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
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