Player decisions in the Campaign

[Adjutant]

A player can at any time type an action if he believes that the situation requires this. For example, player types "warn" to let a friendly unit know of an ambush. If no such intervention was planned for in the game, then no result is produced. If the developers did indeed want the player to realise this, then the relevant scripts are in place and the friendly unit changes course to avoid an ambush.

The basic idea is to test the player's initiative and good judgment by requiring him to guess a particular action at set stages during the campaign.

[Cwivey]

There was something like this in the ArmA2 campaign and ArmA2:OA campaign. It often involved doing mini-missions during a larger mission that got the Guerilla forces on your side, or there would be more favourable radio reports for your side.

[Smurf]

Sure as hell there will be side missions with later consequences. I only wish they will not be so "obvious" as in A2.

[SGTIce]

Could of sworn they talked about that at gamescom 2011 in some of the videos.

[Adjutant]

I did not mean side missions. Normally you get an interaction menu and a communications menu with a range of standard actions to choose from. Let the campaign have certain moments where a player needs to use his imagination to suggest an extraordinary interaction with an object in the game world. So let there be hidden actions that you need to guess by manually typing them in.

Developers could make up several good scenarios where the player can use this initiative.

[OnlyRazor]

Manually type them in? That sounds like a bad idea: "You can't get ye flask."

[kylania]

As long as there's no more "Go everywhere for hours till you find one guy" missions.

[OnlyRazor]

As long as there's no more "Go everywhere for hours till you find one guy" missions.

Aaargh, evil war criminals! No wonder it took so long to hunt down Ratko. Anyway, I second that notion.