Why WW2?

[Krotz]

I watched the gameplay videos, and although this game has many improvements and features that are so good they should become the new standard for FPS genre, I feel all this is wasted because of the WW2.

By using that setting you are limiting the game to a very limited linear experience that feels like historical documentary reconstruction.

Surely, rich SF setting would provide for a much more flexible and fertile foundation, increasing the enjoyability and sellability of the game.
And such realism in SF setting would add extra uniqueness.

Why did you think it was a good idea to make another WW2 FPS?

 

[{Core}Craig]

Because they are making an accurately moddelled game . . not some fps with heat seeking lazer scoped smgs like other develepors have going for other time frames.

For me ww2 is the most interesting (weapons, battles etc) and also the better balance of weapons . . in modern setting everyone seems to have guns that fire walls of bullets in each direction which just ruins game play.

 

[Krotz]

Because they are making an accurately moddelled game . . not some fps with heat seeking lazer scoped smgs like other develepors have going for other time frames.

Functional illiteracy.
I already addressed this by saying-

And such realism in SF setting would add extra uniqueness.

Surely Fallout 3 weapons are not boring, on the contrary, WW2 weapons are boring.
And depending on SF setting there is no limitation whether weapons are projectile or energy based, in any case the new features would work even better for both..

Your remark is completely void of any substance.

 

[{Core}Craig]

Functional illiteracy.

Insulting people is not going to help matters . . . and no, not illiteracy, more non agreeance.

in Surely Fallout 3 weapons are not boring, on the contrary, WW2 weapons are boring.

This is personal choice, for which there is no correct answer. It could be debated for pages but no conclusion would be given.

Your remark is completely void of any substance.

<< this dude says it all

 

[PETERPANs]

I watched the gameplay videos, and although this game has many improvements and features that are so good they should become the new standard for FPS genre, I feel all this is wasted because of the WW2.

By using that setting you are limiting the game to a very limited linear experience that feels like historical documentary reconstruction.

Surely, rich SF setting would provide for a much more flexible and fertile foundation, increasing the enjoyability and sellability of the game.
And such realism in SF setting would add extra uniqueness.

Why did you think it was a good idea to make another WW2 FPS?

Leave us.

 

[LemoN]

I watched the gameplay videos, and although this game has many improvements and features that are so good they should become the new standard for FPS genre, I feel all this is wasted because of the WW2.

By using that setting you are limiting the game to a very limited linear experience that feels like historical documentary reconstruction.

Surely, rich SF setting would provide for a much more flexible and fertile foundation, increasing the enjoyability and sellability of the game.
And such realism in SF setting would add extra uniqueness.

Why did you think it was a good idea to make another WW2 FPS?

why dont you keep trolling in the KF section?
you clearly dont have any Interest in HoS and just want to troll here

 

[aktionman]

*Sigh* - yes, this is so true for many, many SF-themed games:

"I watched the gameplay videos, and although this game has many improvements and features that are so good they should become the new standard for FPS genre, I feel all this is wasted because of the SF.

By using that setting you are limiting the game to a very limited linear experience that feels like SF.

Surely, rich historical WW2 documentary reconstruction setting would provide for a much more flexible and fertile foundation, increasing the enjoyability and sellability of the game.

And such realism in a historical documentary setting would add extra uniqueness.

Why did you think it was a good idea to make another SF FPS?"

 

[Mr Milkman]

Leave us.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAAARRR! CLASSIC! PETERPANs, u r one wacky mofo! The more threads and posts u make, the more I like u! I love it. So simple, and direct, and also correct. This is basically a WW2 addicts den. RO IS WW2. If you don't like it, leave us. BUT I do agree with you about some things. RO HOS is making HUGE advances in FPS gameplay and functionality and I really hope that Tripwire and other developers follow suit in other FPS's, coz at the moment they all suck when compared. I'd love to play a new Doom with RO like gameplay etc.

 

[PNV]

I want more WWII. All these games have barely touched upon a lot of things that took place during the war. Perhaps to the casual gamer the only thing that happened in WWII was Operation Overlord so they automatically dismiss a game.

 

[<*>Nora The Martyr]

I watched the gameplay videos, and although this game has many improvements and features that are so good they should become the new standard for FPS genre, I feel all this is wasted because of the WW2.

By using that setting you are limiting the game to a very limited linear experience that feels like historical documentary reconstruction.

Surely, rich SF setting would provide for a much more flexible and fertile foundation, increasing the enjoyability and sellability of the game.
And such realism in SF setting would add extra uniqueness.

Why did you think it was a good idea to make another WW2 FPS?

You write intelligently.

but lack common since posting a thread like this here.

 

[Zetsumei]

The issue with ww2 for a lot of people generally is that all ww2 games feel the same, the issue for me is all shooters regardless of conflict play exactly the same.

WW2 pretty much had all kinds of weapons we use in the modern day there is not that much of an addition.

A smg remains a smg. An assault rifle remains an assault rifle, a semi automatic rifle remains that as well etc. The key for me is implementation of the gameplay elements and the weapons making them feel different.

 

[Bobdog]

We want another WW2 game because we like history and we like realism, and ROHOS will be the only "next gen" game that caters to us.

Maybe TWI will decide to make a SF game next time.

 

[Zetsumei]

tbh just like ww2 science fiction is another scenario and generally there have been more science fiction games than ww2 games even. Fighting against an alien kind of invaders is just as cliche as fighting against germans or russians.

 

[Krotz]

Maybe TWI will decide to make a SF game next time.

Bare in mind that SF is so flexible it can mean anything, after all, Wolfenstein is SF.

I hope this game will at least have some kind of open-ended levels and quests and customizations like Wolfenstein has.
Nothing ruins the gameplay experience more than linear progression, remember that primitive COD4 campaign where you couldn't even open a door and that clown-closet concept?

On the other hand, remember Halo: Combat Evolved with open-ended levels with superb usages of vehicles and weapons, I remember one time I sniped covenant before he was able to mount Banshee so I was later able to use that banshee to skip half the level.

Sigh, they don't make them like Halo: Combat Evolved anymore, even in the AI department...

But from what I can tell so far, this WW2 setting is very constrictive to have anything but the most basic FPS gameplay however may be brilliantly done.

 

[iTRemeN]

What if they just reconstructed the whole of Stalingrad and then put you as a soldier in a company, and you could choose if you wanted to be a sniper, or anti tank soldier, or anything else. You got the whole city to run around in, getting orders from higher command thru radios or by reporting to headquarter.

The battle would last as long as it takes for one side to take over the city, no time limit. Operations is being conducted all over the place. And groups of enemies could be anywhere, under the streets, the next building etc.

Dosent sound so constrictive. And it would be ww2.

It all depends on how much resources developers have, and what their general idea is. Not so much on where the game is taking place.

 

[LemoN]

Bare in mind that SF is so flexible it can mean anything, after all, Wolfenstein is SF.

I hope this game will at least have some kind of open-ended levels and quests and customizations like Wolfenstein has.
Nothing ruins the gameplay experience more than linear progression, remember that primitive COD4 campaign where you couldn't even open a door and that clown-closet concept?

On the other hand, remember Halo: Combat Evolved with open-ended levels with superb usages of vehicles and weapons, I remember one time I sniped covenant before he was able to mount Banshee so I was later able to use that banshee to skip half the level.

Sigh, they don't make them like Halo: Combat Evolved anymore, even in the AI department...

But from what I can tell so far, this WW2 setting is very constrictive to have anything but the most basic FPS gameplay however may be brilliantly done.

did you even play RO:Ost?
then you would know that Ost definatley is not "basic"

 

[Zetsumei]

Bare in mind that SF is so flexible it can mean anything, after all, Wolfenstein is SF.

I hope this game will at least have some kind of open-ended levels and quests and customizations like Wolfenstein has.
Nothing ruins the gameplay experience more than linear progression, remember that primitive COD4 campaign where you couldn't even open a door and that clown-closet concept?

On the other hand, remember Halo: Combat Evolved with open-ended levels with superb usages of vehicles and weapons, I remember one time I sniped covenant before he was able to mount Banshee so I was later able to use that banshee to skip half the level.

Sigh, they don't make them like Halo: Combat Evolved anymore, even in the AI department...

But from what I can tell so far, this WW2 setting is very constrictive to have anything but the most basic FPS gameplay however may be brilliantly done.

Open endedness of the game has nothing to do with the scenario. Tbh when i think of sci-fi games i think of doom and quake, but it can have dept as well and freedom. The ww2 scenario is exactly the same with that, most games have been corridor shooters, while that is actually not how things were.

Reality is not always obstructive to the quality of a game, because we live in reality and there are so many true stories around that there are always exceptional things happening. And if anything stalingrad was one of the biggest battlefields ever.

 

[The Masta]

did you even play RO:Ost?
then you would know that Ost definatley is not "basic"

He's here to troll, of course he hasn't played it.

 

[SiC-Disaster]

We want another WW2 game because we like history and we like realism, and ROHOS will be the only "next gen" game that caters to us.

Maybe TWI will decide to make a SF game next time.

Would be cool if they could help Blackfoot Studios with Ground Branch, or even do something like they did with Killing Floor, considering they are now an Indie developer. Now that would be cool

 

[VariousNames]

Because they are making an accurately moddelled game . . not some fps with heat seeking lazer scoped smgs like other develepors have going for other time frames.

For me ww2 is the most interesting (weapons, battles etc) and also the better balance of weapons . . in modern setting everyone seems to have guns that fire walls of bullets in each direction which just ruins game play.

Um....modern weapons (small arms, I mean) are generally just marginal improvements in ballistics and internal mechanics on WWII-era firearms.

You've got the AK-47 which is mechanically and in terms of ballistics nearly identical to the STG-44. They fire nearly same round (which are each shortened versions of standard rifle cartridges for Russia and Germany) with the nearly identical muzzle velocity, weight, and energy, have the same magazine capacity, similar weight, similar length, and rate of fire.

You've got the G3 which is functionally nearly identical to the semi-automatic rifles of WWII...

You've got .45 ACP pistols same as WWII and 9x19mm pistols same as WWII, only functional difference being magazine capacity.

The only wildcards really being the removal of submachine guns and bolt-action rifles almost completely from armed forces the world over and their replacement with a standard assault rifle with LMG support and some sniper-roles in auxiliary.

Even then, compare the M249 with the MG42. The M249 fires a 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge at 750-1000 RPM. Compare this to the MG42 which fires the MUCH larger and more powerful 7.92x57mm cartridge at 1200+ RPM. Wall of lead, anyone?

The really insane stuff is the jet aircraft, modern artillery, and the frickin' absurd 3000 RPM+ stuff we mount on heavy vehicles. But we don't even use that stuff in modern warfare due to a fear of collateral damage (the Russians tend not to care, though). But even in WWI they had Big Bertha and in WWII they had experimental jet aircraft, firebombing, and flamethrowers. They even had nukes