Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sevan

What made OPF better?

Recommended Posts

The weapons felt more consistent in OFP. Hitting someone was because of skill, not luck caused by heavy dispersion. Killing feels better in Flashpoint, I can't explain better but it's strangely clinical in ArmA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh now i understand difference yours and mine opinions

i play only singleplayer and thats why i found so many things dissapointing me in ARMA that were good for me in OFP

really when comparing ARMA to OFP in multiplayer, ARMA is super, because in MP you visit island, you ve'got beatufull environment,

but when i play only SP than mission making, cutscenes making, testing missions is really harder

so for MP ARMA is super game - large area, beauty of environment

but in SP i miss OFP atmosphere, OFP AI behaviour and mission making possibilities that were broken (this single soldier-suicidal- engaging)

when you make mission in OFP team holds positions near to commander, in ARMA every AI engages and is killed because alone goes against enemy positions

AI path finding is horrible in cities

collisions of vehicles moving in column, in early ARMA versions 20% of missions were failed because vehicles were dammaged from collisions between each other (flying BMP2 when moving in column with T72 in the forest roads)

for MP ARMA is super definitly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to agree here. Altough i don't think i could play OFP for too long, maybe more like nostalgic trip for hour or two. Missions and some missions in campaign rocks hard (altough i hate about 50-40% of missions in CWC campaign).

Most part my love to OFP comes from FDF naturaly. ECP, WGL and SLX and many others took part of my "virginity" too.

OFP as a whole had this dirty feeling like during fall or spring, while ArmA is more like summer. Graphical detail isn't as in ArmA, but like Sevan said it's affects too much in fps... Btw: this was in OFP too conserning forests. But in ArmA this conserns forests, bushes, towns etc. OFP had that choosable terrain grid system, which is very-very good thing. That thing affected to whole gameplay.

ArmA as whole has some sort of jerkyness. I've started to dislike it's animations by the time.

i've started to hate the way shooting a rifle is handled (i can't tell reason for it thou).

Flaws in AI are much more understandable in OFP than in ArmA for it's age. And in OFP AI worked better in two areas expacely: it knows how to take cover and act passively without much addtional scripting (just one line in init-field). In ArmA AI just starts to hassle, while receiving every second an order to hide and move (and trying to fullfill that!wink_o.gif. For me this is major thing. Next is that in OFP AI could alert it's moving path to waypoint much more than in ArmA. Atleast it seems to be the case that AI in ArmA is dumben down or limited with this (pathfinding problems?)

ArmA has better AI is many areas, like bounding overwatch and it's not deaf or blind anymore. But i don't know... Man, most likely in just angry to ArmA. I loved it for six months, then just out of nowhere it flashed to my mind: "I don't like this anymore."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well vilas, coop multiplayer isn't that much different from singleplayer, apart from:

[*] Not playing "The" Campaign

[*] Not playing "The" missions

[*] Not playing with AI units in player team, just players

The rest is about the same. I create missions too and test them aswell (Through MP ingame server), but I don't create specific missions where AI should act by the book and the centimeter, but rather dynamic and random missions powered by scripts smile_o.gif

So I guess it's indeed mostly why we have different experiences with ArmA, that, plus im not trying to take every milimeter of the game apart, but rather look away from some bugs because the general experience I get from ArmA supersedes that of OFP by miles smile_o.gif

Oh, and because im much into developping (scriptwise) and that's just totally wicked with ArmA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most got "addicted" to OFP with demo and first missions made by community. The campaigns with some main characters, patches and the impressive work from community made an improved OFP for all.

I like the terrain/setting of ArmA - it's different from old flat (simple vegetation) OFP islands. But i missed better and challenging campaign with some main charcters and story.

For most multiplayer the story behind is waste of time. They need in simple words: desert/urban maps, huge stock of arms and vehicles, some hollywood effects (explosions, sound, smoke etc) and easy to handle controls with console symbols.

Differences between SP and MP are obvious.

OFP - singleplayer and multiplayer

ArmA - more multiplayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say..

The color scheme, i dont know but ArmA is way too colorful and i prefered the raw look of OFP, though this seems 'fixed' in ArmA2.

But anything else is just an improvement over OFP, or at least after some tweaking it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, campaign and mission only. ArmA original ones ain't good, but since then, I've stumble on user made campaigns and missions quite nicely done, as well as QG.

As for anything else...well, I tried, but I can't come back to OFP.

I had ended by hating the easy mode that was OFP shooting with assault rifle easily sniping at distance, or even worse, giving you the ability to spam like mad at insane ranges without any concern about keeping your precision. At least some mods (all hail FDF and WGL) were feeling more correct.

AI was even easier than ArmA one.

And I get more a "I'm there" feeling when inside an ArmA scenery than a OFP one. I even chill a bit of cold when I'm high in the mountains in ArmA.

I won't even get into OFP MP. I've quit OFP because of MP.

I'm a huge, huge OFP fan, there from the early demo, trying to make missions for said demo, etc, etc...

But OFP is now uninstalled. For me, ArmA is OFP with added functionnalities. Why keeping the old version? The only missing things are campaign and missions I've already done hundreds times.

EDit : oh, yes, I found it! smile_o.gif :

If I have 1 thing I regret from OFP, it's animation fluidity. That's for me where ArmA fails, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quite like both, and I know more good addons will roll around for ArmA eventually, heck there are some wonderful ones in the pipe right now, even I'm making one (whether or not it'll be wonderful is anyone's guess, though). tounge2.gif

I don't see any real distraction from enjoyment in ArmA, and I play both SP and MP. When I play MP I play with a bunch o' good people, so that's fun, and when I play SP, I don't have to worry about desync, and can make my own missions to enjoy.

I do wish there was more of a proliferation of ArmA addons coming out, but in all truth I think it's just a "quality over quantity" natural-selection-esque kind of thing. It's sad that new addon makers feel daunted by all the new requirements ArmA needs, but it gives a chance for those guys who know what they're doing to improve their work even further.

PS. Someone make a Bradley. Please. help.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[offtopic]

Your addons are always Wonderful Cammy

[/offtopic]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...If I have 1 thing I regret from OFP, it's animation fluidity. That's for me where ArmA fails, nothing more.

Yeah whisper you are right!

ArmA is way better in MP than OFP.

But i think that the controls are more accurate in OFP than in ArmA.

I am still hoping that BIS will improve the infantry handling! notworthy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The title is "what made OPF better?" Some things were better but not most..

First of all OPF introduced us to a new type of open gaming that only lived in our imaginations, open, detailed environments, ground, land and sea vehicles, outstanding a.i, unmatched realism, a great level editor... it was a revolution back then. The introduction to all this was mind blowing, even if the MP didnt quite work, the game ran like a dog and there were many bugs.

Arma was an upgrade, a very big one imo.

I'll point 4 things OPF had well:

[*] Terrains, the OPF islands felt natural, the towns were small but nice, there was this harmony that i just cant find in Sahrani.

Sahrani is impressive but instead of feeling natural it feels clutered and unrealistic.

[*] The setting (OPF CWC 1985) was fictional but believable, original and imersive, Arma has the technology but misses a well thought/developed theme.

[*] Design? OPF has this better than Arma, the menus and interfaces, music, etc. Arma doesnt have such an impressive presentation. OPF missions and campaign were better.

[*] Balance and interface functionality regarding the vehicles (its hard to comand a tanks gunner, assign targets, etc in Arma). Many vehicles in Arma suffer from poor configuration.

In the end the truth is i dont play OPF anymore and its not just because of the graphics... its because Arma's improvements make OPF feel and play like... something very outdated and alot worse.

For me Arma runs better, the lod transitions are smoother and dont just switch like in OPF, OPF with high fps always felt jerky, Arma feels smooth all around even with high visibility and more than 256 objects per scene.

Engine improvements, i could post a huge list but i've done so way too many times already..

Arma's infantry gameplay no longer suffers from poor colision detection, colapsing animation, no leaning or rolling, slow walking, etc.

Side running/straffing in OPF was a slowmotion joke... moving with a rocket launcher was painfull. In Arma i feel more like controling a real character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Heatseeker.

Also none of the sides in ArmA have any personality. Who the hell are SLA? Shouldn't there be some spanish here or at least an accent? SLA are so vague that mission makers I think forget who the're suppossed to be and make them Russian,Scottish etc...

All sides seem a little too generic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get how you feel OFP island better, guys. I play with a high VD on ArmA (because I can, obviously wink_o.gif a visible improvement), and I get a serious "I'm there" feeling when navigating across cropped wheat fields between towns on the central plate of northern Sarhani, or when approaching the overlooking tower of Alcazar, on a level I had not when walking across Malden.

It's due to several factors, I guess, each not much, but when added together, they add much. Lightning, first, even though one can find it "overdone", it gives you exactly the correct feeling of the current time and weather. Ambiant life, little but pretty neat idea. Sound occlusion, made me "wow" the first time I heard it. Grass. I feel sorry for those whose system can't handle it, because I absolutely can't play on a non-grass field now. Too much "something is missing" feeling.

And the island is big enough for the transition to be rather smooth. There was no drastic scenery change in OFP (thought I remind you of Nogova desert wink_o.gif ), but the island were that little that you were confronted with a sea shore rather fast.

I'm not taking the fanboi role here (afterall, it's the "what is better in OFP" thread and I'm writing the exact opposite), but I really don't understand how one feel better immerged into OFP islands than into Sarhani.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One reason and one reason only as to why ofp was better.

The people you played with were better people and it all boils down to one thing.

OFP was never sold as a "More mainstream game" and didnt attract the amount of children playing with cheats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed the sense of wonder you got with OFP. It was the first game I'd ever played that gave you freedom of action in an FPS. The graphics were ok in 2001, and only got worse from there, but it really didn't matter. OFP was never about graphics - it was all about game play and moddability. I sorely miss Tonal, the Czech mod, the BW mod, and all the other great mods made for OFP. They're all totally missing from Arma.

The mistake with Arma, I think, was that BIS got everything backwards. They concentrated on graphics and not on game play. Yeah, in many respects Arma was just a prettier version of OFP and otherwise identical, but by the time Arma came out, we'd all been playing OFP for nearly six years. The graphics had evolved, but not the game play. I think we were all looking, and hoping, for something new, some kind of improvement. Even some of the most glaring omissions and errors in OFP that we'd been able to dismiss were reproduced in Arma. We still have a crappy vehicle simulation in Arma. We still have a weak infantry damage simulation, same awful inventory system, and still eerily quiet battlefields in Arma. So many other things. None of it was improved upon. The graphics were a nice update, but we can only play what is basically the same game we bought in 2001 for so long before it gets stale. Arma was stale before it was even released.

I only hard Arma installed for about a month. I gave it a chance. I went back to OFP.

I'm hoping with Arma2, BIS is far more concerned with game play than they are with graphics. From what I've seen of Arma2, there is something to look forward to. I hope they fix the vehicle simulation (which is really barely better than BF2 right now). I hope they make the game play and missions/campaign more compelling.

I'll admit, however, that as of right now OFP2 is looking far better to me than Arma2. Hell, even Far Cry 2 has more appeal to me right now. I really miss being a BIS fanboy, and I miss a lot of the community we used to have. I hope Arma2 blows me away, but I won't be holding my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OFP was never sold as a "More mainstream game" and didnt attract the amount of children playing with cheats.

Not really true, 'mainstreamers' and non 'mainstreamers' got OPF since it was the only shooter game where you could use vehicles (there was no BF games at the time).

The reason you didnt see so many of them out there was because MP didnt work out of the box, there was no JIP, and when MP started to work well enough most servers were using all kinds of addons, mods, etc.

The reason you see more idiots playing Arma is because Arma is more MP friendly than OPF was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]What made OFP better?

The fact that it works properly. I'm glad people are enjoying playing ARMA, I don't wish to detract from their fun, but for me, ARMA just screams sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. It'd make an impressive beta in it's current form. banghead.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OFP was never sold as a "More mainstream game" and didnt attract the amount of children playing with cheats.

Not really true, 'mainstreamers' and non 'mainstreamers' got OPF since it was the only shooter game where you could use vehicles (there was no BF games at the time).

The reason you didnt see so many of them out there was because MP didnt work out of the box, there was no JIP, and when MP started to work well enough most servers were using all kinds of addons, mods, etc.

The reason you see more idiots playing Arma is because Arma is more MP friendly than OPF was.

maybe you read it wrong

arma was sold as a "more mainstream game"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to say what made it 'better' but more about what I 'miss' from ofp...

...and that was the sheer variety of addons, islands, etc. We went from one extreme to another. OFP we had crafted into an entirely new beast with the amount of addons, effects, sounds and ai mods around. ArmA, by no fault of the developers of course as we can hardly expect them to model 2000 or so addons, came with the core units which essentially plummeted it back into OFP 2001. All we were then left with was a prettier version of the vanilla OFP we'd essentially already played with 6 years ago and got bored of.

obviously this will be 'fixed' with time, but thats whats made ArmA less 'interesting' at the moment, or at least for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What made OPF better?

Nothing.

Unfortunately, like a sequal usually does, it makes it's predecessor obsolete. Good or bad, it's difficult to move back to game 1, even if you're not content with game 2.

2001 was another time, for a very long time OFP was a singleplayer game for me. I had to rely on the singleplayer campaign, unpatched and roaming around in the editor with no usermade addons to speak of. But I still loved it because OFP created a real creditable enviroment, where you were free to go everythere, with changing weather and a real sense of time passing.

Later I got to enjoy the patches, the addons and multiplayer, but that was really just extras, because I had been forced to accept the bugs and really enjoy the basic gameplay. Last november a few of my friends installed OFP again, to kill time while we where anticipating the release of ArmA. We patched it up to 1.96, but that's all we did. No mods, no addons and the gameplay still felt just good and actually challenged the newer games we played. OFP was also the first game, where I became aware of multiplayer coop, which brought me so much more than the other competitive modes ever did.

But OFP was uninstalled the moment I installed ArmA and I never looked back. Last year ArmA had a very long way to go, alot of CTDs and players would start losing connection after a hours play, which is just aweful in a hourlong coop mission with no respawn. But I stuck with it, because I hoped BIS would be in a position to lift the game forward patch by patch and make it selfsufficient releasing tools like they did for OFP. In my oppinion they delivered a sequal that fullfilled my expectations. Mostly because it stood were clear that we were not to expect more than an inbetween game. Because ArmA originally where considered 1.5, I kept control of my expectations. I allowed myself to feel the hype of a new release, but I did not feel and share this popular dissapointment many try to express so profoundly and repeatedly here and in the other thread.

I haven't given ArmA's singleplayer campaign any chances at all.

For me the world has turned, singleplayer is dead to me. Like Sickboy my ass now belongs to coop.  smile_o.gif

-Maybe the AI has some issues, but they'll never be as messed up as some of the people your meet, when you break protocol and venture out on public servers.

-I also really like the movement and aiming of ArmA. That's your body sloving you down, gear and weapon's weight are felt in a virtual world, where your movement feels like you've got boots, webbing and helmet on. When you travel over open terrain, you should feel clumsy, slow and exposed.

-I also like the accuracy and the urgent need for solid cover, whenever you engage a number of enemies. One on one the AI is safe to engage, but as soon as their numbers increase you have to take precautions, if you and your team want to survive the engagement intact.

-And piloting those jets over Sahrani I could do that all day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one major feature is the crappy unrealistic terrain textures in ArmA.

Object textures & lods are always bad for a noticeable sec also. This cripples the game feeling.

Most other things are better in Arma thouh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ofp was an overall good game, PvP and Coop maps had their balance, now with arma and the good looking but broken controls and anims, PvP is as good as destroyed leading all cheaters into coop maps, making them a pain aswell.

everythink else is mostly true in this topic in my opinion but this random control feel of yourself ingame makes it half broken to me and seeing the same anim's still in use with arma2 doesn't gives me confidents for the future...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still play ArmA reguarly, more so then OPF. And I would say I play a mix of SP and MP (not on public servers). Nearly all the missions I play are also self-made. I haven't found many official or user-made missions to my likeing. So my problem is not that OPF had a better campign or better mission.

Agian, ArmA is essentially OPF with improvements in some areas. But when I go back and play OPF (with mods) the experiance is much smoother and more consistant.

That smoothness and consistancy is really lacking in ArmA. It goes back to the idea that ArmA is not balanced as OPF was. Some features have outpaced others. Let's hope ArmA2 rebalances the game, and we don't have 2007 components mixed in with 2001 components. And much better performance I hope!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never played OFP online 8(, but I played the campaign prob 20 times over. I like the game graphics evolution in ArmA from OFP, I don't like the bugs/glitches that came with it however i seem to recall some were present in OFP. The biggest thing for me about OFP an the lacking of ArmA is the campaign. The first time i played OFP I was like the "OMG the Russian Army is coming down on me-WTF do i do" rofl.gif  needless to say it kept me coming back for more. ArmA campaign was like oh ok theres bad guys over there lets go get em, it just did'nt capture the so called fear of death an stir the adrenaline that OFP did. Either way i still play ArmA daily an find myself happy with what it has to offer an I don't think that any developer will EVER match or come close to where BIS has taken us with OFP/ArmA. Sure i get upset over online issues but that does'nt stop me from playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×