Huh? Since the patch that added pings I have always seen the ping.
Upvote
0
BF3 vs RO2
- Thread starter 7-CLOWN-7
- Start date
Huh? Since the patch that added pings I have always seen the ping.
BF3 does what it aims to do very well. That it does not aim to be a milsim does not necessarily make it any less of a game or any less of a skillful game. By that logic, chess must be an easy, shallow game, as its rendition of a battle is laughable.
What's particularly funny about this thread though is that, coming from UT2K4, the last MP FPS I played extensively, it's pretty clear to me that BF3 and RO2 are slightly different takes on the same game.
If you wanted to argue Modern Warfare 2/3 vs RO2 (or BF3), that's easy, but RO2 is one mod away from being BF3 and vice versa.
What's particularly funny about this thread though is that, coming from UT2K4, the last MP FPS I played extensively, it's pretty clear to me that BF3 and RO2 are slightly different takes on the same game.
If you wanted to argue Modern Warfare 2/3 vs RO2 (or BF3), that's easy, but RO2 is one mod away from being BF3 and vice versa.
Upvote
0
I'm more in line with this way of thinking. I don't think BF3 and RO2 are similar, but I do think that in terms of the "does what it says on the tin" element, BF3 comes out ahead.
And personally, I had the same initial game experience with RO2. Spawn, die, spawn, die, spawn, die. Most of that is usually due to lack of familiarity with maps and going up against more experienced players. When you strip that away or get to about the same level of experience with BF3 as you have with RO2, then you can start to fairly compare them, I think.
From starting as someone with solid familiarity with the previous games' mechanics, but not with the current maps, I've found BF3 to be more approachable and -- more importantly -- far more in line with my expectations for the gameplay experience. RO2, on the other hand, had some very unpleasant surprises and feels different from what I was expecting, due to what I see as a failed attempt to "mainstream" the game while keeping it close to its origins at the same time, and failing to do both.
Upvote
0
Arma 2
Arma 2
Watched the video of BF3 and that is why i do not play that game or CoD. If you want immersion into history and realism, you will never enjoy those types of games. And i do not buy them anymore. It has no relation to real military operations or combat, or history.
i enjoy RO2 and played RO1 and DH for many years. i am waiting for the new content to arrive that always made RO1 fun. This was also promised by the developers. They said they were developing RO2 and keeping the mod community up to date so new Mods and content can arrive quickly. Quickly is running out.
In the mean time i continue to play RO2 and I have explored Arma 2 and the Invasion 44 mod.
Arma 2 is very realistic. You have the ability to create new scenarios with the editor that can allow an endless supply of new missions and situations and you can create mission orders. And you do not have to be a mod expert to do it. I created a small vignette only minutes after i installed the game. This is realistic so you are not developing tactics for playing a particular map, you are developing tactics that will work any where you fight. I also think the command features are more robust than RO2. Everyone in the beginning can see their number and then squad leader on the squad net can tell each person by their number what to do. YOu can command higher units as well. You can give mission orders at the beginning of the game and people know what the tasks are. Rather than as is in RO2, everyone is immediately in combat without any organization and squad leaders and the commander have to try to get them under control. Would be nice to let the CDR give orders while everyone is waiting for the game to begin in RO2.
ARMA 2 also is not all about killing, which is what the run and gun guys want. Last night i played the scenario in Invasion 44 where i have three men and we infiltrate the Normandy beaches by boat to recon. Mission is to recon as much of the beach obstacles at night and not be detected and or killed. Germans were patrolling. Now i enjoyed that mission because it was immersive, and realistic. But a run and gunner would hate it.
The bad side of ARma 2 that i saw is that there was not alot of human against human on the public servers. I guess you have to join a clan for that. So most of the missions are humans cooperating against the bots. Bots can kick butt sometimes like they did with me last night in the scenario we played. But i like playing against a human. The ballistics are modelled the way actual ballistics perfrom. You get in a firefight, there is alot of gunfire and you will not always know if you have killed anyone during the game. Very realistic, but run and gunners would go crazy in such a game.
The first aid system is great. Like last night two of us went to save a guy. i moved to provide fire support while the other guy went to hall him out to safety to be treated. The game lets you do a drag carry or a fireman's carry. He did the latter and as me carried the guy past me he was shot in the back beside me. i stopped firing and tried to help and i then was shot. We had a casualty mess going. When you are wounded there is a time level for you to be treated before you get killed and you are crying out to others for help. Or you can pick to spawn at the base which takes a long time to return or to 2 check points more closer.
And part of the reason we got our *** kicked was because we did not know the enemy had tanks. In RO2 once you play a map, you know what the enemy has and the terrain. It remains the same every time you play that map. in Arma 2 the terrain can always be different and you do not know what the enemy has been set up to have. Yes you are briefed in the mission order, but sometimes the intelligence is wrong. Very realistic.
Bottom line is there are alot of realism in Arma game that i think RO2 could add some of these features. RO2 has some advantages that Arma does not have.
Arma does have some problems. As mentioned before there does not seem to be too many human against human game play unless you are in a password protected clan match. I just do not have the time to be in a clan.
The command systems has all the commands you could ever need, but getting to them is not as convenient as the order wheel in RO2. And, when i play Arma, i start to get a motion sickness. I never have that problem with RO2. Don't know what causes it on ARMA, i do have large screen monitor. It may be because the terrain is a simulation and not a static level design.
Bottom line is that RO2 is still my favorite, but there are some nice features about ARMA 2 i wish RO2 had. I wish they had a mission editor and mission order system to put new and unique missions always at your fingertips, and more commands in the command and control system while keeping the ease of using them with the RO2 command wheel - although the wheel should be smaller. Think all players in RO2 need to know their ID designation i.e. so they can respond to either the command wheel orders or voice. I like the hardware device you can put on your monitor that tracks your head movement and allows you to freely look around with your character while playing - going to buy one for Christmas.
But more than anything, RO2 start getting some new content out there.
Arma 2
Watched the video of BF3 and that is why i do not play that game or CoD. If you want immersion into history and realism, you will never enjoy those types of games. And i do not buy them anymore. It has no relation to real military operations or combat, or history.
i enjoy RO2 and played RO1 and DH for many years. i am waiting for the new content to arrive that always made RO1 fun. This was also promised by the developers. They said they were developing RO2 and keeping the mod community up to date so new Mods and content can arrive quickly. Quickly is running out.
In the mean time i continue to play RO2 and I have explored Arma 2 and the Invasion 44 mod.
Arma 2 is very realistic. You have the ability to create new scenarios with the editor that can allow an endless supply of new missions and situations and you can create mission orders. And you do not have to be a mod expert to do it. I created a small vignette only minutes after i installed the game. This is realistic so you are not developing tactics for playing a particular map, you are developing tactics that will work any where you fight. I also think the command features are more robust than RO2. Everyone in the beginning can see their number and then squad leader on the squad net can tell each person by their number what to do. YOu can command higher units as well. You can give mission orders at the beginning of the game and people know what the tasks are. Rather than as is in RO2, everyone is immediately in combat without any organization and squad leaders and the commander have to try to get them under control. Would be nice to let the CDR give orders while everyone is waiting for the game to begin in RO2.
ARMA 2 also is not all about killing, which is what the run and gun guys want. Last night i played the scenario in Invasion 44 where i have three men and we infiltrate the Normandy beaches by boat to recon. Mission is to recon as much of the beach obstacles at night and not be detected and or killed. Germans were patrolling. Now i enjoyed that mission because it was immersive, and realistic. But a run and gunner would hate it.
The bad side of ARma 2 that i saw is that there was not alot of human against human on the public servers. I guess you have to join a clan for that. So most of the missions are humans cooperating against the bots. Bots can kick butt sometimes like they did with me last night in the scenario we played. But i like playing against a human. The ballistics are modelled the way actual ballistics perfrom. You get in a firefight, there is alot of gunfire and you will not always know if you have killed anyone during the game. Very realistic, but run and gunners would go crazy in such a game.
The first aid system is great. Like last night two of us went to save a guy. i moved to provide fire support while the other guy went to hall him out to safety to be treated. The game lets you do a drag carry or a fireman's carry. He did the latter and as me carried the guy past me he was shot in the back beside me. i stopped firing and tried to help and i then was shot. We had a casualty mess going. When you are wounded there is a time level for you to be treated before you get killed and you are crying out to others for help. Or you can pick to spawn at the base which takes a long time to return or to 2 check points more closer.
And part of the reason we got our *** kicked was because we did not know the enemy had tanks. In RO2 once you play a map, you know what the enemy has and the terrain. It remains the same every time you play that map. in Arma 2 the terrain can always be different and you do not know what the enemy has been set up to have. Yes you are briefed in the mission order, but sometimes the intelligence is wrong. Very realistic.
Bottom line is there are alot of realism in Arma game that i think RO2 could add some of these features. RO2 has some advantages that Arma does not have.
Arma does have some problems. As mentioned before there does not seem to be too many human against human game play unless you are in a password protected clan match. I just do not have the time to be in a clan.
The command systems has all the commands you could ever need, but getting to them is not as convenient as the order wheel in RO2. And, when i play Arma, i start to get a motion sickness. I never have that problem with RO2. Don't know what causes it on ARMA, i do have large screen monitor. It may be because the terrain is a simulation and not a static level design.
Bottom line is that RO2 is still my favorite, but there are some nice features about ARMA 2 i wish RO2 had. I wish they had a mission editor and mission order system to put new and unique missions always at your fingertips, and more commands in the command and control system while keeping the ease of using them with the RO2 command wheel - although the wheel should be smaller. Think all players in RO2 need to know their ID designation i.e. so they can respond to either the command wheel orders or voice. I like the hardware device you can put on your monitor that tracks your head movement and allows you to freely look around with your character while playing - going to buy one for Christmas.
But more than anything, RO2 start getting some new content out there.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I think everyone misses the point that these two games were designed to be different. This is almost like comparing HoN to LoL where the two games are in a similar genre and have some similar core elements but are so drastically different that they almost don't compare.
RO2 is built for realism (debatable, I know) and BF3 was built to appeal to a larger audience with more accessibility through simple game mechanics. Even though many of us have doubts about RO2's actual realism, it was still designed with that in mind and does a heck of a better job at producing something realistic to actual war then BF3 does. However, at this point BF3 has a smaller learning curve, more options for players and, on some levels, a better team experience.
Don't get me wrong here, playing with a well coordinated team in RO2 can be very rewarding. The problem is in BF3 it's easier to do and can be more satisfying. Rewarding and satisfying are two different things, though. RO2 is rewarding because of its slower pace; players spend more time preparing for the next objective in the game and they spend more time thinking things through before acting. BF3 is only satisfying because it gives players a quick rush where they can run around and get into the fight immediately without having to think things through. For me, satisfying is usually not as long term fun as rewarding.
Bottom line is: if I want an immersed realism experience, I'll play RO2. If I want a simple game that is still fun to play but not nearly as realistic, I'll play BF3.
RO2 is built for realism (debatable, I know) and BF3 was built to appeal to a larger audience with more accessibility through simple game mechanics. Even though many of us have doubts about RO2's actual realism, it was still designed with that in mind and does a heck of a better job at producing something realistic to actual war then BF3 does. However, at this point BF3 has a smaller learning curve, more options for players and, on some levels, a better team experience.
Don't get me wrong here, playing with a well coordinated team in RO2 can be very rewarding. The problem is in BF3 it's easier to do and can be more satisfying. Rewarding and satisfying are two different things, though. RO2 is rewarding because of its slower pace; players spend more time preparing for the next objective in the game and they spend more time thinking things through before acting. BF3 is only satisfying because it gives players a quick rush where they can run around and get into the fight immediately without having to think things through. For me, satisfying is usually not as long term fun as rewarding.
Bottom line is: if I want an immersed realism experience, I'll play RO2. If I want a simple game that is still fun to play but not nearly as realistic, I'll play BF3.
Upvote
0
BF3 is a s***load of fun. Oddly enough for an arcade game, BF3 makes it feel more like im in the middle of a war than RO2. in BF3 i can actually feel my heart rate increasing...feels good man
I must say i was pleasantly surprised as i was expecting to be disappointed. Ran very well for me too, no issues what so ever.
One of the smoothest releases in terms of performance in my opinion.
I already have 15 hours in BF3 and i got friday. I have 11 hours in RO2 and i've had it since release.
RO2 in its current form, is just not fun, its frustrating. When i try to take it slow and play tactical, i get some 12 year old bum rush me with an smg. I run around and try to play "cod", i get sniped in a second. Ro2 is this awkward hybrid game, where i have to play in this semi-tactical form.
dunno it's weird.
w2b mods...
I must say i was pleasantly surprised as i was expecting to be disappointed. Ran very well for me too, no issues what so ever.
One of the smoothest releases in terms of performance in my opinion.
I already have 15 hours in BF3 and i got friday. I have 11 hours in RO2 and i've had it since release.
RO2 in its current form, is just not fun, its frustrating. When i try to take it slow and play tactical, i get some 12 year old bum rush me with an smg. I run around and try to play "cod", i get sniped in a second. Ro2 is this awkward hybrid game, where i have to play in this semi-tactical form.
dunno it's weird.
w2b mods...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
If everything wasn't so dumbed down and simple (i.e mortars, tanks, helis, jets)
I'd buy BF3 in a second. As much as RO2 is a more simplified version of RO:O, the core elements of what made RO1 great are still there.
I'd buy BF3 in a second. As much as RO2 is a more simplified version of RO:O, the core elements of what made RO1 great are still there.
Upvote
0
Exactly. It's a game for people with less intelligence and a shorter attention span. Dontchya know things for dumb people have to be dumb? BF3 is a game about action movies, not war. If it actually made some sense I would get it. The guy that sits behind me in my English class told me he likes BF3 because it's realistic. Yes, facepalming occurred.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yeah I have been told it is realistic too.... I tried to explain Red Orchestra but they dont understand its not on a console or something.
Upvote
0
It's not realistic by the standards set by RO:Ost, that's for sure. But I can see where someone who hadn't played those games would claim it's "realistic" in that it has the feel of "putting you there." Where "there" is, however, is more likely a kickass action movie. Hence all the lens flares and such.
Which, by the way, aren't realistic in the slightest because the human eye doesn't actually see lens flare. But that's as may be.
It's really a question of what you're interested in. BF3 is a fun game for picking up and just getting into some action. It has objective-based gameplay rather than just team deathmatch (although it has that too), and to me, that's fun. If I just want a casual, arcadey shoot 'em up, BF3's a great choice.
If I want a more realistic, tactical FPS (not a milsim, just a tactical FPS), actually I'd look more to RO:Ost than I would to RO:HOS.
For the record, though, it's not actually an either/or choice. You can actually enjoy both genres of games at the same time. I know! Wild, right?
Which, by the way, aren't realistic in the slightest because the human eye doesn't actually see lens flare. But that's as may be.
It's really a question of what you're interested in. BF3 is a fun game for picking up and just getting into some action. It has objective-based gameplay rather than just team deathmatch (although it has that too), and to me, that's fun. If I just want a casual, arcadey shoot 'em up, BF3's a great choice.
If I want a more realistic, tactical FPS (not a milsim, just a tactical FPS), actually I'd look more to RO:Ost than I would to RO:HOS.
For the record, though, it's not actually an either/or choice. You can actually enjoy both genres of games at the same time. I know! Wild, right?
Upvote
0
Whenever topics such as this get started in forums I frequent I find several things always seem to get ignored.
Games of today are being compared to games from years ago in terms of realism. That simply cannot work since in many cases what we might deem "realism" in older games was just a limitation in the old game engines. For instance the original Rainbow Six and Rogue Spear etc. Much of what one could label "realism" really was just game-engine limitation. You sprinted? Your crosshairs bloomed to fill 2/3 of the screen. Was that really realistic or just a mechanic used to force slower gameplay? Newer game engines introduced on-screen weapons with visible sway and "breathing" mechanics.
Ballistics, round lethality, penetration, environmental effects, positional sound-mapping have all been added to games lately and yet we argue new games aren't as realistic? Is that because we feel the artificial punishment imposed upon us by the older game's limited mechanics really was more realistic or just because the artificial punishment was more likely to force players to play each game a certain way?
In my opinion games just keep getting "better". That doesn't necessarily coincide with "realism" but it also doesn't mean the opposite. After everything is said and done however, they are all still games, even the new ones. Realism (the idea thereof) therefore must always be kept in perspective and fun factor (the reason so many of us actually play games) not ignored as a factor in new game design.
EDIT: <copied from my longer post on PAGE 1 of this thread>
Both RO2 and BF3 use different game mechanics to create intensity, showcase combat lethality and provide options for teamwork. BF3 uses post-processing and sensory overload as well as cazy firefights to create intesity. In RO2 tension is built through sneaking around, knowing weapon balance is asymmetrical and therefore there may be map areas that cater to enemy weapons and put you at a clear disadvantage; as well the map verticality in RO2 goes a long way in creating intensity while not creating a "meat grinder" effect. Teamplay in BF3 is promoted through great squad server joing capabilites as well a squad visibility and spawning mechanics. In RO2 teamplay is promoted through the use of commanders and a solid command system. Both games suffer in the teamplay department due to the attitude of team-stacking clannies or ignorant pub players, but this isn't something unique to either FPS.
At the end of the day we're talking about two sometimes similar but also very different FPS's here. In my opinion both of them made concessions with regard to arcade/realism and both chose certain gameplay mechanics to focus on in order to make their game "fun". I enjoy playing both. I have also been around RO since before RO1 was even RO1 and I have to say RO2 is the natural progression. It may not be for everyone, but then if you just wanted RO1 with better graphics sorry that doesn't really make good business sense. The same goes for those who felt BF3 should just be BF2 with better graphics. Both FPS's innovate in their own way. I enjoy both and look forward to any/all post-sale support from either of the DEVS (since both games do need it).
Games of today are being compared to games from years ago in terms of realism. That simply cannot work since in many cases what we might deem "realism" in older games was just a limitation in the old game engines. For instance the original Rainbow Six and Rogue Spear etc. Much of what one could label "realism" really was just game-engine limitation. You sprinted? Your crosshairs bloomed to fill 2/3 of the screen. Was that really realistic or just a mechanic used to force slower gameplay? Newer game engines introduced on-screen weapons with visible sway and "breathing" mechanics.
Ballistics, round lethality, penetration, environmental effects, positional sound-mapping have all been added to games lately and yet we argue new games aren't as realistic? Is that because we feel the artificial punishment imposed upon us by the older game's limited mechanics really was more realistic or just because the artificial punishment was more likely to force players to play each game a certain way?
In my opinion games just keep getting "better". That doesn't necessarily coincide with "realism" but it also doesn't mean the opposite. After everything is said and done however, they are all still games, even the new ones. Realism (the idea thereof) therefore must always be kept in perspective and fun factor (the reason so many of us actually play games) not ignored as a factor in new game design.
EDIT: <copied from my longer post on PAGE 1 of this thread>
Both RO2 and BF3 use different game mechanics to create intensity, showcase combat lethality and provide options for teamwork. BF3 uses post-processing and sensory overload as well as cazy firefights to create intesity. In RO2 tension is built through sneaking around, knowing weapon balance is asymmetrical and therefore there may be map areas that cater to enemy weapons and put you at a clear disadvantage; as well the map verticality in RO2 goes a long way in creating intensity while not creating a "meat grinder" effect. Teamplay in BF3 is promoted through great squad server joing capabilites as well a squad visibility and spawning mechanics. In RO2 teamplay is promoted through the use of commanders and a solid command system. Both games suffer in the teamplay department due to the attitude of team-stacking clannies or ignorant pub players, but this isn't something unique to either FPS.
At the end of the day we're talking about two sometimes similar but also very different FPS's here. In my opinion both of them made concessions with regard to arcade/realism and both chose certain gameplay mechanics to focus on in order to make their game "fun". I enjoy playing both. I have also been around RO since before RO1 was even RO1 and I have to say RO2 is the natural progression. It may not be for everyone, but then if you just wanted RO1 with better graphics sorry that doesn't really make good business sense. The same goes for those who felt BF3 should just be BF2 with better graphics. Both FPS's innovate in their own way. I enjoy both and look forward to any/all post-sale support from either of the DEVS (since both games do need it).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I don't think its just old game engine limitation.
Human movement in real life are usually much harder and clunckier than ro2 makes them out to be.
What about ARMA2?
It's simple if you actually trying to simulate things done in ro2 in real life.
Grab a rifle as heavy and long as WW2 old rifles.
Equip yourself with army issue basic equipment with some kilos.
Wear army boots not as comfy as your commercial running shoes.
Try to eat poor as xxxx army meals of WW2 times ( field meal in ww2 times are a lot shxxttier than field meals provided to modern soldiers.)
poor rest due to constant battle and stress in stalingrad.
Now carry all those some kilos of stuffs and fatigue, malnourishment, poor rested body condition, run 20m several times and try to ads in 1 second (there was no reflex sight or ACOG in ww2) and hit 68m away target bullseye with 2 second aiming with 1st bullet you fired.
You'll find that it's not as easy as ro2 describes it to be.
That's why most realistic games have clunky movement/ aiming dynamics.
Just try it yourself and you'll know instantly.
and wasn't ro series basically niche game with graw 2 pc , arma 2 pr style realistic movement?
Casual gamers will not like it as it's not polished nor shiny, good performing as bf or cod.
Serious crowds will hate it for being cheap arcady shxx.
That's why ro2 is being bashed countless times even by niche crowds.
It doesn't do anything right, it didn't become a fabulous arcade shooter nor serious tactical shooter.
Also there are some critical technical "BASIC" flaws with ro2 such as no 3d sound.
Tactical shooter without 3d sound is kind of a joke really.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Catfish........I think you missed the part of my post where I say "FUN FACTOR" must not be forgotten about by the devs or the players.
What you've just described sounds like fun if I was into torturing myself. My life is stressful enough every day without making the games I play into SIMULATIONS!
EDIT:
I have some forest right outside of my home, I have access to rifles (heavy ones), I have access to ammo, I have combat fatigues and boots along with some regular "gear" a soldier might carry. Do I feel like putting it all on, going outside.....crawling around on my stomach hurting my knees and elbows? Nope.......not ever. NOT FUN MAN! I like to sit inside my comfy house, in my comfy computer chair, and play comfy (FUN) games. That is FUN for me. If I ever feel like torturing myself for some crazy reason.......well then I guess I could try some of the **** you talked about! hehe
What you've just described sounds like fun if I was into torturing myself. My life is stressful enough every day without making the games I play into SIMULATIONS!
EDIT:
I have some forest right outside of my home, I have access to rifles (heavy ones), I have access to ammo, I have combat fatigues and boots along with some regular "gear" a soldier might carry. Do I feel like putting it all on, going outside.....crawling around on my stomach hurting my knees and elbows? Nope.......not ever. NOT FUN MAN! I like to sit inside my comfy house, in my comfy computer chair, and play comfy (FUN) games.
That is FUN for me. If I ever feel like torturing myself for some crazy reason.......well then I guess I could try some of the **** you talked about! hehe
Last edited:
Upvote
0
RO1 was basically torturing near combat simulation??.... game that eliminate arma2's boring pre combat stuffs.
That's why it originally got praised for and that's one of the reason TWI can be started as a company.
Basically ro vets are ppl who like these kind of stuffs and when ro2 became same ol' arcady sxxx most of them just left as many new casual gamers do.
Some ppl find fun in hardcore games as ARMA2, falcon 4.0, A10c warthog, GRAW2 pc mp as they are torturing but also give the thrill like no other.
It's tough and stressful than run of the mill shooters but there's tense thrill that no other casual shooters even dare....to mimic.
And that's why vanilla ro2 is kind of a failed product.
Also suggest you to not only crawl but run 20 meters several times strongly.
Soldiers don't only crawl, they run, a lot.
That's why it originally got praised for and that's one of the reason TWI can be started as a company.
Basically ro vets are ppl who like these kind of stuffs and when ro2 became same ol' arcady sxxx most of them just left as many new casual gamers do.
Some ppl find fun in hardcore games as ARMA2, falcon 4.0, A10c warthog, GRAW2 pc mp as they are torturing but also give the thrill like no other.
It's tough and stressful than run of the mill shooters but there's tense thrill that no other casual shooters even dare....to mimic.
And that's why vanilla ro2 is kind of a failed product.
Also suggest you to not only crawl but run 20 meters several times strongly.
Soldiers don't only crawl, they run, a lot.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No.....games have "clunky" movement because of crappy game engines.
No. Gamers dislike RO2 because it is buggy (ie. can't prone at the worst of times), hit-detection is abysmal, and performance is poorly optimised.
Again No. The "niche" crowd as you put it (elitist-I-automatically-oppose-evolution-crowd in my opinion) is bashing RO2 because it no longer uses ARTIFICIAL DIFFICULTY applied to different game mechanics in order to PUNISH those choosing not to play the game the way the "niche crowd" thinks such a game should be played.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You must not have experience with GRAW 2 pc nor ARMA 2 pr.
ARMA 2 tries its hardest to accurately simulate soldiers' behavior and they are slow and clunky.
Buggy game pissed off niche, casual gamers alike.
It's a matter of preference but I don't like arcady design more.
Again, kid, you're wrong about this one.
You keep saying it's artificial but you don't know what real thing is like.
I suppose you've never been served in the army.
As I mentioned above try somethings in ro2 in real life.
Then you'll know what it's really like to do all these things in real life.
It's maybe just personal preference but niche ppl tend to like more sophisticated or superior stuffs whether it's about visual or game design or sound integrity.
Just like most casual gamers who enjoy bf3 or crysis 2's visual can't just be satisfied with old duke nukem 3d graphic.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You're talking to an RO1 vet here. I have hundreds of hours in RO and it's mods. I'm one of the "evolution-friendly" RO1 vets. I for one am happy as hell that RO2 decided to ditch the bull**** artificial punishing mechanics of RO1. Very happy indeed!
Again. We've been over this. I've played (extensively....hell even modded for some of those games... ie. Flashpoint and GRAW2) all of those kinds of games too. Rainbow Six original and Rogue Spear being personal favourites of mine. I did however grow up. I'm not a kid anymore. My oldest children are now adults themselves. I no longer choose to fill my video-gaming time with "games" that PUNISH me. Especially games that punish me unecessarily (like RO1).
I'll tell you another thing. The sheer INTENSITY/STRESS produced by the 3D sound-scape, incredibly post-processing graphically and the thunderous firefights in BF3 will never EVER be reproduced in games like RO2. The game engine and design decisions just don't allow for that. I have both games remember......and I have clocked quite a few hours in both and I'm telling you while RO2 can be intense at times thanks the asymmetrical weapon balance etc........BF3 blows RO2 out of the water in that department.
Upvote
0
....and this is where I leave this "discussion" with you. I have several children of my own, two of which are already adults themselves.
It would be advisable in the future catfish that if you would like to discuss things with people you demonstrate some modicum of basic respect. I will no longer be participating in any "discussion" with you so don't bother replying.
Upvote
0