Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

101459

Members
  • Content Count

    623
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by 101459

  1. I hope the questions asked (and respond to per Ubisoft NDA or what ever) don't have to take the direction of: "Ask us anything about what a great game company we are and the new direction we've taken to bring you the best possible gaming experience!" And when you ask a sincere, serious and important question you get ignored, or at best the same kinds of bs answers the PC audience has been given for over a decade like: "Thank you for your question we intend to bring you the best PC gaming experience ." or "We're not answering questions of this kind at this time." Only from Ubisoft...
  2. Server Browser or Match Making System? Or, better yet, both? Ubisoft's MMS has been universally terrible across all their PC titles, really awful. It does no one any good to soft pedal how bad it has been. This could be the best game ever, but if it's got the same console derivative MMS, with what looks like the revenants of Ubisoft's DRM, with the ridiculous primitive networking lash-up we've seen most recently strapped on Ghost Recon Future Soldier, Splinter Cell, and the Raven Shield games; it will be awkward at best, or, if nothing has changed unplayable for most.
  3. Well I ave the new v2 release a try, and I can't seem to do anything... It takes half an hour for the game to find a match I can join, none of my shots land and do damage, and I'm snap shot and insta-killed by players that I never see move from cover (or do so after I'm dead) even if I'm spamming them with the radar thinger, or hammering their position with an LMG. I used to like this game a lot and did fine; perhaps it's just network latency, but the game now has so many annoyances from the horrible over modulated sound design, to MMORPG casino and fantasy feature over load that obviate b
  4. It looks Ubisoft's 'issues' are finally being acknowledged in the main stream press; in an article published yesterday: Congratulations Ubisoft, You're The New EA a Forbes tech writer tears Ubisoft a new one over recent issues. It has surprised me for some time that it has taken this long for the press to acknowledge how this company operates... By way of example a friend of mine wrote an excellent post on the failings of of GR:FS networking and offered a recitation of some work-arounds that helped a lot of people connect to games and also mentioned that Ubisoft had demonstrated eligibil
  5. Hey Zeealex I agree that compared to other games published and developed by Ubisoft, GRAW was quite good for its net-code, but GRIN was not a wholly owned subsidiary of Ubisoft, or an Ubisoft studio. The PC editions of GRAW were built on Diesel which was a fairly mature independent engine before GRIN even contracted with Ubisoft to do the PC version of the game. Most of Ubisoft's PC development since 2002 appears to be by wholly owned subsidiaries that appear to be: top-down, micro-managed, console derivative, with production focused on creating marketing content, enhancing Ubisoft managem
  6. It's a good and valid question Wombat; more so now then ever with Steam sales surpassing console sales in many segments of the market. My hunch based on what leaks out of the company is that it's probably down to priority of where the money goes -- in order of importance: · management & administration · marketing & advertising · art development · technology licensing & development Which apparently has not changed for a long time, and is not a lot different from what a lot of other businesses do in a lot of other markets with products suffer from this approach... No
  7. Why? You honestly don't understand? The simple explanation is because we paid money for a product and service that not only didn't work even remotely as advertised, it didn't work at all for many. The longer answer is; Ubisoft has been making promises and breaking them with this franchise since Ghost Recon 2, and has had broken networking in it's PC games since then as well. Why would anyone with even a modicum of interest in the genre want to let this subject die? Even in just objective technical terms without any criticism of the actual games created; wouldn't you like to know if Ubiso
  8. Does anyone here have any indication that any decision maker at Ubisoft even has a clue as to why this game failed on PC so miserably and why it and Ubisoft in the context of this game is held in such low regard now? Even completely disregarding how far off franchise canon the game's design went; has anyone seen any evidence that Ubisoft made any results oriented effort to resolve the enormous litany of issues that made the multi-player portion of the game literally unplayable by the vast majority of people that bought the game? To wit: · a match-making system that mirrors every fla
  9. Perhaps more technically Stealth then Tactical Realism, the Death To Spies games had more realistic, open world 'sandbox' and emergent game play than anything else in the stealth genre -- then (2007) or since in my opinion, and bore more resemblance to Hidden & Dangerous 2 for aesthetics, atmosphere, depth of interactive features, realism, and difficult game-play. Death To Spies 3 is making a second attempt at crowd funding here on KickStarter, and there's a good RPS article here that gives a synopsis of some of the history and direction taken. Although I can't speak to this latest i
  10. While Watchnogs is in the lime light it's actually another The Division video that was out from GDC 2014 that got me the most excited I've been about an Ubisoft Clancy game in a long time: http://youtu.be/_F-hwyu9bcU I've always liked the approach Sverige Developers have taken to realism games: GRIN, Overkill, Starbreeze, and especially Massive; with it's commitment to excellent mod support and community interaction re. its RTS titles. If you folks recall at one time an Ubisoft spokes person said that mod support would see a return in some future Clancy game, and if you look at the
  11. Correct what? All the BI games have always offered third person perspective: Operation Flashpoint, ArmA 1, 2, 3 and all expansions, VBS 1, 2 and the newest version still in production -- all offer 3rd person perspective. The only way that 3rd person perspective in ArmA games can be obviated is on servers and mods that disable it...
  12. How does Snowdrop make it easier to develop The Division? Massive created Snowdrop to speed the development process through resource and time efficiency. As the engine is developed the benefits are immediately apparent throughout the whole game, no recoding required. That's an awful lot like the language used to describe the MassTech game engine, and World In Conflict... Could this be the game and engine that UIbisoft promised the return of mod support on PC with? I can't remember the the article but some Ubisoft SpokesWeenie (or Weenette) had said that Ubisoft was vaguely committe
  13. C'mon Fellers! This one should be front page news; it made it there on Tom's Hardware! Just say'n... How come we can't pm Rocky? Is is message box full? Is all well in the beautiful autonomous state of Scotland? C'ome-in Rocky... Over...
  14. There's a new Snow Drop Engine tech demo video here on VGS... Some of the technology, assets and effects rival or even surpass what's offered on CE3, be might cool if this was the game, and the engine Ubisoft decided to leverage mod support with... I can dream....
  15. While some of the harsh comments directed at Ubisoft are well earned, some aimed at this game (at least as of yet) are not. Massive while a 'wholly owned' subsidiary of Ubisoft, was like RSE, an independent Studio that created outstanding IP that included the RTS MassTech Game Engine which was SOTA for it's time, several games with new genre defining features, and, mod support! In fact World In Conflict Modern Warfare is a total conversion for WIC that's still played today and shows just how deep and far the mod support and enthusiasm for Massive's work goes. As well there's nothing abo
  16. You just did you posted here... I feature the fellers at Serellan get that they're running a very tight ship, resource limited in terms of just about everything with respect to time, money, manpower, market awareness, and that an MDK/SDK will be fairly crucial in leveraging the fanbase they do have. If not...
  17. Forgotten Hope 2 deserves a very honorable mention here on Tactical Realism Titles; it's not merely a mod, it's an epic total conversion for Battlefield 2 (larger then the game it installs on) that if you've missed it you've really owe it to your self to see this unique approach in large scale Tactical Realism gaming. While the game bares some semblance to the BF2/R2 game/engine it runs on the FH2 team have left no feature of the Refractor 2 engine untouched in working to eek out new game design, features, levels of realism, and even render capability... The scale of FH2 is somewhere b
  18. The Project Reality Team announced their intentions to go stand alone on CryEngine 3... The Battlefield 2 iteration of the mod in its early incarnations was the game/mod that most reminded me of Ghost Recon, and even surpassed it in some regards for a short while. Later builds of the BF2 mod added elaborate features with the design intention of realistic play, but achieved via rather obtuse control mechanisms -- who could forget working on the end of a virtual shovel for over twenty minutes of base building in a three hour round? Or a three hour death march in the same round for some playe
  19. petsfed I understand your beef, I really do; your complaints are valid. However, I don't think expectations that the game is going to be at feature parity with our favorite 'AAA' games, on a short development schedule (shorter then what we've seen even from RSE and Ubisoft) with fewer people working on the game, for less money -- is realistic... I'm hoping that Fans (like us) 'get it' not just literally and pay for games like Takedown, but get it in the sense that we're willing to fund this game and others like it to the cost of an 'AAA' title or a even little more to get it where we wa
  20. I can say unequivocally I am not disappointed; while the feature limitations and issues mentioned above (as well as others I'd like to see addressed) do present -- 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 expectation on; it's a $15.00 game and well below what even well funded 'budget' SKUs retail for. I'd love to see this game improve, have the features des
  21. Cool cool! Those were pretty much the answers I was hoping for! Especially cool is six maps, and it looks like they're only showing two or three; so there will be surprise content just like the R6 games -- that much imho is very good marketing in avoiding over-exposing the game's content. Any howdy thanks for your post, I'm off to bed, another long day tomorrow... Edit: One thing Serellan obviously will sorely lack for is a marketing budget; that's hardly a bad thing as who would want to see them do the 20:1 marketing:development budgeting we see from some of the largest publishers. That
  22. Thanks for that, and taking the time to post it. No, really, I mean it! We're on the same team, love the same kind of games, both (I think) bought and will be playing this one. Still some information seems to elude even you who have the time and means to run a lot of detail down; is it for example known: · how many maps Takedown will ship with? · whether the game will offer stand alone dedicated servers? · what perspective the game will offer (first, third, or 'ghost')? · whether ironsights are even offered (it appears they are not)? · if there is any manner of planning or squad AI contr
  23. My feelings were not hurt, no where did I imply or suggest they were; it's not about 'me' as I bought the game long ago and already own four copies. As for my or anyone else's willingness to 'research' the game -- this is a horrible premise for both marketing any game and your credibility in posting (sic) 'I know something but won't tell you because; neener'... Good marketing makes the clearest and most accessible presentation to the prospective buyer in the least amount of time possible; this is most apt way to attract people to buy that will like it, discourage those that will not like it;
  24. twcrash, on 16 Sept 2013 - 08:10, said: I had this huge list of stuff I was gonna post up... Huge list? Of 'stuff'? Prove it... The logical assumption here is that you're either being petty, or, dishonest... I'd like it very much if you were to prove me wrong in both cases... twcrash, on 16 Sept 2013 - 08:10, said: ...but I realized A. you didnt even bother watching the video... Which video? I watched the video on Steam, which is where this game's largest marketing presence is at the moment and will likely remain for the foreseeable future. This represents the marketing presentation most
  25. So far it looks, promising but the 'Key Features' are a vague and are not particularly reassuring as these describe design intentions that could be marketing placement for just about any game: I'm not deriding the veracity or importance of these as 'features', key or otherwise, but noticeably absent is a concrete feature statement of what explicitly the game has on offer -- from the videos and information on front-end marketing an interested prospective Customer can't even discern: · how many maps Takedown will ship with · how many Players MP supports · type and number of
×
×
  • Create New...