Operation Flashpoint Dragon Raising Hardcore Video

F.E.A.R.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
1,457
I have been following this game for a while now at the Codemasters forums. This game will rock. They just released this morning a new video of the Hardcore mode. This is truly HC. Watch the video it will explain....Can't wait to play this game. They lifted the press embargo today also. MP info will come soon. "It will put the fear back in first person shooters" they said and I believe it. October 6th is the release date.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKAcjwln7Wk

http://www.gametrailers.com/user-movie/operation-flashpoint-hardcore/326970
 
hate the unrealistic weapon bobbing and they general look of the engine(looks like a retouched BF2 :S ) , it still looks pretty consolish to me even in hardcore mode, still no official word on the editor or any development tools(or am i wrong ? ), no user created missions + custom content = fail to my eyes
 
I'm sick of this "hardcore" bullshit. So this is going to achieve the same thing COD4 achieved, dividing the entire community into 2 areas where they just bitch about each others game modes all the time. That sure sounds fun. Flashpoint is not the type of game where there should be a hardcore and softcore mode, clearly they changed what audience they are targeting for.

Also, this game just flat out looks crappy now, in fact it looks just like COD but more consolized. I'm not sure if this is even the same game as the original screenshots...it just doesn't seem to resemble how awesome it looked.
 
Its hardly what i'd call 'truly hardcore'. All they did was turn of the HUD. Plus the player took at least 3 head shots at one point without flinching. Still, looks promising and fun. Will be interesting to see what they did with the 'Operation Flashpoint' I.P. Could be worth a look
 
First thing that strikes me is just how bad the guns sound, next is it looks pretty consolised, it has a real CoD4 feeling to its general presentation.

Having said that it looks better than Arma2 and might be something I pick up as a sort of large scale CoD4 style game.
 
I very much like the idea of ANY game that offers real gamers a proper play mode with a level of difficulty that isn't pandering to console kiddies to increase sales.

Unfortunately, the video still looks a little kiddy like. The 'assault house' bit looked lame as the guy drunkenly wandered in, slowly turned around and easily took out 2 guys who had barely noticed. Hardly hardore imo.

But yeah, I'm all for games with 'hardcore' modes...
 
Yeah, it definitely looked a lot better in early screenshots. I remember reading in a forum a few months back from a former member of the dev team claiming that development of this game was troubled and they eventually rushed to meet a deadline.

I can believe it, considering it looks worse than Arma 2 in every area, except maybe voice acting.
 
Arma 2 has third person view and I would say it's more hardcore than OFP. Though yeah they should force first person in hardcore mode.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
Arma 2's hardcore mode is First person only plus its a fact that you can create and play thousands of user made missions but this one doesnt seem to have that unless confirmed?

I doubt the scale of the map is bigger than Arma 2's one but i could be wrong. IMO Arma 2 looks better than this and this does look liek it has a hint of COD in it which is a big no no if you are aiming for a realistic shooter..

Also what is the player count? i've seen 100 players so far in one lag free server in arma 2. i got my eyes on this game, it could be a winner and at the same time, could be a waste of money and time and just another dumbed down console game
 
I'll wait for a demo. I'm glad I did that with Arma2, as in my opinion it was dogshit.
 
Yeah Arma 2 is a piece of shit. Although im sure original the OFP release was similar . However i bought OFP after 2 years of patching. At this point it was decent. Hopefully Arma 2 will mature the same way.
 
> Also what is the player count

1-4? (coop)

I'm cautiously optimistic. Would like to see the PC version demo'd at a standard resolution like 1920x1200.
 
this really does look like a cross between ARMA and COD. looks really good, i'm now anxiously awaiting this game. thanks for the vids F.E.A.R.
 
Why does everyone think ARMA 2 is shit?

1) many destroyed e-penises of incompetent 2000$ system owners who don't care about turning off vsync, experimenting a bit with the graphic settings as theyre are many of them that are targeted on "future hardware" (like terrain detail which HAS to be set to very low unless you own a FAST quad core ) and lowering flip queue/max frames to render ahead in order to increase fps and reduce mouse lag.

2) many ppl are used to semi-realistic noob-friendly gameplay like cod4 and rainbow six vegas, not GR1 OFP SWAT3 and rogue spear, heck most of the 12-16yr olds nowadays have not even heard of those games

3) enemy AI was way too good in 1.02, now in 1.03 it's kinda dumb unless you enable superAI in the difficulty settings ( or is it still dumb ? haven't played retail yet )

4) multiplayer in the demo was total crap, but I'm sure the overall experience is better in the retail

5) the engine is about 5 years old, that's a quite common complain too from what i read on the official forums, maybe if BIS had the money and time to invest on a new engine things would be much better, maybe not who knows.

6) from what i've seen physics look kinda simplistic, most of the infrantry death animations are quite good but driving feels like joint operations (crap) and the flight model should be more detailed and realistic, yet don't take my opinion for granted since i have very little experience with this game, but I look foward to installing my copy when i get some free time.
 

This looks really nice actually.

For those people whining about it probably not being as large scale as Arma2, so what? Especially so in multiplayer, seriously no one wants to be treking 20 miles before seeing action.

Amra2 may be bigger but it's landscapes are bland as fuck, it's basically just one massive heightmap with patches of trees, roads and very very basic towns of which none have mapped indoors.

OFP:DR looks like it has a lot more little specs of cover like the chest high walls (lol yahtzee) and various other bits of cover, as well as interiour in houses etc, having Arma 2 so massive that it thinned out the detail was largely a bad thing IMO.

Its frustrating watching people playing with analogue sticks though, grrr.
 
This looks really nice actually.

For those people whining about it probably not being as large scale as Arma2, so what? Especially so in multiplayer, seriously no one wants to be treking 20 miles before seeing action.

Amra2 may be bigger but it's landscapes are bland as fuck, it's basically just one massive heightmap with patches of trees, roads and very very basic towns of which none have mapped indoors.

OFP:DR looks like it has a lot more little specs of cover like the chest high walls (lol yahtzee) and various other bits of cover, as well as interiour in houses etc, having Arma 2 so massive that it thinned out the detail was largely a bad thing IMO.

Its frustrating watching people playing with analogue sticks though, grrr.
You are wrong on every point.
The maps are pretty much the same size, ArmA2: 225km2 and DR: 220km2
ArmA2 has support for a lot more players: 100+ human players and 1000+ AIs.
DR supports only 8 human players and 24 AI on the console, 32 human players and 96 AI on PC.

ArmA2 has more and larger towns/villages and there are buildings with interiors. The environment in ArmA2 looks much more realistic and is more detailed than DR, it’s also based on real satellite data.

If one of the games has this "bland landscapes" that you are talking about, it has to be DR because ArmA2s landscape is much more detailed.
 
You are wrong on every point.
The maps are pretty much the same size, ArmA2: 225km2 and DR: 220km2
ArmA2 has support for a lot more players: 100+ human players and 1000+ AIs.
DR supports only 8 human players and 24 AI on the console, 32 human players and 96 AI on PC.

ArmA2 has more and larger towns/villages and there are buildings with interiors. The environment in ArmA2 looks much more realistic and is more detailed than DR, it’s also based on real satellite data.

If one of the games has this "bland landscapes" that you are talking about, it has to be DR because ArmA2s landscape is much more detailed.

wow only 8 players online? heck only 32 players and onlt 96 ai's? the map is going to feel VERY EMPTY online
 
You are wrong on every point.
The maps are pretty much the same size, ArmA2: 225km2 and DR: 220km2
ArmA2 has support for a lot more players: 100+ human players and 1000+ AIs.
DR supports only 8 human players and 24 AI on the console, 32 human players and 96 AI on PC.

ArmA2 has more and larger towns/villages and there are buildings with interiors. The environment in ArmA2 looks much more realistic and is more detailed than DR, it’s also based on real satellite data.

If one of the games has this "bland landscapes" that you are talking about, it has to be DR because ArmA2s landscape is much more detailed.

I never claimed map sizes were different, I said that other people were.

If Arma2 is anything like its demo its going to massively choke with anyhing more than about 16 people, even on my rig with low settings servers were just not providing a playable experience, wether it was lack of bandwidth or server cpu struggling it was hard to tell but either way the demo experience was completely and utterly rubbish for me.

Either way AI support for more AI is nice, but doesn't speak for the quality of AI, I'd rather play with 100 AI units that are realistic than 1000 AI units that can only function with basic tactics and strategy. I suppose we'd need a detailed comparison but either way Im sure any OPF: DR hard limits are probably going to be modded out by the community.

Most of the rest of what you've said is contradictory to at least the Arma2 demo which is what I based my experience of the game off of, and from what I played and from the screen shots i've seen since, it doesn't look an awful lot different from the full game.

Either way my experience with Arma2 was really bad for almost all faucets of the game, it was just awful.
 
I never claimed map sizes were different, I said that other people were.

If Arma2 is anything like its demo its going to massively choke with anyhing more than about 16 people, even on my rig with low settings servers were just not providing a playable experience, wether it was lack of bandwidth or server cpu struggling it was hard to tell but either way the demo experience was completely and utterly rubbish for me.

Either way AI support for more AI is nice, but doesn't speak for the quality of AI, I'd rather play with 100 AI units that are realistic than 1000 AI units that can only function with basic tactics and strategy. I suppose we'd need a detailed comparison but either way Im sure any OPF: DR hard limits are probably going to be modded out by the community.

Most of the rest of what you've said is contradictory to at least the Arma2 demo which is what I based my experience of the game off of, and from what I played and from the screen shots i've seen since, it doesn't look an awful lot different from the full game.

Either way my experience with Arma2 was really bad for almost all faucets of the game, it was just awful.
Did you play the demo on a dedicated server? Anyway I don’t think there were many great dedicated servers for the demo so that is probably why it ran like shit.
There is not much of a problem to play on a 60 player mission with a good server.
The AI in ArmA2 has some problems, but they are still one of the best "real" AI in any game and there is no proof of DRs AI being better.

The landscape is more detailed than DR.
Most of the models are better.
The textures are better.
The vegetation looks much better, especially the grass and trees.
ArmA2 just have more details in the graphics and looks a lot more realistic.
 
I never claimed map sizes were different, I said that other people were.

If Arma2 is anything like its demo its going to massively choke with anyhing more than about 16 people, even on my rig with low settings servers were just not providing a playable experience, wether it was lack of bandwidth or server cpu struggling it was hard to tell but either way the demo experience was completely and utterly rubbish for me.

Either way AI support for more AI is nice, but doesn't speak for the quality of AI, I'd rather play with 100 AI units that are realistic than 1000 AI units that can only function with basic tactics and strategy. I suppose we'd need a detailed comparison but either way Im sure any OPF: DR hard limits are probably going to be modded out by the community.

Most of the rest of what you've said is contradictory to at least the Arma2 demo which is what I based my experience of the game off of, and from what I played and from the screen shots i've seen since, it doesn't look an awful lot different from the full game.

Either way my experience with Arma2 was really bad for almost all faucets of the game, it was just awful.

the demo is different. try the real game. i have played in a 100 player server lag free loads of times on medium/max settings and get around 30-40fps most of the time.

You clearly cannot stomp on this game just because of a demo that seems to be broken and DOESNT represent teh full game because judging from your experience with the demo, it sounds like you have played a complete different game.

your rig is plentiful powerful enough to at least run this game at medium settings. low? come on. Come round my house on a saturday night and i will show you how great this game is. i play with regular members in another forum all using mic for teamwork and it is brilliant and enjoyable.

Last weekend me and 20 other players where playing a long mission againts 300-400 ai's with no respawn. we was very cautions and very talkative. their was once a point where we surrounded a bunch of ai's and we all waited for an order from our commander to shoot!

Later on that very same mission we headed off to this air field with what seems to be nearly 100 AI's all in that base and we had to take them out and take their helicopter. at this stage some of us where dropping like flies and running out of ammo etc. me and 4 other guys managed to reach to one of their hangers. 2 of us died leaving me and this other guy stranded in the hanger pinned down by around 4-5 AI's. the helicopter was right on our sights near the hanger so we legged it and managed to jump on it and fly the fuck out of their.

we than picked up our last remaining alive player who was sniping from a distance and once we was air born, The enemy AI jumped on another heli and fired a missile right on our arse and it was game over.

You see, YOU CANNOT get that sort of experience with REAL players in any fps game. Thats just one little example of HOW AWESOME arma 2 can be and this mate was online. no LAN, no single player, ONLINE.

Seriously if you give arma 2 a PROPER go, not a 10min session(the above game i just told you about lasted nearly 3 hours) you will start to enjoy it and charish it. IF OFP2 can have experiences such has the above i just mentioned then this may be a good game after all. O and one more thing. that mission we played in was a user made mission
 
Last edited:
Everybody is screaming for a formal response from Codemasters regarding console MP count. Some interviews seem to suggest 4 vs 4 and other 8 vs 8 with each player being able to control 4 bots. On the PC side, it will be 16 vs 16 with 4 bots for each. Even though I am not crazy about the bots being thrown in it should make for some cool firefights.

I hope that the bots can be turned off though for competition. Question: If the game has a lot of eye candy on that could cause lag right? If it's so then maybe that's why the low number?
 
Everybody is screaming for a formal response from Codemasters regarding console MP count. Some interviews seem to suggest 4 vs 4 and other 8 vs 8 with each player being able to control 4 bots. On the PC side, it will be 16 vs 16 with 4 bots for each. Even though I am not crazy about the bots being thrown in it should make for some cool firefights.

I hope that the bots can be turned off though for competition. Question: If the game has a lot of eye candy on that could cause lag right? If it's so then maybe that's why the low number?

This is pretty much official:
On PC it's 16v16.

But for the consoles it's 4v4, with each player having 3 AI soldiers under their command.
http://community.codemasters.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5490045&postcount=9

So, as I said before:
Console: 8 human players and 24 AI = 32
PC: 32 human players and 96 AI = 128
 
Well then the Arma2 devs are retards, who makes a demo THAT bad? The whole idea is to demonstrate your product to entice people to buy it.

Anyway, anyone that puts forced vsync into their game with no method to turn it off needs to be shot in the face...






twice
 
Well then the Arma2 devs are retards, who makes a demo THAT bad? The whole idea is to demonstrate your product to entice people to buy it.

Anyway, anyone that puts forced vsync into their game with no method to turn it off needs to be shot in the face...






twice

They wasnt even going to release a demo. they announced the demo a week before launch
 
This is pretty much official

Yes Helios confirmed it this morning. Sucks to be a console gamer. What's going to happen is that consoles will ALL play MW2. OFPDR will long live on PC only.
 
Last edited:
long live if mods can mod it as freely as arma 2. if not, it will die along with all the other console fps ports
 
Back
Top