Zipper5

I'm getting that vibe too from his reactions. The description looks like it's saying "Nonononono" but it's Russian, so I doubt that's what it means, but it's being said over and over.

Blame. The. Mission. Designers. If you don't like it - find out how to impose such rules/restrictions yourself and then edit the missions or make your own so that they use them. Putting restrictions on everyone who plays the game by BIS is wrong, and I really hope they never consider doing something like this. You can discuss the benefits that this would have to the gameplay, and you could use them in your own missions or, as I said, modify them to suit your needs. But don't demand that BIS impose these restrictions for everyone. Freedom is what this game is about. 'Nuff said.

The main issue for server admins is keeping cheaters and griefers away from their servers. By enabling key checks and only allowing certain mods, or none at all, this helps to keep them at bay until anti-cheating software is integrated. Or it could simply be that they don't want anyone to use addons that might give them an advantage over the other, which VopSound could due to the differing volume levels from them to the default sounds. And really, it's up to the server admins. Not many servers have allowed mods in OFP, ArmA nor ArmA II. Some servers post what mods you can and can't use on their servers in these forums or their own website/forums, so if you want to go on to one such as Kellys Heroes, you can go to their website and find out which mods are and are not allowed. Others, however, don't have this, and that you'll just have to live with.

For me, the biggest drawbacks are the 4 man squad, the 2km^2 box, the 275m tether and the lack of modding tools. Dedicated servers and the other disappointments only add fuel to the fire. So far it looks slightly above average for a console game, but average for both a PC game and "mil-sim". Also, in regards to the lack of briefings, check out this new video. He loads a mission (eventually, Christ he takes a long time to do it) and there is no briefing at all. It's obviously the start of the mission too.

Operation Arrowhead seems to be BIS raising their game, including the features that DR has and ArmA II doesn't have. That way there won't really be any competition I gather.

Wait, he thinks the animations are better in DR than in ArmA II? I guess he wants BF-twitch-gaming style animations then, or something. And of course he's going to give it high scores if he's posting on the CM forums. Anything other than that and he'll get ridiculed, warned and banned by members and moderators. :butbut:

Well, unless the briefing is before the intro, there isn't one, according to that video. It doesn't exactly look like it's been edited.

Uh, I think after watching this new video we can have a right to say that it doesn't look all that "good", actually. You go straight from the intro to the game - i.e. no information on the assault, objectives, characters even. The AI shoot frantically at him and he doesn't get hit. There's missing audio files and inappropriate radio protocol that even BIS got right in Harvest Red. The guy even blows up the charge when his friends are too close to it, but it barely even hurts one of his team mates, and doesn't effect the other 3. Yeah, it's not the greatest first impression. Oh, and given the timing of those hints, I think I'm going to be bashing myself on the head when those pop up and I die as a result of them during a firefight. If they include those in the demo, that is.

What the? is apparently the actual intro to the game? Uh... I'm going to take a wild leap here and say that there are no characters in the campaign, just random grunts. Like ArmA's campaign, but even less (it did have William Porter in the American version).

Ok, Viiper is just messed up. How on earth is that a pointless thread? Take when ArmA II was released early, for example. Issues were being pointed out, but BIS didn't close the threads, and it certainly wasn't pointless. Viiper should be fired for the job he does. Or lack thereof...

Doesn't there seem to be a lot of missing audio in that first mission? I don't know if it was a one off, but at 5:00 the message from Sabre just cuts out, at 5:55 there is no "Rounds complete." or "Splash." radio message, even though there was a "Rounds away." message. And then, at 6:01 Sabre says "Over." but the player doesn't reply. It sounds like there was meant to be more. If that is just a one off instance then ok, can't see why they'd have it in a video like that though. If that's what it's actually like then... not a great first impression when the first mission's audio doesn't work properly.

OFP DR - First 10mins - Codemasters Forum Uh, didn't that guy in the PC Zone review say that there aren't any "patronizing" hints telling you how to move? What's that I see at 0:38 then? :j:

That's definitely false. While the AI isn't perfect, it doesn't do that nearly as much as it did in OFP or ArmA anymore. It acts much more appropriately now. The AI BIS have created for ArmA II is actually quite impressive given the dynamic nature of the game, and while it does hiccup some times, it's quite the achievement that it does what it does, as well as it does. Edit: Woah, what the hell? Why would they do that? :confused: They must be scared that he'll expose issues with the game that they don't want people to know about before they've already bought the game, or something. Can't think of any other reason.

As said many times before, it's hard to put all of the blame on just BIS or just the publishers. Sure, BIS is at fault for agreeing to contractual terms stating that the game had to be released at this time and date, or the publisher would pull out. But then you have the shitty publishers that actually impose such things on developers. Of course, it's the same situation with all publisher-to-developer relations, but the circumstances here are different. The complexity of ArmA II requires a much larger development time than what the publishers naively imposed on them, thus the game was slightly rushed and quite bugged. Myself, I would put the blame more on the publisher than on BIS themselves. BIS obviously work hard at making their games and are a much smaller company than most developers and have a much smaller income. They seem to do the best with what they can, creating awesome games that are bugged at released but get fixed later, and coupled with the community, are made even better. Unfortunately, since games like these cannot be guaranteed to rake in the Dollars like CoD or BF games could, publishers aren't as willing to sink lots of money in to the projects, so BIS sort of have to take what they get and live with it. But hey, if you have legitimate claims that the game doesn't work for you, performance is bad on a rig that surpasses the recommended configuration significantly, the AI are bad in your experiences, etc. then you have a right to complain. Just make sure that when you complain, there isn't much that could be pinned on yourself, not the developer. Be it a sub-par rig, poorly looked after PC, or a bottlekneck in your system, for example.

Agreed, as I posted earlier, the thread increased by 13 pages overnight. :eek:

I think BIS had to postpone the demo because working on fixing the game was taking up too much time to be concentrating on down-sizing the game and bug testing it as well so that they could use it for the demo. Not that they didn't want to drive away buyers, which it could have entirely likely done, but the biggest reason was because they were concentrating their efforts elsewhere. The bugs are significantly less than they were at release now, and the AI is pretty fantastic 95% of the time. Highly improved over OFP and ArmA's AI. I have great ease now as a mission maker since I don't have to always be battling with them like I have been in the past.

Actually, it's quite evident that OFP had ricochet. If you were to take any weapon, go crouched and shoot at the ground enough times, you would eventually die from the bullets ricocheting and going into you. At least, I believe that's what it was, or maybe it was just a bug. Still possible if you use a weapon like a M107 in ArmA II.

Hm, I'm pretty sure it is. It looks quite similar to that, just zoomed out further. That's obviously taken in one of VBS2's desert maps where the ground is just sand or a road and is radiating lots of heat. Zommed in, it looks like it's just a gray background.

a) Yes, that's completely possible. In fact, many maps have been made already in that style or similar to it. b) Yes, that too is completely possible. Just place 4 or 5 infantry in the town, give them move waypoints and then a cycle waypoint, and they'll continuously follow them. Then just place yourself outside of the town and there you go. My advice - mess around with the editor and try some custom missions made by some of the mission makers around here. I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Just to prove that DR's FLIR isn't at all realistic: Real life FLIR: VBS2 FLIR: Dragon Rising FLIR: Notice how everything other than the soldiers appears to have no heat at all, yet in VBS2, and real life for that matter, there is almost no black at all, just varying shades of gray.

Seriously, why did they make it so fast? The only thing I can see in there is the red mist, and the hole in the guy's side. Otherwise it's all too fast for me to actually see anything, and too small. Though it is cool to have dismemberment like that, it's not really that necessary. It's mostly eye candy. Granted, people have asked for that to be in BIS' games in the past due to immersion improvements, but I myself haven't viewed it as a necessary inclusion.

Perhaps we should tone down the hostility in here, before a moderator comes to lock it and we'll have to resort to writing our opinion on the DR forums, only to be banned half an hour later... *gulp*

Frankly, the amount of stuff not in the game as it is right now is enough to make it no where near being an ArmA killer at all. Not even close. However, it will be a good second entry of the harder core games onto consoles. Keep in mind that it's not the first, Elite for the Xbox was.

Yes, parts do seem slightly bias. But I find that the majority of what they say is actually fact. The majority of the features listed are in fact in ArmA II already, or worse than what ArmA II has. Of course, some might be better as well. The main issue is that CM tote these features as if they're new and groundbreaking, when in fact they are not. You can argue that they're new and groundbreaking for console games, but since when have consoles been what OFP is about? Elite had no where near the success that OFP did on the PC, for the best example I can think of. We are mil-sim fans. Don't see why you're making this point as DR is not a mil-sim, but a "tactical shooter".

You should read the last few pages of the thread before you post in it. Specifically, here and here. Unless you want to have another 13 pages-long discussion about it...