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

[Richey79 10]

laughs with Yoshiro about the comment and returns to plays erm tests some unreleased titles :D

Swine.

Hope RO2 has a bit more fluidity to the controls than the original. I've been rocking the Killing Floor Christmas event, and find I just can't face the turgid movement speed of RO anymore.

Good post, Vilas, although this,

how much of you ever noticed You Are Empty game ? Russian game which happens in mad-house ?

is a bit too deep for me :p.

The video's not as bad as it could have been. Those A10s are pretty, but you know they'll only be a skybox-type animation, like on Port Valdez in BC2.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Richey79

[Perforator 10]

simply "US forces in desert-looking area" are "US boys consumers wish"

Considering that the children of the west have been watching US forces fight bitter wars in Afghanistan and Iraq every day and night on television and the internet for almost a decade now, and that those same children are now teens and young adults, it's hardly surprising that they are interested in games that feature "US forces in desert-looking area".

[bangtail 0]

LOL, even at $3.00, Operation Failpoint: Dragon Failing doesn't make Steam's 'Top 10 under $10.00' list.

Bring on Operation Failpoint: 'Red Refuse' (If Codeshafters pay me, I might take a copy :D )

Edited December 24, 2010 by BangTail

[Zipper5 74]

The scary thing is that it was still selling, even if not in the top 10 when it was. :butbut:

[Baff1 0]

When CM started DR i think it was at least a half arsed attempt to follow the original CWC with a "superpowers at war" type scenario which is probably why they went with Skira Island. But as developement went on with the technical limitations of EGO and CM leaning more to the mainstream we were left with DR.

Seems to me the next step for CM would be to go with a "Afghan" like scenario.

Yup, Cm is no more copying ArmA, than ArmA is copying COD.

These are war titles.

Expect the similar themes and scenarios across the entire genre.

[zigzag 0]

LOL, even at $3.00, Operation Failpoint: Dragon Failing doesn't make Steam's 'Top 10 under $10.00' list.

Bring on Operation Failpoint: 'Red Refuse' (If Codeshafters pay me, I might take a copy :D )

Its actually number 2 on the Top 10 under $5.00 list.

[bangtail 0]

So it is, I had only looked at the 'under $3.00' category.

I guess people figure they can't go wrong @ $3.00.

They're in for a rude awakening, that game is 'garbage can' at any price.

[jw custom 56]

Ingame video leaked...

CyCyzB0CedM

[wizbomb 10]

i want to know what the gaming community thinks of Operation Flashpoint 2: Dragon Rising. I own the game my self and as a ArmA II owner and a Project Reality owner i have to say this game is pretty good! yes, it may not be as realistic as ArmA II or the old Operation Flashpoint but if your looking for some quick fun with a little bit of realism this game suits the need. It may have some AI bugs but not all games are perfect, the multi-player is pretty much dead but on the brighter side single-player is pretty good. To make a long story short

i would rate this game a 7 out of 10

A random Gameplay video made by me

( i recommend watching if you've never played the game)



GEmt67mQ1a4

[bonchie 39]

Found it to be fairly crap. But that's just me.

[Deadfast 43]

There is already a thread for this...game.

[mosh 0]

Here you go... http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=87936

Not to be rude, but we really don't need another DR topic.

[ziiip 1]

That trailer did look good to me. Not as hot as OA but not bad at all.

[Zipper5 74]

It's pretty safe to say, wizbomb, that most did not like it here. :p

[Mr.Wolf 10]

I really wonder how many of those who "did not like it" actually played it. All that crap like "it's not worth 3 bucks" looks more like blind hatred than actual experience. It's definitely not that bad. It's not the best game I've ever played, but it's not bad either.

For example, playing campaign in coop on hardcore is fun. Really, there are some very good missions. And what's very pleasant, you don't have to worry about non-functional scripting, AI not working and other game breaking bugs, even with 1.0 version of the game. If you don't expect milsim, it's very well playable and entertaining. Definitely much better than campaign of first ArmA, for example.

[Zipper5 74]

I really wonder how many of those who "did not like it" actually played it. All that crap like "it's not worth 3 bucks" looks more like blind hatred than actual experience. It's definitely not that bad. It's not the best game I've ever played, but it's not bad either.

For example, playing campaign in coop on hardcore is fun. Really, there are some very good missions. And what's very pleasant, you don't have to worry about non-functional scripting, AI not working and other game breaking bugs, even with 1.0 version of the game. If you don't expect milsim, it's very well playable and entertaining. Definitely much better than campaign of first ArmA, for example.

I played it quite extensively, and I'd rather take up Placebo on his offer for a signed toenail clipping than buy it again, even for $3. :D

[[frl]myke 14]

I really wonder how many of those who "did not like it" actually played it. All that crap like "it's not worth 3 bucks" looks more like blind hatred than actual experience. It's definitely not that bad. It's not the best game I've ever played, but it's not bad either.

For example, playing campaign in coop on hardcore is fun. Really, there are some very good missions. And what's very pleasant, you don't have to worry about non-functional scripting, AI not working and other game breaking bugs, even with 1.0 version of the game. If you don't expect milsim, it's very well playable and entertaining. Definitely much better than campaign of first ArmA, for example.

I played the demo and while it might not be a bad generic FPS, it is a horrible OFP. I'm not interested in playing 08/15 shooters and OFP: DR feels like a 08/15 shooter. When i read the name "Operation Flashpoint", i expect a gameplay that follows the original OFP.

So again, it is not the game per se, it is the name.

Look it that way: if you buy a car of manufacturer XY, you do expect a certain standard. If you buy a Ferrari you don't expect standards of a BMW, If you buy a BMW you don't expect standards of a Fiat.

None of them i would call "bad cars", nonetheless, a Fiat would be a horrible Ferrari.

[Tonci87 163]

Well I would call a Fiat a bad car :p

[bangtail 0]

I really wonder how many of those who "did not like it" actually played it. All that crap like "it's not worth 3 bucks" looks more like blind hatred than actual experience. It's definitely not that bad. It's not the best game I've ever played, but it's not bad either.

For example, playing campaign in coop on hardcore is fun. Really, there are some very good missions. And what's very pleasant, you don't have to worry about non-functional scripting, AI not working and other game breaking bugs, even with 1.0 version of the game. If you don't expect milsim, it's very well playable and entertaining. Definitely much better than campaign of first ArmA, for example.

I'll give credit where credit is due - nice reload animations for launchers.

That's about it, otherwise it's purely bollocks, and I played it for several hours.

[Perforator 10]

Without question they win hands down with their wound effects. Actually come to think of it all modern first-person shooters have wound effects that are light years ahead of Bohemias' antiquated system, which is rather embarrassing considering that ArmA2 is supposed to simulate "realism".

Probably would have been a better idea to simply equip all infantry in ArmA2 with MILES devices, or perhaps arm them with Simunition, because the current death and injury animations look utterly preposterous.

[4 IN 1 0]

Well I would call a Fiat a bad car :p

I liked the Fait 500 :(

[Richey79 10]

I really wonder how many of those who "did not like it" actually played it.

If you don't expect milsim, it's very well playable and entertaining. Definitely much better than campaign of first ArmA, for example.

Played it enough. I would say in fairness it would have been worth £10ish if the multiplayer had have worked in any way, shape or form. I think people generally under-value video games in comparison to other media. You see worse budget-games on Steam, but they aren't supported by CM's advertising budget, so they seem more honest about their level of quality.

The FTEs and editor were okay, but the main campaign was pants. Maybe somewhat less annoying than Bad Company 2's campaign. Nowhere near COD for entertainment, nowhere near Arma 1, 2 or expansions for mission design. It clearly wasn't finished, as there's no story-line to speak of, yet inexplicably, there's a single very professionally done animated scene at the beginning.

That video of 'Debris Field' is a bit misleading. The guy played in a tactical, careful style, giving direction to the AI on the map. You can easily rambo that mission on any difficulty setting, since they're all the same.

The worst thing about the game (apart from CM's approach to supporting it) for me was the player animations and viewpoint. The duck-waddle with the gun - supposedly mo-capped from ex-spec ops!? -, seeming to be only 3 feet tall, and the horrible, horrible recoil animation on the guns; the crappy fixed FOV... these made it a chore to play after a short time. Most of these problems can be seen entirely intact in the recent RR videos.

CM do seem to be taking a step forward if there's going to be a proper story-line and characters in RR. This could potentially turn out to be a double-edged sword, though, leading to annoying characters and unrealistic scenarios. Of course, they're also taking several steps back by losing vehicles, an editor and any moddability.

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

I liked this Fiat 500. More recent ones, not so much.

Edited December 25, 2010 by Richey79

[Tonci87 163]

I can´t understand how someone can fit in there^^

[ProfTournesol 956]

I really wonder how many of those who "did not like it" actually played it. All that crap like "it's not worth 3 bucks" looks more like blind hatred than actual experience. It's definitely not that bad. It's not the best game I've ever played, but it's not bad either.

For example, playing campaign in coop on hardcore is fun. Really, there are some very good missions. And what's very pleasant, you don't have to worry about non-functional scripting, AI not working and other game breaking bugs, even with 1.0 version of the game. If you don't expect milsim, it's very well playable and entertaining. Definitely much better than campaign of first ArmA, for example.

I guess most of us tried it, and i agree that people may like it, it's only a game afterall. I enjoy more playing OFP (the real one) than ArmA2, without being able to state the objective reason why, even if i agree that ArmA2 is a better game on most of its aspects than OFP. It's a matter of taste.

But DR was advertised (and RR still is) as the sequel of the original OFP, which it obviously isn't true, as it is more a downgraded consolish version of what we could call "a military simulation". They even took away good aspects of DR (and of course of the genre), the mission editor. They only get here what they deserve : disrespect.

[Perforator 10]

Real OFP fans (by real fans I mean the guys that have been playing OFP for years) are already acutely aware that the true successor's of OFP are ArmA, ArmA2 and ArmA2: Operation Arrowhead, so I don't understand why some people here get infuriated just because foolish console sheep don't know the difference.

Anyone with half a brain would soon learn the true history of OFP, no point in being angry because it's only idiots that get suckered by Codemasters.