FP : DR - News & Discussion [Archive] - Page 4

boomar.

Apr 18 2009, 11:17

Gnat;1271697']Agree totally. OFP2 will drift towards picking up the BF2 "quick-game" types, ArmA2 will likely stay true to the "War Sim".[/B]

Come on man where did you get this idea from, its clear your just making it up since codemasters have not stated that.

You cant draw a conclusion based on the info about OFP: DR, since codemasters have not released much yet.

Maybe i'll think your point isnt garbage once we view some recent actual gameplay footage, what codemasters have given us is either really pre alpha and short, or some pre rendered garbage from ages ago.

They say they are working on some gameplay trailers and such so that should be good, so we get a real feel for the game.

But saying its gona turn into that BF2 garbage is silly IMO.

I know you didnt mean it and was just a little emotional, but still. *hugs*

Leopardi

Apr 18 2009, 11:23

boomar.

Apr 18 2009, 11:26

Come on man. It's clear they are going towards BF2 garbage gameplay if you look at it. HUD is full of arcade stuff like a magical compass on the screen, pictures of the weapon you are using, they went for the basic fps camera with fixed crosshair and so... it all looks arcade.

Yeah thats all on easy mode for the casual gamers who will pick up the game, play it and then move on.

On the hardcore mode there isnt any of that normal shiz you would see in an arcade type game.

SWAT_BigBear

Apr 18 2009, 11:34

"Hardcore mode"? lol, I know I've heard that term in another game/s......somewhere.

boomar.

Apr 18 2009, 11:38

Look i dont know if it will be called hardcore lol, but you get what i mean. They were even talking about it in one of the recent magazine previews (or was it that eurogamer preview from the other day?).

But yeah. Screw you all !!!! =p

echo1

Apr 18 2009, 11:38

This game series owns one of the most close minded fanboy army of all.

You know, the same people giving out about innaccuracies in OFP 2 are the same people giving out about innacuracies in BIS games. It works both ways.

Leopardi

Apr 18 2009, 11:43

Yeah thats all on easy mode for the casual gamers who will pick up the game, play it and then move on.

On the hardcore mode there isnt any of that normal shiz you would see in an arcade type game.

There shouldn't be any of those except in the easy mode. Clearly tells they are making the game more suitable for arcade run&gun play style.

boomar.

Apr 18 2009, 11:49

There shouldn't be any of those except in the easy mode. Clearly tells they are making the game more suitable for arcade run&gun play style.

In one of the recent hands on previews the negative point about it was that it wasnt a game for the gung ho crowd.

They were playing it on an easier setting meaning they had some hud things like mentioned above.

They dont have more health, the AI are just as smart as on the hardest mode so theres no point to just running in rambo style, you will get owned. This is a military sim just like ArmA2 will be.

Good thing this game should have a demo coming out sometime before release which i hope isnt too far away. Look forward to the massive praise and love of it on the OFP: DR forums, and also to the massive hate on these forums.

If ArmA2 release a demo, im sure it will be the same but in reverse, massive praise and love of it here, but hate in the OFP: DR forums.

Will be a good day indeed. Why cant we all just be friends? :bounce3:

SWAT_BigBear

Apr 18 2009, 12:09

Why cant we all just be friends? :bounce3:
You my friend, do not make it easy.

But yeah. Screw you all !!!! =p

boomar.

Apr 18 2009, 12:18

Haha yeah i just scrolled up and saw that.

Maybe i have one of those multiple personality disorders.

[APS]Gnat

Apr 18 2009, 12:28

LOL ...... No one can suggest I said I will "hate" OFP: DR ..... funny enough, if its a good game I will DEFINATELY buy it, but for the record;
What I do HATE is BF2-like games ... hence I could very well end up hating OFP2

... you and a few others on both sides need to move on from thinking is all about "US VS. THEM"

POTS

Apr 20 2009, 05:21

Now, as unexpected as it may seem, I believe ofp2 has ultimately helped arma2. Many people didn't have any idea arma existed, besides the few hardcore ofp players. Now that codemasters has released a big mainstream game, many average people have been exposed to the concept of the "military simulator". Now, you might say, "but ofp2 is stealing all the glory". I say, they might be trying, but arma2 is benefiting from this. Many people are being exposed to the new ingame and fake videos of ofp2, while our fans (or trolls lol) have commented on the videos exposing them as not living up to the title, and showing them how the game video is fake/cgi. Also showing them how the ingame stuff sucks compared to what they were talking about. Then, arma2 is exposed as the real sequel to ofp, and a much better game. I don't think people realized how much of a benefit this is, so keep up the good work on showing people the hands down better game. It's important that the better game have the most players, and BIS cant do that on their own. :pistols:

Victor

Apr 20 2009, 05:25

boomar.

Apr 20 2009, 08:52

OFP2 hasnt given us much info about the game. They are hopefully gona release some highest setting ingame screens and a high quality fresh gamepaly trailer that isnt from years ago.

Good thing demo for OFP2 will be out both before OFP2 actually releases and before ArmA2. Should be good. I'll be playing demo of both games before i make my decision.

PhilippRauch

Apr 20 2009, 11:47

Since Codemasters has bigger marketing budget and as such a bigger first influence/impact on (potential) buyers mindset/information IMHO it was very important for BIS to set things straight right away.

POTS is somehow right, but that is also the reason why BIS did react so directly and decisive to Codemasters claims that FP:DR is the successor of OFP, which it clearly isnt... so even calling it OFP2 isnt really correct... its FP:DR by all means...

Shadow NX

Apr 20 2009, 13:28

I think OFP2 helped us end users a lot when it comes to the amount of things we will see in ArmA2 because BIS know they need to make a really kickass game if they wanna have a chance against CMs Marketing machinery.

So they gave all they could to show CM who is the boss in the genre, the inventors of OFP or the guys with the brand name.

In the end we will see who makes the better game but so far my money is on BIS however more time and a bigger budget may also be good arguments for CM... well see.

Benoist

Apr 20 2009, 13:37

our fans (or trolls lol)
You're welcome my good sir, it was a pleasure.

Baff1

Apr 20 2009, 14:11

Not only has the competition raised the bar for both of them, but they are both going to benefit from eachothers advertising.

How many reviewers will mention one without the other?

To some extent I forsee confusion. When I sent my American friend out to the shops to buy Hidden and Dangerous, he asked for the latest WW2 Tac shooter and came back with Call of Duty.
The power of a massive marketing/distribution machine in action.

But overall I don't see many sales being an "either, or" decision. I forsee people who like either one title, wanting to buy both.

Deadfast

Apr 20 2009, 15:01

Yeah, I can foresee a lot of comparing in either of the game's reviews.

If ArmA II gets to be better in the end I'd expect DR being a part of its PR (ArmA II, unlike DR, has...) :)

Some_old_guy

Apr 20 2009, 20:52

maionaze

Apr 20 2009, 20:59

Let's not forget guys it's called OFP Dragon Rice.. "cough" Rising now , not OFP 2 DR

Victor

Apr 20 2009, 21:08

If Arma2 comes out slightly before OFP2, the OFP2 reviews will have the words "Arma2" all over it.

"Compared to Arma2 (The successor to Bohemia's Interactive's "Arma", whom were also the original creators of Operation Flashpoint), OFP2 did not come with flyable aircraft." etc, etc.

If review websites tap into Arma2 and compare it to OFP2 in its reviews, thats also a lot of free advertising.

Stimpak_Addict

Apr 20 2009, 23:53

Yeah. I commented on the G4 site asking if they would do an interview on ArmA II. I'm going to go check on that...

Edit:
No-one further commented on my comment.

bravo 6

Apr 20 2009, 23:53

What happened to the Rice?
Suddenly there are no more news about it..
Maybe the Rice is raw?

Viiiper

Apr 21 2009, 01:37

Yea for the people who never followed OFPs transition to Arma, OFP2 sure does let the door open for people to say that OFP2 is not Arma2. Which ends up leading into a conversation that spans between both Arma2 and OFP2 - which is ultimately free word of mouth advertising. So maybe... CM is doing us a favor.

Maybe.

Be careful what you wish for, those extra bodies are like the Sierra Leone fighters (if you know what I mean). Serious hard core is what ARMA is all about, you'll have a long road teaching the new players. In my opinion the players that play ARMA are of a different breed and are after a different experience.

Waiting for this thread to die........

Let's not forget guys it's called OFP Dragon Rice.. "cough" Rising now , not OFP 2 DR

What is the point of Trolling ??

Why is there another OFP-DR thread here? and if it's not then stay on topic?

Scrub

Apr 21 2009, 03:12

This game series owns one of the most close minded fanboy army of all.

Ya know, that comment gave me pause. I had to really think about it for some time.. Because you're right. No doubt, no argument - there is a hard line most people here (me included) draw. And at times it leads into some rough areas INSIDE this community. I wondered why, and why it's so easy to be skeptical, at best, about OFP:DR.

Here's what I came up with: We are, at our hearts, seeking perfection in this style game. Because BIS started this off, made and improved both themselves and this game engine from scratch, they have our gratitude and our loyalty for their efforts (more or less for some people, no names). Understand this was CREATION. No engine was out there to do this, in fact the new sound engine was created by BIS because there wasn't one that did what they wanted. Without going on forever, C.M. took BIS's idea, and did a 'canned' assembly of parts (like soup, a can of this an a can of that... Volia!), and is trying to pass it off as a successor. For me, that's the root of it. Though deep down I hope they pull off something well, for competition's sake.

NeoArmageddon

Apr 21 2009, 06:55

I think FP : DR wont bring much more new people to the arma2 community. It will be more like a filter. Everybody who seeks serious tactical gaming will buy arma2 and every grapic addicted cs/cod-kiddie will buy FP : DR cause of the render pics...
So maybe cheating wont be a problem in arma2 anymore (but in FP : DR^^)

boomar.

Apr 21 2009, 07:06

Ya know, that comment gave me pause. I had to really think about it for some time.. Because you're right. No doubt, no argument - there is a hard line most people here (me included) draw. And at times it leads into some rough areas INSIDE this community. I wondered why, and why it's so easy to be skeptical, at best, about OFP:DR.

Here's what I came up with: We are, at our hearts, seeking perfection in this style game. Because BIS started this off, made and improved both themselves and this game engine from scratch, they have our gratitude and our loyalty for their efforts (more or less for some people, no names). Understand this was CREATION. No engine was out there to do this, in fact the new sound engine was created by BIS because there wasn't one that did what they wanted. Without going on forever, C.M. took BIS's idea, and did a 'canned' assembly of parts (like soup, a can of this an a can of that... Volia!), and is trying to pass it off as a successor. For me, that's the root of it. Though deep down I hope they pull off something well, for competition's sake.

Thats a load of rubbish. Codemasters have a highly skilled team and from some of the tech video's, its obvious there is so much going into the game. The Ego engine looks fantastic.

Who cares who's idea it was, people copy others ideas all the time. This is real life, get used to it.

Cant wait for some recent high quality OFP2 screens + recent gameplay video on highest settings etc. Should be good.

Once OFP2 and Arma2 are both released i wouldnt be surprised if another group started working on there own military sim like these. Theres plenty of room in this sorta sub genre of FPS, so ArmA2 and OFP2 dont really need to compete.

Codemasters probably really couldnt care less about BIS, they know OFP2 is gona sell well, they know how to make a good game, and most of all they have the $$$$ for a massive marketing campaign for the game.

SgtH3nry3

Apr 21 2009, 07:10

Ya know, that comment gave me pause. I had to really think about it for some time.. Because you're right. No doubt, no argument - there is a hard line most people here (me included) draw. And at times it leads into some rough areas INSIDE this community. I wondered why, and why it's so easy to be skeptical, at best, about OFP:DR.

Here's what I came up with: We are, at our hearts, seeking perfection in this style game. Because BIS started this off, made and improved both themselves and this game engine from scratch, they have our gratitude and our loyalty for their efforts (more or less for some people, no names). Understand this was CREATION. No engine was out there to do this, in fact the new sound engine was created by BIS because there wasn't one that did what they wanted. Without going on forever, C.M. took BIS's idea, and did a 'canned' assembly of parts (like soup, a can of this an a can of that... Volia!), and is trying to pass it off as a successor. For me, that's the root of it. Though deep down I hope they pull off something well, for competition's sake.Exactly! But anyways, competition is always good.
Even though I don't think Codemasters is a worthy competitor, it will definately make BIS developers more efficient.

If they make enough profit, they could expand. Like what Crytek has done over the years, they now own a couple of renown developing studios while they have the technology.

Apr 21 2009, 07:25

Who cares who's idea it was, people copy others ideas all the time. This is real life, get used to it.

The problem for most people is not that they are "copying for BI" the problem is that CM are trying to pass off their FP:DR as sequel to OFP. The sequel to OFP was ArmA, FP:DR is some new offshoot, related only in name. But with the constant BS from CM, a lot of people have grown tired of it, and are staying loyal to the original creators.

amadieus

Apr 21 2009, 07:31

Unleash the trolls!!!
Unleash them!!

boomar.

Apr 21 2009, 07:37

The problem for most people is not that they are "copying for BI" the problem is that CM are trying to pass off their FP:DR as sequel to OFP. The sequel to OFP was ArmA, FP:DR is some new offshoot, related only in name. But with the constant BS from CM, a lot of people have grown tired of it, and are staying loyal to the original creators.

Well if you were the big guy at Codemasters and you knew you still had the rights thingy to OFP, wouldnt you try and use the OFP name? I know i would, more $$$ this way. Especially since OFP was a success.

Anyway, most people probably wont know Codemasters didnt make the original.

Apr 21 2009, 08:09

Well if you were the big guy at Codemasters and you knew you still had the rights thingy to OFP, wouldnt you try and use the OFP name? I know i would, more $$$ this way. Especially since OFP was a success.

And this is where I personally have a problem. CM owns the name "Operation Flashpoint" and nothing else, they do NOT own the rights to make a sequel. Thats where 1 of my 2 beefs come from.

Anyway, most people probably wont know Codemasters didnt make the original.

And this is where my second problem comes from. People who played the original flashpoint (and there are about a million of them) might see "the sequel to OFP" and decide to buy based on that. When the sale should have gone to BI, who do actually own the rights to make sequels to Operation Flashpoint (except that they cant actually call it "Operation Flashpoint")

And this is the point, becuase 99% of people dont know any better, CM's bullshit about "when we made the original" and "finally the sequel to" nonsense is painting a flase picture much worse than the usual pre-renders and PR nonsense.

Baff1

Apr 21 2009, 10:17

And this is where I personally have a problem. CM owns the name "Operation Flashpoint" and nothing else, they do NOT own the rights to make a sequel. Thats where 1 of my 2 beefs come from.

And this is where my second problem comes from. People who played the original flashpoint (and there are about a million of them) might see "the sequel to OFP" and decide to buy based on that. When the sale should have gone to BI, who do actually own the rights to make sequels to Operation Flashpoint (except that they cant actually call it "Operation Flashpoint")

And this is the point, becuase 99% of people dont know any better, CM's bullshit about "when we made the original" and "finally the sequel to" nonsense is painting a flase picture much worse than the usual pre-renders and PR nonsense.
Codemasters bought the name Operation Flashpoint. They paid for it. Once you buy something, it's yours.

No one forced BIS to sell it, yes it was their creation their idea, but having one good idea 10 years ago isn't why I buy BIS games.
Idea's don't mean dick. Everyone and his dog has great ideas aplenty.
Implimentation and ability to produce, that's what I'm loyal to.

BIS have proved themselves time and time again in any number of different ways. Flashpoint might have been their finest hour or their defining moment in games production, but no one is living in the past.

Fumo

Apr 21 2009, 10:21

And this is where my second problem comes from. People who played the original flashpoint (and there are about a million of them) might see "the sequel to OFP" and decide to buy based on that. When the sale should have gone to BI, who do actually own the rights to make sequels to Operation Flashpoint (except that they cant actually call it "Operation Flashpoint")

People who played OFP know very well who have make it, you (and BIS too) just fears that the younger generation don't know it. But who cares about that "BF2-kiddys"? Oh wait, they pay too, right? So BIS don't care about the principles or that we "older" fans don't know who's the real producer. They smell lesser money. That's all, that's sad.

And this is the point, becuase 99% of people dont know any better, CM's bullshit about "when we made the original" and "finally the sequel to" nonsense is painting a flase picture much worse than the usual pre-renders and PR nonsense.

So 99% of the people are stupid? A daring statement.

MehMan

Apr 21 2009, 10:31

Bleh, CM is going to just buy their reviews, like they are doing with previews. Everybody has a price, game reviewer's ones aren't all that high.

NoRailgunner

Apr 21 2009, 10:33

Judge the different games on your own when they are released.
Dont forget: ;)

You can make some of the people happy all the time, all of the people happy some of the time, but you can't make all of the people happy all of the time.

Apr 21 2009, 10:34

Codemasters bought the name Operation Flashpoint. They paid for it. Once you buy something, it's yours.

No one forced BIS to sell it, yes it was their creation their idea

Way to miss the point completely. I dont care what its called, I care the CM are riding off BI's hard work, and taking the credit for it. CM owns the right to use the two words "Operation" and "Flashpoint" together as a title. They do NOT own the right to make SEQUELS to the original Operation Flashpoint: CWC.

Jesus, how is that so hard to understand. And this is my point. Vast numbers of people either dont know, dont understand properly or simply dont care. They see the words "operation flashpoint sequel" and they think about how awesome OFP was, and "sweet, I'll get this".

So 99% of the people are stupid? A daring statement.

Dunno where you got stupid from, but yes, 99% of all gamers wouldnt know about OFP, wouldnt know about ArmA, wouldnt know about the "problems" between BI and CM, and they certainly wouldnt know that CM's "sequel" isnt really a sequel at all, its just some game that has the name "Operation Flashpoint" in the title.

Fumo

Apr 21 2009, 11:09

Rocco

Apr 21 2009, 11:30

Apr 21 2009, 11:42

A name define a sequel. If CM would make an "OFP: CWC2-Guba's return!", they could. Because it's theyr name.

No, they couldnt, because they do not legally own the right to do so. Well, yes, they could, but then BI could take them to court and earn a nice bit on the side.

There still seems to be a failure of understanding of the legal intricacies and ramifications from some members.

Scrub

Apr 21 2009, 12:14

Wow, please report back to the DR forums that the counter trolling operation is going along well...

Boomar, yes you missed more than one point. Taking a canned engine like EGO and tweaking it is not creation. Can they make something worthwhile? Yes, probably, I'm not at all saying they're unskilled. I'm saying the're consciously living in the shadow created by another company, and trying to pull it off as if it's THEIR shadow. The name actually had value because of BIS's creation. The games' genre 'door' was kicked open and secured by BIS. It's an ethics thing, not sure you'd understand ;)

Fumo, a bit hypocritical and unrealistic to say first that C.M. isn't doing the same in reverse, and also the market needs to grow to sustain development, so yes, the BF-kiddies do grow up, and many, out, of BF to something with more substance.

Again, I hope they do well for competitions sake. They have a lot of learning to do. This is looking like a good first run, though. When they figure out how to optimize the terrain streaming, they may get fast movers ingame. When they get large battles and dense terrain object depth >300m, we'll have a direct contender. Till then (and a few more items) BIS and CM have will have their own markets.

Cheers

Baff1

Apr 21 2009, 12:27

Way to miss the point completely. I dont care what its called, I care the CM are riding off BI's hard work, and taking the credit for it. CM owns the right to use the two words "Operation" and "Flashpoint" together as a title. They do NOT own the right to make SEQUELS to the original Operation Flashpoint: CWC.

I don't see why people shouldn't profit off BIS's hard work.
I want everyone to profit. Not a soul alive should be poor.

Like it or not Codemasters were involved in the production of Operation Flashpoint.
Some of that hardwork, some of that vision, was theirs.
I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to continue to profit from their investment in that game just as BIS have.

It wasn't just BIS that had vision all those years ago. With the announcement of a Flashpoint sequel, Codemasters have proved to me that they still do too.

(I draw the line at Clive pretending he was an original programmer. That is criminal behaviour. False advertising. I would laugh out loud if the police picked him up for it).

And with all due respect to your opinion, legally speaking, if Codemasters paid BIS any money to make OpFlash, they own the copywright. Regardless of any silly terms and conditions in a contract, it is theirs.

I don't know the precise details of that contract.
I've heard BIS's side of it.
I like to have both before I make my personal judgements.
If BIS have a case and wish to take it further I'm sure we will all see the court's rulings on exactly who owns what.
So with all due respect to your opinions and theirs, I'd like to withhold my judgement at this moment.

Both games will be judged by their end results. Their names and their pedigree's only serve bring them closer to their target market. They will both have to live up to peoples expectations if they wish to sell.
If their connection to the original title is all either title has to offer, then they will both fail.

boomar.

Apr 21 2009, 12:36

If Arma2 is bugged at the beginning/unplayable = CM/OFP2 might attract more people

I think thats why we dont have a confirmed release date for ArmA2 yet, BIS tries to release a bugfree game to get good reviews. I think the community will buy both games though to test which one is better, but in the end, the more action oriented/non realistic gamers will play OFP2 while (we) play ArmA2.

Yet all the hands on previews from respectable places said OFP2 stayed true to the original and might not be the game for the cod4 gung ho type player.

I guess you are just trying to make up reasons now so you all got something to say when OFP2 out sells ArmA2 =D =p :yay:

maionaze

Apr 21 2009, 12:48

Yet all the hands on previews from respectable places said OFP2 stayed true to the original and might not be the game for the cod4 gung ho type player.

And by respectable you mean ... ?

boomar.

Apr 21 2009, 12:49

We should drop the Codemasters and Bohemia Interactive teams onto a deserted island in the middle of the pacific ocean and not let em off till they are best buddies.

PhilippRauch

Apr 21 2009, 12:51

Well, i aint buying FP:DR but i might rent it at the local videorental store for 'testing' ;) ...

SiC-Disaster

Apr 21 2009, 12:52

Yet all the hands on previews from respectable places said OFP2 stayed true to the original and might not be the game for the cod4 gung ho type player.

I guess you are just trying to make up reasons now so you all got something to say when OFP2 out sells ArmA2 =D =p :yay:

Anything slower then CoD4 is already being called a tactical shooter, i find that hearing it from game journalists isnt saying that much.
Most of them consider Battlefield 2 as a really realistic game.

Apr 21 2009, 13:05

Like it or not Codemasters were involved in the production of Operation Flashpoint.
CM published OFP and did a bad job of the PR for it. They didnt make any content they didnt program anything. What CM DID do was localisation and the voice acting (or at least hiring the company that did it). Yeah, they made Red Hammer, but that sucked a dick, plus we're not talking about RH, we're talking about OFP

Some of that hardwork, some of that vision, was theirs.
No, it wasnt. CM came in at the last minute when OFP was practically ready to be pressed. Theres plenty of info out there to support this. (see http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/Buggs/status_quo_01.jpg?t=1240318324 note "Publisher: TBA" - there is a lot of other info out there about when CM joined to publish OFP, but i cba to find it now.)

It wasn't just BIS that had vision all those years ago. With the announcement of a Flashpoint sequel, Codemasters have proved to me that they still do too.
CM have proved nothing more than they can see that there is money to be made from the franchise. They didnt have the vision to start with, as seen above OFP was practically ready to go to press before CM showed up, hell they dont have it now (no aircraft, no editor, no civilians, no wildlife, all sorts of other nonsense). Flashpoint to them is like BF is to EA, a franchise to make money out of. Sure BI is still looking to make money, but not in the same vein. Spending time programming butterfly AI does not seem like milking the cash cow to me...

And with all due respect to your opinion, legally speaking, if Codemasters paid BIS any money to make OpFlash, they own the copywright. Regardless of any silly terms and conditions in a contract, it is theirs.
With all due respect to your ignorance of the situation, they do not. The only thing CodeMasters owns in relation to OFP is the TITLE "Operation Flashpoint". They do NOT own the IP for the engine, they do NOT own the IP for ANY of the content, they do NOT own the IP on the storyline, the characters, the original soundtrack, the missions, etc etc. CM owns the NAME and NOTHING ELSE. They do NOT OWN THE RIGHTS TO MAKE SEQUELS. The terms and conditions of any contract are not "silly", the terms and conditions in contracts such as this are there for the exact reason as to define ownership. Not some crap idea that "they paid some money so they own it".

boomar.

Apr 21 2009, 13:14

C
CM have proved nothing more than they can see that there is money to be made from the franchise. They didnt have the vision to start with, as seen above OFP was practically ready to go to press before CM showed up, hell they dont have it now (no aircraft, no editor, no civilians, no wildlife, all sorts of other nonsense). Flashpoint to them is like BF is to EA, a franchise to make money out of. Sure BI is still looking to make money, but not in the same vein. Spending time programming butterfly AI does not seem like milking the cash cow to me...

Erm OFP2 will have an editor thing, civilians dont need to be in the game, anyone living on the island prolly fled to avoid the war and wildlife prolly been eaten by the chinese so no need for them.

OFP2 has helicopters, which is all thats needed.

Im happy OFP2 doesnt have the jets and such, i never thought they belonged anyways.

Its also good for some things to be different from OFP2 and ArmA2. I want to buy both games, i want to experience the military sim genre on both games ofcourse, but i dont want every feature to be the same or whats the point of buying both?

They gota set themselves apart for the good of the genre !!!

badlymad

Apr 21 2009, 13:25

Yet all the hands on previews from respectable
places said OFP2 stayed true to the original and might not be the game for the cod4 gung ho type player.

I guess you are just trying to make up reasons now so you all got something to say when OFP2 out sells ArmA2 =D =p :yay:

Yes, it may not be COD 4, but that doesn't detract from the feeling that it looks like Battlefield: Bad Company without the humor.

Baff1

Apr 21 2009, 13:25

Not some crap idea that "they paid some money so they own it".

I think it would be a whole lot crapper if you bought something and didn't own it. That to me would be the crappest idea of all.

Codemasters aren't using the
IP for the engine, they do NOT own the IP for ANY of the content, they do NOT own the IP on the storyline, the characters, the original soundtrack, the missions, etc etc so you don't have to worry.

They are using the name. The name they were a part of making, the name they paid for and own.

You may hold an utter contempt for the work of publishers, but I don't. You may think that paying for something to get done that otherwise would not get done is a service of zero importance or value, but I don't.

There are just way too many intresting looking games out there that turn to vapourware mid development because they run out of money and can't find a publisher willing to, or able to, take them seriously.

And yes, once again, I already understand that you feel that they have no legal right to make a sequel.
Once again I'd like to take the courts word for this and not yours as I suspect that legally this is not quite as black and white a case as you would have me believe.

I've studied both contract law and copywright law in the past and nothing you have said has led me to reconsider my opinion.
At this point in the discussion only a statement from Codemasters or a judicial decision is likely to.

Deadfast

Apr 21 2009, 13:26

...anyone living on the island prolly fled to avoid the war...

"Hey folks, this is general Badass from the USMC. We're gonna attack the island in a few weeks so I think it would be a good idea to catch the nearest flight."

What a silly example, I know, but how else would the entire civilian population of the island managed to evacuate in time?

echo1

Apr 21 2009, 13:28

Erm OFP2 will have an editor thing, civilians dont need to be in the game, anyone living on the island prolly fled to avoid the war and wildlife prolly been eaten by the chinese so no need for them.

How very convenient for Codemasters... :wink_o:

I think collateral damage, and civilians getting caught up in war is what sets Modern conflict apart, and simulation of civilians and partisans was one of the things that set OFP apart from other games. Leaving it out of OFP2 is quite a let down. You know that you are dealing with a fanboy when they try and convince you that something that is quite obviously bad is actually good.

Apr 21 2009, 13:31

And yes, once again, I already understand that you feel that they have no legal right to make a sequel.
Feeling has nothing to do with it.

It was clearly stated in a press release (and I'm sure I could get shinraiden to do some of his magical digging to find further evidence) that BI retained the exclusive right to make sequels to OFP. Therefore to keep saying that FP:DR is "the long awaited sequel to OFP" is breaking the contract. Thats why BI made a fuss about it, and thats why BI started some legal proceedings (although we are unlikely to ever know the outcome from this, and rightly so).

Once again I'd like to take the courts word for this and not yours as I suspect that legally this is not quite as black and white a case as you would have me believe.
BI retained the exclusive rights to make sequels, CM is branding FP:DR as the sequel to OFP. Whats NOT black and white about that?

hellasmoke

Apr 21 2009, 13:36

I think they are both going to play off of each other....One may have something one player likes, while the other has something player 2 likes. I think in the end, they will end up being better for us(the community) due to them having to fight for Market shares in a market dominated by these two games(thats not even speaking of other players who enjoy shooters) simply these two games.

4 IN 1

Apr 21 2009, 13:59

We should drop the Codemasters and Bohemia Interactive teams onto a deserted island in the middle of the pacific ocean and not let em off till they are best buddies.

No, we should leave them a box of weapon for each side and see who lives last, but by that time i will have all my money placed on BI for obvious reason

Scrub

Apr 21 2009, 14:21

Originally Posted by DM
Not some crap idea that "they paid some money so they own it".

Quote Baff1:
I think it would be a whole lot crapper if you bought something and didn't own it. That to me would be the crappest idea of all.

If you buy Arma2 or OFP:DR, you don't own them. Like any software, you have a 'user license' and have purchased the right to use the material and benefit from that use, as stated in all the EULA's that nobody reads and comprehends (me included lol).. Pretty much (at least similar to) the way BIS and CM did business. 'Support us through the build, and sell for your profit, but we own the engine and all sequels' is a paraphrase of what the brief stated.

.kju [PvPscene]

Apr 21 2009, 14:49

CM did testing/QA from what I recall. And of course they did have influence on the dev to a degree.

Placebo

Apr 21 2009, 15:14

And of course they did have influence on the dev to a degree.

Umm, no.

.kju [PvPscene]

Apr 21 2009, 15:31

So CM did not make ANY requirements, milestones, comments, feedback, discussions?

SaBrE_UK

Apr 21 2009, 15:48

The devs and mods have been clear on this many times before. CM did not influence development.

walker

Apr 21 2009, 15:57

Hi all

Codemasters seem to be having troubles with "Economic Woes" in the current climate. Something I pointed out some time ago. Others hinted they are too big to fail, well we all know what that is code for.

With key staff leaving the company do they have a future?

How bad a sign is dropping titles?

Codemasters drops release windows for Dirt 2, Overlord II, Fuel, others (http://us.keegy.com/tag/holiday-rush/)

Codemasters drops release windows for Dirt 2, Overlord II, Fuel, others
Codemasters is avoiding the holiday rush by releasing several of its titles this year during the sleepy summer months (and for this, we thank them). The Overlord sequel, FUEL, and a little game that caught our eye, Jumpgate Evolution, all drop during low-pressure sales months. Codies will releas...

Will Dragon Rising be the next title Codemasters are forced to drop?

Can codemasters make it through the present economic climate or are they a hostile take over target?

Will they be split up?

Quizzicly Walker

Dwarden

Apr 21 2009, 16:08

i guess you not read the article http://www.joystiq.com/2009/02/20/codemasters-drops-release-windows-for-dirt-2-overlord-ii-fuel/

cause i think the wording "drop" means just using non standard release times ...

4 IN 1

Apr 21 2009, 17:00

And by respectable you mean ... ?
i think he means that game media nowadays are still trustable--I dont' think so--or he might mean that media only report facts--I don't think so.:rolleyes:

Baff1

Apr 21 2009, 18:02

Feeling has nothing to do with it.

It was clearly stated in a press release (and I'm sure I could get shinraiden to do some of his magical digging to find further evidence) that BI retained the exclusive right to make sequels to OFP. Therefore to keep saying that FP:DR is "the long awaited sequel to OFP" is breaking the contract. Thats why BI made a fuss about it, and thats why BI started some legal proceedings (although we are unlikely to ever know the outcome from this, and rightly so).

BI retained the exclusive rights to make sequels, CM is branding FP:DR as the sequel to OFP. Whats NOT black and white about that?
Copywright has been known to override contractual obligation in court before.
Usually in favour of the artist, but what cuts one way...

To my mind, the key to this one will be whether or not BIS accepted any money from Codemasters during the development. I can't tell you whether they did or not, sorry.

Simply put, some of your rights can't be signed away.

Baff1

Apr 21 2009, 18:16

If you buy Arma2 or OFP:DR, you don't own them. Like any software, you have a 'user license' and have purchased the right to use the material and benefit from that use, as stated in all the EULA's that nobody reads and comprehends (me included lol).. Pretty much (at least similar to) the way BIS and CM did business. 'Support us through the build, and sell for your profit, but we own the engine and all sequels' is a paraphrase of what the brief stated.

No mate, if you buy it, you own it.
A lisence is something completely different and involves you making and accepting an agreement with the other party and them making and accepting an agreement with you.

Under contract law "a shrinkwrap EULA" does not meet the qualifications required to form a binding contract. You are not in direct communication with the company issuing the lisence and they have not personally accepted any agreement you have made to their proposed terms when you "clicked" I Accept under the duress of trying to get the game you already own to work.

Buying a software in a shop is not lisencing a software, it is buying it. You are still protected by regular consumer rights and retail laws. (At least in the EU and U.S. you are). Any contractual obligations you enter into are covered by retail law and between you and the shop owner only.

No precedent has been set on this subject in any federal court to date, however district courts in America have on a number of occaisons ruled in favour or against the validity of a shrinkwrap EULA.
But publishers should be aware that the ratio is something like 7:1 against the validity of this sort of lisence agreement. No publisher has yet to dare to refer this issue to high/federal court to set a legal precedent and no ammendments to either U.S. EU or my national laws are being tabled to address this.

Lisencing a software to the end user is a somewhat more expensive thing to do than selling it retail as it requires personal contact between a representative of the company and the end user.
Usually a commission based sales team.
Expensive softwares like Sage, and 3D Studio Max can afford to lisence their products instead of selling them.

For a software such as a game or an individual copy of Windows, this really isn't a financially viable prospect. The added overhead prices you out of the market.
VBS is probably sold under lisence, while the lisence agreement for ArmA is not worth the paper it isn't written on.

Copywright is unaffected by lisencing agreement or retail contract. You may own your copy, you could for example resell it or install it on multiple computers etc for example, but any attempt to distribute that copy, or rent it out, is illegal without the consent of the copywright holder.

Sorry for Off topic, Please PM me if you wish to discuss this further.

echo1

Apr 21 2009, 18:29

Try telling some of that stuff to Microsoft...

If you own software, how come the publisher doesn't let you modify it for personal use?

.kju [PvPscene]

Apr 21 2009, 18:42

The devs and mods have been clear on this many times before. CM did not influence development.

Yes, yes. There are always two sides on a coin.

echo1

Apr 21 2009, 18:57

Yes, yes. There are always to sides on a coin.

Well, do you have anything to back up what you are saying?

Baff1

Apr 21 2009, 19:06

Try telling some of that stuff to Microsoft...

If you own software, how come the publisher doesn't let you modify it for personal use?
BIS does. Loads of publishers actively encourage you to.

The publisher doesn't actually have any say in how you use your (retail) software.
This is not just the legal position it is a common sense answer. You know full well the publisher has no idea about what you have done at home on your own PC and no method of controlling you. They aren't in a position to "allow you" to do anything. Some of them use encryption and stuff to make it harder I suppose.

Copywright law even allows you to reverse engineer your software and change it for system compatability (or even just for education purposes).
Publishers don't have to like it if they don't want to. In the end they all like money more than they like control I suppose.

Microsoft already knows that stuff, that's why they make their lisencing agreements with their retailers.
So that their lisenced agents agree to only sell them with a new PC etc.
They can make cost effective and binding lisence agreements with retailers, where to do so with individual end users is cost prohibitive.

You won't see a lot of Microsofts stuff available on the shop shelf, and that which is sold as direct retail, they charge more for.

echo1

Apr 21 2009, 19:14

Not the actual source code of the software itself.

Placebo

Apr 21 2009, 19:26

Yes, yes. There are always to sides on a coin.

If you want your username changing to Clive then please visit the thread in my signature ;)

froggyluv

Apr 21 2009, 19:52

Baff1

Apr 21 2009, 19:55

Not the actual source code of the software itself.

I'll elucidate.
The publisher is not in a position to allow you or disallow you from doing anything with a retail product. You did not buy it from the publisher, you have no contract with them, and they have none with you.

Copywright Law does allow you to modify your software, even the source code, for the specific purposes of system compatability.

boomar.

Apr 22 2009, 04:46

Dropping civilians, jets, wildlife, console-editor, and 3rd person view is not something that can be in any way construed as 'good' imho. To state that the absence of civilians is some how tied into the story-line is a total cop-out. Sounds like a ghost town shooter to me...

Obviously civilians arent part of the storyline and events have occured so they wont be there. Im sure CM could easily add them if they were supposed to be apart of the game.

Dont need jets, IMO if anything this is a bonus in my view. I remember BF2 and its jets, even though the gameplay area is large enough for choppers, and ground forces, its juts way too small for jets. CM know that jets dont belong.

You can have the wildlife point.

Who cares about a console editor, atleast we get an indepth one on PC. Is Arma2 even going to be on both the PS3 and Xbox360? lol...

3rd person view is available on vehicles for OFP2. But is not for when its not in a vehicle. This is good since many didnt want a 3rd person view on the player to add to the realism. Being able to see behind cover and such when using 3rd person is just ridiculous in a military sim. BIS should be ashamed.

So yeah your points are terrible and not valid.

Next.

eenter

Apr 22 2009, 05:17

froggyluv

Apr 22 2009, 06:31

Well boomar,you sure showed me...

I guess one's man's trash can indeed be another's treasure

Hook, line & sinker...

IronPyramid

Apr 22 2009, 06:34

Obviously civilians arent part of the storyline and events have occured so they wont be there. Im sure CM could easily add them if they were supposed to be apart of the game.

Dont need jets, IMO if anything this is a bonus in my view. I remember BF2 and its jets, even though the gameplay area is large enough for choppers, and ground forces, its juts way too small for jets. CM know that jets dont belong.

You can have the wildlife point.

Who cares about a console editor, atleast we get an indepth one on PC. Is Arma2 even going to be on both the PS3 and Xbox360? lol...

3rd person view is available on vehicles for OFP2. But is not for when its not in a vehicle. This is good since many didnt want a 3rd person view on the player to add to the realism. Being able to see behind cover and such when using 3rd person is just ridiculous in a military sim. BIS should be ashamed.

So yeah your points are terrible and not valid.

Next.

Actually I'm pretty certain most individuals who are looking for the type of game that OFP was, and ArmA became, would prefer all of those things in their games. I suppose these points aren't valid to you, because your standards are severely lowered. Why don't you check again how many people have decided against buying DR because of the fact that the oh so unimportant editor is being left out of the console version. And the relativity of jets being in BF2, as opposed to games like OFP and ArmA is actually as you said yourself a terrible and invalid point. Not a bonus, merely a requisite in a true military sim, when the landscapes exceed 100 sq kilometers, let alone what ArmA 2 and DR will be sporting. As for civilians, what kind of evacuation plan renders an island of that size remote? Or is it that there is a low population? And if so, how many towns will there be? How large will they be?

With third person, I suppose its down to taste, but pointing out that it can be used in vehicles, then turning around and saying its completely unrealistic, and BIS should be ashamed.... oh boy. I just don't think you're capable of understanding gameplay decisions let alone acclimating yourself to the pressure of creating new gaming architecture. Especially within which providing us players a form of AI that can manage the surrounding terrain, and circumstances in order to perform their duties.

You're posts are in no way beneficial to anyone besides possibly yourself, harboring your opinion, and attempting to satiate it by antagonizing the rest of us.

And in case this is ot, the questions about towns and buildings stand to be answered. I've searched around for it, found some stuff, but I suppose I'll probably have to wait for anything concrete. Gee, how familiar...

Salvatore_Lee

Apr 22 2009, 07:38

Dont need jets, IMO if anything this is a bonus in my view. I remember BF2 and its jets, even though the gameplay area is large enough for choppers, and ground forces, its juts way too small for jets. CM know that jets dont belong.
Next.

:Oo: :icon_lol:

You just made my day haha !

Fumo

Apr 22 2009, 07:45

You're posts are in no way beneficial to anyone besides possibly yourself, harboring your opinion, and attempting to satiate it by antagonizing the rest of us.

At least he doesn't insult anyone or had attack directly some other opinion. He just tell his opinion. While you need to attack him, so who is antagonizing who?
And yes, i share his opinion. Maybe we are just two that think so, but we have the right to tell our opinion and are able to do it without insulting. If you don't care don't read it. Or did you all just expect words like: "Blame CM, blame CM, blame CM. And hail to BIS!!!".
No, there will allways be someone with another opinion, so lern to deal with it!

OT: I also think that Jets are a bit "overpowered" for an island, of course CAS is a important point in todays warfares, but for a game it is enough to let a Chopper handle this job.
Civilians are a thema fo it self. I agree that they would increase the athmosphere of a "war simulation", but we also must see that's a disputed thema. Some countrys and some societies don't like to see civilians in such games where the player are able to "amuse" hisself by slaughting them. That have nothing to do with gameplay, just with moral (i don't share that moral but CM seems to do). I see it positiv, my pc don't have to spend ressources for theyr polygons and AI :).

SWAT_BigBear

Apr 22 2009, 09:25

3rd person view is available on vehicles for OFP2. But is not for when its not in a vehicle. This is good since many didnt want a 3rd person view on the player to add to the realism. Being able to see behind cover and such when using 3rd person is just ridiculous in a military sim. BIS should be ashamed.

So yeah your points are terrible and not valid.

Next.
Do you ever go back a read this stuff your posting?
OFP/ArmA has options for those settings to be on/off!

Now you say "it's ok to have 3rd person in vehicles since OFP2 will have it" ? So, you consider that "realism"?

MehMan

Apr 22 2009, 09:54

boomar is just trolling.

bravo 6

Apr 22 2009, 11:35

Originally Posted by boomar. View Post
Dont need jets, IMO if anything this is a bonus in my view. I remember BF2 and its jets, even though the gameplay area is large enough for choppers, and ground forces, its juts way too small for jets. CM know that jets dont belong.
Next.

Jesus mother in law!

Think a little bit about this:

OFP had Jets, so why the "successor" OFP: Dragon Rice won't have?

IT makes perfectly no Sense Not to be able to pilot jets!

Zipper5

Apr 22 2009, 11:43

I like reading his posts and how he talks about "we". It's almost as if there are two warring sides here! :eek:

Oh, wait...

But anyways, I don't agree with the complete removal of 3rd person from DR. Having the option to switch it on and off and quickly switch between the two at a press of a button was/is something I really liked/like in OFP and ArmA. To remove it, in my eyes, is another glaring hole outlining Codemasters' complete lack of understanding OFP. I guess it's because what the player sees in 1st person will not be the same thing they see their body doing in 3rd person, so they don't want to make it look weird (like in Oblivion/Fallout 3). To me, that's just being lazy. Who knows, maybe the player won't even have feet...

Furthermore, having a multi-platforming release certainly isn't helping Codemasters in any way apart from more profit. So far the graphics look worse and there is no editor on consoles. Even OFP:E had an editor, and that was on the Xbox.

walker

Apr 22 2009, 11:59

Hi all

I remember Jets in BIS's OFP1. I remember doing straffing runs on enemy tanks for a team of soldiers danger close and about to be over run. I remember their cheers over Team Speak.

I remember missions in BIS's OFP1 where the terrorist was mixed in with civilians, where we were looking for a particular player face mixed in a crowd or driving a car.

I can not believe any true fan of BIS's OFP1 would buy a game that attempted to whore OFP's name to sell a castrated version of OFP

Regards walker

Placebo

Apr 22 2009, 12:11

Or did you all just expect words like: "Blame CM, blame CM, blame CM. And hail to BIS!!!".

Ummmm, did you not read the smallprint in the forum rules you agreed to when signing up here? ;)

JdB

Apr 22 2009, 12:16

Jesus mother in law!

Think a little bit about this:

OFP had Jets, so why the "successor" OFP: Dragon Rice won't have?

IT makes perfectly no Sense Not to be able to pilot jets!

And besides that, the comparison with BF2 is useless, since BF2 maps are much smaller than the islands in OFP, ArmA1 and ArmA2. So it can work in DR as well.

bravo 6

Apr 22 2009, 12:21

edit: deleted

I admit it would be interesting to see how CM would do it.

4 IN 1

Apr 22 2009, 12:50

Benoist

Apr 22 2009, 12:57

I can not believe any true fan of BIS's OFP1 would buy a game that attempted to whore OFP's name to sell a castrated version of OFP
I couldn't have came with a better definition than that. Marvelous!

Placebo

Apr 22 2009, 13:02

Opteryx post deleted, inflammatory, flamebaiting, unnecessary. Please refrain.

Opteryx

Apr 22 2009, 13:59

Understood.

SgtH3nry3

Apr 22 2009, 14:14

And besides that, the comparison with BF2 is useless, since BF2 maps are much smaller than the islands in OFP, ArmA1 and ArmA2. So it can work in DR as well.Well, Joint Operations also had huge maps. But the game still was more akin to Battlefield 2.

walker

Apr 22 2009, 14:43

Well, Joint Operations also had huge maps. But the game still was more akin to Battlefield 2.

So why are CM not calling it "Sort of Like Battle Fields" or some such; if that is the game they are copying?

With all its name changes I am not sure even CM know what they are copying, is anyone?

A version of OFP without jets and civilians and who knows what else missing is not really OFP so why use the the name?

After all what fan of BIS's OFP1 is going to want to buy a crippled version of OFP?

Surely if CM cannot live up to the name they should not go round prostituting the brand to sell this castrated version?

Sadly Walker

SgtH3nry3

Apr 22 2009, 16:00

So why are CM not calling it "Sort of Like Battle Fields" or some such; if that is the game they are copying?I don't know.
Probably the same reason why they said DIRT was going to be more than Richard Burns Rally than Colin McRae 2004, while the result was the opposite.

Fortunately I was wise and patient enough for the game to be released and judge it to come to the decision of not buying it.
A version of OFP without jets and civilians and who knows what else missing is not really OFP so why use the the name?Probably using name as an attention point.

Scrub

Apr 22 2009, 16:20

OT: I also think that Jets are a bit "overpowered" for an island, of course CAS is a important point in todays warfares, but for a game it is enough to let a Chopper handle this job.
Civilians are a thema fo it self. I agree that they would increase the athmosphere of a "war simulation", but we also must see that's a disputed thema. Some countrys and some societies don't like to see civilians in such games where the player are able to "amuse" hisself by slaughting them. That have nothing to do with gameplay, just with moral (i don't share that moral but CM seems to do). I see it positiv, my pc don't have to spend ressources for theyr polygons and AI :).

I agree jets AND choppers are overpowered. But honestly I also feel they are designed to be overpowering on most ANY battlefield. So for me, the scale is less of an issue when I'm about to be tactically squished and they give me support. At times, it's not enough. So there points in both directions, but without them, there is only one direction. As for civvies, I totally agree with your 'amuse' point, that would be virtual depravity - however I wholeheartedly can't agree with your gameplay issue. From giving away your position, to being a source for info, to being a weight in a strategic decision, to being a major factor in combat, to being nothing more than part of the floura and fauna - they are (to me) a significant boost to the life and variety of the game.
And no personal hard feelings here, everyone just has high hopes for each title, and is willing to weigh in pretty heavy.

Baff1

Apr 22 2009, 18:34

Given that there are only 10 or so civilians living on Codemasters Island in real life, their absence from the game isn't a big loss to realism or scenario value.

It does rather limit the mission making element I feel however. The chance to make your own scenario, tell your own story...

The depth of scenario in ArmA Two with it's god knows how many factions plus civvies is mind candy!

I can look at that game, it's location and those factions and think, I can model a real war that has actually happened, and also some very possible wars that actually might occour in the future. The USMC part is a bit of a stretch still...

Codemasters however is pure dribble. Plot weak nonsense. A comic book plot fit only for 12 year olds. An excuse to put two intresting looking armies in the ring and nothing more.

Oil rich Russia and it's strategic ally China have gone to war over an oil field island 10 miles wide. The Russians can't beat the Chinese. The Russians ask the Americans to beat the Chinese for them. The Americans agree to declare war on China in support of their old friends the Russians.
Despite China's naval superiority in the Pacific, the American's choose to send a marine force to the Island against them, (Smaller and less capable than the VDV, with a longer more precarious supply chain and only taking 7 days longer to deploy! Thank god they were there to save the Russians.).

Honestly, a lot of thought went into that one. Down the pub. Between peanuts.

echo1

Apr 22 2009, 19:45

Well said Baff1. There's also the fact that the Russians would sooner fight to the death than call on American help, and considering the economic dependency of America on China, that the Americans wouldn't be rather obliging to the Russians even if they did ask for help...

Now, how long before someone comes along and tells us that OFP2 doesn't need a good storyline?

Sennacherib

Apr 22 2009, 20:08

I agree, the story is stupid. USA "savior of the world", i'm really fed up with that. USA are not the only market for video games.

I am European and I dream of a game, with a European army kicking in the arse of the United States:D

echo1

Apr 22 2009, 20:27

Sounds like you need Empire Total War :D

sparks50

Apr 22 2009, 20:34

Anyone else noticed that Dragon Rising island is 220km2, while the real island is said to be 277km2?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiska

KorpeN

Apr 23 2009, 05:36

Here is a new preview of Operation Flashpoint 2
http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/operation_flashpoint_2/preview-1640.html
IMO from what I read and saw OFP2>ArmA2

Dwarden

Apr 23 2009, 05:52

Here is a new preview of Operation Flashpoint 2
http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/operation_flashpoint_2/preview-1640.html
IMO from what I read and saw OFP2>ArmA2

i really wonder what You saw then :)

KorpeN

Apr 23 2009, 06:23

i really wonder what You saw then :)
Things that fanboys cannot see through their BIS glasses.:)

Przemek_kondor

Apr 23 2009, 06:43

Talking about BIS/CM glasses isn't constructive.
It would be better if you would list OFPDR features which show OFPDR>ArmA2

Apr 23 2009, 06:45

Things that fanboys cannot see through their BIS glasses.:)

Like?

Just saying "fanbois fanbois fanbois fanbois fanbois fanbois fanbois fanbois " and not actually providing any points sounds just as bad as the "fanboys" you're talking about...

For the record, I still have problems with OFP:DR for:

Muddy terrain
Overall blury feel (kinda like BF2 - where everything just looks smooth/blurred into its self - especially with the troops and weapons, theres no hard definition to anything)
Low detail on the terrain, theres vast areas populated with 3 or 4 bushes and not much else (no procedural grass etc)
"Fake" weapons - cheap code that has the bullets spawn from the soldier in the direction of his target and NOT in the direction of his weapon.

and many more I cba to list here...

KorpeN

Apr 23 2009, 06:49

Like?

Just saying "fanbois fanbois fanbois fanbois fanbois fanbois fanbois fanbois " and not actually providing any points sounds just as bad as the "fanboys" you're talking about...

For the record, I still have problems with OFP:DR for:

Muddy terrain
Overall blury feel (kinda like BF2 - where everything just looks smooth/blurred into its self - especially with the troops and weapons, theres no hard definition to anything)
Low detail on the terrain, theres vast areas populated with 3 or 4 bushes and not much else (no procedural grass etc)
"Fake" weapons - cheap code that has the bullets spawn from the soldier in the direction of his target and NOT in the direction of his weapon.

and many more I cba to list here...

ArmA2
http://www.armaholic.com/pfs.php?m=view&v=4-arma2_preview_gamestar_april_19.jpg

OFP2
http://www.ofp2.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/pcgofp5.jpg

ArmA2
http://www.armaholic.com/pfs.php?m=view&v=4-arma2_preview_april_pcdome_44.jpg

OFP2
http://www.ofp2.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/pcgofp8.jpg

ArmA2 (Hand in Gun)
http://www.armaholic.com/pfs.php?m=view&v=4-arma2_preview_april_pcdome_33.jpg

OFP2 (No hand in gun)
http://www.ofp2.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/pcgofp4.jpg

ArmA2 (NV)
http://www.armaholic.com/pfs.php?m=view&v=4-arma2_preview_pcgames_april_1.jpg

OFP2 (NV)
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/5797/2r4ph1t.jpg

Also

Better Physics,Animations,Destructible Enviroment,Destruction system of Vehicles,Control of 40soldiers (4 squads of 10 men),35km viewdistance you need more?:)

eenter

Apr 23 2009, 06:52

Better Physics,Animations,Destructible Enviroment,Destruction system of Vehicles,Control of 40soldiers (4 squads of 10 men),35km viewdistance you need more?:)

Maybe it's time for you to take off CM fanboy glasses?

and lol at 35km viewdistance

Fumo

Apr 23 2009, 07:00

i really wonder what You saw then :)

I saw that the press is handling it as the sequel while they cal your work "theyr own thing", so you can call your lawyer :). But sad that the writer of the preview haven't play OFP, it seems he even don't know it.

About the preview: Sounds nice. The wounding system and the respective effects seems to be interesting. Also there are difficulty option that affect the UI-information. And a built-in artillery strike. 35km visibility, bullet penetration system that simulate the different calibre and even the lead AI designer aren't able do walk 100m without beeing shoot by someone :).
Yes that is what i've expected from OFP2. Not a 1 to 1 copy of the original, but an interpretation of it by CM.
Now i just hope that both "fractions" will release soon a demo, almost just as "hardware check", because it's out of question that i will buy both games :).

KorpeN

Apr 23 2009, 07:06

Maybe it's time for you to take off CM fanboy glasses?

and lol at 35km viewdistance

I dont even have a single CM game.So your post is ridiculus at least.:)

P.S. : And to be honest I really dislike CM when they cancelled the Sensible World of Soccer remake for PCs.

IronPyramid

Apr 23 2009, 07:18

Here is a new preview of Operation Flashpoint 2
http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/operation_flashpoint_2/preview-1640.html
IMO from what I read and saw OFP2>ArmA2
What have you seen to convince you of that, I'm not flaming, I just want to see more media to help form my opinion. At this point all the previews outline basically the same things, and the videos don't even come close to ArmA 2 in my, however biased, opinion.

KorpeN

Apr 23 2009, 07:21

What have you seen to convince you of that, I'm not flaming, I just want to see more media to help form my opinion. At this point all the previews outline basically the same things, and the videos don't even come close to ArmA 2 in my, however biased, opinion.

Take a look some posts above to see.
Also take a look at fumo's post.

IronPyramid

Apr 23 2009, 07:25

hardrock

Apr 23 2009, 07:26

@<hidden>: The screens that you provided to compare the games are like comparing apples and bananas. CM's screens are edited, BIS' screens are not. CM's screens use anti-aliasing, BIS' screens do not. BIS screens are obviously ingame, but are CM's ingame as well? We can't tell.

Comparing games by their look and by what the game developers tell or have shown in render videos is nonsense anyway. I'm no fan of either of the games and will buy those that are fun. But calling others "fanbois" without having any valid argument supporting your point is really weak.

KorpeN

Apr 23 2009, 07:29

I did, and I'm further convinced that ArmA2 is still the proper quality from this type of game. But no matter what I say I'm just a fanboi like the rest m i rite?? omg!?!

Nice of you to choose some of the worse looking ArmA screens, serves competition purposes.

Come on pick some of the worst OFP2 pics.Make my day.
Also at hardrock.You are wrong the pics I posted are from videos ingame.
Any other excuse?If yes find a good one plz.:)

Edit: As the pics of ArmA2 I put arent ArmA2 in game.Am I wrong?

Apr 23 2009, 07:33

ArmA2
http://www.armaholic.com/pfs.php?m=view&v=4-arma2_preview_gamestar_april_19.jpg

OFP2
http://www.ofp2.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/pcgofp5.jpg

Aside from the muzzle flashes, which are supremely overdone in both, these shots dont really compare, one from 1st person one from 3rd person.

The ArmA shot does suffer from alpha sorting bugs

http://www.delorted.net/arma2vofp2/4-arma2_preview_gamestar_april_19.jpg

Aside from the overdone noise, there isnt really much to comment on in the ofp2 screenshot. Its not that special either. CoD4 looks nicer in some outdoor maps.

ArmA2
http://www.armaholic.com/pfs.php?m=view&v=4-arma2_preview_april_pcdome_44.jpg

OFP2
http://www.ofp2.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/pcgofp8.jpg

http://www.delorted.net/arma2vofp2/4-arma2_preview_april_pcdome_44.jpg

Overdone bloom in ArmA, and a viw distance set very low. We can also assume that Aniso and AA were set to low/off, and object detail is set to medium/low.

http://www.delorted.net/arma2vofp2/pcgofp8.jpg

Overdone noise again in ofp2, and a rotor blur you'd only ever see through a camera (so since its supposed to be simulating your eyes ingame, its wrong)

ArmA2 (Hand in Gun)
http://www.armaholic.com/pfs.php?m=view&v=4-arma2_preview_april_pcdome_33.jpg

OFP2 (No hand in gun)
http://www.ofp2.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/pcgofp4.jpg

Theres lots of conflicting screenshots from ArmA2 about hands in weapons/hands place properly. In some the hands are right, in others they are not. BI say they've fixed IK, will believe that when I see it in the release.

Nothing special to write home about in the OFP2 shot tho, other than its again nowhere near this "35km view distance" and there is little to no detail in the background.

ArmA2 (NV)
http://www.armaholic.com/pfs.php?m=view&v=4-arma2_preview_pcgames_april_1.jpg

OFP2 (NV)
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/5797/2r4ph1t.jpg

Not really a huge amout of difference between the two shots, dodgy fire in the ArmA2 one, but thats about it.

To be honest, most of these shots are really not comparable. You'd need shots from the same perspective looking at the same thing to be able to make proper comparisons.

Its also very hard to trust what is in-game and what is pre-rendered from CM, since the videos often look a lot less detailed than the "screenshots" they provide. I'd be tempted to call shenanigans on all but the NVG screenshot (since that is a cap from a video)

Also

Better Physics,Animations,Destructible Enviroment,Destruction system of Vehicles,Control of 40soldiers (4 squads of 10 men),35km viewdistance you need more?:)

Physics maybe. ArmA2 also has destructible environment? I've yet to see anything other than PR hype about OFP2's vehicle destruction. ArmA lets you control an unlimited number of soldiers, or 144 groups of unlimited soldiers per side. And I highly doubt 35km, maybe 3 to 5km...

So yes, I need more...

Apr 23 2009, 07:37

Come on pick some of the worst OFP2 pics.Make my day.

Like you've picked some of the worst screens of ArmA2?

Talk about double standards...

Also, ALL the OFP2 shots here are from CM's promotional material - i.e. setup to look its best. ALL of the ArmA2 shots are from a third party.

Maybe it would be better to compare BI's official screenshots to CM's official screenshots?

IronPyramid

Apr 23 2009, 07:44

I don't see the point in arguing about it, especially when you cannot provide us with legitimate cause to believe your case. And there is no need to choose any DR pics, since I entertain delusions about even ArmA 1 looking better than the best DR pics, I would only be construed as a fanboy. I however am too lazy to compose side by side comparisons with which to demonstrate graphical superiority of a game from nearly 3 years ago. And besides, that would lead nowhere seeing as to how they're only still screens and do not necessarily represent how the game will be in motion. And besides all of that, the only points that you really consider to be valid are graphical. I'm out for whichever has the best gameplay in congruence with graphical prowess. Since I love the play style of OFP, which carried on (though a myriad of differences can be observed) to ArmA, and finally ArmA 2 it is a no brainer that I will most likely love ArmA 2 as well. With DR, its a wild card seeing as to how there is maybe 5 minutes of actual gameplay in motion to be seen, and the only info being from PR heavy previews, I just cant make a good opinion of the game. So after all this, the argument as a whole is pretty much void, with little to no info to really assess the quality. No definition of features is enough until its represented in real time. Such is where I stand, not in the faith that CM's 200 + team can carry out technological miracles within the span of time in which they plan to release DR.

Not to say that DR won't be the game to trounce ArmA in the genre war, but since ArmA has a proven dev team behind it, who know what they're working with, and update the community frequently with appropriate proof along the side of the feats they claim to have achieved (barring some of the downfalls of the preview version sent to journalists, and the old WIP excuse). If CM followed a similar code instead of throwing tofu biscuits to be devoured by info depraved fans, then maybe this argument could take place. :)

KorpeN

Apr 23 2009, 07:50

IronPyramid

Apr 23 2009, 07:56

Okay I'm sorry, but its not as if you weren't aware that you were probably instigating a retaliation. But what is the point of posing an argument in which your expected outcome is regarded with indifference?

Please, I implore, give us a feasible reason to look at DR as a worthy competitor!

Apr 23 2009, 07:57

I just posted my opinion and then the BIS bodyguards (if you bored of fanboys)

Ahh, the good ole "fanboys" defence...

On the flipside, why are people not allowed to have the "ArmA2 looks better" opinion? Why must everyone bow down to the "OFP2 is better" opinion and not post in reply to it?

Why is it that as soon as anyone is of the opinion that the competing product is better, everyone who disagress is instantly labled as a "fanboy"?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

IronPyramid

Apr 23 2009, 08:00

Ahh, the good ole "fanboys" defence...

On the flipside, why are people not allowed to have the "ArmA2 looks better" opinion? Why must everyone bow down to the "OFP2 is better" opinion and not post in reply to it?

Why is it that as soon as anyone is of the opinion that the competing product is better, everyone who disagress is instantly labled as a "fanboy"?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

I wont deny harboring the least trace of being a fanboy, because I am in fact a great fan of BIS. But that is part of being opinionated, and being opinionated is part of being human.

Here is to solid DR info!:yay:

KorpeN

Apr 23 2009, 08:04

Look my post and then see the Dwarden's post.
I posted my opinion and then the mocking starts.
To make it clear I dont give a shit about CM or BIS.
I ll just play what I believe is better.Until now I play ArmA cause it the best FPS in my opinion.Until now.

Make it bold you think its better or more convising?

Apr 23 2009, 08:13

Look my post and then see the Dwarden's post.
I posted my opinion and then the mocking starts.

I fail to see the mocking, I see a question asking what points made OFP2 look better than ArmA2. It was you that started the "mocking" with the next post - fanboys.

Make it bold you think its better or more convising?

Bold is to highlight the key points.

IronPyramid

Apr 23 2009, 08:17

Lets spare this thread any further argument, its just not viable to do so until the topic is satiated with more media with which to form a proper opinion of the game.

Sennacherib

Apr 23 2009, 08:18

why don't you just wait for the demos?

each one of you will be able to have a real opinion with the demos :)

btw: ofp2 will have the ability to have mods? really important for me

SgtH3nry3

Apr 23 2009, 08:21

I dont give a damn If you believe my case or not.
I just posted my opinion and then the BIS bodyguards (if you bored of fanboys)
attacked me as I said something bad.Can anyone here have his opinion?
You know there are positive and negative opinions.
If you dont like negative ones pass over them.If you think that you are being attacked when valid arguments are being discussed, it tells more about you than about the others.
Obviously, there is an ArmA 2 bias on those forums. So you can expect counter arguments.
There is nothing fanboy about these arguments as far as I can tell, some of them are even against ArmA 2.

As for my arguments, I have yet to see a preview where mr Lindop or any of the CM crew isn't presented.
I'd say wait for both games to be released.

IronPyramid

Apr 23 2009, 08:23

why don't you just wait for the demos?

each one of you will be able to have a real opinion with the demos :)

btw: ofp2 will have the ability to have mods? really important for me

Yes, demos will be the build of the game that the devs wish to put in the players hands (hopefully) before the game is set loose.

From the press statements I've read, they intend to have modding flexibility, dont know what tools they'll provide for dedicated modders. Hopefully someone has a decent zombie mod in the works!

KorpeN

Apr 23 2009, 08:23

why don't you just wait for the demos?

each one of you will be able to have a real opinion with the demos :)

btw: ofp2 will have the ability to have mods? really important for me

Yes.There is already a project about OFP2
http://combatsimproject.proboards.com/

boomar.

Apr 23 2009, 08:29

Ive seen bad screens from BIS, i have not really seen bad screens from Cm because they all came from CM.

After looking at all the recent Arma2 screens, i notice a considerable difference in them compared to the so called ingame screens BIS provided. And they say they didnt touch em up at all, i call BS since nobody outside of BIS making screens seems to put up screens of same quality.

The OFP2 ingame movies we have seen are quite bad, i'll ad mit that. They are blurry, stiff animations and everything. The only thing i liked was the sounds and a few other moments. Not that weve had much to go by. The movies we have been given are of a really old build and bad quality.

Looking forward to a really high quality good ingame promo trailer of the game.

I know it will be fantastic, but at CM they sure like to not release much info =(.

Good thing they say they are working on some movies for us and are going to put up a real website soon. Should be good.

Arma2 ppl def need to work on the UI though, can you BIS bodyguards even tell me honestly that you like it?

Apr 23 2009, 08:38

After looking at all the recent Arma2 screens, i notice a considerable difference in them compared to the so called ingame screens BIS provided. And they say they didnt touch em up at all, i call BS since nobody outside of BIS making screens seems to put up screens of same quality.

We don't edit our screenshots.

BI are just a little more choosy of the screenshots they put out. The same way CM does. Logical really.

IronPyramid

Apr 23 2009, 08:43

Pretty sure we can count on BIS releasing photos of in game material, and then posting them in the fashion from which they were conceived. This goes on multiple statements by the devs who probably took said screens, but I guess we cant trust them, I mean, they actually talk to and inform the community (I know bad sign rite?!!?).

And since you're so intent to bait flames with remarks such as "you BIS bodyguards", it reduces the credibility of each and every keystroke you commit to your posts, which are gaining a seriously negative track record.

Since you guys insist on comparing graphics. I have yet to see any brilliant bump, normal, or parallax mapping that is able to contend with ArmA. Come on, am I the only one who has seen the game with high settings, and since I know my vision is fortuitously intact (and bitchin I might add) am I just completely mistaken that ArmA is in fact not the beautiful game I play everyday? Or just some trashy excuse for a wanna-be simulator? And if something is wrong with my sensory reporting (namely vision) then it could very well be that ever screen of OFP that I've seen, and determined to be in-game (which is the best I'll hope for since there is no reason not to believe they werent touched up afterwards, they all need it) might have looked good 3 or 4 years ago.

I think the former, since I have yet to find a game with the scale of ArmA available that looks as nice (which again is damn nice, a bloody achievement in my biased fanboy bodyguard close minded opinion).

As for the UI, such aspects dont really effect my opinion as it can be edited to accommodate your taste, or removed (possibly).

Alpha-Kilo

Apr 23 2009, 08:57

Hopefully someone has a decent zombie mod in the works!

Does this picture possibly indicate that a zombie mod is being created at this time? :)

http://www.armaholic.com/datas/users/4-arma2_preview_april_pcdome_9.jpg

IronPyramid

Apr 23 2009, 09:17

RUN CITIZENS, THAT IS NOT AMY AS YOU KNEW HER WHEN SHE WAS ALIVE!!! I had wondered about that picture, maybe its a subplot to help a civie with an abusive domineering husband, the rewards being a more open friendliness from the Chernerussian women.

Since I'm certain someone is planning a zombie mod for ArmA 2, I was casting my gaze upon a possible DR mod. One can always hope.

Salvatore_Lee

Apr 23 2009, 09:27

And since you're so intent to bait flames with remarks such as "you BIS bodyguards", it reduces the credibility of each and every keystroke you commit to your posts, which are gaining a seriously negative track record.

Totally agreed and also I just don't get why are so many people sucking on the graphics (and comparing it) when OFP was NEVER really about this.

can you BIS bodyguards even tell me honestly that you like it?

Nice attidute....

IronPyramid

Apr 23 2009, 09:51

This is a basic problem with DR. Since it harbors the name of a classic, which evolved into the ArmA series, it stands to alienate many of the players who looked forward to this as the true next OFP. And of course there are those who are informed, and know ArmA as BIS's own attempt at a sequel, who were also unsatisfied with it, and now look at DR for contentment. As it is, I don't see anything coming closer to the feel of OFP than ArmA 2, and if its just too old and worn out for you, then maybe what CM has cooking is just what you needed!

Be that as it may, from what I've gathered, and believe me I have scrutinized each bit of info I could find almost as heavily as the info for ArmA 2, and the culmination leads me to believe that DR will be slightly to not more realistic than other formula FPS's out there. Yes, I know, there will be a giant map, which is great, even if the gameplay turns out to be arcade, its a step in the right direction.

But seriously, I cant see the dropping of civ's, jets, wildlife, in combination with the addition of some of the HUD items like the compass, and a completely still aim while moving forward at a brisk pace (that one is killer, to be able to hit accurately while moving I presume would require you to move slowly).

And like someone else mentioned, almost every piece of coverage is closely associated with Clive, who has lost any credibility I might have anticipated. This is just more reason to believe that they were very close to the editing process of these publications.

I'm sorry for ranting, its just frustrating, and truly alienating. I think this is what BIS wanted to avoid by making a big deal about some of the early publications claiming CM's alleged involvement with the classic OFP.

Placebo

Apr 23 2009, 10:07

Dial down the rhetoric a smidge please guys, yes we know there's pro and anti game/dev in here, no need to get all hot under the collar, it's just a game military simulator ;)

Eble

Apr 23 2009, 10:23

I was walking past my local City EB shop (Adelaide, South Australia 23/04/09)went inside to see whats up.

Sitting on the 'coming soon' Playstation 3 shelf was the OFP-DR box in all it's glory.

Had a good look at it, it's stands out quite nicley amongst all the other boxes.

One thing that caught my attentation straight was when reading the back of the box it clearly said 'Mission editor', now keep in mind this was on the PS3 box not the PC one(which I didn't even check to see if they had in shop).

I know I will get shouts of, lies! no picture no proof etc.

I'm not lying it said that exactly on the box.

below is the quote from the back of the box, that also appears on the Australia Atari page.

•Freedom of Play – Operation Flashpoint 2 will give players the freedom to handle military crisis situations on their initiative. Unscripted missions will task players with real objectives, such as laying down covering fire, covering a friendly unit’s retreat or conducting short-range recon patrol. Armed with cutting edge military hardware, players will need to balance brute force with intelligent use of tactics. Once players have completed the campaign, a Mission Editor enables gamers to create their own single player and multiplayer missions

Atari Australia PS3 page.

http://www.atari.com.au/games/overview.do?id=1469

It could just be that is the general overview and maybe the PS3 box was printed with generic information, or maybe it does mean the editor is back in?

Southy

IronPyramid

Apr 23 2009, 10:29

That is interesting, already reserved shelf space. It may be that they have decided to return the mission editor to console versions. Or it may also be considered that they use the same descriptions cross console, in which case they would need to rectify that statement if the editor is to be left out.

Eble

Apr 23 2009, 10:52

Ok, it seems the mission editor is confirmed as not being on the console, so Atari Australia need to change the box art sharpish!

Helios - Sorry to disappoint, but the exact release date for the game is undetermined and the console versions of the game do not have a mission editor.

Apr 23 2009, 10:54

ArmA2
http://www.armaholic.com/pfs.php?m=view&v=4-arma2_preview_gamestar_april_19.jpg

OFP2
http://www.ofp2.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/pcgofp5.jpg

ArmA2
http://www.armaholic.com/pfs.php?m=view&v=4-arma2_preview_april_pcdome_44.jpg

OFP2
http://www.ofp2.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/pcgofp8.jpg

ArmA2 (Hand in Gun)
http://www.armaholic.com/pfs.php?m=view&v=4-arma2_preview_april_pcdome_33.jpg

OFP2 (No hand in gun)
http://www.ofp2.info/ftp/pics/news/pics1/pcgofp4.jpg

ArmA2 (NV)
http://www.armaholic.com/pfs.php?m=view&v=4-arma2_preview_pcgames_april_1.jpg

OFP2 (NV)
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/5797/2r4ph1t.jpg

Also

Better Physics,Animations,Destructible Enviroment,Destruction system of Vehicles,Control of 40soldiers (4 squads of 10 men),35km viewdistance you need more?:)

Those arma2 images you posted are all at medium settings (especially the NV one, which i think is even lower).

If you looked at some of dysexics (sp) in game screen shots I'm sure you'd change your mind on what looks better.

And I would also have to agree with one of the other guys that in some instances, Arma1 looks better then the above OFP DR screens.

Some people really need to play it on max settings I think :|

But the graphics aren't the be-all-and-end-all of the game. Whatever has the most realistic gameplay (hopefully with proper javelin optics :386:) will ultimately win.

And lol at 35km view distance.

Zipper5

Apr 23 2009, 11:48

Yes, I do need more. Everything that you posted there, Ptolemaios, apart from the soldiers and view distance, is graphics related. Even if DR had good graphics, to me, a long-time OFP/ArmA fan, graphics do not make a good game. OFP taught me that. I do not agree with the statement that ArmA II looks better than Crysis, and neither do I think it has to. DR toting it's graphics is actually alienating me as the footage shown so far of actual gameplay is sparse and hardly impressive. And by the way, 35km view distance is possible in ArmA. Place a trigger with "setViewDistance 35000" and when it's activated, you'll be at 35km view distance. Though the game's obviously not optimized for it.

Scrub

Apr 23 2009, 11:52

CM: Good idea to contend on the gfx side of the issue
http://www.armaholic.com/pfs.php?m=view&v=4-dslyecxi_i_venom_underside_2.jpg
http://www.armaholic.com/pfs.php?m=view&v=4-dslyecxi_tip_rollovers.jpg
http://www.armaholic.com/pfs.php?m=view&v=4-dslyecxi_i_harrier_on_station.jpg
http://www.armaholic.com/pfs.php?m=view&v=4-dslyecxi_i_venom_touchdown.jpg

Lets compare apples to apples while we await a demo/more media info.... To be mean I could say something like 'Lets post urban images next. But that would be unfair..' (and yes I know I posted it, but there was no harmful intention behind the posting)

boomar.

Apr 23 2009, 13:03

These games will obviously both have really good graphics so can we get over this. Its not like they are trying to have next gen graphics.

I can find cod4 pics that look better than ofp2 and arma2.

4 IN 1

Apr 23 2009, 13:18

i always have a problem OFP:DR screenshot as the noise and the brownish filter just makes me think that CM have watched Band of Brothers too many times

PrivateNoob

Apr 23 2009, 16:06

Dial down the rhetoric a smidge please guys, yes we know there's pro and anti game/dev in here, no need to get all hot under the collar, it's just a game military simulator ;)

Now if youre into mystical stuff like the quest for the Grail and other such things, you need to examine this post closer! Because therein hides the answer to it all. Now anyone looking for something that resembles a SIM, should know that BIS have and are developing software to the Military.(yes that is in real life as to speak), now Im not saying anything, but dont you all agree that a company in this position have a slight advance...in...well... making a military sim for computers!
Im not turning down CM or their "sim" yet but im just saying. CM is definitive in an inferior position and maybe they have a hidden card up their sleeve but so far what have been presented its all ARMAII for the win!

:cool:

Victor

Apr 23 2009, 16:49

I can find cod4 pics that look better than ofp2 and arma2.

You obviously don't know anything about system resource allocation do you?

Cod4 the map sizes were what? A 100 square feet? lol! You can make any graphical masterpiece with those conditions.

SgtH3nry3

Apr 23 2009, 17:18

You obviously don't know anything about system resource allocation do you?

Cod4 the map sizes were what? A 100 square feet? lol! You can make any graphical masterpiece with those conditions.I think Call of Duty 4 actually looks pretty crappy considering it's size.

Baff1

Apr 23 2009, 18:19

But it runs at 60 FPS on a console!

psycosmos

Apr 24 2009, 02:55

But it runs at 60 FPS on a console!
Though upscaled from 1024x600 in order to run at that framerate.

Eble

Apr 24 2009, 10:14

ok further to my previous post I went back to EB in Adelaide today 24/04/09 and took some pictures of what I found :)

http://www.adam.com.au/southstar/DSC00118.JPG

and

http://www.adam.com.au/southstar/DSC00119.JPG

http://www.adam.com.au/southstar/DSC00120.JPG

echo1

Apr 24 2009, 10:24

Well, if it's only a display model, there's the chance that they were made before the decision to drop the editor in the console was made. If you have tens of thousands of display models made for the stores, it's somewhat impractical to dispose of them all and replace them because of one erroneous feature listed on the back.

Now, if they include the same mistake with the actual box, then they have themselves a problem!

JdB

Apr 24 2009, 12:46

Hehe, using pre-rendered images on the box, how "surprising" :h:

Will they offer support to play the game in other applications too, like 3DS MAX, Maya and Blender? :j:

Scrub

Apr 24 2009, 13:20

They have to watch displaying that type of stuff over here in the States, we have 'Truth in Advertising' and 'product misrepresentation' laws. (too bad we don't have 'truth in politics' laws, but that is another matter entirely)

boomar.

Apr 24 2009, 13:22

Yeah im really happy about the OFP2 box art, it looks fantastic and will stand out in the store for sure.

They have to watch displaying that type of stuff over here in the States, we have 'Truth in Advertising' and 'product misrepresentation' laws. (too bad we don't have 'truth in politics' laws, but that is another matter entirely)

The pics on the box look fine...

I dont see anything that shouts 'omg thats not what its gona be like !!!'.

Now if those exact screens were on the back of the OFP: Cold War Crisis thingy's box back in the day then there may be a case haha.

Apr 24 2009, 13:45

Now if those exact screens were on the back of the OFP: Cold War Crisis thingy's box back in the day then there may be a case haha.

Actually it was more common to use renders or hand-drawn artwork "back in the day" since the graphics were somewhat limited.

Infact its still pretty common to have renders or hand drawn artwork on boxes, so really theres not much point bitching about it.

Placebo

Apr 24 2009, 13:48

Boomar edit your posts instead of double posting please.

Raphier

Apr 25 2009, 17:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfvn8_gM1os&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.codemasters.com%2Fforum%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D349912&feature=player_embedded

Pretty sure most of you have seen this, but I want to say again, that the narrator is Petra known to putting arma on it's knees, but she seemed to like what she saw(praised atleast GUI, which she wanted to show)

So, I really wouldn't worry about CM screwing this up, until Petra wrecks the shreds...

PS. And to be fair, from what I've seen it does actually look much better than Arma 2 :'/
(Althought, I am still bying Arma 2 for the sake of Flashpoint even if it's a miss, so Arma 3 will be a hit or a miss)

IronPyramid

Apr 25 2009, 20:52

At last, a prolonged sequence of in game footage (some of which having already been displayed) by which to further etch an opinion for this game. From the looks of it, there appears to be a solid game in the works, though I still see so many disappointing things.

The animations are inhuman, and the movement speed also defines this quality (for arcade games).

The turret on the tank also moves quite faster than I would think plausible.

And I still dont really see any particular feature which looks better than ArmA (since you guys are so dependent on graphical analysis)

On the other hand, it looked like the AI has undergone improvement from the earlier vids, and the damage model for vehicles is bittersweet. For being so detailed, and illustrating individual components departing from the structure of the tank. But still burning out, having that large of an explosion anyway, unless that missile is confirmed to be a javelin or something.

In the end however, I'm sure this footage is pretty old, and DR has undergone some work since then. From what Petra said, there appears to be another shooter being released (hopefully not too early as she believes there is much more work ahead).

Max Power

Apr 25 2009, 23:02

They should have an lcd screen for a box cover with a high powered micro-compter so you can play the game in the store on the box. Only then can game companies avoid false advertising suits. :j:

Prydain

Apr 26 2009, 00:43

The animations are inhuman, and the movement speed also defines this quality (for arcade games).
Are you talking about Armed Assault & ArmA2?

And I still dont really see any particular feature which looks better than ArmA (since you guys are so dependent on graphical analysis)I saw a tank drive over a car without being stopped by it, thats an improvement over Armed Assault, even if it is a little one.

OFP2 and ArmA2 are not out but from what I have seen they look pretty close in terms of being realistic and enjoyable. OFP2 has the advantage of improved damage models from what we can see, their sound is most likely going to be better (in fact I would bet on it) and their vehicles may befit from the fact the engine was made with racing games in mind - surface effects, breaking, steering, suspension, ect may effect ground vehicles for example where as ArmA as we know it is just a Johnny 5 style of movement (forward, backwards, turn, slide down light banked hills for no reason). CM can't be as bad as BIS when supporting the game too, their deeper pockets may be what puts them ahead.

Lets just hope they are both tip-top.

Blackhawk

Apr 26 2009, 01:25

their sound is most likely going to be better (in fact I would bet on it

I'll bet you on that, from the videos I've seen the sound has been 3rd class.

Scrub

Apr 26 2009, 02:28

Hope they worked on the AI since that vid.. One layed down, and the other sprinted right past cover to it's death. Sounds familiar? We shall see, both teams are tweaking and inventing... I just hope CM reigns in the AI that in one vid assaults an enemy already firing on them by (you guessed it) sprinting through the hail of bullets and even jumping over a rock straight to the enemy position.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otppj-mmims&feature=related
at ~2:00

IronPyramid

Apr 26 2009, 02:50

I guess I can only disagree, about the sound, and the support. From the examples of the new sound engine being cooked up for ArmA 2, I highly doubt they would leave weapon sounds out of the loop, as for now many that have been displayed are placeholders. BIS already does a great job supporting this picky community. And of course I'm talking about DR's animations being like pro runners on steroids while crouched with 90 pounds + of military equipment.

boomar.

Apr 26 2009, 03:29

The OFP2 vids are extremely old, they are keeping tight lipped about the game. Good news is they are working on a game movie and should be out soon. Then we can judgde, since its recent work and represents what the game is like. Well i hope so.

Sennacherib

Apr 26 2009, 04:21

great news, can't wait to see this video:)

Apr 26 2009, 09:34

and their vehicles may befit from the fact the engine was made with racing games in mind

See my post here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?p=1271702#post1271702 where a previewer who actually got to drive some vehicles was rather underwhelemd by them...

CM can't be as bad as BIS when supporting the game too, their deeper pockets may be what puts them ahead.

Actually, because of their size, history and company type, CM are more likely to take the EA approach to game support - release 1 or 2 patches, then an expansion pack which you HAVE to purchase before you can get the next patch, then further payware content. Infact, it was the same model CM used when they published OFP and OFP:R. BI were ust good enough to provide some free content off their own bacs inbetween (if you check the patch history, pretty much all the free patches didnt have any CM involvement)

Lets just hope they are both tip-top.
Yup, fingers crossed...

sparks50

Apr 26 2009, 10:01

Sniperwolf572

Apr 26 2009, 10:09

What's with the pics of soldiers using NV goggles during daytime? :confused:

walker

Apr 26 2009, 11:05

NeMeSiS

Apr 26 2009, 11:17

The destrucion of the tank looked nice, but im afraid im not going to like the style of the rest of the game. (Alpha or not, the core of the gameplay is already defined)

Blackhawk

Apr 26 2009, 11:27

Hi all

Why are CM still putting out pre renders rather than in game footage?

Why do we see nothing larger than a section?
Why is the entity count as low as 30?
Is it true that MP looks like it will be a maximum of 20 players; if that?

Why are there Still no Civilians?
Why are there Still no Jets?

When are we going to see some real in game footage?
Why are all the shots from a low angle?
Why are all the shots overlayed with a grain filter?

What embaresment are they hiding?

More questions Walker

Just referring to Walkers questions.

I am getting so annoyed at CM's ability to show this game as it is.

For over 6 months we have been getting renders and renders and CGI movies. We want to see the proper game and not photoshop.

One of the things that made me attached to ArmA II was the fact that BI released ingame material from the start, no renders, proper in game material, it may have been a bit edited to look nice, but it was still in game.

It's April almost May 2009, OPFDR is apparently going to be released in less than 6 months, but they still have not shown us proper in game material. Another thing is they have not made Civilians, Civilians were what made OPF and ArmA for me, they allowed Sahrani life which has entertained me through out the past 2 years. ArmA II's Civilians look even better than the previous two games.

And Jets, Don't even get me started on them, lets just say that they were so cool in Multi-player, to have a player as Close Air Support, and if he screws up, the main team dies. OPFDR just has a scripted air strike - not impressive.

An-225

Apr 26 2009, 11:48

Codemasters seem to be lazy and they are just making excuses not to have certain features in the game.

"But, its a relatively uninhabited island, and they were all evacuated, so no civilians."

"Uhm...you have a nice scripted airstrike to use on your command, so no flyable jets."

These are two examples where so many mission possibilities or simply possibilities in general, have been removed.

KorpeN

Apr 26 2009, 12:05

OFP:DR is a laugh, look, not even the forum software can take it seriously :p

Honestly though, Its too bad they refuse journalist to record the gameplay footage they make.
I would love to seen more details, especially in regards of weaponsystems.

very constructive post.
Can you tell us why OFP2 is a laugh?

Codemasters seem to be lazy and they are just making excuses not to have certain features in the game.

"But, its a relatively uninhabited island, and they were all evacuated, so no civilians."

"Uhm...you have a nice scripted airstrike to use on your command, so no flyable jets."

These are two examples where so many mission possibilities or simply possibilities in general, have been removed.

So BIS is lazy too cause they promised many features before we knew the name of the "next gen game" and nothing is added in ArmA2 (damage system,destructible buildings,enterable buildings,smart AI and many more).

SgtH3nry3

Apr 26 2009, 12:09

So BIS is lazy too cause they promised many features before we knew the name of the "next gen game" and nothing is added in ArmA2 (damage system,destructible buildings,enterable buildings,smart AI and many more).They are added afaik. Maybe they aren't up to your expectations but they're definitely added.

KorpeN

Apr 26 2009, 12:28

They are added. Maybe they aren't up to your expectations but they're definitely added.

Sure.Maybe we have different expectations.Maybe I want a real simulator and not a patch for ArmA(which it was a fine game but not simulator).

Blackhawk

Apr 26 2009, 12:28

very constructive post.
Can you tell us why OFP2 is a laugh?

Because CM promised so much, they promised it could live up to the original, but instead gave us a load of droppings.

Scrub

Apr 26 2009, 12:35

Just re-read the last few pages. Seeing the direction of comments, the features, and obvious focus on elements have finally got it through my thick skull. These are quite different games. I'm of a mind (finally, as others have had this view for some time) that they aren't actually in competition with each other. One's a fast, fun shooter, and ones an immersive, live your virtual life engine. Sofar, one is made to have fun with, and one is to have satisfaction with. Two different approaches and two different rewards to be gained. Not at all saying that gaining the satisfaction isn't fun, but from less hardcore people, they are looking for quicker gratification, and less focus on the accomplishment of mission itself.

KorpeN

Apr 26 2009, 12:37

Because CM promised so much, they promised it could live up to the original, but instead gave us a load of droppings.

It sounds like you have seen too much things so you made your opinion.Can you give me some links so I can see too?Or you just judge by the pre-alpha ingame videos?And what points exactly are that they drooped you down?

sparks50

Apr 26 2009, 13:08

Ptolemaios: it was just a joke/irony playing on the useless fanboi wars in this thread.
For the record, I dont exactly see you posting much constructive either:)

SgtH3nry3

Apr 26 2009, 13:08

Sure.Maybe we have different expectations.Maybe I want a real simulator and not a patch for ArmA(which it was a fine game but not simulator).Well, I don't really believe in Codemasters' ability to build simulators anymore.

They dumbed down Colin McRae Rally, they dumbed down the Toca/DTM/Pro/V8 Supercars driver series (now Race Driver: GRID) and currently are screwing the F1 name with something which only has the potention of being worse than Sony's 2006 version.
So I have all the reasons to doubt the quality of Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising.
That's why currently more interesting in Simbin and Bohemia Interactive games.

KorpeN

Apr 26 2009, 13:45

Ptolemaios: it was just a joke/irony playing on the useless fanboi wars in this thread.
For the record, I dont exactly see you posting much constructive either:)

Maybe I am not constructive too.But there is a difference.
My "non-constructive" "negative" criticism about ArmA2 gets me ban but your non constructive negative criticism about OFPDR or the "constructive" positive "ArmA2 will kick ass","The cows are awesome" posts (how these posts areconstructive) of other members are welcome.Can you see what I mean?And now maybe a moderator will come and warn me that this post is off-topic and flaming.

Baff1

Apr 26 2009, 14:03

But the cows are awesome.

It's the little details that add the beauty.

KorpeN

Apr 26 2009, 14:10

But the cows are awesome.

It's the little details that add the beauty.

I agree but not to simulation.

Baff1

Apr 26 2009, 14:12

You don't want to simulate shooting a cow with a bazooka?

And yes it adds simulation.
You can now have simulated gun fights in simulated farms.

KorpeN

Apr 26 2009, 14:13

You don't want to simulate shooting a cow with a bazooka?

And yes it adds simultion.
You can now have gun fights in simulated farms.

You dont get it.The time that spent making the cow should be spent to make for example realistic working scopes.

echo1

Apr 26 2009, 14:14

It adds to the realism, and realism is what simulations are all about, right?

And I don't buy the "They could have spent the time doing something else" line. In a game with as wide spanning a premise as ArmA2, the workload has to be balanced relatively evenly across the various facets of the game. That's what seperates a real "simulator" from just a really realistic shooter game, like RO.

Baff1

Apr 26 2009, 14:17

You dont get it.The time that spent making the cow should be spent to make for example realistic working scopes.

I'm more intrested in cows.
Any old scope is fine for me. As long as it simulates my ability to shoot more accurately over range.

Detail in my simulated enviroment is important me. I'm not an "all about the guns" type of guy.

I'm quite intrested in the art direction of ArmA 2. I think in a return to the original format, I'm going to get some of the flavours and architecture and foliage and fauna found in the region depicted. Some authentic ones. Maybe even some street fashions and car choices.
I find this intresting in the same way as Crysis was an intresting desert island.
I think the artists have personal knowledge and love for the enviroment. That it will be an excellent simulation for this choice. Those cows, are Ukrainian cows, I'm betting. I've only ever owned Aberdeen Angus myself. And no scope I've ever owned has ever been more intresting to me than an Aberdeen Angus.

I wouldn't pay a Thai guy $50 to shoot a realistic working scope with a bazooka either.

sparks50

Apr 26 2009, 14:23

Maybe I am not constructive too.But there is a difference.
My "non-constructive" "negative" criticism about ArmA2 gets me ban but your non constructive negative criticism about OFPDR or the "constructive" positive "ArmA2 will kick ass","The cows are awesome" posts (how these posts areconstructive) of other members are welcome.Can you see what I mean?

As far as your ban from from Armaholic.com goes, if I remember correctly, you were banned for badmouthing an admin and excessive flaming. Later using proxies to bypass the ban. So no, voicing your opinion will not get you banned from anywhere. General smacktarding will.

[FRL]Myke

Apr 26 2009, 14:43

Cows, or in a more general aspect, animal life adds a lot to this sort of game. It's an alive and breathing world that is simulated and as a soldier you have to be aware twice if the movement you saw is caused by a cow behind a bush or an enemy sniper.

If you guess wrong and you shot at a cow, nearby enemies might be alerted by the shot and the surpise-factor of your approach to enemy base is gone.

Thats why i'm sad that CM decided to not implement civilans. Same principle here. Look twice (at least) what you're targeting at.

And as BIS said that the behaviour of the player in contact with civilians will have influence in the missions, it is a big immersion factor IMHO.

Might be some thinks this is wasted time. I don't think so. It makes the simulated world come alive.

Apr 26 2009, 14:50

You dont get it.The time that spent making the cow should be spent to make for example realistic working scopes.

And you think the same person that makes cows makes the scopes?

Its almost as if some people think there are only 1 or 2 people working on ArmA...:rolleyes:

KorpeN

Apr 26 2009, 15:17

As far as your ban from from Armaholic.com goes, if I remember correctly, you were banned for badmouthing an admin and excessive flaming. Later using proxies to bypass the ban. So no, voicing your opinion will not get you banned from anywhere. General smacktarding will.

Proxies?lol
I just made another account with my real life name.And get banned again for what?
And I didnt refer to Armaholic when I said banned.I refer to BIS forums.
And remember when I said my opinion about ArmA2 everyone was like "If I knew were you live..." or "When did you visit a doctor last time?" very mature posts eh?And it was me that flaming..come on...

And you think the same person that makes cows makes the scopes?

Its almost as if some people think there are only 1 or 2 people working on ArmA...:rolleyes:

So why we see cows and we dont see realistic scopes?Its ridiculous that the sniper in a war simulator has one level of zoom.Think about it.

echo1

Apr 26 2009, 15:32

So why we see cows and we dont see realistic scopes?Its ridiculous that the sniper in a war simulator has one level of zoom.Think about it.

Maybe it's because most military rifles only have one level of zoom in real life? ArmA did have one rifle with variable zoom - the SPR, and that's because it was the only rifle that should have more than one level of zoom.

KorpeN

Apr 26 2009, 16:03

Maybe it's because most military rifles only have one level of zoom in real life? ArmA did have one rifle with variable zoom - the SPR, and that's because it was the only rifle that should have more than one level of zoom.

OK I am owned on this.
Sniper scopes were a bad example.
What about the tank scopes and targeting system?

[FRL]Myke

Apr 26 2009, 16:21

Correct me if i'm wrong but i think to remember that OFP had zommable tank scopes also had ArmA. Why should ArmA2 don't have them also?
Did i miss something where it is said that tank scopes have fixed zoom level?

Or did i missed the point of your post completely? Then i have to aplogize.

echo1

Apr 26 2009, 16:28

I think it was to do with the realism of Fire Control Systems. I admit that they could do a better job of them (I mean, if some modders can make one, so can BIS). On the other hand, I'd rather have something new than something that can be easily made by modders.

(Yes I know that animals were made by modders for OFP, I just doubt that they would have behaved in any sort of realistic manner)

[FRL]Myke

Apr 26 2009, 16:31

Ah yes, then i missed the point. Fully agree with the lack of a functional FCS. Should be implemented from beginning.

Scrub

Apr 26 2009, 17:05

Ptolemaios, I'm seeing a trend. You are complaining about getting banned, and complaining about this game... Just aggressively complaining.

Can you post something besides GFX related issues, since outstanding images for both DR and Arma II can be found.
I agree on the weapon interfaces and FCS. Can you contend with OFP:DR's lack of depth and BF2 like animations/playability? The new German Arma II review had very nice animations and handsignals very realistic ground cover, good air support, large group command.. Bardosyl (he made the urban and countryside Youtube vids) said he can play smoothly on much higher settings. I'm assuming he took them down for the recording. Anything on those subjects? Basically can you argue feature for feature with both games?

Baff1

Apr 26 2009, 18:41

OK I am owned on this.
Sniper scopes were a bad example.
What about the tank scopes and targeting system?

I think after they realised what a great job they had done on the sniperscopes afterall, they added another cow model instead.

ProfTournesol

Apr 26 2009, 18:45

Can you post something besides GFX related issues, since outstanding images for both DR and Arma II can be found.
I agree on the weapon interfaces and FCS. Can you contend with OFPR's lack of depth and BF2 like animations/playability? The new German Arma II review had very nice animations and handsignals very realistic ground cover, good air support, large group command.. Bardosyl (he made the urban and countryside Youtube vids) said he can play smoothly on much higher settings. I'm assuming he took them down for the recording. Anything on those subjects? Basically can you argue feature for feature with both games?

If people wants to talk to Ptolemaios, just PM him, ou could mods rename this topic as "What Ptolemaios thinks about everything" ? :threadjacked:

KorpeN

Apr 27 2009, 08:33

If people wants to talk to Ptolemaios, just PM him, ou could mods rename this topic as "What Ptolemaios thinks about everything" ? :threadjacked:

Are you a moderator?If not plz stop pointing what to do and post on-topic.
Thnx
Guys you have to understand something.I dont support any of the games.
I ll try the demos and what I like better I ll buy.
90% I ll buy both.
But even ArmA looks better until now than ArmA2 and the most important is playable and more "accesible" for the average gamer.

boomar.

Apr 27 2009, 08:52

The demo's are gona be the deciding factor for many of us on the fence. So they better be good and stuff...

Baff1

Apr 27 2009, 09:50

The new scenario was the deciding factor in ArmA 2 for me.
It's made my decision for me.

I keep trying to convince myself of OpF2 and save some money with a pre-order, but I still have trust issues. I'll need to try that one first. I don't know what it is they are selling yet, and it could still be utter toss.

bravo 6

Apr 27 2009, 09:54

boomar.

Apr 27 2009, 11:08

pff, really?!

From what i know of BIS, the demo (from BIS) will mean nothing as a final conclusion, because as we all know BIS always improve their development, and ArmA2 is a huge project on their lives, so I'm sure BIS will release as many patches as necessary to please OFP/ARMA fans community!

Yeah well BIS are only hurting themselves. They should work on the demo and amke sure its up to standard of what they are planning on releasing. Many people wont buy the full game if they have issues with the demo.

KorpeN

Apr 27 2009, 12:14

bravo 6

Apr 27 2009, 12:45

Yeah well BIS are only hurting themselves. They should work on the demo and amke sure its up to standard of what they are planning on releasing. Many people wont buy the full game if they have issues with the demo.

No!, BIS should work on the primary objective! Release a good Simulator. Its people like you that demand a good demo else everything is crap.
I believe the optimal and final version is the one that counts!

walker

Apr 27 2009, 13:18

SWAT_BigBear

Apr 27 2009, 13:48

@<hidden>
Go ahead and add:
Missing support from the original OFP community.

KorpeN

Apr 27 2009, 14:19

Hi all

So DR will not have a demo then?

Add this to the:

Missing Jets
Missing Civilians
Missing Factions
Missing Wildlife
Missing release dates

All in all DF looks like it is Missing in Inaction

Regards walker

The demo has been confirmed a long time ago. :391:
Missing Jets = Confirmed
Missing Civilians = Pending
Missing Factions = DO you speak about US,Russia and China?To me these are factions, no?
Missing Wildlife = Oh,what a miss

@<hidden>
Go ahead and add:
Missing support from the original OFP community.

As there are no other modders or modding communities.

Apr 27 2009, 14:33

+1 Agreed

So you're DremDC who was posting crap and trolling on those Dome PC youtube vids!!

It all makes sense!

walker

Apr 27 2009, 14:52

Hi all

In reply to Ptolemaios

Why has DR said they will not let the Pres have a demo then?

If CM want to grab the kudos of the name of BIS's OFP1 simulation and claim they are making a sequel why is it missing so many key OFP features:

Why will DR be Missing Jets you can fly?
Why will DR be the Missing Civilians that add so much to richness of game play?
Why will DR be Missing the Editor for consoles when OFP Elite had one?

Why will DR be Missing a variety of Factions?
Why will DR be Missing Wildlife that adds to the richness of game-play, as others have pointed out, the startled flock of birds, mistaking a beast for the enemy and giving away you position?
Why does DR keep Missing release dates?

And now we are hearing very low numbers for MP as few as 20! WHY?!

What is it about the DR engine that is forcing CM to keep reducing specs?

As I said "All in all DF looks like it is Missing in Inaction"

Regards walker

KorpeN

Apr 27 2009, 14:55

So you're DremDC who was posting crap and trolling on those Dome PC youtube vids!!

It all makes sense!

Yep also I am a CM employee. :hang:
Stick on topic at least.

Hi all

In reply to Ptolemaios

Why has DR said they will not let the Pres have a demo then?

If CM want to grab the kudos of the name of BIS's OFP1 simulation and claim they are making a sequel why is it missing so many key OFP features:

Why will DR be Missing Jets you can fly?
Why will DR be the Missing Civilians that add so much to richness of game play?
Why will DR be Missing the Editor for consoles when OFP Elite had one?

Why will DR be Missing a variety of Factions?
Why will DR be Missing Wildlife that adds to the richness of game-play, as others have pointed out, the startled flock of birds, mistaking a beast for the enemy and giving away you position?
Why does DR keep Missing release dates?

And now we are hearing very low numbers for MP as few as 20! WHY?!

What is it about the DR engine that is forcing CM to keep reducing specs?

As I said "All in all DF looks like it is Missing in Inaction"

Regards walker

Honestly? I dont know.
Why you dont go ask the CM devs?
Those features you said are unimportant for a game to be in ESL.

SWAT_BigBear

Apr 27 2009, 14:58

As there are no other modders or modding communities.
I do not mod, I only play.

KorpeN

Apr 27 2009, 15:06

I do not mod, I only play. me too :cool:

Deadfast

Apr 27 2009, 15:07

Those features you said are unimportant for a game to be in ESL.

I, and as I believe many others, don't care about ESL.

echo1

Apr 27 2009, 15:40

Honestly? I dont know.
Why you dont go ask the CM devs?
Those features you said are unimportant for a game to be in ESL.

So what is so great about OFP DR that has you trolling in a constant basis?

SgtH3nry3

Apr 27 2009, 15:48

So what is so great about OFP DR that has you trolling in a constant basis?To me it looks like disappointment in ArmA and an irrational bias for any competing product.

W0lle

Apr 27 2009, 15:52

Ptolemaios

Stop abusing the report to moderator button each time someone replies with something you don't like.

KorpeN

Apr 27 2009, 15:52

So what is so great about OFP DR that has you trolling in a constant basis?

Your post doesnt make any sense.
He asked me why and I said I dont know why.
What this have to do with how great is the game?:j:

Ptolemaios

Stop abusing the report to moderator button each time someone replies with something you don't like.

LOL

Apr 27 2009, 15:58

Ptolemaios:

Dude it's pretty obvious that you are "DremDC".

1) No one posts as much crap and trolls as much about ArmaII than you and "DremDC" in the youtube comments.
2) I have never ever seen anyone say "+1 Agreed" (capitalisation is the same as well) apart from you and "DremDC" in the youtube comments.

I think with OFP: DR focusing on the infantry aspect rather than the overall combat (e.g. lack of air, civilians etc) it will obviously be better in some aspects than ArmaII. There isn't really much more to debate about until both games are ready to buy on the shelf, seeing as there is ample time to fix/tweek/change/create stuff between now and release.

People should stop getting so emotional about a bunch of games and critique each game objectively rather than throwing in some bias spin.

[FRL]Myke

Apr 27 2009, 17:12

What the heck is ESL? :confused::confused::confused:

Baff1

Apr 27 2009, 17:39

Spanish sign language.

KorpeN

Apr 27 2009, 17:52

What the heck is ESL? :confused::confused::confused:

Spanish sign language.

Oh my god what a community:D

ESL is the Electronic Sports League
The good days ArmA was in there but the patch policy of BIS made many teams to disagree with which patch we have to play and the ArmA Ladder cancelled.
I hope ArmA2 or OFP2 make it better.

Journeyman

Apr 27 2009, 18:54

Hi all

So DR will not have a demo then?

Add this to the:

Missing Jets
Missing Civilians
Missing Factions
Missing Wildlife
Missing release dates

All in all DF looks like it is Missing in Inaction

Regards walker

According to the CM forums there is a demo coming soon.

I've recently just seen the jets being flown in ArmA2 I don't think I will miss them! … The same crappy flight model as in OFP1.

I've also just seen some civilians/zombies wondering around aimlessly and bumping into each other on the same video! I don't think I will miss them!

Don't know the deal with the missing factions.

Never saw much wildlife in ArmA1 apart from a few birds, are BIS doing more interesting creatures for ArmA2?

Missing release dates? Well that can swing both ways; I seem to remember following the missing release dates of ArmA1 just a few years back!

In short it's far too early to make any judgements on either game, and taking sides will get you nowhere fast! :wave:

[FRL]Myke

Apr 27 2009, 19:26

Those features you said are unimportant for a game to be in ESL.

ESL is the Electronic Sports League

I doubt that either BIS nor CM do design theyr game to fit in any league.

Believe it or not, there are players out there that plays "just for fun". So if a game (any game) is ESL-compatible (whatever that means) is no argument at all.

Maybe i'm just too old (read: above 16) for any sort of "i have better skillz than you, boon" style gameplay.

When playing, i don't mind to end a game with zero kills but instead helpe the team as chopper pilot, moving them to theyr hot spots, do evacs, insertions and recon/spotter jobs.

KorpeN

Apr 27 2009, 19:39

I doubt that either BIS nor CM do design theyr game to fit in any league.

Believe it or not, there are players out there that plays "just for fun". So if a game (any game) is ESL-compatible (whatever that means) is no argument at all.

Maybe i'm just too old (read: above 16) for any sort of "i have better skillz than you, boon" style gameplay.

When playing, i don't mind to end a game with zero kills but instead helpe the team as chopper pilot, moving them to theyr hot spots, do evacs, insertions and recon/spotter jobs.

Non game designed for ESL.Is its community that makes it so.
I play for fun too but I like also to compete against other people.
It is a personal taste.

@<hidden> Kite
Well said.

Zipper5

Apr 28 2009, 05:29

I've recently just seen the jets being flown in ArmA2 I don't think I will miss them! … The same crappy flight model as in OFP1.
Dude... It's a completely different... Eugh. I take it you didn't try ArmA at all and wrote it off as a shitty game?

I've also just seen some civilians/zombies wondering around aimlessly and bumping into each other on the same video! I don't think I will miss them!
I always found that to be a cool part of OFP and ArmA. The civilians made it a much more "personal" conflict in some cases, and a much more problematic one. Multiple good missions heavily involved civilians, just look at Abandoned Armies for OFP. To omit them makes me think of it as any other game out there, like CoD WaW.

Never saw much wildlife in ArmA1 apart from a few birds, are BIS doing more interesting creatures for ArmA2?
Yes.

boomar.

Apr 28 2009, 07:08

Apr 28 2009, 07:14

About the no civilians in OFP2:

If you were a civilian living on the island and you knew it was about to turn into a giant shitstorm of a battleground wouldnt you do everything possible to get the heck out of there before the tanks start rolling over your garden? I know i would. makes sense to me. Hate to damage realism and add civilians....

Its a nice thought, but by that logic surely Iraq should have been a desolate and empty [people-free] wasteland for the last 2 or 3 decades...

And whats to say they knew it was going to happen? The logic fails again, since its not like Armies announce their impending arrival "oh, you may want to leave, since we're about to kick the shit out of the place"

Point in case - the Falkland Islands back in the 80s. While it was possible (they had the money and the transport availabe) for the people to evacuate (and some did) the vast majority stayed. I guess you just dont like the place you live/your country all that much....

Journeyman

Apr 28 2009, 07:31

Dude... It's a completely different... Eugh. I take it you didn't try ArmA at all and wrote it off as a shitty game?

No I tried ArmA first!

Here's the jet flying vid...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7e242Gxr68&annotation_id=annotation_17089&feature=iv

xav

Apr 28 2009, 07:46

No I tried ArmA first!

Here's the jet flying vid...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7e242Gxr68&annotation_id=annotation_17089&feature=iv

THe guy is flying with a keyboard, what do you expect? :icon_ohmygod:

I've recently just seen the jets being flown in ArmA2 I don't think I will miss them!

I've also just seen some civilians/zombies wondering around aimlessly and bumping into each other on the same video! I don't think I will miss them!

Blah blah blah :blahblah2: rant!

Then what are you still doing on these boards? Why don't get the hell out of here and stick to the CM boards?
I don't think the arma community will miss you!

froggyluv

Apr 28 2009, 07:56

Funny, actually a world without civies or animals feels more like a zombie world to me. That means everything you see moving is obviously an enemy and thats just boring. Arma's civies might be stiff, but it's more fun playing an Iraqi Afghani mission with some 'friendlies' walking around to make you check your fire. Arma2's civies look improved and will add a nice backdrop as well as a key ingredient to mission-makers.

4 IN 1

Apr 28 2009, 09:28

I will repeat what I have said for billion times:
The Flight model in ArmA needs tweak, but are far from useless.

walker

Apr 28 2009, 10:31

Hi all

Since the 1.16 ArmA update the planes are far better in ArmA and View distance can be increased even on lower spec machines.

BIS are like that with their software constantly improving it.

But even before ArmA with BIS's OFP1 I used to do CAS runs in the A10 for the infantry as well as laser guided runs on point targets as part of breaching a line in an all Arms battle.

That gigantic scale is what BIS's OFP1 was and now ArmA I and ArmA II are all about.
Who can forget the variations of Jinef's Breakthrough Mission? The grandeur in MP of an all arms armored column busting through the enemy lines on Nogova at the Forrest of death, clearing Neveklov house to house and on to the second choke point The Bridge at Davle. All in all the battle took 5 hours until the few battered remnants would arrive at Velka Ves and allow the supply column to deliver the supplies to the civilians refugees at Varta heights.

The dramatic opening as the A10 gets guided in by the Forward Air Controler and clears a hole through the enemy armor. The artillery prep fires with HE air-burst and low angle WP on the Forrest of Death and Hill 109. The Tanks role forward to a flank over-watch as the Bradley's rush up to disgorge the infantry at slapy and the foot of 109. The infantry move forward 300 yards and and give directed fire for their Bradley's. While the Apaches' are the angels on our shoulders watching our open flanks for incoming armor. How could you play it without, having to consider collateral damage to civilians at Neveklov preventing the Artillery Prep fire so that it becomes house to house? The race to cross the Davle Bridge before the enemy can blow it. That last long slog clearing the wrecks and mines up to Velka Ves and the Varta heights. If you made it to the end of that mission with 5 of the assault force left alive it was a miracle. And the civilians coming down from the tents on the Varta heights.

Now that is what I call an epic mission.

If DR does not have Civilians and Jets and with the limited MP we are hearing about, how can it even live up to the Grandeur of BIS's OFP1?

If the MP missions are so limited how can it compare to the size of ArmA I?

If DR has no wildlife how will it compete with the diversity of ArmA II?

Sadly Walker

PS by the way Jinef's Breakthrough Mission is now being ported to ArmA I and I am guessing we will be seeing it in ArmA II. ;)

boomar.

Apr 28 2009, 12:10

IMO wildlife and civvies arent a big deal.

Now whats this stuff about multiplayer? care to provide a source to your claims? We dont know anything about it, just that its gona be a massive bot army vs massive bot army haha.

MehMan

Apr 28 2009, 12:46

Civvies are a big deal because they add a whole other dimension. I had great fun in a dynamic mission based on CAT afghan map where you had to scout towns, assault them, etc, and they were full of civies and baddies, and there were times were you just couldn't know the difference. Killing a civy also failed the mission.

Wildlife, mneh, might be cool. Dunno, Far Cry 2's wild life was fun to run over.

walker

Apr 28 2009, 13:22

Hi all

Boomar what I am hearing, just by going around and searching on Google: is a maximum of 32 players and on high end servers, less than that perhaps as low as 20 in DReck on normal PCs. ArmA I is already capable of 100 plus on high end servers with 32 and 64 being the norm for games like Warfare and Berzerk on low and mid range servers. And DReck having as low as 8 or even 4 players on consoles, that along with the no editor debacle. BIS's OFP1 Elite on X-Box beats that with 32 matching what even the highest number DReck is capable on top end PC's.

Why are CM continuing to retreat from even BIS's OFP1 capabilities?

And a maximum entity count of just 256 which is less than an 8th of what even BIS's OFP1 was capable of at 768 x 4 sides. That will not be a massive bot Army that is barely three platoons when ArmA is capable of multiple battalion All Arms battles with entity counts in the thousands.

Why are CM continuing to retreat from even BIS's OFP1 capabilities?

And that stunted game-play on a barren island, no civilians, no wildlife, I guess they will come up with some story about chemical or biological weapons that mysteriously eat up all the bodies, or space aliens, or ghosties.

If CM had some kind of intention of DReck competing with BIS's ArmA II then they are very foolish, it might compete with BF or COD4 but DReck is not even in the same league as ArmA II.

Sadly walker

anc

Apr 28 2009, 14:16

Off topic, but i would like to know what’s wrong with some people here, that can't accept someone else’s opinion. It’s like if someone disagrees with their opining it’s even worse than offend them. Why can't you all act like ADULTS? And respect each other’s opinion? If we are here it's because we ARE interested in Armed Assault 2, however we do have our opinion about what we saw about the game, and if we didn't like feature a, b or c or the missing of feature d, e or f, doesn't mean that we won’t like the game or that we won’t buy it. And that no one recognizes BIS hard work. Well, anyway, calm down people, if you disagree with someone else opinion just don't say nothing, it's much better than offend that person.
Best regards.

Salvatore_Lee

Apr 28 2009, 14:18

To the guy who just said that civvies aren't there because it's a battleground:
Look at Iraq/Afghanistan

SWAT_BigBear

Apr 28 2009, 14:21

To the guy who just said that civvies aren't there because it's a battleground:
Look at Iraq/Afghanistan
ahh, also the recent Georgia event.

Sennacherib

Apr 28 2009, 14:25

simulation = copy of the real life.

In the real life, I know only 1 modern town empty with no civs: tchernobyl.
Civs are really important, a simulation without Civs, is just an other FPS.

ricbar89

Apr 28 2009, 15:11

The reason for the lack of civvies is the island is sparsely populated and mostly wilderness. Two powers fighting over the resources the island bring, not interested in the population which is to small (and most "have fled" anyway) to have any bearing conflict.

Mentioning Iraq and Georgia is a bit silly, its like comparing a battle for New York to a battle for Wyoming, two fundamentally different scenarios.

Its the same with ARMA2 and OFP2, two totally different back drops to two totally different scenarios. Civvies play a large role in both OFP and ARMA 2 due to their great relevance to the scenario, unlike OFP: DR where they have no relevance at all.

Baff1

Apr 28 2009, 15:23

Its a nice thought, but by that logic surely Iraq should have been a desolate and empty [people-free] wasteland for the last 2 or 3 decades...

And whats to say they knew it was going to happen? The logic fails again, since its not like Armies announce their impending arrival "oh, you may want to leave, since we're about to kick the shit out of the place"

Point in case - the Falkland Islands back in the 80s. While it was possible (they had the money and the transport availabe) for the people to evacuate (and some did) the vast majority stayed. I guess you just dont like the place you live/your country all that much....

Both Iraq and the Falkland Isles have a domestic population greater that 6.

Why you are so worried about civilians on Codemasters island is beyond me. The place has one farm.
One.

The Galapagos islands is a seething metropolis compared to it.

I agree that civilians add depth to game, but they don't fit into the Codemasters scenario. It isn't based in Iraq and it isn't based on the Falklands.

There are any number of Islands in the Pacific that have had their domestic completely populations removed by invading militaries. Loads of them.

Historically when America and Canada invaded the place on the way to Japan, there weren't just no civilians on the island, there weren't any enemy soldiers either.
The whole place is a national park.

On the otherhand Codemasters have added a load of buildings and a "town" that isn't really there.
It's not real. It isn't a simulation especially. It's just an island arena to do battle on. No need to read too much into it. The plot is crap. The sooner you overlook it, the better.

Codemasters aren't BIS. They aren't making the same game.
They haven't started with BIS's game and then removed features.
They have started with a racing car game and then added some.

The people at GRIN did the samething with Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter.
That game was not anything like as good as the original. But I still play it from time to time.

walker

Apr 28 2009, 16:14

Hi all

...Why you are so worried about civilians on Codemasters island is beyond me. The place has one farm.
One...

So there will be No Urban Combat in DReck either.

No Civilians
No Flyable Jets
Micro Battles
Micro Multiplayer
No Wildlife.
No Editor for the consoles.

So why would people pay money for a game like DReck that has not even as got the capabilities of BIS's OFP1 never mind the advanced capabilities of ArmA II?

Regards walker

Scrub

Apr 28 2009, 16:38

Quote:
Walker- If CM had some kind of intention of DReck competing with BIS's ArmA II then they are very foolish, it might compete with BF or COD4 but DReck is not even in the same league as ArmA II.

This is the point that really changed my view. They aren't in the same league, probably are targeted and designed for different gamer demographics. Most of these comments on both sides are completely valid, and describe two very different military type games. Personal opinions are just that, not really open for discussion because that is how the individual feels about it. So to try and say one is better than the other when they are very different in the technical arena, is probably better put as "I do/don't care for that type of gameplay". Just another opinion on the subject..

Apr 28 2009, 16:40

Calm down everyone it's just a game.:rolleyes:

ricbar89

Apr 28 2009, 17:08

Hi all

So there will be No Urban Combat in DReck either.

No Civilians
No Flyable Jets
Micro Battles
Micro Multiplayer
No Wildlife.
No Editor for the consoles.

So why would people pay money for a game like DReck that has not even as got the capabilities of BIS's OFP1 never mind the advanced capabilities of ArmA II?

Regards walker

Well there is actually a small town in the game equal in size to those we have already seen in OFP, so there is urban combat.

So there will be urban combat.
As pointed out civilians are irrelevant to the story so no big deal, really how much did they matter during the CWC campaign, apart from a few missions there were never even anywhere to be found.
No flyable jet i can live with it, the AI can do it well enough.
Micro battles i have do idea what you're talking about, i assume this is typical speculation.
Micro multiplayer i agree with, far to limited amount of player but there should be a decent amount of AI.
Wildlife i really dont care about, was it even in OFP (other than seagulls :p )? Made no difference then to me then so why would i miss it.
And no editor on console is terrible, real big deal and really poor call by Codemasters.

And the answer to your question, lots of things, like properly simed weapons with real optics and FLIR, tanks with real optics with amour penetration system rather then hitboxes. New AI that isn’t so limited (hopefully), the battlefields that stay from mission to mission as well as many other things.

But I don’t understand your comment on capabilities, OFP/ARMA’s engine is very old and limited now, how many features have player been asking for that have not been included one way or another. OFP should include many capabilities that OFP or ARMA2 wont as already pointed out.