09-13-2014, 12:53 PM
Hi all.
Since this topic came up on the chat yesterday, I wanted to bring it up here for some more discussion. The relevant quote from the chat is this. For context, my statement was it would be boring for a helicopter medevac crew to stand by on base and wait for action, to which the reply was this:
So my question is, what is everybody's view on distances in mission making? IS it true that you have to get right into the action? Because plainly, that is not how I feel about it.
Now, bear with me for a moment. I am not saying that a mission where you drop right into the action is bad, quite the contrary. I just object to the notion that "getting there" is waiting and therefore boring. Some of my missions, like "Airport Security" on Takistan, are mostly about "getting there". Or as another example, "A Man of Faith" has a rather extended part at the beginning that is just about maneuvering around to avoid patrols and enemy installations. I like that part. I like it because to me, the tension of not getting seen and the danger of getting jumped by them is part of the appeal of the Arma game series, as opposed to the non-stop action of other games like Battlefield. I like these "getting there" parts also because it is part of the experience, even if nothing happens.
You might remember that one time I said I like to create the sense of danger by presenting danger right at the beginning of the mission. Most of the time I try to make sure that people encounter enemies very early on, even if they are not a real threat to them, to create the sense of enemy territory. That will ensure that there is a certain background tension/suspense even if you don't encounter enemies around every corner.
Another mission I really liked was "Operation Lojack" from Arma 2, by W0lle, which is apparently a remake of an old VBS mission. The premise is that an officer has been kidnapped by insurgents and you have to locate him with the help of a beacon he carries with him and a locator device that shows the approximate direction to the beacon and the strength of the signal. Most of that mission is walking/jogging along trying to find the officer, and the area is heavily patrolled so you are in constant risk of getting attacked. I played this mission a number of times with Varanon. I remember one occasion were we played at night, with an insurgent patrol passing only a few meters by without having spotted us, and me lying there with sweaty hands hoping they won't turn around. Another instance was a mission that Varanon had started to design were we played a lost squad after a plane crash that had to get back to friendly lines, and I remember hiding in a bush next to the road while a BMP-3 passed right in front of my nose... pants-pissing suspense, I can tell you.
I agree that I do not want to jog three kilometers over empty, open fields like we had it once in a mission. But I do not feel like getting to a mission site is boring by itself. It can be made boring, for example, by staying in the same places for extended periods of time just looking around, or taking mile-long detours to avoid contact.
Anyway, I'd like to hear your opinions about it. For example, does "Game of Drones" have too much walking in it? After all, you need to find what you are looking for first. Did "Greenback Mountain" have too much walking it it? Please share your thoughts, I'd be very interested to hear.
Since this topic came up on the chat yesterday, I wanted to bring it up here for some more discussion. The relevant quote from the chat is this. For context, my statement was it would be boring for a helicopter medevac crew to stand by on base and wait for action, to which the reply was this:
Quote:[12.09.2014 22:22:46] Carson: no different than doing missions now where we run to get to a locations (sometimes too far imo) .. theres natural downtime
[12.09.2014 22:23:25] Alwarren (Hans-Joerg Frieden): It'S a difference whether you are moving through enemy terrain with the chance of getting attacked or sit around in an airbase not knowing what is going on.
[12.09.2014 22:25:28] Carson: I'd disagree, waiting for action tends to be the same process -- waiting. Besides, I never said waiting at a base
So my question is, what is everybody's view on distances in mission making? IS it true that you have to get right into the action? Because plainly, that is not how I feel about it.
Now, bear with me for a moment. I am not saying that a mission where you drop right into the action is bad, quite the contrary. I just object to the notion that "getting there" is waiting and therefore boring. Some of my missions, like "Airport Security" on Takistan, are mostly about "getting there". Or as another example, "A Man of Faith" has a rather extended part at the beginning that is just about maneuvering around to avoid patrols and enemy installations. I like that part. I like it because to me, the tension of not getting seen and the danger of getting jumped by them is part of the appeal of the Arma game series, as opposed to the non-stop action of other games like Battlefield. I like these "getting there" parts also because it is part of the experience, even if nothing happens.
You might remember that one time I said I like to create the sense of danger by presenting danger right at the beginning of the mission. Most of the time I try to make sure that people encounter enemies very early on, even if they are not a real threat to them, to create the sense of enemy territory. That will ensure that there is a certain background tension/suspense even if you don't encounter enemies around every corner.
Another mission I really liked was "Operation Lojack" from Arma 2, by W0lle, which is apparently a remake of an old VBS mission. The premise is that an officer has been kidnapped by insurgents and you have to locate him with the help of a beacon he carries with him and a locator device that shows the approximate direction to the beacon and the strength of the signal. Most of that mission is walking/jogging along trying to find the officer, and the area is heavily patrolled so you are in constant risk of getting attacked. I played this mission a number of times with Varanon. I remember one occasion were we played at night, with an insurgent patrol passing only a few meters by without having spotted us, and me lying there with sweaty hands hoping they won't turn around. Another instance was a mission that Varanon had started to design were we played a lost squad after a plane crash that had to get back to friendly lines, and I remember hiding in a bush next to the road while a BMP-3 passed right in front of my nose... pants-pissing suspense, I can tell you.
I agree that I do not want to jog three kilometers over empty, open fields like we had it once in a mission. But I do not feel like getting to a mission site is boring by itself. It can be made boring, for example, by staying in the same places for extended periods of time just looking around, or taking mile-long detours to avoid contact.
Anyway, I'd like to hear your opinions about it. For example, does "Game of Drones" have too much walking in it? After all, you need to find what you are looking for first. Did "Greenback Mountain" have too much walking it it? Please share your thoughts, I'd be very interested to hear.
I don't need luck, I have ammo.