RO:HoS to become mainstream?

  • Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

Felix Ostheim

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 9, 2005
1,051
191
0
Ohio, United States
There is a big difference in immerse games ("game that make you feel just like you're there") and realistic games. Graphics don't play much of a role in a realistic game.

I found FEAR 1/2 to be immersive. But they certainly where not realistic. I felt like I was there at parts. But FEAR is a rather generic, mainstream game. Better graphics? Sure. Better music? Yeah. Bullet drop, adjustable sights, no cross hairs, and free aim being standard in FPS games? I doubt it.

I think you're confusing realistic/tactical/simulator games with high tech/immersive games (which can be something like FEAR).

I'll just agree to disagree. :)

Graphics do play a role in realistic or tactical games. A realistic tactical game with immersive graphics is the game of the future so what exactly are we arguing here anyway? When we talk about a 'realistic' game what we're really talking about is a 'believable' game. In the end, a game is a game, it's only as good as a simulation could ever be. In fact I would rather refer to games these days as experiences. A game can be extremely simple, to say that most gamers are looking for any old game is just not the case. People want an experience out of their game today.

Graphics and realism both serve the same purpose in the end by providing a believable experience, whether or not the content of the game is a simulation of history, what could be, or pure fiction/fantasy. We want realistic weapons handling and authentic loadout/weaponry but we also want realistic particle effects, sounds, muzzle flashes you name it. A 'realistic' tactical simulation must include simulated sensory information, a 3d environment and so on. A nearly pure tactical game (close combat) is not 'realistic' in that it isn't a first person experience, an attempt to simulate the experience of one observer (you). I'm just saying here that the ultimate games of the future will mostly need to simulate that first person observer experience. That takes both believable graphics and details/features.
 
Last edited:

Actin

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 19, 2009
1,453
250
0
Netherlands
It's just really simple business.
The market consists of mostly casual gamers nowadays with a relatively small group of more serious gamers.

Since the mainstream is the bigger group every company wanted to please them, while the srious gamer had to follow because there weren't any games that were more serious and accessable at the same time.

So What RO2 can do is finally make the split in the multiplayer genre. It can 'extract' all serious gamers from the market. So then finally there are two subgroups detectable and not just 'pc-gamer', which has become a synonym for the mainstream gamer these last few years. In this way it can redefine the multiplayer genre.
Redefining is not the same as a complete overhaul of the genre.
 
Last edited:

Nikolai

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 23, 2006
150
25
0
Trondheim, Norway
Features like adjustable sights and whatnot will leave a large portion of the mainstream gamers confused and bothered with the amount of detail in the game. They'll go back to CoD.

A game like RO2 will never be the next Halo/CoD/another extremely straight forward game. Maybe many gamers will pick up on it, but the non-gamers will skip right past it.
I like how you assume mainstream gamers are retarded.
"I can adjust my sights!? That's, that's... that's so confusing" *brain explode*
"The tank, it is so... so detailed! I can't take it!" *quickly quits the game*

Are you serious?

They might not think it their cup of tea, but I doubt it will make them confused, or be much of bother.
 

Snuffeldjuret

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 6, 2010
1,786
373
0
Goteborg, Sweden
Feels like many serious gamers play HoN/DotA. At least that is my impression from IRL and online. HoN/DotA are big and cannot really be played casually.

Usually I see around 40000 ppl online in HoN (online, not playing. But I doubt there are that many who are online in the game just idle), which is the same numbers (on PC) as Black Ops or Modern Warfare 2.

Might be interesting to look into "why do serious gamers play HoN/DotA", and then see if ROHOS could satisfy the same desire. I would say that HoN/DotA have a steeper learning curve and are less casual than ROOST, and thus even more than ROHOS. Despite that, HoN/DotA are extremely popular. Why is it so?
 

smokeythebear

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
2,298
633
0
31
Sheppards house
Feels like many serious gamers play HoN/DotA. At least that is my impression from IRL and online. HoN/DotA are big and cannot really be played casually.

Usually I see around 40000 ppl online in HoN (online, not playing. But I doubt there are that many who are online in the game just idle), which is the same numbers (on PC) as Black Ops or Modern Warfare 2.

Might be interesting to look into "why do serious gamers play HoN/DotA", and then see if ROHOS could satisfy the same desire. I would say that HoN/DotA have a steeper learning curve and are less casual than ROOST, and thus even more than ROHOS. Despite that, HoN/DotA are extremely popular. Why is it so?

Games have to become very popular as well as have a large skill ceiling to become competitive like Hon/Quake/Starcraft/CS. I think HoS has the potential for both but it really depends on how much effort the devs put into making compeitive maps and gamemodes suitable for ~8v8.

Really though competitive games need to be popular before they become competitive. Most of the people who enjoy dota and starcraft are not very good at it but still enjoy playing.
 

LugNut

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 12, 2011
2,288
117
0
I'm a refugee from the TR COD world and while I think there's many fans of realism in gameplay that have been driven mad by the console ports we've been fed since COD2 and will likely make the switch, I just don't see the majority of military FPS gamers going anywhere except to the next in whatever series they're into now. Most of the guys in my old clan will ***** and moan, but will stay where they are.

One reason is many gamers just won't play WW2 any longer. A simplistic reason but a true one for a lot of people, they won't even entertain the notion.

The other is while they want visual and environmental realism, they don't want realism in the actual mechanics of that environment. They want to be the hero in an oversaturated, glossy Hollywood movie of a game and rack up a ton of kills. Realism is gritty and hard, it takes a while and a different midset to be successful. Realistic movement, physics and ballistics makes it difficult to get kills, difficult to be Rambo. Guys just want to get on and play, they don't want to spend the time to get good, they could care less about the history of the era.

While I think Hos will be the most successful RO yet, I don't think it'll enlighten the vast majority in the other games.

I'd love to be proven wrong though. :p
 

<animal>INSTINCT

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 20, 2007
471
155
0
Running into a mushroom cloud
While I can't speak for the rest of the world, I doubt that HoS will be so successful as to merit "mainstream" status here in the US. Not to say that I don't want it to be successful, it's just that I've lost faith in about 90% of the american gamer population (for fellow americans on this site, congratulations, you are the elite 10%;)). The majority of american gamers probably don't want to learn a whole new style of gameplay, they don't want to play a game where they can't be uber l337 with their airstrikes, and they certainly don't want to play a game where they may have to make personal sacrifices for the good of the team. Most people here want to be spoon-fed more re-skinned COD garbage that has been pouring out since 2007, because that's their comfort zone... a comfort zone that doesn't require any amount of skill or practice to be good at something:rolleyes:

However, I will venture to guess that HoS moves RO out of "cult phenomena" status and into the level of "underground success"... Hey, it's better than nothin'.
 

Colt .45 killer

Grizzled Veteran
May 19, 2006
3,998
775
113
Features like adjustable sights and whatnot will leave a large portion of the mainstream gamers confused and bothered with the amount of detail in the game. They'll go back to CoD.

A game like RO2 will never be the next Halo/CoD/another extremely straight forward game. Maybe many gamers will pick up on it, but the non-gamers will skip right past it.


And here is where I disagree with you. Most "realism / Sim" games are hard to pick up and have lots of controls which take some learning and getting used to and are also MANDATORY to survival. So the player will end up playing the game for a while before they can even get the simple gratification of being able to defend themselves (I'm thinking about M&B's combat sytem right now ...). ROHOS as far as I have seen has the same base actions as BF2 for example. Prone,crouch, lean, move, etc. Other things like adjusting sights, adjusting scopes, adjusting tank weapons, etc are all candy that are actually not even neccessary to players survival. IMO so far they have done a good job of making that extra stuff work in such a way so that it is either intuitive ( bullet penetration, very visual surpression system ), or it is not necessary to immediate survival. That doesn't mean it wont help to know it, but it does mean that they wont get rickrolled just because they couldent sight in their rifle...

That being said, I highly doubt that ROHOS will become as popular as COD because COD already has a reputation and it takes time to change something like that in peoples minds( and there are MANY 'hardcore' gamers who think COD is the best there is, not because it is, but because they dont know of anything else), second is that it is very hard to streamline all the features that we ( the gamers ) want in such a way so that they do not impede on new players learning the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: =GG= Mr Moe

DirtyRat

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 12, 2006
1,623
59
0
Glasgow
www.outlawgamers.com
Well said Colt. As I said originally RO is a piece of piss to learn compared with the likes of ArmA2.

Frankly I find the entire perks system in CoDBO complicated, mainly because I don't play it very much, but it's something most CoD gamers are now very used too. I don't think it would take them long to get to grips with RO2.

There was definitely WW2 overkill in the games market a few years agp, which has wrongly given WW2 games a bad name. When the original CoD came out though it was HUGE, and it felt fresh and exciting. RO2s offering something very distinct, and is probably not as mainstream as CoD/BF, but I think gamers will see the immersive gameplay vids and say "Wow I need to give that a go..."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Schreq

Soulzz

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 13, 2010
35
49
0
I'm a refugee from the TR COD world and while I think there's many fans of realism in gameplay that have been driven mad by the console ports we've been fed since COD2 and will likely make the switch, I just don't see the majority of military FPS gamers going anywhere except to the next in whatever series they're into now. Most of the guys in my old clan will ***** and moan, but will stay where they are.

One reason is many gamers just won't play WW2 any longer. A simplistic reason but a true one for a lot of people, they won't even entertain the notion.

The other is while they want visual and environmental realism, they don't want realism in the actual mechanics of that environment. They want to be the hero in an oversaturated, glossy Hollywood movie of a game and rack up a ton of kills. Realism is gritty and hard, it takes a while and a different midset to be successful. Realistic movement, physics and ballistics makes it difficult to get kills, difficult to be Rambo. Guys just want to get on and play, they don't want to spend the time to get good, they could care less about the history of the era.

While I think Hos will be the most successful RO yet, I don't think it'll enlighten the vast majority in the other games.

I'd love to be proven wrong though. :p

I would agree if you were referring specifically to COD gamers, however, BF gamers, at least my from experience, seem to be way more willing to use tactics and dislike the run'n'gun of the COD series.
 

hekuball

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 13, 2006
563
202
0
While I can't speak for the rest of the world, I doubt that HoS will be so successful as to merit "mainstream" status here in the US. Not to say that I don't want it to be successful, it's just that I've lost faith in about 90% of the american gamer population (for fellow americans on this site, congratulations, you are the elite 10%;)). The majority of american gamers probably don't want to learn a whole new style of gameplay, they don't want to play a game where they can't be uber l337 with their airstrikes, and they certainly don't want to play a game where they may have to make personal sacrifices for the good of the team. Most people here want to be spoon-fed more re-skinned COD garbage that has been pouring out since 2007, because that's their comfort zone... a comfort zone that doesn't require any amount of skill or practice to be good at something:rolleyes:

However, I will venture to guess that HoS moves RO out of "cult phenomena" status and into the level of "underground success"... Hey, it's better than nothin'.

you got it in one! i've never really understood this kind of player but they seem to be the majority, just go on to any bfbc2 server (designed at heart to be mainly a team experience) and go on to imho the best map - Heavy Metal. Most of the people on there will spend the whole evening racking up kills as lone snipers and heli gods. "They're not prepared to make personal sacrifices for the team" is why the cod and bf2 servers were full and the roost and projrct reality servers empty, we are sadly in a minority, but a happy one.:)
 

LugNut

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 12, 2011
2,288
117
0
I would agree if you were referring specifically to COD gamers, however, BF gamers, at least my from experience, seem to be way more willing to use tactics and dislike the run'n'gun of the COD series.

I'd whole heartedly agree with you if your talking about BF2, hekuball is pretty spot on with BFBC2, it's COD style RNG with just bigger maps now. It's the new normal unfortunately.
 

Flogger23m

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 5, 2009
3,441
538
0
When we talk about a 'realistic' game what we're really talking about is a 'believable' game.

Again, I'll disagree. A believable/convincing game is not always realistic realistic. As an example, look at FEAR's gameplay. Then look at ArmA 2. Big difference.

I'll take a tactical shooter/simulator with 2004 graphics, but modernized with realistic gameplay over a "believable" game with 2020 graphics.

ROHOS as far as I have seen has the same base actions as BF2 for example. Prone,crouch, lean, move, etc. Other things like adjusting sights, adjusting scopes, adjusting tank weapons, etc are all candy that are actually not even neccessary to players survival.

This might be true. I truly can't comment (and most of us really can't) since we have not played RO2 ourselves. But if it plays like RO1, I doubt it will be accessible enough to become mainstream. I think RO1 is a game right between accessible CoD and complex ArmA2 (or Ace Combat and DCS). IMO at least. :)
 
Last edited:

Mike_Nomad

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 15, 2006
5,024
1,037
0
78
Florida, USA
www.raidersmerciless.com
With much of the features in RO:HoS now confirmed I think the game has a real chance of redefining the current multiplayer landscape.

Ok So TWI doesn't have EAs marketing budget, but with Steam and word of mouth alone I think there is a real chance that this year our friends "currently playing" lists on xfire/steam/raptr will look drastically different.

Unlike other "realistic" multiplayer shooters RO is the only franchise I've played which seems to understand that whilst people want realism, they still want simple controls, and immediate and satisfying gameplay.

WW2 shooters have had a bad name of late but it's obvious so far that the press are responding very positively to RO:HoS.

Forum goers, prepare yourselves for an invasion upon release of RO:HoS, I don't think this place will be quite the same again.

Not one step back.


I tend to agree. Many of us, myself included, who found RO early on came from the very platforms you either mention or allude to. Sure I continued to play MoH and CoD but that was primarily to enjoy the company of my friends who had not yet found and migrated to RO.

Many who tried RO "back then" found it not to their liking.. But alas, the big greedy publishers have done us a grand favor. The garbage recently released.. by the biggies has enlivened their curiosity in RO. In fact, they're back and have brought many new players to RO. Our RO server has never been so busy.

All our players are eagerly looking forward to RO2: HoS this new RO promises to be an eye opener and a source of sheer realistic FPS entertainment in gaming for many months to come - hell, years to come! We are still playing RO and lovin' it.

Many thanks to TWI for keeping value in gaming. Many more thanks for the wonders of "things to come". RO2: HoS. :IS2:
 
Last edited:

Colt .45 killer

Grizzled Veteran
May 19, 2006
3,998
775
113
This might be true. I truly can't comment (and most of us really can't) since we have not played RO2 ourselves. But if it plays like RO1, I doubt it will be accessible enough to become mainstream. I think RO1 is a game right between accessible CoD and complex ArmA2 (or Ace Combat and DCS). IMO at least. :)


True, we both havent played it. I am going off all of the video demos, and the explanations about how its accessibility will be greater than that of ROOST's. Also the many changes to movement speed, player model scaling over distance, introduction of a training level, etc. I think the removal of pixel hunting alone should make it a LOT easier on newbies. no more getting shot by 6 pixels leaning out from behind a sandbag.

Either way I guess we have to wait for a beta / demo / release to see the end result of all of those added features.
 

monster

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 17, 2006
334
10
0
It will be great to see TWI suceed. After all, they've made the best WW2 shooter ever.

There is a real danger in seeking "mainstreamness". A game depicting Soviets vs. Germans in WW2 is niche. A company trying to create both a mainstream and niche game will have a very difficult time satisfying both parties.

Mainstream games require a few things that niche games don't absolutely need to have. Among these are crosshair aiming, "basic" tasks being done automatically, an ability to view the enemy, and investment perks, to name a few.

One of the things that makes RO great is the simplistic representation of WW2 combat that immerses players in the experience, instead of in the need to manipulate that experience, or worse yet, have that experience manipulated automatically. Nothing is free, everything is earned.

I'm willing to bet that the people who kept RO alive are not particularly interested in mainstream games, or at least, mainstream games don't hold their interest for long. This is because in RO, investment is rewarded by building skills, not by earning perks. In the industry, it seems that it was assumed some time ago that perks were a good thing. In my opinion, it only got an immediate buy, but had no lasting power.

In providing mainstream functionality such as time-investment perks (instead of deed-based battlefield event generation), auto-bolting (instead of the need to keep one's head in the game), a map that will show enemy positions (instead of old-fashined discovery and teamwork), and potentially ahistorical recoil paradigms (guaranteed, only experts can keep an angry PPSH level, and even less so in combat), RO2 runs a real risk of accomplishing a one-time buy event while at the same time alienating people who want a game to play, not a game to play them.

Is lots of money good? Yes. Let's hope that TWI figured out how to do that, while at the same time making a game that will have the same simple staying power that RO has. Lots of gadgets are neat. They also lose their lustre quickly. Commitment of game resources to truly original content rather than the same old thing (COD) would be what this gamer asks for.