Tripwire, the core gameplay of RO2 is fine

heath4n said:

Let's keep it simple.

RO2 is far more realistic than RO1
RO2 has focused on realism over balanced gameplay
RO2 has been a failure
Darkest hour was an amazing success
Darkest hour focused on balanced gameplay over realism

Do the maths.

Click to expand...

Your equation is missing some parts like,

RO2 is far more faster paced.
RO2 has realistic features, but this is undermined by codified gameplay.
RO2 lead developer chose to "Beat CoD" and alienated it's userbase with stupid decisions in the progress.
DH retained what RO did best(immersive, competetive combat) and improved it.
DH is far more realistic than RO features wise, and more realistic(hardcore) than RO2 generally.
DH maps were not really balanced until a few releases(some maps were even removed I think).

Does not compute? The thing IMO is TWI went both ways during the development. They were first probably making a successor in the spirit of RO(hence the realistic features) but sometime during the development they decided they wanted a faster paced gameplay to attract more fans, and we have this soullest freak we have now.

Though I agree, a Darkest Hour 2 would really blow some life into RO2.

RAF_Pstyle said:

Exactly, yet how many maps have ranges of 200m?
The distance from the town-hall to the church at spartanovka is only 100m. I can sit in the townhall at Spartanovka and pick off guys near the church with an SMG. Why? is the SMG modelled to be too accurate? No. It's just that the church is only 100m away. this means that an asaualt rifles just about as effective as a full-MG on these maps, without the added weight.

Commissars house comes close with the distances from the south park, across the map somewhere in the 150m range? And from the Water refinery to the G-cap at around the same.
99% of the time in RO2 we are fighting at 20-75m ranges, not the 200m which is "best to open up the fire". So the "too accurate" complaint isn't really a bout accuracy, it's about map size. I don't think the accuracy of weapons is an issue.

Click to expand...

But it feels like we fight at over 200m when we shooting from the church to the town-hall. If we don

Rak said:

Your equation is missing some parts like,

RO2 is far more faster paced.
RO2 has realistic features, but this is undermined by codified gameplay.
RO2 lead developer chose to "Beat CoD" and alienated it's userbase with stupid decisions in the progress.
DH retained what RO did best(immersive, competetive combat) and improved it.
DH is far more realistic than RO features wise, and more realistic(hardcore) than RO2 generally.
DH maps were not really balanced until a few releases(some maps were even removed I think).

Does not compute? The thing IMO is TWI went both ways during the development. They were first probably making a successor in the spirit of RO(hence the realistic features) but sometime during the development they decided they wanted a faster paced gameplay to attract more fans, and we have this soullest freak we have now.

Though I agree, a Darkest Hour 2 would really blow some life into RO2.

Click to expand...

This post is full of win, however i would add note that some of features that suppose to be realistic, work opposite:
- Slow death reminds and works like last stance from CoD.
- Bandaging is simply a medkit from Battlefield and heals you fully in one second.
- If you get hit in hand or foot you don't need to use bandages, simply hide in corner and you are good to go, fully healed = "bloody screen" and automatic healing from CoD.

There are also other features (completely unrealistic) added only to speed up gameplay:
- lockdown (hurry! you have only 4 minutes to capture first objective! Run and gun!)
- forced respawn (from time to time you get extra respawn so you dont need to wait so long...)
- spawning on squad leader borrowed from Battlefield (you don't need to run to flagzone, respawn there and start gunning!)

TWI added all these features to please CoD crowd and flushed away epic and tactical RO:O gameplay. I may ask where is that "wider audience"? Oh they said "RO2 graphic sux", "game is boring", "that german AK sux", "game is too realistic", "give me Black Ops//MW3/Battlefield 3!".

edit: yesterday I asked friend (old RO:O vet and RO:O tank lover) why he doesn't play RO2. He told me: RO2 gameplay reminds him so much CoD, that he prefers to play Battlefield 3, where battles are more epic.

codified gameplay.

Click to expand...

immersive, competetive combat

Click to expand...

far more realistic than RO features wise, and more realistic(hardcore)

Click to expand...

Could you use more generic descriptions if you tried, the third quote you said it's more realistic twice in the same sentence.....

The balance of RO2 is hopelessly broken and they obviously are not going to fix it because they are too stubborn. Just look at what Ramm said privately about Darkest Hour, too stubborn/embarrassed to realise just how much better the game is than RO1.

Balanced Guns, fantastic maps, loads of content and fantastic teamwork that RO1 didn't come close to.

What did they do?

They unbalanced the guns, they made producing content for the game incredibly hard, they reduced teamwork in so many ways and reduced the game to a very specific battle with limited content and produced hardly any maps.

Just look at fallen fighters, it's basically unplayable because the guns are too accurate.

Can you imagine some RO1 and DH in particular maps and how they would go with the laser guided bullets in RO2? Imagine Hill 452, no-one would get near the trench even if the germans sat at the top of the hill with mp40's in the pillboxes lol. Imagine Tula Outskirts? It was hard to get down the hill and up the hill in that game in DH, imagine it in RO2? It would be a turkey shoot. Is that realistic, yes. Is it fun, no.

You can cry about it all you want but the market for a 100% realistic game is tiny and it was stupid of TW to try and target it. They assumed that everyone was stupid and that they could make it realistic and then throw a couple of bones to the "balanced crowd" and they would enjoy it. Think of the money that went into Arma, it was a complete failure online.

DH had so many little things that made it balanced and most importantly fun to play. They took RO and made it into the game that it should have been. Hi recoil on SMG's so they were only good at close range, made semi auto rifles less accurate than bolt actions, MG's got suppression, everything had a disadvantage and an advantage. Now you have one of the weakest guns in the game turned into arguably the best, the MP40.

Now all that are left are the diehards of which many of them are realism nuts. The actual people who post here now don't actually represent the market that TW should be targeting and are much more likely to post here because this forum has become one of the biggest WW2 history forums and don't proportionately represent the market for players.

I come here occasionally to see whether or not anything has changed but most importantly to check up on Rising Storm and some mention of Darkest Hour 2.

It's truly disappointing to see a game fail because they game chose realism over balanced fun gameplay and then have fools who have no idea how business works ask for the game to be even more realistic and then have TW essentially agree them and inevitably guaranteeing the game to fail.

The sad thing is that many of us tried to warn them about this two years ago when we saw alpha footage of the MP40 shooting 2 years ago.

I mean, it would be almost entertaining if it wasn't tragic seeing people in this forum actually congratulating Tripwire for spending so much time on the insides of two tanks considering how broken the game was at release and how it has ensured the user content that will be created for this game will be a 10th of what it was for RO1.

I actually like the force respawn option when needed.

Spawn on squad leader I have mixed feelings. Its generally good IMO except when you are too close to the battle. I actually have spawn so close I am immediately gunned down at times (not fair to me), and I have had a few occasions where the squad leader was behind the enemy lines and I spawned there and that's not fair to the enemy. Still, I have the option to choose to spawn at the set spawn points too so no biggy there.

Let me explain it another way.

RO1 was known for being unforgiving correct?

How much easier it is to kill someone in RO2?

Given that TW achknowledged that RO1 was too unforgiving and they were going to take steps to address that? Why did they go the opposite direction?

You die 3 times easier compared to RO1, yes it's realistic but again, its just not fun. 90% of the time, i will kill someone within 1 second of seeing them in almost every situation even from long range with a MP40, if that doesn't scream boring then there is no helping you.

I really can't see the greater realism in RO2 apart from maybe 2 things - bullet penetration (when the map is properly set up for it, which not all of them are) and more fluid animations for some actions (like mantling, crouch-sprinting, and some parts of the MG deployment system).

Snapping to ironsights after sprint, bandaging, lack of effective suppression, lack of inertia when engaging off-axis targets, lack of effect when you are hit by anything not instantly lethal - these things I find a lot less realistic.

Some things I think just make the gameplay a lot less interesting and fun - very short respawn timers, very close respawn points, too many spots where the AI aimbot tank can cut off an infantry spawn exit, lockdown, squad leader spawning, no way to give effective orders or see what orders you've been given. These all break immersion, work against teamplay and generally make the game less than it could be.

errr how about recoil, the biggest difference

Snapping to ironsights after sprint,

Click to expand...

nothing wrong with that, definitely needs sway afterwards though based on exhaustion. I think you will find they spent stupid amounts of time measuring these things so they were all correct

"

bandaging

Click to expand...

Compared with not bandaging from RO1? Sure enough, its way too arcady there but compared with taking shots in the chest in RO1 and not having it affect you at all, definitely more realistic. Obviously leg shots and not dropping the gun sux balls.

lack of effective suppression

Click to expand...

They way they did it is much more realistic than DH but in real terms, its horrible because it just doesn't effect you. In DH, it actually stops you from shooting back but again, DH does it in an more arcady way but 10 times more effectively.

lack of inertia when engaging off-axis targets

Click to expand...

Really no difference here afaics

One thing people don't give TW credit for is the effort they went to try and be realistic in so many different aspects of the game. It must burn them to hear people say it's not realistic considering the effort they put into that. The problem again though is they tried this at cost of gameplay and the game is dead already which is such a shame.

heath4n said:

Let me explain it another way.

RO1 was known for being unforgiving correct?

How much easier it is to kill someone in RO2?

Given that TW achknowledged that RO1 was too unforgiving and they were going to take steps to address that? Why did they go the opposite direction?

You die 3 times easier compared to RO1, yes it's realistic but again, its just not fun. 90% of the time, i will kill someone within 1 second of seeing them in almost every situation even from long range with a MP40, if that doesn't scream boring then there is no helping you.

Click to expand...

So you almost always hit and kill people at 300+ meters with the MP40? Color me doubtful bro.

On a more serious note, I personally think the current gameplay has far more potential than what RO1 offered. There's lots of complaints about "fast" gameplay, and yeah I suppose that's true if you compare it to RO1. Then again, the pace of the game in RO1 was in all honesty rather unimmersive, as was the weapon sway and the recoil.

Now before you people jump on my nuts here, I'm all for some realism changes as well. Some have been mentioned, like a better wound/bandage system, slower ADS time, inertia, etc. I just don't want to go back to being the near-sighted Parkinsons soldier I was in RO1. Other things should stay however, like the sprint (at "low" soldier levels) speed and the un-zoom.

Allow me to stomp on your nuts.
I repeat myself again regarding selective realism featured in both games. RO2 was more concerned with the speed and mechanics of guns and accuracy, but left the gameplay vastly empty.
Immersion can be a product of many things. To some, fast paced, run and gun is immersive.
To others, the ambience and the real time tactics that's going through your head to be played out in the game is immersive.
And as I have also mentioned previously, the limitations of an individual player in game forces players to stick to each other instead of rambo-ing. These limitations in RO1 (i.e. Parkinsonism, Slower, out of shapeness, etc) encouraged dependence on teammates. RO2, I don't need you or teammates. Hell, I don't even need to win the battle because I'll just level my gun and progress to become a hero.

Threads like these made me hate reading altogether.

Krobar said:

Threads like these made me hate reading altogether.

Click to expand...

My mission is complete.

Krobar said:

Threads like these made me hate reading altogether.

Click to expand...

My feelings exactly.

Krobar said:

Threads like these made me hate reading altogether.

Click to expand...

Thanks mate!

What other gamers are on the Table...

I feel so lost in BF3 and never was a CoD Guy

heath4n said:

One thing people don't give TW credit for is the effort they went to try and be realistic in so many different aspects of the game. It must burn them to hear people say it's not realistic considering the effort they put into that. The problem again though is they tried this at cost of gameplay and the game is dead already which is such a shame.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with your assesment that "HoS went for realism", because there are two sides to that coin when talking gameplay design, how it looks and presents itself, and how it actually works and interacts with the rest of the gameworld, and TWI has only succeeded with the first one (for the most part), HoS has many realistic looking features that you'd think would make for a super realistic game, but they don't, because they haven't succeeded at the second part, duplicating real world results.
HoS realism is only skin deep, it's all "features" that we could list, and it would look very impressive on a bullet-point list, but it doesen't play realistic, it plays like.. an FPS game, any generic WWII themed FPS game, just with shorter life expectancies, all thouse features never come togeather to form realistic and tactical play, hell it doesen't even form something i find unique, it just feels so very bland and mediocre to me.

When the game fails to create realistic play, i can't call it realistic, nomatter how many realistic features it might have or how well they are presented. In the end they are just individual features, and it's the whole that matters most, not the details.


This is also why it's utter pointless when people say "but Ost wasen't perfect either! This or that feature for instance was not realistic!", true though it may be, Ost had it where it counts, it all meshed togeather to create an overall unique, tactical and indeed realistic game. It certainly had it's shortcommings and problems, there was plenty that could have been improved upon (and DH did improve on a lot of it, but not all), but overall, RO was the game that felt like a war, not a war-movie, it was something special. HoS does not have that, i don't feel it at all.


And no, i can't readilly explain why that is, because this doesen't just come down to a handfull of conveniant features that i can point to and say "that's why!", no, it goes well beyond that, it involves every game mechanic the games have and how they intertwine, there is nothing simple about it that i can just point to.

DiedTrying said:

All 250 of you?

Yea.... Forget about the ~10,000 who stopped playing the game altogether...

But keep telling yourself that you are the majority and that you speak for them.

(quite the big head you have...)

Click to expand...

hes right never assume that you speak for a majority, just speak for yourself those that agree will support you. but back on topic as long as they leave relaxed realism serrvers alone there should be no problems implementing some of the changes requested by the community. that was the point of the two differnt modes in the first place but obviously that's not what happend which is why you see thread after thread of the same old complaints from the old school guys. these guys just want what was promised to them they are not asking to completely change the gameplay for the whole game they just want the realism mode TWI said they were going to get. i fail to see the problem in this.

Grobut said:

HoS realism is only skin deep, it's all "features" that we could list, and it would look very impressive on a bullet-point list, but it doesen't play realistic, it plays like.. an FPS game, any generic WWII themed FPS game, just with shorter life expectancies, all thouse features never come togeather to form realistic and tactical play, hell it doesen't even form something i find unique, it just feels so very bland and mediocre to me.

Click to expand...

Grobut says it better than I did.

I do think that map design has a lot to do with it. At close quarters the things that just aren't quite right come together and are much more noticeable.

On a larger map (like Ogledow) the gameplay is a bit more realistic and for me, much more enjoyable.

Apos said:

Also for them RO is way way way too realistic, slow pased, etc. RO2 is aimed for non existence customers because neither RO fans and casual players are truly happy. What's more: RO will never beats CoD or Battlefield series.

Click to expand...

As one of these "non existence customers," and an RO fan, I'm very happy with RO2. I loved RO. I just eventually felt some of its limitations (particularly in movement), and for me RO2 actually delivers on my wishlist from back then, so as a person who switched to RO1 from COD and never looked back, I feel like I am the audience Tripwire was aiming at, but I don't feel like I need to be counted amongst the "casual," "arcade" "immature" or whatever dismissive adjectives you like to use audience. Unfortunately, the audience of players like me is seemingly quite small, clearly smaller than TWI expected when they designed the core gameplay for us.

There are small things I would change if I was Commissar, but the "core gameplay," I have to agree with the OP, is fine for me.

I also feel, I'm sure this will be resented by many, that "core gameplay" should be exactly that. Between a "relaxed" vs. "realism" realism mode, I seriously do not feel that core elements of the gameplay should be different. If they are going to change core gameplay elements for realism or whatever reason, I feel like they should be changed in relaxed realism as well. Because I don't want the game controls/responsiveness to feel drastically different depending on the server's realism settings. If I prefer to have the minimal HUD, etc., of a full realism setting but my favored servers running this mode are full or too empty to play on, and I really want to play RO2 but only relaxed realism is at the moment available, I can tolerate some relaxed realism (as it is now) settings to be able to play; so be it, I'll play with a damn minimap. But to switch between realism modes that feel completely different for deeper, "core gameplay" reasons --because of changes to movement, responsiveness, etc. to me would be unacceptable.

So if TWI agrees with the community that must have "core gameplay" changes to things that are not currently different between realism modes, I say change them across the various realism modes, not just in full realism. I'm just saying don't create a gap where there previously wasn't one. Change the whole game if that's the decision. Let modders revert it back to pseudo-arcade mode if they desire. Sound weird coming from someone who likes the game as it is now (with small changes, like everyone)? Oh well.

Game became too noob friendly, thus losing its major strength aka touch of harsh realistic battleground that is ro1.

Even when I do well in ro2, it doesn't give me the fun/ thrill as much as ro1 did.

It's too easy/ gamey = boring.
(non existent sway even in unsupported firing position, no aiming deviation all the way 24/7 in ADS, magic bandage system successfully made life in game longer at the same time took away thrill of combat to name a few.)

Noobs would like it though.

Apos said:

- Bandaging is simply a medkit from Battlefield and heals you fully in one second.

Click to expand...

Again with the healing. Amidst your larger argument this may sound like a nitpick, but bandages do not heal. Not fully, not partially. Impairment from wounds will be another issue (If added, it would be great, and based on the official poll it seems likely) to look at. But you gain no hit points back from bandaging a wound, so it is not a heal. When you get a bleeding wound you lose some hit points immediately and some over time. Bandaging just cancels further hit point loss from bleeding (and in one vid I saw, it also cancels any further hit point loss to that hitbox whatsoever! an unfortunate glitch), but there is no way to gain back already lost hit points.