The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I always knew there was something wrong with Operation Flashpoint, and I just came to realise what it is recently. Its the engine, It just dosen't feel right at all. I wish they'd have made it better. For a start they could have made it so the crosshair stays in centre-screen - its stupid waving about, it should be still, like Half-Life's. I know its a great game but it's really let down by the engine. Tts pretty hard to play, sometimes very laggy, even on my beast of a PC.
But we have to remember how long these games take to make. Yes, it has many unsightly features (awful looking trees, some distance pop ups), but just think how big the maps are and how hard it must have been to render such vast open spaces with so many trees, hills, buildings, etc. I9 can't name an engine that can render full islands with landscapes so big that if you were to run from one side to the other would take you over an hour! The Quake 3 engine could only handle small maps and this is how it looked so nice but everything was claustraphobic to the player. The freedom you have in OF more than makes up for the lack of glamour in the graphics. To get it to run well and looking as it really should requires a pretty good setup, but with such widespread battles (tanks, helicopters, troops, vehicles etc), and so much going on at any one time, you must understand that something had to give to make it all possible in a game. The engine has its flaws, but only minor ones, and compared to the overall splendour it delivers when involved in a mass war right there on your screen, it should not be knocked for what it fails in, but what it excels at.
Back to negativity. The Project: IGI engine could handle huge levels and terrian, and it worked very well! So, why not OF, a game that was released about a year after IGI. I'm sorry, but however positively I try and look onto OF, the engine is "sticky" and, well, bad. As to the cursor wandering around when you run, well do you want realism or not? I suppose you might argue that they could have implemeted an "arcade mode" like some driving sims do. It seems a bit pointless though considering the big selling point is the realism. If you want arcadey war games then there's Delta Force, Medal of Honor or Wolfenstein. Another complaint is the squad command menu, which I find a bit tricky to use in battle. However, rather than comlaint, I prefer to remeber all the great things that make this game so much better than any of the other options. I'm just really glad the people are making first person shooters that require some skill, tactical awareness and brain power rather then churning out the same mindless "I am Rambo" first person shooters that seem to have changed little except for the graphics since the days of Doom. I still like brainless shooters occaisonally, but ten years playing the "same" game is a bit boring.
Anyone out there think that the engine's a bit toilet as well?
But we have to remember how long these games take to make. Yes, it has many unsightly features (awful looking trees, some distance pop ups), but just think how big the maps are and how hard it must have been to render such vast open spaces with so many trees, hills, buildings, etc. I9 can't name an engine that can render full islands with landscapes so big that if you were to run from one side to the other would take you over an hour! The Quake 3 engine could only handle small maps and this is how it looked so nice but everything was claustraphobic to the player. The freedom you have in OF more than makes up for the lack of glamour in the graphics. To get it to run well and looking as it really should requires a pretty good setup, but with such widespread battles (tanks, helicopters, troops, vehicles etc), and so much going on at any one time, you must understand that something had to give to make it all possible in a game. The engine has its flaws, but only minor ones, and compared to the overall splendour it delivers when involved in a mass war right there on your screen, it should not be knocked for what it fails in, but what it excels at.
Back to negativity. The Project: IGI engine could handle huge levels and terrian, and it worked very well! So, why not OF, a game that was released about a year after IGI. I'm sorry, but however positively I try and look onto OF, the engine is "sticky" and, well, bad. As to the cursor wandering around when you run, well do you want realism or not? I suppose you might argue that they could have implemeted an "arcade mode" like some driving sims do. It seems a bit pointless though considering the big selling point is the realism. If you want arcadey war games then there's Delta Force, Medal of Honor or Wolfenstein. Another complaint is the squad command menu, which I find a bit tricky to use in battle. However, rather than comlaint, I prefer to remeber all the great things that make this game so much better than any of the other options. I'm just really glad the people are making first person shooters that require some skill, tactical awareness and brain power rather then churning out the same mindless "I am Rambo" first person shooters that seem to have changed little except for the graphics since the days of Doom. I still like brainless shooters occaisonally, but ten years playing the "same" game is a bit boring.
Anyone out there think that the engine's a bit toilet as well?
Page:
big_slow wrote:
> i dont know what my specs are (i dont care really) but when the game stopped
> working i htikn ther was something wrong besides low RAM or whatever because
> none of my games like age of empires or roller coaster tycoon worked. they all
> closed down 3secs after they started.
Low RAM is a right problem. It could be that a virus has infected your computer and screwed with the launching of executables, or you could have mucked the BIOS. I strongly suggest upgrading to a new system as soon as you can, and the games should be peachy. You can get really cheap quality PC's at the moment, especially Special Reserve's MAXX range, so it may be worth buying a completely new box. Hope I helped.
> i dont know what my specs are (i dont care really) but when the game stopped
> working i htikn ther was something wrong besides low RAM or whatever because
> none of my games like age of empires or roller coaster tycoon worked. they all
> closed down 3secs after they started.
Low RAM is a right problem. It could be that a virus has infected your computer and screwed with the launching of executables, or you could have mucked the BIOS. I strongly suggest upgrading to a new system as soon as you can, and the games should be peachy. You can get really cheap quality PC's at the moment, especially Special Reserve's MAXX range, so it may be worth buying a completely new box. Hope I helped.
big_slow wrote:
i
> phoned up 3 times and they all told me to do different things.
Advice: Customer service sucks on almost everything, because the people just can't be bothered. Asking in forums is the easiest. Other forums I've been on helped me with Half Life, the first game I got, on my mediocre 1GB, 64MB, 133MHZ computer. The game didn't work because the specifications were too low, but the point is asking the general public is a lot easier than actually phoning up specialist lines. Its a contradiction, yes.
when i did get it
> working the game was really slow and difficult to > later it just didnt work anymore. ive rebooted my computer 3 weeks ago and it seems to work since them.
Maybe you need to upgrade your computer. What's your spec? I'm kind of niggled because my computer is a monster, with 1.8GHZ, 256MB, 40GB and I've found out that both Medal of Honour: Allied Assault and Grand Theft Auto 3 will only just about run. I'm terrible annoyed, considering that I don't plan on upgrading for at least six months, and I'm hoping to get GTA 3 on the day of release.
i
> phoned up 3 times and they all told me to do different things.
Advice: Customer service sucks on almost everything, because the people just can't be bothered. Asking in forums is the easiest. Other forums I've been on helped me with Half Life, the first game I got, on my mediocre 1GB, 64MB, 133MHZ computer. The game didn't work because the specifications were too low, but the point is asking the general public is a lot easier than actually phoning up specialist lines. Its a contradiction, yes.
when i did get it
> working the game was really slow and difficult to > later it just didnt work anymore. ive rebooted my computer 3 weeks ago and it seems to work since them.
Maybe you need to upgrade your computer. What's your spec? I'm kind of niggled because my computer is a monster, with 1.8GHZ, 256MB, 40GB and I've found out that both Medal of Honour: Allied Assault and Grand Theft Auto 3 will only just about run. I'm terrible annoyed, considering that I don't plan on upgrading for at least six months, and I'm hoping to get GTA 3 on the day of release.
i had lots and lots and lots of problems with getting flashpoint running. i phoned up 3 times and they all told me to do different things. when i did get it working the game was really slow and difficult to control. and then a few weeks later it just didnt work anymore. ive rebooted my computer 3 weeks ago and it seems to work since them.
I always knew there was something wrong with Operation Flashpoint, and I just came to realise what it is recently. Its the engine, It just dosen't feel right at all. I wish they'd have made it better. For a start they could have made it so the crosshair stays in centre-screen - its stupid waving about, it should be still, like Half-Life's. I know its a great game but it's really let down by the engine. Tts pretty hard to play, sometimes very laggy, even on my beast of a PC.
But we have to remember how long these games take to make. Yes, it has many unsightly features (awful looking trees, some distance pop ups), but just think how big the maps are and how hard it must have been to render such vast open spaces with so many trees, hills, buildings, etc. I9 can't name an engine that can render full islands with landscapes so big that if you were to run from one side to the other would take you over an hour! The Quake 3 engine could only handle small maps and this is how it looked so nice but everything was claustraphobic to the player. The freedom you have in OF more than makes up for the lack of glamour in the graphics. To get it to run well and looking as it really should requires a pretty good setup, but with such widespread battles (tanks, helicopters, troops, vehicles etc), and so much going on at any one time, you must understand that something had to give to make it all possible in a game. The engine has its flaws, but only minor ones, and compared to the overall splendour it delivers when involved in a mass war right there on your screen, it should not be knocked for what it fails in, but what it excels at.
Back to negativity. The Project: IGI engine could handle huge levels and terrian, and it worked very well! So, why not OF, a game that was released about a year after IGI. I'm sorry, but however positively I try and look onto OF, the engine is "sticky" and, well, bad. As to the cursor wandering around when you run, well do you want realism or not? I suppose you might argue that they could have implemeted an "arcade mode" like some driving sims do. It seems a bit pointless though considering the big selling point is the realism. If you want arcadey war games then there's Delta Force, Medal of Honor or Wolfenstein. Another complaint is the squad command menu, which I find a bit tricky to use in battle. However, rather than comlaint, I prefer to remeber all the great things that make this game so much better than any of the other options. I'm just really glad the people are making first person shooters that require some skill, tactical awareness and brain power rather then churning out the same mindless "I am Rambo" first person shooters that seem to have changed little except for the graphics since the days of Doom. I still like brainless shooters occaisonally, but ten years playing the "same" game is a bit boring.
Anyone out there think that the engine's a bit toilet as well?
But we have to remember how long these games take to make. Yes, it has many unsightly features (awful looking trees, some distance pop ups), but just think how big the maps are and how hard it must have been to render such vast open spaces with so many trees, hills, buildings, etc. I9 can't name an engine that can render full islands with landscapes so big that if you were to run from one side to the other would take you over an hour! The Quake 3 engine could only handle small maps and this is how it looked so nice but everything was claustraphobic to the player. The freedom you have in OF more than makes up for the lack of glamour in the graphics. To get it to run well and looking as it really should requires a pretty good setup, but with such widespread battles (tanks, helicopters, troops, vehicles etc), and so much going on at any one time, you must understand that something had to give to make it all possible in a game. The engine has its flaws, but only minor ones, and compared to the overall splendour it delivers when involved in a mass war right there on your screen, it should not be knocked for what it fails in, but what it excels at.
Back to negativity. The Project: IGI engine could handle huge levels and terrian, and it worked very well! So, why not OF, a game that was released about a year after IGI. I'm sorry, but however positively I try and look onto OF, the engine is "sticky" and, well, bad. As to the cursor wandering around when you run, well do you want realism or not? I suppose you might argue that they could have implemeted an "arcade mode" like some driving sims do. It seems a bit pointless though considering the big selling point is the realism. If you want arcadey war games then there's Delta Force, Medal of Honor or Wolfenstein. Another complaint is the squad command menu, which I find a bit tricky to use in battle. However, rather than comlaint, I prefer to remeber all the great things that make this game so much better than any of the other options. I'm just really glad the people are making first person shooters that require some skill, tactical awareness and brain power rather then churning out the same mindless "I am Rambo" first person shooters that seem to have changed little except for the graphics since the days of Doom. I still like brainless shooters occaisonally, but ten years playing the "same" game is a bit boring.
Anyone out there think that the engine's a bit toilet as well?
Page: