Game 2 is gonna have to be one hell of a game
- Thread starter [CoFR]BeerHunter
- Start date
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
They need to give us something, I am losing interest rapidly.
By the time it is released it UT3 will be as dated as UT2004.
Upvote
0
+1
hasn't everyone played enough modern warfare in Ghost Recon? (and countless other games going modern warfare just for the teeny boppers)
Upvote
0
LOL so do you want to tell me modern warfare = game dumbed down and aimed for 1o year olds? I guess ArmA is the perfect example here isnt it?
Upvote
0
+2
Not mentioning the quantity of modern combat shooters around, or the fact that ArmA2 and OpFlash2 are both modern, modern combat is boring. And always has modern politics behind it. I don't want to be reminded about them, nor do I want to get the impression that I'm being coerced into thinking x = bad.
There's nothing interesting about it, it always involves Americans and the evil "enemy-X" (insert your own "evil" government/terrorist organisation in there). And you'll get to see the same old boring hardware, which let's face it, is essentially M16/M4 vs AK47/74.
Red Orchestra had a great deal of appeal from its setting and it's environment. I hope that game2 cane be equally as interesting.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Erm, exactly the same does your average WW2 game? Modern combat games if you believe it or not are simply able to offer much more variation because you're not bound to something like you are in WW2.
Upvote
0
One thing which I always liked about WWII games is, that the weapons differ so much in terms of usability. Its a hell of a difference if you got a bolt-rifle, a smg or a semi-auto one.
In modern warfare, most weapons are somewhat similar - and their disadvantages are weaker. Thats why I dont really like modern warfare, but whatever tripwire does it will surely be interesting.
In modern warfare, most weapons are somewhat similar - and their disadvantages are weaker. Thats why I dont really like modern warfare, but whatever tripwire does it will surely be interesting.
Upvote
0
Very very good point about the weapons, one of my main reasons I don't much care for the modern warfare type games... just about everyone is running around with full auto on.
Upvote
0
Your average WW2 game doesn't differ from your average modern shooter, they used to be/mostly are based on the western front, around the time of operation Overlord. Which is equally as un-interesting.
RO however, wasn't an average WW2 game. The eastern front setting was completely refreshing when ROmod first came out.
Modern combat is far less dynamic because it comes down purely to who has the greater numbers, or who has the element of surprise.
Surely, advances in technology have led most major powers to have near equal quality of arms?
Think of an army US/China/Russia/Germany/UK etc, now think of it's main assault rifle, it's armour, or its combat strategy.
Simply put, there was a far greater variation of small arms, support weaponry, armoured vehicles, and combat strategies during WW2. Just because late 43-1945 has been portrayed to death doesn't mean that there is nothing left to do.
I'm not saying that game2 needs to be a WW2 game, it could be sci-fi for all I care. If you made a WW2 game, yeah, you are bound to the strategies and equipment of the time, but a modern combat game is less varied due to the perfection of strategies to minimise cost of life and maximise effectiveness during previous conflicts.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Modern warfare certainly has its limits when it comes to games, the guns are just very easy to use, thats the whole point of the modern assault rifle afterall, to give the average soldier a whole bunch of fire power at his disposal that he can easilly use.. thats a good thing if you are fighting a war, but perhabs not the most interesting thing in a video game, as it incourages tactics that are fairly bland and spammy.
One thing that has attracted me to RO (apart from the setting) is the big role bolt-action rifles play in the game, playing with a Mosin or Kar is a rather different kind of experiance than playing with an M4A1 with all the trims and toppings, you feel more vulnerable, you have to try and plan ahead as much as possible, and you need to make your shots count, it also incourages teamwork in a big way, there's no way you are going to Rambo a whole bunch of enemies on your own with a bolty.
One thing that has attracted me to RO (apart from the setting) is the big role bolt-action rifles play in the game, playing with a Mosin or Kar is a rather different kind of experiance than playing with an M4A1 with all the trims and toppings, you feel more vulnerable, you have to try and plan ahead as much as possible, and you need to make your shots count, it also incourages teamwork in a big way, there's no way you are going to Rambo a whole bunch of enemies on your own with a bolty.
Upvote
0
The advantage of modern combat is that it has more room for small-unit tactics (Raven Shield for example, or original Ghost Recon). WWII on the other hand, is all about huge battles and mass infantry charges. Both can be good.
Whatever Game 2 will be, I hope it will be more tactical with nadespam completely gone. I hope it will focus more on things like squad movement and stuff like that.
A tactical shooter with various WWII special forces units from around the world would be really cool imo. Like Raven Shield in WWII. SAS missions for example. Or imagine how cool a Heroes of Telemark mission would be: parachuting into the Norse mountain plains and then assaulting a German heavy water plant. Would be really good in co-op. It would combine the tactics of modern warfare with the weapons and atmosphere of WWII.
Whatever Game 2 will be, I hope it will be more tactical with nadespam completely gone. I hope it will focus more on things like squad movement and stuff like that.
A tactical shooter with various WWII special forces units from around the world would be really cool imo. Like Raven Shield in WWII. SAS missions for example. Or imagine how cool a Heroes of Telemark mission would be: parachuting into the Norse mountain plains and then assaulting a German heavy water plant.
Would be really good in co-op. It would combine the tactics of modern warfare with the weapons and atmosphere of WWII.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I personally hate modern combat for the same reasons other stated above, but here is another reason for Game 2 to not be modern combat...
the fact that Operation flashpoint 2 and ArmA 2 are both modern combat itself is a reason in its own, that makes a lot of competence, both are supposed to be realistic games, why do you want another one?, who covers WW2 realism in the new generation then? this is TWI's task now.
the fact that Operation flashpoint 2 and ArmA 2 are both modern combat itself is a reason in its own, that makes a lot of competence, both are supposed to be realistic games, why do you want another one?, who covers WW2 realism in the new generation then? this is TWI's task now.
Upvote
0
It's funny: Any other series going back to WW2 or historical setting is BAD, but you want RO to do just that?
... Yikes.
... Yikes.
Upvote
0
There's nothing wrong with WW2, its doing WW2 badly that turns alot of people here off.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
