• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Operation Flashpoint 2 preview and screenies

I think they should have realism levels so they don't single out anybody.
No. They can add a super-easy difficulty mode where you can take a few hits, enemies are shown on the map if they are in your possible field of view and you get all kinds of hints on what to do next, but other than things like that they shouldn't make a "realism slider".
If people don't like realistic games they just shouldn't play them. I don't buy Forza and complain about a lack of rallye tracks afterwards either.:rolleyes: That has nothing to do with excluding people.
 
Upvote 0
No. They can add a super-easy difficulty mode where you can take a few hits, enemies are shown on the map if they are in your possible field of view and you get all kinds of hints on what to do next, but other than things like that they shouldn't make a "realism slider".
If people don't like realistic games they just shouldn't play them. I don't buy Forza and complain about a lack of rallye tracks afterwards either.:rolleyes: That has nothing to do with excluding people.
Why would they do that they need so sell the game to as many people as possible you know.
 
Upvote 0
I think they should have realism levels so they don't single out anybody.

No. Operation Flashpoint was a realistic game at heart, people love it for that very reason. It's realism is it's greatest strength, and you want to undermine that?
If people dont like that, they really should leave the game alone! If they dont want realism, then why on earth play a tactical realistic game? Buy CoD instead and kill as many mother****ers they can throw at you, but DONT change allready existing games.
If you want to appeal to larger audiences, then for god's sake, start a new franchise, but dont **** up an allready existing one.
Developers should stay true to the original games, instead of trying to cash out to the mainstream who dont care about that effort anyway and just download the game. The fans of the original who WOULD buy the game get their rightfull sequel stolen from them. If your gonna do a sequel, do it right or dont even bother making one. Honestly.
The reason most games suck these days is because they try to dont single out anybody. The most hardcore games of any genre are usually considered the best, and other games these days are just washed-down nice-but-not-good-enough for the genre it claims to be games.

I salute Bohemia Studios for making an even more hardcore game then Operation Flashpoint. It shows they have BALLS, something that is severely lacking these days!
If Codemasters manage to do that too, make OFP2 more hardcore then OFP1, then they get my approval. If it gets washed down like i expect it to be, well, i'll never buy a Codemasters game again. Ever.
I so hate it when great tactical games get messed up for bigger audiences, its so unfair. They have more then enough run-and-gun gungho shooters (wich are fine), but why do you want to take away our tactical realism games to cater for them as well? It leaves us with nothing, nothing at all.
 
Upvote 0
Why would they do that they need so sell the game to as many people as possible you know.

By adding an arcade mode? Bad thinking. Realism sells well, just look at OFP, ArmA and IL-2. The market is already there. If they add an arcade mode, you can bet your *** that nobody from the "realism" crowd will buy it. Average Joe won't buy it either, because either he will never hear from the game (he only cares about CoD6), or it will be too difficult for him. There hardly is a middle road (although RO does it very well), it's either very arcade or hardcore realism.

Cater to your target audience, not the masses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dogbadger
Upvote 0
By adding an arcade mode? Bad thinking. Realism sells well, just look at OFP, ArmA and IL-2. The market is already there. If they add an arcade mode, you can bet your *** that nobody from the "realism" crowd will buy it. Average Joe won't buy it either, because either he will never hear from the game (he only cares about CoD6), or it will be too difficult for him. There hardly is a middle road (although RO does it very well), it's either very arcade or hardcore realism.

Cater to your target audience, not the masses.
So what's CoD4 or BF2? It's neither 100% arcade neithe ris it hardcore realism. This is called semi-realism.

Well anyways I'd just like to have options like disable/enable freeaim, toggle crosshair etc.
 
Upvote 0
No. Operation Flashpoint was a realistic game at heart, people love it for that very reason. It's realism is it's greatest strength, and you want to undermine that?
If people dont like that, they really should leave the game alone! If they dont want realism, then why on earth play a tactical realistic game? Buy CoD instead and kill as many mother****ers they can throw at you, but DONT change allready existing games.
If you want to appeal to larger audiences, then for god's sake, start a new franchise, but dont **** up an allready existing one.
Developers should stay true to the original games, instead of trying to cash out to the mainstream who dont care about that effort anyway and just download the game. The fans of the original who WOULD buy the game get their rightfull sequel stolen from them. If your gonna do a sequel, do it right or dont even bother making one. Honestly.
The reason most games suck these days is because they try to dont single out anybody. The most hardcore games of any genre are usually considered the best, and other games these days are just washed-down nice-but-not-good-enough for the genre it claims to be games.

I salute Bohemia Studios for making an even more hardcore game then Operation Flashpoint. It shows they have BALLS, something that is severely lacking these days!
If Codemasters manage to do that too, make OFP2 more hardcore then OFP1, then they get my approval. If it gets washed down like i expect it to be, well, i'll never buy a Codemasters game again. Ever.
I so hate it when great tactical games get messed up for bigger audiences, its so unfair. They have more then enough run-and-gun gungho shooters (wich are fine), but why do you want to take away our tactical realism games to cater for them as well? It leaves us with nothing, nothing at all.
You don't need write a book about it. I was suggesting the realism settings for tactical gamers. I do hope OFP2 is realistic though.
 
Upvote 0
Those images are rendered using in-game assets but an external renderer. The effects they use just can't happen real-time at present so the actual game, while similar, won't look as good. Granted, DiRt looks pretty, but if you pay close attention you'll see that the detail only extends a few metres off the track. After that it's all 2D brushes and skybox. I'm skeptical as to how well they'll get it to work with huge open environments. At least without sacrificing visual quality. But we'll see.

As far as realism is concerned, I suspect it'll be like Insurgency. An attempt to play the middle ground between arcade and realism. And will likely fail in the same way, but again, time will tell. Also, please don't try to claim BF2 and CoD 4 are semi realistic. They're not. They're firmly on the arcade side of the fence, they're just closer to said fence than say, Quake Wars.

And just a quick note in the PC/Console er... "discussion". Sorry, but piracy is not killing PC gaming. That's just a standard industry excuse. Console piracy is just as rampant as PC piracy and the figures prove it. The death of PC gaming is caused by the existance of consoles. The simple fact is that there are a whole lot of consoles out there these days. Their market's just plain bigger than the PC gaming market. As a developer, you can hardly ignore all that potential income. So you focus on the biggest possible source of revenue. But since we all want to maximise profits, they also "codevelop" for PC.

Now I'm sorry, but it's a fact that when you're trying to make something compatible with a variety of platforms/users/situations/etc, you MUST cater to the lowest common denominator. In this case, a console of some description will always fill that role. Which means your game must run on their simplistic controller and with their limited system resources. That forces you to simplify, consolidate and generally reduce the game's scope and depth in order to be acceptable on that baseline machine. Everything above that line effectively gets the same simplified product, but usually with some slight graphical improvements to make use of any additional resources there might be. To make any major changes is just too hard and time consuming. Thus we on the PC get a product which is designed primarily to run on the worst available console at the time. This is a fact and I don't know why people still dispute it. Just accept that console gaming, while great on its own, ruins PC gaming, and lets move on.
 
Upvote 0
By adding an arcade mode? Bad thinking. Realism sells well, just look at OFP, ArmA and IL-2. The market is already there. If they add an arcade mode, you can bet your *** that nobody from the "realism" crowd will buy it. Average Joe won't buy it either, because either he will never hear from the game (he only cares about CoD6), or it will be too difficult for him. There hardly is a middle road (although RO does it very well), it's either very arcade or hardcore realism.

Cater to your target audience, not the masses.
Like ArmA and especially IL-2 don't have an arcade mode :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0
And just a quick note in the PC/Console er... "discussion". Sorry, but piracy is not killing PC gaming. That's just a standard industry excuse. Console piracy is just as rampant as PC piracy and the figures prove it. The death of PC gaming is caused by the existance of consoles. The simple fact is that there are a whole lot of consoles out there these days. Their market's just plain bigger than the PC gaming market. As a developer, you can hardly ignore all that potential income. So you focus on the biggest possible source of revenue. But since we all want to maximise profits, they also "codevelop" for PC.

Now I'm sorry, but it's a fact that when you're trying to make something compatible with a variety of platforms/users/situations/etc, you MUST cater to the lowest common denominator. In this case, a console of some description will always fill that role. Which means your game must run on their simplistic controller and with their limited system resources. That forces you to simplify, consolidate and generally reduce the game's scope and depth in order to be acceptable on that baseline machine. Everything above that line effectively gets the same simplified product, but usually with some slight graphical improvements to make use of any additional resources there might be. To make any major changes is just too hard and time consuming. Thus we on the PC get a product which is designed primarily to run on the worst available console at the time. This is a fact and I don't know why people still dispute it. Just accept that console gaming, while great on its own, ruins PC gaming, and lets move on.

Couldn't agree more
icon14.gif
 
Upvote 0
Those images are rendered using in-game assets but an external renderer. The effects they use just can't happen real-time at present so the actual game, while similar, won't look as good. Granted, DiRt looks pretty, but if you pay close attention you'll see that the detail only extends a few metres off the track. After that it's all 2D brushes and skybox. I'm skeptical as to how well they'll get it to work with huge open environments. At least without sacrificing visual quality. But we'll see.

As far as realism is concerned, I suspect it'll be like Insurgency. An attempt to play the middle ground between arcade and realism. And will likely fail in the same way, but again, time will tell. Also, please don't try to claim BF2 and CoD 4 are semi realistic. They're not. They're firmly on the arcade side of the fence, they're just closer to said fence than say, Quake Wars.

And just a quick note in the PC/Console er... "discussion". Sorry, but piracy is not killing PC gaming. That's just a standard industry excuse. Console piracy is just as rampant as PC piracy and the figures prove it. The death of PC gaming is caused by the existance of consoles. The simple fact is that there are a whole lot of consoles out there these days. Their market's just plain bigger than the PC gaming market. As a developer, you can hardly ignore all that potential income. So you focus on the biggest possible source of revenue. But since we all want to maximise profits, they also "codevelop" for PC.

Now I'm sorry, but it's a fact that when you're trying to make something compatible with a variety of platforms/users/situations/etc, you MUST cater to the lowest common denominator. In this case, a console of some description will always fill that role. Which means your game must run on their simplistic controller and with their limited system resources. That forces you to simplify, consolidate and generally reduce the game's scope and depth in order to be acceptable on that baseline machine. Everything above that line effectively gets the same simplified product, but usually with some slight graphical improvements to make use of any additional resources there might be. To make any major changes is just too hard and time consuming. Thus we on the PC get a product which is designed primarily to run on the worst available console at the time. This is a fact and I don't know why people still dispute it. Just accept that console gaming, while great on its own, ruins PC gaming, and lets move on.
Well then please give at least three examples for such games.
 
Upvote 0
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
Rainbow Six: Vegas
Unreal Tournament 3
Bioshock
Mass Effect (Interface is crying out for a mouse/keyboard)
Deus Ex series
Far Cry 2
Fallout 3
Mass Effect is console-only you know that?

Rainbow Six: Vegas ... Just stop bashing it. Nobody except you few people really used the planning. I for example played Black Thorn and Raven Shield and NEVER used the planning thing. Now I don't want to say that because I never used it this means that nobody used it but in the evolution of games(back in Rogue Spear times people did use this i suppose) this just became redundant. I also don't think that the Rainbow Six-Series is known for realism. It's known for it's tactics and imo in Vegas you still have to use tactics.

Oblivion. Well there's a bit of a truth here at least the menus etc. were consolified. But it still was a great game that many people, myself included, enjoyed to play. Again except for the menus the game would not have been much more realistic and elitish if there would not be any consoles. It's just the way games develop.

Bioshock ... wait what? How is BioShock consolified. If you mean the weapon behaviour this has nothing to do with the consoles. Maybe the performance is not so good but I can't tell that because I didn't have any problems.

Deus Ex. Well I never played them so I can't tell.

Far Cry 2 LOL. What are you talking about man it even was first announced on PC and later for consoles. Also how would you know anything about the game being consolified there's just some informations and engine demonstrations yet.

Fall Out 3 well could be. Then again Fall Out 3 is from Bethesda, just like Oblivion so one could see a connection here.
 
Upvote 0
I also don't think that the Rainbow Six-Series is known for realism. It's known for it's tactics and imo in Vegas you still have to use tactics.
You have to use tactics in Quake 3 Arena (map control being the most prominent one) and Serious Sam 2 if you bump up the difficulty high enough and you definately have to use tactics in Halo if you play on Legendary. Are those tactical shooters then as well?

Rainbow Six was definately known for its realism...:rolleyes:

That is until the series was derailed by Lockdown (aka Rainbow Six: Letdown) and put onto the new rail Lockdown was aiming for by Vegas.

I would be more interested in examples for "semi-realistic games" though, because I think Psycho-Chicken is setting the standard for realistic games much too high.
In my opinion Red Orchestra already qualifies as a realistic game, Insurgency is borderline realistic but still realistic (as far as I can tell. I've only played it for a few days now and I didn't play it too long) and games like Battlefield 2 or even Counterstrike are definately semi-realistic in my eyes.
 
Upvote 0
Mass Effect is console-only you know that?

Rainbow Six: Vegas ... Just stop bashing it. Nobody except you few people really used the planning. I for example played Black Thorn and Raven Shield and NEVER used the planning thing. Now I don't want to say that because I never used it this means that nobody used it but in the evolution of games(back in Rogue Spear times people did use this i suppose) this just became redundant. I also don't think that the Rainbow Six-Series is known for realism. It's known for it's tactics and imo in Vegas you still have to use tactics.
It most definitely was known for its realism. At the time, what other games where there that had you die in one shot? Not much, let me tell you. R6 was hardcore stuff, 1 shot 1 kills, planning and all that jazz. Now, not a lot of people might have used the planner, but then again a whole lot of people really did... Taking out is just bad, no matter how much people hate or like it. If you dont like it, dont use to, you dont have to. But what are people who DO want to use a planner going to do now? It's not the only thing Vegas and Letdown did **** up, like removing the 3 teams and replacing them with 3 soldiers (they call it streamlining but it's mainstreaming, really. Streamlining would be adding better controls, not removing the feature), they took away the planner, the realism, everything R6 was known for except the name.

Oblivion. Well there's a bit of a truth here at least the menus etc. were consolified. But it still was a great game that many people, myself included, enjoyed to play. Again except for the menus the game would not have been much more realistic and elitish if there would not be any consoles. It's just the way games develop.
It's not just the menu's. They took away a lot of stuff, and added unneeded stuff. Added map-travel wich you dont even have to pay for (maptravel was possible in Morrowind but only by using striders and only to certain locations), removed the ability to put clothes over armor and stuff (small detail, but i still missed it), they reduced skills you could increase, even put axes into the blunt category (like, wtf?:confused:) and other stuff i dont even want to mention.

Bioshock ... wait what? How is BioShock consolified. If you mean the weapon behaviour this has nothing to do with the consoles. Maybe the performance is not so good but I can't tell that because I didn't have any problems.
Not that i care about Bioshock, only played the demo but the combat really did feel consolified. So much more could have been done.

Deus Ex. Well I never played them so I can't tell.
Deus Ex 2 definitely did suck major cocksicle. DX1 was a brilliant game in every way except for graphics wich i allready thought looked dated back in the day it came out, but who cares about graphics. Gameplay was great. DX2, i couldnt be bothered to play for more then half an hour. The menu's were very consolified and the combat too.

Far Cry 2 LOL. What are you talking about man it even was first announced on PC and later for consoles. Also how would you know anything about the game being consolified there's just some informations and engine demonstrations yet.
Yet has to be seen.

Fall Out 3 well could be. Then again Fall Out 3 is from Bethesda, just like Oblivion so one could see a connection here.
You can count on it though. They did it to Oblivion (all the old TES fans hate it, and that should say enough)

answered. (needed the 4 letters lol.)
 
Upvote 0