• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

If there is ever another RO game

Games like RO should try to show COD/BF players what they're missing out on, but not sacrifice anything gameplay-wise towards that end. I don't think people are necessarily born realism fans, its something you acquire after getting bored of other games. For me it is anyway, I mean I came from a HL mod (cs/tfc/DoD)/COD UO background myself and don't really have much interest in realism games beyond Red Orchestra.

I think you should tempt players from other games but do it in a classy way. Getting people to at least try the game type is important though so I don't see a problem with at least offering similar sorts of things as games people are used to nowadays. You can do that without sacrificing too much in the gameplay department at all, but things like audio, graphics, unlocks, progression, game modes are fine imo depending on the implementation. Not everyone may like it, but you should at least make the attempt to get people to try something new, and the ones who do like it will be hooked and be on board for future games too. Theres nothing wrong with turning people away if its not for them..getting them to try it is all thats important and to offer a unique experience to the ones who do

Niche doesn't mean "small" to me, its like having a unique selling point. RO is about accessible tactical realism, and thats what they should offer and nothing more. If they nail that and then advertise it as such, while showing whats cool about the game style and not being disingenuous about it all then they would do well imo. RO2 focussed a bit too much on gimmicks and trying to blend into the mainstream FPS market with weaker gameplay, when their USP should have been what people were actually interested in them for in the first place: setting themselves apart from other companies in not only their gameplay but in their approach to customers. If they wanted to make a mainstream shooter then they should never have experimented in that way with a name like RO
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
If there is ever another RO game developed by TWI, I will wait at least 6 months after release until purchasing.

honestly.

i've only played 12 hours since launch and its just now getting better with the release of classic mode; would not have missed anything if i had waited.

in fact i'll probably wait 9-12months and pick it up for 75% off during a steam sale
 
Upvote 0
1. Unlocks
2. Battle chatter
3. Voices that are in anything other than German or Russian.
4. Moral systems
5. Prototype weapons
6. Different game types. RO only needs one.
Bolded things I disagree with. Reasons to follow.

Character Unlocks/Morale - The hero system was a good idea, but it wasn't followed through. The stat improvements were okay I guess, but I was mostly excited for the prospect of some badass-looking dude herding around his squad of new players, which would've been awesome to see and really boosted the immersion RO was known for. Heroes don't look half as impressive as I expected and all the other levels are identical but for the amount of mud on their uniforms. Maybe if frontline soldiers had unbuttoned collars, rolled sleeves, looked a bit scruffy, etc., then go from there, it'd work. When TWI announced visually distinct soldiers the first thing I imagined was the protagonists of Stalingrad, not guys turned out for parade, or turned out for parade but got crash tackled into a puddle of mud on the way.

Weapon unlocks - I'm on the fence. I would've liked to see perhaps some cosmetic unlocks that make sense - no winter trigger guards magically installed during the encirclement, for instance. Maybe even some weapons; the PPD-40 was rare, but nowhere near as astronomically unlikely to be seen by ordinary troops as the current 'rare' weapons. The MG 42 was beginning to appear too towards the end of the battle.

Gametypes - If you mean levels of realism, then yes, I agree. One is enough. If you meant actual gametypes though, I think CD was and still is great and I wish more servers ran it. I think there was plenty of potential for interesting new modes of play or at the very least new takes on the traditional take-and-hold gametype, but none of them were particularly well realised and the existing Territory gameplay felt flawed because of poorly designed capzone location and cap order as well as lockdown.

To address the rest of your points, battle chatter was pretty immersive and I feel it could've added a lot if it was done better. As it is in most games, I am strongly against battle chatter as it gives away my position and I can't control it. If I had the option to keep my avatar mute, or to only speak when within x world units of friendlies and no enemies within y distance, I would be much happier. Immersion is nice, but not when it comes at the expense of gameplay. The fact that the default voice acting was done in goofily-accented English made it a lot less appealing, too. English voice acting should have been an option at the very most, and certainly not the default gametype. It takes all of two seconds to read the translation for voice commands in RO1 and after enough time playing, you come to recognise phrases and even specific words so you no longer need to read. Having the voices default to English was a poor move, and having the native language option promised before launch still missing from the actual retail game was an even worse one. It ruins the atmosphere of the game and makes me feel like I'm playing CoD singleplayer or an extra in some C-grade WWII flick.

Speaking of C-grade WWII flicks, having prototype weapons that were seldom seen at the front in the game is one thing, but having anachronistic weapon variants - or ones that did not even exist - is another. I could fill several threads just on my own if I was to point out every historical inaccuracy in the game; incorrect markings, the refurb SVT plum bolt, the way the PU reticle is centred at 100m, the list goes on... but that's just minor stuff that even sperglords like me can ignore. A rare 1941 rifle carrying a 1943 scope on a 1944 mount designed for another rifle entirely and mounted so far forwards it would not work as a scope at all, all in a game set in 8/42-2/43, is another entirely. It smacks of simply inventing weapons for the sake of either having more shiny unlocks or trying to balance weapon-for-weapon (which is shot down by the MG 34's clear supremacy over the DP anyway) rather than overall give-and-take.

I was okay with the prototype weapons at first, but now I find myself strongly against them. I won't argue my points here, but I simply believe as someone very much into the Eastern Front that none of them make sense in the context of Stalingrad or of the game itself, and better choices would've been the MG 42 and infantry-adapted DT-28, for instance.

e/ Welp, post was a lot longer than I intended, but oh well.
 
Upvote 0