BF2 and Operation Flashpoint: A Comparison

[munchkin]

BF2 and Operation Flashpoint: A Comparison

(I posted this in the bf2 section of the forums in the hope of garnering more readers. Admins, if you feel this is inappropriate, please move it to whereever you wish.)

Battlefield 2 and Operation Flashpoint are both games which aim to provide the player with an experience of the modern battlefield, complete with a variety of vehicles, helicopters and aircraft.

However, they are both intrisically different in the way which they produce such an experience. Bf2, as has been stated time and time again on these forums, is almost entirely an arcade game, and has clearly traded off realism and strategic depth for the ability to give players their quick action fix before dinner.

OFP is a "visceral exploration of fighting conditions", and is, to a certain degree, a war simulator. Radio calls provide you with awareness of the area, and you navigate using a compass and map. Combat engagements are intense and almost frightening in, and, coming from bf2, it seems that in OFP is almost farcically easy to be killed. There is no damage indicator, and in 2 - 3 shots you hit the dust.

What really sets bf2 and OFP apart are the map sizes. Battlefield 2 provides a small area replete with man's most fiendish destruction implements. In a single game, one will encounter the enemy again and again at the same choke points of CPs, and most battles are similar.

OFP's maps are insanely large, and exist dynamically. The experience is difficult to explain, except in STORY MODE (based almost entirely on a game I played today):
After recruiting a number of men (AI players) to our squads, Mirfee and I loaded up a truck with our men, and headed off in the general direction of some juicy-looking towns. Within 1km of the town, we decided to dump the van in a nearby forest. My squad stealthily crawled through the dense trees, while Mirfee and his men sprinted to a copse of trees to the side of the road. Giving the signal, he laid down some suppressive fire whilst my men rushed the town and decimated the enemy with a quick flanking maneuver. The town cleared, we agreed to hit a large coastal settlement. Mirfee would backtrack and take the truck to the south of the settlement, while I, from the cover of the trees, would enter from the east. However, in the process, urban guerillas destroyed both Mirfee's squad and mine, leaving me hunkered down in an apartment block alone.

As this story demonstrates, enemies on OFP, even the AI ones, move across the map dynamically, and every game on the huge maps is unique.

Strategic depth
BF2 provides 2 ways to lead - as a commander and as a squad leader. Both exist in OFP, but provide different experiences. Commanding in OFP, from my limited experience, is a RTS-type of affair, including base building. It is also similar to BF2 in that it gives the commander a satellite-type overview, but only of his own units.

Squads in OFP are made up of up to 12 men. The SL does not draw points on the minimap, but instead chooses from the huge variety of radio commands available, which provide great tactical depth when assaulting or defending. The AI is responsive, and are great subordinates.

User-made content for BF2 is, at the moment, almost non-existant.
Rather than list some of the addons, skins and mods available for OFP, just have a look at this: http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bi...ST;f=4;t=21064

IMO, Operation Flashpoint is eminently more suited to the general TG flavour of gaming than BF2. It encourages tactical, strategic and mature approaches to gaming. The bf2 community here is too large to ignore, but personally, I believe that members will be drawn to TG by bf2, and will be compelled to stay by OFP.

[John CANavar]

thanks Munch, a very nice post ! I'll definitely join you guys next time

[John CANavar]

For graphics comparison, some shots from free add-ons;

[munchkin]

One thing I have also noticed is that OFP can be a bit of a system hog. I can normally run bf2 with a fairly good framerate on 'high', but I could only manage to set OFP to 'medium' , with the draw distance set to merely 1000m/5000m. Mind you, even being able to see for 1km in a game is pretty mindblowing.

[Brennus]

I am VERY interested in playing some OFP MP! I've had this game since it was released and have NEVER played it online! It seems that with all the addons, it would be difficult to sync up with other players, but I'm sure It's possible! Just look at EAW and it's multiplayer component OAW!

If there is an interest within the TG community I'm game, otherwise I think It may be a waste of time...

[munchkin]

Bren, we already had 1 game earlier today, which was great (see the OPF section of the forums for more info). Also, syncing up the mods isn't a problem due to a little tool called Ofpwatch.
http://www.binarybone.com/ofpwatch/
It's a combined server browser, autojoiner, and lets you quickly and efficiently download all the addons, skins and mods necessary to play on a given server.

[=Sarc=]

The command position is only available for CTI games. It's almost like RTS commanding but you don't get an overhead view. You place all the buildings in first-person view, which can be a little awkward. With a regular mission, it's just a squad, or multiple squad configuration depending on the mission.

CTI games can also be very long. I've played some games for four hours. I've played CTI games where I've had to grab something to eat because it takes so long. It will be a small war with this game type. You take and defend towns while building up your base and searching for the enemy base. The action is not as intense as BF2. A lot of the time is setting up defenses and searching the island.

The lighting is also more advanced than you may think. OFP has shadows that change according to the sun's position. You can play all day and see the sun move along with the clock. Some missions are set just before dawn so by the end you might not need those NV goggles.

Vehicle damage is great in OFP and may be better than BF2. You can take out a tanks treads, effectively immobilizing the armor. However, the turret can still put a crater where you are. You can easily take out soft vehicles by puncturing tires. Of course, this means you have to be careful when driving. If you slam into a tree, you not only trash the car but you'll probably injure yourself.

[icky]

How many people play at once?

Are there bots on the battlefield or is it strictly vs real people?

Is it really a resource pig? Even though it is old?

[Apophis]

Originally Posted by icky

How many people play at once?

Are there bots on the battlefield or is it strictly vs real people?

Is it really a resource pig? Even though it is old?

Depends on the mission. CTI I believe can be 8 on 8 if played in the TvT variety or a max of 8 if played as a Co-Op game.

It can be a resource pig depending on what you're doing, but keep in mind things like draw distance. When you're engaging targets at real-world distances, you need to be able to see a LONG way away. A lot more is rendered than in your average game these days. But still, it performs really well as it was made for older hardware.

[ultrablue]

I am interested in trying OFP as well.

[Barracuda_Magoo]

I played the single player a while back, but never any multi. I had been considering reinstalling it and this just gives me even more reason to.

[AMosely]

I'm eager to get back into OFP, I was really excited to see TG bring it back up. I had played a few multiplayer games way back - before the mods - and while I was totally impressed with the game, I was disheartened by the lack of player organization. I'm psyched to try the mods and the TG server.

For the record, I don't really think BF2 and OFP are comparable. OFP is a simulator, and BF2 is not. That's really all there is to it.

I'm currently having lots of fun in BF2, but if new developments in OFP bring it back to the forefront, I might have some decisions to make!

[Santa]

ive heard a lot of good things about ofp so i think ill be gettin the second one when it comes out. The ofp yall are talkin about just looks so outdated in terms of graphics i couldnt stand to play it.

[ABRA]

The big difference in the comparison between the two is the character of infantry gameplay. In BF2 the maps are so detailed that infantry's use of cover and manuveur tactics come to the fore. The downside about BF2 maps is the pathedic draw distance and the artificially imposed engagement range achieved by both map layout and gross weapon inaccuracy. But compared to OFP, the infantry game is superior. The OFP level of detail is necessarily much much less to accomplish the long draw distance. This makes hard cover scarce at best and soft cover the mainstay. But even the soft foliage cover is scant by BF2 standards. In OFP, the map is dominated by wide expanses of featureless grasslands. In BF2 even on those maps that feature such expanses, the grasslands are broken up by folds in the ground and hillocks that amount to numerous opportunities for hard cover.

This mapping difference translates into different tactical gameplay for infantry. The AI system in OFP allows for more fine control and tactical flourishes. But this is wasted by the lack of obstacles to use in any sort of manuveur tactic. BF2, while clumsily relying on tactical coordination of strangers unaccustomed to working together and acting cohesively, still provides a better sandbox to play with tactics. The opportunity to effectively employ them is overwelmingly in BF2's favor because of the map layout.

OFP is the superior vehicle game but for me, and by what others often lament about in BF2, the airbourne and armour massacres, it seems like infantry is where TG players seem to prefer to play.

[munchkin]

The big difference in the comparison between the two is the character of infantry gameplay. In BF2 the maps are so detailed that infantry's use of cover and manuveur tactics come to the fore. The downside about BF2 maps is the pathedic draw distance and the artificially imposed engagement range achieved by both map layout and gross weapon inaccuracy. But compared to OFP, the infantry game is superior. The OFP level of detail is necessarily much much less to accomplish the long draw distance. This makes hard cover scarce at best and soft cover the mainstay. But even the soft foliage cover is scant by BF2 standards. In OFP, the map is dominated by wide expanses of featureless grasslands. In BF2 even on those maps that feature such expanses, the grasslands are broken up by folds in the ground and hillocks that amount to numerous opportunities for hard cover.

Heh, interestingly enough, while fighting in a town in OFP yesterday, I made a comment to Mirfee about how even the towns felt better than the ones in bf2, because you can actually enter most buildings.