Have anyone seen footage of this game? In terms of LOOKS, it looks amazing, the graphics, animations, environments, etc.

But if you look closely at the details, they REALLY decided to leave realism behind. The first one was not realistic, but they at least stuck to believable weapons and stuff like that.

Now look at MW2. The main weapon you always see in the game movies, is the Bushmaster ACR... Why a military unit is using a weapon that isn't even considered for military use really beats me. From my knowledge, the Magpul Masada/Bushmaster ACR lost the SCAR challenge, FN won it, how come they aren't using the FN SCAR???

Second thing, in one part you see a guy running around with what looks like a M240 machine gun. The M240 is next to impossible to shoot from the shoulder unless it's deployed on a bipod. The only way that I know to shoot a M240 while standing is from the hip supporting it with a sling and holding it by the carry handle. The reason is the links fall out underneath the weapon, so the forward grip is VERY far forward since the entire portion under the receiver is where the links fall out of, so you can't grip it by that. So unless you want to support the weight of this heavy weapon with your arm extended, it'll be very hard to shoot this weapon shouldered while standing unless it's supported by something.

EDIT: Here are two videos to prove my point of two soldiers who tried to shoot it that way out of fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvL-Sh5fNa4
This guy must have tried and come to the conclusion that shouldering the weapon makes the forward grip positioned way too far forward to support effectively, so he rested the butt stock ON TOP of his shoulder to decrease the overall length of the weapon extended in front of him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lImQ9COQ1bw
This guy actually tried to really shoulder it. Look how far he had to extend his support hand to grab it at the handguard and look at how awkward his stance is that he had to do in order to support the weapon in such a manner. Imagine if he had to suddenly move while standing like that, lol. Also notice just how unstable the weapon is while he's trying to fire it, and toward the end, even he decides to shoot the rest of the rounds from the hip instead of trying to shoulder it anymore.

Basically, even these two troops know that doing that is "for fun" and not for combat. That's why it got video taped and then got chuckles from everyone after it was done, lol. I got plenty of those videos of us trying out stupid (but never unsafe) ways of shooting weapons, haha.

END EDIT

Then you see the character trying to shoot down an AC-130 Spectre with a AT-4... Are you serious? The AT-4 is a weapon to be used against armored vehicles, as in vehicles ON THE GROUND. I mean, you CAN use it against an aircraft, but it better be sitting still since the AT-4 is UNGUIDED and be within the AT-4's maximum effective range which is 300m. It made a video game "lock on" sound effect and fired a missile that tracked the aircraft... Come on... would it really have been that hard to model in a stinger or something? Even then it wouldn't be able to shoot down the Spectre gunship anyhow, which, BTW, shouldn't have been flying that low anyway. Transformers was pretty dumb to have shown the Spectre flying so low.

Lastly, is the "sticky bomb." Yes it's cute, yes it's funny when people do that in some games, but there's no such thing, come on... I'm sure anyone can kind of rig a grenade to be able to "stick" to someone when you hit them with it, but how do you keep it on yourself without it sticking to you???

Anyway, it looks like they took an arcade shooter and made it even more arcade...

I'll stick with my Arma II and Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising, thank you.

Edit: Added some links to youtube videos showing how awkward and combat ineffective trying to fire the M240 machine gun from a standing position trying to keep it shouldered.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Demon_Mustang,

You forgot the crazy heartbeat sensor attachment.

I never bought the first one, but I did enjoy what I played of it. If you're looking for realism I definitely see how it would sour the experience, but for what it was, I enjoyed it.

Be that as it may I am tempted to get MW2. I've been wanting a multiplayer fix that isn't as ridiculous as Halo. I enjoy playing halo with friends, but when I play online by myself I usually find myself dying without being able to explain why. I always felt in the first Modern Warfare that when I died, I knew exactly why, no doubt that the kill cam helped with that.

Long story short, for an arcade action game there aren't much better. For a sim? nowhere close

Well the use of an AT-4 for SAM use is ridiculous, but I think an AC-130 was lost during the Gulf War to a man portable SAM.

@silentstriderm

I enjoyed COD4:MW too, it was unrealistic in gameplay style but kept the world and weapons based in reality. I don't mind that mix of realism/arcade, but this one seems like it's much more unrealistic than the first one, it borderlines a sci-fi shooter from what I've seen, so it's losing my interest because of that...

If you are into realism, you should get ArmA II. It really stick to the core of realism and fans of OFP.

THE MOST AMZING FOOTAGE FOR THIS GAME. GOING TO B THE BEST FRACHICE EVER MADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by JonZ:
If you are into realism, you should get ArmA II. It really stick to the core of realism and fans of OFP.

I did try the demo for Arma 2 and it looks good and is quite realistic.

The biggest problem is the controls are a nightmare.
If you have the patience to setup all the controls properly, and then remember which keys are bound to which function, it would be a fun game.
But, this is not the most user friendly game for binding keys that I have played!!

I am still looking forward to Operation Flaspoint: Dragon Rising.
I just hope that control setup is more straight forward and user friendly.

Still playing COD WaW at present.

What we need is a combination of OFP: DR and ArmA II.

ArmA II is ultra realistic, but with really bad controls, clipping, and voice acting.

OFP: DR is much more polished looking, but these are a few things they did wrong:

1. A LOT of muzzle flash from all firearms including the M16. Movies and video games love muzzle flash. In real life? ArmA II got it right. Certain weapons like the M16 are equipped with something called a flash hider, which, well, eliminates most of muzzle flash. Shooting a real M16 will look like it does in ArmA II, just smoke coming out of the muzzle, not visible muzzle flash. You'll see some flash at night, but during the daytime, most likely you won't see any. Negative points about muzzle flash besides it being unrealistic. Excessive muzzle flash destroys your night vision during low-light encounters. It took you 45 minutes to get accustomed to the dark, you fire one shot, now you have to start over. Muzzle flash also gives away your position to the enemy even during the daytime if it's that bright.

2. No supersonic crack when bullets pass close by. In ArmA II, if a bullet flies past you, you can hear this sharp pop. That's the sonic boom of the supersonic bullet that passed you. This is realistic, but no games ever want to put that in their game, probably afraid most players won't know what it is and will think it's an audio bug. But it is VERY useful. In ArmA II, that's how I can tell the difference between someone shooting and someone shooting AT me...

3. No vision jarring while running. It actually bothers me a bit that even now with our technology and graphics now that when you watch gameplay footage of OFP, when the character runs, the view stays unrealistically stable and the gun wobbles back and forth like past games. ArmA II actually simulated the jarring of your vision while running from every impact to the ground from your feet. It's like they took a camera and mounted it on someone's head and told him to sprint from point A to point B, then modeled that into the game. It's very realistic and adds a great deal of immersion to the game in my opinion. There are times that I am making a mad dash from one cover to the next in ArmA II and I can almost feel the tension of "will I make it there without getting mowed down?" Because it really looks like I'm running there, not just moving the camera there.

If they add/fix these three things, the game would be perfect in my opinion, unless there's more to it that I haven't seen yet, but so far everything else looks great. The first two I'm hoping some realism buff will release a mod for, but the last one I doubt can be fixed, so I'll have to live with playing as a steady-cam...

Its a game...
And will probly be a good one.

You want realism?
Join the military... You will get all the realism you can handle.

However... Like I said. Just a game. Only so much realism you can add to something before you will get the exact oposite train of thought and listen to people whine that it is too realistic.

But I agree... the AT4 shooting a guided rocket the c130? That's a bit much.

I do like the blood splatter on the screen to indicate injury... as oposed to simple turning the screen red. The friendly Ai looked pretty good in the most recent video release... Ducking from near fratricide incidents etc.

Wow, biggest cop-out excuse ever, "it's a game." Ok, so it's a game, let's have them dual wield assault rifles that never run out of ammo, and you can carry 40 guns on your person at any given time. Yep, let's bring back the old days of Duke Nukem...

I'm not asking for it to be so realistic that you die when you get shot, I'm simply stating why it seems like they were TRYING to make it as unrealistic as possible, then call it Modern Warfare? They might as well call it Sci-Fi Warfare and it'll be more accurate.

Oh, but it's just a game, that explains it all. From now on, if anyone has any complaints about any game, remember, it's just a game, everything is acceptable, there are no standards, it's just a game, just cough up your money. And don't complain about a movie having no plot, it's just a movie... lol

I'm going to start using that everytime someone critiques something...

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, the game this is the sequel to, is better. I understand that this isn't supposed to be a realistic war sim like Operation Flashpoint or the original Rainbow Six. But I liked the balance of arcade shooter set in a realistic setting the first Modern Warfare had. This game seems like twice as unrealistic as that one. I simply think they have gone too far with the obviously fake things they put into the game.

I love how when someone doesn't want to take the time to actually come up with a real rebuttal, they simply take things from one extreme to the other extreme. So because I say this is too unrealistic, that must mean I want to go off to war and do the real thing. Yep, there's absolutely nothing in between a really really unrealistic game and doing it for real... Come on, you're smarter than that, I expect that lame *** crap from the idiots that post on the gamespot comments, but not you...

I am happy with a good balance of a fun fast paced shooter set in a realistic setting, such as the first Modern Warfare (COD4), and Battlefield 2, although I really do wish they would increase the damage done by the weapons in BF2...

Anyway, neither of those games will have people complaining that they are "too realistic." Yet they are more realistic than this game appears to be. See how it can be more realistic than this one without me going off to war for real?

I already got Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising on preorder, I'll, hopefully, get my realistic shooter fix with that one... I bought COD4:MW and really liked it, but MW2 looks like a skip for me... But it's ok, I have a bunch of games I need to finish playing...

Wasn’t looking to state a rebuttal of your argument as much as a statement of how much you always complain about new games when they come out (With rare exception) on their lack of realism. The game isn’t being sold as a simulator….
However, since in the last 6+years you’ve been here I know your style I will respond to a few of your points to humor you…

quote:

in one part you see a guy running around with what looks like a M240 machine gun. The M240 is next to impossible to shoot from the shoulder unless it's deployed on a bipod. The only way that I know to shoot a M240 while standing is from the hip supporting it with a sling and holding it by the carry handle

The M240 running fire: Accurately shoot while standing… No not very accurate at all. Next to impossible? Not really, unless you are a small framed individual without the upper body strength to carry it. And it doesn’t take much. One reason the Army has created and distroed a M240 Dismount kit for armored vehicles.

quote:

Then you see the character trying to shoot down an AC-130 Spectre with a AT-4….. Lastly, is the "sticky bomb

Both pretty silly, but I see the intent. Not as though you are going to run around the battlefield with a SA system, AT-4, two loaded weapons… etc … and the sticky bombs only purpose in any game, as I can see, is to offset the the complete inaccuracy of Game-dynamic grenade throwing.

quote:

A LOT of muzzle flash from all firearms including the M16. Movies and video games love muzzle flash. In real life? ArmA II got it right. Certain weapons like the M16 are equipped with something called a flash hider,

True, while the flash suppressor works better RL again it is something needed in a multi player game to assist in enemy location as the sounds, in a real environment, are easier to detect location/direction. Not so much in most video games.

quote:

No supersonic crack when bullets pass close by

…. I thought this game and CoD: MW had this?!? Maybe it is the delay in my rear speakers that simulated this.

quote:

No vision jarring while running. It actually bothers me a bit that even now with our technology and graphics now that when you watch gameplay footage of OFP, when the character runs, the view stays unrealistically stable and the gun wobbles back and forth like past games

How the heck do you run? When I run… even while carrying a weapon, my vision stays pretty dang stable… and you know what moves? The weapon. If you have that much movement when you run that you liken it to ‘Jarring’ you need to work on strengthening your neck. A camera ‘mounted on someone’s head’ lacks the stabilization factor that your eyes have in your head to keep vision straight.

quote:

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, the game this is the sequel to, is better

Really? When did you get your copy to make this assessment? Didn’t think it was out yet and you, yourself, said you had only seen some videos…

quote:

I'm going to start using that every time someone critiques something

How does that differ from your “complaint posts” every time a game is made? What have you done to make them better besides sit here on this forum for the better part of a decade and complain?

quote:

Anyway, it looks like they took an arcade shooter

You said it best there…. ARCADE shooter. Not a simulation.

quote:

If they add/fix these three things, the game would be perfect in my opinion

I imagine there will be more… Heart rate monitors, Knifing people, inaccurate damage models, being shot multiple times and healing in the matter of minutes… etc.
My 1st post, as well as this, is not meant to be a cut at you. Just statements made to kill a few minutes time in between other things.

"Next to impossible? Not really, unless you are a small framed individual without the upper body strength to carry it."

Uh, it has nothing to do with its weight or your strength. You've fired a M240 before right? I have too, you remember where the ejection port is for the links? That's right, it's on the bottom, right around where you would probably grab a normal rifle with your weak hand. So unless you want to collect hot links in your hand while you're firing the M240 from a standing position, you would find it to your advantage to fire it in the manner that I described, hanging it down by the sling, with your firing hand grip the pistol grip and with the support hand, hold the carry handle. Fire from the hip in this manner... But then again, I'm NOT a big guy at all, so maybe you are able to grab it further to the front, in front of where the links drop? But you'll still be catching hot links on your arm...

"True, while the flash suppressor works better RL again it is something needed in a multi player game to assist in enemy location as the sounds, in a real environment, are easier to detect location/direction. Not so much in most video games."

ArmA:II and the original Operation Flashpoint got it right, enemy fire is highlighted by a mock tracer round, to simulate about how well you would be able to deduce where enemy fire is coming from using your senses in real life. So now you can tell the general direction where enemy fire is coming from without having muzzle flash distract you while you're firing your own weapon. My beef with muzzle flash is not simply for the sake of realism, it's for the sake of playability. I always find excessive muzzle flash to be a distraction and something that actually gets in the way of your vision while you're shooting, especially if you're using first person iron sights...

"I thought this game and CoD: MW had this?!? Maybe it is the delay in my rear speakers that simulated this."

A delay won't simulate this, have you had bullets fly by you? I'm sure you have, if not in combat, while operating the target stands in the long range target ranges, you'll hear the sonic boom as they shoot at the target that's only about 5 feet above you. I'm talking about that "pop" sound as they fly past, I would say like taking two wooden rulers and slapping them together. It's actually the sonic boom. Actually if you watch any war videos on youtube, sometimes it gets recorded. You'll hear the thumping of machine gun fire, then followed by a bunch of pops. Those are not the sounds of bullets hitting things, they are the bullets flying over head or by the camera man. The only games I've played that had this are Project Reality mod for BF2 and ArmA II. It's also not just for the sake of realism, it's very useful in knowing the difference in enemy fire, and enemy fire directed toward you, lol.

"How the heck do you run? When I run… even while carrying a weapon, my vision stays pretty dang stable… and you know what moves? The weapon. If you have that much movement when you run that you liken it to ‘Jarring’ you need to work on strengthening your neck."

Ummmm, yaaaaahhhhhh, I guess you must be the newer model Terminator equipped with image stabilization... Actually, ArmA II's running effect is pretty much exactly how it is in real life. I'm pretty sure the real military consultants and the game developers didn't rely on video, I'm sure they are capable of going outside and sprinting down the parking lot to see how it looks like... I doubt they are all out of their minds...

And I don't want to know how YOU strengthen your neck... haha, just kidding...

"Really? When did you get your copy to make this assessment? Didn’t think it was out yet and you, yourself, said you had only seen some videos…"

Way to take it out of context, very poor argument technique, but whatever, I'll pretend you just didn't understand and explain it anyhow. I mean in terms of the amount of creative license they took with the reality of the setting. That means it's the ADDITION of things, not the exclusion. I can't speak for what MW2 excludes since I haven't played it and don't know what the videos are not showing, but since I'm talking about its ADDITIONS, which if it's in the videos, it's in the game, so DUH, I know they are there... I'm talking about the PRESENCE of an AT4 capable of tracking and taking out a target flying at tens of thousands of feet in the air, I'm talking about the PRESENCE of sticky bombs, I'm talking about the PRESENCE of the Bushmaster ACR being used, I'm talking about the PRESENCE of the M240 being fired while standing while shouldered, etc. etc. etc.

"How does that differ from your “complaint posts” every time a game is made? What have you done to make them better besides sit here on this forum for the better part of a decade and complain?"

Um, I think games are more likely to improve from criticism than from yes men like you who just go "uh huh that's cool" to everything that comes out, that gives them no motivation to try harder if everyone shells out the money to buy everything regardless of how ridiculous they make the game. Their purpose is to make a profit, if they can make the profit without doing any research, what is their motivation to do any research the next time around? So true, me expressing my opinion and stating my observations by itself might not do anything to help the gaming industry, but you licking their *** is doing a whole lot less...

"'Anyway, it looks like they took an arcade shooter'
You said it best there…. ARCADE shooter. Not a simulation."

Hey, I'm flattered that you feel the need to strip down my quotes in order to be able to respond to them. But just to humor you and pretend that you didn't notice, here is the complete quote:
"Anyway, it looks like they took an arcade shooter and made it even more arcade..."

The point is that COD:MW was already an arcade shooter, but it was somewhat based in a realistic setting, and that was a good balance of fun, fast-paced action with some level of believability thrown in. But what they've done here, is taken an arcade game like COD:MW with a good balance, and simply turned their back on the believability and focused solely on the arcade side. So while once there was balance, now the scale has tipped and everything has spilled over to one side, leaving the other end of the scale high and dry... If I wanted a pure arcade shooter, I would simply go sci-fi. I'll play Half Life 2, or heck, go out and buy an Xbox and play that Halo garbage...

"'If they add/fix these three things, the game would be perfect in my opinion '

I imagine there will be more… Heart rate monitors, Knifing people, inaccurate damage models, being shot multiple times and healing in the matter of minutes… etc."

Uhhhhh, you do realize I'm talking about Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising on that post where you took that quote from, NOT COD:MW right???

WOW, I've been wondering why you kept going back and forth between quotes from what I observed about the MW2 footage to the stuff I was saying about ArmA II and Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising... LOL, I think you need to go back, you got it all mixed up man, lol.

I thought opening that paragraph with this made it clear enough:
"What we need is a combination of OFP: DR and ArmA II.

ArmA II is ultra realistic, but with really bad controls, clipping, and voice acting.

OFP: DR is much more polished looking, but these are a few things they did wrong:"

Attention to detail soldier! lol, no wonder you're satisfied with what they're giving you... You probably don't even notice the difference!!

LOL, just kidding man...

Getting ready to get on a plane so will look at this more when I get a chance and respond.... or not. I dont come here all that much anymore.

I did find two videos though of the 240 firing from the shoulder. Like I said... not very accurate but not difficult.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvL-Sh5fNa4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lImQ9COQ1bw

Again... they are not running with the system, got it, but brass and linkage are not an issue. Which is also added by the beauty of keeping your sleeves rolled down.

That second guy was ramboing it, but the first guy was merely resting the stock on TOP of his shoulder. Not exactly what I would consider shouldering a weapon. And watching the second guy, it looks like he probably doesn't have energy to do much else, as apparent by him moving down to shooting from the hip at the end. Yep, roll your sleeves down, stand in awkward positions, so much to consider before doing something that looks pretty combat ineffective. Yep, very believable for troops to use those methods in combat. Yep, you got me Guidon, I'm not being sarcastic at all! lol.

Thanks for looking up those videos, they actually do more to prove my point...

Edit: I hope you don't mind, but I linked those two videos in my original post.

Codemasters delayed the Dragon Rising demo that was promised before game release.
They claim they wanted to spend the time on polishing the game and are now promising a demo post release.

That decision makes me a little concerned about the game meeting their claims.
Could it be there are problems as we found in Vegas 1 and 2, and Codemasters doesn't want to lose sales by releasing a demo that would expose a bad game before release.

If Codemasters had released a demo as promised, and it was as good as it looked, several of our group would have bought it on release.
Now we will not only wait for gamer feedback, but we will still wait for the demo so we can test for ourselves.

My main concern with this game is:
Complex controls.
Whether it will have unscripted and really intelligent Ai.
Will it have excellent netcode.

I don't want to get stuck with another game like the Vegas series with not only horrible netcode, but also a broken game that was never fixed.

It will be interesting to see what happens!

I have it preordered, hopefully it comes somewhere close to the release and not a week after, but I'll give you my review when I play it. :-)

quote:

Originally posted by Demon_Mustang:
I have it preordered, hopefully it comes somewhere close to the release and not a week after, but I'll give you my review when I play it. :-)

Please do post a review when you get it, I've been eyeing OFP for the 360, (If I'm not completely sucked into Borderlands... which is a pretty good probability) and am looking forward to the demo.

I already see some things from watching the movies of OFP2R that are fake. First, everytime you reload your weapon, your character cocks the weapon... In real life the bolt holds open after the last shot so to reload you just drop the empty mag, load the new one, and hit the bolt stop... And I read that claymores will go off automatically when enemies are near... I think setting them up like that is illegal isn't it? Isn't that considered a booby trap or a mine which is against geneva convention??? I don't know, I'll let you know for sure after I've played it...

The Geneva Convention has to do with stuff like the treatment of prisoners.Apparently there is going to be a 3rd person mode btw .

I'm not sure if we are barred from doing it or if we have just decided not to do it. It could be the Hague Convention agreements where we agreed not to use mines or booby traps, not too sure, but I'm fairly certain we don't do that...