CM Operation Flashpoint 3 announced | "Oops, they're doing it again..."

[Richey79 10]

Bet it's going to have quick time events.

'Press L bumper repeatedly to defuse IED.'

Bonus if they don't even bother to change 'L bumper' for the PC version.

[Binkowski 26]

You found it in the garbage outside of a community college?

you are correct. story of my life.

[ben_s 11]

You've experienced it then?

... I meant in games. Though, Its much better than the whole, Spetsnaz vs Magical random Operational teams that can do everything.

:eek: CQB is a tactical concept.

You really think Cm is going to make the CoD style/look CQB "tactical"?

[MrBump 10]

... I meant in games. Though, Its much better than the whole, Spetsnaz vs Magical random Operational teams that can do everything.

Yes I meant in games too. What games have you been playing that have made you so bored of the Taliban in the desert style?

You really think Cm is going to make the CoD style/look CQB "tactical"?

Dunno, they did in DR their building infiltration was the only thing that was better than A2? What's your point?

Edited November 27, 2010 by MrBump

[ben_s 11]

My point was that they said the start of the campaign was going to be more like CoD, so CoD players feel happy playing it. And that section has the insurgents in it and the CQB fighting. So one would assume that the CQB fighting would be CoD like (i.e. Un-Tactical)

[MrBump 10]

My point was that they said the start of the campaign was going to be more like CoD, so CoD players feel happy playing it. And that section has the insurgents in it and the CQB fighting. So one would assume that the CQB fighting would be CoD like (i.e. Un-Tactical)

That's a pile of crap, but no more than all the other piles of crap in this thread. Here's to it. :D

[ben_s 11]

That's a pile of crap, but no more than all the other piles of crap in this thread. Here's to it. :D

lol, So making a mission CoD like CQB style means making it tactical and realistic? Where have you been? :p

[JdB 151]

What do you mean PLA is nonsense? You mean, Russia invading some country is more likley than China nowadays?

Russia was involved in three wars since 1990. Twice in Chechnya, once in Georgia. Also there was the intervention in Kosovo. There aren't any large scale operations that resulted in casualties on either side that the PLA has conducted in the last 20 years against an organized enemy force other than it's own population. Russia may not be the most likely enemy these days, but it is a lot more prone to enforcing it's foreign policy with the use of force than China is currently, and in the foreseeable future (in international politics, never more than 10 years). If either of the two gets into a conflict with the US, it will be indirectly, through a proxy war (like Georgia was for Russia, and North Korea could be for the Chinese).

Escalation of a smaller scale (guerrilla) conflict is not a bad option for a scenario, but only if done properly. Unless the Chinese mainland is under direct threat of invasion, it would be stupid to go to war with the US. They would never go for that option if one of their neighboring countries was getting attacked by a superpower, since they know the most likely outcome (economic suicide, WW3, nuclear holocaust). A more likely scenario would be an insurgency in one country that is allied to the US, let's say Iraq. The neighboring country Iran, which is larger, has a vastly greater population, and a more powerful army sends in it's troops to support the insurgents in the hope of expanding it's influence, set-up a proxy regime, or take over the country entirely under the rouse of peacekeeping. When this happens, the US steps in. A war between superpowers like China and the US is highly implausible unless there is a sequence of misunderstandings and insane decisions by governments. Both have far too much to lose by fighting each other. A limited conflict between these two, like in DR and soon RR is impossible. Neither would ever back down, since it would mean their status in the eyes of the world being degraded to a secondary power. You don't need the army of a superpower as your opponent to have a challenging game, as the US has forces in two war zones already, it wouldn't be able to bring it's full power to bear, making it possible for an army the size of Iran to put up a sustained fight.

Edited November 27, 2010 by JdB

[Bulldogs 10]

One of the big flaws in DR was that they attempted to avoid the over powered US vs simple militia by making the op force a well trained super power, like China. They then realised that fighting a well trained super power is too difficult for your average gamer, so they made the PLA fight like untrained militia.

My guess us that the first stage will be simple, utterly brain dead militia to make the dumbed down PLA seem so much better.

[max power 21]

you are correct. story of my life.

You can find all kinds of crazy things in those bins!

[Baff1 0]

I don't really feel that scenario's need to be plausible.

Operation Flashpoints wasn't.

Just a good excuse to put a couple of well equiped armies in the toy box and battle it out.

I like historicals for that sort of realism.

I think the choice of PLA is good one. They have the gear needed to field a decent scaled battle and unlike American forces... it hasn't been done to death. I'd like to see them in an ArmA expansion at some point.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Baff1

[Tonci87 163]

Well for me OPF Scenario was kind of plausible. Crazy Soviet General who starts his own private War because he thinks he needs some revenge because the Americans kicked his but once.... This could happen everywhere...

[ben_s 11]

Well, Having one country suddenly start attacking another isn't very likley is it?

[Zipper5 74]

'Tis different when it is America and China.

[Deadfast 43]

Well, Having one country suddenly start attacking another isn't very likley is it?

There is nothing sudden about North Korea attacking the South. Technically they haven't even signed a peace treaty.

[Zipper5 74]

There is nothing sudden about North Korea attacking the South. Technically they haven't even signed a peace treaty.

Or stopped fighting each other for that matter.

[Bulldogs 10]

I believe they signed a peace treaty after the Korean war.

The thing you have to remember is that we live on earth, a planet where any scenario is possible, and most are even plausible.

[Perforator 10]

What are you talking about, the PLA is the nonsense bit, the "non-authentic".

Yes it's an extremely unlikely hypothetical scenario, but heck...at least the opposing forces aren't an invention of someone's imagination.

[Deadfast 43]

I believe they signed a peace treaty after the Korean war.

No, they only ever signed an armistice.

[Zipper5 74]

Yes it's an extremely unlikely hypothetical scenario, but heck...at least the opposing forces aren't an invention of someone's imagination.

Might as well be, given the storylines that Codemasters' story-writers draw up. :rolleyes:

[nodunit 397]

What's wrong with having imaginary and made up enemies? Unless of course the game is claiming to be realisti- oh wait...

Truth be told I'm not convinced that the C&C Generals US vs China didn't have something to do with CM's choosing, at the time it wasn't far off and they even made mention of it to a point, but that info is likely long since gone.

[Zipper5 74]

I never understood that argument of yours. Takistan is essentially based on Afghanistan and Iraq in almost every way but name. The only way it differs is that they are socialists rather than Muslims. What's not realistic about that?

Chernarus is the same. It's situation is similar to that of Bosnia, Serbia, Chechnya (stretching it a bit).

BIS' fictional countries have always had a realistic position relate-able to that of the present day. It's a hell of a lot more realistic than a full-blown conflict blowing up between two of the largest superpowers on the earth and not having WW3/a nuclear holocaust.

[nodunit 397]

What arguement? I've always related to BIS opfor as real in some way or manner even if its just a mirror of some sort or phase..

Truth be told I don't care if its fictional or nonfictional, setting isn't what I would judge a game by, story somewhat but mostly gameplay. Even some of the most ridiculous games can be fun, look at the Mother series aka Earthbound.

Or even the Army Men games.

EDIT: What the devs do and do not say will be added is also an important judging factor..speaking of, where is this FLIR we saw in DR, eevn if its not perfect it was still a feature.

Edited November 28, 2010 by NodUnit

[Tonci87 163]

One of my Squadmates has made his own little Version of the RR Trailer. I have to admit that it really fits better than the original. As a Bonus it pretty much describes my Opinion of this

http://www.tubedubber.com/#wynpaq4sl-I:MK6TXMsvgQg:0:100:0:0:true

[Perforator 10]

One of my Squadmates has made his own little Version of the RR Trailer. I have to admit that it really fits better than the original.

Yeah anything sounds better than the tacky original voice-over, it was so cheesy and annoying.

They need something more raw and captivating, something like this -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pIaQUOoij0