Yeah, I don't really like this futuristic setting with invented weapons (e.g. that Ka-50/Mi-28 hybrid? Like, WTF?).
IMHO, I found that the campaigns in BI's games got progressively worse (at least from the immersion point of view) with each game. I really loved OFP, thought ArmA was bland (with the newsreels instead of a personal story), but found Arma2 even worse, while the OA and expansions were just terrible. I think it has partly something to do with who the enemy was. While in OFP (and partly ArmA) you were fighting an ideological enemy (e.g. the Soviet Union), it ended up with mirroring real conflicts and fighting some ragtag insurgent units in some desert I couldn't care less about. What's the challenge with all the advanced weaponry against a bunch of barely armed guerrillas in converted pickups, really?
Yeap, I agree and I also hate the futuristic setting and really hate the invented weapons such as the "Hamok" or the futuristic weapons such as rail guns. I won't expand on this even because I'm tired of discussing this.
Regarding the BIS games (OFP/ARMA/ARMA2/OA) campaigns I have the following oppinion:
OPF campaigns (CWC and Resistance) were and are BY FAR the best campaigns and the main reasons were the "lovable" characters where the playing could easily get under those "character skins". Those campaigns storylines were also very well designed, thrilling and specially BELIEVABLE.
In ARMA1 (Armed Assault) the setting was very BELIVABLE but unfortunally there wasn't any kind of "symbiosis" between the player and the playable characters. BTW, who was or were the playable characters and what are their names?
In ARMA2 (first release) the campaign seem and did have lots of interesting features such as "detailed" characters there was a considerable level of work into trying to get the player into the "character's skins". Besides this campaign was Co-Op playable (up to 4 players) which is IMO a major PLUS! But unfortunally this campaign had LOTS OF BUGS in it's initial release, the map of Chernarus was (and still is) very heavy on the hardware and in the end we had the WARFARE missions which completly broke this campaign for me. Most of Arma2 campaign missions that didn't use WARFARE were quite good inded when the bugs weren't present, that is! This campaign was considerably shorter than the OFP campaign.
The Operation Arrowhead campaign was IMO perhaps the best campaign after OFP because you could play diferent missions in diferent roles such as Infantry soldier, SpecOps, tanker and pilot and it was Co-Op playable and finally it has IMO a very good plot/setting. Unfortunally this campaign was VERY SHORT (7 missions max) and the charaters weren't very detailed and "lovable" and there isn't any significant "symbiosis" between the player and the playable characters in this campaign.
The BAF (British Armed Forces) campaign had IMO a good plot and interesting missions and there was a considerable "symbiosis" between the player and the playable character (Brian Frost) but unfortunally this campaign was TOO SHORT (4 missions only!!!) and it wasn't playable in CO-OP!!
The PMC (Private Military Contractor) campaign was IMO a major VOMIT!! So I won't elaborate any further regarding this campaign.
Regarding ArmA3 campaign: Futuristic setting with futuristic/imaginary weapons and a campaign that isn't playble in CO-OP and aparently it's your character alone against an entire enemy armed force which dominates the "world"(island) with some RPG elements of ArmA2 initial campaign. Humm, we'll see but so far for me it's a big: NO thanks....