Dragon Rising has been released

[SD_BOB 10]

Really makes me appreciate ArmA 2 all the more, i have only played with the editor so far but the graphics for one are just sub-par. At distance this looks like Delta Force 2 (fantastic game i know, but in its day). I didnt think i would say it, but i miss the distance fog of the ArmA series.

I really dont see how people can say this is even close to ArmA 2 in graphic quality alone. Maybe ArmA 2 on low settings but my god, this is maxed out.

Now to look at the actual gameplay, fingers crossed...

Edited October 8, 2009 by Shadow.D. ^BOB^

[XquZ2 10]

ive got arma 2 and operation flashpoint 2....

what should i say...

arma 2 is much more realistic, and i love that part!

the graphics from OFP2 are just bad in my eyes...

im playing it on max settings (incl. 16xQAA+16xAF via driver)@1920x1080, and it still locks bad... but at least i´ve got ALWAYS 60 fps (cant get more, vsync is on)...

arma 2 looks better on medium to high graphics (compared to OFP2 @max settings), but its just really bad optimised...

but OFP2 has one good point for me:

the singleplayer... its just much better (through smaller) than arma 2´s...

but the thing that matter is MP, and arma 2 clearly wins here - but thats no suprise...

i prefer arma 2 overall, its just the better game... even through its not playable at max settings...

by the way:

if someone knows whats the problem with my arma 2 performance please send me a pm...

my rig:

Amd Phenom II X4 945

4GB DDR2 800 dual channel, ganged

Geforce GTX 295 (yes, im using SLI enhancer, the latest patches and nHancer)

[ZombieWolf 10]

The moment that they announced they were taking the game in a different/simpler direction from OFP, I knew this would lead to epic fail. I'm sorry, but this game has provided some pretty heavy epic fail so far, there's no way around it at this point.

Arma 2 had its problems at release with bugs, but this game just has design flaws.

A wise man once said "Bugs can be patched, but shoddy design is forever."

After having played DR, I now know that it's everything that this community knew it would be.

[sparks50 0]

Why does it install as X:\OF Dragon Rising?

Operation Flash Dragon Rising? :p

Good god, they didn't even get the name right :p

[Gedis 0]

Dramatic story of first and last ofp:dr test.

Installed ofp:dr, set all graphics on low(even much more bigger world of arma2 runs smoother), played first campaing mission, uninstalled the game.

Actualy my brother(he's a huge cod series fan) first played before me, and he told, start is soooo much like cod.

After his words and uninstalment finished, i added "it's like bf too" and explained, simple shooter... Later that day brother asked why aren't you playing ofp:dr? My answer was short: uninstalled. Brother laughed and told, BI spirit right? Answer: Hell YEAH!!!

Now the pros:

since i played like 15mins of first mission(maybe less) and with lowest graphical settings i noticed that only the sounds of explosions were really worth to be in pros list.

cons:

what was first really bad thing i saw, was commands menu, in the middle of the screen, covering everything(it's transparent, but...), it's bf stylish and complex. what we have in BI developed sim-games (ofp, arma, arma2) it's really simple(also not fancy, confusing looks) and easy to navigate in group commands menu, menu is on left or right, not covering center of the screen.

animations of soldier movements... i dunno why, but to me animations looked a bit bf'ish.

oh yeah, views: fixed view in vehicles, no free look.

nearly forgot! Let's get back a bit, i told that i played frist campaign mission for 15mins...

Well it was enough to get the idea, that it's scripted or at least a bit. You go there, you do that. Well we can do that in BI games too, but we are offered: you go there, you CAN do that HOW you want, it's up to you.

consolish nfs:pro stree menu...

I was surprised to see the knife! Yeah, although after few seconds after seeing that knife somehow i remembered CS:S...

So my verdict is: arcadish, scripted*, simple, good looking shooter with more realism than cod or bf series.

scripted* - maybe not entirely, but i got the feeling it might be, can't prove either.

Conclusion: I'm BI sim-games fan/adict of such genre?!

Edited October 8, 2009 by Gedis

[Sniperdoc 0]

Here's my review of OFP2: Dragon Rising:

I've played Operation Flashpoint (OFP), I've played Armed Assault (A1), Armed Assault 2 (A2) and now I've had the pleasure of Operation Flashpoint 2 (OFP2). I have to start by saying that I'm highly disappointed by both parties, Bohemia Interactive and Codemasters alike. Let me explain why:

OFP brought something entirely new to the playing field. Complete and utter sandbox style gameplay. The realism and gameplay of the engine, in its day was simply stunning. Mods were in abundance (not that I played a lot of them) and for someone who enjoys a realistic shooter, it was just an amazing game.

When A1 was released, I jumped on the game like it was an escort from the bunny ranch. I couldn't believe they made a game that was supposed to be just like OFP, but was supposed to have better graphics, sounds, and AI. Boy, was that far from the truth. A1 was OFP with tacked on features and textures, with loads of LOD and texture loading problems. The sound effects were a direct port from OFP, and the AI was/is atrocious. Even patching did not resolve all the issues A1 had.

So, when A2 was released, I decided to take things carefully and tested the water. I was burned by A1, so I downloaded A2 and gave it a whirl before I invested my hard earned money in more garbage. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the graphics and soundFX had gotten 100x better, and that it truly did feel like a sequel to OFP. But, the game was still plagued by LOD and texture loading problems just like its predecessor (BIS take a hint and build a new engine). The speech engine was terrible, the voice acting a joke, and the team AI is just one step short of the IQ of a rock, while on the other hand, the enemy AI is omnipotent and had amazing aim.

But, A2, despite its shortcomings, FEELS realistic. I was a Navy Corpsman with 1st Mar Div 3rd Bat 5th Marines STA Platoon, and I can honestly say, that A2 really takes me back to those days of being in the field. I'll say it again, it FEELS great! I do have to say that despite A1's faults, I find myself eerily drawn to Armed Assault 2 again and again.

On to OFP2...

OFP2 has great music, the loading screens are active, showing you your achievements and stats, and the cinematic cut scenes telling you the storyline of each mission, are very dynamic and in my opinion are done quite well. That's where everything comes to a halt.

GFX:

Once in the game, in the first campaign mission, on the highest settings, the game looks entirely fake. The environment colors are drab, the dawn sky and ambiance effects are overdone so much so that every color is has a yellow reddish hue that distracts making it feel and appear realistic. The textures themselves, from 50ft, look ok but do appear a bit like cut-outs...? Up close, the texture are extremely low quality and really make it appear like no effort was put into the textures at all. From a larger distance, the textures appear fine, but nothing above and beyond a 2007 or 2008 shooter. LOD models are poor and seem to called into play quite early. I was about 30 feet from a team AI model and I thought the face looked awfully square... so I zoomed in, and noticed that the head was extremely blocky and had just a painted on face. I guess while under fire and playing the game, it really shouldn't matter as I'm not there to enjoy my team mates tushes or pretty lips right? :D But, now that I've seen it, it just really seems to detract from the quality of the game and really shows how much the PC Game is still "consolized".

Music/Sound FX:

The music at the start screen is excellent. The recording quality is outstanding. I was very impressed with the report of the rifles in the game. The weapons sound clear and all have a distinctive crack to them that helps the "lacking" visual atmosphere. Just as a side note, I do have to say that the Barrett does seem to be dimmed down a bit. The Barrett in the game, sounds like the Barrett I shot when I had ear plugs AND a set of Mickey Mouse ears (headset ear muff/plugs) on. So, an increase in the Barrett's report would be much warranted. I'm not so sure if I like the whole heartbeat thing when running, but that's just a personal preference. The audio cues by the team AI are great, sound realistic and are believable.

AI - Team and Enemy:

The team AI, I have to say is refreshing and feels quite human. I don't have to handhold my team members like in A2. The team AI tends to find the enemy on their own and responds according to the orders given. In the night attack skirmish mission, I gave a hold fire order, snuck up to about 75-100ft of the enemy, issued a "fire on my go" (or whatever it's called) order, and my team laid waste to the 5 enemies as soon as I let loose with my AR-17.

The enemy AI seems to do quite well, responds properly when under attack, and doesn't appear to have that omnipotent I-KNOW-WHERE-YOU-ARE effect.. yet. Although, I do think that even on hardcore mode, the AI seems to be a bit... lacking? I haven't tried the other difficulty modes to really compare the differences between normal and hardcore enemy AI response.

Gameplay

Overall the game is very playable. It runs very smooth, has no fps drops, freezes, jerks, LOD/Texture loading problems, etc. It's pretty much rock solid.

On the negative side, the feel of the game is unimaginative, non-immersive and quite bland. Right at the start of the first campaign mission, I immediately felt like my character was sitting in a crouch (even though he was standing up), so the character feels way too low. The walking and running feels artificial and fake. It's almost like my character, during a run, is doing like a Iraqi HUP-TWO-HUP-TWO-HUP-TWO type double time march of some kind. It doesn't feel like a natural run at all.

The physics of the game are plain weird, vehicles going less than 20mph that hit a rock are bound to flip over or drive on two wheels. Breaking in a vehicle is slow and non-responsive just like turning corners while driving at higher speeds. Aircraft in the game that are NOT controlled by the player look extremely fake and unaffected by physics. It's like everything is on a wire and following the flow of the wire. Basically there are no gentle curves, just corners and abrupt bends in the flight path. Comparing a helicopter flying in Arma 2 to a helo in OFP2 is like comparing a soaring Eagle to a falling Brick respectively.

The health system is run of the mill, using both health packs and medics, but the graphical aspects are completely absent. I can't really explain it other than just by saying, watch a medic give a hypodermic injection to heal the player and observe the robotics ensue. It's like they handed C3-PO a hypo, dressed him as a Marine and told him to inject the player with morphine. Absolutely terrible, totally immersion breaking. The fact that healing a team mate just brings up a completion timer/bar and shows no physical actions is just kind of sad.

That vehicles that were hit by weapon fire can be fixed by a similar method, i.e. the repair timer (Battlefield 2 anyone?) is pretty unrealistic. I'm not going to ask my Recon team mates to go fix a broken gasket or manifold on that vehicle while there's a mission going on and we're in enemy territory...!?

Everything about the gameplay itself feel entirely artificial. I understand what CM tried to accomplish... they tried to merge BF2 or COD4's rapid and action packed play style with the realism of the original OFP. Alas, they tried admirably, but in my personal opinion ruined the gameplay because of it. Either choose one or the other, but this halfway thing... just doesn't do it for me.

Overall:

I understand that for consoles, cuts had to be made, but that's not why I by PC games... I believe I was presented with underwhelming graphics, poor physics, and bland gameplay. I feel like I'm playing a console game that has great AI. To me, that's a huge let-down to the PC community. It seems like Codemasters pulled a great PR stunt by presenting pre-rendered video of the game play that looks and feels absolutely NOTHING like what the real gameplay is like. I feel like Codemasters completely misrepresented the game and duped the PC gaming community... maybe even the console community.

For those that enjoy shooters on a console... by all means give this game a whirl. It's a great achievement and it definitely runs like a dream.

But, for those on a PC, I say steer clear of this game and wait for Call Of Duty:Modern Warfare 2 or purchase Armed Assault 2 if you're more the realism driven player. This game is EXTREMELY underwhelming on the PC when compared to Farcry 2, Crysis, and COD4 or COD:WaW.

PS: Almost forgot... there are enemy respawns!!! :) W00t! The first campaign mission, the house in the center of the small island, where the vehicle is parked and further north along the right side of the road, there are 2 guys at each location. Well, I went north first, killed all the guys on that road and destroyed the SAM sites, and rocket, and came back to that point to hit the area in the southern part of the island... and those guys had respawned...!?

Edited October 8, 2009 by Sniperdoc

[jw custom 56]

Why does it install as X:\OF Dragon Rising?

Operation Flash Dragon Rising? :p

Good god, they didn't even get the name right :p

Operation Flashpoint = OF :p

[mr_centipede 31]

Why does it install as X:\OF Dragon Rising?

Operation Flash Dragon Rising? :p

Good god, they didn't even get the name right :p

Maybe they want to disassociate with OFP? They didnt actually got 'OFP' name right? just Operation Flashpoint? So maybe BIS can make next game abbreviated OFP too? Operation Faux Pas, the new OFP (whatever that is :D)

[Rista 0]

What a let down has this game turned out to be. I was quite looking forward to a slightly simpler, slightly less realistic and less resource hungry "mil sim" that although wasn't an ARMA clone would at least be somewhat of a competitor. What we got instead is a game that falls short in areas that made the original OFP the game that it was/is.

Even all the ridiculous limitations aside which make multiplayer pretty much useless, the game looks pretty disappointing so far IMO. One of my problems with ARMA is the vegetation and I find constant LOD switching/morphing of bushes and trees a bit of an immersion killer so I was curious how will DR handle this. Well, the grass and bushes look quite good to me and don't give anywhere near as much a performance hit like they do in ARMA. HOWEVER, the draw distance for bushes seems fairly low and they simply disappear at relatively short distances leaving people hiding inside the bush completely visible :eek: Can anyone confirm this or this is something on my side?

The flying and driving models are a disappointment too. Now I'm not an expert when it comes to tanks and stuff but I'm sure the Abrams tank doesn't accelerate like a sports car IRL.

I don't like the floating camera and the fact that there is no leaning and no freelook. Not really a fan of the radial command system either.

Haven't really played enough yet to make a conclusion about the enemy AI but from what I've seen so far they don't seem very smart or accurate at all.

On the plus side, the game runs much better than ARMA does on my machine while the graphics are obviously not as good, they look well enough even though everything looks a bit too brown. It was to be expected since the game doesn't look as good as ARMA and is nowhere near as complex but I can confirm it runs well even on slow graphic cards by todays standards.

It's probably not a bad game for what it is. It's just that being a huge OFP fan it's not my style at all, especially considering the poor multiplayer and non existent modding support. I will probably only bother finishing the campaign and never touch the game again whereas in ARMA 2 I considered the campaign as some kind of a "bonus". That says alot about the differences between two games IMO. Aside from the name, OFP DR has got nothing to do with the original Flashpoint or ARMA. One great thing about it though is that, in a way, it made me appreciate ARMA 2 more :)

[W0lle 1046]

Why do we have to push enter at the title screen?

As clearly stated in the guidelines for this thread: No product support here, that includes your question. Ask that CM and its community.

@Others

I deleted all posts about piracy and the replies/quotes to it. In the future, if some clown comes up with this, report his post instead discussing it, thanks.

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

All pictures were captured at 1920x1080 resolution and scaled down to 1280 x720

All are on on Max settings for visual quality.

Operation Flash Point 2 Scene 1

Arma2 Scene 1

Operation Flash Point 2 Bad Guys

Arma2 Bad Guys

What CM said OFP-DR would look like.

Game Over Man!

[Bulldogs 10]

Well technically Flashpoint is one word so the correct initial's would be OF : DR

---------- Post added at 02:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 AM ----------

@Sniperdoc, didn't realise that was your review on the CM forums.. spot on, mate.

[highfly 10]

Gamespoint gives a 7.5 (good) to PS3 version, no ranking for PC yet.

the good:

Realism creates a great sense of tension Good variety of weapons and vehicles Long, challenging missions Entertaining multiplayer modes.

The Bad

AI makes notable blunders Assorted bugs and hitches.

I personnally launched it and played like 45 seconds at midday, but I had a good first feeling.

More when more tests done, but to what concerns me, I'm open to find it cool if it is and have no a priori for ArmA or OFP. (ArmA2 is sometimes soooo frustrating too, so...)

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

Regardless of how the game actually plays, I wonder if this represents a new nadir for a developer allocating resources to promotion rather than game design.

Allow me to remind you of this 'in game footage' which was released six months ago:

I mean, how on earth did they have the front to pass that off as anything other than a pre-render?

The second worst offence has to have been their very recent Facebook DR 'facts' including that trees would have a sophisticated destruction model and that vehicles would have an intelligent penetration system.

You wouldn't get away with lying like this in the vast majority of other industries. Yes, games like Far Cry 2 promised more than they could deliver, but there you didn't get the feeling that dev. company reps were telling bare-faced lies right up to the release date. The developers' complete silence when asked any question that makes their game look bad also smacks of utter arrogance. It seems quite unfair that CM are among the largest game devs in the UK; but I suppose that's what your reward is when you follow the almighty dollar.

- Can anyone give an example of a game that has had a more deceptive publicity campaign?

I used to attend with Press Passes the Consumer Electronic Shows and conduct interviews and reviews of games in progress and produce a video. You get to see ALOT of cool stuff when you have a press pass.

Here's how the game publishers (the sneaky ones) promote their games.

They go to the conventions, like the old CES, E3, etc.... with CONCEPTS of games to come out. Some of these are pre-rendered games shot onto DVD/Tape etc. They show them off at the little booths (sometimes huge booths with elevators, conference rooms, bars. Pretty wild actually)

90% of the people seeing these videos' really don't have a clue what they are looking at. They are business people that put in orders for games. So distribution / retailers can go... "We'll take 100,000 copies of that cause it's awesome." Big dog and pony show. They get the booth babes out there, and one time a big publisher (won't name names) actually PAID temps to play their console games and get all excited about them so these buyers would think it was a hot game. Seriously, paid to B.S. people. I know, cause I hid my press pass and spoke to a few of the temps.

Many, many of these concept titles don't even see the light of day for many reasons. But they are there.

One show promoted a big, big title complete with a Terminator type car, booth babes, loud music, graphics, cool swag. But not a single console had the game playing. Just a tape of the developers saying how great it is. "Ok, where is it?" I would ask, "Oh we are doing a major overhaul on a few parts, and it wasn't ready for the show." - The Game never came out.

Then you get the magazines that are in the position of "Selling Magazines!" SURPRISE!.... They take artwork, created by the distributor/developer, put it on the cover with some slick stuff, and sell it with a DVD that has mods and so forth, and maybe a video of a game. Write in the Preview how great it is, put in a disclaimer about it being "Work in Progress". And then with that said, can say anything they want.

Bottom Line with some of these guys.... "Get the Wholesalers and Magazines SOLD on the title. At all costs."

Remember back before Internet and Forums? You relied on the magazines to give fair reviews. We couldn't communicate. If the mag did reviews that weren't in line, you didn't sell magazines. Now with the Internet and the Websites, the paper magazines still have to sell paper and advertising. It's more cutthroat. Either the money comes from subscribers (a small percentage actually) or from the advertising (huge percentage). If you dog a game that is on your front cover, with DVD content. You just hurt your bottom line. Then there are the lost leaders.... games that are so horrible, that sure, they will smash that one into the ground to give the impression of giving out fair reviews, and the publishers of the games know that. It gives more credibility to the games they DO care about and want to push.

[Richey79 10]

Luhgnut;1457879']

What CM said OFP-DR would look like.

Game Over Man!

But... that mission does look exactly like that. Plus' date=' I don't think the image you chose looks particularly amazing.

Graphics aren't really that important anyway. When I look at your comparisons, the AII shots just indicate to me that they were going for a more serious approach, which appeals to me.

Having now played DR, it's quite fun. I suppose a good comparison would be to the original Brothers In Arms.

IMO:

+ The campaign is a jolly blast.

+ The distance the AI spot you from is done quite well.

+ Friendly AI don't get stuck very often.

+ The adaptive lighting, although unrealistic, does not render portions of the game unplayble.

+ Graphically, some of the particle effects are very efficient in how much processing power they use up.

+ Sound is pretty nice (but still puts you in a Hollywood frame of mind and kills the tension somewhat).

+ I have to say that when the PLA troops start crying to themselves, it's quite fun.

- Multiplayer is utterly borked and unlikely to ever be fixed.

- Bloom is out of control and there are far less graphical options than in other games *cough*

- 100% scripted missions. Most enemies placed in the same place ever time, a few spawn options don't really keep things fresh.

- I thought the Chinese assault rifles were badly modelled.

- The player camera is completely mis-placed. Look down and you'll feel like a 3' midget.

- Bland dialogue. As badly performed as AII's, but with no attempt to escape cliche and with less foreign dialogue. I can't remember exactly what your team-mates say when they start taking heavy fire, but it's something embarrassing like 'Starting to get heavy here' in a completely calm voice. Immediately after taking several direct hits.

- This along with the oddly gorilla-like soldier models gives me a feeling that the game is (unintentionally) promoting an image of the marines as being stupid. BIS's characterisation was actually pretty good for Razor team, I thought.

- 2D vegetation looks [i']really[/i] bad when combined with the AT animations. Seriously, it feels like being back-stage at the pantomime at times.

- Close combat is really poorly modelled. Especially the few times when you are fighting amongst buildings. At these ranges the AI can actually kill you with one shot, but it doesn't feel realistic, just unfair.

- Alongside 'realism', CM's promoters kept using the word 'fear' and that is something you rarely feel, since it's very rare that you actually have to take cover properly (you don't really notice the absence of leaning), your AI squad-mates rarely die and even attack helos are more likely to injure you than kill you outright.

So, a much longer list of negatives than positives. However, if they hadn't used the OFP name and this wasn't always being compared with that legacy, it's an above average game IMO. I do think that for console (only) owners it offers something approaching a new experience for them. You are encouraged to play tactically, and if you don't then you'll just find it frustrating. It's a world away from AII, but it's not that close to Halo or Gears of War, either.

Sorry for the long post. Take it for what it is: the opinion of a long-time BIS player.

@Luhgnut - Interesting post. Yes, it does appear that was a pre-render, either for pitching the game or a convention. Also appears it may well not have been CM who leaked it, although I'm sure they didn't mind that it got out! Seems everyone knew but me... ho hum.

What 360 owners think of the game:

(source - http://uk.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/operationflashpoint2/players.html?tag=player-reviews;header;more)

Not a bad thing for us fans of tactical shooters through to wide-scope military sims. Or BIS's chances of finding a publisher, passing certification etc. on consoles.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Richey79

[Sniperdoc 0]

Well technically Flashpoint is one word so the correct initial's would be OF : DR

---------- Post added at 02:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 AM ----------

@Sniperdoc, didn't realise that was your review on the CM forums.. spot on, mate.

:) Yeppers... I go by either 8541Doc or Sniperdoc... both mean the same.

I do have to say that the screenshots CM provided and what we received as an end result are so far off it's really falsified marketing information.

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

But... that mission does look exactly like that. Plus, I don't think the image you chose looks particularly amazing.

Graphics aren't really that important anyway. When I look at your comparisons, the AII shots just indicate to me that they were going for a more serious approach, which appeals to me.

Having now played DR, it's quite fun. I suppose a good comparison would be to the original Brothers In Arms.

IMO:

+ The campaign is a jolly blast.

+ The distance the AI spot you from is done quite well.

+ Friendly AI don't get stuck very often.

+ The adaptive lighting, although unrealistic, does not render portions of the game unplayble.

+ Graphically, some of the particle effects are very efficient in how much processing power they use up.

+ Sound is pretty nice (but still puts you in a Hollywood frame of mind and kills the tension somewhat).

+ I have to say that when the PLA troops start crying to themselves, it's quite fun.

- Multiplayer is utterly borked and unlikely to ever be fixed.

- Bloom is out of control and there are far less graphical options than in other games *cough*

- 100% scripted missions. Most enemies placed in the same place ever time, a few spawn options don't really keep things fresh.

- I thought the Chinese assault rifles were badly modelled.

- The player camera is completely mis-placed. Look down and you'll feel like a 3' midget.

- Bland dialogue. As badly performed as AII's, but with no attempt to escape cliche and with less foreign dialogue. I can't remember exactly what your team-mates say when they start taking heavy fire, but it's something embarrassing like 'Starting to get heavy here' in a completely calm voice. Immediately after taking several direct hits.

- This along with the oddly gorilla-like soldier models gives me a feeling that the game is (unintentionally) promoting an image of the marines as being stupid. BIS's characterisation was actually pretty good for Razor team, I thought.

- 2D vegetation looks really bad when combined with the AT animations. Seriously, it feels like being back-stage at the pantomime at times.

- Close combat is really poorly modelled. Especially the few times when you are fighting amongst buildings. At these ranges the AI can actually kill you with one shot, but it doesn't feel realistic, just unfair.

- Alongside 'realism', CM's promoters kept using the word 'fear' and that is something you rarely feel, since it's very rare that you actually have to take cover properly (you don't really notice the absence of leaning), your AI squad-mates rarely die and even attack helos are more likely to injure you than kill you outright.

So, a much longer list of negatives than positives. However, if they hadn't used the OFP name and this wasn't always being compared with that legacy, it's an above average game IMO. I do think that for console (only) owners it offers something approaching a new experience for them. You are encouraged to play tactically, and if you don't then you'll just find it frustrating. It's a world away from AII, but it's not that close to Halo or Gears of War, either.

Sorry for the long post. Take it for what it is: the opinion of a long-time BIS player.

The screenshots are REPRESENTATIVE of what's in the game. I do agree with you about the AI. They are scripted. If you don't trip the scripting, then they are as dumb as a bag of hammers. I consistently engaged the enemy at 300m+ without any return fire what-so-ever. Because I saw them outside of the script trigger. Even if they do return fire. I just stand there reloading and shoot em up. They can't hit you most of the time.

The console peeps will eat it up, because it's different and bigger than anything else out there ATM. But on PC it's just a wash of bland graphics, no physics model, no bullet drop. I never changed weapons the whole time. Just kept my stock assault rifle and killed the enemy with impunity. As long as you don't trip the trigger/script, you are invisible.

Also, once I figured out the "sweet spot" on when to start shooting, you don't need a squad at all. Oh, they pick out the enemy for you way off, move up a tad, and nail em.

To take the screenshot, I started OFPDR, and just randomly hit F10 didn't set anything up. For A2 shots, I placed the guys in the editor to reproduce the same sort of situation as I took in OFPDR. At first engagement of the enemy in OFPDR, I snapped a picture. As well as first starting the game. These are the two points that "set the stage" of what's to come. When OFPDR started, that's what I saw and nearly puked. When we first engaged the enemy, I just stood there taking screen shots. Nice and casual. Never got shot. Then we went up and blew up the Antenna. Went over the hill to the town, I took out half the enemy from the top of the hill as the squad called out targets. They never shot back and was a cake walk. Then walked into town (that was a little fun but you try that in arma2... just walking into town? They will tear you to shreds. Not in OFPDR.... just stroll in.

I do see you're point about being in town and getting one shotted. But what I found odd, was that you could clear an area. Stand there, go get a smoke, hit the bio, come back and move, then suddenly a guy was behind you one shotting you. My theory is that he wasn't there before, I tripped a trigger, he spawned and whacked me. One last thing, I've never been able to walk/run through heavy machine gun fire and not die in any game. The enemy machine guns hit you as if they were firing nerf darts. I just stood there chucking grenades.

Bottom line... seriously, without Bias towards BIS. OFPDR is a sorry joke, and a mild diversion at best. Just wish I didn't pay for it.

Edited October 8, 2009 by [RIP] Luhgnut

[Zeron 10]

Unistalled after a couple of hours.

This was the first war game i uninstalled after a couple of hours.

Total waste of time.

[Bulldogs 10]

It's a good point to note that while the AI do spot you from a good reasonable distance, that distance is lowered when there's heavy vegetation or at night time, but they can see clearly through the vegetation so it's just lowered.

I did the same test I did with Arma 2. Placed myself on the ground under a bush and set the AI ( in the editor ) to run past me. With Arma 2 the AI runs straight past (although if you put them in a squad you can hear them say that they've seen you sometimes, but they still ignore you). The same test with FP2 has them get about 30m from you then open fire.

BTW, the game just gave me a new favourite AI moment. We were under attack in a nice small battle and at the end it was us and an APC. We had myself and 3 AI under my command, the other fireteam had 3 men left. I was the only one with an AT weapon, and I only had two rounds left. So I loaded them up and fired on the APC. One after the other, both direct side hits....

The APC showed no signs of damage but obviously I had disabled it as the AI rushed forward and the APC didn't fire or move. That said, the mission wouldn't end til we destroyed the last APC and we had no ammo left...

So the AI start firing on the APC with everything they have (mainly M4's, a few pistols), well, this thing took two SMAW rounds, it's not going to worry about a few bullets. Finally I hear one AI shout "Fire in the hole!". I think "hooray, the AI has actually used it's brain", and the grenade lands right on the tracks of the APC...... 8 seconds later the APC has been completely shrowded by the smoke grenade..... the AI stop firing.

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

8 seconds later the APC has been completely shrowded by the smoke grenade..... the AI stop firing.

Now that's funny.

[SD_BOB 10]

Can we just give the game to the BI team? Maybe they could do something with this.

Then again, i wouldnt want my name associated with it in its current state.

When i first started playing and from reading comments on forums, i had hoped that maybe some serious patching might be able to save this. But now i have played more, the core of the game is just not up to a PC game standard.

Roll on Operation - Arrowhead...

Edited October 8, 2009 by Shadow.D. ^BOB^

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

Can we just give the game to the BI team? Maybe they could do something with this...

Then again, i wouldnt want my name associated with it in its current state.

Oh, there are some things in OFPDR, that BIS could learn from. I think the Javelin is spot on. and.... hmmm.

the Javelin is spot on.

[sparks50 0]

Luhgnut;1457930']

the Javelin is spot on.

While it does has some nice animations' date=' its still auto targeting like the BI one. Thus missing a large part of what the Javelin can and cant do.

I think PhilippRauch's unreleased Javelin is the closest thing we have seen to a Javelin yet.

[youtube']f6vWWqUHH2c

Edited October 8, 2009 by sparks50

[-RIP- Luhgnut 10]

More or less anything by EA released in the last 5 years.

EA makes more money from the SIMS franchise than any other. What's that tell ya?

---------- Post added at 12:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 PM ----------

It does has some nice animations, but its auto targeting, like the BI one.

I mean the targeting module looks more realistic. Not the actual flight model or how it targets. Sorry, should have clarified.

Oh, forgot, they have FLIR, yeah that's cool. But man, trying to think of truly superior changes, is tough.

[Deadfast 43]

Luhgnut;1457940']Oh' date=' forgot, they have FLIR, yeah that's cool. But man, trying to think of truly superior changes, is tough.[/quote']

Not really, it isn't FLIR.

Because nothing else than people and vehicles emit heat it's more of a wallhack lite edition ;)