Jump to content

DaSmerg

Members
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DaSmerg

  1. The official DEMO is now available (YaY!). First look at the SP campaign and apparently more of the MP part plus the usual tutorial. The official website has a handy list of mirrors (nabbing mine from the Nvidia link and getting nice download speed/no standing in que). Anyways...hopefully see some of ya'll out there!
  2. This is from one of the matches I played this past weekend. Farmland map, World In Conflict Open Beta...yes...we (my team) set off 4 nukes at once...
  3. Hey all. /me waves @ Rocky! Long time dude! Been playing a ton of WiC. Just a wicked game. Also fortunate to have an 8800GTS + Vista + the modified Nvidia drivers to get the DX10 effects that are in the beta. Simple amazing. After doing some digging around I'm looking forward to the whole game...both the MP and SP campaign. If you hang out in the main menu, the audio tracks in the background are pretty funny. Anyways, hopefully see ya'll out there playing. Catch me as -=SEALZ=-DaSmerg.
  4. Great question for discussion. In this gamer's opinion...things have progressed quite a bit in such a short time. Classic GR is a great example. It's combination of tactical gameplay and pretty sweet graphics was revolutionary at the time. Why should we expect anything different after 5 years and a scrubbed sequel for the PC? If you were to ask this question 4 or 5 years ago, I would say gameplay. But with the advances in so many areas of game development, without question, a game has to be great looking and have great gameplay to be successful today. I really wouldn't be interested in picking up a simply updated version of GR:Classic, it's already collecting dust.
  5. You're not serious are you ? Or is this just fanboi froth ? Don't get me wrong, I'm very hopeful that we'll see a long overdo class successor to a classic tactical shooter that's a great game and has great support that helps expand an already great community. But then I remember some other very promising Tom Clancy's sequels that had lots of hype and hope and how incredibly badly they were supported at a variety of levels. Choose to ignore UBI's track record if you want, this gamer isn't willing to take that leap of faith again thank you very much. The dev chat was the best Q&A on the game to date. That's a good thing. Was it a great chat? No, not particularly. But it's nice to know some more generalities about the game. Best bit of news out of the chat...a demo is coming and it will be pre-release. That's good and exciting news. Most informative news out of the chat...the talk about how the PC version is going to be different from the console version. Things that make you go hmmmm from the chat...hey, did he say expansion?! Lows of the chat...very scant on specifics, promises on delivering some pretty essential game tools and features post-release which has been problematic for UBI subsiduraries in the past. Bout all this horse can be beat on mah end
  6. You have valid concerns WK. But no matter what, cheats will be created for this game once it goes live, SDK or no SDK. Great game mods only increase the replayability and community around the game. P.S. most of the games you listed, don't have support track records that this game should aspire to.
  7. Well I guess colour me less than impressed. No solid word on an SDK other than can't talk about it and it's being worked on. Not good and warning bells are going off. Been down this road with UBI and other Tom Clancy's titles before with rather lack luster AND much delayed promise fulfilling results for UBI. No solid word on anti-cheat for MP other than can't talk about it and it's being worked on. Again, warning bells are going off cuz UBI and gamers have been down this path before, a few times in fact. No straight word on basic customization...like turning HUD features on and off? No word on even a ballpark on minimum specs to run the game? Errr, wasn't this game supposed to be done and delayed by the X-360 development ? This is, by far, the most informative Q&A we've seen yet. It served to shed some more light on the game. But this gamer is left still lacking answers on some pretty important game questions. Anyone working for UBI on a Tom Clancy's title saying '...trust us, we're working on it...'? That sounds vaguely familiar .
  8. Sad news that there will be no GR2 for PC. From the game company's side, I can understand why if there is to be a GR3 coming this winter. Remains to be seen what exactly GR3 will entail. Is this going to be yet another cookie cutter console shooter ported to PC or is this going to be what GR was...built for the PC from the ground up and ported to console later. Read through several posts and I understand those who say they never wanted the extra bells and whistles. I'd have to say that while original GR was a damn fine game for it's time, while the rest of the gaming world evolved, GR's basic gameplay became too linear. It was the same thing over and over, all that changed was the scenery and weaponary depending on expansions/mods. This has to change IMHO. Anyhoo...boo UBI...yay UBI...still gonna wait and play the demo before I sink any money into another UBI title though.
  9. Whatever the engine is as long as it isn't so cubic like the GR one (and the cry's of ditch glitch) and we can pick up a damn gun from a fallen enemy/comrad
  10. I never really found anything wrong with the actual engine that GR ran on. If anything, why not just update it? Using the unreal engine for GR? Have to say ummm...no after the RvS fiasco.
  11. Once again...sorry to the staff hear at GR.net for starting another thread but you closed the other one before I could post again....thought I'd post things that I know about Operation Iraqi Freedom v1.0 considering some of the pretty wild, mis-informed and inaccurate accusations from the now closed thread. For the suggestion that Operation Iraqi Freedom v1.0 is "my" mod...that's pretty funny. I don't have GR installed on either of my puters and haven't touched the game in at least 6 months...so I think ya can see it'd be kinda hard to mod for GR. Operation Iraqi Freedom v1.0 was put together by =SEALZ=Stereo to clear that up. As far as I know about the development of Operation Iraqi Freedom v1.0...specifically allegations on content that is from other modders work...the initial launch of the mod was delayed for this exact reason. Harntrox was working with Stereo to contact all the modders whose work that Stereo had included in his mod. That was the last I heard on the topic until I was told it was ready for release. To allay the fears, paranoia and accusations expressed in the now closed thread...when Stereo comes online...as he is in Europe and I am Pacific coast...I will confim with him about the content and permissions. From what I can tell right now and from what I know about O.I.F. v1.0, this may be a case of a poorly written README. Any and all comments or questions specifically about the mod can be directed to the Operation Iraqi Freedom forums to get a direct response from =SEALZ=Stereo himself. The I.O.F. forum does not require registration to post As for the comment about "pulling the download"...once again quick to post, not so quick to investigate...I am not hosting and/or mirroring this download, it's on Fileplanet and I also now see that another =SEALZ= member has a mirror link. My part in all this is only to spread the word about the release of =SEALZ=Stereo's mod...nothing more, nothing less. Now considering that I am not mirroring this download or hosting it...it'd be a tad bit hard for me to "pull it" though if things are not on the "up-and-up", I will be the first one to suggest to Stereo a pretty obvious course of action. Just thought I'd clear that up
  12. GR'ites...we have another in house treat for you! Our very own =SEALZ=Stereo has put together his first major mod effort for Ghost Recon...Operation Iraqi Freedom v1.0! So get ready to gear up and get your Operation Iraqi Freedom v1.0 download HERE OR HERE! Don't forget to drop by =SEALZ=Stereo's website. Any feedback on the mod or for any issues, drop by the Operation Iraqi Freedom Forum! Congrats to =SEALZ=Stereo and a big thanks for all your work! Game on GR'ites!
  13. DaSmerg

    GR2

    Hmmm...where to start with a GR2 wish list? After playing a whole whack of GR, then starting to play some other games and then going back to GR I find that the one most important thing, in this gamers opinion at least, is to make GR2 not as uni-dimensional in game play. What da hell do I mean? Well, in GR you run around, sneak around, lay around and shoot at the tangos...and that's about it. There's no interaction with the environment what so ever. Standing, crouching and lying down should affect your aim...similiar to America's Army gameplay. Ammo resupply area/s. The addition of a medic type to heal wounded team mates with some sort of point of no return for being healed...you are so badly wounded that you can't be healed...would add a balance to this. Cammoflaged uniforms that actually make you difficult to pick out from a grassy/forest/jungle/artic/martian...whatever background...and I don't mean adding a boat load of fog to map either Being able to pick up a weapon! What RSE/UBI's resistance to this idea is I will never know. Adding vehicle use would be a plus but not totally necessary. Though in this gamer's opinion it would add a pretty wild element to the gameplay...some maps with tank support...helo support...landing craft. Tanks that take more than a single round to take down...as this game is supposedly in the future I think that armour technology might evolve just a little and that one or two anti-tank rounds to disable and another one or two to take out. Being able to jump...yes I know this may irk some people and even others will have visions of bunny hopping players out there but being able to jump over small obstacles would be awful nice. A non-angular map environment...to put an end once and for all the ditch, cliff, hill glitch argument. Being able to leap off a cliff if the mood so strikes you...the invisible wall that stops you from plummeting to your death is what I am talking about. Would add another element to the game...better watch where you are running! As Neo says in the first Matrix "...We need guns...a lot of guns..." I too agree with the stock weapon balance issue that there are few really good stock guns and a whole lot of so-so stock guns and what ends up happening is that a few guns get used by a majority of people playing. Yes Mods do help out but the stock game should have just a few more choices. The support weapons...well...this might offend some but from my experiences playing with them they stink. Yes you don't want tight rets for a support weapon but on the other hand any slight movement opens your ret totally wide? Some kind of balance has to be found in there somewhere (see interactive environment above) as support weapons fire is part of the mix and people really do get mowed down with SAW's and the like. More than 9 peeps in co-op mode. Smarter AI...easy to say, hard to program I know but would be really nice. A larger map environment...it takes you a more time to 'heel-toe express' it from one side of a map to another...again, adds another element to gameplay and also makes snipers more lethal and teamwork more essential. A STAND ALONE DEDICATED SERVER PROGRAM. What we have in GR is very nice but far from adequate for running a dedicated server...just a small program is what is needed...with this new and improved dedi server better kick-ban-server editing features. Free beer with game purchase would be really nice too but don't think that'll happen I look forward to more posts from all and a great idea to the folks here at GR.net!
  14. Actually a better analogy would be that RSE would only allow server side mods and missions to run...unless you didn't plan on connecting to any server online. I am not particularly a fan of MC...I used the 3.7 add on for a bit. It was very nice, definately artistic and all but not my cup of tea and I never bothered reinstalling it after RtR came out. I did read Prowlinger's rant and it brought up some very good points...most importantly that a lot of the mod makers for BF1942 gained and gain their experience in various aspects of modding for BF1942 from starting to work on the simple client side mods. As to me worrying about RFA cheats...I'm not that worried to tell you the truth. In fact, to be perfectly honest, if somebody or group of somebodies is going to utilize a cheat for a game, they are going to do it, no matter what kind of protection is built in. Cheaters will always look for a way to circumvent any built in or add on security in a game to gain an unfair advantage. This system would in no way guarantee a cheat free environment and would serve to alienate a large number of the honest BF1942 community who likes the opportunity to use client side mods...of which there are many beyond just MC...to customize their gaming experience. In the end, it looks as if this is all a mute point as current unsupported rumour has it that the v1.4 server will have a pure and un-pure setting built in for BF1942 server operators to be able to choose which kind of gaming environment.
  15. There are really no "missions" like in GR for BF1942. The co-op game play...well it sucks in BF1942. It's just a bunch of bots running around on both teams and your team has objectives to secure. It gets really complicated in BF1942 because your side's AI likes to take the vehicles and ###### off with them...usually getting them destroyed at that. The popular gameplay modes in BF1942 are... Conquest (a bunch of predetermined points that you can capture by standing near for usually about 20 seconds and usally but not always your team can spawn from...each side has an allotment of tickets or points that can be variated...once your team captures a majority or on some maps all of the "flags" as we call it the tickets start counting down...deaths of each team also detract from your teams ticket count...some Conquest servers also use a time limit with the ticket count...there are also uncapturable points on some maps...meaning you can pin a team back into a single spawn area and have at them...our rule on our server is that you can't go into that uncappable base to solely kill but stealing a vehicle and obviously defending yourself is ok...airplane bombings and tank/artillery bombings from a distance is ok as well) Capture the flag (kinda self explanitory...each team has a flag which the other side can capture and recieves a point for each capture...CTF is usually played to a certain amount of time or pre-determined point total) Team Death Match (same thing again, each side has an allotment of tickets or points...each death takes away from this point total) There are all kinds of mods for the BF1942. Basically imagine in GR if you could change the uniforms of the teams on your side or the client side only. You can have enhanced blood effects. Historically correct flags, uniforms and vehicle skins. Crome skins on airplanes. Different reticules. Different texture packs for maps making them snowy for example. All of these...plus many more...work on the client side...they don't have to be active on the server in order to determine whether or not you can use them. Then there are the major mods that work client side or on your side and on the server side. That means they have to be active on the server and on your end in order for you to connect. Works just like GR, but like I said, you can only currently activate one mod at a time in BF1942. The "glowing skins" problem isn't really a problem as BF1942 supports up to 64 players on a server. There is no allotment of "spawns". You get unlimited spawns. Also, one player cannot impact a game that much, most especially in a large game server. In a smaller server with say a dozen people it would be an issue, but the maps for BF are mostly so gigantic that playing with so few people is pretty silly. Also, each teams uniforms and vehicles are natively different looking than each other, there is no real need to make something that looks different look even more different. The real major cheat right now that I know of is a fog hack that eliminates the fog on maps. So if you are a sniper you have free look or even worse if you are working mobile artillery, anti-aircraft guns, stationary defensive guns and the artillery on the battleships and cruisers you again have no fog or severly reduced fog. IMHO, as a game player, I like the idea of secure RFA files. I also like the idea of a server that can be set to pure or non-pure. I am not convinced that eliminating client side mods will result in the removal of cheats...I think somebody here said it pretty well that it will make them even harder to detect. There is also the option of using third party software such as PunkBuster and there is even an initiative in the community to build a cheat detector that scans clients files for known cheat files and hacks. Any of these are far better solutions. Also, what kind of trend does this set if EA and DICE are going to do this in the most popular game right now for all other game titles? If it seemingly works, why would other game makers not disable client side mods as well and make all mods strictly server side? Obviously, this is not going to be a big issue for the non-BF player...but it could have future implications on other game titles.
  16. Howdy all! Thanks to Rocky for bringing this topic up as it could possibley have implications for other game producers and titles. I am a fairly avid player of Battlefield 1942, have been since the early demo's came out. There seem to be quite a few people that have heard of BF1942 but not played it posting here...as well as some confusion about what this v1.4 patch and the end to client side mods will mean. The amount of modifications that can be done to this game are quite extensive...as this game is quite extensive. There are map mods, skin mods for the players and various vehicles, texture add ons for maps and vehicles, enhanced blood effects and a very popular add on made by a group called Merciless Creations that combines new splash screens, new and modified textures, new and choosable reticules, historically correct flags and enhanced blood effects to name a few things that their add on gathers together. I do agree, cheating is definately an issue with Battlefield 1942, like any other game. But the kinds of cheats that are seen in BF1942 are few as EA and DICE have done a reasonably good job closing the loopholes in their game so far. What does "an end to client side mods" specifically mean? It would mean that any mod that runs exclusively on the client side would be no more. Some of the major mods run client/server similiar to Ghost Recon. Some mods run exclusively on the client side. These purely client side modifications would be ended and would have to be run on the server in order to be "active". You can currently only activate one mod at a time in BF1942...and you don't have to activate it like in GR...if you have it, the game activates it for you when you join a server. But with an end to client side mods means an end to some of the websites that have been distributing them...imagine a GR.net that only posted downloads of new server side maps only and server side mods only. All current and under production mods will have to be retooled to work in a server side only environment. There has not been a tremendous amount of mod support for BF1942, it's mostly come from the community. In fact, the worst part of all this is that it doesn't have to be this way...which is another important thing to remember for other game titles. Members of the BF1942 community have worked out a solution to allow both a "pure" and "non-pure" gaming environment that can be toggled on and off on the server side. A pure gaming environment means the stock game, plus officially released maps and patches clients would only be able to connect. This would be important for ladders and leagues nevermind the groups who are worried about cheaters on their server. If your files don't match up, you can't connect to the server. A non-pure gaming environment means that the stock game plus officially released maps and patches as well as any client side mods could be run. What this dual system essential means is a choice for us gamers and server operators. If you are that concerned about cheating, run a pure server where pure clients can only connect to. Not so worried and want to allow clients with modified textures and what nots? Run a non-pure server. The majority of players and mod makers are honest players in Battlefield 1942. Yes we have a few smacktards running around and of course cheating is always going to be an issue, but is it this much of an issue to remove client side modifications all together? There is a petition that better explains what I have been trying to explain that has been started by the community...this is what it says... "To: EA/DICE We request that version 1.4 of Battlefield 1942 include "Mod secure RFA's" so that secure client side mods like Merciless 1942 from www.mercilesscreations.com can still be used. To quote from Prowlinger: "There was a solution sent to Dice how to resolve this scenario. This explained the problem, a solution. It involved MOD SECURE RFAs. This allowed each and every modder to compile their own RFA with a security setting. Client side mods can still exist this way! Cheats will not exist this way! Every mod would be secure this way! Dice would only have to release a secure version of their RFA compiler and decompiler for the mod community." Sincerely, The Undersigned" For Battlefield 1942 players...or any other game player concerned about this change in direction...you can sign it BY CLICKING HERE.
×
×
  • Create New...