Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
imported_bör

Operation Flashpoint 2 officially announced

Recommended Posts

Hard to judge Codemasters game yet.Some feedback

Good: Looks nice so far,some impressive claims of AI and realistic gameplay,money and team

Bad: Fog of war looks close, map size is smaller than Bis,List of weapons,units and vehicles don't impress me yet

I don't like the futuristic statement (how can it be realistic and futuristic)

I like games of this type, I am of course a great fan of Bis and some more to add to the Bis pro's and con's:

Pro's: large community support,years of AI programming,maps are larger already,proven history,proven support

Con's: too much community interaction (lol), some glitches past release,limited money (understandable)

I think Bis could top Codies on this next release and I am brainstorming again some ideas:

Don't go futuristic, maybe replicate Iraq war would draw attention

Include Vietnam(lol) or even promise Vietnam addon later (for a charge or free)

Ideas of a "war simulator" to make all eras of war would be sweet (or even advertise in the plans)

I know thats alotta work I see Bis hiring modellers now

Brings me to another small topic, I see Bis hiring modellers now but look what the community has done for free (CWR etc..) have heard of games with community supporting, assemble something for next game (Vietnam community made?)

WWII Pacific ? (I can already say this has about 2% interest)

I'd like to help, just need some more training

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I grabbed GRID demo to see what potential there was in the engine, and unfortunately it's quite impossible to imagine the result of such an engine applied on OFP2 (or at least, I sincerely hope there is more than what is seen in GRID demo. And don't get me wrong, I begin to like GRID wink_o.gif )

As far as I see it :

BI :

Cons

* Small team that struggle to finish their product in terms of quality

* no financial backup, calling for rushing the releases

Pros

* Experienced on the market

* tested and proven product (you know what to hope and what to not hope tounge2.gif )

* they never let their product fall alone, though there is much patch work to do, it is done.

Codies :

Cons

* AFAIK zero experience on this type of games

* If engine is similar to GRID, I'm (it's personal) somewhat pessimistic

Pros

* Money

* Staff (way more staffed than BI)

* the devs and the producers are the same. Meaning the release should be more inline with the development state (wishfull thinking? tounge2.gif )

For anything else, honestly, we don't know anything apart from words.

And I'm very suspicious with words, be they coming from BI's mouths or Codie's ones.

You just can't use GRID to look how the engine does. It's a different engine to the EGO used in OFP2.

Quote[/b] ]Good: Looks nice so far,some impressive claims of AI and realistic gameplay,money and team

Bad: Fog of war looks close, map size is smaller than Bis,List of weapons,units and vehicles don't impress me yet

I don't like the futuristic statement (how can it be realistic and futuristic)

I like games of this type, I am of course a great fan of Bis and some more to add to the Bis pro's and con's:

Pro's: large community support,years of AI programming,maps are larger already,proven history,proven support

Con's: too much community interaction (lol), some glitches past release,limited money (understandable)

I think Bis could top Codies on this next release and I am brainstorming again some ideas:

Don't go futuristic, maybe replicate Iraq war would draw attention

Include Vietnam(lol) or even promise Vietnam addon later (for a charge or free)

Ideas of a "war simulator" to make all eras of war would be sweet (or even advertise in the plans)

I know thats alotta work I see Bis hiring modellers now

Brings me to another small topic, I see Bis hiring modellers now but look what the community has done for free (CWR etc..) have heard of games with community supporting, assemble something for next game (Vietnam community made?)

WWII Pacific ? (I can already say this has about 2% interest)

I'd like to help, just need some more training

The map is bigger than sahrani?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's for fun take codies at face value and pick apart the pics. They claim that the game will live up to it, fair enough, lets see what they have to offer. For reference, I'm going to work through this set of pics: http://ps3life.nl/media....gegeven

#1 Recon Team supporting helo airstrike on convoy

The first item of concern is multicam. Tbh, Multicam's not going to ever be taken serious on the inertial juggernaut organization scale, simply for the fact it's too trendy, not-invented-here, and they just changed utility design and patterns. The presence of multicam in their promotional material sends a (imho) clear msg that it's going to be about awesome super-soldiers. CoD4 did not make that mistake. If the door is open for trendy cool stuff regardless of actual relevance, then that is a topic for concern.

The terrain and environment does not show anything revolutionary. You have high-detail ground textures with mixed clutter and placed vegetation, fading to significant vegetation in the mid-range to view clipping, with a mega-texture type terrain in the distance. Already all exists in ArmA, with ArmA2 benefiting from post ArmA optimizations in the content development process.

The contrast of the helo's is out of place with the comparative range, consider it an artifact of HDR-type saturation.

----------------------------------

#2 Engagement in farm lane

One of the points that Codies promotes about the rendering engine is its lighting effects. While pretty, it remains to be seen publicly if it can scale in difficult to cache non-linear directions. OFP and ArmA both use (afaik) vertex lighting, which is old and 'ugly', but scales easily out to ridiculous ranges.

The animation posing across all pics (with the exception of the left 2 on #2) also isn't showing anything new, you've got generic animations appropriate to the stance and weapon. I expect, as indicated by the javelin, that there would be 'tighter' grip animations, however as all weapons are different, either they would be very limited in the practical amount of unique anims, or the system would be hobbled. Full IK and sync'd over the network is a rather dubious proposition.

As for the two entities on the left, both are demonstrating an ability to interact with the environment. In both cases, they're claiming that entities can be aware of and IK to environment objects. Any less than that would be extremely limited pre-scripted 'positions' as in DoD etc which are not at all interactive environment.

The subject of destructible objects in a wide-space, particularly design and development concerns, has been discussed elsewhere. The simple fact stands that either you model all the stones in that wall, or you do not. If you do not, people will complain that it doesn't work 'right'. No indication is given as to the count of stones in all similar walls across the entire map.

AI engagement should also be a cause for concern. Unless it just happens to have been snapped at an 'awkward moment', 3 of the 5 are oblivious to any form of cover, and the opposing units blazing away across open ground suggests an absence of functional suppressing fire.

--------------------------------

#3 Armor support of Infantry advance

This tank with prominent mud splotches has been seen elsewhere, similarly dirty. The consistent nature of the mud suggests it being a static texture, as opposed to a runtime transformation. While I think it would be an interesting exercise to play with texture swapping or decal layers based on environment, surfaces traversed, etc, again the limiting factor would be practicality. Issues outstanding there surround practicality of development and distribution.

Again, additional animations are shown that are not in ArmA. This is not due to a lack of quality in the ArmA animations, it is quantity.

Particle effects are also made to look nice, though unfortunately there has been a recent trend to obfuscate traditional sprites with heavy shader effects. Similar effects can be done in ArmA now, it just takes time and effort to build them.

-------------------------------------

#4 AT Mountain Ambush

As noted, the insertion of additional animations is nice, but not new. The most significant factors here are the environment and terrain.

First, the grading of the road implies a terrain significant resolution well under 10m, potentially approaching 1m. While this is in theory possible with ArmA, trying to have both large areas and high-detail terrain results in a requirement to process stupidly huge amounts of terrain data. These are problems that are academic to the GIS field.

Along with that, supposing that the terrain is destructible, what's the connection latency 'cost' when a new player connects JIP and the runtime map differs substantially from the cached map? Any way you cut it, there's a non-trivial amount of trouble there.

In regards to the environment, the 'shops suggest an engine capable of fogging and blurring the DepthOfField sufficiently that the user can not focus on the transition where clutter is culled. Remove much of that airbrushing and you'll find a pic looking a lot like ArmA with a lot of the shading and post-processing turned off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you aren't as critical about ArmA 2 as you are of OFP2 target shots. The resulting post would be so long that the forums might crash rofl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad: Fog of war looks close, map size is smaller than Bis

How big will the map be for ARMA 2 ?

OFP2 operates with 220 sqkm landmass estimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope you aren't as critical about ArmA 2 as you are of OFP2 target shots. The resulting post would be so long that the forums might crash rofl.gif

Well, the problem is people being overly critical or defensive about 1 game or the other, when in fact, we don't have enough to make any valid comparison at the moment.

Even your post is biased toward OFP2 wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you judge rendered pictures and not judge the ingame pictures of ArmA2?This is not logical.Wait to criticise OFP2 when they release some ingame screenshots or video.Codies promised physics,gore dismemberement and realistic gameplay.I ll hate them if they not put these features in the final game.Same with ArmA2 they promise physics,building destruction but niw they say that these features are not going to be included in the final producy.So i am not going to buy ArmA2.I play ArmA whats the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that this whole discussion is bogus. We neither know for OFP2 or ArmA2 what the end product will look like. Last time I checked graphics tell you nothing about how fun the game is to play. Just compare ArmA vs OFP.

On the other hand I think it is unfair to not give Codemasters a chance. BIS already failed to deliver a better game(better engine only) and there is no indication they again are not only going to focus on trivial details and graphics with ArmA2. Of course Codemasters will likely do the same , but they have a bigger chance of producing something innovative from the scratch than BIS who to my best knowledge seem to lack the motivation to bring their game forward gameplay-wise in any shape or form.

I guess its best just to sit back and see. I am not really biased towards any game, because I believe while the market for "Numpty Action-Filled Milsim-wannabe" games is very high , the market for "Tactical Warsims" is very low indeed , so we are hardly ever going to get a developer who is serious about producing anything that goes beyond what OFP was in 2001.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess its best just to sit back and see. I am not really biased towards any game, because I believe while the market for "Numpty Action-Filled Milsim-wannabe" games is very high , the market for "Tactical Warsims" is very low indeed , so we are hardly ever going to get a developer who is serious about producing anything that goes beyond what OFP was in 2001.

QFT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can you judge rendered pictures and not judge the ingame pictures of ArmA2?This is not logical.Wait to criticise OFP2 when they release some ingame screenshots or video.Codies promised physics,gore dismemberement and realistic gameplay.I ll hate them if they not put these features in the final game.Same with ArmA2 they promise physics,building destruction but niw they say that these features are not going to be included in the final producy.So i am not going to buy ArmA2.I play ArmA whats the difference?

bi only said to have building destruction to a limited level, and they also said that there is a chance not having it at all, as of physics? i cant find any thing talking about physics on recent input, i only remember that they have been using the same 3rd party (may i add half market here) physics engine since OFP1 and i dont think they will change to a new (and much better, yet demanding) one due to a lots of reason(you know, money, reprograming, setting changes, might not be able to run old ARMA addons, etc, you name it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad: Fog of war looks close, map size is smaller than Bis

How big will the map be for ARMA 2 ?

OFP2 operates with 220 sqkm landmass estimate.

games.tiscali.cz said Chernarus, the island in ArmA2 was 240 to 300 sqkm (depends on which translation your read).

shinRaiden the pictures are renders; I doubt the range of animations, especially those that show interaction with the environment, will be that great. We could achieve similar things if we bothered to take the time with switchmove in OFP or ArmA's editor for the purpose of still, artistic screenshots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad: Fog of war looks close, map size is smaller than Bis

How big will the map be for ARMA 2 ?

OFP2 operates with 220 sqkm landmass estimate.

Arma's map is 400 sqkm, not sure for Arma2

OFP had no boundry either, you could keep flying/boating forever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lean back and enjoy the PR. Things are never as bad as they seem.

Its still a dream to make an profitable all-in-one Sea+Air+Land combat game close to realism.  wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad: Fog of war looks close, map size is smaller than Bis

How big will the map be for ARMA 2 ?

OFP2 operates with 220 sqkm landmass estimate.

Arma's map is 400 sqkm, not sure for Arma2

OFP had no boundry either, you could keep flying/boating forever

ArmA has the sea counted in the map size, while OFP2 has landmass only 220sqkm. And from what we've calculated, OFP2 island is big compared to ArmA island.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ArmA has the sea counted in the map size, while OFP2 has landmass only 220sqkm. And from what we've calculated, OFP2 island is big compared to ArmA island.

depend on what you want to have in the map, we can push the total landmass to 400 sqkm sauad shape and fill it with towns, villages, airports, base etc.

this is what the arma engine can do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, you create maps/islands around 1600sqkm in ArmA. I know Rockape's made one that's about 1300sqkm of land mass with a total map area of 1677.7sqkm including seabed (about 41km*41km).

I think the advertised 240-300 sqkm for Chernarus is land mass. If it were total area, the map would be 15.5km*15.5 km or 17.3km*17.3km, which seems a bit odd since terrain grids are 200m*200m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys the size of the island doesnt matter.Sahrani lags cause its too big.So its useless to havea very big island which is unplayable.So plz concetrate to quality(gameplay,realism,physics) and not the quantity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys the size of the island doesnt matter.Sahrani lags cause its too big.So its useless to havea very big island which is unplayable.So plz concetrate to quality(gameplay,realism,physics) and not the quantity.

This Man...

He is a truth speaker...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ArmA has the sea counted in the map size, while OFP2 has landmass only 220sqkm. And from what we've calculated, OFP2 island is big compared to ArmA island.

depend on what you want to have in the map, we can push the total landmass to 400 sqkm sauad shape and fill it with towns, villages, airports, base etc.

this is what the arma engine can do

yes what it can do, we're talking about the islands included now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Guys the size of the island doesnt matter.Sahrani lags cause its too big.So its useless to havea very big island which is unplayable.So plz concetrate to quality(gameplay,realism,physics) and not the quantity.

... but then again, some people want bigger islands for jets, or simply freedom etc... some other cringe for more tanks (with interiors), vehicles, weapons, units, camos... some ask for more realistic flight models with support for hotas, while others cry that it's not flyable anymore with a mouse or gamepad... For some, it's all about PVP or gameplay, while other only want to play coop or SP and have eye candy, and at last it has to run as well in MP on a PC as on a 360...

Let's face it : what some people take for granted and obvious may be someone else nightmare "feature". (I don't give a damn if the Marines camo or M4 burst rate of fire isn't accurate, but god forbid if the throttle is inversed on the choppers !wink_o.gif Whatever they do, BIS can't please everyone, it's just not realistic. Perfection is not of this world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically its not the size of the island that cause lag, its the things you put on it that cause lag

i have no problem running Sahrani till i get to a point that i have to zoom into trees and bushs

its the shading that cause most of the lag(hope BI improve it in ARMA2)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys the size of the island doesnt matter.Sahrani lags cause its too big.So its useless to havea very big island which is unplayable.So plz concetrate to quality(gameplay,realism,physics) and not the quantity.

This Man...

He is a truth speaker...

No he isn't really, it's all about scene complexity as 4 IN 1 noted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sahrani doesn't lag because of its size.

Size doesn't matter at all - ArmA uses streaming technology - only what's within your view distance is loaded. Lags can be caused by fragmentated harddrive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OFP1 had a user-made map of 2500+km^2. Soldner had a map of like 9000 times that (no kidding) and look what good did it do. Just a huge waste of space really.

Who's to say you couldn't make this theoretical map of 1600km^2 in OFP2. Besides, user content doesn't really count when you are comparing it to a vanilla game.

Also, it won't matter if the island is a zillion billion square kilometers when you can only max 100 players without AI, tank combat is a joke and with the AI, it will not even use any squad-level tactics that make sense, not to mention platoon or company. Yeah it's good for flying with jets but modern air combat is definitely not one of ArmA's strong points. And don't start with the hypothetical super mods that might be released some day to make that all good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting how folk can form opinions on a game that has had next to no hard facts other than best guess comments from magazine visitors and the Codemasters dev team.

It will be very interesting to see how it pans out, but there is little or nothig to go on right now. What amazed me more was the fact the magazine did a huge multipage spread on a game we dont even have screenshots of.

Once we see the facts in black and white and the screenshots to back them up we can discuss with knowledge. Past that I cannot see how any of us can compare or evaluate a damn thing.

Share this post


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

×