Upvote
0
RO1 vs RO2
- Thread starter R20+
- Start date
RO2 is not mindless aracde. RO2 is strikes a pretty good balance between realism FPS evolution and a return to the tactical shooters of old (ie. original Rainbow Six and Rogue Spear). The shooting mechanics are no quicker than in the original R6 or in Rogue Spear and anyone who would claim that those 2 games weren't TACTICAL is just being an idiot. RO2 was never supposed to be a MILSIM......it was to be a TACTICAL shooter. Which it absolutely is. Of course just because a game is meant to be played in a tactical fashion does not mean people are FORCED to do so.
Sometimes I get the impression the delusional RO1 vets on here (I am an RO1 vet myself) simply want certain game mechanics in RO2 for no other reason than to PUNISH those NOT playing the game the way they think it should be played. That's just nuts.
You want a MILSIM go play Flashpoint, ArmA etc. (btw......RO1 wasn't a MILSIM either.....it just punished people for trying to play the game in different ways.....that doesn't mean it's the better game). You cannot on any level compare RO1 or RO2 to a MILSIM. So stop with that craziness thank you!
You want tactical options come play RO2. RO2 is all about that.....OPTIONS! I can pick up an SMG or other automatic and do some run-n-gunny assault goodness, I can also use my trusty boltie and one-shot those same "run-n-gunners". I can choose to be a lone-wolf and not help the team and just play selfishly or I can do the opposite help the team (maybe even COMMAND the team) and lead the side to victory (or loss if I'm sucking....hehe). Options.......you have them in RO2.
You want regimented, semi-realistic, harsh penalties for "trying something different", large-scale campfests that feel like a WW2-skinned version of whack-a-mole? Well......you know where to go.......go backwards......keep walking backwards.......there....when you bump into RO1.......you've found your heaven.
Sometimes I get the impression the delusional RO1 vets on here (I am an RO1 vet myself) simply want certain game mechanics in RO2 for no other reason than to PUNISH those NOT playing the game the way they think it should be played. That's just nuts.
You want a MILSIM go play Flashpoint, ArmA etc. (btw......RO1 wasn't a MILSIM either.....it just punished people for trying to play the game in different ways.....that doesn't mean it's the better game). You cannot on any level compare RO1 or RO2 to a MILSIM. So stop with that craziness thank you!
You want tactical options come play RO2. RO2 is all about that.....OPTIONS! I can pick up an SMG or other automatic and do some run-n-gunny assault goodness, I can also use my trusty boltie and one-shot those same "run-n-gunners". I can choose to be a lone-wolf and not help the team and just play selfishly or I can do the opposite help the team (maybe even COMMAND the team) and lead the side to victory (or loss if I'm sucking....hehe
). Options.......you have them in RO2.You want regimented, semi-realistic, harsh penalties for "trying something different", large-scale campfests that feel like a WW2-skinned version of whack-a-mole? Well......you know where to go.......go backwards......keep walking backwards.......there....when you bump into RO1.......you've found your heaven.
Upvote
0
I didn't mean RO2 as mindless shooter but it's milder softer than RO1/ ARMA project reality's WW2 CQC PVP edition in quite some ways.
RO1 wasn't MIL simulation but in terms of CQC, it was as difficult as CQC simulator except for deliberate map design.
And many liked ro1 just for that element I guess.
Its graphic was subpar, there was no singleplayer element, the only thing that made RO1 and tripwire possible was RO1's ruthless punishing difficult, realism almost going head to head with ARMA PR CQC.
Hardcore realism, punishing difficulty as hard as ARMA PR is the basic reason tripwire, red orchestra series were basically possible. not they are turining their back on the basic, and forgetting the most important factor that made RO special.
If it keep getting more arcady, it's no longer be special for most ppl any more.
RO1 wasn't MIL simulation but in terms of CQC, it was as difficult as CQC simulator except for deliberate map design.
And many liked ro1 just for that element I guess.
Its graphic was subpar, there was no singleplayer element, the only thing that made RO1 and tripwire possible was RO1's ruthless punishing difficult, realism almost going head to head with ARMA PR CQC.
Hardcore realism, punishing difficulty as hard as ARMA PR is the basic reason tripwire, red orchestra series were basically possible. not they are turining their back on the basic, and forgetting the most important factor that made RO special.
If it keep getting more arcady, it's no longer be special for most ppl any more.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Again, it is supposed to be. Please read my replies finally. RO2 is a tactical shooter like the original Rainbow Six or Rogue Spear. It is not (and never was supposed to be) a MILSIM.
Upvote
0
sorry for skipping through your post.
original rainbow six was harder to hit target with its crazy moving reticules/ recoils.
All the RS series above has injury system affecting movement speed, recoil, sway, no 1 second bandage magic healing.
I enjoyed original rainbow six, rogue spear, RS3 pc mp, GRAW2 pc mp.
I swear to god, all of those game's shooting and movement is harder than RO2.
RO2 is easier than RS1, RS rogue spear, RS3 pc mp, GRAW2 pc.
So RO2's the most arcady.. tactical? shooter among RS series.
RO1 was harder maybe similar to real life battlefield.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Since you edited your post after I posted.......
Again I have to quote a portion of my previous posts which apply.
Again I have to quote a portion of my previous posts which apply.
Upvote
0
Thank you for finally reading it. I appreciate it.
I disagree. I loaded up some Rogue Spear (original R6 will not run on my hardware for some reason) the other week and it didn't feel any more "realistic" than RO2. To me it just feels like RO2 is more "fluid" (not faster) just smoother in it's gameplay. To me that is a good thing.
Firstly, the movement and shooting seeming "harder" doesn't mean it was more realistic (games were pretty limited back then in the "mechanics" department) and secondly, if you are again finding RO2 "easier" how much of that is just the fact that RO2's newer game mechanics make things (as I already stated) more fluid and natural?
As close to real would be playing a MILSIM. As stated I do not believe RO1 ever was a true MILSIM and for that reason certain mechanics in RO1 were simply there to "punish" and not necessarily by extension even "realistic".
RO2 opened up more "options" for gameplay. That is never a bad thing and most certainly also increases the chances and opportunities for FUN FACTOR. You keep talking about the many who appreciated RO1's punishing limitations. Well how about this? How many many more people do you think want to play a game that doesn't PUNISH them all the time? Punishment for the sake of punishment seems rather sado-masochistic to me and well I'm sure just as *many* of us prefer FUN over PAIN!
Upvote
0
Again I have to quote a portion of my previous posts which apply.[/QUOTE]
You are negating the basic reason of existence of RO series.
Why it is special and why ppl keep playing this relatively ugly game.
You are missing important thing here.
You are negating the basic reason of existence of RO series.
Why it is special and why ppl keep playing this relatively ugly game.
You are missing important thing here.
Upvote
0
I disagree. I loaded up some Rogue Spear (original R6 will not run on my hardware for some reason) the other week and it didn't feel any more "realistic" than RO2. To me it just feels like RO2 is more "fluid" (not faster) just smoother in it's gameplay. To me that is a good thing.
Firstly, the movement and shooting seeming "harder" doesn't mean it was more realistic (games were pretty limited back then in the "mechanics" department) and secondly, if you are again finding RO2 "easier" how much of that is just the fact that RO2's newer game mechanics make things (as I already stated) more fluid and natural?
________________________________________________________________________________________________
In real life things are slower and more painful to exactly pull off those smooth movement in the field with guns and military issued gears. (physical constraints)
Ghost recon advanced warfighter 2 (2008?) pc is the best animated tactical shooter, in my opinion, it's better than ARMA in realistic human movement speed and animation. and it's harder than RO2.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
As close to real would be playing a MILSIM. As stated I do not believe RO1 ever was a true MILSIM and for that reason certain mechanics in RO1 were simply there to "punish" and not necessarily by extension even "realistic".
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
RO1 though not was milsim but ""HAD"" slow movement, sway affected by breath, fatigue, stance, deviating accuracy.
Ro2 removed much and became jolly... arcadic.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
RO2 opened up more "options" for gameplay. That is never a bad thing and most certainly also increases the chances and opportunities for FUN FACTOR. You keep talking about the many who appreciated RO1's punishing limitations. Well how about this? How many many more people do you think want to play a game that doesn't PUNISH them all the time? Punishment for the sake of punishment seems rather sado-masochistic to me and well I'm sure just as *many* of us prefer FUN over PAIN![/QUOTE]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
RO1's amount of pain is what many original fans wanted.
Not ARMA PR like boring combat stuffs (5 min transfer by chopper, 3 min waiting in base for chopper, respawn 30Km away from action zone)
Hard, tough, milsim like hardcore CQC without boring combat stuff was exactly what many origianl fans loved about RO1.
I admit a little bit of gamedesign change would put RO2 right back on RO1's successor's path.
TWI knew it and took advantage of it cleverly, everyone knows it.
Firstly, the movement and shooting seeming "harder" doesn't mean it was more realistic (games were pretty limited back then in the "mechanics" department) and secondly, if you are again finding RO2 "easier" how much of that is just the fact that RO2's newer game mechanics make things (as I already stated) more fluid and natural?
________________________________________________________________________________________________
In real life things are slower and more painful to exactly pull off those smooth movement in the field with guns and military issued gears. (physical constraints)
Ghost recon advanced warfighter 2 (2008?) pc is the best animated tactical shooter, in my opinion, it's better than ARMA in realistic human movement speed and animation. and it's harder than RO2.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
As close to real would be playing a MILSIM. As stated I do not believe RO1 ever was a true MILSIM and for that reason certain mechanics in RO1 were simply there to "punish" and not necessarily by extension even "realistic".
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
RO1 though not was milsim but ""HAD"" slow movement, sway affected by breath, fatigue, stance, deviating accuracy.
Ro2 removed much and became jolly... arcadic.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
RO2 opened up more "options" for gameplay. That is never a bad thing and most certainly also increases the chances and opportunities for FUN FACTOR. You keep talking about the many who appreciated RO1's punishing limitations. Well how about this? How many many more people do you think want to play a game that doesn't PUNISH them all the time? Punishment for the sake of punishment seems rather sado-masochistic to me and well I'm sure just as *many* of us prefer FUN over PAIN!
[/QUOTE]___________________________________________________________________________________________________
RO1's amount of pain is what many original fans wanted.
Not ARMA PR like boring combat stuffs (5 min transfer by chopper, 3 min waiting in base for chopper, respawn 30Km away from action zone)
Hard, tough, milsim like hardcore CQC without boring combat stuff was exactly what many origianl fans loved about RO1.
I admit a little bit of gamedesign change would put RO2 right back on RO1's successor's path.
TWI knew it and took advantage of it cleverly, everyone knows it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I'm seeing a lot of the same problem Monk. All of these people are referring to how much "harder" RO1 was and how the mechanics were so much more realistic. They pretty clearly aren't referring to the Ostfront we know.
But trying to argue that point is like arguing with a kitchen sink.
But trying to argue that point is like arguing with a kitchen sink.
Upvote
0
RO had unrealistically slow movement. Soldiers had the stamina of an obese man on the third leg of a triathlon. Weapon sway is affected by fatigue in RO2. RO2 has different stances. RO2 DOES have deviating accuracy in that recoil still must be controlled (even if it has been made more accurate than Ost, i.e., less muzzle climb). RO2 didn't remove diddly-doo that wasn't an improvement over a previous Ost problem. Even the weapon handling is superior in RO2. I don't know where this rose tint of yours is coming from, but it's probably stemming from the real of "Fantasy Realism".
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I am not saying RO1's pseudo realistic features were accurately realsitic in every regards.
But most things that do exist and affect battle efficiency were nevertheless present in the game in meaningful manner that actually affects the outcome of accuracy, speed, overall cutthroat sentiment of pseudo realsitic battlefield of the game.
They were not exactly correct however they succeed to make ....realistic? end results/ vibe.
I thought TWI can pulll off more accurate form of those things all presented (not severely omitted) in ARMA 2 project reality this time around, but they just simplified these to the insiginificant state.
Try carry a gun which is heavier than most modern automatic rifle, and very long, and wear basic infantry equipment and uniform and army boots and try to run and walk several hundred meters.
and try to shoot popping up targets which you can't actually expect where to pop up next.
It can't actually be that fast and all time smooth, and accurate like RO2 present probably, cos it' might not be that easy with heavy, long rifle, military gears to run and shoot. It's tiring.
...Try to re enact the same movement and weight coverage in real life, it can not be that all time easy then you'll understand where I am coming from.
But most things that do exist and affect battle efficiency were nevertheless present in the game in meaningful manner that actually affects the outcome of accuracy, speed, overall cutthroat sentiment of pseudo realsitic battlefield of the game.
They were not exactly correct however they succeed to make ....realistic? end results/ vibe.
I thought TWI can pulll off more accurate form of those things all presented (not severely omitted) in ARMA 2 project reality this time around, but they just simplified these to the insiginificant state.
Try carry a gun which is heavier than most modern automatic rifle, and very long, and wear basic infantry equipment and uniform and army boots and try to run and walk several hundred meters.
and try to shoot popping up targets which you can't actually expect where to pop up next.
It can't actually be that fast and all time smooth, and accurate like RO2 present probably, cos it' might not be that easy with heavy, long rifle, military gears to run and shoot. It's tiring.
...Try to re enact the same movement and weight coverage in real life, it can not be that all time easy then you'll understand where I am coming from.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I've always understood where you were coming from. You are the one who hasn't understood me. RO2 was never supposed to be the game you think/wanted it to be.
Oh and you can't know where the targets might appear? After playing the same map 5 or 6 times you KNOW exactly how long it might take the opposite team to get to that point and you can already be scoped-in and watching that exact point. Welcome to the age of the modern tactical-shooter...........unless of course you were wanting a MILSIM......hehe
Oh and you can't know where the targets might appear? After playing the same map 5 or 6 times you KNOW exactly how long it might take the opposite team to get to that point and you can already be scoped-in and watching that exact point. Welcome to the age of the modern tactical-shooter...........unless of course you were wanting a MILSIM......hehe
Upvote
0
I've always understood where you were coming from. You are the one who hasn't understood me. RO2 was never supposed to be the game you think/wanted it to be.
Oh and you can't know where the targets might appear? After playing the same map 5 or 6 times you KNOW exactly how long it might take the opposite team to get to that point and you can already be scoped-in and watching that exact point. Welcome to the age of the modern tactical-shooter...........unless of course you were wanting a MILSIM......hehe
Game might have to put that deviating accuracy due to so many reasons that doesn't exist in game but in real life (i.e. breath effect, slight mialignment of frony rear sight due to quick aiming, misapplied power of trigger finger, wind, not always perfect weapon condition; I fired poorly maintained, unzeroed in gun. it was disastrous. in real life you should be sort of careful if you want hit target more than 60m away.)
In real life, shooting and hitting distant target accurately is more of a luck if he didn't take good amount of time to perfect the aiming and consider wind, put right amount of power to triggering finger, well contolled the breath to minimize tiny weapon movement that might affect accuracy on distant target.
Not exactly, I and many others probably bought/ pre ordered the game expecting exactly that.
Now seeing the game design choices if there wasn't mod support I would have been kind of pissed off at it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Again. you keep throwing the words "...in real life..." around like they actually matter in this context.
Nothing, and I mean nothing TWI said in the YEARS prior to the release of this game ever put me under the impression that " in real life " and RO2 would/could ever be construed as being synonymous.
Everything I was ever made to understand about this game prior to release was that it was going to be a "semi-realistic tactical shooter". That is exactly what we got. Real life is not "semi-realistic"........real life is well....real!
Nothing, and I mean nothing TWI said in the YEARS prior to the release of this game ever put me under the impression that " in real life " and RO2 would/could ever be construed as being synonymous.
Everything I was ever made to understand about this game prior to release was that it was going to be a "semi-realistic tactical shooter". That is exactly what we got. Real life is not "semi-realistic"........real life is well....real!
Upvote
0
Again. you keep throwing the words "...in real life..." around like they actually matter in this context.
Nothing, and I mean nothing TWI said in the YEARS prior to the release of this game ever put me under the impression that " in real life " and RO2 would/could ever be construed as being synonymous.
Everything I was ever made to understand about this game prior to release was that it was going to be a "semi-realistic tactical shooter". That is exactly what we got. Real life is not "semi-realistic"........real life is well....real!
Yeah, there is a catch.
PPl who enjoyed RO1 and well know about concept of RO1 expected those kind of things cos those are the prime features of RO series.
Regardless of who's saying what, RO's specialty is hardcore realism.
Maybe they should have put more thorough tutorial for newbie's accessibility or varied the difficulty level not to kind of ditch the original hardcore fans, not dumbing down the small but important factors.
Upvote
0
I use to play RO1 but I have to say RO2 is a-lot more fun in my opinion in some ways. I do miss the openness and snowy style maps,but I think it was because I liked RO1's maps and would love to see them recreated for RO2. MY opinion is RO2 is a-lot more fun. Once they iron out the bugs, this game will be truly a must own game for WW2 fans. I really can't wait for the mods to start rolling out, especially ones that add in other perspectives of WW2 like America's or British, i think RO2 has a-lot of potential for the future. Where it stands right now i'd say it's a good balance of RO1 and a faster paced FPS. It retains aspects of a sim while moving more towards fun in certain areas to keep a faster pace.
Upvote
0
This is not to offend you, but actually common arcade shooter games are generally more fun for me.
BFBC2, COD MW1,2, crysis 2 pc mp...They all have gimmicks and concepts to entertain the players...
Buying RO2 wasn't exactly for that purpose though..wanted cutthroat ARMA2 PR cqc edition, cos I liked that merciless battlefield vibe.
Last edited:
Upvote
0