While I do like some of your ideas, Cyper, these are not "fixes". To call them fixes is to imply that something isn't working as the developers intended and I simply don't see that being the case. These are major alterations to gameplay elements that you don't care for, which is all well and good, but you're doing yourself and your ideas a disservice by misrepresenting these ideas as "fixes".
That said, this sounds more like a mod than anything else, to me. You say that you want everyone to be happy with the game but go on to defend taking away the game that many of us are really happy with and replacing it with what you want. I don't think this is the right answer. With your ideas implemented in a mod everyone has the choice of playing the way they prefer, whether that be your way or the way the game exists today.
Exactly and that's my position as well....
By reading your text I've noticed that you simply have a totally diffrent view on this game. Red Orchestra: Heroes of Stalingrad is a sequel to Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45 since It's the name is exactly the same. This means that RO2 is a spiritual successor to RO ost. By comparing the gameplay in those two games I've made the conclusion that the changes in the gameplay mechanics in RO2 begs the question whenever RO2 is a spiritual successor to RO OST.
''A spiritual successor, sometimes called a spiritual sequel or a companion piece, is a successor to a work of fiction which does not directly build upon the storyline established by a previous work as do most traditional prequels or sequels, but nevertheless features many of the same elements, themes, and styles as its source material.'' - Wikipedia
Which RO2 does. It does have many of the elements that Ostfront had.... but if you want to cling onto this Spiritual Successor idea.... you then need to include Red Orchestra Combined Arms, as well as the Original UT2k3 Mod RO.
They are all directly related to one another and when you put all the RO's up against one another, RO1 is the odd man out.
You can't just pick and choose which RO's you include into your theory. Whether an RO was a free mod or a full retail game, they're all still video games which tie in many of the same elements that make them what they are.
Thus, if you wish to talk about what Red Orchestra was and is and/or should be, you can not continue to constantly tie your argument just on Ostfront as if that's the only RO that matters.
Without the Mods and what made them so great, there wouldn't be an Ostfront as we know it.... there wouldn't even be an RO2. The mods are the foundation of what RO was, is and what direction is should be heading. They're what won the contest for Tripwire, they're what made Tripwire into a company in the first place, they were what sucked everybody out of the other FPS's and into this type of gameplay.... people bought UT2004 simply so they could play Combined Arms.... so you simply can not ignore RO:CA as not being a contributing factor to the entire RO series and judge everything RO on just Ostfront.
Yes, you and I do have completely different views on this game, and chances are neither of us will completely agree on what direction RO should be heading in.... thus the most logical solution is to find a middle ground between what you'd like RO to be, what I think RO should be and what RO2 currently is.
(well not just you and I, but everybody else of course)
We can all say that most of the features added in RO2 and regarding the game machanics in the game, it doesn't have much resemblence to the orginal Red Orchestra. Therefore, RO2 is not a complete sequel.
Again, Red Orchestra Ostfront is not the Original Red Orchestra. It's the first Retail Version of RO, but it is not the Original RO..... so no, we can not all say the above.
And if one wants to talk about what's a complete sequel, RO2 is more of a sequel to the Mods than RO1 was.
Now, here is the thing.
If Red Orchestra: Heroes of Stalingrad was called something else - such as World at war: heroes of stalingrad - I would consider most of the games features as great and I would rate the game higher. But since the game is called Red Orchestra this means that it is supposed to be a sequel. A spiritual successor to the first and orginal game. This means that I - and most people on this board and outside it - has certain expectations. It's very obvious that people expected RO2 to be exactly that - a SEQUEL - unfortunately, a lot of people complain about this.
And see, I have the exact same view you have above, but the difference is that my view is towards RO1, not RO2, when it comes to not meeting my expectations of what an RO sequel should have been.
Ostfront used the name Red Orchestra, thus I had expectations of it being a very good sequel to Combined Arms.... however, the tank physics, the weapon physics, the movement, the quality of the maps, and a pile of other things in Ostfront were drastically changed to something that didn't match what I experienced in the Mod, and thus, Ostfront to me was disappointing and not a true sequel in the Red Orchestra series.
I would have been happy if Ostfront never existed and RO jumped from the Mod to what we have in RO2..... but that's not the case, so moving on.....
It seems that you don't like the fact that I give suggestions about making the game more Hardcore - despite the fact that I say It's just for the Hardcore Mode. Bear in mind that this game didn't even have anything else than Hardcore mode in the very beginning. Be glad about that. Now, I don't give a **** about casual gamers.
I don't give a **** if my opinions doesn't fit into what 90% of all gamers think. I don't care If I belong to this minority that want to keep games to the Hardcore side of things. Especially not games that are SUPPOSED to be like that. If people don't want RO2 to remove the arcade crap, and move in line to where it is supposed to stand, they can leave the board.
Again, you say what it's supposed to be, you judge what you think is arcade crap, YOU judge what's realistic and what's not.... you just admitted that you don't give a crap about anybody else, or anybody else's views..... you obviously don't even give a crap about what existed before RO:Ostfront, and you obviously don't give a crap about compromise or a civil debate on how to reach a compromise between what you want and what others want..... and you basically just told everybody who doesn't agree with you to take a flying fk out of the forums so you don't have to have opposition to your ideas.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way and now that I know more about your position and you absolute stubbron attitude towards anything different other than your own subjective view, I see no reason why I should continue to try to work to get your ideas above to some level that would be acceptable to everyone else who thinks things are fine.
If you want to play that game of not giving a crap about what others want.... why the hell should I give two chunks of crap about what you want in the game?
Maybe I should tell you to leave the forums.
Any suggestion to move the game into the mainstream - goodbye, leave. Those people shouldn't be here since the game is not for them.
Maybe the game isn't for you and maybe you're the one who should leave.
Those people have hundreds of games to choose from that looks and plays exactly the same while games like RO barely exist. If I were on the BF or COD board moaning about how unrealistic it was no one would say ''Yeah, you're right, let's make a real Hardcore mode''. Simply because those games are not about this. They keep in line with what they are.
The whole purpose is that this game should keep in line with the orginal game.
Again, until you figure out what exactly was the "Original" game, your argument will continue to fail and I'm just not going to take you seriously anymore.
It didn't do that completely. If you have doubts spend five minutes reading through complaints at the board. Tripwire dod sold some people out and gave the false expectations to this game.
No they didn't.... before the beta was even close to being released, they told everybody that Stats, Unlocks, Heroes, Cover System, Different Game Modes and everything else were all going to be in the game..... before the Beta was available there were tonnes of videos and screen shots of what the game would look like and how the game would play.....
.... and if you couldn't figure out wtf you were getting into with all of that available to you, then that's your own damn fault and your own damn ignorance.... you have nobody else to blame but yourself, so don't give me that
"Oh woe is me, I'm a poor victim" crap, because I'm not buying it, nor should anybody else.
The purpose of any sequel is to be just that - a SEQUEL - and if it moves away from It's orginal direction it loses it's meaning to why it was created in the first place.
It's even irony that we're discussing whenever these changes should be added to the Hardcore mode. RO2 should only have one mode - Hardcore - and those who don't like it can leave.
The direction of spiritual successor not negotiable.
Well the moment you can figure out what exactly is a sequel to what and the moment you can figure out that RO:Ostfront was
NOT the original RO, you might actually start to sound right and actually have a logical position to stand on.
But if you can't even figure out that Red Orchestra Ostfront was not the Original Red Orchestra, then perhaps you should stop telling everybody else to leave as if you're some sort of expert and maybe you should heed your own advice and leave, because you're just wasting all of our time.
I tried to have a conversation with you on these ideas and I tried to reach compromises and/or solutions to please yourself and everybody else, but if you're going to continue on this path of
"I'm Right, Everybody Else is Wrong, and Everybody Else Should Leave" then you can kiss my arse, because you're not right..... you can't even get the basic facts and basic history of Red Orchestra right.
In my opinion, these are fixes for the Realism Mode. Actually we are too far from RO1, in Standard mode or Realism mode. And lots of people can't accept that.
Oh I have not only accepted it, I have clearly admitted it.... but since I never really cared for much of what was in RO1 in the first place, I'm fine with how RO2 is.
(Before you respond to this part, read below)
Why not make the Realism mode something between RO2 now and RO1 ?
Even though I am happy with how RO2 currently plays, I have clearly stated that I am willing to try and reach this compromise and try to get things somewhere in between RO1 and RO2..... however some people in here won't even accept that and won't even try to hold a serious conversation to reach this compromise.
So if they're not going to try, why should I or anybody else?
I wouldn't like a big recoil for all weapons, no! but a realistic reload time, realistic damages (In legs and hands for example), difficulties to aim after running or up, et cetera...
^ And while I'm satisfied with RO2 as it is now, I wouldn't have an issue with any of the above and if done right, I might even like it more.
But if some people in here are going to be so aynal about their position and tell anybody else who doesn't agree with them 100% to leave the forums and trash them & their opinions as if they're somehow more right
(even though they can't figure out the simplest things like RO1 wasn't the Original RO)..... then why should I cater to their self-entitled superiority complex?
I'll give you a +1 rep though for your post.... at least you have a balanced approach to this topic.
![2Lt.Horvath [6th AB]](/data/avatars/s/36/36264.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
