• 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/

Seriously Folks - RO2 is not COD

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#22
Arma he, thats quite a game.
Ro 2 is way easier to play it needs somepolishing and some people that actually should stick to console.

and you really cant compare it to arma ro2 is a hmm new kind of thing.
But unfortunatly not every one does understand how the game or its modes work.

it will change in the near future.
Just some bad birds to get rid off.
 
Upvote 0
#24
TheGoden said:
It's not CoD, but it certainly isn't an RO sequel either. It's not a bad game, don't get me wrong, but it's not a RO game.

It's absorbed too many arcade features for me to call it a sequel to RO.
Click to expand...


Pretty sure TWI are the only ones qualified to decide whether a game is an RO game or not. That you played a game for a while does not make you an authority on what intangibles make it an RO game. That rests on the shoulders of those who created the franchise and no one else.
 
Upvote 0
#26
TedSmith said:
Pretty sure TWI are the only ones qualified to decide whether a game is an RO game or not. That you played a game for a while does not make you an authority on what intangibles make it an RO game. That rests on the shoulders of those who created the franchise and no one else.
Click to expand...

Stop being so ridiculous. If you have played a lot of a particular game, then a sequel comes out, you are both perfectly entitled and in a strong position on whether or not to say if it is a certain type of game.

The fact is, RO2 does not really play like RO1. Say what you want. Love it or hate it - but that is the reality.

Imagine the next CoD game played like RO1. Millions of people would be saying 'this is not CoD', and they would be right. You don't need to be a developer to cast such an opinion.
 
Upvote 0
#28
[PEH]Rab said:
Stop being so ridiculous. If you have played a lot of a particular game, then a sequel comes out, you are both perfectly entitled and in a strong position on whether or not to say if it is a certain type of game.

The fact is, RO2 does not really play like RO1. Say what you want. Love it or hate it - but that is the reality.

Imagine the next CoD game played like RO1. Millions of people would be saying 'this is not CoD', and they would be right. You don't need to be a developer to cast such an opinion.
Click to expand...


No sir, you are incorrect. You are perfectly entitled to say whether or not you LIKE the current game. You are also entitled to say whether or not it 'feels' like an RO game to you (specifically to YOU since you can't honestly speak for anyone else). You are not, however, entitled to decide that it is "not an RO game". What makes an RO game an RO game is defined by those who created the franchise. Your CoD reference is exactly the same, save for the fact that no one of relevance that created the CoD franchise is still making those games. The gamers may say it, they'd still be wrong.

It's a simple matter of phrasing. I understand what you're trying to say, but you are simply using the wrong words and ascribing to yourself a right that you do not have.
 
Upvote 0
#29
TedSmith said:
No sir, you are incorrect. You are perfectly entitled to say whether or not you LIKE the current game. You are also entitled to say whether or not it 'feels' like an RO game to you (specifically to YOU since you can't honestly speak for anyone else). You are not, however, entitled to decide that it is "not an RO game". What makes an RO game an RO game is defined by those who created the franchise. Your CoD reference is exactly the same, save for the fact that no one of relevance that created the CoD franchise is still making those games. The gamers may say it, they'd still be wrong.

It's a simple matter of phrasing. I understand what you're trying to say, but you are simply using the wrong words and ascribing to yourself a right that you do not have.
Click to expand...

In other words, you are being **** retentive and nitpicking at semantics.

You basically argue only whoever makes the game can say whatever that game is. According to your strict philosophy then, had TWI released RO2 as an RTS game, the community would still be incorrect to state that it is not an RO game. However, as long as they include a magic phrase such as 'I think', then they are entitled to do that.

No offence, I think you need to get a grip!
 
Upvote 0
#30
Other people have nailed the problem in this thread, and surely elsewhere. RO2 is not arcade, but it also is far from being fully realistic. So, it suffers from wandering around aimlessly in the DMZ, taking fire from both COD players who saw RO2 popping up on the internet looking like a cool new shooter to try, and not enjoying it due to the more realistic elements, as well as staunch realism lovers who loved the low-key realism community that embraced the first RO. I'm not really sure where TWI should go from this point to fix the game. I would suggest clearing out the bugs and duct taping the server browser together first, then possibly reexamining how to possibly alter minor gameplay issues to appease members of both or one of the camps. The nasty reviews are already flying.....:(

[url]http://gamers-underground.com/content/1149-red-orchestra-2-review.html[/URL]
 
Upvote 0
#31
|ChaoS| said:
And let's face it, COD UO was the best/most complete WW2 game ever created. Although I was hoping RO2 would top it, so far (I only played RO2 for 6 hours or so) I don't think that's the case.

I like both games (RO and original COD), but UO is still the king of WW2 FPS if you ask me.


COD UO> RO2 IMO
Click to expand...

Personally I think Call of Duty was a fun single player game, and was the first game for me to have iron sights. From that perspective it felt quite real, but the guns were still not what I would call realism mode. Apart from iron sights it was still a very arcady game imo. I could only play COD:UO on a tactical realism server. With increased recoil or spread especially when not in iron sights. Otherwise I felt it wasn't that good in multiplayer, personally ofc.

COD2 on the otherhand just took it all too far. It wasn't moddable in the same was as UO so I just never really got into it.
 
Upvote 0
#32
I have Call of Duty, I also have Cliffs of Dover but I digress.. I may never play the first one again, after prestiging it's all the same anyway. RO2 is more gritty, more realistic and way more fun to play. COD is annoying, the Bunny Hopping, the Cheating, earning power ups that are more like hacks than upgrades. I like this game, this is what I want, what I expect from this kind of title not a console clone. I'm 51 I've been playing since Rainbow Six, and I approve of this thread, :)
 
Upvote 0
#33
melipone said:
Personally I think Call of Duty was a fun single player game, and was the first game for me to have iron sights. From that perspective it felt quite real, but the guns were still not what I would call realism mode. Apart from iron sights it was still a very arcady game imo. I could only play COD:UO on a tactical realism server. With increased recoil or spread especially when not in iron sights. Otherwise I felt it wasn't that good in multiplayer, personally ofc.

COD2 on the otherhand just took it all too far. It wasn't moddable in the same was as UO so I just never really got into it.
Click to expand...

Funny you say that. Go play some COD UO and you will quickly find out that the recoil is more "hardcore" than RO2.

Personally I'm finding RO2 recoil to be somewhat arcadish...

I went from DOD:S to CODUO few months back and I had problems controlling the guns.
 
Upvote 0
#34
Damo said:
The thing that gets me is the influx of CoD-lovin' whiners who play RO2 for two minutes before finding it too hard and shouting their mouths off with in-game chat or here on the forum. Not forgetting the onslaught of CoD feature related rants, because they expect the same sort of set-up in RO2.
Click to expand...

This right here. This is how my cod fears were put to rest. It is especially funny watching kids complain about waiting in countdown (love this game mode by the way). Obviously this game is different from RO1, but I think it has only improved. And I look forward to all the DLC and rising storm, and of course some bug fixes lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uffz.Juschkat
Upvote 0
#35
Haven't played it for years so can't tell if it was how I felt in comparison to others games I played at the time or how it really was. I just know I didn't really have much interest in it unless I played on a realism server that tweaked weapon stats

You sure you were playing on vanilla cod uo and not a modded one?
 
Upvote 0
#39
[PEH]Rab said:
In other words, you are being **** retentive and nitpicking at semantics.

You basically argue only whoever makes the game can say whatever that game is. According to your strict philosophy then, had TWI released RO2 as an RTS game, the community would still be incorrect to state that it is not an RO game. However, as long as they include a magic phrase such as 'I think', then they are entitled to do that.

No offence, I think you need to get a grip!
Click to expand...

No offense taken. The fact that people routinely fail to use their own language properly constantly disappoints me. That you don't see a difference in saying 'X is Y' and 'I think X is Y' or the more subjective 'I feel X is Y" is entirely irrelevant to me.

As for the rest of the absurdity that spilled out from your fingers, you're trying to compare a few minor feature changes to a complete change of genre? That's quite the straw man argument there.
 
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