Jump to content

spm1138

Members
  • Posts

    117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by spm1138

  1. Ubisoft are ######ing imbeciles.

    Their ownbrand DRM sucks. Really. It huffs ######. I've had games NOT WORKING OUT OF THE SHRINKWRAP because the key is already in use. I've then had their tech support fail to acknowledge that this is even possible.

    They should just go with Steamworks. It's tried, it's tested.

    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-28-valve-piracy-a-non-issue-for-steam

    Ubisoft are presently too weak a publisher for drawing me into an "ecosystem" to be in any way a worthwhile thing.

    They're also not understanding that to make DRM effective you need to have a compelling MP game.

    The SP game, people can and will get round the DRM on. Especially if it's a five hour thing with no replay.

    It's MP where you can most effectively police people playing and MP that keeps people coming back. Make the MP a genuinely competitive, differentiated experience and require a Steam account to play and the problem will solve itself.

    The last GR game had pretty weak online play. I tried it twice and then gave up.

    It's ###### anyway. They just don't think the PC is a worthwhile market to port their games to.

    edit

    I've noticed that this and other forums that discuss GRFS for PC, that the biggest fans (us) are alwasy very critical of the development of these games and come across as being very hostile. Perhaps if we had more facts and presented our case in a more positive fashion to the folks that mattered at UBI, we could potentially get a more positive response in return.

    No.

  2. I really doubt either are going to be in military use in the next decade.

    Active Camo of The Predator kind is really limited by processing power. Unless quantum processing suddenly becomes a viable prospect you're not going to see that.

    The HULC is interesting but there's a difference between an interesting technology demonstrator and something being issued to the troops.

    Then there's the question of whether it's something a recon unit would use.

    You also have to ask what the HULC ingame would mean :D

    I mean it'd probably just mean your guy could carry armour and weapons to bring him up to the level of the guy in GRAW2 :D

  3. Meh.

    It looks like an intro movie. It's pre-rendered.

    I doubt it has much if anything to do with the game-play itself other than allegedly using the same art assets and I'm not even sure about those.

    For a game 2(?) years into it's dev cycle showing us only pre-rendered footage seems a tad fishy. Previews say they do have a working prototype build but what was described sounded like them showing off an engine rather than a game.

    This does not make me enthusiastic about this game meeting target or being a good tacsim.

    edit Ah I see. They moved it 2009. Well I knew it wasn't coming out this year.

    Yeah, I'm a grumpy curmudgeon. What of it? :P

  4. Why would Ubisoft pay for extensive work on GRAW2?

    We all bought the game already so they are getting no money back on any such work.

    We're a very small part of their demographic too so there's no point doing it to keep us sweet.

    I bet they haven't even decided if we get a seperate version of the next GR or a straight console port :wall:

    The thing with Vegas is it's a console game. The PC version is a straight port and they have the team in house to develop the extra content. GRAW2 on the other hand...

    I wouldn't hold my breath tbh for expansions or a half decent tacsim. It might be a decent enough FPS with tactical aspects but it isn't going to be the game we want.

  5. Community Developers are taking up positions on many games at Ubisoft. Their sole purpose is that of direct communication link between the forum community and the developers and whilst the system is still in its infancy and likely to see adjustments and improvements with time and experience they have already proven a great asset.

    And I'm only reading this over here? :D

    That's one very obvious issue to remedy if you want the community to take that process seriously. Are you the Community Dev? If you aren't why isn't the Community Dev posting?

    You are right of course that the GR community hasn’t had any information but this is simply because there isn’t any to give as of yet. GRAW3 is not in development as past rumours suggested but beyond that there isn’t any news. However once there is news you will be informed of all those details, what game, who’s developing, and who your community developer is.

    I appreciate that. I guess that's fair enough. But that goes back to my point about there not being a real connect as yet.

    But none of this means you shouldn’t post your thoughts and opinions or that doing so is a waste of time, it’s very important to ensure your opinions are known and not just once a game is announced but long before when such a game might be in the very early stages and before any major decisions on direction are made.

    Has there been a shortage of feedback where these franchises are concerned though?

    Ah well. I should give the whole thing the benefit of the doubt and say GR4 is the chance to show off this new Community Developer process.

  6. With the debate in this thread in mind, it also indicates that certain behind-the-scenes changes at Ubi, however substantial, isn't going to cut it: "We promise to do a much better job now, honest", not matter how true, may actually do more harm than good: One example example is the, presumably, honest attempt of improvement and, very negative community response in the Community ideas for the next GR thread.

    What is missing there is some connect between the community and the dev team.

    Unless I am misunderstanding how Ubi do things the person who started that thread is forum staff. They started it to keep their forum tidy.

    What that thread doesn't seem to be is a genuine attempt by the developers to connect with their community.

    Hell, GRAW3/GR4 hasn't even been announced yet. Who are the developers? There's in-house and bought in studios all over. I don't even know who my feedback in that thread is addressed to or if there is even a producer for that project yet.

    Then there's the publisher. Are they even interested? Do they care?

    Even if there was fantastic communication between the forum staff and the community and this information was somehow making it's way to the devs if the publisher aren't interested their opinion will be what counts surely?

    Without more definites I think we can all see that posting in that thread is an utter waste of time.

  7. If people wouldn't race to finish the game and maybe take some time to enjoy the single player missions you might enjoy it a bit.

    Even if I'm close to the end of the mission I'll restart it sometimes because I feel like I didn't give it a good effort. Like i'm just getting by. I look for new positions or attack points that might protect me and my teammates better or like on the mission where you blow up the three adats I'll switch up which order I blow them up to see which one gives me a better position for the incoming helicopter and reinforcements.

    I only play one mission a night. Sometimes I'll play that mission two nights in a row until I feel I'm ready to move on. I don't have time to just sit down and play a game all the way through in a day because I'm an adult with responsibilities. Were movies meant to be played on fast forward? No, you'll get the jist of it from the scenes speeding by you but you'll never understand it's meaning. Don't you think it's kind of logical that if you don't play the game the way it was meant to be played that you'll never enjoy it?

    Just my opinion.

    It took me a week playing maybe an hour or two a day. Yeah, I am an adult with responsibilities too.

    It's still too short.

    Replay is a bit on the shallow side too.

    Gameplay isn't "emergent" enough to make it last all that long.

  8. "People don't like losing in games" is the short version.

    There's always an excuse.

    It's all about trying to salvage a "moral victory" I guess.

    Their chosen playstyle is 1337z0r and requires many skillz0r whilst yours is ubar-lame so despite losing they actually "win" where it counts. In their own heads.

    To be fair the lack of a minimum arming distance does render GLs irritating because it removes the one downside from them and turns them into peoples primary weapon.

    People don't like being instagibbed (or killed behind cover because it reminds them that they weren't having one of their better ideas when they decided said cover was "safe") but that's really just a subset of "people don't like losing".

    Provided the weapon is ingame and not against any server rule I fail to see the problem.

    Does the MP game have the option to limit or disable certain weapons?

  9. I paid cash money for what is in the box.

    The editor does sound nice but that wasn't in the box.

    By that logic, you'll have to pay for every patch/update that comes out as well.

    Hmmh? My point was that in reviewing or deciding to buy really a person should weigh up what they are getting at the time.

    If the editor comes out, if it's good and if there's a tonne of fantastic 3rd party content then that's great. That's still three ifs the OP is expecting us to take as done when commenting on the game.

    I bought ArmA on the basis of good 3rd party content and I still haven't bothered reinstalling it because the tools aren't out.

    You're right that games tend to be released unfinished. It's wildly optimistic to just assume that the extra content in patches post release is going to be up to much though. Bug fixes are just fixing what should have been correct to begin with. You don't really get to charge customers for that.

    Point of interest I'd say that the trend is probably moving away free post release content what with XBL and the current "thing" of marketplace content.

    I'd bet money that publishers have all seen X-Box Live and they are currently working out how to get PC gamers to pay for what should have been in the initial release anyway.

    Gosh. I'm glad I read your second post before replying because otherwise I'd have called you a pedantic ass. :rolleyes:

  10. ok, this isn't a bash on anyone or directed at anyone person. ok, some ar eobviously unhappy with GRAW2. that's fair and everyone's prerogative. But let's not miss the big picture. every negative I've seen about GRAW2 were smaller issues than overall issues. COOP, lack of, Weapons, the list goes on.

    ButI just want to remind people that Grin will be releasing(or claim to be) the SAME tools they use for making GRAW2. We're talkign scriptiing tools for people who want to make missions, gametypes etc. the GRAW2 editor isn't anything like the cookie cutter attaching of tiles to make maps like GRAW1.

    so I would think things aren't all bad just yet. BUT, if they fail to deliver the goods as indicated, then I would surly join the (-)'s and leave the (+)'s to themselves. but I just like shooting the enemy AI and blowing ###### up.

    But I'd venture to say that what would get me completely over is..if they fix that damn draw distance. seeing peeps appear out of nowhere is ######ty but the distance has improved by appearances and could be better.

    I paid cash money for what is in the box.

    The editor does sound nice but that wasn't in the box.

  11. The RX4 has the nicest scope and reticule I think. The model itself looks silly though.

    I like the 416. It looks mean and businesslike. Proper intimidating.

    Is there any reason to give most of your guys SMGs? I just whack suppressors on their rifles and save the weight for missiles unless I am bringing an MG.

    The MGL seems to be a waste of space most missions. The fire rate is pants. A rifle with a UGL seems just as much use in the hands of an AI.

×
×
  • Create New...