Competing with BF and CoD is a bad idea
- Thread starter ChaoticRambo
- Start date
Is the problem for ROvets that there are new good players, so they do not have a leg to the ground?
If you read various posts and threads on the board I'd say the case seems quite a lot diffrent from that. The most major problem is that most players (including myself) doesn't enjoy the game. This is not due to the players. It's due to the poor game design and in overal simplified gameplay. As people have said before; If I want the game to be a fullblown arcadegame, I'll just play something else. I have loads of arcadegames that does that RO2 tries to do a lot better. The reason behind the success with RO1 was mainly because it was diffrent and catered a strong fanbase around itself not because it was trying to copy other games.
Last edited:
Yes that's it, we've only played this series for 8 years now, and nobody can get good at a game in just 8 years, that's just not enough time, so naturally we all suck horribly, every singe one of us, we're all terrible at the game.
Infact i still haven't figured out how to move in the game, i can aim using that.. moose they call it? Yeah i think it's moose, anyway, people tell me i have to press the "WASD" key to move, and i can't find any key called that.
True story.
Because it wasn't?
Also, how many would complain it was just a remake with updated graphics?
Also, if you take RO1 with better graphics, movement system, cover system and a few more niceties... you have RO2, right? It isn't trying to compete with CoD or BF. I don't know where you get that. I seriously don't. Unless you play Firefight only with MkB.
The belief arma & RO VETS only stick to supertactical unforgiving games is probably a myth.
I don't believe in that at least. Most people on the BIS board (Bohemia Interactives official forums for the arma series) play all kinds of games. COD, battlefield, gta, hitman, red orchestra 2... It's the same thing for me. I am not bogged down in realism and realism only. It's rather the other way around. However, there are certain games that I don't want arcadegameplay in. One of them is RO. Simply because if RO moves into that direction TWI are selling me out and the whole point for me playing the game is lost. I don't play a game because It's a copycat of another game. I want games with innovation. Just think about it: How retarded wouldn't it be if gaming companies started to make their games like RO? Now, that wont happen, since RO never will be as successfull as generic shooters, unless TWI takes the step to either develop a completely new full-blown generic shooter or if they simply copy games like COD.
Either way, they wont be successfull if they copy BF.
Because BF already exist and they'll never be able to match that simply because BF has years of experience in their field while TWI have NONE, plus the fact that Dice has superior amount of money for their games compared to TWI and not to talk about the fact that EA publish Dice's games, which makes their their economical situation thousands of lightyears before TWI's. Another reason is that TWI will lose their old fanbase if they try to cater the mainstream around them. What is left then? Well, the competition between RO2 and all other generic FPS games including the big boys: COD and Battlefield, which TWI will lose agaianst UNLESS they do exactly like COD and BF did in the beginning: Bringing forward something COMPLETELY NEW and super innovative, no matter if it's for a niche audience or for the mainstream. Ironically enough, this is EXACTLY what RO OST did, and this makes mr wonder why they don't follow the path that's been already proven to work. My guess is: Enough money is not enough.
I don't believe in that at least. Most people on the BIS board (Bohemia Interactives official forums for the arma series) play all kinds of games. COD, battlefield, gta, hitman, red orchestra 2... It's the same thing for me. I am not bogged down in realism and realism only. It's rather the other way around. However, there are certain games that I don't want arcadegameplay in. One of them is RO. Simply because if RO moves into that direction TWI are selling me out and the whole point for me playing the game is lost. I don't play a game because It's a copycat of another game. I want games with innovation. Just think about it: How retarded wouldn't it be if gaming companies started to make their games like RO? Now, that wont happen, since RO never will be as successfull as generic shooters, unless TWI takes the step to either develop a completely new full-blown generic shooter or if they simply copy games like COD.
Either way, they wont be successfull if they copy BF.
Because BF already exist and they'll never be able to match that simply because BF has years of experience in their field while TWI have NONE, plus the fact that Dice has superior amount of money for their games compared to TWI and not to talk about the fact that EA publish Dice's games, which makes their their economical situation thousands of lightyears before TWI's. Another reason is that TWI will lose their old fanbase if they try to cater the mainstream around them. What is left then? Well, the competition between RO2 and all other generic FPS games including the big boys: COD and Battlefield, which TWI will lose agaianst UNLESS they do exactly like COD and BF did in the beginning: Bringing forward something COMPLETELY NEW and super innovative, no matter if it's for a niche audience or for the mainstream. Ironically enough, this is EXACTLY what RO OST did, and this makes mr wonder why they don't follow the path that's been already proven to work. My guess is: Enough money is not enough.
Last edited:
No, I find the game far to easy to get kills and dominate the enemy.
My K/D is around 1.7 or so - and I am typically in the top 5 or so people on 64 slot realism servers.
I do however, find the gameplay incredibly boring compared to RO1. RO1 grabbed my attention and I could sit down and just play, RO2 on the other hand makes me stop playing after half an hour for boredom.
No, you don't have RO2 - the feeling of RO1 just isnt in RO2. I can't explain it perfectly, it probably has to do with the lack of large maps that let you go where you want. All the game modes in RO2 hold your hand "ok, attack here now, but don't go here", "ok, you took that one, now you can take this one".
And it is trying to compete with CoD and BF. The zoom feature makes it easier to shoot ACCURATELY from long distances, the stats system is a complete bastardization of what RO is about, which is winning a round, and now puts the focus on personal stats. The hand holding maps that require no tactics at all to win is actually even a downgrade from what BF offers. You cant tell me it takes more tactics to win a territory round than a 64 slot large conquest map on BF3. Also, the amount of "special" weapons is CRAZY, there were so many less in RO1, you were really lucky to get an automatic weapon in RO1, in RO2 - I very rarely end up using the bolt, typically the semiautomatic rifle.
You don't have to explain it any further. Anyone knows that a tactical shooter that tries to appeal to the mainstream will blow as a tactical shooter and for those who don't know try to figure out if COD is popular because It's inaccesible or accesible shooter.
Well, you could make different game modes that might better appeal to other audiences, but never make your primary audience mad!
Look at BFBC2 - it was raged on so hard by the Battlefield community for not continuing the type of game battlefield had traditionally been. Now look at BF3 - it has made the vast majority of BF fans extremely happy with the conquest mode (including myself being a long time BF fan since 1942) and it is also appealing to some of the CoD crowd with the Rush and Team Death Match game modes.
rubbish
its bad company 3
(im more active on the bf3 forums than i am on here)
its bad company 3
(im more active on the bf3 forums than i am on here)
Last edited:
I've been playing Rainbow Six and Ghost series from day one and I must confess that RO2 is full match if not better than these series. Some of the maps has an incredible atmosphere and intensity and I do not go for the kill but to win with the team.
So yes.... RO2 is a great game
So yes.... RO2 is a great game
the sad thing is, cause of the fast paced gameplay of ro 2 it is more difficult for me to play with my friends in a squad than in bf3....
i love ro 2 but its so fast that you cant even play together with your squad like in bf3, in ro 1 the teamplay was amazin but in ro 2.....
i love ro 2 but its so fast that you cant even play together with your squad like in bf3, in ro 1 the teamplay was amazin but in ro 2.....
I believe this is a fault of the map design - instead of having to travel to an objective like in RO1 and BF3, you are now instantly placed into the fight. This makes the fights very faced paced a fluid.
cool, you didn't add anything to the discussion - thanks for your opinion on BF3 though....
Last edited:
Because doing this only creates giant ****storms.
I don't wan't to know what the reaction would have been if they only did a remake. Again, Civilization V springs to mind. A great, innovative game that got much hate form old Civ players for not being Civ 4 with better graphics.
Besides, devs usually enjoy making games a bit different.
Look at what CoD has become, do you really want that? Making the same game over and over again?
Last edited:
I think what you are trying to say is that if you want to play COD, your going to buy COD not a cheap clone. And if you want BF you will buy BF not a cheap clone. So when you want to play RO you want to play RO because it is unique, not for its similarities.
Nobody wanted a remake. Remove the stupid stuff like unlocks, your soldier getting better with rank, tweak sway, loadouts, movement speeds and you have a spectacular sequel that is worthy of it's "Red Orchestra" name. Including super-exciting stuff like squads, penetration, cover system and many many things we've begged for years. With some content over time, it would hold our attention as long as RO1 did.
But no, Mr. Ramm had a vision of beating CoD and BF. It's apparent that "codification" of the game happened late in the development. So, late in the development the "Design Team" thought that they needed a much much wider audience and took a **** on what foundations they made for years.
Forward a few months. The game opens for preoder, we the fans unaware of the state of the game and "design choices", are very excited and even preorder the deluxe to help TWI make money.
The game comes out, it's riddled with technical and design problems. It's soul is gone. Most of the fans are disappointed, yet TWI makes big money off of our trust. They call it a "success".
I have probably around 1500 hours in RO1, yet I don't even want to touch RO2 at the moment. I'd rather play BF3. Mods won't help the game when the vanilla is broken. I'm still lurking here though, with some little hope that TWI will acknlowledge and learn from their mistakes.
BTW: Anybody remember this? I'm still laughing at it.
I played those games day one also. Great games both......BUT where did those franchises go? They went mainstream and lost their fan base. Neither of those games had stats or level ups, well in a unique way with heroes, but not like the BF series or COD.
Sadly, I too agree with most posts that RO2 should have stayed closer to the original RO1. I viewed several vids from RO1 and thought WHY did you get rid of that? (detachable bayonets for one)
I would love to have a greater amount of realism in this game. Less run-n-gun and more tactics, but.............