Comrades in Arms Discussion Board

My take on the subject.

1. Psycho in every mission or not

I agree with Phantom: It's not necessary to have it in every mission. Short missions can do without it. Longer ones should give the player a second chance, so it's good to have... minus the bugs, of course -_-

2. Long walks vs. starting next to the objective

"Half of the fun is getting there". This applies to Arma in some sense as well. The question shouldn't be "are there long walks", but actually "is the player having fun/experiences the mission as intended".

A kilometer long walk with nothing happening is boring and does not serve any purpose. However, depending on mission design, it can be pretty exiting. It all depends on what the mission does with it's kilometer long walk.

Since Phantom brought in Operation Flashpoint, there are some good examples for this topic. Some missions are nothing but kilometer long walks. For example, "After Montinac", the mission that leaves you stranded in enemy territory with nothing but a rifle. This IS just a long walk. Another one, "Guardian", leading the convoy to the airport.

Others close with long walks, like "Saboteur", where you have to retreat to enemy lines after blowing up the tanks in the border zone.

There's no universal truth, it all depends on the mission and the intention of the mission maker. The only thing that should be a guideline is "Is the player enjoying the experience ?". An uneventful Sander-style 2 km march probably isn't. Evading enemy patrols while trying to leave the area is (or can be).

And as Alwarren correctly mentioned, searching an area you've started in for the last remaining guy is actually really shitty, and I would honestly trade that for a longer walk.

It's quite easy, really.

A good mission (usually) is a mixture of suspense and action. Non-stop action isn't good because that is how Call of Duty usually approaches things - the action doesn't ease off and therefore becomes dull since there is no juxtaposition. Non-stop non-action is obviously not good either. Any downtime in action should keep you in suspense. If you are thinking that you could get attacked any second, the mission maker is usually doing it right.

Generalization usually doesn't help here.

It all entirely depends on the mission type, the situation, and the structure of the mission.

Suspense and dynamic environment shifts account for something in an "empty walk". I like the possibility/risk that anything could attack or change at any time due to enemy ai algorithms, so me and my team have to adapt to the situation at hand. That makes a walk interesting to me, even if it turns out nothing happens.

(04-03-2015, 03:46 AM)Watchmen link Wrote:Suspense and dynamic environment shifts account for something in an "empty walk". I like the possibility/risk that anything could attack or change at any time due to enemy ai algorithms, so me and my team have to adapt to the situation at hand. That makes a walk interesting to me, even if it turns out nothing happens.

I don't believe you'd say that after the 10th long march with nothing happening. But after the 10th time of (meaningful) action packed mission you'd just want more.

I do tend to agree with Watchmen to a degree. I certainly like the suspend even if nothing happens. Action-packed is good but I certainly would not want ten of those in a row, I prefer a good balance.

Action is difficult to pull off sometimes. For example, our revolver mission yesterday, while fun, bordered on the comical in how a bunch of vigilante with recovers could take out terrorist with rifles. Or when a squad can take on literally hundreds enemies.

Balance is critical IMO. That's why I usually prefer SpecOp-type missions myself, IMO they are the most credible, and I prefer atmosphere over action myself. Which obviously doesn't mean I don't want action; actually I want both, in healthy doses.

That's why I used "meaningful action". If that's just a shoot'em'up scenario it's not convincing and quickly feels pale. I agree that suspension is one of the most important factors in a good mission, however, it's not the length of walk that produce that feeling, but rather the ambient and the setting. I don't need to walk more than 500 meters without engagement to feel tensed.

(04-03-2015, 03:46 AM)Watchmen link Wrote:Suspense and dynamic environment shifts account for something in an "empty walk". I like the possibility/risk that anything could attack or change at any time due to enemy ai algorithms, so me and my team have to adapt to the situation at hand. That makes a walk interesting to me, even if it turns out nothing happens.

While i do like some aspects of an "empty walk" there are also things i don't like about it. Repeating the same walking over and over again is of course boring and a waste of time. If 10 out of 10 times nothing whatsoever happened, then i wouldnt classify that particular stretch as having any threat/risk, it is basically just an empty walk that might as well be a stroll through an empty editor.


If say we played it 10 out of 10 times, 5 we encountered significantly threatening adversaries, in different amounts at different locations, that is what i would enjoy playing.

(04-03-2015, 01:00 PM)Variable link Wrote:it's not the length of walk that produce that feeling, but rather the ambient and the setting

Agreed.  And the point that I was trying to make is that it isn't necessarily a bad mission only because you have to walk a while, and not necessarily a good mission just because you get into the action quickly. There is no universal recipe for good mission making. There are rules of thumb, but as with everything else, these are just rough guidelines.