FP : DR - News & Discussion

[echo1 0]

Edit: Oh, and its still extra heavy with the PR bullshit too: "We have a persistent, highly dense visual effects, which is a huge and difficult thing to pull off and we've actually achieved that with the EGO engine. To my knowledge no-one has ever done that to this level before"

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

And in the magazine's summary of the game, they noted its "Original approach to FPS". Either this game has nothing to do with the sort of gameplay you'd find in OFP/ArmA or whoever wrote that piece didn't do his research. They also noted "Not as pretty as the press shots" though...

[Fredsas 0]

Well I'm not sure if you guys have seen this one. It just came out to day I think.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/operation-flashpoint-dragon-rising-preview?page=1

[Deadfast 43]

Looks like it could be a fun game to play. I hope it turns out well. I know it won't be a proper OFP sequel from what I've read, but it might be a blast, at least for console players.

EDIT: New Eurogamer article. See Clive writhe and squirm talking about BIS! It says BIS made a "furious reaction to the incorrect suggestion that someone from the original OPF team was working on Dragon Rising", but doesn't mention the fact it was actually Clive who claimed that!

I'm sure we have, just 2 posts ago ;)

[JdB 151]

Lol @ Eurogamer article, by reading it, you get the impression that the PR team at Codemasters wrote it themselves, which they probably did. Not a single critical note towards Codemasters, but plenty of finger pointing at BIS. Then again, Eurogamer are the kind of whores that have been known to be in the pockets of big publishers.

We went into it knowing that the worst living nightmare of the PC guys was that we'd compromise. You read the forums and they still think we will.

Not really surprising that people are thinking that when only a page ago, he said so himself that they were going for a balance, and that BIS is going super-realistic. How is that not compromising?

[max power 21]

It's very hard to figure what they could possibly mean by compromize. It's just a marketing smoke screen and it makes no sense at all. Game development is full of compromizes, like any sort of enterprise where you are expending resources and expecting gain from it.

[nodunit 397]

I like this one. "Just forget about it all, and focus on being excited about what OPF:DR has to offer."

Even better I love how they say the two games are different then they say "What's it like to be shot at? The whistling noise, the tracers going past. So I don't think their focus is quite the same." :j:

Oh dears I hope this spacebar dive to the floor isn't instant and that you can shoot just as you hit, otherwise I see a LOT of dolphin diving from bf2.

I might just have some shield of hate blinding my eyes that Dragon Rising could be a good game but they keep comparing features of DR to Arma that are obviously in Arma yet by their words they act like it's not.

Edited April 17, 2009 by NodUnit

[boomar. 10]

You guys are a bunch of immature haters.

OFP2 looks to be a great game, same with ArmA2.

But when i browse this topic i see nothing but trolling/bashing on OFP2 mostly.

The OFP2 community is far superior to the ArmA community thats for sure.

In the OFP2 forums, in the ArmA thread sure there is a bias towards OFP2 and they pick out bad things of ArmA2 but still, its much worse here.

It doesnt really matter, since OFP2 has already beaten Arma2. The sales of OFP2 will no doubt be bigger than ArmA2, especially since Codemasters are a known grp, they prolly have more money to spend on advertising, and people know the OFP name more than ArmA.

When i was talking to some online friends about OFP2, i then mentioned another game similar which might be good coming out, which is ArmA2. They thought i was talking about the free FPS Americas Army 2. Just shows....

[boomar. 10]

Also noticed quite a bit of wikipedia vandalism on OFP2 page, it gets cleaned up but ive no doubt its an Arma fanboi.

Just my 2c.

[eenter 0]

You guys are a bunch of immature haters.

It doesnt really matter, since OFP2 has already beaten Arma2.

:lol: Immature haters you say...

[sparks50 0]

Wikipedia vandalism is common on the Arma 2 page too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ArmA_2&diff=275659621&oldid=273059076

So there are idiots on both sides.

Ill tell why this community is so much more negative to OFP 2, then OFP 2 community is to Arma 2:

The naming controversy. CM is essentially lying by claiming responsibility for what they were not responsible to, and successfully scamming potential buyers. CM could have called its game "Dragon Rising", and I would guess that the vast majority of users on this forum would have been ok with it. Actually I think a lot more on this forum would have been positive to the game.

I may get both games irregardless though. Theres no use in letting this affect what fun could be had, and its not like realistic tactical shooters are commonly released nowadays.

Edited April 17, 2009 by sparks50

[Placebo 28]

You guys are a bunch of immature haters.

That would seem somewhat of a double standard, make your point without insulting people please.

[echo1 0]

It doesnt really matter, since OFP2 has already beaten Arma2. The sales of OFP2 will no doubt be bigger than ArmA2, especially since Codemasters are a known grp, they prolly have more money to spend on advertising, and people know the OFP name more than ArmA.

When i was talking to some online friends about OFP2, i then mentioned another game similar which might be good coming out, which is ArmA2. They thought i was talking about the free FPS Americas Army 2. Just shows....

So all criticism of the OFP DR is invalid because A) Codemasters is a bigger company than BIS and B) your friends are ill-informed? How exactly does that make sense?

For the record, I am not an ArmA "fanboi", I will more than likely grab OFP DR as soon after it comes out. I just have my doubts :) Incidentally - find me some criticism of OFP DR that is "immature" and unsubstantiated.

BTW: Did you just join this forum to flame this topic?

Edited April 17, 2009 by echo1

[nodunit 397]

Ill tell why this community is so much more negative to OFP 2, then OFP 2 community is to Arma 2:

The naming controversy. CM is essentially lying by claiming responsibility for what they were not responsible to, and successfully scamming potential buyers. CM could have called its game "Dragon Rising", and I would guess that the vast majority of users on this forum would have been ok with it. Actually I think a lot more on this forum would have been positive to the game.

I may get both games irregardless though. Theres no use in letting this affect what fun could be had, and its not like realistic tactical shooters are commonly released nowadays.

Egg-sactly! They also use this naming thing in their interviews which irks alot of people, calling it "Flashpoint" instead of Dragon Rising.

I'm probably one of the bigger haters right now (though I have my reasons, I don't go around saying 'omfg ofpdr sux') and I'll likely buy it still, the vehicle animations they showed were one aspect that really interested me and I do hope they include that.

It just would be nice if they stop acting like their making something that is completely new and comparing it vs Arma when Armed Assault clearly has those features. (Even OFP1 did)

It's not that we hate CM in general, we just hate/dislike what they are doing with this.

Although by they I mean Clive, it is unjust afterall to accuse the entire team of his misleadings.

-a shower clears the mind and lets you think a bit more clearly, just wish I remembered it was HIM at him at the time rather then say 'they' as a whole.

Edited April 17, 2009 by NodUnit

[fumo 0]

I think Boomar is right. The most posts in this thread sounds like "BIS is god and CM nothing worth and a lier". But most forget something: Where would BIS now be, if CM had not publisht OFP? Would that studio still exist or would the talented developers be degradet to program boring office-software for third-party companys?

So it's unimportant if OFP: DR would beat ArmAII or not, if CM lies or exaggerates with marketing, we all should be thankful for that they have give BIS a chance nine years ago to show the world what they can.

Don't blame CM that much, they don't deserve it :).

[sparks50 0]

Is publishing charity though? :)

Edited April 17, 2009 by sparks50

[boomar. 10]

Sorry if what i said was a bit harsh, i was just a bit mad at the time and after reading my post, i noticed i was turning into one of the immature haters i was talking about. Hehe forgive me =( :eek:

[boomar. 10]

PZ Zone UK have a OFP: DR hand-on preview which should be around the web soon.

Here is a snipit:

"Not only is OFP: DR not the blight on a PC classic some pessimists are expecting, it's a worthy successor to the original. This is a modern war sim with authenticity at its core, and a level of accessibility that concedes nothing to the blockbuster scripted behemoths of Call of Duty and Gears of War."

Edited April 17, 2009 by boomar.

[SaBrE_UK 0]

I have had personal contact recently with the guy who wrote that PC ZONE article. He is not a hardcore fan like we are, as you'd expect. He doesn't know of the excellence that we take for granted, such as hundreds of AI in island-wide battles, excellent mod support, unparalleled realism, 50+ players in multiplayer battles etc.. These are things that are part of what OFP is, and DR is threatening not to replicate. There's not even a fuel limitation on vehicles. Now I am not saying the game will be bad, just that it will not be a true successor to OFP1, whatever the thought-to-be-infallible mainstream press say.

How can someone who barely played the original game have a definitive opinion on whether the sequel is worthy?

By the way, the guy who wrote the PCZ article made this game. Bit of trivia for you.

[fumo 0]

Is publishing charity though? :)

In this case, where a big company has give to a small studio the opportunity to prove his self, left him the right to autonomy and to the most parts of the software and product as well as the permission to still use the name "Operation Flashpoint" for marketing (how it's wrote on the ArmA box), yes. I think here came publishing right near to charity. I also think we are conscious that BIS now could be called "EA-Prague" or something similar if they has "dealed" with another publisher ;).

[4 IN 1 0]

Don't buy the game mag stuff too much, most of the time they are just saying what the publisher want to say, not what buyer should know.

About the name using thing, BI can take mention to that name as long as they make correct statment that the name alone is trademarked to CM because they are only speaking of the truth that ofp:cwc and ofp:r as well as ofp:e is all their work(ofp:rh mission pack do not count as it's CM stand alone work)

On the other hand, CM cannot say that(or sounds like) they made the title mentioned above, while they still can use "operation flashpoint" title for any future title and give it whatever subtitle they want as long as they don't touch the rule above

Edited April 17, 2009 by 4 IN 1

[sparks50 0]

In this case, where a big company has give to a small studio the opportunity to prove his self, left him the right to autonomy and to the most parts of the software and product as well as the permission to still use the name "Operation Flashpoint" for marketing (how it's wrote on the ArmA box), yes. I think here came publishing right near to charity. I also think we are conscious that BIS now could be called "EA-Prague" or something similar if they has "dealed" with another publisher ;).

They took a calculated risk. Im not into videogames, but I am involved in distribution, and I have yet to see a firm sign a distribution contract because of passion or charity, when money is on the line. But hey, for all I know CM could be doing it all for their love of realistic videogames.

Edited April 17, 2009 by sparks50

[dm 9]

In this case, where a big company has give to a small studio the opportunity to prove his self, left him the right to autonomy and to the most parts of the software and product as well as the permission to still use the name "Operation Flashpoint" for marketing (how it's wrote on the ArmA box), yes. I think here came publishing right near to charity. I also think we are conscious that BIS now could be called "EA-Prague" or something similar if they has "dealed" with another publisher ;).

Clearly you have no idea of the ACTUAL background of OFP, BIS and CM.

Do some research, then come back. Kaythxbai.

[fumo 0]

Clearly you have no idea of the ACTUAL background of OFP, BIS and CM.

Do some research, then come back. Kaythxbai.

Then tell me what i have to know please. But in a normal kind and not in such CS-slang ;).

Ok? thanks, bye ;)

[sparks50 0]

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3018/postmortem_bohemia_interactive_.php

Interesting article. According to it, the team changed publishers several times throughout development.

[nodunit 397]

That's quite a touching and happy story. Touching to read just how dedicated BIS was to OFP and to give them their due CM did a great job on the marketing.

Though I do wonder what the lead programmers expression was when he first heard "The seagull is not flying".