Blinded by nostalgia.

[Qweets]

love how people are so quick to jump the gun without reading the entire post.. lol, I went back and played RO1 before posting and he was right.

Even pulling up the ironsights in RO1 is too slow, somewhere in between would be good for RO2 though cause ro2 is too fast with that.. but i don't mind because it doesn't take away from my fun factor.

All the people on here are just all sour and negative because most of the REAL RO1 and RO2 community members are busy playing ro2 atm because they like it.. and most of the people here are just the vocal minority everyone k nows about who is complaining about every little thing.. They spend more time on these forums all day complaining than even playing RO2.

Might as well just move on if you are at that point, seriously.

The OP has a right to his opinion, and I agree with him.

 

[HockeyGambit]

RO was good when it came out and I really liked it but I think some might need to differentiate ROOST from Darkest Hour mod. ROOST started to get very boring once every server started doing 24/7 Arad or Danzig.

For me Darkest Hour was just going to be a mod to play while I waited for Forgotten Hope 2 to come out on Bf2, but FH2 ended up being a complete let down mainly do to the BF2 engine. DH on the other hand was amazing and kept me playing for a real long time afterwards. But I really don't think I'll ever play those since RO2 has come out.

For me RO2 has brought a lot of new a better things to the game my only problem with the game is all the bugs that persist in the game. Once those get ironed out RO2 should be just as great if not greater then RO2.

 

[EvilSoeren]

Is it more fair to have the RO asterisk on RO2?

Lol, this like that other topic "I agree with the op. But here are my complaints: *Endless list*"

 

[cepwin]

You have an excellent point! I listen to quite a few gaming podcasts and it is often said that if you really go back and play certain games you remember fondly you'll realize they don't hold up and are better left as fond memory. Now I'm not necessarily saying this is the case with RO but clearly RO2 is way ahead in the graphics and has terrific sound. While it's not perfect (you can literally run though AI teammates, sometimes it's a little confusing what you're supposed to do...example last part of tank training...have been what I've seen that bothered me) it is a good game and the developers have been providing great support.

While I don't pretend to know how RO1 compares to RO2, I have said many times before that the lenses of nostalgia are often rose colored.

Were I you, though, I'd throw on some flame retardant underwear. I imagine it's gonna get pretty toasty around this thread.

 

[Kashash]

The running in RO2 might be more visually realistic but RO infantry movement far more reflects what real combat was in ww2. The sprinting speed that is in RO2 should be achieved after 1,2 seconds of running, starting slowly and gradually increasing the pace. But its done in such a way that is constantly used quake style in small rooms where there's no advantage over shooting from the hip beacuse you can instantly in 0.01 sec bring the iron sight and shoot like with a laser gun. It is not realistic to run that fast on a full of rubble, uneven ground or through passages of small rooms and with no penalty and sway to using iron sight.

 

[vyyye]

The running in RO2 might be more visually realistic but RO infantry movement far more reflects what real combat was in ww2. The sprinting speed that is in RO2 should achieved after 1,2 seconds of running, starting slowly and gradually increasing the pace. But its done in such a way that is constantly used quake style in small rooms where there's no advantage over shooting from the hip beacuse you can instantly in 0.01 sec bring the iron sight and shoot like with a laser gun. It is not realistic to run that fast on a full of rubble, uneven ground or through passages of small rooms and with no penalty and sway to using iron sight.

Indeed, as evidenced in historical footage from movies like Stalingrad and Saving Private Ryan.

 

[Krobar]

I just played RO1, on Leningrad and had a blast. There's more time to think than in RO2.

 

[Kashash]

I loved the fact that in RO2 you hardly could see what you shooting at. In 90% cases of infantry shooting in ww2 was based on indirect shooting at a particular spot designated by the leader. There was no precise laser shooting back then, it was all about pinning the infantry down with the firepower.

I was hoping TWI would make an improvement of RO that worked so great, with just enhanced few elements. I was imaging that now there would be some sort of coordination between leader and a squad and that would be some incentive to stay with him. You comb through the battlefield as you advance spotting enemy targets, the squad gives a covering fire etc etc. Combat in RO1 was awesome, but just this a little cooperation was really missing in RO where you could achieve a real ww2 tactical fighting. Unfortunately what we got is over flaunted another arcade fps.
I bet if TWI had gone the other direction, with the same level of advertisement would gain much more popularity than now. But what you can expect of the company that name doesn't even sound very ww2 credible and that makes zombie games on the side.

 

[Forssen]

I love RO1 gameplay just cause it's the game that I think feel most like an actual battle. I haven't been in an actual battle only training exercises, but to those RO1 feel pretty much spot on. In RO1 a front often gets established and it either breaks or get pushed back and I rarely find myself running around alone in it.

RO2 might promote teamplay and real life tactics more than a lot of other shooters out there, but it's no where close to RO1. Pretty much all of what I know about real life tactics that I found effective in RO1 is pretty much useless in RO2.

 

[Krazyxazn]

I got maybe 60 hours in RO1 and DH each. Then 20 hours each in RO2 beta and RO2.

I thoroughly enjoy RO2 more. The controls aren't clunky and viewing distance is more real to life. I remember the 100m killshot achievement in RO2. It took a very long time to get and the target at 100m was like a few pixels. In RO2 you can get that 100m achievement in your first match and the target isn't a few pixels.

Although the game has many bugs and needs many tweaks. They need a better squad system and command system like in BF2. Class select screen should be the squad view by default and not select role to promote picking a squad to fill it up. Let's just say they need a lot of tweaks to get the game right, but they should just focus on bugs right now and pushing out the SDK before they go start changing the gameplay. Perhaps they can do both, but I'm sure RO2 will blossom later on. As did RO1, most players quit within 10 minutes of playing it. Surprisingly a lot of ppl still play RO2 even though they constantly complain in-game chat lol.

 

[Josef Nader]

So many made up, bull**** statistics getting thrown around by players who are convinced that RO1 was the apex of realistic infantry combat.

RO1 was a step in the right direction for realistic games. In a world dominated by Quake and Counter Strike, it was a breath of fresh air, as the combat was less about twitchy headshots and more about tactical maneuvering and placement.

BUT, and I've said this many times, limitations in the engine and goofy design decisions make it far from truly "realistic". They hadn't figured out how to use FoV toggle to put things in a 1:1 scale yet, so no game had any sort of zoom on anything other than snipers (which made everything useless at 100m, or "pixel hunting" ranges, when in real life a capable marksman can make shots at 200m from prone pretty easily.

The movement was slow and sluggish, a kneejerk reaction to all the CS/Quake bunny hopping and quick scoping, but far from realistic. It doesn't take me two seconds to accelerate to full speed when sprinting, and I'm a big, 6'5", 275lb guy who's never been particularly agile. When playing paintball, even in full combat gear, I can explode out of cover with a remarkable burst of speed to try and get out of a tight situation or flank around my opponents. I guarentee the soldiers in WWII, who were facing stakes a lot higher than some welts and being out of the game for a few minutes, would be capable of the same level of movement if not more.

RO2 is a big improvement on the realism of RO1 in most every way. There were some realism missteps, sure (bandaging, I'm looking at you), but RO2 puts far more realism into the formula.

And that's part of why RO1 vets tend to hate RO2 so much. Sometimes, real is not hard, and hard is not real. It's not that hard, with a bit of practice, to jam a rifle butt into your shoulder and make a reasonably accurate shot on a man-sized target from 50m in less than two seconds. In RO1, this would require crouching, wrestling with massive weapon sway, and praying that he wasn't any good at hip shooting. It was hard, yes, but not realistic.

Seriously guys, give the game a chance. There is -tons- of tactical depth here, and it is in another class entirely compared to CoD (which I just played with a friend for ****s and giggles. Seriously, I could count the similarities between MW2 and RO2 on one hand, and it would go something like "there are guns in the game" and "you can crouch to take cover").

 

[ron_moron]

Realism is such a subjective rather than objective concept in games.

For instance, on the old Forgotten Hope forums there used to be a lot of discussion about the amount of panzerfausts in game, tankers just weren't safe anywhere and it was causing a lot of annoyance.

One person found statistics that, especially on maps set late in the war, the number of fausts on a map was actually too low and to be realistic they should have more of them.

Then someone else found statistics showing the number of Russian tanks taken out by fausts, and, in comparison to the number being hit in game, it was tiny.

So two people had opposite statistics, both true, both taking the game in a different way. So which was more realistic? Personally I'd go for the latter. I want gameplay to give an approximation of combat (well, a combat that doesn't last all morning and give you just one life), but it just shows it's very easy to get lost in statistics and desires for some kind of unobtainable realism, I think you need to take the game as a whole rather than focus on individual points.

That said - enought with SMGs

 

[Filo90]

I loved the fact that in RO2 you hardly could see what you shooting at. In 90% cases of infantry shooting in ww2 was based on indirect shooting at a particular spot designated by the leader. There was no precise laser shooting back then, it was all about pinning the infantry down with the firepower.

I was hoping TWI would make an improvement of RO that worked so great, with just enhanced few elements. I was imaging that now there would be some sort of coordination between leader and a squad and that would be some incentive to stay with him. You comb through the battlefield as you advance spotting enemy targets, the squad gives a covering fire etc etc. Combat in RO1 was awesome, but just this a little cooperation was really missing in RO where you could achieve a real ww2 tactical fighting. Unfortunately what we got is over flaunted another arcade fps.
I bet if TWI had gone the other direction, with the same level of advertisement would gain much more popularity than now. But what you can expect of the company that name doesn't even sound very ww2 credible and that makes zombie games on the side.

you know that what you want is impossible without teamspeak or voip eh?

 

[Filo90]

So many made up, bull**** statistics getting thrown around by players who are convinced that RO1 was the apex of realistic infantry combat.

RO1 was a step in the right direction for realistic games. In a world dominated by Quake and Counter Strike, it was a breath of fresh air, as the combat was less about twitchy headshots and more about tactical maneuvering and placement.

BUT, and I've said this many times, limitations in the engine and goofy design decisions make it far from truly "realistic". They hadn't figured out how to use FoV toggle to put things in a 1:1 scale yet, so no game had any sort of zoom on anything other than snipers (which made everything useless at 100m, or "pixel hunting" ranges, when in real life a capable marksman can make shots at 200m from prone pretty easily.

The movement was slow and sluggish, a kneejerk reaction to all the CS/Quake bunny hopping and quick scoping, but far from realistic. It doesn't take me two seconds to accelerate to full speed when sprinting, and I'm a big, 6'5", 275lb guy who's never been particularly agile. When playing paintball, even in full combat gear, I can explode out of cover with a remarkable burst of speed to try and get out of a tight situation or flank around my opponents. I guarentee the soldiers in WWII, who were facing stakes a lot higher than some welts and being out of the game for a few minutes, would be capable of the same level of movement if not more.

RO2 is a big improvement on the realism of RO1 in most every way. There were some realism missteps, sure (bandaging, I'm looking at you), but RO2 puts far more realism into the formula.

And that's part of why RO1 vets tend to hate RO2 so much. Sometimes, real is not hard, and hard is not real. It's not that hard, with a bit of practice, to jam a rifle butt into your shoulder and make a reasonably accurate shot on a man-sized target from 50m in less than two seconds. In RO1, this would require crouching, wrestling with massive weapon sway, and praying that he wasn't any good at hip shooting. It was hard, yes, but not realistic.

Seriously guys, give the game a chance. There is -tons- of tactical depth here, and it is in another class entirely compared to CoD (which I just played with a friend for ****s and giggles. Seriously, I could count the similarities between MW2 and RO2 on one hand, and it would go something like "there are guns in the game" and "you can crouch to take cover").

HUGE QUOTE

hard is not always real......but ( and you have already stated this) somethings should be brought from RO1 to RO2--------> sway (not as RO1), speed of Iron sight and wound effects

 

[Pig]

RO2's problem is only the missing sway, if we would actually need the cover system to get well aimed shots the game would be unbelievable fun

 

[dweeb]

The thing with movement is there are so many variables in real life that it is very difficult for any game to deal with completely. It isn't just "how fast should you be able to run and how quickly should you accelerate?" to be completely realistic a game would have to factor in how steep the ground is, how rocky it is, how slippery it is, is it soft or hard, how stable is it? For example, how long it might take to sprint over all those bricks on pavlovs house would depend a lot on if they are sort of stable or if each brick is sliding out under your feet as you step on them.

And that is not even taking into consideration the wide range of physical ability between people or different levels of desperation.

 

[the_Monk]

I'm an RO (RO:OST) vet. I have clocked many hundreds of hours in the game I lovingly used to refer to as "pixel-hunt:OST".

I for one however am totally onboard with the new middle-ground RO2 is trying to occupy. What the delusional RO vets call "fence sitting" I call evolution.

Just about everything about RO2 is to be loved and respected as advancement......well except for the rather horrible launch. There are so many innovative things that RO2 does and so many areas where it improved upon RO1 (areas where RO1 was arbitrarily "realistic" without actually being realistic) it's too bad the community is so vile.

 

[Forssen]

BUT, and I've said this many times, limitations in the engine and goofy design decisions make it far from truly "realistic". They hadn't figured out how to use FoV toggle to put things in a 1:1 scale yet, so no game had any sort of zoom on anything other than snipers (which made everything useless at 100m, or "pixel hunting" ranges, when in real life a capable marksman can make shots at 200m from prone pretty easily.

A lot of old games got "FoV toggle" if for nothing else as a zoom for specific guns. And it's not some odd engine limitation since Darkest hour got it. The 1:1 zoom is a design decision and from what I've heard TWI had a internal argument whether to have it in the game or not.

The movement was slow and sluggish, a kneejerk reaction to all the CS/Quake bunny hopping and quick scoping, but far from realistic. It doesn't take me two seconds to accelerate to full speed when sprinting, and I'm a big, 6'5", 275lb guy who's never been particularly agile. When playing paintball, even in full combat gear, I can explode out of cover with a remarkable burst of speed to try and get out of a tight situation or flank around my opponents. I guarentee the soldiers in WWII, who were facing stakes a lot higher than some welts and being out of the game for a few minutes, would be capable of the same level of movement if not more.

100m runners reach their top speed at about 50m or 5 seconds and they are all about acceleration and doesn't carry anything heavy to lower the acceleration. The "they are in a war with adrenaline pumping through their bodies giving them superhuman strength" argument is just silly. Sure, there are a difference in motivation but it's not that different from just trying your best under normal circumstances.

RO2 is a big improvement on the realism of RO1 in most every way. There were some realism missteps, sure (bandaging, I'm looking at you), but RO2 puts far more realism into the formula.

The improvments in RO2 regarding realism is weapon recoil, 1:1 zoom and fluidity between actions. RO2 still plays a lot less realistic than RO1. I think a lot of the reason is that even though they added a lot of things you can do in real life they didn't add the exceptions and the abilities of your avatar is often "possible for a few under the right circumstances" rather than the norm.

And that's part of why RO1 vets tend to hate RO2 so much. Sometimes, real is not hard, and hard is not real. It's not that hard, with a bit of practice, to jam a rifle butt into your shoulder and make a reasonably accurate shot on a man-sized target from 50m in less than two seconds. In RO1, this would require crouching, wrestling with massive weapon sway, and praying that he wasn't any good at hip shooting. It was hard, yes, but not realistic.

With a bit of training you could do it standing in RO1, but yes, I agree RO1 had a bit excessive sway when unsupported. The close to non existent one in RO2 is however going to the extreme of what any human is able to in the other direction.

Seriously guys, give the game a chance. There is -tons- of tactical depth here, and it is in another class entirely compared to CoD (which I just played with a friend for ****s and giggles. Seriously, I could count the similarities between MW2 and RO2 on one hand, and it would go something like "there are guns in the game" and "you can crouch to take cover").

I find the gameplay similar to COD 1-2 but with RO1 style gametype.

 

[KompanyCommands]

Couldn't agree more, every second post on these forums is about how awesome the original game was and why RO2 should be more like it, seriously tiresome. Quit whinging, if you don't like the way RO has gone, move on...no amount of whinging is going to make this game turn back to RO1 with prettier graphics, games evolve and change....let it go.

PC is on its way out so are the hardcore vets its all a question of how long is the hardcore stuff going to last in around 10 years if it does happen RO3 may come out and we all know whats going to happen ..

Why don i get teh M14 rifle but all teh noobs get teh m16.

I was baseing that on vietnam by the way LOL..

We all know what going to happen .. haha

To many noobs using tubes why teh freak dont TWI nerf teh tubes its ruining mah game lulz.

 

[ightenhill]

Have to admit the gameplay with RO2 seems more immersive due to various factors.. However we have yet to see any of RO1s superb tank maps (even those which we were not mods or third party maps) which does seem a bit of a hole in the experience of RO2...