I don't get why there are s many complains about Flashpoint 2 being done by diferent developers...
ArmA (OpFp's true soul sequel, by the original devs) is broken in many ways, if they didn't took the rights for it and hand it to someone else, we would be already playing Flashpoint 2, that would be ArmA with a diferen't name.
I understand that when a series is given to someone else, chances are that its going to be crap, but hey, the real devs are making crap for sure right now and its Flashpoint 2 with ArmA as a name, so lets give the new devs a chance.
If you are so loyal to the original devs, then you can stil play ArmA as if it was Flashpoint 2, because it IS Flashpoint 2, no harm done.
same thing goes for "Far Cry" (not that good game to begin with), with a crappy soul sequel called "Crysis", IMO, "Far Cry 2" done by someone else can do much better.
I don't deny that the sequels are not going to suck, but I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt first, since everyone seems to be so angry about the dev changin, I can say at least, that if the sequels were made by the true devs, they would have already sucked, and we would have nothing to look forward to
just a thought I had, and this seemed to be the correct thread to post it, not aimed at anyone in particular
Not really informed then.
Bohemia have allways stated that ArmA was not the official follow-up to Operation Flashpoint. From day one they have said that it was to be some sort of '1.5' version of Operation Flashpoint, to give the OFP community something new to do till they could finish up all the work on Game2, wich was supposed to be the real follow-up to the original OFP. (Game2 is now known as ArmA2)
As for bugs, personally i have only noticed 1 bug (graphic-wise only, thanks to my videocard. Everything seemed blurry in the distance, but i fixed it), and the only flaws i can think of is ****ty AI, and the performance when the game got released.
However they have found that problem, they made big improvements for the framerates with the latest beta patches, so i'm pretty sure they will have improved it further for ArmA 2, and i've allready seen some gameplay footage of AI improvements, where they actually took cover at corners and stuff like that.
That combined with the promise of a better campaign again (wich never was the sellingpoint for ArmA, BI's focus was on the MP part) cause it's the official follow-up, makes me very very hopefull for Armed Assault 2.
Codemasters however has little to no experience with tactical simulations, and as all companies do they want to make money of the game.
BI ofcourse also wants this but so far they havent mainstreamed or simplified anything yet in ArmA, i dare say it's even more hardcore then the original OFP thanks to it's free-aiming system and stuff like that. Codemasters still has to prove that they arent just moneywolves out for a new cashcow + little experience in the genre = possibly huge failure, or at least a big disappointment for the fans of the original OFP, especially if they are going to sell out.
Some of you will not like me for bringing it up again but i'll just give Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six as an example of what can happen when other companies take over. You're gonna be given abominations unworthy of a classic name. Sometimes even when the original developers make part 2, but there is even more chance when another developer takes over.
Know that R6 and GR are some of my favourite alltime games, together with OFP. Seeing what has allready happened to the first mentioned (younger gamers allready think R6 is all about run and gun gameplay and that Advanced Warfighter is truely tactical), i dont want to see that happen to yet another favourite of mine. That's where the worry comes from.