Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising

duragezic

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,234
4
81
I couldn't find a thread but I thought I recall discussion on this game.

I was reading the IGN review and watching a few trailers and it looks pretty good. The review makes it sound like it'd be a badass game if they put a little more time into the presentation. But they said the PC version is definitely the best one!

I'm interested in the single and multiplayer.

I like all sorts of shooters, and I can't wait for Modern Warfare 2 (looks to be the best game in several years to me). But I do like tactical shooters as well including the RB6 games, GRAW, and Insurgency mod.

So this one any good? The videos make it look pretty awesome! I don't see any demo

edit: Man I need to quit watching these videos or I'm going to go to the store tonight and buy it! :)
 

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,806
46
91
:thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:


Too tactical/sim for me.
 

duragezic

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,234
4
81
It doesn't sound that bad from the people with in that other thread.

What seem like big problems (no dedicated server, no anti-cheat) seem like something that could be resolved in a path.

Initially I was just going to play the campaign anyway.
 

mwmorph

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2004
8,882
1
81
The SP campaign is fine. It's no ARMA, but it's also no COD:MW.

I'm going to put it this way.

It's somewhat realistic.

Graphics and Sound:
*Sound is fine, voices often have a disjointed robotic feel because of how it is handled. Weapon and vehicle sound effects sound fine.
* Graphics wise, the lighting is good, the shadows are good, textures are horrible though. Textures tend to be low rez, though I think it's to compensate for the draw distance which goes up to 35km.
*The devs mentioned trying to go after the WWII black and white photo artistic style, so expect a lot of bloom, sepia tones, etc.

Damage model:
*You can die in 1 hit, you usually don't unless it's a large caliber/high energy round.
*Mounted MG or sniper rifle will kill you in 1 hit, an assault rifle shot to the chest/arms usually does little to you once you stop the bleeding. A 5.56/5.8mm bullet to the legs will make you move much slower.
*Medics can heal squad mates to full health after they get shot, assuming the guy isn't dead.

Ballistics model:
*External ballistics is alright, elevation is accounted for, so is travel time (lead a moving target or you'll just kick up dust), windage is not(always assumes 0 wind speed). There is no spin drift or ballistic coefficent in the calculations. BC is not a big deal unless doing extreme range sniping, but spin drift of a 5.56mm bullet is significant (2.3in per 100m) and I would think would be easy to program for, though for simplified gameply, I can see why they left it out .
*Terminal ballistics is simplified. I have never seen a realistic terminal ballistics model so whatever, not a big deal. It's very, very difficult to program bullet models transitioning through materials. The bullet will go through in a straight path instead of calculating entry and exit angles, again not a big deal, waste of ammo to shoot through walls anyway since you cant see the enemy.

Guns:
*Guns are usually pretty good. A single M82 shot will drop anyone, a single 5.56/5.8 shot usually won't unless you get a head/upper chest/neck shot.
*I find you can usually take more bullets than you would in real life to your body. 2-3 center body mass hits or 2-3 leg hits before being incapacitated is usually a worst case scenario in real life. I've pumped up to 5 bullets into an enemy before they die if you don't aim very well and spread out the rounds.
*Recoil is very good. 5.56 and 5.8mm bullets in the QBZ 95 and M4/M16 doesn't make your aim go insane, there is very little recoil on those weapons because of design and kinetic energy. Both have ~70% the kinetic energy of a 7.62mm Nato round, The M4 had a revolutionary(in the 70s) buffer and stock inline with the barrel to eliminate barrel rise, the QBZ 95 is a bullpup configuration so it's naturally inline barrel and stock and it contains a fairly complicated and effective recoil mechanism. A heavier weapon like the M82 or M40 will have much more recoil.
*Scopes on assault rifles work well. Scopes on sniper rifles are not adjustable in game. *Overall sniper missions tend to be more run and gun than true sniping (imagine more like Ghost recon, less like real life) for gameplay balance and pacing I guess.
*All scopes from the CCO to the SSDS are zeroed at 100m , remember that when shooting. I never use iron sights because of my play style so no idea what they're zeroed in at, but 100m would be a good guess.

AI:
*Nobody can shoot for crap, though I have the feeling most of the AI tends to just go for suppressive fire. Beyond 200m, don't worry too much about incoming fire if you're behind some sort of cover. Heavy amounts of fire inside 200m and moderate fire within 100m will be quickly cut down you and your fire team though.
*It's like the Chinese shoot like Iraqis. I'm not actually sure how well/under trained Chinese troops in real life are but they're not very accurate in this game. I get ~40-45% hit rate, they have low single digit % at the ranges I engage at, which is usually Designated marksman range (minimum 200 meters, usually 300-400).
*Your own fire team usually isn't too accurate either, but they're a little better even though you almost always have at least 2 guys with iron sights (fire and assist positions in the marine corps fire team doctrine, well assist is actually a corpsman instead of a true assistant automatic rifleman)
*Enemy AI will act decently intelligently, though I wouldn't consider them all that smart. Sometimes they will flank you, sometimes they will just suppressive fire you if they outnumber you (which they usually do). You can give them the slip and find them flanking to your last known location only to stand around confused as to where yo went, which is nice (no 2km see through trees and cover supermen here, line of sight is usually pretty good).
*Sometimes, they won't react at all though. I've shot at enemies as close at 300m away only to have them go prone and lie there facing the wrong direction (M16, non suppressed rifle). Very rare though, I think i remember this happening once or twice.
*Overall I think enemy awareness is alright, except at night, it's like nobody in China has NVGs, which make night missions much, much easier. Again, this harkens back to the previous US conflicts. Yes in Somalia or Iraq, US troops had a massive advantage in night operations, but I would expect China to be much better equipped/trained than those 3rd/4th world nations.

Interface:
*Giving commands means you have to stop moving and use a radial menu. Pretty annoying (and deadly in a firefight)
*You can't look around while driving. Also sort of annoying and reduces situational awareness.
*You can play with a normal interface (ammo left, compass, target locations, waypoints, etc) all the way down to hardcore difficulty (no HUD at all). Difficulty levels do not change AI awareness or accuracy.


Gameplay:
*It's fine I like it actually. It's a "friendlier" ARMA/OFP1. It's not a punishing as those 2 while not being as arcadey as the mainstream shooters.
*Biggest thing to remember, it's still somewhat unforgiving. You can do everything right and still fail a mission/take a stray round to the head through luck of the draw. It doesn't happen too often, but it can be frustrating sometimes.
*I usually never use vehicles, so I can't comment on it too much. I feel like it's way too easy to die from 1 stray RPG round and makes you a much bigger target so I almost always hoof it. The game is relatively forgiving since you can accomplish objectives in either vehicles or on foot.
*On normal difficulty, checkpoints heal you and heal/resurrect any of your squadmates. Makes the game a bit easier, but less realistic than Hardcore with no saves, no checkpoints and no healing/resurrections.
*Watch the position of any friendlies on missions with them, advance with friendly support or it's 100% suicide, most of my deaths come from poor awareness of where friendly forces are and advancing too quickly.

Overall, it's a game between genres. ARMA/OFP fans will cry found because of the dumbing down while COD/Halo fans will be pissed it's so much more difficult. Either way I personally think it strikes a good balance between difficulty and fun and I really enjoyed the Single player campaign. If you enjoyed Ghost Recon, you'll probably enjoy this game and for $40 I think it's a great buy if you like this sort of game.
 

43st

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 2001
3,197
0
0
OF: Dragon Rising feels much more like Ghost Recon than ARMA 2 in my opinion. It's been much more enjoyable playing it from that perspective than trying to compare it to ARMA 2.

I had a hard time with ARMA 2.. I had horrible performance with low settings, on a reasonable fast computer (e8500, GTX285). It was mostly playable, but then you get to one mission that requires being in one of the cities and it was like 10-15 fps. I hung around the BIS forums for a week or so, tried some things, waited for the patch, and just couldn't get better performance. So I ended up uninstalling it. :(

Dragon Rising is instantly playable, I'm at about 50-60 fps with all settings maxed. It doesn't look Crysis good, but it's not that bad either.
 

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,806
46
91
Originally posted by: martensite
Is there a demo out? Couldn't find anything on the official site, which BTW has a crap design.

not yet. they are planning on releasing one after the official launch.
 

duragezic

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,234
4
81
Thanks for the info. Very nice post, mwmorph and much appreciated.

It sounds like some don't find it sim or hardcore enough but to me it sounds like they struck a nice balance between realism and arcade.

It's not out yet? I was going to buy it the other night but I held back after reading some comments so I don't know if it's even on the shelves. Gamespot says 10/06/09 but there is no review from them. And for this game a demo might help people on the fence.
 

atran5e

Golden Member
Sep 13, 2008
1,292
0
71
Just started playing this, it's not bad, some weapons kinda huge and talk 3/4 of the screen. Gonna try to finish this until new ARMA II patches come out to make it playable
 

stumben32

Member
Mar 5, 2008
85
0
0
Been playing since it came out, many mixed feelings.

Its pretty fun overall but there are just many little things preventing this game from being something I see myself playing for more than a few weeks.

a few of these negatives:

lack of game settings. this is huge imo. the difference between 'experienced' and 'hardcore' mode is too severe.

in experienced, you can heal, respawn and you have full hud with checkpoints. the problem is the enemy aim is pretty bad long-medium range and frankly there just aren't enough enemies. there should be more patrols and more enemies hunkered in buildings. with all these gadgets at your disposal, it becomes too easy mostly. but then you'll get insta killed from some random bullet or mysteriously blown up in your jeep.

I think this game was meant for hardcore mode but not this extreme.

all I think is needed is to remove the enemy blips on your compass. this kills the tension factors. all too often I couls just line up my compass on a red dot, shoot in an arc and kill without ever seeing the enemy.

unfortunately, its all or nothing. hardcore mode is way too extreme imo, I would at least like a bloody compas.
 

amddude

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2006
1,711
1
81
Needs more maps. It is fun but a little goofy. Feels like they should have got more input from players before launch.
 

Martimus

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2007
4,488
152
106
Originally posted by: mwmorph
Damage model:
*You can die in 1 hit, you usually don't unless it's a large caliber/high energy round.
*Mounted MG or sniper rifle will kill you in 1 hit, an assault rifle shot to the chest/arms usually does little to you once you stop the bleeding. A 5.56/5.8mm bullet to the legs will make you move much slower.
*Medics can heal squad mates to full health after they get shot, assuming the guy isn't dead.

Damn, I was really hoping that you died from 99% of all hits, like in the original. If you didn't die immediately, you would bleed out over a short period of time. Getting shot in the chest and then keep fighting would just kill the game for me. If I don't have the horrible fear of being shot, then a game like this loses it's attraction from me.
 
Oct 27, 2007
17,010
1
0
I just bought this game yesterday, played for maybe 3 hours. I'm happy to report it's not the epic failure I thought it would be. In fact I'm having a lot of fun with it, and haven't seen any major flaws yet. Also, I really, really like the art direction and production values of the menus and cut scenes. This might seem like something pretty minor but it certainly leaves a good taste in your mouth. So far I'm impressed.
 

Mike Gayner

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2007
6,175
3
0
Yeah I've gotta eat my words on this game too. I've played for about 3-4 hours, and so far it's just plain fun. I'm loving it. The mission editor is fun too, but I'm hoping someone will hack it to allow more assets.

Also, the game runs extremely smoothly on my e6600, 4gb, 8800gt. Not the best looking game, but not too bad.
 
Oct 27, 2007
17,010
1
0
I'd like to make a quick note to anyone wanting to play this game, make sure you start the campaign on Hardcore difficulty. I am by no means a hardcore FPS player (I play most of my games on medium or easy) but Hardcore really sets this game off. I was a bit annoyed that I had to start the campaign again to change difficulty at first, until I realised there are dozens of ways to complete each mission so they're definitely a lot of fun for a second play through.

Note that hardcore difficulty has no effect on the enemy accuracy or reaction time, all it does is remove most of your HUD, making the game feel significantly more real. Annoyingly it also eliminates checkpoint saving, but this is a small price to pay IMO.
 

Mike Gayner

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2007
6,175
3
0
The problem with Hardcore is you lose your compass, which is pretty damn important. Playing on anything below Experienced sucks, but not having a compass is a hassle.
 

DannyLove

Lifer
Oct 17, 2000
12,876
4
76
I'm going to ignore 80% of the above comments as everyone in this forum tends to jump overboard without even playing a damn game.

I've been looking forward to this game since I last played the first one years ago. I will do hardcore to set the bar. Thanks
 

ixelion

Senior member
Feb 5, 2005
984
1
0
Well I played the game a bit, and I hate it.

The graphics are very poor just a whole lot of pretty lighting effects nothing more.

The game averages 30 fps on a e8400 and 8800GTS, so there is slight mouse delay - the game is actually quite smooth, you just don't have the responsiveness of 60fps ala GRAW.

In fact come to think of it this game doesn't offer much more than what GRAW or any other tactical shooter hasen't already done.

Pass.
 

Mike Gayner

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2007
6,175
3
0
Originally posted by: ixelion
Well I played the game a bit, and I hate it.

The graphics are very poor just a whole lot of pretty lighting effects nothing more.

The game averages 30 fps on a e8400 and 8800GTS, so there is slight mouse delay - the game is actually quite smooth, you just don't have the responsiveness of 60fps ala GRAW.

In fact come to think of it this game doesn't offer much more than what GRAW or any other tactical shooter hasen't already done.

Pass.

??? You don't give any reasons why you hate it, other than mouse lag which sounds like a problem with your PC TBH, as I have a similar system with no mouse lag or FPS issues.
 

ixelion

Senior member
Feb 5, 2005
984
1
0
The game gets 30FPS with a GTX 260 so it's not my system, and that is the problem with the game (although it gets 80fps with a 5870).

Framerates are crucial for first person shooters, especially in multiplayer. The responsiveness of a shooter at 60FPS cannot be touched by a shooter at 30 FPS, the amount of control and precision you have at 60fps impacts gameplay a great deal.

Lower frame rates will always introduce minute mouse lag in any game (even with forced TB+vsync), perhaps this matters less in DR since fast reflexes are not as crucial.

I guess my standards are too high, but I am quite happy with COD4 TF2, and GRAW running at a silky 60fps.
 

mwmorph

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2004
8,882
1
81
Originally posted by: ixelion
The game gets 30FPS with a GTX 260 so it's not my system, and that is the problem with the game (although it gets 80fps with a 5870).

Framerates are crucial for first person shooters, especially in multiplayer. The responsiveness of a shooter at 60FPS cannot be touched by a shooter at 30 FPS, the amount of control and precision you have at 60fps impacts gameplay a great deal.

Lower frame rates will always introduce minute mouse lag in any game (even with forced TB+vsync), perhaps this matters less in DR since fast reflexes are not as crucial.

I guess my standards are too high, but I am quite happy with COD4 TF2, and GRAW running at a silky 60fps.

You probably set shadow maps to 4096. et it to 1024 and your frame rate will skyrocket.