petsfed

Pretty sure I got R6 running on Win 8, just had to turn off hardware AA with Catalyst Control Center (I have AMD gpus). Haven't tried with COD yet. Edit: nope, that was Raven Shield. I'm sure there's a way to get it running though.

The only compatibility issues that I've run into are with games designed to run under e.g. Windows ME, or on a 32-bit system. Max Payne and Max Payne 2 have been particularly problematic, as well as Freespace 2. I haven't gotten all the way through the workarounds for the last one. By and large, I don't run into problems with Win8. The big difference is the change in how you interact with the start menu, but if you ever pinned something to the left column of your start menu in Win7, you already know how the start screen works. The only thing I sincerely dislike about Win8 is that I prefer Aero over Metro, and wish there was a built-in way to get that back (think the Classic theme for win7).

Unless you're using a solid-state drive to boot from, most of the boot-speed improvements are illusory, from a hack that will occasionally break in a panic inducing way. Basically, when you click "shut-down", Win8 hibernates. You may have noticed that, when you've got updates pending, you can shutdown, or you can "update and restart", but you can't tell it to just install the updates over the next time you cycle the power. This is why. Unfortunately, sometimes it will forget how to wake up, and you'll end up with a black screen upon wakeup, with no way to fix it short of pulling the battery (for laptops) or pulling the power cable (for desktops). I work in a computer shop, and I've dealt with enough of this problem to not even bat an eye over it anymore. The solution is to turn off the fast-boot option. Otherwise, I love win8. Its faster and more stable, and all of the little tools of the OS are much easier to get to now. I just hate that the fast-boot-workaround basically admits that their OS doesn't really boot quickly, so they implement a buggy solution.

I appreciate the impulse to keep things separated, but most simply put, aggression is a ghost town, sister site or no. In the last 12 months, there have been, at most, 36 posts in 12 threads, 7 of which lack replies and were posted today. Before that, the most recent post was made in February, by a staff member. By comparison, there are 15 pages of active threads at ghostrecon.net, with who knows how many posts. There is a lot of crossover between the communities, but nobody talks about Rainbow 6 over here because it will be automatically banished to a place no one visits, where no one will ever see.

First person to pm me with their steam id gets the free copy that Serellan sent out. I'll check back in the morning. I read the most recent update log, might be time to try this thing again.

You're right. A feature that has been present in virtually every single-player tactical shooter since Rainbow Six is not something that a single-player tactical shooter player can expect (the only example of a similar, but still more robust, loadout restriction was Sum Of All Fears). The system in place makes perfect sense for a multiplayer specific tactical shooter. Infiltration, the mod for Unreal Tournament, used a very similar system, and it made sense for that setting, since there was absolutely no single player. Since I only play single-player, that sort of deliberate rush to get players into the action seems antithetical to the whole "thinking man's shooter" ethos. And again, the frustration is with a deliberately-multi-player move leveraged onto an advertised single-player mode. Cutout the "singleplayer", call it "offline training" and my criticism evaporates.

I just don't understand how a design choice meant specifically to discourage that sort of behavior in multiplayer has any sort of use in the single-player experience, except perhaps because the single-player is in fact just tacked on training, in which case throw out the quasi-singleplayer experience and sell it as just a multiplayer shooter with off-line "training". I'm frustrated that Serellan wasn't up-front about that design choice in the first place.

I don't think anyone complaining (here or on the Serellan forums) is really considering the full-context of their complaints: $15.00 The game costs just $15.00 Not four, five, or six times as much like the games many doing the complaining seem to be basing their absurd expectation on; it's a $15.00 game and well below what even well funded 'budget' SKUs retail for. My frustration was that I kicked Serellan $50 to support the Takedown Kickstarter, because I really wanted a return to Rainbow Six style tactical gaming, not Swat 4 style tactical gaming. I appreciate that this is a process, and I can expect more in the future (hopefully a robust planning phase, or at least better squad control), but the thing is, I didn't get this game for $15. I understand that they're essentially selling the beta (much like Arma 3, which I also got in on), I just wish that it was in my Steam list as 'Takedown - Beta', rather than masquerading as a finished game. In terms of individual experience (the lone-wolf experience, if you like), the game is everything I hoped it would be. The gameplay is tense, and the equipment is both well differentiated and effective-feeling. The sounds are great and while the visuals are not spectacular, the game isn't ugly either. It has a lot of Rainbow Six's visual style, and I love the incredibly stream-lined interface. What I want to see in future revisions (in order of priority): 1) The ability to change your loadouts during the planning phase. I read the FAQ, I don't mean during the mission, I mean that after I hear the briefing, but before I click "start", I *need* to be able to modify my loadout. I should not have to quit to the main menu to modify my (or my AI team's) loadout. 2) Total redesign of loadout editing to be similar to that done in e.g. Swat 4, Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield, or Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter. That is, it should be clear whether or not I've saved the changes I've made, especially in light of the bugs that are occuring with it, and I should be able to easily compare my loadout before the mission with my teammate's loadout without resorting to third-party chat programs or (again) quitting to the main menu. 3) Detailed squad control, so that (for instance) running out of flashbangs doesn't require you to sacrifice your point man for more. Alternately, be upfront about single-player being "just for practice" and eliminate the friendly AI entirely. As it stands, they serve as essentially extra lives, but of varying utility since they all have different (but utterly indistinguishable before hand without a pen and paper to hand while assembling the loadouts) loadouts. 4) The robust planning phase of old-style Rainbow Six. If I'm harping on the loadout issues a bit, its because its basically the only way to customize your experience (there isn't even graphics customization, and I was under the impression that this is a PC game), and its really poorly executed. I can think of 8 different games that Christian has played (at least 2 of which he actually worked on) that did it better, so I really hope that this is just an interface issue they haven't ironed out yet.

Got it, played it for a bit, initial impressions based on exclusively single-player: I'm not that impressed. There's a lot that really shines here, but the utter lack of robust commands for your AI teammates, the really shallow team customization (the requires a lot of forethought, outside of the present mission) and the maddening loadout interface really interfere with my ability to enjoy the game. There needs to be a "save current loadout" button, and the ability to edit the loadout in the mission selection screen, not just from the main menu. There needs to be the ability to order your team to a specific position to e.g. cover you while you disarm the bomb, or to throw a flash bang when you run out. The game is clearly optimized for online co-op, so the single-player portion seems really tacked on. If I had known, from the outset, that single-player would be so utterly superfluous to Christian's vision as seems evident from this (admittedly brief) playthrough, I might not have supported the Kickstarter.

I was consistently frustrated by the clearly good ideas being defeated by narrative vision. The gameplay loop of "observe, tag, engage, move" is A LOT of fun. Its just that 90% of the game isn't that. Instead, there's this highly directed "go there, watch a cinematic, go here, watch a cinematic, endure an on-rails (but still on foot?!) sequence, watch another cinematic, mission over" process that happens in virtually every mission. Its incredibly frustrating. I actually found that the absence of real squad commands wasn't a problem because there was a lot of effort put into good ai-map interaction. Unfortunately, it seems the developers found this process arduous, so most of the game was short-circuited so you couldn't make use of this. Highlights (for me): basically any time you and your team was in "stealth mode". Lowpoints (for me): any time you are forced into "assault mode", even if there's no possible way for such a thing to have occurred.

Considering that no other single digital delivery system matches Steam's user base, I'd say that "nobody uses Steam" is patently false. Sure, they've managed to alienate large swathes of the market by being digital delivery (e.g. active duty military, Australians, anybody else who can't connect to the net on a weekly/monthly basis) but they've also managed to take huge bites out of the physical-disc buying market, to the point that other software fields are following suit. You cannot, for instance, buy a physical install disc for Windows or Office in the states without ordering direct from Microsoft, and paying $10 extra. I'm pleased with this summer's sale. I got all three Thief games, and Dishonored with all available DLCs, for under $25 total.

More ram. Windows 7 does not have the mem. management that Win 8 has, so you'll want more to run on top of what you have now.

Well, I don't mind weapon unlocks, since its the only way to introduce replay value for us single-player-only types, its just that it can be pretty frustrating when those unlocks are only really possible for mortals if they engage in online play. If I wanted to interact with other people, I wouldn't be in my house, alone, playing on the computer. As far as the door opening animations, I'd love it if, instead of fixed animations, we actually did have to watch our firelanes, and put enemies on the other side of the door so the guy pointing a gun underneath actually has something to shoot at. What I was referring to is specifically the "diamond-formation" sequences that are simply on-rails. Its no different from other turret sequences, and its boring, unrealistic, and often frustratingly imbalanced. I'd love to see weapon paint actually mattering based on surroundings, so that uniform camoflague would provide some concealment alongside the predator-style camo. I don't know that GRFS is bad per se, just that, like all but the original GR, it buries authentically good ideas under a mountain of "features" that allow the developers more narrative control but rob the player of agency.

Bring back more squad commands than just tagging, cut out the cinematic garbage (specifically diamond formation and chopper gunner sequences), remove single-player weapon unlocks that require specific, difficult to perform actions.

And still no fix for the Guerilla unlocks (e.g. Kard, Scorpion, etc) not unlocking.

It also came up on somebody's blog, Will Wright maybe? Sent a bunch of people over to support it. Since GB came afterwards, in terms of Kickstarter, a lot of that crowd found themselves asking "wait, didn't I just support this game?" even though there is some pretty obvious differences. Given that I got my start with Rainbow Six, then went into Ghost Recon, I supported Takedown first. If I could've afforded it, i would've supported both.

The reason the Brettzie animations are clunky is because there is no way to add additional animations with a mod. They are hard-coded into the game. As such, Brettzie's weapons pack is the absolute best you can expect from any such weapon pack.

Ah, that makes way more sense now. I know I saw something similar in COD:MW3, with a red-dot sight, and in the KAC video they have a similar rig to that. I've definitely seen similar in ArmA II:OA, which comes in handy when you have an optic that isn't NOD compatible. I just found it odd that they'd tack on an additional M4-style front post right next to the regular one, but at 45 degrees. Maybe the troops of the Battlefield future, who are otherwise blessed with infinite funding for the newest toys, are still stuck with a service rifle that has a fixed front sight.

I don't think the dog shooting thing will be much of a problem, actually. Nobody was all that upset over the chickens in COD:MW2, or the monkeys in COD:BO, and they were actually innocent bystanders. Attack dogs are fair game, I thought. Unrelated note, are extra iron sights actually a thing? I know about backup and flipup iron sights, but having them off on a funny angle in addition to the optic, that just seems silly. If they don't bring back the offline training mode from BF2, I'm not gonna get this one.

Sorry, a little confused with the terminology here. Takedown is on unreal, thus uses UDK. CryEngine 3 is just CryEngine 3, so it presumably uses an SDK, right? Minor thing, I know, but I just wanted to make sure I understand what you're saying.

When the US Navy "trademarked" that name, it was basically to emphasize that since the name is in the public domain, it can't be trademarked. It can be used for personal use by everybody, but you have to pay a licensing fee if you make money off of it. Red Storm had (no longer has) a very cozy relationship with HK, which was why in the name was used prominently in Rainbow Six and Rogue Spear, but not most of its expansions. You can almost always use government designations for things (e.g. M249, but not FN Minimi) because of the way governments make such information available/usable to their citizens. Since the trade name is definitely not public domain, its harder to do. If you're making a free mod, you might be able to get away with fair-use arguments, but be ready to get a cease-and-desist letter.

I can run with a full pack about 20 yards. And I'm not just limited to walking for 10 seconds afterwards either, I have to stop completely. While I don't like "exhaustion" as game balancing, I think ARMA II's sprinting is just as bad in the other direction.

That occasionally happens on the user's end, especially if you've got an undiscovered trojan. Run a virus/adware scan, then see if you can recreate the redirect.

RE: means "regarding" and has been used as a reply header since people were speaking Latin in Rome. Its also very common in the subject line of emails. I meant that I'm sorry you got screwed out of playing a game, refund not withstanding. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not an online gamer in any sense of the word, and I do resent sending good campaigns to the back burner in the name of online play. But even in that respect, i recognize that I am in the minority. Otherwise, they wouldn't keep making 5 hour campaigns and selling them for $60 US. A PC player without any kind of internet service in the States (which is the principal PC market) is basically unheard of. I was the last such person I knew some 15 years ago.

I've never really minded having the internet connection, but then, I was only able to afford a second PC 2 years ago. I've been using PCs for more than 20 years now and the whole time, choosing not to connect my "gaming" PC meant not having internet connection period. Not only are you in the minority RE: total absence of internet connection on your gaming PC, you're in such a tiny minority as to be not worth catering to anymore. You can't get parts from the manufacturer for a Ford Pinto anymore, for the same reason. I'm sorry that you got screwed, but it says right on the box "internet connection required for activation". Caveat Emptor, right?