• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Game 2 is gonna have to be one hell of a game

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#41
Well I'm sorry but there's no point debating this here if most of you are biased(which is no surprise on RO boards). I like playing ww2 games just as much as 'modern warfare' games, in fact I even prefer ww2 games most of the time. But you got to be fair. Saying that ww2 offers more variety than 'modern warfare' games just isn't true, alone the fact that you have a much broader timeframe(under 'modern warfare' I understand from 80s like in OFP till sth like 2020 like in GRAW). You can make up any conflict you wan't and you can have any weapons you want. And what was so different about WW2 weaponry? Only difference is the common use of bolt action rifles, everything else is still there from MPs to assault rifles to MGs to semi-automatic rifles.
 
Upvote 0
#42
I prefer the timeframe before assaultrifles became the common practise.
If they get older heck even medievil if done well i could love it, as long as its not just meeting on a big empty field.

You can fight every possible country maybe in modern combat but doing a fictional battle in ww2 would be fun too thats not the issue for me aslong as its done a bit realistically. In the end the actual location is not that important for me its the gameplay mechanics, and here i prefer somewhat weaker vehicles more where things go slower too.

Slower reloading tanks, less advanced anti tank weaponry, less accurate weaponry. While still offering pretty much all of the type of arsenal we use today. Just in my opinion gives a lot of variety to gameplay.

In the end for me a country doesnt mean a lot for me. WW2 offers, jungle warfare, urban warfare, desert warfare , air/naval warfare. Or basically most of types of warfare we encouter these days that set up the gameplay.
Quite some people when they started RO didn't know a lot about the eastern front, they played ro because they loved how the game played in the setting. If we only cared about things we knew and trusted then we would not try to play a non american game.

Now i actually do not have an issue at all for a game before ww2, as long as its not just push tactics like pure trench warfare, or a meetingplace on a open field. a good ww1 gamee about the fights beside the pure trenches would go in great with me. Or older wars with slow loading rifles etc.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#43
Sincerely, what made me fell in love with RO, was not only the realistic approach (I had that also in Operation Flashpoint), but the oportunity of playing Soviet.
There are a lot of games around WWII, some pure but spectacular arcades, as Medal of Honour, and others more realistic, but all had the same, Americans in Normandy.
Not everybody knows that 80% of all losses, in men and vehicles, in WWII, were on the Eastern Front. Only at the Prokhorovka tank battle, the Nazis lost as many tanks as in the whole Normandy-Ardennes Campaign (more than 300).
I really hate to play as an American, and Operation Flaspoint as Soviet (Red Hammer) means standing terrible Propaganda videos between missions that lead your character to desertion...
More recent modern warfare games are too Sci-fi, and Irak-Afghanistan experiences are showing that an Infantry war is always the same, having GPS guided APCs or T-34
 
Upvote 0
#44
modern warfare
FC_NotEqual_41725_lg.gif
futuristic warfare
 
Upvote 0
#47
Fu. Svedberg said:
But if it is an FPS I want a realistic Sci-Fi game that's something that hasn't been done yet (not to my knowlege at least).
Click to expand...

Me too, I would like to play one too, because fighting aliens/zombies/whatever does not necesarily mean having a magical crosshair, lifebar, perks or divine protection and healing

but if the thing is choosing between modern combat and... well, anything else, I'll go with the "anything else" option
 
Upvote 0
#52
Ermac said:
What about the countless WW2 games:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

countless WW2 games that sux, so they do not count, so... as far as i'm concerned, the only other WW2 FPS out there is RO

but now we have ArmA2 and Flashpoint 2 coming, both are realistic modern warfare games, and you want TWI to make yet another one?, do you really want to play 3 of them at the same time?

who is gonna make a realistic WW2 game then? nobody.
 
Upvote 0
#53
Fedorov said:
countless WW2 games that sux, so they do not count, so... as far as i'm concerned, the only other WW2 FPS out there is RO

but now we have ArmA2 and Flashpoint 2 coming, both are realistic modern warfare games, and you want TWI to make yet another one?, do you really want to play 3 of them at the same time?

who is gonna make a realistic WW2 game then? nobody.
Click to expand...
So MOH,COD,H&D,DOD, and BIA all suck? Really I love WW2 but really it's an overdone war and there are lots of other wars that haven't had many or no games made for them like WW1,Vietnam,Falkland wars etc.

=GG= Mr Moe said:
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.
Click to expand...
WW2 can have alot of full auto spamming too like some RO maps.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#54
But as i've said, most WW2 games portray the same time period, and the same units and the same battles. I can think of literally dozens of scenarios that have barely been touched upon.

That said there are lots of other theatres and options for TWI. And as I have said, I don't neccessarily want another WW2 game, but I'm not going to complain about it because I have faith that TWI will do it justice...
 
Upvote 0
#55
I hope it's WW2. There may have been many good FPS' about it, but none of them came closer to the "experience" like RO. With the UE3 engine I believe TWI can make wonders. But it has to be:

1)Semi realistic(like RO)
2)Much much more improved gameplay that puts emphasis on teamwork tactics but allowing personal skills to be useful at the same time.
2)Lots of small but important immersive details and features, I MEAN LOTS. Bullet penetration, believable tank combat(RO is sometimes a joke), improved weapon usage, mantling, player customisation, implementation of fireteams, giving Group Commanders the ability to give orders to fireteams and send support, improved sounds and visual effects like big tanks shaking your screen a bit when close, louder and beefy sounds, a much darker and gritty atmosphere(RO is too shiny and bright) and the list goes on . . .

Modern Warfare is somewhat a popular setting ATM, but I don't believe it can be portrayed realistically as in RO. Because in modern warfare most "fights" end with some side getting vaporised with an LGB or missile. They have to implement air support, helicopters(not as easy as COD4 did as you can imagine), vehicle support and much more complicated things. No thanks, I'd rather play ArmA2 or OFP2 instead. Way to destroy a title. The only "plausible" way where they can satisfy the "old" community is a counter-terrorist(or insurgence) setting which has been done to death. No thanks.

WW2 FPS all the way.
 
Upvote 0
#56
Fedorov said:
countless WW2 games that sux, so they do not count, so... as far as i'm concerned, the only other WW2 FPS out there is RO

but now we have ArmA2 and Flashpoint 2 coming, both are realistic modern warfare games, and you want TWI to make yet another one?, do you really want to play 3 of them at the same time?

who is gonna make a realistic WW2 game then? nobody.
Click to expand...
Sorry but this is the most ignorant post I've read in the last few months.

Everything you don't like sux and so the game has to be WW2? :/
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#57
DraKon2k said:
Sorry but this is the most ignorant post I've read in the last few months.

Everything you don't like sux and so the game has to be WW2? :/
Click to expand...

There you go again stepping over everyone's opinion with your zealous defense when somebody doesn't like something you like.

Ignorant, is a compliment coming from you, and yes, COD MOH BIA BF1942 etc sux, and my opinion won't change no matter how many posts you make, but if you don't like that I put it that way... how about: RO is the only realistic one?

can you name a realistic WW2 FPS coming for the new generation?, I do not think so, but in modern combat, there are at least 2, and you can't deny those fact.

the game has to be WW2, because nobody is doing it realistically, this is the third time I say it, and if you stil can't understand it I'm not gonna bother saying it a fourth time
 
Upvote 0
#58
Fedorov said:
There you go again stepping over everyone's opinion with your zealous defense when somebody doesn't like something you like.
Click to expand...
This is a discussion and while you can state your opinion of course in an open discussion you can't just say 'this and this sux so it doesnt count kthx'. The reason why there atm is no real ww2 semi-realism game(you can not set ofp/arma and ro on the same level) is because MOST if not a big majority of players/journalists/developers think that WW2 is overdone by now. Of course there's always sth. that hasn't been covered but overall many people simply think it's not interesting anymore or at least not as interesting as it once was. That's why games are heading towards modern combat because it has even more different facettes to cover.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu