Why RO2 'failed'

[Raneman]

RO2 tried to broaden it's playerbase a bit.

It's game design is much more fast-paced, there's some unlocks and ****, and it's a bit easier to figure out how you died. Nothing wrong with this so far, if they did it right.

This really attracted some mainstream gamers. The niche bought it because it was Red Orchestra. So, I supposed they succeeded for a little while.

Here's where it failed: it was too realistic for the mainstream crowd. Oops, there goes all the new players. And the features we put in for those new players were too unrealistic and not in the RO spirit for old players. Oops, there goes all the veterans.

Who is left?

Hopefully Tripwire has learned their lesson and realized your game can get popular without turning it into something that it's not. Just look at the ARMA series, which is more popular then RO despite being even more brutal and realistic.

Lesson learned, guess we'll have to wait a few years for RO3.

 

[Branden]

I can't tell if you're trolling or just being stupid.

 

[Raneman]

They tried to make the game for two audiences and lost them both. I'm not trolling. They should have just stuck with the niche RO was intended for. Ostfront was getting as many players as RO2 is now 3-4 years after it's release.

Also, since when does "Having and opinion I disagree with" = "Trolling"

 

[Branden]

Nope. Head onto to the ArmA forums and you see post after post about RO: 2 bringing the much needed realism into the WW2 era.

What about RO: 2 is unrealistic?

 

[Raneman]

It's not unrealistic so much as less realistic then Ostfront. It's technically realistic but the game just doesn't fit the mechanics. It's like trying to play a round of ARMA II on de_dust.

If we slowed the game down a bit, gave it bigger maps, added a bit more sway with firing unsupported, increased suppression, and made teamwork necessary, removed the RPG unlock metagame thingy, then we would have a true candidate for an RO sequel.

 

[Cyper]

What he's saying is probably true. I wrote a similar post in this thread:

[url]http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=72118[/URL]


I strongly believe it's true. I see no reason to why he would be trolling. Look at the most successfull games out there. COD really does it's own thing and it freezes out the niche audience and even to a certain extent the BF audience. Arma do the same thing. They freeze out the mainstream. Because I think it's impossible to make a game appeal to everyone. I doubt it's possible to have a game which genre is ALL. You can't.

 

[Raneman]

Wow Cyper, your post is basically what I was trying to say if I wasn't a lazy **** with no patience for writing.

Hopefully Tripwire have learned their lesson: you can't make a game that appeals to two completely different audiences.

 

[MeFirst]

The main arguments of the thread poster are right. RO2 has a massive problem with a player base. The basic question is:

How should play RO2 right now?

RO2 is a Tripwire game and they can do what they want with the game. A lot of RO Veterans had their hopes up that RO2 will not only be a spiritual, but also in any other way a great successor to the first game. Counting myself to this group, I was pretty much excited about RO2 and I got even more excited with any new gameplay video and interview that was released, because it looked like all was going well. I can understand that Tripwire wanted to make a game that can also appeal to more people and there is basically nothing wrong with that. But the problem I see is that they decided to make too much changes in favor for a new audience. And maybe the the worst thing for me is the lack of communication about this before the game / beta was released. For a lot of old RO1 players it was a pretty unpleasant suprise, but I can understand that those changes in the game were not being communicated because a lot of people would have reconsidered preordering and buying the game. To say it short, Tripwire chased a lot of old RO1 players away. The problem is that new players had not much reasons to stay at all. Months after the release the game is at least playable but still far from being really polished. The weeks after the release were some kind of disaster, the game was simply unplayable due to bugs and performane issues and as already mentioned, some of these issues are still not fixed. Also the game is not that accessible to new palyers at all. Also not to forget the with BF3 and MW3 two big franchies released their latest games and a lot of new players are probably playing those games now and I cant really blame them.

In the end there are not much people left playing RO2 at all. It is all down to a handfull of servers and I often catch myself trying to play RO2 for a while but I get disappointed after 1 hours and decide to play something else. My only hope is that TW realized they made mistakes in the past and are going to fix them. I think in around 6 months the game itself will be much better and we also should get the first mods.

 

[Nilsson]

Not all hope is lost. When they are able to get stable <100 Pings on 64 Player servers the game feels a lot different. Honestly, RO2 is an unfinished game at the moment.
My problems with RO2 are more technical related (frames, ping). The game itself feels ok.

 

[mowskwoz]

Who is left?

Two other crowds. People who like the game, and people who need to continue on about how they don't.

 

[GRIZZLY]

You know what usually happens when you mix 3 genres into one and try to appeal to the hardcore followers of all 3? Lowest common denominator. You don't see hardcore jazz fans listening to dance remixes of their favorite jazz numbers. You don't see dance girls from the community college performance class listening to Jazzed up versions of their favorite dance beats. BOTH groups are unhappy when you mix some cluster f*ck of Miles Davis noodling over a dance beat!

It MIGHT have worked if a proper realism mode were included.... I really wish the devs would just take the plunge and split realism and relaxed realism into Ostfront mode and Ro2 mode. I guess they're afraid of tons of bugs popping up if they make a big gameplay change... Either way, they've got their money and they've admitted the player base is unhappy.... if they're going to work in the morning and spending hours of time working on Ro2 they might as well listen to us, or there will be nobody left to listen to.

 

[Raneman]

It's up to modders to save the day. Good luck, Knights of the SDK, Saviors of our community.

 

[Poerisija]

Failed?

It sold more than RO:OST and KF combined. How is that "failed" to you?

 

[FBOTheLiuetenant]

Failed?

It sold more than RO:OST and KF combined. How is that "failed" to you?

The OP may be a tad overly dramatic, but simply selling a lot of copies doesn't mean there hasn't been a massive exodus of players.

While I don't fully agree with the Ostfront vs RO2 realism arguement, I fully believe that trying to please two very disperate gamer populations wasn't the best direction.

I would've hoped that RO2 relied on being different and fresh to stand on its own with the big boys, rather than going out of it's way to try and win over fans of other games.

As far as the "realism" arguement, I find RO2 to posseses about the same level of realism that Ostfront has. The only things that have changed are which specific mechanics are realistic/unrealistic.

As for me personally, the sole reason I'm not playing RO2 non-stop is the unlock/stat progression mechanics.

 

[Poerisija]

I don't get how "making it easier to get into" is "pleasing 2 crowds" unless the 2 crowds is people who enjoy tactical shooters and masochists.

Yeah unlocks and stats tracking is something I was against from the start, but the gameplay is what makes games different.

 

[FBOTheLiuetenant]

The fact that Ostfront was so hard to enjoy is why we loved it. It allowed us to join the Elitist Prick Club!

Really the unlocks and stat progression are the best examples of trying to attract a new/different type of gamer. Before launch there were people posting about how games need unlocks now to keep gamer's attention, or that they need a carrot in front of their face in order to keep playing. I was always of the opinion that RO didn't need shiny trinkets to keep me playing for years. While the unlock system doesn't turn RO into OMGCOD, it has screwed enough with the game to keep myself and others from enjoying RO2 fully.

 

[Pectus]

Failed?

It sold more than RO:OST and KF combined. How is that "failed" to you?

Yet it's down to ~10% of the player base it had on launch. Less player's than Killing floor, which it outsold, clearly. I don't know if it's a failure, but it doesn't exactly scream great success either.

 

[The Beast (nl)]

They tried to make the game for two audiences and lost them both. I'm not trolling. They should have just stuck with the niche RO was intended for. Ostfront was getting as many players as RO2 is now 3-4 years after it's release.

Also, since when does "Having and opinion I disagree with" = "Trolling"

You are speaking for yourself.

Everybody has an opinion.

If RO1 was so realistic, why did all players go away from that game?

 

[lods of emone]

While the unlock system doesn't turn RO into OMGCOD

Even CoD doesn't give you a variety of permanent passive stat boosts such as reduced recoil and larger ammo count just for getting kills with weapons. It's the worst unlock system I've ever seen.

 

[FBOTheLiuetenant]

Even CoD doesn't give you a variety of permanent passive stat boosts such as reduced recoil and larger ammo count just for getting kills with weapons. It's the worst unlock system I've ever seen.

I agree with you about that, but I also try to not come across as a catastrophizer who blames COD for everything that is wrong with RO2 (I don't want that bit you quoted to be taken out of context).