[Attachment 8399]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.
<div style="color:white; font-size:24px; float:left; width:250px; padding:20px;line-height:1.2;"><cufon2>"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."</cufon2></div>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.
<div class="score-area"><img class="score-image" style="border:none;" src="http://img.gamers-underground.com/gu-style/review-pc-4.png"><div class="score-blurb">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.</div></div>
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. :/
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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 :(
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.
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.
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.
Here is some retard wanting to play another wannabe-CoD game and cries when he dies becouse his run and gun tactics never work.. and then start complaining about the (in my opinion) rather good graphics.. But maybe his computer is from the early ninties so he has to play on low graphics. :)
You have played too few hours to fully understand the game. when you are completely wrong in your review. a bug here or there will be fixed and the graphics are totally accepted, I must say. betyg 78 av 100 on the game
RO2 has a anti camper system. if you dont capture a point the lockdown timer will slowly count down to '0' which will lose you the game. Camping wont win yuou the game in RO2
Wow, I thought the fanboys of an historic more accurate WW2 sim would be a little more mature, obviously not. Big hate issues.
I've been gaming for 20 years, this is the second game I've ever bought that has been absolutely unplayable.. I realise I am one of the unlucky ones.. but 5 hours of trying fixes leaves a little frustration
I will wait for the first patch or two, but buggy releases do not help reviews of any games.
I for one am glad you wrote an honest review. I agree 100% with every point made and you did a better job at articulating what is exactly wrong with this game. I was lucky enough to obtain a refund for my purchase of this game, but I am afraid many others will not be so lucky and therefore less likely to trust Tripwire Interactive in the future.
More importantly though, Tripwire needs to see these kind of reviews instead of the skewed (OMG BEST FPS EVAR) rants seen elsewhere. They need to see the serious game changing flaws still within this "fully finished" product. They need to see whats wrong and fix them, otherwise the VERY small fan-base it currently has is all RO2 will ever get (which would be a bit of a disappointment.)
In the end, Tripwire Interactive dropped the ball on this one and as for me, I will be quite wary about spending any future $ on their products.
Not only does this reviewer not have the credibility to make an accurate assessment of this game, he blatantly disregards the many excellent aspects of this title. Red Orchestra 2 represents the second installment to the greatest World War 2 tactical shooter of all time. The developers have made UT3 look incredible."lolgraphics"? Honestly? Did you really play this game on something other than your dual core dell laptop that you used to draft this pathetic review? Not only does the game integrate complex and intricate graphical capabilities that push the limits of the engine, but the detail and attention to realism are unparalleled compared to any other game in this genre.
"Clunk of an Alpha-Release." Sir, have you ever developed a game, been involved with a modding community, or generally have any idea what a real alpha build looks like? No? Oh. I thought so.
Honestly guys, this is embarrassing for gamers-underground. Did anyone actually read this review before it was published? Sure the game does have some server issues. Here's a quick fix: manually type in (or copy and paste) the server you plan on joining! Who the hell browses for random servers anyway?! All games are launched with hitches. Developers rarely EVER finish a project, it is the nature of the industry to always be fixing and improving. Tripwire has proven over the years to be one of the most community driven studios PC gamers have ever seen.
I'm absolutely amazed at the disregard of the positive aspects of the game, the review seems to be written with loads of prejudice. Please actually play the game before reviewing it.
Such a disappointing review really.
This was my first time coming to this website and this review is a really really bad first impression.
Horrible review. Seems that the reviewer was playing on this phone, if not a freaking calculator, if he thinks that graphics are bad. The graphic models, textures, environments and effects (except for explosions) are great, I would even say one of the est out there today. Beats all those call-of-duty games by a mile. The reviewer must be one of them cod-fanboys, as he likes killing the people with one shot, but doesn't like getting killed the same way. Do you think you could fight in real life even with a 9mm stuck in your arm? I guarantee you can't. Besides, having close quarter battles does not mean you WILL die within miliseconds. I have had several fights lasting a little while even on short distances. Cover system does have its flaws, but nowhere as useless as you describe it. Camping is not promoted in any way, except for defending. But you don't have to run in a room, guns blazing. The grenades are great way to clear it before entry. Oh and I would love to see you walking sideways while leaning, with a good few kilograms on your back and in your hands.
I don't know if the reviewer thinks that he is a pro-ass critique, hardcore gamer or a real life special ops, but it is clear that he does not know what the heck he is writing about. Go back and play cod.
The game is great, while it has a few flaws, they will be fixed soon without a doubt.
Good thing nobody will ever see this review beyond a handful of fanboys who are enraged that someone would take a big shit on their game without taking the time to form a proper opinion and the tiny viewership of this website.
I get this guy's game. Be outrageous, be insulting, "lolgraphics" etc. He knows the word will get around, people will come to the site to read it and/or comment on it. Site traffic achieved, at the expense of a game he really didn't give a crap about beforehand, anyway. Nicely done! Maybe a few more dollars this month?
What kind of review is this done by?A random College student? Don't review a game if you have never player RO1 or any of the Arma series because you do not know what your getting into when it comes to realism shooters.
I can't even begin to take this review seriously with your starting "lolgraphics" sentence. Did you seriously just try to take a pot shot at the games graphics by combining the internet term "lol" with "graphics"? Wow is all I have to say to that..
In regards to your actual review, it sounds to me like you played maybe a half hours worth (with a shitty subpar pc on low graphics probably if your complaining about "lolgraphics") and got frustrated when you weren't getting sufficient kills and realized there were no killstreaks.
I'm running this at 1920x1080 with all settings maxed on a gtx 570 and the game looks amazing. It's not quite up to say Metro 2033's standards of graphics but its certainly pushing my gpu, and definitely looks amazing.. I own Crysis, Crysis 2, and Metro 2033, and if your saying I can't differentiate what great graphics are after playing all of those titles with settings maxed then your oblivious yourself to what "lolgraphics" are.
You guys would probably be best staying underground with reviewers like this. Do you have any clue how much modding had to be done to UE3 to make the game as amazing as it is? Of course it has bugs, they don't have millions of dollars to shit out on every aspect of it or dedicated tester group that could be in the office with them every step of the way. The one thing you will see: them patching this game and giving it TONS of support after it's released. Fix bugs, add maps, add content, y'know the things that CoD or other modern FPS will only do for a 10 dollar DLC pack. PS "Lolgraphics" you are a total moron.
Wow, loads of angry people posting childish things here. Hes intiteld to his opinion. You dont have to follow it. I agree with him on most things he said, but for some reason i cant stop playing it either, hahaaah!
What a joke this "review" is. Did you even play the game? Or did you just cut and paste comments from Steam forums until you get your allowance? You realize you cannot call it a "review" unless you sign your name. This review is a waste of time.
This is one of the best FPS games to come out in 2011, Tripwire are one of the best companies out there which actually support their games, and fast. In this game you have to be good, not just spam with no recoil. There's also mod support, unlike the OTHER games coming out.
You seriously have no idea of what you are talking the cover system is perfectly fine as is the bleeding system the game issn't 50bucks but 35... WTF is wrong with you? Also after only 12 hours (and you prolly played a lot less) you CANNOT review a game! This is just a mere handson with a stupid conclusion! You are an utter noob and got buttraped ingame and now you jumped on the ragetrain Pathetic I'll ignore this site forever from now on!
It's $50 in Australian retail. And it looks like this review has made its way to some RO fan forums. ;)
In what world was RO not available in 2004? Perhaps it's a couple of the posters here that need to check their facts.
I'll have to use the term "lolgraphics" more often - it's obviously a matter of heated contention!
My test rig was: Intel i7 920 @ 3.7GHz 6GB 1333Mhz Nvidia GTX 590 Vertex 2
And don't be hatin' too hard, I'm obviously not alone, amongst this wave RO fans:
Quote from beergogglesftw;400509: Uh oh.. Fanboys are p'd off. Nice review. Looks pretty accurate to me.
Quote from Nautilus;400512: I've been gaming for 20 years, this is the second game I've ever bought that has been absolutely unplayable.. I realise I am one of the unlucky ones.. but 5 hours of trying fixes leaves a little frustration
Quote from Hush Child;400513: I for one am glad you wrote an honest review. I agree 100% with every point made and you did a better job at articulating what is exactly wrong with this game. I was lucky enough to obtain a refund for my purchase of this game, but I am afraid many others will not be so lucky and therefore less likely to trust Tripwire Interactive in the future.
In the end, Tripwire Interactive dropped the ball on this one and as for me, I will be quite wary about spending any future $ on their products.
Quote from Sandy;400499: 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 :(
Quote from LemoN;400517: Props to the author. While not extremely well written, it IMHO absolutely hits the nail on the head on multiple occasions.
Quote from joe;400479: 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.
Obviously there will be a few people that agree with your insanely idiotic, inarticulate, biased review of this game. These such people - those who make judgements based on zero prior thought or consideration - are called idiots. Guess what, they're everywhere and play all kinds of games. Don't be quick to take pride in having a whopping four people agree with you for slamming this revolutionary title. If you really knew anything about PC games, or had an ounce of intelligence in you, you would know that a game on release day is not necessarily an accurate representation of the quality of the game post-release. Furthermore, calling people fanboys for bringing up valid conscerns about the integrity of your review holds absolutely no water and is a non-argument. Perhaps the reason that this website isn't particularly popular is because of reviewers like you.
And it's merely another opinion that mine is insanely idiotic.
It's not just a "new game that needs a patch". Ultimately, the production quality of this game isn't representative of anything except an internal test build, and I'm kind of troubled that the developers have pushed this to market how it is - with the nerve to charge $40 digitally, or $50 at EB Games.
Anyway, I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth with you. I'm am baffled as to how anyone can be happy with this product in the state it is, though.
I just got off a looong shift at the hospital and while I was waiting for RO2 to finish downloading I decided to see what kind of reviews it has been getting. Sadly this one came up. After loading up your review I was greeted with what I immediately referred to as "lolwriting" - it's bad, real bad. But that's okay, writing isn't everything, right?
I could go on and replace every time you mentioned the game with "this poorly written review" but I think you get the point.
You didn't bother mentioning the tank battles, which are a huge component of the game. You didn't bother commenting on the sound. No mention of single player quality. Does the new squad system work? What about the included multiplayer game modes? Again, I could go on but I think you get the point.
I have to agree with an earlier poster, you sound more like you couldn't handle the game. Everyone in RO2 gets shot without knowing where it came from, that's a feature not a flaw. You seem pretty inept at using the cover system too... I played probably 10 hours in the beta and I can't remember a time when I couldn't avoid a cover glitch by moving a few pixels over and trying it again. I loved the cover system, especially the blind fire and I although it is glitchy it is not broken. Finally, you bring up camping which is the ultimate tip off that you are expecting this game to be something it isn't and never wanted to be. RO2 is about slower paced gameplay with wise movement. It's about sight lines and flanking and holding ground.
There is one thing positive about your review though, it sounds like the RO community will now have at least one less moron in it.
"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."
Again, crying because of graphics and because it's too hard? Probably the "everything" you described was running around, sprinting all the time, wondering why you always get shot for doing so and why the gameplay doesn't work like it does in Call of Duty.
wow, you mad? did i hate on your game or something?
I play all shooters the same way: sneaky like a motherfucker - i don't get upset when i get shot if stupidly trying to cross an open area. I DO get upset when i discover an enemy soldier with his back to me and a near point-blank spray with the machine gun doesn't kill him. When i say everything you do just feels wrong, i dont mean tactically - as that's a per-player thing - I mean with the controls. It has a sense of the Project IGI controls where mouse motion didn't feel properly translated into the game. That could be an issue with my rig, sure, but why only this game?
As much as i thought the graphics were utter crap, I did like the gibs, and the old Quake-style blood plumes on people where you shot them (don't see enough of this in shooters these days) - though I didn't see that effect added on the bayonet stabs :/
for the fanbois commenting though, accept that not everyone will love your game. wishing rec would die is so fucking childish, perhaps you need to talk to your parents about game-induced rage issues before you become the next Fox News poster child for VG violence. It's a game, these are opinions, get over it. If you like the game, awesome, your money was not wasted. If you don't like the game, it's a shame you're out some cash, better luck next time.
I bought this game on day one also; but had a different experience than this lol-reviewer. I enjoyed the game and while the graphics are not super duper they are functional and look alright when all of the settings are at ultra with all of the bells and whistles turned on. The reviewer is probably trying to play with a lol graphics card like a gts 6800 or something of that ilk. I use a gtx 580 and am fine with the graphics.
The reviewer should probably have passed this one on to an older reviewer with more experience in games because if he had any experience at all he would know that red orchestra 1 has a following of several hundred thousand gamers who up until the release of this game were still playing it.
The reviewer would also know that Tripwire really supports their games and will continue to make improvements as time goes on, along with the mod community also.
While the cover mode does not work as well as it should it is functional enough and certainly not as bad is this lol-git attempts to make out.
In conclusion it appears that this review was rushed out the door by a very young and inexperienced reviewer (you can tell by the lol-language they use) for the sake of getting a review out. Do not be put off by this lol-egghead reviewer who didn't like the game because it didn't have battlefield 3's graphics. Take the word of a mature gamer that this game is good and will continue to get better over time through support from the devs and the community.
PS I wouldn't be surprised if this jokers reviews turned up in the bargain bin.
HAHAHAHA man this thread made my day, love the sheer level of fanboi-ism coming from the randoms lol.pity its against the rules of the internet to have a review based on an opinion.I was looking forward to the game, but after the general level of reviews online and the video's i've watched i'll pass.
Ok, lets at least sort out the graphics issues... Go youtube some Half-life 2 original trailers from 2003, that kinda put Red Orchestra (released 2011) graphics into that lolgraphics perspective. I think that is the best possible term saying that the graphics were indeed shithouse on release :P oh and agreed with Ratty, best review thread EVA!
Plenty of interesting conversation about this review (and the game) at the following threads - conversations that aren't just a flood of RO/Tripwire fans:
- worth the money? - Steam Users' Forums - The Something Awful Forums - First review in - Steam Users' Forums
Would the fanboys prefer we glazed the game over with our man juice?
For example, a 'real review' would do it like this:
Quote: Red Orchestra 2 uses the enhanced version of the unreal engine 3 that tripwire used for Killing Floor but sometimes it’s hard to tell it’s the same engine, as they share completely different moods and filters as well as the graphical boost the enhanced engine is able to output. Red orchestra 2 on ultra settings features almost photo-realistic graphics.
...
Overall Red Orchestra 2 really surprised me. I was expecting another fps, or even maybe a call of duty clone. But it’s greater than that, Tripwire really hit the nail on the head with this.
The amount of detail put into red orchestra shows and the gameplay is very realistic compared to most shooters of today. I would highly recommend getting this for those that are into realistic combat and ww2 in general. If you’re the type that likes generic shooters were you can just spray and pray then you might not have as much fun with this game as I do, but I would still recommend giving it a shot, as it is highly worth it.
Good review Rec, I feel the same way, was looking forward to a game to tie me over until Battlefield 3 beta but have only been dissapointed with RO2 so far, it just doesn't feel polished at all.
I think the amount of defensive comments you are getting from fans is pretty hilarious though.
This review is spot on. The graphics are horrible. Given that the title is using UE3, it is not a technical issue. Its a developer issue. Also, given how low spec the graphics are in game - the title runs like garbage. My machine has no problems running Crysis/Crysis 2 maxed at 1080p, so why this title stutters so much is beyond me. Tripwire has a full source license to UE3 proving again that it is the development team that is the problem. Its the teams lack of professional experience that has mucked everything up. I spent good money on my pair of GTX580's and I spent good money on this game. For it to turn into a slide show while looking on par with the first COD is not acceptable. Tripwire is in over their heads.
The adherence to historical accuracy for the maps is quite noble, but the execution is deeply flawed. Looking over photos from the battles in and around Stalingrad, the environments had much more going on. Everything feels so empty in game. The levels are blocked up hunks of boring crap. Again, why this title stutters so hard is beyond me.
The cover system is total shit. So are weapon controls and player movement. To deny this game sucks means your a fanboi who simply can't admit that their darling developer shipped a turd. This game sucks. It fucking blows. If I got this for free as a mod it would be one thing. As it is I actually paid for it - and boy do I regret it.
The single player really is pointless as the AI is beyond garbage. The multiplayer has potential but the game mechanics, environments, art assets, and everything else needed to execute on that potential is simply not up to the job. I would love an authentic WWII team based shooter set on the eastern front. Guess Ill be waiting for quite sometime.
Yehp, the graphics are shocking for an unreal3 engine. they obviously couldn't find a cheap graphic artist who's any good, BUT that should be patched in the future. I am not happy with the amount of bugs for a full release, IMO it's still an early beta level of gameplay, and I am unhappy that i spent money on this, I should have just piratbay'd this and used the money on Bf3.
I like the guns, don't like to gun skins, hate the bloom levels, dont like the running animations. Like the creativity in game dynamics,
But it is their first "real" game, so i hope they use the millions of dollars they make on this to hire some real artists and programmers. As far as i'm concerned it seems like its a bunch of American nerds that didn't get much past high school and had nothing better to do with their time than create ro, they won a million dollars and so just sat around on their new upgraded gaming rigs, created tripwire and tried to do it again. I think there's a real problem in the programming, if you look at it, it's not really optimised, so that results in these low frame rates. Needs a regional filter option for their servers.
I like the game and am still playing it, but lets be honest and say it's definatly not up to label release games, it's more of an indy
HOLY SHIT WHAT A TERRIBLE GAME. 45/100 was generous rec.
- UI from the late 90's - server browser lets you join a game with maxed slots, takes 20 secs to load and then tells you its full - terrible movement system - game crashed and its never getting loaded again
Seriously, when are game developers going to stop releasing games that are still in dev? What a fucking waste of money. I give it 3/10.
Quote: Truly innovative, amazing player control scheme, stunning authenticity, the thinking person's shooter, mod support, stellar audio visual presentation
Yeah, the GameSpy review made me nauseous. Sounds like it was reviewed by a member of the dev team.
Some great comments over at the Steam forums in the thread about this specific review:
Quote from LedBetter: You just can't reason with these people. They live in a fantasy world they create for themselves. They are not a part of reality and refuse to be because as some people say; ignorance is bliss.
What I find funny is that these people admitted that the game was broken during beta. But the excuse was "it's just a beta!" Right because they are going to magically fix an entire game in a single week.
Now that the game is out they pretend that it's just fine and its our computers that can't run the game.
interestingly, dead island was released in a horrible state, the devs admitted it was rubbish, and now it runs like a dream. (disclaimer: may [will] still be bugs, but i haven't found any other than the item dupe one which i would like to keep anyway)
Im am laughing my arse off at this. Its a typical rec review, and its been posted ( i rekon) on a Red Orch fansite/forum for group point and laugh sessions without really reading or understanding this is an internet review by a person, and thats all you can take from it. I wasnt buying the game before, certainly not buying it now after reading the crap people post when they feel offended that a game they love is called crap by at least two people on the nets ;)
Interesting review, and one thing totally puzzles me. I'm a on graphics whore - if a game can't push my twin GTX 580s and 4.5GHz CPU to the limit, I'm not interested. On Ultra at 1080p I think RO2 is an absolutely gorgeous game, so I wonder what the hell happened with this reviewer's PC?
To be totally honest, I reviewed this for GameSpy, and came up with a very different conclusion about the game, scoring it a 4.5/5.
Personally I'm devastated about all these randoms from the internet who've never been to GU before, who are "NEVER COMING BACK HERE AGAIN!!!111!one. because yoos is cunse!"
Quote from GunSlingerAUS;400596: Interesting review, and one thing totally puzzles me. I'm a on graphics whore - if a game can't push my twin GTX 580s and 4.5GHz CPU to the limit, I'm not interested. On Ultra at 1080p I think RO2 is an absolutely gorgeous game, so I wonder what the hell happened with this reviewer's PC?
I too ran it on Ultra with my GTX 590 and 3.7GHz i7 920. It doesn't matter how high the visuals are cranked, there is still rampant texture and object popping, scarce environments, low poly models, rigid animations and supremely ugly UI elements.
Just look at the two screenshots appended to this review; the weapon models look entirely amateur, the hand looking awkward and entirely unrealistic. You even see low resolution textures stretched across the wooden grip of the gun. How these small (and large) visual details go unnoticed is beyond me.
There's a plethora of bugs and profound lack of polish. As I've said numerous times now; it's as if it's an internal test build, not a retail product.
The review is spot on. It's not hard exactly, more frustrating. I don't doubt that in Stalingrad during the war you had a great many situations where you have to run across open terrain getting shot at, praying you can find cover before assessing your situation and trying to locate the enemy and so on. I doubt very much in Stalingrad during the war that was a lot of fun, especially if you got shot by some git 200 metres away. It's not a lot more fun here.
I don't give a toss about the graphics, but the game is just dull. And believe me, I hate the bunnyhopping nightmare of CoD as much as the next man. But this is like a flight simulator: interesting, realistic, but ultimately leaves you longing for After Burner.
And all you people who've come here to read a positive review and are now raging that he's given it 4.5...Metacritic is <- way.
I can't say I saw a single texture or object pop in the entire 30 hours I've played. There's a small LOD draw issue with the trees, but no popping on my end. I can see how it might look bare when compared to a COD map, but then again the levels here are ten times the size, so there's always going to be a trade-off between quality and quantity. The character models don't look great up close, but from a few away they look nice to me, and I love the many and varied animations... if only each animation transitioned a little better into each other. Each to their own though - I guess my desire for beautiful HD PC visuals differs somewhat from yours.
Good review. RO is dead with RO2. And I'm a RO veteran (played RO1 the day it was released) Save your money, buy something else, play the FREE and much realistic mode for Battlefield 2 "Forgotten Hope 2"
The visual deficiencies can be compared not just to CoD, but to any other current gen shooter. Of particular note, any other current gen Unreal Engine title. And in every comparison, whichever way you slice it, I'm afraid RO2 loses.
Where the review miss the point, it is around Team play You did not mentioned the key role of Commander or of Squad Leader (recon / arty... respawn) or even tank support or MG
An organized team is unbeatable against a bunch of runners and / or campers
This game is meant to be played as a team. There it takes a lot of sense...
Now, why so many bugs, including some core ones (e.g server browser) that should be working since ages ! For me, paint is not dry. waiting for *a lot of* patches and then, for my m8s and I, it will be very good fun
OMG I WILL TELL REC TO CHANGE THE SCORE BECAUSE HE CAN'T BE RIGHT BECAUSE A BIG NAME SITE DIDN'T AGREE WITH HIM OMFG WTF REC YOU SUCK!!!!111111
Seriously guys, form an argument or stfu. I'm losing (or loosing as some of you fuckwits would probably say) faith in the internetz. :P
Nobody is arguing that some people might like the game. I can tell you right now though - I'm never going to play it so I'll never have an opinion on the gameplay - but you retards arguing about the graphics being "great" must have rubbed dog shit in your eyes before installing it.
Hey grandinferno, maybe you should form an argument or STFU?? You're never gonna play the game, so what the HELL are you doing here? What do you care? Talk about a hypocrite.. Lol. You just spout off about people spouting off, I guess.
This reviewer is talking shit. RO2 is one of the best fps ever. Game's performance is perfectly fine for some and bad for others. They are working on it and we can trust TWI as we saw with previous games. One of the very few companies that gives support for years.