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

[froggyluv 2136]

Yes they do make it arcadey -I've never owned a COD so I wouldnt know.

Those arcade elements are on every level of RR, not just normal or Easy and you know it.

Rainbow 6, Swat 4, OFP - one shot and your very likely dead. RR, your most likely annoyed and need to find a wall for your quick fix of the health drug.

In Arma, when I've got a man injured, I need to think tactically on both getting to him, and removing him from line of fire. Usually this entails rapid placement of my squaddies to create a defensive zone, then i must drag or carry my guy to hopefully a safe area to let my medic work on him -takes time and thought and challenges the tactical side of my brain.

If CM had gone the route that the PC forumites and modders had asked, it might have been a good game -as it stands, its Arcade.

Edit: before you think Im just out to mindlessly bash CM, I am a lover of tac-shooters first. I found a few things in DR that had promise notably the AI's ability to use indoors/windows, weapon sounds, and I prefer a more ragdoll death then Arma's stiff versions. I thought for sure CM would really try to enhance the many faults of DR -low entity count; bland environment; lack of civvies; lack of interesting animations; keep and enhance the editor. But they chose to go the opposite route and I find that an utter shame.

Edited March 29, 2011 by froggyluv

[ben_s 11]

I don't think many people mindlessly bash CM, only a few do here. And you do hold valid points, and I agree with all of them. it makes it less tactical, but It doesn't take it out of the tactical shooter genre.

RR still has that tactical element, the freedom of doing something *your* way using your own tactics. Which are not only encouraged, but are impelemented as a major part of the game. I would say, RR isn't a really low level tactical shooter, nor a high level one.

It's kind of in the middle between BF2 (at the bottom of the spectrum of Tac-Shooters) and SWAT4/R6. Somewhere in the middle, But I can see that it's got some arcady features. But the overall game seems very solidly in the tac-shooter genre.

---------- Post added at 12:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 AM ----------

Back on topic:

http://blog.machinima.com/insidegaming/2011/03/29/operation-flashpoint-red-river-hands-on/

[rangerpl 13]

That sky looks pretty cool, in the same way that setting fire to your car would look pretty cool.

I think CM has been working a little too hard on their game recently... they forgot what the sky looks like.

Also, I lol'd:

With Red River the series moves to the fictional country of Tajikistan in 2013

FPDR

Ben claims he's unbiased, but he has more than 5,700 posts on Codemasters forums. I don't think he's exactly neutral on the ARMA vs OFPRR issue.

Edited March 29, 2011 by RangerPL

[froggyluv 2136]

Well I've yet to see anything remotely resembling a tactical shooter yet. Perhaps you can link a compelling video?

Of course, whats Tac to you may vary wildly with my idea of it.

Arma2: I can order my AI anywhere I want a 100 yards, a 1000 yards or more if I like. I can give them individual targets or have each scan a different direction. I can split them into color coded teams to do a variety of things. I can paint targets with lasers for AI to attack. With a CTI game, I may have 100's to a 1000 Ai under my control doing everything from patrolling areas, to salvaging wrecks, to monitoring the skies and so on. Then theres High Command...

Thats tactics to me.

[maturin 12]

snip

Wait, where did you get that quote? Ben S's link calls the conflict fictional, not the country.

[rangerpl 13]

Wait, where did you get that quote? Ben S's link calls the conflict fictional, not the country.

They must've changed it, it was in the first paragraph under the second picture.

I didn't alter it in any way, I just copied and pasted... so it seems they changed it

Changed just minutes after being mocked by me... something smells fishy

[bangtail 0]

It's kind of in the middle between BF2 (at the bottom of the spectrum of Tac-Shooters) and SWAT4/R6. Somewhere in the middle, But I can see that it's got some arcady features. But the overall game seems very solidly in the tac-shooter genre.

Between BF2 and SWAT4/R6 is it now? I don't think so, that garbage is not in the same class as any of those games, 'tac shooter' or otherwise.

Go shill elsewhere.

Edited March 30, 2011 by BangTail

[max power 21]

"What’s notable for this iteration–particularly given the current shooter vogue of competitive multiplayer modes–is that the multiplayer is all cooperative."

Who writes this bullshit? Current 'vogue'? Competitive multiplayer has been a part of every successful FPS since DOOM.

If RR is a tac shooter, and (pick the most realistic iteration of Battlefield: Whatever) is not, I wonder if someone can highlight the differences that make the distinction.

[bangtail 0]

Well I've yet to see anything remotely resembling a tactical shooter yet. Perhaps you can link a compelling video?

Of course, whats Tac to you may vary wildly with my idea of it.

Arma2: I can order my AI anywhere I want a 100 yards, a 1000 yards or more if I like. I can give them individual targets or have each scan a different direction. I can split them into color coded teams to do a variety of things. I can paint targets with lasers for AI to attack. With a CTI game, I may have 100's to a 1000 Ai under my control doing everything from patrolling areas, to salvaging wrecks, to monitoring the skies and so on. Then theres High Command...

Thats tactics to me.

What, you don't think shooting people 300 yards away with a 9mm handgun is 'tactical'?

Shame on you :rolleyes:

[maturin 12]

What, you don't think shooting people 300 yards away with a 9mm handgun is 'tactical'?

Shame on you :rolleyes:

More likely it's just clever. I doubt they apply projectile physics to bullets that people won't notice dropping or ricocheting.

[rangerpl 13]

Between BF2 and SWAT4/R6 is it now? I don't think so, that garbage is not in the same class as any of those games, 'tac shooter' or otherwise.

Go shill elsewhere.

I agree

Lenton keeps talking about "fun fun fun fun" as if he was imitating Rebecca Black, but the truth is, he hasn't the slightest clue what he's talking about.

Fun? Let's see, BF2 is fun... it has multiplayer... and drivable vehicles... and mods and custom maps and nearly everything that RR doesn't have. And that was in 2005.

OFP:CWC is fun... it has multiplayer... and drivable vehicles... and mods and custom maps and nearly everything that RR doesn't have. And that was in 2001.

What good is CM's promise of realism when it lacks nearly everything that makes games fun these days? ARMA is fun because it's realistic and has actual FEATURES and CONTENT. Same goes for BF2, CWC, Counter-Strike, and *dare I say it* Call of Duty.

[froggyluv 2136]

Like I said before, RR will be an Arcade shooter with a few tac elements -not a pure Tac. Yes you can order your men where to move, but that aint much.

A tac shooter needs to be hard. Meaning you are punished for foolish running and gunning. So far, Ive seen many stalwart CM fans complain about the game looking to easy and trying to use self-imposed rules to create a challenge -which the Devs applauded as creative :rolleyes:

@Bang: Lol! I've disappointed myself :(

Edited March 30, 2011 by froggyluv

[bangtail 0]

What good is CM's promise of realism when it lacks nearly everything that makes games fun these days? ARMA is fun because it's realistic and has actual FEATURES and CONTENT. Same goes for BF2, CWC, Counter-Strike, and *dare I say it* Call of Duty.

I'm no fan of CoD (at least not MW2 or BO), but objectively, it's the main reason that schlock like RR has no place. It does what RR is going to attempt to do about 1000x more effectively.

Sure, it's a casual throwaway FPS, but they spend alot of time and money on making it the best possible game of that type that it can be.

As I said before, with DR, CM et al dishonestly tried to use an established brand name to dupe people into thinking DR was the sequel to OFP. They challenged ArmA's pole position in a one horse race.

That failed miserably and it won't work a second time, so now they're going to attempt to compete in an arena where instead of one superior product, there are many.

Either way, it is the path of fail.

@Bang: Lol! I've disappointed myself :(

LOL :D

Edited March 30, 2011 by BangTail

[rangerpl 13]

I'm no fan of CoD but objectively (at least not MW2 or BO), it's the main reason that schlock like RR has no place. It does what RR is going to attempt to do about 1000x more effectively.

Sure, it's a casual throwaway FPS, but they spend alot of time and money on making it the best possible game of that type that it can be.

As I said before, with DR, CM et al dishonestly tried to use an established brand name to dupe people into thinking DR was the sequel to OFP. They challenged ArmA's pole position in a one horse race.

That failed miserably and it won't work a second time, so now they're going to attempt to compete in an arena where instead of one superior product, there are many.

Either way, it is the path of fail.

I have to admit I do play CoD and Battlefield as well as MOH, but what sets those games apart from RR is that they're actually fun. I didn't give a shit about MOH's single player campaign, and I only did the Black Ops one after I got bored of BO multiplayer.

I don't see how RR is going to be competitive without PvP multiplayer. There's just something special about putting a sniper round through a noob's head.

[bangtail 0]

I play BC2: Vietnam pretty much every day and I really enjoyed MOH's SP campaign (although it was too short IMHO). I like MW1, just not the others (apart from Zombie mode ;) ).

As you say they're fun and further, the sales numbers are as high as they are because of the PvP. That's where the focus of any DLC released for those games lies, not in expanding the SP game.

The videos of RR look lame and uninspired. DR was, and there is no reason to believe RR will be radically different, no matter what PR spin we get from Lenton and Co.

Edited March 30, 2011 by BangTail

[froggyluv 2136]

Although I wasnt the biggest Bf2 fan, Ive got a sneakin suspicion that Ima enjoy the hell outta Bf3. New animation system (ANT) looks way smexy :don6:

[ben_s 11]

"What’s notable for this iteration–particularly given the current shooter vogue of competitive multiplayer modes–is that the multiplayer is all cooperative."

Who writes this bullshit? Current 'vogue'? Competitive multiplayer has been a part of every successful FPS since DOOM.

If RR is a tac shooter, and (pick the most realistic iteration of Battlefield: Whatever) is not, I wonder if someone can highlight the differences that make the distinction.

Who said Battlefield isn't a tac-shooter?

What, you don't think shooting people 300 yards away with a 9mm handgun is 'tactical'?

Shame on you :rolleyes:

Yeah, Sion messed up there. We think he was trying at that moment to demonstrate how you can't run and gun, by picking up his pistol and run about to get killed. Though, It didn't work.

Like I said before, RR will be an Arcade shooter with a few tac elements -not a pure Tac. Yes you can order your men where to move, but that aint much.

A tac shooter needs to be hard. Meaning you are punished for foolish running and gunning. So far, Ive seen many stalwart CM fans complain about the game looking to easy and trying to use self-imposed rules to create a challenge -which the Devs applauded as creative :rolleyes:

@Bang: Lol! I've disappointed myself :(

Play ArmA II on the easiest settings you can get them too. It gives all enemies big red circles over them, makes them stupid and takes away alot of their protection.

Would you call that, a tactical experience?

[andersson 285]

I don't think many people mindlessly bash CM, only a few do here. And you do hold valid points, and I agree with all of them. it makes it less tactical, but It doesn't take it out of the tactical shooter genre.

RR still has that tactical element, the freedom of doing something *your* way using your own tactics. Which are not only encouraged, but are impelemented as a major part of the game. I would say, RR isn't a really low level tactical shooter, nor a high level one.

It's kind of in the middle between BF2 (at the bottom of the spectrum of Tac-Shooters) and SWAT4/R6. Somewhere in the middle, But I can see that it's got some arcady features. But the overall game seems very solidly in the tac-shooter genre.

---------- Post added at 12:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 AM ----------

Back on topic:

http://blog.machinima.com/insidegaming/2011/03/29/operation-flashpoint-red-river-hands-on/

I agree with you here. From an arma2 pov RR seems very arcade, but if you take the step from a "normal" corridor FPS to DR/RR then you will get much more room for tactical gameplay with your friends.

I watched a friend playing "black ops" the other day so I could see what its about. It was very confusing for me.. It was more of some kind of interactive movie where you were rushed forward and how you played or aimed didnt matter much. It was a good experience for me as I realised how completely different arma2 must be for a player coming from an "average" shoot-em up game. I took the route from delta force through ofp so arma2 is standard for me.

So from an average player DR/RR will probably look slowpaced and tactical. And I would dare to say they are tactical games. You can play the missions using tactics with your friends. I guess you can run and gun aswell but on harder difficult levels I guess some cooperation and tactics will help.

Similar thought:

I installed novalogics Delta Force 1 the other week due to an arma2 project and compared to OFP/arma2 its shit. The AI is incompetent and slow, you have an easy life if you go on the easiest difficulty, you can knife and jump. I still see it as a tactical shooter. Turn off all the help and play it with some friends and you have room for planned tactics and some fun gameplay (atleast back in the days).

Then the fact that arma2 (and ofp) is more tactical and more realistic doesnt turn other games un-tactical.

The only reason I'm following this drama is due to the very un-ethical business by CM and Lenton. If not for that I would see DR and RR as some tactical shooters closer to the Delta Force series than BF2&co.

[bangtail 0]

@ Ben_S

Shilling here is a waste of time.

You're not going to change anyone's mind.

[grub 10]

Shilling here is a waste of time.

You're not going to change anyone's mind.

You'll have to yell mate.

[andersson 285]

I dont get the impression that he is trying to change our minds so we go play RR. He is trying to make some of the views less biased. What he seems to not really understand is how bad business ethics CM and Lenton use. Which is the main point for most of us, its not the game or gameplay the rage is about (even if it can be considered shitty, but that is very subjective OR depending on your POV [comparing to other games]).

[grub 10]

I dont get the impression that he is trying to change our minds so we go play RR. He is trying to make some of the views less biased. What he seems to not really understand is how bad business ethics CM and Lenton use. Which is the main point for most of us, its not the game or gameplay the rage is about (even if it can be considered shitty, but that is very subjective OR depending on your POV [comparing to other games]).

True, but its still like telling the Pope that the Devils all good if you get to know him.

Well maybe a bad example ;)

[bangtail 0]

Well, I might have given him the benefit of the doubt up until I heard he has ~6000 posts on the CM forums and he refers to the DR/RR community as 'we'.

I'm certainly not telling anyone they can't like DR/RR, I'm simply suggesting that this probably isn't the best place to try and set up the CM/DR/RR admiration society ;)

[grub 10]

s and he refers to the DR/RR community as 'we'.

They are a collective lol....nah, he works for CM :p

I'm certainly not telling anyone they can't like DR/RR, I'm simply suggesting that this probably isn't the best place to try and set up the CM/DR/RR admiration society ;)

Couldn't agree more. I think we all have at one stage...

[max power 21]

Who said Battlefield isn't a tac-shooter?

tencharsof

FAIL