I'm a ROOST player, and what the hell is RO2?
- Thread starter SeppLainer
- Start date
So many players swear by being a RO1 vet, but where were they in the last year or so before RO2 release?
I'll tell you - they were hanging out on BC2 servers being spoiled by the big companies.
Let me tell you another thing Mister Rooster - ofcourse you had a blast back in the good old days when RO1 was released, you were 5 years younger ffs, everything was better "back than".
Today, you are older, have more responsibilities, have different interest in games, but problem is you can't accept the fact that you changed. All that brings you here are some fond memories of golden days.
I'll tell you - they were hanging out on BC2 servers being spoiled by the big companies.
Let me tell you another thing Mister Rooster - ofcourse you had a blast back in the good old days when RO1 was released, you were 5 years younger ffs, everything was better "back than".
Today, you are older, have more responsibilities, have different interest in games, but problem is you can't accept the fact that you changed. All that brings you here are some fond memories of golden days.
Upvote
0
What's your point? People who games 5years ago their opinion isn't valid anymore? I bet it's because they have too much experience and all? They know how games used to be
You roost guys shouldn't feel bad tho, every game that is a "succes" gets completely screwed over, and literally EVERY single one of them:
UT3? Doom3 (alltho this wasnt THAT bad)? Quake4? BF3? COD100? MoH? DNF? Do you even dare to say that one of these games are worth anything compared to their "ancestors".
Nope, they're all a bunch of commercial crap no longer made to make an epic game but simply to make more money of the names.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
RO1 was unoptimised and before I had a quadcore or a cpu with 3.4ghz it didnt run very well.
Me neither and I think the gameplay is still different from COD, all the people complaining should by a COD game right now and see what they get.
Then they should put 100h into it and see how much fun it still is.
If they have problems with the gameplay they should post on the IW forums and see if anyone cares.
I think the gameplay needs 2 or 3 tweaks and then it would be better, mods should be able to do that.
Personally Im waitng for the alcoholic gun sway mod, imagine a starved soldier in stalingrad who hits the booze because its so cold and to cope with this horrible war.
Its realistic right?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The game is good as it is? Yet loads of people complain. Yet the player base fades away. Is COD/BF release to blame for that? TWI are not responsible?
You're using the same statement as Ramm: It's the players responsibility to fix the game to their liking and not TWI. This is not true in any sense. It's TWIs job to develop this game to our likeing. We have no responsibility at all to be honest. We're not game developers. We're customers that have paid for a product. The fact that modders do a lot of good stuff for the game is not something you should take for granted. That, my friend, is a perks... that perks may be lost in case TWI don't do anything themself. Why the heck would people try to save RO2s butt if TWI don't do anything themself? TWI are just lucky that they have such a wonderfull community that support them and give suggestions and ideas.
Ask yourself this question: What would happen if RO ost didn't have SDK? What would happen to RO2 if it didn't have SDK? In RO ost case, the player base would have been decreased a lot. In RO2s case, a lot of people would already have given up the hope. Make the modders angry and uninstresed in the game and I can ensure you that the game will fade out into nothing unless TWI do something.
Upvote
0
I for one enjoy the game, despite the obvious flaws and desperate need for fixes. But yeah, I agree to what has been said before; toying around with the idea to get the CoD/BF crowd into RO (which is clearly a niche game) was probably a bad idea to begin with.
I can't wait for the mods/mutators that can make this game feel more like the first one.
I can't wait for the mods/mutators that can make this game feel more like the first one.
Upvote
0
Take DICE for example they gave their customers no mod support and they didnt even think about fixing game breaking gameplay decisions.
So even if people wanted to fix the game they couldnt.
Were not just consumers we modify our game and we run our own servers, we have an interest to make this game better.
Mod support convinced me to buy this game because nowadays modders are deliberately locked out in other games to decrease the replay value or to sell maps as DLC.
And btw you paid 50-70% the price of a normal game for this.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Surely this is the nub of the matter. I'm sure I read on here somewhere a post from TWI saying how many more copies RO2 sold on release than RO has sold to date. For all our whinging about RO2 not being RO, for a business selling more copies is the thing. It's not worth them making a game to sell to the few of us who want that style of gameplay. Also, I may be missing something, but I don't think TWI get any income from people actually playing the game, so what would they care about it "dying"?
I understand that it makes good sense to keep your customers happy - but they only get more money from more sales (of their next release), not from those who've already bought RO2. Maybe there are just too few of us out there to make it economically viable to pile support into this game?
Upvote
0
Could be a LOT worse..., could be Codemasters
. TWI already doing a better job than a multimillion pound company, im sure itll be fixed in time.
Upvote
0
Could be a LOT worse..., could be Codemasters
TWI already doing a better job than a multimillion pound company, im sure itll be fixed in time.
Well not really, I don't know many games that have had such a dismal launch as RO2.
I know TW will endeavour to fix as much as they can while other AAA companies would sod-off after one or two patches, but not many dev teams would release a title in such a state. So much of RO2 was and still is missing, broken or buggy - and then there's the very-questionable game design and gameplay.
All I'm saying is, any game with 'Red Orchestra' in the title that requires realism mods is a fail in my humble opinion.
You can't compete with CoD and BF3, you need to stand out from the crowd to get the player numbers and really there's nothing that makes RO2 unique. It's the similar run and gun with unrealistic weapons and abilities that we see all the time these days - except RO2 can't do it as well as some AAA titles. Half-way between arcade and realism just doesn't work in this instance. RO:Ost was popular and became well known for being more life-like than CoD and BF, but RO2 is fading into obscurity because it doesn't stand out - it's a poor man's WW2 CoD.
It doesn't take a genius to work out why the player numbers for RO2 have dropped so rapidly, even without the numerous bugs.
Upvote
0
NO. Read my post again. All of these "RO1 vets" actually played BC2 a lot at least a year before RO2 was released and all they have to compare RO2 with is fond memories of their younger self.
They got bored with RO1 and did not even play it in a long time - I know because I did, and there was not nearly as many players as there were roosters praising RO1 on this forum.
Upvote
0
Apart from trying to generalise, what the f*ck-cakes are you on about?
I can't speak for others (meaning unlike you, I won't generalise), but I've played RO1 on and off for the last 7 years and although I've played many other games during this time, it hasn't altered my opinion on RO2.
Not entirely sure what you're trying to say?
Upvote
0
No offense but this makes even less sense, now you can't even play other games other than realistic shooters without betraying the genre
?I mostly play Arma2OA but that doesn't mean that I don't like to play a couple of rounds of BC2 (or any other shooter like CSS, DODS, hell even BF1942 is still installed here) once in a while.
I love simracing and I do alot of that but I still occationally play a game like Flatout or F1 2011 to blow of some steam
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I tend to agree, I'm a ROOSTER of old but RO1 was struggling with numbers YEARS ago. There were plenty of times in 2008, for example, when you couldnt find one decent server that wasn't just bots and thats what lead me away from the game from that period onwards.
So his point is valid (if a bit oddly phrased) in that many "vets" got bored with it and left for other games, e.g. bc2, Arma, even COD.
So while i agree there needs to be much inprovement of RO2 in the area of gameplay lets not look back at RO1 with rose-tinted glasses all the time.
Upvote
0
I never played BC2, the only battlefield game I played was Vietnam. Up untill the release of RO2 I played ROOST every now and then.
Also, they might be happy with the sales of RO2 but picture their next release: alot less people will buy it because of this game. They'll have to prove theirself again. Alot of the loyal fanbase pre-ordered RO2 because most of us assumed the game was really good. No one will do that next time. That's why you need a loyal fanbase. They still have a community because most of us are used to hanging out here on the forums. But our loyalty got a big dent and at least me will be more careful with spreading the word for their next title.
Also, they might be happy with the sales of RO2 but picture their next release: alot less people will buy it because of this game. They'll have to prove theirself again. Alot of the loyal fanbase pre-ordered RO2 because most of us assumed the game was really good. No one will do that next time. That's why you need a loyal fanbase. They still have a community because most of us are used to hanging out here on the forums. But our loyalty got a big dent and at least me will be more careful with spreading the word for their next title.
Upvote
0
The name of the game must not be spoken out.Could be a LOT worse..., could be Codemasters
100% truth
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The irony in that situation is that it's the 0.01% which is populating the servers 2 months after the official release...
I feel bad ( and ripped off in some way ) for blindly pre-ordering such a product : game finition was ( and still is ? ) mediocre and players are almost all gone.
I learned my lesson though, RO:2 will be the first and last game I ever pre-order.
Such a waste of potential
I feel bad ( and ripped off in some way ) for blindly pre-ordering such a product : game finition was ( and still is ? ) mediocre and players are almost all gone.
I learned my lesson though, RO:2 will be the first and last game I ever pre-order.
Such a waste of potential
Upvote
0
RO2 was never meant to be RO1 with better graphics (and devs stated this many times).
New game, which shares core features with RO1, but is a different game.
You may whine about that, you may say that you don't like the new game and just quit playing, but saying that devs "betrayed" "loyal fanbase" or "sold out" is just stupid and insulting.
If we talk about "realism": RO2 is more "realistic" than RO1.
If you think otherwise- I'd like to see a list of things that make RO1 more "realistic" than RO2, from those who whine about "realism".
Let's start with some features present in RO1:
- players moving as if dipped in tar
- SMGs with recoil equal to 20mm cannon
- Hipshooting targets from 200 meters or more
- Uber-godlike pwnage in close combat with bolt action sniper rifles (I've spent countles hours doing that on 24/7 Danzig servers)
- Not being able to jump over a 50cm fence
- (...)
When speaking about TWI trying to attract wider player base: do you see any other way to make money on computer games ?
RO2 is no longer a mod, made by 3 enthusiasts for free.
It's easy to whine about game "not being attractive to hardcore RO1 players", but then you should gather those hardcores, set up a trust fund of, say, 10mln $ and pay the studio for making your ideal game.
If you're not planning to do that, then stop being delusional by thinking that today you can launch a financially successful game without taking marketing issues into account.
New game, which shares core features with RO1, but is a different game.
You may whine about that, you may say that you don't like the new game and just quit playing, but saying that devs "betrayed" "loyal fanbase" or "sold out" is just stupid and insulting.
If we talk about "realism": RO2 is more "realistic" than RO1.
If you think otherwise- I'd like to see a list of things that make RO1 more "realistic" than RO2, from those who whine about "realism".
Let's start with some features present in RO1:
- players moving as if dipped in tar
- SMGs with recoil equal to 20mm cannon
- Hipshooting targets from 200 meters or more
- Uber-godlike pwnage in close combat with bolt action sniper rifles (I've spent countles hours doing that on 24/7 Danzig servers)
- Not being able to jump over a 50cm fence
- (...)
When speaking about TWI trying to attract wider player base: do you see any other way to make money on computer games ?
RO2 is no longer a mod, made by 3 enthusiasts for free.
It's easy to whine about game "not being attractive to hardcore RO1 players", but then you should gather those hardcores, set up a trust fund of, say, 10mln $ and pay the studio for making your ideal game.
If you're not planning to do that, then stop being delusional by thinking that today you can launch a financially successful game without taking marketing issues into account.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You are completely right.
My main grief against TWI is that they kept all those new "arcardy" features in the dark.
I'm not so sure that the game would have been SO successful if the game had been advertised as the game it actually IS.
Sure most of us here would have still bought it ( as TWI/RO fans ) but the word wouldnt have spread that much and hype would have been smaller.
Last time I was thinking RO sold over 500k , put it at 10$ avg that's 5 Mil$.
If you pay a dev 50k$ a year, that's enough to pay a team of 20 members for 5 years , early 2006 > september 2011
Upvote
0