I had hopes for this game, but after playing it for a while, I will definitely agree it just isn't as good as Battlefield 3 [in terms of multiplayer]. The worst part are the maps; If Danger Close ever gets a second shot at this, they should definitely look at what DICE has been doing for their DLC packs, because that stuff is actually quite good.
As an aside, about first-person war games...
I'd like to see a game with plenty of civilians everywhere, and part of the game is trying to kill the enemy while killing as few civilians as possible. This would open up lots of interesting multiplayer tactics, like hiding in buildings full of innocent people to prevent being hit by an airstrike or artillery fire. Trying to represent emotional struggles in tactically-focused games is just dumb anyway, and more than anything else was the low point of the campaign (which was middling at best in all other regards). They needed to focus on the mechanics; the sheer number of choices that should be available to the player ought to have been accentuated.
Use a UAV to scout the position? Use the robot harass the enemy? Call in artillery or fast air to soften up the position? Go in light, or go in mechanized? Take a single squad, or a full platoon? Ground assault, helicopter fast rope, or amphibious landing? If you set up a firebase, is it a machine gun crew or a sniper team? Wait for tank support, or go in quietly at night? Will you try to minimize civilian casualties, or complete the objectives at any cost?
I think the biggest issue is that these titles need to be less about scripted events and become more scenario based. They should give you a mission, and a variety of tools to complete said mission, instead of a totally linear roller coaster ride. Modern soldiering is about having a wide variety of tools, many of them quite complicated, and making them work together to achieve the desired effect. We've explored the simplest of these relationships a lot, that of the magazine with the assault rifle. Why not test players with more complicated stuff, like properly operating a LRF to bomb an enemy position, or organizing a combined attack with different fireteams. Once you open up this pandora's box of concepts, you can build interesting war games all the way up to the level of a Colonel or Area Commander.
I think people would love to learn how to do these things, these real things, and it's just publishers that are afraid they won't 'get' it. If ArmA gets more popularity and a lot more polish, more people would see what I mean.
Log in to comment