• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Everyone loves a good debate... PC Gamer Article

What I've learned by reading TWI forums

not making a sequel be exactly the same as the original in mechanics = dumbing down

I just that just comes with the territory for any group claiming to be the "true fans" It certainly was true for CS:S, SC2, BF series, basically any game that had a sequel. Even the recent Tomb Raider reboot, they tried to make things grittier and more realistic, and got bashed into the ground by the fans of the previous games.


After reading the last few pages of posts it becomes obvious the OSTfront fan base never wanted progress of any kind but merely a prettier rehash of Ostfront and that's fine and all. But expect the same stagnant community that Ostfront suffered through for most of its life time, and be aware that its the kind of underhanded money grubbing tactics that the COD series is renowned for.



Just like you guys have been trying shove off any one who doesn't tow the "OSTFRONT MASTERACE" line since release? Not even off the forums, but off the game it self. And yes it is a forum that embraces all opinions and ideas, but be aware that when you explicitly claim over and over that you hate the game, think TWI are evil, and give up on the game saying its not worth it to continue and encourage others to do the same - that people might not take you seriously when you come back keep posting the same drivel you post before hand.

and also notice how this thread is literally more than half consisted of one line posts bashing TWI, and no has been reprimanded at all. Gibson even came here and personally responded. Don't see where your going with the whole "no free speech" sctick

A sequel (at least a spiritual sequel) cannot be defined in that way.

It isn't about creating something identical. It is about improving and adding new content while at the same time preserving the old content but most importantly the style and approach that the previous game had. This is why I drew a line to the arma franchise. Because that is exactly what they've been doing; they have added more, they have tweaked and improved, and yet the game offers more then previous installment without neglecting anything old.

Alone, the animation for bayonete's doesn't matter much.

But when you ask: Where is the ability to open doors? Where is the command system? The bikes? The halftracks? The tanks?

That, makes more sense.

Aswell as if you ask why the gameplay is so fast much faster, why there is less teamwork on public servers and more aggressive gameplay, why dying feels more forgiving, why there is no ammo pouches, why I can't exit and enter vehicles as i wish, why there is no bikes, halftracks, why there is perks, why the unlock system limit my freedom to choose weapons, why I have limited amount of weapons to choose from, why there is enemy loadouts, why there is a variety of different half-made modes, why there is implementations within the game that explicitly hinders custom servers to grow, why it even was possible to use instant bandaging at release, why the game features historically inaccurate weapons, why the practise mode is removed, why the HUD details is increased so much, why the maps seems to be so small, why I hear a clear 'thud' sound when I hit an enemy 150 meters away, why my character seems to scream when he is not supposed to, why everyone including myself can aim and fire with incredible precision, why the maps feels like a killing arena, why combat plays out the same way all the time on vanilla maps , why I can't flank because of 'Get back to Combat' restrictions, why I get spawnkilled more often...

Maybe you think that this is a coincidence, but it clearly isn't. In the marketing campaign TWI advertised themselves as CoD killers, or at least PCgamer (I think it was PCgamer) did this. They also promised that the game wouldn't be dumbed down, or 'easier', but simple enough to pick it up. TWI also said that they listened to their fans and that they would deliver what the fans wanted. While this question is subjective, it seems kinda contradictionary to say that it was the case when there is so much complaints from the original fanbase.

Then we can always come with the same old contra-argument: Practise Mode wasn't good, ammo pouches was a pain, vehicles have more detail now etc. for the whole list I made but that does not really change anything within the game, nor does it suggest any improvements but rather it becomes an excuse that goes 'Don't fix what does not work, remove it instead'.

So you should ask yourself what you mean with ''progression''? When does the series progress and when does it not?

I am sure some people would argue that the series would progress if it became mainstream. So it is really up to you to answer, what does progression mean to you?

What do you define as dumbing down?

By lexical definition, it seems to be very clear that TWI embraced the idea to make the game more casual. This is also why this whole article is so funny...

Complaining that CoD ruins this generation of gamers, that CoD is to 'simple', but it is alright for TWI to embrace these ideas for RO since RO is the superior tacticool master shooter and therefore it is better than CoD.
 
Upvote 0
John isn't saying that casual games, or casual modes are bad (which is what some of you are inferring). He is talking about a very specific set of players and the way they think. Tripwire's goal with RO 2 was to attract a wider audience and try and bring them into the more realistic way of playing. Yes, Tripwire made mistakes with the release (including bugs, performance and gameplay) and those certainly didn't help the general overall view of the game by many, but that goal isn't a bad one.

Even for a niche title to thrive, it has to make a profit. The better chance of that happening is with more players. As John stated in one of his posts earlier Tripwire had almost gone under supporting it's games in the past, so this can help you understand the mindset of decision like this. You do not have to agree, but it also isn't your livelihood on the line either.

TLDR: Ship hardcore game with smaller player base and do not update it ever or gather wider audience and update as much as possible!
 
Upvote 0
I think the biggest issue of Ro 2 was and is that for the biggest part it doesnt attract to the players that played ro daily. Its not a bad game and has attracted its own new community, however i expect most of those werent avid players of the previous titles.

Ro1 was buggy and had performance issues as well but the old community did like the game even though perhaps not every feature. Nearly all people in my friendslist played nearly only ro1 i hardly saw people play other games beside an occasional tf2 , of that group i see nobody playing ro2 anymore. Similarly many of the most active forum members with the highest postcounts dont post anymore.

This does not mean ro2 is a failure nor does it mean that nobody plays it. It simply means a different kind of people play it. If anything perhaps the easiest group ro2 could obtain players from is the type of players that would have liked ro1 purely because a solid focus group could be created of people that are able to reason their feelings.

Classic was a good first step but that mode and features need good iterative testing so a general cohesive experience is created. I still love these forums and i know a lot people that dislike ro2 visit it from time to time and post to show there frustration that for them the ro genre is no longer for them what made ro ro. While they can see that ro2 is close but still far away. For most of them its more about the feeling while playing then actual feature set of the game. Especially the entire group of competitive players was ripped apart, and the main reason is not just missing features to actually get competitions going, its for many the core feeling and competitiveness of the game play.

All these people wouldnt bother posting if they didnt still care, even though its posted in a negative way
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
He is complaining about people who don't like RO2 because it not similar to Call of Duty because Call of Duty changed the mechanics and game play of FPS' for the last 10 years. Then he gives some reason as to why he thinks that and why they don't like his game.

We are complaining about how RO2 is similar to Call of Duty and that they share some of the same features.

RO2 was not the only game to add rpg elements to their game. Many fps sequels have been adding rpg elements. Around 2004 and 2005 there was a big boom in rpg. World of Warcraft and Guild Wars was released among many other popular rpg such as Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.

In 2004, COD:UO came out with a limited ranking system. At this point, FPS had not incorporated major rpg elements such as stats and level ups.
"Another welcome multiplayer addition is a ranking system that rewards players for helping their teams win the match. Above each player is a rank symbol, which resets at the beginning of each match. The more you help your team win by seizing objective locations, the higher you rise in rank. A high rank means that you get special bonuses, like extra grenades, and at higher ranks, you have access to binoculars which can be used to call in powerful artillery strikes. The rank system is a good incentive to actually work as a member of the team rather than running around as a lone wolf, as you get more points for seizing objectives than you do for simply killing the enemy."

In 2005, Battlefield 2 added a ranking system as well. This one is a little closer to RPG because the higher your rank, the more benefits you get.
"When you log onto Battlefield 2 for the first time, you'll create a unique account that will follow you throughout your online adventures, keeping track of your rank, your statistics, and much more. The better you play, the higher in rank you will rise, and you can eventually unlock alternate weapons. A higher rank also means that you will be given higher priority to assume the commander role in a match, so hopefully this will let the serious players gain control of such a potent position."

I wouldn't say RO2 copied Call of Duty but rather its the direction of the multiplayer FPS genre as a whole. It is how the genre is evolving and whether you agree with it or not, this is what is happening.

Here is an excerpt of a reddit post for the question:
"s it necessary from a marketing perspective for multiplayer FPS games to have the Skinner box of unlocks and gaining XP? I'm not sure if it's just nostalgia of Unreal/CoD: United Offensive clouding my judgment, but I feel that the old school days of competitive FPS games were better because the only "progression" system they had was developing your own skill as a player."

"Apparently, it's necessary (or at least all major publishers think so). It's just an incredibly effective way of keeping players hooked, who doesn't like constant reminders of your "accomplishments" (even if that is just sitting in front of the game for 12 hours) through point scores and flashy pop-ups? It works. It's manipulative, fake and, by now, rather uninspired... but it works."

http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/di...fps-games-with-perks-andor-skill-and-g/76848/

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/12/this-years-biggest-shooters-remind-me-why-multiplayer-unlocks-suck/

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/130lp6/is_it_necessary_for_multiplayer_fps_games_to_have/
 
Upvote 0
John isn't saying that casual games, or casual modes are bad (which is what some of you are inferring). He is talking about a very specific set of players and the way they think. Tripwire's goal with RO 2 was to attract a wider audience and try and bring them into the more realistic way of playing. Yes, Tripwire made mistakes with the release (including bugs, performance and gameplay) and those certainly didn't help the general overall view of the game by many, but that goal isn't a bad one.

Even for a niche title to thrive, it has to make a profit. The better chance of that happening is with more players. As John stated in one of his posts earlier Tripwire had almost gone under supporting it's games in the past, so this can help you understand the mindset of decision like this. You do not have to agree, but it also isn't your livelihood on the line either.

TLDR: Ship hardcore game with smaller player base and do not update it ever or gather wider audience and update as much as possible!

I personally think that in any future RO (maybe not RS) the Practise Mode should return from RO1. This mode could be made as a step-by-step tutorial for new players. Imagine if there was a tutorial that demostrated how to survive, kill, and gain score, aswell as a tutorial for each available class. I don't think many new players understand that taking CAPs is what gives you score and in order to do it one of the best ways is to stick with your team.

Many new players simply play like they play most FPS games and what happens is that RO gives them a slap in the face for doing that... without giving any feedback on what they were doing wrong. Things that is obvious for most ROplayers, such as avoiding open spots, never stand directly in windows, avoiding tunnelvision, and keeping close to your teammates, using appropiate weapon in the right situation and so forth, is unfortunately something that players fresh of CoD don't have a clue about and the only way for them to realize it is through a trial- and errror process because the game does very little to guide them. With that said, most new players give up before they've gone through these barriers of entry. Games such as Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising had great tutorials.

Even a simple thing such as having a variation of maybe 20-30 hints appearing at the loading screen can help new players a lot. I don't think the progression system makes its easier for new players either. New people come to RO2 game no experience and no aids while those with most in-game time have a very high level of skill and artificial skills (perks) as an aid.
 
Upvote 0
All these people wouldnt bother posting if they didnt still care, even though its posted in a negative way

I agree. Even when I read other forums, they like the game enough, but still have criticism because they see what (they and I) think the game could be with some more 'love'

Of course, there are a couple of exceptions, but that is to be expected.
 
Upvote 0
For the first time ever, I dont agree with Zets.
haters will hate, whiners will whine.


Yet many of the negative people are those with high post counts. Many of them are the exact people that recommended RO to multiple people and got it bought. Many of them played RO1 for over 30 hours every week for multiple years. Heck if you look at Rak in these forums he was probably one of the best MGers in the entire RO1 universe and I've seen his steam account state him playing 80-120 hours in 2 week periods multiple times, similarly being a default roster member of one of the absolutely best clans, at the peak time of competitive play at a time there were over 100 active clans in RO1.

There are many negative posts, and posters and some of them would probably not like RO2 even if it would be changed, as the hate has gotten too deep in a sense.

But many of these people were the exact core of these forums, and ingame players and the mainstay of the people that actively pushed forward and helped people in the past. Many did more than just buy the game and play it a little, they did a lot of voluntary and unasked work in a sense, and put a lot of time into building the community which is why the dissapointment of RO2 felt as a slap into their face. In return their reactions and feelings about RO2 which were filled with anger felt as a slap into the face towards TWI. Its a double loss situation there in a sense.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I can't agree more.

What I think is that RO2 is the sequel of RO1, but, RO2 does not have the same core gameplay. It does not play like RO1, at all.
Is it bad? For the old RO1 players, yes. For new players? Well, if they like RO2, they don't really care of what RO1 was.

But at the end of the story, new players don't play much RO2 as the game started with so much bugs, etc. And 'vets' don't play it as RO2 gameplay was too "altered" compared to RO1.


IMHO, When I hear about this or that sequel about that or this game, I'm waiting something similar, because devs usually want their "old" fans continue to play. Same core gameplay, but with new extra features, more content...
Am I stupid or something?
 
Upvote 0
I can't agree more.

What I think is that RO2 is the sequel of RO1, but, RO2 does not have the same core gameplay. It does not play like RO1, at all.
Is it bad? For the old RO1 players, yes. For new players? Well, if they like RO2, they don't really care of what RO1 was.

But at the end of the story, new players don't play much RO2 as the game started with so much bugs, etc. And 'vets' don't play it as RO2 gameplay was too "altered" compared to RO1.


IMHO, When I hear about this or that sequel about that or this game, I'm waiting something similar, because devs usually want their "old" fans continue to play. Same core gameplay, but with new extra features, more content...
Am I stupid or something?

I share much of your opinion here. But on the flipside RO 2 has many of the exact same or similar mechanics to RO 1. What makes it so much different in some aspects are how some of the new features (many of them community requests) change the way other things work out (such as weapon lethality).

This is a lesson we've learned now. And we are looking at ways to continue to improve this as well (for RO 2).
 
Upvote 0
I share much of your opinion here. But on the flipside RO 2 has many of the exact same or similar mechanics to RO 1. What makes it so much different in some aspects are how some of the new features (many of them community requests) change the way other things work out (such as weapon lethality).

This is a lesson we've learned now. And we are looking at ways to continue to improve this as well (for RO 2).

Here here! Let's brainstorm on how to "fix" or improve RO2 instead of complaining. We can give suggestions but there should give some full reasoning and also lay down the pros and cons.

Saying "GET RID OF PROGRESSION!" is not enough. There will be many advantages and disadvantages to this. This system is currently built into the game and many players like it and dislike it. If we remove it, we will be at square one with players complaining again. Plus removing the system will take a lot of work. Also, many players worked hard for their unlocks and levels and they will be displeased as well. So we have a lot to think about. Suggesting changes is easy. Implementing and assessing the overall impact is the hard part.
 
Upvote 0
I'm not sure if absolute lethality would be the main difference between RO1 & RO2. I would mostly kill with a single shot in Ostfront as well. I would say main differences lied more in visibility & difficulty of shooting. Which of course when put together will effect the lethality of people.

- In RO2 there is a lot more detail on the map and small bits where players could possibly hide on.
- Unlike RO1 where players had their own lightning making them stand out at any range, in RO2 there is a lot of fog combined with that shadows darken players as well.
- Zoom increases the range that one can view when standing still, allowing people to play at longer ranges and even become more hidden from the view.

These generate the effect that players can be all over the map and hard to spot. Players are at longer ranges giving them effectively more places to hide. And on top of that you can only see them when you are perfectly still. It makes RO2 at long range play a bit like a sniper only map. Who spots the enemy first wins, and you get shot from seemingly nowhere.

This impairment in vision generally forces people to use zoom to spot effectively, forcing them to stand perfectly still. As well as heavily discouraging actually engaging more blatantly into the cap zone, letting people engage a more slow sniping fight in terms of long range combat.

Now add this together with easier control for people their mouse in RO2, the zoom and less sway and recoil. Makes it less difficult to control your weapon at any range. This is probably the fatality you point at. Once you spot someone its very easy to kill the person, resulting in a mulitude of one sided fights where the attacker kills the receiving party without him being noticed of the presence. But I think perhaps lethality might be the wrong word as once could simply take his time to countereffect sway and recoil and still hit on first shot, it just took more of an effort.

Now this is of course a side effect of features, that at face surface might be good and realistic. I just hope that if adjustments somewhere are made to give fights closer to Ro1 that lethality is not changed by a random factor, but instead by a difficulty that players can learn to overcome by mouse based compensation and experience, rather than a percentage that that gets better when your level increases.

Note this comment does not take into account the second set of things a lot of people had issues with, which is generally enemies spawning closer together with fast respawns and forward SL spawns. Basically shortening the engagement distance and time before you get into action resulting in a neglectance of your own life, combined with faster running speeds allowing people to run and gun with less of a penalty. (although I think that the added lethality against moving targets due to client side hit detection helped a lot in lowering the effect of run and gunning).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I think it is important to look at what made people like RO1, and now RO2, and then try to add new features while preserving the the old ones. For instance, command radial in RO2 isn't bad but the command system from RO1 also had its purpose, namely, ability to use more commands.

Imagine RO2 with more or less every feature in RO1.. but refined, plus more or less everything that's already in RO2.

What I liked about RO1 and also DH was many miniscule, yet powerfull features. Seeing people attach their bayonettes, giving ammo to others, was great for the immersion.
 
Upvote 0