Operation Flashpoint 2 officially announced

[mattxr 9]

I dont think it will be allowable to create these for Custom Missions [image Metrics thing]

Quote[/b] ]Image Metrics is creating 57 shots of facial animation for Codemasters. Totalling 262 seconds, the animation is for key characters appearing in the cut scenes of "Operation Flashpoint 2: Dragon Rising". Slated for release in 2009 for major gaming platforms, the title is the much anticipated sequel to the genre-defining military conflict simulator game released in 2001.

[Baff1 0]

This is a bit like watching Pimp my ride where big sums of money is thrown around like nothing, on junk you would on a second thought not find practical or useful to have in your car.

Try and appreciate that the department using this technology will not only be using it in Codemasters's Flashpoint game, but across the board in all their other titles too.

This is an example of the benefits of developing within a large studio enviroment.

The costs of this technology, if they have not already been met in their entirety by a previous title will at the very least be shared across many.

[sparks50 0]

Often licenses will be sold separately for each game, and not by a "free for use" model. Havok sells a lot of tech this way.

It depends on the deals that has been made.

[Daniel 0]

But in the same way Codies are using technology developed from Dirt and Grid, they can apply this to future games.

[sparks50 0]

Dirt and Grid are GAMES aka intellectual value created by themself, while Image metrics is a separate company.

As I said, how they can use it depends on how the intellectual value from Image metrics is sold.

[Lepardi 0]

Its sad for CM to bring up the fanatical OPF:R comunity.. now that they are promoting their new game.

What did they ever do in the past other than sitting on top of OPF's revenue? The rubbish Red Hammer disk for more revenue? CM's OPF board was a ghost town.

And what did BIS do? The game, the free addons (remember those? ), the support, the editing programs.. all that work wich might have affected the development and release of future titles (like OPF:E) but gave this comunity years of gameplay and fun, long after the game was out BIS supported the OPF comunity, even recruited some of its members.

Who knows, maybe we could be playing OPF2 today if CM didnt run away, maybe BIS would have made a great OPF2 if they were backed up by a good publisher.

Now suddenly CM returns full of promisses and love for the franchice and its fans, using a comunity they never supported in the first place to promote this product, a modern copy of someone elses game?

Doesnt seem wright to me .

damn Heatseeker brings it down for real!  

Thats one of the best why arma 2 is better than ofp 2 statements i read.

But wasn't it BIS that broke up with CM to keep a clear difference between VBS and OFP, as CM would have wanted to take it further?

[Maddmatt 1]

But wasn't it BIS that broke up with CM to keep a clear difference between VBS and OFP, as CM would have wanted to take it  further?

Where do you get that from?  

AFAIK they never publicly explained why.

Codemasters had no influence on VBS.

It doesn't really relate to what Heatseeker said anyway.

[Lepardi 0]

But wasn't it BIS that broke up with CM to keep a clear difference between VBS and OFP, as CM would have wanted to take it  further?

Where do you get that from?  

AFAIK they never publicly explained why.

Codemasters had no influence on VBS.

It doesn't really relate to what Heatseeker said anyway.

IIRC, there was a statement of this in CM forums.

[sparks50 0]

Well then you definitely should take it with it a pinch of salt.

[4 IN 1 0]

even if this was the case it didnt mean anything

simply put, it only shows that BI dont want to sold their soul and wanted to stay independant, end of story

[Lepardi 0]

even if this was the case it didnt mean anything

simply put, it only shows that BI dont want to sold their soul and wanted to stay independant, end of story

Nah, more like wanting to secure the sales of VBS.

[4 IN 1 0]

even if this was the case it didnt mean anything

simply put, it only shows that BI dont want to sold their soul and wanted to stay independant, end of story

Nah, more like wanting to secure the sales of VBS.

han? was that a problem? the code is theirs, they can do whatever things they want, desides who would want to write a progarm for military around the world with notthing in return? welcome to the world of capitalism

P.S. even BIS and BIA are using the same shareholder and have the same name of BI doesnt mean that they are same company

[Pulverizer 1]

Calm down Cpt. Obvious, and consider the possibility that Codemasters would've been funding the developement of OFP2, or at the very least, a shit ton of testing for it. And therefore, indirectly putting a lot of their monies into VBS2 for nothing in return. Sound like a pretty bad investment.

Without help from Codies, the hypotethical BI-developed OFP2 would've been awful, like ArmA 1.0. Only it might've actually had the original content in it. So yes, Codies would've had to.

[Rhodite 3]

Just a comment for thought.

A few of you mention how Codies will throw money at OFp2 an this will make it better.

Since when did throwing money at any IT project make it better?

There are several very high profile IT projects out there which have billions throw at them and the result has been very disappointing.

Windows Vista is a classic example of massive funding and yet a product that completely missed it's market.

[Balschoiw 0]

Can´t we just sit still and wait before we rush from one hysterical faint to another ?

The cards are not on the table with both games, neither OFP2 nor Arma2 so I guess at this point it´s pretty useless to start fingerpointing already.

Quote[/b] ]Since when did throwing money at any IT project make it better?

It definately made an IT project better here. First they wanted some sort of powerpoint presentation for a new security software for worldwide money trade. Then they multiplied the budget by factor 20 and now they get an interactive rendered and animated multimedia inferno for their showroom.

[dmarkwick 261]

Since when did throwing money at any IT project make it better?

There's an old IT adage (that you probably already know):

"You can have it high quality, you can have it cheaply, and you can have it soon. Choose any two."

[MehMan 0]

The cards are not on the table with both games, neither OFP2 nor Arma2 so I guess at this point it´s pretty useless to start fingerpointing already.

No, it's more fun this way, because we can all afford a new shiny PC with gfx and cpu power out the arse but we cannot afford two 35€ games.

[Pulverizer 1]

Quote[/b] ]A few of you mention how Codies will throw money at OFp2 an this will make it better.

Since when did throwing money at any IT project make it better?

Since the first IT project ever? Consider the reverse situation. The lack of money will generally make a project worse. No need to mention a case in point.

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]A few of you mention how Codies will throw money at OFp2 an this will make it better.

Since when did throwing money at any IT project make it better?

Since the first IT project ever? Consider the reverse situation. The lack of money will generally make a project worse. No need to mention a case in point.

We should all reason this way from now on.

[Rhodite 3]

Perhaps my point was not clear enough, earlier in this thread.

It had been suggested or implied that because Codies have lots of cash they could simply throw money at the project and it would be fine. Now my comparison of vista is a good one on the basis that without proper project and dev management and also the essential feedback from the player base, those funds would go to waste. You only have to look at some of the EA titles to know even with the muscle of EA their games come up short on quality many many times.

Codemasters have tried to indicate that they want OFP2 to follow the same large scale feel as the original title had. However if the project leaders and managers at Codemasters decide to focus on other areas, all that money will simply not get invested in the areas required to make it the game they promise.

[Pulverizer 1]

Who has suggested or implied that? I want to know because that is terribly stupid. Name and shame.

Anyhow, you are only speculating about CM. Like "if they do this or if they do that, then oh gosh check this, the game will suck". Same could be said about any game. Or "EA and MS makes bad products with big budgets, so OFP2 will be bad because it also has a big budget". That would be a ridiculous assumption, so what's the relevance of EA and MS here.

Yes, OFP2 could be bad, could also be good. What's the point of saying that out loud without any worthwile supporting arguments.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to pulverizer and his point about money making a project better. Sorry but you are wrong and I can point to a list of government and big business projects that have failed miserably to prove it.

Talent trumps money every time.

Yes money can help with things like 3D model making as you can employ lots of people to make 3d models but unless they are talented the models will not be efficient.

You can employ thousands of texture artists but unless they are talented, the textures will look wrong.

You can employ expensive qualified programmers but unless they have talent there will be no magic.

BIS have talent that is proven, they produced OFP on a shoestring, and VBS which has become NATO's default simulation. And now BIS have money. Enough to employ multiple teams on multiple projects.

Codemasters have got money. The question here is whether Codemasters has got the talent?

Talent is a rare thing.

Kind Regards wallker

[Pulverizer 1]

Hi Walker. I agree but my point was in fact that money does not make a project worse either. Let's talk less about the obvious "big budget doesn't automatically make a good game" and more about the interesting speculation about VBS being the possible cause of BIS-CM break-up. What say you about that?

[Heatseeker 0]

...and more about the interesting speculation about VBS being the possible cause of BIS-CM break-up. What say you about that?

Nah.. i dont know about Walker's opinion but..

All VBS stuff is BIA's turf, that might have been an excuse but i believe they had other reasons.

Many publishers were in trouble at the time (Eidos for example were taken over by SCI) and i dont think CM had many successfull franchises to be doing very well, i mean other than GRID they've been doing crap or nothing for a big time publisher and i believe their near hibernation in the past few years indicates that they went thru troubled times.

Now on the BIS side OPF:E was a tough achievement that took more time in the making than it should have, CM knew that the game wouldnt have many chances to do well, they probably also knew that BIS would take a very long time to make an OPF sequel and if they were cutting funds, well..

I think the sum of these and other factors led to the split, wich results in CM having one atractive franchise under their crappy lineout.

.

[Migel 0]

Its basicly what the guys signature says above me.

ArmA is not that good its simply that the rest sucks.

Flashpoint is a good concept. And the game itself was not dissapointing. The armour ratings were good.

The ballance between AA and air was good. Realism was good and you could join clans that were either pvp or coop based. So the basic engine without addons was good.

Then with addons you could increase the game experience.

In arma the concept was worked out completely wrong.

Ballance between air and ground was not there. Ballance between tanks and infantry was not there. This last part is double dissapointing because its not ballanced nor realistic.

Anyway to make the game a bit enjoyable u had to modify it.

So what is coming now. Is arma2 which is gonna be something you can create yourself with the proper mods of arma.

And ofp2 which will use a new vision on the flashpoint concept.

So I think ofp2 has a better chance at this moment ( it only needs to surpass a piece of crap ) to become the winner between these 2 games.