X-Play: "We give Red Orchestra 2, a 5........ out of 5."
Is there a chance for people that didn't liked RO1 gonna like RO2?
- Thread starter mestido
- Start date
Have you played it?
Why of course not, so your talking out of your ***s.
You could of course exercise your consumer rights and simply not buy it and save some money to spend on a game more worthy your talents?
Surely a much more intelligent solution than moaning about a game you have never played...
do you know how the radar works? its NOTHING like cods radar, it wont show enemies at all
I feared this might be a problem, and hope the avatar does not move, aim, or switch weapons, etc quicker then RO1 ( which is already to quick in many aspects ).
So how would you explain implementation of arcade game elements into Red Orchestra?
- mobile respawns
- player progression (including stats boost, like less recoil)
- weapon unlocks
- weapons which are totally not historical correct (e.g. silenced weapons)
- scout plane and radar (yes, with scout plane it works like radar)
I agree, you should make game more accessible, however you don't need to ruin original RO gameplay doing it. SP campaign, good detailed tutorials, better HUD/hints and easier key layout should do a thing.
Only thing im woryed about is the people that nead the eyecandy...
Will the grafix bee nice enoug ? Many dident like ro1 coss of this.
Realy hope it will bee good enoug - then yes i do belive ro1 dislikers will come.
Personly i still enjoy ro1 from time to time - for the gameplay, and then complitly forget about the grafix !
Will the grafix bee nice enoug ? Many dident like ro1 coss of this.
Realy hope it will bee good enoug - then yes i do belive ro1 dislikers will come.
Personly i still enjoy ro1 from time to time - for the gameplay, and then complitly forget about the grafix !
Last edited:
If everything is optional then why are you moaning about a game where you can customize a server to turn all the things you don't like off?
Jeezz...
Last edited:
There are other reasons to dislike RO1 then realism. I'm playing devils advocate here btw.
-The animations were pretty stiff and clunky, even compared to games released beforehand.
-No coop/singleplayer mode, most people when they get a new game will try out the SP side before the MP. In RO1 it just throws you out there.
-No ingame tutorial.
-The graphics quality was at best average for its time.
-The animations were pretty stiff and clunky, even compared to games released beforehand.
-No coop/singleplayer mode, most people when they get a new game will try out the SP side before the MP. In RO1 it just throws you out there.
-No ingame tutorial.
-The graphics quality was at best average for its time.
Building on what Butch said as well (that these are all customizable on a server)
- player progression (including stats boost, like less recoil)
Depending on your flavor of realism, this can also be considered realistic
- weapon unlocks
In a realistic environment veteran soldiers would have first choice at rare weaponry.
- weapons which are totally not historical correct (e.g. silenced weapons)
Silenced Nagant is historically correct.
- scout plane and radar (yes, with scout plane it works like radar)
In a realistic fashion where the plan will call out targets it can see to the commander, and not targets it can't.
Just because a feature of similar functionality is in another game doesn't mean we are coping and pasting that feature into RO. We are incorporating features that many people like in what we feel is a realistic fashion. (Yes, some things are abstracted, but they have always been in the Red Orchestra universe. We are playing within the same bounds we used in RO 1 which also had some rare and unique weapons and abstracted features such as Artillery).
Everybody's flavor of "realism" is different. Just because it isn't yours doesn't mean it also isn't valid. One thing some members of this community do is refuse to believe there are any valid positions on realism besides their own and wish to force their view on everybody else. We disagree with that. What we find works best is to provide options for players to find what works best for them.
- player progression (including stats boost, like less recoil)
Depending on your flavor of realism, this can also be considered realistic
- weapon unlocks
In a realistic environment veteran soldiers would have first choice at rare weaponry.
- weapons which are totally not historical correct (e.g. silenced weapons)
Silenced Nagant is historically correct.
- scout plane and radar (yes, with scout plane it works like radar)
In a realistic fashion where the plan will call out targets it can see to the commander, and not targets it can't.
Just because a feature of similar functionality is in another game doesn't mean we are coping and pasting that feature into RO. We are incorporating features that many people like in what we feel is a realistic fashion. (Yes, some things are abstracted, but they have always been in the Red Orchestra universe. We are playing within the same bounds we used in RO 1 which also had some rare and unique weapons and abstracted features such as Artillery).
Everybody's flavor of "realism" is different. Just because it isn't yours doesn't mean it also isn't valid. One thing some members of this community do is refuse to believe there are any valid positions on realism besides their own and wish to force their view on everybody else. We disagree with that. What we find works best is to provide options for players to find what works best for them.
![[TW]schneidzekk](/data/avatars/s/0/1.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
What didn't you like about ro1? Was it the awkward movement? Unresponsive feel of the weapons?
Yes please
I think their are lots of ppl. who didn't like the original game, but WILL like RO2, mostly because of the new options which are being introduced, and that can be tuned to suit the kind of play they prefer.
I also agree with many of the above ( Non-Historic Weapons, Scout Planes ), and to include many of my own such as:
- No Heavy Arty ( out of scope of RO...standard Mortar barrages are ok in larger maps ).
- Realistic movement ( in vids units seem to move way to quickly including going up-down stairs and through rough terrain, Units also seem to tire less then in RO1 ).
- Realistic switch of weapons and Ammo ( should take a few seconds, and not just one )
- No Zoom ( keep the same FOV as in RO1 or lower it abit ).
- Im sure there are couple other things.
However, some things are a nice feature if only done realistically.
Player progression and weapon unlocks are nice as Units can begin their journey from Green to Vet.
This works well if a player gets the normal points for a KO and helping Team, but loose points if yourself is KO or help team loose points. This balancing will make it much harder to progress ( take much longer ) to the next level.
An even more realistic way is that a player who dies even once in a game will get no points ( your dead and therefore can't progress...you must take another avatar, and start from scratch ).
This will force players to think of this game more as a simulation rather then an arcade...All the more reason to join a "Realism Clan" or Server.
Last edited:
@OP
It depends on why didn't You liked RO1? I bet You can answer this question by Yourself.
Comparig to RO1, RO2 will have:
+ Better graphics
+ Better animations
+ Lots of new realistic features, like ironsights on scoped rifles etc
+ Single player campaign
+ Lots of RO1 problems fixes, like MG shooter pivoting on bipod etc
+ Tanks with fully modeled interiors and fully animated crew
+ New first person perspective cover system with peeking and blind (really blind!) firing
+ Several huge mods coming probably this year thanks to Tripwire early moding tools release
+ Promise of long and extesive post release support (we all know Tripwire!)
* Newcomers friendly relaxed realism mode, for those who found RO1 a bit discouraging
* Ranking system with unlocks
- Only one tank per side on release (with one more tank and one personal carrier per side promissed as a free DLC)
It depends on why didn't You liked RO1? I bet You can answer this question by Yourself.
Comparig to RO1, RO2 will have:
+ Better graphics
+ Better animations
+ Lots of new realistic features, like ironsights on scoped rifles etc
+ Single player campaign
+ Lots of RO1 problems fixes, like MG shooter pivoting on bipod etc
+ Tanks with fully modeled interiors and fully animated crew
+ New first person perspective cover system with peeking and blind (really blind!) firing
+ Several huge mods coming probably this year thanks to Tripwire early moding tools release
+ Promise of long and extesive post release support (we all know Tripwire!)
* Newcomers friendly relaxed realism mode, for those who found RO1 a bit discouraging
* Ranking system with unlocks
- Only one tank per side on release (with one more tank and one personal carrier per side promissed as a free DLC)
Last edited:
I also think the general responsiveness of the control scheme this time will draw more players to try it and actually stay.
RO1 was great, we all recognize that. In fact it has been my personal favorite shooter for the last 4 -5 years. Not once have I had my operating system installed on any of my builds of computer that did not have roost installed at all times.
With that said i think we can all agree that there was in fact somewhat of a learning curve when it came to the responsiveness of mobility and combat.
That did indeed turn a lot of people off of the game. This time around it will all be different.
"If it is easy to do in real life, why shouldn't it be easy to do in the game"
That essence of that statement translated into the gameplay of RO2 will draw the crowd, even if they weren't into RO1.
The point is, there was NO technology that would allow WW2 combatants to see their friends or foes in an electronic format in real time.
Keep it on subject. Yes, I am deleting off topic posts now after Chris' post.
Lemon, you can complain about me, and now my deleting of your post elsewhere.
Lemon, you can complain about me, and now my deleting of your post elsewhere.
I must not be as raging hardcore of a realism nut that some other people, because I don't mind these 'rare' weapons at all. If anything it adds flavor to the game. It doesn't hurt the gameplay at all.
As Wilson and Ramm constantly say, If it is feasable that the item of interest was there, at that location of the world, at that specific time in history, whos to say that i cannot be put in the game. Even if there was only 1 silenced pistol in russia when germany invade, it was still there. So for gameplay sake, and for the sake of authenticity, it is perfectly viable that the silence weapon should make it into the game. No matter how rare.
As Wilson and Ramm constantly say, If it is feasable that the item of interest was there, at that location of the world, at that specific time in history, whos to say that i cannot be put in the game. Even if there was only 1 silenced pistol in russia when germany invade, it was still there. So for gameplay sake, and for the sake of authenticity, it is perfectly viable that the silence weapon should make it into the game. No matter how rare.
And that is our stance on it. And for those who don't like it, they have the option to visit servers where it is turned off.
Now on topic please.
If everything is optional then why are you moaning about a game where you can customize a server to turn all the things you don't like off?
Jeezz...
Understand that the motive is concern for the game we love.
The concern relates to fragmentation of a small community.
Right now, I'm guessing that there are about 200-300 dedicated players of RO. This is a high estimate. I see the same players on the TWB servers all the time.
Imagine a small community spread out over a large amount of servers, all with their own playing paradigms.
Imagine that these people enjoy battles larger than 5 vs. 5.
There is a chance that no-one will find what they want, and will move on. Game Over, in favor of the next hot offering.