Jump to content

Bahger

Members
  • Posts

    225
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bahger

  1. I haven't even tried multi yet as I know it'll be a disaster. Not entirely Ubi's fault, as Steam has yet to apply Ubi's Day One patch. That in itself -- among other issues, it seems -- is a major cause of connectivity problems, because different game versions cannot connect online.
  2. It's very entertaining at times. in a very cinematic way. I guess I just finally need to accept that, in spite of the title, this franchise is just not about tac-gaming any more.
  3. It's a sloppy port. The game is the first I've played in ten years (including other ports) that cannot recognise and differentiate between input devices, so, just to get mouse/keyboard to work and to get rid of the console control prompts on-screen, I had to disable my Logeitech wheel/pedals and unplug my CH HOTAS. Attempts to remap keys seem to work in theory but not always in practice, i.e. when I tried to map a side mouse button as prone, the game accepted it but then deprogrammed the A key, so I had to go back to default. Graphics are better in theory than in practice. Even with a fast, capable PC I have to avoid running all available graphical enhancements to achieve an acceptable frame-rate. Textures are nasty. Gameplay: So far, it's on-rails, with obtrusive cutscenes and control removed as the game bosses you about and leads you by the nose. This might just be the case in the first few, semi-tutorial missions. Buddy AI is very aggressive and takes the initiative. To many equipment deployment opportunities are context-sensitive, which is just another form of scripting. The firefights seem ok but camera and body movement are not really tactically precise. Cover is ok, same as SCC, less good than GRO. I'm going to persevere. Unlike other hard-core tac-gamers, I do not mind the occasional well-made cinematic shooter but this does not appear to be well-made, not for PCs, at least. I resent having to disable my controllers in this day and age, as I will now have to jump through hoops to re-enable them to play racing or flight sims. And I resent the key mapping limitations as I wanted them to match those of GRO, which is a far, far superior game. Hope the above is helpful for those of you outside the US, those on the fence, or folks who can still cancel their pre-order.
  4. I have a complimentary Beta access code that was sent to me when Phase 3 started. The European and US servers are separate so my assumption is that the code is only good for my server area (US). My thought was to give it to someone in my timezone (US PST) so that we could fireteam together or I could guide someone through the game (possibly using a Teamspeak voice connection.) Either way, I'd rather give this to someone who is not hellbent on using it merely to dismiss the game, as I'm a huge fan of GRO and would like to share my enthusiasm with someone open to the experience. Whatever...I'm flexible, there's no point in this key just sitting in my email inbox.
  5. I pledged $50. But is there any real prospect of them raising $425,000 in 19 days when they are at only $47,427 now? And if (when) they fall way short, what then?
  6. Seriously? I found it pretty gimmicky, and dominated by people who buy/grind the high-level equipment. Not my sort of thing. I was sure it wouldn't be my kind of thing either, I hate all the chest beating and posturing of online PvP shooters. However, the game is so well designed, the incentives to tactical teamplay are genuinely effective and (to your point) although it's true that experienced players earn superior weapons and armor, this can be counterbalanced via effective tactics. In which beta phase did you play it? You might be pleasantly surprised if you rejoined. The consensus amongst the beta testers is that Ubi Singapore have come up with something quite special here and I agree. On top of which, it's that very rare thing, a AAA game tailor-made for PC.
  7. Phase 3 Beta restart on Monday June 18th confirmed.
  8. wombat50: Good info, , many thanks. I think Steam all the way is the most efficient path, especially as Apex has Steam install documentation with his mod. twcrash: Thanks for going beyond the call of duty to research the GOG option. I'm sure I have DS and IT gathering dust somewhere in my basement but, given the rock-bottom prices at Steam, I think I'll go for a clean digital install from there. Can't believe I'm contemplating diving back into OGR!
  9. Interesting. So to run the mod I obviously have to get GR, DS and IT from Steam? I presume I can't mix and match, say, GR from Steam then CDs of the add-ons. And are the Steam versions fully patched up? Thanks!
  10. Gosh, I brought out The Man! Thanks for your helpful response, ApexMods! I am eager to try this. I think I have my original CDs somewhere but, with good current gata transfer rates and the relatively small size of the original game + the two addon file sizes, I think I'd prefer to acquire the whole thing digitally, if possible. Assuming the base game is fully patched by GOG.com, can anyone point me to a location for digital downloads of the addons and any further patches I might need? I'm sorry if these are over-obvious questions but, as you can tell, it's been a long time... PS, Oelmuvun, Aero is just a fancy semi-transparent desktop overlay introduced by Vista, I think. I can't imagine it would have any effect on game graphics in GR. Edit: Well, it looks like the GOG.com version is not compatible with the add-ons because DS and IT can only be installed on top of the game before it is patched to 1.4. Info here. I must therefore find another way to acquire the game plus add-ons and patch up. Steam might be the way to go, as long as it is completely compatible with Heroes Unleashed. Advice, anyone?
  11. Thanks very much. It's not that I'm "refusing" to reinstall it before I'm happy with this mod; it's just I have such limited time that, if I'm going to go back to the game, I want to do so in a way that both recreates the original experience and enhances it. I appreciate your recommendations of other mods, too. Edit: It does not look like GOG.com sells the DS/IT add-ons, which means I'll need to look for sources for this content that gurantees compatibility with Vista (this is why I find GOG.com useful, their install of the original Splinter Cell was immaculate on Vista).
  12. Gents, I was thinking of revisiting OGR by re-purchasing it at GOG.com. I haven't made up my mind yet but this mega-mod might well tip the balance if someone can clarify the following: - It integrates with GR "out of the box", no other mods required (including the 3 addons of blessed memory)? - I won't be doing multiplayer, so can anyone comment on what the mod brings to the SP experience, i.e. are there standalone campaigns and missions, or just enhancements to the original ones? - The web site for the mod invites you to "apply for" membership. I did so yesterday but have heard nothing. I'm wondering what the qualifications are and whether I measure up. If I'm going to play the mod I would ideally like to be accepted by its community. Re-purchasing, re-installing and re-playing this classic game after all these years is a big step for me so before doing so, I'd really appreciate some enlightenment re. the above. As much as I enjoyed GR1 -- I played the living daylights out of it -- I'm unlikely to go back until I know I can experience a great, big mod like this one with minimal unanticipated difficulty. Thanks, guys.
  13. Yes, I signed up for the blinged-out version on Steam. Annoyed it's been delayed but the GRO Beta might come back online in the meantime and that, as I keep saying, is a truly superb shooter. GRFS PC willl be good in places, disappointing in others. Tactical shooter fans will not be completely satisfied and some will be very annoyed indeed with it. There will be complaints about the multiplayer matchmaking, the game modes and Uplay. The PC singleplayer campaign will be criticised for over-empowering the player at the expense of tactical challenge and, in general, the console-led trend towards cinematics and action-orientated gameplay will be lamented. Above all, get ready for some very heated Call of Duty comparisons, both positive and otherwise.
  14. Talk about last minute... Announcement No acknowledgement on Steam yet. And here is some commentary from a game blogger whose opinion I respect: Gameshoes GRFS PC delay post Mods, I guess you'll want to put this in the news section.
  15. Mid-June, apparently, possibly before. The process of obtaining Beta keys should be less glitchy. Those who already have keys need not re-apply, their existing keys will get them into Phase 3. Personally, I can't wait. I think this is the best online shooter (FTP or not) to come along in a generation of gaming.
  16. Fantastic stuff, great vid, good, fluent commentary, I agree with every word. The original Ghost Recon, and that castle mission specifically, marked one of the five or six game/scenario combos in my last fifteen years or so of gaming when, unable to run a game satisfactorily, I upgraded my PC or even bought a new one, in order to play it. I remember the thrill of actually being able to play through that mission after a big, expensive graphics card upgrade. It's true that modern, supposedly tactical shooters flatter the player into believing he's an indestructable badass at the expense of true tactical gameplay. And as I watched that vid, it struck me how interesting it was to be able to switch between squad members and use the overhead tactical interface to achieve the perfect squad disposition from which to advance through the level. It has to be said, though, that this method of gameplay is outdated now, for better or worse; people want the cinematic experience of leading a squad in real time, not the chess-like experience of placing pieces on a board. It should also be noted that the OGR style of gameplay (I didn't do MP in those days but played the living daytlights out of the SP campaign) depended on a pretty inert level of enemy AI. They did not use cover and did not maneuver tactically; enemy AI was essentially reactive and predicable, which was what made it possible -- and interesting -- to complete a mission flawlessly in either OGR or the early R6 games; it was doable via a combination of a good planning interface, body-swapping, inert, reactive AI and no time pressure. It's good gameplay but not realistic; r/l enemy defenders will not sit around and wait while you order your support gunner to adopt a suppression arc from cover and then spend the next five minutes meticulously positioning everybody else before giving a weapons-free order! Ironically, the first game to exhibit an impressive standard of tactical enemy AI was a decidedly non-tactical FPS, i.e. Half Life, whose enemy marines could flank, deploy grenades and use cover. This is the example I always think about when bemoaning the dearth of decent tactical FPSes on PC these days; sometimes authentic tactical gameplay comes from an unexpected direction.
  17. Phase 2 of the Beta has ended and the game is offline until Phase 3 starts. They haven't announced a date yet but the consensus seems to be early June. If you had access to the previous beta, you should be able to participate in this one, with your stats/database preserved intact, I think.
  18. Warcloud, are you based in the US or Europe? I was surprised to find that there is no crossover between American and European player groups. Not sure the reason for this, maybe it's all about ping, connectivity issues, etc. Anyway the key allocation process seems to be more efficient in the US. Sounds like you'll be all set up to play in Phase 3 of the Closed Beta.
  19. Just my opinion, guys, but I must say, my experience in the Beta has been very positive. I'm a very tactically-minded gamer who tends to steer clear of public PvP shooters as I can't stand all the posturing and chest-beating. And being a little older than the average FPS gamer, my twitch skills are not the best so I need a modicum of tactical gameplay to level the playing field. Somewhat to my surprise, GRO addresses both of the above concerns rather ingeniously. Although there is both posturing and twitchy gameplay, they do not dominate and certain mitigating, often ingenious design elements make the game genuinely tactical: - The maps might be described as linear in that long-range lateral maneuver is limited and forward movement is all-important, but flanking opportunities are so well conceived and so well harmonised with the cover mechanic and certain class-based power-ups (when used properly) that frontal battle is never the only option. - The incentives to play as a team are significant and effective. The virtual tethers (lines connecting teammates within a certain range on the HUD), enhance SA enormously, as cover, which is well implemented even for lone-wolf fighting, becomes all the more effective when there are intersecting lines of sight and/or lines of fire from well-placed buddies in the vicinity. Player-deployed devices within range can also enhance team survivability and lethality by speeding up recovery times, providing better ammo resupply and extending the power of both offensive and defensive power-ups. The game does a really good job integrating the social aspects of team-based gameplay with the tactical aspects. VOIP works well, as does the friending and fireteam mechanic. - The devices are really effective (and a blast, often literally, to deploy). They all have disadvantages which balance their advantages; for example, "Blitz" offers the Assault class a limited period of invulnerability and explosive speed, but field of view is narrowed and bad SA can still get blitzing players killed from behind. In each case the devices are tactically well-suited to their class and harmonised with available weapon class options, so for the Recon class, for example, quasi-invisibility cloaking suits the infiltrating player with an SMG and a "forward" recon style while the sniper is better off using "Oracle" to determine approximate enemy positions from a stand-off distance (and broadcast them to his teammates). - Weapons and armor feel viscerally right and it was quite daring of the dev team to start players off at a disadvantage compared with powerful opponents who have earned better weapons and body armor. This does not result in endless frustration (although the game can be as merciless as any PvP shooter) but provides an incentive to learn the core gameplay mechanics first and then cash in both experience and success by acquiring better optics, armor and guns. I really like the "critical evasion" concept, too, which increases the effectiveness of a player's weapon use once he has spent enough time deploying that weapon and racking up kills with it. The same principle applies to class- and armor-based upgrades, either bought or awarded by experience; you earn, or unlock, them by going up against more powerful opponents and often succeeding via tactics or effective teamplay in spite of an imbalance in firepower and/or armor. Again, this is good integration of tactics with the social aspects of team-based MP combat gaming. - The classes are well suited to different play styles and temperaments. Assault is where you find the usual rampaging bullies and the really good ones can dominate, but only when the opposing team has no effective tactical SA and is not watching its flanks. Recon provides very effective stand-off sniper cover, both offensive and defensive but the snipers need to be protected by a screen of assaulters or they will perish at medium to close range. Personally, I like playing as a Specialist, who slots in behind the Assaulters but ahead of Recon (unless the Recon is going forward as described above). As a Specialist I can use either a LMG or a tactical shotgun. Well timed and thought-out use of "Aegis" (which provides a bulletproof virtual shield of limited duration) or another device which blinds opponents within a certain range and scrambles their electronics, disabling their weapons temporarily, empowers the Specialist to be quite decisive in either taking an objective with support, or defending one against a determined assault. - The maps, character animations, sound design and atmospherics are superb. - The infrastructure works really well. By this I mean the system that oversees matchmaking, equipment inventories/purchases, game stats, achievement medals and the like. I was dreading my re-introduction to Ubi's bossy Uplay interface but as designed and integrated here, it seems to me that the game's background infrastructure has been conceived and executed by and for gamers, not marketers. I'm amazed. - I have had no technical difficulties or glitches whatsoever in the Beta. GRO runs exactly as advertised. This game is not for everybody as there is rather a lot of top-down oversight and supervision, i.e. maps and game types are allocated and cannot be chosen by the players, there are no player-hosted servers, etc. I do get killed a lot but I really enjoy my own kills because the game is viscerally satisfying, rewards a certain amount of thought, excludes most menaces to fair play such as spawn camping, grenade spamming and other nonsense and, above all, I find it genuinely tactical...and I'm a very unforgiving assessor of what's tactical and what ain't. The Beta is now offline for a while and will be back for Phase 3. I know there are several skeptics and even a few diehard naysayers on this forum -- whose opinions and experiences I acknowledge and respect, obviously -- but if you haven't tried it, or have and can still be convinced that the glass is half-full, I urge you to give it a try. I think this is the best designed and executed concept for team-based online tac-combat that I have played since Spies vs Mercs in Splinter Cell. I know it's not what a lot of you guys associate with "classic" Ghost Recon, which is much more open-world and less CQB-based, but the quality of the combat and the tactical aspects of the gameplay fully entitle GRO to its GR moniker, in my opinion.
  20. Huge congratulations. I'll never forget the trouble I got into with the spouse for allowing my (then) six year-old to shoot targets with the SMG/M203 in the SPLINTER CELL training module. Ah, parenthood. I suggest you change your nick to Sleeplessdoc.
  21. That's very true and GR1 deserves praise for finding the most successful compromise between the illusion of openness and strong, directed, objective-based gameplay. As someone pointed out on this board, the only really "open" maps in GRAW2 are the first two but even the subsequent, more corridor-like maps offer branching opportunities for flanking at certain key bottleneck locations. I'd like to know just why tactical shooter gameplay appears to have taken a step backwards in this one respect from GR1 to GRAW2. Is it something to do with the demands made by the need for bleeding-edge graphics?
  22. There's no denying that. Also, for tac-heads it was useful to have a larger squad. Remember that great (but difficult) GR scenario that involved crossing a long bridge, securing a small gas station and outbuildings and then rescuing a couple of captured U.N. troops from a heavily-defended village? It was great that the open terrain enabled you to conduct a real flanking maneuver, with a team placed prone to suppress from a hump in the road while another assaulted the village from the flank. Opportunities like this are comparatively rare in GRAW2 although the dev team is really trying to make gameplay less of a corridor experience. Oddly enough (to me, anyway) the one mission in which they really succeeded was the very first mission of the campaign, which was also the demo mission. You can take many paths through that one, all of them tactically valid and with unique pros and cons. Very few of the later missions (good though some of them are) seem quite so dedicated to the concept of "free" pathing. "Get Me Rosen" is up there with some of the best GR1 missions, though, maybe because it's not MOUT.
  23. I think GRiN has a right to be proud of the way it has revitalised the GR name for the PC, even if it cannot satisfy the GR1 die hards in every respect. Unfortunately the devs were saddled with the console version's goofy storyline, stock characters and bad voice-acting and that did them no favours. However, the SP game is well-crafted in every respect and GRAW2 has more opportunities for genuine fire and movement tactics. I believe the criticisms of squad AI to have been unfair and wrong-headed; when deployed with patience and tactical SA my AI team get about sixty per cent of the total kills in most missions. I'd prefer to see less cinematic contrivance in the game and less "channeling" of the player altogether. I'd like player-controlled arty and air support missions to be non-scripted. And there is no doubt that a lot of the developers' most ingenious efforts have gone into making the missions look less linear than they actually are. However, like Doubletap, I'm an SP player mainly (with frequent campaign coop) and I find the mission design, tactics and gameplay to have been well harmonized. Many times I've attempted to love ArmA but I think the SP game is a total abomination. Implementing good squad AI in a "sandbox" tac-sim without linear objectives and pathing seems to be very difficult and for me, the precision of spec-ops style tactical AI in "linear" GRAW2 is far superior to the extremely limited AI capabilities in the "open" light-infantry sim ArmA. Just my 10c.
  24. I'm quite puzzled by this form of anxiety. Size, as some of us know, doesn't matter. My hunch is that this patch is a hotfix and I'm very grateful for it because I play campaign coop and the last patch made it impossible for most of us to connect. GRiN recognised this gaffe and fixed it quickly. We should be grateful for their speedy and efficient service, not wringing our hands over the size of the file.
  25. ...campaign coop was hosed! Sleepdoc mentioned that this was an acknowledged post-patch glitch and that it would be addressed very soon but I see no threads about it in the first two pages of this forum and meanwhile I cannot load any campaign coop map in MP! Does anyone know when (or if) a fix might be due??
×
×
  • Create New...