After so much talk about the campaign being open-ended and so on, I was disappointed by it.
I thought the campaign would have been as long as Cold war crisis or OFP:R campaign, but it took me 11 missions to restore peace in Chernarus.
I thought there would have been more choices (like moral ones) example: "If we destroy this village we will have more control over this area, but the civilians might turn against us. But if we don't destroy it chedakis might use it as a base and they will have more forces available in this territory."
Also Russians had powerful army, but the only times I had contact with them was the mission after manhattan and in dogs of war against few spetznazes.
In my opinion it was very bad choice to have Warfare missions in campaign. Let's capture towns by killing about 3-10 guys at the town and then standing on settlement about 30 seconds. In dogs of war capturing towns often required to kill 1-3 guys and then standing next to settlement. Capturing the towns should have been in my opinion Cold war crisis style missions where both forces try to advance, and the missions would consist about trying to take out few towns or defending em. In that way the campaign would have been much longer too.
Also why bother adding HALO tutorial to boot camp when you don't have HALO in any campaign missions?
Other than that, ArmA II wasn't disappointing.