Why RO2 'failed'

[Chadwiick]

Lets start off with the good stuff, I'm glad I bought the game even though I didn't play much of it. I appreciate the attention to detail, the strive to improve on the small things. Above all I'm glad they tried to make the best game instead of the best product like the Call of Duty's.

Now to something on the flip side there is something about it that makes me not want to play it. Perhaps it's because I don't have a sense of a team? A sense of I just die randomly? Attempting to be with your squad then realize wait who's in my squad and where are they? Perhaps I have too high of expectations? I can't put my finger on why I don't want to play it anymore.

Regardless of it's unfortunate outcome, I still respect TWI and I shall support them in their next game and the game after that. Whether they are mediocre or not. I'm just glad there is a company out there gives more attention to a game than the money. As long as TWI doesn't make the same mistakes over and over again I will support them.

Again, I may be dissatisfied with the game but I still support the company and we should all support the company. They'll need all the support than can get with the unfortunate outcome of RO2.

 

[Snuffeldjuret]

There is just one thing I dislike 100%, and that is the player progression system. ****ed up the clan scene =(.

 

[DasFist]

Again, I may be dissatisfied with the game but I still support the company and we should all support the company. They'll need all the support than can get with the unfortunate outcome of RO2.

No offense but that sounds a bit daft to me, I not happy with product but I will buy next one, and continue to support the people that made it.

 

[dazman76]

No offense but that sounds a bit daft to me, I not happy with product but I will buy next one, and continue to support the people that made it.

The quoted post said nothing of future products, and mentioned only the support of TWI - which for now, means updates and improvements to RO2. Even though you're currently not happy, that doesn't mean RO2 will definitely not become a product you ARE happy with. We cannot know TWI's limits in terms of what they can/cannot and will/will not change - we can only guess and assume, and attempt to glean these details from partial posts and brief comments. TWI and RO2 may yet surprise you in the pleasant sense - I'd say that is worth your support just to find out if it's true, and it won't cost you any more than you've paid already

 

[Grobut]

This is always something I find interesting, I always wonder how many of the people playing now are new fans, or are people who are still waiting for good things to happen, because I am new to the ro series and I find myself agreeing with all the roosters.

I own most big releases when it comes to fps, if I want to play fast paced game I will play something that does it better; cod4, ut2k4, ut3, quake etc. I bought ro2 for it's slow pace, realistic gameplay, all the stuff people complain isnt there.

Maybes a lot of new players think like me, they wanted ww2 arma, or just a good, tough fps, but got something that is just meh, hence the low playerbase.

Out of interest, with this beeing your first RO, what brought you to the title? Where did you hear of it? And what shaped your expectations for it?

I ask because i do belive you have a point, and for several reasons, RO in itself had a reputation build up from it's mod days and Ost, RO's fanbase was very active before release "spreading the word" about Ro2, and the word we were spreading was the word of thease forums and the promises made here, and last but not least there are ofcourse thease forums and what was written here to read.


There was a lot of interest in Ro2, and especially comming from more realism/tactics based gaming communities, lots of expectations, and i have no doubt that along with the roosters, they make up a lot of the sales, and also a lot of the people who didn't stick around to play it..

 

[DasFist]

We cannot know TWI's limits in terms of what they can/cannot and will/will not change - we can only guess and assume, and attempt to glean these details from partial posts and brief comments. TWI and RO2 may yet surprise you in the pleasant sense - I'd say that is worth your support just to find out if it's true, and it won't cost you any more than you've paid already

I get what you are saying but it is still blind support if, like you say, we can only guess and assume. I do not understand what support is if it is not buying their next products, as really that is the only way you can support them, with cash.

So far TWI have lied about stuff that was supposed to be in the game, and let a lot of players down with other bad decisions. Whilst I would like to have faith that they can rectify all this, unfortunately to me it seems like they are just gonna go down the same route as other devs, release dumbed down versions of their previous titles, and lie a lot.

But like you say we can only guess and assume

 

[Chadwiick]

I get what you are saying but it is still blind support if, like you say, we can only guess and assume. I do not understand what support is if it is not buying their next products, as really that is the only way you can support them, with cash.

So far TWI have lied about stuff that was supposed to be in the game, and let a lot of players down with other bad decisions. Whilst I would like to have faith that they can rectify all this, unfortunately to me it seems like they are just gonna go down the same route as other devs, release dumbed down versions of their previous titles, and lie a lot.

But like you say we can only guess and assume

In a way I agree it's a bit blind but my main point is that TWI isn't like your EA, Blizzard, Activision. In my eyes, these guys care more about the game and gamers vs. the top companies. I am willing to "blindly" support these guys because of who they have appeared to be in the years they have existed. I still believe in this company to improve and make a better game for us.

 

[DasFist]

Out of interest, with this beeing your first RO, what brought you to the title? Where did you hear of it? And what shaped your expectations for it?

I ask because i do belive you have a point, and for several reasons, RO in itself had a reputation build up from it's mod days and Ost, RO's fanbase was very active before release "spreading the word" about Ro2, and the word we were spreading was the word of thease forums and the promises made here, and last but not least there are ofcourse thease forums and what was written here to read.


There was a lot of interest in Ro2, and especially comming from more realism/tactics based gaming communities, lots of expectations, and i have no doubt that along with the roosters, they make up a lot of the sales, and also a lot of the people who didn't stick around to play it..

Well a friend suggested I try out arma 2 when that was released; I did and I loved it. Before then I had only really played unrealistic shooters, ut series, bf series etc. I found the slow pace and the real fear I experienced to be awesome.

Another friend of mine said ro was similar but ww2 themed, always said I should get it but I didn't really want to with it being quite old and I was happy with what I was playing. So about a month before ro2 was released I saw roost for like

 

[dazman76]

I get what you are saying but it is still blind support if, like you say, we can only guess and assume. I do not understand what support is if it is not buying their next products, as really that is the only way you can support them, with cash.

Yep, I'll have to concede that's it blind in some ways I'll also admit that, while I'm not 100% pleased with how RO2 turned out, I do enjoy it when I play it - mostly

When I was thinking about support for RO2 - I guess I mostly meant in the sense of keeping the community alive, keeping the forums ticking over with new posts and discussions, but most of all - keeping the server population alive by playing the game However, again I'll concede that many people won't want to do this because they're unhappy with the game - even so, the more people who keep playing, the more chance RO2 has of increasing it's player numbers, when improvements and additions are made. I don't think a game can ever recover all of it's lost players - that's probably unrealistic, unless the changes/improvements are huge and well publicised. But I DO think there's a chance that extra maps, continued fixes and realism-focussed improvements will be able to at least increase the regular playerbase to a healthier amount - it's happened before

 

[DasFist]

Well I think it is obvious that we all care for this game one way or another, hopefully TWI knows this and they do improve this game, and don't go down the same route as most other devs

Also is there no IRC pickup channels for ro2? as I always find the most fun I have had in fps is through pugs, best teamplay, everbody on ts/vent etc. so much fun

 

[Nikita]

But u guys realize that u want an unrealistic gameplay if u slow down the gameplay ? Its Heroes of Stalingrad and not Eastern Front 2 ! The battle for Stalingrad was also called
The Red Verdun ! It was a war of attrition . Close combats house and street fights reflect reality . The ingame maps , gameplay reflect the battle of Stalingrad ! U cant expect from twi to adjust their game to ur playstyle bcs u fail to adjust urs to the game . U asking for a softcore shooter instead of hardcore . ANd u cant call game arcade bcs of one map ! Believe me u dont want to be in a team with full of run and gunners , i prefer to be in a team that holds tactical position and change their position accordingly to targets , in such team i want to be .

...

Not all aspects of slowing down the gameplay make it more unrealistic. For example, shift super-zoom makes medium-to-long range combat far too lethal. You'll take up position behind a fence on spartanovka, fire one shot, and instantly someone 175 meters away kills you because he saw the muzzle flash. Increasing sway and decreasing zoom makes gameplay slower paced, but more realistic in reflecting the fact that humans can't pull off 175 meter shots on a one square foot stationary target time after time.

Having to relocate because some kill-cam shows the enemy where you're firing from AFTER he's been killed? Not realistic, not fun either.

Similarly, because the speed with which people can aim down sights has been reduced, people are far too confident in their ability to accurately return fire. What I mean is, an enemy running across a street on Barracks, upon coming under fire from a rifleman in a distant window, will dive prone and try to return fire because he can do so with reasonable speed and accuracy, when in reality one's natural instinct would be to take cover. I've seen enemies sprinting across the open notice one another, skid to a halt, and start taking potshots at each other standing up in the middle of an open field. That's not realistic either. Slowing down this feature will solve this.

Hipfired MGs running around at a jog with the same agility as an assault trooper with a PPSh? Not realistic.

Camping with a semi-auto or Mkb on Spartanovka at 150+ meters instead of capping, or running around with an MG34 at the hip--that is not hardcore. Not in the slightest.

And oh my goodness... lockdown... Any potential for a careful, planned, methodical assault is lost because of the need to RUSH RUSH RUSH the cap to beat a timer... Hence phenomena like the entire Russian team desperately charging capzones on Commissar's House, or the Germans rushing the Conveyor Tower on Grain Elevator.

Sure, some positive improvements to RO2s mechanics have sped up the gameplay, and we don't want them gone. Penetration makes indoor firefights much more lethal, for instance, but we don't mind that feature. The maps are also smaller and more urban, and we accept that.

But some tweaks to the gameplay features that currently favor run-and-gun have the potential of IMPROVING the gameplay, through slowing it down.

And you cite Stalingrad as your model for RO2's gameplay. Well, besides the obvious fact that German machine gun squads didn't romp up and down stairways and through hallways carrying their weapons at the hip, combat in Stalingrad was brutal precisely because it was slow-paced on a minute scale. Seesaw battles fought over a house. Grim struggle to advance across a street. The Russian close combat doctrine involved throwing a grenade into EVERY room suspected to harbor an enemy before clearing it. How many people in RO2 do that? People are content to rush corners, spraying at the hip. Close combat can be intense AND slow at the same time. These soldiers knew they were in a meatgrinder--they sure weren't in the mood to sprint around indoors like a maniac going toe-to-toe with the enemy.

 

[Nazarov]

As discussed many times, realistic aspects of the game does not mean realistic gameplay is going to be produced.
Sure, running speed right now may be more realistic, but to run that long with little effects on physical function? Unrealistic.
Slowing down the running speed may be more unrealistic, but it's more credible that you'd run longer distance and still have better physical function since your heart will not work as hard.
Also, if your character has more limitations, you will more likely stick with your teammates, thus increasing team-focused game play. I think the RO running speed and increased weapon sway encouraged this subconsciously.
In RO2 with all the logically 'realistic' functional aspects that cuts out human limitations, you don't need support from your teammates which in turn produces unrealistic gameplay.

 

[LugNut]

Nice post Nikita, well said and my sentiments exactly.

Out of interest, with this beeing your first RO, what brought you to the title? Where did you hear of it? And what shaped your expectations for it?

For me, I came from an old MOHAA/COD Tactical clan who lost it's tactical way IMO by the time MW came out. I ended up in ARMA2 as well and I love the gaming environment there, the sim side of it limits how you can move, aim and shoot to reasonably realistic levels, plus I fell in love with the whole sandbox, huge maps. Combined, it forces you to work as a squad and do your best to stay alive. The whole "Oh, it takes 10 minutes to spawn, 20 to get to the battle and then you die!" whine I hear so often is pretty much BS, but the few minutes you spend after dying is pretty good incentive to play cautiously and cover each others back. Unfortunately, it's a niche game fractured even further by mods, so it's not always easy to find decent MP. Which lead me to...

I'd heard about RO and after checking out RO1 and DH vids, I thought that RO2 would be a nice compromise, where there was an emphasis on realistic mechanics and gameplay, but it wasn't trying to be a sim, just a fun game based on teamwork, strategy and skill. It arguably is that as it stands now, but unfortunately, the best way to succeed in the game is for everyone (teamwork) to rush the capzone (strategy) and insta shoot (skill) anyone you run into on the way. Not quite what I or many like me had in mind I'm afraid.

 

[Six_Ten]

...

And you cite Stalingrad as your model for RO2's gameplay. Well, besides the obvious fact that German machine gun squads didn't romp up and down stairways and through hallways carrying their weapons at the hip, combat in Stalingrad was brutal precisely because it was slow-paced on a minute scale. Seesaw battles fought over a house. Grim struggle to advance across a street. The Russian close combat doctrine involved throwing a grenade into EVERY room suspected to harbor an enemy before clearing it. How many people in RO2 do that? People are content to rush corners, spraying at the hip. Close combat can be intense AND slow at the same time. These soldiers knew they were in a meatgrinder--they sure weren't in the mood to sprint around indoors like a maniac going toe-to-toe with the enemy.

Well put. On top of it all, these soldiers are supposed to be cold, malnourished, cut off, and tired. The model we have now is of well fed, high-morale modern athletes.

 

[Zeraphinos]

@ Six_Ten This is not true . Most big assaults frmo german side took place before the winter . Bcs the wehrmacht wasnt enough prepared for winter assaults . Main goal was to take stalingrad before winter . The time when winter broke in the 6th army was surrounded by russia ( Operation Uranus ) . German didnt made any big assaults during this time . They got the order to "Einingeln" means to take up a position of all-round-defence . And guys it still a game . Not one game will reflect 100 % reality . Games should still make fun and war is not fun .

@ Nikita
I rly dont know how to answer u . I just made dif experience like u . First i dont play on servers with kill cam . I play most of the time on the toga server and based from ingame experience ( atm 246.4 hours) i never saw one guy hip fire constantly with mg .
I play also as machien gunner and i can say using hip fire with mg is not effective but cover tactical position with mg is effective . Ofc i shot also mg form the hip if i have no other choice but i dont run like rambo its jjust not effective . And again Lockdown should not force to rush ! It should force ur team to concetrate on their targets . If ur team loose bcs of lockdown then bcs there was no teamplay . And from my ingame experience most of the time u loose of lockdown bcs of dump commander that doesnt call for arty strikes or call arty on stupid location and to many lonewolf in ur team , spwan campers or run and gunners .

 

[FBOTheLiuetenant]

Hee hee Operation Uranus hee hee.

As far as the depiction of Stalingrad, it is pretty accurate to the early phases of the battle. Myself, and I'm sure others would also like to see the more desperate, drawn out aspects of the battle. Those parts are the stuff of legend, and are what come to mind the quickest when someone says "Shtalingraad".

Honestly though, Zeraphinos, you've never seen how easy it is to rambo the MG? I've been doing it since the beta, and I have a combined ~200 hours between beta and retail. It is incredibly easy to rambo, on most maps anyways. Barracks and Apartments are the easiest examples. There have been times I've taken the MG role hoping to play it the way it is entended, but due to the circumstances of battle I've had to switch to hip-firing. Those times I find myself very high on the score board.

 

[Tak]

This thread feels like a battlefield.

Not so sure about that.

But I am sure that...

LOVE!

LOVE IS A BATTLEFIELD!

/benatar

 

[Zeraphinos]

Maybe bcs i play most of the time on a 64 slot server ? Believe me on such server ,Run and gunners will ragequit and rambo mgs too .

 

[Nazarov]

Maybe bcs i play most of the time on a 64 slot server ? Believe me on such server ,Run and gunners will ragequit and rambo mgs too .

I end up rage quitting using bolt. So frustrating

 

[barakas]

How about RO1 with near-sighted (you know, because 150 meters is totally a sniping range) out of shape soldiers who can't climb a 50cm tall fence, stop reloading even if it'll cost them their life and cannot run more than 50 meters without being so heavily out of breath they might just fall over and die from heart attack, T34's that bounce off 88's shots and automatic guns that spray towards the heavens when you press the trigger? Also, wooden fences that stop bullets, tanks and whatever you throw at them.

I actually like zoom (though the maps need to be much bigger to make it effective), i like mantling, i like the improvements to the movement system (Although soldiers are too fast and its too fast going into ironsights), i like bullet penetration.

I haven't complained about any of those.

However, I really don't think you can argue RO2's tanking is better than RO1. While it tries to be more realistic and accessible, you only have to look at the servers to see its broken. Arad was one of RO1s most popular map. Absolutely no one plays Gumrak, and tanks are switched off on nearly all combined arms maps because of the AI hull MG of death.