They are barely going to enter beta soon. Developing a game is harder than it looks.
Upvote
0
Listen to your fanbase
- Thread starter Ranger21
- Start date
- Status
If TWI wasn't aiming for that group, they wouldn't have made a conscious decision to shoehorn COD-style XP, upgrades, and weapon unlocks into the game. That's my issue. People have defended this move claiming that "TWI needs to make a profit", but I'm thoroughly unconvinced, for various reasons explained earlier in the thread, that such a strategy actually does increase profits at all. Thus far, all it's seemed to do is splinter the community, punish the hardcore fans with silly extraneous mechanics which don't fit the game's mantra, and pull development resources which could have been better used elsewhere.
The Gamasutra link is ironic, because if anything, the progression system resembles the sort of thing an illogical fanboy might demand developers waste their time on. The community's actual request isn't for TWI to add anything to the game, it's that they leave out such crap in the first place. If they hadn't been chasing such disastrous ideas, classic mode would never have been necessary in the first place.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
NM. Decided it's no use arguing with people that are convinced they are the smartest in the room...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
GnaM - you know what this means?
You won the thread - well done. Everyone is very pleased for you.
Have fun.
You won the thread - well done. Everyone is very pleased for you.
Have fun.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The fact is TWI didn't decide what they wanted the game 2 be when they made it. It inded up in the middle of the 2 sides realism and non realism. It fealt and still feels, at times, like they took the worst from both and made a game (IMO). Then when most players complained about it either not being hardcore enough or being to hardcore we ended up with to more game modes. In the end it wasn't the best route to take since the game didn't just claim an identity of it's own, but rather kept going even further in 2 different different directions.
Upvote
0
Not really. Other than the progression system and different gamemodes, it's pretty much the same game. :>
Upvote
0
Ok, there's the thing. If you take "smack bang in the middle" to mean a 50/50 blend of realism and unrealism, then the major difference is that in RO1, the unrealistic aspect was aimed to hinder the soldier's individual efforts through unrealistically heavy sway, recoil, and stamina. In RO2, the unrealistic aspect has swung in the opposite direction; the soldier's individual efforts are boosted via unrealistically low sway, stamina, and recoil, plus the ability to unlock anachronistic automatic weapons.Red Orchestra has always been smack bang in the middle. What are you on about?
Ironically, it looks like the happy gameplay medium of RO1 and RO2's unrealistic elements was just plain old straight-up realism.
Upvote
0
He is right, though. I hate to say it, but the sales figures will prove him correct in that you guys created a red-headed stepchild of games. The COD/Battlefield fan boys won't touch it, and neither will the hardcore realism crowd. What does that leave you guys?
Upvote
0
Not at all. You can't even poke your head out a window in RO2 for more than a split second without someone with a SMG head-shotting you from 200 meters away.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
You have absolutely no evidence to support that statement - e.g. RO2 total sales vs RO:Ost total sales.
Also you ought to be a little bit more precise than just saying 'you guys'. Many of the RS team, myself included, are not TWI employees.
Upvote
0
Yeah, we don't have the sales figures, but do you? Does anyone at Tripwire really know how much of any sales boosts can be attributed to the progression system and unlocks, and how much can be attributed to the rest of the game?
As I've pointed out, a lot of companies much bigger and with much more marketing muscle than TWI have attempted to cash in on the COD crowd and found that it didn't improve sales.
Unless someone has some sort of conclusive evidence, it's pretty silly for you or anyone associated with RO development to pretend that we're village idiots for merely for questioning this trend. If merely imitating the most popular competing business always guaranteed increased sales then no one would ever go out of business and everyone would be a tycoon. It doesn't work like that, and the assumption that this should automatically be true simply doesn't hold water.
As I've pointed out, a lot of companies much bigger and with much more marketing muscle than TWI have attempted to cash in on the COD crowd and found that it didn't improve sales.
Unless someone has some sort of conclusive evidence, it's pretty silly for you or anyone associated with RO development to pretend that we're village idiots for merely for questioning this trend. If merely imitating the most popular competing business always guaranteed increased sales then no one would ever go out of business and everyone would be a tycoon. It doesn't work like that, and the assumption that this should automatically be true simply doesn't hold water.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Oh lord, here we go again. Well, at the risk of going head to head with the smartest guy in the room, here is an explanation or two.
If you are putting out a game in the same field as a category killer like CoD, you have three options:
1) Pretend they don't exist, go your own merry way with whatever variant of 'realism' you see fit and, usually, go out of business because you can't get enough new players. People with strong opinions on forums do not pay your rent - their purchasing power is not even close to proportional to how loud they are on forums.
2) Try and copy that giant, maybe scrape some sales from people looking for something different, but inevitably fail to make as strong a product due to having a development budget that is a tiny fraction of CoD's.
3) Take the position that there are a lot of gamers out there who would enjoy what it is about your own game that you do, but are stuck following one fairly well-worn gameplay experience. Then work out how to wean them onto your own game - make the transition for them easy, grow your player-base. The hint system we are adding to RO2/RS is a very good example of how that is being done. The aim is to draw general fps players to RO2, not meet them on their own turf.
As an analogy, if you feel that people eat too much processed food, you could try and get them all eating macrobiotic vegan meals overnight, or you could steer their diet away from the things you believe to be bad by making healthy food appealing. The hardcore macrobiotic vegans will prolly get all self-righteous that you did so (in fact, they definitely would - self-righteousness being pretty much a defining feature) but, fact is you would do more good in general than if you tried to insist that people eat only lentil-burgers from day one.
As for talking to people on the forums as if they are idiots, I would say it is more accurate to categorise my responses as those of someone who feels that he is being lectured on his own business by someone who does not know it.
Strictly speaking, I am wasting my time on undergraduate debate here but, I guess I still have enough of the stroppy forum troll in me to rise to the bait occasionally.
If you are putting out a game in the same field as a category killer like CoD, you have three options:
1) Pretend they don't exist, go your own merry way with whatever variant of 'realism' you see fit and, usually, go out of business because you can't get enough new players. People with strong opinions on forums do not pay your rent - their purchasing power is not even close to proportional to how loud they are on forums.
2) Try and copy that giant, maybe scrape some sales from people looking for something different, but inevitably fail to make as strong a product due to having a development budget that is a tiny fraction of CoD's.
3) Take the position that there are a lot of gamers out there who would enjoy what it is about your own game that you do, but are stuck following one fairly well-worn gameplay experience. Then work out how to wean them onto your own game - make the transition for them easy, grow your player-base. The hint system we are adding to RO2/RS is a very good example of how that is being done. The aim is to draw general fps players to RO2, not meet them on their own turf.
As an analogy, if you feel that people eat too much processed food, you could try and get them all eating macrobiotic vegan meals overnight, or you could steer their diet away from the things you believe to be bad by making healthy food appealing. The hardcore macrobiotic vegans will prolly get all self-righteous that you did so (in fact, they definitely would - self-righteousness being pretty much a defining feature) but, fact is you would do more good in general than if you tried to insist that people eat only lentil-burgers from day one.
As for talking to people on the forums as if they are idiots, I would say it is more accurate to categorise my responses as those of someone who feels that he is being lectured on his own business by someone who does not know it.
Strictly speaking, I am wasting my time on undergraduate debate here but, I guess I still have enough of the stroppy forum troll in me to rise to the bait occasionally.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Something had to have gone pretty wrong with ro2. I have to guess here since we don't have any figures. Ro2 has probably sold somewhere around 500,000 copies of the game. With that being said, after all the steam events and humble bundle sales, the population per day peaks right around 2000 players. Now that's less than 1/2% of 1% of the people that purchased the game. I feel like something about this game didn't go right. There's got to be some percentages at which a company starts asking what/s went/going wrong.
Upvote
0
Something is very wrong with your analysis. You're assuming those 2000 players are the same players who are on every day all the time. In reality, to have a constant peak of 2000 players you'd have to have over quadruple that depending on the type of game, people are generally willing to put more time into an MMORPG than hop on and off an FPS. So it wouldn't be too exaggerative to say 10,000 - 15,000 people are playing RO2 actively. Just because they're not on all at once doesn't mean they aren't there. RO1 also had a small population over a year after release, it's just how the game is.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
2,000 people at any one instant in time is NOT population per day, or even remotely close. A second's reflection would have saved you the embarrassment of posting that.
In fact, I would even say that PP's analysis falls short in its guess at numbers of different people playing per week.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Status