Ive ordered this for the Xbox (and I think its at home waiting for me now!), I have to say I think that the score of 5 does seem low compared to all other reviews that I have seen tho I concede that this may be because of the difference between Console expectations and PC expectations. This review was for the PC and the points that the reviewer made do seem to hold up (as I am sure they are not lying!) When you compare the drawbacks to ARMA 2 for example it does seem to hold it back. However as a console gamer I have to say to that the number of complete spanners playing COD and jumping around and teabagging people really does wear me down so I am hoping this game will attact a more mature type of gamer, and a slower pace to the game!
Just a note, I think where it says the console multiplayer is 4v4 with 3 bots is wrong, I believe that it is 4 v 4 with each person being in command of 3 bots each, i.e total number of bodies in the game is the same as the PC at 32, its just that 24 are AI controlled. Also you can mix around the numbers of human players per squad if you dont want to bother ordering the AI around.
Just afraid about Multigaming... only private server ....so strange and so bad ....
Why Codemaster just think about Xbox , PS3... and no pc gamers. I enjoyed OFP1 during six years and wish that new OFP will give same feelings...>:(
Originally Posted by Arnaud31 Just afraid about Multigaming... only private server ....so strange and so bad ....
Why Codemaster just think about Xbox , PS3... and no pc gamers. I enjoyed OFP1 during six years and wish that new OFP will give same feelings...>:(
See Arma and Arma 2, this has nothing to do with OPFP 1 except it's a codemasters release and has the name.
I was looking forward to this as well, well I was looking forward to the massive size of the game and the thought of taking my friend on in an hours long sniper duel. Not so much anymore.
In all fairness alot of the complaints could be fixed with patches later on but seeing as its aimed at consoles I doubt it will get any good support down the road.
"Even older *[cars]* are up to the challenge though and when Richard dropped in for a quick co-op mission then he still managed to run the game on those settings (with 2x AA) with 40+ fps on an Nvidia GeForce 8800 Ultra."
The co-op campaign is a blast to play and truly likely where I will spend 90% of my time. Doing so you can skip the console based ordering system and actually attack an objective with precision (the friendly AI is trigger-happy).
I played it last night with a friend for only a few hours, so there are some things that Joe has mentioned I haven't seen. I will say that the combat itself is quite fun. I do wish for loadouts, however.
As far as patching or modding out the inadequacies I am not sure, but I think it can and will be polished a bit more before its all said and done.
All in all, I think at this point I would give it a 7.
I think it is a nice game but it definitely has a case of consolitis. The biggest issue right now is that there are no dedicated servers.
The reviewer is right that the game is schizophrenic. It's trying to be a hardcore milsim for consoles? Codemasters might be bringing a lot of console gamers into the hardcore milsim genre and that's great but I think if they had just made a great PC exclusive milsim with dedicated servers and a more complex map with towns then the game would have (guessing) sold much better. They could then cut it down for the consoles much like Battlefield 2's console port Battlefield:Modern Combat.
I don't know why reviewers aren't mentioning the lack of dedicated servers. It's a big issue for the multiplayer game.
Man, I was really looking forward to this game. ARMA II being buggy was a real turn off and I thought OFP II would have brought more to the table against ARMA II. There may be some hope for OFP II just not at the moment as its pretty obvious its geared towards consoles. I'll give it a month or two before I make my final decision on either getting OFP II or ARMA II but I'm very disappointed.
Originally Posted by RIOTinYOURcity Man, I was really looking forward to this game. ARMA II being buggy was a real turn off and I thought OFP II would have brought more to the table against ARMA II. There may be some hope for OFP II just not at the moment as its pretty obvious its geared towards consoles. I'll give it a month or two before I make my final decision on either getting OFP II or ARMA II but I'm very disappointed.
*fingers crossed for OFP II improvements*
Well I might be able to help you decide.. Both games have big drawbacks. So it's a matter of picking the lesser evil. A2 demands a powerful PC with a very fast video card. OF2 doesn't. A2 has lots of bugs, OF2 has less. A2 can feel very clunky and the AI is pathetic too often. OF2 seems to have better AI. Both games are NOT PvP, but PvE (player versus environment).
The best alternative to both of these games is Project Reality mod for BF2. It's massive. It's huge. It's far more polished. It plays better than both A2 and OF2. I suggest you definitely check out Project Reality if you haven't already. A big update is due very soon, too. PR has a learning curve but so does A2 and OF2. PR is the best of the three for PvP and also for urban combat. Also PR has insurgency mode which is incredibly fun and challenging and no game has anything like it where you search & defend caches randomly placed around the map. PR is the best of the three.
"it managed the game just fine on the highest settings, holding things at an average of 50 fps" What is the point of this sentence? Rig well detailed *TICK*, FPS given *TICK*, no resolution given *FAIL* 50 FPS at 800x600 or 2560x1600? It makes a difference, please tell us the res you were using.
@Quake1-rules, Arma 2 does need a powerful graphics card, but unfortunately this statement is both fact and theory. Hundreds of users (yes hundreds) have reported vis the BI forums that there is literally no difference between say a 9800gtx+ and a GTX285 in most cases, although quad cores do better in the CPU stakes. There are people who have upgraded from say a GTX260 to a GTX285 and noticed no fps gain, literally scores of people have complained about this. The game doesn't run very well on low and mid range cards but after a certain point, seemingly for a mind boggling reason, completely diminishing returns set in.
As for PR, well I have to disagree that it is better than Arma II. For starters the game is now over-run by the same infants that over-run BF2, spawnkilling, destroying vehicles, camping, not observing team work etc etc. Then you have the pompous lot who are (or claim) they are in the Army and take it so seriously they literally spoil it for everyone else. When I played it last year I remarked to the rest of my squad that a real Vodnik was in fact amphibious, and some cretin calling himself 'Royal Marine Joe' kicked me from the squad and said i should do and play BF2 if I wanted to BS. I'm pretty sure that he was the ideal person though to be enlisted by the armed forces to go and fight imaginary terrorists and protect oil pipelines though.
Originally Posted by Mach1.9pants "it managed the game just fine on the highest settings, holding things at an average of 50 fps" What is the point of this sentence? Rig well detailed *TICK*, FPS given *TICK*, no resolution given *FAIL* 50 FPS at 800x600 or 2560x1600? It makes a difference, please tell us the res you were using.
1920x1080 on my rig and thanks for asking so nicely.
Well I have just been playing it and you can definately tell its a lazy xbox port. When you are in 3rd person the mouse controls are all backwards. The command menu is geared for consoles. You would of thought that they would have converted this to the mouse to make it easy. There is no MP dedicated server so a game last about 5 minutes before you get cut off. The fornt end menu is dire. Typical of a gamepad menu. Graphics are not too bad. Gameplay is too slow. Going between stances takes far too long. Stupid buttons for choosing weapon selection and you keep pulling up the wrong weapon.
I have to agree with Bit-Techs review. In fact i'd drop thier score to 4/10.
Shame on Codemasters. Heads should roll for this. I thought highly of them until now.
I had to register just to comment on this review. After I read this review I had to go over and read the ARMA2 review. 9 and this a 5? WTF? Why wasn't the ArmA2 review just as detailed and harsh? If this gets a 5 then ArmA2 MAYBE a 6. The AI in ArmA2 is attrocious. Plain and simple. That's the only reason I stopped playing. Add on to that the evil command menu. Yes Op2 is simpler but it makes for funner gameplay in my opinion. I haven't had problems with the AI in this game yet other than they can't drive for ish. It troubles me to see people not buying this game because of this review alone. And over at the codemasters forums, it's a bunch of the same BS. I don't know if it's Arma2 fanboys, or just folks living in those countries and they're scared money will be taken from their mouths. I feel if you're gonna review this harsh then give the same equal review treatment to ArmA2.
This is a fair review. I have had the game for a few days now and I like it. It's not perfect and I agree with just about every point reviewer mentioned, but I wouldn't call it a "mill-sim". Maybe tactical shooter is a better label for this game. At the end of the day when I'm in the mood for some lite gaming I'll be playing OPFDR, when I have more time and want to play something a little more involved I'll be playing ArmA2.
Comments 26 to 50 of 72
ReplyI can pilot a boat though :p
Just a note, I think where it says the console multiplayer is 4v4 with 3 bots is wrong, I believe that it is 4 v 4 with each person being in command of 3 bots each, i.e total number of bodies in the game is the same as the PC at 32, its just that 24 are AI controlled. Also you can mix around the numbers of human players per squad if you dont want to bother ordering the AI around.
Arma II it is then, well when I've replaced my current PC.
Why Codemaster just think about Xbox , PS3... and no pc gamers. I enjoyed OFP1 during six years and wish that new OFP will give same feelings...>:(
See Arma and Arma 2, this has nothing to do with OPFP 1 except it's a codemasters release and has the name.
In all fairness alot of the complaints could be fixed with patches later on but seeing as its aimed at consoles I doubt it will get any good support down the road.
Oh and typo in the following paragraph.
"Even older *[cars]* are up to the challenge though and when Richard dropped in for a quick co-op mission then he still managed to run the game on those settings (with 2x AA) with 40+ fps on an Nvidia GeForce 8800 Ultra."
I was rather hopeing this could have been an interim replacement for BF2. :(
Then again, they were all on the 360. Same with MW2.
I would genuinely like to see just a single video for this and MW2 being played on a PC.
I played it last night with a friend for only a few hours, so there are some things that Joe has mentioned I haven't seen. I will say that the combat itself is quite fun. I do wish for loadouts, however.
As far as patching or modding out the inadequacies I am not sure, but I think it can and will be polished a bit more before its all said and done.
All in all, I think at this point I would give it a 7.
The reviewer is right that the game is schizophrenic. It's trying to be a hardcore milsim for consoles? Codemasters might be bringing a lot of console gamers into the hardcore milsim genre and that's great but I think if they had just made a great PC exclusive milsim with dedicated servers and a more complex map with towns then the game would have (guessing) sold much better. They could then cut it down for the consoles much like Battlefield 2's console port Battlefield:Modern Combat.
I don't know why reviewers aren't mentioning the lack of dedicated servers. It's a big issue for the multiplayer game.
*fingers crossed for OFP II improvements*
Well I might be able to help you decide.. Both games have big drawbacks. So it's a matter of picking the lesser evil. A2 demands a powerful PC with a very fast video card. OF2 doesn't. A2 has lots of bugs, OF2 has less. A2 can feel very clunky and the AI is pathetic too often. OF2 seems to have better AI. Both games are NOT PvP, but PvE (player versus environment).
The best alternative to both of these games is Project Reality mod for BF2. It's massive. It's huge. It's far more polished. It plays better than both A2 and OF2. I suggest you definitely check out Project Reality if you haven't already. A big update is due very soon, too. PR has a learning curve but so does A2 and OF2. PR is the best of the three for PvP and also for urban combat. Also PR has insurgency mode which is incredibly fun and challenging and no game has anything like it where you search & defend caches randomly placed around the map. PR is the best of the three.
As for PR, well I have to disagree that it is better than Arma II. For starters the game is now over-run by the same infants that over-run BF2, spawnkilling, destroying vehicles, camping, not observing team work etc etc. Then you have the pompous lot who are (or claim) they are in the Army and take it so seriously they literally spoil it for everyone else. When I played it last year I remarked to the rest of my squad that a real Vodnik was in fact amphibious, and some cretin calling himself 'Royal Marine Joe' kicked me from the squad and said i should do and play BF2 if I wanted to BS. I'm pretty sure that he was the ideal person though to be enlisted by the armed forces to go and fight imaginary terrorists and protect oil pipelines though.
1920x1080 on my rig and thanks for asking so nicely.
I have to agree with Bit-Techs review. In fact i'd drop thier score to 4/10.
Shame on Codemasters. Heads should roll for this. I thought highly of them until now.
Anyone who preordered i'd advise you to cancel.
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums