It's a damn sight better than it was in RO I. In RO 2 I feel like my soldier can actually move and respond to threats without suffering a heart-attack. I know from direct experiencethat after days of little sleep and hard work a soldier carrying a combat load of ammunition, water, body armour, and a light machinegun can really get going in a hurry when they need to. And most soldiers can sustain a decent high rate of movement over at least 3 kilometres if their lives depend on it.
You're getting caught up on the false realism that was implemented in RO I. The lack of zoom, overt weapon sway, geriatric running pace, and ridiculous recoil to name a few such features. I see this is a prevalent theme in all those who write (and as someone earlier put it rather eloquently "romanticise") about the older game. There was a lot that was terribly unrealistic about Red Orchestra 1 that had a significant bearing on game play. These features didn't promote realism, they shoe-horned the player into an often awkward state of affairs by horribly restricting what they could do. RO2 removed these inhibitions and as a result you see generally more unforgiving gameplay. Why? The players didn't get any better, they just got the freedom they deserved.
And haters will hate? What's your point, chief? Ad hominem is a sad form of argument. I think you'll find that these people you're so quick to condemn as "deniers" are actually the people enjoying the game and building a positive community around it. You shouldn't be blaming them for your lack of enjoyment. Anyway, it seems like you're denying some relatively well improved aspects of the newer game -- for whatever reason you have to do so in the face of some very logical arugments in favour of their changing. Opinion is all subjective, sure. But God knows there are people around here who seem hell bent on rubbishing a title that has perfectly good potential (once the bugs are ironed out).
You're probably alone there. PM me your postal address and I'll send you a tin-foil hat.
Wally
