Rock, Paper, Shotgun

30/07/2008 at 08:48 Stitched says:

Animation ? Not so much.
Visual Effects ? Not so much.

I think this trailer doesn’t show anything, which is a bit worrying. What it does show is a great game…

…from the late 90′s.

30/07/2008 at 09:16 ORYLY says:

Wacky trailer for a realistic Russian RTS? It’s not really wacky compared to the trailer for Theatre of War. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=stjuX0DCbfI)

30/07/2008 at 10:23 RiptoR says:

Looks a bit like Soldiers Heroes of WW2. That game also had different hitlocations for tanks and stuff.

I’m replaying that game atm, I just love the gameplay of Soldiers. The varying physics and ballistics of different types of ammo/guns/grenades makes the game fun to play. Especially taking on an entire Allied tank squadron with a heavy Tiger tank is enticing.

PS: If anyone is up for a coop session in Soldiers, contact me ;)

30/07/2008 at 11:00 Jesucristo says:

CoH arcadish, of course. Arcadish, not arcade. That’s because is not a realistic game. There is not hyper realism in games. CoH is action oriented, the game is fast paced to be a RTS, like most “normal” RTS. Soldiers Heroes of WW2 is less arcadish than CoH. But I think that there is not “normal” games. Every game has its own public.
Men of War is from the same team than Soldiers, but more realistic (or less arcadish).

30/07/2008 at 11:13 Psychopomp says:

wat

30/07/2008 at 11:33 Real Horrorshow says:

Well I already scoffed at giving arbitrary distinctions to games and only offered on that I felt was more accurate if we had to use them.

I would argue most games that are billed as “realistic,” especially FPS games, feel totally stale and the exact opposite of what I imagine being in a battle would be like. Perfect example is Red Orchestra which is slow, cumbersome, and just dull. There’s more to realism than just having the right armor penetration values for a pak gun hitting an IS-2 tank’s side armor or setting up an FPS so people die in one hit and recoil has you aiming at the sky after 3 shots in full auto. In some respects I think it can be argued that a game like Call of Duty is more realistic than Red Orchestra in certain significant ways, same thing with games like Men of War and CoH. CoH is unrealistic in many ways, but it’s got cover, side/rear/frontal armor is VERY important to consider when attacking a tank, there’s suppression, pinning, etc. soldiers act behave realistically. I value this type of realism over the realism of “numbers” that a lot of fans of stale realism games gush over.

30/07/2008 at 13:11 Jesucristo says:

CoD has not any realism, and of course less realism in EVERY aspect if you compare with Red Orchestra. Is slow, of course, because infantry combat is not the olympic games. The infantry could only charge for a moment, taking acoount that you have about 20kg extra weight (ammo, weapons, grenades) and your foot does not wear a pair of Nike. And Bunny Hopping… blaj…

Numbers like penetration, armor values, ballistic and such of things are very important for the realism. It has not sense to kill a tank with guns only because you shoot him 1000 times. COver has not sense because Tank has not “point of view” or “line of Sight”, like Theatre of War. And you know where to hit, (it’s not the same a hit in front armor than side or rear), you know the range of the enemy weapon, and yours… its like compare IL2 Sturmovik with Crimson Skies.

30/07/2008 at 15:12 Deuteronomy says:

Haha I have to defend Red Orchestra. In my opinion it’s simply the best multiplayer FPS – and possibly the best multiplayer game out there period. Experience 50 man Konigsplatz – it’s sheer insanity with tank shells, mg fire and artillery raking the battlefield. It’s on a completely differently level than a skanky game of paintball in COD4.

30/07/2008 at 18:05 Erlam says:

“In some respects I think it can be argued that a game like Call of Duty is more realistic than Red Orchestra in certain significant ways…”

Name these ways. Hell, name two.

I’m not sure why everyone thinks people asking for ‘realistic’ means they want ‘exactly like life.’ What people want with ‘realistic’ games is often – no health regen; weapon jams; non-suicidal A.I.; environmental interaction that is meaningful (bushes make noise when crawled through, you can’t just leap over a 12 foot chasm, .50cals go through walls, but 9mm parabellums don’t, etc); weapons that don’t do ’25′ damage, but do different damage based on where they hit, etc. The idea is that you obviously can’t make a game that perfectly represents how real life works, but you can get close in meaningful ways.

Basically:
Call of Duty – Unrealistic.
Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear – Realistic.

30/07/2008 at 20:18 Master Builder says:

That was highly comical!

“Let’s take a piccie of the tank, get bored and walk off.

Whoops we left the Germans inside, doh.”

(Germans blow Russians to pieces, GAME OVAR!!)

(sic)

:)