nkenny 1057 Posted July 15, 2009 Which do you think is better and why? Operation Flashpoint, hands down. Not only was it unique in its time, it combined excellent story with very functional user interface. Interface I've just been playing some Operation Flashpoint singleplayer and what a joy it is to just move around and shoot! Recoil, mouse-movement, and body movement is just feels RIGHT and immersive. To fully function in operation flashpoint, an infantry soldier needed to add 4 keys + WASD. 4 Keys! imagine that. - Fast forward - Crouch - Walk (slow, Toggle) - Prone Add 2 to access the basic functions of OpF. (Namely Optics and Map) Whoa. I mean I enjoy leaning as much as the next man, but whoa. Compare this to the bloated mess that is ARMA these days... Game Design Game design for vehicles of all sorts and brands hasn't really progressed far. In fact you might say it has devolved. One thing is certain; its ALOT easier to drive a car in OperationFlashpoint. -K Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Uziyahu--IDF 0 Posted July 15, 2009 OPFP lacked JIP (join in progress).I loved OPFP but JIP alone puts ArmA and ArmA2 miles ahead, IMO. Agreed. This was one of the reasons that OFP:Elite has been one of the best versions of the franchise. It was the multiplayer OFP that we always wanted to play. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrub 0 Posted July 15, 2009 (edited) Arma II. The game environment is simply immersive, the character movement and reaction to fire and explosions is visceral. My friend showed me Fallout 3, and I loved the RPG part of the game, but if I didn't do combat with the VATS, I just laughed and couldn't take it seriously. About the same with BF2, COD.. You know. If you want to go through a bulleted list of issues pro/con, you will not enjoy this game. OFP a was new, liberating, and revolutionary game type. Arma II is a refinement of that. I'm sure people will counter with a bulleted list.. Oh wait, I just said that. If I suspend disbelief, I'm one of the lucky ones that has few issues to pull me back to reality. OFP was 'clean' though, it had to be because of the lack of CPU oomph. Arma II has a dirty, gritty feel even from cars traveling down the road. So much going on in the subtle little things in the environment that lay a great foundation for whatever you put on top, whether it is a full out battle, or a postapocalyptic RPG. The scripting, the features, the options. Arma II all the way. Edited July 15, 2009 by Scrub Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Antichrist 0 Posted July 15, 2009 I still consider OFP to be the best game ever. Arma 2 is an imrovement, but in 2001 OFP was unmatched and is still #1 in my heart in terms of "awesome" factor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
THEBLITZ6794 10 Posted July 15, 2009 I think the X factor is story. The story of Res was truely immersive. It can't be matched. no, resistance fighters dont get t80s. resistance fighters dont destroy the russians in tank battles. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scener 10 Posted July 15, 2009 (edited) no, resistance fighters dont get t80s. resistance fighters dont destroy the russians in tank battles. What are you talking about? I said the STORY of Resistance(expansion pack) was unmatched. Edited July 15, 2009 by scener Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MQ-9 Reaper 10 Posted July 18, 2009 That being said, currently, I like OFP's AI teammates better than the ArmA II ones. In OFP : - they followed the leader's stance better and there was no "stand up and run 5 meters front and back" phenomenon which is plaguing ArmA II atm, - the "engage" command was a bit problematic in OFP, it is even worse in ArmA II imo, - the AI teammates were quieter, you could assign specific targets to your teammates and then they would give you a confirmation. In ArmA II, there is too much radio traffic, even teammates who were not assigned a target will give you their 2 cents so it is a bit harder to know if your sniper/AT gunner/etc is ready to shoot or not. Right now, I don't enjoy much the squad leader role in ArmA II, I hope it will be improved. update : I am adapting myself, my tactics to ArmA II and I am now having a much better time as a squad leader. Now, only nostalgia will bring me back to OFP :) Whenever I run or drive fast, they always lose me, and start finding me like crazy where are you? where are you? where are you? where are you? where are you? where are you? where are you? I'm bored to hear that. Whenever you travel some distances, you should set your squad to "aware", they will follow you more efficiently. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mutet 10 Posted July 19, 2009 It's all about gameplay for me. The gameplay between ARMA2 and OFP is very similar. ARMA2 has improved some subtle gameplay issues, but it has also made a few worse ( mainly through bugs rather than intention). All in all, I think they are roughly the same. I would have said OFP was better if I couldn't have got freetrack working in ARMA2. I would have said ARMA2 was better if the campaign was a little more intuitive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakerod 254 Posted July 19, 2009 no, resistance fighters dont get t80s. Yeah you're right the Northern Alliance never had armored vehicles... oh wait. It is some what improbably that the resistance could beat the Soviets in a tank battle but it all depends on how you play your cards too. While it wasn't a tank vs tank battle look at what happened in Grozny. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craigsa 0 Posted July 19, 2009 There will never be another OFP, they have buried that legend and there will never be another one....:( Dont know why they had to break a flying model that worked for many. At least they should have given us the option to have the old model on or off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BLSmith2112 0 Posted July 19, 2009 I preferred the tank battles in OFP. The armor was much stronger and it took around 3 shots to disable the tank. This made it a much more engaging and fun experience in my opinion. It may have taken away its realism, but the fun factor was much higher than getting shot once by someone hiding in the trees somewhere and ruining your day. You at least previously had a chance of counterattacking your opponent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mafiozo 10 Posted July 19, 2009 ARMA2 is great, but it will be perfect when it goes back to the 80's. ;) that actually is the difference for me. I like playing and feeling like im back then in the cold war. OFP succeeded in capturing that 80's cold war feeling just like Vice City captured the 1986 feel of Miami. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cm 0 Posted July 19, 2009 (edited) Obviously arma2 is better simply because of technology improvements. One area where OFP and Res kick the shit out of Arma1/2 is the story and campaign missions. They were truly the most epic missions I'd ever played. I just LOVE that mission where you are lost in the forest and have to find your way out via the stars, that was soooooooo intense! Edited July 19, 2009 by cm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Decerto 10 Posted July 19, 2009 I think of Arma 2 as the next chapter in the Flashpoint saga so I can't really say which is better as it is all gestalt to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mafiozo 10 Posted July 20, 2009 I just LOVE that mission where you are lost in the forest and have to find your way out via the stars, that was soooooooo intense! Right on, Brotha! that mission is burnt down in my conscience. no other game made you feel like the feeling you got in that mission. such fear and thrill. amazing how a game makes you actually feel you're behind enemy lines. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites