Another "great" preview
- Thread starter Apos
- Start date
i completely disagree. How a game plays at the top lvl is not a good indicator of how it will play for the readers. a review in the eyes of a professional gamer is not accurate to well over 99% of the people reading it. A reviewer needs only be a competent gamer to make a decent review of a game.
Upvote
0
Well i hate to burst your bubble and make you even more sad/mad but RO learning curve is much steeper then pretty much any of the popular shooters out there. I believe this is actually common knowledge by now.
I didnt say anywhere that players from those games can not think strategically, so please dont put words from your imagination which i didnt write in the first place, its not nice
.The reviewer in the article takes Ro2`s biggest flaw as "adaptation", presumably from the rest of the FPS games in the genre (BFBC, BF2, COD)
Now, core RO players know exactly why that "adaptation" which previewer views as flaw, is actually games biggest asset and the sole reason why vast majority are playing it for years.
To point but some of the major ones for me:
First its the setting of ww2, then it may very well be the challenge of holding position till the last men and leaning behind the wall to take that decisive precise shot at enemy machingunner and "save" 10 soldiers behind you.
Thrill of waiting in hull down ambush position with T-34 to make side shot at Panther and have an actual chance of killing it, because you know, you won
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Ahm.. dudes, the reviewer dude actually registered on those forums, and posted in this thread and some of you kinda missed it
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showpost.php?p=795585&postcount=24
(Not @ P/review author: )
There are different ways of presenting stuff, you can make "complexity" look bad if you say its frustrating and you die a ton, or you present it like "its more refreshing and takes skill". Same as telling some1 "you will get raped" or "it will take time to master but then you'll pwn like a baws".
Kinda sad that some of these reviews are the only up to date sauce of info for people who dk about RO. =|
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showpost.php?p=795585&postcount=24
(Not @ P/review author: )
There are different ways of presenting stuff, you can make "complexity" look bad if you say its frustrating and you die a ton, or you present it like "its more refreshing and takes skill". Same as telling some1 "you will get raped" or "it will take time to master but then you'll pwn like a baws".
Kinda sad that some of these reviews are the only up to date sauce of info for people who dk about RO. =|
Upvote
0
He probably isn't in breach but he doesn't have much common sense. When beta testing a game its clear that only the positive can be extracted and occasionally shared - because they will more than likely remain that way! All the other stuff can change and so it is premature to comment on things like graphics or certain weapon balance before the retail is out or tested by reviewers.
Upvote
0
I`ve translated this article. There could be mistakes etc. because my English isn`t perfect but I think it`s better thank google translator
Enjoy.Red Orchestra 2 - The victim of first impression
Tripwire isn`t good at knowing how to people win over in the first minutes of his latest game. At least it didn`t win over me and only further hours made me engaged.
When Sławek (autor`s mate) gave me the task of writing impression from beta of Red Orchestra 2 I didn`t the happiest man in the world. I`ve read his mixed feeling about seen game in Prague, and I played Forgotten Hope 2 s a lot recently so my appetite for WW2 in games has been largely appeased. Good for me, only the fact that when Sławek had opportunity to finally play the beta quietly, this game began took a liking to me. Well but maybe was it only a trick to likely do my duty (write this article)?
First minutes didn`t uplift me. The fight I started on the snowy square what was attacked by German or Reds (depends on round). My first observations? This game is ugly. Simply ugly. Beta guilt? Developers guilt? If there were no it should be fixed. So I closed my eyes and ran. And that was the reason of my quickly death. I opened my eyes, after I could make up my mind and I wasn`t so reckless no longer. I leant and looked around.
But situation wasn`t good. The Reds had position behind low walls. Any front rush had to end up being shot. Our only advantage was fact that we had spawn in the ruins of the house which higher floor could be used by riflemans to remove enemy and make cover fire for soldiers who were at the bottom. But still it didn`t promised well. Armed with a Mauser I ran fast to the wall and took cover. I looked at ruins and I saw several crawling comrades. I waited they go further and looked out the wall. There was nobody. So, I ran to next wall.
The silence was interrupted by well located riflemans firing. It was difficult to judge, but if we had building with floors I supposed the scales is turning in our favour. I look out wall again, carefully watched foreground and... I noticed him. The soldier was running among breaches far ahead.I put a Mauser to head and shot. I shot a second time and third time. I missed and he made it to hide. That a little shooting of mine was enough to contract attention. The machine gun (DP) began its heard.
Pressed I waited until my comrades had been next to me. They had thrown a smoke grenade and we jumped over the wall. Changing to a quicker weapon I ran in the middle of smoke and noticed the hiding Russian soldier. I shot a few times. The soldier clutched his stomach, shot several blind shots and fell down. He shot me but I bandage my hurt leg. We captured the middle of square and the game began to make me engaged.
Its began when I finally killed someone. This is the truth reason because I coloured the previous paragraph. Really my first fight was the fight with setup of the game than enemies. New beta version has had standard keyboard setup but before I need to get to used it. Its the same like many other principles which are specific for Red Orchestra 2.
And its propably the biggest RO 2 disadvantage - we have to get to used it. When the man has finished struggle with this game and has started fight with other players, when has explored prevailing rules and has begun to derive the situation is changing. Even the graphic`s stopping annoy, and sometimes its seems be nice. Most of the time the player don`t pay attention on it because is searching enemies.
The game allows you to play bunch of classes. Main classes are, for Germans and Russians the riflemans and assaults. There are the biggest limits on these classes (yes, the each class has the limits). Riflemans best fight in the average distances but in the brief ones they have to use their pistols. Assaults are very good in fights in the buildings, however fight in the greater distances requires time to practice.
Rest of classes are rather support for them. Soldiers with light machine gunes are invaluable in the defense, however in the attack they aren`t helpful. Snipers could make the enemies angry but the other hand they could be killed easily. Snipers has the choice, they can choose the semi-rifle with scope same make miss in the battlefield. Squad leaders are very important often because of they represent mobile spawn points. And commanders? Commanders only help their soldiers by calling artillery or reconnaissance.
I can the easiest way compare ingame modes to Bad Company 2 - one of the side attacks, the second one defends. The combats goes on for specific objectives which must be occuped to move on. If attackers takes all of them or kill every enemy soldiers they will win. But if defenders kill all enemies (including reinforcements) or don`t take all objectives they will win of course.
So, the gameplay looks like I wrote last time but much depends on circumstances. If there are fields stretching away on both teams the game becomes position fight and both sides runs among wall, ruins or something occasionally firing.If the game has took place in the buildings the gameplay is faster, because in narrow corridors, it is easier to die. On the many of all maps there are objectives which are located in buildings. So, it`s going to be interesting.
I wrote at the beginning about Forgotten Hope 2 and it`s difficult to avoid comparisions between these two titles. These two game are different but gamestyle is quite similar - it`s not ArmA but not CoD too. It`s something between. You aren`t punished by dying but if you want to kill enemy running and firing to all what is moving isn`t enough (recoil is big). Buf if FH2 offers nice fights on the servers with 128 players with a huge count of tanks and airplanes that RO2 puts on struggles on the smaller territories, so cosy (rather intimate because of fact you can be hurt in some sensitive places except for a head...).
That impression could be absolutely disturbed since it`s a beta and test servers usually aren`t full, however seeing the size of maps I doubt that it would be different. Compared to FH2 maps are quite small - some people thinks those are big but if we can runs from one to the second point to sprint without restoring, so I don`t agree with them. Especially because of specific modes fight are focused on fragments on maps.
RO2 single out FH2 something else - atmosphere. BF2 mod presents clearly military attitude. The climate is in size and intensity of fights. RO2 takes out in different side. Key role is the music - deprived of exalted tones (at least what I`ve heard) doesn`t interfere, it`s in the background. Evocative tones of soundtrack suffice to forced atmosphere to the scenes.
This description could reject but in game it`s great - Stalingrad was the place on of the tragic fight in the WW2 and the music matches to the total. Futhermore brutality, when explosion disposes soldier`s limbs and a hit
showed itself in a sudden jerk and strike in the ground that makes if I were to compare Red Orchestra 2 to films, it`s closer to German Stalingrad than Enemy at the Gates of Hollywod.
Writing these impressions I`d like to sketch game specificity and own rules. I didn`t go into details since playing a beta it`s difficult to judge some of elements because those could be removed or changed in next build. I didn`t play tanks. I`m afraid I will have to take back some of arguments (maybe this on about scale of the fights) because I think Tripwire shows only small piece of all production in this beta. And in this game the first or particular impression could be so deceptive.
Upvote
0
![[TORO]Patosentado](/data/avatars/s/35/35970.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
Upvote
0
I couldnt understand most of that article. Google translate did a worthy effort, but in the end its still confusing.
But this quote got me thinking "WTF"
Adaptation is considered a flaw these days? Wow...
But this quote got me thinking "WTF"
Adaptation is considered a flaw these days? Wow...
Upvote
0
Previews/reviews are always subjective.
RO 2 and CoD/BF are completely diferent genres and playstyles.
A person who likes BF for example will bash every feature he doesn't like.
A person who adores RO won't mind some flawed features.
Preview and reviews are always biased
RO 2 and CoD/BF are completely diferent genres and playstyles.
A person who likes BF for example will bash every feature he doesn't like.
A person who adores RO won't mind some flawed features.
Preview and reviews are always biased
Upvote
0
I'm sure theres some people out there that could like RO2,BF, and COD.
Upvote
0
People are overreacting to the part where he said LMGs are useless in attack.
In attack people! That is great! LMGs aren't assault weapons, they are fortifying weapons!
I can see why he doesn't like it, it probably is confusing and annoying for casual gamers, but as he said, once he played it more, and by himself, he liked it.
People need to understand that when you are in a crowded room, with a new game you know nothing about, and distractions everywhere. You're not going to have a great time playing a game that takes a lot of concentration and an open mind set. That is why at E3, the quick mindless games are the ones that get the most press.
In attack people! That is great! LMGs aren't assault weapons, they are fortifying weapons!
I can see why he doesn't like it, it probably is confusing and annoying for casual gamers, but as he said, once he played it more, and by himself, he liked it.
People need to understand that when you are in a crowded room, with a new game you know nothing about, and distractions everywhere. You're not going to have a great time playing a game that takes a lot of concentration and an open mind set. That is why at E3, the quick mindless games are the ones that get the most press.
Upvote
0
Oh there's a high learning curve....
it's not a complete copy of BF or CoD, it's design and goal for the game is almost completely different, so if all you've played in the past was CoD and BF, then fk'n DUUUUHHHH!!!!! Of course there's going to be a friggin learning curve.
There's a learning curve between playing DooM I and Quake I.... there's a learning curve between many games, especially when game devs decide to take a different path and do something different from the norm.
If you're going to complain about a learning curve from one game to the next and that they're not basically identical, then should you really be playing games and should you really be employed as a reviewer of games?
If they were similar, then he'd be moaning that it was a copy, unoriginal and trying to steal from the BF/CoD market.
And it most likely is trying to steal from the BF/CoD market, but at least RO2 is trying to offer something different, something new to the market, rather than flooding the market with the same, recycle crap-arsed gameplay that's been done to death since the early 2000's.
Speaking as someone who works in marketing, advertising, signage, graphic design, animation and has a bit of modeling experience under his belt..... Just slapping fancier graphics on top of the same old gameplay is pathetic and lazy..... making a crappy single player campaign that spoon feeds you through the entire game with such heavy scripting that your AI buddies can basically do all the work for you on the hardest setting and you don't get hit (I think there was a video of someone pulling this off in MW2 or MW3's single player a while back).... is plain lazy, not just lazy for the players, but the devs who can't be bothered.
Patrick Bach, the executive producer for BF3 was quoted as saying ".... in most cases sandbox games are hardcore, boring, hard to get into and they are not very popular."
Source:
<a href="http://www.industrygamers.com/news/battlefield-dev-calls-sandbox-games-boring/" target="_blank">http://www.industrygamers.com/news/battlefield-dev-calls-sandbox-games-boring/
<a href="http://www.computerandvideogames.com/296694/dice-most-sandbox-games-are-boring-and-not-very-popular/" target="_blank">http://www.computerandvideogames.com/296694/dice-most-sandbox-games-are-boring-and-not-very-popular/
So basically the guys making the BF series are just trying to copy the guys making CoD..... who in turn basically copied the same old gameplay style of scripted spoon feeding gameplay that existed since Medal of Honor. It's the same crap, but with prettier graphics slapped on top.
There's very little innovation, there's very little thinking involved and apparently anybody who tries to do something different from this or give something new for players to choose from..... it's just too high of a learning curve.... it doesn't have what they're used too...... Oh boo hoo, I have to actually think, I have no regenerating health, there's no medkits, I can't just run and gun..... oh woe is me.
If you don't want to think and if you want everything done for you without having to do much beyond pushing a couple of buttons on a remote, then go watch a war movie, because that's what these other games pretty much end up being.... in single player that is.... MP is just run and gun more than the next guy.
...... but that's just my personal review
Added:
Now that I came across the detailed translation, and although it's not the best english & grammar (can't fault anybody for that), the review makes more sense than the context taken out of it in the original post..... So I now take my above comments away from the reviewer and make my above post as just a general comment not directed at anybody in particular.
it's not a complete copy of BF or CoD, it's design and goal for the game is almost completely different, so if all you've played in the past was CoD and BF, then fk'n DUUUUHHHH!!!!! Of course there's going to be a friggin learning curve.
There's a learning curve between playing DooM I and Quake I.... there's a learning curve between many games, especially when game devs decide to take a different path and do something different from the norm.
If you're going to complain about a learning curve from one game to the next and that they're not basically identical, then should you really be playing games and should you really be employed as a reviewer of games?
If they were similar, then he'd be moaning that it was a copy, unoriginal and trying to steal from the BF/CoD market.
And it most likely is trying to steal from the BF/CoD market, but at least RO2 is trying to offer something different, something new to the market, rather than flooding the market with the same, recycle crap-arsed gameplay that's been done to death since the early 2000's.
Speaking as someone who works in marketing, advertising, signage, graphic design, animation and has a bit of modeling experience under his belt..... Just slapping fancier graphics on top of the same old gameplay is pathetic and lazy..... making a crappy single player campaign that spoon feeds you through the entire game with such heavy scripting that your AI buddies can basically do all the work for you on the hardest setting and you don't get hit (I think there was a video of someone pulling this off in MW2 or MW3's single player a while back).... is plain lazy, not just lazy for the players, but the devs who can't be bothered.
Patrick Bach, the executive producer for BF3 was quoted as saying ".... in most cases sandbox games are hardcore, boring, hard to get into and they are not very popular."
Source:
<a href="http://www.industrygamers.com/news/battlefield-dev-calls-sandbox-games-boring/" target="_blank">http://www.industrygamers.com/news/battlefield-dev-calls-sandbox-games-boring/
<a href="http://www.computerandvideogames.com/296694/dice-most-sandbox-games-are-boring-and-not-very-popular/" target="_blank">http://www.computerandvideogames.com/296694/dice-most-sandbox-games-are-boring-and-not-very-popular/
So basically the guys making the BF series are just trying to copy the guys making CoD..... who in turn basically copied the same old gameplay style of scripted spoon feeding gameplay that existed since Medal of Honor. It's the same crap, but with prettier graphics slapped on top.
There's very little innovation, there's very little thinking involved and apparently anybody who tries to do something different from this or give something new for players to choose from..... it's just too high of a learning curve.... it doesn't have what they're used too...... Oh boo hoo, I have to actually think, I have no regenerating health, there's no medkits, I can't just run and gun..... oh woe is me.
If you don't want to think and if you want everything done for you without having to do much beyond pushing a couple of buttons on a remote, then go watch a war movie, because that's what these other games pretty much end up being.... in single player that is.... MP is just run and gun more than the next guy.
...... but that's just my personal review
Added:
Now that I came across the detailed translation, and although it's not the best english & grammar (can't fault anybody for that), the review makes more sense than the context taken out of it in the original post..... So I now take my above comments away from the reviewer and make my above post as just a general comment not directed at anybody in particular.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I think it is funny that DICE guy wants to make BF3 more scripted, both BC games singleplayer was hugely scripted without any sandbox elements. $60 is a lot to pay for a movie.
Upvote
0