Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

101459

Members
  • Content Count

    623
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by 101459

  1. Of course I agree with the general sentiment of just about everything said in this thread: Ubisoft dropped, let all the air out of the Tom Clancy/Red Storm ball, then literally gave it away to anyone that wanted it. BI and indie developers picked it up and are making hay with it now -- and with all the action realism games loosing steam; Ubisoft is as late as ever to understanding what's going on, and still seems to have absolutely no idea what happened... While ArmA and Squad are ambitious well conceived games; Ghost Recon remains unsurpassed in very important regards to tactical realis
  2. You are correct! Oh GOSH! Josh & Jake say Bessssst EVAR! It must be TRUE!
  3. Wow! This defines 'longevity' in tactical realism gaming! Great, engaging content that still inspires, the labor of love of putting it together, and to see it and be reminded again: Ghost Recon is and remains the high water mark of tactical realism that is still unsurpassed in so many regards it's mind boggeling! Thank you Variable13 & ApexMods for keeping on and keeping this alive! You sirs, are a gift to realism gaming along with Rocky for keeping GRN going! And everyone else that contributed to the original work of course!
  4. I agree on all points... I'd be interested to know what Ubisoft games that don't offer mod support offer anything remotely resembling 'longevity'? Well after? We're no where near into the well after support level of Ghost Recon... Great updates? Cartoon clown and Liberachie gun skins? A new map players universally hate and want taken out of rotation? And the 'solid base' may be ducky in Europa and the UK but the net-code and MMS totally blow here in the US, literally worst on a game in the decade... Great and fun game design when and if you can play it, but there's noth
  5. It is annoying, and sad -- more marketing for pre-pubescent boys, and adult children that lack critical thinking skills. As yet no game really has the atmosphere of military professionalism of Ghost Recon; it's all cartoon murder ball death mash, mutilation, and MTV cut scene market hype. I'm not opposed to cartoon fun Rambo shooty death mash against a robot army of zombie drug weenies. But how long before Ubisoft sees the limitations of the game and actually clones that and has an all new 'Zombie DLC Expansion' when kids get bored of paisley gun skins and new Barbie costumes for their butch
  6. I don't think you're going to enjoy Wildlands, it doesn't sit in that niche IMHO. You might be right, though my assumption is as I've said is that it's more like GTA or Just Cause then anything related to realism no less tactical realism -- which clearly Ubisoft hasn't been making for over a decade. My issue isn't lack-luster game design, it's: broken, flawed infrastructure and ghetto middle-ware; they can obviously build compelling game designs, but there's absolutely no excuse for the kind of network code and MMS these games are strapped to; the issues are well known, documented, and descri
  7. Yeh maybe me and everyone across the globe I play with are just lucky. I couldn't say, but here in North America most pings are three digits or the high 90's and MMS wait time is asinine. Play share for console might be up, but considering the join time for games in North America has done nothing but increase I seriously doubt the PC play share is anything but drastically down. Anyone can give them-self, and even buy a nomination for GOTY award... I haven't given up on anything -- I've bought every realism game this crummy company has published. I'd love for Wildlands to be a great game too,
  8. ... but you will apologise for them anyway? When EA themselves came out and called the BF4 launch "unacceptable", that's why I questioned your assertion that Ubisoft produced the "net-code that is literally the worst there is in PC multi-player gaming". But that is exactly what I and thousands of other gamers are doing every week. Siege is also nominated for Best Multiplayer Game 2016 I noticed... Is this an issue you are experiencing yourself, or are you going by what you are reading somewhere else? Perhaps you just need to edit a text file somewhere... I haven't apologized for anything;
  9. I'm no apologist for EA, but network settings in BF games were and remain open text players can modify and tweak and everyone that did had a playable game out of the box with BF4. BF4 was also the roll-out of a new and very ambitious LSS engine fluidic & destruction physics, and very advanced proximity net-code -- even with all that EA had things squared away in less then a month, and was talking to their customers about it. To say that R6 Siege 'gets complaints', is, imho a profound and gross understatement: the networking and MMS are simply horrible; they've had nearly a year to work
  10. While I think it's well and fine for Ubisoft (or any company for that matter) to control the narrative of their marketing & pr; Ubisoft (and its Studios) used to respond to Customers (most of us are paying Customers here) and prospective Customers -- and even if the answer was incomplete at least an effort was made. Now we get canned market speak with responses like (exact quote): "We're not talking about that at this time...", which has meant no response is ever going to be forthcoming, and is about as an egregious 'marketing 101 no-no' as has ever been documented... But again, I have no
  11. I don't think most Ghost Recon fans really care if the game gets cosmetically 'downgraded' -- I think they care about: game design, functional realism, depth of play, and decent infrastructure under then game in net code quality, and render engine stability. Even 'downgraded' most Ubisoft games look at least 'good enough' -- but without exception for over a decade fall down miserably with respect compelling game play that's on-canon with a particular franchise, and has decent code under it. Like every Ghost Recon game before this one I WANT TO BELIEVE this will finally be a good game, offer
  12. Nope. If by work, you mean work for me, no -- I don't get any kind of vicarious ego gratification out of virtual persona projection and doubt it's even healthy. To me this sort of thing is like turning an aspect of the game into 'Virtual Barbie'. I'd vastly prefer Ubi concentrate its Developer effort on creating more sophisticated, realistic, immersive game design and functional game content, and leave this sort of thing to mod talent that understands what the audience really wants. As this is apparently a done deal, and water under the dam I just hope there's none of the ridiculous cartoon Ca
  13. That the Siege 'closed beta' MMS had identical issues to GURFUS, (even threw up some of the same error messages) and could not even connect 5 players to a coop game in a reasonable amount of time -- is a very bad sign for Wildlands. Coop networking with just 5 players on small maps is as easy as it gets in terms of mp game code, and should be easy to get literally perfect. That it will be more challenging for Wildlands due to level design size and likely content sync required, is, to put a polite face on it: an epic bummer. We're into nearly a decade of Ubisoft in-house proprietary engine
  14. Anyone that has played both Siege betas has seen that the MSS under this game is little different then what rides on any other listen server Ubisoft game, and has seen no improvement -- it's still the same miserable affair. The parties involved may not want to talk about it, fans may not understand it, but it's something that really can't be 'fixed' -- the issues of an MMS can only be moved around, and regardless of what's tweaked the results will look the same to the user anyway: more waiting and lost connections... One issue not made clear in the previous post that's an even larger prob
  15. Summarly because MMS hosted games can not work without an enormous number of players looking for games concurrently. While that level of play-share may exist on consoles, it's rare on PC, and will always fail at what otherwise would not be a critical level of play-share to sustain a multi-player game on PC with a Sever Browser interface. The math that demonstrates this emprically is fairly complex and is part of what's know as combinatorics; unfortunately very few programmers that develop games have the math background for this -- they're typically just implementing MMS middle-ware and tweaki
  16. Are we getting Ubisoft's match-making system on Wildlands, or will there be a real server browser?
  17. While I'm an advocate of server side options and choice for players, like 1st and 3rd person person perspective; Ubisoft hasn't shipped a Tom Clancy game with a server browser in over a decade, in fact it doesn't appear they've shipped any games with a server browser in over a decade. The relevance of this is that an MMS requires an enormous number of players to function properly, and with each player option that separates players you offer in an MMS -- the number of players (and/or game join/start time) goes up exponentially. If you're going to play this game on PC and Ubisoft ships it wit
  18. That! Is a pleasant surprise! Now if we can just avoid the DRM/Match Making System/Store night-mare that has even left the most patient Ubisoft Fanboys waiting more then playing -- Wildlands might actually get me on the rah rah stand. All the cool in the world though isn't going to be worth anything for multi-player if we have the same same networking mess that's looks and works more of some kind of bad science project that only exists on retail products because the Boss's best friend's kid made it... Just say'n...
  19. Nice recitation, but a lot of it sounds like 'talking points' that were probably heavily emphasized in Ubisoft's presentation; ie. what they want the press and Ghost Recon fans thinking about and looking at. Don't look over there, or talk about our horrible netcode, Uplay, and our dysfunctional MMS middle-ware. Seeing expectations escalated (especially my own) always has disappointing outcomes when the marketing message doesn't jive with what we actually see for our hard earned money. And about 'what we see', and 'things you may have escaped your notice'; Wildlands can't be a that 'sea
  20. I did see your post Deosl, but 'understanding the value' of something, and acting on it are two different things, speak nothing to actual design intentions, or goals. By way of example any individual or entity may 'understand the value' of not doing harm, but see obviating reasons -- like making money or staying on budget, and the value becomes moot. As well it doesn't appear there's been anything from Ubisoft in response to larger, more specific and important questions questions like: No less acknowledgement of: I don't understand why everyone is so anxious to cut Ubisoft so much sl
  21. AI BLUEFOX, the only assertions, suppositions and assumptions are yours. My point is clear, explained twice at length for your benefit. There's no debate or subterfuge -- the only confusion is yours; and mine I suppose for indulging you at all. Reread post #98 above if you're still confused and are sincerely concerned about the topic. Or even better since you're clearly so piqued by anything I post read Wombat's post, he clearly understands what I'm writing about and articulates it concisely: These are valid and important questions! If Ubisoft shoehorns the same lousy netcode, MMS lob
  22. Rocky, all journalists are on a slippery slope, all the time, it's in the nature of the work. To make a summery case: the game has been three years in development, Ubisoft has announced there will be multi-player, Ubisoft has not delivered a game on PC from their own studios in over eight years with mature robust netcode with a server browser of any kind or a properly functioning MMS. Whether by design or happenstance Ubisoft isn't discussing any of this. As yet no one has confronted them in any public venue about it, and they still resort to the 'we're not discussing that at this time...' sor
  23. Yes, you are correct you are in fact stating a a text book informal fallacy that's led with everything but 'So, 101459 what you're saying is:'... The reductio ad absurdum here is all yours, you need to read more carefully, without emotion what was written for meaning, not a petty sophomoric debate or argument. To wit you're not quoting me, and your statements are your inferences -- not what I said, implied, or concluded. Let me clarify, so that you aren't so easily confused or compelled to dissembling, or gross error: Ghost Recon Future Soldier's netcode and MMS were not merely poor; there w
  24. What is? No, no where did I say or suggest this, this is know as a logical fallacy using performantives... When ever you see or hear a sentence beginning with "So what you're saying is...", generally its going to be a straw man argument with some characterization of something that wasn't said or even implied. I said, exactly what I said, for reasons clearly explained. Another logical fallacy frequently begins with 'Of course...' -- 'Of Course...we all KNOW the Emperor's new clothes are beautiful so let's not even dream or DARE of confronting the fact they may not only not be
  25. While I'm hopeful about everything Ubisoft is showing and is saying, and their apparent receptiveness to input; what they've shown for previous games has always been equally impressive... It's comments like these, made here and elsewhere in the press in response to questions about the game that raise my red flag, make this look like another one just like the other one and no more encouraging or compelling then what we've seen before: Et al. it's not much of a reach to assume the new marketing campaign is really the old marketing campaign, with new parties invited and involved.
×
×
  • Create New...