FP : DR - News & Discussion [Archive] - Page 12

Hans Ludwig

Sep 2 2009, 14:16

CO-OP MODES

CAMPAIGN
Never fight alone - enlist three fellow Marines and fight through every mission to liberate Skira Island together. Battle from the beginning or unite at any stage of the campaign for extra fire support.

SINGLE MISSION
Re-deploy as a veteran on any previously completed mission. Fill out your squad with up to three brothers-in-arms and relive every combat scenario..
PLAYER Vs PLAYER

ANNIHILATION
Engage in war games with your fellow Marines: Opposing USMC and PLA squads deploy at either end of the designated battlefield, with access to both extensive weaponry and vehicles as well as full command of AI recruits. The winner is declared when one team is annihilated

INFILTRATION
Deploy as a covert Special Forces squad or defend against them. The Special Forces squad must breach the other team's defenses, infiltrate an enemy held location and destroy the objective. The opposing team must not let that happen.

http://www.flashpointgame.com/index.php?page=dropzone-online-us

Has anyone every actually put in their real age in an age-gate not just whats quickest to write?

In theory it is supposed to help quantify the age group that visits the site; in reality it's extremely annoying to the forum user, and lets face it, no one puts the correct information (age). So one has to wonder why do game developers continually add that annoying piece to their site? Remember, most marketing people that work for game development studios don't even have a marketing or public relations degree or experience. They are often times some game developer thrown into or volunteered for the position.

cjsoques

Sep 2 2009, 14:55

Where have you got this from? To my knowledge this applies to COOP-Mode not to generic MP. Please validate your source.

You obviously didn't bother to read two pages before where someone clearly posted a summary to a preview with the external link...source validated

I assumed I didn't have to put the whole quite in there and just quoted the snipping assuming that people reading this forum would have at least read the last two pages in this thread...oh well I assumed wrong.

JdB

Sep 2 2009, 16:20

In theory it is supposed to help quantify the age group that visits the site; in reality it's extremely annoying to the forum user, and lets face it, no one puts the correct information (age). So one has to wonder why do game developers continually add that annoying piece to their site?

Quite simple really. Legal liability. If some under aged kid gets traumatized for the rest of his life, even if it isn't due to the game or the content of the site/forums, they can't sue for money, since Codemasters can prove that they prevented under age people from accessing the site (like the age rating with the games themselves). They cannot be held legally responsible for a user filling out his age untruthfully either. It might not appear to be useful for the average visitor, but it severely limits CMs legal risks.

ManDay

Sep 2 2009, 16:53

You obviously didn't bother to read two pages before where someone clearly posted a summary to a preview with the external link...source validated

I assumed I didn't have to put the whole quite in there and just quoted the snipping assuming that people reading this forum would have at least read the last two pages in this thread...oh well I assumed wrong.

No need to feel offended, mate. I'm following this thread successively and may not always have the latest pages in mind thus clearly.

Yes, it has been confirmed on the official forums, too. But it's again one of these "what ArmA-boy is not aquainted with from ArmA, ArmA-boy hates"-like phenomena (I'm thereby not calling you an "ArmA-boy", just in case...) that you call it pathetic and a "step backwards".

Some people - and yes, this time I'm including you - still appear not to have understood the concept of opinions. You know, those things that everybody seems to have.

You should refrain from calling out "pathetic", "reduce quality", "watered down" or alike all because you personally dislike it, dearest fellow member. Realize that it's matter of taste what one likes or dislikes.

To provide you the most obvious instance, the people who have decided to put that in don't deem it "pathetic" and a "loss of quality" and so do others. You dissent - feel free to do so, but respect other people's opinions for what they are.

I, for my part, am fine with both - no JiP and JiP. Where latters allows for more dynamics on a server as for joins and parts, the former is well suited to prevent a clutter of players and join/parts. It also repels the kind of gamer who quickly joins a session to cause a mess and leave when getting bored - yes, that's what I've experienced over and over again on ArmA's public servers.

I'm not going to argue on the benefits of this decision because I think if you put a little thought into the whole situation, you will see them yourself. I've always been happy with how America's Army did it and although OFP/DR is a different type of game, both is possible, for any game.

Edit: I'm aware of the major disadvantages, too.

Max Power

Sep 2 2009, 17:14

I don't know. It doesn't take a genius to imagine a scenario based on the JiP information. To me, not being able to rejoin if you get dropped for some reason seems like it's full of fail.

cjsoques

Sep 2 2009, 17:19

No need to feel offended, mate. I'm following this thread successively and may not always have the latest pages in mind thus clearly.

Yes, it has been confirmed on the official forums, too. But it's again one of these "what ArmA-boy is not aquainted with from ArmA, ArmA-boy hates"-like phenomena (I'm thereby not calling you an "ArmA-boy", just in case...) that you call it pathetic and a "step backwards".

Some people - and yes, this time I'm including you - still appear not to have understood the concept of opinions. You know, those things that everybody seems to have.

You should refrain from calling out "pathetic", "reduce quality", "watered down" or alike all because you personally dislike it, dearest fellow member. Realize that it's matter of taste what one likes or dislikes.

To provide you the most obvious instance, the people who have decided to put that in don't deem it "pathetic" and a "loss of quality" and so do others. You dissent - feel free to do so, but respect other people's opinions for what they are.

I, for my part, am fine with both - no JiP and JiP. Where latters allows for more dynamics on a server as for joins and parts, the former is well suited to prevent a clutter of players and join/parts. It also repels the kind of gamer who quickly joins a session to cause a mess and leave when getting bored - yes, that's what I've experienced over and over again on ArmA's public servers.

I'm not going to argue on the benefits of this decision because I think if you put a little thought into the whole situation, you will see them yourself. I've always been happy with how America's Army did it and although OFP/DR is a different type of game, both is possible, for any game.

You obviously didn't look at my post all the way or have see any of my posts as I am clearly not a fanboy of ARMA by any stretch of the imagination...read it again please.

Understandable about opinion, and of course what I stated was my own opinion...I was not enforcing it onto anyone, why do you feel so defensive about my statement about how I feel about JIP, whether it is in the game or not..it was just what the preview stated and my opinion of it? If you like it then great, if not great too! The point of a forum, especially off-topic is to state your opinion so it was obviously my point of view and opinion about that feature...didn't know I had to clearly state that.

But imagine if games modes in ARMA2, Battlefield 2, or even COD did not have JIP ability! It would be horrible when games last around 30minutes-Multiple Hours. I don't know about you, but I have a life and things that force me to get off and on a game during a given evening. I like the ability to join a game that is in progress and quickly get into the fight.

It may work in America's Army where the rounds are relatively short and I can see that, but like I just stated above...for convenience purposes it does not and would not work on a game with such scale as ARMA, BF2, or even COD in some cases due to the length of the rounds...eventually the population would drop so low at the end that you wouldn't have anyone to shoot at. Since OFPDR sounds to be of similar scales as at least BF2 the rounds are going to be just as long or longer...I could be wrong though, again my opinion :)

In my mind, yes it is a step backwards and pathetic as it is probably a technical issue (not a gameplay reason) of why then may/maynot have JIP. Back in the day, when I had more time on my hands, Rainbow Six was not JIP, you would have to join a map that had players getting reading to start and you'd have to way upwards of 15min just to get the rounds going, I couldn't imagine having to do that now and like the convenience of JIP...again that's my opinion on the issue.

Just to be clear this time...
DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion. Any statements above do not reflect the opinions or ideals of any other party, group, company, or individual. These statements are purely speculative and opinion based and do not have any factual information to back them up. These opinionated statements stem from me and only me and should not be taken as fact or referenced for anything of substance.

Hans Ludwig

Sep 2 2009, 17:19

Quite simple really. Legal liability. If some under aged kid gets traumatized for the rest of his life, even if it isn't due to the game or the content of the site/forums, they can't sue for money, since Codemasters can prove that they prevented under age people from accessing the site (like the age rating with the games themselves). They cannot be held legally responsible for a user filling out his age untruthfully either. It might not appear to be useful for the average visitor, but it severely limits CMs legal risks.

I'm sorry to get off subject, but a simple YES or NO on their front page would work, followed up with a detailed, but brief message under it explaining what the site contains. If that is good enough for the porn industry, surely the gaming industry could use it. However, your statement is partially true about liability, and the other part is for marketing purposes.

I don't know. It doesn't take a genius to imagine a scenario based on the JiP information. To me, not being able to rejoin if you get dropped for some reason seems like it's full of fail.

I feel you brother. The more I read up on their MP, or lack thereof, I get more confused what to expect. I don't see why we should have to wait for a demo when it comes to multiplayer or JiP.

MehMan

Sep 2 2009, 17:38

Some people - and yes, this time I'm including you - still appear not to have understood the concept of opinions. You know, those things that everybody seems to have.

Poppycock! There's only one opinion and that's mine, all others that deviate are wrong and must be destroyed.

ManDay

Sep 2 2009, 17:47

cjsoques

Sep 2 2009, 17:59

cjsoques, point taken. But I want to remind you that it's probably not just me who takes statements such as "this is pathetic" and "this is a step backwards/reduces quality" as claiming objectivity. But it's clear now. Well, I too naturally don't want to wait one hour to join a game, lol :D I rather expect to join the next and most filled server which is currently lobbying.

Exactly, so I'm hoping as much as you seem to be that both JIP and non-JIP are implemented in OFPDR so we are all happy and get to choose!

If not, it all depends on how it is implemented in the demo to get a good idea of how JIP works out...like I said not much info from the preview so it's all speculative but it's not something I'm looking forward to.

I'd like to hear some good news about OFPDR..which I really haven't heard lately.

---------- Post added at 05:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:58 PM ----------

Poppycock! There's only one opinion and that's mine, all others that deviate are wrong and must be destroyed.

I see!

So what's the going rate these days to pay-off Placebo for deleting "deviate" posts that are contrary to your opinion? :)

Placebo

Sep 3 2009, 09:16

So what's the going rate these days to pay-off Placebo for deleting "deviate" posts that are contrary to your opinion? :)

$19.95 per month + sales tax.

Dwarden

Sep 3 2009, 13:25

It's been there since 1.0.

"Tab locking" a target(tested in M1A2 Tusk) enables ballistics calculations for that particular target. Not exactly a proper FCS, but at least a start.

that's not new in betas it wass there for some time :)

sparks50

Sep 3 2009, 15:55

It only existed for us once a developer told us about it :p

Dragon rising Storyline:

I find it cute how the map starts by highlighting Washington DC, before its dragged to China. It reminds me of
where every location in the Team America film was relative to America :D

whOuoMB15jM

11aTony

Sep 3 2009, 16:00

Russia requests assistance - marines, lol.

JdB

Sep 3 2009, 16:05

Russia requests assistance - marines, lol.

Yes, the Russians would instantly throw their enormous pride overboard, and ask the US to come to their rescue (like they would need it against a weaker force like the PLA). The chance of that is about as big as the chance that I will be landing on Mars tomorrow morning :D

At least BIS' approach of small (island) nations calling for military aid from the US and RF is based on real life politics.

Deadfast

Sep 3 2009, 16:11

...ask the US to come to their rescue

I somehow doubt the US would rush into starting a conflict with China because of a tiny island...

echo1

Sep 3 2009, 16:13

In fact, the US would probably side with the Chinese, just so that they could piss the Russians off...

Anyone else get the impression that they initially were going to include the Russians as a playable side, but then weren't able to for some reason?

froggyluv

Sep 3 2009, 16:16

p75

Sep 3 2009, 16:36

Well, it opens up the military hardware for an expansion pack.

It is btw awfully silent with regards to any serious modding capabilities. Smart marketing trick by not telling about it. Because it would seriously hurt the pc sales/interest. One thing that one can conclude is that they don't have them, yet. Maybe they wait and see if it is feasible to develop them after launch when sales are up and running.

Saw some HD footage and I need to be honest, it is uglier in the graphics department than what BIS has to offer with Arma 2. The animation in OF: DR is also not up to par. FLIR looks decent and so do the smoke effects. The Chinese gear is kinda interesting. The Island itself less....

I was waiting for a demo, but any news on that has slowly died.......

4 IN 1

Sep 3 2009, 16:44

well, for the record, i dont think the FLIR is all that impressive if you have seen how one in real life work, but still 100% better then the one we have ARMA2 now without question(which, with luck, might change with OA)

the story is rubbish as always, and god I HATE those stupid music...

Sennacherib

Sep 3 2009, 16:44

very nice vid, I like how they did it, music match perfectly the words etc etc.

they would need it against a weaker force like the PLA

currently PLA army is better than Russian army. The chinese government has spent a lot of money on their new armaments and they have tons of soldiers, if you see this army at your borders sure you will ask help for a minor objective. + don't forget the Korea war, even the best army in the world can have some problems to defeat a weaker army.

And the last but not least; the island has oil, so it becomes a major objective for the US government. the war in Irak is a good lesson.

the story is not perfect, but in my opinion, this is ok

Drongo69

Sep 3 2009, 17:00

Surely if DR supported modding, they would be trumpeting it. I suspect it is a cynical move to push shitty DLC and expansions.

4 IN 1

Sep 3 2009, 17:07

very nice vid, I like how they did it, music match perfectly the words etc etc.

May be thats because you have watched too much hollywood made kung fu movie?:confused:

anyway, the storyline is just so...............wrong, that i just dont even wanted to bother to explain the reason.....

NoRailgunner

Sep 3 2009, 17:08

Its a very fictional story and its seems unbelievable that Russia and Japan will stay away from this oil conflict in their backyard and leave it all to US and China.
Lets see if CM made another US action hero shooter and how many people are going to play it on hardcore mode. Wonder how good and long CM are really going to support DR + customers.

D@<hidden> do you really believe in such phrases: "...suddenly they appeared with their main force at the border"? Look at the map and then think of how PLA should deploy on this island - undetected.

Takko

Sep 3 2009, 18:35

And the last but not least; the island has oil, so it becomes a major objective for the US government. the war in Irak is a good lesson.

I hate people saying that because its not true. But anyways

Its a very fictional story and its seems unbelievable that Russia and Japan will stay away from this oil conflict in their backyard and leave it all to US and China.

Russia isn't away but fighting in other positions

Scrub

Sep 3 2009, 18:59

The U.S aid seems highly improbable.

I wonder if the gameplay can live up to such a whopper of a story. An America + Russia Vs. China conflict would hardly devolve into 4 man squads killing outposts.

Well, the rest of the army is off transporting the respective island civilians to safety, to prepare for war...:j: :p

Don't... Believe.... The.... Hype...

These facts and details (even adding the positive speculations) are not adding up to the marketing. Sounds like another 'Hope and Change' platform... Uh, I didn't just say that.:D

Zipper5

Sep 3 2009, 19:05

All hope that DR will be decent died with that video, for me.

'Tis a sad fact. :butbut:

kavoven

Sep 3 2009, 19:14

This story hurts :(

JdB

Sep 3 2009, 20:28

currently PLA army is better than Russian army. The chinese government has spent a lot of money on their new armaments and they have tons of soldiers, if you see this army at your borders sure you will ask help for a minor objective.

That's why the PLA is looking to buy foreign hardware so they can buy a single "test" vehicle, turn down the offer and then come up with their very "own" (99% copy of the original) weapons system a year later (*cough* SU-27 *cough*). The PLA is more of a paper dragon than a real one at present. The real power of the PRC has so far been in it's economic power, not (yet) in it's military power. The PRC is not yet capable of sustaining a fight with a superpower outside of it's borders, primarily due to the lack of naval strength (needs carriers and transports, both of which they do not have yet), and because they have not converted to being an expeditionary force (mainly with defense in mind). Even if they have numbers on their side, the RF armed forces still have the upper hand technologically, or the Chinese wouldn't be trying to get their hands on Russian technology. It's like saying India has one of the best armies in the world just because they have numbers (they buy 2nd hand stuff, just like the PLA is copying existing hardware, not developing cutting edge technology of their own, Chinese products are known for being copies of other people's designs without any ground-breaking innovations).

The PLA was successful in Korea because technology back then was pretty much still stuck in the WW2 era on both sides (little use of innovative technology on either side, which makes numbers weigh in a lot more than in a fight between a technologically superiour force and an army attacking in human waves)

If having greater numbers was really that decisive on the battlefield, all of NATO and especially the US would have opted for more conscripts in the field rather than fewer, but far better trained and equipped professional soldiers as they have been doing since the 1970s.

echo1

Sep 3 2009, 20:38

currently PLA army is better than Russian army. The chinese government has spent a lot of money on their new armaments and they have tons of soldiers, if you see this army at your borders sure you will ask help for a minor objective. + don't forget the Korea war, even the best army in the world can have some problems to defeat a weaker army.

That still doesn't explain why the Americans would start a war with China for Russia's sake.

And the last but not least; the island has oil, so it becomes a major objective for the US government. the war in Irak is a good lesson.

America's economy is very much dependent on China. So there's no real economic argument to be made here, because an oil field (no matter how big) is not worth more than China's trade with the US, or the manufacture of goods for US companies by Chinese ones. America would be in a bad way economically if they had to declare war on China - they wouldn't do it unless it was absolutely essential (i.e. if China declared war first)

JdB

Sep 3 2009, 20:41

America's economy is very much dependent on China. So there's no real economic argument to be made here, because an oil field (no matter how big) is not worth more than China's trade and manufacturing. America would be in a bad way economically if they had to declare war on China - they wouldn't do it unless it was absolutely essential (i.e. if China declared war first)

And China wouldn't declare a war unless the US declared war first because if there was a war, the value of everything the Chinese own in the US, which is a lot (including many, many billions of dollars) would plummet, crippling their own economy. As well as the US being China's main export market. In short, a war between any superpower is pretty much the least likely thing to happen. As recent history has shown, small scale operation against smaller countries and organizations dominate warfare in the 21st century. It's just a matter of time before China gets involved in one of their own (they are expanding their influence in Africa, not exactly a continent known for it's peacefulness). Game developers that claim realism shouldn't make up scenarios that involves more than one superpower operating openly (not taking into account indirect support by delivering arms, money or training).

MehMan

Sep 3 2009, 20:50

Game stories have always been cheesy, illogical and wrong because they've been written by a 12 year old.

ricbar89

Sep 3 2009, 20:58

Who said anything about a declaration of war? Look at the Falklands for example the argies invaded, the British went down there with a taskforce and kicked them out.

That was it, nothing more.

echo1

Sep 3 2009, 21:22

Nuclear power vs. small South American state. This is a valid comparison to China vs USA how?

Also, this ignores the following -

1. They were at war. I think that's kinda obvious.
2. The Brits had no intention of continuing the war beyond regaining the Falklands. The Argentinians had no real way of dislodging the Brits once they took the islands, or taking the war to the British mainland if needed be. On the other hand, Maggie Thatcher had implied more than once (albeit not publicly at the time) that she was prepared to make Buenos Aires disappear under a mushroom cloud if that was what was needed to resolve the conflict.
3. The Argentinian dictatorship at the time collapsed soon after they lost the Falklands, the new government wasn't interested in any more fighting.

If there was all out fighting between China and the US, that would definitely constitute as a war. I fail to see how it could be considered anything otherwise.

ricbar89

Sep 3 2009, 21:27

Nuclear power vs. small South American state. This is a valid comparison to China vs USA how?

Also, this ignores the following -

1. They were at war. I think that's kinda obvious.
2. The Brits had no intention of continuing the war beyond regaining the Falklands. The Argentinians had no real way of dislodging the Brits once they took the islands, or taking the war to the British mainland if needed be. On the other hand, Maggie Thatcher had implied more than once (albeit not publicly at the time) that she was prepared to make Buenos Aires disappear under a mushroom cloud if that was what was needed to resolve the conflict.
3. The Argentinian dictatorship at the time collapsed soon after they lost the Falklands, the new government wasn't interested in any more fighting.

wow attitude problem dude.

Didnt mean much by it, just outlining that it is possible to go to war without a declaration. And the game doesnt outline war between the countries outside of Skira anyway.

And how does point 1 prove me wrong? Of course they were at war, thats my point.

echo1

Sep 3 2009, 21:34

wow attitude problem dude.

Didnt mean much by it, just outlining that it is possible to go to war without a declaration. And the game doesnt outline war between the countries outside of Skira anyway.

And how does point 1 prove me wrong? Of course they were at war, thats my point.

I think I missed your point initially, but what I'm saying still stands - I really don't think two superpowers like China and the USA could really just have a little war like that, especially if China really wanted that oilfield enough to risk war with Russia. And I think the declaration of war distinction would be largely arbitrary - the associated problems exist from the point at which the two sides start fighting, neither China nor the US would have a war against eachother, but in the rest of the world act as if nothing was going on, there would have to be consequences eventually that would mean that everyone would suffer.

The Falklands was completely different because Argentina had no way of holding their own against the Brits - either in terms of holding out against the invasion and the ability to take the fight to the British mainland if necessary. If Argentina was anywhere near as well equipped and trained as the Brits, the Falklands could have been a very different war altogether.

And I don't get why the fact that I have opinions on the matter mean that I suddenly have an 'attitude problem' any moreso than you do. :)

ricbar89

Sep 3 2009, 21:43

I think I missed your point initially, but what I'm saying still stands - I really don't think two superpowers like China and the USA could really just have a little war like that, especially if China really wanted that oilfield enough to risk war with Russia. And I think the declaration of war distinction would be largely arbitrary - the associated problems exist from the point at which the two sides start fighting, neither China nor the US would have a war against eachother, but in the rest of the world act as if nothing was going on, there would have to be consequences eventually that would mean that everyone would suffer.

The Falklands was completely different because Argentina had no way of holding their own against the Brits - either in terms of holding out against the invasion and the ability to take the fight to the British mainland if necessary. If Argentina was anywhere near as well equipped and trained as the Brits, the Falklands could have been a very different war altogether.

And I don't get why the fact that I have opinions on the matter mean that I suddenly have an 'attitude problem' any moreso than you do. :)

Im not necessarily disagreeing with you, but it seem that the island is a "flashpoint" of some kind, so like the first OFP with Russia i think perhaps total war between USA and China will not be part of the game, at least in the beggining.

How i don’t know.

And again i didn’t mean much by my 'attitude problem' quote, you just seemed to respond quite strong to one of my "passing through" comments.

HotShot

Sep 3 2009, 21:52

What a strange video?!

Zipper5

Sep 3 2009, 21:56

You can't really compare OFP's scenario to DR's so far. The Soviets in OFP weren't actually acting on behalf of Moscow, but on behalf of their rogue General. So the term flashpoint applied appropriately to that.

And yes, I do find that video strange. It's like a screwed up History lesson. Wouldn't know that it's a trailer for what is supposed to be a military simulator.

Edit: Now I just realized why I had the reaction I did to that video.
It's almost identical to the cutscenes that Treyarch did for COD:WaW.
Jesus, Codemasters must be running out of ideas or something...

echo1

Sep 3 2009, 22:38

I actually watched the video there, the storyline is sort of justified by a supposed 'drop in demand for Chinese goods' which leads to mass unemployment then some kind of hardliner re-insurgence.

This raises an even bigger question though - Can anyone imagine a plausible scenario where the demand for Chinese goods drops to such a low level? I mean, they make everything! It isn't as if the whole world's manufacturing infrastructure could disappear out of China in the space of five years like they claim... Where would it go to?

Eble

Sep 3 2009, 23:23

China vs USA - over a tiny Island for oil, would never happen, China is more tham capable of going round the world (as they do now buying up oil supplies).

Plus isn't China the largest investing in the US? honestly this story is so far fetched it deserves to be in a game! :)

All three countries have nukes, imagine a situation where the Chinese got the upper hand at the Russian border I'm sure a quick call from Moscow saying back off or disappear would do the trick.

For a game the storyline is fine I guess, but in real life it's just as crazy as saying your going to Invade Iraq becuase a) they helped with 9/11 or the had WMD (well we knew they did, cos we gave it to them!).

Von_Paulus

Sep 4 2009, 00:56

It's almost identical to the cutscenes that Treyarch did for COD:WaW.

Yes, I thought the same. Everything in this video is COD:WaW.
But then again it's only natural, that's the market they are targeting.

Maddmatt

Sep 4 2009, 01:44

But then again it's only natural, that's the market they are targeting.
Style of cutscenes has little to do with the market in this case.
US version of ArmA has a similar style, as well as the Rahmadi Conflict campaign in the QG campaign :rolleyes:

I'd say the game is going for the gap between COD/BF2 and ArmA 2.

Von_Paulus

Sep 4 2009, 01:58

Style of cutscenes has little to do with the market in this case.
US version of ArmA has a similar style, as well as the Rahmadi Conflict campaign in the QG campaign

I'd say the game is going for the gap between COD/BF2 and ArmA 2.
IMHO the style of video has all the importance. It makes me remember COD:WaW. I'm sure that a lot of COD:Waw fans will also probably associate it.
IMHO they are not aiming to that gap mentioned. They are aiming to COD/BF2.
Thus the video.... but it's just an opinion.

Maddmatt

Sep 4 2009, 02:29

IMHO they are not aiming to that gap mentioned. They are aiming to COD/BF2.
If they were, it would be regenerating health and you wouldn't die in one shot. COD fans don't usually enjoy 'tactical' games where you have to lead a team.
It's more complex than COD/BF2, but less than ArmA 2. A perfect spot for them.

Von_Paulus

Sep 4 2009, 02:35

If they were, it would be regenerating health and you wouldn't die in one shot. COD fans don't usually enjoy 'tactical' games where you have to lead a team.

Agree. Let's say DR has COD style with a little ARMA spicey. ;)
But I'm pretty sure it's that COD fanbase that they want.

p75

Sep 4 2009, 07:16

Is it me or do the in game videos seem blurry without AA? And that on pcs which were tuned for the game...

That guy

Sep 4 2009, 07:39

Political and strategic discussions aside it seems the scenario for the game is set out much better for a war between the Russians and the Chinese, and in my opinion that would have just made a more interesting game. Seems like the USMC is just being shoehorned in.

Just imagine if this was the FIRST video or information we had about OFPDR. we would think, "cool the Russians and Chinese duking it out" (cant think of a game that features only those two factions fighting). then suddenly, there is the USMC.
huh?

But granted, who is really going to care much about the story, once bullets start flying?
its just an excuse to have the two big boys beat each other up.

I also did not like that style for an informational trailer. just trying to hard to look cool and too in your face to take seriously.

SAbre4809

Sep 4 2009, 09:44

I think Russia Vs China is BS on its own. Whats next US vs Aus?

SaBrE_UK

Sep 4 2009, 09:48

Looks like Clive got out in time. A shoddy story indeed.

Grimnirsson

Sep 4 2009, 10:20

Sugz

Sep 4 2009, 10:35

I don't understand all the fuss about the story. It's just a possible (or not possible in RL, doesn't really matter anyway) future scenario based on a sort of alternate history. A milsim isn't necessarily about good story, all the better if it is, but if that's not the case I could care less - it all depends on how the game portrays the environment, interaction and weapons.

Grim

I highly Agree.... THIS IS FICTION!
I mean.. Lets look at a pretty little game called oooh let me see, World in conflict - based on real events but exaggerated to create a rather good game.
Crimson skies, Yanks Vs Brits - Pure fiction, Brilliant game.
OFPDR Yanks Vs China - Fiction, Lets see what happens.

we have had 4 pages of this nonsense when OFP's campaign was essentially Bull anyway. They took a real life event, THe cold war and escalated it into a conflict.

SO therefore I am going to accept OFPDR's storyline because it is Fiction and will be fun. at least its better then Arma's non-existant storyline.
And dont forget the American forces and Chinese forces have clashed before, so I dont see why it couldnt happen again.
But anyway.. just accept that its fiction and get on with more relevant discussions.

SaBrE_UK

Sep 4 2009, 10:45

I don't think anyone's saying the story is the be all and end all of the game, indeed OFP's storyline was nowhere near "realistic" in many respects. But all the fears people have for the game do add up.

kavoven

Sep 4 2009, 10:49

My problem with this storyline is that CM stays realistic until this century and then goes completly crazy. They should have moved the story 10 years into the future, but in this version there is no room for those rapid changes.

shunday

Sep 4 2009, 10:50

I'd say a valid story or scenario is important if you want to make this game a sandbox that people will enjoy making missions and mods for. You'd basicly have to mod in an entire faction to make missions for the people that want to play in conflicts that does exist and seem plausible.
Making missions with chinese vs us on an empty island is likedly to get boring quickly.
In ofp cwc the islands were kinda like skira, but with a few more elements and it was used by mission makers to create scenarios of a possible war in europe or smaller conflicts with the resistance units as smaller factions.
Lets see what creative options the current setup will give us.

Grimnirsson

Sep 4 2009, 13:50

Do you have what it takes soldier? (http://play.tm/preview/26502/operation-flashpoint-dragon-rising/)

New preview

Grim

echo1

Sep 4 2009, 14:46

Daddl

Sep 4 2009, 15:07

I think Russia Vs China is BS on its own. Whats next US vs Aus?Actuallly it's a natural choice of opponents (as far as actual military conflicts between super powers can be considered a likely possibility for the near future). There's quite some potential for border conflicts between those two nations (natural resources and Chinas need to fuel it's future development). Actually much more likely than any conflict between Russian and US forces.

JW Custom

Sep 4 2009, 16:36

So for how long did CM know about Rambo 5???

White_Hat

Sep 4 2009, 17:36

I think Russia Vs China is BS on its own. Whats next US vs Aus?

Promise never to apply for a job at the State Department!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict

ManDay

Sep 4 2009, 19:31

Thanks Hat.

echo1

Sep 4 2009, 19:51

Russia vs China would be a very plausible scenario. Problem comes with marketing a game where you don't play as the Americans or Brits to a mainstream audience.

(Yes, I can also think of a number of successful games which didn't have the US or the UK, but the overwhelming majority of succesful generic FPSes have them, people are just biased towards them)

That guy

Sep 4 2009, 20:57

From a purely game play perspective a Russia vrs China conflict would make for a good game.

If the US is left out then suddenly, you have two "public-enemy-number-ones" fighting. so for the average gamer, who do you decide to support? they are both usually considered the "bad guys"

The solution? The devs actually have to make the player sympathize with each side with interesting characters, background and development. They cant really make a one sided black and white scenario. Now, if the Americans are in game, then they are automatically promoted to the good guys, and the OPFOR are unambiguously bad, twisted jerks.

like i said earlier, adding in the Americans just seemed like a lazy cash in.

sparks50

Sep 4 2009, 21:25

The storyline details the collapse of government in China, making an outside conflict(perhaps with Russia) more probable. And the collapse of Chinese government isn't improbable itself after my understanding.
Its a huge country with many local minorities tied together.

SAbre4809

Sep 4 2009, 22:38

Promise never to apply for a job at the State Department!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict

Promise to step back into the present ASAP! I'll use your median of information :j: .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation.

On another note look further into your 'info' other than "Sino-Soviet Conflict".

Sanctuary

Sep 4 2009, 23:15

Treaties and alliances are valid until one of the member of such things does not see any benefit to it. This had happened countless time in history.
Remember the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ? ;)

White_Hat

Sep 5 2009, 06:14

Treaties and alliances are valid until one of the member of such things does not see any benefit to it. This had happened countless time in history.
Remember the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact ? ;)

Yup, but some ppl seem to think otherwise!
The Federal Republic of Germany joined the NATO just 11 years after WW II.

Dwarden

Sep 8 2009, 11:44

That's why the PLA is looking to buy foreign hardware so they can buy a single "test" vehicle, turn down the offer and then come up with their very "own" (99% copy of the original) weapons system a year later (*cough* SU-27 *cough*). The PLA is more of a paper dragon than a real one at present. The real power of the PRC has so far been in it's economic power, not (yet) in it's military power. The PRC is not yet capable of sustaining a fight with a superpower outside of it's borders, primarily due to the lack of naval strength (needs carriers and transports, both of which they do not have yet), and because they have not converted to being an expeditionary force (mainly with defense in mind). Even if they have numbers on their side, the RF armed forces still have the upper hand technologically, or the Chinese wouldn't be trying to get their hands on Russian technology. It's like saying India has one of the best armies in the world just because they have numbers (they buy 2nd hand stuff, just like the PLA is copying existing hardware, not developing cutting edge technology of their own, Chinese products are known for being copies of other people's designs without any ground-breaking innovations).

The PLA was successful in Korea because technology back then was pretty much still stuck in the WW2 era on both sides (little use of innovative technology on either side, which makes numbers weigh in a lot more than in a fight between a technologically superiour force and an army attacking in human waves)

If having greater numbers was really that decisive on the battlefield, all of NATO and especially the US would have opted for more conscripts in the field rather than fewer, but far better trained and equipped professional soldiers as they have been doing since the 1970s.

lack of knowledge alarm:

India not just buys second hand stuff but also
first hand stuff (US and Russia exports)

like T-90

got own UAVs and IBMD program (balistic missiles defense)

crucial units using quality Israel Tavor TAR-21 rifles

and co-develops crucial programs with Russians (supersonic and hypersonic cruising missiles (anti ship primary)) and so on ...
supersonic of last generation are already in service and hypersonic prototypes are probably already in last phase of ground testing
* hint these are one of only real threats to US Carrier Battle groups due to swarm pack mode and scramle <15s detect to hit window

reasons are simple previous experience with India-Chine conflict and Pakistan tensions (dispute over Kashmir) ...

not to mention India is superpower by all means (population, industry, army size, borders lenght, all type military including naval and nuclear)

India security grid includes Bhutan, Takistan and probably Maldives ...

understimating India as military power would be tactical mistake :D

4 IN 1

Sep 8 2009, 15:35

lack of knowledge alarm:

India not just buys second hand stuff but also
first hand stuff (US and Russia exports)

like T-90

got own UAVs and IBMD program (balistic missiles defense)

crucial units using quality Israel Tavor TAR-21 rifles

and co-develops crucial programs with Russians (supersonic and hypersonic cruising missiles (anti ship primary)) and so on ...
supersonic of last generation are already in service and hypersonic prototypes are probably already in last phase of ground testing
* hint these are one of only real threats to US Carrier Battle groups due to swarm pack mode and scramle <15s detect to hit window

reasons are simple previous experience with India-Chine conflict and Pakistan tensions (dispute over Kashmir) ...

not to mention India is superpower by all means (population, industry, army size, borders lenght, all type military including naval and nuclear)

India security grid includes Bhutan, Takistan and probably Maldives ...

understimating India as military power would be tactical mistake :D

Well, since those they made themself are infact quite after market(A.K.A quite rubbish), there is no question about buying stuff that are much better then their own, but as of the quality of the men, is another story:rolleyes:(and no, i am not underestimating them, but things have changed a lot for the pass 10 years)

sparks50

Sep 8 2009, 16:44

I remember the terror attacks at the Taj Mahal hotel, the Indian police had vintage ww2 grenades and rifles to fight the terrorists with. (before the military arrived to assist)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/11/27/world/27mumbai2.600.jpg

But being a powerful state in explosive growth, and prepared for a war against Pakistan(a state broken away from India), they must have a lot of proper battle gear in the Army.

Anyway, we probably shouldnt be discussing politics here. It is after all just a silly storyline, an excuse for two digital parties to shoot at each other.

Max Power

Sep 8 2009, 18:02

Police != military.

Scrub

Sep 8 2009, 18:44

*Kick's thread's arse back ontopic*

Soooo. Is the current state as such?

-The demo (info) is dead and buried.
-The multiplayer videos are not very specific as to what type of game is being played.
-And no free styling editor -PC version- matches have been shown as of yet.

Besides these sort of facts, no real news breaking? (besides the major age of the player base seem to be 15-20).

MadDogX

Sep 9 2009, 07:00

-The demo (info) is dead and buried.

Is that the latest (semi-)official info on the demo? That would be very unfortunate.

Sep 9 2009, 07:09

Is that the latest (semi-)official info on the demo? That would be very unfortunate.

It seems that way. All threads about the demo on the forum have magically disappeared, and there is no longer any info on either of their websites now too.

Leopardi

Sep 9 2009, 07:11

It seems that way. All threads about the demo on the forum have magically disappeared, and there is no longer any info on either of their websites now too.

SP demo is promised before the release, and MP demo after the release...

Sep 9 2009, 07:23

SP demo is promised before the release, and MP demo after the release...

Got any fresh/NEW sources on that? Last I checked the threads with those promises in had magically disappeared from the forum... The latest PC Gamer (last month, I dont recall exactly and the mag is at home) info doesnt mention a demo either.

NoRailgunner

Sep 9 2009, 11:04

DR interview/vid
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9N054_DN-is&hl=de&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9N054_DN-is&hl=de&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

HotShot

Sep 9 2009, 11:38

"All 11 missions"

....

Deadfast

Sep 9 2009, 11:43

"If you've got hit you don't know how injured you are" @<hidden>:10

Is that aiming to get the "nonsense of the year" award?

Alex72

Sep 9 2009, 11:47

Im not impressed still. It sounds good for the most part, but what i see on the videos still show BF2 in a more free environment. They say its the closest to real war you will ever get - hardly believe that. CM spend a lot of money on their games and they need to get that money back - with profit ofcourse like most companies. And that means it needs to speak to the masses.

In fact - all BF2 people i know are in flames over that game, and that speaks volumes to me.

MadDogX

Sep 9 2009, 11:56

They say its the closest to real war you will ever get - hardly believe that.

Well, they're not exactly gonna say, "it's the second closest to real war you'll ever get", are they? :)

Actually, it would be hilarious if they had that kind of stuff on the OFPDR box.

OPERATION FLASHPOINT - DRAGON RISING

The second most realistic war sim* ever!

* we use the term "sim" very loosely.

Or the recommendations of the back of the box:

"Amazing! It's almost as good as Arma2!"
Gamespot

"If it weren't for Arma2, we would totally recommend this game."
IGN

:D

Zipper5

Sep 9 2009, 13:41

ROFL.

"If you're taking a lot of fire there are Armored Assault Vehicles. You know, the ones that stormed the beach at Normandy on D-Day."

http://www.enemyforces.net/apc/aav7.jpg

I don't think they had those in WWII, Mark. :j:

JdB

Sep 9 2009, 13:44

"All 11 missions"

....

That's not necessarily bad, provided they included secondary (optional) objectives, ones that aren't given by the USMC, but come up during the course of regular missions by interacting with civilians or other factions (oops, forgot for a minute there that there won't be any) like in ArmA2.

With all of that in mind, 11 BF/CoD-style (small area that you are allowed to move in, and a completely fixed storyline) seems likely as the ingredients for anything more advanced are missing (freedom of movement, lack of neutral NPCs etc).

BronzeEagle

Sep 9 2009, 13:57

so long as it has a mission editor and mod possibilities then im game. Alot of people don't like arma 2 quite yet. they say its regular flashpoint with a new coat of paint, the same thing they said about arma. minor changes. i want a complete flashpoint overhaul, and it looks like thats what dragon rising is trying to do. really change things for the better as far as realism goes. they have a setting without any hud guages for realism. thats something i always thought was cool about flashpoint, that if you wanted to turn it up you could. but then again its an insanely hard game right out the box, but im talking about for mission editors. hopefully we'll be able to edit realism specific missions that the hud disappears on certain missions so the mission editor will control the difficulty more.

MehMan

Sep 9 2009, 14:20

If it were moddable I wouldn't mind the crap that comes with the engine, but since everything is pointing into a big no it just made the game uninteresting to me. And any news of the mission editor, or has that been suppressed?

p75

Sep 9 2009, 14:49

I don't believe there will be a demo before release:

At IGN they said it will come on 26th of October...in a preview....

It will be interesting to see what kind of expansion material will come out for the pc....as the pc as far as I know doesn't use dlc....

It's only a month away, but the fact you can't mod it, makes it a way less interesting product, but I don't think the masses for XBOX 360/PS 3 are bothered by it. For them it is just an alternative till BFBC 2.

Sep 9 2009, 15:11

it looks like thats what dragon rising is trying to do. really change things for the better as far as realism goes.
:j:

they have a setting without any hud guages for realism.
no hud != realism. :j:

froggyluv

Sep 9 2009, 15:41

:j:

no hud != realism. :j:

It's funny how some of their developers have misinterperted the hardcore's fan desire for realism by adding more and more deprivation.

I wonder where this line of thinking might lead us

Operation Flashpoint 3 Black Moon Rising

- The most realistic war game ever imagined!

- Total sensory deprivation: Your bound gagged and blindfolded

- Unparalled combat and physics engine (you won't see it, but trust us, it's there!)

Max Power

Sep 9 2009, 18:07

Looks like they are still calling it a sequel, then. I thought they were already talked to about that.

Deadfast

Sep 9 2009, 18:28

They were talked to about calling it "theirs" IIRC (our original Flashpoint, etc.).

Barely-injured

Sep 9 2009, 19:02

That had to be one of the most uninformed marketing manger for these types of games that I have ever had the pleasure of hearing. Not only about other competing games (which might be understandable and deliberate) but also about his own game.

But the most alarming thing to me is how he refers to using the mission editor as "moding the game" :sad_o::icon12::(

Max Power

Sep 9 2009, 20:03

They were talked to about calling it "theirs" IIRC (our original Flashpoint, etc.).

Naw, BIS retains the exclusive right to develop a sequel to OFP CWC. By calling it a sequel, they are infringing on BIS's contractual rights. There was a big open letter regarding this issue. I think you can still find it in the BIS general forums.

Scrub

Sep 9 2009, 20:04

You mean as in modding? Like we think of when someone makes a new unit or a map?
He thinks making a mission is modding...?

Look out for the PR spin on this one, there's no 'English' on this ball, it's gone ancient Greek!

"Yes there's modding in OFP:DR, I just made a mission in like 5 min." And the playas are all like 'Say What?!?', and the PR guys' like, 'Fo sho, I done did it on the DLC editor you imps is lucky to lay eyes on.' and the playas are like, 'Oh no you didnt!', and the PR guys' like, 'Oh yes we done did!'... Eh, I'm making myself sick.. I'll stop now.. :icon_slap:

Look for a shift in statements.

Max Power

Sep 9 2009, 20:16

I found the letter and the discussion.

Discussion (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=71469)
Letter (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=71468)

Sennacherib

Sep 10 2009, 02:43

vasmkd

Sep 10 2009, 05:20

It's simple to understand why BI are angry

If CM can make alot of fairy tails up by acting like they made OFP and had a dev as part of the team back then for marketing purposes, BI have the right to respond. And atleast BI are telling the truth.
CM have no right to make the sequel, only the name OFP.
CM are basically lying to their buyers/fans, very nice CM id'e trust you will tell me the truth next time :rolleyes::eek: as this was a one off:rolleyes:

I missed arma1 and thought OPFDR was the sequel myself a year ago, but lucky i read forums these days and i found out. I could have bought their game and then found out ARMA2 is the real OFP sequal with same style gameplay (thats why i want the sequal).
OFP CWC and Resistance best game of all time for me even thou initially plagued with bugs...ARMA 2...has potential to become the new title holder.

For ppl who argue otherwise put urself in this situation:
U invent a new product (product x) and ur mate sells it for you. Then u want to make/sell the more upgraded product of x but ur mate and you decide not to work as a team anymore. U own the right to the product but ur mate owns the name "x"
Then ur about to release ur upgarded product and ur mate develops his own product but calls it the true upgrade of the original product x...what would u do???
Also ur mate tells all ur former customers and new ones that he invented product "x" and this is the real upgrade to such a fine track proven product.
Now what would you do???
And what would u do if u found out the sales guy was lying???

i'm with BI 100%. yes there are bugs and a few tiny tiny headaches but they go where no-one else truly dares and they try their best to fix things. People need to understand how much bug possibilities there are in games like this and the cost is a few pinches on the arm initially that get reported by the community and ultimately get fixed.
I have a few issues with the game but id'e rather play this than anything else. The editor alone i don't have enough time to do what i want to because there isn't enough time:). keep me busy forever.

vasmkd

Sep 10 2009, 05:25

sorry it double posted, delete this one..i edited it so it won't take up the whole screen

Sep 10 2009, 07:14

and? this is an old story. Codemaster can use the word "sequel", i don't see any problem, they use the name operation flashpoint, so than OFP:DR can be called "sequel", even if they don't use the same engine. :)

No they cant, thats what "the express right to create sequels" means. Legally speaking, ALL cm can do is create a game with the words "Operation Flashpoint" in the title. Why is that so hard for people to understand?!?!?! :banghead:

Andi

Sep 10 2009, 07:20

Because they don't even try to.
These are the kind of people who probably think that Amazon consists of a big, fat guy with millions of arms, sitting in a warehouse and shipping articles. :rolleyes:

Max Power

Sep 10 2009, 08:02

Shadow NX

Sep 10 2009, 09:46

Because they don't even try to.
These are the kind of people who probably think that Amazon consists of a big, fat guy with millions of arms, sitting in a warehouse and shipping articles. :rolleyes:

What? Isnt that how it is?

You destroyed my illusion... next you tell em that Santa Claus doesnt exist :eek:

Seriously, this last video looked lot better than what i have seen before, the guy commenting said lot of stupid stuff that was the only thing that put me a bit off.

In the end i think OFP2 will serve me as a good snack till Operation Arrowhead.

Both A2 and OFP2 seem to become good but very different games, one for those who want it hardcore and can live with flaws and one game for those who want a lighter game with less bugs.

Main difference is i will play A2 still in next years while i probaly will have OFP2 on the shelf with dust on it.

SWAT_BigBear

Sep 10 2009, 10:41

In that last video he said it had "his favorite" weapon....a Bazooka?
I thought this is suppose to be a war in the future?

Eble

Sep 10 2009, 11:00

some info about the COOP 'tether'

10-09-2009, 10:31 AM #10
Helios
Community Manager

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom, Rugby
Posts: 2,618

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all you will receive a warning that you are about to exit the tether zone, if you don't heed the warning and then continue out of the zone you will be killed.
__________________
Ian 'Helios' Webster
Community Manager

echo1

Sep 10 2009, 11:09

I wonder if it's possible to disable it? It's a pretty stupid feature tbh... if the game is really that realistic, people splitting up on their own would be suicide anyway.

In that last video he said it had "his favorite" weapon....a Bazooka?
I thought this is suppose to be a war in the future?

They need it to rocket jump (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_jumping), duh :p

cjph

Sep 10 2009, 12:58

On a hardware forum I freqeuent I am getting both ridiculed and angry by the response of other posters to OFP : DR - the latest describing Arma2 as "utter balls" with crap physics ("the walls just fall over when hit by tanks" etc), pretty graphics but still the buggy Arma1 engine which crashes all the time, and so on. Another poster who went back and played warfare and raved about it was ignored, as were my comments that I can't remember the last time it crashed and the mods (ie actual changes to the game, not setting waypoints lol) were making for some cool Arma2 firefights.

So, being an objective sort I have started a bit of reading on the CM forums and elsewhere - fools comparing the original Arma2 demo to a few 3 minute sequences of an unreleased game and believing DR will be the dogs danglies. Talk about an ego trip lol. What I read is that there are some major differences (lack of comprehensive MP/jip, no info on real modding) but even some small but I believe important differences such as no walking, and no leaning. No leaning ? Some CM forum members were actually arguing that leaning is not realistic, and simply sidestepping around a corner exposes less target for an enemy. And they see the falling of walls in Arma as a problem. Perhaps someone with military experience can confirm, but all the logic and media I have seen indicates leaning around corners to be a pretty important action in (urban) combat ?

I have gone back a few pages but is there a list of features of the two games anywhere ? I am not trying to bash another game, but simply put some objective feature comparison as I am annoyed anyone reading the forums would see a lot of crap being spouted and be drawn towards the wrong game for them. CM are aiming to lure COD and BF2 players away, but those favouring the game so far seem to be using Arma2 as a target.

Last night I took two AI fireteams and a medic on the first random secondary mission to destroy a radio tower in a Domination variant on the server I play on. We flew out in a UH-60 piloted by me, and successfully tabbed to the target, took out the unsurgent and special forces guards and blew the tower. We lost our medic to a spetznaz sniper hiding in the grass nearby. I sent an AI off to collect the heli which he did, bringing it back and successfully landing in the clearing selected. Almost all the commands were issued verbally using Pilflus, and we flew back to base and disembarked to defend the base from a small attack, but a nearby patrolling M1A Tusk got there first and finished it. It took an hour overall as the firefight with the guards was extended when they tried to flank us. It is this sort of flexible experience I do not expect to see in DR from what I read, so as per the earlier poster I will prob buy it for the experience but continue with Arma2.

I'll get back in my box now I've had my medication.

cjph

NodUnit

Sep 10 2009, 13:39

(lack of comprehensive MP/jip, no info on real modding)

Wait, that would be several steps back, JIP is necessity these days especially if you are targeting the console audience.. Well I hope they at least add a server browser, this whole "match" system on some xbox360 games is hardly desireable.

CM forum members were actually arguing that leaning is not realistic, and simply sidestepping around a corner exposes less target for an enemy

sidestepping around a corner exposes less target for an enemy

exposes less target for an enemy

exposes less

:391: No no surely they can't be serious, just no.

The falling wall aspect is sort of real, I've seen a video of a humvee bash through a brick wall to make way for soldiers.

I imagine a tank would have no trouble if a humvee can do it, since a damage model could add some problems they just go with the next best solution, sure its not prettiest but it works.

I'm not yet sure about going for the experience after what I've heard and seen so far..a FLIR that is pretty much a "detect all" vision (heat of vehicles and infantry but none of surrounding terrain), nothing about helicopter or armor weapon systems, flight model etc.

We haven't seen any of those deployable defences (sure we've seen the Javelin but not deploying) and vehicle animations outside of that quick demo some time back...

For all that yack about military realistic, having talked to the operators and been around the vehicles I'm hoping they will have something to show for it.

Deadfast

Sep 10 2009, 13:55

The falling wall aspect is sort of real, I've seen a video of a humvee bash through a brick wall to make way for soldiers.

I think their issue is that the effect is not accompanied by any eye candy (wall turning into millions of bricks that scratch the Humvee's paint as they roll over it).

4 IN 1

Sep 10 2009, 14:07

What? Isnt that how it is?

You destroyed my illusion... next you tell em that Santa Claus doesnt exist :eek:

Seriously, this last video looked lot better than what i have seen before, the guy commenting said lot of stupid stuff that was the only thing that put me a bit off.

In the end i think OFP2 will serve me as a good snack till Operation Arrowhead.

Both A2 and OFP2 seem to become good but very different games, one for those who want it hardcore and can live with flaws and one game for those who want a lighter game with less bugs.

Main difference is i will play A2 still in next years while i probaly will have OFP2 on the shelf with dust on it.

I would hope that OFP:DR can turn up into something better then GRAW, but then I just dont think they can reach the level what BI is trying to do(with not so great but understandable result)

P.S. AND NO! I dont think many people here really wish OFP to be change in terms of play style and others, what we want is BI to keep working on the engine to make it harder, better, faster and stronger.

Clavicula_nox4817

Sep 10 2009, 14:26

We haven't seen any of those deployable defences (sure we've seen the Javelin but not deploying) and vehicle animations outside of that quick demo some time back...

No, we saw The Queen Bee, the Bazooka.

Praelium

Sep 10 2009, 18:23

I have gone back a few pages but is there a list of features of the two games anywhere ? I am not trying to bash another game, but simply put some objective feature comparison as I am annoyed anyone reading the forums would see a lot of crap being spouted and be drawn towards the wrong game for them. CM are aiming to lure COD and BF2 players away, but those favouring the game so far seem to be using Arma2 as a target.

It just so happens that here was a list like this made a while ago posted on the Codemasters forums. Some of the info was wrong, so I went through and fixed it up a bit. If I can find it again then I'll post it.

EDIT: Found it

"OFP will have a view distance of 35 km - ARM don't know TBA"
In the first Arma, I have the view distance up to about 5500, though the unit isn't listed. Arma II will probably be the same or increased.

"OFP Island 220 square KM - ARMA peninsula 225 square KM"
I think this is correct. Arma II will have a 225 KM squared map, though I'm not certain if that includes the sea. Here is a quote from the official 'Facts and Figures' PDF:

"225 square k • m of real world terrain data
covered by 235.929,600 pixels of the actual
satellite imagery"

"OFP 1 large town and a few villages - ARMA 50 citys/towns/villages"
Well, over 50, but mentioning that is just being picky.

"OFP has scripted destruction - ARMA has dynamic destruction"
Wrong, Arma will have scripted destruction.

"OFP no civilian population or wildlife - ARM has Dynamic civilians/wildlife"
True, though I'm not sure how the civilians work. It could simply be a script, or the mission maker will have to add all the civilians through the editor, (if you've played the first Arma you'll understand what I mean). By the way, there are eight different types of animals, and rumor is that you can even play as them using the editor.

"OFP has ability to set up the weather - ARMA has dynamic weather it can changes form location to location"
I'm not too sure what you mean by dynamic weather or having it change from location to location. In Arma you could just set the present and future weather, but maybe more precise effects with triggers.

"OFP has real day and night cycles - ARM has real day and night cycles"
True

"OFP will have one airport - ARMA will have one but also a functional aircraft carrier."
Define "functional". If you're commenting on the carrier from the video, it won't be controllable. It's just another object like a building, though it would probably be large enough to land aircraft on. The last I've heard says that Arma II will not support standing on moving objects.

"OFP will have US, Chinese, possibly russians - ARMA will have US, Russian, pro west forces, pro east forces, guerrilla forces, civilian forces."
I don't know if this is right or wrong.

"OFP will have 70 weapons/50 vehicles - ARMA will 73 weapons/167 vehicles"
The Arma II 'Facts and Figures' PDF says that there will be 81 weapon variants and 136 different vehicle variants.

"OFP will not have flyable planes - ARMA will have flyable planes"
It's true that Arma II will have flyable planes.

"OFP will not have ground artillery - ARMA - will have and moveable"
I haven't read anything saying that Arma will have moveable artillery, at least not that I can recall.

"OFP AI will react to your actions and strategy - ARMA reports the same but also featurres advanced micro AI"
I wouldn't start comparing the AI until we can see good videos of both. Yes, Arma II does have Micro AI, but fancy wording doesn't mean it's going to be good.

"OFP - N/A - ARMA ability to take POW"
I know the AI will have moral in Arma II, but I'm not sure if there will be POW. It will be possible through scripting though.

"OFP - TBA for healing teammates - ARMA ability to drag teammates out of danger and heal them or bring them to a medical center for aid."
In Arma II you will be able to drag and carry teammates out of danger, as well as heal them.

"OFP none - ARMA ability to switch from unit to unit in single player maps"
True, though personally I'm not a big fan of switching units in Arma. I hope they don't use this as an excuse to slack off on the AI.

"OFP PC 16 vs 16 with AI (player vs player) - ARMA 50+"
Probably true.

"OFP xbox 4 vs 4 with AI (player vs player) - ARMA TBA"
Arma II hasn't been confirmed on any specific console yet, though it will probably be the Xbox360.

"OFP pc coop 8 (story mode) - ARMA 5 all members of razor team"
Arma II will have co-op.

"OFP xbox coop 2 (story mode) - ARMA 5 all members of razor team "
Arma II hasn't been confirmed on any specific console yet, though it will probably be the Xbox360.

Link: http://community.codemasters.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4782766&postcount=72

There is more to the quote than I posted so check out the link. I made references to other posts in the topic so it might be best if you start from the beginning. The list has not been edited in some time, so some of the info might be incorrect, or misleading (ex. speculation on something that's since been confirmed.)

cjph

Sep 10 2009, 19:05

Cheers Praelium - what I was looking for. although some points are clearer now, on both side. Might be worth a re-hash once DR hits the streets.

cjph

MadDogX

Sep 10 2009, 19:12

The future tense and guesswork about Arma2 in that comparison out of date, since the game has been out for several months. ;)

Let's see if I can clear the Arma2 facts up:

View distance: 10km (though beyond 3-5km causes major FPS drops)
Building destruction: pre-defined sections, non-dynamic
Civilians / wildlife: FSM-based dynamic AI
Weather: Dynamic and fully scriptable, location-based is possible
Airports: Multiple on Chernarus, one on Utes and static but otherwise usable aircraft carrier
Artillery: Moveable, fully functional, multiple variants including MLRS and mortars
AI: Not the greatest, occasionally dumb but getting better
Taking POWs: Enemies may give up
MP players: 100+ in my own experience
XBox360 version: Still officially unconfirmed, though there is evidence that it is (or was) being developed
Coop mode: 4 players, fifth member of Razor is AI controlled

Deadfast

Sep 10 2009, 20:16

View distance: 10km (though beyond 3-5km causes major FPS drops)

Well, you can even get 50 with setViewDistance (http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setViewDistance) :eek:

4 IN 1

Sep 11 2009, 05:07

You can make the VD up to 10km but the problem is that somehow enemy only appears 3 to 3.5km and sometime disappear 300m away, which is a bug

Sugz

Sep 11 2009, 18:36

Cough this is an OFPDR discussion thread Cough* ..
In terms of view distance, I dont think its necessary to have an overly optimistic View distance, as this is afterall an infantry simulator, where your view distance will be obscured by undulations and features of the landscape, I dont think its necessary losing performance over getting the possibility of a decent view to take a picture of. And as far as arma is concerned its very unlikely to have fully rendered model detail at distances of over 3Km.

echo1

Sep 11 2009, 18:57

Are you able to pilot helicopters in the game?

Deadfast

Sep 11 2009, 19:30

Are you able to pilot helicopters in the game?

Unless something has drastically changed you are.

Eble

Sep 12 2009, 05:33

Are you able to pilot helicopters in the game?

not in coop tho, becuase if you do, and go more than 275m from your squad mates you drop down dead :)

They have a 'tether' in place for coop mode, so you get a warning when going more than 275 from your squad leader, continue and you die.

At the moment, no dedicated servers files will ship with the game (bad luck PC users) and 'Join in Progress' isn't going to happen.

Southy

Defunkt

Sep 12 2009, 06:42

That no-JIP news is so profoundly awful I honestly still don't believe it. This game could bridge the gulf between COD4 and ARMA but it'll die a quick death (in the PC world at least) if players have to sit around a lobby for 10 minutes waiting for a game.

Kernriver

Sep 12 2009, 06:46

Without JIP in coop, I guess this game will be "friends only" coop game (over Hamachi or such, or locked server on the net), because on public servers it would be a hassle....

Fincuan

Sep 12 2009, 13:54

echo1

Sep 12 2009, 14:01

:391: No no surely they can't be serious, just no.

The thing that I think really summed it up was a poll that was released around the time the 'DLC' fiasco was announced as to whether or not mods were important for the game. The majority vote went to 'no'.

Zipper5

Sep 12 2009, 14:14

Nikiller

Sep 12 2009, 14:28

hi,

Don't worry too much about this game. I'm not against it at all and I'll probably buy it but when you read ofp2 CM forums you notice a lot of agressivity. Everybody is bashing everybody. You have a different opinion or critic? You are COD/ArmA evil fanboy. There's a good review the jornalist is a god, there's a bad review (about low-poly) the jornalist is a crap. Community is very young and ofp2 clearly target other market than ArmA2.

I posted on a topic about "how are your PC's spec" on CM forums (M2N-SLI-Delux sAM2, AMD Atlhon 7850 Dual-Core 2.81GHz, 2Go DDR-2 PC667, GeForce 9600 GT 512Mo PCIE, 320Go SATA-II 16Mo 3.5 P, DVD SATA 20X OEM, windowsXP pro 32bits sp3 version 2002) and I said, with some tweaks, I'm able to run ArmA2 on very hight with 35-60fps, and then a guy said me that he wanted screens, I posted the screens just to show that ArmA2 can run smoothy if you take time to tweak it. For him that was unbelievable and the mods direcly deleted my posts to be sure that noone can see that you can run ArmA2 with such specs.

When you really have a look there's something like 10-15 real fans of the game, that's those 10-15 guys who post on every topics and keep the forum alive. Most of the so called "community" will play the SP, a bit MP and the game will catch the dust.

That's sad but with the poor MP, no JIP, no dedicated servers, the agressive community, the lack of moding possibilities (hehe mission editor is a moding tool :o), the low-poly models, the game lifetime will be max 6 mounths and maybe less because of MW2 or some others "big" games. And guess what, ofp/ArmAII will be still played hehe.

I'll probably buy the game because I like video games and I think you can have fun with it. but I don't see it as a treat at all for ofp/ArmA. For me it's just arcade shooter in an open world. I'm more worried about the fact that CM took the name to appeal more customers and make a game without flavor.

cya.

Nikiller.

Deadfast

Sep 12 2009, 14:30

I couldn't agree more Zipper - just because OFP didn't have JIP back than makes no justice not having it now.

By the same exact logic the physics in ARMA 2 that everybody loves so much are not a problem either :p

If DR is serious about the mission the lack of JIP will be a major issue.

Scrub

Sep 12 2009, 15:41

Deadfast, I believe your statement is exactly what the comment by Zipper5 is meant to make. I believe you're saying the same things (I hope I understand you right).

My major gripe is 'where is this freedom to do anything you wanted to?'
You can go anywhere, but you better not send a teammate back to grab ammo for the team (if that's even possible?) or he'll die being choked by a tether.

You can battle it out (if 8 people constitute a battle) anywhere on the map in the official missions, but better not leave the AO for any reason, you will die for desertion.

You can customize a mission, and "potentially" (dev's words) fight across the whole open map... But it sounds like you'll die of boredom because of the limited unit counts. Have to see if they allow unit spawining and garbage cleanup scripting like in Arma 1, or even OFP CamCreate stuff.

Basically, sounds like a lot of dieing from NOT getting shot, NOT being free in the fullest sense of the word. Glass walls anyone?

Zipper5

Sep 12 2009, 15:49

Deadfast, I believe your statement is exactly what the comment by Zipper5 is meant to make. I believe you're saying the same things (I hope I understand you right).
Heh, he was agreeing with what I said. He just used a confusing double negative. I must admit, I thought he was disagreeing with me when I first read it. :p

Deadfast

Sep 12 2009, 15:55

Deadfast, I believe your statement is exactly what the comment by Zipper5 is meant to make. I believe you're saying the same things (I hope I understand you right).

Yes, I am, I've edited the post to make sure it can't be taken the other way around :)

Max Power

Sep 12 2009, 16:00

MehMan

Sep 12 2009, 16:09

Are you kidding? It was a huge problem. Everytime someone dropped out their were either SOL and you were down a man while you played the scenario to completion, or you had to restart everyone and try again. It was something we put up with because the game was so great and unique, not something that was 'no problem'.

+1. Oh so many times somebody dropped and a restart was needed.

Sep 12 2009, 16:20

+1. Oh so many times somebody dropped and a restart was needed.

+2. Living without JIP would be like switching back to dialup :S

echo1

Sep 12 2009, 16:42

I posted on a topic about "how are your PC's spec" on CM forums (M2N-SLI-Delux sAM2, AMD Atlhon 7850 Dual-Core 2.81GHz, 2Go DDR-2 PC667, GeForce 9600 GT 512Mo PCIE, 320Go SATA-II 16Mo 3.5 P, DVD SATA 20X OEM, windowsXP pro 32bits sp3 version 2002) and I said, with some tweaks, I'm able to run ArmA2 on very hight with 35-60fps, and then a guy said me that he wanted screens, I posted the screens just to show that ArmA2 can run smoothy if you take time to tweak it. For him that was unbelievable and the mods direcly deleted my posts to be sure that noone can see that you can run ArmA2 with such specs.

F--king hell... Some of the mods over there are complete and utter hypocrites who don't even keep a veneer of objectivity... You should have reposted your screenshots :p

The irony is, of course, in trying to keep everything pro-DR, they probably just end up stoking more anti-DR sentiment amongst the potential fanbase.

Kernriver

Sep 12 2009, 16:47

While I agree that JIP is an extremely good feature, you must remember that the lack of it wasn't much of a problem with the original OFP. You'd just look up a server that was just setting up, or better yet do something productive while having OFPLauncher or similar watch your favourite server for mission change.

Just to clarify, lack of JIP is not a problem for me if we talk about campaign coop, because I aim to play it with friends over virtual LAN (Leaf networks) anyway.

Playing (stock/user-made) coop/PvP missions over net is another thing, as Max Power, MehMan and DM pointed out.
This question comes to mind: does PvP MP have join in progress?

Another thing: lean. Since, to my knowledge, there are no big towns in DR, I can live without it, although it's a standard feature in tactical shooters.

I've said it a few times already, I will decide whether to buy DR or not based on the demo (if there will be one).

Radnik

Sep 12 2009, 16:59

Well...videos with game play look nice i must say. yes it's arcadish i know, but not that much as on first look...gameplay is smooth and seems entertaining.
Maybe Codemasters will inprove game with patches who knows...DR can turn out to be o.k. :D

froggyluv

Sep 12 2009, 18:23

Another thing: lean. Since, to my knowledge, there are no big towns in DR, I can live without it, although it's a standard feature in tactical shooters.

I really hope they reconsider this. I know some people think of lean as an exploit, but I can't tell you how many times when pinned down behind a tree, house, fence whatever from multiple attackers, that little 'peak out' is essential in knowing your safe angles. Who in their right mind is going to side step out when they've already got a bead on your location.

Drongo69

Sep 12 2009, 18:52

MehMan

Sep 12 2009, 19:07

I still see people making claims that OFP2 will be like BF2. This is clearly absolute bullshit.

You're right, BF2 is better, it has jets and is moddable! :D :p

Most likely it will fall far short of being a worthy sequel to OFP (just as ArmA1 & 2 did)

ArmA2 is a worthy sequel.

NodUnit

Sep 12 2009, 19:18

I still see people making claims that OFP2 will be like BF2. This is clearly absolute bullshit. Most likely it will fall far short of being a worthy sequel to OFP (just as ArmA1 & 2 did), but it bears no real similarities to BF2.

And no, I'm not an OFP2 fanboy. OFP2 looks worse and worse with every bit of info the buffoons at CM release.

Actually it does, BF2's squad comirose is the same idea they are using in OFP2, but that is not necessarily a bad thing given its simple to use.

Vehicles are a kind of reference people will use between one game and another, in this case DR and BF2 share much in common between US and China's vehicles.

Then you have the way the gun is held which is closer to battlefield bad company. Those are the only things I would say they have in common however, unless of course DR has jump in which case there is another (though I'd have to wonder what they were thinking if there is.)

I can see where alot of people get these "looks just like" ideas but lets face it, most modern warfare games do look aLOT alike these days, mostly because of the way they are rendered and the way the characters behave along with the controls.

But if people feel it necessary to compare the two then I can honestly say I would hope DR will be more like Project Reality rather then BF2.

Drongo69

Sep 12 2009, 20:10

You're right, BF2 is better, it has jets and is moddable!

Better? If you actually read my post, you would notice that I said nothing about either being better. They are simply different genres.

Vehicles are a kind of reference people will use between one game and another, in this case DR and BF2 share much in common between US and China's vehicles.

Surely the gameplay and mechanics count for more than the units chosen to be in the game? Does every WW2 game play the same?

Nikiller

Sep 12 2009, 21:13

hi,

F--king hell... Some of the mods over there are complete and utter hypocrites who don't even keep a veneer of objectivity... You should have reposted your screenshots :p

Yea but I didn't wanted to create more agressivity than there already is (ArmA fanboy, troll...) and it's mostly because I didn't wanted to be banned :)

The irony is, of course, in trying to keep everything pro-DR, they probably just end up stoking more anti-DR sentiment amongst the potential fanbase.

Exactly, the fact that every other games are crappy but ofp2 is just a proof of the community subjectivity and a lack of open mind. For a "mature" fanbase it's a bit disapointing. If you aren't thinking ofp2 you're stupid.

The most problematic stuff IMO, is the community agressivity. Newcomers bitch on veteran, veteran on veteran, veteran on newcomers and so on.
It just create a bad atmospher. Read this froum and you don't want to come back. Then I found a solution with a website where there's ONLY the news so, you don't have to read every little bitching to find what you want.

www.flashpointgame.com

cya.

Nikiller.

NodUnit

Sep 13 2009, 01:41

Better? If you actually read my post, you would notice that I said nothing about either being better. They are simply different genres.

Surely the gameplay and mechanics count for more than the units chosen to be in the game? Does every WW2 game play the same?

Surely, and yes I believe they do but I do not speak for the populous either, as far as I know and am pretty much perceiving the answer in their case is 'no'.

Kernriver

Sep 13 2009, 08:16

I really hope they reconsider this. I know some people think of lean as an exploit, but I can't tell you how many times when pinned down behind a tree, house, fence whatever from multiple attackers, that little 'peak out' is essential in knowing your safe angles. Who in their right mind is going to side step out when they've already got a bead on your location.

Well, I agree with You, froggyluv. Leaning is very important feature, and in my eyes it isn't an exploit at all.

I couldn't play, for example, Raven shield (oh, ArmA too ;)), if it wasn't in, because it saved my butt countless times.:D

I don't wanna go into discussion if leaning in games is portrayed in realistic manner (it isn't IMO, it's just a substitute for RL "peaking", or whatever it's called).

I don't know why CM left it out, maybe because Dragon Rising (on PC) is, in essence, (again IMO) a console port?

How many console shooters have leaning? I don't play on consoles, so I wouldn't know, but AFAIK they all have some kind of "cover system" implemented,
and I sure hope CM reconsiders putting some kind of leaning in DR.

I know it's pretty pointless to gripe about a game that I didn't even play, but if it lacks a feature that's commonly inplemented in today's shooters, I think it has to be addressed.

To sum this up, and I'm in no way defending CM, if leaning isn't in the game, but gameplay turns out to be good, there's no damage done, I'll play it (after I've tried the demo).

ricbar89

Sep 13 2009, 11:48

F--king hell... Some of the mods over there are complete and utter hypocrites who don't even keep a veneer of objectivity... You should have reposted your screenshots :p

The irony is, of course, in trying to keep everything pro-DR, they probably just end up stoking more anti-DR sentiment amongst the potential fanbase.

I don’t think its anything to do with hypocrisy, anything ARMAII related positive or negative is automatically deleted or moved the ARMAII topic, this due to he negativity from BIS. I know Helios and Viiiper who have often read this topic have made this very clear.

Like i already pointed out in earlier posts that the ARMAII topic was a very popular one until CM removed it from the DR offtopic after the constant negativity from BIS.

hi,

Exactly, the fact that every other games are crappy but ofp2 is just a proof of the community subjectivity and a lack of open mind.

Considering there has been a negative attitude towards DR before the first gameplay footage came out I would say that a very hypocritical comment. Like I said it wasn’t always like this, it came about due to BIS attitude, and because of it less will know about ARMAII.

echo1

Sep 13 2009, 11:56

I don’t think its anything to do with hypocrisy, anything ARMAII related positive or negative is automatically deleted or moved the ARMAII topic, this due to he negativity from BIS. I know Helios and Viiiper who have often read this topic have made this very clear.

Like i already pointed out in earlier posts that the ARMAII topic was a very popular one until CM removed it from the DR offtopic after the constant negativity from BIS.

Incorrect. Take for example the infamous 'douchebag' rant. It was up for over a day, and the mods supported the anti-ArmA stuff. It was only when people pointed out how the on-duty mod was being a hypocrite that the thread was deleted.

ricbar89

Sep 13 2009, 12:05

Incorrect. Take for example the infamous 'douchebag' rant. It was up for over a day, and the mods supported the anti-ArmA stuff. It was only when people pointed out how the on-duty mod was being a hypocrite that the thread was deleted.

I dont see how it not being deleted right away is supporting anything anti-arma? Half the stuff on the forum takes a day to delete, the place is overrun with COD kiddies and trolls and i know first hand the mods are paying very little attention between now and the game coming out.

I myself had someone miss-quote me in a poll topic and reported it, nothing happened, unless the mods are anit-ricbar too i just think that the way things are now. Theres been complaints about many things not being locked so im sorry i dont think theres some great make ARMAII look bad conspiracy there.

echo1

Sep 13 2009, 12:14

I dont see how it not being deleted right away is supporting anything anti-arma? Half the stuff on the forum takes a day to delete, the place is overrun with COD kiddies and trolls and i know first hand the mods are paying very little attention between now and the game coming out.

There was a mod (I think it was Viiiper) who was actually taking part in the discussion and backing up the OP's absolutely retarded post, despite the fact most people saw the OP for the idiot he was, and counter-argued against people who disagreed with him. It was only when people started pointing out how much of a hypocrite he was (he had made arguments about ArmA fanboys that were equally applicable to what he was saying) that he, or one of the other mods, deleted the thread.

So, given all that you have said; how come he didn't have enough time to delete the thread, but had more than enough time to sustain his discussion in the thread on the anti-ArmA side?

SiC-Disaster

Sep 13 2009, 12:25

I still see people making claims that OFP2 will be like BF2. This is clearly absolute bullshit. Most likely it will fall far short of being a worthy sequel to OFP (just as ArmA1 & 2 did), but it bears no real similarities to BF2.

And no, I'm not an OFP2 fanboy. OFP2 looks worse and worse with every bit of info the buffoons at CM release.

The movement looks almost exactly the same as in BF2, that is player movement and gun movement, when you hit somebody you get the same white crosses AROUND your crosshairs as you get in BF2, the commandrose is the exact same thing as in BF2...
That's 3 similarities right there.

And yes, ArmA 2 ís a worthy successor to OPF.
I get hundred times more satisfaction from playing ArmA 2 then i had from playing ArmA 1, imo the campaign is right up there with OPF: CWC, though ofcourse the pacing is very different.
The way story is told is top-notch though, they just need to iron out a few bugs because these missions are a lot more complex then OPF missions ever were.

ricbar89

Sep 13 2009, 12:32

There was a mod (I think it was Viiiper) who was actually taking part in the discussion and backing up the OP's absolutely retarded post, despite the fact most people saw him for the idiot he was, and counter-argued against people who disagreed with him. It was only when people started pointing out how much of a hypocrite he was (he had made arguments about ArmA fanboys that were equally applicable to what he was saying) that he, or one of the other mods, deleted the thread.

So, given all that you have said; how come he didn't have enough time to delete the thread, but had more than enough time to sustain his discussion in the thread on the anti-ArmA side?

When did i say he didnt have enough time to delete the thread? I said mods a CM just arent bothering to lock half the stuff there, if they're online or not, then usually after a while someone comes in and does a sweep of the forum. Like i said if you think the anti-arma topic is the only topic that has been left open with or without mods input you're mistaken. But you're right viiiper should have locked it but he did'nt, another did, but i dont think a rant in OT means theres some anti-arma conspiracy going on, ive seen plenty of stuff moved to the ARMA topic good or bad.

And im sorry but i didnt read the post, i saw the topic one but didnt pay any attention, i cant really be bothered with that kind of stuff.

And no matter what Viiiper views, still the point stands, ARMAII was alowed to be posted about and there was a very popular ARMAII thread, that only changed after i know Helios and Viiiper started reading this thread so...

echo1

Sep 13 2009, 12:37

And no matter what Viiiper views, still the point stands, ARMAII was alowed to be posted about and there was a very popular ARMAII thread, that only changed after i know Helios and Viiiper started reading this thread so...

So you're saying that they made the decision to move the ArmA thread based not on the content of that thread, but what's going on over here?

ricbar89

Sep 13 2009, 12:48

So you're saying that they made the decision to move the ArmA thread based not on the content of that thread, but what's going on over here?

The decision to lock/move ARMAII stuff came from in part anti-dr trolling and whats been said here.

I think the way CM saw it if theres constant anti-dr sentiment here why allow positive ARMAII at CM.

Just look at the attitude towards ARMAII here:

http://community.codemasters.com/forum/showthread.php?t=339606&page=2

Even Sir Polaris is posting ARMAII videos. So the sentiments cetainly didnt begin at CM.

And compare to this thread, so saying CM forums doesnt have an open mid comes off as a little rich to me.

echo1

Sep 13 2009, 12:58

ricbar89

Sep 13 2009, 13:08

Seems pretty stupid to punish people who were posting on that thread because of people posting on another thread on a completely different forum...

And was the anti-DR trolling actually taking place in the ArmA 2 thread?

The thread isn’t locked, people can still post in it, but new people will no longer learn about ARMAII, so there lies the real punishment. I didn’t want it moved and PM’d viiiper about it anyway.

But i can see where they're coming from, CM are attracting thousands of people to their forum who will read and learn about ARMAII in a positive light, while at BIS thousands will read and learn about DR in a negative light, from the companies and mods perspective it was inevitable there were going to get frustrated and do something about it.

And if i recall there was trolling in both DR topics and the ARMAII thread.

4 IN 1

Sep 13 2009, 13:12

well there is a tons of DR and ARMA trolling over here, but then placebo and mods only gives +1 WL or ban at max to trolling if it really get far too off topic, or even to a point of personal attack or insulting(and edit some of them to iron out the really really insulting part, which would only leads to thread war or more spamming for stupid reason)

Nikiller

Sep 13 2009, 14:27

Considering there has been a negative attitude towards DR before the first gameplay footage came out I would say that a very hypocritical comment. Like I said it wasn’t always like this, it came about due to BIS attitude, and because of it less will know about ARMAII.

If you read my post I was not talking exclusively about ArmAII, I was talking about every games who're not ofp2, that's funny how your brain just filtered the information in my post.

cya.

Nikiller.

ricbar89

Sep 13 2009, 15:23

Nikiller my post was more a response to ch_123 than you, hence why i quoted his response to you.

Nikiller

Sep 13 2009, 15:42

hi,

Ha ok my bad then. :)

cya.

Nikiller.

Maddmatt

Sep 13 2009, 22:11

I dont see how it not being deleted right away is supporting anything anti-arma?
Because at least one moderator was actually participating in it and joining in posting BS. But they deleted it instead of locking it to hide from the embarrassment I suppose :rolleyes:
That topic was such a joke and completely destroyed my respect for the people running that forum.

riffleman

Sep 15 2009, 01:28

The ammocrates of ofp2 have all weapons,no need for script.

NoRailgunner

Sep 15 2009, 11:40

You got hit or injured in DR - just wait and take a look at the healing bag :D
http://g4tv.com/videos/41356/Exclusive-Operation-Flashpoint-Dragon-Rising-Direct-Feed/?quality=hd

Deadfast

Sep 15 2009, 11:46

You can issue some complex commands using the map, like move :D

BTW, you seem to be able to carry 2 rifles + pistol at the same time.

echo1

Sep 15 2009, 12:09

In addition to a Javelin, grenades, and the ability to sprint? :p

SaBrE_UK

Sep 15 2009, 12:44

Is it me or can others imagine playing this for a weekend or so, enjoying it, then not touching it again?

Von_Paulus

Sep 15 2009, 12:49

In addition to a Javelin, grenades, and the ability to sprint? :p
Well they can't walk, right?! :D

echo1

Sep 15 2009, 12:58

Damn right. In fact, if you have an M60, you have to run or else the gun won't fire!

http://www.rlslog.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/6030163208be8vb6.jpg

Don't worry though, I know a guy who knows a guy whose brother-in-law met a guy in the bar who said he was in the Marines, the Seals AND Delta Force, and he said that that's realistic :wink_o:

p75

Sep 15 2009, 13:08

The only thing which I noticed and would bug the hell out of me is, that the bushes are popping up right in front of you....Not too impressed by the particle effects....and some serious slowdowns....

Gfx seem not too bad, but not great either....

The more I see of this game, the more it brings it down,.....

Deadfast

Sep 15 2009, 13:25

I'm a bit disappointed by their proclaimed 35km view distance.

Notice that the vegetation on the hill right in front of you doesn't appear in distance at all.
ARMA 2 suffers from the same problem, but as far as I can tell DR's disappearing much closer.

TimRiceSE

Sep 15 2009, 13:41

You got hit or injured in DR - just wait and take a look at the healing bag :D
http://g4tv.com/videos/41356/Exclusive-Operation-Flashpoint-Dragon-Rising-Direct-Feed/?quality=hd

I like the way he blows his own teammates head off near the end, and shrugs it off.

MadDogX

Sep 15 2009, 14:13

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r212/LDMDX/hotairrising.gif

Praelium

Sep 15 2009, 14:22

Okay, there's something about this game that really bothers me, and that's the sprinting animation. If you look at the gun then you'd think that the soldier is running crazy fast, but, relative to the bushes, he's barely moving. At the most it looks like a over dramatic walk!

Other than that it looks like a somewhat solid game, but I really can't take the slow sprinting.

riffleman

Sep 15 2009, 15:37

Great tralior and inspires me very much.

froggyluv

Sep 15 2009, 15:50

After watching those XPlay videos I have to say, and I never thought I would, that this game looks pretty boring. There was just nothing that stimulating going on either tactically or even just balls to the walls action type stuff. The guy looked like he could easily have beaten the whole game with a cup of coffee in his right hand by just casually moving around in wide open, taking out enemies with ease and slapping on a bandie-patch when inconvenienced with a gunshot wound. Graphics looked seriously underwhelming, landscape pretty bland - it just looks like something I've seen long ago and have already forgotten about.

When thinking back on their earlier promises and target renders I have to say that something went seriously wrong in their production...

AliMag

Sep 15 2009, 16:49

Hi,

Am I really the only one that is not surprised?

What did you expect from CM?

The only game they made that was not arcade was OFP and everybody knows who really made it.

The more vids I watch the more what I tought was going to happen is happening. OFPDR will be an arcade shooter with a mission editor (pc only). And in that category there is no way they can compete with COD. Only the editor will give them a small edge.

There still a demo coming. Let's wait and see...but dont get your hopes to high.

Cheers

vasmkd

Sep 15 2009, 17:23

This must have hurt a few ppl after confirmation from Helios
read after his post too, it's going crazy
http://community.codemasters.com/forum/showthread.php?t=379412&page=4

Zipper5

Sep 15 2009, 18:35

I don't know if it's just because he's playing on arcade, but wow... They've really done the unthinkable... They've made it so that you're healed and your dead team mates respawn after checkpoints.

Utterly laughable.

vasmkd

Sep 15 2009, 19:00

Praelium

Sep 15 2009, 19:14

The Games for Windows is the killer for me
What i hate about GTA4 (love the game) but all the logins to G4WL and social club were the most annoying things i have ever experienced as a legit buyer. Never again http://www.cdwow.com.au/games/PC/OPERATION-FLASHPOINT-2/dp/pc/9833649

Oh wow, I had not realized the DR was GFW. I bought GTA4 and it's very difficult to even play. Half the time, my GFW won't sign in and I can't play my saved games. :mad:

I'll admit that I'm wasn't too fond of DR from the start, (I'm more interested in other games ATM), but this is a big negative for me. Big because, unlike issues with gameplay, this probably won't be fixed, nor will it be removed.

Sanctuary

Sep 15 2009, 19:49

I believe there is a difference between "Games for Windows" and "Games for Windows Live".
Games for Windows is just a guarantee that the games works on Window (XP/Vista), while Games for Window Live needs those "microsoft window live" connection.

edit :
GTA4 that people put in example was not a "Games for Windows" but a "Games for Windows Live" title as you can see the "Live" part on the cover :
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/9341/normalgtaivpc.jpg

OFP : DR does seem to be only a "Games for Windows" according to the cover from MadDogX post.

Scrub

Sep 15 2009, 20:16

Wow.. wow. View distance (Funny MaddogX, took me a moment) is limited. The island looks to be something you can run across N-S in a few short minutes, based off the map shown and the convoy visible in 1st person view. And did my eyes @<hidden> 1:40 mistake a serious lack of animation that was explicitly stated as being the most detailed? I remember seeing the motion capture of the guys entering vehicles, and now.. They go *poof* inside?!?! Huh?

8:06- an AI leaning out from around a tree.. 8:07- a player yearning to the same rights and privilages :P

vasmkd

Sep 15 2009, 20:22

Sanctuary
I had no idea it was different...lol @<hidden> myself
So i guess u don't need any special login for this or folders for saves right?

echo1

Sep 15 2009, 20:26

This must have hurt a few ppl after confirmation from Helios
read after his post too, it's going crazy
http://community.codemasters.com/forum/showthread.php?t=379412&page=4

Helios had quoted the following post as being the reason why they got rid of the anims -

Imagine the amount of animations needed to portray entering and exiting from every different vehicle in the game...

Tanks, APCs, Humvees, Helicopters, Civi cars, etc.

It's a lot of really unnecessary drag on the game engine that could be utilized in other more important areas of the game. Codemasters may have originally had the intention of showing the animations but they obviously had to make a compromise in favor of actual gameplay.

And award for 'most pathetic excuse of the century' goes to...

Praelium

Sep 15 2009, 20:38

Sanctuary
I had no idea it was different...lol @<hidden> myself
So i guess u don't need any special login for this or folders for saves right?

Yep, I too stand corrected. :o

Grimnirsson

Sep 15 2009, 21:01

They've made it so that you're healed and your dead team mates respawn after checkpoints.

Play it on hardcore and that won't happen

Grim

Snafu

Sep 15 2009, 21:26

A Fireteam seems to be the basic unit you command in the game. Is it possible to command a larger or smaller force such as 1 or 12 soldiers?

Grimnirsson

Sep 15 2009, 22:02

Good question, afaik you'll be limited to the fireteam...but I'm not really sure.

Grim

That guy

Sep 16 2009, 02:55

Helios had quoted the following post as being the reason why they got rid of the anims -

And award for 'most pathetic excuse of the century' goes to...

Be fair! that's the same reason BIS did not bother to implement such anims into arma

NodUnit

Sep 16 2009, 05:14

Be fair! that's the same reason BIS did not bother to implement such anims into arma

But to be fair BIS never showcased any animations of this type whereas CM did. True in a video we saw the get in animation changed but they said nothing of it being any different then that, whereas CM showcased a demo reel of a soldier getting into a humvee and said it would be there, not just 'an idea'.

Max Power

Sep 16 2009, 07:43

Big deal. That's the same reason why anything isn't put into any given game.

Leopardi

Sep 16 2009, 09:54

Helios had quoted the following post as being the reason why they got rid of the anims -

And award for 'most pathetic excuse of the century' goes to...

And the fanboys over there must be celebrating that the game got even better now.

Pauld

Sep 16 2009, 22:24

[http://uk.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/operationflashpoint2/video/6227683/operation-flashpoint-dragon-rising-multiplayer-trailer?hd=1

MehMan

Sep 16 2009, 22:34

Still haven't seen more than 10 people on screen at once.

Hans Ludwig

Sep 17 2009, 11:42

You can use the whole of the island creating a co-op MP mission, but when creating a custom PvP MP map you are restricted to the dimensions I've stated in previous posts.

There goes having the whole island to in PvP. :(

Eble

Sep 17 2009, 11:44

There goes having the whole island to in PvP. :(

yeah just found the this info confirming largest MP zone is 4km2 you can't use the whole island, explains why jets were never in this game.

http://community.codemasters.com/forum/showthread.php?t=379877

I should point out yes you can use any part of the island, but you are restricted to a maximum 4km square.

Thats all folks

Southy

datter

Sep 17 2009, 12:01

Competitive multiplayer trailer (http://www.caveofdistraction.com/2009/09/17/ofp2-competitive-multiplayer-trailer/), without having to enter in your birthdate and all that shit as in the link above.

Call_911

Sep 17 2009, 12:03

Coridoor shooter just my 2 cents. No lean, no jets, now limated to 4k battle areas pvp may as well switch my reservation over to COD MW2.
Definatly not doin nothing with this til i see a demo....an some say this game was gonna be better then ArmA2 OMG just makes me wannna lmao.

datter

Sep 17 2009, 12:11

There is a substantial number of people who would like to play ArmA2 but can't either because of bugs, lousy performance or the fact that the fucking thing just won't start. To that group of people, tic-tac-toe would be better than ArmA2. The bar has not been set terribly high in that respect.

Deadfast

Sep 17 2009, 12:43

Official info on PvP mission area sizes (http://community.codemasters.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5619417#post5619417)

If I understood the above correctly even with custom mission you are still limited to what appears to be 2x2km combat zone...

Sep 17 2009, 12:53

Clavicula_nox4817

Sep 17 2009, 13:01

The wording is a bit vague... "Striped area is the warning zone, where like you say you will be warned you are exiting the play area but won't be punished."

So what happens when you pass beyond the striped area? Will you then be punished or will you be allowed to carry on your merry way...

And ok, you can use the whole map in co-op, but just not areas of it that are more than 175m from the rest of your team. (And how does that work, 175m from the average center, the team leader or the furthest player?)

175m? Jesus, that's like rock-throwing distance. How are you supposed to divide into fireteams? You can't. There is absolutely no tactical movement allowed with that kind of restriction. The only possible thing you can do is go forward, no flank, no hook, nothing.

Deadfast

Sep 17 2009, 13:05

175m? Jesus, that's like rock-throwing distance. How are you supposed to divide into fireteams? You can't. There is absolutely no tactical movement allowed with that kind of restriction. The only possible thing you can do is go forward, no flank, no hook, nothing.

How do you want to divide into fireteams with 4 people in the first place? :(

da12thMonkey

Sep 17 2009, 13:11

You're limited to a 1.5 km*1.5 km square of land or any 2.25 sqkm rectangle thereof (ignoring the shaded area where you get annoying messages about leaving the combat zone) for PVP then? That's 1% of the island.

That sounds extremely lame. What sort of ranges do they think tank combat and aircraft standoff attacks take place at? 200m?

Even Red Orchestra manages PVP in 16 sqkm maps and that's on an ancient engine.

vasmkd

Sep 17 2009, 13:29

Clavicula_nox4817

Sep 17 2009, 13:33

How do you want to divide into fireteams with 4 people in the first place? :(

True...

I guess I just don't see any point to this game. I'm not a big multiplayer guy, but even Doom let you run as far as you wanted from the other guy.

echo1

Sep 17 2009, 13:38

OFP/ArmA had an even better system than tethering for ensuring co-op play - if you go Rambo on your team mates, you will get shot very very quickly...

That to me smells like they are having problems and need to fix them urgently before release as much as possible and id'e be worried if i had ordered it. Especially with announcements in the last few days that things like vehicle entering animations gone, limited mp maps etc being announced lately. It's the icing on the cake for me.

Agreed, and losing things like the vehicle anims even though all the work for them was supposedly done sounds like they ran up against some engine problem that they couldn't fix.

BIS' engine may be ancient, but at least it wasn't initially designed for car racing games :p

4 IN 1

Sep 17 2009, 13:58

froggyluv

Sep 17 2009, 14:16

Now they have pushed the demo back after the release of the game and it will be pc only for the demo.

This decision was apperntly to ensure that the full game gets 100% focus and attention before it’s released.

That to me smells like they are having problems and need to fix them urgently before release as much as possible and id'e be worried if i had ordered it. Especially with announcements in the last few days that things like vehicle entering animations gone, limited mp maps etc being announced lately. It's the icing on the cake for me.

Alot of the fan boys reckon its a good descision that they done this because it ensures them the game will be better on release *cough*

No surprise here really. I remember reading in certain interviews that there would be no pre-launch demo, which understandably made some forumites puzzled, but all questions about that were either unanswered or locked. Whats strange is that CM is saying that the game is "100% finished" yet say that they need more time to "polish the product" :confused:

A lot of late surprises here and I can't say that any of them are really joy-worthy except for their most ardent fans.

datter

Sep 17 2009, 14:40

"Polish the product" means not releasing it in the same state ArmA2 was released in. Polish is good.

.

froggyluv

Sep 17 2009, 14:48

"Polish the product" means not releasing it in the same state ArmA2 was released in. Polish is good.

.

Well thats if they are to be taken at their word. It seems disingenuous to have known about the lack of a pre-launch demo for some time and only reveal it at the time-slot it was generally expected to be released. Add the many other 12th hour surprises ie. tethering, MP map constraints, and it smells more of a "covering up" than a "finishing up". Their main programmers are apparently already on vacation as the game is apparently finished so I'm not sure how that all adds up.

echo1

Sep 17 2009, 15:11

well to be fair RV engine also have those limitations, but then all BI said is "we will try to add A and B and C into the game, but if it doesnt work we wont make it so get your fingers cross"

CM however just say that it will have A and B and C but it turns out there is no A B C in the final product

If BIS did that, they'd be worse than the Devil. If Codemasters does it, it's 'good practice'

And this 4km^2 box doesn't inspire much faith in me. As I probably have pointed out before, if the game is in anyway realistic as it claims, people will stick together of their own accord.

Oh yeah, lulzy thread of the week. (http://community.codemasters.com/forum/showthread.php?t=379417)

p75

Sep 17 2009, 15:22

Seems that Codemasters marketing starts showing some serious flaws...making alot of promises and at the very last moment break a bunch of them...

Roll on Operation Arrowhead!

The more one sees and reads (just started at the Codemasters forum), the more it is clear that this won't come near the BIS delivered products...

The hype was big, but the letdown even alot bigger....poor customers....

And no demo before launch while the review code is already at the game magazines (aka being gold), means no good news at all, seems like it will sell of the fact that on the console market they don't have any serious competition....maybe a hole BIS can fill properly....

I can only laugh....this is not the way to run a business....and my guess is that they got nervous seeing all the critical feedback on their latest videos....a demo on that level would surely kill the sell rate....

Scrub

Sep 17 2009, 15:27

LOL, Datter. You're making me want to play 'whack-a-troll'. Look at your posts man, you have some serious anger/OT issues.

That MP video makes me what to acquire ADHD, or drink a lot of coffee to be able to follow it. The hype machine is just about stripped down of all it's armor. The truth will fall like a hammer (good or bad, we'll have to see).

cjsoques

Sep 17 2009, 15:37

is there a DEMO out yet for OFPDR? The Codemasters forum is blocked at work, luckily not the BIS one...yet :)

echo1

Sep 17 2009, 15:57

Read the last page - the demo won't be out till after the game release.

p75

Sep 17 2009, 15:58

is there a DEMO out yet for OFPDR? The Codemasters forum is blocked at work, luckily not the BIS one...yet :)

Nope, and it won't be coming before release.....because.....they still need to work on the game....which me thinks is a plain lie as the product is shipped the 6th of October, meaning that the production runs already should have started....anyhow....the demo will be pc only.....but alot of the hype is down the water.....no demo on the console version....while promised.....me thinks Codemasters didn't like the reviews of their console marketing videos.....

Only thing left for them is the fact that on the console market they offer something new for that platform.....

datter

Sep 17 2009, 16:13

SiC-Disaster

Sep 17 2009, 16:16

p75

Sep 17 2009, 16:24

"Do you think game critics will enjoy this hyperrealistic fps??!"
Please, don't make me laugh. I can't read a single thread on the Codemasters forum without facepalming.
Yes the critics will enjoy Dragon Rising because it's a fucking mainstream game.
It could have been Battlefield 3.

Yes, it is heading that way with a tad (read tad) of pretended realism thrown in.....

Can't believe the no demo reason, officially reads: polishing of the pc version (expect a patch on launch date). But the console version is already done! So, why don't they release a demo then? It makes no sense, everyone on that forum is falling from their chairs....one surprise after another....

Scrub

Sep 17 2009, 16:32

"Do you think game critics will enjoy this hyperrealistic fps??!"
Please, don't make me laugh. I can't read a single thread on the Codemasters forum without facepalming.
Yes the critics will enjoy Dragon Rising because it's a fucking mainstream game.
It could have been Battlefield 3.

As much as I'd like to argue this point with exceptions.. Exceptions to the rule is all they are, few and far between. 'Accessible' is the new, politically correct double speak for 'dumbed down'. :(

Zipper5

Sep 17 2009, 16:58

I find something quite interesting in today's gaming market. I'll use my brother as an example, who's younger than me.

I, of course, play ArmA II. A lot. One day, he and his friends come and ask me "what game is that?" I fill them in on all of the specifics and after that, they ask "what scores did it get?" to which I replied "generally above 65%". You know what their response was? "That's shit. No way I'm touching that game."

In a nutshell, I can see my brother and his friends enjoying OFPDR more than ArmA II. And that's not a good thing...

Blackhawk

Sep 17 2009, 17:06

There's some stupid thread on the CM forums on what score people think the game will get.

"the critics will probably enjoy it because it is going to be the first realistic, shooter for systems/pc in awhile!"

This is awarded the "Most biased comment of the year".

froggyluv

Sep 17 2009, 17:07

Deadfast

Sep 17 2009, 17:07

Don't get me started on ratings...

I thought the whole point of 100 points scale was that 0 = crap, 50 = average and 100 = perfect masterpiece.

So how comes every game is getting 90 to 100 and anything bellow is considered a piece of junk?

What ever happened to Clive Lindrop anyways -he was their lead AI designer and left mid construction?
Supposedly he got fed up with the direction the game was heading (having probably signed NDA he didn't disclose any details and nor did CM).
If that rumor is truth I believe I owe him an apology for whatever bad things I said about him.

echo1

Sep 17 2009, 17:15

Remember there was a person a few months ago who claimed he knew someone on the CM dev team, and that said person said that the game was underfunded, rushed and had no chance of being anywhere near as good as the original OFP? I thought it was probably some troll, but when you combine it with the fact that the lead designer jumped ship, who knows?

froggyluv

Sep 17 2009, 17:16

Supposedly he got fed up with the direction the game was heading (having probably signed NDA he didn't disclose any details and nor did CM).
If that rumor is truth I believe I owe him an apology for whatever bad things I said about him.

Well if thats the case maybe he'll come over to the dark side (are we the dark side btw?) and make some kicka$$ AI mods for Arma2 :rolleyes:

vasmkd

Sep 17 2009, 17:24

Just for fun go back in time via youtube and watch the early interviews and renders of what was to be OFP: DR.

Lotsa talk of "Simulation"; "Scale"; "Editor"; "Modding abilities"; "Unrivaled AI"; "Realism"...

...what the hell happened there. What ever happened to Clive Lindrop anyways -he was their lead AI designer and left mid construction?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Plw8jvvJJuU

Clive Lindop is probably playing ARMA 2 :D
Maybe he didn't want to look stupid as the game is not much like he describes in that video, i think that game is totally turning the boat
Maybe he wants to join BI

Nah here is a LinkedIn profile http://www.linkedin.com/pub/clive-lindop/4/136/970
He is working for crytek

Zipper5

Sep 17 2009, 17:30

If I recall correctly, Clive is now working for Crytek.

NoRailgunner

Sep 17 2009, 17:30

Why should people switch off their brain if they can wait and try DR (or the demo) out before buying the game? It seems that sometimes people acting like lemmings... does somebody or something force them to buy games blindly?
Maybe many mainstream/casual players want only more accessible games with less configuration/options and a simple story + gameplay?

MehMan

Sep 17 2009, 17:40

We're a bit worried about the legacy. Although it means shit in the real world, every geek inside of us is screaming from the horror that has been done upon our princess.

echo1

Sep 17 2009, 17:43

I would have liked to have seen something that was a good midpoint between the slow paced, yet highly rewarding ArmA, and the cheap high-speed thrills of COD. Seems we're just getting another clone of the latter.

Max Power

Sep 17 2009, 18:21

Well thats if they are to be taken at their word. It seems disingenuous to have known about the lack of a pre-launch demo for some time and only reveal it at the time-slot it was generally expected to be released. Add the many other 12th hour surprises ie. tethering, MP map constraints, and it smells more of a "covering up" than a "finishing up". Their main programmers are apparently already on vacation as the game is apparently finished so I'm not sure how that all adds up.

What's the difference? No company even proposes absolute transparency to the general public. If they are delaying to mop up bugs and sort out issues, that's a good thing. I'm sure that BIS would have enjoyed that luxury.

I would have liked to have seen something that was a good midpoint between the slow paced, yet highly rewarding ArmA, and the cheap high-speed thrills of COD. Seems we're just getting another clone of the latter.

COD had a lot of cool scripted stuff... well, at least the last COD that I played. If DR is like OFP, it will have none of that, so the gameplay will feel more chaotic and random. One of the charms of the COD franchise is its very carefully laid out cinematic experience. If you can't have this carefully scripted movie experience to pull you in, and you don't have this very intricate simulation experience to immerse you like in A2, what do you have? I'm kind of really eager to find out how CM solves this problem. CS with no corridors seems kind of lame.

froggyluv

Sep 17 2009, 19:00

What's the difference? No company even proposes absolute transparency to the general public. If they are delaying to mop up bugs and sort out issues, that's a good thing. I'm sure that BIS would have enjoyed that luxury.
.

I'll repeat: Thats if you take them at their word. So far, CM has shown me nothing other than extremely lofty claims, misleading marketing and broken promises with no track record to prove different. Sure if BI had no track record of proven success and promised us things like ragdoll, real time physics, and absolute realism with vehicle desctruction -only to pull these claims at last second -I wouldn't be so nicey nicey to them either.

I don't take them at their word and consider this a business ploy to protect their product from premature bad reviews. Yes that may be smart to protect your product, but smarter consumers know better...

MehMan

Sep 17 2009, 19:23

Come on, CM are smarter than that. They haven't really promised anything, and the wording they use is simply subjective.

SaBrE_UK

Sep 17 2009, 19:40

Looking pretty dire for my tastes. Someone should list the pros and cons. Thing is it might be a great blast for console owners to play with friends, and get them into a more "realistic" (as in squad-based, long-range battle, for example) type of shooter, perhaps leading them onto buying an actual infantry simulator such as Arma2 in the future.

jblackrupert

Sep 17 2009, 19:41

I earned myself a ban on the Codemasters site for correcting blatant lies and
incorrect points some people were making on there.

* The "jbr" posts under the reviews thread are mine.
http://community.codemasters.com/forum/showthread.php?t=379417

Heres a few I corrected. Not exact wording but basiclly what they said.

- NO games exist that allow you to play on such a large map and use all of it.

Arma II does

- Arma II does not have vehicle in/out animations

Yes it does

- Arma II does not have healing/medic animations

Yes it does

- Arma II does not have weapon reload animations

Yes it does

- OFP2 is the first realistic/sim to come out in several years

Obviously not true.

Lots more blatant lies like that on the CM forums, many of which are posted by the mods themselves.
I even posted Youtube videos proving the above statements are not true but I guess video
evident is not good enough...or...... makes them angry.

I've noticed 99% of the people with "Banned" under their name on the Codemasters site have all made posts correcting misinformation/lies.

I'm amazed they haven't removed the comments section on their Youtube videos since they seem very desperate to keep their lies and disinformation
a secret.

Viiiper seems to be very fond of posting half-truths blatant lies
and revisionist history of OFP. IE saying CM designed it.

Sad thing is I was hoping OFP would be a slightly less hardcore happy balance between Arma II and BF2/Graw 2..etc. Realistic and such but
not a headache to learn and you don't have to invest hours into completing a round. but it looks like a dumbed down (Accessible) BF2/COD4 clone run and gun with larger maps.

P.S. For the CM people monitoring this thread. Banning people for telling the truth and correcting misinformation just makes YOU look bad not the poster.
and as far as the ban goes...... I can still view and post through proxy servers so suck on that . Your wannabe Mall cop power trip FAILED.

PeepsGetAngry

Sep 17 2009, 19:47

i read this and just thought i'd throw it up here for someone that may be interested in this strange topic.

------------------------------------------------------

PC Gamers Boycotting Operation Flashpoint 2

Angry hardcore oldschool PC Gamers are reporting and appear to be boycotting and cancelling their pre-orders of Codemasters upcoming release Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising, a tactical shooter video game for the Console & PC market.

They are upset because they felt the company has misled the title and sold out its name to console players and simply abusing the success tha name has and providing a port to the PC where the game originally was developed under the name Operation Flashpoint.

As the game nears the end of its development state and nears release date, PC gamers feel more and more cold shouldered as to what this title bring to them in comparison of what they know Operation Flashpoint to be.. The coldness has erupted into bitterness as there has be little video, news, or information showcasing in terms of what the title is about, especially in regards to multiplayer play. To even further the shroud covering the anticipation of whats to come, Codemasters recently officially announced there will no game demo prior to
launch date for the PC version. Something that they have been promoting as providing as far back as the early development days that will be available.

The bottom line is seems that PC Gamers are feeling, is that they are being tossed to the curb and fed leftover scraps to a easier to manage platform version of the game.. In recent development, players have learned there are things like no leaning in the game, and very little features, because a controller can only handle so much as opposed to a keyboard / mouse.

The sellout comes as no surprise as the title has seperated from the actual developers of the original game. Codemasters broke away retaining the actual rights to the Operation Flashpoint registered trademarked name, which is yet another dagger in the eyes of PC gamers realizing now that the company probably doesnt care a bit about the name but is using it popularity to its advantage.
PC Gamers are feeling ever so dark in their world as games get more simple and developers work less and less and provide less for more in todays lazy society. They feel they have been shunned and are starting to rumble they will not be treated unfairly and they don't care about the games they will soon miss, that if oyu are not going to support the PC, they are not going to support those that port to the PC and stop buying the games.

This seems to be working as EA Games Madden 2010 doesnt seem to be available on the PC, which strikes me as very ODD.
The sales must have been so low in 2009 they could have only expected to not profit in 2010.

And as an oldschool PC Gamer myself, I commend them...
Only problem is.. what the hell do I use my $550 pc video card for now?

sparks50

Sep 17 2009, 19:52

- Arma II does not have vehicle in/out animations

Yes it does

The tiny jump into the door does not classify as a real vehicle in/out animation in my eyes.

- Arma II does not have weapon reload animations

Yes it does

Again, its just a tiny wiggle with the gun and some waving of arms, universal for all weapons, its not a "real" animation.

Peeps: where did you get that from?

froggyluv

Sep 17 2009, 19:53

Come on, CM are smarter than that. They haven't really promised anything, and the wording they use is simply subjective.

Not sure what you mean by 'they are smarter'?

Maybe they didn't cross their hearts and hope to die and give us all promise rings but semantics aside, they seem to have failed in just about every initial statement made about their game on just about every level. I'm sure I could make a point for point list of these failures matching them to said statements but I really don't think it's worth the time. The game will be out soon enough (?) and we'll all see for ourselves.

MehMan

Sep 17 2009, 19:59

@<hidden> peeps: Who wrote that?

Not sure what you mean by 'they are smarter'?

We live in a wonderful world where making an actual promise in marketing can get you a nice big lawsuit. As such, everybody avoids acutal promises and just mentions stuff. Wording that is used can be very subjective. Their realism isn't the same as my realism.

Deadfast

Sep 17 2009, 19:59

The tiny jump into the door does not classify as a real vehicle in/out animation in my eyes.

It is still more than the magic *plob* you can see in the latest DR video though.

TimRiceSE

Sep 17 2009, 20:03

Source for that "article" ?

Very bad written English in it...

froggyluv

Sep 17 2009, 20:16

@<hidden> peeps: Who wrote that?

We live in a wonderful world where making an actual promise in marketing can get you a nice big lawsuit. As such, everybody avoids acutal promises and just mentions stuff. Wording that is used can be very subjective. Their realism isn't the same as my realism.

All the more reason for those who've been around the block a few to call Companies out when they're full of sh*t.

---------- Post added at 08:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 PM ----------

Probably the most interesting video yet.

Fog of War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frk-U5QluK8&feature=player_embedded#t=214

MehMan

Sep 17 2009, 20:24

The island is looking good. Too bad you won't be able to use it in that scale.

I wish BI would use this much marketing. At least youtube marketing.

PeepsGetAngry

Sep 17 2009, 20:38

Not sure, but here I found another article on DR forums that is pretty convincing of the left behind nature pc gamers are feeling today and frankly growing tired of.

I am not going to post as that is probabyl frowned upon here the link but rip it..
The title is called "The end of PC gaming is here.. Thanks to OPFP2"
if you want to go find it

------------------------------

One sad PC Gamer here waving his final goodbyes.. Please note I am not coming back, I have recieved many pm's about things, but I am done here, I see no point of being a pc gamer here in consoleland bringing hope to a title that can not possibly come close of restoring the fun we had back in the day of playing Pperation Flashpoint.

Simply put, OPFP2 is a XBOX Console Game, the pc version is nothing more than a port, and we all know undoubtably that pc versions will never be the
superior form of a game created in this context.. There simply is not even a viable reason to port a XBOX game to the PC.. It is pretty pointless and
already learned from EA Games, go look there is NO PC version of Madden 2010 lol. It's not because it's hard work or piracy, its simply because
NOONE BUYS IT... Noone is happy with it.. There is simply no point of doing so.

There is no reason to have hope of getting the title we expect that Operation Flashpoint originally brought to us on the PC.. The console sequel to this title
may indeed be a fun game, but it is a console game and nothing more. It can't possibly satisfy us experienced PC Gamers, so there is no point trying to satisfy us. There is only dissappointment to come.

It is blatent obvious with the lack of player videos, the lack of showing of this game at conventions that this game can not possibly live up to the name
Operation Flashpoint has achieved by pc gamers and is now verified by the admittance no demo will be avaiable by launch date. The true lack of showing or announcing anything really to do with Multiplayer play pretty much sums it up in a nutshell

I am not here to frown upon what is to come in the near future with it. I sincerly hope you have fun with it... I really dont want to bring down any console gamer who is looking to enjoy some tactical combat and mayhem to come.. But that simply can not compate to what a lot of us pc gamers have anticipated, and we have always been told, that they will keep the PC version kind of a seperate build when we questioned the fact there was console versions...

We may not have ever been outright lied too.. But we now can come to an easy conclusion of what we skeptical of to be more true now than ever especially proven by the lack of product shown to us to date and announcement of no pc demo.

So, there is no need for your corporate antiwhining here.. I wont be back to even read your replies.. MODS you can disable my account from future posting.
No more need for "come on dude give it a chance pm's" and "please don't leave... Etc etc" I appreciate it.. But I have better things to do these years then to waste it on something that I feel is subpar and going in the wrong direction.

For one example, I just looked at my bookcase which has 100's of PC titles and picked up my Original Falcon 4.0 Binder Version of that great combat flight sim
from Microprose. It brings a tear to me eye, to find it is some 11 years later, and never will we ever have the professionalism and skill used to provide us a product like such as what I am holding in my hands here ever again. I mean just thumbing through this incredible 200+ page manual where it displays every aspect of the cockpit, to even how to engage in combat evasive maneuves and flying the plane.. Just makes me shake my head at where we are at in a society today. Providing less for more is not something I can continue to support, when I have been through this before being sold by marketing hype. I can honestly say that the last 15-20 pc game purchases I have made since BF2 have been complete wastes of dollars. And I can and will no longer continue to support this market that is obviously not being supported.

I said in my eariler posts you may have read of what impact OPFP2 can seriously do in damage to the fading PC gaming genre.. It can save it or destroy it. And as of now, I dont think have to wait to the release date anymore now to know that this end near is indeed true.. I will now exit witih my dignity and pride, and honor the pc games and real developers of the past have given me, with no hope of a future. alst while holding on to my $50

15 years of fun and all i walk away with is $50 not wasted.. Hell, as least i got something.. sorry OpFp2 devs, I can not pay you a dime for putting an end to the PC Gaming market.

Farewell and have fun console gamers.. just remember to salute us for our sacrifices we have given you.

------------------------------

Kinda deep, makes some great points in how PC gamers are truly being shit upon... And i find it great they are stepping up and not supporting this port stuff, which i do agree to is just stupid.. we can go out and get consoles.. we dont want too, so keep your crap in your arena, quit friggan toying with us with your "basic" crap

datter

Sep 17 2009, 21:04

I earned myself a ban on the Codemasters site for correcting blatant lies and
incorrect points some people were making on there.

...

P.S. For the CM people monitoring this thread. Banning people for telling the truth and correcting misinformation just makes YOU look bad not the poster.
and as far as the ban goes...... I can still view and post through proxy servers so suck on that . Your wannabe Mall cop power trip FAILED.

I've been warned more than once that I'm very close to being banned from this forum. I've been earning "infractions". This means you are the anti-datter... please stay back lest we come into contact and thus destroy the universe. :)

.

p75

Sep 17 2009, 21:47

Kokatu wrote a pretty defining preview on it: tedious and colorless....go to their site and have a good read.....

I think, it will be just a simple console port.....

Not worth picking up.....

Max Power

Sep 17 2009, 22:09

I'll repeat: Thats if you take them at their word. So far, CM has shown me nothing other than extremely lofty claims, misleading marketing and broken promises with no track record to prove different. Sure if BI had no track record of proven success and promised us things like ragdoll, real time physics, and absolute realism with vehicle desctruction -only to pull these claims at last second -I wouldn't be so nicey nicey to them either.

I don't take them at their word and consider this a business ploy to protect their product from premature bad reviews. Yes that may be smart to protect your product, but smarter consumers know better...

The exact same has been said by numerous people in regards to BI and their products. I think a more balanced approach to the subject is in order. BI had all kinds of awesome ideas when they were doing R&D for game 2. Some of them didn't make it to the final cut, or are in but in a limited way. Walker's post about load calculations seem to have some truth to them. They obviously thought they could do complex animations for getting in and out of vehicles, but found that the reward didn't outweigh the cost. I see no reason to think that CM were blowing a smoke screen on this issue. Their photoshopped promos and all that other target render crap is bullshit, but they didn't claim that it was ingame stuff.