Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45

 PC
User Score
8.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1300 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1,091 out of 1300
  2. Mixed: 65 out of 1300
  3. Negative: 144 out of 1300
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. SSavard
    Aug 4, 2006
    5
    Gameplay sucks big time, nice graphics tho tanks are cool.
  2. JacobL
    Jun 25, 2008
    5
    This game Is Okay, graphics are fine, but there should be more to the game.
  3. DavidM
    Jan 3, 2010
    6
    This game is quite the experiment, but ultimately falls short. From a presentation perspective, the immersion and attention to detail is quite good. The graphics are more than good enough on max settings and the music is great. The weapon sounds are crisp and feel powerful. The various ways you can get mangled and the grittiness of the game is great. However, the gameplay is obnoxious. This game is quite the experiment, but ultimately falls short. From a presentation perspective, the immersion and attention to detail is quite good. The graphics are more than good enough on max settings and the music is great. The weapon sounds are crisp and feel powerful. The various ways you can get mangled and the grittiness of the game is great. However, the gameplay is obnoxious. Many problems stem from the focus on realism (Which in itself is a ridiculous concept, did the devs fight in ww2? What is this claim based on besides ballistics and an interface that fights the user every step of the way? ) The maps are too large for the player count, even on 50 player servers. A problem also common in BF2. Getting anywhere takes an obscene amount of time and at first I was frantically trying to select my spawn point, like in Battlefield games before figuring that it's not possible. The gunplay is irritating and very unsatisfying. Aiming down the sights takes too long, and you have to be perfectly still and prone to make accurate shots, which rewards a campy playstyle that is only accentuated by the immense maps. Any attempt at moving forward is met by a hail of grenades or cross-map sniping, forcing players to stay entrenched and just wait for runners. Forcing the player to left-click a second time to rechamber the round on bolt-action rifles is superfluous and unnecessary, all other games do it for you. What people look for in FPS games, and even the hardcore population that this game seems to be aimed at, is weapon balance and satisfying gunplay. If this can not be delivered, not amount of absurd realism will make them stick with the game, which explains the failure of OR on a commercial level and the ever thriving of games like Counter-Strike and Quake Live in the competitive community.… Expand
  4. OrBiTaL
    Apr 3, 2006
    5
    Having downloaded the game and played it i see nothing new here,it offers no more than CODUO only CODUO has better graphics and is easier to control.I'm sorry but the graphics are dated and the new boards out today will soit this thing out i cant give it less than 5 simply because some poor sole sat at his desk for 8 months creating this but it seems he was refused tea breaks and fellHaving downloaded the game and played it i see nothing new here,it offers no more than CODUO only CODUO has better graphics and is easier to control.I'm sorry but the graphics are dated and the new boards out today will soit this thing out i cant give it less than 5 simply because some poor sole sat at his desk for 8 months creating this but it seems he was refused tea breaks and fell asleep during programing.… Expand
  5. PatrickJ831
    Mar 9, 2012
    7
    World War II fans will play real hardcore games! The extent of its verisimilitude makes you really want to find a cover to get on the ground, a pity that the operation is not enough close to the people
  6. FuzzyInc.
    Dec 10, 2006
    6
    The design of the maps is good and the sounds are also nice. The teamplay is awful as an overview is lacking. Also the maps are pretty big, so it takes a while before you meet the enemy. Furhermore the chosing of the figures you wanne be is not pretty, cause the popular rankings are gone fast (sniper, etc.).
  7. Teufelswulf
    Dec 8, 2006
    6
    Well I appreciate that Tripwire has tried to create a realistic WWII FPS but sorry it doesn't score well with me. I see fans of realistic FPSes saying that well you can't swap a mag in 2 seconds, you can't run really run that fast, etc. etc. Well you're actually wrong. The reload in this game was timed pretty decently. First of all, you're assuming the role of a Well I appreciate that Tripwire has tried to create a realistic WWII FPS but sorry it doesn't score well with me. I see fans of realistic FPSes saying that well you can't swap a mag in 2 seconds, you can't run really run that fast, etc. etc. Well you're actually wrong. The reload in this game was timed pretty decently. First of all, you're assuming the role of a well-trained soldier which knows his weapon well and will be in good physical condition. Except if you're playing the Russians who just threw recruits out there like no tomorrow or if it's 1945 at the fall of Berlin and you're an old man or a kid with a Panzerfaust or a Luger. But for the majority you will know how to use your weapon and take care of it to a pretty decent extent. What this means is you should run alot faster and be able to sprint longer, sighting your weapon should be quicker, recoil should be lessened, etc. etc. Developers need to realize that realism DOES NOT ALWAYS EQUAL SLOW. The vehicular combat could be better if you had more awareness. It is realistic but you must remember most people who play PC DO NOT have microphones meaning there will almost be little to no communication between a group of people in a single vehicle. The graphics of this game are well done, especially the richoeting mg bullets, (nice touch) the vehicle handling is also well done, the damage ratio is good, the sound is also pretty awesome. All in all, a good attempt that is fun for people that like the stereotypical slow tactical fps but for most it's going to be a pretty crappy time.… Expand
  8. Howard
    May 19, 2006
    6
    Old engine, old technology, some frustrating bugs and overall unfinished and unpolished look to it, Tries to be realistic and is doing a great job in some areas of gameplay, and poorly in others. Difficult game for some new players.
  9. JayM.
    Jun 20, 2006
    6
    A 6 only because of some of the clumsy movement and control aspects. Also it lost another whole point from me because of some of the unrealistic tank damage for such an oterwise realistic game. Last critique is that the load time is horrendous. Outside of the negatives I mention, it has the potential to be a GREAT game!
  10. MS
    Jun 4, 2006
    5
    The developers of this game focused too much on the realism portion of this game and left out the fun. The only time this game is fun is if you are playing online with people. The game is too difficult is pick up and play and the RO community treats you as an idiot if you ask questions. The tank battles are the only redeaming quality to this game. The infantry battles are boring. You run The developers of this game focused too much on the realism portion of this game and left out the fun. The only time this game is fun is if you are playing online with people. The game is too difficult is pick up and play and the RO community treats you as an idiot if you ask questions. The tank battles are the only redeaming quality to this game. The infantry battles are boring. You run forever on some maps just to get to the action. The load times for each map are way too long. The graphics are okay but are not on par with modern shooters like COD2. There is only one type of gameplay. There is no CTF or Search and Sestroy. If you liked Battlefield, you may like this game. Otherwise, save your money.… Expand
  11. Jonick
    Sep 16, 2006
    7
    Not bad, DOD has better graphics.
  12. rta
    Sep 3, 2007
    5
    Great effort. Clumsy at best. Hard to see distances. You don't feel "connected" to your gun like you do in mohaa or COD. Awful physics engine. Tanks can't go up a 10 ft. hill.
  13. JoeA.
    Jan 20, 2008
    6
    The game really impressed me at first. Finally a realistic WWII game!. Then I noticed all those bugs or things to improve that really handicaps the game. First of all I'm always stuck with 2-3 serevrs under 100 ping and there all the same. 24/7 danzig or ARAD ARAD ARAD! IM SICK OF THOSE 2 MAPS! Player gets out of breath way too quickly and the spawn zones are a mile away from the The game really impressed me at first. Finally a realistic WWII game!. Then I noticed all those bugs or things to improve that really handicaps the game. First of all I'm always stuck with 2-3 serevrs under 100 ping and there all the same. 24/7 danzig or ARAD ARAD ARAD! IM SICK OF THOSE 2 MAPS! Player gets out of breath way too quickly and the spawn zones are a mile away from the battle, more running than gunning when you die often. You can't hear players running behind you. Cannot hear greandes falling nearby. Player gets stuck in stupid insignificant objects, cannot leap over low obstacles. Respawn time cant be looong. Tank battles are unrealistic as for the forces. Tiger gets defeated EASILY by t34/76 and 85 at more than a mile on the front. Too many frustrating things. RO 2 is needed, yet, this game is still a breakthrough. Improve it with better graphics, fix those bugs n all and its great.… Expand
  14. Okeedokey
    Mar 29, 2006
    6
    I give it a solid 6 because personally I think RED ORCHESTRA developed out of DoD:S because it's wwII, and it came out AFTER DoD:S sooo ya. But I give it credit for trying and the graphics.
  15. ErikA.
    Mar 31, 2006
    7
    I think the game is pretty good as a whole. The infantry fighting is not very intuitively put together. They should have been more like DoD:S in that aspect. The best parts of the game are the armored vehicles, tank operation, and artillery calls. This aspect is absolutely awesome! If they replaced infantry fighting with DoD:S infantry fighting, it would easily be the greatest WWII FPS I think the game is pretty good as a whole. The infantry fighting is not very intuitively put together. They should have been more like DoD:S in that aspect. The best parts of the game are the armored vehicles, tank operation, and artillery calls. This aspect is absolutely awesome! If they replaced infantry fighting with DoD:S infantry fighting, it would easily be the greatest WWII FPS ever. The tanks are really the coolest part, though. I can't emphasize that more!… Expand
  16. TimL.
    May 25, 2006
    5
    If you like realism in your games then this is for you. Pretty good for a game modded for fun, but for me it just doens't feel right. Tank battles are great, but for a normal grunt, not much fun (IMO).
  17. StevenWilliam
    Jun 25, 2006
    5
    It's an ok game. AI is stupid though. Load times are horrible. tank damage makes no sense. Anti-Tank rifle can't kill a tank >.> and tanks and cars use your keyboard instead of your mouse like BF2. If you really like old style games like this, or like DOD, this would be a great game for you. Personaly though, I wish I got something else :,(
  18. ChrisH.
    Jun 27, 2006
    7
    A good game for those who likes ww2 and realism, nice infantry combat and also good tank combat. Hovewer it only has a limit on 16 players to a side, which often feels way to few on the maps. It states it has joystick support, it has NOT from the package, i hade to stay 3 days fidling with the user.ini to get my logitech stick to work In all a good effort that could have been better.
  19. BrentC.
    Aug 12, 2006
    5
    Game could have been fun. Connecting to a server took way to long, and no crosshair. Graphics were good. Had some nice weapons.
  20. JJN.
    Aug 22, 2006
    5
    Too slow man..takes me 30 to 45 minutes to get connected and then it doesn't work! Once I am in the game (if I have a few hours to spare) it is great but not in infantry mode. I only like tanks.
  21. PabloD.
    Aug 5, 2006
    7
    This is a good game. This said, the graphics engine is quite outdated, and that gives a bad impression to newcomers. Those who don't care so much about that, but about gameplay and depth, won't be dissapointed. This is a "hardcore" game: the amount of keys, the very slow pace and the attention to detail - that encompasses a high level of realism - is big enough to satisfy mature This is a good game. This said, the graphics engine is quite outdated, and that gives a bad impression to newcomers. Those who don't care so much about that, but about gameplay and depth, won't be dissapointed. This is a "hardcore" game: the amount of keys, the very slow pace and the attention to detail - that encompasses a high level of realism - is big enough to satisfy mature players with a love for good, serious games. This is no Day of Defeat or CounterStrike - that are faster and far more "to the point". It's also much slower than the Battlefield series, so although it may be catered to a similar public than these games, it could be slightly difficult to pick up. It takes about a day and around 10-15 matches to actually begin to figure out what's going on. So it needs a lot of commitment. If you are willing to get yourself inmersed in a very realistic simulation ot WW2's eastern front, there is a lot to enjoy in this game. The sound effects are good, as some of the textures and models. Others show signs of age - but the amount of work and skill shown by the programmers, and what they've done to the UT2004 engine is like a miracle. Unfortunately, although some maps are brilliant, deep and inmersive, other are not so enjoyable. The worst of this game is that its engine is too old to really be a full-fledged (and full-priced) commercial product. It doesn't quite feel like a mod, but like something we would like to see updated. Overall, a 7 seems like a good score. The game should really receive an 8, even a high 8, but the price tag is too expensive for such an outdated engine. It's an amazing effort, a mature, realistic simulation, it's just a real shame that its engine shows its cracks, really a shame, as the amount of work put on this game is huge and it feels really special and worth many hours. In the other hand, it plays flawlessly even in low and mid-range computers (not surprisingly). To end this (long) opinion, I think most of the people who complain about this game have been put off by its graphics, and haven't really given the game the time it deserves to be experienced fully. It will not be enjoyable for many multiplayer FPS fans, specially for younger and/or more impatient ones. It's pace is extremely slow and you have to walk long distances if you don't choose your character class carefully and know what you are doing, what can lead to the impression of walking around doing nothing only to be blown to bits by a tank - as some comments here show. For the mature gamer it's a jewel. A real one. It will satisfy hardcore gamers with its unbelievable detail and strategic depth. There are not many games like this, and it does need to be played along with tools such as TeamSpeak and a good, dedicated group of friends / clan members. The fact that tanks can only be useful with 3 crew members working together and communicating effectively shows the intended audience. This is not a lone-wolf FPS to spend a couple of hours with. If the developers had put a lower price the game could be an instant hit, I am sure Red Orchestra 2 with a better engine will be a major success on the community. But please, if you don't like it, don't say the game is bad... because it's not. It's brilliant and truly amazing, and over 25's will appreciate it in all its extent. Those kind of gamers are also not so concerned about how old the graphics engine is, so they might feel more inclined to forgive some of its glitches and the overal rigidness of UT2004.… Expand
  22. KINGOFTHEBEACH
    Aug 8, 2006
    5
    Fun to play, but waiting for the battles to load ...ZZZZ. The price is a little too spendy. Drop it down below $20.
  23. EliasOmhav
    Dec 28, 2007
    7
    The reason people complain on the game pace being slow and low loading itmes is this:

    They are noobs, it's as simple as that, they get killed all the time while playing, they have no clue where to go/what objectives to capture/defend And they did not bother for one second to go to the officla forums and tweak their game for better performance, I play ROOST with great graphics,    The reason people complain on the game pace being slow and low loading itmes is this:

    They are noobs, it's as simple as that, they get killed all the time while playing, they have no clue where to go/what objectives to capture/defend

    And they did not bother for one second to go to the officla forums and tweak their game for better performance, I play ROOST with great graphics, fast loading times, and I just own in online play *brag*    … Expand
  24. JoshG.
    Jun 5, 2007
    5
    WW2 was certaintly not fun and entertaning and this is waht tripwore have done, make it exacty like ww2 wich is boring and horrible. The mpas are freakin huge and the loading times are crazy. I can't believe that people say thsi game is better then dod source, please biy dod source instead the graphics are alot better, the maps are better, the community is better and the loading WW2 was certaintly not fun and entertaning and this is waht tripwore have done, make it exacty like ww2 wich is boring and horrible. The mpas are freakin huge and the loading times are crazy. I can't believe that people say thsi game is better then dod source, please biy dod source instead the graphics are alot better, the maps are better, the community is better and the loading times are really short. The engine that RO uses is also outdated, dod source uses hl2 engine which is great!… Expand
  25. FranzG.
    Feb 20, 2008
    7
    It's a good WW2 FPS Online game, I for one really like it, it has some great maps and the action & gameplay is very immersive! There are some flaws that can bug you at times, but you sort of turn a blind eye to them because you're busy dodging bullets and going Rambo in close quarters with that MP40.
  26. AndrewM
    Jun 25, 2008
    7
    I think this game is good for what it has but is rather limited right now. An extra gamemode would be a great idea. But this game is obviously made for a small crowd of players. Its not a relaxing game. Its difficult and requires thought. Don't purchase this if you don't want realism.
  27. DonC
    Dec 29, 2009
    5
    Great simulation of WW2. But that doesn't make it a fun game. Far too much spaced out running and spending time doing boring things.
  28. Ziggy
    Nov 29, 2006
    6
    Ten gra nie jest warta takich pieniedzy($39.99cdn).Jest bardzo daleka graficznie , technicznie,i jest troszke zanudnawa.Coll of Duty jest gra ktora warto kupic.Latwa jezeli chodzi o klawiature (sterowanie).First person shooter doskonale zaadoptowane.on line tez bardzo dobre.Dlatego moj glos na Red Orchestra jest tylko 6. Ziggy from Poland .
  29. NunyaBusiness
    Dec 31, 2006
    7
    RO: Ostfrnot 41-45 is really a TEAM effort game... that is IF you can find a team that doesn't shoot you in the back just for the fun of it. I haven't seen any TEAM effort at all, though on occasion a few people try to make it a statigic game, yet fail miserably due to the idiots who have no clue as to how to work together.
  30. TrevorI.
    Apr 16, 2006
    6
    Extremely laggy, load times rediculous. Poor effort.
  31. JJL.
    May 18, 2006
    5
    Far too long to load games - mine constantly freezes and player cannot move. Not impressed as it just takes to long to load and change map. If I could get my money back I would.
  32. Shawn
    Jul 28, 2006
    7
    This game is one of the most realistic WWII fps ive ever played. The Models are very clean and well textured. The only downside to this game that i see is the lack of ingame video options such as anti-aliasing and the vision quality while playing the game. It seems like your playing as a soldier that forgot to put his glasses on because everything seems blurry at a distance. Overall I This game is one of the most realistic WWII fps ive ever played. The Models are very clean and well textured. The only downside to this game that i see is the lack of ingame video options such as anti-aliasing and the vision quality while playing the game. It seems like your playing as a soldier that forgot to put his glasses on because everything seems blurry at a distance. Overall I give this game a 7/10.… Expand
  33. KenL.
    Jul 31, 2006
    7
    I'm giving this a 7 simply because the map load times are WAY, WAY too long and the graphic seems always seem dark to me...Not sure why but ti always seem more difficult than usual to find my target! Beside that, I love the realism and tactics. Graphics are "OK." It's no "Brothers In Arms" for sure...Where that series has graphics nailed down supperbly as well as the combat I'm giving this a 7 simply because the map load times are WAY, WAY too long and the graphic seems always seem dark to me...Not sure why but ti always seem more difficult than usual to find my target! Beside that, I love the realism and tactics. Graphics are "OK." It's no "Brothers In Arms" for sure...Where that series has graphics nailed down supperbly as well as the combat tactics. Other than a few annoying aspects, mainly the load times, this still remains an interesting game. I can see why the "arcade" people don't like it...This is like comparing checkers and chess. Anyway, would I recommend this game to someone? Yes, I would, but with a few reservations. I paid $30 for it...Fair enough price.… Expand
  34. M.Braun
    Aug 19, 2006
    6
    It´s a 08/15 shooter. Very rarely detailled maps. Dammed long loading times for a graphic, that is much worse than the source graphic maybe in HL2.

    The maps are too large, so there´s no real action. You just run to get to the pont of action. Run very long. And then you get killed by a camping sniper. Wow, what a bad game. Even the open source shooter "Nexuiz" is better.    It´s a 08/15 shooter. Very rarely detailled maps. Dammed long loading times for a graphic, that is much worse than the source graphic maybe in HL2.

    The maps are too large, so there´s no real action. You just run to get to the pont of action. Run very long. And then you get killed by a camping sniper. Wow, what a bad game. Even the open source shooter "Nexuiz" is better.
    Don´t waste your hard earned money on that game.    … Expand
  35. JohnH.
    Feb 25, 2007
    7
    A lot of realism, being an old Operation Flashpoint player I love this style, no strafe-jump-spray-game. I also liked Call of Duty with realism mod but RO beats CoD-realism any day. However, I'm missing something, I just don't get the kick from RO.
  36. SteveL
    Apr 23, 2008
    5
    I got this game because I enjoyed DoDS and wanted to try something "more". It is overall immersive and exciting for the first few days of play. I didn't like the look and bouncing of MG rounds, and aiming is irritating. Bolt action means I have to aim but the ironsights are annoying, the realistic "scope sway" is also pointless and annoying. due to the ranges I usually have to aim I got this game because I enjoyed DoDS and wanted to try something "more". It is overall immersive and exciting for the first few days of play. I didn't like the look and bouncing of MG rounds, and aiming is irritating. Bolt action means I have to aim but the ironsights are annoying, the realistic "scope sway" is also pointless and annoying. due to the ranges I usually have to aim perfectly for small specs but cant, because I cant see the guys and when I do I don't get that half second to aim (again the pointless sway), top players all take the good classes and everyone else is just for being farmed. Too many grenades, perhaps limiting one grenade each to assault class, for realism I am surprised they totally overlooked grenade spam. Took the time to sight up and shoot an enemy in the back in the same room who wasn't moving and hadn't noticed me, like a meter in front, I didn't hit, dunno if thats a bug but that made me close the game there and then. Some maps look okay but others look pretty ugly and unreal. Tank fights are fun, even if sometimes I am shooting an enemy tank and nothing happens and they can just one hit me, other times I got a good fight and kill ratio. Overall I appreciate the effort for realism, but as has been said, the reality is that WW2 was the most miserable waste of human life ever, and nothing makes you feel more like a dehumanized tool of armed giants with morale hanging on a string like getting killed again and again in such frustrating circumstances like RO. If your a hardcore realism gamer, enjoy steep learning curves, and don't mind imbalance and BS, and have a good group of friends/clan signed up for teamwork and VOIP, get it, if not, you'll probably be excited wih it at first but quickly lose interest within a week or two.… Expand
  37. BryanV
    Mar 15, 2009
    6
    While the game offers an interesting slow down yet exciting aspect to FPS WWII games, there are sincere problems with the interaction with the terrain, the ability to identify friend from foe, and the lack of introduction into the game feels as if it's just a "dive in and see if you can swim".
  38. MarkP
    Mar 15, 2009
    5
    Puts way too much emphasis on camping. If you like camping then this game is for you, if you dont, stay the hell away from this. Most of the time you spend aiming at little tiny pixels way off in the distance. This gets really tedious. Even though this game tries to aim for realism you cant help but be taken out of that mood when you see the god awful player animations. Games made in 2000 Puts way too much emphasis on camping. If you like camping then this game is for you, if you dont, stay the hell away from this. Most of the time you spend aiming at little tiny pixels way off in the distance. This gets really tedious. Even though this game tries to aim for realism you cant help but be taken out of that mood when you see the god awful player animations. Games made in 2000 had better animations than this.… Expand
  39. UncleEd
    Oct 31, 2018
    6
    Red Orchestra is a multiplayer shooter set on the Easter Front of WWII. It is an ambitious game for 2006, especially with its emphasis on realism. There is no crosshair, no health or ammo counter and if someone shoots you in the hand, you will drop your weapon. Your enemies won’t have a marker and you will have to identify them based on their uniforms, which can be tense when two soldiersRed Orchestra is a multiplayer shooter set on the Easter Front of WWII. It is an ambitious game for 2006, especially with its emphasis on realism. There is no crosshair, no health or ammo counter and if someone shoots you in the hand, you will drop your weapon. Your enemies won’t have a marker and you will have to identify them based on their uniforms, which can be tense when two soldiers face each other with second thoughts as to whether the other player is a friend or foe. Aside from the realistic approach, one of the biggest strengths of Red Orchestra is its awesome soundtrack, fitting well into the WWII theme.

    As much as I appreciate the ambitious game design, Red Orchestra lacks in the department of fun. In majority of the maps, you are left on a large battlefield. Each team will have limited snipers, who have a huge advantage over other players. You spend the majority of your time walking long distance areas trying to reach the battle zone and often you will find yourself dead before getting into the action. Some maps are focused on tank battles, which can be fun, provided you can find some good teammates who know what they are doing. Unfortunately, the game is on life support and you will rarely find a populated server. It also doesn’t help that the bots are terribly dumb. Contrary to its amazing soundtrack, the animations feel clunky even for a game released in 2006. That being said, the maps offer a good WWII atmosphere.

    Despite its shortcomings, Red Orchestra still has its own charm and character. It is not a bad game per se, but it is hard to recommend it especially for such a saturated theme/genre, war themed online first-person shooters.    … Expand
  40. Chemiker
    Jul 6, 2023
    6
    Поиграл с 10 челами вчера вечером, принципе неплохо.
    Реализм это основа, этой игры. Хочешь порулить танком? Зови 2 товарищей, или в одного и рули и наводи пушку ( неодновременно конечно )
    Играя, я опять начал понимать как жизнь коротка на войне, в ВОВ, ибо зазевался - умер, не увидел откуда стреляют - умер, от гранаты - умер, противник умеет стрелять - умер. Немного с трофейного    Поиграл с 10 челами вчера вечером, принципе неплохо.
    Реализм это основа, этой игры. Хочешь порулить танком? Зови 2 товарищей, или в одного и рули и наводи пушку ( неодновременно конечно )

    Играя, я опять начал понимать как жизнь коротка на войне, в ВОВ, ибо зазевался - умер, не увидел откуда стреляют - умер, от гранаты - умер, противник умеет стрелять - умер.
    Немного с трофейного штурмгевера пострелял, неплохо жаль что не долго)

    Фаны первой части играют в Darkest Hour — модификация для Red Orchestra    … Expand

Awards & Rankings

34
#34 Best PC Game of 2006
3
#3 Most Discussed PC Game of 2006

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
81

Generally favorable reviews - based on 22 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 20 out of 22
  2. Mixed: 1 out of 22
  3. Negative: 1 out of 22
  1. CPUGamer
    80
    I absolutely love the attention Tripwire has given to the small details in the game.
    Read full review
  2. IGN
    85
    There's very little gameyness in RO and a whole lot of gritty crawling along the ground so you can flank over to that machine gunner and allow your team to advance to the next spawn point objective.
    Read full review
  3. GameSpot
    79
    Red Orchestra is an enjoyable, team-based online shooter for those who like the Battlefield-style games but want a more technical and realistic experience.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »