colt

Codemasters own the name OFP, and with that name there is an 'expectation' of what should be included in OFP 2 in order for it to live upto the original. BUT it is a new game by a different development team. The way it has been marketed may come back to haunt them when it's compared to Arma 2, but I could be wrong and only time will tell. Personally, I think OFP 2 Â will fall somewhere inbetween GRAW 2 and Arma 2. I certainly don't think it will occupy the same 'space' as Arma 2. At the end of the day though, if it's a good game - it's a good game. If it's not - it's not. I'll approach it with an open mind, read the previews, read the eventual reviews, watch the gameplay vids, ask questions and if I feel it's worth my time and money, I'll buy it. Anyway, two games striving to be the best Military Sim has to be good news for us, the fans of the genre.

@ KyleSarnik. In OFP (a military simulation), if I saw a mountain range; I could go there. If I saw a valley; I could go there. If I spied a distant village; I could go there. If I saw the Moon; You're right - I couldn't go there. Do you know why? Because it's the BLOODY MOON. The Sun, Moon, sky and clouds are not terra firma (solid earth). The mountains are. It's not the mountainous skybox that I hate, it's what it represents - an inaccessible place in a go anywhere world. In Arma 2, given the fact that you'll have a wide range of vehicles available, you should be able to reach those mountains, if you can't there must be reason. So how will it be addressed? A no fly zone where the mission / game abruptly ends or fades to black? Will you be shot at and destroyed by an uber missile from the country your trespassing in or will you simply self-destruct. Or will it always remain a set distance away from the player, forever out of reach? If you head in the direction of the mountains, what will separate the 'mountain skybox' and the limits of the playable and interactive game world? If you have a skybox there has to be something between 'it' and yourself. What will it be, given that Chernarus isn't an island and is attached to a larger land mass? An endless green field? A never ending lake? One massive patrolled border crossing? Â Have a look at the Arma 2 press kit and look at Chernarus. How will trying to breach the countries borders be dealt with? Whatever transpires, I just hope that BIS can implement a plausible solution.

I have to say I dislike the inclusion of these mountains as part of the skybox. One of OFP/Arma's charms was the 'if you can see it, you can go there'. This mountainous skybox breaks that ethos. I mean, what happens if we head in the direction of these mountains? Will we eventually reach an impenetrable forest? An invisible wall - *shudder* ? At least with Island settings of the previous games you have the water acting as a natural border with nothing but infinite sea and air beyond it. For me this was much more palatable. I'd definitely like an explanation on how the border between the playable land / sky mass and the mountainous skybox will be designated or handled.

On that note, depending on the ArmA 2 development status, can BIS please slap an Alpha, Beta or Work In Progress watermark on all future screen releases.

On that note, depending on the ArmA 2 development status, can BIS please slap an Alpha, Beta or Work In Progress watermark on all future screen releases.

I just hope that they can really overhaul the Close Quarter Urban Skills of the AI. They need to be able to seek cover, use the corners of walls, lean and fire, Â fire from behind vehicles, strafe, etc, etc... There's no point in having large cities and towns if the AI can't utilise their surroundings effectivley. And I'd be extremley happy if they can implement something similar to Full Spectrum Warriors control for sending troops to where you want. i.e the movement cursor adapts to area you move it and the soldiers automatically stack up realistically against corners of buildings and lean out. I wonder if they've taken anything on board from the Game 2 suggestion forum? *crosses fingers*

I just hope that they can really overhaul the Close Quarter Urban Skills of the AI. They need to be able to seek cover, use the corners of walls, lean and fire, Â fire from behind vehicles, strafe, etc, etc... There's no point in having large cities and towns if the AI can't utilise their surroundings effectivley. And I'd be extremley happy if they can implement something similar to Full Spectrum Warriors control for sending troops to where you want. i.e the movement cursor adapts to area you move it and the soldiers automatically stack up realistically against corners of buildings and lean out. I wonder if they've taken anything on board from the Game 2 suggestion forum? *crosses fingers*

Well the game is out and so is the demo! Demo link: http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmsf/downloads.html Currently only Fileplanet, but mirrors will be appearing.

Out in the open the A.I does a pretty good job when it's fighting across fields, woodlands and at a distance. (slightly off topic - maybe) But as we all know it's frankly terrible at CQB especially in the towns. What I don't get is that why BIS included large cities but didn't overhall the close city fighting abilities of the A.I. I suppose it may have been too demanding on the CPU? If ArmA had A.I. on par with CQB titles such as FEAR and Farcry (I've heard good things about these titles - although their AI is largly scripted and BIS games need something dynamic). I don't think I'd ever have to buy another ground sim again It's probably impossible for ArmA but for Game 2, the enemy A.I. Â really need an overhaul for inner-city fighting: Being able to effectivley use cover: corner of buildings, peeking and firing, inside buildings - kneeling and firing out of windows, being able to strafe while covering a team-mate or moving to cover. Being subjected to and using suppression, etc...

Actually, I was agreeing with you and 4 IN 1. Â When I use the term 'popcorn game' I'm not being disingenuous. I mean it in a positive way. Everyone likes popcorn now and again, right.

These games are what I call 'popcorn' games, the equivalent of the Hollywood blockbuster. Switch your brain off enjoy the set-pieces and big explosions. I was looking forward to it form the early showings but having seen the way you 'float' over obsticles and the rigidness of your gun has made me think twice. I might check it out when it's much cheaper and because of the lack of replayability with these types of games.

I guess it's easy to be cynical about this - especially if you look at it in financial terms. But from an aspring designers (which I'm not) point of view it's a great opportunity for something to put in your portfolio / CV. I assume they'll give proper credit in the manual as well.

Finished this last night. I forget which character I played at the end, but we started near a base then had to go to the downed helicopter. Once there, there's a firefight and much like everyone else nothing happened. The trouble was (for me at least)  one of the enemy AI decides to run off - and like some OFP missions - the mission won't end until ALL enemies are dead thereby meeting the missions parameters. I found my last enemy by walking past the downed helicopter until I had a text warning that I was leaving the mission area, then running around near the top of the mountain  until I was shot. The death camera showed me where he was hiding. My advice - once you've beaten all enemies at the helicopter crash site, save your game. Then put the game on 4x speed and run around the area until your shot and watch the death camera to see where the last enemy is. This is one of most frustrating things in ArmA's missions. All it takes is one enemy AI to run off and survive and the mission won't end. And trying to find that enemy with the game area of Sahrani can be a nightmare.

Four new Beta Videos have been released: Trailer Thunder Run Firefight ATGM Ambush http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmsf/videos.html

Call of Duty 4 gameplay video: http://www.xboxyde.com/news_4484_en.html