Brainman2k

Hi all, i want to say "thank you" for developing GRAW and GRAW2, which i enjoyed very much. After Grins closure the PC-Market for tactical shooters will miss a great developer. I hope that all the talented staff will find their way and will go on to develop great games in the future. As for the Ghost Recon Series...we'll see...

for me all the clues on the non-gr-sites look like metal shrapnels or parts from the outer hull of a plane. the image of the burning...thing...could be a flight-recorder which would make sense because you see video and audio of inflight-action. assuming that the above is correct i would guess that a plane went down on the location shown with the green diamonds being parts of that bird or missing crewmen scattered across the area. my guess is, that this ad is about the new flight-sim from ubi.

thats what we experienced on our lans as well. 2 of the 4 pcs had to manually reconnect after each round. imho this refers to the same prob discussed here: http://www.ghostrecon.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=45997

i've seen this bug on my brothers comp with the latest nvidia-drivers. try downgrading to older ones. problem with vista is, that its donloading recent drivers without asking. anoying feature...

just yesterday we played a 4-man-coop-session again. we used the 1.02-version of the game. you just have to find out which of the computers is the slowest concerning map-loading time. in our case this was a laptop. use this machine as host and you can play all the maps without the "connection lost"-issue. of course this is rather unpracticable when you only have one dedicated server....but it works at least for lan-configurations.

just yesterday i had flying doors at the hacienda while playing coop-mission "get me rosen". i spun around like a glider in an up wind. it didnt stop until the end of the mission.... so i think this is not a map-related issue.

Strongly disagree. Look no further than three forums down, and you'll see that not only are there still a LOT of folks playing the six year old game, but there are tournaments up for it. Something that didn't happen with GRAW. Time will yet tell if GRAW2 can maintain the support for a tourney, but a 2001 game still pulls big participation in 2007. I'd say it's a sound game for more than simply eye candy- it plays like a champ. Ubisoft or whoever may have wanted it changed in fundamental ways but most of us here just wanted new content and updated graphics. im aware of the fact, that a lot of players still play [GR]. but sadly enough todays publishers want to please a broad audience. the broader the audience, the better. because pleasing more people means gaining more money. the whole tom clancy-franchise shared this fate. and you can only please a broad audience when you make the game more accessable. i dont know exactly how much a developer can change the developers plans for conceiving a game. fact is: graw 1/2 has more publicity than [GR] ever had (imo). back in the day i asked a lot of people if they wanted to play some coop-matches in rs or [GR]. almost none ever heard of tom clancy or the games. ubi comercialised the whole series. happens with a lot of things nowadays... however im the kind of guy that tries not to mix up [GR] with graw. the concept of the games are totally different. HOWEVER i do feel the homage graw pays to [GR]. somethimes i DO feel im back in the day playing [GR] again....and THAT is it i like about the game. just returned from a 4-man-coop-session btw. we had a lot of fun, almost like we had with [GR] when it was new on the games-market. but im a little dissapointed from the difficulty level. we played on easy, normal and hardcore and you dont feel too much difference....

apology accepted. you must know im a moderator on some other forums. im simply not used to being personally addressed in that kind of way. our boardrules prohibit that... i can see why you feel like this about gr and graw. i still like [GR] or even rs, but its not 2001 anymore. [GR] lacked much things. mainly storywise and the one being not ably to identify / relate to the maincharacter in the game. that was fixed in graw 1/2 imo. now its 6 years later and a different developer is creating the game. im happy they kept some of the spirit [GR] had but combining that with new features and an own concept. if theyd update [GR] to 2007 with a new gfx-engine and kept all the gameplay-mechanics 1:1 the game would have no chance on todays market. and maybe they wanted to add to the game what they felt the series lacked back in 2001. in my opinion they should have dropped the "ghost recon" and shouldve named it "advanced warfighter". it wouldve been an entirely independent game and theyd have much less complaining about graw not being "ghost" and "recon" anymore. heres another example: maybe you know the game "fallout 1/2". two of the best 3rd-person-round-based-rpg ever developed. black isle got the job from interplay to develop fallout 3. black isle had to close its doors and interplay sold the rights to bethesta. now they are developing a game called "fallout 3" with 1st-person-view and real-time-combat. they claim to have kept the spirit of the original game, but enhanced the game and put it on the level of 2007. i dont know. maybe in the past six years i changed myself considering playing games and what i expect of a good game. its not unthinkable that today i wouldnt buy an [GR] with updated graphics and a few bugfixes... i think its strongly got to do with the point of view youre looking at the game (graw): i didnt expect theyd bring a direct sequel to [GR]. i put [GR] aside and played a whole new game. and from that kind of perspective you cannot be let down. its like with going to the movies. if youve got too many assumptions of how the movie is going to be youre not open to something new and enjoying it. so cheers and no hard feelings.

so? whats this going to do with gr or graw or him offending me directly? fine, hes with the army. the thing is: i think he should think about his attitude, thats all. if this board is about "not starting a flamewar" and in the same sentence going straight at it im out of here. the whole thing wasnt about [GR] or graw....it was about him starting to flame.

Not to start another thread flaming contest here, but you should really put down the glass pipe and get help. I'll give you a perfect example of how [GR] had the flexibility that this game lacks- M02-FARM. I've got two different dudes to rescue and a plane to blow up, and I know this going in. It matters not ONE LITTLE BIT what order I complete these three objective in. And I've done it in each order just to prove it to myself. What makes sense to one player does NOT make sense to another. Who knows how realistic it is- I'm not in the SF. Are you? Is ANYONE here? So what takes over is the increased interest one takes in how well a mission is completed compared to the increased amount of control he or she has over how it's completed. If I connect the dots from point A to point Z, hitting all the in-betweens in order, I feel like a GRAW2 AI- comfortably dumb. In [GR], I could blow the whole deal if I didn't PLAN and CONDUCT my mission well. Yeah, I'm the guy who would start a MP server offline and rehearse a mission a couple times before executing it in my campaign. Call it a rock drill. THAT is real. GRAW was horribly linear. GRAW2 is scarcely any better. I just need someone to mod in some Imps tossing fireballs at me now and I'll have a much better feeling for GRAW2 SP. i must admit i havent read the whole post...sorry, but the introduction killed this posting for me. i do not need any help nor am i using drugs. i suggest you grow up and realise, that were talking about games. if you want the real deal, enlist to the army. and if you want an [GR]-like game: theres already one you obviously know already as well. go play it. the concept of graw 1/2 isnt that of [GR]. basta.

i cant see graw2 being anywhere near doom. cap. mitchell is somewhere waaay down the line of chain of command. he gets his orders and he has to do so. did it ever occured to you that completing goal#2 before goal#1 could be completely senseless? its not mitchells call to decide where he should go and where not. maybe he hasnt the overview over the situation either. in [GR] you had mission goals like "destroy aa here and there" or "gain control over missionarea" or "kill all enemies". with missiongoals like these its nor important which you complete first. in graw1/2 its more back-to-back. you HAVE to secure corridor #a fisrt before you can go further. you have to destoy all the aa before you can get airsupport, etcetcpp. so what im saying is, that in fact [GR] had more firefight-missions, because you got no priorities in missiongoals or even a real stoyline which the game itself followed....

maybe the nade goes off immediadely if someone picks up the weapon (.i.e grenade) from the fallen guy, because then its active again....

guess i'll wait for the next patch, too...

i did. i even posted before in this thread why do you think i asked "mikesucker" on how he meant his posting... it astounded me that they might have disabled co-op COMPLETELY until they sort out the prob in patch 1.04 or whenever...hence my posts. @ pave low: thx for the explanation.

so, to clarify things, theres no co-op with patch 1.03? is that correct? im asking because i want to play coop this weekend with friends of mine...