Red Orchestra Dev: CoD Has Ruined A Generation Of Gamers

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

TheComfyChair:
He's right (not the escapist extract, the whole article) to a degree. CoD is an 'easy' FPS, but a dangerous one. It tells players they could swim in the ocean in a hurricane whilst in reality they're paddling in a inflatable pool wearing water wings. So when players go to a 'real' FPS, they suddently feel like they've been dropped into the deep end without ever learning to swim, so they cling to CoD.

In the past, if you played a game, it could lead you onto other games within the genre. With CoD, you simply don't learn the skills to ever be competant elsewhere. No-one likes to feel like they've gone from being good to abysmal, even if the 'good' was only smoke, mirrors, and killstreaks.

Rather appropriate metaphor.

Add in the instant gratification and you've got CoD in a nutshell.

deathbydeath:

CardinalPiggles:
It's because it does well what 'most' fps players clamour for; fast paced and responsive gunplay that makes you feel like a badass. It's done what Doom and Quake did back in the day.

No, Doom and Quake were about 'dogfighting', really fast movement, and positioning on the map. Cawadooty is about centering your targeting reticle around a person with red text over their heads and then pushing a button. Maybe grenades and killstreaks if you're really good at that.

Take this Q3 video for instance:

And compare it to this BLOPS 2 video:

(To be fair, I haven't watched all of the BLOPS 2 one because my audio is dead right now, so I just picked it out at semi-random)

My point: Call of Duty, as a trend/phenomenon/whatever, has both done miracles and fuck over the multiplayer FPS market (at least on consoles). I admit, it is a wonderful introduction to that genre of gaming, but because of dog piling and annual releases it has stunted the expectations of MPFPS players, as they haven't been given a chance to "grow out" of it and move in to other games requiring more skill and dedication on the player's part.

Very bias examples you picked there.

"Woody the unexceptional gamer"?

Also wanted to add that deathmatch and S&D are VASTLY different in terms of pacing. Again, very bias examples.

Granted, the average Quake player is probably miles ahead in terms of pure skill than the average Call of Duty player, and yes Call of Duty stifles skill growth. But it's popular for a reason.

Waaaaaah! My game didn't sell! It's CoD's fault!

Bullshit. I can spend ALL DAY talking about how wrong he is and how CoD didn't "casualize" the genre. In fact, I almost did with my friend.

Some of you guys really ought to learn to read the source link before commenting.

Think of the Escapist News Room as a great place to find links to sites that have actual news.

I'm someone who doesn't play sniper in BF:BC2 or BF3 but I don't like COD either. Moreover, I also don't like Red Orchestra.
I just dislike game styles based around lying somewhere, waiting for someone to move their toe out of cover. But I also dislike games based around running around like a headless chicken shooting at stuff.

Because of that I liked the idea of someone further up to get rid of K/D and focus on W/L as well as objectives.
Map design should be so there are both open portions that can be defended by snipers as well as ample paths for flanking around them.
Just look at tactic games like Company of Heroes: It is at its best when people are covering vital areas with mgs or whatever and the attacker is flanking around. This is what -in my opinion- a ww2 shooter should be like, not about sitting in holes waiting for someone's toe to peek out of cover... that would be a ww1 shooter instead.

Compare it to BF3 for example, which is a lot more CoD-ish than BF2/other BF games but still has (depending on map and game mode) spots where snipers can be useful (though often are not because of sniper-player attitude). Because that is the biggest problem about snipers: Often they aren't useful, they are just holding the team back (see BF:BC2 or some modi/maps in BF3, also partially applies to other games).
And RO is simply mainly about sniping. Not much wrong with that if this is your inteded gameplay but don't be surprised if many people don't like it.
On the other hand, CoD took flanking etc. so far that tactic is largely pointless and people are indeed just running around like chicken.

But those are just my experiences with those games. I think some people might greatly enjoy things from the games I don't like and this is actually a great thing. Everyone should be able to play the way they want and if there are several games out there offering different playstyles and experiences for everyone, this is a good thing.

One thing related, though is the absolutely toxic attitude in some of those game communities.
Killed someone with a grenade launcher? Noob.
Killed someone with an automatic weapon (got forbid a shotgun)? Noob!
Killed someone with anything else than a headshot from 300+ m? Obviously a noob!
And it isn't limited to that. People are constantly bashing each other for playing (or enjoying) other games as well.
Go back to CoD, noob. Go back to BF, noob. Go back to RO, noob...
People should just stop this, as imo this hazardous atmosphere can be an even larger factor preventing people from checking out (and enjoying) other games.
I've experienced kinds of this hazardous attitude in all of those games and all it does is walling off one player base from another and sometimes even alienating parts of the player base that actually wanted to be a part of the community.

Steven Bogos:
Red Orchestra Dev: CoD Has Ruined A Generation Of Gamers

image

"It's frustrating for me as a designer to see players come in and they're literally like 'In Call of Duty it takes 0.15 seconds to go into ironsights. In Red Orchestra 2 it takes 0.17 seconds to go into ironsights. I hate this.'"

Source: PC Gamer

Permalink

OMG cats are living with dogs and the sky is falling , i am actually feeling compelled to defend COD!

Iron sighting is a crux designed to help around the fact a console control is a shite way to play a fps , its about as valid to real PC FPS multiplayer as auto aim!

Its ironic that red orchestra a game i view as being the same cancerous family as cod should come out and bitch on this subject. there both "realistic " modern shooters , cod is a no skill frag fest for sure but at least it can be fun , red orchestra is all about being camped by someone you never see , about as much fun as ramming a wire brush up your urethra.

Doom , quake, sam , painkiller,UT, TF , this is the glorious heritage of PC shooters , not crap like red orchestra

CardinalPiggles:
Very bias examples you picked there.

"Woody the unexceptional gamer"?

Also wanted to add that deathmatch and S&D are VASTLY different in terms of pacing. Again, very bias examples.

Granted, the average Quake player is probably miles ahead in terms of pure skill than the average Call of Duty player, and yes Call of Duty stifles skill growth. But it's popular for a reason.

I told you I picked out the video at random from a google search of "blops 2 gameplay". All I did was click halfway through the video for five seconds to make sure it was an fps; there was no bias. Here's the result of a search titled "professional blops 2":

Better?

Also, I know it's popular for a reason. I stated (some of) those reasons in my post: (fantastic introduction to multiplayer fps', yearly releases to prevent "growing out" of it, mirror polish,
hitting the right notes for the target audience, everybody plays it). I'm saying that the Red Orchestra Dev has a point, because gamers have "grown into" a rudimentary, simple, and very skill-less game for 6 installments over 6 years.

Ultratwinkie:
Well what did they expect?

Did they expect an iron sight bolt action sniper competition to sell well? Making 600 meter/yard shots at tiny specs that may or may not be on your team?

Not knowing where the bullet came from at all and crawling around like a survivor would in Day Z trying not to be sniped? Yeah, that's a level of hardcore not many people will put up with.

i kind of wished that with sniper elite 2. but they just made it "easier".
there is barely a long area/road where you can shot someone that far.

sniper elite nazi zombie army even goes further and flips the table with its own concept out the window.

maybe i'll give red orchesta 2 a try.

teebeeohh:

rhizhim:

teebeeohh:
did he just call fallout a shooter? because of he did he really should turn in his hardcore member card.

the new ones became more of a shooter than an rpg....

they really are not
just because of the perspective and the option to use guns is there does not make it a shooter(in the fps kinda sense)

no but the concept how you aproach and solve a mission has changed (mostly into shoot other living things in the part of their bodies that resemble a face) and you can shoot other people in real time with no particular skill or tactic.
you just have to have the bigger gun and the reflexes to shoot a NPC before he shoots you and reload faster than the other one can.

it goes pretty damn much beyond just the change of perspective.

and, really? the option to use guns? are you fucking with me? you could and sometimes had to use guns in the first fallouts so why would i try to bash on the fact that you use guns in fallout 3 and new vegas?
that would make no damn sense.

Red Orchestra is a game where you can be dying a shit ton and still do good for your team, even with a "bad K/D ratio, brah". It's really intense and well crafted. I played a lot of Call of Duty until I realized like he said, it usually breaks down to luck. It's not really immersive, the gameplay is stale now, and the engine is dated.

Korten12:
Yet... Games like Natural Selection 2, CS:GO, Arma 2 (without DayZ and probably Arma 3), and various others have been popular despite not being anything like CoD. Sure they don't have the same finanical success but still...

Hell their own Killing Floor is massively popular and that's very multiplayer centric. I mean I know it's a "zombie" shooter but still...

Quite so - I do think Red Orchestra is a very acquired taste to be honest as its very realistic, to the point where I didn't find it very fun - BUT if your into that sort of game, I'd imagine it'd be great.

Never really took to the killing floor myself either, but hey, if we were all the same the world would be inbred and quickly die off.

major_chaos:
Oh what a load of pretentious wank. I'm used to the CoD players are all morons nonsense from forum goers but its just sad to hear it from an actual dev. As someone who enjoys CoD at times (not that much mind you, I traded in BLOPS2 for some credit to buy Dead Space 3) what turned me away from buying RO2 wasn't that "its not CoD" or some nonsense abut iron sights, it was that it seemed a bit too much like real WW2 city fighting: Slow, and likely to end suddenly with a instantly fatal bullet from someone you never saw.

It would be nice if people could both respect what a dev says and also actually listen to what they say.

He isn't calling COD players "morons". If anything he is calling them spoiled or like people addicted to slot-machines, they are conditioned to have easy victories that don't value skill, just the illusion of skill.

And I totally agree with him. COD doesn't have anything like the skill set, it's a frustratingly shallow game to spite all the surface complexity like so many different guns.

Slayer_2:
Red Orchestra is a game where you can be dying a shit ton and still do good for your team, even with a "bad K/D ratio, brah". It's really intense and well crafted. I played a lot of Call of Duty until I realized like he said, it usually breaks down to luck. It's not really immersive, the gameplay is stale now, and the engine is dated.

Luck, that's because you're noob ahahahah.

I agree with MW2 and MW33, it was just too random, but Cod 1,2 4, WaW and Black Ops not really. Specially Cod2.

He's right. COD multiplayer is basically a fisherprice my first FPS game. When I played Modern Warfare 2 a great deal, the community were bitching over how 'overpowered' the air killstreaks were - yet you could select a series of perks that would completely nullify all of them with the exception of bombing runs and the initial harrier airstrike. I found it most amusing that they lambasted the game instead of looking into the mechanics of the game they were playing and work the problem.

Fuck instant gratification.

Maybe it's been too long since I last played RO2 and perhaps they've changed it, but the reason I never got into it was because it felt too much LIKE CoD. Everything from the faster pacing, weapon unlocks, smaller maps, and all that junk made me feel like they were trying to be CoD rather than sticking to the forumla that made the original RO good.

major_chaos:
Oh what a load of pretentious wank. I'm used to the CoD players are all morons nonsense from forum goers but its just sad to hear it from an actual dev. As someone who enjoys CoD at times (not that much mind you, I traded in BLOPS2 for some credit to buy Dead Space 3) what turned me away from buying RO2 wasn't that "its not CoD" or some nonsense abut iron sights, it was that it seemed a bit too much like real WW2 city fighting: Slow, and likely to end suddenly with a instantly fatal bullet from someone you never saw.

From what I can gather his actual problem with COD is how random it is and how much it closes the skill gap - which, as a COD player for many years now, I can completely agree with.

anian:
I'm no CoD supporter/fanboy etc., but their map design is reeeeeeally good. And the action is not so much flinch trigger based, as say CS:GO...CoD games just have really good gameplay.
And playtesting with people who's comment in the end is "It's not like CoD", is idiotic and may indicate what your problem is.

Yeah... COD is not about "flinch" as in needing to have good aim, it's not about skill, it's about random encounters, whoever sees the other first, with all likelihood gets the kill. It's slot machine taking turns killing each other, you only have the illusion of control offer your destiny, like maybe if you pull on the One-armed-bandit just right you can get the result you want. You can camp, you can rush, but really it hardly matters what weapon or perks you have, it's ultimately just a huge hide and seek contest.

Games like TF2 or Quake have in depth strategy of engagement of counters and manoeuvres, there are pages and pages of strategy. But COD all that's irrelevant to who sees the other first, the weapons are so accurate and powerful, it's little more than a game of hide and seek. COD has to be the most terminally boring spectator game.

People can play COD drunk, high or while watching a TV show. It's faux-hardcore, it's casual dressed up in the clothing and pretences of modern soldiers and military equipment.

Now I'll admit, Red Orchestra is kind of throwing the typical COD player way in at the deep end... but the problem is a serious disconnect between what COD players claim to want and what they actually want. There is this huge problem with a generation engineered to play multiplayer without any kind of deep strategy... they fall for BS distinctions between the weapons that are near identical.

Where do you go from there? People get their "kills" without trying.

Well, tough titties. I'd rather have games where newbies can actually stand a chance instead of them being fodder to feed the "hardcore" gamers ego's. But as soon as you level the playing field somewhat it's all "whaaa casuals!"

Tools.

DSK-:
He's right. COD multiplayer is basically a fisherprice my first FPS game. When I played Modern Warfare 2 a great deal, the community were bitching over how 'overpowered' the air killstreaks were - yet you could select a series of perks that would completely nullify all of them with the exception of bombing runs and the initial harrier airstrike. I found it most amusing that they lambasted the game instead of looking into the mechanics of the game they were playing and work the problem.

But everyone... EVERYONE, went for Stopping power.

Because they didn't trust their own damn aim, even though stock weapons fired really REALLY fast (15 rounds per second) with a 4 hit kill, 4 hits with a hitscan-minigun wasn't easy enough. It had to be 3 shot kill, 2 hit kill if either of the rounds hits the head.

And of course with Stopping power removed in the next game, everyone used the very perk you described that makes immune from both kill-streaks and makes you hard to see on account of player models usually wearing camouflage... this makes the nametags a practical necessity.

This is the problem, COD wants it both ways. It want the superficiality of real war, but even that runs things as simple camouflage is so effective that is favours the camper incredibly. This is why wars sucks, war is getting killed by someone you never even saw nor had a chance to react to. The nametag that has no real community purpose, there is no way people stop to read the name of the person they are shooting, it's just a big giant red bullseye.

Most shooters before this if they didn't want "The suck" of war, didn't try to copy real war, they make their shooters sci-fi/fantasy based like Quake, Unreal or TF2.

But COD gives the pretence of being a serious hardcore game. It sure seems hardcore with the super-serial voice acting, dramatic 24-style music score, and all the military surplus you could shake a stick at.

Yet youtube commentators will complain bitterly that the enemy uses a perk where they are not displayed on a minimap nor highlighted with a bullseye... it's considered unfair. Well, that's war. That's what all these fancy Tactical gear is about, in the end some insurgent can squat in a corner and blast you as you walk by. If you don't like that, then you shouldn't like all this tactical modern-war crap.

Does that make you a pacifist? No. That makes you a realist to know war is hideously unfair.

If your playtesters are noticing the difference between .15 and .17 seconds, I'd say we're talking about a pretty hardcore crowd.

Well of course an inaccessible game that defines itself as "hardcore" has a limited audience while the big bucks production that is specifically designed to be blockbuster makes the money. Call of Duty is the best selling game for a reason - the Activision execs know how to make sales. This guy is trying to blame the fact that his niche product isn't a best seller on the fact that another game is.

I'm not CoD fanboy - I've played one installment and didn't feel the mostly identical annual updates were worth $60 a pop; but those guys know what they're doing; they're making money and they're good at it.

Andy of Comix Inc:
The maps are too small to provide any real tactical opportunity and it usually boils down to whoever is seen first gets killed first. Games with larger health bars provide a degree of tactical gunfighting... games like CS:GO where perma-death is switched on every round encourage more careful, meditative play...

Call of Duty is a popcorn shooter, a game where you can switch it on and get points and unlock weapons and level up. Which is fine! That's cool! Nothing against that! But to say CoD has depth is blatantly untrue.

CoD has perma-death in its Search & Destroy game mode.

I generally play CoD in the Hardcore lobbies, where bullet damage is increased and there's no on-screen UI, killcams or minimap unless you have a UAV up. The gameplay style is a lot slower and more methodical, because run-n-gun kiddies tend to get weeded out pretty fast. Search & Destroy, even more so. I'm decent in Hardcore TDM and Kill Confirmed, but tend to get my stuff wrecked when I venture into Demolition or Domination, because the style is different, and the people in those lobbies are a lot more practiced at it than I am.

And that's my point: depth in CoD - which you fairly identify as a popcorn game - comes from this variety in game types and play styles. To the point that Battlefield, CoD's primary competitor, whose players like to think of it as the anti-CoD, put out their Close Quarters expansion which copies a lot of CoD's game types. People think CoD is all about Core TDM kiddies because that's what's on YouTube, but the actual game is more than that.

I will agree with you on the tiny map sizes, though, especially in BO2. I don't know why they even put sniper rifles in that game.

I see a lot of people here claiming that CoD takes no skill. Wrong. CoD has a low barrier for entry, that's why it's popular. When you have to devote a huge amount of your time to learning how to game's conventions actually relates to player action (I.E. the way things are intended to work in compared to what people actually do) then people get turned off. CoD is a good introduction because when you shoot someone, they die. You don't need to memorize camping locations, what weapons to spam, or sigh with irritation because 99% of the game is fucking redundant because one particular thing absolutly dominates the entire game. As a side note get off your fucking high-horses. Just because people don't share your taste in games doesn't make them inferior. No one here is an arbiter of games with the power to say what is "better" or (god preserve us) "real".

So in conclusion; when you bitch because people don't take the time to wade through miles of frustrating bullshit to become even mildly proficient at your game, they aren't spoiled. You design games that require an investment of time that most people aren't willing to put forward.

EDIT: After reading the actual article I must say, this guy's tears are fucking delectable. Like a diamond goblet of the finest ambrosia imbuing each of my taste buds with the fiery grace of aphrodite herself. His entire argument amounts to this "I made a game based on what I consider fun. When I showed this to other people they didn't think it was as fun as a game they had fun with. They are stupid." Delicious.

rhizhim:

no but the concept how you aproach and solve a mission has changed (mostly into shoot other living things in the part of their bodies that resemble a face) and you can shoot other people in real time with no particular skill or tactic.
you just have to have the bigger gun and the reflexes to shoot a NPC before he shoots you and reload faster than the other one can.

it goes pretty damn much beyond just the change of perspective.

and, really? the option to use guns? are you fucking with me? you could and sometimes had to use guns in the first fallouts so why would i try to bash on the fact that you use guns in fallout 3 and new vegas?
that would make no damn sense.

my point was that just because you shoot guns in the first person perspective the game is not a shooter. The weapon handling in fallout is also dependent on not just your ability to click at the right spot on the enemy but also on your characters ability to shoot. Reflexes are really not that important in fallout since the AI usually walk straight towards you and if they don't you can stop time in order to spot them. having the better gun and perks is much more important than being able to shoot better.
I also find the fact that you use the word "mission" in fallout weird since it doesn't really fit, a mission is when you are a soldier and your CO gives you order, when you are just wandering around and people dump all their problem onto you to solve it's called a quest because you clearly are the protagonist in an RPG.

also yes, every change from the old fallout to the new can be traced directly to the change of perspective.

I find CoD boring as hell, but honestly, Red Orchestra isn't any better either. I like my FPS both fast paced and skill based. RO is too damn slow and way too realistic to be fun. Which is why I still play Counter-Strike 1.6 and Quake 3 to this day. Hands down best skill based FPS games ever made.

Um...how is it different from Call of Duty's multiplayer? I'm serious because he didn't list anything that's different, save for that small time difference at the end there. I ask because everything seems like Call of Duty multiplayer to me. Okay, granted, I've only played Modern Warfare 2, Halo 4, a bit of MW3, World At War, and barely any Black Ops. Tried both Medal of Honor games too. But from what I've seen, all multiplayer shooters boil down to running around killing each other and they all felt exactly the same.
Now I get extremely bored with multiplayer--except MW2 because I could be an actual sniper--rather quickly, so I don't know the differences between games except that Halo 4 lets you jump really high. So how is Red Orchestra 2 different?

Wait what?, I can't hear you due to so many spinfusors flying past me while I furiously go full speed trying to deliver my flag in Tribes: Ascend.

albino boo:
I think Tripwire are misdiagnosing the problem here. I have 615 hours logged on RO2 and the problems the game has is the same problem as you find in all team based muiltplayer fps. The key is the ratio of players willing to attack/defend objectives versus the number that are only concerned about K/D. In R02 too many players spawn and plink at targets with an MP40 and never stand on the point. There is also the attitude, carried over from RO1, that anyone using an automatic weapon is a noob and because you don't repeatedly stand in the same spot and duel with a rifle makes you a bad player. The idea that you might move and flank and score more kills never occurs to them. So the issue, in part, comes down to map design, I know they are using historical places for RO2 but that doesn't stop moving objectives about to incentivise the player to go there. The other thing that tripwire could do is look at is the scoring system, if you don't record the K/D stat, how many players would try to maximise it? If you reward having a high win/loose stat, more players would concentrate on maxing that. For the record my k/d is 1.67 and win/loose is 2.89, so I practice what I preach.

Wow you read my mind when it came to RO2. I liked the game a lot but the problems you listed are why I quit it long ago. I was so sad too because I had REALLY high hopes for RO2. Sadly trying to blend some casual elements made it bland.

Can't it be said that the popularity of CoD and the attempts of AAA developers to mimic it just creates a potentially wildly successful niche market for hardcore FPS's? Natural Selection 2 is doing pretty well, and it doesn't have a trace of COD - if you run around trying to improve your K/D ratio you will A) get yelled at by your commander for being useless, or more likely B) get murdered because you decided to split up from your team.

TF2 seems to be this generations Quake, as in it's a wild, kinetic shooter that's easy to pick up but does in fact have a high skill ceiling. Hell, Tribes: Ascend was doing great at first since it offered a speed that you don't see FPS's live up to today, and in my opinion the developers are to blame for it losing popularity because they mucked it up.

So, yeah, COD is FPS candy, but it's attracting people that wouldn't have put in the time to master a more difficult FPS anyway.

GAunderrated:

albino boo:
I think Tripwire are misdiagnosing the problem here. I have 615 hours logged on RO2 and the problems the game has is the same problem as you find in all team based muiltplayer fps. The key is the ratio of players willing to attack/defend objectives versus the number that are only concerned about K/D. In R02 too many players spawn and plink at targets with an MP40 and never stand on the point. There is also the attitude, carried over from RO1, that anyone using an automatic weapon is a noob and because you don't repeatedly stand in the same spot and duel with a rifle makes you a bad player. The idea that you might move and flank and score more kills never occurs to them. So the issue, in part, comes down to map design, I know they are using historical places for RO2 but that doesn't stop moving objectives about to incentivise the player to go there. The other thing that tripwire could do is look at is the scoring system, if you don't record the K/D stat, how many players would try to maximise it? If you reward having a high win/loose stat, more players would concentrate on maxing that. For the record my k/d is 1.67 and win/loose is 2.89, so I practice what I preach.

Wow you read my mind when it came to RO2. I liked the game a lot but the problems you listed are why I quit it long ago. I was so sad too because I had REALLY high hopes for RO2. Sadly trying to blend some casual elements made it bland.

Same here.
I wish they'd give us une more iteration, though. I really miss WWII games AND tactical shooters.

Seriously, I still haven't figured out how a FPS can even work on a console, without a mouse controller. Just thinking about playing a shooter on a gamepad makes me cringe.

Red Orchestra caters to a very specific crowd, and I can understand intimidation on part of the developer for that game not selling very well at all. It is a very hard game and has a steep learning curve. It takes a long time to make a kill, it takes a long time to cross a small plot of land, it takes a long time to even die. In CoD, you just hit the respawn key. Bullets travel in an arc and all guns behave differently. Center of gravity plays a role in all of the physics. It is a lot of stuff and there are a lot of people would rather play something that does not take so much thinking and planning and patience and timing and many other things.

It's sad, but I don't blame CoD, not completely anyway.

Tiamat666:
Seriously, I still haven't figured out how a FPS can even work on a console, without a mouse controller. Just thinking about playing a shooter on a gamepad makes me cringe.

Aim assist.

I don't think he's right. CoD is really just a pick up and play game that enticed non-gamers into playing games. Those new gamers wouldn't have wanted to play RO2 if it was the only shooter available. All he's bitching about is an audience that would never have existed without CoD.

RO2 is shit. It's boring as fuck and not at all satisfying. It doesn't take as much skill/thought as he thinks it does. He needs to get off of his highhorse.

Btw, not defending CoD, it's shit, too. But a totally different pile of shit.

Sniper Team 4:
Um...how is it different from Call of Duty's multiplayer? I'm serious because he didn't list anything that's different, save for that small time difference at the end there. I ask because everything seems like Call of Duty multiplayer to me. Okay, granted, I've only played Modern Warfare 2, Halo 4, a bit of MW3, World At War, and barely any Black Ops. Tried both Medal of Honor games too. But from what I've seen, all multiplayer shooters boil down to running around killing each other and they all felt exactly the same.
Now I get extremely bored with multiplayer--except MW2 because I could be an actual sniper--rather quickly, so I don't know the differences between games except that Halo 4 lets you jump really high. So how is Red Orchestra 2 different?

If you want a game where you can be an actual sniper, you should check out Battlefield 3. The maps are huge and there are plenty of places to hide and watch your prey. Also getting a headshot from a long ways away is a great feeling, especially when you take into account bullet drop.

Longest headshot in BF3 for me was 1199m. For those of you reading this who have played BF3, I was sitting on top of the mountain near where the US side spawns in conquest on Operation Firestorm, and picked off a Russian player who was still in their base. I almost couldn't believe it.

To all of those people saying COD takes no skill there are plenty of tournaments that give out thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Go sign up and win some it's free money!

In all seriousness there is a difference between realism and fun. COD will happily toss aside realism if it makes the game more fun, where RO2 will happily trample all over fun for the sake of realism.

COD is the arena shooter of this generation. It has great hit detection, small/medium sized maps, quick movement, and well balanced weapons.

RO2 is the niche realism type of game which isn't even the best in its genre with ARMA and a few others beating it out in popularity. Do you want to move slowly around a giant map struggling to find someone and getting shot after 5 minutes of wandering around without ever seeing the opponent? Do you want a cover system that sucks? How about a game which makes it extremely difficult to tell friends from foe since from far away both uniforms look the same? How about bullet drop that sounds like a needed feature. Oh you want tanks we have those! You just have to load each round into the barrel by hand.

Wow. So much unwarranted hate for the RO series here.

The real problem here isn't that RO is a bad game, the problem was trying to appeal to the COD/BF crowd. As insane as it might sound, some people do like trying a bit more realistic games once and in a while.

Then again, judging from what Ive gathered so far, realism is like a curse word on the escapist.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here