• Red Orchestra 2 review

    Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad has been out for around about 12 hours now, and I've been stuck into multiplayer with a few Gamers-Underground.com forum goers during the evening. If you were waiting on another opinion or two before a purchase, read on; I've got one for you along with a review score for RO2's multiplayer.

    Despite having no expectations for this title, my first impression of the game wasn't good; a server browser that would crash me to desktop, and refused to refresh after a failed server connection. I gritted my teeth as I finally began loading into a local games.on.net server, and quickly crossed my fingers in the hope that the experience would improve once in-game.

    "You have to aim well from distance, or risk your life in a close combat quarters fire fight where a single shot is enough to kill - it can be very tense stuff."
    After making my way in I was greeted with what I whimsically referred to as "lolgraphics" - they're bad, real bad. But that's ok, graphics aren't everything, right? There have been plenty of recent titles with below average graphics that have proven fun to play, without argument. But to give you some perspective; the animations are reminiscent of Half-Life mods, as are the weapon models and blocky environments. It's borderline insulting. Whether RO2 turned out to be fun or not, the presentation just wasn't acceptable - perhaps a PlayStation Network or LIVE Arcade title at a far lower price - not for a $50 PC title (ed: in Australian retail stores).

    Without dwelling on that for too long, I got playing. Despite some grievances with the effectiveness of the SMG's, the gunplay felt good. The Axis rifle quickly became my weapon of choice - powerful and accurate, I was dropping enemies from range with a single shot. "How rewarding, how satisfying," I thought. Indeed it was, and it doesn't really begin to get any less so. You have to aim well from distance, or risk your life in a close combat quarters fire fight where a single shot is enough to kill - it can be very tense stuff.

    However what is almost always an 'instant-death' doesn't always create positive or enjoyable gameplay. You're often hit from across the map and prompted with a "bleed out" message, giving you the option to bandage up even though you're already dead, or a clouded black screen as you attempt to limp out of sight only to be shot again while virtually helpless.



    Over time, everything that surrounds what was otherwise solid combat begins to become a severe downer. The problem isn't just the underwhelming aesthetics and environments, it's the flawed UI and cover system as well; the screen is a mess with poorly designed elements that are seemingly placed arbitrarily. While movement is mostly clean and trouble-free, the cover system is fundamentally flawed. You'll continually jitter in and out of cover-enabled fixtures, be button mashing to activate your cover, and generally become frustrated with putting it to any practical use in a firefight. The consensus with my play group was that it's better simply not to use it.

    Your remaining cover option while on the battlefield encourages camping and pixel hunting, inadvertently. The consequence of the actual cover system's poor implementation is that because you can't use cover like you might in a real battle, you're left leaning awkwardly, and you can't move while leaning. Inaction seems to be rewarded with people too often pitching tents and ignoring the objective.

    Ultimately the game is buggy, it's unpolished, and there are simply far too many issues to give the game anything but an embarrassing score. It's hard to believe that this is the excellent Unreal engine at times.

    RO2 falls short of a combat simulation, and it's far too stiff and restrictive to be arcade. What it winds up being is a poorly produced, frustrating clunk of an alpha-release WWII themed shooter. Gameplay mechanic choices are confused and lead to an end product that doesn't know what it wants to be - let alone deliver what works instead of what seemed like a good idea over pizza and beer.
    Average user rating (of 9):
    Comments 213 Comments
    1. Aegis's Avatar
      Aegis -
      well said, rec. It has promise, it truly does, but it's just too far off the mark. with graphics like that, the gameplay HAS to be rock solid. It's not any one thing, it's the vibe of the thing that puts me off - everything you do just feels wrong. Maybe SP is okay? At this point I'll never know as I've already uninstalled it. :/
    1. Mal's Avatar
      Mal -
      So I take it you had your butt handed to you. Hard to take this review seriously on a couple points. While the graphics aren't BF3 "lol graphics" is a stretch. the character models are detailed and the maps historically accurate.

      This review sounds like you've never played RO1. Could you compare? The game was quite successful and although it was a bit flawed in some areas on release you would know just how well supported that game was by developer and community. Of course you are entitled to your experienced opinion.

      The first game received mixed reviews but it was more love it or hate it. The first RO was a favorite of mine and has had the most play time over any BF or COD title. Oh well, even if this is as bad as the review suggests we can all look towards BF3.
    1. rec's Avatar
      rec -
      Not that it actually matters, but I was sitting in the upper half of the scoreboard each map. My personal performance holds no bearing on my opinion of the game, regardless. I did play RO, and I was a somewhat of a fan, back in 2004.

      Any defence of the graphics in this game can be swiftly dismissed as far as I'm concerned. They models are not detailed, they're low poly, low res and look unnatural - especially compared to other current gen releases.
    1. joe's Avatar
      joe -
      I am an old battlefield fan and have played them all. I was very dissapointed with battlefield bad company so i was looking for a new shooter with good gameplay. I bought and downloaded RO2 on release day. The grafics are not like the newest grafics (like the frostbite engine) but they were ok with good color. You get used to the grafics and they dont seem bad at all. They are just not brand new style.
      What bothered me was that all the maps were run and gun city maps that seemed kinda small because I spend 98% of my time running through endless damaged buildings and hallways. I was looking forward to fighting in the forest and more open maps. I dint get that here. I hate COD run and gun style shooters and this game's maps felt like the developers were trying to woo the COD crowd.
      The weapons in RO2 were awsome and very refreshing after useing the vanilla battlefield (complete junk) weapons for so long. They did a great job with the weapons. It was close to how you expect a bullet to travel in real life (I have a lot of experience with "real" guns and hunting and targets).
      My problem with RO2 is in my opinion the maps are all the same and just sorta blend together as run and gun COD city maps. If thats what you like then you will like RO2.
    1. SHP's Avatar
      SHP -
      What a hatchet job. The review, not the game. I guess I just learned to "be careful what you wish for." I wanted a more in-depth review, and this is what we get. Hypercritical ("lol" graphics?) and actually somewhat mean-spirited, in regards to slamming the developers. Oh well. There are plenty of positive reviews out there to counterbalance this one.

      Joe: urban warfare was the standard in the battle for Stalingrad. There were no forest battles. Several of maps are actually realistically-rendered representations of real areas of battle (the grain elevator, factory district, etc.)
    1. Keamy's Avatar
      Keamy -
      Yeh at only $50 and its open modding options, I think we will some some big mods and add-ons. Maybe a Tubrok set of maps or some Forrest battle. Hope.
    1. shamE's Avatar
      shamE -
      Good thing this wasn't a professional review or I would taken it seriously.
    1. born2expire's Avatar
      born2expire -
      How are you people buying this for $50, its $40 on Steam, even less if you pre-ordered or own the first RO. Just another point of your "review" that is clearly wrong.
    1. LeoTrooper's Avatar
      LeoTrooper -
      You give te 4.5 score to the game and i give 0 to your lolreview.
    1. Hiker's Avatar
      Hiker -
      "I did play RO, and I was a somewhat of a fan, back in 2004."

      Yes, you spew more grossly inaccurate claims. RO came out in 2006 so how were you playing it in 2004? Wikipedia has 14 March 2006 as the release date. Please stop polluting the Internet with your inaccurate and childish opinions. 45/100 is not what this game deserves. It's a solid, slower paced, multiplayer FPS that has a steep learning curve.

      I'd call it a badge of honor for you to not like this game.
    1. Hiker Is Wrong's Avatar
      Hiker Is Wrong -
      Hiker, if you did real research you'll find out that RO was released back in 2004, as a BETA. Therfore the claims were correct.
    1. 222288's Avatar
      222288 -
      FUCK THIS REVIEW IT FUCKING BLOWS
    1. patientea's Avatar
      patientea -
      wow rly? i give this lolreviewer a "-4.5" and advice to throw himself off a clif 4 being this fuking dumb
    1. hprasa's Avatar
      hprasa -
      i hope you die rec
    1. Thermic's Avatar
      Thermic -
      It's 35 bucks on steam, not 50. I've never seen it for more than 35 bucks anywhere, often for less.

      The graphics aren't "real bad", and certainly good enough that they have no negative impact when playing. Using the term "lolgraphics" reflects negatively on yourself as a reviewer, the pointless typos enhance that point.

      Showing the option to bandage when you're fatally wounded with a bleedout is something I'd consider a bug and something I'd expect to be fixed, for now I just ignore it.

      I only get shot from an unseen enemy across the map when I take a risk, when I've learn the map and where the enemy is coming from and take it slow I at least get a good shot at taking down my enemy, and thus reducing it to skill (though if you play it too safe you'll never get anything done, and so balancing risk versus safety is another aspect to master).

      The problem with the cover system being wonky is that it makes it needlessly difficult and frustrating to learn it, both how it's supposed to work and be used as well as it's quirks, but after I've done that it's been a great help and works real well with all weapons.

      Staying behind cover and picking off the enemy isn't a bad thing, especially on defence, and there's no reason to refer to it as "camping". It's a valid tactic and I find it a good challenge to take out those that do just that, which rarely proves to be much of a problem with a rifle and hand grenade after they've taken me down once. "Campers" end up with those "where did that come from" instant deaths as much as anyone. Staying in one spot is after all a very risky thing in RO2 as a good opposing team will quickly learn of your position, I haven't found any position you can stay indefinitely in.

      I feel that it has found the middle ground between arcade and simulation just right, and quite enjoy the game play mechanic decisions.

      I'm eagerly waiting a patch to fix the most obvious issues and won't be giving this priority in my game list until then, but hope that this will turn out to be a solid game before winter.
    1. Johan's Avatar
      Johan -
      You have absolutly no clue what you are talking about, one of the worst reviewers i ever seen. If you get paid for doing reviews i sincerly hope your fired. Almost every point you make is flawed, hilarious since there is actual bad things about the game but you missed them all and made up a bunch of stuff.

      You're a funny man.
    1. Sandy's Avatar
      Sandy -
      Deserved review is deserved!

      Game was crap in laaaate beta, it obviously still is. Glad I cancelled my preorder and got my money back.
      Really sorry for all chums who got regular
    1. Mormegil's Avatar
      Mormegil -
      The main issues with this review is, subpar graphics, and he doesn't like the gameplay.

      While the graphics are an improvement over RO1, I find them quite adequate for me (remember, this is suppose to run on "average" systems, not just beast machines).

      As far as gameplay goes - like RO1, there's a learning curve. Not as steep as RO1, but it's there none the less. Until you get the ropes, it's hard to really appreciate the gameplay. Another issue is, gameplay is subjective. I can't fault somebody for not liking the core gameplay mechanics that I love. So for Rec, 45/100 is a valid score. For somebody who loves the gameplay, its not. While I think think RO2 casts a wider net, it's still not for everybody - and that's fine with me.


      BTW: Camping is a very valid tactic for the defensive team. IRL, it's called digging in.
    1. johnkilmer's Avatar
      johnkilmer -
      Lamest review ever. This review knows NOTHING about tactics, or realistic warfare. RO2 is GREAT BRilliant gAme. Not for mindless arcady run and gun noobs like this.
    1. g14's Avatar
      g14 -
      This review has been posted on the steam forums, so you should expect to see some blind defenders taking a crap on your comments section in the near future. They've even started trolling metacritic with organized efforts these days.
    Comments Leave Comment (Will be published after moderation, if you're not a registered user)

    Write 'Human', if you are one.