Jump to content

iburkey

Members
  • Posts

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

iburkey's Achievements

Recruit - 3rd Class

Recruit - 3rd Class (2/13)

0

Reputation

  1. Hey Again, To answer posters questions, I was playing [GR] as long as possible, and trying to make do with the kiddie shooters.. Those games teach you such bad habits... The point I was making about BF2 is the engine, not their use of it. [GR] was GREAT, but needed a new engine. My point about BF2 is the engine is great- it scales much better than the other ones I've seen, enabling long firing lines, it has the soft and hard cover we liked in [GR], but more of it, and has vehicles, which if done well, are really useful. I agree with other posters that BF2 is not a tac shooter for real men, not my point. My point is if you take the tools provided with BF2, and made a GR3, it would be much better than GR:AW. As I said, GR:AW has extrememly high requirements for what you get. Personally I really liked the desert siege levels use of combinations some long sight lines, where you could cover your compatriots from range, and also spots where you had to go around the corner, and duck, and pray. Its about playability. PLAYABILITY. BF2 is still going strong because they did 3 things well: - multi player works, including built in voice chat that works well, and some hierarchy so you work as a squad, and with your commmander for bigger missions. --- I would have loved to have that when playing maxed out [GR] sessions. - level design is varied, but some of the levels are very well done- Mashtuur city, Sharqi Pennisula, and Jalalabad are all levels [GR] players would recognize as home. - There are some great sniper spots, so if you like sniping, despite the fact that BF2 is not a tac shooter, you can blend into the war, and play exploding watermelon. - Like [GR], there are enough different things to do, that you don't get bored. My brother and I will sometimes just D- up at a base, and wait for the onslaught to come, instead of attacking. This is similar to playing siege in [GR], except you are sure they are coming, or from which way, because the BF2 levels are MUCH bigger. So I guess for me, again, what I would want is: - bigger levels - deadly weapons (all deadly) - very long range sniping (Carlos Hathcock had kills at VERY long range, why cant we) - more foilage, ground effect soft cover (grass, bushes, etc.) - true 3D levels, with inside and out - getting wounded means you limp, and bleed out. - 203's like Americas Army. If you are in the area, you are toast. - lots of outdoor levels, that don't feel like rats mazes. - built in voice comm - sensors. (controversial back in the day, but it generated variety of playing styles) - jeeps, choppers, landing craft - missions involving scuba beach landings - moddability - saved games for full playback after a great round - ability to climb up any wall with equipment. (good BF2 feature, somewhat used there) - means you don't always know where they are coming from - ability to blow up any wall with enough pounding (at least put a hole in it) - parachute in levels like AA and BF2. - custom uniforms for clans. - ability to generate a movie for posting on web from a saved game. (clans would dig that) I promise in exchange for the generosity of all of you reading my post, I will try GR:AW again, and if I like it better, Ill even get my brothers to try it.
  2. I agree, dead on arrival. Its not a sequel, and rather a case of way to much R & D in graphics effects, and to little R & D into what made [GR] great. Its more like Rainbow than [GR]. As for the constant this isn't fair until the next patch is out? That excuse can be used until the developer isn't even working on the game anymore. DOA.
  3. As a bigtime former [GR] player, I agree generally with what you said. I also looked through the thread, and have a couple of things to say as well. 1) [GR] was not slow. Part of what made it fast was long firing distances, and sight lines. Part of what made it fast was double-tap style killing. The game was very, very deadly. Whats missing in all of todays games, including GRAW, but also BF2, etc, is the idea that if a guy is stupid enough to leave cover in front of you, he's dead. 2) We all would have been better off if the GRAW people had just licensed the BF2 engine, and then basically made a GR mod, and sold it. BF2's engine allows better scale for its expense, while the GRAW engines designers seem caught up with glow effects, and lots of tan colors. Seriously, considering the medium quality level design, in terms of PLAYABILITY, not looks, and the crazy hardware requirements, we really would have been better of with BF2+GR mod. 3) The basis of [GR] was outdoors, long sight lines, varying cover. GRAW seems to be cities and cement, and no soft cover, and very few long sight lines. I was hoping that the GR people were going to use the increased hw to give us LONGER sight lines, and greater differentiation between snipe and regular, like Americas Army did, or great cover differentiation, via more vegetation, grass trees, etc. The pioneering stuff of GR included that you couldn't just pick out the moving thing- because alot of the backdrop moved a little. 4) I play currently GRAW, BF2, and Americas Army. Both BF2 and Americas army are more GR then GRAW. 5) The Scott Mitchell super soldier stuff is dumb. 6) By calling it GR, people expect GR, not super glowy tan city fighting with super weapons, where you swear you are playing Rainbow Six. I guess thats the biggest reason why the franchise is probably toast- no title differentiation, if its almost the same as Rainbow Six, and Rainbow six isn't infinitely playable to begin with (too tight quarters, so same killing runs every round) why buy either, now that you've played a few versions of Rainbow, and seen the same thing every time? 7) Why was [GR] the most popular multi player game on original XBOX until Halo2? Because even with the crazy XBOX controls, every game was different. You could creep around, or charge. There wasn't to many weapon exploits- if you had a guy dead to rights, he was dead- no dolphin diving craziness, no power ups for invulnerablility, and easier, QUICKER kills, because the bullets actually hurt. I know alot of people who played Halo2 a little bit, realized that it was 13 year olds with powerups hell, and went back to GR. If you are over 25 years old, you want to do something other than run to the ammo box, spray people before they spray you, and wait for next life. The shooter is no longer going to be a best seller by great graphics, they all have that. Instead playability, and level variability, and new multiplayer stuff, like BF2s commander stuff, and airstrikes and smokes, and more ways to tell other players what you want to do as a squad. Its funny that people think shooters are more fun when you make the weapons less deadly. It just means people run straight down the middle of streets trying to cowboy and dive, instead of using cover. Thats the biggest problem with BF2. Can you imagine if all shooters just did the Strike Force/[GR]/Americas Army thing of making you pay for getting hit and limping around, and all shooters were single good hit equal incapacitation? People would actually be scared to stick their head up! People would stick together in fire teams, to maximize being able to drop the other guy before he dropped you! You wouldn't need to play balance weapons as much, because it would more be a matter of fire rate vs weight and ammo supply, and accuracy. So I guess for me [GR] > Americas Army or BF2 > GRAW. But if you take BF2s engine and add the deadliness of [GR], and more soft foilage and varying cover and sightlines, but now with the multilevel, tall buildings, etc, but bring back the varying light conditions of [GR], and make people limp like [GR], but keep the BF2 commander, squad leader stuff, and add more smokes and sensors, and claymores, etc, THAT WOULD BE A GAME. Oh, and I still want my 3 squads, so I can play my brother on big maps, and have the mother of all battles with our guys. Doesn't everyone else?
×
×
  • Create New...