Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

Daywanderer

GR.net Supporter
  • Content count

    231
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Daywanderer

  1. Daywanderer

    e.s posthumus

    Good stuff, cheers
  2. Daywanderer

    Splinter Cell: Conviction - Ruin's Thoughts

    Me wants. 4 days and 6 hours before it's unlocked on Steam....
  3. Daywanderer

    Splinter Cell: Conviction - Ruin's Thoughts

    Flashback stuff sounds interesting, and I agree on mission objective text - I thought it looked pretty cool in the videos. As for being different, it looks similar enough from the gameplay I've seen so far. None of the other SC games have been just like the original either, least of all Double Agent thanks to every other mission being an "infiltration mission" (lack of a better term). Which I didn't really enjoy too much to be honest
  4. The conspiracy theories are up already - so far fans of DSP have located a Steve Jones involved in development of a few games. http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/action/brothersinarms/tech_info.html http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,269459/ http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,185354/ On the GameSpot link he's listed as Lead Programmer for Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30, ironically enough published by Ubisoft xD He was however employed by Gearbox, and probably still is seeing as he's credited for work on Gearbox-developed Borderlands on the Mobygames link. Whether or not this is *the* Steve Jones remains to be seen, but he is the only one with that name that's popped up in regards to PC games so far. I have never seen or even heard of the DSP channel before this "incident", so I don't know what sort of videos he had up there and if there is some sort of connection at all. As I mentioned, the theories are flourishing - some believe Steve Jones is merely an alias and that whoever made the copyright claim is doing this for reasons unknown. Some believe the person is affiliated with Ubisoft in some way, some even believe he was "hired" to divert the fire away from Ubisoft. Who knows? It seems like it's pretty much a mystery so far. What I'm wondering, of course, is how a private person can have any copyright claims for content involving PC game videos - any claims should be coming from the developer company/companies.
  5. Daywanderer

    UbiKimi Release new solid info

    Well, in all honesty, it won't be the first GR game that's not first-person. GRAW 1 & 2 on console were both third-person. I'm awaiting more info on the PC version - so far it seems most has been in regard to the console versions. Time will tell if the PC version is just a console port or if they go the GRAW route and make it a "different" game..
  6. So, any idea who Steve Jones is?
  7. Daywanderer

    Hitler parodies removed from YouTube

    Lolz, all they did was provide them with another idea xD
  8. No big surprise there - the way technology works today means that no DRM system will ever be 100% secure. Having just recovered from a two-day long internet outage made me realize that this type of DRM doesn't really affect me much. Every single PC game I've bought over the past couple of years has been through Steam, so I need an internet connection to play my games anyway. (Being to lazy to enable the whole offline-mode thing, that is )
  9. I'm assuming the YouTube incident and DRM was not developed by a third-party marketing company xD The idea itself here is okay, but I guess those guys won't be trying this again without informing the authorities first. Kinda reminds me of a PR stunt Tele2 did last year: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/10/27/latvia.fake.meteor.ft/index.html
  10. Daywanderer

    Splinter Cell: Conviction - Ruin's Thoughts

    Cheers for the well-written and to-the-point review. I already have it pre-ordered on Steam, but at least now I know it was a good buy xD
  11. Daywanderer

    Ghost Recon Debate

    Cheers for another good read I'll have to agree - in order to make money on a game nowadays, it has to be more "Modern Warfare/Halo" than "vanilla Ghost Recon". A majority of the market aren't interested in spending a long time in some variety of the good old Rainbow Six "planning phase", they want to be able to jump in and shoot stuff. This is the age of instant gratification, after all. Sadly, this means that traditional "tactical shooters" or MilSims will be developed with a sigificantly smaller budget, or else the developer would lose money on making games. Whereas the well-developed and polished games will be made with a "feed the masses" mind-set. In regard to Modern Warfare 2 and friendly fire - I feel this just gives the game a more "casual" approach, and makes it easier for me to just jump into the game and blow the enemy team up. Which, again, is what the majority wants. And for the more hardcore players, there are the appropriately named "Hardcore" game-modes To back up a bit, to the whole soul switching issue: I'm all for this assuming the open-ness is there to support it. I see no need for such a feature if the game is an "on-rails" experience, but if it leans more towards vanilla GR, I enjoy scenarios such as those described earlier: Switching to the sniper to take those first shots, then back to the assault squad and go in hot. I want to play the game, I don't want the game to play itself for me And since I forget whether or not I mentioned this already, I'll touch on the Ghost Recon franchise thing too. A franchise name, for me, is more about the story and theme rather than the genre/sub-genre. I can't recall any public outcries when Command & Conquer: Renegade, SWAT2 or - more recently - Halo Wars was released. At least GRFS will still be a shooter xD
  12. I believe this is the first time I've heard of a game developer pulling down gameplay videos from YouTube. Way to go. If they're going to be consistent, the next step should be to inform IGN and GameSpot (to mention the "top" ones) that they're not allowed to do video reviews of upcoming Ubisoft games - and maybe remove existing video reviews as well. *sigh* I never thought I'd say this, but these guys could actually learn something from Activision..
  13. Daywanderer

    Ghost Recon Debate

    I think I've touched on this earlier, but I feel that it was the simple "open-ness" of GR that made for so much replayability. Other than that, the AI was predictable (and not very smart), enemies spawned in the same locations and some had limited, preset patrol routes. They would also magically appear (read: spawn) a preset locations when you passed certain areas (mission 3 in vanilla GR comes to mind, cross the bridge and push a few hundred meters right, and a patrol spawns back near the bridge). The replayability came from the fact that you could change your own experience to a certain degree by taking different routes or different kit setups, etc. But I still have most enemy positions memorized, both in GR as well as the first two Rainbow Six games. And this is basically something you had to do due to the light-speed reflexes and impeccable headshots the AI was capable of. It wasn't as bad in GR as in R6, but it was still imperative to know where the enemy is in order to get through most missions. Most shooters nowadays have a tightly choreographed single-player experience which funnels the player through a series of "sets" and scripted events (and, in many cases, cutscenes). I personally love this, as I enjoy a good story in a shooter game, but it pretty much limits replayability to the multiplayer aspect. I find it incredibly boring to attempt a second playthrough in a heavily coreographed game. It's like watching a movie for second time - if it's really good, I'll do it, but it's nothing like the first time because you know exactly what's going to happen at every turn and you know how it all ends. On the other hand, open games like GR offers more replayability, but the story itself takes more of a backseat and in vanilla R6/GR, you got all the story through mission briefings.
  14. Daywanderer

    Ghost Recon Debate

    The M416 has been introduced to the military police at least (have a co-worker who happens to be a national guard MP), no idea if they're the first to get it, the last or whatever xD Apparently, it was quite the "upgrade" over the G3, heheh. Sure, it's a smaller caliber, but the military police in Norway don't fire at live targets too often anyhow I enjoy those theories myself, and I'm sure there's something cookin' there that would blow our minds if we found out Isn't it Area 51 by the way, or did I miss something? The cloaking tech obviously comes from Japan though xD Oh, forgot to mention in my first post: Kudos on actually trying to get a comment from Mr. TC, thumbs up
  15. Daywanderer

    Ghost Recon Debate

    Very good read, looking forward to the rest I won't touch on the whole subject of whether or not the tech in FS is realistic in the timeframe, seeing as how I haven't been keeping up with the "news" in that regard for a few years and I haven't been in the armed forces at all, so I have no first-hand knowledge how fast or slow tech progression really is. Apart from the fact that I know the Norwegian military just recently started exchanging the good ol' G3 battle rifles... I will say that absolutely nothing surprises me anymore in regards to technology, and being as open-minded as I am, I have no problem swallowing what's showed in the FS live-action trailer. We already have "drones" (aka remote-controlled robots, used for everything from entertainment to bomb defusal) and there have been working prototypes of "cloaking devices". In the private sector. With the resources available the the military, I wouldn't be surprised if there's already a working, mobile cloaking unit somewhere in the world right now. There's a lot of research going on that we probably won't know about for a decade or two. Or maybe at all, if it's something that doesn't "work out" I do agree that Tom Clancy probably wouldn't have much trouble with the tech used in GRFS. Like you, I'm judging from the TC books I've read and who I always felt were quite "sci-fi" in several aspects. I also believe that the Clancy-branded games (the few I've tried at least) live up to the name. For me, having the Tom Clancy name on a game never gave any indication of what genre the game would be in or how realistic it would be, just what kind of backstory, setting and overall atmosphere one could expect.
  16. Agree with WK here, Steam is an excellent service and pretty much my the only thing I use nowadays, both both for buying and playing games. Like I tend to say, as long as I have Steam and Spotify on a computer, I'm happy The only negative thing I can say about it is how Modern Warfare 2 is "build into it". IWNet is unstable enough, but when I can't play my favorite multiplayer game online because Steam is down for maintenance, it makes my blood boil.
  17. Gah.. Being an avid fan of the Modern Warfare franchise, it almost hurts to see more and more Infinity Ward people leave the company. I still have some faith that there will be a Modern Warfare 3 which continues the semi-cliffhanger ending from MW2, as well as continues to improve on the multiplayer aspect, specifically the spawn system and the utter lack of dedicated servers..
  18. Thanks, feels pretty good to be back here, just in time for the juicy FS-related discussions! Ah, thanks, I have no idea how I missed that There are probably a lot of ups and downs in regards to singleplayer vs. multiplayer, depending on the game itself and how well-developed each gametype is. The franchises mentioned (Halo and Call of Duty) were made with a big focus on singleplayer and story, specifically the Halo games. For me personally, Bungie are at the top in regards to telling excellent stories in games, along with Bioware. I love the story in the Halo games and can barely wait for the day when I can afford a new 360 (old one died, damned RROD) and finish Halo 3 The CoD series has been a bit up and down for me, I feel Infinity Ward did and awesome job on Modern Warfare and its sequal, which is one of the few shooter games that had me standing up and nearly gasping for breath several times through the singleplayer campaign. That's not to say that these guys dismiss multiplayer though, because they know that multiplayer is what really decides whether a game lives long today. Which is why the three last CoD games (Modern Warfare 1 & 2 + World at War) took three of the top five spots on the "most played on XBox Live 2009" list, with Halo 3 still at the top and Gears of War 2 (also with a very elaborate story and singleplayer campaign) at a respectable number 5. I'm afraid I couldn't find the actual numbers other than that Halo 3 (for example) sold 8.1 million copies in roughly three months and had more than one million people playing it on XBox Live within the first 20 hours following launch. The deal is, to put it very simply, that Halo 3 would be "dead" now if not for the elaborate multiplayer system with matchmaking, ranking system and even a map editor, along with continued support through map-packs. People are still buying this game because they want to play it with their friends online, people who would otherwise never buy it. I know this from personal experience as well, half of the people I have over regularly for LAN-games wouldn't have bought games like Left 4 Dead (1 & 2) or Modern Warfare (1 & 2) had it not been because a couple of friends and I said "Yeah, so we'll probably be playing MW2 all weekend, it's pretty beast, go buy it and have it patched up before you leave home"
  19. Daywanderer

    Distinct Gaming Groups ?

    Lolz @ 2001-reference xD As for it not adding to the game, I very much feel it does. I'm not really all that interested in yet another contemporary shooter, tactical or not. Granted, it's not as overused as the WW2 shooter genre, but I would love for a developer to release a futuristic tactical shooter. On a side note, that HAL conversation there about how things will be "difficult" without drones, shoulder-launchers and cloaking devices made me imagine a mission where the mission area (and the Ghosts) are affected by a small-scale EMP, rendering all that fancy equipment useless If that's not in the campaign, I do hope they include good modding tools with this one xD
  20. Daywanderer

    Live Action Promo Released

    The bottle opener comments made me chuckle I'd like to add that, as Alien said, not all "old-timers" dislike the thematic direction the GR franchise is taking with GRFS. I'd like to believe that this was fairly obvious in my first post as well. Now, as I mentioned, I'm waiting to see how the gameplay turns out before passing any judgement. After all, I absolutely love the feel and atmosphere of the trailer. Next-gen tech, gritty, dirty, sneaking in with cloak while a high-ground sniper gets an overview - and once the target is confirmed, that lovely fifty-cal goes off, 30k blows the command center to pieces and the rest of the squad goes in with heavy fire, drones and explosions xD I reminds me of how I used to complete missions in GR, heheh.. The fact that it has the Ghost Recon brand doesn't make me expect identical gameplay to an "ancient" game, it's just an added bonus for me that the storyline will involve our beloved D Company. Naturally, I do hope that it will, gameplay-wise, go somewhat back to its roots and sport open-ended environments with multiple routes/solutions, detailed yet optional squad-control and all those things that made the original game so great way back when. With a few additions, of course. I expect any shooter that's released today to have at least the ability to climb over small obstacles And a few other things... I also hope they keep decent focus on the multiplayer part of the game, as that's really what keeps a game on my harddrive for more than a week these days.
  21. Increasing piracy on consoles is likely because of the utterly insane prises of console games, as well as the availability. Like I mentioned before (either in this topic or another, too lazy to read through my last post right now ), I feel that "systems" like Steam and Spotify have simplified the process of acquiring games and music legally. Currently, the only similar system available to the X360 and PS3 are XBox Live Arcade/Marketplace and PlayStation Network, who only contain titles from past-gen consoles or small-budget games like Braid. And, as mentioned, the prices. Take Steam for example, where one of the most expensive titles as of today (bar limited/collector's edition stuff and game packs) is probably Modern Warfare 2, which is still sitting at just below 60 Euro. Which is about the same price as a cheap PS3 or X360 title, in Norway at least, with average store prices going to around or past 70 Euro. Whereas PC titles might go as high as 60 Euro at launch and drop relatively quickly, and most starting at 40-50 Euro. This is why my games list in Steam is nearing 100 titles, if not more, whereas my list of PS3 and X360 games is less than 20 total
  22. I can't find anywhere in the article where it says that the aforementioned games are mainly oriented around multiplayer, but the thing that at least Halo and Call of Duty have in common is that they have very polished multiplayer aspects, because the developers of those games realize that shooter games without a strong multiplayer component "die" relatively early, whereas games with good multiplayer last a long time and maintain a larger fanbase. This, in turn, keeps those sales dripping in long after launch day. I would agree that the Halo franchise haven't gone through any large make-overs yet, other than the graphics. They have made a few noticable changes that affect gameplay (specifically between Halo 2 and 3, which part of the player base didn't like and thus started playing Modern Warfare 2 rather than Halo 3), but it's generally the game. The Call of Duty series has had a few variables between the different installments, but I believe this is mainly because development has been shifted back and forth between Treyarch and Infinity Ward. I agree that the article feels very vague. It can pretty much be summed up in "Games change, deal with it" and "hopefully GR:FS will be the best GR game so far"
  23. Daywanderer

    Distinct Gaming Groups ?

    I'll put myself in the group that prefers good gameplay and the option to chose how I want to complete the missions in any given game. Let's face it, linearity isn't really acceptable in these types of games anymore - though a few can get away with it if it's in order to focus heavily on story progression and/or scripted events. Half-Life 2, for example, or even the single-player part of most Call of Duty games. I would prefer something along the lines of the original GR in witch you could chose if you wanted to go in guns blazing and win through superior firepower - or sneak around to the objective and get out without anyone seeing you. Or, like you say, a combination. Looks like Future Soldier has the potential to make this happen. The trailer makes use of different tactics at least. As for the whole GR vs GRAW vs ARMA thing.. I'll just say that I enjoyed the original GR very much because it seemed to strike the perfect balance between realism and gameplay. Of course, the "competition" back then was pretty much Counter-Strike (5 headshots to kill someone? No thanks.) and Operation Flashpoint, which I hated. Sure, it was realistic, but I didn't enjoy the gameplay at all. I never got into the GRAW series. The first GRAW on PC felt unpolished to me, and I wasn't excited by the gameplay. I also hated the whole "feel" of the game. GRAW2 went all third-person-shooter and that's a genre I normally don't play, so.. The only thing that really caught my mind was the ability to sprint and slide into cover in GRAW on PC, that was actually kinda cool and a neat addition to the gameplay. I'm hoping FS will go back to the roots of GR and offer the semi-large maps and multiple routes to the objectives that GR had, as well as the possibility to complete the missions using a variety of tactics, be it stealth or just going in heavy with drones and whatnot. I also hope they make the game first-person (on PC at least)
  24. I remember saying something similar to this back when Raven Shield was released: I'm amazed of the amount of people who are apparently going to blow this game off because of the name xD I don't see how a game could be better or worse based on if it's called "Ghost Recon: Future Soldier" or "Tom Clancy's Future Soldier". On a side note, GOTY (Game of the Year) awards cannot be won by the same game over several years
  25. 2a - show me some actual gameplay, then I'll figure out if this is worth my time and money. I'm all for the theme and the tech. I don't have the time or energy to worry about franchises anymore and whether or not a developer deems it financially safe to go for a niche or follow the mainstream. Raven Shield proved to me that even if a game goes somewhat away from the franchise and lacks the atmosphere of the previous games, it can still be incredibly entertaining. I even enjoyed the R6 Vegas games. Sure, it had next to nothing in common with the original two games in the series, but the gameplay was solid and the story was good enough - though of "newer" games (as in the last couple of years), Modern Warfare 1 & 2 wins hands down as far as story/single-player campaign goes. I prefer to keep an open mind - guess I'm having a hard time not being entirely objective. After all, I pre-ordered Bad Company 2 despite disliking the first one, and I ended up enjoying it quite a bit ^^
×