Operation Flashpoint Remake, BIS listen to the people and follow these steps, please

[kklownboy 43]

I wouldnt want a remake of OFP. Why would i want to play a remake of a game i played for so many years instead of a new, fresh game :confused: .

+1 , And whats with the need for newer GFX? I even still have a 17in CRT and a ball mouse....

[rellikki 7]

I would also welcome a remake of OFP. Perhaps something like OFP: Elite, but optimized for PC. Personally I think OFP: Elite was a perfect remake of OFP PC version. It had some graphical updates, but still the OFP feeling in it.

[Herbal Influence 10]

I wouldnt want a remake of OFP. Why would i want to play a remake of a game i played for so many years instead of a new, fresh game :confused: .

Well said, Heatseeker!

But: Just my personal opinion - to be sure! :o

I like to do OFP still, now and then.

And I remember a lot fun since 2001.

But ... it's only a matter of time (+ work) to get there with Arma2 and even more and better again. The potential ... the openess of BI games enforces me to look forward ... ever!

The last patches, some new mods and missions show all is on their right way ... I don't tend to nostalgy.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Herbal Influence

[felix8 0]

Have you seen Arma early screenshots? It was something between ofp:e and arma. Now that's what I want.

If someone will make a cwr mod for arma2 than it would be great. The colours in arma2 look like on old ofp. I can't say that about arma1. I hate colours in it. Everything is too contrast.

[33BO11OF00 10]

Remake of OFP?

Awesome idea. I agree. Great suggestion. I hope BIS will do this.

One more idea to this remake:

Proper editing tools with BIS published manuals.

Visitor and O2 tool with internal help files and manuals.

[McArcher 0]

I think, we need just to import OFP's and Arma1's vehicles and islands to Arma2 (with some redecorating).

Then add new features like more realistic damage system (with particles, no 0-1 or clea-totally damaged mode, with many areas of levels of damage), terramorping and scripting echancments (like sending objects from client to server or vice versa, global vehicle cargo and so on), EAX support, maybe even hardware PhysX acceleration for damaging system and physics..and Name it Arma 3 :D

---------- Post added at 02:21 ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 ----------

Also it seems very strange to have some vehicles upgraded and some not (no T-90A, but Abrams A1M2 SEP, no upgraded Tungusska, no many other vehicles... no upgraded T-72, which with some exceptions are very similar to T-90, no BMD-4 and so on..........)

[Bartchie 10]

I think, we need just to import OFP's and Arma1's vehicles and islands to Arma2 (with some redecorating).

Then add new features like more realistic damage system (with particles, no 0-1 or clea-totally damaged mode, with many areas of levels of damage), terramorping and scripting echancments (like sending objects from client to server or vice versa, global vehicle cargo and so on), EAX support, maybe even hardware PhysX acceleration for damaging system and physics..and Name it Arma 3 :D

---------- Post added at 02:21 ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 ----------

Also it seems very strange to have some vehicles upgraded and some not (no T-90A, but Abrams A1M2 SEP, no upgraded Tungusska, no many other vehicles... no upgraded T-72, which with some exceptions are very similar to T-90, no BMD-4 and so on..........)

Oh yeah right right right. I can work with importing and remaking too BUT - if BIS will give me Visitor 4 and abilities of placing roads and forests like VBS2 method. A lot of people are making add-ons (VERY HARD JOB FOR FREE) and keeping this game alive. I think BIS should give us some better tools. We are the reason that people are still buying ArmA/ArmA2 games. We need TOOLS and TUTORIALS - NOT STUPID TUTORIALS (WITHOUT SPECIFIC INFO'S) FOR DUMB ANIMALS BUT GOOD ONES FOR PEOPLE.

One more thing. About 6 years ago I failed a year in the school because of having fun with OFP (Ok maybe because I was stupid). I was trying to make some add-ons and I made some but I didn't relase them because of engine limitations ( I was making V-22 osprey for example). I have orginal OFP, ArmA1 and ArmA2 and now I'm f***ing with roads in Visitor 3 and doing it totally manual. I feel like f**ked in the ass. If I have visitor 4, I swear to my big long haevy part of my body that I will be buying BIS games in the future too.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Bartchie

[ProfTournesol 956]

Oh yeah right right right. I can work with importing and remaking too BUT - if BIS will give me Visitor 4 and abilities of placing roads and forests like VBS2 method. A lot of people are making add-ons (VERY HARD JOB FOR FREE) and keeping this game alive. I think BIS should give us some better tools. We are the reason that people are still buying ArmA/ArmA2 games. We need TOOLS and TUTORIALS - NOT STUPID TUTORIALS (WITHOUT SPECIFIC INFO'S) FOR DUMB ANIMALS BUT GOOD ONES FOR PEOPLE.

One more thing. About 6 years ago I failed a year in the school because of having fun with OFP (Ok maybe because I was stupid). I was trying to make some add-ons and I made some but I didn't relase them because of engine limitations ( I was making V-22 osprey for example). I have orginal OFP, ArmA1 and ArmA2 and now I'm f***ing with roads in Visitor 3 and doing it totally manual. I feel like f**ked in the ass. If I have visitor 4, I swear to my big long haevy part of my body that I will be buying BIS games in the future too.

While i globally agree with the lack of documentation, we all managed without thanks to each others. The second part of your post is really childish to say the least.

[suma 8]

I would also like to see a OFP remake with a modern technology, however be aware there are issues which may see little at first glance, but the more I think about them, the more they grow, up to the moment they seem so huge I give up. :( Putting legal issues aside for a while, let us focus on the technical side:

The objective should be to update the "graphics" while keeping the "gameplay", "controls" and "sounds" the same. What exactly would this mean?

- more detailed terrain

- more detailed buildings

- more detailed vehicles and weapons

- more detailed soldiers

- shader based rendering

- overall amount of work

Each of those areas has its own issues, some minor, some major, I will take them on by one.

Terrain

Moderate: There is no satellite imagery available for the islands, as they are only loosely based on some real world data.

Minor: Do we want grass? Grass affects gameplay as well - once we have the grass, we cannot replicate the gameplay exactly as it was.

Buildings

Minor: Do we want destructible buildings? Perhaps not, as that affects gameplay.

Vehicles and weapons

No major problems expected here: making more detailed vehicles should be straightforward, assuming you have someone to undertake such a huge job - see below.

Soldiers

This is where real problems are:

Major: Using more detailed soldier models requires a different skeleton than the one used in OFP. Using ArmA 2 skeleton requires using ArmA 2 animations, or creating a complete new set. Using new animation engine requires different control interface as well, therefore maintaining the OPF control "feel" can be very hard.

Shader based engine

Major: Do we want to use HDR? Using the ArmA 2 shader engine without HDR could be tricky, as without HDR it is very hard to achieve high-contrast graphics. Perhaps a moderate solution could be just to disable glow effect?

Overall amount of work

Major: This is also a major issue, as creating the content detailed as in ArmA 2 is many times harder and more time consuming than the original OFP one. CWR team could probably tell tales about this.

Conclusion

Realistically, if you want to return back to OFP again, I can see two options:

- play the old OFP as it is

- use a CWR mod which tries to bring OFP into ArmA / ArmA 2 as close as possible

[Bartchie 10]

I think that all what this game needs is to improve AI behaviour (vehicles in group (convoys, helicopters) and increase FPS. Ok that FPS is maybe too much what I need, let that expensive graphic cards market still be alive and in good condition. Of course as far as I know, AI behaviour is great in VBS2, maybe I'm wrong and maybe it's hard to implement AI code from VBS2 to ArmA2.

[echo1 0]

Ok that FPS is maybe too much what I need, let that expensive graphic cards market still be alive and in good condition.

Are you an nVidia employee perchance?

[suma 8]

increase FPS.

Not that any more optimizations are impossible, but for purpose of OFP "rearming" the the ArmA 2 engine performance seems to be quite good already. The low fps many users experience in ArmA 2 is directly related to the fact all game content is much much more detailed (esp. the object density in the world is much higher). Those who have tried running ArmA content on ArmA 2 engine can witness ArmA 2 shows a lot better performance.

[Bartchie 10]

Are you an nVidia employee perchance?

Ok I will tell you what I mean. I HATE NVIDIA AND RADEON for speeding this damn market up. You buy a card and after few mounths your card is old because something new is coming to buy and a lot of game developers are moving stuff standard up and up and up and suddenly you need to buy pretty expensive PC parts to play ArmA2 with high graphic settings. I was buying new PC two times ONLY for ArmA1 and then for ArmA2. Nowadays, buying your lovely game means bying new PC ;) One market is feeding another market, that's what I mean. Fast cars are feeding fuel market, too much kids are feeding condoms market, doctors are feeding pharmaceutics market, etc. Pretty similiar thing happend to Volksvagen Passat. They sold new Passats and after about three mounths they put new Passats with facelifting that are looking MUCH better in the market :) Try to realise what Passat owner could feel, I mean the owner of the car from before that three mounths :D

[Placebo 29]

Let's stay on topic please...........

[McArcher 0]

Not that any more optimizations are impossible, but for purpose of OFP "rearming" the the ArmA 2 engine performance seems to be quite good already. The low fps many users experience in ArmA 2 is directly related to the fact all game content is much much more detailed (esp. the object density in the world is much higher). Those who have tried running ArmA content on ArmA 2 engine can witness ArmA 2 shows a lot better performance.

Well, we, as players, see the results: low CPU- and GPU-load while playing, and this means that not all optimizations were done ;)

[Big Dawg KS 6]

The objective should be to update the "graphics" while keeping the "gameplay", "controls" and "sounds" the same. What exactly would this mean?

Surely it doesn't have to be exactly the same as the original. Yes, the gameplay should be similiar, but that doesn't mean you can't add (or keep from ArmA series) features. I haven't been following this thread, so I don't know what the general community opinion is on the subject, but personally I think all those issues you pointed out represent opportunities to enhance to the original gameplay. Slightly altered controls won't be too bad, even required if new features are present. And you can definately update the sounds. You mentioned a lot of issues to consider. Yes, those are valid issues, but they're decisions that depend on what you are trying to accomplish.

I'm not sure if this is a good example, but I'll use it for lack of a better one. Look at Crystal Dynamics' Tomb Raider: Anniversary, it's a remake of the original Tomb Raider from 1996. I've played both games. Anniversary uses an updated version of the engine from Tomb Raider: Legend, a much more feature loaded game. While remaking the original, they kept much of the features that they added over the years to the new games in the series, fitting it to the worlds and story of the original game. It doesn't play exactly like the 1996 version, but it still has the same feel to it.

So I guess my point would be that, while it is a challenge, I don't think it'd be totally impractical to do with OFP and ArmA what Crystal Dynamics did with TRA. Surely, legal issues aside, I like to believe that BIS would be able to tackle such a challenge and breathe new life into the game that made you who you are. Keep the OFP story, worlds, and gameplay feel (which is already inherent in the ArmA series, just maybe needs some tweaking), and add in many of the improvements from ArmA2 that might alter the gameplay a bit, and find a good balance between old OFP and new ArmA2 feel.

Those are my thoughts on the subject.

[max power 21]

Well, we, as players, see the results: low CPU- and GPU-load while playing, and this means that not all optimizations were done ;)

This has been answered by the developers before on the forums. You might be able to find it if you're interested in reading it by searching. I doubt they will repeat themselves for you, though.

[Sexacutioner 0]

Not that any more optimizations are impossible, but for purpose of OFP "rearming" the the ArmA 2 engine performance seems to be quite good already. The low fps many users experience in ArmA 2 is directly related to the fact all game content is much much more detailed (esp. the object density in the world is much higher). Those who have tried running ArmA content on ArmA 2 engine can witness ArmA 2 shows a lot better performance.

I just recently started playing OFP again on my modern pc. I agree that ArmA is better suited for today's pc, as I can run that full settings without a hitch, however OFP still stutters :).

Ok I will tell you what I mean. I HATE NVIDIA AND RADEON for speeding this damn market up. You buy a card and after few mounths your card is old because something new is coming to buy and a lot of game developers are moving stuff standard up and up and up and suddenly you need to buy pretty expensive PC parts to play ArmA2 with high graphic settings. I was buying new PC two times ONLY for ArmA1 and then for ArmA2. Nowadays, buying your lovely game means bying new PC ;) One market is feeding another market, that's what I mean. Fast cars are feeding fuel market, too much kids are feeding condoms market, doctors are feeding pharmaceutics market, etc. Pretty similiar thing happend to Volksvagen Passat. They sold new Passats and after about three mounths they put new Passats with facelifting that are looking MUCH better in the market :) Try to realise what Passat owner could feel, I mean the owner of the car from before that three mounths :D

I don't see myself needing to buy a new graphics card for a few more years and mine is already a couple years old. Your point may have been valid some time ago, but anymore there is maybe 1 or 2 games that come out a year that really take advantage of pc graphics. Most of them are just XBOX ports so you can run them on anything...

[tiket 0]

I also think there will be need of remake.

[suma 8]

Surely, legal issues aside, I like to believe that BIS would be able to tackle such a challenge and breathe new life into the game that made you who you are. Keep the OFP story, worlds, and gameplay feel (which is already inherent in the ArmA series, just maybe needs some tweaking), and add in many of the improvements from ArmA2 that might alter the gameplay a bit, and find a good balance between old OFP and new ArmA2 feel.

For me this is already accomplished by CWR mod, which is why we fully supported the CWR mod development in many ways. Once CWR will be updated for ArmA 2, I do not think there will be any significant motivation on our side to compete with it, as both main wishes players can have seem to be covered by then:

- if you want to play the exact original, then you can play the exact original

- if you want to play the same story in the up-to-date technology, you can use CWR.

I understand some players would want to use just some parts of other technology and other parts from the old, but this is very difficult technically.

It might even prove to show there is less consensus on what exactly should be used "new" and what "old". Just for the sake of discussion I will add a poll to this topic, asking you how such "remake" should look like - still note, this is really just for the sake of discussion, as the technical difficulties are too huge for us to start the remake.

Note: it is a "multiple choice" poll. Select all that apply.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Suma

[[GLT] Legislator 66]

Besides of a remake ... what about using the original OFP ingame setting of 1985 for a true sequel of the story including David Armstrong and the other guys? I could be the missing link between having the old Flashpoint back using new technology without crowding into CWR mod or current games.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Looking at the poll, i think it's hard to tick a choice without further explanations, and because some of them aren't completely or correctly implemeted in ArmA2 neither :

(1) Some parts of ArmA2 AI, micro moving and in town pathfinding, taking cover ONLY WHEN ASKED TO and suppressive fire. Probability to surrender instead of simply fleeing based on units quality and proximity of enemies.

(2) Simplified modules system (mainly healing, transport, artillery, SOM).

(3) Better animations but mainly for vehicles : possibility to fully animate them, multiple turrets (for all kinds of vehicles classes :rolleyes:).

(4) Possibility for all vehicles classes to be manned by driver and gunners without them being forced to "hide" into the vehicle to correctly handling the weapons.

(5) Possibility for all vehicles classes to use all kinds of weapons simulations (missiles, shells etc.).

(6) Possibility to show secondary weapons inside vehicles.

(7) Possibility to have tank simulation with turning wheels, or to have car simulation with tracks.

(8) InGame functions library and main ArmA1/2 commands missing in OFP, such as the most used ones : AttachTo, creating and checking triggers, creating groups etc.

(9) 144 max group count by side instead of 64.

(10) Transparent water near the shore.

(11) No magazines count maximum for units.

(12) A better looking destruction system for building.

(13) Same inheritance system for CgfMoves class as the cfgvehicles class.

Edited March 19, 2010 by ProfTournesol
Some more

[Big Dawg KS 6]

I agree with many of ProfTournesol's points.

For me, AI would be the biggest. Undoubtedly it would require some tweaking of the original missions, but the AI in ArmA2 is so much more capable than OFP's.

As for the soldier animations, having all (or most of) the functionality of ArmA2 would be nice. Ideally, some of the animations themselves could be redone, but the ones as they are now in ArmA2 would be fine too.

The improvements in vehicle simulations and whatnot that ProfTournesol mentioned are also important. One of the more significant is the multple turrets. It really changes the scope of the game. And of course, all of the scripting functions of the current ArmA2 build. Technologically, a remake of OFP should include all the engine features and functionality of the latest version of ArmA2.

Whether or not (or how) that technology is used is another issue.

[Bartchie 10]

Who voted for importing ArmA2's AI into OFP ? New AI is totally dumb. Driving AI is just crazy. I don't understand why BIS made AI worst in ArmA2 than in OFP ?

[jakerod 254]

Who voted for importing ArmA2's AI into OFP ? New AI is totally dumb. Driving AI is just crazy. I don't understand why BIS made AI worst in ArmA2 than in OFP ?

I did. They are better at taking cover, suppressing, bounding overwatch, and probably other things I can't think of. Their driving isn't crazy it has gotten better in my opinion.