Substitute? How can such a superior product can only be a "substitute" for some zany arcade shooter with hand holding 3D spotting?
Upvote
0
I Just Discovered Red Orchestra
- Thread starter Schisis
- Start date
Substitute? How can such a superior product can only be a "substitute" for some zany arcade shooter with hand holding 3D spotting?
Oh? Source. I read recently that only the LMG had the effect. Even so, the cover and suppression system in RO2 is vastly superior I think.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
source would be breaking the NDA
its indeed there for all weapons, but in the alpha the visual effect didnt seem to be really be there. most visual effects were either toned down or disabled all together. its kinda crazy to compare the two suppression effects though, RO1 made my almost physically duck...not so much bf3. but again hard to say for sure since it wasnt fully functioning quite yet.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
source would be breaking the NDA
Oh, well only the support class gives you points for suppression or something, I dunno I don't really care. BF3 lost me a long time ago. Too much BC2, too little BF2.
When I started playing Project reality and DICE started making more "streamlined" games I knew I didn't like where it was going. Now it just seems more a mainstream spectacle than a battlefield game. Those types of games are 100% fine with me, but I don't like how they go about it. They act like mods and other games haven't done all their features before. Their own BF2 mods did all these features and more and they instead reject the modder community by saying "Oh its too complex for you lot"
Screw em.
Upvote
0
No, you can get suppression points from any primary weapon I believe but I agree... I really don't care much for BF3 at all mostly because Red Orchestra 2.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
source would be breaking the NDA
What I find neat is that most of the popular FPS's out there today have taken traits of RO:CA or RO1 to make their games better. (Iron Sights on the Model, Locational Damage on Vehicles/Tanks, Suppression Effects, Realistic Bullet Damage based on Location of Hit as well as bullet drop, Having more than one person Operating a Tank, etc.)
And then people in those game's forums come along and trash RO for being crap compared to those games as if they invented all of those things themselves, which usually ended up as poor rip offs of the original thing
Last edited:
Upvote
0
wait for Skyrim to go on sale
youll find guys to game with .. first thing is to figure out what game mode you like
then find a good server with good admins. that are streaming to PBbans.
and a good active clan
join the clan
Upvote
0
What I find neat is that most of the popular FPS's out there today have taken traits of RO:CA or RO1 to make their games better. (Iron Sights on the Model, Locational Damage on Vehicles/Tanks, Suppression Effects, Realistic Bullet Damage based on Location of Hit as well as bullet drop, Having more than one person Operating a Tank, etc.)
And then people in those game's forums come along and trash RO for being crap compared to those games as if they invented all of those things themselves, which usually ended up as poor rip offs of the original thing
I think its a little wrong to imply that iron sights is something that folks looked at RO:CA for, i mean it comes naturally as games progress , i'd say the suppression system and 3d scoping have been taken from RO but having more people in a tank, ironsights etc? :S Says itself that someone would do it sooner or later.
Cod1 did iron sights in 2003 and there were some games/mods that did it even earlier.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
If the OP still didn't make up his mind, take notice that RO2 comes out 2 months before BF3.
Upvote
0
Speaking as someone who has also just recently become aware of RO, I'll add my two cents.
The similarities between Red Orchestra and Battlefield 3 appear to me to be, at best, superficial. As has been mentioned both are first person shooters but they look to be trying to achieve different goals. Battlefield 3 looks to be going for the "hero of the battle" feel (even if not so much as a CoD game) while RO seems to be trying to achieve the feeling of being a small, yet integral, part of a larger whole. That's a take on a shooter that I haven't seen before and it intrigues me.
Having never been in combat or studied a whole lot of history, I cannot with any authority speak to the realism side of things apart from some very obvious features. Health regeneration is a prime example. In BF3 (and I did play in the alpha) hiding behind cover for a few seconds once the bullets stop flying your way will allow your health to start to regen. Once it does, it's a matter of seconds until you're back to 100%. That alone, in my opinion, destroys any claim that BF may have to "realism". As I understand things, vehicles benefit from the same feature, albeit to a lesser extent as they don't go back to 100%. As I haven't really played Red Orchestra I haven't the frame of reference to say how this game handles health, but my understanding is that it doesn't regenerate at all. I do know from watching developer videos that one or two rounds to a vital area appear to be lethal and even a hit to a non vital area will need to be bandaged in order to avoid exsanguination. From an outside perspective it looks to me that RO wins the realism battle hands down.
While not necessarily related to the discussion of BF vs RO, I've grown very disappointed of late with many of the larger developers and publishers due to some of the directions they've taken. From Dice/EA's stance that nobody in the community is smart enough to handle their engine (seriously?), to THQ's seeming disdain for it's community, I find that many of the larger companies have forgotten why they became as big as they are. It's the gaming community that makes or breaks a game and when the people who make those games fail to support their community, many folks start to look elsewhere. Tripwire, it seems to me, is still at that place where they understand this. That's something that I respect and am willing to take a gamble on.
None of this is meant to imply that you should choose one game over the other. Each has it's audience. It's simply a matter of your own personal preference. A year ago I probably would never have considered a game like Red Orchestra as I was simply far too comfortable in the dramatically arcade like genre of FPS games (being a call of duty player at that time). Now, though, I'm becoming more interested in being tested with game mechanics with which I am unfamiliar. RO2 looks to me to be a good place to start with that. Couple that with the fact that Tripwire is a small developer still in touch with it's roots and this game becomes one that I am comfortable supporting (already pre ordered).
The similarities between Red Orchestra and Battlefield 3 appear to me to be, at best, superficial. As has been mentioned both are first person shooters but they look to be trying to achieve different goals. Battlefield 3 looks to be going for the "hero of the battle" feel (even if not so much as a CoD game) while RO seems to be trying to achieve the feeling of being a small, yet integral, part of a larger whole. That's a take on a shooter that I haven't seen before and it intrigues me.
Having never been in combat or studied a whole lot of history, I cannot with any authority speak to the realism side of things apart from some very obvious features. Health regeneration is a prime example. In BF3 (and I did play in the alpha) hiding behind cover for a few seconds once the bullets stop flying your way will allow your health to start to regen. Once it does, it's a matter of seconds until you're back to 100%. That alone, in my opinion, destroys any claim that BF may have to "realism". As I understand things, vehicles benefit from the same feature, albeit to a lesser extent as they don't go back to 100%. As I haven't really played Red Orchestra I haven't the frame of reference to say how this game handles health, but my understanding is that it doesn't regenerate at all. I do know from watching developer videos that one or two rounds to a vital area appear to be lethal and even a hit to a non vital area will need to be bandaged in order to avoid exsanguination. From an outside perspective it looks to me that RO wins the realism battle hands down.
While not necessarily related to the discussion of BF vs RO, I've grown very disappointed of late with many of the larger developers and publishers due to some of the directions they've taken. From Dice/EA's stance that nobody in the community is smart enough to handle their engine (seriously?), to THQ's seeming disdain for it's community, I find that many of the larger companies have forgotten why they became as big as they are. It's the gaming community that makes or breaks a game and when the people who make those games fail to support their community, many folks start to look elsewhere. Tripwire, it seems to me, is still at that place where they understand this. That's something that I respect and am willing to take a gamble on.
None of this is meant to imply that you should choose one game over the other. Each has it's audience. It's simply a matter of your own personal preference. A year ago I probably would never have considered a game like Red Orchestra as I was simply far too comfortable in the dramatically arcade like genre of FPS games (being a call of duty player at that time). Now, though, I'm becoming more interested in being tested with game mechanics with which I am unfamiliar. RO2 looks to me to be a good place to start with that. Couple that with the fact that Tripwire is a small developer still in touch with it's roots and this game becomes one that I am comfortable supporting (already pre ordered).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
What would make me decide to get RO2 over BF3... Three letters... MOH
Not saying that I will not get both, I just am not going to jump on the band wagon over some prettier graphics. I would much prefer to create maps and mods than buy maps.
Not saying that I will not get both, I just am not going to jump on the band wagon over some prettier graphics. I would much prefer to create maps and mods than buy maps.
Upvote
0
You just discovered RO?
Oh boy, have you come to the party late,
At least about 7 years or so.
But better late than never. Welcome!
Oh boy, have you come to the party late,
At least about 7 years or so.
But better late than never. Welcome!
Upvote
0
Oh well you're no fun
I was waiting to see if someone was paying attention or just post "yeah, RO rocks the Casbah, wwwoooo!!!"
RO was my first experience with a modeled iron sights for aiming and my first WW2 game I played since Medal of Honor: Allied Assault & Day of Deafet.
They still included crosshairs and not much towards free aim & I never heard much about Call of Duty back then, how ironic. Though when I played and later saw iron sights in the game, there were still the crosshairs and no real free aim, thus no incentive to use them. That and RO's graphics, vehicles, weapons, maps & teamwork, plus realism, those other games don't even exist in my world..... well, Day of Defeat does on a full moon.
Someone would have figured out or created something eventually. Someone would have eventually created the internet.... someone else would have eventually walked on the moon.
But it's never about who would have made something eventually, it's always the first to do something that we all remember, just as you remembered (or looked up) who was the first to do iron sights. It apparently mattered to some extent for supporting your correction of mine, don't you think?
I am a bit curious, when in 2003 did CoD come out and when did RO come out for UT2k3? I never looked into it before.
Last edited:
Upvote
0