Is Red Orchestra 2 any good?

[smearyllama]

I know I make a lot of these threads, but I prefer to get a lot of research in on the games I'm thinking about getting. I couldn't find a whole lot of reviews, so I figured I'd come here.

So, Red Orchestra 2 looks like it might give me a good shooter fix, but I've heard some bad things about it. It looks fairly difficult, and with me not being the best shooter player, I'm worried frustration might take hold before I can get the hang of things.

So, is it any good? If it's not, are there any better alternatives (not only on PC- I'd actually like to get some more use out of my consoles)?

 

[hazabaza1]

From what I've heard it's a very particular taste. The singleplayer is supposedly crap, but I've heard nothing but positive things from most people that I've spoken to that enjoy that sort of semi-realistic shooter gameplay.

 

[smearyllama]

From what I've heard it's a very particular taste. The singleplayer is supposedly crap, but I've heard nothing but positive things from most people that I've spoken to that enjoy that sort of semi-realistic shooter gameplay.

That's most of what I've heard so far, but I was hoping I could find some more in-depth information.

 

[Zer_]

From what I've heard it's a very particular taste. The singleplayer is supposedly crap, but I've heard nothing but positive things from most people that I've spoken to that enjoy that sort of semi-realistic shooter gameplay.

That's most of what I've heard so far, but I was hoping I could find some more in-depth information.

It's very much a shooter grounded in realism. You may find the entire cover system to be a bit clunky at first, but you get used to it within a few hours of play. If you don't mind being shot at without knowing where the enemy is located, then it's a very fun game to play. You must play the game conservatively, you must co-operate with your teammates.

You will die. a lot.

 

[smearyllama]

From what I've heard it's a very particular taste. The singleplayer is supposedly crap, but I've heard nothing but positive things from most people that I've spoken to that enjoy that sort of semi-realistic shooter gameplay.

That's most of what I've heard so far, but I was hoping I could find some more in-depth information.

It's very much a shooter grounded in realism. You may find the entire cover system to be a bit clunky at first, but you get used to it within a few hours of play. If you don't mind being shot at without knowing where the enemy is located, then it's a very fun game to play. You must play the game conservatively, you must co-operate with your teammates.

You will die. a lot.

How does it hold up to other military shooters? I was considering getting Battlefield 3 for PS3, also. I haven't played a new military shooter since Bad Company 2, so I don't know how the market is right now.

 

[way2sl0w]

Red Orchestra 2 (RO2) is a PC exclusive FPS that's set in World War II (specifically in the Battle of Stalingrad). It has 2 single player campaigns (one as Germans, one as Russians where you lead a squad of bots against enemy bots to capture objectives) and Multiplayer (obviously). The bots in SP aren't that great and will frustrate you. The game mechanics are set to be realistic (I'd say 8-9/10 on the realism scale with ARMA II being 10/10 and MW3/BF3 being 6/10).

RO2 is similar to playing BF3 hardcore mode with even less health, no reviving, more realistic vehicle, more recoil. In multiplayer you pick one out of a handful of classes that specialize in one aspect of combat. The game limits how many people can pick a particular class however. Usually, a team has 1-2 Officers with SMGs, 1-3 snipers, 4-5 anti-tank people and everyone else is just a generic expendable rifleman fresh off the train.

The bullet drop is quite significant and the rifles have sights that can be adjusted for range (100 m, 300 m, etc) and I found it to be quite unfriendly to new players. There's also gun sway which can be steadied by lying prone or resting from cover. As another person said before it is cover based and you will need it.


RO2 places less emphasis on getting kills and more on completing objectives (if I remember correctly, a kill = 1 pt, objective = 10 pts and the scoreboard literally doesn't even track # of kills). I also thought it was a little buggy (as in texture issues on certain parts of the map) with less than stellar optimization.

I think there's certainly fun to be had in RO2 if you're ok with what I just mentioned. Getting my first kill from >100 m was incredibly satisfying to me and I liked not having to worry about my KDR and just try to win the battle. However, I disliked the game only looking at the Battle of Stalingrad. I don't see why they couldn't throw in some maps from the other theaters of war. Anyway, let me know if you have any more questions about the game or really any military shooter out there.

 

[smearyllama]

Snipped

Wow, thanks for that. The reviews I found didn't really go into specifics, and that was really helpful.
Now, I think I'm leaning towards Red Orchestra, but I'm also interested in Battlefield 3. I really enjoyed Bad Company 1 and 2, and the PS3 version of Battlefield 3 looks like another good bet for a military shooter. Might it be better for someone who's not the best FPS player, compared to Red Orchestra?

 

[way2sl0w]

Snipped

Wow, thanks for that. The reviews I found didn't really go into specifics, and that was really helpful.
Now, I think I'm leaning towards Red Orchestra, but I'm also interested in Battlefield 3. I really enjoyed Bad Company 1 and 2, and the PS3 version of Battlefield 3 looks like another good bet for a military shooter. Might it be better for someone who's not the best FPS player, compared to Red Orchestra?

In a word, yes.

It just comes down to your personal taste. If you liked Bad Company 2, I'm sure you'll like Battlefield 3 as well. They added jets, ability to go prone, glint from sniper scopes making them easier to spot, bigger maps, and more weapon customization. It's easier to shoot people in BF3 (and inversely easier for people to shoot you) compared to RO2 for reasons already mentioned. If you spray and pray a lot in a FPS (I'm not say you do) I would NOT recommend RO2. There can also be long periods of Red Orchestra where you might not even seen an enemy so it's slower paced too. But if you want to play Battlefield's hardcore mode set in world war II and have decent aim with a mouse, then RO2 is for you.

 

[smearyllama]

Snipped

Wow, thanks for that. The reviews I found didn't really go into specifics, and that was really helpful.
Now, I think I'm leaning towards Red Orchestra, but I'm also interested in Battlefield 3. I really enjoyed Bad Company 1 and 2, and the PS3 version of Battlefield 3 looks like another good bet for a military shooter. Might it be better for someone who's not the best FPS player, compared to Red Orchestra?

In a word, yes.

It just comes down to your personal taste. If you liked Bad Company 2, I'm sure you'll like Battlefield 3 as well. They added jets, ability to go prone, glint from sniper scopes making them easier to spot, bigger maps, and more weapon customization. It's easier to shoot people in BF3 (and inversely easier for people to shoot you) compared to RO2 for reasons already mentioned. If you spray and pray a lot in a FPS (I'm not say you do) I would NOT recommend RO2. There can also be long periods of Red Orchestra where you might not even seen an enemy so it's slower paced too. But if you want to play Battlefield's hardcore mode set in world war II and have decent aim with a mouse, then RO2 is for you.

Thanks again. I think I'll need to sleep on this, but you've been a big help. I've been meaning to get more use out of my consoles for awhile now, but without Xbox Live, I haven't had access to a lot of the multiplayer I used to enjoy.

 

[Luftwaffles]

There is also another point to make about RO2. Servers arent at active nowadays, a pity really. Its a fun game once you get the hang of it. Actually its one of those games where you will have way more fun with in a clan.

 

[sextus the crazy]

I know I make a lot of these threads, but I prefer to get a lot of research in on the games I'm thinking about getting. I couldn't find a whole lot of reviews, so I figured I'd come here.

So, Red Orchestra 2 looks like it might give me a good shooter fix, but I've heard some bad things about it. It looks fairly difficult, and with me not being the best shooter player, I'm worried frustration might take hold before I can get the hang of things.

So, is it any good? If it's not, are there any better alternatives (not only on PC- I'd actually like to get some more use out of my consoles)?

When I first played multiplayer in RO2, I hadn't even SEEN an enemy until my 3rd game (when I got my first kill)

RO2 is realistic and therefore has the combat feel of "90% boredom, 10% sheer terror (heavy combat). Much of the combat is bounding from cover to cover, going prone and peeking your head out to kill anyone stupid enough not to be in cover.

It's also realistic in the sense that all weapons are period accurate (late 1942 - early 1943) (except for the Stg.44). To make weapon loadouts realistic, only a small number 1-3 people can be of a certain powerful weapon class (sniper, machinegunner, anti-tank rifleman). the rest of the people have bolt-action rifles with no scope (period accurate). So if you enjoy using iron-sight bolt-actions (like I do) you won't mind.

But since you're not good at FPS games, just play battlefield (you'll find it more enjoyable). But If you want to play a game where you can truely experience the thrill of the hunt, where every kill feels so rewarding, give RO2 a try.

 

[smearyllama]

I know I make a lot of these threads, but I prefer to get a lot of research in on the games I'm thinking about getting. I couldn't find a whole lot of reviews, so I figured I'd come here.

So, Red Orchestra 2 looks like it might give me a good shooter fix, but I've heard some bad things about it. It looks fairly difficult, and with me not being the best shooter player, I'm worried frustration might take hold before I can get the hang of things.

So, is it any good? If it's not, are there any better alternatives (not only on PC- I'd actually like to get some more use out of my consoles)?

When I first played multiplayer in RO2, I hadn't even SEEN an enemy until my 3rd game (when I got my first kill)

RO2 is realistic and therefore has the combat feel of "90% boredom, 10% sheer terror (heavy combat). Much of the combat is bounding from cover to cover, going prone and peeking your head out to kill anyone stupid enough not to be in cover.

It's also realistic in the sense that all weapons are period accurate (late 1942 - early 1943) (except for the Stg.44). To make weapon loadouts realistic, only a small number 1-3 people can be of a certain powerful weapon class (sniper, machinegunner, anti-tank rifleman). the rest of the people have bolt-action rifles with no scope (period accurate). So if you enjoy using iron-sight bolt-actions (like I do) you won't mind.

But since you're not good at FPS games, just play battlefield (you'll find it more enjoyable). But If you want to play a game where you can truely experience the thrill of the hunt, where every kill feels so rewarding, give RO2 a try.

Thanks for the help. From what I've heard so far, I think I'll grab it next time it's on sale, and I do believe I'll pick up BF3 tomorrow.