Where the players gone ?

[Skjold89]

It's good that its just your opinion, because had it been the truth I'd be really worried. And as for DICE keeping the same direction, how do you call moving over to consoles and removing prone and other features?

Your talking about Bad Company now (which DICE has explained themselves, was a spine off and not a sequel or an "official" battlefield game)

BF3 is getting designed from the ground up for PC, a (completly) different version is getting released for consoles which will only have 24 max players and no 64 player maps at all.

Prone is in BF3, probably along with the rest of the "removed" features.

However, this thread is not about BF3, Its about RO2 and i just drew a parallel to a company that stuck to their ideas instead of dumping them.

Cheers, Skjold

 

[SCandChives]

My best bet is that TWI gonna release a huge patch in a month (hopefully). It'll be like "We've fixed everything!". Because minor patches can help not losing people (a little), but its the big ones that bring people back.

Kind of what I'm thinking too, I know there are a lot of people out there (and likely more I don't know) that say they love the game but are just waiting for the bugs to be fixed before returning. And where I am I don't have a problem finding full servers of 48+ capacity and the occasional 63/64 player one, all with a ping under 275. Not sure why there are few 64 player servers around here though.

 

[Omar The Insurgent]

Your talking about Bad Company now (which DICE has explained themselves, was a spine off and not a sequel or an "official" battlefield game)

BF3 is getting designed from the ground up for PC, a (completly) different version is getting released for consoles which will only have 24 max players and no 64 player maps at all.

Prone is in BF3, probably along with the rest of the "removed" features.

However, this thread is not about BF3, Its about RO2 and i just drew a parallel to a company that stuck to their ideas instead of dumping them.

Cheers, Skjold

Oh I see, they explained it, so that makes it good than eh?

So, I imagine that battlefield fans didn't play BC or BC2 because they waited 3-4 years for a true sequel with old features?

DICE explained themself that it was not an "official" sequel, but they did not give it out for free. They collected the money, regardless of prone or not.

 

[DingDong09]

Not sure what all the fuss is about - those are still some pretty strong numbers. When an indie game like this can have more than 20% of the players of the biggest FPS franchise in the world, it's got to be doing something right. The playerbase in Australia is almost as big as it was at launch.

It's only impressive if those numbers can be maintained, a lot of games are high on the list during their first week, so what?

 

[Skjold89]

Oh I see, they explained it, so that makes it good than eh?

So, I imagine that battlefield fans didn't play BC or BC2 because they waited 3-4 years for a true sequel with old features?

DICE explained themself that it was not an "official" sequel, but they did not give it out for free. They collected the money, regardless of prone or not.

Sorry "Omar The Insurgent", i have no desire in starting a flame war of any sorts.

Bad Company was a battlefield game designed for consoles with their hardware limitations in mind and the console controllers (iam a long time PC gamer myself, since mid 90s) Bad Company 1 wasnt even released on PC, and they shouldnt have released the 2nd imo. Iam not defending DICE or especially not EA for anything, iam not a fan boy of any gaming franchise or development team so don't make assumptions as to what i think, Thank you.

Cheers, Skjold

 

[Reise]

in the process totally throwing what made RO1 a great game out the window.

Why do you people keep saying this?

It's the same damn game with MORE content and features.

I swear half of the people that keep spouting this same line have no idea what RO1 and the mod were like at all.

 

[hockeywarrior]

In my opinion, they are gone due to..

1. One of the most buggy releases i ever seen.
2. One of the most un-optimized releases i ever seen.
2. Trying to appease Arcade and Realism player bases at the same time.
3. People waiting for bugs to be fixed until they play the game.
4. BF3 beta (duh)
5. RO1 veterans realising this is not their cup of tea.
6. Arcade gamers realising this is not their cup of tea.
etc etc etc.. theres alot of issues.

I hate to draw parallel to Battlefield 3 and DICE, however their story is decently similar to TWI. Started as a small independent company (actually their office was their university dorm room in the 90s) and found success in Battlefield 1942 and following expansions and sequals. They realised they found a selling concept and stuck with it, they improved it and re-vamped it.. but they stuck with the basic concept even to this date which they ow most of their succes too.

TWI wanted to start fresh and make a game more appealing to the majority of the gamers, in the process totally throwing what made RO1 a great game out the window. I was suprised today in (some new FPS) beta that is arcade and that i actually felt SLOW while sprinting after playing RO2, i actually felt INACCURATE while firing certain weapons etc. which made me realise a thing or two.

Red Orchestra 2 is not a selling concept, its a over-hyped product in every way and the majority of either RO1 vets (like myself) or the arcade gamer just won't like or stick with the game for very long. I have total faith in modders to make the game that this game could have been. However, not much will change in retail version since it is a released product.

Just my honest opinion, Skjold

Well said. That is all.

 

[luciferintears]

Oh I see, they explained it, so that makes it good than eh?

So, I imagine that battlefield fans didn't play BC or BC2 because they waited 3-4 years for a true sequel with old features?

DICE explained themself that it was not an "official" sequel, but they did not give it out for free. They collected the money, regardless of prone or not.

well BC was a console series, the fact that BC2 was even released on PC is welcome enough, as the first wasnt.

It was a console port, but DICE told us so a while ago (considering it was quite literally a console game).

BF3 on the other hand is more in tune as a PC release. Has it been influenced by consoles? yes, to an extent; but not much more than this game in its attempt of garnering mass appeal.

While the BF3 beta is buggy with some weird glitches and animations, its nothing game breaking like what we've seen in RO2. In fact it runs rather well, with me getting 45-50 fps on my 3 year old rig.

TO be honest, i actually rather like the suppression mechanic in BF3 more than RO2. It's not as hyper sensitive as in RO2 (making my soldier into a little b*** who gets suppressed if a single bullet fly withing 50 yards of him), and you actually get rewarded for suppressing.

RO2, is hands down one of the most innovative FPS' i have every played. First person cover system, suppression, adjustable sights, free aim, squad system etc. However it has failed to execute them properly and implement them effectively.

So now all those innovative features come off as incomplete and gimmicky; existing only for their own sake Why dont i get points for suppression? Why dont i get points for successfully commanding my squad? Why dont i get points as a commander for leading my team to victory? what the f*** is the point of half the unlocks? etc.

This game could have been mind blowing, which is why i am so deeply saddened, and why i spend som much time on the forums. I have seen games fail before and never really cared, for example BRINK; it was fun but it failed still who cares? I never went to the BRINK forums or spent 30min typing up a list of improvements for the devs to implement.

RO2 i want to like and i dont want it to fail, which is why spend so much of my time here. Regardless the fact of the matter is, RO2 is a failure because of some poor choices on behalf of the company.

The major ones being; trying to appeal to both hardcore fans and a larger casual audience, releasing the game a few month sbehind several major FPS releases, releasing it in such a shoddy state, giving a beta of only 2 weeks, not listening to its core community, abandoning authenticity and instead opting to hop aboard the unlock bandwagon etc.

This game is not salvageable. IT will will not be the great game we had anticipated. It will be patched and fixed, but it will sink into obscurity eventually...

 

[Merkin666]

I think its a mix of stats and unlocks being broke and people playing free bf3 beta. Why play when im a hero already for some reason and I know all my stats are gonna be gone soon when they fix this.

 

[Sah.]

they released a game that still needed at least 2-3 months development time, at LEAST. They only released it now because it was now or never; they were supposed to release it last year ..

I think they'll eventually fix all (or most) of the bugs etc. As to the imbalances, i'm not sure.

 

[5thSSDW.KGW~CO]

Indie devs, which means amateuers who clearly don't have a firm grasp of the code. I mean, the entire sound-engine is a total cluster-****, never mind the stats and all the other minor/major bugs (clipping, hit-detection and etc etc).

And anyone who spouts on about how RO1 was the epitomy of realism, don't make me laugh. TWI listen to the community? It took, and still takes, around 30 seconds to load a fresh round into the Tiger's cannon in RO1, when in RL it took between 5 and 7 seconds. TWI were taken to task over this repeatedly, but instead of admitting it was for game-balance their 'expert' insisted it was accurate.

DH made RO1 into the game it should always have been, and the same will go for RO2, it will not truly shine until a team of modders take it apart and do it properly.

Having said all that, I still think the RO2 infantry combat is bloody damn good as it stands right now. It just needs all the bugs fixed, but I think that'll require TWI to bring in an expert with the UT engine to get a grip on it all.

 

[Verluste]

In my opinion, they are gone due to..

1. One of the most buggy releases i ever seen.
2. One of the most un-optimized releases i ever seen.
2. Trying to appease Arcade and Realism player bases at the same time.
3. People waiting for bugs to be fixed until they play the game.
4. BF3 beta (duh)
5. RO1 veterans realising this is not their cup of tea.
6. Arcade gamers realising this is not their cup of tea.
etc etc etc.. theres alot of issues.

I hate to draw parallel to Battlefield 3 and DICE, however their story is decently similar to TWI. Started as a small independent company (actually their office was their university dorm room in the 90s) and found success in Battlefield 1942 and following expansions and sequals. They realised they found a selling concept and stuck with it, they improved it and re-vamped it.. but they stuck with the basic concept even to this date which they ow most of their succes too.

TWI wanted to start fresh and make a game more appealing to the majority of the gamers, in the process totally throwing what made RO1 a great game out the window. I was suprised today in (some new FPS) beta that is arcade and that i actually felt SLOW while sprinting after playing RO2, i actually felt INACCURATE while firing certain weapons etc. which made me realise a thing or two.

Red Orchestra 2 is not a selling concept, its a over-hyped product in every way and the majority of either RO1 vets (like myself) or the arcade gamer just won't like or stick with the game for very long. I have total faith in modders to make the game that this game could have been. However, not much will change in retail version since it is a released product.

Just my honest opinion, Skjold

Good post that sums it up all quite well

 

[Dr.Phibes]

In my opinion, they are gone due to..

1. One of the most buggy releases i ever seen.

The fact that it was actually playable for most of us upon release already puts it in front of 50% of today's vg releases.
Yes, I'm looking at you Paradox Interactive

 

[Omar The Insurgent]

well BC was a console series, the fact that BC2 was even released on PC is welcome enough, as the first wasnt.

It was a console port, but DICE told us so a while ago (considering it was quite literally a console game).

So basically you are saying that we should be thankful for getting crumbs from the table?

BC2 is a good game, and I am glad it was released on PC, but please don't be saying that the company held the same direction from their start. I don't care what they said, BC2 on PC is official sequel to BF series. If TWI called RO2 just Heroes of Stalingrad, and said that real RO2 would come after 3 years, you would not be kissing their feet, would you?

DICE is a console market company and looking from their stand point it is more profitable because on console you don't get hordes of gamers whining about something not working as they expected.

If we keep supporting such companies we can forget about PC dedicated features on PC platform. Goodbye modding tools, custom content, dedicated servers and hello cross-platform simplified gameplay, autoaiming console joystick players, whiny kids on the voicechat.

 

[Nimsky]

In my opinion, they are gone due to..

1. One of the most buggy releases i ever seen.
2. One of the most un-optimized releases i ever seen.
2. Trying to appease Arcade and Realism player bases at the same time.
3. People waiting for bugs to be fixed until they play the game.
4. BF3 beta (duh)
5. RO1 veterans realising this is not their cup of tea.
6. Arcade gamers realising this is not their cup of tea.
etc etc etc.. theres alot of issues.

I hate to draw parallel to Battlefield 3 and DICE, however their story is decently similar to TWI. Started as a small independent company (actually their office was their university dorm room in the 90s) and found success in Battlefield 1942 and following expansions and sequals. They realised they found a selling concept and stuck with it, they improved it and re-vamped it.. but they stuck with the basic concept even to this date which they ow most of their succes too.

TWI wanted to start fresh and make a game more appealing to the majority of the gamers, in the process totally throwing what made RO1 a great game out the window. I was suprised today in (some new FPS) beta that is arcade and that i actually felt SLOW while sprinting after playing RO2, i actually felt INACCURATE while firing certain weapons etc. which made me realise a thing or two.

Red Orchestra 2 is not a selling concept, its a over-hyped product in every way and the majority of either RO1 vets (like myself) or the arcade gamer just won't like or stick with the game for very long. I have total faith in modders to make the game that this game could have been. However, not much will change in retail version since it is a released product.

Just my honest opinion, Skjold

It's good that its just your opinion, because had it been the truth I'd be really worried.

It IS the truth, everyone should be way past the denial / sugarcoating stage by now.

Say what you want about BF3, but at least that game is consistent in its genre. Unlike TWI, DICE didn't try to arrange a marriage between realism and arcade gamers, which evidently does not work. It may have worked if they added a realism mode, but they didn't. So now the game is in some sort of identity crisis; arcade and casual players will abandon RO2 for BF3 because RO2 is not fast and easy enough and because BF3 does the ranking and unlock thing much better, and realism fans are turned off by the fantasy nonsense. And both groups are turned off by the bugs.

Numbers of players from launch to now

I really want RO2 to be a success and reach its true potential, but that's the truth.

 

[Holy.Death]

2. Trying to appease Arcade and Realism player bases at the same time.

Trying to appease Arcade player base in what way?

5. RO1 veterans realising this is not their cup of tea.

Which part of the RO1 veterans? Those saying that RO2 is more realistic or those saying that RO1 is... well, I have no idea right now (because RO1 veterans tend to contradict the other RO1 veterans)... a better game? More realistic game than RO2? If yes, in which way?

TWI wanted to start fresh and make a game more appealing to the majority of the gamers, in the process totally throwing what made RO1 a great game out the window

What did made RO1 a great game?

Opinion like opinion. I see many different opinions on these forums. Why this one should be more valid than the other? Be more specific.

 

[Haxbo]

I know im not starting to play this again for at least 1 month more. The bugs are just so annoying and the ranking system is in pieces.

Also my FPS bounces all over the place.

 

[Omar The Insurgent]

It IS the truth, everyone should be way past the denial / sugarcoating stage by now.

Say what you want about BF3, but at least that game is consistent in its genre. Unlike TWI, DICE didn't try to arrange a marriage between realism and arcade gamers, which evidently does not work. It may have worked if they added a realism mode, but they didn't. So now the game is in some sort of identity crisis; arcade and casual players will abandon RO2 for BF3 because RO2 is not fast and easy enough and because BF3 does the ranking and unlock thing much better, and realism fans are turned off by the fantasy nonsense. And both groups are turned off by the bugs.

Numbers of players from launch to now

I really want RO2 to be a success and reach its true potential, but that's the truth.

I think YOU are the one who is in denial.

First of all, those statistics, I'm not here to dispute them, but when I compared Bejeweled 2 Deluxe to Bad Company 2 there seems to be something wrong.

Now, I don't care about any other game, I don't go to BF3 forum comparing it to RO2. I think some of you guys hit identity crysis when they started respecting developers of cod or bf franchise. I am sick of "there might be no recoil on the weapons, but at least they aren't pretending to please realism crowd, and for that aspect only I will play XY game" comments.

Your comment about how BF is consistent in the franchise is false - removing prone does not equal to consistency. They might've said that BC2 is not a sequel, but they released it on time for sequel, called it battlefield and made it available for PC. Lets look at the timeline:

Battlefield 1942 - 2002
Battlefield Vietnam - 2004
Battlefield 2 - 2005
Battlefield 2142 - 2006
Battlefield: Bad Company 2008
Battlefield Bad Company 2 2010
Battlefield 3 2011

As you can see the gap of 5 years is too inconsistent for only BF3 to be a sequel, considering how big EA and DICE is. BC2 was a good marketing test which obviously passed great for them, as they are now ruling the console crowd, convincing PC players to join in, in the process.

I have always supported one RO1, and I don't see how RO2 is so much different from it's predecessor - it is in fact better. Maps may seem a bit smaller to you, but they are of the same size, if not bigger, it is just that you are not the clumsy robotic soldier anymore, but smooth moving soldier trying to dodge the bullets.

And I don't see how so many can glorify RO1, when there was one server per day that was active for the past year. It seems to me that in the mean time people gotten accustomed to whatever else is on the market, getting their *** served to them in RO2 on a regular basis, vaguely remembering the "good old days" of RO1 in the process.

 

[Apos]

In my opinion, they are gone due to..

1. One of the most buggy releases i ever seen.
2. One of the most un-optimized releases i ever seen.
2. Trying to appease Arcade and Realism player bases at the same time.
3. People waiting for bugs to be fixed until they play the game.
4. BF3 beta (duh)
5. RO1 veterans realising this is not their cup of tea.
6. Arcade gamers realising this is not their cup of tea.
etc etc etc.. theres alot of issues.

I hate to draw parallel to Battlefield 3 and DICE, however their story is decently similar to TWI. Started as a small independent company (actually their office was their university dorm room in the 90s) and found success in Battlefield 1942 and following expansions and sequals. They realised they found a selling concept and stuck with it, they improved it and re-vamped it.. but they stuck with the basic concept even to this date which they ow most of their succes too.

TWI wanted to start fresh and make a game more appealing to the majority of the gamers, in the process totally throwing what made RO1 a great game out the window. I was suprised today in (some new FPS) beta that is arcade and that i actually felt SLOW while sprinting after playing RO2, i actually felt INACCURATE while firing certain weapons etc. which made me realise a thing or two.

Red Orchestra 2 is not a selling concept, its a over-hyped product in every way and the majority of either RO1 vets (like myself) or the arcade gamer just won't like or stick with the game for very long. I have total faith in modders to make the game that this game could have been. However, not much will change in retail version since it is a released product.

Just my honest opinion, Skjold

This, I totally agree.

As RO veteran and competitive player I'm not happy about RO2. HoS feels too much CoDish. Also demorec and other basic league features are missing.

Friend of mine, typical CoD player isn't impressed by HoS either. For him maps are way too big, graphic is poor, leveling doesn't work. He also pointed out that game isn't attractive for him because HoS doesn't have tons of unlocks, medals, ribbons etc. I asked him about HoS features, what he thinks. Totally useless for him (cover system, iron sights, 3D scope, suppressive system). It's casual point of view, but he is right in that.

TWI made big mistake trying to make game for casuals and RO players. Plus number of bugs, crashes effectively affected on number of players. I know that TWI put so much afford into game, but read above.

 

[Dashdot]

I have not played for a long time due to game breaking bugs so i guess others are too!

This. Didn't touch the game for 1 1/2 week now, because those bugs ruin it.