nope.
I dont have to adapt. this is a game, and i buy it because i like the mechanics of it. I liked the mechanics of RO, and i expected the mechanics of it to be at least somewhat similar. If it does not appeal to me i either change it, or leave.
This is not biology where your options are "adapt or die."
That is EXACTLY what it's like, FFS! All these people are complaining about the game for a reason. I'm not saying the game has no faults, I am saying the game has less faults than most, and in its concept, if not it's execution, is the perfect balance between "run and gun" and "camp and snipe". You have to do both at times.
What I find is that when I start reading a thread like this, the first few sentences of the post are there to convince me they are not just whining, then the rest of the post is nothing but a whine. The author rarely takes any effort to separate the features that are bad for everyone from the features that a bad for him. The complaints he does have are usually tactical ones. He will say "the MP40 is overpowered" but he means "why does the MP40 keep killing me so easily?" So I try to tell them but they argue back, so I just make fun of them.
Wilful ignorance is the worst kind of ignorance.
People come here not to find out how to play better, or to find out what the quirks of the game are, they come here to complain and threaten, and 9 times out of 10, THEY ARE WRONG. That is a childish behaviour. When a child loses a game of checkers and starts trying to change the rules... that's what these complainers are doing. They are NOT interested in how to solve their problem, they are just venting, and they are doing it by seemingly trying to talk people out of buying the game.
I say this because they go on and on about how terrible some MINOR FEATURE of the game is and start demanding satisfaction as if they are about to call in the lawyers.
I have seen it so much, I assume that any complaint is coming from a CoD player that hasn't got a clue, or an RO1 player that has the WRONG clue. So I start telling them in detail why they are wrong. In this case you are wrong because the feeling of the maps is fine, based on the performance we are able to get from them.
Any bigger and they would be unplayable for performance reasons, any smaller and they would be unplayable for CoD reasons, and on top of that they are based on historical locations and battles. The devs can't just change stuff because you think it's too hard, or too easy, or broken. They simply can not put that much effort into such a minor complaint from so few people. Not yet at least.
Anyone with a brain knows there are far more important things TWI are working on right now, so complaining as loudly and forcefully about something TWI can not and will not change any time soon is an exercise in futility. People only do stuff like that when they want to lash out. People rarely put this much effort into just notifying the devs of a problem. You would post a bug report and leave it at that, not start saying the game is basically the worst game ever because it is buggier than any other game (bull****) is badly designed (bull****) and is not as good as RO1 OR CoD (bull****).
People embellish a simple bug report to make their problem seem so much worse than everyone else's problems, then basically tell anyone the tries to help them that they are wrong and the game is crap. What do you expect the reaction to be?
I'm playing the same game and doing all the things these complainers are saying is impossible under all the same conditions they are. Why can I do it and they can't, if the GAME is broken?
Also i'm far from a bad player in RO2.
Most people say that. You are playing against mostly bad players. Even a bad player can do well against bad players - but if they do, they rarely begin complaining about it. So I'm going to assume you are a bad player if what you are saying indicates to me that you do not know, understand, or use proper small unit tactics.
This is MEANT to be a realistic tactical FPS, not a TOTALLY real battle simulation. THAT is ARMA2, the maps are huge, you have all the time in the world to think, and when you get in close it can still be run and gun to some degree. Most people HATE that game. I don't. But if I want THAT game, I will play THAT game.
This is not meant to be ARMA. It's meant to be closer to CoD than ARMA, but it's REALLY meant to be an Insurgency style game. It's realistic in most respects, but not totally at the expense of fun. It's also not meant to be deciding who wins the game and who loses. It's a level playing field that ALL play styles can work on, whether you like to run and gun or camp and snipe, but it is still not using random number generators to roll the dice and decide who wins each battle. Most FPS' are closer to an RPG than an FPS in this respect.
You dont get better as the game artificially does that for you by applying stats and giving you guns or whatever.
No, you don't get better because you refuse to listen to anyone telling you HOW to get better. Instead you try to make the game worse so that you don't feel singled out.
People like you never come here and say:
"Man, I keep getting killed when I'm trying to MG. I never seem to be able to hit anything, but people always seem to be able to hit me easily. Does anyone have any idea what I am doing wrong?"
It is always "Man that MG is so bugged! If TWI doesn't fix this I'm going to have to stop playing the game! I PAID for this ****?"
Then, when I tell them THEY are a ****ty player, rather than this being a ****ty game, they go all ballistic, and start trying to defend each other. I become the asshole for saying a SINGLE PERSON sucked, while they have been going around and saying the game, TWI, and anyone good at it, sucks.
They simply never expect to be treated the way they treat others. Too bad. Go cry some more.
My issue is the game is not challenging, realistic, or authentic enough.
Bull****. You think it's unrealistic because you suck. I say it like that because people like you say the game sucks without cause, so what goes around comes around. You can't even tell me what realistic is, because you have no idea. Everything you know about it is probably gained from books or movies and NOT first hand experience.
Every person I have seen saying something is unrealistic were totally wrong because they were comparing a game weapon based on real world testing to their "impression" of the same weapon based on a few videos and their general knowledge of the weapon... and that general knowledge is based on Hollywood movies.
TWI tested the weapons and made the game weapons work they way they worked on the range. If you think they are wrong, you BETTER have tested the REAL weapon yourself, or can show the real weapon being tested in the way you say they are unrealistic. No one I have seen say a weapon is unrealistic has ever fired that weapon. They simply have no idea.
So why should I believe the person who hasn't fired the weapon, rather than TWI, who have?
My general knowledge of the weapons tells me they are close if not perfect. They are definitely closer than any other game, including RO1, except for MAYBE ARMA. So I will need a lot more than your best guesses, to be convinced.
And how is this a bad thing? They know EXACTLY what their fans like and they deliver on that.
Defending CoD? Why am I not surprised? The game sucks not because it is an arcade shooter. It sucks because it is a scam. They sell the same game over and over again for the highest price on the market. They convince you you are an awesome player, when in fact they are basically showing you the results of predetermined battles. When they do their balancing, they always make sure the weapon is irrelevant, the skill level is irrelevant, and even the map design is irrelevant. The only thing that really counts is the random number generator.
If a weapon will be getting more kills than they think is "fair" they will bork the weapon. If they think a play style is getting more kills than is fair, their will bork the game mechanics in some way to prevent it. You have bought a game that has been designed so that nothing you do really makes any difference - on average everyone will be about the same, simply because your scores are essentially being generated by a roll of the dice.
That game has been specifically designed to make certain tactics unusable. So was RO1. They are just as bad as each other. Nothing that happened in RO1 proves you have any skill at all. It simply proves that under those game mechanics, where run and gun was impossible, you could do well.
That's just like the CoD players who think they are good because the game protects them from more tactically aware styles of play. They think you are slow and a bad shot. You think they are dumb and rely on luck. Both of you are being helped by the game design.
RO2 isn't helping anyone, which is why everyone is complaining. The CoD guys AND the RO guys. This is a different KIND of game. It is a realistic tactical shooter that requires the use of realistic tactics (no surprise there, really). It's just that you don't know what are REALISTIC tactics. You think you should be able to camp somewhere indefinitely and kill from afar without risk. CoD guys expect to be able to cover the distance between the spawn and the cap without risk. You're both relying on the game mechanics to protect you during the phase of the battle you are no good at.
I will camp and snipe as good as anyone else, but I will also run and gun as good as anyone else. I adapt my style not to the GAME, but to the SITUATION in the game. If the situation calls for run and gun, I will out run and out gun anyone... or die trying. If it calls for 300m shots from a hidden window... then I can do that too. I simply do not rely on the game mechanics to protect me during the OTHER phase of the battle.
So why on earth would they change their formula
Call Of Duty 2 was essentially a version of RO1. They were released around the same time, had the same sort of realism goals, and were totally different from the modern CoD franchise.
Co2 is only a few months older than RO1. So clearly, between the time of RO1 and RO2, CoD's formula DID change. It just changed in the opposite direction to RO2. It became an arcade shooter instead of a realistic tactical shooter by being dumbed down.
RO2 was made a MORE realistic tactical shooter by being smartened up. The devs tested the real weapons and found they had been utterly mistaken about what was realistic. They specifically announced that RO2 was not just a re-release of RO1, like every CoD is a re-release of CoD 4. They said they had changed the mechanics to make it more realistic while not alienating any one group of players.
You got EXACTLY what TWI was offering. If you don't like it, that is not TWI's fault.
much the same way this iteration of RO doesnt appeal to me.
Except I'm not on their forums demanding they change the game to suit ME. I just jump to the "or else" bit. That's what adults do. If you don't like this game, don't play it. If you want to play it, adapt to THIS GAME. Stop trying to change it into another game. You won't succeed, and will only frustrate yourself and piss off the people who DO like the game AS IS.
Because I was there. I was playing the very first FPS (the way we think of them) when it was a new release. They are the only type of game I play, because I'm not very good at other games. RTS is beyond me. I just don't have the uber-micro. RPG games I enjoy, but I'm not that good at.
I don't go around trying to get RTS or RPG games turned into FPS games.
Most games up until the 2000's were extremely arcadey and unrealistic.
Not by choice. They were always marketed as and the intention behind them was to make them as realisitc as possible given the hardware constraints. There were far more simulations back in the days before the hardware was
able to do it properly.
I tell a lie. My first love was flight simulators. I have been playing them for over 20 years. At first I was the man. My spatial awareness helps in all first person type games, so I could out shoot and out fly anyone. But as the games became more realsitic, I realised I need far more expensive hardware to even play the game properly, let alone be good at it. When most people saw how hard a REALISITC flight simulator was, they stopped buying them.
That is what is happening to FPS. At first we always wanted more realism. That is why the photo-realistic textures and lighting and effects are so popular. This game would be much smoother and less buggy if it wasn't trying to look real. Same goes for CoD and BF. Then as the game became more physically real, people started finding it harder and harder and that is when the gimping began in earnest.
Originally things weren't realistic because they couldn't be made realistic and still perform on contemporary systems. Now they are unrealistic because people found out realism is hard. Whether you are talking about CoD or RO1, it's the same thing, just on different extremes. Neither were realistic, and it was because realism was too hard for the average player. So they picked which group of players they were going to make the game easier for. They just picked different groups.
Everything from map size and design, to ballistics, to movement speeds and postures. For example, suppression is totally fake. No such thing occurs in the real world. It is ONLY in games because they gimped machine guns so they didn't get so many kills, but then machine guns were worthless and no one wanted to play with them, so they invented the concept of the machine gunners role being to "suppress" things rather than to kill them.
In the real world EVERY weapon is used for suppressive fire, and NO WEAPON is designed or used JUST to scare people. The goal is and always will be "to close with the enemy and kill him".
Real machine guns are MORE accurate, MORE powerful and MORE useful than a rifle or SMG. In 99.9% of all games, including RO1, they are not that different from a flash bang. Do you think there should be a "stun grenade" class in FPS games? Yet that is how most games, and most gamers think of the gun. It's used to disorient and confuse, but it is prevented from being able to do anything else. It has been this way for so long, that people have come to believe that is the REALISTIC way. It's not.
Even RO2 can't help itself and has gimped the gun. It's just done it a lot less than most games.
That's what I mean about the game mechanics being modified to make things LESS realistic. The MG 34 is about 3 times the weight of the K98, but it is still only 12 KG. The guys given the gun are usually the bigger guys who can handle that weight as well as other people handle the weight of the rifle. How can anyone think it is impossible to hold the MG 34 to your shoulder and fire? It even has a single shot mode to overcome the massive recoil. At that point it is a semi-auto rifle. A heavy one, but not impossibly heavy.
The gun has been gimped for run and gun play, because otherwise you all would call it unrealistic. If I could run into a room and take aimed shots with the MG 34 people would scream bloody murder. It doesn't matter if in the real world the gun would be given to a 6 foot muscleman to carry. No we all have to act like weak little girls and lie down every time we want to aim the gun at something. That is supposed to be realism? Pfft. No more realistic than making the gun miss every time, even at point blank range, like CoD tries to do.
The point is, I just about never hear anyone complaining about the MOST unrealistic feature in the game... at least for the MG class. The gun is unrealistic to most people because it is not able to fire non-stop whole-belt bursts with accuracy. It's never unrealistic because you can't aim the gun from the standing unsupported position. Most people never even notice that that is unrealistic.