I am one of those who played since launch and stopped.
I have zero interest in BF3 or any other game that is not a WWII shooter. So I am not one who stopped playing because of other video games.
I will play again, maybe this weekend. But I was greatly discouraged, by the game for its watered down realism and half-baked bugs, the community for its abusive flaming of dissenting opinion and the company for unprofessional behavior on the forums.
I read this entire thread,. Here are some quotes and my comments.
"i seriously cant understand the people that go of and cry just caus RO 2 isent a corbon coppy of RO1"
Name one person who wanted RO2 to be a carbon copy of RO1. Why do people keep saying this?
What I wanted was a greatly improved version of RO1 – the most realistic squad level shooter out of a box I have ever seen. This game isn't that at all. But it was SOLD to me as that.
The company clearly marketed it to seem so. This is a major reason so many RO1 players feel let down by this game. It is a major step back from ultra-realism. The new cover scheme and more realistic sniper sight are basically irrelevant when you can snipe with an MP40 and your cover keeps being overrun by arcade run-n-guns.
"I think a lot of players are taking a break while TWI fix the major "showstopper" bugs."
My issues lie much more with the unrealistic arcade/CODness of the game. The crashes would not be so irritating if the game wasn't already disappointing.
"Nowadays the community doesn't even feel friendly. Yeah people are saying the game is a mess in the forums, saying that they are gonna leave, and how do some people respond? "good, then leave, bye..."
Every game has people who threaten to leave and those who respond "Can I haz yur stuff?" . But I have been offended by the rude behavior in the larger community when it comes to flaming dissatisfied players and I have been APPALLED by the behavior of the TWI representatives on this forum. Before launch, various people joined and posted to say they were getting a new PC or laptop and wanted to know what specs were required to play RO2 on high graphics. The response would be ridicule from other posters and jokes about how soon the thread would be closed, which it soon was, without the question being answered. Once the game was launched official parties have been insulting and combative all along and if they have not all been that way, they have shown support and encouragement toward independent posters who were. It must be comforting for Tripwire to have so much money they can afford to insult and alienate potential customers like they do on here.
"Big shame about this game. They ruined it trying to bow down to COD thingies trying to get more money. I just imagined this game being made for people that like realism on top of every other thing. I'm just amazed how tripwire really though they can appeal to the cod crowd."
I must agree. All the tradeshow videos and Youtube videos focused on the realism, like the new scope dynamics and cover system, the highly detailed grain elevator, based on the one in real life, etc. It is like a bait and switch.
IMO this should have been the most realistic WWII shooter ever. Instead they watered down the realism for mass appeal and I believe the fact this game requires a realism mod for the weapons aiming to come close to RO1 is a major failure for TWI. Reducing recoil on the MP40 is one thing, turning it into a raygun is another.
"The game is more challenging, you are going to have to work harder and be better to quell the so-called "arcadish" run-n-gun gameplay (which, as has been already established in other threads, is arguably more realistic than that of RO). Players that move smartly, at the right time, and as a team, will ALWAYS win out over players that play the game in an "arcadish" manner."
WRONG. If the game was more challenging there wouldn't be so much arcadish run-n-gun gameplay going on. There aren't any fire teams working together because the arcade dynamics and unrealistic weapon aiming make it unnecessary.
"The main things RO2 got wrong were weapon handling, class limits and fantasy weapon limits. The engine , player movement for the most part, cover system, and a whole bunch of other stuff is better in RO2. If you could put RO1 style gameplay into RO2 it would be so much better though imo.
No one would play RO1 with RO2 gameplay. The guns are too arcade style, and the maps are mostly linear and narrow. Not much room for tactics or having a mix of weapon types. The zoom encourages people to camp, even with smg's and semis. Semis and some SMG's do everything bolts do but better and they make up the majority of a team, and it makes for watered down gameplay imo"
And in my opinion too!
" and there are just as many WHINERS on their forums as there are on these forums."
Whiner. Noun. 1. Any person who genuinely cares about a video game enough to voice concern about its content or offers suggestions that might improve it. 2. Anyone who offers criticism of something you like.
"What made RO1 a great game? The only game i ever played that actually made me feel i was on a WW2 battlefield but that's my opinion."
Bingo. I played BF1942. It was fun, but it felt like WWII Land at Disneyland. I played others, all of them were fun but goofy in how unrealistic they were. It felt more like playing dodgeball in school than being in a war movie, or anything like a war. Only unofficial realism mods changed this.
RO1 was the game that was that realistic out of the box. It pumped the adrenaline so that it felt like being in a dangerous warzone. RO2 does not feel that way at all. It does not require the tense, one meter at a time approach. So long as you just need to sprint there faster than the other guy, since it takes one second to go from sprint to ironsights right on his heart, people will just keep doing that, and overrunning the people trying to crawl their way through cover. The weapon sway, etc. of RO1 was there to compensate for the fact players will continue to run and gun so long as there is no real penalty for dying.
"Unfortunately, RO2 doesn't have that many teamplayers, and I play on a good community server.
A lot of people take SL for the mp40/ppsh.
Roughly 50% of the players in game camp/snipe.
Gets frustrating when only 3-4 players are consistently going for a cap zone against 32 enemies...."
This statement is contradictory since all those SL's are likely the 3 in capzones or trying to get there. I go for SL all the time because of the faster capping, better defending and the semi-automatic rifle that is like having my M-1 from Darkest Hour. I only go for the submachine-gun if I am bored.
But the squad thing can and should be revamped to make it not only usable but necessary. This will not auotmatically make people play as a team, but it would at least cut down on the autos. An easy way is this: start with two squads with support weapons and do not open up any other SL, semi-auto, assault or MG until there are enough extra rifles to justify another SL and support.
All in all, I will play it, but I have never had that addictive MUST play feeling to it that RO1 had and still has, because the degree of difficulty in RO2 has been nerfed so, obviously to appeal to the COD crowd.
Players coming from other games will see it as much more realistic. But we RO1 players know better. And in many cases feel misled by TWI since we were led by their marketing to expect a more realistic RO, not the opposite.
It may look better than RO1 and there are some aspects that are improvements to how you interact with the environment. But when it comes to player vs player combat and realism, it feels like the soul was taken out of RO1.
I realize zombies are very in right now, but this is a bit much.
I enjoy OR2 but a lot of people just stoped playing
