I disagree. I've played RO2 myself. It plays nothing like FPS out there.
Upvote
0
Are you releasing before BF3 hits the shelves?.
- Thread starter Trikipum
- Start date
It doesn't matter how different it actually is, people wont see it as different. They will see 2 games that are pc fps 64 player multiplayer. The only difference that they will see is ww2 vs modern. We know how special this game will be, and what a change it will be from the run of the mill shooter, but many wont see this.
Regardless of how you feel, BF3 will create a big shockwave, and it would be best to avoid it, lest RO2 be muffled. The fact of the matter is that Battlefield is a well known entity with a large following, and with the attention that BF3 appears to be giving to PC and reviving some of the lost features, whether or not it makes a difference, they will get a lot of support.
People in general dislike the unknown or are at the very least hesitant about change. Add in the fact that RO is ww2, which many for some reason think is overdone (sheep all of them, or maybe its just that the memorable games, ie the good ones, have been ww2), it is at a disadvantage to the better known ip. Any release near BF3 is in danger of being forgotten due to the hurricane that will be BF3. Even for me, who had rock bottom expectations, BF3 is looking like it might turn out alright.
Should RO2 be released near BF3, the only way I see it making the splash that it deserves is to get an article like the RO2 vs BLOPS that was in PC Gamer, except with BF3. This way, everyone searching for that last scrap of information on BF3 will be exposed to HoS. Something like "Will Red Orchestra stand up BF3?" to raise exposure for the game. Might be a good idea to do anyway.
Regardless of how you feel, BF3 will create a big shockwave, and it would be best to avoid it, lest RO2 be muffled. The fact of the matter is that Battlefield is a well known entity with a large following, and with the attention that BF3 appears to be giving to PC and reviving some of the lost features, whether or not it makes a difference, they will get a lot of support.
People in general dislike the unknown or are at the very least hesitant about change. Add in the fact that RO is ww2, which many for some reason think is overdone (sheep all of them, or maybe its just that the memorable games, ie the good ones, have been ww2), it is at a disadvantage to the better known ip. Any release near BF3 is in danger of being forgotten due to the hurricane that will be BF3. Even for me, who had rock bottom expectations, BF3 is looking like it might turn out alright.
Should RO2 be released near BF3, the only way I see it making the splash that it deserves is to get an article like the RO2 vs BLOPS that was in PC Gamer, except with BF3. This way, everyone searching for that last scrap of information on BF3 will be exposed to HoS. Something like "Will Red Orchestra stand up BF3?" to raise exposure for the game. Might be a good idea to do anyway.
Upvote
0
jup all ro fans will buy ro anyway. But i think the BF3 fanbase is a big potential market for ROHOS. If RO releases too close to BF3 all those players might not consider getting RO in the first place, even though they might love it.
And especially in competitive play if RO releases too close to BF3 then the BF clans won't try out RO competitively. Clans are in for a game for a long term commitment, so they can be weary adopting a new game when the sequel to their previous fav game is just around the corner.
And especially in competitive play if RO releases too close to BF3 then the BF clans won't try out RO competitively. Clans are in for a game for a long term commitment, so they can be weary adopting a new game when the sequel to their previous fav game is just around the corner.
Upvote
0
I wasn't talking about jet games, but jets being a feature of BF3 which is probably a plus in the eyes of the average gamer(and well, it should be a plus in pretty much everyones' eyes).Which is why there are so many arcadey jet games, right? Since 2006, we've had Over G Fighters, Ace Combat 6, HAWX 1 and 2. Four games is really a lot!
The people who play RO are very often not interested in BF3/CoD. BF3 is less irrelevant than you think. People are willing to buy games that are near exact clones of each other at $60 every year. If RO2 appeals enough to the mainstream, BF3 won't matter much.
Upvote
0
If i get BF3 im afiard i wont take much notice of RO2 untill i get bored of BF3 which is very hard for me because i love that games series.
That's what i am saying they need to do a good release date !.
Or just release it next year.
That's what i am saying they need to do a good release date !.
Or just release it next year.
Upvote
0
Or just forget your impatient whining about release dates and BF3, and write off one sale for the sake of everyone else's sanity?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Some people can really only play one FPS at a time? I mean, I understand competitively but c'mon!
I play several at a time.
I'll be picking up BF3, HoS, and hopefully.. Planetside "Next".
I play several at a time.
I'll be picking up BF3, HoS, and hopefully.. Planetside "Next".
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Releasing so closely to a juggernaut is not a wise decision. Especially when that juggernaut also uses large enviroment battlefields and large team battles much like Heroes of Stalingrad. So, if for instance that ROHOS is not going to release in Fall/Winter 2011, there would be more potential buyers. Some people just don't have the money to buy two or more games so closely together and by the time they want to buy something else, the title would've fallen out of mind or interest.
Upvote
0
Had to plough (grammar?) through two pages and all I see is ' nobody will buy RO2 once they get BF3'.
I think a lot of people are able to play two games a year or more.
After big release dates it is very normal to play 3-5 games at the same time (I will not stop playing RO1 just because I can play BF3).
I will buy BF3 when RO2 isn't out yet, so I have something else to play next to the old RO1 (BC2 now but that is becoming very boring). When I get BF3 I will not be glued to the game so I forget about the world for a year.
And what about releasing later????? That's just stupid.
Just release and save the promotional campaign for after BF3.
Would be exactly the same as releasing late except for us playing a little bit earlier.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
For me im not going to get BF3, the storyline seems very boring just fighting insurgents and your always stuck being the U.S in modern warfare games.
Upvote
0
Ummm, people with full time jobs and families might very well only have time for one video game, if that.
Upvote
0
Though I'm planning to steer clear of BF3, underestimating it's effect would be a bad move. But I also think some here are overestimating the average BF players interest in RO. I guess some would like RO, but I don't see any reason they need to compete with eachother. With the rather substantial differences between RO and BF, I think both games have thier own followings. I know a few people from my clan plan on getting HoS, but just as many (probably more) are getting BF3. I don't think RO2's only measure of success is whether it can convert players from other games.
Upvote
0
If Planetside Next comes out soon enough BF3 and HoS might get left by the wayside for me...
BF3 is looking like an avoid to me so far, all they've done is confirmed a few of the most obvious BF2 features and have since said most other things from BF2 aren't "BF3", even commander...
Upvote
0