Less tactics. More Cinematics
In most cases, it's near impossible to review a sequel without referencing it's predecessor. And in this case, I find, that this game defects from it's predecessor's objective from the outset, by means of two immediately apparent U-turn's to the franchise's earlier method presenting the game's main campaign.
The first big change here, - much in the vain of the majority FPS market's campaign structure - is Red river's adopted method of mission / story narrative, now being laid-out in dialogue by a companion in your own squad. Where-as in Dragon Rising, the campaign's story was compiled by means of a collection of orders (those orders being each level's mission objectives) received over the team's radio from command, you are now the property of "Staff Sergeant Damian Knox".
Knox now delegates command's orders to the squad, on-mission. Thus providing the back story to each objective and fleshing out the campaign's levels. By rank, he is also therefore responsible for the tactical deployment of your fire-team. This means YOU as well.
Aside from his overacted dialogue, sometimes comical profanity and maddening repetition, this is where I encountered my own first disappointment in Red River. What I had loved about Dragon Rising was the self management style of the campaign's story telling. Especially considering that at the time of it's release, the majority of shooter's available on the market, played-out with campaigns in which you would be whisked through a scene at the command of the game's own ranking officer. In Dragon Rising, you were tasked with an objective, and then left to achieve that objective by means of your own tactical deployment of your very own fire-team and the resources made available to it. This is where Red River becomes a very different animal. As your campaign is now at the direct whim of said Staff Sgt Knox.
This was a bit of a culture shock to me (and my co-op companion). So much so, that we'd both agreed to frag the S.O.B in his sleep if we had the chance.
A combination of your being rushed through objectives by the game's new style of narrative, AND a seemingly weaker armour class of the enemy (most bad guy's are put-down with one successful shot), has also made this game feel like it will run-out of track a lot sooner than the hours you had slaved to complete DR's campaign.
There is a simplified method of healing (simply hold the "A" button while injured, to bring-up and apply your first aid pack, as opposed to finding cover, selecting and THEN applying said pack). And another control shift now being in your spring button being a clicked down left thumbstick.
So those are my gripes so far. All of them being geared towards the changes in this franchise's game-style that ultimately bring it further akin to it's competition in the genre.
I'm still trying to work-out whether this is a good or a bad move in my opinion. As I can understand and appreciate the efforts to make what was a very difficult, gritty game that you had to be extremely well organised to succeed within, more accessible to the pick-up and play market of shooter fans. BUT, those simplifications do leave those of us who had enjoyed the challenge of it's predecessor's difficulty wanting…
All of that said, the presentation of Red River is beautiful. The movement is fluid, and the lighting lush.
I personally, choose to subdue the "voice" or dialogue sound effects, dial back the music a little and crank the ambient / Special effects right up to maximum, in order to bring-out the real SNAP, and CRACK of gunfire (which again, I feel was a little subdued compared to it's predecessor). Do that, and then crank up your master volume if you – like me – appreciate the roar of battle just a little more than what's at default.
The missions do seem shorter. I'm not sure whether this has anything to do with the size of the area's of operation in which each campaign mission takes place, or whether this is a result of your enemy taking a lot less fire to put in the ground. Maybe a small combination of both.
The weapons available by load-out are chunky, powerful and suited to the task defined by your chosen class.
There still is a lot of fun to be had in organising your fire-team to carry-out there own individual skill-set in order to achieve a group objective (whether that be your rifleman suppressing a target, while your grenadier flanks, while your sniper has overwatch)… and the game's setting including it's insurgent enemy forces, provides a realistic and topical insertion.
In Summary, I think Red River is still a powerful, and enjoyable shooter. With brutal realism in combat, and delicious presentation. When measured against the other generic FPS games on the market, it presents a gritty, less fantasial snapshot of war. It's a game that can certainly be fun played on your own, but who's benefits will definitely come from playing in a human fireteam co-op. It HAS however, made it's self that much more available to be measured against those other FPS titles. And therefore left those of us who had enjoyed the escapism from the mainstream it's predecessors had provided, just a little put-out.
I think a fair closing statement would be that Operation Flashpoint: Red River has traded the tension calculation of it's predecessors and other tactical shooters, for the excitement and action of a more cinematic military experience. interpret that as you will.
7.5/10
TgA