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

[max power 21]

I wish BIS would just give us OFP: CWC with prettier graphics, MP experience, and title it Arma3. Is that too much to ask for?

Suma says yes, it is too much to ask for.

I would also like to see a OFP remake with a modern technology, however be aware there are issues which may see little at first glance, but the more I think about them, the more they grow, up to the moment they seem so huge I give up. :( Putting legal issues aside for a while, let us focus on the technical side:

The objective should be to update the "graphics" while keeping the "gameplay", "controls" and "sounds" the same. What exactly would this mean?

- more detailed terrain

- more detailed buildings

- more detailed vehicles and weapons

- more detailed soldiers

- shader based rendering

- overall amount of work

Each of those areas has its own issues, some minor, some major, I will take them on by one.

Terrain

Moderate: There is no satellite imagery available for the islands, as they are only loosely based on some real world data.

Minor: Do we want grass? Grass affects gameplay as well - once we have the grass, we cannot replicate the gameplay exactly as it was.

Buildings

Minor: Do we want destructible buildings? Perhaps not, as that affects gameplay.

Vehicles and weapons

No major problems expected here: making more detailed vehicles should be straightforward, assuming you have someone to undertake such a huge job - see below.

Soldiers

This is where real problems are:

Major: Using more detailed soldier models requires a different skeleton than the one used in OFP. Using ArmA 2 skeleton requires using ArmA 2 animations, or creating a complete new set. Using new animation engine requires different control interface as well, therefore maintaining the OPF control "feel" can be very hard.

Shader based engine

Major: Do we want to use HDR? Using the ArmA 2 shader engine without HDR could be tricky, as without HDR it is very hard to achieve high-contrast graphics. Perhaps a moderate solution could be just to disable glow effect?

Overall amount of work

Major: This is also a major issue, as creating the content detailed as in ArmA 2 is many times harder and more time consuming than the original OFP one. CWR team could probably tell tales about this.

Conclusion

Realistically, if you want to return back to OFP again, I can see two options:

- play the old OFP as it is

- use a CWR mod which tries to bring OFP into ArmA / ArmA 2 as close as possible

[dmarkwick 261]

Like I said earlier in this thread, don't underestimate the importance of camouflage on the modern battlefield. A well hidden RPG team or an I.E.D, that's all it takes to obliterate an entire squad and this has a significant impact on realistic gameplay. No other game comes even close to ArmA2's highly realistic virtual battlefield when played on max settings, if you haven't experienced it then you won't understand it, you might as well go buy a console.

So you've gone even further and said that unless you can play ArmA2 on max settings, you won't "understand" how awesome it is and you might as well buy a console? I've seen some rubbish spouted on these boards.

[ben_s 11]

Ok, So the rule is, If I cannot see a tin can at 500 meters I should go buy a console?

Because not being able to see the tin can means i CANNOT like the game, and CANNOT have an opinon on it, because that tin can is so important to gameplay.

[zigzag 0]

One more thing that I think should be added to Sumas list.

Veiwdistance, we can see ten times longer in arma.

[Zipper5 74]

Okay, I believe the topic at hand here is Red River and not how to best experience Arma 2. Let's get it back on track, shall we?

[ben_s 11]

Okay, I believe the topic at hand here is Red River and not how to best experience Arma 2. Let's get it back on track, shall we?

Gameplay in this video

Its dutch so, keep calm. There IS gameplay in it.

[Zipper5 74]

Even though it's in Dutch I can still pick out enough words to tell that it's still PR talk coming straight from Codemasters' mouth. "Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising" - later in same sentence - "SOOPER hardcore", and then suddenly it shows RR footage and the guy mentions "Call of Duty... Modern Warfare" and then "tactish" and "strategish", which makes me believe he's essentially saying "Unlike Call of Duty you need to use tactics and strategies."

Game still looks like a COD clone to me, and hey, look at 3:02 - the magic medikit is back, and the healing is less involving and faster than ever!

I'll let you guys see Lenton's bit at the end. I don't want to spoil the hilarity. :p

[ben_s 11]

Did you notice how he almost forgot his line, stupid when he only had 4 words in the sentance to say x)

[Tonci87 163]

Sion with a Airsoft gun. You somehow get the impression that even this gun is kind of to heavy for him......

[Baff1 0]

Even though it's in Dutch I can still pick out enough words to tell that it's still PR talk coming straight from Codemasters' mouth. "Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising" - later in same sentence - "SOOPER hardcore", and then suddenly it shows RR footage and the guy mentions "Call of Duty... Modern Warfare" and then "tactish" and "strategish", which makes me believe he's essentially saying "Unlike Call of Duty you need to use tactics and strategies."

Game still looks like a COD clone to me, and hey, look at 3:02 - the magic medikit is back, and the healing is less involving and faster than ever!

I'll let you guys see Lenton's bit at the end. I don't want to spoil the hilarity. :p

Yeah it's all blah blah blah.

On the otherhand, it's a cheap co-op army game so it's still = WIN!

You know what I mean, it could be a cheap co-op platform game with clowns and it would still = WIN!

I some elements of the game to be very frustrating and limiting. (They way everybody dies if you don't stay close together on vast maps that tactically encourage you to split up).

But co-op games are very thin on the ground. Always have been. The game functions. The graphics look good. I've played a lot worse.

RR will be a good addition to my LAN lust like DR was. Something that will get used.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Baff1

[Zipper5 74]

On the otherhand, it's a cheap co-op army game so it's still = WIN!

I wouldn't be so sure about the cheap part of that sentence.

Or the win part for that matter. :p

[Baff1 0]

I paid £17.99 for DR on release day (or thereabouts), installed it on 4 computers on my LAN and it worked.

I'm expecting to do the same for RR.

By comparison, had I done the same for ArmA 2, I would have needed to have spent £116.

It's a console port. The price reflects the amount of commitment they have put into the PC version in my opinion. I don't feel cheated in any way. I'll buy the sequel willingly, I got my £20's worth in playtime out of the first title.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of console games. I don't like it dumb. But you can still make a playable and fun game on one.

Cheap to make, cheap to buy. That's my estimation of the title. Broadly speaking good value. There aren't many companies that ask reasonable money these days.

They all want a copy purchased per PC on my LAN, AAA price tags on launch... extra money for DLC, etc...

That all adds up fast for a game that is only going to get played 3 or 4 times in year.

Here is some examples of games that = LOSE because they are too expensive.

Starcraft 2. £140 for a 4 way.

Supreme Commander 2 £74 for a 4 way.

Battlefield anything £140 for a 4 way.

Neverwinter Nights 2 £80 for a 4 way (this game is 5 years old!!).

You know what I mean, I'd enjoy playing any of those games if they were good value.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Baff1

[ben_s 11]

Well, It wont take long to drop to £20. :)

[Zipper5 74]

There aren't many companies that ask reasonable money these days.

I'd rather pay $40 for a quality game than $20 for a crappy one. :p

In fact, if I know before hand that a game sucks, I don't buy it, ever. No matter if it's cheap or not, I simply have no inclination to settle for the lowest common denominator.

[JdB 151]

Even though it's in Dutch I can still pick out enough words to tell that it's still PR talk coming straight from Codemasters' mouth. "Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising" - later in same sentence - "SOOPER hardcore", and then suddenly it shows RR footage and the guy mentions "Call of Duty... Modern Warfare" and then "tactish" and "strategish", which makes me believe he's essentially saying "Unlike Call of Duty you need to use tactics and strategies."

He begins by saying that he played DR, but that he found it to be too hardcore. That made me think "NEXT!", but I like to torture myself with a pinch of Spartan hardship now and again, so I persevered. Here are some of the other highlights of the 1:1 copy of CM's PR speeches (which Power Unlimited is (in)famous for).

Like you said, the "first mission was SUPER hardcore", "nothing going on", "I am just too impatient for this (type of gameplay)". Identical to the CM PR machine, they say that it's completely different from CoD, that you have to let go of that mindset completely (ROFL), and that they actually listened to the players (I get the feeling that they are implying that CM is unique in this, which we all know is a complete lie as any company listens more to it's customers and supports them after release, even EA and Activision).

"It's not run-and-gun at all" (instead, it is run, laugh at opponents who can't shoot, then run some more, and finally slash them open with a knife while they're firing at you in full-auto). "Pure realism", at the time they said that, I saw a bit of gameplay with a hill in it about 200m away that looked to me like a video from the true OFP back in 2001. Blurred, complete lack of details, has "console = box of ancient hardware" written all over it. "Very authentic, but it's still a game, it has to be fun to play, you can build a war simulation, but it isn't fun". Some people might disagree *cough* ArmA2, DCS, IL2, Silent Hunter etc *cough*. For the "realism"-standard the presenters seem to be going with BF.

The recoil looks like it's in slow-motion to me. The gun doesn't really move up and down very much to simulate breathing, and so there doesn't seem to be any scope drifting either. The radial menu took them time (30 min.) to get used to ...

"We're not going to bring up the whole history of Operation Flashpoint again, the franchise was rebooted with DR, and to me this is Operation Flashpoint." That's not a quote from the CM PR machine, but it's nearly identical, so I don't blame anyone who makes an incorrect assumption ;)

I'd rather pay $40 for a quality game than $20 for a crappy one each year. :p

I fixed that for you ;)

Cheap to make, cheap to buy.

DR wasn't cheap at all to make, so the price reflects on the quality of the product rather than on the costs that were made (although you could say that they were so desperate to recover some of the money that went into this disastrous development cycle(s) that they tried everything to get some people to buy it, even at bargain bin prices to prevent the product from going vaporware, and the entire company along with it). I'd still rather pay €116 for ArmA2 which I will play for years and will still be supported (until we see ArmA3 hopefully) rather than €20 for DR which was dumped a little while after release.

Edited December 19, 2010 by JdB

[Baff1 0]

Well, It wont take long to drop to £20. :)

It will most likely start at £20.

The last one did at Play.com.

You will be able to pay more of course if you hunt around.

RRP was probably still £35 or something.

---------- Post added at 03:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:25 PM ----------

I'd rather pay $40 for a quality game than $20 for a crappy one. :p

In fact, if I know before hand that a game sucks, I don't buy it, ever. No matter if it's cheap or not, I simply have no inclination to settle for the lowest common denominator.

But it wasn't crap.

It was solid.

For bargain prices I'm not expecting the next World of Warcraft.

I just want a game that is fun to play and we haven't all done to death.

---------- Post added at 03:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 PM ----------

H

DR wasn't cheap at all to make, so the price reflects on the quality of the product rather than on the costs that were made (although you could say that they were so desperate to recover some of the money that went into this disastrous development cycle(s) that they tried everything to get some people to buy it, even at bargain bin prices to prevent the product from going vaporware, and the entire company along with it). I'd still rather pay €116 for ArmA2 which I will play for years and will still be supported (until we see ArmA3 hopefully) rather than €20 for DR which was dumped a little while after release.

LMAO I'd rather have paid 116 Euros for ARMA 2 also. Shame it wasn't on sale that cheap!!!

DR was cheap to make. It wasn't a AAA development. It was factory production on a limited timeframe using a propietry engine.

Made to work on all platforms. So the PC version was arguably almost free to make.

RR is not the next game the team have made since DR's release. They worked on other games in between develpoments. It's a games factory rather than a studio if you see what I'm trying to say.

I would have liked to have bought 4 copies of ArmA 2 on release day, but I don't have that kind of money to throw around.

What I would like and what I can afford aren't often the same thing.

And while ArmA 2 is great title with far more longevity than DR, I still can't afford to run it on my LAN and I can afford to run DR.

So it isn't a case of DR for £20 or ARmA2 for £116, it's a case of £30 in my pocket, what can I afford to buy?

So I play DR co-op and not ArmA 2. Since I can only afford ArmA 2 two-way and my mates come over in larger groups than that.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Baff1

[VanhA-ICON 11]

And while ArmA 2 is great title with far more longevity than DR, I still can't afford to run it on my LAN and I can afford to run DR.

So it isn't a case of DR for £20 or ARmA2 for £116, it's a case of £30 in my pocket, what can I afford to buy?

The most precious thing my mother taught me once was that the poor can't afford to buy cheap.

If one encourages a conartist to continue with his actions then it's almost a crime in itself.

In this case it's an offense towards people who value their purchase and the support to companies who are sincere in making their game a good one.

[Zipper5 74]

But it wasn't crap.

It was solid.

The people in the comments section of every piece of RR PR release so far beg to differ, and that's not including the people here - i.e. the fans of the namesake. ;)

For bargain prices I'm not expecting the next World of Warcraft.

Heh, if you think $20 is a bargain price for a game like DR, then that just reinforces why the gaming industry is in the state that it is. :D

[CW001 10]

Oh lord, it still has the "hold bag in front of you and magically heal". This time in REALISTIC GRITTY MODE!!! By that I mean it has a few bloodstains on it. WOW!!!

And oh christ that Lenton bit was so god awful my eyes and ears will never forgive me.

[ricbar89 0]

The people in the comments section of every piece of RR PR release so far beg to differ, and that's not including the people here - i.e. the fans of the namesake. ;)

Opinions, everyone has one...including Baff.

And DR didnt live up to expectations, in fact it didnt come close, but it wasnt anywhere near bad as people make out.

In its own right it was a decent tactical shooter, something were (consoles in particular) short off these days.

Theres mine ^

[Baff1 0]

The people in the comments section of every piece of RR PR release so far beg to differ, and that's not including the people here - i.e. the fans of the namesake. ;)

No mate, that's just the fans/trolls here.

They can all link to all the bad press bad reviews etc. and delight in so doing.

Frankly it says more about them than it does the game.

The bulk of people on this forum were never going to give the game a fair chance in the first place. Their critiscisms are easily ignored.

Primarily they stem from the games choice of name, which is of course utterly irrelevant to my enjoyment of any game.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Baff1

[Zipper5 74]

Well, the majority these days like games such as Call of Duty: Black Ops, so saying the majority like DR isn't really saying that much. :D

Opinions, everyone has one...including Baff.

And DR didnt live up to expectations, in fact it didnt come close, but it wasnt anywhere near bad as people make out.

In its own right it was a decent tactical shooter, something were (consoles in particular) short off these days.

Theres mine ^

I find it hard to fathom people not thinking DR on its own is crap, but I find it perfectly reasonable for people to think it's solid once some of the community-made hacks are applied to it.

That would be mine. :p

[Baff1 0]

Opinions, everyone has one...including Baff.

And DR didnt live up to expectations, in fact it didnt come close, but it wasnt anywhere near bad as people make out.

In its own right it was a decent tactical shooter, something were (consoles in particular) short off these days.

Theres mine ^

It lived up to mine.

I expected a cheap console port that supported LAN co-op and that's what I got.

You know, sort of R6 Vegas does the army.

Actually I was expecting a far worse game than what they came out with. Graphically in particular.

---------- Post added at 05:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------

I find it hard to fathom people not thinking DR on its own is crap, but I find it perfectly reasonable for people to think it's solid once some of the community-made hacks are applied to it.

I found the community made stuff to be useless.

If you want community stuff, you want games like Unreal,, Half-Life and ArmA and MoW.

DR never really took off on the modding front. Being a primarily console title, it never got the critical mass of PC players to fuel a modding scene.

Had they of included a console editing software, I think the game would have gone ballistic on the home made content front.

What was that Ps 3 game that had all the custom made levels?

There is clearly room in the market for it, but as I said before this is a cheap game. They are developing on a budget. Making those kinds of tools takes brains, time and money.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Baff1

[Zipper5 74]

I think ricbar's point was it didn't live up to peoples' expectations for it to be true to the Operation Flashpoint namesake.

Sure, by no means did the modding scene for DR take off, not by any stretch, but some of the community-made stuff made it somewhat more enjoyable. I wouldn't call it modding though, I'd say it's more like hacking.

And the PS3 game you're talking about is Little Big Planet, I believe.

[ben_s 11]

Opinions, everyone has one...including Baff.

And DR didnt live up to expectations, in fact it didnt come close, but it wasnt anywhere near bad as people make out.

In its own right it was a decent tactical shooter, something were (consoles in particular) short off these days.

Theres mine ^

Yeah,

Today, Dragon Rising is alot better. Mainly Community content. Unfortuantly, Theres a very small number of people willing to make community stuff, Because of 2 reasons:

A. They don't want to learn LUA, The scripting language to make missions work.

B. They don't want to learn the XML structure of any of the databases you can edit.

Hopefully, With the addition of some form of Toolkit (even a very basic one) B could be solved.