Operation Flashpoint 2 officially announced

[SaBrE_UK 0]

They could be wrong but in this article it says:

Quote[/b] ]According to the information given at the demo, players on both PC and console will be able to hook up with up to eight players in co-op mode or fight against up to 32.

Hopefully modders can override this small number in co-op play, if it is true.

[sparks50 0]

That could be referencing to the console versions, just look at Team fortress 2, It can have 16 people max on consoles and 32 on computers.

[whisper 0]

You're comparing two entirely different companies. Just because BIS screwed up doesn't mean Codies will

You can mock BI, but just because "it's CM" doesn't mean they won't screw up either.

What did BI screw up with ArmA :

- Stability and performance. We don't know much about this in the upcoming OFP2. Though GRID example gives me faith, I've no clue. No need to go "this game will beat everything, I'm convinced, I'll buying it no matter what" (it has been written somewhere above!

- Animations. Once more, what was shown on the vids does not say anything about what will be made available to player in game

- Campaign. OFP2 story looks not too bad. Time will tell, once more, I've no reason to be cheering more over what is announced for OFP2 compared to what is announced for ArmA2

And, to me at least, that is all the major BI screw-up that I'd like to not see in OFP2, and in ArmA2 neither.

After that, there's a long list of features that OFP2 also need to have in my book to compete with BI. And at the moment, nothing really new has been revealed by any of the 2 companies.

*

I'm not saying OFP2 will be bad, just that we don't know enough to say "it's surely is going to be the best of all game in the genre".

[mr.g-c 6]

Ahmm Whisper, not to fall into my old role as a BI-Critic or BI-basher, but BI did Screw up A WHOLE LOT MORE than you mentioned with Arma1.

Even Maruk said in an interview (Czech or German magazine, don't remember) that Arma1 was a "disaster".

And the fact that Codemasters really look at all the things, the community was complaining and moaning about(justified!!!, and showing fluid animations, love for detail and stuff shows me personally that they go into to right direction.

I really really hope BIS will soon show some new screenshots and videos, like Codemasters did to keep the ball rolling. Around arma2 it's simply to quiet....

[MehMan 0]

Ahmm Whisper, not to fall into my old role as a BI-Critic or BI-basher, but BI did Screw up A WHOLE LOT MORE than you mentioned with Arma1.

Even Maruk said in an interview (Czech or German magazine, don't remember) that Arma1 was a "disaster".  

lolwut. Err, I'm very certain that it wasn't worded that way.

[mr.g-c 6]

Ahmm Whisper, not to fall into my old role as a BI-Critic or BI-basher, but BI did Screw up A WHOLE LOT MORE than you mentioned with Arma1.

Even Maruk said in an interview (Czech or German magazine, don't remember) that Arma1 was a "disaster".  

lolwut. Err, I'm very certain that it wasn't worded that way.

I knew that that would happen... only for you i will now search it on youtube...

Or was it in a video at tiscali.cz?.....

Edit: Can't find it anymore... it was in a interview with maruk on a gamers thing and it was downloadbale with a additional subtitle-file. I dont have it on the machine anymore, not so i find the link to it...

[NeMeSiS 11]

Edit: Can't find it anymore... it was in a interview with maruk on a gamers thing and it was downloadbale with a additional subtitle-file. I dont have it on the machine anymore, not so i find the link to it...

I have that one and i am unable to find it in there.

[EricM 0]

Quote[/b] ]Arma1 was a "disaster"

Gimme more disasters like that anytime. Paid 30 euros almost 2 years ago, and still having fun with it now...

Not to say it was perfect, but why the hatred suddenly ? At least, it exists and you can play with it. On the other hand, OFP2 is still 6 months away at minimum (probably, more as ususal) and will cost you about twice as much (60 euros or even more on consoles seeing how COD4, Crysis or GTA4 were priced)

It's unfair to compare a 2009/2010 game with a 2006 game.

And to be honest, I couldn't care less about half of the features CM showed us. Most are pure eye candy (see the custom anims) and don't really change the way you play the game. Its nice, but I can live without. Semi-Destructible buildings is cool though, but no real dynamic destruction though.

Hope the campaign will be original and immersive (to me THAT was the main BIS let down in Arma 1), I wonder how the command chain will be dealt (ARMA menu feels a bit clunky now), AI, editors etc... That's what makes a game live for years...

[kavoven 4]

Quote[/b] ]Arma1 was a "disaster"

Gimme more disasters like that anytime. Paid 30 euros almost 2 years ago, and still having fun with it now...

Not to say it was perfect, but why the hatred suddenly ? At least, it exists and you can play with it. On the other hand, OFP2 is still 6 months away at minimum (probably, more as ususal) and will cost you about twice as much (60 euros or even more on consoles seeing how COD4, Crysis or GTA4 were priced)

It's unfair to compare a 2009/2010 game with a 2006 game.

According to the date you joined the forums you didn't play OFP as long as many others. And I can tell you: I couldn't finish one mission in ArmAs editor because I did all this for 5 years already and I want something new!

[Sennacherib 0]

this is what i read in the PCjeux (PCgame magazine in french)

they explain why only renderers are shown: the engine is upgraded even during the creation of the contents (weapons etc etc ) so nothing in game can be shown, because nothing is really finished.

they use the collin mac ray example: codemaster had shown renderers and finally the game was better (lighting, environment ....), so the ofp2 final result will be equal or better to the renderers

some explanations which are in the magazine:

- almost nothing will be scripted (excepted of course the objectives of missions -primary or secondary-)

IA will be able to calculate the better way to defeat you:

- better place to make an ambush

- retreat or not in a better place to fight, to have a chance to defeat you

- IA will be able to choose the better way to encircle you

about the campaign:

the campaing is divided in 6 days; each day is divided in different missions - with a new character- (to avoid that players are bored)

to create the anims, they took the movements of an ancient SAS by motion capture.

[whisper 0]

Ahmm Whisper, not to fall into my old role as a BI-Critic or BI-basher, but BI did Screw up A WHOLE LOT MORE than you mentioned with Arma1.

I listed the biggest issues that were the one that have been complained about the most.

I agree I forgot one : AI and its lack of intelligence and integration into environnement.

That's not "a whole lot more" in big letters, at least to me.

2 years after launch, I'm playing the game again, it's far from release state and is really really enjoyable.

Another thing we don't know about CM, btw, and for which I am sure about BI (at least this one thing I'm sure) : long term support.

[SaBrE_UK 0]

Another thing we don't know about CM, btw, and for which I am sure about BI (at least this one thing I'm sure) : long term support.

There should be with CM, but probably largely in expansion packs (after spending this much on development it's their prerogative to try to make the most money out of the game). Patches have come frequently for Race Driver: GRID, and hopefully they will for OFP2 as well. Again, as I'm sure you'll agree, it's a case of "we'll see".

[froggyluv 2130]

Quote[/b] ]Arma1 was a "disaster"

Gimme more disasters like that anytime. Paid 30 euros almost 2 years ago, and still having fun with it now...

+1

Been without a gaming PC for over a month and the only thing I really miss is some Arma/SLX/COC fun...

[Second 0]

Quote[/b] ]Arma1 was a "disaster"

Gimme more disasters like that anytime. Paid 30 euros almost 2 years ago, and still having fun with it now...

Not to say it was perfect, but why the hatred suddenly ? At least, it exists and you can play with it. On the other hand, OFP2 is still 6 months away at minimum (probably, more as ususal) and will cost you about twice as much (60 euros or even more on consoles seeing how COD4, Crysis or GTA4 were priced)

It's unfair to compare a 2009/2010 game with a 2006 game.

According to the date you joined the forums you didn't play OFP as long as many others. And I can tell you: I couldn't finish one mission in ArmAs editor because I did all this for 5 years already and I want something new!

I tried 6 months to make ArmA different than OFP was and after that time i grew weary, sad & angry. If i wouldn't have played OFP atall, ArmA most likely would still be my top game. Just like OFP was.

For that reason and for what Suma said about ArmA2 i'm looking more for OFP2... But who knows. Overall i'm guite happy with Brother in Arms and Vietcong at the moment. Sadly they dont' have proper mission building tools... Really sucks!

[dslyecxi 23]

There's a lot of heated emotion involved in all of this, but what does it ultimately boil down to for all of us as gamers?

There are two games, for once, coming out in the sub-genre that we all are interested in. One may do one thing well, and the other may do something else well, but ultimately we have not one, but two games to potentially have fun in, and from the sounds of things, they will not mutually exclude each other.

It really is a win no matter how you slice it. The sad part is that there is going to be a lot of anger, a lot of wasted hate and bitterness and vitriol, between communities and gamers that share so much in common. You can see it developing in this thread already, and it's just an aspect of what will undoubtedly grow to be an unnecessary and ultimately hurtful community experience.

What's the problem with just sitting back, seeing what develops, and having a good time as a gamer? It does not require the other game to fail utterly for your preferred title to succeed - and, believe it or not, the two can happily coexist. The communities can coexist.

Idealistic, perhaps... impossible? Well, that's up to the members of the given communities.

On a closing note, when it comes down to it, this discussion would not be happening if not for a little Czech studio that did something amazing. Regardless of what you think of ArmA, or CM, or OFP2, or ArmA2, or anything else, you cannot deny that simple fact.

[BLSmith2112 0]

Well said. Bravo

[SHWiiNG 0]

I agree Excellent words Bravo.

Ah if only the dispute between Codies and BIS was resolved, One huge, happy community.

But please dont let the development of two titles split this community apart.

Each will have their own strengths and weaknesses.

And in both cases, we have had generally insignificant Evidence of 'how good the title is'

In both cases, we have had concept art, Screenshots, and to an extent ingame videos.

So one can build ones own opinions about each product based apon what one has seen.

But dont judge until we have both games in either hand.

[whisper 0]

On a closing note, when it comes down to it, this discussion would not be happening if not for a little Czech studio that did something amazing. Regardless of what you think of ArmA, or CM, or OFP2, or ArmA2, or anything else, you cannot deny that simple fact.

Exactly.

And exactly why CM getting labelled as "pioneer" with OFP2 makes me cringe a bit.

Little OOT sidenote :

In my point of view, it all comes down to people trying to bring new ideas into the market (even if one can be doubtfull about innovations found in ArmA, just talking about OFP there) versus people trying to make existing ideas into the most polished and well made way possible.

WoW is typical. There's not much new in terms of MMO mechanisms and such. But, damn, is it well made? Sure.

CoD4, same. Absolutely nothing new, zero, nada, but the game is that polished, smooth and playable that it has been in instant hit.

You can prefer the latter, but I personally try to go for the first type of guys. They are the one (at least some of them ) that will make the game of the future, the idea that will renew a genre, etc...

Though of course, both types are important, otherwise quality goes down the toilet

[Blanco 0]

Cool!

Glad to see there will be multi-staged building destruction.

It's not real dynamic destruction tho but I think it's a bit too early to see this in a videogame. I mean... when the enviroment changes all the time the AI should recognise it and use it.

With multi-stages destruction, they can "control" the new situation. But new coverspots should be accessible by the player and AI and used against the enemy.

[Thunderbird 0]

According to what has been stated thus far, both games do more or less share the same spirit with realism as primary focus.

Therefore, The only way they can live with each others without splitting the current well-established ArmA community is that they will be both providing an entertaining gameplay with a large set of features/characteristics... and with everything requested so far.

Additionally, it would help both companies if both games won't be released at the same time. (In order to avoid to see a game taking over the other.)

All in all, as previously mentioned, this competition will be beneficial for us as costumers/fans.

I just hope BIS won't give up and will instead, increase their efforts in order to really focus on the details that usually make the difference.

Regards,

TB

[DVD 0]

On a closing note, when it comes down to it, this discussion would not be happening if not for a little Czech studio that did something amazing.

True.

But the question for me is, why they changed OFP so much that ArmA became a complete differend game?!

OFP 1.96 is perfect.

All what OFP 1.96 had needed, were more or less improvements in grafic, netcode & physics.

And some gimmicks that OFP Mods already done with their work, like lean and roll animations, animated tank guns, tank suspension simulations, burning simulations ect.

Let me call it "love for details, of already working features".

But no, instead of having an advanced OFP, they changed all core elements and called it ArmA.

The game feels complete differend, and not enough BI seems rather invest more time and manpower in counterproductive stuff, than on stuff that the most player want.

For example, working luxury features like Track IR have a higher priority over a correct simulation of rifles recoil.

The new 3D sound simulation works neither better, nor is it more realistic as the plain solution of OFP.

Not to mention the lousy stock weapon and vehicle sounds.

For me, people are "forced" to use sound mods in ArmA, while sound mods were a optional alternative of personal taste in OFP.

The stock sounds were ok, not super, but ok.

However, i know i buy ArmA2, i don't worry about 45€.

But after ArmA, i don't believe Bohemia Interactive knows what the strengths of OFP were.

May they never played their own game in the past, i don't know, but something went wrong.

[funnyguy1 0]

The communities can coexist.

On a closing note, when it comes down to it, this discussion would not be happening if not for a little Czech studio that did something amazing. Regardless of what you think of ArmA, or CM, or OFP2, or ArmA2, or anything else, you cannot deny that simple fact.

Amen. This should be posted in the ofp2 forums aswell...

[BLSmith2112 0]

On a closing note, when it comes down to it, this discussion would not be happening if not for a little Czech studio that did something amazing.

True.

But the question for me is, why they changed OFP so much that ArmA became a complete differend game?!

OFP 1.96 is perfect.

All what OFP 1.96 had needed, were more or less improvements in grafic, netcode & physics.

And some gimmicks that OFP Mods already done with their work, like lean and roll animations, animated tank guns, tank suspension simulations, burning simulations ect.

Let me call it "love for details, of already working features".

But no, instead of having an advanced OFP, they changed all core elements and called it ArmA.

The game feels complete differend, and not enough BI seems rather invest more time and manpower in counterproductive stuff, than on stuff that the most player want.

For example, working luxury features like Track IR have a higher priority over a correct simulation of rifles recoil.

The new 3D sound simulation works neither better, nor is it more realistic as the plain solution of OFP.

Not to mention the lousy stock weapon and vehicle sounds.

For me, people are "forced" to use sound mods in ArmA, while sound mods were a optional alternative of personal taste in OFP.

The stock sounds were ok, not super, but ok.

However, i know i buy ArmA2, i don't worry about 45€.

But after ArmA, i don't believe Bohemia Interactive knows what the strengths of OFP were.

May they never played their own game in the past, i don't know, but something went wrong.

I think they had to rebuild the game from the ground up didn't they? In terms of ownership rights to the OFP brand & Codemasters? Since they had to rebuild it, it had to be different and they did what they thought best.

[Deadfast 43]

On a closing note, when it comes down to it, this discussion would not be happening if not for a little Czech studio that did something amazing.

True.

But the question for me is, why they changed OFP so much that ArmA became a complete differend game?!

OFP 1.96 is perfect.

All what OFP 1.96 had needed, were more or less improvements in grafic, netcode & physics.

And some gimmicks that OFP Mods already done with their work, like lean and roll animations, animated tank guns, tank suspension simulations, burning simulations ect.

Let me call it "love for details, of already working features".

But no, instead of having an advanced OFP, they changed all core elements and called it ArmA.

The game feels complete differend, and not enough BI seems rather invest more time and manpower in counterproductive stuff, than on stuff that the most player want.

For example, working luxury features like Track IR have a higher priority over a correct simulation of rifles recoil.

The new 3D sound simulation works neither better, nor is it more realistic as the plain solution of OFP.

Not to mention the lousy stock weapon and vehicle sounds.

For me, people are "forced" to use sound mods in ArmA, while sound mods were a optional alternative of personal taste in OFP.

The stock sounds were ok, not super, but ok.

However, i know i buy ArmA2, i don't worry about 45€.

But after ArmA, i don't believe Bohemia Interactive knows what the strengths of OFP were.

May they never played their own game in the past, i don't know, but something went wrong.

I think they had to rebuild the game from the ground up didn't they? In terms of ownership rights to the OFP brand & Codemasters? Since they had to rebuild it, it had to be different and they did what they thought best.

No.

BIS owns the right for 99% of the game (most noticeably the game engine).

Codemasters own the brand name and maybe some other minor stuff (voices).

I think they tried to implement as many changes a possible to avoid the "OMFG, I boughtz OFP twice!" voices, which I still hear quite often.

[BLSmith2112 0]

Interesting. Then I 100% agree with the previous comments. OFP 1.96 was perfect and those suggested areas of improvement are exactly what the doctor ordered. (Although I can live without graphical enhancements as I'm all about the features and not the eye candy).

Some of the rewritten code in Arma I think was not needed. If it an't broke don't fix it. Something about OFP seemed quicker, smoother, sharper, more responsive and gratifying... I can't pin point it.