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

[Baff1 0]

Little Big Planet that's the one, thanks!

Having followed the development of the Rainbow Six series and Ghost Recon, my expectations of what would occour when a new dev team took over an old franchise were pretty much bang on the money.

Actually, they did slightly better than those two previous examples in my opinion.

[Zipper5 74]

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.

Those, on top of the fact the latest official version of the game not only causes ridiculous usage of either your CPU or GPU (can't remember which, but I recall it being similar to what BlOps had on launch with the PC. An obvious sign of a console port) but it also locks out modding entirely. After that happened I simply do not understand why people still think Codemasters care about them...

[Baff1 0]

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.

A few people did. (Maybe you?)

That stuff isn't really rocket science.

I just think it's a numbers game and they never really got enough numbers to turn a few people into quite a few people.

There are many games out there were fans have created their own toolkits.

Or bastardised ones from other iterations of the game engine.

But I agree, I don't think they supported the modding scene as well as people were hoping, but then, I had never expected them to. The basic mission editor was what I was expecting from them. That's what they published.

People wanted more. Some people expected more. Next time they will know better.

Exactly how many games forums have I visited to read demands for SDK's and toolkits?

Far too many to expect them to regualrly materialise upon demand.

---------- Post added at 05:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 PM ----------

Those, on top of the fact the latest official version of the game not only causes ridiculous usage of either your CPU or GPU (can't remember which, but I recall it being similar to what BlOps had on launch with the PC. An obvious sign of a console port) but it also locks out modding entirely. After that happened I simply do not understand why people still think Codemasters care about them...

I suspect that the mission editor from the first one will work just fine with the second one.

I can't honestly imagine them to have "locked it out" rather than just not included it. Unless it's lisenced tool, whcih i don't think it is.

I think they are pandering to the crying that was made by console players about not getting an editor.

If no one gets an editior then console players will have less to cry into their pillows about at night.

Knee jerk reaction to bad press IMO.

If the previous version of the mission editor does not work in the new title, a hacker will be able to get it to. It's the same game engine we are discussing after all.

Will the game actually have a big enough PC fanbase to encompass someone with the aptitude to hack up a mission editor? I don't really think so.

Cheap and cheerful.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Baff1

[ben_s 11]

Yeah,

I did, Infact i'm working on a lil' sumthin sumthin for the modding community. Just to make their lives a bit easier. It's not advanced, but its definantly been a fun experience. Learning C#, XSL, XML reading in C# and XSL Trasnform scripting in C#.

So, A simplistic XML mod toolkit isn't much of a probelm to make. The only real modding you can do in OfDR is with the EntityDatabase.XML, which is basicly, a huge XML file that contains all weapon values and all entity values. But, For anything good, we really needed CM to drop us some help. But the only thing they did to us, the ones willing to help work with the game to make it any better for anyone, Was cut anything we could do in it.

---------- Post added at 06:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 PM ----------

I suspect that the mission editor fromt he first one will work just fine with the second one.

I can't honestly imagine them to have "locked it out" rather than just not included it.

I think they are pandering to the crying that was made by console players about not getting an editor.

If no one gets an editior then console players will have less to cry into their pillows about at night.

Knee jerk reaction to bad press IMO.

If the previous version of the mission editor does not work in the new title, a hacker will be able to get it to. It's the same game engine we are discussing after all.

No, DR was made with EGO1.0, RR is made with EGO2.0,

Though, I'm going to guess that CM used the same base line for each engine. And the dev team are in-experienced, so have used the same method for both games. Just refined. So for someone like TemplarGFX, who has extensive knoledge of dragon rising setup (after working with some of the devs), Should be *doable* to 'hack' the ME to work with it.

Thats assuming they still read a folder somewhere to load the missions and external files.

[sic-disaster 311]

People saying that Dragon Rising is too hardcore makes me want to punch someone. Hard.

Comments like "It's too realistic and that is boring", especially coming from reviewers is just... And especially if it's already dumbed down to the point a sack of bricks could play the game. Honestly, all people want nowadays are cookie-cutter shooters which almost play itself for you (CODBLOPS, first leve you can get through without ever firing a shot if you can keep moving). Reviewers encouraging this type of gameplay is just killing me.

I remember this one PCZone article/blog or whatever the hell it was, which was celebrating the death of tactical shooters as we knew them from back in the day: tactical, 1 shot 1 kill affairs ala the first Rainbow Six/Ghost Recon etc.

It had these oarsum cool quotes like "If you want realism, join the army kekeke", and "Older fans of the series or genre should shut up, we dont care cuz it's fun yo! Is our game nao!"

It literally made my blood boil. It still does when i think of it again.

In all honesty, i can't see how anyone could find that normal, killing off an original fanbase and basically saying we dont have a right to complain 'because it's fun for me now'.

If you did not like the original game and did not play it, what right have you to demand the sequal to be dumbed down so you can like it too? It's not like there arent enough other shooters out there which you could play instead. But no, you just have to have this series too.

I could never do that. I dont like flight simulators, but you will never hear me say "Well, for IL-2 '2' i want the ability to stall your airplane out, because i always crashed because of that and its just no fun! Make it fun! Realism is no fun!" while for the fans of the original IL-2, your planes ability to stall made it extra fun because of the extra challenge it gives.

Might not be the best explanantion, but i hope you get what i mean.

If i dont like the original IL-2, why would i wait for a sequal and claim it? It's just really fucking selfish.

Now we're a dying breed, and all that is left to the tactical shooter genre is ArmA 2 and next year Red Orchestra 2, while before we had SWAT, Hidden and Dangerous, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, Operation Flashpoint.... They just keep on taking. It pisses me off, because these games are the main reason i even play videogames.

Year after year i have to rely on these old games, though still great they just become less and less compatible untill finally they just wont work anymore like they should (i already have this with Rainbow Six and Rogue Spear, fortunately Raven Shield is still ok), while there is nothing new up the pipeline other than RO2, since ArmA 2 is already here.

And i'm a gamer who needs diversity, i cant just focus on just ArmA 2 or just RO2, i'd like to be able to switch between several games.

Gaming is becoming increasingly frustrating to me, and it wont be long before i just give up and quit.

[Baff1 0]

I expect the difference between EGO 1 and EGO 2 to be large in the eyes of the programmers and marketing dept. and quite invisible to the naked eye.

[Flash Thunder 10]

People saying that Dragon Rising is too hardcore makes me want to punch someone. Hard.

Comments like "It's too realistic and that is boring",

QFT

Some people are just really stupid and lazy.

If you think DR is too realistic and boring then I would assume that said person is mentally challenged.

On the sidenote of this so called "EGO 2.0" its like someones signature states

EGO 1 entity count= Low

EGO 2.0 entity count= DR's count + 10= EGO 2.0

I bet they wont even implement DX11 support on Red River for PC even though they already have it built into their (award winning engine :rolleyes:)

so for PC version expect same shit lods, shitty low res blurry textures, low polycounts and viewdistance and lack of good input. Lack of Normal maps, bump maps

Why do they even bother making a PC version.... :o

Edited December 19, 2010 by Flash Thunder
added Rollseyes

[JdB 151]

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.

3 teams worked on DR, one failed, in with the next, they failed as well, in with the next (the last shift being the ones that cut everything out in order to at least release something). They worked on it for well over 2 years, it was the biggest team in CM's history, and it ended up as a broken, featureless version of the original OFP, with the graphics being the only thing that was really improved upon. And all of this while using an existing engine. In comparison, new versions of CoD take less time to produce (less than a year). Having to sell the game for far less than the normal retail price of a game (over €40, these days more likely €54). Loads of talented developers leaving CM because of poor management. And you believe all of that hasn't cost them loads of money?

Cutting their losses (along with most features) and recouping what they put into the project was all they could hope for. If they really did sell little over a million units, I would be surprised if they barely broke even given the size of the team and the time (= salary, insurance, hardware, software licenses, electricity etc) they put into it. Put the same product in a new box, change the story a bit and pray that their PR department can sell it to a whole new generation of potential victims is all they can hope for.

[Baff1 0]

COD is also a cheap game.

I think most of the game is pumped out in under a year by the factory. Modellers texture artists etc etc.

It's like Half life 2 it might have taken 8 years to make, but 98% of the game was made in final year. Most of the people working on it did not spend 8 years on it.

Likewise I doubt the enitre CM staff worked on DR for 2 years straight. They released Dirt 2 a month before DR. They had other developments running concurrently with DR.

Cutting features is entirely normal in games development. Especially in a game as ambitious as this one.

CM is a big company, developers come and go all through the production cycle.

I suspect however that the fat guy who left, probably got assasinated by the members of this forum after they exposed him for lying on his CV.

[maturin 12]

No way was COD 6 'pumped out.'

The development of that game was lavish. They were so flush with cash that they poured it on silly things. Remember the escape from the favela? There was no actual fucking gameplay in that level, just literally running down a narrow corridor while hundreds of bullets came through the walls. I don't know to what extent you've been around modders of scripted small-world FPS like that, but you have to understand the immense amount of work and testing, testing, testing that pointless little ioda of player experience required.

Say what you want about that game, but it wasn't created by template. They spent enormous amounts of money paying huge teams of people to work day and night, and spared no expense. So maybe I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, but it was all carefully planned, and only their enormous assets allowed them churn it out as fast as they did. Not like a slapped-together Mario franchiser, though.

It's like Half life 2 it might have taken 8 years to make, but 98% of the game was made in final year.

You're very wrong there. They made an entire game, then cut almost of all of it and made an entirely new game. And that came after the development of a new engine from the ground up and the outright invention of a lot of what is now considered standard in physics and animation.

[Flash Thunder 10]

most of the resources where being invested into the EGO engine platform before DR was actually being worked on content wise.

its sad that there will be even less content even though the engine is already developed now

[Baff1 0]

No way was COD 6 'pumped out.'

.

Do what? COD 6

No. 6?

How about Police Academy 6, was that not pumped out either?

There COD series are just mods mate.

They have a factory team of level designers and artists pumping it out. In fact they have multiple art factories pumping it out.

They churn one out, without fail every year.

With every passing year each title including less content than the last!

I think they spend more money on advertising than they do development.

What has progressed in COD? What are the new features it's added? How much smarter is the AI now, how many more players can MP support, what new SFX does it use?

I won't dispute to you that the art direction has cinematic talent and that the games are well tested to AAA standards....

But these are just mods. Take out the beta testing and it's nothing you can't find for free online.

Crysis wasn't pumped out. ArmA 2 wasn't pumped out. Half-lfe 2 wasn't pumped out.

COD is pumped out. One a year, every year. Same formula, same engine, same game!

Pulp gaming it's best.

---------- Post added at 03:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:19 PM ----------

You're very wrong there. They made an entire game, then cut almost of all of it and made an entirely new game. And that came after the development of a new engine from the ground up and the outright invention of a lot of what is now considered standard in physics and animation.

Yeah, they said the same about Duke Nukem too.

Talked about it alot for 5 years, a handful of guys finally got somekind of worthy alpha going after many attempts, and then the investment came and they hired 50 extra staff etc and that's when the bulk of the game got made.

These things run on a skeleton crew until they can get investment. 5 people may do a lot of work over 5 years, but the man hours of 50 people over 2 years is 4 times this.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Baff1

[maturin 12]

Yeah, they said the same about Duke Nukem too.

You're comparing a game that took stupidly long to produce to a FPS revolution that paid off in spades.

The creation of an entire marketable engine with incredibly deep modding tools and groundbreaking technology all over the place isn't the slow, careful work of 5 people.

And like I said, not really disagreeing with you about CoD 6, I just think there's a distinction between the way your typical corporate sequel is pumped out and the nuclear-powered pumps used to create a modern CoD game.

[Baff1 0]

I don't think so.

These people are all indusrtry people.

They have all worked in other games factories. They all do it the same way. They all know eachother. They've all worked together.

COD is a highly successful IP, but it doesn't do it any differently than UBI does it when they make R6 Vegas.

With respect Duke Nukem was also a revolutionary and much lisenced game engine in it's day (not to mention the netcode), they certainly had intended to repeat that formula just as HL 2 did.

The key backbone of programmers is what you have for those 5 years. The smart guys.

Level designers, texture artists, 3D modellers... those guys are two a penny. Once you have the skeleton of the game, you just hire the art factory to build the flesh.

And those guys.. they pump stuff out.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Baff1

[d3lta 10]

codemasters dislike real games!!

-------

Codemasters: Games About Real-World Conflicts Are “Inappropriateâ€

“There are British soldiers dying,†says Flashpoint: Red River developer.

Games based on real-world conflicts are in poor taste, according to a leading developer of the Operation Flashpoint series.

Sion Lenton, creative director of Red River, the latest in the Flashpoint series which will be released next year, told us: “I, personally, don’t want to focus on live conflict. I don’t think it’s appropriate and I don’t think it’s tasteful.

“One of the girls who works here, her nephew was killed by an improvised explosive device [iED] a couple of months ago. So when I hear that, I don’t want to be in a fucking meeting bigging up my IED tech.â€

Lenton’s comments come after EA was the subject of heavy criticism for setting its recent Medal Of Honor reboot in Afghanistan. Initial plans to have teams play as the Taliban in its multiplayer component were dropped, but Lenton says his team never considered a real-life setting for Red River.

“We are deliberately setting out not to court that controversy, we don’t want to go there and it’s not a conversation we ever wanted to get into,†he said. “At no point did we think that it would be cool to set the game in Helmand or Afghanistan, because there’s a war going on there and there are British soldiers dying.

“We’re still making a war game, and showing soldiers dying, but I guess [the fiction] is us playing safe. But I don’t have a problem with playing safe when it comes to this kind of thing.â€

You can read the full interview and a preview of Red River in our new issue, E223, which hits stands tomorrow.

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

http://www.next-gen.biz/news/codemasters-games-about-real-world-conflicts-are-%E2%80%9Cinappropriate%E2%80%9D

[Zipper5 74]

Kind of old news, but no less funny to read about. It's like when it's okay to shoot peoples' limbs off, but not to swear. ;)

Did anyone else take his statements to (perhaps accidentally?) say it's okay for other soldiers to be shown to die if they're not British?

[nodunit 397]

It's not tasteful AKA we don't want controversy even though we are clearly modelling our characters suppliment real nations and militaries and cells as well as real world geography. Sure I could accept that but if it's supposedly tasteless then why all the gore, wouldn't that have a greater chance of upsetting someone more than a current conflict?

This seems a little high and mighty, everyone has lost relatives and family at some point in some war or battle, what makes them any more tasteful than one that is currently going on? It sounds to me like another game company caving in to the media and instead saying "We're going fictional!" and thinking they deserve a medal for it.

Wait a minute what does this have to do with UK soldiers dieing, their not even in this game.

Edited December 20, 2010 by NodUnit

[maturin 12]

I don't think so.

These people are all indusrtry people.

They have all worked in other games factories. They all do it the same way. They all know eachother. They've all worked together.

COD is a highly successful IP, but it doesn't do it any differently than UBI does it when they make R6 Vegas.

With respect Duke Nukem was also a revolutionary and much lisenced game engine in it's day (not to mention the netcode), they certainly had intended to repeat that formula just as HL 2 did.

The key backbone of programmers is what you have for those 5 years. The smart guys.

Level designers, texture artists, 3D modellers... those guys are two a penny. Once you have the skeleton of the game, you just hire the art factory to build the flesh.

And those guys.. they pump stuff out.

Valve's key talent is essentially a pack of ex-modders, not industry superstars.

And I've exchanged correspondence with some of the people who made the both major artistic decisions and designed the minutiae of individual levels. There is a 'making of' book replete with concept art that shows the genesis of ever little thing in the game. Part of what makes Half-Life special (and Valve SO DAMN SLOW) is the very deliberate, handcrafted way they handle their design, where other studios would just shuffle stuff off to the factory floor, you might say. Of course most of the level design and scripting is still done late in the design game, but before an eternity of testing, in Valve's case.

[Dwarden 1124]

erm Duke Nukem used Build engine which was used in several low success games

only known title to most people was Redneck Rampage ...

so calling it "much licensed game engine is plain wrong"

comparsion with quake, source, unreal engine is futile attempt ;)

[Mr.Wolf 10]

I must say, RR doesn't look that bad...

[nodunit 397]

Hrm, few questions, why does everyone keep thinking Insurgents are stupid, and B. wasn't it supposed to be the US Army? I guess they decided it would be cheaper and easier to save on those marine assets rather than stick to the original plan, or was it...hm

Edited December 20, 2010 by NodUnit

[Mr.Wolf 10]

RR is about USMC from the very beginning.

[ben_s 11]

I think, Red River may turn out good. It may turn out bad. It just needs a ME and a public demo to make me think it will turn out good.

[nodunit 397]

Strange, I could swear reading their interviews around the early stages saying stuff about he US Army, I guess it was back when they openly used the black hawk sketches.

Alls I can say is the infantry experience people will get better have been worth all the features they cut out for it otherwise you guys got screwed double time.

PS. WHY SO MUCH BLOOM

Edited December 20, 2010 by NodUnit

[[GLT] Legislator 66]

I'm still not impressed. It takes more than nice graphics to get my attention.