Red Orch vs DOD

[Slotter]

Ok, I am a die hard Day of Defeat fan, but I must admit I like the look of Red Orch and the added realism. Tanks are a nice feature etc.

I would like to hear the views of ex Day of Defeat players who have converted to Red Orch and why they think it is better etc.

Go on, convert me !

 

[Defpotec]

I play both, no reason to "convert."

 

[bartolomeo_ita]

I have DoD, used to play 1.3 and now Source version.
I bought RO 3 days ago, so I don't play DoD since April 12.

 

[Lucidor]

I liked the pre-source versions of DoD. They feel more gamey, but are rather intense. I find DoD:source to be very tendious, with all weapons balanced so that you can't hit a door on 30 m range with a SMG.

I like the realism in RO:OST. It makes me cover and not take as many risks as DoD had me. DoD is fun in that it rewards skill on parity with tactics, but RO looks and feels more like there's a war going on. Except for Kaukasus map... I've only played RO for a few days, but I was an on-off DoD player at most. It feels like a different, but very nice game.

 

[DirtyRat]

i've played both, there is no competition in my view, RO is a much better game in terms of gameplay and sheer depth.

 

[Elwood_Hirsch]

Ex old DOD player here. Haven't played it since 3-14. OST has converted me. I am now a neoroost. OST is more realistic, has tanks, IS, no crosshairs, slower pace, larger maps, no hackers(so far), better community(DOD official forums suck), better devs and support, and realistic balistics to name a few

 

[Reznor]

I played DoD a lot before switching to Red Orchestra as a mod for ut2004.
Day of Defeat is a great game, but Red Orchestra is simply different!

Its like a comparison of Counter Strike with Operation Flashpoint, except that RO focuses a lot more on the infantry-fights than operation flashpoint.
Day of Defeat vs Red Orchestra isnt about better or worse, its about taste. I still love to play counter strike once in a while, it has it own good points.
I also loved call of duty (although i only played the single player), it had great athmosphere and a nice balance of arcade-like gameplay with a touch of realism and historical aspects.

Day of Defeat:
- a lot of quick action, quick movement.
- The most important thing is your aiming and your reaction time, probably also map knowledge
- weapons arent really realistic, but well balanced (at least in the mod times, havent played source)
- although the graphics were rather good and the szenario is right, dod never aimed for as much immersion as RO
- the maps in DoD are rather small and clearly arranged: you know the "hot spots" and where to exspect your enemy, since the routes to take are more defined
- the learning curve isnt as harsh, since the gameplay is more like a typical fps

Red Orchestra:
- slow movement, all in all much slower gamepace: the game rewards a care- and thoughtfull player who uses the terrain to his advantage and takes cover
- rather realistic weapon behaviour leads to realistic weapon usage: run'n'gun-rambos are WAY less effective and are more like suicide actions
- less focus on pure aiming and reaction time: spotting the enemy first, flanking and suprising your enemy and taking time for a well aimed first shot leads to success, quick reaction time and instant-aiming is less important: finally a game where brain beats reaction time!
- the realistic game athmosphere and the more difficult aiming creates a very tense feeling and makes a won firefight so much more rewarding than just another frag
- since the different gameplay requires to change your behaviour ingame (compared to "arcade-like" fps) the learning curve can be pretty hard, but once you start to "think Red Orchestra" the game developes its full potential and becomes (in my humble opinion) a revolution in terms of gameplay in first person shooters
- the community in RO is a lot more social than in other games (at least in mod times) since the game appeals more to a grown up person: there were way fewer idiots, flamers, team-killers and other kinds of that public-fps-mob!

 

[Byte Me]

I have played DoD since beta 1, while the old versions are all fine and dandy, I absolutely detest DoD:S (I assume this is what you were refering too). What used to be a perfect balance between fun and realism is now... crap (only word that comes to mind).
DoD:S cons:
1. Insane Cone of Fire
2. Rifle grenades
3. C96 (only back up weapon for panzerschreck class, useless beyond 10 feet, no semi-auto mode)
4. Class names ("rocket class" give me a ****ing break)
5. Eats your fps like no theres no tommorow. Even high end systems have trouble running it.
6. 6 maps
7. Garand does LESS damage than before
8. No good ported maps (seriously, they left Caen out, WTF!)
9. Old maps that did get ported got their routes cut off, meaning you stuck with 2 routes to go ANYWHERE.
10. All maps are city maps
11. Sprint, stop, shoot glitch
12. Flying ragdolls
13. grenades have a short throw distance and have a small damage radius.
14. grenade stun effect goes through everything (even concrete walls!)
I could go on but that would take forever so now on to pros:
1. Great looking graphics
2. Classes are balanced
3. The completely original new map is good (Argentan).
Uh... thats about it. Hmph, I thought there was more. Aw well.

 

[Greger]

The games are two completely different ones. One is a large-map distance game while the other is a short-range arcade style game.

...but RO is still getter

 

[BLind^]

dod source classes are anything but balanced tbh

assault > everything else

the maps so far are nothing but close quater street fighting.

the assault class has an smg, can punch with the smg, a pistol, smoke and frag grenades and a melle weapon to swap to

a rifleman for example, has a rifle, a rifle grenade (which is crap since u have to use a glitch to cook) and a melle weapon

any1 seeing a class with a slight advantage ??

DoD:S is a disgrace to the name Day of Defeat and no amount of pretty graphics will make up for the deficencies in every other area.

i played DoD 1.3 for about 2 years, DoD:S for about 2 months, RO is better than both.

 

[ShadowbaneX]

I liked the pre-source versions of DoD. They feel more gamey, but are rather intense. I find DoD:source to be very tendious, with all weapons balanced so that you can't hit a door on 30 m range with a SMG.

You can't do this in RO either, unless you burst fire.

The weapon 'balance' is just...pointless in my opinion. I spend a fair amount of time on the DoD forums trying to get the weapons uncloned from the Gold engine version, only to have them turn the bar into an stg clone and for them to weaken the garand so as to make it nearly useless. One thing I really like about RO, and unlike DoD: Source, is that even a pistol shot can kill to the chest, as opposed to full rifle cartridges needing a head shot to kill depending on what weapon fired them.

I did like many of the changes implimented in source. Pistols being taken away, the bolt action rifles not killing to the limbs, etc. basically alot of the things I liked about RO. However, they made many other changes that I could just not stand and that killed the game for me. Actually I'll borrow Byte Me's list.

I have played DoD since beta 1, while the old versions are all fine and dandy, I absolutely detest DoD:S (I assume this is what you were refering too). What used to be a perfect balance between fun and realism is now... crap (only word that comes to mind).
DoD:S cons:
1. Insane Cone of Fire
2. Rifle grenades
3. C96 (only back up weapon for panzerschreck class, useless beyond 10 feet, no semi-auto mode)
4. Class names ("rocket class" give me a ****ing break)
5. Eats your fps like no theres no tommorow. Even high end systems have trouble running it.
6. 6 maps
7. Garand does LESS damage than before
8. No good ported maps (seriously, they left Caen out, WTF!)
9. Old maps that did get ported got their routes cut off, meaning you stuck with 2 routes to go ANYWHERE.
10. All maps are city maps
11. Sprint, stop, shoot glitch
12. Flying ragdolls
13. grenades have a short throw distance and have a small damage radius.
14. grenade stun effect goes through everything (even concrete walls!)

I could go on but that would take forever so now on to pros:
1. Great looking graphics
2. Classes are balanced
3. The completely original new map is good (Argentan).
Uh... thats about it. Hmph, I thought there was more. Aw well.

2. Rifle grenades, were interesting, but probably should have been limited to a section grenadier class. Also rifles losing their melee abilities was just stupid, imo.
3. That isn't actually a C96. It's a modified version of it produced by the Italians (Luke Perry uses it in the opening scene of Fifth Element) and, as near as I can tell, never actually saw service in the German Military
6. More maps would have been nice, but the real killer is that they were remakes. I guess continuity was nice, but one of my biggest complaints was that the maps were too small. Most of them could barely support 24 players and for some reason people were cramming 32 on them. In RO, with 32 players there's room to breathe and you can try to go the long way around without encountering half a dozen people who simply have no where better to be.
7. And the Bar as well. I advocated more damage for the weapons that fired rifle cartridges and by and large they made them weaker. Hell, I wanted different damage for the smgs and the pistols.
8. British being left out makes me angry.
10. Yup. They could have done alot more with the engine, but didn't. Their loss. My gain, cause I'm now playing RO. I think the last time I played DoD: Source was when my clan needed a 6th for a scrim. I played DoD: Gold a couple of days ago, and it wasn't bad, but it was 32 players on Caen which one of the dumbest things you can do save for 32 people on Flash.
14. This happens in RO as well...

Anyway, the games don't really compare. DoD is an arcadey shooter where volume of fire is more important than aim and balance is more important than historical accuracy.

 

[Transmogrifier]

I played DoD for over 3 years but I haven't played it since RO:O was released. I first started playing DoD for the authentic feel (no ammo counters, recoil, weapons that killed in just a few hits, a stamina system, bleeding, etc.) For the 3.1-1.3 years life was good. I liked the fast paced action and the fact that good aiming and quick reflexes were rewarded. Features like wallshooting and grenade priming meant that even after you got good at the game there was always new stuff to learn. By 1.3 the weapon balance was almost perfect (the STG-44 being the only gun that really needed attention).

With Source came excellent graphics and a lot of good additions (smoke grenades, rifle grenades, mgs deploying anywhere etc.) but between weapon accuracy, damage and hit detection, the tight deathmatchy feel was gone.

I switched to RO:O since I wanted a WWII game where the bullets went where I pointed the gun. I wanted my skill level to determine whether I live or die, not bad luck. The fact that RO:O is about the eastern front was a plus since the same old "americans post d-day" was starting to get repetative. The fact that it involved simulation style tank battles was just icing on the cake.

 

[KrazyKraut]

Without "calculating" anything or really thinking about the hows and whys, RO is as much fun to me now as DoD 1.3 was back in the days... and much, much more fun than the Source version.

 

[Jamer]

IMHO you just can't compare these two games against each other. They are both awesome games in their own right. No need to convert, just that much more to enjoy !

 

[kfnguy2]

After DoD Beta 3.1 I could no longer play. I believe that was one Valve stepped in. The graphics were nicer from then on but the fun gameplay took a nosedive and I haven't played it in 2 years... Well except for that weekend trial thing cause I figured I'd give it a try... No go.

I believe everyone has covered the positives of RO. It is a completely different game and doesn't value the run-and-gunner like most other FPS's.

 

[kabex]

Clearly the solution here is to make a western front mod for RO so every DOD player converts and buys RO!



But seriously, I can't wait for all the mods, italian front, north africa, western front, etc etc... Carcanos, Garands, Grease guns, BARs(omg sexy), FG42s, Shermans, Churchills, Lee-Enfields, Berettas, etc. Awesome.

I am quite sure that once we get some mods going there are going to be a lot of converts.

 

[kfnguy2]

Clearly the solution here is to make a western front mod for RO so every DOD player converts and buys RO!



But seriously, I can't wait for all the mods, italian front, north africa, western front, etc etc... Carcanos, Garands, Grease guns, BARs(omg sexy), FG42s, Shermans, Churchills, Lee-Enfields, Berettas, etc. Awesome.

I am quite sure that once we get some mods going there are going to be a lot of converts.

There is one Normandy mod which is being produced which I can't wait to see.

 

[Byte Me]

Ok I want to reply to people but there is to many quotes. Anyways, there was a automatic C96 "broomhandle" version the germans used, though I don't how many were made and issued.

DoD was never meant to be some "arcadey shooter" it used to have a great balance between fun and realism. It introduced many realistic features including: bleeding, sniper scope sway, deployable mg's, wall penetration. Unfortunatly, over the years of its beta testing and retail releases, bleeding got removed, sniper scope sway was negated by walking, and now wall penetration is almost zero for DoD:S.

Also by "balanced" classes (notice I didn't say balanced teams) I meant that you can't win with only one class and each class has its own role. Before it the only difference between classes was your primary weapon and how many nades you got. However, to "maintain" the balance, the classes are forced to play a certain way because of theridiculous COF and pistols have been taken away from most classes (which I don't really mind, but the primary weapon needs something to make up for it).

And now to add to my list of cons:
15. Semi auto for BAR and STG is pointless
16. Wall penetration is weak as anything now, shooting through flower pots and wooden boxes reduces damage done by over 50%!
17. No para weapons
18. 32 person cap, though I never played on those 64 person servers, let people do what they want. Oh and the excuse the devs gave for it was weak, "We don't like to play that way." WTF? I payed for this game, you now work to please us the paying customer.

 

[Oldih]

DoD (and DoDS) are both balanced between realism, gameplay and fun. Somewhat arcadish, somewhat realistic etc.

RO concentrates more on realism while keeping gameplay good.

DoD concentrates more in towns and cities with infrantry CQB stuff, while RO is combined with rural farmlands, ruined cities, towns etc.

DoD is easier to learn and it is good game to have fun with, whiler RO may take long time to learn, and is bit more serious with the gameplay.


It is pretty much of pizza of your choice. DoDS especially has quicker pace which I like in gameplay. It is smooth and you are always nearby where something happens, so people wont get bored, while playing RO you may be traveling around in open area sometime before you even see the enemy, which may frustrate some players, or simply, it may be boring.


DoD\DoDS vs RO = Pizza of your choice.

 

[MkH^]

I tried the DoD free weekend and found it to be quite awful. The graphics were nice, although too shiny and stuff. Sort of lacked the dark, gritty feeling RO offers. The weapons used the horrible cone of fire system, and the soldiers moved at around the same pace as a... cheetah. Then there were only like four maps, all of which really small and straightforward. Nice if you're into WW2 themed Quake - I'm not.

Reading my review, Red Orchestra on the other hand is kind of like anti-DoD. The weapons are realistic and use ironsights instead of cone of fire, soldiers move at around the same pace as a real life soldier would and there are enough, big, wide maps too keep you interested for a good while.