Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising

[Aram]

The original OFP was one of my favorite gaming experiences. Especially the commando levels where you can improvise stealing various tanks and helicopters, mowing down all the pilots before they have a chance to reach theirs.

[Malcador]

Malcador: I can understand the desire to crucify Codemasters for blaspheming the franchise, but the theories about how it will be dumbed down are pretty weak based on available evidence. At the end of the day we're both giving the game a shot, so it's kind of an academic point.

 

I can't really say I have a desire to do so, but alright.

[Nightshape]

Dumbed down, and ease of access ain't the same thing really.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

Malcador: I can understand the desire to crucify Codemasters for blaspheming the franchise, but the theories about how it will be dumbed down are pretty weak based on available evidence. At the end of the day we're both giving the game a shot, so it's kind of an academic point.

 

I can't really say I have a desire to do so, but alright.

 

Well, you said you'd try to at least play it before passing judgment. If you don't, you're writing the game off based on vague criteria that you've imagined rather than any legitimate reasons. Just saying . . .

[Malcador]

Anyone try this yet ? Trying to glean info from the games official forum is a bit difficult with all the apparent COD tards, and reviews are unreliable in most cases.

[Walsingham]

I did hate the way AI could see you unfailingly a bajillion miles off.

[alanschu]

You've played the new one?

 

I agree that the co-op is what interests me the most.

[Malcador]

Well, it's not as punishing as the first one. I'm on hardcore and have been shot a couple of times without dying - I did get incapacitated and revived by an AI medic. So far it's not an awful game, but only on the second mission so far. Noticing some odd AI behaviours though, I should have been spotted by some AI troops but they only reacted once I was spotted by some other unit.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Ive only played like 25min but I have to say Codemasters have done a hell of alot better job than Bohemia Interactive. Comparing OP2DR with Arma 2 is like champagne and vinegar, and its not just a question of bigger budget. They've made some very odd design and technical decisions on the Arma series which really brings the game down several notches.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

I've made it to the 9th of eleven missions in singleplayer. Thus far, I find it to be one of the more compelling representations of infantry tactics to date in a video game. Suppression, flanking, and cover are all useful. I never really got that from OFP or ArmA because the AI was too glitchy to implement much in the way of effective plans, and so accurate that firing from cover made little difference in survivability. In OFP2 the AI actually misses, which gives you time to hit the dirt, go for cover, and figure out a way to turn the tables. It's still possible to eat it instantly out of nowhere, but unlikely unless there's a sniper (I've seen two in the game so far). The friendly AI also listens to your commands most of the time, which is a huge step up.

 

I also found the atmosphere and environment more compelling than ArmA 2. OFP2 both looks better and runs better on my rig, which is not to be underestimated with the amount of time you spend wandering through the wilderness. It also has practical implications in terms of cover.

 

I agree that the stealth is maybe a bit forgiving at times, but that's better than being useless.

 

I also find that the enemy AI is kind of ruthless in CQB, which is odd since the game was clearly designed with medium range in mind. Hopefully this will be tweaked with patches.

 

Lastly, there are some glaring issues with multiplayer (master server drops people's logins, no dedicated server, no mid-game joining). Some of them will no doubt be fixed with time, though others may or may not. For the moment, I'm just playing SP.

[Aram]

I played through the game and all I can wonder is why it's so much worse than the original.

 

There was a plot with varied characters and tons of interesting turns in the original game. I remember a level of the original in which you get separated from your squad and have to get to a point in a completely non-linear fashion, and I remember driving a stolen civilian car into the woods to escape an enemy helicopter. I remember being rescued and joining the resistance movement and fleeing with them up a hillside. I remember stealing an enemy tank and using it to mow down an enemy base and shoot down two helicopters, rig the whole base with satchel charges to destroy every tank, and set them off from midair while flying to the evacuation point in a stolen helicopter. There was a mission where you flew a jet, crashed, and then had to escape captivity as the pilot. There were as many helicopter and tank missions as there were simply missions in the sequel.

 

The worst part is it seems like the mechanics for this sort of thing are actually still in place. You can still drive vehicles and fly helicopters but the campaign almost never gives you the opportunity to do so. Various events can be scripted but its always you, the same four guys, and some arbitrary objective. The campaign seems completely bland--stripped of any trace of character, drama, or any reason to care, not because they needed to be but because the design team was simply too lazy to include them.

[Aram]

Where the hell is this level in the sequel?

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

OFP1 had character, drama, and a reason to care? I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. I think you're confusing mission design and incorporation of vehicles with plot and character.

 

I suppose for people who consider vehicles the be-all end-all of the original, OFP2's SP would be very disappointing.

 

Setting aside my own nostalgia, I watched the video. What I saw was somebody sitting in a turret for 5 minutes blasting away enemies too stupid to respond effectively. And yes, that was how I beat the mission too, and I thought it was awesome at the time. It wasn't realistic or tactical in the least, nor was it a display of player skill. At best it was the same kind of thrill as turning on god mode.

 

Honestly, if you just want vehicle power-tripping, there are plenty of open-world games now that offer precisely that without the spurious implication of authenticity.

 

I can understand frustration if you went into OFP2's SP expecting a vehicle-centric game, but focusing on infantry doesn't make a game bad.

[Aram]

OFP1 had character, drama, and a reason to care?

Not very much, and what it did it didn't do well, but it definitely had more than its sequel. Originally there were characters with dialogue and personalities--very stale and the voice acting wasn't very good, but at least they tried. The original had soldiers conversing with each other while riding in vehicles, the characters getting involved in the plot, scenes of the completely ridiculous villain--"General Guba" I think his name was. I'm not saying they were good, but they were there, and from a sequel I would expect them to have gotten better rather than nixed entirely, especially since they had already gotten incrementally better in the Resistance expansion.

 

I don't consider vehicles the "end all be all" but since they were an extremely major part of the original--that there were about three times as many missions, many of which put you in control of a tank commander or a helicopter pilot, there's plenty of reason to be extremely disappointed that they're suddenly absent, especially considering that there's no reason for them to be. The vehicle mechanics are there, and you can't tell me the plot didn't allow for helicopter or tank battles, so all I can figure is that we don't have tanks or helicopters because they didn't take the time to program missions around them.

 

The grandest thing about OFP was that it let you be not only an infantryman, but also a tank commander, a pilot, and, just for fun, occasionally a superhero who could be all three making for some very dynamic and enjoyable missions. There seemed to be no end to the new ways to explore the battlefield. That's what made it such a classic for me.

 

Not having these things doesn't make the game bad--it's not bad, but not great either. Not having them does, however, make it inferior to its predecessor.

 

That I paid fifty dollars for the game expecting at least the same level of fun and interest that I got from the original, and didn't get nearly as much, is impossible to argue, and plenty of reason for me to be disappointed.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Aram

[Wrath of Dagon]

I read the check point system is really screwed up in this game, and I hate checkpoints to start with.

[Kaftan Barlast]

That might be true, I tried playing the second mission and I got stuck behind a checkpoint where I had to kill 10 enemies, run 500m and blow up a radar station in a minute. Just because I had taken a slightly different route than the designers intended.

 

 

WHy cant we have friggin savel/load anymore?!?!

[Malcador]

Still playing on, I have to say the description of this as a Ghost Recon type game is pretty apt, about as good as the first one I'd say. Can't really compare it to Arma 2, as it's not a sim. Shame about the entity limit, really makes these battles kind of pathetic in scope. Who knew the USMC conducted assaults with 20 guys, heh. Not that impressed with the hostile AI, their ridiculous inaccuracy at 100m aside, it eventually devolves into a whack-a-mole with them in cover. Also they can track you through smoke, which is a bit ridiculous.

 

Friendly AI does perform pretty well, at times. One thing I dislike about the campaign is the way you just appear in the field, no indication of being dropped off or whatever. The 4th mission with your fireteam just in the middle of nowhere was amusing to me at the start.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Malcador

[Wrath of Dagon]

WHy cant we have friggin savel/load anymore?!?!

Because developers are evil, and they know what you enjoy better than you do.