Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45 - Page 2

NCman · 04-01-2006, 03:52 PM

There's an icon at the bottom of the screen that flashes when an objective an objective is changing it's status. If you only have ONE objective left - the one that will end the game - it's fairly easy to assume if the icon is flashing, you're about to lose that objective.

I'm totally not understanding what is hard about that. Icon flashes, if I need to I scan the map, see which one is going down, react. If we only have one objective left, I'm *already* there defending it to *prevent* it from going down in the first place - or I'm moving to it.

Red · 04-01-2006, 05:11 PM

Thanks for the review, Tybalt. I though it was a pretty fair review and a good review and goes with what I have read from other players. You still say that if battlefield 2 did not exist this would be the game. I will pass on this game as for what I heard its to realistic and slow for my taste, yes a game can be to realistic. I like realism but , fun and teamplay comes first for me.

We need to keep working on that tac mod though..

And then put that and forgoten hope 2 togheter then we have something.

D6Veteran · 04-01-2006, 06:24 PM

Nice review xTYBALTx. I don't agree that BF2 provides better teamplay right out of the box. A community familar with a game and the rules of play on a server are the crucial difference between a BF2 game that is all TR or all RnG. That's goes for every game imo.

TychoCelchuuu · 04-01-2006, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

There seems to be some misunderstanding over precisely what I meant in regards to cues related to the final objective of a map being taken. In a game which places the utmost priority on capturing objectives, to the extent that once the final objective is captured the map immediately ends, I would expect a cue to notify me when the objective is in the process of falling.

Sure, I can call up a map to see if the objective is contested, but if I already have reason to check the map, then I don't need a cue. Something along the lines of "Get moving soldier! We're about to lose control of the Reichstag!" would be quite appropriate.

When my team is about to lose control of an objective upon which victory is decided, I want my attention grabbed and drawn towards it.

I think this is another example where you want the game to do the work for you, instead of yourself or your teammates. In Battlefield 2, you'll get a magical voice that radios in no matter where you are and tells you you're losing a point. World War 2 doesn't work like that. If you want to know if the enemy is taking your last objective, ask someone. Say "is anyone at the last objective? Is it clear?" We work as a TEAM here at Tactical Gamer! We need COMMUNICATION! You can't just expect everything to be handed to you on a platter! If you're playing a game of capture the flag in Unreal Tournament, you don't want the game to stick a timer at the top of your screen, and when it hits zero everyone on your team hears "okay rush the flag!" from some computerized voice. Your strategies, your tactics, your movements, should not be dicatated to you by a flashing icon or a zippy sound. You should talk, understand, listen, and coordinate. A game that does these things for you is trying to take the emphasis off your teammates, so you can go and do stuff on your own without having to bother with your team.

Red · 04-01-2006, 08:12 PM

We have an expression at work. KISS.... Keep it simple stupid... A computer game can enhance the teamplay with HUDs etc, why shouldnt a game use it. I dont see why this removes from a good game or good teamplay. They you can focus on the tactics instead of everybody trying to ask you whats going on.

Red · 04-01-2006, 08:15 PM

Could not edit so missed one point. I have to say I still think Battlefield 2 might make it to easy and havent played RO. But a good minimap/HUD + communication is both good for teamplay.

TychoCelchuuu · 04-01-2006, 11:22 PM

That's not the way I look at it. A good HUD makes you rely less on your team and more on your fancy doodads. If I can look at my map to tell me where all my friends and half my enemies are, why do I even bother asking anybody? If I have a UAV in the air showing where the enemy is going, why bother asking my teammates what they think is going on? If I can instantly check the status of the defense or offense anywhere on the map, why would I care what my teammate has to say? Sure, maybe he's yelling "I need backup," but he's got 4 people. He'll be fine.

These things you're talking about: souped up HUDs, magical super-communication, they're not beneficial for teamplay any more than helicopters are beneficial for teamplay. In World War 2, in Red Orchestra, if you want to know how the defense is going on the east, ASK YOUR TEAMMATES!!!! That is 10 times the teamwork that you get in Battlefield 2 where you can leave it to the UAV and the satellite scans to do your teamwork for you.

Bananajuice · 04-02-2006, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedBane

I will pass on this game as for what I heard its to realistic and slow for my taste, yes a game can be to realistic. I like realism but , fun and teamplay comes first for me.

for 24 bucks and a little time. This game is worth it and is worth a try for yourself. its not really slow at all, well the tank maps are somewhat slow at times

but most of the gameplay is not

TychoCelchuuu · 04-02-2006, 11:53 AM

Tac Mod's slower, I believe, but I can see how someone would think RO is slow.

Red · 04-02-2006, 01:31 PM

I dont want this to turn into a HUD discussion, but it as intersting subject. I agree that a HUD can also remove communciation and that UAV and seeing the whole map in battlefield is limiting tactical options. But at the same time used right the HUD can increase the SL and commanders use of tactics as they can easier know whats going on and be able to respond to it. Used right HUD can improve tactics and cohession. I dont think a HUD is mandatoy for game but at the same time I dont think it removes all the tactics from the game either. I just think it is furstrating for a lot of people to play a computer game and not know whats going on, yes it realistic but is it fun?

One thing I have realized when playing a lot of computer games is that fact that I like to know whats going on and see cause and affect clearly, the best game does this well bad games dont. If not the game gets frustrating and simply not fun. I am not saying this about RO as I havent played it, this is more a general comment.

As with everything, if it is used the right way..........

Bananajuice · 04-02-2006, 01:45 PM

in RO, I have the hud off and just have to compass on. more space to see the action

Wolfseven · 04-03-2006, 10:06 AM

Wow!I have never seen so many why, why why; Why I tell you It's his review (opinion) not your's. Why don't you do you own version?

|Pz505|Heinz · 04-03-2006, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TychoCelchuuu

I think this is another example where you want the game to do the work for you, instead of yourself or your teammates. In Battlefield 2, you'll get a magical voice that radios in no matter where you are and tells you you're losing a point. World War 2 doesn't work like that. If you want to know if the enemy is taking your last objective, ask someone. Say "is anyone at the last objective? Is it clear?" We work as a TEAM here at Tactical Gamer! We need COMMUNICATION! You can't just expect everything to be handed to you on a platter! If you're playing a game of capture the flag in Unreal Tournament, you don't want the game to stick a timer at the top of your screen, and when it hits zero everyone on your team hears "okay rush the flag!" from some computerized voice. Your strategies, your tactics, your movements, should not be dicatated to you by a flashing icon or a zippy sound. You should talk, understand, listen, and coordinate. A game that does these things for you is trying to take the emphasis off your teammates, so you can go and do stuff on your own without having to bother with your team.

I mean, think about it. You want the game to make it super duper mega-explicitly clear that you're losing that last point, beyond a flashing icon on your HUD and a flashing flag on the map. That's not the game's job, man! That's for you and your teammates to figure out, by working together.

exactly. RO's got all the tools present for some great team work right out of the box. this is so, largely because of the player base it attracts. so the combined effect of the player base and the game play make for more team work right out of the box. BF2, with all it's "technology" for assisting team work, has a player base, for the most part, that does not even know how to spell team work. I am sure it's different for you guys on the TG servers, where you have an established player base.

RO is a breath of fresh air for alot of us. When I look back on all my BF2 hours-played, it seems so much more "gamey" to me, more of a game as compared to RO, whereas RO is more of a simulation of sorts. it's THAT realistic. it's just awesome.

I get the feeling half of the people that don't like it have just not played enough. have not learned the functions and game tools adequately. have not played the maps enough, etc. you get the idea. i have probably played it in excess of 55 hours, and am still learning all the aspects of the maps and strategies. it's that deep.

sometimes I feel like the gaming community I used to know was taken hostage, and now is populated mostly by strange aliens. there are a few of us left, who "get it", but the rest, I don't know.

I mean, IMO, this game should be filling thousands of servers, it's that good. Better than any of it's infantry combat predecessors by far (the MOH's the CoD's, etc.)

I just don't understand. But at least I know, that for the near future, there will be alot of fun to be had playing the best WWII shooter I've ever played.

TychoCelchuuu · 04-03-2006, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfseven

Wow!I have never seen so many why, why why; Why I tell you It's his review (opinion) not your's. Why don't you do you own version?

It's NOT just his opinion. There's a difference. A review of a game is supposed to be objective; regardless of how the reviewer feels about the game and whether they're good at it or not or whether they enjoy it our not, it's their job to tell YOU how much you are going to like it. The reviewer, for example, said he didn't like Kaukasus because it was hard to take the monastery and left it at that. Now, Kaukasus is one of my favorite maps. In fact, I've talked to a lot of people who say the same thing. If you read his review before you bought the game, you might think that you would not enjoy playing Kaukasus. Odds are, it would actuall be your favorite map.

Now I realize Tybalt doesn't like RO as much as BF2, for a number of reasons (like his partial inability to use the map). That's his prerogative. He can think whatever he wants about the game. But when he purports to be an objective reviewer but leaves out things like the cover system, I can't sit by and let that stand. Reviews ought to be objective, but Tybalt left out most of the good things about Red Orchestra and blamed it for features that he did not completely understand.

perry · 04-03-2006, 02:51 PM

Why was this removed from the game review section and the front page?

TychoCelchuuu, where is your review? You can disagree with the opinions offered in the review, but flaming the author is pretty damn rude.