FP : DR - News & Discussion

[Baff1 0]

Not the actual source code of the software itself.

I'll elucidate.

The publisher is not in a position to allow you or disallow you from doing anything with a retail product. You did not buy it from the publisher, you have no contract with them, and they have none with you.

Copywright Law does allow you to modify your software, even the source code, for the specific purposes of system compatability.

[boomar. 10]

Dropping civilians, jets, wildlife, console-editor, and 3rd person view is not something that can be in any way construed as 'good' imho. To state that the absence of civilians is some how tied into the story-line is a total cop-out. Sounds like a ghost town shooter to me...

Obviously civilians arent part of the storyline and events have occured so they wont be there. Im sure CM could easily add them if they were supposed to be apart of the game.

Dont need jets, IMO if anything this is a bonus in my view. I remember BF2 and its jets, even though the gameplay area is large enough for choppers, and ground forces, its juts way too small for jets. CM know that jets dont belong.

You can have the wildlife point.

Who cares about a console editor, atleast we get an indepth one on PC. Is Arma2 even going to be on both the PS3 and Xbox360? lol...

3rd person view is available on vehicles for OFP2. But is not for when its not in a vehicle. This is good since many didnt want a 3rd person view on the player to add to the realism. Being able to see behind cover and such when using 3rd person is just ridiculous in a military sim. BIS should be ashamed.

So yeah your points are terrible and not valid.

Next.

[eenter 0]

Dropping civilians, jets, wildlife, console-editor, and 3rd person view is not something that can be in any way construed as 'good' imho. To state that the absence of civilians is some how tied into the story-line is a total cop-out. Sounds like a ghost town shooter to me...

Agreed.

[froggyluv 2136]

Well boomar,you sure showed me...

I guess one's man's trash can indeed be another's treasure

Hook, line & sinker...

[IronPyramid 0]

Obviously civilians arent part of the storyline and events have occured so they wont be there. Im sure CM could easily add them if they were supposed to be apart of the game.

Dont need jets, IMO if anything this is a bonus in my view. I remember BF2 and its jets, even though the gameplay area is large enough for choppers, and ground forces, its juts way too small for jets. CM know that jets dont belong.

You can have the wildlife point.

Who cares about a console editor, atleast we get an indepth one on PC. Is Arma2 even going to be on both the PS3 and Xbox360? lol...

3rd person view is available on vehicles for OFP2. But is not for when its not in a vehicle. This is good since many didnt want a 3rd person view on the player to add to the realism. Being able to see behind cover and such when using 3rd person is just ridiculous in a military sim. BIS should be ashamed.

So yeah your points are terrible and not valid.

Next.

Actually I'm pretty certain most individuals who are looking for the type of game that OFP was, and ArmA became, would prefer all of those things in their games. I suppose these points aren't valid to you, because your standards are severely lowered. Why don't you check again how many people have decided against buying DR because of the fact that the oh so unimportant editor is being left out of the console version. And the relativity of jets being in BF2, as opposed to games like OFP and ArmA is actually as you said yourself a terrible and invalid point. Not a bonus, merely a requisite in a true military sim, when the landscapes exceed 100 sq kilometers, let alone what ArmA 2 and DR will be sporting. As for civilians, what kind of evacuation plan renders an island of that size remote? Or is it that there is a low population? And if so, how many towns will there be? How large will they be?

With third person, I suppose its down to taste, but pointing out that it can be used in vehicles, then turning around and saying its completely unrealistic, and BIS should be ashamed.... oh boy. I just don't think you're capable of understanding gameplay decisions let alone acclimating yourself to the pressure of creating new gaming architecture. Especially within which providing us players a form of AI that can manage the surrounding terrain, and circumstances in order to perform their duties.

You're posts are in no way beneficial to anyone besides possibly yourself, harboring your opinion, and attempting to satiate it by antagonizing the rest of us.

And in case this is ot, the questions about towns and buildings stand to be answered. I've searched around for it, found some stuff, but I suppose I'll probably have to wait for anything concrete. Gee, how familiar...

[Deathstruck 375]

Dont need jets, IMO if anything this is a bonus in my view. I remember BF2 and its jets, even though the gameplay area is large enough for choppers, and ground forces, its juts way too small for jets. CM know that jets dont belong.

Next.

:Oo: :icon_lol:

You just made my day haha !

Edited April 22, 2009 by Salvatore_Lee

[fumo 0]

You're posts are in no way beneficial to anyone besides possibly yourself, harboring your opinion, and attempting to satiate it by antagonizing the rest of us.

At least he doesn't insult anyone or had attack directly some other opinion. He just tell his opinion. While you need to attack him, so who is antagonizing who?

And yes, i share his opinion. Maybe we are just two that think so, but we have the right to tell our opinion and are able to do it without insulting. If you don't care don't read it. Or did you all just expect words like: "Blame CM, blame CM, blame CM. And hail to BIS!!!".

No, there will allways be someone with another opinion, so lern to deal with it!

OT: I also think that Jets are a bit "overpowered" for an island, of course CAS is a important point in todays warfares, but for a game it is enough to let a Chopper handle this job.

Civilians are a thema fo it self. I agree that they would increase the athmosphere of a "war simulation", but we also must see that's a disputed thema. Some countrys and some societies don't like to see civilians in such games where the player are able to "amuse" hisself by slaughting them. That have nothing to do with gameplay, just with moral (i don't share that moral but CM seems to do). I see it positiv, my pc don't have to spend ressources for theyr polygons and AI :).

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

3rd person view is available on vehicles for OFP2. But is not for when its not in a vehicle. This is good since many didnt want a 3rd person view on the player to add to the realism. Being able to see behind cover and such when using 3rd person is just ridiculous in a military sim. BIS should be ashamed.

So yeah your points are terrible and not valid.

Next.

Do you ever go back a read this stuff your posting?

OFP/ArmA has options for those settings to be on/off!

Now you say "it's ok to have 3rd person in vehicles since OFP2 will have it" ? So, you consider that "realism"?

[MehMan 0]

boomar is just trolling.

[bravo 6 0]

Originally Posted by boomar. View Post

Dont need jets, IMO if anything this is a bonus in my view. I remember BF2 and its jets, even though the gameplay area is large enough for choppers, and ground forces, its juts way too small for jets. CM know that jets dont belong.

Next.

Jesus mother in law!

Think a little bit about this:

OFP had Jets, so why the "successor" OFP: Dragon Rice won't have?

IT makes perfectly no Sense Not to be able to pilot jets!

[Zipper5 74]

I like reading his posts and how he talks about "we". It's almost as if there are two warring sides here! :eek:

Oh, wait...

But anyways, I don't agree with the complete removal of 3rd person from DR. Having the option to switch it on and off and quickly switch between the two at a press of a button was/is something I really liked/like in OFP and ArmA. To remove it, in my eyes, is another glaring hole outlining Codemasters' complete lack of understanding OFP. I guess it's because what the player sees in 1st person will not be the same thing they see their body doing in 3rd person, so they don't want to make it look weird (like in Oblivion/Fallout 3). To me, that's just being lazy. Who knows, maybe the player won't even have feet...

Furthermore, having a multi-platforming release certainly isn't helping Codemasters in any way apart from more profit. So far the graphics look worse and there is no editor on consoles. Even OFP:E had an editor, and that was on the Xbox.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I remember Jets in BIS's OFP1. I remember doing straffing runs on enemy tanks for a team of soldiers danger close and about to be over run. I remember their cheers over Team Speak.

I remember missions in BIS's OFP1 where the terrorist was mixed in with civilians, where we were looking for a particular player face mixed in a crowd or driving a car.

I can not believe any true fan of BIS's OFP1 would buy a game that attempted to whore OFP's name to sell a castrated version of OFP

Regards walker

[Placebo 29]

Or did you all just expect words like: "Blame CM, blame CM, blame CM. And hail to BIS!!!".

Ummmm, did you not read the smallprint in the forum rules you agreed to when signing up here? ;)

[JdB 151]

Jesus mother in law!

Think a little bit about this:

OFP had Jets, so why the "successor" OFP: Dragon Rice won't have?

IT makes perfectly no Sense Not to be able to pilot jets!

And besides that, the comparison with BF2 is useless, since BF2 maps are much smaller than the islands in OFP, ArmA1 and ArmA2. So it can work in DR as well.

[bravo 6 0]

edit: deleted

I admit it would be interesting to see how CM would do it.

[4 IN 1 0]

Hi all

I remember Jets in BIS's OFP1. I remember doing straffing runs on enemy tanks for a team of soldiers danger close and about to be over run. I remember their cheers over Team Speak.

I remember missions in BIS's OFP1 where the terrorist was mixed in with civilians, where we were looking for a particular player face mixed in a crowd or driving a car.

I can not believe any true fan of BIS's OFP1 would buy a game that attempted to whore OFP's name to sell a castrated version of OFP

Regards walker

+1

the A10 have saves me countless time in both OFP1 and ArmA

[Benoist 0]

I can not believe any true fan of BIS's OFP1 would buy a game that attempted to whore OFP's name to sell a castrated version of OFP

I couldn't have came with a better definition than that. Marvelous!

[Placebo 29]

Opteryx post deleted, inflammatory, flamebaiting, unnecessary. Please refrain.

[opteryx 1562]

Understood.

[Pyronick 21]

And besides that, the comparison with BF2 is useless, since BF2 maps are much smaller than the islands in OFP, ArmA1 and ArmA2. So it can work in DR as well.

Well, Joint Operations also had huge maps. But the game still was more akin to Battlefield 2.

[walker 0]

Well, Joint Operations also had huge maps. But the game still was more akin to Battlefield 2.

So why are CM not calling it "Sort of Like Battle Fields" or some such; if that is the game they are copying?

With all its name changes I am not sure even CM know what they are copying, is anyone?

A version of OFP without jets and civilians and who knows what else missing is not really OFP so why use the the name?

After all what fan of BIS's OFP1 is going to want to buy a crippled version of OFP?

Surely if CM cannot live up to the name they should not go round prostituting the brand to sell this castrated version?

Sadly Walker

Edited April 22, 2009 by walker

[Pyronick 21]

So why are CM not calling it "Sort of Like Battle Fields" or some such; if that is the game they are copying?

I don't know.

Probably the same reason why they said DIRT was going to be more than Richard Burns Rally than Colin McRae 2004, while the result was the opposite.

Fortunately I was wise and patient enough for the game to be released and judge it to come to the decision of not buying it.

A version of OFP without jets and civilians and who knows what else missing is not really OFP so why use the the name?

Probably using name as an attention point.

[Scrub 0]

OT: I also think that Jets are a bit "overpowered" for an island, of course CAS is a important point in todays warfares, but for a game it is enough to let a Chopper handle this job.

Civilians are a thema fo it self. I agree that they would increase the athmosphere of a "war simulation", but we also must see that's a disputed thema. Some countrys and some societies don't like to see civilians in such games where the player are able to "amuse" hisself by slaughting them. That have nothing to do with gameplay, just with moral (i don't share that moral but CM seems to do). I see it positiv, my pc don't have to spend ressources for theyr polygons and AI :).

I agree jets AND choppers are overpowered. But honestly I also feel they are designed to be overpowering on most ANY battlefield. So for me, the scale is less of an issue when I'm about to be tactically squished and they give me support. At times, it's not enough. So there points in both directions, but without them, there is only one direction. As for civvies, I totally agree with your 'amuse' point, that would be virtual depravity - however I wholeheartedly can't agree with your gameplay issue. From giving away your position, to being a source for info, to being a weight in a strategic decision, to being a major factor in combat, to being nothing more than part of the floura and fauna - they are (to me) a significant boost to the life and variety of the game.

And no personal hard feelings here, everyone just has high hopes for each title, and is willing to weigh in pretty heavy.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Scrub
learning to spell (again) in my native language

[Baff1 0]

Given that there are only 10 or so civilians living on Codemasters Island in real life, their absence from the game isn't a big loss to realism or scenario value.

It does rather limit the mission making element I feel however. The chance to make your own scenario, tell your own story...

The depth of scenario in ArmA Two with it's god knows how many factions plus civvies is mind candy!

I can look at that game, it's location and those factions and think, I can model a real war that has actually happened, and also some very possible wars that actually might occour in the future. The USMC part is a bit of a stretch still...

Codemasters however is pure dribble. Plot weak nonsense. A comic book plot fit only for 12 year olds. An excuse to put two intresting looking armies in the ring and nothing more.

Oil rich Russia and it's strategic ally China have gone to war over an oil field island 10 miles wide. The Russians can't beat the Chinese. The Russians ask the Americans to beat the Chinese for them. The Americans agree to declare war on China in support of their old friends the Russians.

Despite China's naval superiority in the Pacific, the American's choose to send a marine force to the Island against them, (Smaller and less capable than the VDV, with a longer more precarious supply chain and only taking 7 days longer to deploy! Thank god they were there to save the Russians.).

Honestly, a lot of thought went into that one. Down the pub. Between peanuts.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Baff1

[echo1 0]

Well said Baff1. There's also the fact that the Russians would sooner fight to the death than call on American help, and considering the economic dependency of America on China, that the Americans wouldn't be rather obliging to the Russians even if they did ask for help...

Now, how long before someone comes along and tells us that OFP2 doesn't need a good storyline?