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

[Baff1 0]

I don't think OpF DR is the greatest tac shooter of all time. It's good if you see what I mean, but hardly great.

And it's certainly not a sim, nor was it ever intended to be. I don't think it has any less simulation value than the original however. On this front it is true to the name even where ArmA is not.

But it wasn't buggy. It was well made to a very high standard.

Umm, yes they do. Gameplay and sound combat mechanics + ballistics trump the goofy stories that all games try to sell. You really don't need a rehash of the multitude of basic mil-sim/tac shooter features that were sorely lacking do you?

What use to me is gameplay if the game won't play?

Sound combat mechanics are pointless if the game won't play.

Woot ballistics, but I can't shoot anything past level 3 because the game won't play past level 3.

Sorry but the campaign is the most basic feature of all. If it is broken, then the game does not work.

If you can't get the game to work, it is not the time to start adding more features, it is time to fix the fucking game. BIS doesn't balance this very well.

DR didn't get any bad reviews about it's quality.

At metacritic, the PC versions of Opf DR got 76, to ArmA 2's 77.

ArmA 2 fell down on it's quality. Every single review I read went on and on about the bugs.

Which lets face it, was exactly what we were expecting them to find fault with.

Bugs and performance.

(And I feel the performancewas actually pretty good. Far better than I had hoped).

It could have been a GOTY contender of wide critical acclaim, but it wasn't because they suck at testing.

It's not a big part of their ethic. They are their own worst enemies.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Baff1

[Zipper5 74]

Yeah, and have you seen the user review score on Metacritic for DR? :rolleyes:

Reviewer: Arma 2/OA

PC Gamer: 8.3/82

IGN: 7.8/8

Metacritic: 77/73 (OA's makes no sense there, but it's just a pool of reviews)

[Perforator 10]

What use to me is gameplay if the game won't play?

Plays perfectly fine for me, I mean it doesn't exactly require a doctorate in physics to setup ArmA2 and Operation Arrowhead.

[Ulysses 10]

A lot of them seem to spend more time on the UI or the 'unforgiving' nature of the game than they do railing on about the bugs, mind you I've only skimmed the 70s reviews on Metacritic.

DR's campaign was ok, incredibly uninteresting or silly at times - the landing in mission 3 for example with a force that small. Other than that the only bugs I've seen have been the bizarre model behaviour with people's legs, the reloading animation. The driving AI I guess is buggy at times.

[Zipper5 74]

The AI had to be scripted to use roads, otherwise they don't even recognize that they're there. :p

[PuFu 4600]

Key features like a functional campaign?

Features don't come any more key than that.

Really? A campaign? Most of the BIS customers are paying for the sandbox, not for some campaign. If you buy A2/OA for the campaign (i give you, OFP one was great), then you are in the wrong product

I used to play a lot with LEGO when i was little. I did the boxed version only ONCE, then i was using the pieces to create my own scenarios. I was asking my folks to buy me certain kits based on the pieces they had rather than what the picture on the box represented.

No mate, BIS take the piss on quality control. The absolute piss.

It's why they get panned so badly in all their reviews.

Maybe, but tell me of another developer supporting their games as much as BIS does, and has such great relation with their users? One?

I played OpF DR through and didn't notice any features that prevented it from being a squad based tactical shooter.

The only feature I notably didn't see that was in the original was flyable planes. But they really sucked in the original so no problems there on my part.

really? Was that the only features you don't see in CM product?

Flying choppers felt right for you? What about the MP part of it? Or the fact that you couldn't fit more than XX entities in your missions?

Besides you are comparing a game released in 2001 with one released in 2009. Does that count for you at all?

I am very glad to CM for having the vision to repeat that.

Credit where credit is due.

I can agree with you disagreeing, but i really fail to see where your naivety comes from...or ben's for that matter

Edited December 31, 2010 by PuFu

[Baff1 0]

Plays perfectly fine for me, I mean it doesn't exactly require a doctorate in physics to setup ArmA2 and Operation Arrowhead.

It plays perfectly fine for me too.

Now.

It didn't on launch though.

Setting it up wasn't the problem. The campaign being broken was.

[KEVINMGXP 20]

No mate it was just a shooter. An army game and a good one.

All that military sim guff came after VBS.

As usual, linking me to things like Wikipedia and Youtube isn't going to impress. If the extent of your knowledge doesn't go well beyond that, what you have to say is unlikely to be of any particular intrest online.

yes mate: Operation Flashpoint CWC was the predecessor of the mill sim that we know now! OFP CWC was not a regular shooter that we already knew then, the game play was totally different of the games that we already knew in the past and future.

Its not my opinion that it was already a mil sim, it just was so because the future made it so!

a other thing M8 :D it did not come close to my mind to impress you at all in any way, but you are that kind of person that wants to be right and bright on everything and anything you descus not only here but every where but that makes it fun to read ya! :rolleyes:

btw: it is not because OFP CWC was not given the name mil sim at that time that OFP was not a mil sim variated game. Like already said, this game variant eurned hes name trought the years because of bis and OFP CWC!

regards

Edited December 31, 2010 by KBourne

[Baff1 0]

Really? A campaign? Most of the BIS customers are paying for the sandboix, not for some campaign. If you buy A2/OA for the campaign (i give you, OFP one was great), then you are in the wrong product.

Maybe, but tell me of another developer supporting their games as much as BIS does, and has such great relation with their users? One?

That's the problem really Pufu, most of their customers aren't community members.

They are just gamers. They want campaigns not sandboxes.

They don't post here. They don't give a monkies about being part of any "community" with the devs.

The kind of people who post here want sandboxes.

And BIS's close relationship with their community blinds them to the realities of the market they are in.

They are trapped in a microcosmic climate of yes men telling them how fantastic they all are.

They think it's OK to release a broken game and fix it later. That the Community is up for it. It's a big Work in Progress project that they are all a part of.

Only it isn't.

So when you tell them it is, you aren't doing them any favours.

They need to make games that work well straight out of the box or the reviews will pan them and they will make considerably less money. The die hard fans like you and me and everybody on this forum, what we think doesn't count.

We will all buy the game anyway. It's not us they need to convince, it's the rest of the market.

[Perforator 10]

They are trapped in a microcosmic climate of yes men telling them how fantastic they all are.

Your trapped in a world of self-deception.

[PuFu 4600]

Listen, i never said it is OK to release an unfinished product, or broken campaigns. I do agree with it being a fail move from BIS, but then again, the nowadays gamer is too interested in plug and play and mindless shot'em up.

Believe me, BIS knows knows they are in the gaming business, but then again, it's a niche area where they are playing ball, and they know they have no other competitor (which in any competition economy is bad for both sides).

The rest of the market as you put it, is very much interested in BF/COD type of games (pseudo-reality-fantasy-leet-shoot-em-all). Look at the direction the games (not only the PC ones) took. From R6 to Fallout to Mafia to Deus Ex.

Truth is, the few gamers willing to spend more than 30 mins in front of their PCs are scarce. Look at the proper flight sims released in the last 3-4 years.

Edited December 31, 2010 by PuFu

[Baff1 0]

yes mate: Operation Flashpoint CWC was the predecessor of the mill sim that we know now! OFP was not a regular shooter the game play was totally different of the games that we already knew in the past and future.

Its not my opinion that it was already a mil sim, it just was so because the future made it so!

a other thing M8 :D its did not come close to my mind to impres you at all in any way, but you are that kind of person that wants to be right on everything you descus not only here but every where but that makes it fun to read ya :rolleyes:

btw: it is not because OFP CWC it was not given the name mil sim at that time that OFP was not a mil sim variated game. Like already said, this game variant eurned hes name trought the years!

regards

While I would absolutely agree that there was a strong element of simulation in the Original OpF, my point here would be that at the time it was not targeted at the simulation crowd but at the shooter crowd, also the level of simultion available in that game was no deeper than the level of simulation

found in OpF DR.

I don't mind being wrong about things, Kbourne, I actually like to learn new stuff. Being found to be wrong helps me with that.

I'm not always quick to recognise my mistakes of course. I am more used to being right after all.

However, I was also a professional teacher for a long time, so when someone is wrong, I tell them. It's a red rag to a bull for me. If someone does not understand something that I do, it is a personal calling for me to explain it to them. I am driven to it.

If they are so far wrong that they have entered into the realm of lunacy, I do not seek to reinforce the validity of their nonsense by analysing it deeper.

I seek to dismiss it out of hand and not focus on it and make like it is some smart and reasonable thing to say worthy of further debate.

Some people can't hack that. They think a quick Google link to another idiot saying the same thing means they have a valid and proveable argument. That is often their idea of qualification and it is anything but mine. I expect far higher standards before I am intrested in learning from you.

There are people here on this forum and other forums with actual real life experiences and skills related to all of these subjects under discussion. They provide a serious resource to further our own educations. To discuss with them is both a pleasure and priviledge.

---------- Post added at 03:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 PM ----------

Listen, i never said it is OK to release an unfinished product, or broken campaigns. I do agree with it being a fail move from BIS, but then again, the nowadays gamer is too interested in plug and play and mindless shot'em up.

Believe me, BIS knows knows they are in the gaming business, but then again, it's a niche area where they are playing ball, and they know they have no other competitor (which in any competition economy is bad for both sides).

But they do now. CM is competing with them directly.

For that matter I really feel that games like Battlefield and Ghost Recon and Delta Force etc have always been direct competition for them. Even the new COD's.

BIS obivously have a different approach or perhaps other constraints to balance that I would not be privy too. Finance and other simultaneous developments etc.

I'm not here to knock them down for their considerable acievements in life which clearly far outweigh my own.

But I don't think they have to pidgeon hole themsleves into a niche market at all.

OpF was a mainstream game. A GOTY.

ArmA 2 had all the required elements to be one too. (And still provide all the bits the community lust after).

They've been there before in my opinion and are currently not to far away from it either.

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:43 PM ----------

Your trapped in a world of self-deception.

In which I own all I survey and all the sexiest women lust after me.

May I never escape from it.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Baff1

[Perforator 10]

In which I own all I survey and all the sexiest women lust after me.

May I never escape from it.

Well played Sir, very well played.

[PuFu 4600]

But they do now. CM is competing with them directly.

For that matter I really feel that games like Battlefield and Ghost Recon and Delta Force etc have always been direct competiton for them. Even the new COD's.

How so? Just because they all take place more or less in the same war theater, or because they feature the same equipment?

I'm sorry but i really don't see CM being in the same league with BIS. The scope and target of their products is simply different and so is their targeted gaming platform.

OpF was a mainstream game. A GOTY.

True, but you really need to put this in perspective. What BIS did, was unheard of at that time. Plus, consoles weren't as popular back in 2001 as they are today (one of the reasons the games turned the way they did - harware and input limitations, as well as they plug-and-play-insert-the-disc features).

[Zipper5 74]

I don't get this whole OFP was not a military simulator thing. Before Arma 2, even in the ArmA days, OFP was always considered a military simulator by all, including myself. Suddenly with new community members it's all "LOLNOPE". OFP was a military simulator, ArmA was just one to a greater degree, and Arma 2 is one to the greatest degree so far. Another thing is this sudden idea that OFP was mainstream. It never was mainstream and, again, it's only the current community that has ever said such a thing. It won Game of the Year awards from mainstream publications but never was it considered a mainstream game. What, Arma 2 winning PC Game of the Year from PC Gamer, a mainstream publication, suddenly makes Arma 2 mainstream?

Seriously, once and for all, OFP was a military simulator, and was not mainstream for the longest period of its existence.

[KEVINMGXP 20]

While I would absolutely agree that there was a strong element of simulation in the Original OpF

You don't say so, did he say so? he agrees to something :eek:

my point here would be that at the time it was not targeted at the simulation crowd but at the shooter crowd

True, but it came clear quickly that total different crowds where attracted to this new kind of game play.

also the level of simultion available in that game was no deeper than the level of simulation

found in OpF DR.

I have to say that i can't agree here, on the simulation level DR had non taken for my account not even compared towards OFP CWC and that game dates from 2001 DR from 2009! "but to my point of view bis series can't be compared to a regular shooter" i played them all my friend, first hand experience to ma taste and not my taste! and you have yours i will not discus it, colors and tastes are for me not able to be discussed.

I played various of games and they all defer from each other on some point, I'm not here to say COD or DR is bad, or even any game is bad. my personal taste is that i like the bis series from OFP CWC to latest arma II, i can't speak about armed assault, but i stick on it like no other game has don before.

I don't mind being wrong about things, Kbourne,

Are you sure about that? because tbh you give lately a very different impression on this whole forum. i have some times the feeling that you even want to enforce your opinions if i read your posts!

I actually like to learn new stuff. Being found to be wrong helps me with that. Being found to be wrong helps me with that.

well learn to communicate some times a little different, I'm kinda direct if it comes to such points, maybe its because you where a professional teacher but that does not give you the right to look down or give the impression you look down on other opinions.

I'm not always quick to recognise my mistakes of course. I am used to being right so I am quiet resistant to the thought of anything else.

thats why i answered Are you sure about that?

However I was also a professional teacher for a long time, so when someone is wrong, I tell them. It's a red rag to a bull for me. If someone does not understand something that I do, it is a personal calling for me to explain it to them. I am driven to it.

The point is not that you are telling something when somebody looks wrong its how you tell them, bear that in mind when you try to teach, you are not talking to you class room full of kids!

Some people can't hack that. They think a quick Google link to another idiot saying the same thing means they have a valid and proveable argument.

I linked the wiki because that was the one i could find about VBS1 not to impress you and before i posted it i read that one first so it would be valid. So the source of it is correct very correct, also the info about game play from OFP CWC is known and it was for me and a lot of others the predecessor from what we know now VBS1 to VBS2 Armed assault and Arma II /OA (BAF - PMC) and probably much more to come and this is excluded from what the community did extra. Saying it is not and dismissing it out of hand like you say is rather ignorant.

but hey no hard feelings hey its just an observation of mine i can still be wrong. it does not mean that i dislike you.

regards.

Edited December 31, 2010 by KBourne
Gramma

[Baff1 0]

How so? Just because they all take place more or less in the same war theater, or because they feature the same equipment?

I'm sorry but i really don't see CM being in the same league with BIS. The scope and target of their products is simply different and so is their targeted gaming platform.

Because they target the same audience.

Men who like army and guns.

Because they stand next to each other on the shop shelves and a guy who likes army games has to choose from amongst them.

And then in games like Delta Force and Battlefield and Opf Dr and ArmA it gets even closer with the core gameplay elements being the same. Large open maps, driveable vehicles, multiplayer games, similar gametypes.

Similar damage models...

We can all argue the differences until the cows come home, but it's hairs we would be splitting. Minutae.

Who has the bigger map. Who has the more realistic damage model. Whose ballistics are better. Who has more guns. Which tanks are most real! "Which game is more arcadey". Whose M16 looks most like an M16!!!

My honest advice is if you like any single one of those titles, you would be a fool not to have played all the others.

You are the target audience.

[froggyluv 2135]

What use to me is gameplay if the game won't play?

Sound combat mechanics are pointless if the game won't play.

Woot ballistics, but I can't shoot anything past level 3 because the game won't play past level 3.

.

Game plays fine for me. Level 3?!? Sure your not playin Mario Bros.?

DR didn't get any bad reviews about it's quality.

The game was widely panned as tripe to mediocre at best. You know it and I know it. Trying to spin it as anything better is nothing short of disingenious.

Arma series were criticised for being possibly over-ambitous with enourmous scale, unparralled feature list and modding ability among many others -and by its very nature -bugs of course. I never heard anyone accuse CM's product of being ambitous on any level after it's release.

As I said, to cut away every piece of tasty meat only to offer up a clean bone doesn't equate with quality in my world.

Edited December 31, 2010 by froggyluv

[Zipper5 74]

"Men who like army and guns"

Nah, that sounds much more like a description of guys over 18 who like games like Call of Duty and Battlefield more than anything. We like simulators and sandboxes. There is a huge difference between that and simply liking "army and guns". For example, I like level design and programming, therefore Arma 2 is a great game to serve that need, but never would I choose COD or BF.

[Baff1 0]

but hey no hard feelings hey its just an observasion of mine i can still be wrong. it does not mean that i dislike you.

regards

Being replied to alone is usually more than enough encouragement to set me off on a rant about something or other.

For future reference matey, anytime you feel the need to link Wiki to me, don't bother.

I'm quite willing to take your word for it.

If I think you are wrong, I will be sure as to check Wiki myself before raising any corrections with you.

---------- Post added at 04:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:53 PM ----------

"Men who like army and guns"

Nah, that sounds much more like a description of guys over 18 who like games like Call of Duty and Battlefield more than anything. We like simulators and sandboxes. There is a huge difference between that and simply liking "army and guns". For example, I like level design and programming, therefore Arma 2 is a great game to serve that need, but never would I choose COD or BF.

Before I had video games I had real sandboxes full of little toy soldiers.

I never had sandboxes full of little animals and farm machines though.

Only armies and guns.

Likewise I have a load of simulators, but not Microsft X or any racing car ones. Only army ones with guns.

BF has plenty of good simulation value. They marketed it as a realism title too. It might not be IL2 Sturmovik, but then neither is ArmA and OpF most certainly was not.

There is plenty of room to level design in BF and COD. Many many people do. They are commonly modded game engines. COD in particular is made in the Quake engine. The whole game franchise is one big MOD.

Also Men of War is another good title that competes with ArmA on this front.

Anything Unreal engine too, Cryisis... there are loads of games that compete with ArmA to provide moddable or sandbox experiences or both.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Baff1

[Zipper5 74]

The modding of earlier COD titles seems to have decreased drastically, and the modding for COD4 seems to only be related to promod these days. Battlefield's engine before Frostbite is quite modded, yes, but again that's really only with one mod now - Project Reality. The current COD and BF engines are not modded at all, and they are what I was referring to in my post.

RealVirtuality is easily up there with the most modded game engines, like Source, Unreal, etc. But CryEngine 2 is not even in the same league.

[Perforator 10]

Because they target the same audience.

This is where you are completely wrong Baff, and that is exactly why you continue to find yourself swimming against the tide here.

Codemasters are targeting the console market, ArmA fans are predominantly a PC community.

That's all it really boils down to.

[Baff1 0]

The game was widely panned as tripe to mediocre at best. You know it and I know it. Trying to spin it as anything better is nothing short of disingenious.

It's review scores were equal with ArmA 2's.

It wasn't widely panned as tripe any more than ArmA 2's was.

The games had drawbacks and the reviewers mentioned them.

Metacritic score of 76 and 77.

If we were to take a game that was panned by the reviewers, lets say City Interactives "Code of Honor: The French Foreign Legion" we can see that 37 is a score games that get panned achieve.

There is of course a certain kind of person, who only looks for the negative. A kind of person who has already decided before reading and is only looking for those parts of any review which reinforce or validate his position.

You wanted it to get panned. But it didn't. The reviewers liked it just as much as ArmA 2.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Baff1

[PuFu 4600]

There is plenty of room to level design in BF and COD. Many many people do. They are commonly modded game engines. COD in particular is made in the Quake engine. The whole game franchise is one big MOD.

Also Men of War is another good title that competes with ArmA on this front.

Anything Unreal engine too, Cryisis... there are loads of games that compete with ArmA to provide moddable or sandbox experiences or both.

Out of common sense, you should keep to your opinions.

You shouldn't be talking about moddability of any game engine unless you have first hand experience with it. Which i am sure you don't.

The main difference between RealVirtuality engine and all the other is the size and streaming capability, plus the AI.

Men who like army and guns.

That is so damn generic and untrue...

[JdB 151]

OFP CWC (updated to modern graphics) would never have won GOTY in todays industry because the focus has shifted dramatically. The people (late mid-teens onward) that would have been PC gamers back then now choose to play on consoles, so a console game, even if it does provide a bad port to PC will always come out on top as the players voting (and financial incentive on the part of magazines and websites because of advertising revenue) number many times more than that of games developed specifically for PC. Even if ArmA2 had been absolutely perfect (bugfree, 100% accurate depiction of warfare, perfectly streamlined interface etc), it would never have won, since PC gaming is a niche, simulators being an even smaller niche within PC gaming, and consoles rule the (publishing) game. Even DR would have had a bigger chance of winning GOTY in the broad "tactical shooter" category, as there is no separate category for "military simulator", and virtually no magazine or website has people that really delve into simulators because they like them. All of these "journalists" (create a website and you can call yourself a "journalist" :j: ) are into mainstream one-release-every-year games, even if the advertisement revenue isn't forcing them to.