• 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.

The thing to get here is that this isen't just about Realism, because this is a videogame, something inherently fake and unreal, something that can only try to mimick reallity, so this is just as much about game design.

You can try to make a game as realistic and true to life as possible, we could make an MP shooter that is even more realistic than ARMA2 in it's individual features, if we just had the time and money to spend on such a thing, but how would it play? Probably nothing at all like reallity, like real combat, because this is a fake medium, and as much as it can look real, it can never feel real, the clousest it will come is to immerse you, but nothing more.


This is where game-design comes in, you want gameplay that feels authentic and real, immersive even? Then you gotta shoot for something other than 100% realism, you have to incorporate abstractions from reallity that duplicates the results you want to get from the gameplay, and what works twords thouse ends is not allways what's technically the most realistic.

Want an example? Well how about Bunny hopping, any "realism" game worth it's salt has mechanics in place to stop this from happening, usually in the form of a huge stamina drain on jumping. But is that realistic? NO! In real life i can probably hop around like crazy for a solid 5 minutes before i am to tired to continue, so it is not realistic at all for jumping to have such a stamina drain. But does it work? Hell yes, and games must incorporate such systems lest you want to see some really stupid and silly stuff happening on the servers and ruining the immersion of the game.


The best you can hope for in a game in terms of realism is that it is a good "Tactical shooter", a genre of shooter that aims to create realistic and belivable gameplay with as much realism as it can get away with. The old R6 and Ghost Recon games belonged to this genre, Op Flashpoint did, ARMA does, RO:Ost did, but Ro2 does not.

You can argue till you're blue in the face that individual features of Ro2 are realistic (though some of them you'll have a hard time selling to me, like the reload or weapon switch times), but when you watch a guy storm a building with his hipfired MG-34 and clearing it out Rambo style, it's all for nothing, this kind of gameplay has less in common with reallity and real life military tactics, than it does a game of Quake3 Arena, it is pure arcade.


And that is where Ro2 falls down, it does not incourage, and much less force realistic, belivable and tactical gameplay, sure you can choose to play it like that yourself, but nothing stops anyone else on the server from choosing differnetly, and unfortunately, their fast paced arcade style play usually ends up the dominant style, they are the instances that will stand out in your mind when you think back on the game you just played, the one that often works the best and gets the most kills, and this forces you to play faster and more recklessly aswell to counter it (not to mention what witnessing this sillyness does to your sense of immersion), and thus, the tactical play grinds to a halt and breaks down.


Ro:Ost and Ro:Ca were not perfect, they had their pitfalls same as anything (some of which were solved or much improved upon by the DH mod, others we had hoped Ro2 would address), but for the vast majority of the time, they did succeed where Ro2 fails, they did force tactical play, they did create an incredibly immersive atmosphere and combat environment, and it was only twords the end of the game's lifespan that this started to crumble, because by then, people had years of experiance in how to circumvent the game's mechanics.

Ro2 only does that if you're lucky to be on a server full of likeminded players who seek that style of play, but the moment a good R&G player joins and gets his hands on a powerfull weapon, that cookie pretty much crumbles, and most servers play nothing like that to begin with sadly.


This is where Ro2 is losing so many of us "vets", it's not about the small picture, it's not about any individual feature, no, it's about the big picture, how it feels, how it plays, how it does, or rather, doesen't immerse us.
 
Upvote 0
Posting on these forums seems like pissing in a sea of piss.

It drowns out real quick. People don't even read what I wrote.
I did read that, but I don't think it works that way. Players always try to take as much advantage as they can from the features the game has, and giving them the complete freedom we have IRL, most of them would just try to exploit it because most of the things that make real soldiers act tactically can't be simulated on a game with respawns. Tactics in a tactical shooter can't be optional, they have to be forced.
 
Upvote 0
What I don't get it how is Ro:eek:st forcing tactical play other than avatar's inability to move like a normal human being? Guns are as deadly in Ro2 and they're also more accurate which should more than balance the fact people are faster.

Is it the maps? Or the closeness of spawns? I'm willing to bet the game will be vastly different with bigger maps. And for one thing, I never saw any more tactical teamplay on Ost than I've seen in RO2. Same mindless meatgrinder on most maps in RO:OST as well.
 
Upvote 0
Posting on these forums seems like pissing in a sea of piss.

It drowns out real quick. People don't even read what I wrote.

I read it, even agreed with most of it, but ultimately it misses the point, the "realism" of the two games cannot accurately be guaged just by comparing a feature list of the two, the whole is more than the sum of it's parts.

Now you can choose to explore what that whole is and what it adds up to, or you can continue moaning about oceans of piss. I'll leave that up to you.
 
Upvote 0
RO1 and RO2 have things that are realistic and unrealistic, but individual elements aside, RO had a much more realistic gameplay and pacing.

RO2 feels like your a cyborg just sprinting around the battlefield. You dont feel human. No inertia, no restrictions, etc.

i too have never been in combat, but my older brother has. I had him demo RO2 for a few hours. I asked him if it was an accurate representation of combat (granted he wasnt in the eastern front, obviously...), but he just kind of chuckled and went back to playing ARMA2. He was a big fan of Ost Front, and mentioned that while the game had unrealistic elements, as a whole, Ost Front ended up representing combat more accurately.

i cannot wait for an ost front mod...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Once again just like to say what a good thread this is

What I don't get it how is Ro:eek:st forcing tactical play other than avatar's inability to move like a normal human being? Guns are as deadly in Ro2 and they're also more accurate which should more than balance the fact people are faster.

My feeling about this is that the guns are easier to use in RO2 than in RO/DH - not necessarily more or less accurate. Whether this is realistic or not we could argue til the cows come home (and probably will). I've been back to DH a couple of times and was struck by a) how slowly I moved, and b) how difficult it was to hit a target with an unsupported weapon. In RO2 I've got used to picking off distant targets first time even when just standing or kneeling. But in DH int he same stance it may take three or four efforts, during which time the target can of course evade, unless the weapon is braced. What it boils down to is fewer deaths and more chance to manouevre.

I'm not here to say how much sway or recoil is realistic, or at what range you expect to be able to hit a man, just that I think this is the primary reason the two games have their different game-plays.

Also, re: sacrificing realism features for realism sake, I think this has to happen because we can't implement the ultimate realism feature - death. For example, no matter how well modeled your MG42 is, you can't use it to suppress people (as it would be used IRL, I think we'd agree) unless they're scared. But you can introduce gamey devices which make them act as if suppressed - and so you get "realistic" behaviour
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tummel and Nazarov
Upvote 0
What I don't get it how is Ro:eek:st forcing tactical play other than avatar's inability to move like a normal human being? Guns are as deadly in Ro2 and they're also more accurate which should more than balance the fact people are faster.
The more accurate weaponry would balance it out in theory, but the networking isn't quite up to the task. RO2 still uses the old basic server-side authority model. It worked moderately well for RO1, but only because people moved really slowly in that game. RO2's turned the speed up, but the networking is still the same, so it can be a real chore to actually hit a moving target as easily as it ought to be. This gives a fair amount of undeserved fluke successes to the run & gun approach that's not the fault of the game design, but the fact that you can't increase the pace of the gameplay without also increasing the pace that the networking model is capable of handling online.
 
Upvote 0
...... I'd also tweak the ability to steady breathing to be affected by stamina more and in general - you don't shoot while holding your breath. It makes your muscles involuntarily tremble due to body oxygen preservation kicking in. You let breath out and don't inhale while taking the shot. This is how pressing shift should be in RO2. It only gives a window of 2-3 seconds of near-perfectly accurate aiming and then you have to inhale or start trembling......

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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
Well, I really doubt this kind of training was common back then, except maybe for elite units. I don't think the regular WW2 rifleman would get 5% of the training you might have had.
 
Upvote 0
Well, I really doubt this kind of training was common back then, except maybe for elite units. I don't think the regular WW2 rifleman would get 5% of the training you might have had.

Well what I was taught wasn't exactly rocket science and even regular riflemen back in WWI would have been taught the basics, or at least learned on their own, of how much your aim is affected by your breathing...... many of the rifles used in WWII were either rifles used in WWI or modifications of WWI rifles, which were very reliable and very accurate..... but they are only as accurate as the person using them and if they don't know how to use them properly and if they never got the right training on how to hit long range targets ala proper breathing, they'd be pretty useless as a riflemen, one would think.
 
Upvote 0