krise madsen

Was a good race, even if Sir Tom didn't get his 10th win.

It's for real.

[media=]

You don't have to find any C4. Like with the artillery, just walk down the small path to the base of the bridge (on the far side) and when you get really close the orange glowing silhouette of the C4 will appear, then hold X (at least I think it's X) to attach and press X to detonate.

Pledge! KS username: krise madsen (though I may have pledged before this thread came up, does that count?)

Well, there have been a few funny ones, like the time Ubi released a well-known crack to fix a D2D DRM issue, but failed to erase all traces of it's origin. My personal favourite though is when the new must-always-be-online DRM scheme went down for days, because most of the staff was on Easter holidays. I mean who would have thought that gamers wanted to play games in the holidays? Seriously though, I'm at the point where I'll make sure there's a fix if when DRM issues appear before I buy a game. The amount of crap (DRM and otherwise) being flung at gamers is incredible, especially considering how many benign solutions are available if only common sense would prevail. Like Bohemia patching out DRM when it has served its purpose.

Erm, silly question, but were you online when you entered the key?

This. The vast majority of missions are designed from the players perspective. What you end up with is going from A to B to C with more or less scripted encounters along the way. Try turning it upside down and look at it from the bot's perspective: Put the number and type of players aside and start with the bots and their mission: What kind of warriors are they? Elite soldiers? Veteran insurgents? A bunch of untrained dudes with guns? What is their mission? Protect a bridge, radio station or other objective? Hunt for rebels? Ethnic cleansing? Sabotage mission? What would they do on the map and how would they do it? Only then do you start to make compromises and admissions to the fact that this is a game played from the players perspective.

I get one of these every one or two months. I just report them as a phishing scam and go on with my life. And, as the others noted. Neither Microsoft nor any other reputable organisation/website will ever ask you to put your password in an e-mail.

Poita hit the nail on the head IMO. I recently played both GRAW PC games (single player only). GRAW 2 in particular comes tantalizingly close to giving us what we want in most respects: Generally good implementation of movement and firing weapons (not perfect, but almost good enough), enemy AI that did interesting things (like dive for cover, cover when fired upon and switch positions laterally) and a pretty good (though lacking soul switching) squad command system. In fact, in almost every respect it was way ahead of GR. Then why did it leave my so dissatisfied? Because of the maps. Even though it certainly wasn't linear in the traditional sense, it failed to achieve the open-ended battlefield that I could navigate as I saw fit in the way GR did. It just let me go from one ambush (or "gotcha moment" as I like to call it) to another. And that's where the game failed miserably. At this point in time, I don't think anyone outside the people at Bohemia Interactive, is capable of providing that sort of open ended-ness. More to the point, I don't think anyone wants to.

BI games do tend to be very buggy on release, I'll give you that. But, as the others noted, they support their games well; working long and hard on fixing bugs and taking feedback from the community. The alternative these days is usually a game with fewer (though still some) bugs where developer support is dropped after a few months. Or there's the Bethesda model: Release a bug-ridden mess and wait for the modders to fix the bugs themselves.

And I think that resulted from UBI exerting considerable creative control over the GRAWs. I think the concern was that if we really were allowed to do whatever, then all the NARCOM stuff wouldn't occur in the right order, and then UBI would have to pay to make more (as if we actually wanted the squawky guy in the corner to begin with). I actually played GRAW1 today, and it was even more horribad than I remembered. For all it's flaws and warts, it did seem to have potential, and many of these wrinkles were ironed out in GRAW2. However, the single most atrocious flaw, the one that kept it from even approaching GR was the inability to deal with the player trying out non-linear gameplay. Merely sending your team one way around a house and you round the other resulted in enemies spawning either right behind you or right in your face. And this, the single most important feature (for single player and co-op) was NOT improved in GRAW2. I haven't seen any indication that anyone involved with GR development since the first game ever understood this. Or cared. This really was where the Ghost Recon franchise died. Funnily enough, much the same thing happened in Rainbow 6 Vegas: In Terrorist Hunt mode (by nature non-linear) enemies simply spawned right in front or behind you so it didn't matter where or how you moved. Guess what, the GRAW1 I installed today wouldn't accept the 16-digit code printed on the manual. Turns out I had to be online, but it didn't say so on the box, nor on the error prompt. And the printing of the code on the manual was sufficiently crude to be easily misread ("is that a V or a U and is that a 5 or an S?"). It didn't even have the usual four boxes for 4-letter sequences: I had to include a hyphen between each 4 letters. What was supposed to be a ridiculously simple operation ("Enter these 16 digits and press OK") turned into quite the marathon. And I'm supposed to trust THESE people to have their always-online-DRM authentication servers working at all times? Or not to shut them down after three months? The only ones to have conquered the PC piracy issue are those that have simply ignored it and found ways to make people WANT to pay for the game. It seems the Ubisoft solution is to make sure no one wants to play their games. No. Indeed. Plenty of people, my self included, have tried. It turned out to be utterly futile.

No it wasn't (hey, you have your opinion, I have mine, and that's fine) i understand what you are saying, but graphically it was ahead of it's time, so i'm told. i wasn't playing it when it was released. *shrugs* Apart from a few minor niggles, the GRAW graphics looked fine and dandy to me, but then I'm notoriously poor at judging whether graphics are particularly better or worse by contemporary standards. As far as I'm concerned there wasn't much that couldn't be solved with more tweaking and development (like the absolutely horrid pathfinding for the MULE in GRAW2), except for the linear gameplay which quite simply ruined the game. I'm no programmer, but I kinda wonder if it wouldn't have required a whole new game engine to fix that problem. Anyway, I guess the GR franchise as a tactical shooter has been dead for some time now. Let Ubisoft play with their Kinect and cloaking devices while chasing the other Call of Duty clones.

No it wasn't (hey, you have your opinion, I have mine, and that's fine) What GRIN did do right was listen, interact with the fans (i.e. us here at GR.net) and take the comments, suggestions and criticisms to heart. And by that I don't mean that they implemented every suggestion wholesale. They actually listened, thought it over, analysed it and implemented what could conceivably be implemented. And that's why there were considerable improvements in small but important elements from GRAW to GRAW2 (such as the weapoms selection and the squad command system). That kind of community interaction is exceptionally rare these days and the guys at GRIN deserves huge kudos for that. I guess we GR.net users deserve a little accolade too because our suggestions and criticisms were generally sensible and thought through. I can't speak about the mutiplayer part (didn't play it) but arguably there wasn't much there that couldn't be fixed by throwing more tweaking at it, be it map design, team setup or network code. Where the game really faltered was in the linear gameplay. The whole game (maybe the game engine too? I wouldn't know about the software side of the business) simply wasn't geared towards the Ghost Recon play style of go-anywhere-do-things-how-and-in-what-order-you-want. In fairness, no one else seem to have cracked this either and these days it seems developers have simply given up and are just throwing more COD-style playable cutscenes at us gamers.