Sliding scale of realism, where do you think RO2 sits?

[Echo Black]

From 0 to 10, with 10 being stuff like DCS Black Shark or perhaps a non-commercial milsim, 0 being your average, unrealistic FPS

I'd say ArmA II, Delta Force and the likes are an 8

RnL for HL2 a 5

ROOST a 4.5

and RO2 a 3

Games like CS and COD are a 1 or something. Maybe DoD is a 1.5

I don't mean to be derisive with this, I just want to see what people think and hopefully get insight on others' perception of "realism" in games, especially in contrast to RO2 (which, IMO, is "authentic" but not realistic). Feel free to add other games to the scale with your personal grade, or argue my grades.

---

 

[Krobar]

Delta Force

Freewalking in vehicles. Fear me launching my BTR-80 out of the back of my Mil! IN MID AIR! I love Delta Force games. I still play DFX2, and rumor is Delta Force: Angel Falls beta starts in November.

I wouldn't rate RnL that low, maybe more of a 7.

RO1: 5

RO2: 4

I've rated RO more on features not physics.

 

[Das Bose]

@ the OP, sorry but can you explain how on earth you came to the conclusion that ROOST is more realistic than ROHOS? ROOST is absolutely full of artificial difficulties that simply don't exist in real life. Ridiculous recoil, inability to slowly jog more than 50 yards e.t.c.

Not wanting to argue, I just want to hear your reasoning.

 

[Echo Black]

@ the OP, sorry but can you explain how on earth you came to the conclusion that ROOST is more realistic than ROHOS? ROOST is absolutely full of artificial difficulties that simply don't exist in real life.

Not wanting to argue, I just want to hear your reasoning.

ROOST's "artificial" difficulties create more convincing realism to me. In the end they're all games and they all have gamey stuff such as respawns and weapon operation that is markedly easier than in real life (Especially for MGs, tanks and heavier weapons). Yet stuff like the speed at which you can toggle ironsights, which many claim is too slow in ROOST, may well be too slow, or the recoil on SMGs too exaggerated. But I feel things like that end up countering the inherent ease of the other aspects of simulating a shootout in a video game. There are many examples, the very fact your soldier's pace is slow, weapons are unwieldy and essentially require a safe spot to settle down before firing (or at least crouching) or how the sprint only lasts for a little while completely changes your options and the way you consider going about completing objectives.

---

 

[mattlach]

I like the level of realism in R02, but I haven't really played much that I can compare it to.

IMHO, both RO and RO2 straddle the border of as much realism as possible and not being fun.

RO is probably closer to this border than RO2. A rating of 3 seems awfully low to me though.

I guess what I am trying to say, is that if RO were any more realistic, it would not be enjoyable to play. We already have long periods of crawling and hiding before you even get to engage the enemy. Movement speeds are less realistic in RO2 than in RO (but in RO it felt like they went overboard, even when running it felt like you were moving through soup.

 

[Echo Black]

I wouldn't rate RnL that low, maybe more of a 7.

The actual weapon handling and the way shootouts are conducted in RnL completely blows RO2 out of the water, despite the RO series having superior, proper ballistics. The problem is, the maps are so small, gameplay essentially turns into a slightly more realistic DoD. I absolutely applaud RnL's ideas though, such as needing a compass to navigate the map, no HUD of any kind, and the three different weapon sighting methods, and wish more people tried the game so there'd be more than a single French server with players.

---

 

[Das Bose]

Ok as long as you can agree that they are artificial and in no way realistic.

So in a realism game you look for as little realism as possible because then it's more realistic...

Gotcha!

RnL = 5?? WTF? It's hitscan......

 

[DAT]

For me Darkest Hour and mainly because of the cooperative teamplay made it realistic. Arma series and similar I am sure are more realistic but I could never get with a good group to get that teamwork feel that Darkest hour gave.

 

[vyyye]

ROOST's "artificial" difficulties create more convincing realism to me. In the end they're all games and they all have gamey stuff such as respawns and weapon operation that is markedly easier than in real life (Especially for MGs, tanks and heavier weapons). Yet stuff like the speed at which you can toggle ironsights, which many claim is too slow in ROOST, may well be too slow, or the recoil on SMGs too exaggerated. But I feel things like that end up countering the inherent ease of the other aspects of simulating a shootout in a video game. There are many examples, the very fact your soldier's pace is slow, weapons are unwieldy and essentially require a safe spot to settle down before firing (or at least crouching) or how the sprint only lasts for a little while completely changes your options and the way you consider going about completing objectives.

---

Sounds like you believe ROOST to have more authenticity, not necessarily realism. Artificial difficulties are the polar opposite of anything realistic. Being and feeling realistic are two different things.

Can't really answer OP, no idea. ARMA 2 is the most realistic game I have played but at the same time a lot of it isn't very realistic at all, though it does realistically (to a degree) simulate the combat environment.

For RO2? I couldn't say, it's not the first game I would name if someone asked for a realistic title though. It's only realistic compared to 99% of other games, doesn't really mean it is actually realistic.

 

[Echo Black]

Ok as long as you can agree that they are artificial and in no way realistic.

So in a realism game you look for as little realism as possible because then it's more realistic...

Gotcha!

There are concessions you must make in different areas to end up with the game you want. Aiming a weapon with a mouse, with no inertia (ArmA II has inertia, RO2 has not, you might want to check it out), windage, muscular fatigue and etc. will always be infinitely easier than attaining proper marksmanship with a real weapon. On the other hand, stuff like spotting targets will always be much easier in real life. The way you can end up with a somewhat accurate representation of "reality" for your game will probably require tweaking both what is easier to do in a game and what is harder, and the decisions you make at that level are what affect whether your game ends up having just a coat of realism or a full commitment to it.

---

 

[Das Bose]

There are concessions you must make in different areas to end up with the game you want. Aiming a weapon with a mouse, with no inertia (ArmA II has inertia, RO2 has not, you might want to check it out), windage, muscular fatigue and etc. will always be infinitely easier than attaining proper marksmanship with a real weapon. On the other hand, spotting targets is much easier in real life. The way you can end up a somewhat accurate representation of "reality" for your game will probably require tweaking both what is easier to do in a game and what is harder, and the decisions you make at that level are what affect whether your game ends up having just a coat of realism or a full commitment to it.

---

The fact you place RnL above ROOST and ROHOS in the realism stakes tells me it's time to agree to differ

 

[Fisher]

Ro1 - 7

ro2 - 4

 

[Whitehead221]

RO2 = 3 at this state due to multiple issues with the realism not bugs

RnL = an 8 for me just because when I play I actually get teamwork going, which improves gameplay a whole lot.

I agree that more people should play RnL considering since team fortress 2 is free anyone can get the mod. If you have never tried it and want more realism than RO2 offers then download it right now and play it truly is great and that team has done a great job. The RnL community is growing and actually since RO2 disappointed me so badly I started looking hoping to find a WWII game that would interest me for a while and RnL was a game I was hesitant to try, but now I sure am glad I did. I have only played RnL for about 6 days now, but I see a long future in it for me.

I actually suggested that the RnL team should make a mod for RO2 seeing how good the mod is for the source engine. Hopefully they will.

 

[Whitehead221]

Before anyone rants about me giving RnL an 8 remember, I said it was realistic due to the team play and how the maps are set up it allows for multiple attack directions so you don't have to go the same way every time. If RO2 had better maps that allowed for better team play then it would also be more realistic for me, how it is now though I see myself just running forward at enemies (no flanking possibilities) and getting shot over and over again.

50-50 chance I will win the rifle duel = not very fun

 

[Jorg Biermann1]

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover = Ultimate 10
(I just wanted to post a 10 )

Red Orchestra: 5 (Based on when I first played it, 2009)

Darkest Hour: 7 (Based on when I first played it, 2009)

Red Orchestra 2: 4

DoD:S 1 (Arcadey and also no variety of troops. Always infantry vs infantry (No Airborne, Rangers, Fallshirmjager, Waffen SS) and that's quite unrealistic in my eyes)

Resistance and Liberation: 4 (Meh)

 

[dazman76]

I agree that flanking is limited on some RO2 maps, but others definitely provide options. I think this is a reflection of TWI's desire to provide variation. I guess I'm mostly thinking about DH maps here - but sometimes the flanking options in the past were over the top, to the point that you can almost get lost on a map and be out of sight. I know some people like that kind of scale, but it's also nice to have some cramped moments too - IMO

Sometimes I miss the epic map scale of old, but mostly I don't. What I do know for sure, is that if the maps were much bigger than they currently are, the detail levels would be comparatively lower too. And that would lead to even more threads about performance issues and detail complaints heh

 

[Cyper]

Is there any game out there that is more realistic than arma 2 at the moment? Only public games count - with other words, not the VBS series, or any another simulator that isn't sold to the public.

 

[Homuth]

Out of the games I played I think ARMA is quite the winnner when it comes to realism, although clunky and over-complicated in some ways, the game plus mods (Which help to reduce ARMA2's clunky-ness quite a bit) is the best you can have now I believe.

I really like Darkest Hour as well for WW2 combat.

What I would give a 10 when it comes to realism? Probably KA-50 attack-heilicopter simulation or it's sequel A-10 Warthog sim, made by DCS.

Best ratio of enjoyment/realism is probably Darkest Hour.

 

[Jorg Biermann1]

Out of the games I played I think ARMA is quite the winnner when it comes to realism, although clunky and over-complicated in some ways, the game plus mods (Which help to reduce ARMA2's clunky-ness quite a bit) is the best you can have now I believe.

I really like Darkest Hour as well for WW2 combat.

What I would give a 10 when it comes to realism? Probably KA-50 attack-heilicopter simulation or it's sequel A-10 Warthog sim, made by DCS.

Best ratio of enjoyment/realism is probably Darkest Hour.

Homuth!!! You didn't say one thing about IL-2

 

[Whitehead221]

"Sometimes I miss the epic map scale of old, but mostly I don't. What I do know for sure, is that if the maps were much bigger than they currently are, the detail levels would be comparatively lower too. And that would lead to even more threads about performance issues and detail complaints heh"

This exactly is probably why the maps aren't very large. I would have preferred the game to have less eye-candy and have more gameplay opportunities. Hopefully performance can be fixed without lowering detail for larger maps (hopefully there will be larger maps) ,but if that is what needs to be done then so be it. I want better gameplay, because I do not play the game anymore and I don't plan to for a while either.