When I began playing the beta it was buggy, horribly buggy, the game is still pretty buggy. However, I have patience for bugs if I see potential, since I liked RO1 so much I gave the game the benefit of the doubt.
Now that it's in a more playable state I can finally evaluate the game on what it actually is. Personally, I don't have some kind of obsession with realism, or arcade or "casual" to me it's all about the gameplay. Does the game work well? Is it fun? Is it designed well? I will try to answer those questions in no particular order.
The largest issue I noticed initially is the small map size which has a lot of consequences . The maps are, compared to RO1, extremely small which means that any defense type of map is a nightmare. Why is this? It's because defenders have to be in the area they need to defend to successively block the attackers, this means effectively that because the zone to defend is so SMALL the tools a squad leader has are extremely effective. Artillery simply clears a point every time, that's it , period, this wasn't the case in RO1 where the much larger points meant that artillery could at best limit the options for the defending team, but not effectively wipe them out. In RO2 seeing arty blow up a whole team isn't rare and it isn't their fault - if they spread out the point would be promptly taken and then they'd almost certainly have to retreat. In this sense the defending team is often stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The map size also means that automatic weapons are disproportionately better, can you do well with a rifle? Yes, but a rifleman's tactical choices are limited, his best option is always to simply pop out, fire a round, hide and then keep doing so. A soldier with an automatic/semi automatic weapon can do the same plus clear out buildings , kill multiple people in a short time period and in general just be overall better. In the end rifles are just an inferior weapon to hand out to people who are late to the party whereas in RO1 they were extremely useful for skirmishing at medium distance where SMG's had no chance. The fact that most people have access to autos also means that ultimately the rifle is just something to use for fun. Most people will choose autos for their apparent superiority.
The map size produces yet another issue - if the defenders suffer losses at any point their chances to regroup are bad. Why? It is because they spawn far behind the next point and by the time they can reach the point they have to defend it's often already occupied by the enemy which means that the defenders often become the attackers. At this point in the game the defenders have to play far more perfectly and recklessly than the attackers to keep a solid line of defense while freshly respawned defenders hike up to reinforce them. This means that more often than not the attackers win.
In this sense a map such as Danzig (apartments) is better thought out because while it is a small map the defenders actually have a far shorter path to make to their last point and also have a rather short way to make to C. Effectively they can keep reinforcing D far faster than the attackers can attack it. This means that the attackers (who have no artillery from what I can tell, which is GOOD because it's a small map ) have to actually coordinate a good assault on D while also holding C. This is GOOD design because both the attackers and defenders have to put down EQUAL effort to win. Unfortunately the new maps lack this kind of finesse and simply fail.
The map sizes are unfortunately not all that's wrong with the game. It seems to me that the game isn't really sure what it wants to do and that unsureness transfers to me not being sure if I like it. The unlock system which gives the DDE assault squad members an impressive prototype STG-44 divides up the community into the haves and have nots. Let's not delude ourselves - as good as the mp-40 is having an alternative that fires sub-rifle rounds that go through walls is simply too good. The unlock system is a concept of the new gaming generation to add a type of rpg component to a fps gaming. The idea is to get small rewards for playing - ideally this would appeal to the addicts who would keep playing long after the game itself got dull. I played Call of Duty World at War for a while and while there were a few slightly favored weapons a person who was at level 1 had really no disadvantages against a level 65 player. The level 65 had more options but ultimately a level 1 thompson-bearing soldier could kill the 65 consistently quite easily (assuming similar skill) . The guns were ultimately balanced to taste. The fact that this game has a clear hiearchy of weapons means that the people who got the DDE version of the game are at a pretty strong advantage. The problem here is that RO2 has an identity issue - it wants to be like the slick COD series but , because it's realistic it models the fact that the assault rifle was a superior weapon by far . This simply means that this "unlock" isn't a sidegrade but a 200% upgrade which would be counterproductive to COD's system where the upgrades were advantageous in dilute amounts. With this pull in 2 directions RO2 ultimately just can't achieve a good balance, it's transitory in its state.
Another issue is of course that this game wants to be realistic while giving a large % of its players a very rare weapon. Due to the fact that its so damn good the German side simply has it far better in every way. You can argue who was better all day but it still wont make any difference because the gameplay is garbage. Playing as the Russians is no fun because you're handicapped, playing as the Germans is no fun because it's a boring turkey shoot. Sure -if- the Russians are better you might get whooped but as we know it's the average experience that counts and that's the average experience. We again have an issue of identity - an unrealistic truckload of rare weapons that are realistic, this state of the game means it's not really realistic nor is it a game which sacrificed realism for gameplay , it's simply some kind of strange amalgamation . This is unfortunately not uncommon for developers nowadays - Duke Nukem Forever ultimately flopped for the same reason - it tried to be old school and new school at once and combined those two elements in a very cacophonous way thus crippling it's ability to appeal to either audience. I suspect, sadly, that RO2 is in the exact same position just with realism vs casual play. TWI - all I can say is this: decide what you want to do and do it ,you can't have a 2 in 1, sorry but you can't. Better luck next time. I seriously mean it.
Now that it's in a more playable state I can finally evaluate the game on what it actually is. Personally, I don't have some kind of obsession with realism, or arcade or "casual" to me it's all about the gameplay. Does the game work well? Is it fun? Is it designed well? I will try to answer those questions in no particular order.
The largest issue I noticed initially is the small map size which has a lot of consequences . The maps are, compared to RO1, extremely small which means that any defense type of map is a nightmare. Why is this? It's because defenders have to be in the area they need to defend to successively block the attackers, this means effectively that because the zone to defend is so SMALL the tools a squad leader has are extremely effective. Artillery simply clears a point every time, that's it , period, this wasn't the case in RO1 where the much larger points meant that artillery could at best limit the options for the defending team, but not effectively wipe them out. In RO2 seeing arty blow up a whole team isn't rare and it isn't their fault - if they spread out the point would be promptly taken and then they'd almost certainly have to retreat. In this sense the defending team is often stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The map size also means that automatic weapons are disproportionately better, can you do well with a rifle? Yes, but a rifleman's tactical choices are limited, his best option is always to simply pop out, fire a round, hide and then keep doing so. A soldier with an automatic/semi automatic weapon can do the same plus clear out buildings , kill multiple people in a short time period and in general just be overall better. In the end rifles are just an inferior weapon to hand out to people who are late to the party whereas in RO1 they were extremely useful for skirmishing at medium distance where SMG's had no chance. The fact that most people have access to autos also means that ultimately the rifle is just something to use for fun. Most people will choose autos for their apparent superiority.
The map size produces yet another issue - if the defenders suffer losses at any point their chances to regroup are bad. Why? It is because they spawn far behind the next point and by the time they can reach the point they have to defend it's often already occupied by the enemy which means that the defenders often become the attackers. At this point in the game the defenders have to play far more perfectly and recklessly than the attackers to keep a solid line of defense while freshly respawned defenders hike up to reinforce them. This means that more often than not the attackers win.
In this sense a map such as Danzig (apartments) is better thought out because while it is a small map the defenders actually have a far shorter path to make to their last point and also have a rather short way to make to C. Effectively they can keep reinforcing D far faster than the attackers can attack it. This means that the attackers (who have no artillery from what I can tell, which is GOOD because it's a small map ) have to actually coordinate a good assault on D while also holding C. This is GOOD design because both the attackers and defenders have to put down EQUAL effort to win. Unfortunately the new maps lack this kind of finesse and simply fail.
The map sizes are unfortunately not all that's wrong with the game. It seems to me that the game isn't really sure what it wants to do and that unsureness transfers to me not being sure if I like it. The unlock system which gives the DDE assault squad members an impressive prototype STG-44 divides up the community into the haves and have nots. Let's not delude ourselves - as good as the mp-40 is having an alternative that fires sub-rifle rounds that go through walls is simply too good. The unlock system is a concept of the new gaming generation to add a type of rpg component to a fps gaming. The idea is to get small rewards for playing - ideally this would appeal to the addicts who would keep playing long after the game itself got dull. I played Call of Duty World at War for a while and while there were a few slightly favored weapons a person who was at level 1 had really no disadvantages against a level 65 player. The level 65 had more options but ultimately a level 1 thompson-bearing soldier could kill the 65 consistently quite easily (assuming similar skill) . The guns were ultimately balanced to taste. The fact that this game has a clear hiearchy of weapons means that the people who got the DDE version of the game are at a pretty strong advantage. The problem here is that RO2 has an identity issue - it wants to be like the slick COD series but , because it's realistic it models the fact that the assault rifle was a superior weapon by far . This simply means that this "unlock" isn't a sidegrade but a 200% upgrade which would be counterproductive to COD's system where the upgrades were advantageous in dilute amounts. With this pull in 2 directions RO2 ultimately just can't achieve a good balance, it's transitory in its state.
Another issue is of course that this game wants to be realistic while giving a large % of its players a very rare weapon. Due to the fact that its so damn good the German side simply has it far better in every way. You can argue who was better all day but it still wont make any difference because the gameplay is garbage. Playing as the Russians is no fun because you're handicapped, playing as the Germans is no fun because it's a boring turkey shoot. Sure -if- the Russians are better you might get whooped but as we know it's the average experience that counts and that's the average experience. We again have an issue of identity - an unrealistic truckload of rare weapons that are realistic, this state of the game means it's not really realistic nor is it a game which sacrificed realism for gameplay , it's simply some kind of strange amalgamation . This is unfortunately not uncommon for developers nowadays - Duke Nukem Forever ultimately flopped for the same reason - it tried to be old school and new school at once and combined those two elements in a very cacophonous way thus crippling it's ability to appeal to either audience. I suspect, sadly, that RO2 is in the exact same position just with realism vs casual play. TWI - all I can say is this: decide what you want to do and do it ,you can't have a 2 in 1, sorry but you can't. Better luck next time. I seriously mean it.
Last edited: