What's so bad about this game?

[Holy.Death]

I have a feeling I will end up going futher from RO1 type games though and make the move into ARMA type games.

Consider that move well. I spent some time thinking about RO2 and games like ARMA (mostly because Iron Front is coming). I asked myself: "What's so different in these two games?", "Is Red Orchestra 2 the game is should keep playing?". Then I realized that these two games are completely different from each other and won't really compete for the same playerbase.

ARMA style requires long time to play - including singleplayer - and while it can feature many aircrafts and vehicles they will be used because map are very big. Because of that maps won't be as filled with players and enemy can attack everywhere from anywhere, since objectives doesn't have "the end of the map" problem. For standard player it can be described as "long periods of boredom with short periods of combat", as it was in reality. How many people can sacrifice 2 or 3 hours to "do nothing" or abort multiplayer operation in the middle (with other people involved), because his family is calling for a dinner?

Red Orchestra, on the other hand, allows you to jump into action in 1 or 2 minutes and you don't need to wait for the enemy to appear for long. Weapons are realistic and overall the game mechanics was well done. Maybe too well, as they led to suprising results in game. Classic is not only return to its root, but it also invites teamplay and tactical gameplay back. Many problems plaguing vanilla - in my eyes - has been removed, some things were improved and they add a few features into the game (minor, but important).

In short: it's not choice between RO-like and ARMA-like type of game. It's like chosing between the Creative Assembly (Total War series) and the Paradox Interactive (Crusader Kings or Hearts of Iron series). They are incomparable.

If anything the Red Orchestra 2 needs more attention towards teamplay mechanics and tactical gameplay to win players back (save for new content of course). Lack of it can make the game bad, because "each man for himself" is in all other games where teamplay is not needed, where people pay attention to their individual K/D ratios. I have bad experience with the game always when everyone is playing lone wolf and always feel great when I see people acting together. If we can encourage people to act together the game will be better instantly.

 

[melipone]

Yes I think you can look at Ostfront and see what the end results of certain gameplay elements were and try to achieve similar goals with different new tools. RO2 just has a different end goal, no matter the tools used. For me the end goal for RO1 was:

Tactical gameplay, either on the individual level like choosing when to use iron sights or when to hip fire, which stance to use etc, as well as tactics on the group level
General team play, team cohesiveness and cooperation to achieve common goals
Difficulty in shots, or long term real player progression (learning the skills of the game)
Believable or immersive battlefield
Plausible or semi plausible player behaviour. Harsh environment
Intense, rewarding gameplay
Variety of gameplay on offer from map to map, including stuff for tank fans

End goal for RO2 was to be more accessible to the mainstream while still being able to claim to be coming from a realism angle (gonna go with past tense since the game has improved a lot and will be moving into a new era soon). I think in vanilla people weren't quite on the same page as each other ingame, the WW2 environment feels a bit fake, the guns feel a bit too easy to score hits with, lots of thoughally implausible stuff going on, lack of gameplay variety, unrewarding or anticlimactic gameplay, action FPS style game mechanics rather than tactical on the individual level. As an action game it may be alright, but its too jarring a change for someone coming at the game expecting something with similar goals to the original game

Re ARMA games, I will see how Iron Front goes but doubt i'll be pre-ordering. I think stuff like Day-z may end up making ARMA more accessible to a wider audience in the future

 

[Cwivey]

The "Tactical" argument is a rather bullshit one to use, you will get non-tactical and tactical gameplay on any server in either of the two games. Making people run slowly and have enormous amounts of un-realistic sway doesn't mean a game has good tactical play.

The rest is your opinion but please don't try to identify "the end goal" of a game without looking at it objectively.
What is the end goal of the game?
"Provide a fun WW2 experience with elements of realism in it, with challenging gameplay and teamplay."

What's that? The same as RO:OST? Gosh, my opinion has just been used to disprove someone else argument, odd that isn't it.

 

[Holy.Death]

End goal for RO2 was to be more accessible to the mainstream while still being able to claim to be coming from a realism angle (gonna go with past tense since the game has improved a lot and will be moving into a new era soon)

Phrase of being "more accessible" is empty, because RO2 still has very high learning curve (and it gets even harder if freshman has to fight veteran level player).

The "Tactical" argument is a rather bull**** one to use, you will get non-tactical and tactical gameplay on any server in either of the two games. Making people run slowly and have enormous amounts of un-realistic sway doesn't mean a game has good tactical play.

Making fire less reliable - and doing so by not adding Parkinson-like sway - and adding suppression mechanic improves overall teamplay, because it adds more factors to the game, making more or less coordinated action more important.

In vanilla version it was not as important as single man could ignore hail of bullets and shoot MG operator in head, making MG not suppressing class at all, only unmobile highly-accurate (in German version, Soviet MG is much less accurate and thus almost completely ignored) automatic weapon and there are other mobile, highly-accurate automatic weapons to be picked up. In classic when you meet with MG operator he has the upper hand and you are most likely dead as soon as he spots you.

In vanilla covering fire is irrelevant - people mostly just run and gun, because even if they find an enemy on their patch they can quickly ADS, kill their target and run again. In classic you can't run as fast as long, stamina has bigger effect on your aim and even when fresh your standing and crouching position isn't as reliable as it was in vanilla. So, in classic you need someone to cover your approach as you gain ground, because you aren't as robotic (and effective) as in vanilla.

It took many simple (combined) tweaks to change the way game is played. People playing beta felt it. It really matters. If you mindlessly run and gun then there is no tactic. It's just running and gunning. If you need other people to work together then it's tactical. Left 4 Dead series encouraged small arms tactics even when enemies couldn't fire back at them, because the way the game was constructed supported teamplay. If you make people realize that MG operator can be your best friend by rendering enemy sharpshooters ineffective while you engage the objective then people will start to play the way it doesn't get them killed and allows them to meet their objectives. Changes are not on the level RO:Ost was, they are adjusted to people's opinions (all people who played it), so don't be afraid to see RO1 reborn. It's rather better, new RO1, with improvements.

While vanilla isn't a bad game it takes away a great deal of teamplay, because of simple, too perfect things, creating gameplay that doesn't require teamwork to play it. (Note - that's my opinion about classic mode and vanilla version only.)

 

[Grobut]

I note with some interest that most vets, if they aren't enjoying RO2, are actually playing BF3.

Nothing strange about that, BF is an entierly different genre, and BF3 delivers exactly what you'd expect of it, as much as i personally don't care for it as a matter of taste, i can atleast respect it, it does what it says on the tin, and if people want to play an unashamedly arcade military themed shooter, then it's a competent one at that. It knows what it is and what it wants to be, and objectively speaking, it's a good game (subjectively though, i just don't like it personally, it's not my kind of game).

I could not say the same for Ro2, even if i dispense with all my subjective gripes about it, my own personal hangups of what i wanted from it, i still can't objectively call it a good game, there are far to many problems and inconsistancies for that, just plain bad game design and inconsistant handling of themes.


But mainly, it's the subjective gripes that get to people, it's that they launched the game expecting one thing, but got something entierly different instead, and it was no pleasant suprice, they didn't like it.

And for me personally, the Classic mode, whilst several steps in the right direction, is just still not quite there, and would need atleast 3 more changes to get me excited about it (removal of the MKb, removal or severe toning down of the battle-chatter, and worst of all, bigger and better maps, lots of them).

 

[melipone]

Here's what I think makes original RO2 less tactical (this is response to cwivey's post, haven't read the other stuff yet) :

Map design. Generally linear, possibly so they can be played on Countdown/FF. Compare to the staple maps in RO1 that require you to take and hold multiple areas at the same time, with wide open areas to allow for dynamic gameplay
Lockdown. Encourages people to forget the long term affect of their actions and concentrate on just pushing mindlessly because theres only a few mins left
Iron sights from sprint. Takes out the decision of when to sprint since you get no negative consequence for sprinting everywhere. In RO1 if you sprint generally you will need to decide if you have time for iron sights or need to use hip fire, or get to cover
Stamina. Again less consequence for sprinting as the normal movement type. People are less likely to spend time getting stamina together before making deliberate attacks towards a location
Lack of sway/sight movement. Makes positioning less important as you don't get the bonus of resting your weapon like in Ost (or its meaningless with controlled breathing). Makes shots too easy from any location, stamina level or stance
50% Damage on all shots allows people to absorb bullets then bandage afterwards. Makes gung ho, run & gun easier.
Lack of recoil allows people to spam shots from any stance
Bolt - smg - semi auto ratio.
Spawn on squad leader. This may encourage team play because people appear together somewhere in the map, but it takes out the slower progression you might otherwise need to use when you spawn further away, and it allows you to go crazy by spawning so close to enemies all the time just to go frag hunting straight after spawning. "Fear of death" or necessity to play carefully is reduced. If a squad leader gets through the defenders suddenly have large areas of their defence wiped out
Small maps, or proximity to the front line after spawning..possibly influenced by sprint speed/stamina/iron sights from sprint..allows people to play less cautiously
Levelling, unrealistic unlocks etc. Some people focus on the long term progression rather than the matter at hand, and just want to frag hunt

 

[TheRealGunther]

Here's what I think makes original RO2 less tactical (Map design)

Agree most of the complaints people have about HoS over Ost.Besides faster ADS and (Hip firing MG's bieng my complaint) is due to map design.People say its a run and gun game and the pace is too fast.All of these are due to map design.

One reason maps are so hard to make (good ones) is everything you add dictates the pace of the game.That's why bigger maps like Spart,Red Oct have a different feel to them is because they are bigger maps.While small maps like barracks play like a death match game almost.

With bigger maps and farther apart objectives will bring the pace of the game down and closer to Ost's gameplay. Another thing that hurts tactical game play is k/d stats.Many people will not even look at an objective until they get more kills than deaths.I have actually heard this in game "I cant move forward I died twice so i need 4 kills before i can push an objective"

I can always tell the arcade fps guys they always get really!! mad about dying and do anything even if its cowardice to keep a plus k/d ratio. Its a good thing to kill more than ya die but, not at the cost of the team or victory.Many people really don't care about winning and play just for a k/d ratio. These stats was only added to please the mainstream same as the unlocks.

Take away the death trackers and guess what alot more people will be charging objectives and playing the game as it was intended.This is why half the teams will be camping for kills totally ignoring the objective.As a result public servers teamwork suffers greatly.

HoS at its core is still more like Ost than unlike it.There is just enough arcade elements and small fast paced maps to make it fall short of Ost.

 

[TrOOper]

So basically you want a game that only plays the way you think the game should be played...

I think TWI delivered a game that could be played tactically if played by like minded individuals.....Unfortunately , People are going to play the way "they" feel like playing....Personally, i dont like having things removed to try and make me play a certain way....

Im not against changing some things in the game...But if I wanted to Play RO1, i would play RO1....

 

[Oldih]

I note with some interest that most vets, if they aren't enjoying RO2, are actually playing BF3.

And since when it's been that uncommon for people to actually have relatively wide variety of taste or preference in gaming that is not limited only to very narrow definition of certain types of games?

 

[Grobut]

Agree most of the complaints people have about HoS over Ost.Besides faster ADS and (Hip firing MG's bieng my complaint) is due to map design.People say its a run and gun game and the pace is too fast.All of these are due to map design.

It's really not that simple, better maps would do nothing to solve MG rambo'ing, sprint to aim speeds, the unrealistic ease of aiming, and any other number of unrealisms that's been with the game from the start.

Bigger and more open maps would slow things down a bit, sure, but the underlying gamey mechanics would still be just as much an issue once you get clouser to the enemy (inside any building, inside cap-zones, or just plain whenever you'd run into an enemy at clouser ranges).

The game definately needs bigger and better maps, they would help a lot to improve the game, without question, but they alone would not be a fix to the run and gun gameplay, if you don't address the game mechanics that make it possible in the first place, it'll keep happening (especially inside and around buildings, and quite frankly, it would suck if mappers had to avoid using any buildings in their maps as a result, so it needs to be addresed).

So basically you want a game that only plays the way you think the game should be played...

I think TWI delivered a game that could be played tactically if played by like minded individuals.....Unfortunately , People are going to play the way "they" feel like playing....Personally, i dont like having things removed to try and make me play a certain way....

Im not against changing some things in the game...But if I wanted to Play RO1, i would play RO1....

You could make the same argument for CoD, i could gather some likeminded players and go play a super realistic and tactical game of CoD:MW2 (well i'd have to buy it first, but still), because we'd all agree to only use this and that, and not to do this or that, and play by our own made up rules.

Hell i could do that for Unreal Tournament too, with the right ruleset and players willing to slaveishly follow it, i'm sure we could make that game play super tactical aswell.

That doesen't make them realistic or tactical games however, and it is most certainly not how those games are normally played..


So yes, we want a game that forces tactics and realism, because that is the very definition of what a tactical shooter is (which is what RO has allways been at it's very heart, untill HoS came along and stuffed it up), and any would be tactical shooter that fails to do this also fails to be a proper tactical shooter by default, then it's just an average military arcade shooter, which are a dime a dozen.


If i wanted to play CoD:waw, i would play CoD:waw, fantasy guns and all.

 

[Major Johnson]

I agree with Luciferintears, for me it was the lack of decent SP. I don't have the time for MP, and I found it rather boring. I like to go at my own pace and get immersed in a good background story, to which R02 was lacking. Seems to me the game developers take the easy way out when they make a bunch of maps, add some nice graphics and put it out there and say "go have fun". That's just a cop out in my opinion. I was really looking forward to the Pacific expansion, and I would have gladly paid for it, but if the SP is gonna be like R02, then I'll pass.

 

[TheRealGunther]

So basically you want a game that only plays the way you think the game should be played...

Not at all I want a game that is successful for TWI and the RO series.The biggest edge HoS has on cod,bf3 is that its different.RO cannot compete against the other arcade games on a arcade level.Just as they can't compete with RO as a tactical /realism fps .Going more tactical/realism would only separate HoS more from the arcade games.Giving it even more an edge for someone seeking a change from the console arcade fps's.

If you want a death match type game that focuses only on k/d and ignoring teamplay you should go play cod. I'm not telling anyone how to play people will do their own thing anyway.I'm just saying TWI should take their one advantage and run with it and with classic mode it seems they are doing just that.While at the same time keeping the modes that others enjoy.

Do we really want all fps's to be a cod clone ? their a dime a dozen while tactical realism games are very rare like two games to choose from. Yes alot of vets from Ost wanted less arcade elements because that's what the series was based off of in the first place.

In time I see HoS having great variety in game play from relaxed realism to hardcore classic.This is something the other games just can't match variety in game play its always a good thing to have a choice

It's really not that simple, better maps would do nothing to solve MG rambo'ing, sprint to aim speeds, the unrealistic ease of aiming, and any other number of unrealisms that's been with the game from the start.

Agree there are many arcade elements that take away the tactical game play that was Ost.Im just saying map design is a big part of that I cant wait to play some of the big maps in classic!

I think MOST of us can agree Classic is a step in the right direction.

 

[CharlieDay]

I bought the game for full price a few days after its release. I was really, really disappointed and haven't played the game since. I managed to play the game for 20 hours with incredible unstable performance. Many features in the game is totally gamebreaking; lockdown timer, unlocks, skillpoints/perks, ninjabandaging - you can't even exit/enter tanks, you're spawned in them. It was simply to far removed from RO OST. I judge the game from whenever its a good spiritual sequel or not, so RO2 falls quite flat and my impression is that TWI have been working backwards with the game. To much focus on accessibility and the typical mainstream shooter ingredients. It was like playing a mix between RO OST and CoD:WaW. Definitely not worth full price.

At the moment, I am waiting for RO CLASSIC to improve from the point where RO OST was. My impression must be full dedication from TWI regarding classic mode. If its just another quick attempt to make me happy I'll just wait for any upcoming RO game while playing other games.

So if you're expecting a spiritual sequel to RO OST you will for sure be disappointed. If you expect nothing, you will obviously most likely be happy.

This

 

[Torio]

And since when it's been that uncommon for people to actually have relatively wide variety of taste or preference in gaming that is not limited only to very narrow definition of certain types of games?

Not at all. I just think people look back with rose-coloured glasses and gloss over the imperfections. This is easier to do the more time passes.

 

[r5cya]

Not at all. I just think people look back with rose-coloured glasses and gloss over the imperfections. This is easier to do the more time passes.

thats how i felt when i went back and played ro ost. it was so clunky, i had to throw away the glasses.

 

[Torio]

thats how i felt when i went back and played ro ost. it was so clunky, i had to throw away the glasses.

I liked ROOst, but I never considered the infantry component its strongest feature. For me, it was the price of admission to enjoy the better stuff. I know I am not the only one who felt that way. There was an awful lot of turn-over in that game.

I am curious. Did TWI ever experiment with different infantry mechanics? I never participated in the forums when I was playing ROOst.

 

[r5cya]

I liked ROOst, but I never considered the infantry component its strongest feature. For me, it was the price of admission to enjoy the better stuff. I know I am not the only one who felt that way. There was an awful lot of turn-over in that game.

I am curious. Did TWI ever experiment with different infantry mechanics? I never participated in the forums when I was playing ROOst.

sorry. i got to the party late and missed it's early years. i did manage to get almost 1,500 hours on it though. and about 3/4's that on dh.
good times.
but it's time to move on now and play an improved version. classic might be it, but i think i'll like realism better.

 

[Holy.Death]

So basically you want a game that only plays the way you think the game should be played...

First of all, keep in mind that we have many options how the game should be played. It's more question of finding "correct" server than anything else with all server side options available.

I think we should put more focus on teamplay, because we already have games where we can run and gun. Bad Company 2 was that kind of game. It was fun, but I want something with more depth. We can't ask for SWAT 4 type of game, but we might have something that prop up tactical aspect, which is too often forgotten in the vanilla.

Im not against changing some things in the game...But if I wanted to Play RO1, i would play RO1....

Take note on changes in Classic - nobody (or very few people) wants to go straight back to RO1. Goal is to put emphasis on tactical element by tweaking, adding features encouraging teamplay. It's not the same. Otherwise we wouldn't have more stamina than in RO1. We don't remove things, we shape them to our image. And by "we" I mean players of beta. Some are RO1 veterans, some are new to the game. We all want a good game to be played.

 

[CharlieDay]

And by "we" I mean players of beta.

What players of the beta? They must be invisible....

 

[ChargerCarl]

Now I remember whats so bad about this game...

Ever since Diablo 3 came out the one server that I could always count on to play in a full match is dead, so now its back to bot farming with a handful of other people. *sigh*

Bots really do ruin this game. If everyone would just pick a server or two to play on then we could actually have good player matches. Instead its a few people in every server bot farming.

**** this