Why RO2 'failed'
- Thread starter Raneman
- Start date
Nah, just remodelling the current [non]Realism mode and leaving Relaxed as it is will do. The current Realism mode is no different to Relaxed anyway save for a few HUD elements turned off. Pointless. No need to call something a Man-portable Ferrous Metal Substrate Relocation Tool & Last Resort Personal Space Enforcer when it
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.
Both got their vices. Both would be easy to fix for more realism, RO2 having better chances of the two because of the way more advanced engine and better base to build from. I'm waiting for that fix, unlock system is the first against the wall and hopefully a working wounding system added not soon after. I'm kind of hoping they had a wounding system in the works and it didn't make it into launch. Why other would they have so many areas where you can be hit modelled?
If it means all I said above? No thanks.
If it means removing silly stuff and making RO2 the game it's supposed to be? I'm ok with that.
Last edited:
I'd love if they could just let a server ditch the progressing system, replacing it with realistic loadouts or any other mod, without outcasting them to that cemetery called "unranked server tab". But no, it looks like the progression system is sacred and removing it is a crime.
So if you hate the progression system so much why do you care if it's unranked? Reading these forums makes me think plenty of people would be playing on that kind of server.
It's because unranked servers are segregated from the ranked ones. Nobody cares to look at the unranked tab, so that means modded servers wouldn't attract new players unless they participate on the forums. There's no point on separating them like that, as we've already got a server filter. That just weakens the modding community.
Because it is hard enough to find a decent ranked server, that isn't full of bots, and has a ping under 200. This is why I've always said playing on unranked servers is not an acceptable solution, it effectively makes those of us who don't like the unlocks to play like second-class gamers.
With all the effort put into the game to make sure new players liked the game, I think just as much effort should have been put in to ensure the rest of us ("self-entitled Ostfront crybabies") love it too. Or at least have the option to play a game-mode that is more satisfying.
The only thing I don't agree with you is the sprinting. Sprinting means that you go 100%. It doesn't take long time before you run out of breath. Even the most trained athlete can't sprint for a exdended time. The speed will decrease and if there's a steep hill. oh boy, you will get fatigue very fast and the speed will drop. If you don't believe me try it yourself.
However, in terms of realism - and nothing else:
- Being able NOT to jump over fences is BETTER than being able to fly up for ladders and obstacles like in RO2.
- Being able NOT to heal is better than being able to use some kind of ninja bandaging.
- Having a hard time to see people from 150 meters is better than being able to shoot them by using quickaim and unlocks to do so
- Dying because you can't stop the reloading animation is better than being able to reload unrealisticly fast.
- Being able to learn the weaponhandling due to unrealistic sway and inaccuracy is better than having NO learning curve for the weapons all.
Point is: Both games have their PROS and CONS.
If these features I mentioned was IMPROVED instead of changed COMPLETELY I think it could have looked like something like this:
- You can vault over low obstacles and climb ladders. However, the animation for this is smooth, and natural.
- You can bandage yourself when you're hit which works as ammo - you wont have unlimited bandages - and it takes quite a time to apply the bandage. The bandage will stop the bleeding but your performance will decreased drastically overtime unless you don't seek medical attention (e.i. a medic) This means that bandage becomes a quick, short term solution to save yourself.
- No more pixelhunting. But at the same time you there is no quickaiming, and unlocks wont make you better because of the unlock but rather because of your own skill. (whenever unlocks is good or bad is another question)
- You will be able to stop the reloading animation but the animation itself will be done in a slower, more realistic pace when you do reload.
- The weapons wont be unrealisticly inaccurate and the sway will be set to a mor realistic level. But this doesn't mean that the weapons have no learning curve. Instead, It's improved with weapons that have an actual feel of weight to them, and float- and deadzone to make the aiming less twitchy and more natural, and in order to create an actual learning curve for the weapons.
Last edited:
To be honest with you I couldn't give a square sh_t how it goes in as long as it goes in.Not agreeable..... Don't take away a thing many are enjoying. ADD to the game it makes more sense.
However, if it does happen then I do see the current "Realism" being subsumed into one or the other, either Relaxed or RealRealism. The game doesn't need four game modes, especially when one is merely a cosmetic HUD variant. It needs Relaxed and Realism. End of.
It's not really a matter of opinion, the basic fact of the matter is that TWI had goals for this game, namely to reach the sales and player base equal to BF:BC2, this was held up time and time again by both John and Alan as beeing a "realistic goal that we expect to reach" (paraphrased), and that was the modest estimate, the less modest estimate was that Ro2 could capture upwards 25% of the CoD and BF fanbases..
Sales numbers are not on public record, so i can't say much about thouse, but it is obvious to anyone with eyes and an internet connection that Ro2 failed to capture that many players, infact it didn't even come clouse.
You may be ok with the game, but TWI won't be if a player base that struggles to stay above 1000 at peak is all that is interested in this kind of game, they cannot make a RO3 of this graphical quality for such a small fanbase, it is not sustainable, they won't break even let alone turn a dime, they would break their neck on it.
Ost was a success despite it's niche size player base, yes, because it cost a fraction of Ro2 to develop, featuring graphics that were heavilly outdated before the game was even released, and reusing code and assets allready made for the mod, Ost was not an expensive game to make, but according to TWI, Ro2 has cost nearly AAA levels of money to make, and a Ro3 of similar quality would be no less costly.
TWI turned a buck this time, because they had pretty much the entire RO and most of the KF communities, plus a lot of curious outsiders buy it, but then look at how many of them stayed to play it.. yeah, thouse are probably the only repeat customers they would have for Ro3 if it's more of the same, thouse of us who did not enjoy Ro2 would have no reason to buy a Ro3 that is like Ro2, and we woulden't buy it.
And that is precisely why so many of us are asking for no such thing, why we have allways maintained that the game needs two sepperate and actually different modes (what it has now is two identical ones, save for a few HUD options).
We have no interest or intention of taking Ro2 away from anyone, we just want TWI to add the mode ontop of that which they promised us, a true realism mode aimed at tactical play, to expand on what is there, not to take anything away.
The two could coexist just fine, and infact i belive it would be a disaster to force everyone into one style or the other (someone would get disinfranchised either way you go), but sadly, we need to make TWI understand that, because they still haven't acknowledged the problem, that they now have two very different communities tied to this one game.
That can't work unless the game is permitted to have two destinctly different modes aimed at their different audiences, and any attempt to make us all share the same bed, to use the exact same game mechanics and values will fail, as indeed it allready has.
This is also why i don't get people's reluctance twords this, it will change NOTHING for you guys, there is no good reason why a "Ro1" or "Really real" mode could not be added, without it having to affect what's allready there, it just needs to be coded properly to be two sepperate modes, which is entirely possible to do.
And the benifits are obvious, all thouse RO fans it would make happy, thouse are players who would return, and they are players who would buy DLC's and Ro3, create content, participate in tourneys and all the rest, it's a win/win for everybody.
And all that must happen for this to become a reallity, is for certain ego's at TWI to accept that their vision of making one game to please all was a flawed one, that it hasen't worked.
TWI marketed two games with Ro2, on this forum they marketet a sequal to Ost, a game that would be anchored in realism, historical accuracy and the slow and tactical gameplay style RO used to be all about, and they assured us that all the things that worried us about Ro2 would be optional and tweakable, that we would not be forgotten or left high and dry.
But pretty much everywhere else they marketed Ro2 as a fast paced, action packed and accesible shooter, one that would have all the modern trappings of a progression system and all of that.
Well congrats TWI, your marketing worked and you now have two entirely different communities following this game. Now you need to deal with that fact, and actually deliver what you promised to both of them.
Are you just pulling these out of your arse or do you have actual quotes from the devs and sources?
I recall John saying RO2 was "a success" in sales.
Well... since you're so interested in quotes and sources why don't you answer me my question about your data, which is pulled straight out of your arse, in this same thread??
See here:
Anyway, I agree with Grobut!
See here:
Anyway, I agree with Grobut!
Last edited:
Aye, and I was assuaged by the forum assurances that the hardcore shooter was there, that arcadey stuff and fantasy weapons would be optional, and that the progression stat boosts would never be significant; none of that turned out to be the case. Ultimately I can only blame myself, I wasn't exactly forced into buying it at knife-point. I do however now feel rather silly for having pushed it so enthusiastically to all my old RO:O/DH mates.
Since you asked, I'm just making a guess based on the amount of these "hardcore RO1 vets" (I'm not exactly sure how I differ from this, except I like RO2 and I'm following how it turns out with great intrest instead of posting continous stream of hate on the forums) posting on these forums.
Counting the people who play RO1 + add a couple of hundred who played RO1 in the past.
I'm fairly certain I'm not that far wrong.
They said it plenty, and i have no doubts others in this community remembers it as well as i do, and i belive it's still on record at the Bash casts they participated in at the very least (who knows if it's still on the forum, what with TWI deleting so many of their own posts from before the game's release).
But no, i will not waste time finding it for you, your hostile demeanour does not deserve the effort on my part, and it's not my problem you were not active in the community prior to the game's launch.
I wasn't active in the community prior to game's launch?
Are you trolling?
I was against any kind of unlocks, stats tracking, MKB AND the recon plane since they were announced. I was also against the zoom until I played Arma II.
Here's the furthest example search could find, it apparently doesn't go back very far into the past.
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?p=904272#post904272
Edit:
Search only shows back 200 posts, but
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=45458
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=56573
Last edited:
It's a bit more complicated. I understand and agree with you, but...Grobut said:
I don't think that current modes are really separated from each other - they have a few functions you can enable and disable (like HUD), but mechanic you use in both of them remains the same. Changing in-game mechanic for one will probably change mechanic for all of them (I mean movement, aim and so on).
That's why I think a completely new mod(s) should be added - as the official one too - to prevent messing two different game modes with each other if they are indeed linked together. It is more of a technical problem than anything else for me. I wait for one mod to make shooting more realistic (not ROOst, but not RO2 either) myself.
Correct me if I am mistaken somewhere.
Praxus mate, don't you see by being completely blind to all criticisms of RO2 you're being just as bad as these so called "RO1 vets"
The game has its flaws, all games have flaws. I think that people just need to look at the game objectivley, not just completly one sided.
I agree that tripwire made some questionable choices when it came to RO2 (Not being able to climb out of tanks, Mkb, MP-40/II) They can simply rework how all of these elements are implimented in the game and you'd find that people would come back to Tripwire in droves.
A friend of mine bought RO2 back when it was on sale on steam, before he bought it he asked me "is it good?" I told him " Right now, you're buying Ro2 based on potential, the game has alot going for it and its only going to get better." I think thats a pretty accurate way of looking at RO2 at the moment.
Also, saying that tripwire shouldnt listen to the people complaining would get the game absolutley no-where. Criticism makes the game better, we get a final product that will be something that both new people and the old can jump in and have fun!
The game has its flaws, all games have flaws. I think that people just need to look at the game objectivley, not just completly one sided.
I agree that tripwire made some questionable choices when it came to RO2 (Not being able to climb out of tanks, Mkb, MP-40/II) They can simply rework how all of these elements are implimented in the game and you'd find that people would come back to Tripwire in droves.
A friend of mine bought RO2 back when it was on sale on steam, before he bought it he asked me "is it good?" I told him " Right now, you're buying Ro2 based on potential, the game has alot going for it and its only going to get better." I think thats a pretty accurate way of looking at RO2 at the moment.
Also, saying that tripwire shouldnt listen to the people complaining would get the game absolutley no-where. Criticism makes the game better, we get a final product that will be something that both new people and the old can jump in and have fun!