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

[bangtail 0]

Yeah, That was in DR to some limited extent. But ArmA does it well. I'm not sure if RR does the same as DR, doesn't do it. Or is improved, though.

You're fighting an uphill battle here. My suggestion is to go play RR when it's released if you think it's so great.

You aren't going to convince anyone here that it's any good no matter how hard you try.

[maturin 12]

Hardcore mode video is out.

I wonder does this game use ray-tracing for bullets? Your M4 acts as much like a laser gun as the SAW looks like one.

[ben_s 11]

I have no confirmation on this, but since Sion Lenton is in charge of (un)development, the word you are looking for is most likely to be "removed" ;)

Yeah, Most likley.

Ben, honestly, how long have You been a CM employee? ;)

What?

You're fighting an uphill battle here. My suggestion is to go play RR when it's released if you think it's so great.

You aren't going to convince anyone here that it's any good no matter how hard you try.

I'm not trying to convince anyone here it's good, just get you to see past the OFP title. It's not OFP or ArmA, and it's not meant to be. And thats why the fanbase can enjoy the game because they know it's not going to be ArmA and know what it is going to be.

I'm betting the only reason here most people are against it is because it's got the OFP name. And don't care about the gameplay if it's not ArmA.

--

Hardcore footage:

e3Q2p8LvjMw

[king homer 1]

Amazing speed-reload capabilities this gunner has.

[EricM 0]

I think they did a great job recreating Takistan on consoles. It has its flaws, but it looks ok and it seems to be a interesting alternative to all the COD clones, with a slightly more tactical twist to it. The voices and commands seem improved too. Too bad they got rid of most of the vehicles and editor. I'd be more concerned about the AI after seeing the Gamestar article.

I probably won't get it, unless it's on massive sale on steam, but all the hatred is really uncalled for. Take the game for what it is : an average tactical shooter on consoles, and not what you wanted it to be: the uber free roaming battlefield simulator on PC. This ship has sailed. We now have Arma.

[PuFu 4600]

editor - Even CoD:W@W and below had editors.

SDK support - I swear there was something called the UDK .. I swear

large-scale PvP - No larger than WWIIOL, BF or RO. Which all do a large ammount of players.

custom missions - Exact same thing as the editor.

ArmA brings a different style of gameplay, a different setting and a different community. The exact same thing RR brings, the same thing Fallout brings, the same thing CoD/BF brings.

1. editor - i even wonder if you actually have arma if compare COD editor with arma's

2. UDK? really? then why don't you compare all the other SDKs out there for different free engines? Unity for instance...and soon to be release SDK for Crytek engine. DOn't you see the difference?

3. large scale PvP no larger than BF, RO or ww2o? I used to play in tournaments where we fought over an entire island, and the average player show per night was 100, reaching the top of 121. I thought most other games are limited to 64..

4. are you actually comparing Arma healing with RR? Do you need to be a field medic/corpsman to heal yourself in RR? Or if you are not a medic, do you need another unit/player assistance you heal you up? That forces teamplay son, and RR 4 man coop is anything but that

Plus, why are you comparing Arma with other random shooters? I thought this was about RR.

And for the love of god, stop inhaling all CM's farts, such as RR being a tactical shooter. Can you actually compare it with the original R6 (i am sure you haven't played those), or graw? really?

[Alwarren 2767]

Looks like our favourite friend has been talking out loud again... Oh Sion Lenton when will you go away:

Operation Flashpoint: Red River creative director doesn’t “get much fun out of military simulationsâ€

I saw this one too, and I am a bit confused by Mr. Lenton's statement there.

They did the original Dragon Rising as a military simulation. I can see only two reasons why they did that.

1) Cannibalize the name "Operation Flashpoint" to lure as many people as possible into buying a game that was, according to their own definition, inherently "not fun".

2) They thought they were creating a good game.

Now, #2 can't be it. They have stated that they don't like Milsim's at all and that they are not fun to play. Yet they created one (Dragon Rising), and in spite of failing in every possible way (except maybe the sound which was quite good) that is what Dragon Rising claimed to be, a military simulation ("as close to war as you will ever want to get" or something similar was their advertisement).

Which leads me to the conclusion that they never played their own game (which is not fun, as we heard).

The alternative explanation of course is that now that they failed to produce a military simulation that was worthy of the name, they are now retroactively covering up their mistakes by basically stating that Dragon Rising wasn't the game they wanted to make, which in my book is an admission that it was crap.

But all of that is coming from a lowly PC player. We all know that the PC market is not were the money is.

Can only say again, thank you BIS :)

[max power 21]

Well, you make whatever the big wigs tell you to make. Sion stated that he doesn't find sim games fun as a justification for what may or may not be his decision. He says, 'not what I would call fun', which is his personal preference (or what his paycheck says his preference is, but I have no reason to doubt that he doesn't like milsims).

Edited March 23, 2011 by Max Power

[Alwarren 2767]

He says, 'not what I would call fun', which is his personal preference

True, but it makes for a mediocre at best end result. I am not necessarily saying he is to blame for it, I do blame Codemasters for trying to rip off Flashpoint fans with the name.

[Zipper5 74]

Hardcore doesn't look very hardcore anymore.

[ProfTournesol 956]

You're fighting an uphill battle here. My suggestion is to go play RR when it's released if you think it's so great.

You aren't going to convince anyone here that it's any good no matter how hard you try.

Come on, ben_s is the devil's advocate here, and he's doing it quite nicely without falling into a trolling attitude, despite his young age. Without him this topic would be simply meh.

[bangtail 0]

Come on, ben_s is the devil's advocate here, and he's doing it quite nicely without falling into a trolling attitude, despite his young age. Without him this topic would be simply meh.

I'm not trying to convince anyone here it's good, just get you to see past the OFP title. It's not OFP or ArmA, and it's not meant to be. And thats why the fanbase can enjoy the game because they know it's not going to be ArmA and know what it is going to be.

I'm betting the only reason here most people are against it is because it's got the OFP name. And don't care about the gameplay if it's not ArmA.

Very true but he is lumping everyone into the 'you've never played DR/RR and the only reason you don't like it is because it has the OFP name attached to it' demographic.

I played DR and that is what I am basing my opinions on. Equally, the fact that Blowmasters are dishonestly using the 'OFP' brand name doesn't help.

Hell, I've just spent the last few hours playing Crysis 2. It doesn't play like ArmA 2 either but it is great fun and it doesn't pretend to be something it isn't.

Edited March 23, 2011 by BangTail

[Zipper5 74]

Hell, I've just spent the last few hours playing Crysis 2. It doesn't play like ArmA 2 either but it is great fun and it doesn't pretend to be something it isn't.

Not true. It is pretending to have a PC version.

Oh snap.

Edit: Spec requirements released.

OS: XP 32bit/Vista/Windows 7

Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Core 2 duo 2.4 Ghz

Memory: 1GB RAM (2GB Vista/Windows 7), 6GB free hard drive space

Graphics: ATI Radeon X1800, NVIDIA GeForce 7800

Hard Drive: 6 GB

Can anyone say "console port"?

Edited March 23, 2011 by Zipper5

[bangtail 0]

Yah, it is a console port for the most part and no DX11.

Why certain devs keep pulling this "we'll add DX11 support later" crap is beyond me. It's like selling me a car and telling me I'll get the steering wheel later.

How the f**k does that help me now.

[nodunit 397]

That and things like that don't usually work so well, if something that crucial isn't implimented from the go then there will be maaany problems..tons of unforseen issues or not being able to use the features to the fullest.

[rangerpl 13]

We wouldn't be paying this much attention to a generic military shooter if it weren't for the fact that it's being promoted as the "sequel" to Cold War Crisis, a game the development of which Codemasters had nothing to do with. BIS has already made it very clear that this is a dishonest and flat-out unethical practice. Codemasters is making money off the OFP name, which wouldn't exist had it not been for BIS. It's plain wrong.

[bangtail 0]

That and things like that don't usually work so well, if something that crucial isn't implimented from the go then there will be maaany problems..tons of unforseen issues or not being able to use the features to the fullest.

Simple solution: Don't even mention it in relation to your game if it isn't going to be there on launch day. If it's going to be added later, talk about it closer to that time.

Crytek hinted it would be included throughout the development and never conclusively confirmed or denied it right up until launch day.

[Pulverizer 1]

Game does not use Dx11? Omg, lame, game suxxxxx!

[bangtail 0]

Nah it's good fun but advertising DX11 and not including it is what's lame.

At any rate, back on topic I think :D

[ben_s 11]

1. editor - i even wonder if you actually have arma if compare COD editor with arma's

2. UDK? really? then why don't you compare all the other SDKs out there for different free engines? Unity for instance...and soon to be release SDK for Crytek engine. DOn't you see the difference?

3. large scale PvP no larger than BF, RO or ww2o? I used to play in tournaments where we fought over an entire island, and the average player show per night was 100, reaching the top of 121. I thought most other games are limited to 64..

4. are you actually comparing Arma healing with RR? Do you need to be a field medic/corpsman to heal yourself in RR? Or if you are not a medic, do you need another unit/player assistance you heal you up? That forces teamplay son, and RR 4 man coop is anything but that

Plus, why are you comparing Arma with other random shooters? I thought this was about RR.

And for the love of god, stop inhaling all CM's farts, such as RR being a tactical shooter. Can you actually compare it with the original R6 (i am sure you haven't played those), or graw? really?

I wasn't comparing ArmA II to those games, but making a point that what makes ArmA, ArmA, isn't those features. Otherwise all other games would be ArmA as well ... If BIS removed something like PvP or added an any-time healing aspect, where anyone could heal themselves. Would the game suddenly change from being ArmA?

The answer is No, it's the gameplay that makes ArmA, the extra features just help the game last longer and keep it enjoyable. But they aren't what make it enjoyable.

PR/FH2 are now trialing 128 player servers, with good results so I hear...

I could compare the UDK with unity, source or unigene or even CryEngine to ArmA's, but that's not what this conversation is about. I'm trying to show that it's not just arma/BIS that have those features, and you've helped me there to prove that.

No, I'm not comparing anything. As stated, just showing that RR does have a form of a healing system. Whilst it's not a very 'hardcore' one, it's certainly in there, even say, RO2 is going to be getting a similar healing system, too. And comparing it with other shooters? I'm not. I'm trying to show that it's not features that make a game, but its gameplay. And I can't actually compare RR to anything, since we've seen so little gameplay (I thought we would have seen tonnes more by now in it's development) and can only judge the features. I doubt it'll live up to any of the original tactical shooters, but, RR does look like a decent, fun, drop-in 'tactical' styled shooter. It's never going to last a long time, it's not going to be top of the charts or get a huge fanbase. But it might give out some fun worth the little ammount of money it'll be worth.

Very true but he is lumping everyone into the 'you've never played DR/RR and the only reason you don't like it is because it has the OFP name attached to it' demographic.

I played DR and that is what I am basing my opinions on. Equally, the fact that Blowmasters are dishonestly using the 'OFP' brand name doesn't help.

Hell, I've just spent the last few hours playing Crysis 2. It doesn't play like ArmA 2 either but it is great fun and it doesn't pretend to be something it isn't.

Whether you played DR/RR or not, is irrelivent to whether you'll like the game or not. But not playing DR, or playing it for 5 minutes and not attempting to try the game properly. And then bashing every installment in the series to come, Isn't what I would expect from a, mostly, mature gaming community.

Just because it has the name OFP? Is there really any other reason?

[bangtail 0]

Whether you played DR/RR or not, is irrelivent to whether you'll like the game or not. But not playing DR, or playing it for 5 minutes and not attempting to try the game properly. And then bashing every installment in the series to come, Isn't what I would expect from a, mostly, mature gaming community.

Just because it has the name OFP? Is there really any other reason?

What you wrote doesn't make sense.

You keep making assumptions about people's experiences of DR and insinuating that if we just 'play a little more' we'll have some kind of epiphany. It's a piece of shit, I could play it for a year straight and I'd come to the same conclusion

Every installment? There has been one released so far and judging by the idiotic PR from that cretin combined with the videos, RR will be nothing more than another attempt to cash in on a franchise they had nothing to do with.

Implying that we are not 'mature' because we don't happen to share your decidedly low standards where games are concerned isn't going to win you any friends here either.

For the cheap seats:

You are right, I don't like the fact that they use the OFP brand name but the other reason I don't like it (the most important one) is: DR IS CRAP.

Edited March 23, 2011 by BangTail

[celery 8]

Just because it has the name OFP? Is there really any other reason?

How about just being a bad/mediocre game as it is, failing to do what it set out to do? DR is bad as a realistic game because of its numerous unrealistic and simplified aspects and it's also bad as a mainstream game because of its mission design choices such as arbitrary time limits and on the whole rather lame missions and story development.

[ben_s 11]

What you wrote doesn't make sense.

You keep making assumptions about people's experiences of DR and insinuating that if we just 'play a little more' we'll have some kind of epiphany. It's a piece of shit, I could play it for a year straight and I'd come to the same conclusion

Every installment? There has been one released so far and judging by the idiotic PR from that cretin combined with the videos, RR will be nothing more than another attempt to cash in on a franchise they had nothing to do with.

Implying that we are not 'mature' because we don't happen to share your decidedly low standards where games are concerned isn't going to win you any friends here either.

For the cheap seats:

You are right, I don't like the fact that they use the OFP brand name but the other reason I don't like it (the most important one) is: DR IS CRAP.

There's more OFP's to come it appears, and I think everyone knows how it's going to be recieved here. Whether RR go well, or not.

I never said you weren't mature, infact I said the opposite. I said I expected a mature gaming group like you lot to be more open to games. And I don't have low standards, I don't have standards for video games at all. The only thing I judge games on is how fun they are to play, and if I enjoyed playing them.

I'm not saying whether you played enough DR or not, I just know that *a few* people on this forum that mindlessly bash DR admit to not have even played it, or played for 5 minutes before chucking it away in fury. To who my comment was pointed at.

DR was crap? That's your opinion, and I will ask this. What made it so crap to you?

How about just being a bad/mediocre game as it is, failing to do what it set out to do? DR is bad as a realistic game because of its numerous unrealistic and simplified aspects and it's also bad as a mainstream game because of its mission design choices such as arbitrary time limits and on the whole rather lame missions and story development.

But RR isn't attempting to be something it's not. Unlike DR ... They're not selling it as a realistic military sim, they're selling it as a shooter. Which is what it is. So what's the issue with it not being realistic then?

And I totally agree, DR's campaign was crap. I don't ever touch the 'vanilla' game if I play it. Much like I hardley touch vanilla ArmA anymore. Just I44 ...

[Richey79 10]

It wasn't so much that DR was 'crap' that annoyed me, but that it was so utterly, utterly generic.

When a game makes you wish you were playing any one of the later dull-as-dishwater Tom Clancy games instead, you know it's completely lacking in character.

Lenton talks about aiming for 'fun', but I'd rather even be playing R6 Vegas 2 than his brand of watered-down faux patriotic pap. Even BBFC2's token single-player campaign had a bit of humour and the gimmick of destruction to make it stand out somewhat from the crowd. COD BO's single-player may have been a warmed-over reserving of Doom 3, but it had a cracking storyline which wasn't afraid to revel in the absurd.

Compare one of BO's numberous memorable sequences: attacking a cold-war nerve gas production factory with a prototype Enfield rifle with IR scope - a mission that you've just played, Rashomon style, from the perspective of another, delusional character. 'Operation Flashpoint' would instead give you the same generic weapons we've seen in every game thus far featuring the USMC - only taking out any interesting ones and modelling them all in the blandest fashion possible. Instead of Gary Oldman playing Reznov, you get four cookie-cutter versions of how a rather unimaginative English programmer imagines American soldiers to think and act. After the PR committee have taken out any vaguely interesting ideas that might risk offending some of the publisher's 'target demographics'...

...Lenton didn't even need to make his comments about Arma not being fun. Noone thinks these Operation Flashpoint games by ChodeMasters are in the same league as Bis' games. It's automatic to compare the new OpFlash (unfavoroubly) with unmemorable copy-cat games like Homefront and Frontlines:Fuels of War.

The new OpFlash even fails to compare with these games, as they had functional multi-player. Anyone else notice the clearly-visible warping of players on some of the videos for Tampon Torrent's emasculated co-op modes?

[max power 21]

I wasn't comparing ArmA II to those games, but making a point that what makes ArmA, ArmA, isn't those features. Otherwise all other games would be ArmA as well ... If BIS removed something like PvP or added an any-time healing aspect, where anyone could heal themselves. Would the game suddenly change from being ArmA?

The answer is No, it's the gameplay that makes ArmA, the extra features just help the game last longer and keep it enjoyable. But they aren't what make it enjoyable.

I think this is one of those 'many steps' arguments that I think don't really capture the reality of the situation. If BIS took away jets, would it cease to be ArmA? Well (arguably) no, it would be ArmA without jets, but it begs the question of how many of these changes before it's not ArmA anymore, and what possible meaning does such an imaginary divider have?

I think that the reason why ArmA doesn't have a magical bag of cookies that you stare at to make yourself well again is because the devs want the team work and difficulty of the emergent gameplay that orbits the medic mechanic. This necessitates the player to try to preserve his or her own life and to rely on his or her team mates for help and support. If you took away this philosophy, which I would argue is inseparable from the implementation of the feature you mentioned, it would fundamentally change ArmA into something else.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Max Power