Heroes of Stalingrad thread

M

Matt-aka-FAST

TBG Founder
Leadership
Donator
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
25,729
Age
37
pcgamer-1101.jpeg

From their lead developer
Many people have been asking when there will be more press coverage on RO2. Well you asked for more RO2 press coverage, you got it. The new issue of PC Gamer US (January 2011) hitting subscribers now has a massive 5 page article discussing their world exclusive hands on multiplayer play test of RO2. Also included in the article are exclusive new screenshots and information. The game is called out on the cover saying "Shellshocker: Why Red Orchestra 2 will beat Call of Duty: Black Ops." So if you can't tell by the headline, they were impressed during their time with the game Here is what the cover looks like so you can pick up the mag if you don't already subscribe:
Click to expand...

Ok I was going to stay out of the debate this headline was going to cause, but I'll have to sound off on this one. I'm a pretty realistic guy. I know we're making a great game, because I've played it, and I've seen the faces of the press people that have played it, and I've heard their audible gasps when they see a new feature that they haven't seen anywhere else. But I also know knocking COD off their throne is something we're going to have to do a few bites at a time. So while I appreciate comments like this from the magazine, who walked away from playing RO2 with that exact thought it mind, I do think it is a bit sensational. And I think it will take us a game or two to knock COD off the throne in terms of sales/player counts on the PC.

Now if we're talking about PC games (which is the only thing PC Gamer talk about), I do have to take issue with what you said. First off, Tripwire have been decimating the MOH series for years, including the most recent MOH and the older MOH Airborne. If you look at the Steam stats, more people are playing the original RO that is 4.5 years old than are playing the recent MOH. RO1 was a top 20 most played PC game on Steam/Gamespy stats even a couple of years after release. So to suggest that RO2 will be as popular as the recent MOH is a bit of an insult.

When RO1 came out it managed to grab about 20% of the COD2 playerbase (the current COD game that was out at the time). That is a pretty reasonable chunk. RO1 was a top 20 most played game on Steam/Gamespy stats for quite a while after release, our second game Killing Floor was a top 10 game on Steam for quite a while after release. When we made RO1 we had 3 people in the office and made the game on a shoestring budget in 10 months. When we made KF we had 10 people in the office, and a shoestring budget and did the game in 3 months. For RO2 we're up to over 25 people and have a reasonable budget and will have years of time spent developing it. So this time maybe we hit top five

So I might be a bit optimistic, but I think BF may be in reach this time around. And then maybe COD next time Especially if all these other companies keep releasing console ports w/o dedicated servers, and we keep providing the things that PC players and server admins expect from their games.
Click to expand...
 
uhhhhhhh read the last two lines and you'll find your answer. How do we know if it actually beats anything if its not out yet? Thats their target.
 
Last two lines is what I want to hear; fuck Xbox, Wii, & PS3. Watch some clips of RO3 and you will be suprised how much detail is in the game. I think it would win a lot of people over if they support their game, unlike EA/Dice mentality of take the money and run.
 
balls2dawall said:
2142
Click to expand...


Says you........I understand for you 2142 has run its course and if I had as many hours as you did it would for me as well. I was never a fan of Conquest which is why I don't care for BC2 not too mention that the hit detection is still not where it needs to be. It's a very good looking game though but for me it's flaws outweigh its good parts.

Anyway I'm hoping RO2 will be a good game because 2142 is getting really old.
 
RO2 is the best gaming story out there -as far as the PC gamer is concerned - group of total amateurs going big time.

ARMA 2 had the same kind of hype. Hoping this is not the case here - game could be awesome.
 
The amount of time had nothing to do with moving on to something better. The fact that the graphics are shit, physics. Are shit and overall pace of the game is slow. Throw in their that most people still don't know how to play it.
 
balls2dawall said:
The amount of time had nothing to do with moving on to something better. The fact that the graphics are shit, physics. Are shit and overall pace of the game is slow. Throw in their that most people still don't know how to play it.
Click to expand...

BF:BC 2 gameplay is very similar to COD in that it's fast paced. That's why I can only stand 30-45 minutes of BC2; that and the game is coded poorly.

BC2s graphics are great, but, in my opinion, the gameplay is sub-par.
 
balls2dawall said:
Last two lines is what I want to hear; fuck Xbox, Wii, & PS3. Watch some clips of RO3 and you will be suprised how much detail is in the game. I think it would win a lot of people over if they support their game, unlike EA/Dice mentality of take the money and run.
Click to expand...

I agree with the hatred of consoles just as much as any (only pc gamer) out there. And as far as saying that EA and Dices mentality is to take money and run, then why the hell are you supporting them then? That is a contradiction on your part balls. The main reason why I support EA/Dice is because they have done a terrific job on the BF series, and I am continuing to stick with them through and through until they run out of ideas.

But with that being said, RO2 is looking very promising atm, but remember this, what your seeing are just videos of gameplay. Wait until you play it then make a decision.
 
If it makes you guys feel more confident in the product, I will be going to Atlanta, George along with several of the members of the CROSSHAIR's podcast in January. I will be visiting Tripwire Interactives Dev studio, and we will be doing a live video stream.

You guys are skeptical and cynical, which is completely understandable, but indie's don't bullshit. Mainstream developers bullshit you. This hype is based on everything we know about the game. Play Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45 if you don't believe me. This game is based on that game, more streamlined.
 
I like RO1 don't get me wrong, but I am not confident in RO2 as of yet. Their 5 page article isn't nearly enough as what I want to see or hear. They need a damn demo for me to play to base off of.
 
It peaked my interest a lil more. I'll be looking forward to the live video stream as well :)
 
Glad I'm closer to convincing yet another person :D.
 
From their forums, responding to a bunch of questions

Well, let me try and pick up on a few points...

1. Silencers: very unlikely - this is "realistic" 1940s-era combat. Pretty much zero use of silencers in the front lines. One might creep in as something like a very specific add-on. But why would people want them anyway?

2. Weapons "perks": very delicate/subtle improvements going on. Definitely not "Borderlands"

3. Knives - well, you've got a bayo on the end of (most) rifles...

4. Scopes will indeed be historical scopes - with all their plus and minus points.

5. Yes you can re-map control keys.

6. We've never done the "free-for-all" gametype. While it can be a blast, not much call for it from the "serious"/"clan" players. Who knows - maybe one day?!

7. Well, the graphical quality will be as good as UE3 can manage. Just keep in mind that we aren't spending $50m to build the game... but if you look at the screenshots and trailer, you'll get the idea that it can look damn good!

8. Accesibility is one of the key areas we've worked on in RO2. We want the realism (ballistics, weapon performance and so on) without making the controls clunky. Really focusing on the concept that anything that a trained soldier of the period could do, should be easy to do in game. Mantling, taking cover etc shouldn't take a bizarre key-combo to execute. And information that was readily available to a soldier on the battlefield should also be available to the plaer. No articifial constraints.

9. Grenades - well, just take one out and throw it. Can't really make it much simpler

The graphcis you've seen in the main menu have all been placeholder so far. But we don't take (many) tips from COD-anything on how to do graphics or music. We do all that stuff - and the gameplay - the way it suits OUR game. We just happen to think (as do PC Gamer, now) that our way is better now.

And you'll need your shooting skills, don't worry - and, more importantly, those skills will count for something. No "kill-streak-power-UPPPP" nonsense. But you'll also need to work on your small-unit tac skills as well. A fire-team/squad/platoon working smart will chew up an unco-ordinated opposition every time. This is kinda why clans like the game - a wide range of skills matter. You need a suitable combo of bolt-action guys, those who want to get in-your-face as assault troops with SMGs, machine-gunners who know how to make use of their firepower - and when. Add to that squad and platoon leaders who know their job, how to make use of precious support assets and can make smart assessments of the battlefield. Engineers and the (rare) snipers. Preferably snipers who also understand the importance of their role...

But welcome to the fold! As was said earlier: RO2 is not a CoD-clone; it is its own game and has been for over 7 years. If people just want a WWII-CoD-clone, produced by someone who isn't IW/Treyarch/Activision, then they won't get it. What you WILL get is a shooter, built for the PC, heavily based in reality/realism, with a healthy dose of team tactics, all made intelligently accessible. With tanks
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top