Only the default (TGN Light) theme for now. Dark them is also coming back soon. Then CSN. Then Wrestlin' Nation. A lot of WIP stuff right now. There are a couple of things still not working either. Sorry.
I wasnt very impressed with the graphics: bf2 graphics are better IMHO. I didnt watch the tailer but i saw a pic of a tank, it looked WW2 alright but it was kinda clean...almost shiny. BF2 graphics have a strong style, the tanks are dirty and detailed, the chinese maps are colourful...and to be fair isnt take from an era thats been done to death.
Plus its all words. Anyone can say well have a robust anitcheat system, "realistic" gameplay blah blah...but the proof of the pudding is in the eating not the press release.
I wish people would quit the whole WW game idea...its been done sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much. Its like playing a sequel of a sequel of a sequel of a remake...mostly copied from saving private ryan but now with a bit of enemy at the gates thrown in.
Plus realism is subjective...i could easily argue BF2 is more realistic.
Its bizzare how people base opinion of a future game on prerelease explanations.
I mean...if someone was about to release an album and they put a description of it on a website...that would be no basis whatsoever to decide wether it would be better than any other album.
I'm not basing my decision on pre-release descriptions, I'm basing it on playing RO when it was a UT mod. It pwned other FPS then, I expect it do do the same with this release.
I wasnt very impressed with the graphics: bf2 graphics are better IMHO. I didnt watch the tailer but i saw a pic of a tank, it looked WW2 alright but it was kinda clean...almost shiny. BF2 graphics have a strong style, the tanks are dirty and detailed, the chinese maps are colourful...and to be fair isnt take from an era thats been done to death.
BF2 uses DirectX9 shaders. It also requires alot more PC grunt. It'd want to look better, otherwise it's just a poor graphic engine.
Plus its all words. Anyone can say well have a robust anitcheat system, "realistic" gameplay blah blah...but the proof of the pudding is in the eating not the press release.
The mod has been out for years. People have been playing RO throughout it's development cycle. Yes, the retail version will be a dramatic improvement on the mod, but ALOT of the fundamentals were refined through 3 versions of the mod.
I wish people would quit the whole WW game idea...its been done sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much. Its like playing a sequel of a sequel of a sequel of a remake...mostly copied from saving private ryan but now with a bit of enemy at the gates thrown in.
WW2 is probably the most heavily studied period in world history. RO is aimed at an adult audience; the sort of people who watch the history channel and read big thick books like 'Hitler and Stalin' or 'Stalingrad'. RO is the first FPS to really aim to deliver a realistic representation of the Russian front. Nothing has done that yet. Yes, there's all that Call of Duty and Medal of Honor guff, but that's just Hollywood bs.
Plus realism is subjective...i could easily argue BF2 is more realistic.
Subjective? To a certain extent. I wonder what you would base your assertions on. Real world armies don't have perfectly balanced hardware (i.e. The Abrams pretty much wipes the floor with any other MBT in real life). Real world UAVs don't provide ground infantry with a psychic awareness of where their enemies are. You tend to die or get seriously injured from single gunshot wounds, explosions or falls from high places in real life.
BF2 isn't even trying to be realistic. It's trying to be balanced. Real life isn't balanced. I play BF2 when I can't be bothered with realism, and just want to shoot stuff and hoon around in tanks. I play RO when I want something really immersive and challenging. Both exist happily in my collection.
Seriously, I don't know why people are so threatened...
Subjective? To a certain extent. I wonder what you would base your assertions on.
That reality is subjective?
From the fact that reality is a perseption which is totally subjective.
Contrary to what many modders think there is no standard of reality.
Im not attacking realistic games as being unrealist or even flawed...im just saying that lots of people are standing on a pedistol of "reality" that they dont realise is totally subjective.
From the fact that reality is a perseption which is totally subjective.
Contrary to what many modders think there is no standard of reality.
Im not attacking realistic games as being unrealist or even flawed...im just saying that lots of people are standing on a pedistol of "reality" that they dont realise is totally subjective.
Okay, putting aside the metaphysics for the moment...
You're honestly trying to say that it's completely impossible to categorically say that 'Game A' resembles reality more than 'Game B'?
So for example, it's impossible to say that anything is unrealistic, because it might resemble someone's reality?
Uh, no.
That sort of arguement might hold water when comparing literature or film, but games by their very nature model the cause and effect nature of reality. Therefore, it is very possible to compare how an action within a game and it's outcome, might compare to an action in real life, and it's outcome.
And I notice you didn't address any of the other points. I think you're clutching at straws because you don't want your beloved BF2 to be cast in a disfavourable light.
Dont get me wrong: im sure its a great game, but the purpose of thos forum isnt for people to agree :)
Anyway, about our realism discussion...
obviously you can go into abstract philosophical debate but im talking in a more practical sense.
For example, we have a game. Some see it as unrealistic because the gun's firing rate doesnt match reality: but lets say that the success rate of the gun is about the same as reality. So, say in a firefight its about 80% successful at killing the enemy.
Someone make the gun more realistic by inceasing its rate of fire to match the real guns spec. The gun itself is more realistic...but its success rate suddenly goes up to 99%. So how is that more realistic?
Another example is crosshairs...does removing the crosshair make it more realistic? Some would argue of course it does...but firing a gun and firing a gun ingame is totally different. Having no crosshair makes the representation of the gun more realistic but on the whole...does it make the game more or less realistic? In many cases i would argue it reduces realism.
So...
You're honestly trying to say that it's completely impossible to categorically say that 'Game A' resembles reality more than 'Game B'?
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I also think there is some glaring faults in your logic, but it's not worth derailing this thread for the sake of splitting hairs.
Pointing out my glaring flaws would be splitting hairs?
I just dont like this kinda weird propaganda about realism in games, as if its the ultimate aim of games or something. Even if you could make a game real (whether thats demonstratable or not)...thats great but i dont think it should be seen as the main aim of the games industry since games have alot more potential than that.
Plus i think that good games create their own realism rather than try to mimic it.
I also get the impression that people who are into realism for some reason sort of look down on people who are into non-realism (thats not an attack on anyone specific).
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment