[Game] Operation Flashpoint: Red River

[Nimsky]

But the question is: why support CM?

They ruined the OFP name, but you still want to give them your money because it "might be a fun non-realistic game"?

 

[Flogger23m]

But the question is: why support CM?

They ruined the OFP name, but you still want to give them your money because it "might be a fun non-realistic game"?

If it works and is fun, then I'll buy it. I doubt it as the first game was even more unplayable than ArmA 2 in terms of bugs.

Ruining the name doesn't mean much to me. After its been done time and time again, I don't care about the name of a game anymore.

 

[kllr101]

If it works and is fun, then I'll buy it. I doubt it as the first game was even more unplayable than ArmA 2 in terms of bugs.

Ruining the name doesn't mean much to me. After its been done time and time again, I don't care about the name of a game anymore.

Names of series these days don't mean anything anymore. Unless they're from smaller developers. Such as BIS, Maddox games, TWI and such. But most of the time, Names of series are just being used to monopolise on the success of previous titles, especially with bigger companies such as IW/Activision-Blizzard/EA-DICE/Ubisoft and the likes.

Sometimes I think they try to make a good game, but just forgot what a good game is. Like with BFBC2, it seems like they wanted to make a great game. But didn't step back to think about what a game needs to have before you start piling on features like destruction and nice graphical effects.

RR itself; Seems like a decent game. A fun game. But definantly, nothing of the original OFP's; There over with ArmA by BIS now. Once you look past that fact, RR looks like a decent shooter.

 

[Grobut]

It might be better if the gameplay itself is tactical and good. Even without mods, a somewhat tactical shooter would be nice. But I doubt this will fit the bill.

That's a mighty big "IF" there, seeing as the game won't even have the mission builder of the first, let alone mod support, so you are relying 100% on the default content of the game beeing able to carry it.

DR's default content was terrible, both unable to satiesfy the pure action minded gamer, and the realism minded simhead, it failed on both counts, and really, the mission builder was all it had going for it after a short while.


Seriously guys, Codemasters are a bunch of no-talent hacks, whatever talent that once existed in that company is long gone, just move on, there is nothing to see here folks.

 

[Oldih]

RR itself; Seems like a decent game. A fun game. But definantly, nothing of the original OFP's; There over with ArmA by BIS now. Once you look past that fact, RR looks like a decent shooter.

Yes it makes sense to some degree, but it's a matter of principle with games like that in general with sequels that are greatly diffrent even in negative way. If RO3 -- hypothetically speaking whenever-the-hell-RO3-would-actually-come-out -- would turn out to be genuine CoD clone, people would be going bat**** crazy about it while some other crowds might initially embrace. It's not a Red Orchestra for the 'core' fanbase so to speak, others might disagree even more so if they haven't played any of the earlier installments.

Similiarly Commandos- series. Strike Force wasn't that bad of a game, but was it worthy successor for the series in general? This is where the **** starts flying. As much as Operation Flashpoint is recognisable name that can be useful on the marketing department if CM would make 'new' series in similiar fashion the odds are, people wouldn't need to grind their axes that much.

Even then I'd be willing to draw a line between decent, unique or interesting shooter regardless of the theme and something that looks like they put through random game generator featuring modern warfare elements with some additional Pyramid Head favorite pasttime attached during production. Sure it just might be tolerable introduction if you've never heard of the whole tactical shooting genre before, but even then it just sounds like poor excuse.

 

[kllr101]

To me; the name is only there to give me a quick idea of what the game is about. If a trusted developer started to do some random stuff with the name of its series. It would be the developer i would be annoyed over, not the ruined name.

If RO3 was made by TWI, and it was a CoD clone. I would be annoyed in TWI because I trusted them. The RO name doesn't mean anything to me past telling me what to expect when playing RO.

Anyway, With RR :

YouTube - Operation Flashpoint Red River - Machine Gun Demo

Some footage of shooting and reloading the 'PKP'

EDIT:

Some pure gameplay as well, its only like 20 seconds long. But oh well:

YouTube - Operation Flashpoint: Red River - Gameplay Highlight Video #1 (HD)

 

[Nimsky]

If it works and is fun, then I'll buy it.

RR itself; Seems like a decent game. A fun game. But definantly, nothing of the original OFP's; There over with ArmA by BIS now. Once you look past that fact, RR looks like a decent shooter.

No offense, but it's people like you who help developers like Consolemasters destroy tactical shooter series. You should realize that by buying such titles you're telling them to keep doing it. They'll look at the sales and think: "There obviously isn't a market for realistic games anymore, let's turn more of these tactical shooters into arcade console ports! It's what people want!". If you ever want the tactical shooter to make a comeback, vote with your wallet and don't buy these titles. And support devs like TWI and BIS, who stay true to their original vision.

It's not just OFP; same thing happened with the Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six series.

It just baffles me that you recognize the fact that CM stole OFP, yet still support them in doing so.

 

[The Masta]

is it that hard nowadays to make a game without a so real bloody screen?

 

[LemoN]

is it that hard nowadays to make a game without a so real bloody screen?

I thought the same...

BLOODY SCREEN! SOOO REAL!

 

[EvilAmericanMan]

is it that hard nowadays to make a game without a so real bloody screen?

Are you calling it boooring?!?!?!

It's not just OFP; same thing happened with the Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six series.

Sad how a series as superior as R6 went to hell after the mastery that was Raven Shield.

 

[kllr101]

No offense, but it's people like you who help developers like Consolemasters destroy tactical shooter series. You should realize that by buying such titles you're telling them to keep doing it. They'll look at the sales and think: "There obviously isn't a market for realistic games anymore, let's turn more of these tactical shooters into arcade console ports! It's what people want!". If you ever want the tactical shooter to make a comeback, vote with your wallet and don't buy these titles. And support devs like TWI and BIS, who stay true to their original vision.

It's not just OFP; same thing happened with the Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six series.

It just baffles me that you recognize the fact that CM stole OFP, yet still support them in doing so.

Because; I gave up with supporting names. If the game is good, then I will buy it. If its not, then I wont.

I support companies (BIS, TWI, 1C Maddox) but I don't support "names". If a name gets ruined, I don't really care, If the gameplay is good, then its worth some money.

Getting all bound up over names ends up with you just being blind to games and what they're really like. Dragon Rising is a good example, once you ignore the fact its got OFP written at the front of it. And look at the game as a squad based shooter, its an alright game. Especially with some community created stuff (like missions)

I gave up with supporting names after the newer CoDs, Dragon Rising, C&C4, BF:BC2, IL-2:WoP, MoH, SH... etc etc

 

[Murphy]

So you gave up already. Good for you, but don't act like you don't understand those who still put up a futile fight.

As for names and what they're worth:
Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts couldn't be more different from the original Banjo Kazooie or Banjo Tooie but it's an incredibly fun game in its own right! How about that? Now when I'm going to read about a new Banjo Kazooie game some day I won't even care if it's a sequel to Banjo Tooie, to Nuts and Bolts or based on a new wacky idea. I'll just be happy to get another Banjo Kazooie game.
As opposed to Operation Flashpoint or Rainbow Six where I'm just going to wonder how bad they screwed up this time around (to be honest, I thought the GRAW games weren't all that bad. Future Warrior or whatever could change my opinion on the series, but for now I think it's still alright).
Apparently it is possible to change a series into something that isn't a watered down, generic version of its former self.

 

[dogbadger]

It just baffles me that you recognize the fact that CM stole OFP, yet still support them in doing so.

Ok so did CM sack BIS and cast them into wilderness to fend for themselves, in order to obtain sole control over the name OFP?

Or is it the case that BIS decided to go it alone and ditch CM - the company that by publishing OFP (and seemingly throwing a lot of weight behind it) had helped them establish themselves.
I suspect if BIS was able to go to ground as it's own company and spend the time from resistance to arma supporting itself, it didn't do too badly at all out of codemasters.

 

[Colt .45 killer]

Ok so did CM sack BIS and cast them into wilderness to fend for themselves, in order to obtain sole control over the name OFP?

Or is it the case that BIS decided to go it alone and ditch CM - the company that by publishing OFP (and seemingly throwing a lot of weight behind it) had helped them establish themselves.
I suspect if BIS was able to go to ground as it's own company and spend the time from resistance to arma supporting itself, it didn't do too badly at all out of codemasters.

Keeping in mind one of the biggest cash cows for BIS is Virtual battle space.

 

[kllr101]

Keeping in mind one of the biggest cash cows for BIS is Virtual battle space.

BIS - Bohemia Interactive Studios - Is the Czech portion of the Company, and work on ArmA. Virtual Battlespace, VBS, Is made by BIA - Bohemia Interactive Australia.

I doubt they share the profits from their seperate products.

 

[Flogger23m]

That's a mighty big "IF" there...

Exactly my point. If its good, I'll give it a try. If its crap, I won't. I am leaning towards it being crap though...

Again, I don't care for the name. GR: FS looks awful. I won't buy it. If someone makes a game that is similar to GR or GRAW with a different name, I'll buy it.

But considering how well GB is doing, I don't think we'll see another tactical shooter again outside of ArmA.

 

[SiC-Disaster]

Getting all bound up over names ends up with you just being blind to games and what they're really like. Dragon Rising is a good example, once you ignore the fact its got OFP written at the front of it. And look at the game as a squad based shooter, its an alright game. Especially with some community created stuff (like missions)

That is still enabling them to ruin other series and get away with it.
You argue that the name is not important, however they DO snatch up the series and ruin the gameplay, and that leads to our current situations: no recognizable tactical shooters are left, because all of them have been bought up by some other company which destroyed them.
Still buying the sequel is enabling them to continue to do so, and in the end nothing will be left.
With the gameplay that got put in place of the old styles, they could have easily made a new game under a different name, and we might still have Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon and Operation Flashpoint. And we might not have had them, but at least they wouldnt have been raped to death.

 

[Murphy]

Also, I think we can all agree that it's sad when people who never even played the originals are introduced to the series with the new, watered-down, generic shadows of their former selves and yet they still praise them for being so realistic/ atmospheric/ complex/ well written (or whatever their original's big attribute was. This isn't just about tactical shooters but also about other genres of games and movies!).

 

[kllr101]

Also, I think we can all agree that it's sad when people who never even played the originals are introduced to the series with the new, watered-down, generic shadows of their former selves and yet they still praise them for being so realistic/ atmospheric/ complex/ well written (or whatever their original's big attribute was. This isn't just about tactical shooters but also about other genres of games and movies!).

I see your point, To me, The gameplay matters. If the game itself is good, then its worth some money.

However, I do go to say ArmA, and I expect to find a military sim, And if I suddenly found ArmA III : CoD, I would be confused. Now, if BIS themselves had done it. I would be pretty annoyed I was trusting BIS to make the genre that they did. But I wouldn't be annoyed at what they did to the ArmA title.

However, If another company bought up the rights to ArmA. And made A3:COD, I would go look @ BIS website for the name of a new military simulator just announced by them. And continue to watch what was, ArmA. If that new game turns out to be good, i'll play it. If it doesn't, I wont.

Thats how I work, To me, It seems more logical to trust developers and put faith in that. Than fuss over a name.

 

[LemoN]

Also, I think we can all agree that it's sad when people who never even played the originals are introduced to the series with the new, watered-down, generic shadows of their former selves and yet they still praise them for being so realistic/ atmospheric/ complex/ well written (or whatever their original's big attribute was. This isn't just about tactical shooters but also about other genres of games and movies!).

Agreed, whenever I mention the awesomeness called OFP people always respond "No way, OFP sucked!".I always have to tell them that I'm not talking about the new abominations calling itself OFP...