Originally Posted by TychoCelchuuu

I think the main reason this game was not adopted by TG was the same reason it's not being adopted by the entire world: the realism. Too many people have grown accustomed to Battlefield 2 and the UI that does all the work for you. People were asking for mutators to increase the distance you could read your teammates names, sintead of asking "who is over there." People were complaining that the overhead map didn't show your teammates. People wanted a built in squad system so they didn't have to organize themselves. The lack of specific "go here" orders meant people felt directionless. They wanted it to be explicitly clear when an objective was going down instead of having to ask their teammates. Basically, I think that RO made us do too much and the game do too little for many Tactical Gamer's tastes.

Originally Posted by Clodhopper

Anyways, what I ment for this thread was... even the public servers for this game seem tactical (aside from a few) because the game just demands it. I think the reason the majority of TGers don't like the game as there is No chance of runnin' n gunnin' action

I would disagree with this statement. I'm one that is for more realism in a game. I think RO had some great features that gave a realistic experience. I think there were some bugs or missing features that detracted from realism.

I don't know if it was a bug or feature, but in my case the name tags only appeared above the teammates head when I was three feet away looking directly at them. To me that is not realistic. I should be able to recognize a teammates face up to a certain distance. Now that distance can be debated, but I would wager most people can recognize a teammate twenty yards out.

The problem this caused was with communication. I should be able to look to my left and see "Bob" standing fifteen feet away. I know I can call out to "Bob". However, if I can't see that name tag then I have no idea who's there. More time was spent figuring out who was who than in organization.

Ok, so there's one instance where I felt the game didn't have the necessary realism and it detracted from the game play.... at least for me.

Another example you cited is the "go here" feature. I equate something like this to the physical action of pointing. If I'm trying to tell my troops to go to a certain point, I should have to always verbally communicate a direction and distance or a landmark. The act of hand signals with minimal verbiage is lacking in the game.... and the "go here" feature handles this well.

The other feature I want to mention is the squad feature. Yes, this is something that the bf2 world enjoys and I think it is one thing that has led to the success of the game. I understand that based on the era of the game, this may or may not be a realistic feature... so let's assume in all cases that it's not.

What this unrealistic feature does is increase the ease by which teamwork can occur. When you take a game of this magnitude (i.e. lots of players) and toss them into an environment to run around, teamwork is something that requires a lot of effort. Not that this is wrong or right... it just does. Organizing 20+ players on one team to work together is hard.... let alone providing some command structure. BF2 provided this nifty little feature that made it incredibly easy for the non-TG pubby to jump into the TG teamwork. The command structure was there.

So there's an example of a (possible) unrealistic feature that led to the success of one game and not the other.

---

Now with all of these features there is a case that it's realistic and it's not realistic. It can be debated whether it's hand holding players or it's not. It can be argued that a player has to do more in the game than they would in real life and vice versa.

In the end, I personally felt this game was hyped up incorrectly. It was touted as the BF2 killer, when in actuality it was just a different game. It offered some very cool realistic features that I wish I existed in BF2. But what it lacked for me was the enjoyment of teamwork and communication. We can say that all the tools were there for it but apparently something was lacking.