Campaign roles...

[bedges]

Is there already a campaign which allows the player a choice whether to play the "goodguys" or "badguys"?

[NightJay0044]

Bedges, this is from you? I would of thought you would know..    ....

To your question, as the campaign progresses, in each different mission yes the person whom created the campaign may have the ability to switch you from good to bad depending on the story line and which mission fo the campaign.

Refering to your campaing about like a team switch deal, I don't think so there is not one out there, unless I'm wrong..

[bedges]

I'm aware that it can be done. I know exactly how it's done. I'm asking if it has been done already so I can get an idea of how effective it is.

First cutscene introduces the campaign story and the main players, then a dialog appears asking which side you wish to play, and for the rest of the campaign you play out the story as that side.

Anything like that exist already?

[Wolfrug]

I don't think that campaign exists yet. Sounds like an interesting idea - go for it!

Wolfrug out.

[Walter_E_Kurtz]

I don't remember anybody really making use of six possible endings for each mission combined with the campaign description.ext. The opportunity for betrayal at the start of the Resistance campaign is unusual, but even that doesn't explore the potential.

There is, for OFP, Sam Samson's "It Doesn't Take a Hero" campaign which is only three missions long, but there are seven possible missions to play. (I'm not promising that the following is true for that campaign). If each mission has two possible endings, you can see the geometric progression:

First mission   --->   Two possible missions   --->   Four possible missions

Considering the workload, you'd have to have a good reason to include a campaign tree for both sides. Most people would say make two campaigns: first for Side A, then Side B; since each can be finished in half the time. The two would have minimal overlap in resources, apart from the intro, since voice-overs for Side A are not going to be heard by a player on Side B.

[bedges]

Thanks for the info, I shall check that campaign out (if it's still around).

The rationale behind a single campaign being playable as either side comes down to increasing replayability. Two campaigns would make more sense in terms of workload - although most of the missions could be cut and pasted - but I like the idea of it being wrapped in a single package.

The overlap might come into play if there is a betrayal a la Resistance; rather than the player being killed, s/he plays the rest of the campaign on the other side, etc etc. and the player is more likely to explore the other storyline if it doesn't need to be downloaded separately.

Still only an idea at any rate, and I agree it's got pitfalls. Thanks again for the input.

As an aside Herr Kurtz, why aren't you on the OFPEC staff already 

[Walter_E_Kurtz]

If you don't feel you've got a whole campaign in you, you could try making an MP Mission for a single player.

(I recall that somebody has done this, but who it was and the name of the mission elude me for the time being).

It's like setting up in the editor, and then, for a change, switching to a member of the OPFOR. The mission would have to be installed to the MPMissions folder and accessed through the Multiplayer screen. With one or more player slots available on each side, the player could choose which role to take.

Advantages: One battlefield playable as different sides, Briefing and objectives for each side (see here)
Disadvantages: No intro / outro, Not part of a campaign


For OFP, there is 'A Touch of Frost' which randomly assigns the player to be the leader of one squad (from a choice of three).
For ArmA, I wouldn't know what the TeamSwitch command does.