From reddit; when free weekend players review your game

[pf5626]

Credit for this goes to kuky990 on reddit.

https://i.redd.it/ka6xynqjgmjz.png

Thread is here;

https://www.reddit.com/r/rs2vietnam/comments/6xrwuz/when_free_weekend_players_review_your_game/

Thoughts?

[ETucc]

The only issue with this game/community is the fact that people expect too much. They want a AAA game with tons of content and all the latest graphical bells and whistles.

No one understands how difficult it is to make a game. DICE has a 20-person team that just works on shadows in the game... TWI/AMG are not DICE.

Ubisoft charges over $100 for season passes to games like For Honor, and no one can even connect to a server designed for 1v1 PvP! Then you connect and there's exploits where attacks cannot be defended, etc.

I'm tired of people saying RS2: Vietnam is bad because they expected a different game, or it's not filled to the brim with 30 maps and vehicles.

If you don't appreciate animations for attaching bayonets, or the fact that they changed sidearm holsters from brown to the period-correct black leather, then you're playing the wrong game.

[Ornlu Wolfjarl]

ETucc původně napsal:

The only issue with this game/community is the fact that people expect too much. They want a AAA game with tons of content and all the latest graphical bells and whistles.

No one understands how difficult it is to make a game. DICE has a 20-person team that just works on shadows in the game... TWI/AMG are not DICE.

Ubisoft charges over $100 for season passes to games like For Honor, and no one can even connect to a server designed for 1v1 PvP! Then you connect and there's exploits where attacks cannot be defended, etc.

I'm tired of people saying RS2: Vietnam is bad because they expected a different game, or it's not filled to the brim with 30 maps and vehicles.

If you don't appreciate animations for attaching bayonets, or the fact that they changed sidearm holsters from brown to the period-correct black leather, then you're playing the wrong game.

There are some really good mecahanics in the game, but let's not kid ourselves. It's not a really good game, and it's not for everyone. I'm willing to put up with the bad things, because I enjoy myself more on the good things. But I'm a minority.

Personally, I can understand the small amount of maps, and I can withstand the mediocre graphics. I can even withstand some of the worst implementations, like the bad mantling and jumping system.

What I don't like in the game is the amount of bugs that plague it and ruin the experience constantly.

I also despise the choice to put a contrast filter over everything to make colors appear more vibrant. It sucks, because it makes things (particularly things hiding with guns) nearly invisible, while it makes everything else around them really bright. It's very tiring for the eye, and it influences gameplay negatively. I don't care how well the VC hid from the Americans. When it's just a guy with sandals and a wifebeater, holding an AK rifle and just squatting down under a tree, I should be able to see them when I'm standing 2 metres away from them.

There's a lot of people here who say this is a good game, but what they are essentially saying is that this CAN be a good game SOME DAY. We shouldn't ignore and dismiss criticism and we certainly shouldn't be defending TWI at every turn. Sure, it's a passable game, and it has a lot of potential, and TWI will certainly expand it for free (which is admirable by itself). But we should also be behaving as consumers, and letting TWI know that what they could have done a lot better, and in the future we expect a lot better.

[Cylixx]

It's a good game, now. It could be better.

Mantling system wigs out on logs, oh the pain.

ARMA costs $60, is that a bad game? Have you seen it's bugs/mantling system?

[pf5626]

There are some really good mecahanics in the game, but let's not kid ourselves. It's not a really good game, and it's not for everyone. I'm willing to put up with the bad things, because I enjoy myself more on the good things. But I'm a minority.

Personally, I can understand the small amount of maps, and I can withstand the mediocre graphics. I can even withstand some of the worst implementations, like the bad mantling and jumping system.

What I don't like in the game is the amount of bugs that plague it and ruin the experience constantly.

I also despise the choice to put a contrast filter over everything to make colors appear more vibrant. It sucks, because it makes things (particularly things hiding with guns) nearly invisible, while it makes everything else around them really bright. It's very tiring for the eye, and it influences gameplay negatively. I don't care how well the VC hid from the Americans. When it's just a guy with sandals and a wifebeater, holding an AK rifle and just squatting down under a tree, I should be able to see them when I'm standing 2 metres away from them.

There's a lot of people here who say this is a good game, but what they are essentially saying is that this CAN be a good game SOME DAY. We shouldn't ignore and dismiss criticism and we certainly shouldn't be defending TWI at every turn. Sure, it's a passable game, and it has a lot of potential, and TWI will certainly expand it for free (which is admirable by itself). But we should also be behaving as consumers, and letting TWI know that what they could have done a lot better, and in the future we expect a lot better.

That's the best assessment that I've seen yet. The only thing I disagree on are the small number of maps. Just another 5 maps in the initial release might have made a difference.

Out of interest, this is the highest rated comment in the reddit thread. He's referring to the guy's post on the far right of the screen in the .png screen capture in my original post.

Unfortunately the guy with nick "Tormady" hit the nail to the head. I know fanboys can't handle the truth, but with over 80 hours in game I sadly have to admit, that this guy is generally right. This game CAN be great, but it would require different engine and another year or two of development.

[Marlowe-33]

i bought the super duper pooper scooper version of BF1 but i hate it so now i might aswell have burned 70 pounds, this gives me much more pleasure and it was under 20.,.. you cant please everybody.

[KETCHUP]

What really made me not want to buy the game, was the fact that it crashed as soon as I tried to launch it. Judging by forum posts made months ago describing the same issue, and no response from the devs other than "Reinstall the game", it seems like this game is not worth my time or my money.

A shame too, as I was really looking forward to the free weekend, but my bad internet can't download it AGAIN in time for the end.

[Shallot]

Cylixx původně napsal:

ARMA costs $60, is that a bad game? Have you seen it's bugs/mantling system?

Okay, hold the ♥♥♥♥ up. No, what you just did is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. You cannot ♥♥♥♥ on arma in order to support this game. This game is...pretty boring, really not much to do after a hundred hours. As for arma? We're just getting started baby. I could make the same argument about the lack of jets tanks long range ballistics lack of mod support player manned arty bigger maps more realistic gameplay etc. in this game, But that's not fair, is it now?

(Yes I know I'm triggered)

[ETucc]

Ornlu Wolfjarl původně napsal:

ETucc původně napsal:

The only issue with this game/community is the fact that people expect too much. They want a AAA game with tons of content and all the latest graphical bells and whistles.

No one understands how difficult it is to make a game. DICE has a 20-person team that just works on shadows in the game... TWI/AMG are not DICE.

Ubisoft charges over $100 for season passes to games like For Honor, and no one can even connect to a server designed for 1v1 PvP! Then you connect and there's exploits where attacks cannot be defended, etc.

I'm tired of people saying RS2: Vietnam is bad because they expected a different game, or it's not filled to the brim with 30 maps and vehicles.

If you don't appreciate animations for attaching bayonets, or the fact that they changed sidearm holsters from brown to the period-correct black leather, then you're playing the wrong game.

There are some really good mecahanics in the game, but let's not kid ourselves. It's not a really good game, and it's not for everyone. I'm willing to put up with the bad things, because I enjoy myself more on the good things. But I'm a minority.

Personally, I can understand the small amount of maps, and I can withstand the mediocre graphics. I can even withstand some of the worst implementations, like the bad mantling and jumping system.

What I don't like in the game is the amount of bugs that plague it and ruin the experience constantly.

I also despise the choice to put a contrast filter over everything to make colors appear more vibrant. It sucks, because it makes things (particularly things hiding with guns) nearly invisible, while it makes everything else around them really bright. It's very tiring for the eye, and it influences gameplay negatively. I don't care how well the VC hid from the Americans. When it's just a guy with sandals and a wifebeater, holding an AK rifle and just squatting down under a tree, I should be able to see them when I'm standing 2 metres away from them.

There's a lot of people here who say this is a good game, but what they are essentially saying is that this CAN be a good game SOME DAY. We shouldn't ignore and dismiss criticism and we certainly shouldn't be defending TWI at every turn. Sure, it's a passable game, and it has a lot of potential, and TWI will certainly expand it for free (which is admirable by itself). But we should also be behaving as consumers, and letting TWI know that what they could have done a lot better, and in the future we expect a lot better.

I experience one bug that is game breaking, and only happens with an RPG.

I can't agree about your comments on contrast. I've played on both lowest and ultra settings, and while extreme compared to other shooters, I think the shadows create and environment like no other. Some games allow you to simply adjust gamma settings in the config and you can suddenly see in the dark. Very unfair advantage. Night maps in RS:2 Vietnam will be intense and unmatched.

I'm not blind to the game's downfalls and shortcomings, and neither are the developers. We should criticize TWI/AMG. It's what their community always does. They welcome it.

Have you read the cancer in the forums? 90% of the posts are flaming the game and reporting bugs, along with positive suggestions to make the game better. They've created a Community Test Branch which allows us to play betas and report bugs.

The developers know that this is the best way to make the game better, faster. As I said, they don't have that much manpower.

Glock_Shanty původně napsal:

That's the best assessment that I've seen yet. The only thing I disagree on are the small number of maps. Just another 5 maps in the initial release might have made a difference.

Out of interest, this is the highest rated comment in the reddit thread. He's referring to the guy's post on the far right of the screen in the .png screen capture in my original post.

Unfortunately the guy with nick "Tormady" hit the nail to the head. I know fanboys can't handle the truth, but with over 80 hours in game I sadly have to admit, that this guy is generally right. This game CAN be great, but it would require different engine and another year or two of development.

i love rice longtime původně napsal:

i bought the super duper pooper scooper version of BF1 but i hate it so now i might aswell have burned 70 pounds, this gives me much more pleasure and it was under 20.,.. you cant please everybody.

What different engine? Games with newer engines and higher price tags are more unplayable, regardless of their optimization and graphical quality. RS2 is already better than BF1. The game itself is boring and easy... same thing will happen with CoD WWII. I feel like I'm talking to a wall and no one read my OP.

Cylixx původně napsal:

It's a good game, now. It could be better.

Mantling system wigs out on logs, oh the pain.

ARMA costs $60, is that a bad game? Have you seen it's bugs/mantling system?

Onion Ninja původně napsal:

Okay, hold the ♥♥♥♥ up. No, what you just did is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. You cannot ♥♥♥♥ on arma in order to support this game. This game is...pretty boring, really not much to do after a hundred hours. As for arma? We're just getting started baby. I could make the same argument about the lack of jets tanks long range ballistics lack of mod support player manned arty bigger maps more realistic gameplay etc. in this game, But that's not fair, is it now?

(Yes I know I'm triggered)

Who the ♥♥♥♥ has time for all of that ♥♥♥♥? You need a supercomputer to run ARMA and it still needs optimization and bug fixes. Plus they charge you and arm and a leg for dlc, and advertise it in-game.

I get to play games like once a week. And RO/RS gives you a fix that no other game can.

[Gonzo850]

At least one of them actually wrote a paragraph.

[Cylixx]

Onion Ninja původně napsal:

Cylixx původně napsal:

ARMA costs $60, is that a bad game? Have you seen it's bugs/mantling system?

Okay, hold the ♥♥♥♥ up. No, what you just did is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. You cannot ♥♥♥♥ on arma in order to support this game. This game is...pretty boring, really not much to do after a hundred hours. As for arma? We're just getting started baby. I could make the same argument about the lack of jets tanks long range ballistics lack of mod support player manned arty bigger maps more realistic gameplay etc. in this game, But that's not fair, is it now?

(Yes I know I'm triggered)

No, I think those are fair criticisms as RO2 did have armoured vehicles, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to judge the game's current value on a select number of logs (map creation issue with logs on hills) and bugs still being ironed out.

Also I think you are right that the game doesn't have much for everyone after 100hrs, but is that really a failure? Surely if it can offer that much time to some people, it can offer hundreds more to nutter's like me who love it to death. I mean, I still get bored after a while and burn out - but that's every game for me.

If someone from the ARMA community ripped off RO and made an "ARMA 3 Territories Mode" I would.... probably play that instead tbh (competitive bugs and all). Alas, it does not exist, and no other shooter has the same approach to objective based play as Tripwires.

My point is, I think the game is excellent and absolutely worth purchasing. It really isn't that expensive for what is planned for it. You can always argue that you are paying for a complete product right now, not in the future; and you would be right. But that doesn't change how much I enjoy playing this, nor the reality that small devs have to face.

*******edited so many times.

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

You can't do pubs in Arma.

Can here.

[Cylixx]

=(e)= Lemonater47 původně napsal:

You can't do pubs in Arma.

Can here.

I'm so slow today; pubs?

[ETucc]

Cylixx původně napsal:

=(e)= Lemonater47 původně napsal:

You can't do pubs in Arma.

Can here.

I'm so slow today; pubs?

Public matches/servers . Non-organized.

People spend more than $20 on Candy Crush every week and nobody bats an eye...

[Gonzo850]

Arma should not be compared here. Whatever bugs it may have, it's understandable. It's not just a multiplayer shooter with a few game modes. It's a full sandbox supporting single player/coop/multiplayer/mods/sandbox features/level editor.

I guess if Rising Storm 2: Vietnam came with the modified Unreal Engine that Tripwire uses, then you can compare Arma features with this game.

[Imposter]

Arma isn't even a close comparison; maybe in the nonexistant "reticle" dept., other than that, no comparison, further into it, it's also a totally different engine.