Nikolas

Thank you for responding to my question.

If you go back and read that passage from my review, you will find that I do not claim there is no way of knowing if an objective is being taken. Rather than rewording what has already been said, I will provide quotes from the review and follow-up posts:

"...it is not enjoyable, and not immersive for the action-filled round to unexpectedly end. This is made worse by the fact that there are neither visual nor audio cues catching your attention when the objective begins to be taken."

"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 do not consider a small map appearing in the corner of my screen to be worthy of the description "something which grabs my attention" to the fact that my team is about to lose the map.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

fldash

I have stayed silent on this thread mainly due to my ability to bite my tongue and God begging me not to make an idiot of myself. However, I can do so no more. I am 100% in agreement with Strag. This kind of review posted on our forums (let alone our front page) concerning a game that SOME of us our trying to recruit for does NOT bode well for our community.

Just because the majority of people who tried RO want it to be just like BF2 and cater to their everywhim DOESN'T mean that all of us do. Some of us actually enjoy the realistic, non-arcadish features of RO and love the fact that teamwork takes actual participation by the user.

I've been working nearly every free gaming minute a have on catering to the BF2 RO players trying anything to get to see the game in a new light. It's obvious to me it's not happening. I'm fine with that, however I don't want all the players I'm actively trying to recruit to RO to be turned away because of a review from, like someone said, someone who didn't give the themselves enough time to learn the game and thus, write a fair review.

Like Apophis said, take away all the BF2 comparisons and it's not too bad of a review except for all the parts that are spoken due to a lack of knowledge of the game (such as the reviewer stating they didn't know when a objective was being taken).

My personal opinion is that no negative (only extremely objective) reviews should be allowed for games that we are currently supporting. If you don't like a game we are supporting and can't write an objective review, let someone who is actually participating in the game on Tactical Gamer write the review. I have no problem with us writing non-objective and negative views for games we don't feel our worthy of supporting. All we are doing now is dividing ourselves, shooting ourselves in the foot, and ultimately looking like a group that isn't in sync with what we are supporting and like.

__________________
It is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. Ephesians 2:8-9/NIV

Strag

In my opinion, if a team doesn't even know it's about to lose its last objective on a map, the map was lost for that team before it was ever begun.

Mateo

I'm personally of the opinion that if the situation comes to that, then I'd rather resign as head of content development, as well as from the site as a whole. If I wanted unmitigated positive reviews, and cowtowing to special interests, that's what Gamespy, IGN, and other corporate lap-dogs are for. I have way more integrity than to participate in that.

The only way that TG as an editorial voice will ever differentiate itself is through honest, direct journalism. My thoughts behind the post were that Tybalt's opinion summed up what many of the community were thinking: for one reason or another (graphics, gameplay, no crutches), it was not their cup of tea.

The generally empty RO servers, like the other truly tactical titles here, speaks volumes about where the community is at. That's an entirely different discussion.

Note that nowhere in our community do we censor negative comments about a supported game: I've seen a plethora of negative comments in BF2, RO, GR, OFP, and others throughout my time here. Even this, rather divisive review, was not deleted, but unhooked from the front page.

Now, since I did not recieve a heads up that the RO GO and admins were starting a real drive to get members, I exercised my editorial privilege and posted it. A little more communication on the GO's part would have been helpful, I think, avoiding that gaff.

fldash

I never said the review should be of the unmitigated positive type. I simply asked for an objective review where you AREN'T comparing games that aren't suppose to be similiar and mentioning things are missing from a game that aren't actually missing, when you were just ignorant of them. However, I digress. I love RO and think it's a brilliant game. I haven't played any other game since I got into the beta for it. That's my unmitigated positive review.

__________________
It is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. Ephesians 2:8-9/NIV

WhiskeySix

I wish people would stop saying this It's really not true at all. I think what you meant to say was this:

... and there are some things in this game (the first, unpatched version, mind you) that make that difficult. I don't think anyone has denied that it does have some issues? I mean Tzef, would you really be making any of these improvements if you didn't believe they would make the game better?

Oh - and, given the recruiting efforts going on, I agree that anything less than a glowing-review shouldn't be front-page material.

__________________




Reflexes are for mistakes only. Reaction implies surprise. Be surprised less.

fldash

I thought the game was fine as-is. However because I didn't want to sit in an empty server by myself, I thought I should probably look at making changes to cater to those who wanted a different game (while still allowing the game to keep it's core).

I think it's funny how you guys all say you don't want it to by like BF2, but before BF2, the team-work system it created (squads, commander, squad voip, sl -> commander voip) never existed.

__________________
It is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. Ephesians 2:8-9/NIV

WhiskeySix

Is anyone really asking for all that stuff? I know I'm not! I think its more the little things like the player-tags, etc. no?

anyway - I really appreciate the dedication and hard work you're investing in this. I'm going to keep at it... If I get clearance w/ the boss, I'll be on tonight

__________________




Reflexes are for mistakes only. Reaction implies surprise. Be surprised less.

TychoCelchuuu

Hey, I like the player tags short range like they are by default.

I think you guys are being a bit tough on Tzef. The way I see it, a negative review of a game TG supports sends a mixed message. Negative OPINIONS are perfectly fine. The problem is, Tybalt mixed his opinions in with objective review, and we got people thinking the game was bad because he thought it was bad. Obviously if TG is supporting a game, it can't be that bad; obviously we liked it enough to support it. Hopefully in the future reviews will be 100% objective, and then the discussions we have after them (like this one) can be the place where people like Tybalt and myself can discuss our varying opinions of the game.

__________________
|TG-Irr|TychoCelchuuu

Nikolas

Tzefanya,

You persist in claiming that I have made errors of fact in my review even after I have addressed this issue. Please see post #47 of this discussion. If you are still not satisfied or believe I have made other errors, please cite them. Continuing claims of factual errors without evidence besmirches your own integrity.

You have said that you want an objective review from an active member of the Red Orchestra community. As someone who continues to play Red Orchestra on a regular basis, participates in our own Red Orchestra forums, and who has already written an objective Red Orchestra review, I'd say that this has already been fulfilled.

This review is not a negative review. Please re-read it with an open mind. This review was never intended to undermine our own budding communities, nor to deter people from purchasing the game. I can assure you that I am personally very grateful of the time you dedicate to our Red Orchestra community. Many of the changes you've implemented have made the game more enjoyable and I look forward to future changes you may make.


Edit: It bothers me that people say that I don't like this game, because I do. I look forward to being a part of our Red Orchestra community, and wouldn't play a game that I don't like.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

TychoCelchuuu

Dangit, Bommando posted right when I did and I can't edit. Oh well, here we go:

Bomm, I think what you're saying is objective actually isn't. Just because you agree with something doesn't make it right. Almost every single one of the faults that Tybalt singled out are not, in my opinion, faults. You can see this in my first response to the review. I understand features of the game that people may not like, something like the VOIP or the friendly tag distance. These are, however, things I like. They are things other people I have talked to like.

__________________
|TG-Irr|TychoCelchuuu

TG_PolishBoogieman

I don't have a problem at all with the review or even the fact that it was up on the front page. A review is a review and people can take away from it what they will. I honestly think the issue lies deeper within the community, as Mateo alluded to. Maybe it's not a problem...it's just something I don't fully understand.

__________________

TychoCelchuuu

ARGH now Tybalt posted while I did, and I STILL can't edit, so I have to make ANOTHER post. Okay, once more with feeling:

To me, this sounded like you were walking along in a bright, sunny wheat field, ready to take the battle to the Fascist Germans, and suddenly you lose the game. This is not how it works for me. If I'm about to lose the game, I hear people yelling over voice comm. I see a flashing icon on my HUD, and I see a flashing icon on the overhead map. I hear my teammates telling me they need backup, I hear gunfire coming from that direction. If that's not enough for you, you can play BF2 or another game set in modern times where you have hi-tech gizmos to do your thinking for you.

__________________
|TG-Irr|TychoCelchuuu

asch

Half of what you said here isn't about the game... it's about the players. And if you look back at a few player's posts (see WhiskeySix) you'll notice that when it came to the players, the experience fell short of expectation.

Don't mix the players with the game. Tybs impression of the gaming ending abruptly without a "game" indicator that "Grabs your attention" is just that, his impression. Some may like that, others may not.

__________________
Little asch



Don't be a Help Vampire!

Nikolas

Perhaps you should re-read the source material. Again, quoting the review:

"As a Russian, it’s not unusual for the map to end abruptly right in the midst of a valiant defense of the final objective. Perhaps you’re standing right outside the “cap area,” perhaps you’re walking right into it, or maybe you’re rushing towards the objective with a group of three other soldiers. Whatever the situation, it is not enjoyable, and not immersive for the action-filled round to unexpectedly end."

Once again:

1) I do not consider a small flashing icon sufficient.
2) If you're checking the overhead map, you don't need a cue.

I've already made both of these points previously in the thread. If you must reply again, please re-read the source material first.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek