Action Mode Thread - Part 2

[greenlemonade]

Originally Posted by Torio

Lack of accessibility and the steep learning curve was one of the biggest criticisms of the game when it came out. A decent Action mode along with bug-free Classic and Realism modes on release would have bumped the Meta score by 5 points minimum IMO. Ahhh hindsight.

You are very correct.

I HIGHLY recommend that TW takes their time and fixes most bugs and tweaks Action mode before having a free weekend.

The truth is, I tried Killing Floor during its first free weekend and was turned off by the bugs and lack of weapons and maps(as well as the default brightness setting being too dark).
MONTHS later I gave it another try and was blown away.

[barakas]

Originally Posted by MarioBava

[/I]Think of another example. It's like your favorite brand of ice cream is offering two new flavors. One that you know you and a lot of fans of their ice cream will really like and one that you know you will really dislike because you don't like its main ingredients, and that you feel aims at customers unlike you. What's the f'ing problem? You're seriously less enthused about Classic mode now just because there might also be something else available in the freezer aisle? The very existence of a different flavor of ice cream sours your experience of the other flavor? really?

That's a terrible analogy.

A better analogy is that a sports car maker, releases a sports car that has several missing parts, and seems to be designed partly as a sports car and partly as a people carrier, while it was being sold as a successor to a popular sports car.

While the car makers are still working on developing the missing parts for the car, and improving some of the faults for the car, the sports car company announces its releasing a new version of the car that's entirely a people carrier and basically in no way a sports car.

"But hang on, I'm still waiting for my sports car to be fixed", says the customer.

"What's your problem!?", says the developer "If you don't want to use a people carrier then don't use it, we're making this people carrier in our spare time and its not going to effect your sports car (that is still unfinished with significant problems left to be fixed)".

In such a case would you honestly still be as excited about getting your finished sports car? Or would you think the car maker was having an identity crisis and didn't really know what they were doing.

I bought RO2 for a hardcore/realistic experience, not something like this. I bought on the expectation that TWI were a sports car company (realistic slow paced tactical shooter), not a people carrier company (fast paced casual shooter like CoD). I don't care whether the devs work on this in their "spare" time or not. They already have my money, so the concept of "spare time" is meaningless to me since I'm not paying them to work. Any work they do now is purely to retain my good will and future patronage (Which is rapidly dwindled by choices like this).

If they don't care about my good will at all they should save themselves some time and stop working all together. If they do care they might want to focus on things I actually want (like getting a finished product), instead of things I don't.

If I want to buy a sports car I'll buy from Ferrari. If I want a people carrier I'll buy from Toyota or someone. Even if I like people carriers (which I don't), I wouldn't want to buy one off Ferrari anyway, because that's not their speciality.

If TWI have decided they want to be a different kind of game developer they should have told me before they took my money.

[Vapid]

That's a good post.

[greenlemonade]

Originally Posted by Vapid

That's a good post.

/Disagree


Don't get me wrong, I'm a hardcore realism player. I HATE COD with a passion and enjoy RO and America's Army. I even made a mod for L4D2 to reduce the HUD and and other realism tweaks.

But Red Orchestra is not a car, it's a game. That analogy is as ridiculous as me saying that I'm pissed at MacDonalds for making a "Mushroom-Burger" because I hate mushrooms.
Tripwire is working VERY hard on the realism and classic modes. They are also working hard on general bugs and tweaks that effect all game-modes.
An action mode could potentially help the RO community as a "gateway drug" and even please thousands of people who have already bought the gamer. Like I said in earlier posts, even with a cross-hair, no freeaim and more health, RO2 Action mode has LOADS of unique features that players can enjoy.

[Floyd]

I would hope that one would do their homework a little more thoroughly when spending 10's of THOUSANDS of dollars. Otherwise, they'll be quite the easy mark. By contrast, RO2 cost less that $40 US.

In either case:
Caveat Emptor

While you can test drive the various cars, you couldn't RO2. But again >$10k vs <$40. You get to have feedback from other consumers of the car. Same for RO2.

If the car has defects, you (generally) have legal recourse. By contrast with software, there is generally an EULA.

While I haven't read the EULA of RO2, the typical EULA tells you that you don't own the software but have a license to use it. There will usually be a "To the extent permissible by law, any warranties of any kind, express or implied, are excluded..." statement in there somewhere. A "where is as is" disclaimer if you will.

Either way, if you feel you've been mis-lead, you can always not do further business with the offending company. (Thats what I choose to do during the course of my business affairs on a daily basis.) If you feel you've been grossly liabled, you can always sue. Class action would be the only monetarily viable option as I doubt the cost/reward ratio would hardly be worth your while to hire a lawyer for a $40 digital download.....

In the end, its their software to do what they choose with it.....We just paid for the priviledge of using it (irrespective if it is fit for use).

[Crusher]

Either way, a high learning curve is nothing to be ashamed about, you might be suprised but alot of people like to have a challange when they play a game. Figuring things out while playing it is half the fun. Besides if people want to play a mainstream game they'll play a mainstream game, RO2 action mode isn't quite the "fastfood of gaming". There should be constant upgrades, temporary powers, and other things MW3 does. Even if the action mode would be a COD in WWII not alot of people would be interested in it because WWII is from the previous generation of games. It's all about modern warfare now. When the free weekend starts most people will play classic mode I think.

[melipone]

One of the main selling points of Ostfront was the depth and things to learn as you played, while it wasn't as hard to get into as a regular realism/sim type game.

A fan made multiplayer mod for Mount & Blade has more players than RO2 and the learning curve and skill ceiling for that is immense. They had no advertising and you have to jump through hoops to get it up and running and register on another website. So many new things to learn in that game, but its been some of the most fun i've had in a game for years. RO should occupy the same sort of area - deep, complex yet ultimately fun and rewarding semi-realistic WW2 combat. If people can get into M&B, they surely can get the grasp of something with so many transferable skills as an FPS game. It just needs to be sold as what it intends to be and TWI need to know themselves who they intend to play it.

If the first thing people see when they play is free aim and no crosshair, the people who may play long term might go "cool the gun moves around and isn't just fixed to the centre of the screen". Or they may join the crosshair mode, play some apartments for 20 mins and then not feel hooked enough to play again. First impressions are very important. Should people's first impressions be action mode or realism, for a game that hopes to keep people playing long term, a game that uses realism as a selling point? Its like getting Michael Bay to do the first hour of your epic WW2 movie for you. The people who would watch the whole thing will leave before it gets good, the people who stay for the first hour might not bother finishing watching it when it gets boring.

On the other hand, it might get people to play who would otherwise not get into it at all and it might allow servers to get more random players joining due to having a boarder appeal. Or it might simply make more money for TWI in the sale and allow further development of stuff they actually want to work on. Tripwire turned Killing Floor around, maybe they can work some magic here too. I wouldn't want to assume I know better than actual game devs who make a living doing this, its just how I see it

It just depends how the mode is integrated into the game, and whether people get a chance to try the different modes before quitting the game I suppose, and people who come to RO for realism should know that the action mode is a quirky side game rather than the real deal

[Apos]

Originally Posted by melipone

One of the main selling points of Ostfront was the depth and things to learn as you played, while it wasn't as hard to get into as a regular realism/sim type game.

A fan made multiplayer mod for Mount & Blade has more players than RO2 and the learning curve and skill ceiling for that is immense. They had no advertising and you have to jump through hoops to get it up and running and register on another website. So many new things to learn in that game, but its been some of the most fun i've had in a game for years. RO should occupy the same sort of area - deep, complex yet ultimately fun and rewarding semi-realistic WW2 combat. If people can get into M&B, they surely can get the grasp of something with so many transferable skills as an FPS game. It just needs to be sold as what it intends to be and TWI need to know themselves who they intend to play it.

If the first thing people see when they play is free aim and no crosshair, the people who may play long term might go "cool the gun moves around and isn't just fixed to the centre of the screen". Or they may join the crosshair mode, play some apartments for 20 mins and then not feel hooked enough to play again. First impressions are very important. Should people's first impressions be action mode or realism, for a game that hopes to keep people playing long term, a game that uses realism as a selling point? Its like getting Michael Bay to do the first hour of your epic WW2 movie for you. The people who would watch the whole thing will leave before it gets good, the people who stay for the first hour might not bother finishing watching it when it gets boring.

On the other hand, it might get people to play who would otherwise not get into it at all and it might allow servers to get more random players joining due to having a boarder appeal. Or it might simply make more money for TWI in the sale and allow further development of stuff they actually want to work on. Tripwire turned Killing Floor around, maybe they can work some magic here too. I wouldn't want to assume I know better than actual game devs who make a living doing this, its just how I see it

It just depends how the mode is integrated into the game, and whether people get a chance to try the different modes before quitting the game I suppose, and people who come to RO for realism should know that the action mode is a quirky side game rather than the real deal

Your post is full of win sir.

You gave here some good example from which games TWI should take an example. New Warband DLC isn't easy or accessible, but gameplay is solid, slow paced, semi realistic and original.
Result: In Warband plays nearly 17 times more players than in RO2. Players love new DLC.

Another good example is new mod for ArmA 2: DayZ. It's very difficult, very realistic, with long learning curve game. BUT it has unique gameplay and lot of original features.
Result: it has more players than RO2 and it's only alpha!

TWI still thinks that if they make game more dumb, easy, fast paced and accessible, then it brings more players in. Well, they're wrong.

As long as TWI will follow such games as Brink, Homefront and other CoD clones it will fail - that's fact (check how many players playthose games and how many play ArmA 2 or Warband, and those two don't have unlocks or other crap like that!).

TWI's explanation that's side-project that they made in free time is lame. If they would care about RO fans, they would make a free look, deployable mortars, entering/exiting vehicles animations, attachable bayos, 3D voip or other more interesting features.

They made crosshairs for CoD crowd...TWI, CoD crowd is not interested in game that "looks like CoD 1 or 2" and "it's boring like WWII".

The key is to make a game as much different than CoD as possible.

[MeFirst]

Action mode does not make the classic mode worse. You should actually be happy that TW takes effort, time and money to make as much of the players happy. In other words:

If you are a classic player: Why cant you be happy that the "casuals" get a better game mode?

If you are not a classic player: Why cant you be happy that the "hardcore players" get a better game mode?

[Cyper]

Originally Posted by MeFirst

Action mode does not make the classic mode worse. You should actually be happy that TW wotakes effort, time and money to make as much of the players happy. In other words:

If you are a classic player: Why cant you be happy that the "casuals" get a better game mode?

If you are not a classic player: Why cant you be happy that the "hardcore players" get a better game mode?

Like I wrote earlier, its not the best time to focus on Action Mode right now because Classic should be developed first because it is far more important to get the game back on its feets by adding what the community want, e.i. Classic Mode. With ''the community'' I am speaking of the people who play the game. If the casuals are so keen to get Action Mode for RO2 why haven't we heard of them? Why can't I even remember one single post on this board that says: RO2 must become more casual? The only thing I've heard is the opposite: it must become less casual. The only thing I have seen is a incredible player drop and huge amount of complaints. In this community the mainstream is like some kind of ghost. People confirm that they hear their voices and wishes, but no one is able to trace the voice to its source. People say they exist out there, but they never show up.

[Icey_Pain]

It's not that I'm against Action mode, but I'm really wondering what the point of adding it is.

When you look at the game, several core features are still missing which would really make this game a lot better.
1. Multiplayer Campain Mode(like advertised)
2. An item pickup menu to avoid accidentally hugging the wall everytime you try to pick up an item.(like advertised)
3. Several dedicated tank warfare maps, currently we only have Gumrak, which is boring to say the least.
4. Bugfixes that should have been fixed long ago, such as server browser issues that still persist, the lack of sounds while the beta was obviously fine.
5. Many cover points that do not allow you to perform full functionality.

And that's just a few of the things that need working on to restore the faith of the crowd the game was aimed at initially. I'm all for broadening the crowd this game appeals to, but only if the core mechanics are developed well enough to actually maintain a playerbase.
TWI should have waited atleast 6 months before releasing this game, which is an error that isn't fixed by gathering some casuals to this game, since there are better casual games out there.

[Torio]

Originally Posted by Cyper

If the casuals are so keen to get Action Mode for RO2 why haven't we heard of them? Why can't I even remember one single post on this board that says: RO2 must become more casual? The only thing I've heard is the opposite: it must become less casual. The only thing I have seen is a incredible player drop and huge amount of complaints. In this community the mainstream is like some kind of ghost. People confirm that they hear their voices and wishes, but no one is able to trace the voice to its source. People say they exist out there, but they never show up.

I think a person needs to get outside this echo chamber to get a true picture. There are literally thousands of posts on Steam alone in addition to numerous critical reviews taking issue with the lack of accessibility at launch. Really, when have "casuals," as you call them, ever been welcome in this forum? Granted, it is getting better now.

Regardless, we are going to find out in a couple weeks which mode players gravitate so all of this debate around Normal mode is rather moot. Personally, I believe Normal mode will be the game of choice for the tactical, competitive crowd, not so much Classic. I would not have said that a month ago, but with all of the improvements in the beta, I am leaning in that direction.

Firefights now last longer, your squad doesn't turn over every 12 seconds and despite realistic sprint and fatigue, the game's pace is actually slower and more deliberate with the reduced damage. It seems to accomplish the aims of Classic but without coating everything with molasses. It's surprisingly fun. You should try it.

But whatever. At the end of the day, I do not believe the competition for Classic is another game mode. The elephant in the room remains BF3. The fact is the majority of RO2 owners, classic fans included, are playing BF3 and have been since it came out. More than bugs at launch, or religious wars within the community, BF3 is what best explains the sudden drop in player count before Christmas.

[Icey_Pain]

Perhaps BF3 stole quite a bit of players from RO2, but as a BF3 owner I can not say I am one of those players.

As far as I'm concerned both games offer their fair share of immersive gameplay, but one is obviously aimed to the arcade crowd and the other is aimed at the realism crowd. I myself tend to play both genres, with a slight favourism towards realistic shooters, or competitive shooters like Quake. BF3 is neither realistic or terribly competitive. So it doesn't really appeal to me as much.

RO2 is not a bad game, it's very fun indeed. But I get the feeling that BF3 was designed not so much with pleasure and fun in mind, but rather with addiction in mind. RO2 isn't all that addictive, and BF3 is. Weirdly enough though, people pick
addictiveness over fun. The crowd who plays MMORPG's are a good example of that.

After the sparkly shine of BF3 being brand new wore off, I pretty much stopped playing it all together, it just felt shallow. I suspect there are many others around that have done the same.

In the end people will return to their favourite genre, and while RO2 leaves a footprint in the list of memorable realism shooters for people that like this genre, it just doesn't cut it. But I must honestly say, that TWI is well on their way to fix that. Every significant patch has brought features that I can only applaud, and with classic mode it's almost to the point where I'd consider the game to make the cut.

It just needs a bit more content, that's all.

[Raneman]

Maybe if RO2 differentiated itself from other shooters, and didn't play like one of those 'disposable' games, then we wouldn't have other games stealing our players.

[MeFirst]

As I see it the main "problem" that players new to the RO series at launch had were buggy gameplay experience, combined with performance issues and a lack of accessibility.

[Hoodie]

in my opinion they shouldnt waste time with this "action" mode because thats just not what ro is about! get the classic right first and get more content out there!

[MarioBava]

Originally Posted by barakas

That's a terrible analogy.

Honestly, no analogy is perfect (the only perfect analogy isn't an analogy, it's an identical case), but by comparison yours is just as terrible as mine for some big reasons. We choose our analogies by what we want to emphasize. You clearly want to emphasize a company's so-called "identity" (about a company that has made a realistic WWII shooter AND a hugely successful -- significantly more successful than their little WWII thing, by the way-- arcade sci-fi zombie hunting game, ...not so "identifiable" as Ferrari, I would say), and also an inflated magnitude of investment (for both the consumer and the manufacturer). It fails miserably in both of these aspects.

Let me borrow your analogy and make another terrible one. You've bought your car, it has some problems. But let's say your car comes with satellite radio. You like Classical, and that's it. There's an update that adds several ska radio stations to the available choices. But you don't like ska music. You kind of hate it. It annoys the hell out of you and furthermore you think people that like ska music tend to be annoying as well. What I want to emphasize by this is a few things. 1) "Spare time" means that the few tweaks that Action mode (so far) represents didn't leech any company resources from the work on the problems with the game, kind of like as if the satellite radio provider just added some stations has nothing to do with the other work being done on the car you currently have. 2)You can keep on listening to Classical music with no obligation to listen to that annoying ska music. 3)Sometimes offering options is a significant part of a company's identity. I would say this is not out of left field given TWI's modding background. In fact this kind approach should be expected...it's clearly an element of what they have repeatedly stated they see as the advantage of PC gaming; configurability.

[Golf33]

I don't know. I like ska and I don't like sports cars. Should I play Action, Realism or Classic?

[Inogine]

I've been just idly sitting by watching for quite a long long time now... And occasionally I leap into the beta when it gets a huge update to see changes... I am starting to walk away now with one major thing stuck in my head. "My god, what are they doing to it?" And this thought is only getting louder the more time that passes.

I've stopped playing some time ago to preserve what fun I get out of it, and believe me, I love RO2 as it is now sans some bugs and the like. I feel it just needs more maps, more content. Some different weapons, different sides... SOMETHING, but not what it's getting. Seeing this arcade mode only hurts my head worse, not because I'm elitist and worry about CoD folks wandering in, but because it no longer even remotely resembles the game I love.

What does all this mean to me? The company I held in the highest respects, one of my top two in fact, has now shot its own leg and is somewhere lost in the middle of the pack. I can no longer call them reliable, enjoyable, or much of anything simply because I'm dying from lack of content. New maps, preferably larger would be a massive step in the right direction. Some better directed combined arms would be great. Better implementation of modding or user made maps. These are all that I'm praying for, but it's been what feels like ages, and instead when I hit the beta, I see new modes, not new content I want to see and fixes for bugs that damage gameplay.

Cpt-Praxius hit the nail dang on center with his post. Those of us that loved the game and series are being left in the back behind "RO-faithful" and "CoD-fags" as you folks call'em. There is now a third vocal group, and if I have to get vocal to be represented, I will. Sitting back and watching is not getting me the product I want. I could go make my own, but alas I have little in the way of skill or resources to do this.

My buddy actually got into RO2 with me with very little prior experience to the series. He played only a spare bit with RO in its original form and the Darkest Hour mod, but only on a tank server which is a very different feel than a combined arms map. The moment we got into RO2 together however, it was glorious. He loved the feel of the weapons, the way combat worked out, and the pacing. The most glaring portion was the bugs that plagued the game. Be that performance or otherwise gameplay breaking ones such as the auto-pickup portion or use/bandage/cover being the same key.

Bugs, not the gameplay. We had modes we prefered but he was honestly having a blast having no prior ties to much of any shooting game. He normally detests them, but here he was having a blast and relating stories about kills. However as time went by, were stuck on the same old maps that weren't really all that stellar and memorable, regardless of authenticity. They are very interesting, but we like fun locations too rather than some of the open area campandkill fests we currently have.

When I tested the new mode and found out that not only is the "hardcore" mode not what I'm wanting from the game, but now we have an "arcade" mode as well, me and my buddy were saddened. Where is my content? Where are my bug fixes? Maps, weapons, tanks, and bug fixes are all I want from this, but apparently we're a silent voice here.

I've been a tripwire fanboy, a full on fanboy yes, for ages. Ask anyone who knows me. Now however I'm becoming disenchanted with one of my favorite series if not my favorite series considering I've always gone back to it. Tripwire, I'm honestly worried about your future and that saddens me seeing as I held you as one of the greats.

Summary: I want the folks at tripwire to ask themselves one question. Like RO before, "Is this the game I want to make?" The first RO held such promise as did this one and now it's literally falling apart before my eyes and that's a damn shame.

[Yoshiro]

A major chunk of this beta has been bug fixes, refined features, our first piece of new content with Mamayev and performance.