Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
imported_bör

Operation Flashpoint 2 officially announced

Recommended Posts

Finally an actual ingame screenshot to compare to ArmA2...i'd say Codemasters must be sh*tting bricks about now....

ArmA2

VS

OFP2

Not a 100% fair comparison, the OFP2 screen is taken on a high altitude which makes the background look worse. The OFP2 island still seems awfully empty though. (OFP1 object density? confused_o.gif )

EDIT: Those pics do show the advantage of Linda though, the ArmA2 trees really do look better.

Yeah those two images don't really stack up anywhere in similarity except that they both feature helicopters...though erm I gotta ask, are you sure the OFP2 picture is an ingame image and not concept art? That is afterall some funkay lighting O.o;

REAL IS BROWN wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about the brown as much as the lighting, the blackhawk went from green to white, the shaders are amiss, the lighting locations if way off and it generally just looks..well....fake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]though erm I gotta ask, are you sure the OFP2 picture is an ingame image and not concept art?

why would they go from impressive 3D renders, to what can only be described as overbloomed OFP (look at the blackhawk, look at the island, it just reminds me of OFP with bloom) as concept art? Either its a very strange marketing ploy to fool BIS, or its the state of their game thus far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention the rotor isn't moving...

But there's something weird about that pic. The ground pictures were really looking better than that... Or so it seemed on the plasma in Leipzig. Was it pre-rendered too ?

Their trees look kinda bad, the shading too, the effects overdone, the model low rez and the island dreadfully empty and with very simple textures...

If this is the same engine as Grid or dirt, they surely can do better than that, especially with "130 people working on it for two years" as they boast.

If they have hi-rez assets for rendering trailers (the head of the characters seemed to come straight from Gears of War or Crysis), why show this blocky seahawk now ?

I don't get it...

@Messiah : " it just reminds me of OFP with bloom".. and Brown... I guess when they wanted to capture the OFP1 feeling, it was more litteral than what I thought...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why show this blocky seahawk now ?

I don't get it...

I don't understand either... and I'd wish they'd make their mind up with the blackhawks. At least its not MARINES anymore...

Quote[/b] ]@Messiah : " it just reminds me of OFP with bloom".. and Brown...  I guess when they wanted to capture the OFP1 feeling, it was more litteral than what I thought...

lol - if we're fair, if you check the BIS press release that shows the evolution of their engine, whilst you can see it gets better each time, the addition of brown and bloom is also noticable (but hey, it does add to that gritty cold war feel, so no complaints here)

I agree somethings 'up' though... it just seems... odd for them to show such bad ingame screenshots after all those pretty 3D renders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to mention the rotor isn't moving...

But there's something weird about that pic. The ground pictures were really looking better than that... Or so it seemed on the plasma in Leipzig. Was it pre-rendered too ?

Their trees look kinda bad, the shading too, the effects overdone, the model low rez and the island dreadfully empty and with very simple textures...

If this is the same engine as Grid or dirt, they surely can do better than that, especially with "130 people working on it for two years" as they boast.

If they have hi-rez assets for rendering trailers (the head of the characters seemed to come straight from Gears of War or Crysis), why show this blocky seahawk now ?

I don't get it...

maybe a sort of engine features to cut CPU/GPU usage? rotors might be fully animed?

confused_o.gif

@Messiah : " it just reminds me of OFP with bloom".. and Brown...  I guess when they wanted to capture the OFP1 feeling, it was more litteral than what I thought...

in ofp its notthing like this, the colour is kind of wash out only a bit, and its not brown in tone, its more like gray, and OFP2 is clearly overbloomed

dont get it +3, maybe they really trying to fool BI? wow_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]maybe a sort of engine features to cut CPU/GPU usage?

That's it ! you found it : It's the first eco-friendly game : it looks crap (brown ?), but it doesn't make your PC heat up.

It's not low-rez, it's low-power consumption ! Meanwhile, Arma 2 will ask for a new powerplant to be built in Czech Republic, leading to more global warming and fuel depletion, leading to starvation and real wars for water, food and gaz.

Make peace, not War(games) !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well OFP didn't really have the best graphics did it and I was still playing that for 5 years onwards which is more I can say for Crysis or Call of Duty 4. And teh graphics in OFP 2 are a lot better then OFP 1 so providing the gameplay has improved I'll be happy.

Plus I also quite like the nitty gritty look of OFP 2 it's something I missed in ArmA where everything looked 'clean'. In OFP the bad graphics kind of added to the feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Games : ArmA II and OPF2 Are not Finished yet, So making Comparisons from a Few In-game Pics is utterly Stupid.

Once the games come out, Thats when you can start to see which is best. And Somthing tells me it'll be OPF2, Just because Those In game videos look stunning..but the ArmA II pics look amazing as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Both Games : ArmA II and OPF2 Are not Finished yet, So making Comparisons from a Few In-game Pics is utterly Stupid.

Not really. Especially not with all the people wanking themselves into a frenzy over how good OFP2 will look, based purely on renders - the same people, who when presented with what OFP2 actually looks like (and don't believe me, believe Brant Nicholas, Senior Producer for OFP2:

Quote[/b] ]these are in-game taken from the same build as was demonstrated live during our presentations today at Leipzig!
) suddenly claim not to care what the graphics are like. Alot of people are going to be sore that they believed the hype, I can understand the defensiveness.

I'm well aware that there are 6 months left on each products development cycle, we may be suprised yet. But we've screenshots of both products ingame in presumably thier latest build (we know OFP2 is, and if that isnt the lastest build of ArmA2, then OFP is dead and burried for sure), thats something worth discussing, and an entirely fair comparison to draw. Both products have 6 months to go and BIS are miles ahead, from whta I can see. I'm also aware that there are better pictures to compare to, and that OFP2 will look alot better from the ground, but it's still not exactly unfair, given that ArmA still looks miles ahead in those pictures anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Both Games : ArmA II and OPF2 Are not Finished yet, So making Comparisons from a Few In-game Pics is utterly Stupid.

Once the games come out, Thats when you can start to see which is best. And Somthing tells me it'll be OPF2, Just because Those In game videos look stunning..but the ArmA II pics look amazing as well.

Pavehawk Please refrain from calling people "utterly stupid".

While you may see no value in comparing the development process and current status others do.

There is a great deal of value in discussing how these two games are stacking up as do we all not read game magazines from time to time and more often than not see work in progress??

If you find this topic or discussion to your dislike go and find another topic which you do rather than applying a blanket statement to all of the game enthusiasts here.

Thankyou.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What i really find shameless, is that the OFP2 Developers always referring to OFP1 as THEIR Game... or THEIR Original Game...

Well they don't say it directly like "We made OFP1", but they always referring to it, like that it sounds like that, in their Videos.

So for the most people new into that genre, it always sounds like Codemasters made OFP1 aswell which is wrong as we all know...

They claim all the glory/kudos for themselfs, while in Fact it was BIS who did the great job with OFP1.

Regards, Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]They claim all the glory/kudos for themselfs, while in Fact it was BIS who did the great job with OFP1.

That´s not untrue. For sure it´s their game, they own the rights and the name while BIS is the developer. That´s nothing unconventional. They also do give credits to BIS for the developement and programming of OFP 1 numerous times. In interviews, press releases, etc they are not hiding the fact that BIS has developed OFP 1. I guess you´re putting more into it than there is actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]They claim all the glory/kudos for themselfs, while in Fact it was BIS who did the great job with OFP1.

That´s not untrue. For sure it´s their game, they own the rights and the name while BIS is the developer. That´s nothing unconventional. They also do give credits to BIS for the developement and programming of OFP 1 numerous times. In interviews, press releases, etc they are not hiding the fact that BIS has developed OFP 1. I guess you´re putting more into it than there is actually.

Possible, but thats how i have "understood" it....

Still for me it was BIS who made it... Codemasters is/was only the publisher.... a easy job comparable with programming....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not once have I ever heard CM say they made OPF, But Yes they do own Operation Flashpoint and have the right to use it.

In their interviews they mention the Original a lot, but never do they say they made it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They speak about it like they made it yea, but they never directly say they made it of course.

The Codemasters OPF 1 site even has "made by BI" written in it.

Its a dumb thing to discuss anyway tounge2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although it seems, by comparing those two pictures, that Arma2 has the upper hand at the moment, it doesn't really bother me. I'll buy both games anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point expressed by the prior few posts is fueled largely by the self-congratulatory emphasis on the 'intellectual property'. Replay all the recent interview videos and official CM spokespeople and others who should know better keep applauding 'their' past success with 'their' IP.

Fact : The substance of the original game was developed under the auspices of an entirely unrelated string and absence of publishers.

Fact : The CWR content is derived in significant part from original game content, supplemented by Xbox version variances where appropriate for technical reasons. This is all subsequent to the split from CM.

Fact : The VBS1 EULA for copies of VBS1 (including repackaged original game content) manufactured and distributed by Coalescent during their period of licensure makes no reference to IP interests of any party other than BIS and Coalescent. This was well in advance of any split from CM.

CM has a name, and that's it as far as they have 'IP' for the original game vision. They're not going out of their way to clarify that distinction in the way that BIS is obliged to though.

Ancient interviews of interest to data trolls (all locatable via basic google searches, still posted publicly):

http://www.praguepost.com/articles/2005/08/03/virtual-victory.php

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=102189

http://www.cbw.cz/phprs/2006061208.html

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2007/10/05/making-of-flashpoint/

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20011219/spanel_03.htm

The gamasutra article is a comprehensive post-mortum, and has interesting nuggets such as this:

Quote[/b] ]

"One of the most unsatisfactory areas was the way the QA procedures were managed and designed to work by the publisher. We never succeeded in achieving a common bug database, and the publisher enjoyed an illusory feeling that its QA database really covered the project. The truth was that such a database (even without any direct access for the development team) hardly said anything about the project's status because it covered just small fraction of all the problems we had tried to fix. Even when the publisher dedicated a pretty big testing team to the game, it sometimes seemed something of a waste of time for everyone involved in it.

In the end, we had to largely ignore the publisher's QA reports, because they contained too much useless information and very few real bugs. We tried to focus on very limited external testing managed directly in the very late stages of development to ameliorate this problem — but this approach could hardly replace real, full-time testing of the game.

...

One very concerning thing was that our final CD was still manipulated by the publisher. The publisher applied SafeDisc protection to the final code, which caused some unexpected compatibility problems that we weren't able to control. The mixing of various SafeDisc versions and a serious compatibility problem with Windows 2000 that was present in the first European batch of CDs could have been avoided."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why are you guys comparing the best pics our there of ARMAII with mediocre pics of OFP2? Why not compare the best with the best?

2784123420_9bea488981.jpg

2783271011_14b58d3b24.jpg

2784107190_569b1b8b36.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: Nope, you're right, ingame pics.

Well, those werent available at the time i posted the first one, so....how could it have been posted to be compared? Be sensible here! All the same, the engine doesn't look too good from the air, indicating that it can't handle any sort of view distance and detail at the same time. Looks nice from the ground though. I'd like to see a picture with any sort of view distance on it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From everything that has been shown so far, it looks like CM is more focused on 1st person view than anything else. I'd like to see some of the vehicles interior if it has the same amount of detail the exterior has and so on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to see a picture with any sort of view distance on it though.

operation-flashpoint-2-dragon-rising--20080821033716030_640w.jpg

operation-flashpoint-2-dragon-rising--20080821033726592_640w.jpg

bkg1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I meant a picture with any sort of view distance that didn't look terrible/like original OFP with fancy lighting. smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are basically the same as the ones with Seahawk. I would like to see for example a soldier standing on a mountain looking down a large valley to see how the engine handles it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly! None of the ground pictures show anything more than about 400m away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×