• 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/

Do you miss this?

Good luck finding filled 50 pl servers.

LOL!! This is just priceless!

Where are all the people who cry that RO2 is not RO1 is then? Why are they not playing it?

According to them they represent a large number of gamers, but they can't fill a 50 player server?

ROFLMAO!
 
Upvote 0
LOL!! This is just priceless!

Where are all the people who cry that RO2 is not RO1 is then? Why are they not playing it?

According to them they represent a large number of gamers, but they can't fill a 50 player server?

ROFLMAO!

Your stupidity amazes me once again :D

Thanks for the laugh
 
Upvote 0
I do feel that the locations picked for the maps in RO2 are not as interesting overall as I'd like them to be. Big bridges = interesting. Seeing a bombing run/big bit of destruction=interesting. Arriving at the battlefield in a truck or boat or parachute=interesting. Fighting over a famous landmark or location (Brandenberg Gates, Omaha Beach) = interesting. As you might guess, I like Fallen Fighters (although I wish it had troop transports instead of tanks), but the other maps just don't have a setup that initially pulls me in, so the mysterious element of ambiance/immersion is pretty low for me to begin with.
 
Upvote 0
This is what you call a firefight? Look at those kill messages literally scrolling past the screen, it is just a bunch of people running into a meatgrinder. While it looks awesome from a vantage point, from a player perspective this is several times worse than running around getting killed all the time in RO2.

I've never seen a multiplayer game with firefights in them. You can't have a firefight if most participants are more intent on killing the enemy than preserving their own lives.

Two gamers aiming at eachother = one of them dies
One gamer aims at another = one of them dies
One gamer can't see anything = He has nothing to shoot at, but may get shot any moment
Two gamers can't see anyhing = One of them gets careless and makes himself seen and killed

Whatever situation you can come up with, it always ends with a quick death for either party, as it would in real life. Gamers have nothing to fear so there is no point in being careful, and so there is always someone to shoot and kill. Real life firefights don't happen because of poor accuracy, they happen because people are not fearless and uncaring gamers, they try and survive and won't stick their face anywhere near impacting bullets and they certaitainly don't run across the street to look for the enemy without knowing what's out there. A gamer can do that because what does it matter if you get killed? You can respawn and now you know where the enemy is so you can go kill him before he sees you!

Accusing RO2 of not having firefights is a misleading argument because it is not a staple feature in any shooter before it, not even RO1. That's like turning down an apartment offer because it doesn't have a solid gold toilet seat.


+1.


The only way we will see a glimpse of this style of gameplay is if we see large maps with chokepoints.
 
Upvote 0
I gotta release some of my frustation for not enjoying RO2 and being fooled by TWI (for the last time) into buying it.

Some of you should just realize that RO1 is superior at being Red Orchestra compared to RO2. End of discussion. RO1 is better, and RO2 is only pretenting to be something it isn't, when it in reality is a dumbed down version of RO1. Anyone that consider consider arcade-like features as positive in a RO game shouldn't be taken seriously and shouldn't be listened to at all.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I gotta release some of my frustation for not enjoying RO2 and being fooled by TWI (for the last time) into buying it.

Some of you should just realize that RO1 is superior at being Red Orchestra compared to RO2. End of discussion. RO1 is better, and RO2 is only pretenting to be something it isn't, when it in reality is a dumbed down version of RO1. Anyone that consider consider arcade-like features as positive in a RO game shouldn't be taken seriously and shouldn't be listened to at all.


agreed

also im wondering if twi hired ppl to downvote all the ro2 criticism in here.
this ro2 is more loke a crippled DoD .. oh btw DoD Source has more average players than RO2.:rolleyes:

the best thread on the board is how twi brags about the big start ro2 had till now , maybe they forgot that it could be just a reflection of how many ppl that liked ro1 draw more people into this.
im sure if it would start again right now the salescount would be 1/100.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thaelyn and Cyper
Upvote 0
As others have said, using the bridge from Berlin and Omaha are terrible examples of a firefight. Both maps were, indeed, terrible. I never want to have to deal with anything like those again. Especially since a RO2 Berlin map would be impossible to win as the Russians. They had IS', T34-85s, KVs and the such in reality. In RO2, we would have to do street fights against the PIV in a T34-76.

I really liked the forest maps and Leningrad from RO1.

Now this I wouldn't mind. Leningrad was a good map, IMO. It didn't have insane choke points, but defending was as fun as attacking. It would have tank issues similar to a RO2 Berlin though, unless we could get the KV, PIII, and PIV Ausf. Ds.

We just need DH style maps with the RO2 engine and it will be most excellent indeed. I do miss the battles of DH but Berlin sucked though.
Foy and the like were fantastic.

I have to disagree entirely. To be blunt, it seemed like most of the DH maps were made by Nazi fanboys. I don't think there was a single map were the Germans didn't have some insane advantage that nearly trumped anything the Americans or Commonwealth had. Hell, was there ever a map where the only tanks Germany had were PIV Ausf. Hs and Tigers, while the Americans or Commonwealth had a few Sherman 76s or maybe a Firefly?
 
Upvote 0