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

[[frl]myke 14]

Comparing OfP:RR with ArmA 2 is like comparing a Fiat500 with a S-class Mercedes. Both can bring you from A to B, both have wheels and seats. But honestly, while the Fiat (OFP:RR) just brings you there, the S-class (ArmA 2) brings you there with style.

[dmarkwick 261]

I do feel that the Codemasters OpF series is in direct competion with ArmA as it is squarely targeted at the same audience.

Oof. I think you may be right about its original intent, but poor implementation choices and a swingeing cut in features and ability seriously nerfed that intent right from the off. Its a pity that the devs might have felt that they were making something similar, but that inevitably they made yet another same-game-as-the-rest.

The follow-up game cannot possibly be said to target the same audience as ArmA. It's only targeting the same audience as its predecessor :)

[4 IN 1 0]

Myke;1976387']Comparing OfP:RR with ArmA 2 is like comparing a Fiat500 with a S-class Mercedes. Both can bring you from A to B' date=' both have wheels and seats. But honestly, while the Fiat (OFP:RR) just brings you there, the S-class (ArmA 2) brings you there with style.[/quote']

That would be an insult to Fiat500 as well(which isn't a bad car after all)

Comparing OfP:RR with ArmA 2 should be like compare a pink Nissan Micra convertible(which is embarrassing to drive) to a Ferrari 458(which happens that it will suddenly burst into flame)

[rangerpl 13]

:raisebrow:

What? Those are the soundtrack names :D

[Baff1 0]

The follow-up game cannot possibly be said to target the same audience as ArmA. It's only targeting the same audience as its predecessor :)

I'm not too hung up on the number of features. I recognise that this is what sets ArmA aside from OpF DR.

But this isn't what defines the core gameplay for me.

It's the icing and not the cake.

There are people who say "I like BF2, but I didn't like joint Ops".

And they can wax on hour after a hour about how if you rreally liked BF2 there is just no way you could have liked Joint Ops.

And you know what, if you are going to over analysis, you will never ever ever see that they are both in essence exactly the same game.

They look slightly different, they sound slightly different the play slightly different...

but it's the same gameplay and good number of the customers who bought one, bought the other.

Both ArmA ArmA 2 and OpFDR and OpFRR are all targeted at the same audience. Military gamers who enjoyed Operation Flashpoint.

You not wanting them to be targeted at the same audience, is not the same as them not being so.

They are.

---------- Post added at 07:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 PM ----------

Myke;1976387']Comparing OfP:RR with ArmA 2 is like comparing a Fiat500 with a S-class Mercedes. Both can bring you from A to B' date=' both have wheels and seats. But honestly, while the Fiat (OFP:RR) just brings you there, the S-class (ArmA 2) brings you there with style.[/quote']

This is true, but with so few products on the market to chose from, anything that gets me there for a reasonable price with reasonable drive quality is worth the applause.

I have a Lexus, my mate has Fiat. His Fiat is still a good car. I rate it.

I sort of feel this attitude gets lost around here. That people have closed their minds to having new types of fun out of blind elitiism.

[nettrucker 142]

Hi Baff1

And they can wax on hour after a hour about how if you rreally liked BF2 there is just no way you could have liked Joint Ops.

Here it is!!!! I really liked or loved the Original OFP there's no way that OFP DR could've attracted me the same way. It was impossible due to the fact that DR was a completely different game, which had nothing to do anymore with the original one. I rented the PC version played it once. I decided not to buy it for 2 reasons. First that game was crap to me, all the freedom and liberty to the game approach was gone, removed on purpose. Second I know Codemasters business model which I absolutely detest. Dropping support after a month? NICE!!!!!:D

Man look at the CM forum . .. it's dead. Noone is posting because there's nothing to write about apart from the rants about a bad game.

From your posts I understand that you like DR and RR. Good for you, but you will never, ever convince us "Die hard OFP fans" to get to like the crap CM released.

regards

[Tonci87 163]

Baff, some of your posts rrally make me laugh...

[Baff1 0]

Hi Baff1

From your posts I understand that you like DR and RR. Good for you, but you will never, ever convince us "Die hard OFP fans" to get to like the crap CM released.

regards

"Sorry but I'm "a die hard OpF fan" myself.

Neither ArmA not OpFDR has brought that feeling back for me.

But then I'm well passed looking for things to.

Actually, I think games that can drop support after one month are preferable.

It's indicative of a strong quality control ethos.

I don't consider the use of post release patches to be a step forward in PC gaming. The more you have to release, the worse your release was to start with.

If I think a game is going to need a load of patches, then I like to wait until they have been made before I buy it. I certainly don't expect to pay more to get less.

QC on those two new Codemasters OpF titles is great. No complaints at all there. Why would I need support for a title that works so well?

Edited July 14, 2011 by Baff1

[Nicholas 5]

Or, they drop support due to low sales? I personally believe that dropping support for a game after 1 month is like saying "fuck you" to your customers, even if the customers think it's already a "perfect" game with no bugs or anything. Just because a game has more patches than another, doesn't mean that it was worse at launch.

Nothing in the world is perfect. You can always improve your work.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Nicholas

[froggyluv 2130]

Yeah, CM ain't winning any awards just because they've dropped support on a feature stripped game :rolleyes:

The thing is, they never brought anything that worthwhile to the table to patch. Now if they had really brought an OFP/Arma sized milsim with zero needs for patches right off the bat, I'd give them full props.

As it stands, they coughed out a couple of hopelessly underwhelming titles that will be completely forgotten within this year -hardly an achievement. So giving them props on QC is like clapping for the shiny red cherry atop the shit-cake.

Edited July 14, 2011 by froggyluv
little f was bothersome

[dmarkwick 261]

Actually, I think games that can drop support after one month are preferable.

It's indicative of a strong quality control ethos.

I think this is a risable comment. It is so completely off-kilter that I might assume it to be sarcasm, trolling, or simply a vastly illogical thought. The nature of consoles and console development guidelines drives QC, in that you get console games with less bugs, at a minimum performance level. Not a single element drives the quality of the game itself.

I don't consider the use of post release patches to be a step forward in PC gaming. The more you have to release, the worse your release was to start with.

If I think a game is going to need a load of patches, then I like to wait until they have been made before I buy it. I certainly don't expect to pay more to get less.

QC on those two new Codemasters OpF titles is great. No complaints at all there. Why would I need support for a title that works so well?

I know which title I prefer to play, and by far. So vastly, hugely far. To suggest that CM's QC is superior is to vastly outmaneuver yourself into accepting that poor games is an acceptable price for (relatively) bug-free gaming.

[Zipper5 74]

"I don't need support therefore I don't believe anyone needs it."

Edited July 14, 2011 by Zipper5

[nettrucker 142]

Hi Baff1

Actually, I think games that can drop support after one month are preferable.

It's indicative of a strong quality control ethos.

I'm reading CM forum on a daily basis and RR has a lot of issues standing to what the most community members are posting on the forum over there. RR is everything else than flawless. There are more rants and dissapointed people on CM forum rather then the ones that like the game. The difference is the support after release. CM don't support their games nor their community. BIS does!!!!

'nuff said

kind regards

p.s. Your "Stealth trolling" has no equal. LOL. :D Just kidding.:)

Edited July 14, 2011 by nettrucker
added post scriptum

[solidsnake2384 10]

And i like how CM released the expansion packs after a month that included free roam but no editor. And it was priced. So you take something out of a game put it in a pack and price it. NICE!

[Innomadic 10]

Not sure if trolling or just very stupid...

[Baff1 0]

Hi Baff1

I'm reading CM forum on a daily basis and RR has a lot of issues standing to what the most community members are posting on the forum over there. RR is everything else than flawless. There are more rants and dissapointed people on CM forum rather then the ones that like the game. The difference is the support after release. CM don't support their games nor their community. BIS does!!!!

'nuff said

kind regards

p.s. Your "Stealth trolling" has no equal. LOL. :D Just kidding.:)

The differnce, is that BIS releases need support after release and CM games don't.

As a comparison, I couldn't finish ArmA2 before 2 or 3 patches got released. Youtube was full of videos of AI's ignoring players en masse.

Both DR and RR played through first time. (I have had issues with tether on DR in one co-op game and RR CTDs on one map with an ATi card, but both games were finishable)

BIS give most excellent post release support, but with their QC ethos, they really need to.

CM's QC ethos is AAA. I haven't patched either title.

I understand that there will be plenty of posts on their forums, asking for more support, but I don't need to read those since I own their games and I know how functional they are already. I run them across multiple systems and I have never been anything less than impressed by their stability and polish. It si superior to most of the titles I buy.

So I'm not really down with patch culture. I want the game I buy to be finished when I buy it. Not 5 years later. If I am lucky, if the game company is still in business.

I am of the age where I remember games before patches. I preferred it.

I don't patch my games ever if I can avoid it. It's just additional work for me. An obsticle to play.

So I understand BIS's ethos of WIP, but I'm not a fan of it. I whollehaeartedly agree that when it comes to post release support that BIS are top leaders in the field... but I have to say that ultimately being in that field in the first place, is not somewhere I want to be.

There are always dissappointed rants in games forums. Almost always calls for more support. (Not so many calls for support hre of course, being as top as it is).

I've been that person too many times myself over the years. These days I simply have lower expectations. So I enjoy things more instead of being angry all the time.

I've been that person ranting on about how R6 isn't R6 anymore. It shouldn't have used the name. I've been that person about Ghost Recon too. But I've been that person too many times now. I'm over it.

Now I an play GRAW and Vegas and OpF:RR and just enjoy them for what they are. And I do. And I want more.

DR and RR far exceeded the lowly expectations I had for them both. Without that making them the greatest games ever, they were both pretty solid little titles.

There are also the kind of people who wish to be dissappointed. Who wish for a game to be bad. Who wish for other people to think of a game as bad and for other people to be disssappointed. For it to fail. To get bad reviews, to bomb in the charts and for the prople who made it all to lose their jobs.

I get called a troll a lot for refusing to be one of these people. But I don't see my self as trolling, I see myself as being trolled. Not by people who are intrested in the games under discussion, just those who seek to ruin it for everyone.

There used to be a thread just like this on the CM forums, only where all the people sat around and slagged off ARMA and BIS and crapped on about how much it sucked and failed etc. They called me troll there too.

And if you think this is bad, wait until you try a PvP games forum. Red Orchestra or Enemy Territory, America's Army or Counter Strike. People form cliques and if you won't conform nealty into their clique, they will try and drive you out. Kill all dissent.

---------- Post added at 03:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 AM ----------

I think this is a risable comment. It is so completely off-kilter that I might assume it to be sarcasm, trolling, or simply a vastly illogical thought. The nature of consoles and console development guidelines drives QC, in that you get console games with less bugs, at a minimum performance level. Not a single element drives the quality of the game itself.

I know which title I prefer to play, and by far. So vastly, hugely far. To suggest that CM's QC is superior is to vastly outmaneuver yourself into accepting that poor games is an acceptable price for (relatively) bug-free gaming.

CN's QC is pretty damn high. Not just on RR, but on every title they make.

I agree that the nature of consoles drives for a higher QC release.

And when consolers all crap on at me about how they don't need patches and stuff and how that is so much better than the PC, I'm afraid, I have to agree with them.

And I don't agree that post release patches enables higher levels of GFX than games without post release patches. Batman Arkham Asylum isn't a poorer game because I didn't have to patch it. It's not a poor quality game because it was made for consoles. It's a classic.

I own plenty of great games that I don't need to patch.

I didn't patch Doom or Duke Nukem or Quake or R6. Those games weren't poor quality. They were of the highest possible quality.

it's just a great big pain in the arse in my book. Patching. I want to get the admin done. And then leave it behind for ever.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Baff1

[froggyluv 2130]

Patches don't bother me none as there is something deeply worthwhile with this product on many fronts and very little to nothing brought to the table by CM's products.

Your analysis falls profoundly flat in that having high "quality control" for a mediocre product means nothing. BI could take your master business plan, scale the game size down to corridor levels with less then 50 entities and bam - no need for patches. A winner? no.

Taking one aspect ie... lack of patches and maximizing it as the end all be all of quality is like trying to lure someone into a maze of circular logic that is false.

You love and admire Cm's games? great! But trying to sell BI fans on your "Bi could learn something from them" garbage just ain't gonna fly and thank god for that.

Many times the things in life with the most value and return on them come rough around the edges, not some little dainty wrapped package with a neat pink bow on top -if thats your twitch tho mate, good luck to ya and keep your lighter high for the DR/RR ten year anniversary -tickets still available...

Edited July 15, 2011 by froggyluv

[Innomadic 10]

And I don't agree that post release patches enables higher levels of GFX than games without post release patches.

What you agree with and what happens in the real world are two completely separate things.

[[frl]myke 14]

LMAO, no wonder CM manages to have less bugs than BI. Honestly, there is not much in it that could be broken. Less features = less things that brake. CM clearly chosed the way "we can't make it so we don't even try to make it". BI in return accepted the challenge, fully aware of the huge task they've taken.

So the fact that CM doesn't need patching at the level BIS games does need exactly says nothing.

CN's QC is pretty damn high. Not just on RR, but on every title they make.

I did followed the release of F1 2010 pretty close as i was really interested in that game, did you followed it too?

[Tonci87 163]

Ok Baff this is total BS

The differnce, is that BIS releases need support after release and CM games don't.

CM games do need after release support! Remember all the bugs that DR had? Instead of fixing them they simply dropped support.

BIS games do have bugs, but you can be damn sure that BIS will work on them for a very long time after Release if it should be necessary! And not only that, but they will also try to further improve the game!

[MrBump 10]

BIS give most excellent post release support, but with their QC ethos, they really need to.

CM's QC ethos is AAA. I haven't patched either title.

You didn't download the DLC for DR then, strange behaviour for someone who liked the game.

You turned off the auto-updating for RR, strange behaviour for someone who bought the game.

;)

I agree though that BIS have been poor with the amount of bugs on release with the ArmA series so far, they really need to sort that shit out for ArmA 3, esp. if they're going to capitalise on the good vibes coming from sites like PC Gamer.

[nodunit 397]

I'm sure they will take over the lessons learned from A2 but in the end it is never going to be a completely bug free game (no such thing) and comparing patching BI's games to CM's is the apples to oranges again...sort of, DR and RR has far less content than Arma2 so it would stand to reason that it would require less of everything.

[katipo66 94]

I vote they hire sgt Knox for A3!!

For a bit of bitch titty!

[Innomadic 10]

Considering the lack of content in DR and RR, why were they buggy on release too?

[4 IN 1 0]

I vote they hire sgt Knox for A3!!

For a bit of bitch titty!

No, I don't want to drive a Nissan Micra convertible, nor do I think many people here wat to drivr one.