• 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/

Battlefield Players Look @ RO2

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#21
Deist said:
You will never shoot someone and have them turn around and kill you. Guns are deadly as intended.
Click to expand...

Never be too sure, I've had times where somebody shot me and I heard where the shot was coming from and I flicked my mouse as fast as possible due to the decreased movement. And just before my character died, I could fire atleast 3 shots in the enemy body, effectively killing them. Though I must admit, this situation rarely happens.
 
Upvote 0
#22
ThoughtContagion said:
A lot of guys from my clan are really unhappy with Battlefield 3 and I am considering switching our clan to an RO2 clan.

What does a Battlefield 2 player have to look forward to in Red Orchestra 2?

Battlefield 3 is not a true sequel to Battlefield 2. There is no commander mode, small squads of four, limited to 4 characters in clan tags so it's tough to put clan ranks in there, minimap is neon pastel garbage, helicopters and jets have limited movement, forced to use a web browser to browse servers with this "Battlelog" garbage, the medic/corpsman is called "Assault"...and the list goes on. DICE/EA has really let down their PC fans.
​
I typically build massive clans of 300+ members for the games I enjoy, so I'm also wondering if there's a good player base here and new players coming in daily or does the game have more of a small niche ArmA style fanbase?

Thank you.
Click to expand...

Just wondering, have you played Caspain border? or just the metro map?
 
Upvote 0
#24
Josef Nader said:
TWI's games tend to attract a relatively niche fanbase, unfortunately. It's more accessible than ARMA, and certainly a lot faster paced and more fun, but it's more difficult than most shooters on the market (I don't play a whole lot of shooters, as I'm sick to death of the "brown is real, blood on face, twitchy twitch" shooters). I think they strike a good balance, and the playerbase is a lot bigger and healthier than most of the other games that TWI has released. There are a lot of doomsayers on the forums right now, but that's just the internet for you.

Now, from what I gather, BF is really good for squad play. RO takes that up a notch. You really need a good team in order to get the most out of RO games. The game shines so brightly in well coordinated 32v32 matches that it's likely to ruin your eyesight. Once the community puts out some bigger maps (a lot of cramped, frantic combat right now without a lot of room for RO2's key selling points to shine), there is going to be a mind-blowing level of army v army combat.

Basically, you'd be picking it up on potential right now. TWI and it's fanbase have a historical track record for making the most of this potential, but it takes time. The core gameplay is rock solid, and once the game and the playerbase matures a bit, you won't be able to find a better big-battle experience anywhere in the gamer-verse.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessary say that RO is more fun than arma. The word ''fun'' is a quite subjective word... it depends completely on what he's looking for. Arma is in my opinion by no doubt the best game out there when it comes to realism and tactical combat. Personally, I basicly switch from playing arma and ro1 all the time. I believe the best things about it apart from the freedom of choice and realism is the map editor and all the mods. Downsides with it may be that it requires a very good computer (at least arma 2 atm) and that the learning curve is very high. Moreover, It's the best tactical combat sim out there. Especially for clanpeople that want to set up matches.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#26
Deist said:
If it helps Im a big fan of the PC battlefield games.(not BC games)

That said I played BF3 beta and was overwhelmed by its beauty...

AT FIRST....

BUT...

I prefer RO2 over BF3 because you will never see someone bunny hopping.
(I havent seen this idiocy in years but BF3 is full of it) :rolleyes:

and

You will never shoot someone and have them turn around and kill you. Guns are deadly as intended.

BF3's only hope is that "Hardcore" mode will remove my above complaints about it.
Click to expand...

Bunny hopping doesn't work in battlefield 3 =/

Guns are deadly in battlefield 3 =/ The problem is the network code

Atleast you get firefights in battlefield 3 =/ my entire experience of Territory mode RO2 is everyone is hiding because everyones a hyper elite marksman. To be seen is to be dead. Every time I hear a bullet the top right hand corner of my screen shows someone has died. In a game with a max of 64 players people die so fast that there is never any firefight.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#29
The only thing I'll say, is this -

I wouldn't recommend playing RO2 if you're only considering it because people on the BF3 boards said they're switching here. Keep in mind that Red Orchestra isn't like Battlefield, and to be blunt, there is alot less to do and alot less freedom than BF2 or even BF3. That doesn't mean RO2 is a bad game, it just means that you're not going to have fun if you enjoy being able to use whatever kit you wish, like to fly, or even tank around with an equal chance of winning.

To be honest, I'd even go as saying that you'll not like RO2 if you don't like extremely fast paced games. Hell, I'd even say that RO2's pace is even faster than BF3's, and I played on Caspian Border during the open beta.

Anyways, take everything you read here with a grain of salt. You're posting on a board that does mainly have fanboys, elitist pricks, bronies, spidermen, neo-nazis, realism extremists, and probably one or two other groups I've forgotten. The best way to see if this game is for you, is too simply play it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#30
Inuki said:
Guns are deadly in battlefield 3 =/ The problem is the network code
Click to expand...

Look like I am going to to quote myself again:
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/10/10/the-beta-and-battlefield-3/
There are major gameplay balance differences between the two. Weapons feel different, with different fire rates and recoil. And the damage model has been radically shifted. Death comes quickly in the beta, situated more towards Call of Duty's durability, or even last year's DICE-developed Medal of Honor multiplayer. Firefights in the beta prioritize reflexes over tactics, which is a departure from Bad Company 2.

This is not the case with Battlefield 3 as it is now. The version of Battlefield 3 that I spent hours playing last week has weapons and damage that feel like Battlefield Bad Company 2. This, if you aren't sure, is a good thing. It changes the dynamics of firefights, allowing for each side to take and hold positions, and making flanking and tactical coordination much more viable. The increased player survivability also make vehicles in Battlefield 3 more fair than they would be with the beta's damage models.
Click to expand...
Ah, back to the nerf guns of old...
 
Upvote 0
#32
Unorthadox said:
there is alot less to do and alot less freedom than BF2 or even BF3.
Click to expand...

Yes, damn, thats what i was thinking of when i was thinking what was limited with RO2. I love RO2 and all but there really isnt much variety between games modes, classes or tactics, or basically what youll be doing each match.

BF games you can customize your class and the classes like medics, recons and engineers as well as all the different vehicles (air and ground) across varied map types offers tonnes of different types of gameplay.

BF3 to me (after i played caspian) felt way more like BF2 than BC2.
 
Upvote 0
#33
Unorthadox said:
The only thing I'll say, is this -

I wouldn't recommend playing RO2 if you're only considering it because people on the BF3 boards said they're switching here. Keep in mind that Red Orchestra isn't like Battlefield, and to be blunt, there is alot less to do and alot less freedom than BF2 or even BF3. That doesn't mean RO2 is a bad game, it just means that you're not going to have fun if you enjoy being able to use whatever kit you wish, like to fly, or even tank around with an equal chance of winning.

To be honest, I'd even go as saying that you'll not like RO2 if you don't like extremely fast paced games. Hell, I'd even say that RO2's pace is even faster than BF3's, and I played on Caspian Border during the open beta.

Anyways, take everything you read here with a grain of salt. You're posting on a board that does mainly have fanboys, elitist pricks, bronies, spidermen, neo-nazis, realism extremists, and probably one or two other groups I've forgotten. The best way to see if this game is for you, is too simply play it.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your thoughtful reply.

I didn't come to the forum because of a post on the Battlefield 3 boards. I've been watching RO2 for about six months and was intrigued by an interview with Scott Gibson. It was clear that Red Orchestra 2 is a true PC game, whereas Battlefield 3 is a glorified console port.

What I enjoy in an FPS game is the ability to lay down real-world military tactics. This was possible in Battlefield 2, possible in Bad Company 2 and will certainly be possible in Battlefield 3, but I'm more than sore that DICE/EA has blatantly lied to their PC fans when they claimed BF3 would be a true sequel to BF2.

My concerns about RO2 really center around:


  • is the fanbase increasing;
  • does the company have a history of selling out, dumbing things down or ignoring bugs or do they nurture their games and their PC clientele;
  • do their games have authenticity and realism (the simpletons at EA/DICE refer to Marines as "Soldiers" like a bunch of uninformed halfwits);
  • can a clan comprised of of Marines, Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen (i.e., men and women that have BTDT / "Been There, Done That") enjoy an experience where they can employ the things they have been taught in the real-world?
For the record, I'm currently downloading RO2. :)
 
Upvote 0
#34
Grimreapo said:
Look like I am going to to quote myself again:
[url]http://www.joystiq.com/2011/10/10/the-beta-and-battlefield-3/[/URL]

Ah, back to the nerf guns of old...
Click to expand...

Not for me my friend :D

I just cant stay interested in a game that uses nerf guns. It probly wouldnt be so bad but nerf guns lead to abuse of anti tank weapons by players that want to kill what they shoot. It also opens the door for sniper kids that want to quickscope and stuff. It took me 7 hits to kill somone with the SAW yet I could quickscope 2 guys dead in less time.

I wish I had more hands so I could give BF3 3 thumbs down.
 
Upvote 0
#35
ThoughtContagion said:
Why will there never be planes?
Click to expand...
There almost shouldn't even be tanks. Infantry, armor, and aircraft work on such mutually exclusive scales that trying to mix them is a pointless exercise in anything that's even remotely realistic. A giant infantry map is going to be maybe 500 meters across at the longest diagonal, and that's pushing it. Even one of the slow, tiny early WW2 dive bombers is going to fly over that much space in under 5 seconds, has enough firepower to instantly purge a capture point, and can do so from a height such that noone on the ground will be able to do anything about it. You'd either have the aircraft playing their own game, at which point they need maps that are 100 times the size, or you'd have to implement them in some sort of goofy fantasy form where they fly at 50 mph, turn on a dime, drop explosives with as much punch as water balloons, and have to worry about some guy with a rifle shooting them. The Battlefield/Flashpoint style combined arms setting has about as much do to with military combat as Planetside and Tribes do. They're all complete fabrications. The sci-fi ones at least have the luxury of being creative.

RO2 is pushing it already by including tanks and artillery. From a realism point of view, they already had to nerf the hell out of artillery, and massively buff infantry anti-tank weapons, and even then, they still dominate the game when they're in play.
 
Upvote 0
#36
Yeah go for it, all of the nasty bugs and issues are out of the way (except for AI tank machinegunners, which are hopefully going to be addressed soon) and RO2 is a solid shooter so long as you can overlook it's initial technical difficulties. Unlike BF3, RO2 is actually faithful (at least in my opinion) to the community whilst being a more accessible game than the original Red Orchestra.

It's not a cookie-cutter sequel like some idiots wish it was. You just can't innovate if you're going to avoid doing anything 'new'. RO2 is ambitious in what it tries to do and makes a damn good effort at doing that. Games that have realistic ballistics are few and far between, add the <optional> first-person cover system on top of that and RO2 is already one of a kind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Josef Nader
Upvote 0
#37
Caspian border is a bag of boring crap. Operation Metro is a lot better. The only people who like Caspian border are people who like vehicles.

You can do a simple overview of how much action there is in Caspian border compared to operation metro.

Operation Metro - 32 players - yet people will get between 20-50 kills.
Caspian border - 64 players - people struggle to get 20 kills.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tomten
Upvote 0
#38
Aircraft would be terrible in HOS, the maps are far too small. The only mil FPS out there with a big enough airspace for realistic flight performance is ARMA and as much as I like it, it's tough to get good performance in PvP battles. Maybe the new patch will fix it a bit, dunno. Still is hella fun flying low for a few minutes in a helo full of teammates to a LZ though.... :p

HOS is OK right now, but unlike BF3, it will greatly improve over time and because many of those improvements will come from the community, they will be what the community wants, not just what the devs will provide. Or not provide in the case of EA/Dice.
 
Upvote 0
#39
Inuki said:
Caspian border is a bag of boring crap. Operation Metro is a lot better. The only people who like Caspian border are people who like vehicles.

You can do a simple overview of how much action there is in Caspian border compared to operation metro.

Operation Metro - 32 players - yet people will get between 20-50 kills.
Caspian border - 64 players - people struggle to get 20 kills.
Click to expand...

Probably because Operation Metro is a ginormous cluster **** with linear hallway death traps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tomten
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu