Maybe people have trouble accepting your point of view because you aren't necessarily correct, or perhaps because you aren't voicing your dissent in an appropriate manner. That would be the starting point.
I am really curious about a few things here:
1. Why do you hate on faster game play? You act as if faster game play means the absence or reduction of tactics which isn't necessarily true - how would you even measure a 'reduction' anyways? More to the point, it would be more accurate to say that it shifts the efficiency of certain tactics and the evolution of tactics will differ from that of a match without any time limit.
2. Why the hate on the lock-down timer? The lock down timer itself is a tactical consideration.
3. Simplified controls? What controls am I missing here? Do we consider being able to vault over things simplified and game play ruining? Do we consider destructible terrain also a simplification (by extension satchels/rocket barrage). Do we consider integrated VOIP and squad level VOIP to be simplified or something? You act as if simplifying/streamlining controls is a bad thing in itself when it may be a necessary component neutral in itself but in tandem with other mechanics may increase the overall depth of the game or decrease it.
4. Again, with the whole 'simplification of X feature'. You talk as if twitch-gaming in itself is devoid of tactics when there's plenty of thought that goes into almost all twitch-shooters be they 1v1 Death Match or clan matches in Counter-Strike. It doesn't necessarily dumb down the game at all, and it more or less depends on OTHER mechanics of the game to determine whether or not it's hindering the development of the metagame or whatever else.
5. Really? You're complaining about small maps when there are other games that are officially tactical shooters that have even SMALLER maps? And hey, if we really want to talk about tactics, what about things like Frozen Synapse where everything is about tactics and yet almost all the maps are small. Map size isn't as relevant as you think it is but rather what's in the map. Again, you pick on a SINGLE aspect without regards to the others.
6. We can probably all agree on improved weapon handling to some extent and for bandages the reason it takes 1.5 seconds is probably due to the rest of the game mechanics.
So, basically, after going through your wall of text (and replying with one of my own) we can come to the conclusion that people don't accept your answer and conclusions because there's something repulsive about it. I would venture to say that you're fundamentally wrong is why people will not listen (and even if you were right, the path that took you to that conclusion would probably be far off from the spot).
Here's the whole deal. RO2 has sped up game play, that means everything should probably fall in line with that depending on how things are implemented. So yes, bandaging should take less time (you can also die pretty damn quickly if you don't bandage yourself immediately on the flip side you could also die trying to bandage yourself from being subsequently shot.. due to 'simplified weapons handling' - there you have your choices).
The point, which you have missed or failed to address, is that faster game play means tightening of mechanics and tactics; it also has a different line of tactical evolution because there is a time limit. This ultimately means that deaths are rather meaningful depending on context especially since you have a limited time in which to act. You can get into the combat 'fast', most certainly and some maps are more conducive to that than others, but keep in mind the time limit. Running back is still a waste of time whether you're defending or attacking.
The only truth and sentiment worth taking from your entire spiel is this: The game is personally forgiving, but it still punishes the team for your incompetence. There is a certain illusion of forgiveness but that's all there is to it.
1. I don't hate faster gameplay. I love playing games such as Far cry, gta, and so on, but this kind of gameplay doesn't belong in RO.
2. To begin with; It's to arcadeish. It isn't logical in any sense either; Why would you have only five minutes? It makes absolutely no sense. Not realistic in any sense either. It forces players to rush to their objective and it doesn't built up any tactical gameplay at all - it's rather the other way around. Remove it and people won't stress.
3. Check out the whole command radial in RO1. Command radial in RO2 looks like a damn console command system. It's stripped down A LOT. When it comes to tactical view isn't neccesary. There is already a map. Of course less controls is bad in a tactical game. Try to shoot in RO2. You can aim like you're a perfectly syncet robot. The whole weapon handling itself is made to make it possible for everyone to handle without following a high learning curve. RO should be about realism.
4. The more a game aim for the mainstream the less tactical it is. Tactical games focus is by definition about realism.
5. The map design in RO2 is more arcadeish than in RO1. The maps are away to small. Filled with 'protected areas'. The fact that you sometimes die at your spawn pretty much tells it all - TWI wanted to focus on constant action. Another thing is that the maps are designed for the combat instead of the other way around - the player should design the combat after the maps.
I express my thoughts about the game. Since most people probably want it to steer into the arcade direction even more I don't expect many people to agree with me. Obviously, most people do, since I see complaints about basicly the same things I complain about all over the forums.
I don't know why you deny that RO2 tries to cater to the mainstream.
What's the point of that? Isn't it better just to realize it, and go on with it? All this about XP, unlocks, smaller maps, weapons that are easy to handle, quick bandaging, the lockdown timer, the stripped down command radial, a lot of HUD elements etcetc. is there for one reason: Making the game
appeal to more players. 90% of all gaming companies tries to do this, why wouldn't it be the case with RO2?
It seems pointless to come up with arguments that tries to explain that this isn't the case when it clearly is.
All this can be seen by
comparing RO1 with RO2 by looking at the definition of FPS, tactical shooter, and arcadegames, and of course, how the gaming industry looks today.
Also, realism in games doesn't neccesary have something to do with destructible environment, great sound effects etcetc. In that way BF3 would be a lot more realistic than arma 2 which isn't the case. Games can be realistic in many ways, but when it comes to games built for the mainstream they're only realistic in ways that
doesn't make the game unforgiving, hard, or requires a high learning curve.
This is the way I see it and this is how I see RO2. Right or wrong. I don't care what anyone else on the board think, and I don't care how much I like TWI as a gaming developers, and I don't care how much I like the RO series, I will still try to stay open for flaws in the game instead of being blinded by the love for this game. I would argue exactly the same way if for example far cry 3 went into a realistic, tactical shooter, because I know that FC isn't about that, and it's not the reason I play it. The whole reason that there are NAMES for games is because they MEAN something diffrent. That meaning seems to have fade away at least a LITTLE in RO2.
