Game Philosophy

[kllr101]

All I can add to this about the arcade debate a few posts back is that having an arcade base to a game is in no way bad.

Infact - making a tactical shooter with an arcade base is probably the most challenging genre in gaming. As there's so much to take into account. And I applaude TWI for getting it right in OST and going for improving it in HOS.

Having an arcade styled underlying base is a good thing, it lets new players come in and play, but makes these new players work to learn to use weapons correctly, to use vehicles and support properly.

Easy to use - Hard to master. A very simple statement, yet it can change gameplay drasticly depending on how you play.

 

[NoxNoctum]

Just buy RO1... it's like $5 and there are still at least 300-400 people playing 90% of the time. Unless you're a graphics whore you'll have no problem finding servers and enjoying yourself, provided you can get past the 2-3 hour "WTF where did I get shot from???!?!?" learning curve. Oh and do us all a favor and don't take any class other than rifleman or smg for at least 3 months XD.

It's nothing like PR or ARMA2 tbh... but it's also nothing like Forgotten Hope (thank God), or the other games mentioned.

It's just... RO .

"Realism" wise I'd say it's a bit more so than PR maybe. More realistic in some areas, less realistic in others. (it actually has ballistics unlike PR---sniping isn't just waiting 9 seconds and then point'n'click). Gameplay is much faster paced than PR though. Smaller maps too. But it "feels" more real than PR to me. (no spawns on squad leader rallys, no obsession with building FOBs, no running around in little groups of 6 over a huge map, etc.). It's probably the only game that actually captures what I'd imagine an all out WW2 battle to be like.

PR feels more like hide and seek with guns to me. (which is why I ONLY play Insurgency mode in PR---which I have to admit---totally kicks ***, for both insurgents/taliban/militia and blufor). Insurgency tends to make it seem more like an actual battle, which is probably why I like it more (smaller maps, and BLUFOR tends to work as a team more often... or at the very least converge on the same objectives more often, rather than being spread out over a giant area like in AAS)... likewise insurgents work together though in a different way .

Nothing like driving a bombcar. Or "wanna be" bombcar. (done this a few times... ram your techie into a wall over and over till it starts smoking bad, then grab a gunner and start chasing down humvees---any you can't manage to kill with the gun just ram... you'll both blow up but you lose nothing )

 

[213]

there's nothing you can't learn about ro2 if you just do a few minutes worth of research.

and once you've done that you'll learn that this isn't your typical battlefield arcade nonsense with arbitrary rules to make things fair for the sake of mentally challenged gamers.

you've got to be smart to play and enjoy this game. 'nuff said.

 

[oldslowguy]

Just to add some incentive to the original poster to buy RO now, the free mod Darkest Hour has just released a new, and "final" update, so it's like two full games for , what, $10? You cant go wrong! TWB*SlowBull

 

[VariousNames]

Just to add some incentive to the original poster to buy RO now, the free mod Darkest Hour has just released a new, and "final" update, so it's like two full games for , what, $10? You cant go wrong! TWB*SlowBull

Word?

Post a changelog, brother.

 

[oldslowguy]

[url]www.darkesthourgame.com[/URL] has the facts. TWB*SlowBull

 

[dsi1]

Word?

Post a changelog, brother.

http://forums.darkesthourgame.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8145

 

[Flogger23m]

I'd say pick up a copy of RO1 when it goes on sale.

 

[Sensemann]

I just want to know what the core values of RO. For Battlefield, it's an arcade-y game with large maps, vehicular warfare, and essential teamwork. I'm guessing that those are also in HoS, but where is the scale between balance and realism?

I think for me, RO's core value is that it's the only FPS I have played in which I actually first try to stay alive before killing somebody. No other shooter has given me this feeling before.

 

[Rak]

Ok here's my take;

I'd say RO is a lot like Battlefield franchise in regard of infantry play and general "feeling" of the game. With added pinch of "accesible" realism in some background areas like ballistics, bullet damage, HUD and class limits.

IMO RO doesn't have much in common with PR, as what makes PR awesome despite it's technical shortcomings is it's public teamplay. Which doesn't really exist in RO. If you play RO you'll see everybody running to the objectives oblivious of each other, with "pros" taking up the front and decimating(hipshooting) their foes much to their rage. While noobs hang out in the back proning and pixel hunting. There's occasional random voice chat guys playing WW2 songs, shouting angrily in German or really trying to organize people, though I think many RO players will agree that what they have in common is annoyance. I guess typical RO player doesn't want to be told what to do. This will probably change with HoS though.

For the ArmA part, I'm happy to say that RO doesn't have much in common and that's a good thing. Maybe you can classify them together as "realistic" games, but ArmA lacks serious fun factor compared to RO. At least in public multiplayer(if you like to be "transported" 15 minutes for a 1 minute firefight against imbecile AI for 3 hours ignore this).

Well TL;DR, RO has a unique combination of realism/gameplay elements. It has fluid movements and satisfying gun handling just like Battlefield(more like BC2 I'd say), an improved "Conquest" mode where you have to cap in order and a class system a-la BF series but with limitations. It's like "Hardcore" mode of a popular shooter, but the game was designed around that hardcore mode so the gameplay doesn't feel weird or unbalanced. I'm sure you'll be surprised to feel like the "poor guys" in WW2 footages in combat, though you may be equally surprised when a 15 man tower of power suddenly lands in front of you in Kaukasus.

Sorry for huge wall-o-text(though it's getting popular with certain posters here), I'm bored.

 

[DraKon2k]

I'd say HoS will be between 4 and 5.

At it's heart it will always be an arcade game, albeit with a lot of realism and realistic features "tacked on". A game is more defined by it's basic gameplay concept, not so much by the realism of it's weaponry and the like. IE even with extremely realistic weapons and damage CoD will always stay an arcade game as it's core gameplay systems and functions don't allow it to be anything else. So if you're ok with "arcade gameplay and basic functions ala BF" with loads of realism added to it then I guess you'll really like HoS!

Seriously when will you finally stop saying this stuff? Arcade is something completely different. Your problem is that you view ArmA II as height of creation and then look down on anything else less realistic/not a military simulation and call it "arcade". Ridge Racer is arcade, HL2 gungame is arcade, HoS is a realistic FPS.

 

[Landrik]

Speaking as someone who has just bought the game two days ago, here's something I'll add in.

You'll die. A lot. I was playing a game and even though our armor was destroying the allies, our infantry were just getting slaughtered.

If your weapon gets shot out of your hand (it happens from time to time) don't try to pick it up unless you know you can grab it quickly and safely. Not only do you have to pick up your gun, but you have to pick up the ammo for it, which is harder to find.

Resupply anyone you can by pressing "G". It really helps out the mortar and MG guys. Also, prone, crouched, and leaning your weapon against something greatly helps with your accuracy.

Have fun!

 

[LemoN]

Seriously when will you finally stop saying this stuff? Arcade is something completely different. Your problem is that you view ArmA II as height of creation and then look down on anything else less realistic/not a military simulation and call it "arcade". Ridge Racer is arcade, HL2 gungame is arcade, HoS is a realistic FPS.

You fail at reading properly.

Don't confuse arcade core mechanics with an arcade game.

Basically, RO is still based on the same core mechanics as found in games like Quake or CoD, you've got two teams with fixed spawnpoints on a limited map without the freedom of large scale movement, the action get's funneled into certain areas, etc.

If anything I was simply underlining the main difference between the philosophy in the two games. Does having arcade roots make RO bad? Definitely not!

It actually makes it better on a pvp "jump in and play" basis.

 

[Zetsumei]

blabla)

RO's goal has generally been to emulate a battlefield, not so much a tactical operation.

The biggest ArmA match i've been part of was with about 128 people and still its very empty. There is a clear goal with arma's gameplay to aim for tactical and manouvring realism.

RO focusses on the feeling of being in a big battlefield instead of a big holleywood movie ala cod. Different settings between RO & ArmA but I wouldn't necessarily say one is more realistic in the chosen mindset or not.

I wouldn't be surprised when if BIS and TWI made a game aimed at offering maps for 1000 people that they would end up somewhat similar. And in that sense closer to the current arma maps than the current RO.

But when you want gameplay where there is a somewhat high density of people around. With a limited number of players then the only thing to do that is restricting the playing field.

Arma's focus I'd say is on more realistic squad or platoon based tactics in manouvring around etc. RO is more about the individual/fireteam based tactics. Nothing wrong with either, but I wouldn't necessarily call that decision in a sense more or less realistic.

Absolute realistic fidelity cannot be done in games so people need to make choices on what realistic parts they want to focus on taking in mind today's constraints. In the end its about playing the game of who's vision matches more with your own vision and of course what you find to be more fun.

In the end there are a lot of choices in RO that i consider to be made for the sake of gameplay only and I do not always agree with them. But with regards the choices of the sizes of maps I do not think TWI should be blamed of going so much in an arcade route as focusing on higher density encounters (which is why the original RO had for instance respawns over no respawns, as you cannot obtain a battlefield with too few people).

 

[LemoN]

I don't even mention overall realism, I simply mention differences in design philosophy.

Christ, did you even read what I wrote?

Basically, RO is still based on the same core mechanics as found in games like Quake or CoD, you've got two teams with fixed spawnpoints on a limited map without the freedom of large scale movement, the action get's funneled into certain areas, etc.

These are FACTS.

Is it anything bad?

NO!

THIS MAKES FOR A BETTER GAME IN A PVP ENVIRONMENT!
Does it make it more realistic in terms of overall function and underlying game mechanics?
Definitely not.
Is this statement SO hard to understand?

More often that not people react as if someone breaks their favourite toy if someone closely examines the differences of their favourite game and another game. This way they see people "flaming" and "attacking" their game in places where this doesn't even happen. Christ people, use your brain and stop being paranoid.

 

[Zetsumei]

We'll I'd call RO's cap and gameplay system pretty different from cod and the bf series. Heck it was the original cap system of RO that made me like the game.

The thing is you yourself used it to stamp the HOS off as an arcade game, due to having some things similar as the cod & quake or whatever series in terms of map design.

I'd say HoS will be between 4 and 5.

At it's heart it will always be an arcade game, albeit with a lot of realism and realistic features "tacked on". A game is more defined by it's basic gameplay concept, not so much by the realism of it's weaponry and the like. IE even with extremely realistic weapons and damage CoD will always stay an arcade game as it's core gameplay systems and functions don't allow it to be anything else. So if you're ok with "arcade gameplay and basic functions ala BF" with loads of realism added to it then I guess you'll really like HoS!

When talking about a feature or design choice it shouldn't be its arcade because cod got it or because quake got it, you should look at the individual properties of those game modes and based of that decide if you should call it arcade or not, and when stating it give the arguments why.

I'm reacting not because you compare RO to cod or quake but because of your analogy "cod has it so it much be arcade", without going in the reasoning why feature A or B is realistic or not. ArmA2 got crosshairs just like cod, so should we call that an arcade game as well?

You can always abstract games to a point that every fps becomes the same including ArmA & Wolfenstein 3d and that is a fact as well.

 

[LemoN]

Crosshairs aren't part of the basic underlying mechanics of how the game FUNCTIONS.

 

[Das Bose]

SNIP....Christ, did you even read what I wrote?

You've been on my ignore list since the day after I joined the forums. I have decided to remove you for the purposes of this post.

It is your opinion that RO is an arcade game at it's core, and it is the opinion of many other people that it is not an arcade game at it's core.

I've noticed one thing that is a constant with you. Whenever somebody disagrees with something you've typed you immediately think they have made a mistake, not read the whole post, not understood the whole post or parts thereof e.t.c, basically you assume they are wrong/stupid and couldn't possibly be right.


Can you please explain how you came to be under the delusion that your opinion is more valid than anybody elses?

Then I promise I'll put you straight back on the ignore list.

 

[kllr101]

I understand what you mean Lemon, and I agree.

Not that it's arcade styled base/core is bad thing.

People just generalise what arcade means. When all it really means is fun, and easy to use.

Edit: To furhur explain what I (and I assume Lemon) means:

Take an example : CoD, it's 100% an arcade game, it doesn't allow for the user to do much and is very simplistic in everything.

BF : It has an arcade style, Combined with a few tactical elements. So it lets you keep the fun whilst giving the player something to learn and aspire to.

RO : It has a form of an arcade core, it's not an arcade game, But the ideas of 'arcade' are there. It's fun, good and easy to jump in and use.

ArmA : Here is where the arcade base is gone, it's based around tactical decisions and realism. It has some fleeting arcade style in it, such as pretty easy to jump in and play, and it's pretty fun.

DCS : Now, There is no arcade core or tactics base. It revolves around simulation and has a very steep learning curve. All arcade elements are gone (it's not 'easy' to pick up, it's not designed around being 'fun' in a sense)

 

[LemoN]

I understand what you mean Lemon, and I agree.

Not that it's arcade styled base/core is bad thing.

People just generalise what arcade means. When all it really means is fun, and easy to use.

Pretty much, yes.

RO is very very similar to BF and operates with the exact same basic functions. The things that set it apart are more subtle things like gun handling, damage, avatar movement, ballistics, etc. That makes RO far more realistic than BF but it's still operating with very similar mechanics. Hence me saying "Is that a bad thing? Definitely not!".

But people have to realise that many of the same mechanics that make the game fun, fast-paced and quick to get in with 20-30 minute rounds with hundreds of deaths also make the game NOT a simulation. It's simply a realistic shooter. This is all I've been saying all the time and this is also the reason why I've been saying that people didn't read properly.