This.
Just because more people play RO2 doesn't neccesary mean RO2 is better. RO1 is a old game. Most people are fed up with it nowdays.
BF2 is an old game and it still have populated servers. RO1 had a decent population while in its prime, however even at its peak I never seen the same amount of available servers or players playing RO1 as I did back in the Mod days.
I can still actually find populated servers for RO:CA.... not many, but they do exist, which still speaks volumes on how well RO:CA did.
I wasn't impressed with RO1.... I didn't like the direction it headed and I found that I was only playing RO1 once or twice a week (at best) where I played the mod every single day...... between RO:CA and RO:OF, someone dropped the ball.
Now RO2 has more available servers and players to play against than what I ever saw in RO1.... Tripwire has even said they made more money with RO2 in the last couple of months then they did in the entire lifetime of RO1, so that's saying something.
Yes, a few people bought RO2 with certain expectations and ended up disappointed and/or stopped playing the game completely.... but nobody can make the claim that everybody who paid for RO2 and helped Trip break those sales records fit this description and many people do enjoy the game.
And when more content and more patches are added into the game, it will only increase in sales and increase in players.
Despite the fact that some people consider RO1 better than RO2 that doesn't mean all those people will stick to RO1 and play it simply because it's a quite old game that those people most likely have played a lot already. If RO3 became a fullblown arcade game more people would play it simply because that's what 8% of all gamers want. That's why games like COD and battlefield are so successfull. But it wouldn't make the game better - it would make it worse, simply because the fact that RO isn't about being an arcadegame.
At the moment I wouldn't call RO2 a complete spiritual successor to the orginal Red Orchestra.
*sigh* this again?
Yeah, RO2 isn't a "Spiritual Successor" to RO1..... and RO1 isn't a "Spiritual Successor" to RO:CA, so since that's the case, this argument of "Spiritual Successor" is moot.
The more it moves away from the orginal game the worse it is - no matter if we enjoy the gameplay or not.
Red Orchestra Ostfront is not the
Original Game
If RO2 was called something else, like World At War: Heroes of Stalingrad I would automaticly like the game better. Because then my expectations would be completely flat. Because RO2 is supposed to be a SEQUEL to RO1.
From what I remember the devs saying
(correct me if I am wrong anyone) they said that RO2 was basically what they wanted RO1 to be..... and I agree.
Overall RO1 was a disappointment for me.
This means that people have certain expectations. Changing direction isn't very loyal to the old customers especially if they aren't informed about this - Which I - and a lot more people - wasn't.
Tripwire told everybody what was being included into RO2. Stats, Unlocks, Heroes, Cover System, Suppression, the Weapons, Maps, Vehicles, Realism, Relaxed Realism, etc. etc..... they provided countless screenshots and gameplay videos of what to expect, so drop the whole
"poor me, we weren't informed" crap, because nobody's buying it.
I bought the game because it was a sequel to the first RO1 which I loved and still love to play. If COD became a combat simulator I wouldn't like that either. Because COD isn't about that. Any game that completely change direction lose It's meaning to why it was created in the first place.
Just a question; Giving content... do you mean DLC's? Because those are generally sold and not given. I may be wrong, but I don't think TWI will be throwing us loads of free content. Just because the game contains a lot of errors is not a logical reason to buy the game. It's TWI's job to fix those things. Also, I doubt TWI will change the direction of this game by making it more like the orginal RO. Which is one of the important fixes. The people that did most of the work with keeping RO1 alive was modders.
Again, you show your ignorance.
Before the game was even close to being released they said that any new vehicles, weapons, maps or whatever that they make for RO2 in the future would be free content for everybody to download and install on their systems.
Do you even remember how much content was in RO1 when it was first released? Certainly less than what is in it now..... and besides paying for the game itself, I never had to dish out another cent for anything else that was added in later..... and I don't expect to pay for additional content for RO2.
They are not sure if their official mods will be free or something you pay a small amount for, but that's it.... so those could also be free, depending on the situation and/or how well the mods do.
Everything in the mod was obviously free..... everything in RO1 was free, including DH and MN, and many of the things in Killing Floor were either free as well, or given to you if you purchased another game, etc...... to think that Trip will suddenly switch to an EA mentality and charge people for new maps and such clearly shows you know nothing about Tripwire or the history of RO.
- Less command system isn't more realistic.
The command system is actually more dynamic and provides many more options than the limited command menu in RO1 or RO:CA.
The weaponhandling isn't more realistic (not saying RO1s was either - but it was a lot more realistic than in RO2)
Based on what? Subjective guesses and asumptions on how you think it should be?
-The current bandage system isn't more realistic.
And neither was RO1's getting shot in the leg, slowing down for a few seconds and then running off as if nothing happened, where the player didn't have to do anything to stop bleeding or fixing an injury.... you slowed down and then it was like nothing ever happened., so both cancel each other out in regards to what's more "Real"
-Lockdown timer isn't more realistic.
That part I can agree with you on..... I wouldn't mind if they left it in, but letting server admins have the ability to turn it on or off would be nice.
-Tactical view isn't more realistic.
And neither was a useless floating compass.
- The maps isn't more realistic
The maps are vastly more realistic, vastly more detailed and overall far more superior to anything in RO1..... even the mod had better maps than RO1, so much so that most of the stock maps everybody loves in RO1 were ported from the mod.
- The skillpoints isn't more realistic
Yes they are.... a seasoned soldier who has had real battle experience and has ranked up in their career are going to be more skilled, more experienced and a better soldier than some new recruit who just set foot on their first battlefield.
Statistics simulate the above.
- The onlocks isn't more realistic.
Yes they are, as no military is stupid enough to give the higher quality and/or prototype weapons to new recruits who stand a greater chance of dying on their first day on the battlefield.
- Above all - the current gameplay is far from more realistic than in RO1.
I have yet to see any real evidence proving this.
Realize that RO2 is for a wider audience which will automaticly eliminate certain realistic features in the game.
If it was called Something else I can give it 8/10.
As a sequel to RO OST I give it 5/10
As a sequel to the overall Red Orchestra "Series" I'd give RO2 a 9.5, with the 0.5 being for the expected bugs at release..... RO1 would be a 6 out of 10..... if it wasn't for the current level of content Trip added into RO1 over the years, I would have given it a 4.
![[Splat]= Zocko](/data/avatars/s/32/32292.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
