Ro2
- Thread starter Jeremy Foote
- Start date
You made me go back on track. I'll scrubb the post I just wrote.
I'll think I pass on this one aswell.
@Op Community wouldn't be so raged if TWI would say that Heroes of Stalingrad is not going to be successor of RO:O, but mainstream game similar to CoD and placed in Stalingrad. They said that it's going to be RO2 and people wanted RO2, not CoD-a-like game.
Community mentioned many times, before release that they don't like several things and said that it's not going to work.
Community was right, but TWI lead designer wanted to sell the game to wider audience. Well, they sold HoS better than RO:O (game with 0$ commercial budged), but players abandoned game quick.
HoS gets lower scores than RO:O (game with way lower developer budged).
RO:O got many awards when HoS lander somewhere between Brink and Homefront (another two failures).
RO:O was unique game made with passion, HoS is just "another" fps made for money and accessibility.
TWI lead designer made wrong decision and followed wrong games. RO:O was unique game, addressed to specific playerbase. What that means, if I want to make good game I need to improve current gameplay, not change it! Take a look on Mount and Blade games: First game was indie small and unique game, just like RO:O. What Talewords did? They improved game and released Warband for their community - game is great, many new people bought it and years after release it has 3,500-4,000 players, not XXX like Brink, Homefront or RO2, couple months after release.
TWI promissed SDK, multiplayer campaign, coop campaign, competitive features, advanced demorecording and many many more in day 1, after months these are still not here or fully functional. Instead of we've got player progression, unrealistic unlocks, kill-cam, Mkb, rambo MG - and almost no one likes these.
I have hopes that TWI realized, that they went in completely wrong direction and mainstreaming games, making them more arcade/accessible don't equal bigged playerbase/sales. If that would be truth, ArmA 2 game would have like 10 players. ArmA 2 playerbase is couple times bigger than RO/RO2.
Community mentioned many times, before release that they don't like several things and said that it's not going to work.
Community was right, but TWI lead designer wanted to sell the game to wider audience. Well, they sold HoS better than RO:O (game with 0$ commercial budged), but players abandoned game quick.
HoS gets lower scores than RO:O (game with way lower developer budged).
RO:O got many awards when HoS lander somewhere between Brink and Homefront (another two failures).
RO:O was unique game made with passion, HoS is just "another" fps made for money and accessibility.
TWI lead designer made wrong decision and followed wrong games. RO:O was unique game, addressed to specific playerbase. What that means, if I want to make good game I need to improve current gameplay, not change it! Take a look on Mount and Blade games: First game was indie small and unique game, just like RO:O. What Talewords did? They improved game and released Warband for their community - game is great, many new people bought it and years after release it has 3,500-4,000 players, not XXX like Brink, Homefront or RO2, couple months after release.
TWI promissed SDK, multiplayer campaign, coop campaign, competitive features, advanced demorecording and many many more in day 1, after months these are still not here or fully functional. Instead of we've got player progression, unrealistic unlocks, kill-cam, Mkb, rambo MG - and almost no one likes these.
I have hopes that TWI realized, that they went in completely wrong direction and mainstreaming games, making them more arcade/accessible don't equal bigged playerbase/sales. If that would be truth, ArmA 2 game would have like 10 players. ArmA 2 playerbase is couple times bigger than RO/RO2.
Last edited:
They could just make Realism mode look more like RO1 and the mod, while keeping Relaxed Realism as it is. Problem solved. Why would anyone be against that?
Because some people hate RO and prefer the RO2 way of the game.
But honestly, I don't think with the game mechanics now, implementing the RO1 mode would solve the problem
But those people wouldn't lose their "RO2 way". They'd keep it while the ones who prefer the "RO1 way" can get what they like. That's kinda like how they promised us in 2010.
You can run and gun in real life. It's a bad idea because it often leads to death, as it does in game.
Problem is, game doesn't punish dying enough.
People would run and gun in RO1 if RO1 soldiers moved at anywhere near realistic agility and speed.
i agree with the sentiment of the op, an yes it pisses me off when people say the game failed or is dead. just coz its not how you want, doest mean its ****.
but i digress, the game is fine, bar a few quirks. an apart from a bit of agressive language by the op hes defending the game, an your all slagging him like 13yr old girls at school. so if you dont like the game uninstall an shut the door on the way out.
but i digress, the game is fine, bar a few quirks. an apart from a bit of agressive language by the op hes defending the game, an your all slagging him like 13yr old girls at school. so if you dont like the game uninstall an shut the door on the way out.
Yes, but run n gunning in RO2 works really well. You obviously die at some point, but if you've got an SMG you usually take 2 or 3 people down with you, and most players don't mind that. People don't do that IRL because they are afraid of dying, but in a game there's no fear of death, so most people would try to exploit all the advantages the game gives them to win, especially when it works for them.
And when the game forces down our throats thigns like lockdown that makes the pace even faster, the situations gets even worse. That's why we don't see maps longer than 20min in the game. Not because of the size of the map, but because of the pace, which is extremely fast. I would suggest longer respawn times, but as we can see in countdown mode, most people simply leave.
Nah we don't say that the game is ****, just that it failed and is quite dead, wich are both true 
So you're saying it's impossible to fix because either people don't like dying being penalized or people don't like dying not being penalized?
Err. Pace isn't abnormally fast, people run about 5km/h in this game which isn't that fast really. If something is too fast, it's the (i think) bug with instant iron sights after sprinting.
By pace I mean the pace of battle. I think everybody can agree that battles are too fast in RO2. If it were liek that IRL the battle for Stalignrad would have lasted only weeks and not months. Running speed is okay, but the one thing it lacks is momentum, which lets people dodge bullets by "dancing" around. The ADS speed is the worse. Both these things if properly tweaked could make the pace a lot slower like it should be. That would seriously encourage people to move more carefully, take cover and so on.