but didn't the RACS turn out to be bad guys too? Or was that just one squad?
****************
i had the same thought about that too... wtf was up with that anyways!? all of a sudden RACS guys are shooting at me and they didn't even explain that at all!?!?!? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
it depends how you really look at it.
if your wanting a storyline and all that jazz... then yea... the campaign sucked something fierce. it seemed like it would be pretty good in the begining, but in the middle you start to notice that it's not really about anyone. towards the end it's just mindless mission after mindless mission! I'm a huge "fanboy". i admit it... i loved OFP and i still love ArmA even with all of its problems and cheaters on MP.
compared to OFP Resistance... the single player story was just heinous http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
i must of played all of the OFP campaigns about 4 times each.
but like i said... it depends how you look at it.
if you look at it at a commanders point of view then the campaign is pretty good. i got the feeling that it was about being in charge of the war. you were making the tough decisions, you were the one putting these men in harms way, you had to stop the north from invading! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/pistols.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
the last mission is simply you deciding everything. you pick who and what your going to send in next.
all in all i would give the SP a 5/10. it couldn't figure out what it wanted to be http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif
Quote[/b] ]
*************
** SPILOER **
*************
The only thing i didn't like about the campaign was the confusion of the last two levels.
Then when you managed to finish it, the island becomes "united"....but didn't the RACS turn out to be bad guys too? Or was that just one squad?
I think we need to create an alternative final mission and ending. Probably one where you capture the evil president AND the potently evil king. This would then pave the way for a new ruler of united Sahrani: the Queen (as in Queen's Gambit).
****************
EDIT: someone said they liked the music in OFP (so did i) so heres a link of all the songs and more from Seventh
http://www.mp3.com.au/artist.asp?id=179
there all free! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Hoot1988
Sep 5 2007, 10:27
a agree with many that the ArmA campaign lacked a storyline, characters, and a good understanding of the games engine.
is anyone making another campaign, a re-do of the story?
weedomatic
Sep 5 2007, 13:15
I remember many NPC-names from CWC and colleagues, but not even one from the ArmA campaign. Might be I am getting old, but that certainly is not the main parameter here.
Hoot1988
Sep 5 2007, 13:30
from the trailer and the blog i assumed wed be playing William porter, but hes not mentioned in the campaign at all. cept in that cut scene with the captain shouting Porter where the hell are you!
p0giewan
Sep 5 2007, 16:26
OFP wins hands down. The immersion level just isn't the same in Arma and as people have said.. too many rambo type missions... plus the frustration factor of the enemy being able to spot you 200 metres away in a bush in the dark within 3 seconds of firing a silenced rifle http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
Only other thing that really bugged me was the secondary missions.. 1st noticed it with "blow up the convoy"... many of them are just rehashes of the SP standalone missions which just feels lazy on BI's part.
Aside from this.. I still love the game... but this falls heavily down to what the community produces rather than BI. I just hope Queens Gambit is an improvement on the official SP missions and campaign.
THE_BLITZ
Oct 13 2007, 01:00
im guna start the AA campaign tanight. i would like to say that i loved the cwc and res campaigns. cwc had a confused feeling, then intense, then the denfinitive mission (after monty), then the invasion of malden, the ca, the res almost dead, and the scud on kolgy. intense game! great ending (actually 2 but u no wut i mean)
I got about 1/2 thru the AA campaign several months ago and stopped playing. I only finished the rest of it this morning, becasue I wanted to have it done before I install QG and play its campaign.
I found the AA campaign to be rather boring and tedious.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.