Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Some legit thoughts on RO SP

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Some legit thoughts on RO SP

    Preliminary remarks:


    1. Yes, I ran a search under Red Orchestra, and have read the results, among them the Red Orchestra thread with 121 replys. Please do not suggest I use the search function of this forum since the points I discuss below were not mentioned in those post from what I can recall.

    2. This thread is specifically, and solely concerned with the single player aspect of Red Orchestra and UT2004. Please do not post comments regarding the multiplayer aspect of this game, or post comments on how playing Red Orchestra or UT2004 online will remedy any unsatisfaction a player might have with the "Practice" game play of Red Orchestra or single player mode of UT2004.

    3. I'm well aware that RO is provided free to owners of UT2004. This fact does not render the game immune to my or other people's criticism. As I shall discuss below, this game has/had great potential, possibly becoming one of the best FPS games of it's genre, especially if most of the fundamental problems of the game are addressed. In fact, if the problems I mention below are addressed, I would seriously consider buying a retail version of this game. Nonetheless, sad too say, the game is in need of a lot of T.L.C. and many commonsense improvements before I will ever consider the game worthy of publishing or taking seriously enough to become addictive.

    Now, right off the bat, I want too say something good about this game. It might not be what you're expecting, but I have a sweet tooth for eye candy. (BTW: Eye candy is what's motivating the majority of you to lay out $300 to $ 400 dollars for a new graphics card every few years. To dismiss eye candy as irrelevent to your gaming experience while owning a Radeon 9800 or NVidia equivalent is pulling the wool over your own eyes! Just be honest and admit you like the way new games look, or you would still be playing DOOM, HALF-LIFE, or say, AGE OF EMPIRES, etc...!). Perhaps it's just me, but I find the vehicles in RO to be exceptionally well crafted (as it were). I mean, particularly, the vehicles in RO stand out as impressive. Maybe I haven't played enough FPS games of this kind to have witnessed anything better.

    Moving on...

    Let me begin by making a couple of observations about RO that might or might not help newcomers to the game. Within these suggestions I will rant about RO and UT2004 shortcomings:

    Most of you have probably already guessed, or are likely to figure out, that when playing the practice mode of RO, you must be the Platoon leader on some of the maps. The first map listed is an excellent example. If you have chosen not to be the platoon leader, you will be unable to complete one of the objectives. On this map, using the default bot configuration (both sides have a six man team), your team is divided into two groups. When you are platoon commander two bots are auto assigned to follow and cover you. Unfortunetly, if one of the bots on your team has also chosen to be a platoon leader as you have done, he will be auto assigned to follow and cover you rather than command the other two bots. (The command of, and coordination of the bots on your team, in Red Orchestra and UT2004 is something I want to seriously discuss in this forum, perhaps by brainstorming together we could compel Epic to implement badly needed improvements or additions to both game types. I would not take the time to write this if I did not already find something compelling about Red Orchestra, so don't misjudge what I have to say below as the rantings of a disbeliever, or malcontent.

    My biggest beef with Red Orchestra! (Solution is it's ticket to a much brighter future.)

    Bots do not respond to any of the commands or taunts (regardless of character) under the voice "V" menu. For example, if I'm platoon leader, and I issue the command "1" Attack/"3" Ammo Drop, obviously the bots do not make their way to the objective you specified. Instead, they hang around the location were they first spawned. (Which is actually pathetic). Visualize if you will, what possible courses of action bots could conceivably take if you were permitted to issue real orders!

    Suppose I issued the order Attack Ammo Drop. This is what I would expect to see: The two bots assigned to me would proceed to the objective without regard to my location and well-being, and would engage any enemy bots they come across; once they reached the objective, they would defend it until given a contary order. This leads me to suggest adding a third subcommand to the attack command, with the option to be either aggressive or evasive. The evasive option would encourage the bots to avoid the enemy until it successfully reached the objective, at which point the bots would revert to a defensive stance until given an alternative order. Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking that the bots are always successful, or they do everything but rather, that they at least execute the order and make a decent attempt, which is more than I can say for bots I find currently in UT2004 and especially in Red Orchestra.

    You see, (I hope you can at least appreciate my point of view) it's the lack of true leadership, or AI dealing with basic orders that has me fustrated not only with RO, but with UT2004 in general. If only I could really give the bots orders, and the bots would follow them to the letter, would I enjoy playing team based single player games a great deal more than I do now. Imagine, if you will, the ability to truly order bots with the commands listed under the voice menu for the Platoon leader. Also imagine what it would be like if you called for backup, and near by bots actually attempted to come to your aid? I would really like to see alot of the taunts turned into commands. Such as:

    In UT2004:

    Incoming; base is under attack; we are being overrun = Automatically changes bots stance to defense (protect the flag, goal, domination point) until a bot makes (minimal) one frag in
    your base!

    I need backup, under heavy attack, I'm hit = bots seek you out, and cover you!

    Take their flag! = This should be a special order you assign to one or two bots. It orders the bot to make it's way to the enemy base and obtain the flag when possible. It does not mean the bot should back you up when you have the flag, rather it should linger in the enemy base, ready to snag the flag when you score

    I know a lot of people are going to find this controversial, but I would like to see not only more positive taunts available (other than NICE and NOT BAD), but a way to factor positive taunts into the moral of bots. If a bot does something you find noteworthy, there should be a way to acknowledge and encourage it. In single player are you not the leader? How difficult would this really be? I'm personally sick and tired of all the negative taunts, especially the mature taunts (which I disable, but would not suggest eliminating), which actually gets on my nerves more than anything about this game. What in the hell happen to sayings like "I'm on fire"-- I loved that expression! There was nothing demeaning about it! The only auto-taunt (appears to be missing in UT2004) that complimented a player was "Not Bad".

    Yes, I'm calling for a more comprehensive AI response to all voice menu options! Especially for Red Orchestra, which would benefit hugely from such an addition.

    Moving on...

    Crosshair: I think it's inappropriate not to have a weapon crosshair in RO. (This is UT2004, mind you!) I know you are able to select Iron Sight, but this is no substitute for what should be included in the game. The Iron Sight should allow a short zoom, just like what the secondary sight does (without a scope) for weapons in Rogue Spear or Ghost Recon.

    Where the hell is the knife? Yes, I know you can equip certain weapons with a bayonet, or use the butt of the weapon to attack an enemy. Of course, the bayonet should work better than the butt of any rifle, since it causes real damage, as opposed to knocking someone unconsious. Since the only way to obtain more ammo for your weapon or obtain an alternate weapon (when you run out of ammo) is too kill an enemy (seeing there is no ammo distributed about the map), then a "last-resort-go-to-weapon" is absolutely necessary. I hate having to blow my self up with a grenade, or charge the enemy head on with an empty clip because there is no real alternative at hand for acquiring ammunition. Unfortunately, the realism attempted in this game actually hinders the game's experience, by stubbornly restricting you to weapons that cannot be outfitted with enemy weapons. In other words, if the enemy uses ammo that is not compatible with your weapon (which you were supposedly trained on...???)
    you are forced, even screwed into using; then by all means acquire the **** weapon A.S.A.P.

    Thank goodness they included an objectives map! (press "O" by default). Without that map, the game would not only be pointless, but ridiculessly difficult. Now, as much as I'm relieved they provided the map, I'm sorely disappointed in what the map has to show. I'm comfortable without a minimap displayed on my HUD, or the need for a minimap to issue orders, that's what would make UT2004's voice menu commands unique and useful. However, I would like to see were my teammates are if I chose to open the objectives map. I'm understanding and willing to except that this feature is not included when it comes to typical UT2004 game types (including Jailbreak), but not with Red Orchestra. There must be a way to see were your teammates are located in Red Orchestra, and until this is resolved, the game will remain nothing but a bad mod on UT2004.

    When playing the Practice mode of RO, and your team is too be divided and there is more than one slot for a platoon leader, then the other platoon leader should actually lead the other platoon!

    If you chose to play a role other than platoon leader on maps requiring only one person present to fulfill an objective, then the bot platoon leader should actually engage in some leadership

    Either distribute ammo around the map, or provide a reliable, but not necessarily fail-safe way to obtain more ammunition. A knife, and stealthy way to employ it would be nice!

    If I'm shooting from the hip, I should move faster! I should also move faster when aiming in Iron Sight mode. If both sniper and Iron Sight mode require very slow, or stand-still conditions to be accurate, then moving enemy bots should reflect this principle. (Regardless of the weapon they deploy.)

    To include a tactical manual that supposedly emphasizes realistic combat tactics, and then have bots that cannot assimulate those conditions (only other humans online), is miserably failing to create a new or even decent game.

    The future of PC games will either be multiplayer (absolutely pathetic [eye candy only]) or MP with Single player! Note: real talent amoung game designers and programmers will express themselves in single player (otherwise known as, Artificial Intelligence) and MP only games are desperate attempts by inferior companies with inferior talent to produce something they
    can make a quick buck off of!

    I'll stop here! Unfortunately I did not cover all I wanted to, but seeing how long the post I made here is, I think it's asking (not be sarcastic) a little much to read.

    P.S. I took prior forum member's advice and broke up my post into segements, however I'm afraid that will do little to abate that kind of criticism of my thread.

    #2
    impressive post - i dont have time to read it, so maybe you could just post a one line summary of whether you liked it or not

    Comment


      #3
      Wow, and to think you wouldn't have had to type all that stuff out if you'd taken your head out of your butt long enough to realise that it's an early BETA release!!

      Nice going. :down:

      Comment


        #4
        Well idiot...,

        seeing its a BETA release means it's all the more open to criticism and suggestions!

        That's why it's Beta,

        Da...!


        The stupid replys I see and even get in this forum are endless...:sour:

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by SculptedCold
          Wow, and to think you wouldn't have had to type all that stuff out if you'd taken your head out of your butt long enough to realise that it's an early BETA release!!

          Nice going. :down:
          given him a break, his looking for editorial job, me trow grenade and hide

          he doesnt know what it takes to create a mod like that, they are a small team struggling to get it to beta and you complain

          Comment


            #6
            Re: Some legit thoughts on RO SP

            Originally posted by meKilgore
            Now, right off the bat, I want too say something good about this game. It might not be what you're expecting, but I have a sweet tooth for eye candy. (BTW: Eye candy is what's motivating the majority of you to lay out $300 to $ 400 dollars for a new graphics card every few years. To dismiss eye candy as irrelevent to your gaming experience while owning a Radeon 9800 or NVidia equivalent is pulling the wool over your own eyes! Just be honest and admit you like the way new games look, or you would still be playing DOOM, HALF-LIFE, or say, AGE OF EMPIRES, etc...!).
            Actually, I'm personally not still playing Quake 1 because the community for it is too small and stagnant (relatively speaking). The same goes for Quake 3.

            I move to a new game and community when the stream of new forum posts, news articles, tactics, mods and maps dries up.

            I'll do the same whenever this happens to UT04, too.

            But lets get one thing straight: I dont do it for the eye candy. Visuals are nice and I do enjoy exploring custom maps with the graphics cranked up. But the bulk of my gaming is done with the lowest settings I can hit.

            Comment


              #7
              What I got out of skimming that post is that it's a really long criticism of why playing RO offline sucks.

              Here's the short version: Playing RO offline sucks because the RO dev team has put zero -- that's right, ZERO -- effort into coding AI for the game. By admission. As in if you run into them on IRC and ask them, "Hey guys, how much work have you done on RO AI?" they'll tell you straight up, "none."

              And they don't care, either... and neither do most of the players.

              RO isn't alone in that regard. There are tons and tons of total conversion mods out there that have either half- ***** or outright NO bot support.

              Looking for Single Player? Sorry, it don't got none. And won't for a long, long time. So quit banging your head about it 'cause it'll only give you a headache. Whether that's good or bad isn't for me to say, but it's definitely the way it is.

              As for the "Beta" monicker, I do agree that's no defense. A "beta" labelled mod should be critiqued... but criticism in this area is a wasted effort.

              Comment


                #8
                Re: Re: Some legit thoughts on RO SP

                Originally posted by TheGreatFoo
                Actually, I'm personally not still playing Quake 1 because the community for it is too small and stagnant (relatively speaking). The same goes for Quake 3.

                I move to a new game and community when the stream of new forum posts, news articles, tactics, mods and maps dries up.

                I'll do the same whenever this happens to UT04, too.

                But lets get one thing straight: I dont do it for the eye candy. Visuals are nice and I do enjoy exploring custom maps with the graphics cranked up. But the bulk of my gaming is done with the lowest settings I can hit.

                You got to be kidding, TheGreatFoo! Out of all I had to say above the only point of mine you found worthy of commenting on was what you quoted above?

                Please note I said "majority", furthermore, I'm was generalizing over all game types, and the claim that people buy graphics cards so they can find a sufficient number of servers and players on those servers is preposterous. The assumption that most PC gamers are playing MP games is completely ludicrious! If I went by the number of servers running UT2004 and the number of people playing on them, or the number of registered forum members, I would say this game did not sell very many copies in relation to the amount of money invested in the project to begin with.

                There must be something other than "your friends have purchased this game" to motivate you to buy and play it, and if its not eye candy or the ragdoll physics, then what? ONS, or ASSAULT? DID YOU OWN UT2003, which before EBP, had only DM, TDM, CTF, DM, and new, BR!

                :bulb:

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: Some legit thoughts on RO SP

                  I pasted that post into Word and it's 4 pages (not double spaced). Shiznit. :haha:

                  Comment


                    #10
                    thumbs up and a cookie for the constructive cricicism. slap over the head to the fanboys that think their favourite mod is flawless.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Re: Re: Re: Some legit thoughts on RO SP

                      Originally posted by meKilgore
                      You got to be kidding, TheGreatFoo! Out of all I had to say above the only point of mine you found worthy of commenting on was what you quoted above?
                      I didn't realise I wasn't free to reply to an individual point you made, without being required to tackle your post in full.

                      Please note I said "majority"
                      To dismiss eye candy as irrelevent to your gaming experience while owning a Radeon 9800 or NVidia equivalent is pulling the wool over your own eyes! Just be honest and admit you like the way new games look, or you would still be playing DOOM, HALF-LIFE, or say, AGE OF EMPIRES, etc...!
                      You talked about 'The majority' then later talked about 'You' (the reader). Semantecs, yes, but you addressed me, the reader, personally, and I responded.

                      furthermore, I'm was generalizing over all game types, and the claim that people buy graphics cards so they can find a sufficient number of servers and players on those servers is preposterous.
                      I established that I was playing THIS GAME because I require one with a large, active community. The speed of my PC and graphics system is hence good because I need to run this game, not because of my love of eye candy. You're confusing yourself a little here.

                      The assumption that most PC gamers are playing MP games is completely ludicrious! If I went by the number of servers running UT2004 and the number of people playing on them, or the number of registered forum members, I would say this game did not sell very many copies in relation to the amount of money invested in the project to begin with.
                      But this isn't relevent to the point I was making about my reasons for having a fast system. This is precisely WHY I didn't respond to any of the rest of your post, because I'm not interested in that discussion and am only dealing with one of the smaller subjects you mentioned.


                      There must be something other than "your friends have purchased this game"
                      I think, again, you've become confused. The circle of people I regularly game with has nothing to do with the overall size of the community and the amount of user-made content which is produced. As I stated (sigh) those are my reasons for playing UT2004 instead of, say, Quake 1.


                      to motivate you to buy and play it, and if its not eye candy or the ragdoll physics, then what? ONS, or ASSAULT? DID YOU OWN UT2003, which before EBP, had only DM, TDM, CTF, DM, and new, BR!
                      Heh, again, for the (what, third) time, you've based your entire reply on a conclusion you erratically drew from what I said. I am playing this game because of the size of the community, not because of its pretty graphics and ragdoll physics (although I do like them).

                      Making me restate my case over and over in various different ways is something I'm only willing to do for you a few times, before I give up and decide you're too simple to engage in even the most basic dialogue.

                      :bulb:
                      Bulb indeed :up:

                      Comment


                        #12
                        If you did search the RO site, you would have read over and over again that practice mode has had almost no work done. The only reason it is even in RO is b/c it comes with UT2004. This will be improved upon in later versions but not until MP is perfected so don't look for it for a while.

                        There will NEVER EVER be crosshairs. Again, if you searched like you said, you would have read that.

                        A spade or small shovel was the weapon of choice for melee combat on the Eastern Front. This will be added eventually.

                        If you're running through ammo so quick that you have to scramble to find more, you must be spraying and praying b/c I rarely ever run out of ammo before dying. And if I happen to run low on ammo, I make sure I kill an enemy so I can get their weapon and ammo. This was based on realism and something that will not be changed just to make the game easier.

                        Again, realism takes precedence over a HUD that tells you where your teammates are. We may add a map showing where you are but never your teammates. That's what voicecomm or teamchat is for. We're also working on a way to better inform you of the location of objectives. If it was my choice, it wouldn't be added b/c people are too lazy to walk the map a few times in practice mode to learn it.

                        Out of your huge post, the only rational suggestion you had was regarding the melee weapon. All the other "stuff" could have been easily found by searching as you say you did.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          ROFL, I skimmed trough that huge post, and I guess the RO team would appreciate the comments and stuff if they actually bothered to CREATE BOT SUPPORT for the maps!

                          Thats right! No custom AI for RO made yet! The bots still think they're playing UT2004! Trying to find their flak cannons, strafing, trying to couble dodge, etc! And there's NO both paths on the maps! They dont know what to do, they'll ****** about, shoot a bit, not much else.

                          Furthermore I would like to point out that RO is _BETA_ ....
                          As in, they've got a ****load planned to improve, and create.

                          About the crosshairs, wtf. Do you know what RO is about?
                          There are no, and will never be any crosshairs in RO...
                          I think you should read the RO site... :haha:

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by TheGreatFoo
                            I didn't realise I wasn't free to reply to an individual point you made, without being required to tackle your post in full.
                            Well, all I can say is that it's ashame you would take what I said above personally. You're more than free to isolate and comment on whatever point of mine you feel like speaking too. I guess I was expecting more from forum members like yourself, but unfortunately, it's more about your way of seeing things than mine.

                            Originally posted by TheGreatFoo
                            You talked about 'The majority' then later talked about 'You' (the reader). Semantecs, yes, but you addressed me, the reader, personally, and I responded.
                            It's spelled semantics (goading you only a little ), and I appreciate that you took time to respond as a reader, since I assumed my audience was on the whole the UT community. But although you might have your individual reasons for buying a decent or state-of-the-art graphics card, that reason might not square with everone, myself included. If everone turned out the opinion you did, then there would be little motivation to create new game engines, etc...

                            Originally posted by TheGreatFoo
                            I established that I was playing THIS GAME because I require one with a large, active community. The speed of my PC and graphics system is hence good because I need to run this game, not because of my love of eye candy. You're confusing yourself a little here.
                            Unfortunately, since I started the thread and was the first to make a point, I'm afraid the only person who's confused is you! Your point was Off the Topic from what I wrote to begin with. Again, I appreciate your perspective on your computer needs for the UT community, but this was not what I was addressing in what I wrote above. Apparently, you have a difficult time appreciating my P.O.V., so I won't spend any effort on trying to make you understand what I was saying, since it seems to have passed you by!


                            Originally posted by TheGreatFoo
                            But this isn't relevent to the point I was making about my reasons for having a fast system. This is precisely WHY I didn't respond to any of the rest of your post, because I'm not interested in that discussion and am only dealing with one of the smaller subjects you mentioned.
                            Then why did you post to begin with?

                            Originally posted by TheGreatFoo
                            I think, again, you've become confused. The circle of people I regularly game with has nothing to do with the overall size of the community and the amount of user-made content which is produced. As I stated (sigh) those are my reasons for playing UT2004 instead of, say, Quake 1.
                            Here I must admit I'm confused, since you have not elaborated on why you chose UT2004, and not other games, that have even larger, more active communities!

                            Originally posted by TheGreatFoo
                            Heh, again, for the (what, third) time, you've based your entire reply on a conclusion you erratically drew from what I said. I am playing this game because of the size of the community, not because of its pretty graphics and ragdoll physics (although I do like them).
                            Now your just being nasty! Typical of the people that frequent this forum. If the size is the only thing that matters to you, then I'm still confused as to why you chose to play UT2004.

                            Originally posted by TheGreatFoo
                            Making me restate my case over and over in various different ways is something I'm only willing to do for you a few times, before I give up and decide you're too simple to engage in even the most basic dialogue.
                            This quote is particularly sad, because it's what I expect to see from someone speaking from their bum hole. "I'll make you understand me even if I have to insult your intelligence and make an *** out of you in front of the forum. Such childish mentality circulates through all forums; a fact I suppose I need to except and move on, but the likes of you will never be capable of handling an intelligent discussion with me, not even discussing shop over UT2004!

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Right. I don't think anybody in the RO community would seriously accept the assertion that I'm a Red Orchestra "fanboy."

                              What I am a fan of, however, is iron sights games... and I can tell you that while the threadstarter has attempted constructive criticism of sorts, what has in fact actually happened in this thread is the birth of his realization that he doesn't like iron sights/ realism shooters. Which is, of course, just fine... it's a free internet after all.

                              RO may or may not be the best example currently available. If you want some comparisons, try the retail game Operation Flashpoint or any of these total conversion mods: Infiltration and The Third Reich for UT, or True Combat for Quake3. There's more out there, but those are the main ones I'm familiar with.

                              Generally in these types of games you'll encounter an intent on the part of the developers to convey as great a sense of realism as possible... often to the degree of crossing the line from "shooter" into "simulation." These games will often restrict movement/ communication capacities to either emulate or else create what could be described as a reasonable abstraction of actual battlefield conditions. This persuit of realism is at the core of such games, and to deviate from it is to change the game into something completely different.

                              That's why, unless the whole mission statement of RO changes completely, you won't see: crosshairs, team- positioning radar, magic ammo and health pickups, or weapons that are able to accept any caliber of ammunition the user chooses to jam into them.

                              If you want more of a videogame type of experience, allow me to recommend Day Of Defeat... it's a nice WW2 shooter for the HalfLife engine with crosshairs, radar and all that stuff. Lots of people enjoy it and I think you might as well. But don't try to turn a dog into a cat here, it won't work. Realism games aren't for everybody, it's basically a niche market. So it goes.



                              As to the threadstarter's generalized statements about what game AI ought to be, I mainly agree. Where and when all that's possible, and where and when we'll see it is unforseeable. Hopefully we'll get some of that sometime in the near future.

                              However, I don't think that a game is "unacceptable" as multiplayer only... a lot of people enjoy Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, and that game contains no AI of any kind. And I don't think that the MP only format necessarily entails a game that's heavy on GFX and devoid of gameplay. I think RO has a lot of problems in the mapping department as far as making the gametype work properly goes, but I also think it's better now than it was when it was first released... and I think those flaws are specific to Red Orchestra and not to multiplayer gaming as a whole.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X