Launch Sequence: Part One Of Arma 3′s Campaign Is Out

By Graham Smith on November 1st, 2013 at 9:00 am.

Arma. 3. Campaign. Is released.

When Comrade Stanton gazed into the beautiful behind of Arma 3, he thought it was a sideways roll for the series. Part of the problem was that the game’s campaign wasn’t included, and instead was coming via three “free” DLC packs in the months after release.

Now the first part of the campaign is out, and there’s a launch trailer below.

No one punches a dog, but it’s not bad. Guns, men, a jeep. Here’s more detail from the press release:

“In Arma 3’s campaign, players take on the role of Ben Kerry, a soldier who is a part of the NATO peacekeeping operation in the Mediterranean. Five years after the bloody civil war in the Republic of Altis & Stratis came to an end, NATO has started to withdraw its forces from the region – unknowingly creating the conditions for a Mediterranean flashpoint.

It’s funny because “Mediterranean flashpoint” is also a name for Rich McCormick’s bumhole.

It’s been a long time since Bohemia have built a worthwhile campaign for one of their own games, making Arma more useful as a toolset for player-created adventures and mods. Even if this campaign doesn’t up the quality level, it should provide more toys for people to remix and release over the Steam Workshop. If you own Arma 3, your Steam build should update with the new missions automatically.

__________________

« | »

, , , , , .

41 Comments »

  1. jimmydean239 says:

    Played through it all last night, and was pleasantly surprised. It was a bit on-rails for Arma, but actually the quality of the campaign was really good. Looking forward to the next installments.

    • SuicideKing says:

      I’m curious, how long is the first part? In terms of both: the number of missions and time to play through it all, since the latter will vary greatly for each player, this being Arma.

      • BobbyDylan says:

        It’s quite short. I dont; think it’s any more than about 8 or so missions, most of which are 20-40 minutes long. I made it through the campaign last Saturday afternoon (dev build).

      • jimmydean239 says:

        Yeah, it only took me around 3 or 4 hours to finish. It’s worth a run though.

      • SuicideKing says:

        Ah, thanks. Not bad for just one part of the whole campaign, especially considering the standard length of AAA shooter campaigns.

    • gobuystyle2 says:

      http://www.gobuystyle2.com
      Wholesale handbags wallets belts scarves shoes clothes and so on.
      Handbags (Coach lv fendi d&g) ………. $35.99usd
      GOBUYSTYLE2

  2. SuicideKing says:

    If only they fix the engine…I’m not even sure the submarine level will be playable in first person mode for me, given PiP performance.

    Anyway will download it tonight, play tomorrow…

  3. Gap Gen says:

    Ben Kerry was never on Altis! #SwiftMinisubVets4Truth

  4. herschel says:

    I just played the first “mission” of the first installment and honestly I´m blown away by the density of it. The engine is great, a lot of the ARMAII quirks are history. Looking forward to play the second mission, which seems to be a little less “on rails”. But hey, it´s the first missions. They are setup to make you comfortable with the game.

    • SuicideKing says:

      The engine is far from great. Has whole lot of issues that are barely forgivable, with a lot of gloss tacked on.

      Don’t get me wrong, i love the game, but there are some things that shouldn’t have made it to release given the enormous (paid) Alpha and Beta testing, involved reporting of issues and the sheer absurdity of some of the bugs.

      For example, name one game that had terrain warping when you crawl on it. Not in 15 years, i say.

  5. CookPassBabtridge says:

    Does this affect the price for new purchasers I.e. is it now more expensive with the campaigns to buy new?

    • slerbal says:

      Nope – the price includes all the campaign DLCs. The campaigns are free DLCs that they wanted to include at release but didn’t feel they were polished enough.

      Like everyone else above I was pleasantly surprised at how polished it was – a real step up from Arma2 though I do miss being able to play the campaign missions co-operatively. The new godrays are incredibly pretty :)

    • CookPassBabtridge says:

      Revisiting this question, was Arma 3 always £40? Thats the current steam price

  6. 12inchPlasticToy says:

    It was quite nice. I played it on regular in about 2 sessions of 3-4 hours — spent a whole hour on the last mission.
    Not sure if the experience differs at all on higher difficulty, because most of the time I felt like baby-sitting my AI comrades.

  7. wodin says:

    So far I’ve been pleasantly surprised..

  8. superkickstart says:

    Definitely beats the Battlefied 4 campaign.

  9. trooperwally says:

    Does this update add any new assets to the game? I’m excited for the missions themselves but would love some more toys to play with in the sand pit of the editor. I’ve looked for patch notes but all I can find is this trailer and the usual spiel about the campaign.

  10. DThor says:

    I found it sort of meh – bargain basement writing and voice acting – but the actual missions were not bad, certainly a good way to experience different aspects of this glorious sandbox. More than anything this sim is all about the possibilities and user community, which is heartily supported by the devs, and the extra toys they keep dishing out. Certainly worth it if you want something more sophisticated and less arcadey than BF or CoD.

  11. DanMan says:

    I’m a graphics whore and if you’re going for realistic then not having either Ambient Occlusion nor Soft Shadows with varying penumbra doesn’t work for me. It looks like the vehicles drag a cut-out of themselves with them all the time. So BF4 wins in the lighting department.

    See here: http://youtu.be/6ci-rdMkS_o

  12. Shooop says:

    I’m still not willing to support this kind of thing even if they are giving it to everyone without gouging them. Especially not for a $60 game.

    What happened to releasing a game that was complete day of launch and then just adding extra things later?

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      Alternatively – if the multiplayer aspect if your game is up and running, why keep your expectant fans waiting whilst you finish off the single player campaign? As long as you’re clear about it up front, I don’t see any harm in letting those who are mainly interested in the multiplayer side of things get hold of it sooner rather than later.

      • Thirith says:

        Exactly. I honestly don’t get why people are pissy about this particular thing; did anyone miss out on anything by releasing the game without the campaign and adding the latter only once it’s done? What would the benefit to anyone have been of releasing the game only once the campaign is done, especially since Arma tends to get lots of MP-only gamers?

      • Shooop says:

        For $60 I don’t think anyone should expect anything but a full complete product out of the (virtual) box.

        If that price were halved then I could give them pass because it’s below the average going rate. But for the same price as all the AAA dude-bro-Michael Bay simulators? No. We shouldn’t encourage this sort of thing.

        • Thunder says:

          The price was reduced when they published the ARMA 3 Alpha. It was around 35 dollar for me which I think was the time all the already established ARMA players were buying the game.

          But for a new player to the series, it has to compete with all the other games and a singleplayer campaign is a factor for a new player, so 60 dollar is too high. I think it is the same for all the players that love Battlefield. No established player cares about the singleplayer in Battlefield, but it is a factor for new players.

        • Thirith says:

          Then buy the product when it’s complete with SP. Compared to it being released only at that point, you don’t lose a thing.

          That’s what I don’t get: people who think Arma 3 should only have been released once the SP is done get the same if they buy it once the SP is done, regardless of the MP element (and SP showcases) being released earlier. The two scenarios are functionally identical – unless you feel the need to buy the game when it’s publicly available.

          • Smurf says:

            And don’t forget the community made everything that is the heart of this series.

            Played the campaign on Dev Branch earlier, not a single problem with it, very nice and well done (within Arma realms…), will play it again and I’m looking forward to the next episodes which will be more Arma and less hand holding as stated here: http://www.arma3.com/news/a-war-on-all-fronts-arma3-episode-1#.UnPMBPk3t8E

            Also, a nive overall look at this campaign release package.

          • Shooop says:

            That is exactly what I intend to do.

            A link to the game is sitting on my Steam wishlist until it’s officially complete.

            I’m not deriding the game itself at all – I played the alpha and it was great. But I just can’t see spending so much on something that isn’t a complete product quite yet. If it’s not a full product why ask full price?

        • Siimon says:

          I purchased the game for $34.99, so pretty much half of the price you’re complaining about.
          If you want a 100% complete game for your $60, then wait until it is 100% complete and spend your $60 then and just pretend the multiplayer release never happened. I don’t see the problem?
          This is coming from someone who purchased it mainly for single player.

          PS. I totally think we SHOULD encourage this sort of thing; -anything- other than Michael Bay dudebro games should be encourage, no matter how they are released.

          • Shooop says:

            I gave up pre-ordering some time before it came along so I couldn’t take that option.

            And as I just told Thirith, buying it when it’s done is exactly what I want to do. But I really think charging people full price for a product that the makers haven’t made feature complete is not the kind of thing anyone should be rewarded for doing.

          • MellowKrogoth says:

            As long as they tell you exactly what you’re buying, I don’t see the problem. Taking this to the extreme, if they want to sell a concept screenshot of a future game for 200$ and people want to buy it, more power to them. The games industry is constantly broke anyways, AAA games (except a few favored ones like CoD) have trouble making any kind of profit, so they need every source of revenue they can get.

  13. rfair5 says:

    Google is paying 80$ per hour! Just work for few hours & spend more time with friends and family. Yesterday I bought a top of the range Lancia after having made $9458 this month. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out http://goo.gl/f6e95V

  14. SuicideKing says:

    Ok, so i played through a lot of missions, and am on that one where we’re supposed to be assaulting Agia Marina. Well, mortars hit you and only you, that too with pinpoint accuracy, while you’re running.

    Same mortars have difficulty hitting stationary targets at the best of times.

    Otherwise had more fun playing this campaign than BF3 or CoD MW X.

    • Logeres says:

      You must be really unlucky then, because the mortars didn’t even hit close to me. In fact, I’m pretty sure they’re not aiming for the player at all, but for the general area.
      But then again maybe the mortar AI in my game quietly died while I wasn’t looking, because they couldn’t hit a single damn target in the mission where you’re supposed to direct them. I’m not exaggerating: I restarted the missions four times, directed them twice over the binoculars and twice over the map, and they didn’t hit a single soldier. It was amazing, in a really sad way.

      • SuicideKing says:

        Yeah they failed to hit any of the outposts during my run as well. We had to clear them manually.

        Thus my surprise when the fucking mortars were following me after CSAT’s counter started. I replayed that part multiple times…my AI squad chose to walk through the mortars. And the mortars were behaving like guided missiles, was so annoying i had to quit.

  15. akbarovich says:

    The campaign was the only OFP/ARMA campaign I’ve ever actually played the entire way through! I only had a few complaints:

    1. Like others have mentioned, the mortar directing mission. No matter how much I used the map or the binocs, the mortars didn’t hit anywhere near where I directed them to. Maybe that’s intended to be realistic, but they set up the mission as if it were a remote possibility that you could actually hit all three outposts with mortar fire, which I assure you is impossible. Come ON, devs.

    2. At camp during night time, I literally could not see a thing in the dark. Literally pitch black, no adjusting of gamma or brightness would fix it. Just a sea of black pixels. And they don’t give you any NVG’s or a flashlight, so you literally just bumble around bumping into things and other soldiers while trying to meet up with your squad to start the fucking mission. Give me a break. There is such a thing as eyes adopting to the darkness.

    The weird thing is, this only happened at the little camp in between missions – on the actual night mission I could see without NVG’s.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>