Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Orchestra Mod Released For UT2004

Posted by simoniker on from the blue-conductor dept.

MigrantHail writes "According to the official site, the Red Orchestra 2 mod has just been released for Unreal Tournament 2004. Red Orchestra is a popular, freely downloadable total conversion mod which takes place in World War II, on the Eastern front (Germany against Russia, mainly.) The mod tries to give a more realistic WWII experience by not using crosshairs (aim down the barrels) and keeping the guns true to history."

4 of 48 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Original! by BrookHarty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We need Hexen or Heretic ported to a newer engine. Miss having a FPS with a porkolator or turn people into chickens. Tribes Vengence, CounterStrike Source (aka HL2 multiplayer) are also ones I'm waiting to come out.

    History games are ok, but I miss games as fun as Duke Nuke3d, with trip wires, and shrink rays, or even classic the SkyNet terminator game. Fakk2 was another great FPS, or American McGee's Alice in wonderland.

    Maybe a time travel game, where you have to go back and win old battles with modern weapons. Nice snipers rifle against some pirates. Oh the carnage.

    -
    Powerups are for nerds

  2. Re:Original! by zaxer · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Certainly the WWII genre is overplayed, but you still need to keep in mind that for conflicts to be potential multiplayer games, the sides need to be somewhat equal.

    For example, the colonial war. You state the problem yourself - you need a bunch more people playing Brits than Americans, while the Americans have much more fun, because they can snipe and be original, while the Brits just march around everywhere and obey orders. Not a game I'd want to play.

    Or feudal Japan? Who would want to point and click a gun when you have swords with a ton of cool moves that go along? I wouldn't.

    That said, I think there still are a lot of options. It would be good for game developers to be much more original... but not every conflict would work.

  3. no crosshair != realism by SurgeryByNumbers · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why do people think that removing the crosshair makes a game more realistic? The whole reason it's there is to compensate for what you lose by actually having the gun in your hands: a mental crosshair. You can't tell me that a soldier doesn't have a strong idea of where a bullet will land when he fires. Painting a pretty dot in the middle of the screen is the best we can approximate the experiance.

    So unless we start playing with light guns (or something resembling a holodeck), leave the crosshair in!

    Now, if you want to punish accuracy when firing from the hip over looking down the barrel, that's another story...

    1. Re:no crosshair != realism by MachDelta · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You can't tell me that a soldier doesn't have a strong idea of where a bullet will land when he fires.
      Of course he does. Thats why he's looking down the sights of his rifle. :)
      If you mean hip firing, well that only happens in the movies. Yeah, a real life soldier might have a rough idea of where the bullet will hit - but so do the players in the game. Even moderately experienced players will have a vauge idea of where their center is. Not precise enough to hit a distant target with, but good enough to (maybe) drop an enemy from 20 feet when they suprise you.

      Whats not realistic about that? :)