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.

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.

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.

I'll give it a shot. Honestly. I thought the BMPs were actually spawned nearby, because they always seem to be just a stone-throw away from any position I've encountered soldiers thus far. I'll keep trying though. I really do like this idea. I always wanted to see a mission in which an aerial patrol would take off when you're spotted and make an attempt to track you down, and possibly drop soldiers nearby. I don't know if it was ever a consideration, but I always liked the idea of having to avoid and hide from a patrol chopper overhead on occasion.

This is a great idea for a mission. The only problem is it seems that the only way to travel without being blindsided by enemies, is to travel on foot. That might add to the realism factor, it really makes everything take way too long. A whole island is a lot to move around on just by foot. But otherwise the idea is a good one. It's one thing to be driving down on a road, and to see 'A' military vehicle and abandon your ride and go to cover. But it seems the roads are so inundated as to be unusable. You just get spotted and then BMPs will keep swarming you, at what I would consider, an unreasonable pace.

Ok, so. I thought I had all my problems solved with multiplayer and my router, and opening ports, Until now. I've opened ports 2234-2235 2300-2400 47624 and 6073 Are there any other ports I need to open? Also, will running other computers on my internet connection affect my ability for clients to see a hosted game? Also, will running a host on one pc, and joining another via lan AND another joining via remote be difficult, or impossible? It seems like both computers are sharing the same external IP, so? I seem to have to open ports for both internal IP addresses on the local computers, could that be hampering my connectivity to remote users? At the very least I'd like to get one of my computers to host and be connected to a remote client. at this point, they can't even see me hosting, even with the opened ports I have. Any help? Any?! Please?

Well, I'm really interested in how ArmA is developing so far, but seeing that one video that was released a while back has me thinking, while it still retains a lot of the old OFP features in an updated format, the sounds I found a bit irksome. Specifically weapon sounds, I hope there's a good lineup of people ready to make sound mods for the game, I know I'm always making the occasional custom sound for rifles, pistols, etc. But I really hope Goeth is up for the job, because bar none his weapon sound compilation for FDF basically stabbed every other community soundpack to death with a rusty spoon and urinated on their freshly-dug graves. But that's just my opinion. I kind of wish BIS had invested a bit in updating their sounds. But I'm sure the community can fix that no problem.

Howabout someone makes a BIS unit template?! hint hint.

OFP would be a bit better from a commander standpoint if the AI showed a bit more sensibility. I would say the designation of click-festival could be determined by how much control you find is necessary over your squadmates. To be honest, streamlining the process of issuing orders that effect a desirable response would help the game a lot. I find that commanding units in OFP requires you to expect only as much as the AI can deliver. Beyond that, you can and will be clicking frantically because they did something you didn't quite want them to. This often comes down to micromanaging their position, etc. Overall, their most effective use is when you play with both their benefits and limitations in mind, so you're not hamstrung clicking repeatedly while being shot at. Therein lies the difference between your stereotypical RTS and OFP, The latter basically demands a certain degree of frantic order-dispatching. Whereas OFP traditionally allows you to tailor your plans to account for as much involvement of subordinates as you want.

The critical flaw that plagues the vast majority of realtime strategy games is the simple fact that your commands often have to overcompensate for really basic AI, and often you have so little time to do this, that the result is often moot because with or without, it ends up being a disorganized mindless clusterfuck. So in the end, you do more work than you should be simply issuing commands to babysit units that should show more autonomy and intelligence than they currently do. This in effect eliminates any analogue realtime strategy games have to issuing commands in a "real" battle situation. I equate a real time strategy game, traditionally to managing a group of idiots at a faster pace than you can fill the gaps in their artificial common sense. Which is essentially all you're doing. Whereas turn based strategies allow you to typically perform this task (filling in the often-lacking AI) within a realistic timeframe, often accounting for the intelligence of many units with orders and actions that resemble a considerably greater degree of human-like sensibility. one might contend that allows for too much control, however a good turn based strategy enforces certain parameters that simulate human limitations upon that particular unit. Some of those being: stamina, morale, physical wellbeing, personality quirks, etc. Realtime strategies are fun at times, but the good (read: more realistic) ones typically reduce the amount of control and possess more convincing AI reducing you to less frequently issuing orders as the battle unfolds (close combat, etc). While the latter simply relies on frantic clicking to a particular predetermined plan or formula that has the greatest chance resulting in success. The latter can often be learned once and repeated to similar effect each time, whereas the former offers more room for strategic thinking on a more broad scale. The eventual evolution of the realtime strategy, in a realistic sense at least will have the AI of each and every unit, self sufficient enough to make minor decisions without player intervention, resulting in the larger organization and logistical planning falling on the shoulders of the player as the AI pretty much controls the battle on it's own; effectively marginalizing the emphasis of repetitive and trivial speed-clicking.

This guy loses a lot of credibility by having anything positive to say about games that employ an expanding ring system. They're about as unrealistic as you can get. It's a lazy developer's way of amalgamating sight sway, impact of movement, and the inherent accuracy of the weapon into one unrealistic package. Ideally, the only true realistic gunnery will result when you can custom-train your sights, games implement limited IK and weight/tension values to players, and their weapons. To simulate proper sight sway, and overcompensation for recoil, which can push the muzzle in different directions based on how that individual manages it, and the inherent performance of the weapon. This would require considerable reasearch on how trained and untrained individuals handle recoil with each firearm, but I'm confident that someday, this will become a reality. In this I would hope to achieve some kind of empirical way of realistically aiming and shooting as opposed to the overly-accurate stock OFP aiming system, or the seemingly random law of averages spraying that pervades so many FPS games utilizing the expanding ring system. Trespasser however, could allow you to custom-train your sights, in other words, I could manipulate my wrist, arm, etc to hold the gun in any way I liked, be it "gangster style" or upside down, but the true usefulness of it was more appreciated when I was able to line up my iron sights intuitively so I could shoot more accurately at certain distances. The last configuration of your weapon/arm/sight position was returned when you put away and retrieved your weapon, making it a tremendously useful feature. And yeah. Shooting pistols gangster style and watching certain ones whack you in the face or fall out of your hand from the recoil was also another short lived but entertaining novelty. Another first for Trespasser, incliding IK for weapon handling, offering some of the most realistic looking recoil (in spite of one hand "imaginary two hand" usage). I really want more games to use this even in a limited capacity. Recoils should be fluid and based on the power of the cartridge and the strength/skill of the operator. These should be variables that are calculated in terms of in game physics.

Scary, you truly are the Keith Olbermann to Nemesis' Bill O'Reilly.

What's this crap I'm seeing on OFP.info's survey about Armed Assault not using a vection based aiming system? This was one of the few reasons OFP was even remotely enjoyable and realistic. The only thing you can do without a vection based aiming system is a shitty, unrealistic, expanding ring system. Which yes. Seems to be more popular with the lowest common denominator, but seriously, what separates this game from Battlefield 2 if it's not catering to idiots? Simply put, I WILL not buy Armed Assault if it doesn't have a vection based aiming system, and I WILL NOT buy Game 2 if it lacks this feature as well. In fact. I hate the expanding ring system so much, I would personally go out of my way to encourage people to guy buy Battlefield 2 instead.