Campaigns

[Mandrake5]

Hm, a lot of the 'magic' is lost due to the nature of asymmetric warfare imo.
In OFP all we had to fight the enemy was a M16 with iron sights (and a compass ^^), now we have SCARs, TI, UAVs, ULBs and so on.

I´d love to see a Restistance 2.0 campaign for OA, though, e.g. western forces have to withdraw due to whatever political reasons, a couple of soldiers refuse to go because they really want to help the locals and are trying to set up a organised guerilla warfare against the regime.

But there's also great dramatic potential in asymmetric warfare - remember Vietnam?

[Undeceived]

I´d love to see a Restistance 2.0 campaign for OA, though, e.g. western forces have to withdraw due to whatever political reasons, a couple of soldiers refuse to go because they really want to help the locals and are trying to set up an organised guerilla warfare against the regime.

Well, Arma 2 is exact the same, but it is still not the same as OFP (if you look at the characters).

[malibu.stacey]

O.o

I haven´t played the A2 campaign, tbh. Looks like I missed something.

[Undeceived]

The problem with the A2 campaign was that sooner or later everything turned into Warfare style, which caused the focus on single characters to get lost.

[connos]

I never played OFP but what draw me in Arma 2 was the campaign. I really enjoy it. EW campaign was really good. Finish it 5 times so far.

[Murphe]

Well, Arma 2 is exact the same, but it is still not the same as OFP (atmosphere-wise spoken).

Agreed. All the missions seem to be on a large scale now. One of the missions that stands out for me from OFP was the one where you go off with 3 other guys in a jeep while the rest build the camp. All it was was 4 of you up against 4 or 5 spetznaz in a forest. I remember that being as tense as the mission where your first left on your own.

It's missions like that, the quiter ones, that give a chance to develop the characters. Or even just the build-up before a big mission, in the base or on the way to it.

But there's also great dramatic potential in asymmetric warfare

Thats what I was hoping for with with OA. We had that in resistance on the guerilla side, I thought we would see it from the U.S. side in OA. Don't get me wrong I'm enjoying the campaign so far, it's just the concept of fighting against guerilla warfare seemed to have interesting potential. Maybe it was considered a little real given the current situation in Afganistan to do though.

[NoRailgunner]

it just needs storytelling talent and hard work

Do you know how many customers in general do play SP/MP campaigns compared to those who are playing (only) MP missions?
If game devs would make + test their great campaigns they would probably see more issues and bugs.
BIS are developing complex sandboxes and "sand molds" (without proper documentation/tutorials) - not campaign/mission oriented games. Without community's blood, sweat and tears BIS would long gone or making other games. Thought, perhaps it would have been more interesting with a real competitor...

[nettrucker]

I couldn't agree more with you guys. The OFP campaigns were simply outstanding. Armed Assault campaigns were really weak in comparison. I liked the ArmA II campaign until the warfare missions started. I can't help it but I dislike warfare missions in a single player campaign. EW was a lot better in my opinion. Haven't finished Arrowhead so far. It is better than ArmA II but it doesn't stand the comparision to the OFP campaigns. what is missing is a character with whom you can identify yourself.
As matter of fact I liked Zipper's campaign, great story telling.

Also, the ufficial campaigns are getting more shorter and shorter. I love a long single player campaign with a good story, but I guess this is just a memory from the past. Seems to be too much effort and time consuming. I really don't know how many BIS developer are actually involved with the campaign and mission making.
Now it seems tha OA campaign is short too and for me personally it's disappointing I hoped for a good campaign at the same level as CWC.
Just my 2 cents.
Kind regards

BIS are developing complex sandboxes and "sand molds" (without proper documentation/tutorials) - not campaign/mission oriented games.

I strongly disagree with that statement, when CWC was made MP was still in its baby shoes. Furthermore I believe that there are still a lot of people who are not only playing MP and are still interested in a good single player experience.

[Undeceived]

I strongly disagree with that statement, when CWC was made MP was still in its baby shoes. Furthermore I believe that there are still a lot of people who are not only playing MP and are still interested in a good single player experience.

You are right with this.

[NoRailgunner]

Sorry but dont compare good old OFP memories with actual developments.
Dont get stucked into nostalgia - today most people are interested playing missions/campaigns in MP. SP missions/campaigns are only interesting if they are really great and very well designed.
Since Armed Assault its clear that BIS has more problems to get a smooth game performance first before fixing gameplay + AI issues and bugs - missions/campaigns do have a very low priority.