the developpers should had only improved the graphics and made new maps.
thats my opinion.
(sorry for bad english)
thats my opinion.
(sorry for bad english)
you better did...
- Thread starter OnbekendeSoldaat
- Start date
There will be new maps. And to be honest, Red Orchestra 2 has better graphics in general than Battlefield 3. It's just that battlefield's shaders tend to cameoflage the many low polygon items. The shaders of battlefield give me eye fatigue pretty fast, even playing Quake at around 700 ups(speed of moving) doesn't get me tired so fast.
And then people will complain that they have to pay $40 for what is basically a map pack with improved graphics.
There is no way to win.
There is no way to win.
Exactly and I wouldn't have been impressed and probably wouldn't have bought RO2 if it was just going to be a carbon copy of RO1.... what would be the point?
People complain about how RO2 "is like CoD/BF" yet if they carbon copied RO1 and just released the exact same game but with fancier graphics, then we'd have even more people coming into these forums and dishing out more CoD/BF comparisons..... but in that case, they'd be right.
Even if they made RO2 more like Darkest Hour, I wouldn't have bought it simply because I wasn't impressed with DH or RO1 and RO1 was a huge disappointment & not a true sequel to the RO Mod.
Way too sluggish, weapon sway/recoil was ridiculous, maps were way too large compared to the amount of players on the server, tanks were absolute crap, the Panzer was a death trap and destroyed by just about everything else on the map in one hit so everybody avoided using them unless they had nothing else to pick from..... running seemed slower, regenerating your stanima took longer, etc. etc....
It's a fact that not many of us like, but games must change. Without change there is only stagnation. You keep recycling the same game over and over, and you end up with the Modern Warfare series.