Gameplay trailer of OPF: Red River

This message and account have been deleted at the user's request

2PintsOfInsulin

Commented on 2010-11-23 14:20:10

Why do they bother?

In reply to

FireWire

Commented on 2010-11-23 14:50:20

They have a lot of convincing to do before I forgive them for the crap that was the last game...

In reply to

Zarsky

Commented on 2010-11-23 15:18:01

Looks average. Have no expectations for this one.

In reply to

bleachedsmiles

Commented on 2010-11-23 15:29:31

took long enough for the talking to stop

In reply to

michaelob

Commented on 2010-11-23 17:18:07

WTF? Looks terrible! I thought they said the graphics were going to be much improved from Dragon Rising. It looks like they dropped low res, semi realistic soldiers into a cartoonish WOW style background. Hard to believe this is from the company that made the DIRT series (some of the best looking games this gen).

Not to mention they are taking the only thing that was unique about Operation Flashpoint away (the realism) in favor of making a more "mainstream" game this time around. Rather than following through with their promises for the first game (open world warfare, realistic tactics, etc), they have decided to attempt to make a much uglier clone of MW. Why they feel the need to further destroy the Flashpoint name I don't know, but I have lost all faith in getting a good realistic, tactical shooter this generation. Damn I miss the original GR and R6 series! I guess it is time to go out and buy a nice PC rig to play ARMA II on.

In reply to

Grimbarian

Commented on 2010-11-23 17:45:44

Fake pre-renders again, won't look anything as good as that in final release.

In reply to

PlumbDrumb

Commented on 2010-11-23 17:52:22 In reply to Grimbarian

Posted by Grimbarian

Fake pre-renders again, won't look anything as good as that in final release.

ya think? I was about to say the opposite:
at least they aren't complete bullshots like last time.

In reply to

FireWire

Commented on 2010-11-23 18:24:34 In reply to michaelob

Posted by michaelob

Damn I miss the original GR and R6 series! I guess it is time to go out and buy a nice PC rig to play ARMA II on.

QFT! Ubi needs to step up to the plate and announce a new Rainbow Six..
The new GR looks cool but that futuristic angle isn't entirely my taste...

Looks like the only worthy "tactical" shooter out there ATM is ARMA II but that's still too buggy and unstable if you ask me....

In reply to

digi_matrix

Commented on 2010-11-23 18:52:51

I love squad shooters, and realistic shooters, the only current one is Brothers in Arms. I'd rather check out Arma 2, than Operation Flashpoint. Are they similar developers? Offshoots of each other?

In reply to

loosethoughts

Commented on 2010-11-23 19:26:08

I tend to treat this franchise like a simulator rather than a game. If it still has the physics, then I would forgive the graphics.

That being said they have to do something amazing to get me hyped, especially with Homefront on it's way. Also, the rumor of Red River not having multiplayer doesn't help their case...

In reply to

KahL

Commented on 2010-11-23 19:27:09

OPF: Red River? Shouldn't it be OFP: Red River for 'O'peration 'F'lash'P'oint? Unless it means 'O''P'eration 'F'lashpoint? Wait i'm confusing myself... :/

In reply to

michaelob

Commented on 2010-11-24 04:22:12 In reply to digi_matrix

Posted by digi_matrix

I love squad shooters, and realistic shooters, the only current one is Brothers in Arms. I'd rather check out Arma 2, than Operation Flashpoint. Are they similar developers? Offshoots of each other?

They are nothing alike really. ARMA II is essentially the spiritual successor to the original Operation Flashpoint, which was out on PC like 10+ years ago. It was an amazing open combat tactical, mil-sim shooter. You could pilot any vehicle, use any weapon, or utilize any tactic on the enemy. ARMA II is quite similar in scope. The only problem is, it isn't very well optimized (takes a hell of rig to even play it), and it's buggy as hell. Additionally, it looks really nice, but has pretty terrible physics (like canned death animations from 15 yrs ago).

The new Flashpoints (Dragon Rising, and Red River), are basically just linear, scripted run-n-gun shooters, that claim to be "realistic" because the movement is slow and it usually only takes 5 or less shots to kill an enemy. You are still confined to small areas, and fail missions if you don't do exactly as the developers planned. With OP:FP dead, and Ghost Recon going even more future-er, I still hold out hope that they will take the Rainbow Six series back to its roots. I can't believe that devs don't see how big the audience for a mature tactical shooter could be!

In reply to

[quote=digi_matrix]I love squad shooters, and realistic shooters, the only current one is Brothers in Arms. I'd rather check out Arma 2, than Operation Flashpoint. Are they similar developers? Offshoots of each other?[/quote]

They are nothing alike really.  ARMA II is essentially the spiritual successor to the original Operation Flashpoint, which was out on PC like 10+ years ago.  It was an amazing open combat tactical, mil-sim shooter.  You could pilot any vehicle, use any weapon, or utilize any tactic on the enemy.  ARMA II is quite similar in scope.  The only problem is, it isn't very well optimized (takes a hell of rig to even play it), and it's buggy as hell.  Additionally, it looks really nice, but has pretty terrible physics (like canned death animations from 15 yrs ago).

The new Flashpoints (Dragon Rising, and Red River), are basically just linear, scripted run-n-gun shooters, that claim to be "realistic" because the movement is slow and it usually only takes 5 or less shots to kill an enemy.  You are still confined to small areas, and fail missions if you don't do exactly as the developers planned.  With OP:FP dead, and Ghost Recon going even more future-er, I still hold out hope that they will take the Rainbow Six series back to its roots.  I can't believe that devs don't see how big the audience for a mature tactical shooter could be!

plmko

Commented on 2010-11-24 04:26:19 In reply to michaelob

Posted by michaelob

The new Flashpoints (Dragon Rising, and Red River), are basically just linear, scripted run-n-gun shooters, that claim to be "realistic" because the movement is slow and it usually only takes 5 or less shots to kill an enemy. You are still confined to small areas, and fail missions if you don't do exactly as the developers planned. With OP:FP dead, and Ghost Recon going even more future-er, I still hold out hope that they will take the Rainbow Six series back to its roots. I can't believe that devs don't see how big the audience for a mature tactical shooter could be!

Ironically being open world is unrealistic.

In reply to

michaelob

Commented on 2010-11-24 06:26:30 In reply to plmko

Posted by plmko

Ironically being open world is unrealistic.

It is? So if you are a squad leader tasked with securing a town full of enemy combatants, you automatically fail your mission if you try to circle around behind them but accidentally step over an imaginary "combat zone" line? Or it is more realistic to bump into an invisible wall than given the option to go AWOL? I know what you are getting at, that in a real combat scenario you can't just go wander the countryside sightseeing, but when making a "realistic" combat game, you have to give the player any freedom that a real soldier would have, and allow them to follow the procedures and rules of engagement.

If they wanted to keep it true, they would give you the entire area (up to miles around), and get rid of the damned time limits (last time I checked, infantry aren't given 5 minutes to clear out a town). Could you imagine risking your life every time you expose a body part AND have someone barking in your ear about speeding it up, because you will fail if you don't kill 20 enemies in 5 minutes?!?! If you play the original OP FP, you will know what I am talking about. Just planning your attacks can take 10 minutes.

In reply to

[quote=plmko]

Ironically being open world is unrealistic.[/quote]

It is?  So if you are a squad leader tasked with securing a town full of enemy combatants, you automatically fail your mission if you try to circle around behind them but accidentally step over an imaginary "combat zone" line?  Or it is more realistic to bump into an invisible wall than given the option to go AWOL?  I know what you are getting at, that in a real combat scenario you can't just go wander the countryside sightseeing, but when making a "realistic" combat game, you have to give the player any freedom that a real soldier would have, and allow them to follow the procedures and rules of engagement.

If they wanted to keep it true, they would give you the entire area (up to miles around), and get rid of the damned time limits (last time I checked, infantry aren't given 5 minutes to clear out a town).  Could you imagine risking your life every time you expose a body part AND have someone barking in your ear about speeding it up, because you will fail if you don't kill 20 enemies in 5 minutes?!?!  If you play the original OP FP, you will know what I am talking about.  Just planning your attacks can take 10 minutes.

GangStarr

Commented on 2010-11-24 09:31:00 In reply to Grimbarian

Posted by Grimbarian

Fake pre-renders again, won't look anything as good as that in final release.

really? i dont see anything that impressive in the pics

In reply to

digi_matrix

Commented on 2010-11-24 12:25:58 In reply to michaelob

Posted by michaelob

It is? So if you are a squad leader tasked with securing a town full of enemy combatants, you automatically fail your mission if you try to circle around behind them but accidentally step over an imaginary "combat zone" line? Or it is more realistic to bump into an invisible wall than given the option to go AWOL? I know what you are getting at, that in a real combat scenario you can't just go wander the countryside sightseeing, but when making a "realistic" combat game, you have to give the player any freedom that a real soldier would have, and allow them to follow the procedures and rules of engagement.

If they wanted to keep it true, they would give you the entire area (up to miles around), and get rid of the damned time limits (last time I checked, infantry aren't given 5 minutes to clear out a town). Could you imagine risking your life every time you expose a body part AND have someone barking in your ear about speeding it up, because you will fail if you don't kill 20 enemies in 5 minutes?!?! If you play the original OP FP, you will know what I am talking about. Just planning your attacks can take 10 minutes.

Sounds awesome. I might check out the original Operation Flashpoint.

In reply to

[quote=michaelob]

It is?  So if you are a squad leader tasked with securing a town full of enemy combatants, you automatically fail your mission if you try to circle around behind them but accidentally step over an imaginary "combat zone" line?  Or it is more realistic to bump into an invisible wall than given the option to go AWOL?  I know what you are getting at, that in a real combat scenario you can't just go wander the countryside sightseeing, but when making a "realistic" combat game, you have to give the player any freedom that a real soldier would have, and allow them to follow the procedures and rules of engagement.

If they wanted to keep it true, they would give you the entire area (up to miles around), and get rid of the damned time limits (last time I checked, infantry aren't given 5 minutes to clear out a town).  Could you imagine risking your life every time you expose a body part AND have someone barking in your ear about speeding it up, because you will fail if you don't kill 20 enemies in 5 minutes?!?!  If you play the original OP FP, you will know what I am talking about.  Just planning your attacks can take 10 minutes.[/quote]
Sounds awesome. I might check out the original Operation Flashpoint.