Dear Tripwire Team. Realism/Sellout?

[[5.SS] Herr Hut]

This is the exact same conversation that was happening between the mod leading up to the retail game. There's no reason not to believe that Tripwire will stay faithful to what they have always been about up to now.

 

[Nicholas]

I disagree. ARMA is so unaccessible and stiff that it stops being realistic. And by calling that game realistic it makes people associate BS with realism. The idea set by Flashpoint/ArmA or simulators that realism shouldn't feel natural, is actually one of the main enemies of RO, and why people don't even bother to look into it as soon as they hear it is a "realistic" shooter

Some people think this game is gonna be less realistic than RO1, just because is gonna be easier to play.

But being hard, and realistic, are different things. Actually, there is a lot of stuff that for engine limitations, makes RO1 hard and unrealistic, that will make RO2 easy and realistic.



The difference between relaxed realism and realism, will be purely cosmetic, the mechanics are gonna be all there... this game is designed basing everything on how real life works and feels... if something doesn't feel natural, it just wont be there. The info is all there, you can read the features of this game, and you can tell that there is no crazy BS.



More action?, sure, but all makes sense within realism... and this is an action game, after all. Blind fire behind a cover is a realistic action element that wasn't in RO1 after all.

Actually, you NAILED it!

People look down on realistic shooters because they associate it with hard controls and no action.

I was actually trying to explain to someone before that RO is not less realistic than ARMA just because it has more action, in real life their WAS a lot of action!!!!!

 

[LemoN]

Actually, you NAILED it!

People look down on realistic shooters because they associate it with hard controls and no action.

I was actually trying to explain to someone before that RO is not less realistic than ARMA just because it has more action, in real life their WAS a lot of action!!!!!

Thing is, ArmA makes the use of actual military tactics feasible.
Until RO manages that, it's less realistic.

 

[Reise]

Actual military tactics like flying a helicopter into the woods and clearing an entire city full of people in 1 day.

Or doing James Bond style stuff like stealing enemy vehicles for a mission.

 

[LemoN]

Actual military tactics like flying a helicopter into the woods and clearing an entire city full of people in 1 day.

Or doing James Bond style stuff like stealing enemy vehicles for a mission.

Fail.

I didn't say you have to use them or that you only can use them, I said that ArmA2 makes the use of them feasible.

 

[Amerikaner]

Actual military tactics like flying a helicopter into the woods and clearing an entire city full of people in 1 day.

Or doing James Bond style stuff like stealing enemy vehicles for a mission.

If you don't really know what you're doing and you pick a random mission this is likely to happen and you're completely right Reise.

HOWEVER, having been on both sides of the ARMA debate at one time or another, I can say that if you play ARMA right it most definitely can be the most realistic combat experience you can get in a game. Most of the Arma2 criticism seems to come from people who didn't really spend enough time with it to realize the possibilities. I didn't at first either and I can't blame anybody for that since it truly is a ***** to get going but it's not really fair to write it off without getting that far. Blame it for being inaccessible and hard to configure (both in controls and performance) though and I'm 100% with you on that.

 

[Reise]

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that in terms of actually playing realistically, either game has potential to be a very authentic feeling experience.

But both can also be played without regard for any of that, making each game look completely silly.

I've taken the time to play ARMA "right" like the sim that it is, and I've also rode a mountain bike into enemy territory and blown up cities with backpacks full of satchel charges.

 

[locogringojc]

I'm not even going to waste my time with this one. You at this moment in time have only 1 post. You just joined to post a stupid Question that if you've watched any videos, read the forums or even picked up the latest copy of PCGamer like us Dedicated HOS souls have you'd know the answer...seriously.....*Fingers Crossed* "Of Course John Gibson is selling out his award winning Game Title known for its extreme levels of realism and accuracy of real WW2 material. TWI has actually been secretly making the next Call of Duty Modern Warfare...but shhh...no one is supposed to know!!!"

 

[Amerikaner]

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that in terms of actually playing realistically, either game has potential to be a very authentic feeling experience.

But both can also be played without regard for any of that, making each game look completely silly.

I've taken the time to play ARMA "right" like the sim that it is, and I've also rode a mountain bike into enemy territory and blown up cities with backpacks full of satchel charges.

Well yeah but that's what comes with the price of gameplay freedom. RO is tighter and you pretty much know each game session is going to be at least a certain amount of enjoyment. Arma on the other hand has a much grander scope which can culminate in something incredibly unique or it can be laughably stupid. There's a place for both and it's best for each game to learn from each other.

 

[Fedorov]

Thing is, ArmA makes the use of actual military tactics feasible.
Until RO manages that, it's less realistic.

Sorry, but a game that doesn't feel natural, can't be realistic. Simple as that.

Edit: I'd like to be fair with ArmA. Because the concept of the game, is good, is just the execution that is flawed. To have the scale of that game, huge map and freedom of operation, are two great things about ArmA... But does it need to screw up the natural feel of the player? Does it need to have the same prohibitive graphics engine? NO

Hint to TWI for RO3 (When you'll hopefully be swimming in a pool of dosh): You should be able to make a "good" ArmA, that feels like RO. Keeping of course the old small multiplayer map style, as a separate multiplayer mode. We'd have the best of both worlds.

Edit 2: What I'd like to say with this, is that I wouldn't mind seeing the good things about ArmA, ported to a TWI game... and that what I really don't understand, is that people are asking for the bad ones, the unrealistically difficult stuff, like the robotic movement. No matter how you look at it, those are NOT virtues.

 

[WiFiDi]

Hello all,

I and a couple of buddies of mine is askin about the realism level of this upcomming title, Rumors has it sayin its just one of those action sellouts.

So we as proud owners of the earlier game sens 06 is wondering about the real life experience in the game? As we have noticed so far there is a minimap in the corner to start with? Well lets put it down like this.. Were very worried!

Please respond TW so this bad feeling hopefully can end.

// Realistic-gamers, 3.SA clan.

uh first off how long have you been tracking this game secondly what rumors. were these so called rumors possibly started by infinity ward. i mean did you hear about them while playing call of duty. also before you make another comment read the facts threads watch all the videos then think about a what you want to say. i have a feeling it will all be answered for you when you read the facts thread.

in short, watch all released videos and read facts thread. if your still worried come back with a bunch of valid questions, and or good suggestions. maybe then TWI will actually respond, until then ta-ta for now.

 

[Amerikaner]

Sorry, but a game that doesn't feel natural, can't be realistic. Simple as that.

Edit: I'd like to be fair with ArmA. Because the concept of the game, is good, is just the execution that is flawed. To have the scope of that game, huge map and freedom of operation, are two great things about ArmA... But does it need to screw up the natural feel of the player? Does it need to have the same prohibitive graphics engine? NO

Hint to TWI for RO3 (When you'll hopefully be swimming in a pool of dosh): You should be able to make a "good" ArmA, that feels like RO. Keeping of course the old small multiplayer map style, as a separate multiplayer mode. We'd have the good of both worlds.

Fed you're repeating yourself. It takes a couple of tweaks and the movement isn't all that different from anything else. Graphics as well can be tweaked to decent performance on most mid to high end systems. Yes it can be a pain, and if you don't wanna be forced to bother with that stuff and think it should have been better setup I would have to agree with you but the fact still remains that it is possible to address these concerns.

Also, your statement that a "game that doesn't feel natural, can't be realistic." just isn't universally true. Movement isn't the only factor in games considered to be realistic. Arma does an amazing job of placing you in a scenario and giving you the freedom to accomplish your goal with lots of options on an unmatched scale. You become immersed in the tactics, your approach to the objective, unforeseen obstacles such as random enemy patrols, dragging wounded men out of the engagement, regrouping and forming an entirely new plan that could involve the traversal of kilometers of land, etc. This broader gameplay means things like movement aren't as important as they would be in a game like RO that deals strictly with combat engagements. They are different games and it is not fair to take something core to the gameplay of one and apply it to the other with the same level of importance.

 

[Fedorov]

Fed you're repeating yourself. It takes a couple of tweaks and the movement isn't all that different from anything else. Graphics as well can be tweaked to decent performance on most mid to high end systems. Yes it can be a pain, and if you don't wanna be forced to bother with that stuff and think it should have been better setup I would have to agree with you but the fact still remains that it is possible to address these concerns.

Also, your statement that a "game that doesn't feel natural, can't be realistic." just isn't universally true. Movement isn't the only factor in games considered to be realistic. Arma does an amazing job of placing you in a scenario and giving you the freedom to accomplish your goal with lots of options on an unmatched scale. You become immersed in the tactics, your approach to the objective, unforeseen obstacles such as random enemy patrols, dragging wounded men out of the engagement, regrouping and forming an entirely new plan that could involve the traversal of kilometers of land, etc. This broader gameplay means things like movement aren't as important as they would be in a game like RO that deals strictly with combat engagements. They are different games and it is not fair to take something core to the gameplay of one and apply it to the other with the same level of importance.

Sorry man, but the mouse lag can't be fixed no matter how much I lower the graphics. It never stopped feeling wrong in any setting.

Those virtues you mention, I also did, so If I'm repeating myself, you are repeating me. I just say that those virtues are not enough if they don't get the basics right.

My complains are that people want the BS part of ArmA in RO, not the real virtues.

 

[Amerikaner]

Sorry man, but the mouse lag can't be fixed no matter how much I lower the graphics. It never stopped feeling wrong in any setting.

Those virtues you mention, I also did, so If I'm repeating myself, you are repeating me. I just say that those virtues are not enough if they don't get the basics right.

My complains are that people want the BS part of ArmA in RO, not the real virtues.

Mouse lag is not caused by graphics, it's caused by mouse smoothing. Turn that off and you should be good.

My point about the basics is they are allowed to be more rough if the scope of the game is far larger than your average game. Arma is not about pure combat skills like RO is so you don't need that same level of refinement.

Who wants the bs part of Arma in RO? Maybe I just never noticed but I always thought even Arma fans recognized the "basics" are not quite the smoothest. Afaic, combine the combat of RO with the scope/# of options of Arma and you have the perfect military simulator, game, whatever you wanna call it. Until that happens I'll enjoy the good aspects of both.

 

[Fedorov]

Mouse lag is not caused by graphics, it's caused by mouse smoothing. Turn that off and you should be good.

I don't remember much, but is that a .ini setting? because I'm pretty sure I explored every option in the game menu, and I never reached a completely satisfactory setting.

Who wants the bs part of Arma in RO?

A lot of people, judging for how much people ask for an increased difficulty an inaccessibility in the gameplay. And anything easier, or more used friendlies in their eyes is "less realistic", when what they really mean is "less hardcore". Its just a matter of term associations.

The existence of this thread is the very example of it. "RO is selling out to CoD style crazy unrealistic run and gun play" Is what a lot of people is afraid of. But just listen to Ramm, play the original game, and try to realize why the game is good. Then stop fearing. The good things will still be there, and improved.

CoD is easy, ArmA is hard. CoD is unrealistic. ArmA is realistic.

By that simple association, people think: Realism = hard.

And no, I'm not saying that is your opinion, or anyone's in particular, but a general feel I get when reading some posts (not yours BTW).

Afaic, combine the combat of RO with the scope/# of options of Arma and you have the perfect military simulator, game, whatever you wanna call it.

I agree with you there (see edit 1 of post #30)


Also, one thing about RO that people forget, is that RO is and has always been (not so much in Osftront). A realistic, fast paced game. It delivers the adrenaline of any arena style shooter like CoD, but multiplied by the immersion given by its realistic features, and lack of BS ones. But this is just a reminder to all the anti-"run and gun" comments, I'm not saying that it wouldn't benefit from an ArmA like campaign at some point.

 

[VariousNames]

Hello all,

I and a couple of buddies of mine is askin about the realism level of this upcomming title, Rumors has it sayin its just one of those action sellouts.

So we as proud owners of the earlier game sens 06 is wondering about the real life experience in the game? As we have noticed so far there is a minimap in the corner to start with? Well lets put it down like this.. Were very worried!

Please respond TW so this bad feeling hopefully can end.

// Realistic-gamers, 3.SA clan.

They have taken nothing out of the previous versions of Red Orchestra as far as realism.

They have added realistic features including:

MG's now rotate around the bipod
weapon collision
the ability to hold one's breath while aiming
bullet penetration
internal ballistics for tanks including killable crew
terminal ballistics in human players including organ models
weight sim
adjustible sights

And so on. The list is to the point where, as far as the functioning of ballistics and weapon handling are concerned, RO2 can easily be described as the most realistic competitive FPS ever put to the market.

I don't know where you got this idea that Tripwire was a sellout, or that they were making RO2 a more casual or unrealistic experience, but it was at least uninformed, at most misinformed.

 

[Oldih]

Sorry, but a game that doesn't feel natural, can't be realistic. Simple as that.

What is your idea of feeling natural? Original OFP was quite blocky, but even after playing ArmA2 for few minutes and adjusting controls it feels entirely natural to me besides the inventory management and certain small tasks, something I also find stiff and extremely unnatural in RO once in a while, like picking up a weapon and ammunition for it.

The existence of this thread is the very example of it. "RO is selling out to CoD style crazy unrealistic run and gun play" Is what a lot of people is afraid of.

Usually there is pretty good reason for being afraid, as basically so far almost any game that has gone the more accessible route has ended up being completely arsed as a whole, despite maybe few good or even pretty good improvements. Sure TWI is TWI but the odds aren't exactly in their favour.

The other thing is that as much as natural movement and more responsive controls among some other things are realistic, they can also easily invoke certain ideas or things which can easily result being as arcade as the 'easyness' is often associated with. Kinda like the movement speed in RO, even when TWI said it's based on a guy who isn't that top fit, since sprinting is just on\off thing in Hoes (based on the footage) there doesn't seem to be any real side-effects from low stamina besides additional weapon sway or so, your overall movement is not slowed down. In RO:Ost this for instance wasn't really a problem as sprinting was faster than the standard jogging, while still not like a greased lightning did not really influence problems what on\off system could bring up. In ArmA (or OFP) even if the soldiers would sprint faster than they do it wouldn't cause real problems, as low stamina effects you whole movement speed and has serious effect on your aim in some of the major mods, in RO you can still shoot moderately far away with rifles even if you're out of stamina (so to speak) due the very brief moment your ironsight is 100% still once you bring it up, try doing the same in OFP and it's not easy, let alone in ArmA2. Combine Hoes' faster movement speed with certain other improvements and it very easily gives the impression we're talking about wnb-CoD style game.

That's part of the problem, we have only seen some basic demonstration about how certain things work in more or less fast paced clips so it's less boring to watch and the beta is only coming out next year. We have only the footage and their word for it, and they are somewhat conflicting. Just because "yo dude it's TWI!" does hold some water in it doesn't exactly help the cause for those who have some more serious doubts how the game is going to hold up. You can have plethora of nice features in the name of realism but if the overall package doesn't just deliver something that is functional and feels like it's actually doing something right instead of the wnb-CoD clone, it's not really helping the situation. I know that no-one is claiming it to be wnb-CoD, but look some of the videos several times. No matter how much I try to keep flag up for TWI it doesn't help my bull**** detector is somewhat alerted as it has uncanny valley effect with certain things.

 

[VoRgAn]

I remembered to have read somewhere that the server's admins will be able to choose how the realism will be put :

- For instance, you can have the choice between minimap or not, help for the newbies (when pushing a button, you see all the objectives on the map) or not, etc.
So you can have the same servers as in RO vanilla (with "nothing" such as minimap) or different kind of servers (add everything to help new players, or only minimap etc.). Then, as said before, the game will be far more realistic than ROI (Bullet penetration, first person cover or not, physix, new tank system and ballistic ... (I hope we won't have to be at 45

 

[Nordlander]

Alright, After bein in the ISAF force in the middle east for 2 years am just wondering about those basic concepts that keeps it realistic or atleast on a realistic level. Such as the real life thing about the suppresion thing DH had for an example.

A realistic ww2 like RO1 was is just amazing. So we will hold our tumbs for RO2.

 

[Exploding_Silver]

Relaxed realism = broader appeal = profit margin ?

Relaxed realism = broader appeal = profit margin ?

.

Here's my thoughts on RO:HOS

2 game modes to satisfy two camps

Realism

Realism mode is for the hard core realism fans, of which there are many on this forum. Realism mode will satisfy them and they will be vocally loyal to Tripwire. Unfortunately there are not enough realism fans to turn a profit on dev costs (at least I perceive it that way)

Relaxed Realism

Lot less realism but still the same core game, aiming at the broader market, particularly battlefield players, of which there are a lot. I expect Tripwires marketing strategy is to release half a year before BF3 and be enough BF like to get good take up from the battlefield players who have been waiting and waiting. I perceive relaxed realism could attract the numbers that can turn a profit on dev costs

comments ?

.