Is ArmA III having the OFP:CWC vibe?

[InstaGoat]

The CWC vibe is:

A well written campaign. With memorable missions. (Doesn´t mean humongously complicated). And enough missions to give the campaign actually a feeling of length and depth. Arrowhead has about 10 missions too few. Ditto for Harvest Red. Everything moves too fast, there is no sense of progression, only jumping.

Again.

Well. written. campaign.

Many. Missions. Memorable. Missions.

No half-assed, kit-bashed, jury-rigged, barely working features. No undocumented or wrongly documented ingame features or mission components. For example, in the final mission of harvest red, you could get a journal entry for a mission that was removed during development. The entry was left in. It annoyed me so much I stopped playing the campaign then.

Show that BI can deliver AAA titles, not just wah wah wah massive sandbox kits the community can repair.

My two worthless cents on the topic :V

Edit: Also, a fantastic soundtrack. Arma 2s soundtrack was just eh. The only track I remember is the chernarussian anthem. While the OFP theme still comes to me in my dreams, figuratively speaking. Music is -extremely- important.

Also Voice Actors (!). The ones in CWC were, at the time, expensive and rather high-profile types. The ones in the arma series, sadly, have been performing poorly. Not to bash their valiant attempts, but everything was overacted (Especially in Arrowhead), awkward, and the voices didn´t fit the characters (black persons speaking with the voices of middle aged white men? Even as a central european, I found that grating.)

Serious money will need to be invested to fix this. I hope BI has the spare change to adress this.

[Tonci87]

The CWC vibe is:

A well written campaign. With memorable missions. (Doesn´t mean humongously complicated). And enough missions to give the campaign actually a feeling of length and depth. Arrowhead has about 10 missions too few. Ditto for Harvest Red. Everything moves too fast, there is no sense of progression, only jumping.

Again.

Well. written. campaign.

Many. Missions. Memorable. Missions.

No half-assed, kit-bashed, jury-rigged, barely working features. No undocumented or wrongly documented ingame features or mission components. For example, in the final mission of harvest red, you could get a journal entry for a mission that was removed during development. The entry was left in. It annoyed me so much I stopped playing the campaign then.

Show that BI can deliver AAA titles, not just wah wah wah massive sandbox kits the community can repair.

My two worthless cents on the topic :V

Edit: Also, a fantastic soundtrack. Arma 2s soundtrack was just eh. The only track I remember is the chernarussian anthem. While the OFP theme still comes to me in my dreams, figuratively speaking. Music is -extremely- important.

Also Voice Actors (!). The ones in CWC were, at the time, expensive and rather high-profile types. The ones in the arma series, sadly, have been performing poorly. Not to bash their valiant attempts, but everything was overacted (Especially in Arrowhead), awkward, and the voices didn´t fit the characters (black persons speaking with the voices of middle aged white men? Even as a central european, I found that grating.)

Serious money will need to be invested to fix this. I hope BI has the spare change to adress this.

^this!

[tremanarch]

hmm but i also like the OA approach - some shorter missions you can play over and over again with different strategys.

but yes some ofp 'on your own' style missions should be there ^^ that awesome feeling.

the harvest red approach I also like... difficult to merge all these 3 styles into 1 campaign. I at least would buy for additinal campaigns even if it had no additional content... I always liked them (sometimes they were very difficult like Red Hammer).. maybe some way around the difficulty like: the user can decide to do a all in one extremely hard mission, or maybe does the same stuff differently with 3 missions which may be a bit more boring for pro gamers but perfect fpr beginners to choose...

dunno example: you can conquer a city just so in 1 mission, or make 3 missions where you cut the supply first, then infiltrate second, and thrid maybe bribe some soldiers etc and then conquer the city much more easily...

[Jakerod]

dunno example: you can conquer a city just so in 1 mission, or make 3 missions where you cut the supply first, then infiltrate second, and thrid maybe bribe some soldiers etc and then conquer the city much more easily...

The campaign for Armed Assault was somewhat like that. You had side missions that supported the overall mission. You could assassinate an enemy commander and it would have an impact on either how the enemy acted in the next mission or how many there were. You could choose to ambush a convoy and make it so there were less guys in the next mission etc. I liked that feature of the campaign but the lack of characters made it feel kind of disjointed and the ending was kind of rushed to me too.

[Smurf]

The campaign for Armed Assault was somewhat like that. You had side missions that supported the overall mission. You could assassinate an enemy commander and it would have an impact on either how the enemy acted in the next mission or how many there were. You could choose to ambush a convoy and make it so there were less guys in the next mission etc. I liked that feature of the campaign but the lack of characters made it feel kind of disjointed and the ending was kind of rushed to me too.

Yeah, I don´t recall a single name from A1, all characters were generic.

Anyway, I have faith in A3's campaign.In some interviews they said to be doing some tutorials missions at first and when they presented these "tools" to the player, is up to him to solve things later, not in Red Harvest's way but in a more streamlined fashion. It might be more linear (that doesnt mean "corridor shooter"), but as an intruduction to the game is better this way (less buggy, more control of what is going on by the mission maker).

[frostwyrm333]

OFP was good, good pacing, LOTS of missions, very memorable although some missions nothing much special and still good
ARMA seems to be hated but I liked it very much, lots of different and interesting missions, anonymous soldiers - yes, did not matter for me, but storyline still weak, just some conflict reported on the news
ARMA 2 tried to be everything and well... its sort of OK but meh, weak storytelling, unmemorable characters, (warfare?), another problem was probably the first mission, many ppl were incapable of handling night time infiltration/sabotage, also grass in bases... (wtf)
OA was stomping on underequiped army, some parts were good
BAF was ok but short, good narration
PMC was long, some missions were weird and meaningless, only campaign since OFP where I remembered and recognized the characters, perhaps a bit "overdesigned"

As I understand it A3 campaign is supposed to be different (god knows what will it become in the end), I'm sure it will be cool: serious and grim background, proper antagonists, resistance-like gameplay, what they need is to look back at their mistakes and make it more interesting, more design, more distinguishable from generic stuff, memorable moments, to make you feel you really are in WW3

[antoineflemming]

OFP was good, good pacing, LOTS of missions, very memorable although some missions nothing much special and still good
ARMA seems to be hated but I liked it very much, lots of different and interesting missions, anonymous soldiers - yes, did not matter for me, but storyline still weak, just some conflict reported on the news
ARMA 2 tried to be everything and well... its sort of OK but meh, weak storytelling, unmemorable characters, (warfare?), another problem was probably the first mission, many ppl were incapable of handling night time infiltration/sabotage, also grass in bases... (wtf)
OA was stomping on underequiped army, some parts were good
BAF was ok but short, good narration
PMC was long, some missions were weird and meaningless, only campaign since OFP where I remembered and recognized the characters, perhaps a bit "overdesigned"

As I understand it A3 campaign is supposed to be different (god knows what will it become in the end), I'm sure it will be cool: serious and grim background, proper antagonists, resistance-like gameplay, what they need is to look back at their mistakes and make it more interesting, more design, more distinguishable from generic stuff, memorable moments, to make you feel you really are in WW3

Once again, the story is NOT ww3 anymore. Don't understand why that's so hard to grasp. The OLD story was a post-WW3 story. The new story is like pre-WW3. In the old story, Europe was occupied by Iran. In this story, Iran only got to Greece. Yeah, everything else you said is true, but for everyone here, it ISN'T WW3.

[Nicholas]

Once again, the story is NOT ww3 anymore. Don't understand why that's so hard to grasp. The OLD story was a post-WW3 story. The new story is like pre-WW3. In the old story, Europe was occupied by Iran. In this story, Iran only got to Greece. Yeah, everything else you said is true, but for everyone here, it ISN'T WW3.

Maybe he didn't know?

As far as the story in ArmA III, I hope like hell they do not incorporate Warfare into it.

[frostwyrm333]

Once again, the story is NOT ww3 anymore. Don't understand why that's so hard to grasp. The OLD story was a post-WW3 story. The new story is like pre-WW3. In the old story, Europe was occupied by Iran. In this story, Iran only got to Greece. Yeah, everything else you said is true, but for everyone here, it ISN'T WW3.

And how the hell am I supposed to know the story if they changed it every 6 months. Ok, but still, serious conflict, global scale, no goat herders and pumpkin farmers.

[metalcraze]

The campaign for Armed Assault was somewhat like that. You had side missions that supported the overall mission. You could assassinate an enemy commander and it would have an impact on either how the enemy acted in the next mission or how many there were. You could choose to ambush a convoy and make it so there were less guys in the next mission etc. I liked that feature of the campaign but the lack of characters made it feel kind of disjointed and the ending was kind of rushed to me too.

It was also much shorter and the missions were way too limiting. You always started like 100m away from your first target and you often had to deal with the mission in one possible way. Which after OFP was a massive letdown.
Like that sniper mission where I had to climb onto the water tower and get ridiculously exposed even though there were nice bushes below but otherwise the mission wouldn't proceed - hnnnnnggg

As far as the story in ArmA III, I hope like hell they do not incorporate Warfare into it.

ArmA2 campaign should be a shining example of how you don't do campaigns.


Though Dwarden (I think) hinted once that ArmA3 campaign is going to be more like BAF (which in turn means OFP Resistance).
I so would love to have limited assets. It makes you think harder and appreciate every soldier you have instead of drowning enemy in gunmeat like it was in Harvest Red.