Game 2 is dead?

[Baphomet 0]

So, is it my correct understanding that the next gen game will not be based around the premise of one persistent battle?

It's basically just OFP?

If so, I was really looking forward to the persistent dynamic campaign.

When did all this change?

To be truthful. I'm kind of done with OFP, and BIS really needs to change with the times. An episodic or chapter based campaign just doesn't do it for me.

I was honestly excited for the idea of being able to play any role I wished in a single, evolving... "Something" whatever you wanted to call it.

I didn't want victory conditions, or end-mission goals.

I wanted it to be totally open ended. I wanted to play the game through, no matter what happened, and truly create my own story and experiences as I went along.

Sadly, that now seems to have been shelved. It's really too bad.

It had potential.

[rainbow 0]

Yes, Game 2 is dead but some of its features have been implemented in ArmA 2.

[funnyguy1 0]

Or, if you want, game2 is ArmA2 and always was, but some stuff that was planned isn't going to be implemented. Maybe in ArmA 3...

C'mon, where were you man?

[meuhey 6]

im sorry but the 3d engine of game2 was completely different from what we see now.

[Baphomet 0]

Like I said.

I'm kind of done with OFP now.

It was fun for those four years, but it's time has come and passed.

Toward the end I was mostly playing things like CTI and that other dynamic battle campaign.

When I found out that Game 2 was going to be like that.

I was like: "fuck ARMA, I'm holding out for game 2"

Because, genuinely, I had more fun playing that than I ever did the singleplayer campaigns. Solo or co-operatively. I have far more good memories of epic combat exploits and battles from those gameplay modes than playing the rather lukewarm single player campaigns for OFP. And yeah I bought all of them.

*shrugs*

It's been fun. I'm glad BIS has had a certain degree of success as a result of OFP and it's subsequent titles, they've earned it, and it was a long time coming for the genre.

But I think my interest in that sort of game has now waned to the point where I won't be buying any hardware to play a game like ARMA2.

I suppose game 2's premise was too ambitious, which is why I loved it so much.

Eh.

See you guys in four more years maybe.

[Mr_Tea 0]

That happened to many games.

Look what was planned for Crysis, and what was released.

Look at STALKER, in preview versions they showed to reporters you could drive vehicles, and in the final that and tons of other planned features where missing.

[Baphomet 0]

Yeah...

Oh and... I almost forgot.

A huge thank you to OFPEC, the staff there, and anyone who has ever made an addon.

This community is quite possibly the best one for a game I've ever encountered, all things said and done.

OFP would not have been half the game it is now without the involvement of the end-user community.

I hope that's a tradition which continues for many more titles.

[jakerod 254]

You could always wait for someone else to make a dynamic campaign. Or who knows maybe you will like ArmA II's campaign better than what you wanted.

If you liked CTI i think you would love Warfare in ArmA and I would assume they would transfer that over to ArmA II.

[Maddmatt 1]

im sorry but the 3d engine of game2 was completely different from what we see now.

Well of course it's different, that was over 3 years ago

If you mean that it was better somehow, well, how?

Baphomet, if you haven't played ArmA, and you haven't played OFP in a while, then maybe by the time ArmA 2 comes out you will enjoy it again? I'm sure it will still be very different to OFP.

I stopped playing OFP after I got sick of it. About 2 years later I bought ArmA and loved it for a while

Starting to get tired of ArmA as well, I have barely played it in a long time, but when ACE is out that will hopefully change

[Baphomet 0]

Maybe you guys are right.

We'll see I guess. Heh.

I'm certainly not slighting ArmA or it's sequel. They're probably fine games.

But who knows. My feelings might change later on.

[stakex 0]

Baphomet, as someone whos been folloing Game2/ArmA2 adamently ever since the E3 2005 announcements this is basiclly whats happened...

E3 2005 - Lots of great news about "Game2", with Marek Spanel being quoted in several articles saying thing such as "We don't want to make a game thats a clone", and then goes on to talk about how they have wanted to do a dynamic game for so long, and thats where they really want to go with Game2. From all that I read, I got a very serious impression that a fully dynamic game was really what the devs wanted to do more then anything else. Marek can also be quoted as promoting other intresting features that we now know where never close enough to being added to the game for him to do so... such as dynamic destruction. Which he clearly talks about as tho its a fully developed feature thats ready to go as is... not the basic prototype with several MAJOR issues that they now claim it was.

Then after that burst of information...nothing. Absolutly nothing new about Game2 was released after that until the press release announceing ArmA2 in August of last year. Shortly after that is when we learned that essentially everything that made Game2 attractive had been removed. Is it the same game? YES. ArmA2 IS GAME2, as the ArmA2 website said when it first came up. Its just very light feature wise compared to what it was a few years ago.

But now the devs claim that they don't want to do a dynamic campaign, they actually want to tell a story, and for what ever reason can't do it with a campaign thats dynamic... obviouslly Marek Spanel had a serious change of heart from what his thinking was durring E3 2005.

We will likely never know the REAL reason behind their change of heart, and it really dosn't matter. It is what it is. And while I am sticking around for ArmA2, and very mcuh intend to buy it... Im totally with you Baphomet. I agree that the original Game2 concept had potential, and think it was perhaps the most inovative game idea Ive heard in a very long time. But now, ArmA2 is likely going to end up like so many games now adays... a so-so selling game that most people will not remember 3 years from now, much like ArmA1 was.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

Or who knows maybe you will like ArmA II's campaign better than what you wanted.

I liked the sound of multi play campaign coming with OFP2, I hope ArmA2 looks into it.

[Baphomet 0]

*nod @ stakex*

It's too bad.

Honestly. My life is pretty busy these days, so much so that I just don't have the kind of time I used to back in the days of good old OFP.

There will always be memories.

It's just that I was one of the fortunate recipients of the E3 press memrobilia for game 2 that RalphWiggum had sent out to some people...

And that was just so cool... I suppose now they're even more a rarity than before.

Still.

I hope before BIS has had it's run, it finds within itself to do something exceptionally innovative and redefine the genre as they once did.

I can't slight them in the least for going a more pragmatic route, honestly. One of the biggest problems that developers have is focusing to excessively on concepts and innovation and not on getting revenue back through their doors.

That's business, and they're a good company, if they're still in business, there's still a chance they can knock one out of the park as they did with OFP. I firmly believe it.

[mr_centipede 31]

Or who knows maybe you will like ArmA II's campaign better than what you wanted.

I liked the sound of multi play campaign coming with OFP2, I hope ArmA2 looks into it.

I think you got it the other way around... ARMA2 will have multiplayer campaign... dont know about OFP2 though...

[Alex72 1]

Just check ArmA2 website and look into all new features. Multiplayer campaign is one of them.

http://www.arma2.com/

[Wolfrug 0]

If you want a fully dynamic campaign all the way down to remembering destroyed buildings, locations of destroyed vehicles, and, to a degree, dead bodies, it's all possible in both OFP and ArmA. Just get to scriptin'!

Of course, having more of these features incorporated in the engine would make the whole thing less of a logistical nightmare of optimization; but saveVar is basically the only command you need to make a 100% dynamic sandbox game using the ArmA(2) engine.

That and a LOT of manhours of work!

Which is why I'm looking forward to ArmA II so much: if their next release is going to be something else (Carrier Command!, then it means ArmA III won't be knocking on the door any time soon; which means the modding and scripting community can really get their jive on.

So bring it on! Long live ArmA! Weeh.

Regards,

Wolfrug

[jerryhopper 286]

@Baphomet : you might wanna listen to the interview with Ivan Buchta. -> http://www.armedassault.eu/Sahrani....18.html

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

With the 'Multiplayer-Save' option, i can think of some Persistent battles.

With a little creative work, you could hookup multiple servers to create a multi-server persistent battle.

Hopefully we can access certain ingame registers via the server remote administration.

this would really be the begin of endless (dynamic) battles.

[lockjaw-65- 0]

If you want a fully dynamic campaign all the way down to remembering destroyed buildings, locations of destroyed vehicles, and, to a degree, dead bodies, it's all possible in both OFP and ArmA. Just get to scriptin'!

Of course, having more of these features incorporated in the engine would make the whole thing less of a logistical nightmare of optimization; but saveVar is basically the only command you need to make a 100% dynamic sandbox game using the ArmA(2) engine.

That and a LOT of manhours of work!

Which is why I'm looking forward to ArmA II so much: if their next release is going to be something else (Carrier Command!, then it means ArmA III won't be knocking on the door any time soon; which means the modding and scripting community can really get their jive on.

So bring it on! Long live ArmA! Weeh.

Regards,

Wolfrug

Totally agree with you and i think the release of arma2 will be very exciting, cant wait

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

Thanks for the info.

OFP2 mentions 4 player pc and 2 on the consoles.

[4 IN 1 0]

Thanks for the info.

OFP2 mentions 4 player pc and 2 on the consoles.

OPF2 cant be limited to such small numbers i think

where did you get these info?

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/operationflashpoint2/video.html?sid=6196274&tag=text-related-content;4

@3:06 is where it starts, I was referring to campaign play.

I'm glad to hear ArmA2 will have multiplay campaign.

Anyone know how many?

[xawery 0]

Anyone remember Abandoned Armies by THobson? That was a persistant, dynamic campaign if I've ever seen one. I don't see why creating something similar for ArmA 2, or ArmA1 for that matter shouldn't be possible. Except perhaps for the insane amount of manhours that went into creating Abandoned Armies.

[jakerod 254]

But now the devs claim that they don't want to do a dynamic campaign, they actually want to tell a story, and for what ever reason can't do it with a campaign thats dynamic... obviouslly Marek Spanel had a serious change of heart from what his thinking was durring E3 2005.

We will likely never know the REAL reason behind their change of heart, and it really dosn't matter. It is what it is. And while I am sticking around for ArmA2, and very mcuh intend to buy it... Im totally with you Baphomet. I agree that the original Game2 concept had potential, and think it was perhaps the most inovative game idea Ive heard in a very long time. But now, ArmA2 is likely going to end up like so many games now adays... a so-so selling game that most people will not remember 3 years from now, much like ArmA1 was.

Have you ever tried to make a dynamic campaign and tell a story at the same time?

Biggest problem is that you can't control whether or not your characters live or die. There is no way to do it unless they are not actually on the map. If you ask me its a pretty dumb story if you have your main character and then another character that you never see and that is it. Even a General back at a camp isn't safe. A plane could get shot down 10 miles away and then crash on his command post. All the other characters could be taken out by a single hand grenade.

A campaign with a story is much more immersive than a campaign that is totally dynamic. I will admit that I wanted a dynamic campaign too but I also like good stories and can go with either one. I would prefer both but either one is good.

At the time that Game 2 was announced there were pretty much only three main things mentioned; Dynamic campaign (switched for a story), building destruction (still partially intact) and RPG elements which are still there. Therefore everything that made Game 2 good is not gone. Some of it has been watered down a bit but they are still there.

[General Barron 0]

Biggest problem is that you can't control whether or not your characters live or die. There is no way to do it unless they are not actually on the map. If you ask me its a pretty dumb story if you have your main character and then another character that you never see and that is it. Even a General back at a camp isn't safe. A plane could get shot down 10 miles away and then crash on his command post. All the other characters could be taken out by a single hand grenade.

A campaign with a story is much more immersive than a campaign that is totally dynamic. I will admit that I wanted a dynamic campaign too but I also like good stories and can go with either one. I would prefer both but either one is good.

Abandoned Armies essentially WAS that mission where you could go and kill the general back at a camp. Yet, the mission still managed to tell a story, and be incredibly fun. You just might not manage to "find" all of the story on your first play thru.

However, that isn't the only way to make a fully dynamic campaign.

Obviously, real conflicts span weeks, months, or even years. Nobody can or will sit down at their computer for that long, even with breaks between playing sessions.

So if you really wanted to simulate a "real" conflict, you would need to break that conflict up into episodes. Then, you can play only the "interesting" parts, and all the boring, realistic stuff like days or weeks of movement, logistics, and waiting aren't actually played in real time. You can describe this stuff in summary between the episodes.

So what you'd end up with is a series of episodes or missions, where the results of one mission then affect the next mission. You can make this as dynamic or random as you want.

[jakerod 254]

Biggest problem is that you can't control whether or not your characters live or die. There is no way to do it unless they are not actually on the map. If you ask me its a pretty dumb story if you have your main character and then another character that you never see and that is it. Even a General back at a camp isn't safe. A plane could get shot down 10 miles away and then crash on his command post. All the other characters could be taken out by a single hand grenade.

A campaign with a story is much more immersive than a campaign that is totally dynamic. I will admit that I wanted a dynamic campaign too but I also like good stories and can go with either one. I would prefer both but either one is good.

Abandoned Armies essentially WAS that mission where you could go and kill the general back at a camp. Yet, the mission still managed to tell a story, and be incredibly fun. You just might not manage to "find" all of the story on your first play thru.

However, that isn't the only way to make a fully dynamic campaign.

Obviously, real conflicts span weeks, months, or even years. Nobody can or will sit down at their computer for that long, even with breaks between playing sessions.

So if you really wanted to simulate a "real" conflict, you would need to break that conflict up into episodes. Then, you can play only the "interesting" parts, and all the boring, realistic stuff like days or weeks of movement, logistics, and waiting aren't actually played in real time. You can describe this stuff in summary between the episodes.

So what you'd end up with is a series of episodes or missions, where the results of one mission then affect the next mission. You can make this as dynamic or random as you want.

I didn't find Abandoned Armies to be very realistic. Then again I never really got that far because of my crappy PC at the time. Also if you miss part of the story there is a good chance the story will not make sense and not convey what they want the story to convey.