• 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/

RO1 realism comparison to RO2 realism. Trying to be unbiased.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#41
Games cannot achieve "realism" they can only achieve balance.

Playing a video game from a comfy armchair , running around in MILES gear (that's what its called btw OP) , or playing airsoft is absolutely worlds apart from actually having live rounds coming downrange at you or clearing house to house in an urban combat zone.

Should things be strived for for an "assumed" realism? Sure. Everyone dislikes things that are obviously hokey. But with non of the above (real bullets ect) there has to be a line drawn for team balance in a video game because there is no fear of death, associated chaos , remorse of killing another human , adrenaline, and a whole host of other realities involved.

I honestly think that these days with PCs being what they are, many peoples expectations of realism exceed what can be delivered. Its ruined my expectations of flight sims, and thus ruined my interest in them. Is it wise to follow this pattern in FPS shooters? You be the judge for yourself.

Just another fiber induced brain fart from an old grognard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pepihoh and Poerisija
Upvote 0
#42
tolas said:
lets get this right.

guns are accurate, there wouldnt be much use in a gun that doesnt hit what you aim at.

now maybe you mean "i meant more sway etc" then get it right, because theres a difference in saying that the guns are too accurate vs saying something along the lines of "aiming seems too easy" because your not talking about the weapons...because like i said, guns are accurate, people are a whole other story.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I wanted to say. Soldiers in RO2 aim a tad bit too fast and too accurately. Again, easily fixable.


Cpt-Praxius said:
Just wanted to focus on this a bit, as my training seems to differ from yours.

My training was geared towards sharpshooting and long range targeting. I was trained to take 2-3 slow deep breaths and then release half the oxygen in my lungs on the last, then hold my breath and focus my aim. I had up to 5-7 seconds of steady aim until my aim started to get jittery.... after a year of training and using a Lee Enfield in this fashion, I had up to 10 seconds of steady aiming.

I don't think players in RO2 should be able to have such extended steady aiming as they do now when focused, but it shouldn't be as short as you described. Make it around 5-7 seconds of steady aiming while zoomed in, and then after that, make your aiming get more and more jittery as time goes by and after 10-12 seconds, you are automatically taken out of focus and need a cool down for breathing..... I think this would be the best compromise for most.

Everything, besides a few things, I'd have to agree on, more or less.
Click to expand...


Well now that you say it... that's how were were taught too, probably. It's been years and I must've forgotten. But yeah, you got it right.

blkmgc said:
Games cannot achieve "realism" they can only achieve balance.

Playing a video game from a comfy armchair , running around in MILES gear (that's what its called btw OP) , or playing airsoft is absolutely worlds apart from actually having live rounds coming downrange at you or clearing house to house in an urban combat zone.

Should things be strived for for an "assumed" realism? Sure. Everyone dislikes things that are obviously hokey. But with non of the above (real bullets ect) there has to be a line drawn for team balance in a video game because there is no fear of death, associated chaos , remorse of killing another human , adrenaline, and a whole host of other realities involved.

I honestly think that these days with PCs being what they are, many peoples expectations of realism exceed what can be delivered. Its ruined my expectations of flight sims, and thus ruined my interest in them. Is it wise to follow this pattern in FPS shooters? You be the judge for yourself.

Just another fiber induced brain fart from an old grognard.
Click to expand...


This is absolutely right too - +1 to you sir.

But we can achieve a much greater experience with RO2 than RO1. It gives us a lot more tools for it. It just requires tweaking and some changes - I wish people would see this.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#43
I too do not like the level up system. I mean its fun but not really realistic.
I like the fact that you can get a few whiz band things though but instead of unlocks I think this should be linked to UNITS that should be portrayed realistically.

For instance win a map as a team and get to play the german or russian paras in the next round. Or perhaps a tank regiment etc. For a round you get some pretty cool gear. Your enemy have to deal with it.... but thats what makes things interesting and different about the game. War was often about matching strength against weakness and how the other side reacted.

Perhaps have the servers campaign mode prompt defensive units with AT guns etc or offensive units with a lot of Auto weapons. Perhaps you get told in a round that your unit is withdrawn due to casualties and you are now volks reserves with basic equipment.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#44
Poerisija said:
But we can achieve a much greater experience with RO2 than RO1. It gives us a lot more tools for it. It just requires tweaking and some changes - I wish people would see this.
Click to expand...

It's not that people don't see it, it's just realistic and practical point that unless TWI does something by itself to rectify some of the issues the only hope lies in the "SDK on launch" which is still somewhere in developement hell as the odds for TWI's own intervention are nonexistant, they themselves are happy with the product and general design of everything in one way or another.
 
Upvote 0
#45
Oldih said:
It's not that people don't see it, it's just realistic and practical point that unless TWI does something by itself to rectify some of the issues the only hope lies in the "SDK on launch" which is still somewhere in developement hell as the odds for TWI's own intervention are nonexistant, they themselves are happy with the product and general design of everything in one way or another.
Click to expand...

Yeah, true. I'm still holding hope on wounding system being unfinished and the instant iron sights from sprinting (which is faster than toggling iron sights while standing!) are bugs and will be fixed. This would fix a lot. I don't know TWI's stance on things, because they're being quiet on this particular subject. Would love an answer though.

And wasn't SDK promised to be out a couple of days after launch? And it still can't compile code? :(
 
Upvote 0
#50
People keep saying that it is difficult to define realism.
I think that it is quite simple.

Realism- Is as it is in reality, or real life. In the case of RO2 this would mean, as it was in Stalingrad.

A completely Realistic game would mean getting every detail correct. Realism is comprised of multiple parts. Historical realism, the way things look (uniforms, availability of equipment, etc.) And Gameplay Realism which is comprised of making sure that the guns being used shoot like they do in real life, and that people move like they do in real life.

There is no, this is a different kind of realism. There is only one type of realism, as it was in real life during Stalingrad.

Anything that is different from this is not realism, but a modification for the sake of gameplay. Now obviously there are things that cannot be reproduced in a video game, as stated in some previous posts, like fear and physical stress. So people can choose to balance them out by making other things unrealistic, however any form of balancing goes against realism.

Balancing is not always a bad thing, because true realism is very difficult and many people would choose not to play it. And while I am a realism nut, I too like to unwind sometimes with some mindless shooting. But no type is better than the other, it depends on your mood.

But if I want to play Realism, there is no question what this is. And it does not take a sleuth to realize that many things in RO2 were made for gameplay reasons, and are not realistic.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jorg Biermann1
Upvote 0
#52
Alois Himmel said:
People keep saying that it is difficult to define realism.
I think that it is quite simple.

Realism- Is as it is in reality, or real life. In the case of RO2 this would mean, as it was in Stalingrad.

A completely Realistic game would mean getting every detail correct. Realism is comprised of multiple parts. Historical realism, the way things look (uniforms, availability of equipment, etc.) And Gameplay Realism which is comprised of making sure that the guns being used shoot like they do in real life, and that people move like they do in real life.

There is no, this is a different kind of realism. There is only one type of realism, as it was in real life during Stalingrad.

Anything that is different from this is not realism, but a modification for the sake of gameplay. Now obviously there are things that cannot be reproduced in a video game, as stated in some previous posts, like fear and physical stress. So people can choose to balance them out by making other things unrealistic, however any form of balancing goes against realism.

Balancing is not always a bad thing, because true realism is very difficult and many people would choose not to play it. And while I am a realism nut, I too like to unwind sometimes with some mindless shooting. But no type is better than the other, it depends on your mood.

But if I want to play Realism, there is no question what this is. And it does not take a sleuth to realize that many things in RO2 were made for gameplay reasons, and are not realistic.
Click to expand...

My argument against using the term realism to describe games is that you can't play "realism". We can all argue reductively about what constitutes realism, but once the thing becomes totally realistic it must by definition actually be real, not a video game, not re-enactment, not airsoft - real. If this is not the case, then there can always be someone who says "this bit just isn't realistic" - so you don't have your realism.

I know I'm being a bit pedantic here, but my point is that it is counter-productive to keep seeking after real realism in a video game because you can't have it. What you can have is a representation of taking part in a WW2 battle, and in order to achieve that you have to use some smoke and mirrors.
 
Upvote 0
#53
Video games have always been simply a virtual adaptation of a story or event. They will never become real life. Simply because Video Games cannot become real life, does not mean that they should not strive to be close to real life as possible. In fact, Immersion is something that the gaming industry is constantly trying to achieve.

Realism is one way of achieving immersion. By making it as close to real life as possible, you are giving people the opportunity to take part in something that is as close to what is currently available to taking part in an actual WWII battle.

Seeking realism is not counter-productive, what about games like Arma and Flight Sims like IL2 that seek to be as realistic as possible. Their efforts are not a waste of time, their efforts have made them famous. Realism is a niche, but it is a niche that sets itself apart from its competitors.

Most game companies are making games easier, and shorter, with plenty of little achievements and addons to get. They do this to make more money, and to try and replace the feeling of satisfaction that somebody gets for playing a truly challenging game, because they can no longer offer it.

Realism play can be done, and it has been done to anyone who seeks to do it. Even games like DODS which are completely unrealistic have realism communities that try to make it as realistic as is possible. If someone makes a game that tries to be realistic, people will use that to play realistically .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nicholas
Upvote 0
#54
The accuracy of the guns is fine. The problem is your trying to simulate a whole battlefield with only 64 players or less. Firefights with those numbers would have been very one sided and fast, especially in urban combat. People want these long drawn out romanticized bolt action rifle wars, wrong war. I think fixing blatantly arcade mechanics first and seeing how the game goes versus adding unrealistic features from RO1 is the way to go about fixing this game. RO1 was a fun game but it was NOT realistic and shouldn't be used as a model for bettering the series if realism is the goal. Of course that would be the easy way out to appease all the people who just want a quick fix so they can get their fantasy realism, but I think this game can do better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Josef Nader and Mekhazzio
Upvote 0
#55
Last edited:
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