Holy crap, this game is friggin' amazing!

First of all. Voice acting that doesn't suck and, against all odds, is actually good. A story that is compelling and original (well, by PC game standards anyway). And for once, in-engine cutscenes that aren't hokey, but achieve the levels of basic cinema.. it's even better than NOLF, which did a great job of this.

The gameplay is somewhat open-ended, which is a hallmark of all truly great games. Although there are the expected funnels and triggers necessary to create a story narrative, you can pick up and use almost everything on the battlefield-- tanks, jeeps, guns, grenades, gun emplacements, etc. You can stick with your team or you can abandon them completely. If your truck gets blown up you can just hoof it to the next objective. For that matter you can go anywhere on the map you damn well please. For example, I just read the GameSpot UK review of this game and the reviewer makes an offhand mention of his approach to a tough mission that was radically different than mine. An approach I hadn't even thought of. Hmm.

The engine is a technological tour de force. I don't want to sour the raves with this comparison, but on this count, the game reminds me of.. Trespasser**. Remember what Trespasser promised? Well, this game actually delivers. Minus the wacky moonbase physics and novocaine arm. The maps are fantastically huge, literally miles in each direction. And dotted with-- gasp-- REAL forests. I mean forests with trees as far as the eye can see. In addition to your foliage and buildings. And the dozens of land and air units (I think I also just saw a sea unit) that are buzzing all over the place. The maps are, for lack of a better word, alive. The sensation of being in a real place, and in a real war, is almost overwhelming at times. It really is that good.

I've often complained that games don't do enough with the first person perspective to really immerse the player. I know this is a trivial example, but.. where are my feet when I look down? People have just stopped trying to innovate here, which is a shame. I'm happy to report that Flashpoint didn't reguritate the id view of the world-- the audible and visual feedback from crawling, being prone, aiming down the barrel of the gun, etc is the best and most immersive I've seen in any FPS game. Try running for a while, and you'll have flashbacks to 2001 and the breathing sequence. Imagine that-- your heart pounds and your breath gives out the longer you run.

Speaking of sounds and music. They are fantastic. An actual score kicks in at appropriate moments in cutscenes, but not during combat, which is always my preference. The sound is extremely helpful in combat.

What's also interesting about flashpoint is how it manages to be extremely realistic-- it's essentially a *SIM*, not a FPS-- without being.. incredibly aggravating. This should still appeal to fragmeisters, if it appeals to me. I couldn't stand Rogue Spear / Rainbow 6 for this reason; the enemies had laser-like aim and inhuman precision. While I've died dozens of times in OF, I've never gotten the impression that the enemy consists of terminator robots as I did in R6. Sweetening the pot, there are automatic retry points, and there is a single user-initiated save allowed per level (from what I can tell). There's also a map mode that I've learned to desperately appreciate over the last few hours.

The scope of this game is almost staggering. Once you get into it about 6 missions or so, you'll see what I mean. I just can't believe these unknown developers pulled this off. My hats are off to them!

The only real criticisms I have are:

- I've run into a few small mission bugs. At one retry point my truck wouldn't let me in. I finally figured out that if I fired a round into it, it would drive off a bit and I could then enter. Shrug. In another case a BMP was stuck in a tree downhill from us and prevented the hostage rescue mission from ending. I shot it with an RPG and the mission ended. Double shrug.

- The communication menus are AWFUL and stick out like a sore thumb in what is otherwise one of the best FPS games I've ever played. We need some kind of Battlezone-style system here. The ambient radio chatter and the syntax (6 o'clock, 200) works brilliantly.. it's the interface that isn't acceptable.

- Some of the driving and interim sequences are a bit tedious. It doesn't feel like GAMEPLAY, so much as busy work. I can see why people would think of this as some kind of insane driving sim based on the first 3-4 missions. But as you get into the more complex and dangerous missions that stuff is put into perspective.

Other than that. GOTY candidate so far. No doubt about it! It took me a couple hours to really get into it-- there is a learning curve-- but it's got me hook, line, and sinker now. Definitely recommended.

Jeff

** I liked Trespasser, though I recognized what a fundamentally broken game it was. So few games even attempt a game at that scope; at that point, even the failures were interesting to me. And while I'm at it.. real time foley sound! Man.

The voice-acting sucks, sorry there Jeff, but those cut-scenes are just plain terrible. And way too long. And look awful, like most things do close-up in Op. Flashpoint.

Early campaign missions with vehicles partially seem like an exercise in how not to get into a wreck. "Here's a long stretch of road, let's put some traffic on it and make sure the player doesn't crash into it, or have the lead jeep break to a snail's place just to make sure the player's alert." Oops, you did mention that, sorry, felt like I had to say something :)

--- Alan

Just wanted to add Tom's comments from his preview of Ghost Recon:

"Tom's Comments: I'm not convinced a first person shooter modeling modern warfare can be done realistically. There's a reason games like Rogue Spear and SWAT3 are about limited police actions. The role of infantry, particularly in the kind of terrain that can be modeled on today's home PCs, is often dependent on heavy hardware like armor and air support. Titles like Operation Flashpoint and Ghost Recon look promising, but will they feel much different from Rouge Spear/SWAT3/Delta Force?"

Yes, profoundly different, in this case. It's quite refreshing.

"What kind of liberties with realism will have to be taken to make them playable?"

Who knew realism could be this much fun? But then this is a lesson that the FPS genre has had a difficult time fully grasping even when it should have been fucking OBVIOUS during the counter-strike explosion of 2000. Case in point? Soldier of Fortune. That's about as realistic as a Bazooka Joe comic, despite the albatross of a title they strung across it. Duh.

"Having said that, I have no doubt Red Storm will provide a compelling game; there's still no other first person shooter that captures the lethality of modern firepower and the cat-and-mouse of hi-tech like Rainbow Six/Rogue Spear."

Disagree. Counter-Strike does it far, FAR better. It's funny-- I know tons of FPS fans through my gaming clan, and none of them played much of RS/R6. It's just way too annoying and SIMmy in single player, and to a lesser extent, even in multiplayer. This is true for me too. I own copies of both games, and I gave 'em a fair shot-- the AI in the games was a big turnoff for me.

I have a theory on this. The reason R6 was so popular was because it appealed to the Deer Hunter crowd a lot more than other Quake-style FPS games did (which is to say, in 1998, ALL of them). That's not to say that R6/RS were bad games, of course. I just think their main claim to fame is being in the right place (realism) at the right time (1998). The mantle has long since been handed off to other games, particularly counter-strike.

"The voice-acting sucks, sorry there Jeff, but those cut-scenes are just plain terrible. And way too long."

Erm.. Max Payne is bad voice acting, my friend. Because 95% of all the PC voiceovers are so soul-suckingly bad, these voiceovers sound stellar in comparison. And I think they're good, regardless. The best ever? No. But definitely good.

And I just disagree on the cutscenes-- for example, the one with the rebel leader on the roof of the castle at sunset was beautiful. Going in with the troops on troop transports and listening to pre-battle chatter is very immersive as well. And how's this for detail: we could see the torso of the guy driving the APC (in a standing turret position) as well.

"And look awful, like most things do close-up in Op. Flashpoint."

There are certain things that don't look good-- the player model's hands, for instance. But for every little thing like that, there are a dozen other items that look great. The tank models for example. The gun models. And in general the sheer, staggering detail of the world. I can forgive a few lumpy hands, even if I do have to stare at them way too much. Have you explored the buildings? There are pictures, sinks, televisions, stairs, unique wall damage.. all this for a tiny little structure you may see out of your binoculars from a mile away, before you actually get inside.

I picked up Operation Flashpoint about 3 days ago, and I'm very impressed with it. It would have my vote for GOTY.

Your right about the immersive feel about it. Other FPS are about how many opponents you can kill in a certain period of time before you die, then respawn asap. Flashpoint is much more than that.

Last night I was showing my cousin the game to see if we should have it for our next LAN party. I was playing the second mission. As I was making my way to the village center, fellow soldiers were being mowed down by enemy fire. I finally made it to the center of the village by zig-zagging my way through the houses. Near the end of the mission, I was clearing out the houses in the village. Enemy AI tanks rolled in and caught me off-guard while the rest of my group retreated. I was holed up in a house with a LAW I picked up form a fallen comrade. The sound of the tanks rolling past so close was amazing. The expression of tension on my cousin's face was priceless.

I snuck out into the doorway, and launched a rocket at the nearest T80. Immediatly, it swiveled its turrent in my direction. I jumped back in and hit the deck. Bullets where pinging everywhere from its machine gun.

My cousin was so excited, he actually left the room at that point.

Needless to say, when he came back, we went to the local Best Buy and picked up a copy.

I agree that the voice acting isn't that bad. It provides a good relief between some intense fighting. I think the dialog, rather than the voice acting, is more important anyways. It's a bit cliche-ish at times, but a welcomed nostalgic feel.

The generic radio chatter is nice at first, but it gets a bit repetitive. Perhaps I haven't played it long enough to see if they deviate from it after the first 5 missions.

The graphics are pretty good though it did getting used to seeing detailed faces on what would otherwise be blocky robot bodies. Kinda eerie actually. Opponents from a distance don't look too good either. They almost look like chunky stick figures. Vehicles, terrain, and buildings details are top-notch though.

I like the effects of running and aiming. It's a bit more involved that your simple Quake or UT point & shoot yet not so cumbersome that it makes playing a chore. Too many times I get fragged easily by the pro who is the run-jump-shoot combo master. I think I just need more practice. :)

What Op. Flashpoint does well it does excedingly well. That would be infantry and special forces missions. I absolutly hate the driving missions, though, especially the ones involving tanks. On the mission where you have to escort the convoy, I had to drive the jeep and let the AI control the armored transport. When I drove, it made me want to scream. It seems like you can overwhelm the vehicle with too much keyboard/mouse input and then it just goes out of control for minutes at a time. On the other hand, when you do let the AI control the hard-to-drive vehicles, they do a decent job. I love the game. I just wish they would rethink vehicle controls and the comms interface as Jeff pointed out above.

Nice to have you aboard the bandwagon Wumpus, and I think you made some nice points. But your support of Flashpoint in this forum may blow its chances for GOTY. Please begin berating the game and all the people who play it immediately before some of the editor types read your original post. Please go on about how its Quake in slow-mo or something. ;)

"...but will they feel much different from Rouge Spear/SWAT3/Delta Force?"

Did Tom really write, and publish, "rouge spear"? Or Wumpus, did you alter the direct quote?

-Andrew

Ha! Good one! I got a *Rogue* Spear and a *Rouge* Spear in the same paragraph.

I may type sloppy, but I sure do type fast.

-Tmo

The stories I could tell you about where Rouge Spear has shown up. . .

"And I just disagree on the cutscenes-- for example, the one with the rebel leader on the roof of the
castle at sunset was beautiful."

Whoever did the cutscene scripting did a fantastic job and obviously has a keen eye for cinematography. I can't remember which mission it sets up, but there's a really cool cutscene involving Russian armor rolling under a full moon. They did a great job considering the limitations of the engine (low-res textures, weak particles, etc.). It reminds me of Metal Gear Solid in that way. That game's designers crafted some pretty dramatic in-engine cutscenes with PlayStation 1 technology.

As for the voice acting, it is merely OK, nowhere near as bad as the hammy-community-college-acting-class-dropout speech in games like Max Payne and Desperadoes (just to name two). Those command voices over the radio are extremely grating though.

Right now Flashpoint has my vote for GOTY, but then again Wolfenstein hasn't come out yet.

"{They did a great job considering the limitations of the engine (low-res textures, weak particles, etc.)."

Well, now, whoa there! I wouldn't call this engine limited-- unless you can name another game that renders such a huge, detailed 3D game world in anything approaching real time. Tribes 2 is competent, but it's no speed demon either-- and it has just a fraction of the details that OF has. Ever seen a forest in Tribes 2?

I for one think this engine is an incredible technical coup. We can certainly quibble over whether the trees should have looked better, or how the player model looks like he has a catcher's mitt permanently grafted to both hands-- but I think to do so is missing the point. This is a beautiful, epic game that succeeds on almost every count. That is so rare.

What they nailed for me is the sense of being in the boonies with a squad and the frantic "what the fuck?" confusion of being under fire.

In the sniper team single player mission, I whacked the three naz and then proceeded to get the hell out of dodge. Meanwhile it seems like everyone and his grandmother was hunting my ass. I've been on E & E exercises in my time with the military and it really brought back some intense memories.

At the heart of the game resides a good dose of "realistic" combat, one that I've never encountered in any computer game. For that, OPF goes on my top five list...

Ugh, the scene with the spy dude or whatever having the converstion on the phone at the airport? Terrible.

The in-game conversations are just as bad.

--- Alan

"I wouldn't call this engine limited"

Neither would I. It just has a couple of minor flaws like the ones I mentioned (weak particles. textures, etc.). The terrain modeling is stunning, and a key element in the game's realism. As is the lighting.

One of the defining moments of the game for me came in that one early mission where you have to guard the outpost on the beach all by your lonesome. I was wandering around kind of bored and playing with my nightvision goggles when I noticed I had magnesium flares. I decided to pop one off just for kicks and as I was enjoying the gentlly cascading white flicker that illuminated the whole hill in front of me and marveling at how realistic it looked (well, based on what I've seen in movies like Platoon) and I caught one of those little Spetznaz bastards scrambling from bush to bush, like a cockroach on the kitchen floor. Capping him was undeniably sweet, especially since it took more to discover him than someone shouting in the radio "Man! 12 O'clock!".

I wasn't dissing the engine, it does some things incredibly well and seems to suit the game to a tee. But it is a little dated, at least by UT/QIII standards. I know,I know, apples and oranges.

"Capping him was undeniably sweet, especially since it took more to discover him than someone shouting in the radio "Man! 12 O'clock!"."

I know. The game is full of amazing moments like that. Another one: climbing up a densely wooded mountain on my belly, while firing at men on a distant ridge opposite us as the bullets pop and zing all around me, and a hind helicopter makes rumbling passes overhead.

As was the paratroopers dropping in on us when we retreated from manning the .50 cals on the beachhead. Another "whoa" moment. Can't have a great game without a bunch of those. And this one is chock full of 'em. ;)

"As was the paratroopers dropping in on us when we retreated from manning the .50 cals on the beachhead. Another "whoa" moment. Can't have a great game without a bunch of those. And this one is chock full of 'em. ;) "

This is a good one Jeff. I meant to mention this on the boards a while ago. When I first saw them coming down in the distance, I had to stop and stare at the screen to see if what I was seeing was really what I thought they were. Then I ran like hell.

Exactly... there are a ton of moments in OFP that lend itself to its open gameplay. I remember one instant where i had a ridge area defended for a few minutes when i noticed the enemey flanking my positions... next thing i know as i am aiming at my left flank, and then a group of russians come up the middle tossing frenades to frag me! this is common in ofp... and makes it much more enjoyable.

Also there are tons of good singleplayer missions available now on the net. worth a look if you finished the campaign! OFP is already one of my top 5 games if not my favorite games ever. I still play it everyday and it doesnt get old (well just a little, but ive been playing the demo since late march early april!)

Also, if you like this game watch Band of Brothers! Cool mini series on HBO... i think you prolly heard of it already.

etc

Well guys Operation Flashpoint definitely gets my GOTY vote. Some defining moments for me in the game :

1. The first couple of missions where you're just a grunt and haven't got a clue as to what is going on.

2. The beach invasion mission after leaving your .50cal and running as hard as you can and seeing the paratroops in the distance.

3. The mission where you are alone in the forest after your squad is killed and you hear the Hind flying overhead and all you can think of is how the fuck am I going to get out of this.

4. The night sentry mission with the enemy Spetnaz sneaking in. Man I had so many moments like this when I was serving in the army. Night sentry duty is lonely and frightening and you tend to jump at every sound and shadow. Intense.

5. Leading a troop of four tanks and simultaneously firing at enemy tanks as they crest a hill.

This game has it all.

I keep breaking the game's scripting by skipping waypoints, but it still holds up real well play-wise. I had a moment last night where after a successful attack on an enemy camp, I was ordered to pursue and destroy the remaining routed forces. I had taken a sniper rifle, and it was a bit chilling to be picking guys off as then ran.

There are little things that keep bugging me, and make the game look unpolished. The tanks are bordering on silly - they handle like dune buggies! In a cutscene last night, two of the vehicles collided and got stuck for a bit before they could continue. The voice acting is bad - it sounds like europeans trying to sound American, and lines are frequently spoken over each other. The cutscene lines can be hard to hear because as the camera changes position, the volume of the speakers changes relative to their position - what is loud in a close-up suddenly is a whisper in a group shot.

OFP does infantry combat very, very well. The other stuff, well, not so much.

"I keep breaking the game's scripting by skipping waypoints, but it still holds up real well play-wise. I had a moment last night where after a successful attack on an enemy camp, I was ordered to pursue and destroy the remaining routed forces. I had taken a sniper rifle, and it was a bit chilling to be picking guys off as then ran."

You and I are at the exact same place. I finally figured out how to select my loadout (duh) in the gear section, so on this mission I selected the M21 sniper rifle and 9 magazines. ;) I had 18 + 6 + 3 kills. And a BMP. I picked up an RPG off a dead enemy and took out one of 'em.

The enemies reacted well to sniping. They generally ran around-- sometimes sprinting-- and tried to juke. Occasionally they'd drop and crawl. I was impressed with the AI.

Don't forget to use the (+) and (-) keys to enable 2x and 4x time compression. This is a real timesaver in some of the missions.

"There are little things that keep bugging me, and make the game look unpolished. The tanks are bordering on silly - they handle like dune buggies!"

I hated the two earlier tank missions, but with the M1A1 I seemed to get the hang of it. I just wish the left mouse button wasn't both "move to" and "fire command" when in the commander position. That's.. stupid. More than once I tried to call fire on something and gave a move command instead. Sigh. The tank interface could definitely use some work. Still, it's immersive as hell, and I was having fun on the last tank mission, at least. I was popping out of the command hatch to look around a lot, and pretending I was General Patton. The mechanics need some polishing, but the design is solid-- gunner, commander, and driver. This part of the game is probably a more realistc tank sim than Novalogic could produce. ;)

On a related note, now that I've been promoted, the soldier command menus have surprising depth. I was amazed at all the things I can get my bitc.. er, I mean, my fellow soldiers.. to do. And they're smart on their own, which is CRITICAL.

"The voice acting is bad"

Again. Max Payne. The voiceover work is good in comparison-- it's not so lame that it distracts me. I find it believable. 99% of the time I can't skip through cutscenes fast enough, but the ones in OF really work for me.

"I finally figured out how to select my loadout (duh) in the gear section"

Nothing lost, because until this point, you cannot change your loadout. You are a grunt, and you take the equipment you are given. Once you reach this mission and get promoted to Lieutenant, you can pick your equipment.

I do wish I could pick my position in the tank (you can in multiplayer). I want to override the gunner and do that part myself, rather than just giving orders. I agree that the M1 handles better than the M60.

"I had 18 + 6 + 3 kills. And a BMP."

In the Shilka mission, I had a Shilka, a T72, two BMPs, and 38 assorted infantry. I'm changing my name to Rambo.

"I picked up an RPG off a dead enemy and took out one of 'em."

I'm constantly taking weapons and ammo off the dead. Mostly anti-tank weapons (nothing like an RPG to start an ambush or break up a squad), but I usually swap my M16 for an AK74 since the AK is full auto, and the Russians keep bringing me more ammo. ;)

I gotta tell you guys. Driving around in my humvee while escorting the convoy to the airport-- and running over enemy soldiers I encountered on the way-- was a RIOT! I suggest hitting ENTER and using the external view for this type of work. Hilarious. I brought my troops in on an APC in formation mode (damn that thing is slow) and the .50 cal turret on that mopped up anyone I missed.

4x time compression (use plus and minus) is a godsend in this game. That way I can explore the map without needing to be catheterized in the process. I found a tractor near a farm on the stealth "find the secret base" mission. For some reason it was floating a few feet above the ground (!) when parked, but it worked fine once I hopped in, and had a nice, throaty diesel purr. Time to HARVEST THE CROPS! Anyway. Same map, I then decided to take out a truck driver. Shot up the cab, and it rolled to a reeling stop, which was.. neat. I hopped in and drove around a bit with the broken windshield.

Hey-- speaking of stealth missions, why would any modern solider NOT use a flash/sound suppressed weapon? Half the time the only way I can tell who's firing at me is because of the muzzle flash. Take that away and I'd be running around like a chicken with my head cut off, trying to figure out WHERE the hell the fire is coming from. I'd surely be dead before I figured it out. It just seems so much safer to ping shots at people without sending out signals every time you fire that scream out your position. I mean.. why would anyone willingly carry a non-suppressed weapon? Bueller? Anyone? I know the range and power is slightly less.. but it's hard to appreciate those things WHEN YOU'RE DEAD, if you catch my drift.

I know it's probably obvious, but the shotgun has no place in modern warfare. It sucked ass in R6/RS, and it sucks ass in counter-strike. It might be handy for intimidating bikers in a bar, but if there is any distance over about 50 feet involved, you're screwed. And the reload time just KILLS you. One shot is all you get (typically), so if it isn't lethal-- you're dead. The other guy may only be halfway through his clip, and you're forced into a reload sequence. Yeah yeah, automatic shotgun, those are even worse. I can't even begin to count the number of times I've shot all 7 shells at someone-- at short range-- and didn't kill them. Holy inaccuracy batman! I know kevlar is really effective against shotgun buckshot, which adds insult to injury. Sometimes if the other team really sucks in cs I'll start equipping the shotgun to even the odds a bit. Or handguns, but handguns are surprisingly effective. More than a shotgun anyway.

---

Quote:

I hated the two earlier tank missions, but with the M1A1 I seemed to get the hang of it. I just wish the left mouse button wasn't both "move to" and "fire command" when in the commander position. That's.. stupid. More than once I tried to call fire on something and gave a move command instead. Sigh. The tank interface could definitely use some work.

---

Question: the guidebook says you can access a third perspective besides 1st person and 3rd person. I think its called command view, but I've never been able to access it. Have you guys been able to do this? I think it would really help being a squad leader if there was this long distance view.

Yeah, the tank/plane interfaces and command menus actually work pretty well, once you get used to them. I even "get" the reason that the LMB does both fire and move. What can I say? The learning curve for the game is deceptively steep, but rewarding. Now that I know the depth that these commands offer, and the range of vehicles piloted with the "same" interface-- I'm not so sure I could conjure up a dramatically better way to present it. It just seems clunky because you start with training wheels. Not that it couldn't be improved, but it's not the 'hell on wheels' that it seemed to be.

That said, you guys should play Red Faction if you want to feel some WASD-controller vehicles that move VERY intuitively. I get the impression that developers of Op: Flashpoint made the vehicles as accessible as they could, while retaining the tone and presentation of the real thing-- eg, the three-person team inside a tank.

While we are on the topic of tanks. I just finished another tank mission where I NEARLY FRIGGIN' DIED. I Ejected about 20 seconds before my fellow tanks took care of the last T72 and triggered the "end of mission" screen. Phew. Also, another 'duh' moment. I kept wondering why my targetting commands weren't working after I took damage. Gee, maybe it's because my gunner is a pile of red mush on the inside of the tank! Finally, I got it. I switched into his position and fired off a few rounds. Now that is satisfaction.

What's great about OF is that everything is so internally consistent. Anything you can see, you can use. Anything you should be able to do-- eg, you've seen the enemy or other AI players do it-- you can do it, too. As someone who rails against the perpetually locked doors of Undying, Tom should truly appreciate a game world like this one.

"Have you guys been able to do this? I think it would really help being a squad leader if there was this long distance view."

Yes. You press the keypad delete key. It's not really a long distance view. Just a little further back, but centered on you. It is a good way to "look around" which can be difficult from the internal or external views. You can click and drag boxes around units, then left click to move them. You can think of it as "Sacrifice Mode". :P

Map view notes:

- You can direct your units from the map view. The longer I play the game the more often I find myself looking at the map screen. If you really want to play as a commander, load up your troops then just sit nearby moving the pieces around on the map.

- Note that enemy units DO show up on the map, though it _appears_ to depend on whether any allied unit has them in their LOS.

- Did you guys notice the compass actually shows Z-axis as well? I was driving around in hilly terrain with the humvee and I noticed the 3D compass model was moving all over the place. It was showing me what "flat" was relative to the "ground" I was on. I love pointless details like this.

- Double-click on any item in the map view (notebook, radio, watch) to make them larger or smaller.

- Does anyone know how to zoom in or out on the map screen? I think I tried the wheel, but I'm not sure..

"you can access a third perspective besides 1st person and 3rd person. I think its called command view, but I've never been able to access it. Have you guys been able to do this?"

Yep, you want to hit the keypad delete key, AKA the dot key. It's actually pretty handy for getting a quick look around you.

"Does anyone know how to zoom in or out on the map screen? I think I tried the wheel"

Yep, the wheel.

The wheel does zoom the map.

I had something really ridiculous happen tonight. I managed to steal a T80, first climbing in as gunner, and then was charged by some Russian crewmen. I couldn't depress the gun enough to bring the coax to bear, so they reached the tank. They then climbed into the tank as commander and driver! They proceeded to issue orders and drive around as I sat in the gunner's seat and destroyed their friends. Eventually, they got out and ran away, and I machinegunned them.

And I bet they were giving you really dirty looks the whole time they were inside the tank with you, too.

"I had something really ridiculous happen tonight. I managed to steal a T80, first climbing in as gunner, and then was charged by some Russian crewmen. I couldn't depress the gun enough to bring the coax to bear, so they reached the tank. They then climbed into the tank as commander and driver! They proceeded to issue orders and drive around as I sat in the gunner's seat and destroyed their friends. Eventually, they got out and ran away, and I machinegunned them. "

Well, there goes the realistic AI compliments.

"Driving around in my humvee ... and running over enemy soldiers I encountered on the way"

Another cool thing is that the enemy doesn't just lay there and wait for you to mow 'em down. I had one guy squirming around so much I was unable to crush him under my armored transport. He just kept wiggling out of the way and my 50. couldn't point that low. Had to get out of the damn thing.

Also, 3rd person view and manual fire is the way to go for most of the vehicles. With manual fire, you just put the cursor over an item to attack and left click. As long as their is a round ready, you're good to go. It's not terribly realistic because you're gunner, driver, and commander all in one, but it beats getting frustrated. Heh. In the mission where you have to destroy the enemy tanks, I jumped in the closest tank and used manual fire to single handedly wipe out the compound. I noticed the enemy jumping onto the tank, but apparently no one was able to toss a grenade into the hatch.

"I had something really ridiculous happen tonight. I managed to steal a T80 ... Eventually, they got out and ran away, and I machinegunned them. "

Occasionally I see a scripting error, too, but this one is really funny. For the most part the game holds up pretty well under most conditions. I have run into the garden variety scripting errors, like in the convoy mission I had to keep driving back to the lead truck and crashing into him with my jeep to get him to move forward and finish the mission.

On a completely different note, if there were one thing I'd really lke for this game it would be a bit more randomness with regard to where the enemy is going to show up. If you lose a mission and replay, it's pretty much for sure that you'll see the enemy attack from the same place they were before (or that the secret base will be in the same place as before). It would be awesome if they could make it more dynamic. Nevertheless, it's still got my vote for GOTY, so far.

"Another cool thing is that the enemy doesn't just lay there and wait for you to mow 'em down. I had one guy squirming around so much I was unable to crush him under my armored transport. He just kept wiggling out of the way and my 50. couldn't point that low. Had to get out of the damn thing."

That happened to me on the helicopter gunship mission. My leader kept telling me to shoot this lone enemy soldier on the ground and simply wouldn't proceed the mission with him alive. The stream of "1, target soldier" nearly drove me insane. Try as I might, after 4-5 passes I couldn't get the 30mm cannons to take this guy out (he was in heavy forest cover). So I finally landed the chopper, and hopped out, RAMBO style. "Now it's personal," I growled.

Unfortunately, that IMMEDIATELY force-ended the mission with a 'failure to follow orders' screen. Evidently they like chopper pilots to stay in the air. These crazy army rules! Who can understand them!

On the next go-round, I just used the air-to-ground rockets on that little fucker. It was overkill, but hey, at least it worked. My most common problem with the missions is trying to find and eradicate that last pesky enemy unit that is preventing the mission from ending. That has happened to me at LEAST four times.

Then there was the time I was at the "mission complete" screen for the first helicopter mission. It WAS complete.. until I managed to crash the helicopter at the last second by tipping the tail rotor into the ground. Then it was DO OVER TIME! Argh.

"I jumped in the closest tank and used manual fire to single handedly wipe out the compound."

That's where I got my T80 with bonus crewmen. It also was the site of my worst collision detection bug.

After I shot most of the place up, I drove around running over the last couple soldiers. I ran over some bits of fence, then decided to run over the flimsy-looking guard tower. I crashed straight into it at full speed, and got stuck on top! The tank seemed to hang up by its front end, and spun around on the damaged tower like a tetherball. I tried turning and backing up, but that just changed the direction of the spin. Finally, I jumped out and ran off a bit. The tank settled in, level on the top of the tower. I went under it and tried to get in, then noticed it was still moving a bit. I backed off, and a couple minutes later it fell to the ground. I jumped in and drove it off to the extraction point, seemingly no worse for the wear.

Hey, that's nothing. Somehow, I managed to flip over my helicopter and land it upside down. Still fully functional-- the ground troops were boarding it and everything. But good luck taking off!

Tanks, I am warming up to. They're just ground vehicles, after all, in a game chock full of various tyoes. Helicopters, okay, they seem to work within the engine. But.. the A-10 missions. This was a profoundly bad idea. Fixed-wing craft in this engine? It's ridiculous. The rate of speed is WAYY too high to hit anything, and the visibility is nil due to the draw-in.

Bah. A-10. WTF were they thinking? What a terrible way to destroy all the momentum the game had!

"The tank seemed to hang up by its front end, and spun around on the damaged tower like a tetherball. I tried turning and backing up, but that just changed the direction of the spin. Finally, I jumped out and ran off a bit."

I _told_ you guys this game reminds me of Trespasser. Which I liked. I know, I'm sick.

How can you compare it to Tresspaser?!? ok i know what you mean about the originality the free open feel... but cmon! If it were really rtesspasser where are the female tits? sheesh!

BTW, i've played OFP so much im so used to the controls i dont even think about the problems with them, i learned to control tanks, warthogs and frogfoots easily. There is a weird control feel to tanks but once you get used to it its not hard at all. the command interface can get a makeover, but its not completely useless... it does its job.

Also, im tired of people knocking the game for realism.. name me one game that does what ofp does realistically. NONE! And no game is ambitious in scope of presenting combat in real time (except maybe M2 Tank Platoon but you dont play grunts...) ..if you wanted realistic you would get a gun and go to Afghanistan.

BTW, did anybody see the CNN special about Russian involvement in Afghanistan? was scary.. they should the mujahadein firing off Stingers at Hinds, showed ambushes on BMP's with rpgs! reminded me eerily of OFP, but when they showed some soldiers getting sliced and diced by ak74's... the grim reality sets in... war (duh) is hell.

some of the missions are Rambo easy because they are set up that way... the developers wanted to script the mission to be playable with "cheese" factor unrealistic take-a-tank blow the base.
BUT if you play some of the fan made missions, you will see that getting into tank can mean certain death, and that soldiers are alert...etc... the scripting in missions is key to the realism in the game... anyway... just wanted to say there are a ton of good missions on the net and that some are more "realistic" and handle the AI better then the campaign/single player missions from the main game.

etc

On that crappy, ill-advised A-10 mission: thankfully you don't have to actually do anything. Consider it one long cutscene. I just flew around aimlessly, and waited for my fuel to run out. Then I made sure I had enough altitude when I ejected.

How anyone could hit ANYTHING in that A-10 is a mystery to me. Bah. Surely this could have been handled in a better way-- maybe by NOT including it? Still, I have to give these crazy foreign developers credit. They're so crazy they'll try anyting, and if Op: Flash is the result, then sign me up. Even if it includes the ridiculous A-10 mission.

Still, I have to give those crazy Monolith developers credit. They're so crazy they'll try anything, and if No One Lives Forever is the result, then sign me up. Even if it includes the ridiculous sneaking mission.

---

Quote:

Tanks, I am warming up to. They're just ground vehicles, after all, in a game chock full of various tyoes. Helicopters, okay, they seem to work within the engine. But.. the A-10 missions. This was a profoundly bad idea. Fixed-wing craft in this engine? It's ridiculous. The rate of speed is WAYY too high to hit anything, and the visibility is nil due to the draw-in.

---

"Still, I have to give those crazy Monolith developers credit. They're so crazy they'll try anything, and if No One Lives Forever is the result, then sign me up. Even if it includes the ridiculous sneaking mission."

Nah, it's not the same. These Bohemia guys came up with a concept-- namely, simulating modern warfare from soup to nuts-- and built an *entire engine* around that concept. Monolith just took an existing 3D FPS engine and tried to wedge as many "cool" features (all cribbed from other games) as they could in there.

Furthermore. Spies sneak; it's a lot of what they do. In other words, half of the missions have sequences where stealth is important to your health if not critical. And the sneaking in NOLF is a pale, crummy, half-implemented travesty of what it is in Thief. And you'll notice that, in Thief, the whole game is designed around that sneaking premise. That's what makes it so great. Unlike NOLF, which is just good: it's a hodgepodge of half-implemented, semi-useful weapons and concepts.

I will say that including the A-10 was a mistake in Op: Flash.

>>Nah, it's not the same.

Sure it is, it's just a matter of perspective, something you apparently lack. If I don't like Operation Flashpoint, I can use all of your criticisms against NOLF against it. Your own arrogance makes you unable to see this.

NOLF isn't a good sneaking game like Thief. Well, okay, Flashpoint's vehicles should control and handle as good as the ones in M1 Tank Platoon or another military simulator. If they couldn't match that level of detail, they shouldn't have bothered with them at all.

Sound familiar? Flashpoint is "guilty" of everything you attack NOLF for. It tries to wedge as many "cool" features (all cribbed from other games) as they could in there. And not all of it works (like the A-10). But for you, the whole is better than the parts.

And that's what everyone else has said about NOLF, but you insist everyone is "wrong" and you are right.

And you should also know that NOLF was the showcase Lithtech game, so the engine was pretty much designed for the game. And do you really know that Bohemia came up with the concept before the tech? And you do realize that in either case it's completely irrelevant, right? Is Half-Life a lesser game because the tech was developed for Quake?

"And that's what everyone else has said about NOLF, but you insist everyone is "wrong" and you are right."

Well, let's quote this review of NOLF from Ted "taniwha" Duffy, shall we?

http://www.evilavatar.com/EA/Reviews/Release/M16335/

"The biggest sticking point with the gameplay is the enemy AI. Since NOLF builds somewhat on the Sneaker concept of Thief and Metal Gear Solid, the player must sneak up on enemies to dispatch them quietly or end up on the wrong side of an angry mob with AK-47's. Sometimes, the player must avoid the enemy altogether, or they'll set off alarms and you must reload and try again� The problem is that the AI is alternately numb or hypersensitive. Guards can see into dark areas (no hiding in shadows as in Thief), and will see you if you stand in their line of vision for more than a second or so. Even if they're a quarter-mile away and you can hardly see them, they can spot you. They can also apparently see if your bounding box is standing just around a corner, and you cannot see them. Be careful where you hide.

If a stray bullet from a silenced weapon hits anything other than flesh - water, wood, or a metal canister, they hear it. A bullet into wood makes only a small "pank" noise that the player hears, and a bullet into metal makes a louder noise. However, enemies hear everything. Silence and deadly accuracy is crucial, and missed shots are costly. Non-snipers will need practice.

The AI is complex in its senses and actions. If you shoot and kill an enemy with a silent weapon, you will not arouse any other guards if they do not see it happening. If an enemy comes upon a body, it will investigate it briefly (a perfect opportunity for a headshot) and then go for help or go on patrol. Sometimes, you may notice a problem with enemies going from inactive to full alert immediately - this is, I hope, just a glitch, as other times guards will become surprised before going ballistic. When the AI works, it works wonderfully. When it glitches, it's maddeningly frustrating.

Bottom line is, you'll be reloading the game several times in some levels in order to work your way around the AI until you get a handle on the main character's limitations. Sorry, but this is a major problem at times. The advantage should be with the spy character. Guards should be unintelligent and not have wide-angle telescopes for eyes and radar dishes for ears. If you do decide to go all out guns, you'll bring down everyone around you and have to spend the rest of the level listening to a damn alarm over and over and over. Luckily, not every level is that bad, and once you reload you'll figure out just how far each camera can see and how close you can get to enemies. If this problem were prevalent in every level, it would be a complete disaster. As it is, it's not a constant or even consistent problem, but it does exist at several points in the game."

Note. Yes, EA has an axe to grind with Monolith. But the review wasn't by him. Ted's a pretty good reviewer in my opinion. In this case the review brings up all the same points I did. And I've cited plenty of other sources that cover the same problems with the game. Problems that keep it from being this "as good as Half-Life" game I keep reading about. So to argue that "it's only me". Well. Might I suggest a visit to the optometrist?

"tries to wedge as many "cool" features (all cribbed from other games) as they could in there."

I have NEVER played a FPS that does the things OF does. For example. Can you name a single FPS, in the history of gaming, that models the first person viewpoints the way OF does? Another example. Can you name a single FPS that models such a huge map area, with forests, buildings, telephone poles?

Novalogic's Delta Force was probably the first to model huge distances and thus became a snipers dream game. But the Voxelspace graphics engine was an absolute abomination that ran like molasses.

Also, don't forget Looking Glass's Terra Nova.

"Is Half-Life a lesser game because the tech was developed for Quake?"

First. Half-Life is not a great example, because they practically rewrote the Quake engine.

http://www.voodooextreme.com/articles/interview_ht.html

This is an interesting interview because it predates the release of Half-Life.

"VE (8): A lot of people have been confused (As have I in the past) about whether Half-Life uses the Quake or Quake2 engine as a basis. Care to explain?
Harry (8):We have the source code to DOS Quake, Win Quake, GL Quake, Quake World, Quake 2, and the various patches. We pick and choose what is most useful for us from each. And obviously we have made a lot (and I mean a *lot*) of modifications to the engine to support the gameplay we are after."

And it's well known by now that TF2 is a completely new engine of Valve's design. Use the links, because this site is kind of broken right now.

http://www.playnow.com.au/features/feature.asp?featureid=78&id=94
http://www.playnow.com.au/features/feature.asp?featureid=78&id=95
http://www.playnow.com.au/features/feature.asp?featureid=78&id=96

"What is holding further development of TF2 is that Valve are currently building a new engine to drive TF2, and have been doing so for a number of months. As far as Robin Walker is concerned, this new engine will allow them to do things with TF2 they otherwise couldn't have. It will also make it more scalable across a wider range of system specifications, both capable of delivering superior graphics on high end systems, whilst also making it possible to play on low end computers. It's not another re-tooling of the Quake engine - it's a completely new beast. When I asked what it could do, the answer was something along the lines of 'A more appropriate question might be to ask what can't it do? The idea is to make sure it can do everything we need it to.' Existing content will be further enhanced by the new engine, and not only will it make new features possible, it will make old features work better than they ever have before."

Second. Is Deus Ex a lesser game because the tech was developed for Unreal Tournament? You bet your ass it is. It's a poster child for engine limitations screwing the best laid plans of the game designer. Not that the Q3 or even LithTech engines would have done any better. At some point you have to roll up your sleeves and build an engine that's capable of what your design calls for, rather than cheesing out and living with the design choices that Carmack, Sweeney, et al decided were good for you.

It's true that not all development houses have the resources to develop their own engines. Particularly US houses. That's why we see it out of these weird places-- croatia, scandinavia, czechoslovakia*. But the results are almost always more interesting than the typical "let's russle us up an engine license, boys, and start SELLIN' US SOME GAMES!" crap. Two words, people: Raven Software.

* Damn, I ACTUALLY managed to spell this right the first time.

"czechoslovakia"

No such place. Czech Republic?

'Nah, it's not the same. These Bohemia guys came up with a concept-- namely, simulating modern warfare from soup to nuts-- and built an *entire engine* around that concept. Monolith just took an existing 3D FPS engine and tried to wedge as many "cool" features (all cribbed from other games) as they could in there.'

How does developers' intent make a game fun independent of implementation? I'd think a game built around simulating all of warfare, that only does a half-assed job of parts of it, would be virtually indistingushable from a game that cobbles together a bunch of warfare-related things and only does a half-assed job of parts of it.

I keep vascillating on whether Operation Flashpoint is a hardcore but accessable military sim of grand proportions or just a deep action fps game of similar calibre to Counterstrike; just when im convinced its the best military game ive ever played it does something boneheaded that totally bursts the suspension of disbelief (a patrol unphased when passing through a field of sniper victims), but when ive finally come to the conclusion its nothing more than an fps wrapped in a military wrapper it rises above and beyond the genre to something transcendent.

The games' strength is in the scale of its maps and the deadliness of combat, as well as its reasonably effective AI which is especially intelligent in taking and finding cover as well as not being overly effective in finding the human player if he is prone and trying to hide. I do think however the AI is somewhat enhanced 'artificially' because of the ease of death and the extrodinary accuracy of all infantry weapons at almost any range, so even running perpedicular at 300m fails to dodge bullets with anything like consistancy, and the AI seems only to shoot when its nearly certain to hit, so you literally never hear the one that gets you. Its quite a change from games like Counterstrike where bullets are zipping all around you constantly - if you see puffs near you, and you don't neutalize where they are coming from, your remaining life on this world can be measured in seconds. Many of the missions create this tension because of the lack of cover on some of the battlefields, others by chaotic melees.

I enjoy the vehicles despite the dumbed down control system. You can hear the gears shifting in the tanks as you change speeds, or watch out a window of a chopper as the ground floats hundreds of meters below you (another star to the games' engine), and find that most of the time this outweighes the loss of statistical accuracy. And most impressively after all is that none of the vehicles are 'false doors', none that are unplayable - every one, even those you have no chance of actually getting in are fully fleshed out.

The maps are tremendous and the engine is amazingly powerful to display so many objects and varied terrain at once. I honestly don't understand the ugliness of the game that many have pointed out. Ive even seen waves on the ocean rocking my transport during i thunderstorm in the morning (or so i think, it was pretty dark :). However, one flaw most would agree with are the terrible graphics used to represent rain, which is so light that its hardly noticable, and in the event looks like tv static and occurs even indoors or inside a vehicle. However heavy rain reduces the clipping plain substantially, so its not at all useless or mere tinsel.

Something so amazing its almost jaw dropping (and that as far as i know hasn't been discovered) is that the game uses a real star map and actually simulates the correct phases of the moon. I was watching the sunset for the hell of it in the game at 4x speed, and i thought i saw the stars twinkling. So i leaned a bit to the moniter to check when i suddenly noticed 3 stars in a row. It suddenly hit me "omg, is that Orions' Belt?!!" And indeed it was :) - moreover the 'twinkling' was the progression of the sky rotating slightly. Damn that is just unbelievable. Ive yet to figure out the latitude of their virtual islands, however, or the declination difference (is that right) from the stellar equator from where i live in Texas, since everything looks tilted. I have looked for planets casually in the game but i haven't seen any color differences so if they are there they would look just like stars - if they 'did' make planets as well id recommend the game on the strength of its astronomy alone.

My main complaint is that its horribly, horribly buggy; maybe it thinks my copy is pirated and is implementing that FADE crap, because it crashes so much on me now i can't even get past the in-mission cut scene on the tank training level. When i first bought it the number of crashes were never this high, although they did come consistantly after an hour or so. I doubt this to some degree because when ive asked about it in multiplayer games i get numerous comments like "^^" and "it doesn't work", and so if true, how wonderful that it cripples accidentally those whom pay but fails to faze the pirates...

My second complaint is that to my great dissapointment the community for the game seems no more mature than your average Red Alert fansite audience, and moreover those whom find go to gamespy are bandwidth snobs whom usually refuse carte blanch to play with modem gamers like myself, even if my ping is in the reasonable 350+ range. But worse still is that this lack of maturity translates into a depressingly "hella cool" experience with no coordination within teams and most vehicles being driven off with only 1 person in them (all tanks need at least 2 people in OFP to be used efficiently). And then most of the time they just drive up nose to nose and pound eachother. Because the multiplayer overemphises vehicles what could be a dramatic and complex infantry skirmish deteriorates into a demolition derby. I think that the game is totally unsuited for public pickup games and almost requires teams/clans to be fully realized.

For me anyway a very annoying "feature" is the fact taht menu items that are selected linger -- last night it took me an hour racking my brains figuring out how to get from point A to point B through a village filled with troops, by myself. I finally decided to skirt the whole thing and ran around the mess. Get to the end, finally, and mission briefing.. there's two menu commands to hit. Retry and Continue. For some reason I move over to Retry and then moved the mouse over to Continue. Well, I thought I did, despite the fact I was pretty sure my cursor was over Continue when I did so.

So now I have to redo it all over again. From the beginning, too, as it wiped out by saved game. God I hate the save system.

--- Alan

"No such place. Czech Republic?"

Someone's been playing way too much GeoSafari. Anyway, I was talking about 1985-- the year the game is set in. Yeah, that's the ticket.

"Anyway, I was talking about 1985-- the year the game is set in."

I think all games are set in 1985! At least really, if you think about it.

Greetz..

Hey cool! Expansion pack for Op: Flash due in December!

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,10870,2814625,00.html

Another in a long line of inversion sequels/expansions. Tie Fighter. Opposing Force. Erm.. that's all I can think of.

"How does developers' intent make a game fun independent of implementation? I'd think a game built around simulating all of warfare, that only does a half-assed job of parts of it, would be virtually indistingushable from a game that cobbles together a bunch of warfare-related things and only does a half-assed job of parts of it."

In an ideal world, the developers would write the engine around the game design-- instead of writing a design that accommodates the limitations of, say, the Quake 3 engine. It simply removes a lot of the self-imposed restrictions. Not a guarantee, of course, but it certainly makes it more likely that we'll experience an original game concept rather than one that's been shrinkwrapped around John Carmack's cranium.

I beg to differ. Yes the AI can be extremely accurate but there are numerous occasions when the AI will lay down suppressing fire. If you are in semi transparent cover they won't always be able to hit you.

>>Well, let's quote this review of NOLF from Ted "taniwha" Duffy, shall we?

Is Evil Avatar the best you can do to find others to speak for you? Sheesh, you might was well quote wumpus. Oh, wait.

Ask Dave Long whether Senor Avatar will post viewpoints that oppose his own, particularly those he makes very public.

>>I have NEVER played a FPS that does the things OF does. For example. Can you name a single FPS, in the history of gaming, that models the first person viewpoints the way OF does?

What, like the Wetworks mod for Unreal Tournament from a year or so ago? Actually, it does it a bit better.

>>Another example. Can you name a single FPS that models such a huge map area, with forests, buildings, telephone poles?

Wow, defining games by telephone poles, bitchen.

How about Hidden & Dangerous? Maybe Project IGI (I dunno, never played it)? How about, going back, Midwinter and Flames of Freedom? (Okay, so they weren't shooters in the traditional sense, but they did the whole "find vehicles, use them" thing.)

But hey, don't get me wrong, Operation Flashpoint is pretty wonderful.

>>First. Half-Life is not a great example, because they practically rewrote the Quake engine.

So what? Your point was that using an engine designed for some other purpose is a "bad thing," as evidenced by NOLF and Deus Ex. I provide an example that counters your argument and you come up with exceptions. Valve still had to deal with its fundamental limitations and managed to overcome them.

With Litchtech, Monolith got to influence its development to match the needs of the game. Sounds like a superior situation to me. Then they had to come up with some of their own tech, which is also what Raven and ION Storm did/do. They basically keep the renderer; everything else is rewritten.

I am glad I am not hypercritical like some people. I play games to have fun and relax after work. Operation Flashpoint and NOLF provide this in spades. So did Counterstrike until this game was destroyed by online idiots.

"Ask Dave Long whether Senor Avatar will post viewpoints that oppose his own, particularly those he makes very public."

Well, instead of believing your own hype, read the review. Ted's a good reviewer, and it's mostly positive. You asked for someone else who felt like I did about NOLF-- that it's merely *very good* and not deserving of the pantheon of FPS greatness-- and I gave you an example. In fact I've given several. The frustrations and limitations of the game design were issues for me. Maybe they weren't for you, so whoopee for you.

"What, like the Wetworks mod for Unreal Tournament from a year or so ago?"

Oh, god. Not another card-carrying member of the mod-of-the-week club. We already have Tom Chick, thank you very much. Next!

"How about Hidden & Dangerous? Maybe Project IGI (I dunno, never played it)? How about, going back, Midwinter and Flames of Freedom? (Okay, so they weren't shooters in the traditional sense, but they did the whole "find vehicles, use them" thing.)"

These games (And Delta Force) are vaguely similar to the casual observer. But they don't have the range of weapons, huge number of drivable vehicles, and, most of all-- the VAST amounts of incredibly detailed terrain. They're all quite limited in scope, whereas OF's scope is.. staggering, and in an almost completely consistent game world. That's so rare that it's about a millimeter from being a friggin' miracle.

"Wow, defining games by telephone poles, bitchen."

Seriously weak, Steve. And you accuse me of not being able to defend my points? Any shareware engine can slap down a vast horizon of blank ground dotted with an occasional tree. Populating it with "stuff".. now that's where things get difficult. And in this game, every inch of the island is teeming with this proverbial stuff. And it's not just window dressing. You can interact with a hell of a lot of it.

"So what? Your point was that using an engine designed for some other purpose is a "bad thing," as evidenced by NOLF and Deus Ex. I provide an example that counters your argument and you come up with exceptions. Valve still had to deal with its fundamental limitations and managed to overcome them."

Which is the EXCEPTION, and not the rule. That's my point. We are more likely to see games without major design limitations when the engine is developed for the game instead of vice-versa. Licensees spend most of their time trying to contort and coax the engine into doing what they want. Or they could just turn out another bland FPS clone, which is what ends up happening in most cases *cough*Raven*cough*

"You asked for someone else who felt like I did about NOLF-- that it's merely *very good* and not deserving of the pantheon of FPS greatness"

You could have mentioned me instead (no linking necessary). I've made no secret here that NOLF's stealth shortcomings were detrimental to my enjoyment of the game.

Only, I have no problem with Steve or the CGM staff (or anyone) thinking it is deserving. Some things are just subjective and NOLF was an impressive game, overall.

What you haven't made clear is why you're clinging to this argument like a small child simply trying to one-up Steve Bauman.

-Andrew

"What you haven't made clear is why you're clinging to this argument like a small child simply trying to one-up Steve Bauman."

Come on Bub, its a Wumpus, thats WHAT THEY DO.

Speaking of scenery everywhere, I believe WW2OL went to 1.30 tonight and now France should look like the jungles of Borneo. I'll have to wait until Friday to log on and find out for sure.

>>Well, instead of believing your own hype, read the review.

Wow, I can generate self hype? Cool.

Why should I care what anyone else thinks of the game? I don't need that kind of validation. You apparently do.

I've always said NOLF had flaws. They just don't affect MY enjoyment of the game. You're more than welcome to think it has flaws too.

But you seem to be on some sort of crusade to prove I'm somehow wrong to hold an opinion that differs from your own, even if I concede many of your points and continually point out that THEY DON'T AFFECT MY ENJOYMENT OF THE GAME. Let me try that again: THE GAME HAS FLAWS BUT THEY DON'T AFFECT MY ENJOYMENT OF THE GAME.

Just in case you missed that, the game has flaws, but they don't affect my enjoyment of the game.

Using Evil Avatar's site as proof of my wrongness is really funny.

>>The frustrations and limitations of the game design were issues for me. Maybe they weren't for you, so whoopee for you.

Thank you. End of discussion. Jeesus, how many times have I said this? Why do you keep bringing it up? Why do I keep responding?

>>Oh, god. Not another card-carrying member of the mod-of-the-week club. We already have Tom Chick, thank you very much. Next!

Oh, so we dismiss it? You asked for an example, I gave you one. You dismiss it without a reason.

How about SEAL Team, circa 1992 or so?

>>These games (And Delta Force) are vaguely similar to the casual observer.

Hidden & Dangerous actually had the same scope as Flashpoint, with drivable vehicles, expansive terrain, some trees (I think), buildings, etc. It just sucked. Really hard.

>>Seriously weak, Steve. And you accuse me of not being able to defend my points?

I wasn't "defending" anything or even making any point. You brought up the telephone poles for some inexplicable reason.

The trees are impressive, but frankly, the technical details of the Flashpoint engine don't impress me. Lots of people could write that engine, and probably do it a lot better since it's pretty sluggish.

But the gameplay does impress me. A lot.

>>We are more likely to see games without major design limitations when the engine is developed for the game instead of vice-versa.

And I can point out hundreds of examples of original engines designed for specific games which still had limitations and turned out crappy. It's irrelevant.

What about Hidden & Dangerous, for example? Using your example, it should be considerably better because the engine was specifically created for it.

>>Licensees spend most of their time trying to contort and coax the engine into doing what they want.

Or alternately they spend most of their time getting an engine to work at all and trying to get it to run at an optimal speed. Or they can buy an engine that already works and is tuned.

It's called a trade-off. Some can make it work, others can't. Some do it to save time, others end up taking just as much time.

Again, it's irrelevant.

>>Or they could just turn out another bland FPS clone, which is what ends up happening in most cases *cough*Raven*cough*

Yeah, like Heretic 2, which rocked. Oh wait, that was a third-person game using a first-person engine, which apparently limited it to only being great.

Raven isn't a spectacular developer, but y'know what? At least they're consistent and efficient. They haven't produced anything in a while that's been truly bad (memories of Necrodome subsiding...) or buggy, and they mostly hit their release dates. And they do it without much in the way of self-promotion. Compare them to Ritual.

I've been playing a lot of NOLF lately, and I'm continually amazed at how...well, amazing the game is. **PUBLIC DISCLAIMER** I'm not comparing it to or claiming it's better than any other game in existence. I'm simply declaring my love for the game of its own intrinsic value.

Man, this game is fun. And I've heard people talk about those *WHOA!* moments, and I've gotta say that I've had several of those.

The first time I played the mission where you have to re-activate the bombs that what's-his-name turned off (those four in the warehouse), and climbed the crates onto the roof and in through the window -- that's pretty dang cool. I remember thinking "Now, ideally, I'd just climb up on the roof..." And, lo and behold, that's exactly what I did. Very cool.

And swimming through the sunken ship -- cool stuff, left and right.

I agree with Steve -- the game has its share of flaws and shortcomings, but, man, it's a ton of fun.

And, by the way, I tried the Op. Flashpoint demo awhile back, and I just don't think it's for me. I was noticeably underwhelmed. But this statement is made independently of my admitted love for NOLF.

"And, by the way, I tried the Op. Flashpoint demo awhile back, and I just don't think it's for me. I was noticeably underwhelmed. But this statement is made independently of my admitted love for NOLF."

Oh God! Its the Wumpus-effect. Murph, give it another try, its a really great game. Don't pay attention to the fact that Wumpus is using it as his latest weapon in the crusade to be continuously wrong-forever.

"The trees are impressive, but frankly, the technical details of the Flashpoint engine don't impress me. Lots of people could write that engine, and probably do it a lot better since it's pretty sluggish. "

I dont know if anybody or everybody could code an engine that handles lots of AI as capable and "realistic" as OFP and still include miles and miles of terrain and have "believable" charecteristics of land combat. Its not just the "trees" that lends to the believability (whether its truly realistic or not is another story), theres more to it. I've played alot of games in the similar vein as OFP from Hidden and Dangerous and Project IGI to even the old Midwinter... nothing completely covers combat aspects as much as OFP. NONE WHATSOEVER!

I think its kind of off handed to say "oh yeah, anybody could do that engine" when it never has been done, and if it were so easy the game would have been made already.... you know what i mean... but i think thats a statement that undermines the people who actually made the game. cheapening the hard effort went into making the game. or maybe you're doing a wumpus type devils advocate off the hand remark or sumtin... but still thats kind of cheap to say its an engine anybody could code

I've fanboyed this game since the demo... it deserves it... it didn't follow any formulaic guidleine fps/rts/squad combat conventions... it was a game they wanted to make regardless of sales and its gotten the just acclaim imo.

etc

>>I dont know if anybody or everybody could code an engine that handles lots of AI as capable and "realistic" as OFP and still include miles and miles of terrain and have "believable" charecteristics of land combat.

I don't know if anybody or everybody could do it either (I couldn't), but to me those are two separate things, the 3D engine and the AI. Together they make up the technology behind the game, but I was talking more about the actual rendering. That AI may be part of the reason Flashpoint is a bit sluggish.

>>nothing completely covers combat aspects as much as OFP. NONE WHATSOEVER!

Nope, never said otherwise. Flashpoint is considerably better than anything that's preceded it in the genre. But it's not the first to do what it's doing; it's just the best.

"Why should I care what anyone else thinks of the game? I don't need that kind of validation. You apparently do."

Steve, you have a disturbing penchant for bringing up points and then conveniently forgetting all about them. Remember typing this, buddy? "And [NOLF's whole is better than the sum of its parts] is what everyone else has said about NOLF." Well, not according to Ted Duffy. Nor me. Nor Bub, too, since he brought it up.

For us, the annoyances detracted from the game enough to kick it out of "best FPS game evar!" contention. NOLF lacks focus. It tries to be too many things, to the detriment of the overall game. Example. The stealth just ends up being frustrating (and it ain't just me-- see above review quotes for confirmation, or ask Bub) because it's NOT properly implemented as it was in, say.. Thief.

Lots of people have significant criticisms of NOLF. Heck, I'd say the number of people with criticisms is roughly the same as what Deus Ex generated. ANd didn't both games just release "Game of The Year" gold editions to retail? Go figure. Maybe they can thumb wrestle for it. Neither game is deserving, though they are both worth playing for various reasons.

"Jeesus, how many times have I said this? Why do you keep bringing it up? Why do I keep responding?"

Because you tried to insinuate that Op: Flash has the same weaknesses as NOLF, when it doesn't. OF isn't perfect, but it _IS_ a coherent, focused, well-thought out, well-executed game design. NOLF is none of those things. Miraculously, NOLF does partially succeed with its "look what features from other games we can incorporate into our shiny new FPS engine!" approach. And Monolith deserves credit for pulling that off, to be sure.

"Yeah, like Heretic 2, which rocked. Oh wait, that was a third-person game using a first-person engine, which apparently limited it to only being great."

Yeah, finding the blue key is SO much more enjoyable in the third person, Steve. You're right. Heretic II was sheer GENIUS!

"Compare them to Ritual."

Speaking of which. There were tedious underwater scuba sequences in SIN, too. Good God.

"Nope, never said otherwise. Flashpoint is considerably better than anything that's preceded it in the genre. But it's not the first to do what it's doing; it's just the best."

This is a patently ridiculous statement. I'm going to name a few games that these statements could apply to. Let's see. Civilization. Doom. X-Com. Among others.

Don't worry, Rob -- I'm sure I'll give it another chance before long. I've heard you guys say often enough that it has a steep learning curve but it's worth learning. I didn't play it for long, and I'd never make a judgement based on that short time with it. But, I wasn't having fun, which is really what I was looking for, so I popped in NOLF, instead. (How's that for irony, given the current discussion in this thread??)

Wumpus, we all know that NO game will ever please everyone. You guys can scream all you want about Op. Flashpoint, but it hasn't hooked me yet, and I don't really know that it will. I'm not much of a shooter fan, and it doesn't look like my cup of tea, though I promise to give it another try. Several of my buddies -- who, like me, weren't big FPS fans -- have said that NOLF was the first FPS they actually enjoyed. And we've all sampled the goods. There was just something about NOLF that has been lacking in other shooters thus far -- OFP included.

I'm sure we'd never come to general agreement on this -- with this or any other game, for that matter -- but I'd probably say that NOLF's in the running for my personal GOTY for that year. It would probably finish just behind whichever of the Baldur's Gate games came out that same year, just because they're more my thing, but I'm absolutely loving NOLF.

What a lot of people are forgetting is that there is an extremely flexible and powerful scripting language running behind the scenes in Flashpoint. Have a look at some of the scripts available at the Operation Flashpoint Editing Centre and prepare to be amazed.

>>"And [NOLF's whole is better than the sum of its parts] is what everyone else has said about NOLF." Well, not according to Ted Duffy. Nor me. Nor Bub, too, since he brought it up.

Clearly I was speaking about the global "everyone." Three people have blown my credibility. Damn.

Oh, Evil Avatar wouldn't agree. Damn, that's like four now. You're right, NOLF sucks. I'm wrong. It's horribly, horribly flawed and I've made a catastrophic mistake liking the game.

Thank you for showing me the light.

>>For us, the annoyances detracted from the game enough to kick it out of "best FPS game evar!" contention.

No fucking shit? I never would have guessed! Thanks for clarifying this, because you haven't made that clear in your 3000 posts saying the exact same thing.

>>NOLF lacks focus. It tries to be too many things, to the detriment of the overall game.

No fucking shit? I never would have guessed!

Some day you might understand that just because you, Ted Duffy and Andrew Bub thinks this doesn't make it a statement of absolute fact.

>>Because you tried to insinuate that Op: Flash has the same weaknesses as NOLF, when it doesn't.

IT'S AN OPINION, YOU MORON. Jesus. Mine is just as valid as your own, these aren't statements of absolute fact, oh never mind. My god, are you this stupid?

>>Yeah, finding the blue key is SO much more enjoyable in the third person, Steve. You're right. Heretic II was sheer GENIUS!

Point: missed. Forget it.

>>This is a patently ridiculous statement. I'm going to name a few games that these statements could apply to. Let's see. Civilization. Doom. X-Com. Among others.

Yeah, and? Let's see, for Civilization there was Empire and the board game and Railroad Tycoon, for DOOM there was Wolfenstein 3D and Ultima Underworld, for X-COM there was Laser Squad, blah blah blah.

You know what? I'm sick of this discussion, but more importantly, completely sick of you.

Thanks, you've ruined yet another message board for me. Have fun with your continuing jihad against anyone else's opinion, so long as it doesn't match your own, of course. Hey, maybe eventually it'll just be you alone posting, and everyone will agree with you! It'll be fun!

I gave NOLF an 8.5 of 10. Just thought I'd mention that... I also haven't been crusading against NOLF getting GOTY from CGM. I probably would have argued against it (had I been an editor there), but only in favor of Thief 2 or Baldur's Gate 2, which I feel are better games. Further, I only had a problem with the stealth implementation (and not with the stealth missions only, I just generally felt I couldn't be as stealthy as I liked) and didn't feel NOLF missed on the other levels Atwood is mentioning. (Though I did dislike the cutscene writing, immensely.)

Pardon my protestations, they are probably unnecessary, but I feel like I've got the smell of Wumpus about me and I find that disagreeable.

I also sort of feel bad for Ted Duffy, being dragged into this kerfuffle totally unbeknownst to him by Jeff's razor sharp and oh so impressive linking abilities.

-Andrew

Bah -- I just hope Wumpus didn't run Steve off for good. He sounds pretty put-out. Not that I blame him. But, it's really cool having the Executive Editor (or whatever they call him) of CGM around here...Hope he doesn't just totally quit hanging out...

Ouch! Geez guys let's calm down a bit.

Oh, I don't think we lost Steve. Getting wumpus'd is just part of the blooding ritual here at Q23.

Most of us have learned to ignore wumpus. I think we all come around eventually.

-Tom

Well, you know, Wumpus really serves an integral purpose around here. Every board has to have one.

I'm sure you guys are right -- Steve's not the type to tuck tail and run or anything...I'm sure he'll hang around.

And the nice thing about Wumpus is that he never really picks a position he can win. I agree with Murph that Wumpus does serve Qt3 pretty well in his own way. Plus its kind of fun to watch people go off like roman candles every so often. I remember my time of extreme consternation was about Kohan (which is very good tactical and strategic game that DOES NOT BOIL DOWN TO THE MOST RESOURCES WINS EVERYTIME). The key is to beat Wumpus into submission with common sense. :)

"I probably would have argued against it (had I been an editor there), but only in favor of Thief 2 or Baldur's Gate 2, which I feel are better games."

On overall game quality, I feel it's pretty much a tossup. All three of those (plus Combat Mission, which I feel was also one of the year's best) are of such a level of excellence that choosing between them is largely a matter of taste. Still, I went with NOLF, personally, because I felt it was the most original of all those titles. It took a lot of chances (and most of them paid off) both stylistically and in terms of gameplay, and that's the sort of thing that I like to see rewarded.

My vote has been for Combat Mission, not only because it's a great game (as are all that have been mentioned) but because it, more than any other game, redefined a genre. It completely changed our expectations of what a hard core wargame could be. The other games are all great examples of expanding their genre, but none change the rules the way CM does. Although I think CM was a 2000 game, wasn't it?

Yes Jeff, CM -and BG2, Thief 2, and NOLF- were year 2000 games. And thanks Ben, that's exactly my point. CGM isn't staffed with band-wagon jumping idiots. Each of you have the chops to play the games and make a decision. NOLF didn't get GOTY because Steve Bauman alone decided it should. I'm admittedly guessing here but I'm imagining there was a considered vote on which game to reward and NOLF won it, because a majority of you felt it deserved it.

So, while I might personally disagree with NOLF getting GOTY at CGM (or Deus Ex elsewhere) I'm not so arrogant to believe my considered opinion of the game should supercede an entire editorial staff of colleagues (which is what this Bauman/Wumpus thing is really all about, I think).

Besides, isn't it clear that Counter-Strike was the real GOTY last year (and forever more)? I'm sure Chick will back me up on this....

-Andrew

Well, I think all good games are required to be GOTY somewhere so that the publisher can re-release it the following year with a few more levels at full retail price again - as the GOTY Edition.

Didn't they used to call these the "Gold" edition?

I'm still disappointed we didn't give "Timeline" a GOTY award.

> CGM isn't staffed with band-wagon jumping idiots.

Maybe you should put that in the magazine byline :)

--- Alan

>. CGM isn't staffed with band-wagon jumping idiots.

But PC Gamer and CGW are? Or are you trying to say that CGM is staffed with idiots who don't band-wagon jump? Meathead.

"But PC Gamer and CGW are?"

No, not only is that not true it isn't also implied by the context of that quote. Pinhead.

"Or are you trying to say that CGM is staffed with idiots who don't band-wagon jump?"

Again no. I wasn't "trying" to say anything. I was saying that CGM editors are not idiots *and* that they aren't band wagon jumpers. But I can see how a dink like you might leap to spurious conclusions given how complex the wording was.

"Meathead."

Pencil-dick. 3rd strike. I am not Rob Reiner.

-Andrew

"I'm admittedly guessing here but I'm imagining there was a considered vote on which game to reward and NOLF won it, because a majority of you felt it deserved it."

Kinda, but it wasn't really that formal. Basically we just talk about this stuff at our edit meetings. The topic of game of the year was up, and someone said "NOLF?" And the rest of us nodded. It was pretty much unanimous.

LOL, nice one Bub.

Wumpus has a fan. Wumpus has a fan???

Um, Bub, I think that might have been satire. Or it was Wumpus.

"Kinda, but it wasn't really that formal. Basically we just talk about this stuff at our edit meetings. The topic of game of the year was up, and someone said "NOLF?" And the rest of us nodded. It was pretty much unanimous. "

That isn't exactly as glorified as the magazine cover makes it out to be. I realize within the article you guys generally make out how these types of articles are usually subjective and really only good for generating debate, but the covers make it seem like Jesus, Mary, and Joseph came down from on High to give us the straight dope on the BEST games of 2000 AD. Hallelujah! Your comments above make it sound like you're a pack of lemmings. What if someone had said, "How about Ground Control?"

"Some day you might understand that just because you, Ted Duffy and Andrew Bub think [NOLF lacks focus] doesn't make it a statement of absolute fact."

I can support this with specific examples from the game. And I have. Repeatedly. So it is an opinion, but it's an opinion backed by evidence. I don't know why this bothers you so much.

"IT'S AN OPINION, YOU MORON. Jesus. Mine is just as valid as your own, these aren't statements of absolute fact, oh never mind. My god, are you this stupid?"

Hey, I'm not the guy running around calling people moron, stupid, etc. If you really had respect for my opinion, I doubt you'd be doing that. I haven't made any sweeping pronouncements of fact-- I've just laid it out, and pointed to supporting evidence that corroborates my position. What do you want, Steve, us to hold hands and sing Kumbaya 'round the campfire?

"Thanks, you've ruined yet another message board for me. Have fun with your continuing jihad against anyone else's opinion, so long as it doesn't match your own, of course. Hey, maybe eventually it'll just be you alone posting, and everyone will agree with you! It'll be fun!"

And for the record. I did not bring this topic up. You did, Steve. People disagree. That's the basis of all interesting discussion in the first place. If you want to take your ball and run home so nobody else can play, that's your call.

"What do you want, Steve, us to hold hands and sing Kumbaya 'round the campfire?"

Well, maybe. As long as it turns out like that bin Laden link that Mark posted in the news section. ;)

For the "anyone could create this engine" camp. Check out the screenshots of this Ghost Recon preview and judge for yourself.

http://www.cgonline.com/previews/ghostrecon-01-p1.html

A far cry from what Op. Flash delivers. I'll say it again: I've never seen a game engine do what this one does.

True, but from experience GR's soldiers look and move a lot better than anything OpFlash can produce; the amount of texture memory they use is also a lot higher (sacrificing visual range and map size in the process). It's a delicate tradeoff, and I think OpFlash does it pretty well; GR just looks better and has smaller engagement areas.

--- Alan

"GR just looks better"

Then it must look nothing like those screenshots? Maybe those are from an older build? Because in those shots, the character models are blocky and appear to use low-res textures.. the fogging border is about 500 feet from the player.. etc.

As I said the visual range is drawn in. The sharpness and texture details to me is far better than OpFlash. If those CGO screen shots are the same as the ones in the magazine than I imagine they are a few months old.

--- Alan

Not to knock our own preview, but those screenshots aren't that great. I've played Ghost Recon--it looks a lot better than those shots would lead you to believe.

Oh good, someone confirmed it, I was hoping I wasn't just hallucinating it :)

--- Alan