ebns72

I was originally optimistic about ofp2, casting down all the BIS fanboys who would pick the game apart before any real gameplay had been released. However, this trailer disappoints me heavily and shows that CM is clearly not entirely interested in realism here as their priority. We have: -unrealistic character movement. You are gliding, there is no real sense of character mass/the fact you are a human being evident in the original flashpoint -no freeaim. 'nuff said. -A.I. style: It could be just for the video, but the A.I. looked stupid. It was bunched up, crouching/kneeling in the open. It lacked the down-in-the-dirt realism of the original flashpoint. Similarly, the player ran up to any enemy at point blank in blasted him. The original flashpoint consisted of me with my face in the dirt shooting at a distant silhouette and trying to survive. That's how I had hoped the second would be. This appears to be run and gun, except with two squads running and gunning each other simultaneously. Hopefully it will still turn out to be a great game. I know, however, that it will annoy the hell out of me if I don't feel "immersed" inside the soldier I'm playing. Flashpoint did an excellent job with that in just the style of camera, the style of character movement, the style of aiming, etc. All this is absent from ofp2.

I know others find it annoying, I love the headbob. To me, it makes for such an immersive experience (I think it added a lot to STALKER). I don't find it disorienting either, because before I initiate a sprint I already know (in a straight line) where I'm headed. Also, being a track runner I know that being tired and sprinting can be very disorienting in real life. I hope it's not just Track IR but will actually be an adjustable feature that can be turned off for those whom do not like it.

Wow. That video was horrible. I had such high hopes for OFP2. It seems as if the "attitude" of the game is reflected in the movement style. It's very fast and the player is constantly moving like any other shooter. Looks like any other run-and gun, except this time with an expansive terrain and far-away enemies. Oh well. I was hoping for a big-budget sim.

Outside my box of freedom is understanding and humility. But, if one wants to put the gloves on, I have this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmLwnSXNpFU Youtube videos, surveys, and threads like these make me realize that stupidity truly is universal. But if I am stupid, and my neighbor is stupid, then screw it, let's just get along and party, And that's my American viewpoint.

I hardly can see how human-level AI is achievable in 20 years when we just barely understand how our own "AI" (The brain) works and how complex it is.

EXACTLY what I was talking about by improving the "incoming" sounds. AWESOME work. I can't wait!

Hello thunderbird or whoever may be able to answer this; where are the weapon sounds for the m16 and AK47 located? I attempted de-PBOing both dta/sound/weapons and ffur_sounds/sounds/weapons and replacing all the relevant m16 and ak47, but they did not have an effect on the weapon sounds. The m16 one is still the same.

I just saw it. I thought it was thoroughly entertaining. If I have only one gripe it would have been to see at least some sort of clue as to where it came from in the movie (like we saw on the websites related to deep-sea drilling)

I agree; I enjoyed FFURSLX far more when all the sounds are in this "style." This style being that they sound far away whether or not they are up close, this works great in flashpoint for a couple of reasons: 1. Flashpoint has a crappy sound engine, and thus weapons sound the same no matter how far away. This really adds to the combat ambience when real weapon sounds form the battle ambience, not pre-recorded loops. 2. When your squad starts firing and all the sounds are sharp, loud, and up close, it severely detracts from immersion because they quickly become very repetitive and unnatural sounding. By sounding far away, it adds to the ambience instead. On another note, I seem to remember supersonic whiz and overall way better "getting shot at" sound effects in previous FFURs (loud richochets, etc.) These seem to be missing now, it sounds like old flashpoint - and one of old flashpoint's greatest weaknesses was the lack of this battle ambience in terms of sound.

Great work TB, framerates are excellent, but the only thing I am disappointed by is the sounds - I liked the previous ones much better, they felt much more intense and immersive. You don't get that sense anymore that you're being shot at like in previous versions, and thus is not nearly as immersive. So I ask - is there any way to put the sounds of the previous version into the new version? Could I do through simple overwrting or would I need to de-pbo the sounds and overwrite them individually?

They are only flagged as such because it would be impossible to have an entire area destructible - the performance hit would be too great. Give it a few years, however, and it can probably be expected that everything will be destructible. The technology that is there, however, is certainly impressive - non-scripted dynamic destruction. It is only limited right now by hardware.

Ambience. OPF had war ambience. The sounds of gunshots, the chaos, the down-in-the-mud fighting. Arma does not. Everything feels very "calculated." I.E., every gunshot is to kill an enemy - there's none of this gunfire-going-all-around-you-and-if-you-stand-up-you-die type thing. It severly detracts from atmosphere. Personally, I enjoy FFUR/SLX mod far more than Arma.

This terrain looks incredibly realistic in design. Just in the distribution between woodlands and grasslands, the size and shape of fields, etc. I can't wait.

@Ragdoll performance affecting performance- It doesn't do so very much if done well. The latest mount and blade update had ragdoll physics, yet used some tricks to improve performance. The result- medieval battles with far more people than Arma ever has in a mission with ragdoll physics, plus half of them with horses falling with ragdoll. So, it definitely IS possible. On the other hand, I'm REALLY happy to see dynamic destruction is back. It's looking SO awesome, even if not completely physics-calculated as before. I'm just wondering if buildings could be reduced to rubble piles? It's also reallly great to see "free" campaigns will be coming as originally promised. Some things I'd love to see for the free campaign: -Base time, hanging around base on or off duty; sleeping/resting -Actually retreating and the campaign keeps going minus that territory you retreated from (I.E., there is no such thing as failing and mission and having to start over. -Other battles dynamically calculated, even if they aren't present in-game at real time (just so you don't feel like the only one in the war) -Dynamic team members; would love to see a FFURSLX-like system where people can get critically wounded and you have to medevac them at which point they rest for a few days, others get fatally wounded and they get replaced with greener replacements, etc. With no RPG stats, we could get a great Ghost Recon/Rainbow-Six like system going as well, so soldiers are unique and are not just defined by a single skill bar. EDIT: Instead of making a new post... I expect the above to be DEFINITELY in-game. Now for my Stretch wishlist (I.E., wishful thinking) -Dynamically destructible terrain that lasts (would be incredible for battlefield atmosphere to see scorched earth, or AT LEAST grass turning to dirt and grass disappearing -Trees that can burn. To improve performance, it could be made so forests blocks burn at a time rather than individual trees. Nothings says war like burnt foliage. -Generally speaking, I like lush forests that can be converted into ashtrays. That's really immersive if you patrol by a spot of forest that got hit by a heavy artillery strike and is nothing more than a clearing with craters and the remains of burnt trees on the ground.

Story driven? No dynamic campaign? Sure, it could still be dynamic, but you think they would have mentioned that And no dynamic destructable vehicles and buildlings? Bummer....

Things could be worse.

There will be over 50 factions. Confirmed by a developer at twcenter.net. Only 10, however, will be playable Anyhoo, to sum it up, when I first saw this announced, I practically wet my pants. I can't wait to go to battle to the sounds of musket, fife, and drum

I'm not trying to be sarcastic but is it even possible for a game with a scope the size of Arma to have such physics with current hardware technology? I've seen Crysis demos and while impressive seems to be on a much smaller scale. I can tell you this: the beta of "World in Conflict" had detailed physics, dynamically deformable/destructable terrain, dynamic fires and burning, destructable buildings, and more while 16 players all controlled dozens of units at a time each with physics etc being applied to them - in other words, a lot going on - and that game did not lag for me at all in medium settings. With clever programming, proper use of LODs (not just visually, but I.E. only "simulating" action outside the player's radius) I'm sure game 2 could afford to have a building or vehicle dynamically collapse here and there.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic but is it even possible for a game with a scope the size of Arma to have such physics with current hardware technology? I've seen Crysis demos and while impressive seems to be on a much smaller scale. I can tell you this: the beta of "World in Conflict" had detailed physics, dynamically deformable/destructable terrain, dynamic fires and burning, destructable buildings, and more while 16 players all controlled dozens of units at a time each with physics etc being applied to them - in other words, a lot going on - and that game did not lag for me at all in medium settings. With clever programming, proper use of LODs (not just visually, but I.E. only "simulating" action outside the player's radius) I'm sure game 2 could afford to have a building or vehicle dynamically collapse here and there.

Right now I am just praying to God that this IS game 2 with all original features. If it is Game 2 as we know it, it will have ODE physics - and not just that, but dynamically destructable buildings and vehicles as well. If this isn't game 2 and is just a lazy attempt at a sequel, well, as I said earlier, I will neither buy it nor support BIS any longer.

Right now I am just praying to God that this IS game 2 with all original features. If it is Game 2 as we know it, it will have ODE physics - and not just that, but dynamically destructable buildings and vehicles as well. If this isn't game 2 and is just a lazy attempt at a sequel, well, as I said earlier, I will neither buy it nor support BIS any longer.

That is news to me. All I remember were interviews and pics. Demos? Do you have any links? I'll see if I can find some sources, but basically there were to be no separated missions in the main campaign - you would live the life of a soldier, and everything you did would have an effect on the game. Missions would be dynamically generated and their failure or success would have an effecton the war. One example given was a comrade of yours offer to read a letter from his girlfriend, and if you say no it might demoralize him and prevent him from covering you as well in combat (because he doesn't like you) Also, everything is dynamically destructable so as the campaign progresses you could see how is was affecting the environment. Another example, if you blew up a house or civilians unecessarily his/her family might join the resistance against you. You could also question civilians for intelligence and interact with them. EDIT: some sources http://www.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=8261 http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_053d.html

That is news to me. All I remember were interviews and pics. Demos? Do you have any links? I'll see if I can find some sources, but basically there were to be no separated missions in the main campaign - you would live the life of a soldier, and everything you did would have an effect on the game. Missions would be dynamically generated and their failure or success would have an effecton the war. One example given was a comrade of yours offer to read a letter from his girlfriend, and if you say no it might demoralize him and prevent him from covering you as well in combat (because he doesn't like you) Also, everything is dynamically destructable so as the campaign progresses you could see how is was affecting the environment. Another example, if you blew up a house or civilians unecessarily his/her family might join the resistance against you. You could also question civilians for intelligence and interact with them. EDIT: some sources http://www.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=8261 http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_053d.html

What about the revolutionary, dynamic gameplay demo'd in earlier game 2 demos? If this is not included, I will no longer support BI - the prospect of their original continuous campaign ideas are the only reason I still follow this franchise.

What about the revolutionary, dynamic gameplay demo'd in earlier game 2 demos? If this is not included, I will no longer support BI - the prospect of their original continuous campaign ideas are the only reason I still follow this franchise.