I want to rip a radiator off the wall and drop...

[Time 0]

The people who have seen the "best game on E3 show" video know what I'm talking about. If OFP2 doesn't reach this level of realism like in that game, it will lose war in close quarters battles missions. I think that BI will have to reconsider a few things after this autumn or maybe even sooner.

[Phleep 0]

The people who have seen the "best game on E3 show" video know what I'm talking about. If OFP2 doesn't reach this level of realism like in that game, it will lose war in close quarters battles missions. I think that BI will have to reconsider a few things after this autumn or maybe even sooner.  

If the title is anything to go by I think OFP has already surpassed that amount of realism by not letting you rip it off the wall.

[NZXSHADOWS 0]

I have no comment on the matter.

[Placebo 29]

§1)No Flaming

Abusive comments, personal attacks and name calling are not allowed either on the board or through PM's.

Consider this your first and last warning, next time you flame someone you will be post restricted for 48hrs, this isn't the first thread I've seen you be tetchy in, please post in a more civil manner in future.

[Baphomet 0]

Again with another narrow-minded treatise attempting to draw some kind of corelation between a battlefield simulator and some "shooter". OFP as I've looked at it is a general purpose simulator. However the focus and I say rightly so, is on large scale combat. There isn't a single game like it in terms of the quality of simulation.

As far as "winning" any marketing war. I hope. I pray. BIS doesn't bastardize OFP2 by pandering to the idiot masses to make a few extra bucks. How many games that are virtually all the same in capabilities (MOHAA, Ghost Recon, Raven Shield, Counterstrike, DoD, Half-life) do we need? Saying that BIS needs to perpetuate such mediocrity is nothing short of blasphemy in my opinion. Yes. Trite little features like inverse kinematics and all that other stuff that makes a game more fun for about 10 extra minutes is nice. I can't stress this enough. It shouldn't be the focal point. If at the end of all of it they can somehow manage to squeeze some of it in then fine.

It's sad to see narrow minded people who can't see the big picture. Ofp offers so much more than that.

[Time 0]

Again with another narrow-minded treatise attempting to draw some kind of corelation between a battlefield simulator and some "shooter". OFP as I've looked at it is a general purpose simulator. However the focus and I say rightly so, is on large scale combat. There isn't a single game like it in terms of the quality of simulation.

As far as "winning" any marketing war. I hope. I pray. BIS doesn't bastardize OFP2 by pandering to the idiot masses to make a few extra bucks. How many games that are virtually all the same in capabilities (MOHAA, Ghost Recon, Raven Shield, Counterstrike, DoD, Half-life) do we need? Saying that BIS needs to perpetuate such mediocrity is nothing short of blasphemy in my opinion. Yes. Trite little features like inverse kinematics and all that other stuff that makes a game more fun for about 10 extra minutes is nice. I can't stress this enough. It shouldn't be the focal point. If at the end of all of it they can somehow manage to squeeze some of it in then fine.

It's sad to see narrow minded people who can't see the big picture. Ofp offers so much more than that.

True. The big picture is much more significant in OFP. But what I wanted to say that physics I saw there and radiator was just one of the many thing you can do (not to mention how the guy barricaded himself in the house by pushing the table in front of the door and then the enemy went to do suppression fire through the window while another one was trying to open the door). And the feeling of street combat is very real or at least is very close.

Any OFP fan should take a look at this years E3 winner to see what I'm talking about. I don't want to promote another game and say OFP2 will suck, but show where should OFP2 learn from.

[NZXSHADOWS 0]

§1)No Flaming

Abusive comments, personal attacks and name calling are not allowed either on the board or through PM's.

Consider this your first and last warning, next time you flame someone you will be post restricted for 48hrs, this isn't the first thread I've seen you be tetchy in, please post in a more civil manner in future.

:crazy:Better now?

[kegetys 2]

it will lose war in close quarters battles missions.

Im not sure if that matters, i'd rather see OFP2 being focused to the same thing that OFP1 is, and thats not close quarters combat.

Quote[/b] ]I don't want to promote another game and say OFP2 will suck, but show where should OFP2 learn from.

I dont think OFP2 would need to learn from anything else than from OFP1, nor that it much could, since, still, OFP has zero competition.

With OFP1 BIS walked their own path, and made something unbelieveably good that no one else has even managed to copy yet. Most, well, all of the hyped ubergames that you see being advertised everywhere and made with big money end up being more or less something that we all have seen a dozen times before. Maybe in a new candy covering and new tricks, but the basic ideas just stay the same with no new innovation. Thats what I see with the new games announced and hyped these days, and the masses seem to like it, but theres still "special audiences" who seek something totally different, and its good that theres developers who want to keep away from the masses and really do a good game for the good gamers and nothing else.

[the_unknown_one 0]

you could probably just doo the table thing anyway. use a script like "move atble infornt of door", and the have to use a satchel to blow it up. I admit, CQB would be good, but OFP is beyond that.it has qite good CQB anyway, it just isnt perfecy due to the not centred crosshair. I prefer it this way tho; its more realistic; you dont usually turn your whole body when aiming at sum1

I for one don't think we (or ofp) need(s) it.

the_unknown_one

[Baphomet 0]

Give technology a chance to advance a few years and then we'll see about all those fancy features.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]Give technology a chance to advance a few years and then we'll see about all those fancy features.

oh yeah

those HL2 actions seem cool, but is almost useless in OFP. furthermore, it seems like those "movable" objects are pretty much a predefined properties.

OFP is about being able to simulate large battle operations, and the CQB aspect has been somewhat affected by collision control's faults. with better collision control and some movements like peaking around the corner, CQB could be fun on OFP/OFP2

[Renagade 0]

i agree with ralph.

Its funny how everyones gegtting a hard on for what the original poster said but TRESSPASSER HAD A PHYSICS ENGINE IN 1998.It also had wide open envoiroments too !

I`m not saying that its a bad thing but its not exactly new.

Some elements of physics would be good for landing helicopters on the battle ships though.

One thing i wanted to do in OFP is have a sea invasion on against an island with armed battleships,aircraft carriers and submarines.

[Baphomet 0]

Quote[/b] ]Problem with trespasser which I wouldn't want to see in ofp2 is the fact that they undershot the time they should have released the game by quite a few months. If you read any review on the game for it's time people complained bitterly on how the game ran so unplayably horrible on any system save the absolute fastest of the time. Which I believe was a P2 450mhz with dual voodoo2 in SLI mode.

Yes... Trespasser did have all those things albeit wrapped up into a bug ridden (yet still enjoyable to a fault) package back in 1998. Yet it also had the most ridiculous system requirements out of any game that year. Many people came away hating the game for it's bugs and excessive hardware requirements.

I wouldn't want BIS to get ahead of themselves and pull a "trespasser" if you know what I mean.

[Renagade 0]

Trespasser ran ok on my system the level loading took absolutely ages though and they could have had more physics related puzzles like in the demo its just a shame we don`t have dev tools like flashpoint for it.

The problem with trespasser was it`s levels were too similar and the system was underused,and a few of those bugs

lol that reminds me that the clipping in that game was like flashpoints,i remember a few places where i managed to walk through the croner of a door or wall to reach the next level with a bit of patience also

***end of flashpoint1985-spoiler***

Where u have to steal the missions from gubas house u can jump the double fence by running down the hill whilst rubbing against the fence so u don`t need to blow it up to get through plus u can run in and out through the windows or anywhere else u can break through into the house to steal the documents instead of going through the front door

*** end of spoiler***

[Time 0]

Its funny how everyones gegtting a  hard  on for  what the original poster  said but TRESSPASSER  HAD A PHYSICS  ENGINE  IN 1998.It also had wide  open envoiroments too !

I remember the Trespasser and I remember the physics. But it was buggy, pushing your hardware to the limit with some stupid dinosaurs running at you. But it didn't have the AI that Half-Life 2 has and it didn't have the facial expressions and emotions that HL2 has.

And don't tell me that OFP was quite good at CQB, because my friend massacred a whole platoon on 30 metres and those soldiers were just standing there and did nothing! If Half-Life 1 soldiers met OFP soldiers they would have massacared them too. Do you remember them? This AI was introduced in december 1998 and I think that the AI in HL is still one of the best today at CQB.

In OFP there couldn't be no real urban fighting because there were only villages but this is what I would really like to see in OFP2. Half-Life 2 will make my dreams come true even sooner (the SDK is going to be released before the game comes out!)

[Gollum1 0]

I´m getting tired of these kind of suggestions.

LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE, PEOPLE!

Anyway, BIS said that they have already fixed the collision detection for OFP Xbox, so CQB will sure as hell be great in OFP2.

[Time 0]

I´m getting tired of these kind of suggestions.

LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE, PEOPLE!

Anyway, BIS said that they have already fixed the collision detection for OFP Xbox, so CQB will sure as hell be great in OFP2.

Every "big picture" consists of smaller elements as you look deeper in the structure. When I said I wan't to rip the radiator off the wall, I wanted to say "make things less static" and to show what makes the virtual enviroment belivable and realistic.

You may never really need to rip off the radiator of the wall, but what about fortifying in the house by using the furniture, or chopping down the trees to barricade the road? This is what I call realism. War isn't just shooting, it's about how to save your life in a combat situation. The best soldiers don't use only their guns, they use their brains first. And thus, better interactivity with the world in the game would encourage people to ponder the possibilities they have and to choose the best possible.

I'm tired of playing games where most of the things spreaded over a map have no participation to the game but to look nice. The world isn't static and made of sprites.

Collision detection isn't all about CQB and it's just a bug.

[Heatseeker 0]

Chopping down the trees to barricade a road is a great idea Time, it would allow some very nice valley ambushes, perhaps we could do it using claymores, this could have been a great thread discussion if you used that idea has a title, unfortunetly this idea came up on a thread called "...rip a radiator of a wall and drop...", i dont think it will reach the devs because it doesnt sound serious enough .

[Time 0]

OK, I'll start more serious thread.

[Gollum1 0]

I´m getting tired of these kind of suggestions.

LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE, PEOPLE!

Anyway, BIS said that they have already fixed the collision detection for OFP Xbox, so CQB will sure as hell be great in OFP2.

Every "big picture" consists of smaller elements as you look deeper in the structure. When I said I wan't to rip the radiator off the wall, I wanted to say "make things less static" and to show what makes the virtual enviroment belivable and realistic.

You may never really need to rip off the radiator of the wall, but what about fortifying in the house by using the furniture, or chopping down the trees to barricade the road? This is what I call realism. War isn't just shooting, it's about how to save your life in a combat situation. The best soldiers don't use only their guns, they use their brains first. And thus, better interactivity with the world in the game would encourage people to ponder the possibilities they have and to choose the best possible.

I'm tired of playing games where most of the things spreaded over a map have no participation to the game but to look nice. The world isn't static and made of sprites.

Collision detection isn't all about CQB and it's just a bug.

Sorry, I was just ranting in general

But I think this is still mostly eye candy and might require some heavy duty working on the physics engine, I haven´t felt the urge to barricade houses in OFP, altough chopping down trees sounds pretty reasonable

You´d the just have to make it so that Car class vehicles don´t drive over the trees but tanks smash the barricade with ease.

[Time 0]

Now look what you've done I was taking you seriously and started a topic about that!

If Valve did this physics engine then anyone can.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Time's new thread, now closed

for reference.

[Time 0]

OK, whatever you say. Anways, I wanted to say that the world you play in must be more detailed even with details which might not have a direct effect on the game but to give the player the feeling he's really there. For more detailed explanation click the link which RalphWiggum above posted.