FP : DR - News & Discussion

[4 IN 1 0]

very nice vid, I like how they did it, music match perfectly the words etc etc.

May be thats because you have watched too much hollywood made kung fu movie?:confused:

anyway, the storyline is just so...............wrong, that i just dont even wanted to bother to explain the reason.....

Edited September 3, 2009 by 4 IN 1

[NoRailgunner 0]

Its a very fictional story and its seems unbelievable that Russia and Japan will stay away from this oil conflict in their backyard and leave it all to US and China.

Lets see if CM made another US action hero shooter and how many people are going to play it on hardcore mode. Wonder how good and long CM are really going to support DR + customers.

D@nte do you really believe in such phrases: "...suddenly they appeared with their main force at the border"? Look at the map and then think of how PLA should deploy on this island - undetected.

[Takko 10]

And the last but not least; the island has oil, so it becomes a major objective for the US government. the war in Irak is a good lesson.

I hate people saying that because its not true. But anyways

Its a very fictional story and its seems unbelievable that Russia and Japan will stay away from this oil conflict in their backyard and leave it all to US and China.

Russia isn't away but fighting in other positions

[Scrub 0]

The U.S aid seems highly improbable.

I wonder if the gameplay can live up to such a whopper of a story. An America + Russia Vs. China conflict would hardly devolve into 4 man squads killing outposts.

Well, the rest of the army is off transporting the respective island civilians to safety, to prepare for war...:j: :p

Don't... Believe.... The.... Hype...

These facts and details (even adding the positive speculations) are not adding up to the marketing. Sounds like another 'Hope and Change' platform... Uh, I didn't just say that.:D

[Zipper5 74]

All hope that DR will be decent died with that video, for me.

'Tis a sad fact. :butbut:

[kavoven 4]

This story hurts :(

[JdB 151]

currently PLA army is better than Russian army. The chinese government has spent a lot of money on their new armaments and they have tons of soldiers, if you see this army at your borders sure you will ask help for a minor objective.

That's why the PLA is looking to buy foreign hardware so they can buy a single "test" vehicle, turn down the offer and then come up with their very "own" (99% copy of the original) weapons system a year later (*cough* SU-27 *cough*). The PLA is more of a paper dragon than a real one at present. The real power of the PRC has so far been in it's economic power, not (yet) in it's military power. The PRC is not yet capable of sustaining a fight with a superpower outside of it's borders, primarily due to the lack of naval strength (needs carriers and transports, both of which they do not have yet), and because they have not converted to being an expeditionary force (mainly with defense in mind). Even if they have numbers on their side, the RF armed forces still have the upper hand technologically, or the Chinese wouldn't be trying to get their hands on Russian technology. It's like saying India has one of the best armies in the world just because they have numbers (they buy 2nd hand stuff, just like the PLA is copying existing hardware, not developing cutting edge technology of their own, Chinese products are known for being copies of other people's designs without any ground-breaking innovations).

The PLA was successful in Korea because technology back then was pretty much still stuck in the WW2 era on both sides (little use of innovative technology on either side, which makes numbers weigh in a lot more than in a fight between a technologically superiour force and an army attacking in human waves)

If having greater numbers was really that decisive on the battlefield, all of NATO and especially the US would have opted for more conscripts in the field rather than fewer, but far better trained and equipped professional soldiers as they have been doing since the 1970s.

Edited September 3, 2009 by JdB

[echo1 0]

currently PLA army is better than Russian army. The chinese government has spent a lot of money on their new armaments and they have tons of soldiers, if you see this army at your borders sure you will ask help for a minor objective. + don't forget the Korea war, even the best army in the world can have some problems to defeat a weaker army.

That still doesn't explain why the Americans would start a war with China for Russia's sake.

And the last but not least; the island has oil, so it becomes a major objective for the US government. the war in Irak is a good lesson.

America's economy is very much dependent on China. So there's no real economic argument to be made here, because an oil field (no matter how big) is not worth more than China's trade with the US, or the manufacture of goods for US companies by Chinese ones. America would be in a bad way economically if they had to declare war on China - they wouldn't do it unless it was absolutely essential (i.e. if China declared war first)

Edited September 3, 2009 by echo1

[JdB 151]

America's economy is very much dependent on China. So there's no real economic argument to be made here, because an oil field (no matter how big) is not worth more than China's trade and manufacturing. America would be in a bad way economically if they had to declare war on China - they wouldn't do it unless it was absolutely essential (i.e. if China declared war first)

And China wouldn't declare a war unless the US declared war first because if there was a war, the value of everything the Chinese own in the US, which is a lot (including many, many billions of dollars) would plummet, crippling their own economy. As well as the US being China's main export market. In short, a war between any superpower is pretty much the least likely thing to happen. As recent history has shown, small scale operation against smaller countries and organizations dominate warfare in the 21st century. It's just a matter of time before China gets involved in one of their own (they are expanding their influence in Africa, not exactly a continent known for it's peacefulness). Game developers that claim realism shouldn't make up scenarios that involves more than one superpower operating openly (not taking into account indirect support by delivering arms, money or training).

Edited September 3, 2009 by JdB

[MehMan 0]

Game stories have always been cheesy, illogical and wrong because they've been written by a 12 year old.

[ricbar89 0]

Who said anything about a declaration of war? Look at the Falklands for example the argies invaded, the British went down there with a taskforce and kicked them out.

That was it, nothing more.

[echo1 0]

Nuclear power vs. small South American state. This is a valid comparison to China vs USA how?

Also, this ignores the following -

1. They were at war. I think that's kinda obvious.

2. The Brits had no intention of continuing the war beyond regaining the Falklands. The Argentinians had no real way of dislodging the Brits once they took the islands, or taking the war to the British mainland if needed be. On the other hand, Maggie Thatcher had implied more than once (albeit not publicly at the time) that she was prepared to make Buenos Aires disappear under a mushroom cloud if that was what was needed to resolve the conflict.

3. The Argentinian dictatorship at the time collapsed soon after they lost the Falklands, the new government wasn't interested in any more fighting.

If there was all out fighting between China and the US, that would definitely constitute as a war. I fail to see how it could be considered anything otherwise.

Edited September 3, 2009 by echo1

[ricbar89 0]

Nuclear power vs. small South American state. This is a valid comparison to China vs USA how?

Also, this ignores the following -

1. They were at war. I think that's kinda obvious.

2. The Brits had no intention of continuing the war beyond regaining the Falklands. The Argentinians had no real way of dislodging the Brits once they took the islands, or taking the war to the British mainland if needed be. On the other hand, Maggie Thatcher had implied more than once (albeit not publicly at the time) that she was prepared to make Buenos Aires disappear under a mushroom cloud if that was what was needed to resolve the conflict.

3. The Argentinian dictatorship at the time collapsed soon after they lost the Falklands, the new government wasn't interested in any more fighting.

wow attitude problem dude.

Didnt mean much by it, just outlining that it is possible to go to war without a declaration. And the game doesnt outline war between the countries outside of Skira anyway.

And how does point 1 prove me wrong? Of course they were at war, thats my point.

[echo1 0]

wow attitude problem dude.

Didnt mean much by it, just outlining that it is possible to go to war without a declaration. And the game doesnt outline war between the countries outside of Skira anyway.

And how does point 1 prove me wrong? Of course they were at war, thats my point.

I think I missed your point initially, but what I'm saying still stands - I really don't think two superpowers like China and the USA could really just have a little war like that, especially if China really wanted that oilfield enough to risk war with Russia. And I think the declaration of war distinction would be largely arbitrary - the associated problems exist from the point at which the two sides start fighting, neither China nor the US would have a war against eachother, but in the rest of the world act as if nothing was going on, there would have to be consequences eventually that would mean that everyone would suffer.

The Falklands was completely different because Argentina had no way of holding their own against the Brits - either in terms of holding out against the invasion and the ability to take the fight to the British mainland if necessary. If Argentina was anywhere near as well equipped and trained as the Brits, the Falklands could have been a very different war altogether.

And I don't get why the fact that I have opinions on the matter mean that I suddenly have an 'attitude problem' any moreso than you do. :)

Edited September 3, 2009 by echo1

[ricbar89 0]

I think I missed your point initially, but what I'm saying still stands - I really don't think two superpowers like China and the USA could really just have a little war like that, especially if China really wanted that oilfield enough to risk war with Russia. And I think the declaration of war distinction would be largely arbitrary - the associated problems exist from the point at which the two sides start fighting, neither China nor the US would have a war against eachother, but in the rest of the world act as if nothing was going on, there would have to be consequences eventually that would mean that everyone would suffer.

The Falklands was completely different because Argentina had no way of holding their own against the Brits - either in terms of holding out against the invasion and the ability to take the fight to the British mainland if necessary. If Argentina was anywhere near as well equipped and trained as the Brits, the Falklands could have been a very different war altogether.

And I don't get why the fact that I have opinions on the matter mean that I suddenly have an 'attitude problem' any moreso than you do. :)

Im not necessarily disagreeing with you, but it seem that the island is a "flashpoint" of some kind, so like the first OFP with Russia i think perhaps total war between USA and China will not be part of the game, at least in the beggining.

How i don’t know.

And again i didn’t mean much by my 'attitude problem' quote, you just seemed to respond quite strong to one of my "passing through" comments.

[HotShot 0]

What a strange video?!

[Zipper5 74]

You can't really compare OFP's scenario to DR's so far. The Soviets in OFP weren't actually acting on behalf of Moscow, but on behalf of their rogue General. So the term flashpoint applied appropriately to that.

And yes, I do find that video strange. It's like a screwed up History lesson. Wouldn't know that it's a trailer for what is supposed to be a military simulator.

Edit: Now I just realized why I had the reaction I did to that video.

It's almost identical to the cutscenes that Treyarch did for COD:WaW.

Jesus, Codemasters must be running out of ideas or something...

Edited September 3, 2009 by Zipper5

[echo1 0]

I actually watched the video there, the storyline is sort of justified by a supposed 'drop in demand for Chinese goods' which leads to mass unemployment then some kind of hardliner re-insurgence.

This raises an even bigger question though - Can anyone imagine a plausible scenario where the demand for Chinese goods drops to such a low level? I mean, they make everything! It isn't as if the whole world's manufacturing infrastructure could disappear out of China in the space of five years like they claim... Where would it go to?

Edited September 3, 2009 by echo1

[eble 3]

China vs USA - over a tiny Island for oil, would never happen, China is more tham capable of going round the world (as they do now buying up oil supplies).

Plus isn't China the largest investing in the US? honestly this story is so far fetched it deserves to be in a game! :)

All three countries have nukes, imagine a situation where the Chinese got the upper hand at the Russian border I'm sure a quick call from Moscow saying back off or disappear would do the trick.

For a game the storyline is fine I guess, but in real life it's just as crazy as saying your going to Invade Iraq becuase a) they helped with 9/11 or the had WMD (well we knew they did, cos we gave it to them!).

[von_paulus 0]

It's almost identical to the cutscenes that Treyarch did for COD:WaW.

Yes, I thought the same. Everything in this video is COD:WaW.

But then again it's only natural, that's the market they are targeting.

[Maddmatt 1]

But then again it's only natural, that's the market they are targeting.

Style of cutscenes has little to do with the market in this case.

US version of ArmA has a similar style, as well as the Rahmadi Conflict campaign in the QG campaign :rolleyes:

I'd say the game is going for the gap between COD/BF2 and ArmA 2.

[von_paulus 0]

Style of cutscenes has little to do with the market in this case.

US version of ArmA has a similar style, as well as the Rahmadi Conflict campaign in the QG campaign

I'd say the game is going for the gap between COD/BF2 and ArmA 2.

IMHO the style of video has all the importance. It makes me remember COD:WaW. I'm sure that a lot of COD:Waw fans will also probably associate it.

IMHO they are not aiming to that gap mentioned. They are aiming to COD/BF2.

Thus the video.... but it's just an opinion.

[Maddmatt 1]

IMHO they are not aiming to that gap mentioned. They are aiming to COD/BF2.

If they were, it would be regenerating health and you wouldn't die in one shot. COD fans don't usually enjoy 'tactical' games where you have to lead a team.

It's more complex than COD/BF2, but less than ArmA 2. A perfect spot for them.

[von_paulus 0]

If they were, it would be regenerating health and you wouldn't die in one shot. COD fans don't usually enjoy 'tactical' games where you have to lead a team.

Agree. Let's say DR has COD style with a little ARMA spicey. ;)

But I'm pretty sure it's that COD fanbase that they want.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Von_Paulus

[p75 10]

Is it me or do the in game videos seem blurry without AA? And that on pcs which were tuned for the game...