FP : DR - News & Discussion

[jblackrupert 14]

I remember something the called a manual in the old days........

I remember buying games based on the weight of the box alone....

I remember paper and cloth maps and other goodies and it wasn't called the "Elite special edition"... and didn't cost $100 or more.

I remember games based on books included the book itself.....

The old days were gooooooood. Except of course the dongle and code wheels

among many ridiculous protection schemes in those days......

Opening a game in the old days was like Christmas morning in Bill gates house

compared to now.

Edited September 25, 2009 by jblackrupert

[Defunkt 431]

Well, I've preordered it, lets see how it goes...

Not for me to tell you how to spend your money but I think it's a shame more gamers don't keep their wallet in their pocket until a game is proven, especially in this case given how little CM have revealed. Can't help but feel it'd lead to better games.

[jblackrupert 14]

Chances are it'll get leaked online before release then videos and reviews will appear for at least the SP part.

[Blake 0]

I still can't get over the terrain, I mean does Skira island really look like "Shire"? Closest real life comparison which I've experienced is wine region of Santa Barbara county in California with gentle, grassy hills and some odd groups of leafy trees here and there. Beatiful yes, but somehow it does not feel like a theater for a conflict. Not to mention the bits of brick fences placed on the terrain just for the purpose of offering player some protection...very artificial.

But I bet it will probably be fun for a short while, I can't figure anyone playing ArmA 2 shifting to that for good.

[jblackrupert 14]

Arma II has stone fences scattereed around in some odd places also.

Remnents of old brick and stone foundations aren't out of place

in a place like the island it was modeled on if it had scattered populations

over centuries.

[Blackhawk 0]

Not for me to tell you how to spend your money but I think it's a shame more gamers don't keep their wallet in their pocket until a game is proven, especially in this case given how little CM have revealed. Can't help but feel it'd lead to better games.

Well, what little reviews that have come seem good, no drop below 7, and having read some, I don't get the feeling this game will be bad, just a disappointment compared to OFP.

One of those games I'll be playing on Saturday night..

[4 IN 1 0]

I remember something the called a manual in the old days........

I remember buying games based on the weight of the box alone....

I remember paper and cloth maps and other goodies and it wasn't called the "Elite special edition"... and didn't cost $100 or more.

I remember games based on books included the book itself.....

The old days were gooooooood. Except of course the dongle and code wheels

among many ridiculous protection schemes in those days......

Opening a game in the old days was like Christmas morning in Bill gates house

compared to now.

Yeah, remember falcon 4.0, the good old days

[von_paulus 0]

I remember something the called a manual in the old days........

I remember buying games based on the weight of the box alone....

I remember paper and cloth maps and other goodies and it wasn't called the "Elite special edition"... and didn't cost $100 or more.

I remember games based on books included the book itself.....

The old days were gooooooood. Except of course the dongle and code wheels

among many ridiculous protection schemes in those days......

Opening a game in the old days was like Christmas morning in Bill gates house

compared to now.

Indeed. Even the code wheels seems charming now compared to nowadays.

Those times are over.

Yes I remember Falcon 4 box. Now that was a manual.

[anguis 4]

I remember something the called a manual in the old days........

I remember buying games based on the weight of the box alone....

I remember paper and cloth maps and other goodies and it wasn't called the "Elite special edition"... and didn't cost $100 or more.

I remember games based on books included the book itself.....

The old days were gooooooood. Except of course the dongle and code wheels

among many ridiculous protection schemes in those days......

Opening a game in the old days was like Christmas morning in Bill gates house

compared to now.

So true! I remember all that, too - thanks for the nostalgia-inducing post! Some protection schemes were even educational - cf. F-19 Stealth Fighter: you ended up memorizing various NATO and Soviet aircraft.

[interox 10]

Not for me to tell you how to spend your money but I think it's a shame more gamers don't keep their wallet in their pocket until a game is proven, especially in this case given how little CM have revealed. Can't help but feel it'd lead to better games.

This post could well be applicable to Arma2 :rolleyes:

[Defunkt 431]

ArmA 2 has more than proven itself worthy of purchase for me.

[BronzeEagle 2]

arma2 looks cool ill admit, but this dragon rising looks overall more professional, looks more thorough.

[max power 21]

arma2 looks cool ill admit, but this dragon rising looks overall more professional, looks more thorough.

LOL WUT

This you'll have to quantify, I think.

[interox 10]

ArmA 2 has more than proven itself worthy of purchase for me.

And me too however that's after how long since release date? Arma2 is fantastic when it all comes together and does what it should.

As for DR; loads of people bashing a non released game, never played it never will mentality all because of a name. None of it based on and kind of actual gameplay experience.

I've pre ordered DR, I can afford it and I'm not biased or fussed about a name, I want a good looking, fun and functional wargame. If DR is that I'll be happy.

[4 IN 1 0]

I wait till there is a beta patch release system and brought it last momth, doesnt that mean somthing? ;)

Edited September 26, 2009 by 4 IN 1

[Rhodite 3]

I think its wiser to wait for the game or demo to be released before passing judgemet on DR. Until we get the chance to see and play the final product we can speculate till the cows come home.

Making sweeping statements that it is better or worse than another title at this stage is rather risky..

Assumptions are.. well you know the rest.

[orbwar 10]

It is the same problem with EA Games and BF1943 that is only available on consoles at the moment.

Think its time for a petition

Save PC Games !

[hoot 0]

Thanks to Dawnrazor666 from our forums, we have been shown some actual ranking of OFP2 in two German gamemags.

PCG 77%

Pro:

+ stylish and expensive lighting with vast battlefields

+ lots of weapons

+ compelling campaign

+ terrific sounds

Negative:

-AI comrades have blackouts

-you can complete some missions by using trial and error tactics only

-no quick save

-inconvenient radial menus

conclusio: it's like playing the old Ghost Recon series

Gamestar 78%

Negative:

-no embark and disembarking [animations]

-no vegetation drawn at distance [same clutter technology i guess]

-hostiles are often less demanding

-it hardly feels like playing a team

-vegetation is indestructible

-vehicle controls are woolly [?]

-campaign too short

-armory is just little in use

-less surprises

-some glitches in logics

-AI is sometimes not responding or behaves uncommon

-vehicle fleet is not really in use during campaign

-no cutscenes

Source: http://hx3.de/operation-flashpoint-2-dragon-rising-155/ofp-dr-updates-15809/39/#post268963

Edit: Thanks to Cyborg11 we have intel about the comparison article that can be also found in the current issue of the PCGames

[...]

"Is OFP2 the better Arma2 ?"

The answer is: obviously NO!

[...] But after some missions it becomes plainly clear that OFP2 is everything, but not a real military simulator. [...]

Source: http://hx3.de/community-161/ofp2-keine-konkurrenz-f-r-arma2-17758/34/#post268968

Edited September 26, 2009 by Hoot

[Leopardi 0]

arma2 looks cool ill admit, but this dragon rising looks overall more professional, looks more thorough.

No it doesn't.

[Heatseeker 0]

Thanks to Dawnrazor666 from our forums, we have been shown some actual ranking of OFP2 in two German gamemags.

PCG 77%

Pro:

+ stylish and expensive lighting with vast battlefields

+ lots of weapons

+ compelling campaign

+ terrific sounds

Negative:

-AI comrades have blackouts

-you can complete some missions by using trial and error tactics only

-no quick save

-inconvenient radial menus

conclusio: it's like playing the old Ghost Recon series

Gamestar 78%

Negative:

-no embark and disembarking [animations]

-no vegetation drawn at distance [same clutter technology i guess]

-hostiles are often less demanding

-it hardly feels like playing a team

-vegetation is indestructible

-vehicle controls are woolly [?]

-campaign too short

-armory is just little in use

-less surprises

-some glitches in logics

-AI is sometimes not responding or behaves uncommon

-vehicle fleet is not really in use during campaign

-no cutscenes

Source: http://hx3.de/operation-flashpoint-2-dragon-rising-155/ofp-dr-updates-15809/39/#post268963

Edit: Thanks to Cyborg11 we have intel about the comparison article that can be found also in the current issue of the PCGames

[...]

"Is OFP2 the better Arma2 ?"

The answer is: obviously NO!

[...] But after some missions it becomes plainly clear that OFP2 is everything, but not a real military simulator. [...]

Source: http://hx3.de/community-161/ofp2-keine-konkurrenz-f-r-arma2-17758/34/#post268968

Well, A2 is not a real military simulator either... anyway i find it surprising that they didnt mention the tether in coop or the 4 km2 limitation in online adversarial, on the other hand i find it interesting that they compare it to OGR (in a large/open battlefield).

I could use a game to play betwean now and early next year, lets see that demo.

[hoot 0]

Guess both articles will pop up during the next few days on the net so we can read them completely.

The term 'real military simulator' is meant to make a difference between FPS, tactical shooters, and those semi-simulators like BI's games are. I guess we do all know, that neither OFP:CWC/RH/R/E nor ArmA/Arma2 are simulators by definition ;)

And true, since i really know what i will get now with OFP2, i have no real problem with buying it to fill the gap until OA hits the shelves. Modern warfare becomes boring after a month, so i do need something different for some fast-paced oriented sessions. No blasphemy here, OFP2 is for sure no COD but on the other hand it's also no OFP.

[4 IN 1 0]

so it have about the same scores as with ARMA2(which is heavily bugged that time)

[echo1 0]

Yeah, and it seems to me that the bugs were the main complaint of the critics... If BIS had waited till the game was in a more stable state, it probably would have done much better. I hope they remember this fact the next time around :p

[bogdanm 0]

arma2 looks cool ill admit, but this dragon rising looks overall more professional, looks more thorough.

Care to elaborate? For me at least, it exactly the other way around.

As for DR; loads of people bashing a non released game, never played it never will mentality all because of a name. None of it based on and kind of actual gameplay experience.

Most of the criticism is about things that are present in other games also, not about things never seen before(if there are any). Of course we will not know all the insights before we actually play the game but we can make a pretty good idea based on the experience with other titles.

I've pre ordered DR, I can afford it and I'm not biased or fussed about a name, I want a good looking, fun and functional wargame. If DR is that I'll be happy.

Than it seems to be the right game for you.

Pro:

+ stylish and expensive lighting with vast battlefields

+ lots of weapons

+ compelling campaign

+ terrific sounds

Negative:

-AI comrades have blackouts

-you can complete some missions by using trial and error tactics only

-no quick save

-inconvenient radial menus

conclusio: it's like playing the old Ghost Recon series

Gamestar 78%

Negative:

-no embark and disembarking [animations]

-no vegetation drawn at distance [same clutter technology i guess]

-hostiles are often less demanding

-it hardly feels like playing a team

-vegetation is indestructible

-vehicle controls are woolly [?]

-campaign too short

-armory is just little in use

-less surprises

-some glitches in logics

-AI is sometimes not responding or behaves uncommon

-vehicle fleet is not really in use during campaign

-no cutscenes

The PROs are exactly what I expected and never questioned. But its funny to see that many of the Cons are those things CM fans complained about ARMA2 and joyed that OFP: DR won't have them. But I'm rather surprised though that the people who made the review came up with so few Pros, I hope that there are some other also.

[von_paulus 0]

i find it surprising that they didnt mention the tether in coop or the 4 km2 limitation in online adversarial....

and also the fact that it seems there is no support for dedicated servers and only 4 maps for MP.

Those reviews don't mention anything related with MP and PVP.

Besides what about the Mission editor? No word?