Baphomet

Welcome to the tyranny of the lowest common denominator.

This will pretty surely not be addressed in OFP2. Gameplay videos show the character movement is degraded to the usual arcade shooter style, like CoD 4. I suspect what you're saying is correct, and to be honest, for them to promote the game for being realistic, it's little more than an insult. I do -NOT- want in my tactical shooter: -Circle strafing -The ability to run like Usain Bolt, much less all the time. -The ability to sustain damage to any extremity without it severely hampering my ability to perform in game tasks: I like having the ability to take someone's legs or arms out. It forces you to think before doing something stupid. As an unforgiving damage model does anyhow.

I have reinstalled OFP at least eight times during the course of four years. Every six months or so I'd reformat my pc. I think I may have gone a year, once. Anyhow. I find EA's sales tactic utterly loathsome, it's openly insulting and greedy, it's small minded, draconian if you will. And yes. I've been told I'm lacking in the optimism and enthusiasm department... many times. I seriously can't help it. It's looking pretty bleak out there...

All I can say is I do sincerely hope that OFP2 will give BIS some decent competition. Honestly, a little competition can only help stimulate creativity and motivate at this point. However, I must also stipulate that OFP2 will be an unmitigated failure in my eyes if it at all caters to the sort of gaming rabble that expects: -An expanding ring ballistics system (this is one of a few symptoms to a condition I refer to as "lazy developer syndrome"). -No wounding simulation model of any kind. And I'm not referring to seeing blood spurting. I mean quite literally lacking the ability to F' someone up with small arms whilst they still retain the ability to fight back, albeit in various states of incapacitation if hit in nonlethal or areas of delayed lethality. -An unreasonable table of weapon damage and performance values, based on accuracy, recoil simulation, etc. These are directly linked to the aforementioned wounding simulation model. -Inaccurately modeled human capabilities. Running, walking, stamina, etc. These are a few target criteria that -must- be addressed.

This heralds the decline and eventual end of the PC gaming era. In the book 1984 the inner party endeavored to destroy the english language and reduce it to a form so simplistic that it effectively eliminated the potential for anyone to break the inner party's laws of thoughtcrime. EA and companies like it endeavor to reduce the complexity and usability of their software to the point where everyone but the mouthbreathers will be deterred from bothering with it. Let's face it guys, the PC crowd is an expensive and less profitable demographic to develop for. We're considerably more sophisticated than the console using demographic and we're not nearly as easily satisfied. Imagine EA as a boot, stamping on the face of intelligent, creative gamers for all eternity. Honestly, I had a marginally passing interest in Spore, now that I'm reading this however. I'm glad I really don't care as much as I would have in the past. Gaming is slowly and inevitably being dumbed down, and PC gaming enthusiasts are a dying breed.

What basis for comparison are you using? Graphically? That's meaningless, that's par for the course of any game that will conceivably come out in the future. That shouldn't even be a consideration. The call of duty series certainly hasn't displayed any remarkable advances from a design standpoint, for example. I mean honestly the arc of design advancements seen in these games over the years has been slow and predictable. Please cite some examples of games and their related design improvements. Don't call BS on what I'm saying unless you're willing to back your claims up. I'm going to assume unless provided with some more information on your side that I simply expect more than you do from a game, which is why you see these advances as quantum leaps in gaming design, and I see them as unremarkable and predictable. EDIT: Yes, I won the post-race.

Did you even read the article??? They stated (and have before) that they put tremendous resources into having ridiculously accurate modeling of ballistics, weapon damage, etc. Obviously it's coming out on the PC too. Arma 2 is also coming out on consoles as well you know :P. Heard it all before. Same story, different game. Same dung, different pile, so to speak... We'll see. We'll just have to see. I haven't written it off. I am however, very cynical at this point. And yes, I read the scans of that magazine posted earlier in the thread. Furthermore. I wasn't exclusively lambasting codemasters. Ohno, I was waxing critical of the industry in general. Additionally I concur, the lowest common denominator is where the greatest profits lie. However, as we've seen with BIS, they've carved themselves a wonderful sorely-needed niche. I applaud them for that, as it's made OFP one of my favorite games of all time. However, that doesn't stop me from being prejudicial to and resentful of the slobbering masses for sucking all the potential out of good games by virtue of being unsophisticated. I'm entitled to my feelings/opinions. Even if they're heavy handed. ... and I still think playing a realistic shooter with a gamepad is completely ridiculous.

Am I to understand that this is a playstation 3 title? That's a joke right? Especially when they assumed that in some way that call of duty, much less it's devotees are some way in a league with the sort of gameplay a "realistic" game has to offer. Doesn't the modern day call of duty game still use an expanding ring system? How sad and delusional is that? I'm glad I'm not nearly as interested in computer games anymore. Just thinking about stuff like this back when I really cared just made me feel resentful and a little pissed off. How can you even hope to expect a realistic experience when you're playing with substandard, clunky peripherals? It'd be great to see some genuine competition for BIS. The sort of competition that would force the company to evolve instead of resting on it's laurels from a design standpoint. (no offence BIS, I still think very highly of you) They've got the realism genre locked in a death grip to this day. Yet, to the unsophisticated or shallow gamer, bleeding effects and all other manner of inconsequential esthetics constitute the main criteria for defining realism. Unless those special wounding effects somehow have a remarkable effect on how that individual performs after being injured, it's little more than fluff. Window dressing. Nothing more. They completely ignore aspects like physics, ballistics and weapon handling accuracy. You know, the meat and effing potatoes of a game. This is the reason why BIS has such a monopoly, because the majority of the industry is catering to morons.

PCG has turned into a rag, staffed and read by immature mouthbreathing fad-monkeys. End of story.

Thanks for all your replies guys. Facts, and divergent points of view et-al. It's all good. As always, the forums never fail on delivering a lively and informative discussion. It's why I always end up coming back.

*nod @ stakex* It's too bad. Honestly. My life is pretty busy these days, so much so that I just don't have the kind of time I used to back in the days of good old OFP. There will always be memories. It's just that I was one of the fortunate recipients of the E3 press memrobilia for game 2 that RalphWiggum had sent out to some people... And that was just so cool... I suppose now they're even more a rarity than before. Still. I hope before BIS has had it's run, it finds within itself to do something exceptionally innovative and redefine the genre as they once did. I can't slight them in the least for going a more pragmatic route, honestly. One of the biggest problems that developers have is focusing to excessively on concepts and innovation and not on getting revenue back through their doors. That's business, and they're a good company, if they're still in business, there's still a chance they can knock one out of the park as they did with OFP. I firmly believe it.

Maybe you guys are right. We'll see I guess. Heh. I'm certainly not slighting ArmA or it's sequel. They're probably fine games. But who knows. My feelings might change later on.

Yeah... Oh and... I almost forgot. A huge thank you to OFPEC, the staff there, and anyone who has ever made an addon. This community is quite possibly the best one for a game I've ever encountered, all things said and done. OFP would not have been half the game it is now without the involvement of the end-user community. I hope that's a tradition which continues for many more titles.

Like I said. I'm kind of done with OFP now. It was fun for those four years, but it's time has come and passed. Toward the end I was mostly playing things like CTI and that other dynamic battle campaign. When I found out that Game 2 was going to be like that. I was like: "fuck ARMA, I'm holding out for game 2" Because, genuinely, I had more fun playing that than I ever did the singleplayer campaigns. Solo or co-operatively. I have far more good memories of epic combat exploits and battles from those gameplay modes than playing the rather lukewarm single player campaigns for OFP. And yeah I bought all of them. *shrugs* It's been fun. I'm glad BIS has had a certain degree of success as a result of OFP and it's subsequent titles, they've earned it, and it was a long time coming for the genre. But I think my interest in that sort of game has now waned to the point where I won't be buying any hardware to play a game like ARMA2. I suppose game 2's premise was too ambitious, which is why I loved it so much. Eh. See you guys in four more years maybe.

So, is it my correct understanding that the next gen game will not be based around the premise of one persistent battle? It's basically just OFP? If so, I was really looking forward to the persistent dynamic campaign. When did all this change? To be truthful. I'm kind of done with OFP, and BIS really needs to change with the times. An episodic or chapter based campaign just doesn't do it for me. I was honestly excited for the idea of being able to play any role I wished in a single, evolving... "Something" whatever you wanted to call it. I didn't want victory conditions, or end-mission goals. I wanted it to be totally open ended. I wanted to play the game through, no matter what happened, and truly create my own story and experiences as I went along. Sadly, that now seems to have been shelved. It's really too bad. It had potential.