Infantry is definitely the better aspect of the game. In saying that, I absolutely love tanking and CA maps though.
You'd be stupid not to get it either way.
You'd be stupid not to get it either way.
Will you guys buy RO:HOS if there are no tanks?
- Thread starter shea
- Start date
- Status
You guys who just like infantry maps thats fine,just stick to infantry maps then so,but i dont see why people who like combined arms and tank maps should be left out,I will NOT buy this game if there are no tanks, as combined arms to me are the best fun of all,IMHO tripwire should be listening to the people who may buy the game and what they would like to see implemented into the game.
Last edited:
Choice is a wonderful thing, in RO TWI gave us all the choice of which kind of gameplay we liked to play the most.
They should carry this over into HoS, and give players the opportunity to choose which type of gameplay they prefer, to not do so would alienate about 25% of the current ppl who voted in this poll,
To not include tanks (whether you like them or not) would not be in keeping with the so-called "realism" aspect of the game,and the battle for Stalingrad.
They should carry this over into HoS, and give players the opportunity to choose which type of gameplay they prefer, to not do so would alienate about 25% of the current ppl who voted in this poll,
To not include tanks (whether you like them or not) would not be in keeping with the so-called "realism" aspect of the game,and the battle for Stalingrad.
Last edited:
Not going one way or the other here, but the argument here seems to be "if we don't have tanks, it isn't realistic".
So because we don't have planes, or boats the game will also not be realistic by this reasoning
Focusing on a single aspect of a battle does not make a game unrealistic.
So because we don't have planes, or boats the game will also not be realistic by this reasoning
Focusing on a single aspect of a battle does not make a game unrealistic.
That means that TWI needs to make flyable Ju87sNot going one way or the other here, but the argument here seems to be "if we don't have tanks, it isn't realistic".
So because we don't have planes, or boats the game will also not be realistic by this reasoning
We dont expect planes or boats buts tanks made RO1 and without them RO:HOS would not be the same at all,Why cant you guys just tell us if there is or isnt gonna be tanks implemented into the game,its a simple question?
Not going one way or the other here, but the argument here seems to be "if we don't have tanks, it isn't realistic".
So because we don't have planes, or boats the game will also not be realistic by this reasoning
i'm thinking that most people playing the "realism card" are basing their stance of "historically accurate" (i.e. tanks were present throughout the campaign and did have significant impact on the battle, therefore they should be included) while still keeping in perspective the effects of what is "realistic" in terms of gamplay.......anyone who knows what core RO gameplay is like would see that tanks can work in the game, whereas it'd be rediculous to suggest that players can fly planes in the game, thus there only being what, one (?) thread suggesting crewable planes? (and it was not met with any positive feedback) granted that's going off the assumption that the core gameplay of ROHOS will be very similar to the core gameplay of ROOST.......maybe you guys plan on supporting huge maps with 50v50 battles where planes could actually be used
oh, and by that basic line of reasoning, so far from all the screenshots we've seen, we've not seen ANY maps with a winter/snow setting........would that mean that if ROHOS doesn't include "snow maps" then the game would be "unrealistic" since having only spring/summer maps would also be focusing on only "one aspect of a battle" (from an environmental aspect that is)?
point is that people have expectations of what to see in the game, and since ROOST included tanks/vehicles as part of the core gameplay, one would expect to see tanks (at the very least vehicles) in the game due to the fact that from a historical standpoint, they are relevant. it's simply the counter to the arguement some present stating that "there is no need for tanks to be in the game because they had no real impact on the campaign"......which would not be a "realistic" conclusion
Last edited:
Jesus, it's a business to them , get some perspective and try see things from their point of view. They can't go spitting info left and right everywhere whenever some random dude asks.. HENCE not just a simple question.
Keep in mind, the only real boycott is not buying a game. Once you've bought it, you loose. Refusing to play after the fact makes little to no difference at all. Secondly, if people take a stance, they damn well should stick to it and not waffle and cave.
*The preceding commentary does not support, endorse, encourage, nor condone in any way a boycott or other action against TWI in order to wrest the twisted panties from the crotch of one or more a$$hat-ed users with entitlement issues. Just saying.*
*The preceding commentary does not support, endorse, encourage, nor condone in any way a boycott or other action against TWI in order to wrest the twisted panties from the crotch of one or more a$$hat-ed users with entitlement issues. Just saying.*
Last edited:
"Our boycott isn't against the game ITSELF, it's against the values that we just decided we don't share with (insert tyrannical game producer here) now that the game is out. Just because we boycotted it doesn't mean we can't play the game."
Same thing happened to L4D2. Kinda sad, really.
Same thing happened to L4D2. Kinda sad, really.
- Status