By Jim Rossignol on July 11th, 2008 at 9:41 am.
I’m no fan of CGI trailers, but there it is.
26 Comments »
More from the web
11/07/2008 at 10:18
I know thats not in game but if the -gameplay- is as shown this should be fantastic. The graphics obviously are impressive but you’d expect that on a CGI trailer. However its not beyond the realms of possibility i don’t think…
Looking forward to trying this.
11/07/2008 at 10:51
At least they’re using in-game assets.
11/07/2008 at 11:00
I have been waiting for a serious war-sim/FPS like the original for years. Hopefully this will turn out good as the original.
11/07/2008 at 11:00
I found my self watching it going, yes, ok, guns shooty etc, but, so what? We get the concept from OpF 1, and all you’re showing us is a similar game with graphics that we’re not going to get.
11/07/2008 at 11:05
Grid’s CGI trailer was almost pretty damn similar to the in game footage.
11/07/2008 at 11:26
I holding out hope for this.
If they can ad some accessibility to the game without dumbing it down absurdly I’ll be very happy.
ARMA was an entirely underwhelming experience for me after the magnificence of OpFap, it was ugly, and felt like it hadn’t gone anywhere in 10 years.
11/07/2008 at 11:39
@Rook: you are absolutely right! I just compared the very first GRID trailer to other GRID footage and you are right!
11/07/2008 at 11:46
I don’t believe this trailer to be fully CGI, yes parts of the video have been touched up with CGI but I think the models etc are part of the ingame engine
11/07/2008 at 11:48
Boom, boom, ratatatat, boom, ratatat, argh.
They don’t even try to explain what is happening there. They’re just happy to show off some CGI-explosions, great…
11/07/2008 at 12:06
I’m an avid player of GRID, and the promo videos did look SUPERFICIALLY like the real game but if I was to dissect it I’d have a list as big as my third arm (big!) of ways in which it is SIGNIFICANTLY different.
Still, regardless of the (superficial) similarities, GRID is a completely different kettle of fish. Operation Flashpoint is a sandbox for war games – any comparison between the two is going to fall over once you get down to the nitty gritty.
And I have to echo comments about the video itself. Boring and lifeless.
11/07/2008 at 12:09
But is Operation Flashpoint 2 a sandbox for war games? The terror in the hearts of gamers across the globe stems from the fact the original developers aren’t making it, and its a multi format endeavour…
11/07/2008 at 12:16
I don’t think we’re comparing the games, Cigol. We’re comparing the trailers, and to what extent they used in-game assets and to what extent they copped out and went Pixar to show us some pretty.
And I think part of the point of the video is, if I remember right from reading the article, to demonstrate the scope thing. To show that it’s this large-scale thing, about actual whole operations with players being able to take control of each individual part. As opposed to your standard FPS, which involves “Run into four or five guys. Kill them. Walk along a path/corridor, then hit ANOTHER four or five guys. Repeat for the rest of the level.”
Also, I think dry and lifeless is supposed to be part of the point, too. It’s a soldier sim. That old adage of war being endless boredom punctuated by moments of pure terror comes to mind. It’s not my thing, personally, but it IS the thing of the game’s target audience.
11/07/2008 at 12:33
Well I’m slightly disappointed that the trailer hints that Codemasters are going for a bigger all out war theme. I hope they keep the solitary, ‘one man army/rabbit-in-the-headlights’ sections where most of the best moments in OFP were to be had.
It just seems a bit too bombastic compared to the original’s much more punctuated approach.
11/07/2008 at 12:53
I realise you’re not comparing the games directly but that’s my point. Operation Flashpoint is not an arcade racer, everything GRID does OPF will have to do to some degree or another. There are limitations to what you can feasibly do in a game like OFP and if it’s true about it being multiplatform then we can infer even greater limitations. Obviously I’m still stuck on the idea that they will be honouring the franchises roots – but it’ll be a different story if they renegade on that and create a Call of Duty (which we won’t know until we actually see some real footage).
This is the problem with CGI trailers, they are deceiving and ugly.
Also, I think dry and lifeless is supposed to be part of the point, too.
I don’t think it is personally, I think it’s just a poorly realised sequence.
It’s a soldier sim. That old adage of war being endless boredom punctuated by moments of pure terror comes to mind. It’s not my thing, personally, but it IS the thing of the game’s target audience.
You can certainly spin a yarn Noc (!), but show this clip to someone who doesn’t care about Operation Flashpoint or games and ask them what they see? A poor CGI sequence with little drama would be my guess – but to each his own.
11/07/2008 at 12:58
Godammit the Flashpoint name will soon be Operation Flashpoint Advanced Warfighter.
As a huge fan of the first, and ArmA…. i certainly am a bit worried.
11/07/2008 at 13:16
As Theory said, that’s a CGI trailer using in game assets (models, textures, sounds).
The PCG preview (reprinted on CVG here) said that codemasters are still in the early prototype stage for the engine which is why we’ve only been seeing target renders but it was also very clear that codemasters were heading in the right direction with the game; they were praised for their attention to detail, realism and scale. I don’t think that you need to worry about it turning in to Crysis or COD4, it’s still a Flashpoint game.
I’m still excited about this game because it is the first Flashpoint type game to be made with a big budget. As I understand it the game is (or is almost) content complete and Codies will be spending the next year working on the graphics and AI.
11/07/2008 at 13:32
Well, it’s a very pretty CG trailer, I suppose. Though “in game assets” almost certainly means “in game assets before polygonal simplification is applied.”
More generally, this tells us nothing about how the game will eventually play. That 70-person art team’s dedication to military realism goes out the window if your squad can flee from incoming artillery.
11/07/2008 at 13:52
Well at least they obviously have a good sense of what to aim for.
11/07/2008 at 14:30
Not really sure what was happening in that trailer, other than guns were being fired. Was shocked at the start when it appeared one soldier shot his buddy in the back of the head. I thought I’d somehow found a trailer that was trying to accurately depict what its game’s multiplayer would be like.
11/07/2008 at 15:13
You people are going to ruin this game for yourselves if you compare every single aspect to OPF or ArmA. Genres and games evolve – as have battlefield tactics since the first OPF was released.
The trailer was okay. Bit boring, but has maintained my intrest. That’s all the trailers have to do at this point – Keep us intrested until we can see some luverly tech & playtest demos.
11/07/2008 at 15:27
Screen Concepts looked better.
11/07/2008 at 16:22
considering the amount of features (sentient AI! 220 sqkm! vehicles everywhere! artillery! gibbing! super realistic combat!) announced for the game, i keep having the feeling that i’ll see it on some vaporware list 2 or 3 years from now. It just feels impossible. I hope they prove me wrong.
11/07/2008 at 19:06
“I know thats not in game but if the -gameplay- is as shown this should be fantastic. ”
When has that ever been true?
11/07/2008 at 19:41
I think you shouldn’t confuse “game assets” and “in-game assets.” With sandbags looking like a couple thousand tri’s I think these would more likely be the reference models that will be seen in lower level of detail in the game. GRID may have fallen close to the CGI stuff, but racing games can afford to look that good since they focus on such a narrow area. also CGI trailers are snarky bullshit.
11/07/2008 at 21:13
Fat Zombie says:
“You people are going to ruin this game for yourselves if you compare every single aspect to OPF or ArmA. Genres and games evolve – as have battlefield tactics since the first OPF was released.”
Just checking, point & laugh if I’m wrong in my assumption, but are you saying that we shouldn’t compare this new game to the old previous games? Surely Operation Flashpoint 2 is going to have to be better in order to qualify?
Or are you saying that although this game may end up being different to said precursors, it doesn’t mean that it won’t be worse? I can see where you’re coming from there, if that’s your intention.
Anyway. CGI TELLS US NOTHEENG. Please wait until ingame footage arrives before coming in pants, please. (AHEM, Tim Edwards)
18/07/2008 at 21:27
e3 presentation with at least a little bit of ingame stuff – the vid is not available at gametrailers anymore:
link to operationflashpoint2.info
Buy & Save
We'll Always Be Together
Help Make RPS Better
Simulation & wargame blather
The case for a decent box
A Game With Soul
Part 1: Prettification
A 4X too far?
"One of the greatest board games I've ever played"
Difficult Difficult Lemon Difficult
The Balance Is Shifting
Of Mice and Men