Jump to content

Milgeek

Members
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Yorkshire, UK
  • Interests
    airsoft, military history, battlefield FPS (PC), cinema, reading

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.milgeek.co.uk
  • Yahoo
    beaty1961
  • MSN
    beaty1961@yahoo.co.uk

Milgeek's Achievements

Recruit - 3rd Class

Recruit - 3rd Class (2/13)

1

Reputation

  1. Spent some of this morning having a go at Ground Branch (just training and setting up)...But a quick session in off-line play immediately got me tingling with nostalgia. No, I'm not going to gush that this is the 'best game ever' (whatever that is) BUT it was *exactly* what I - an old classic [GR] player - has been looking for. Boy, if they allow map modding and someone makes 'Castle' or Embassy' for it I think I would pass out! It's brought me back to this forum, hope there are others that are feeling the vibe for this one? All the best, Steve (Clone_Ranger)
  2. Well, had my first game in the public BETA last night, but before I give you my opinion I would just like to say one thing... The 'park' map and some of the visual effects reminded me strongly of GRAW/2 (....really...). From that over-saturated colour palatte they use, to the mechanics of movement to - of all things - a piece of paper that was blowing about in the wind - I had to do a bit of a double take! (All that was missing for me was that sound of the tin can rattling about and dogs barking to make me feel like I had openned teh wrong game.) The park BETA map also reminded me of a GRAW mission - where you had to go into a park and destry some AAA. Anyway - I suppose you could explain away my fellings that there was some similarities by saying that it is a FPS and there is a common graphical thread running through all such games these days. CoD players will probably see a lot of CoD in BF3, and so on. Well - as to the game itself... I'm actually quite pleased it ran and in decent quality on my machine as I did have a few issues with BC2 (though not with the code optimized BC2: Vietnam). First impressions are VERY positive - although on this infantry only BETA map it does feel a bit more like CoD:MW than a Battlefield game. They are running a 64 player vehicle map too now, but you'll be lucky if you can get in one of those servers as they are much sought after! Weapons are very nice and I was most pleased to have a AK74M as the default assault weapon (the default assault US weapon is - of course - the M16A2). Animations are likewise very realistic and I love thenew 'vault' animation where your character leaps over low objects. Best of all we have the option to go prone again (much missed in BC2). Gameplay itself is very fast and furious and the new suppression feature and the blurriness it causes when you come under a hail of fire does add a new sense of realism that was missing in BF2 and BC2. Problems? Well, this is just a BETA but the server lobby interface seemed very clunky and I had problems working out how to join my mates online (hope they simplify that process). Also the squad organization diodn't seem quite as easy to use as it was in BF2 - but I repeat that this is just the BETA. We have the BETA available until the 10th and I am guessing there will be a flurry of tweaking on EA/DICE's part going on before the actual release. BUT as BETAs go this was a very positive start and I actually managed to make a few kills (usually my first attempt at a new game is one large whooping session)! VERY pleased! (Pre-ordering today.)
  3. This is probably very niche I know but...Since I very first started gaming on an Apple - on a Performa 630 - back in 1994 playing games on a Mac has been a very patchy experience punctuated by some amazing highs and heartbreaking lows. But throughout quite a bit of this time one web site has kept the fires burning for the dedicated Apple FPS player - Macgamingfiles.com. Sadly this tiny sanctuary of enthusiasts seems to have shut it's doors for good. Macgamingfiles.com and it's inspirational founder, Monoman, has tried to keep the momentum going for cult classic FPS demos and games by acting as a resource for home-made mods for such games as Ghost Recon, Rogue Spear and latterly the HALO demo. Importantly as it championed the free gaming experience for Mac FPS fans by adding features and extended playability to demo versions of commercial Mac games (important because of the premium that is placed on Mac gaming titles which cost far more than thier PC based counterparts). Monoman himself was a legendary force behind the very solid Ghost Recon Mac community, developing a slue of mods for this game as well as providing support for others who did likewise. An elusive character I actually had the privilage of bumping into him in (virtual) person on one occassion while he was testing out some mod or other online. Macgamingfiles.com was a very important part of my Mac gaming experience over the years and I remember with great fondness those early days of Ghost Recon and those Sunday morning skirmishes on GameRanger (which is now available for Mac & PC but which started out on the Mac). Today the legacy of Mac gaming enthusiasts is that the platform is better supported that it ever has been with the likes of Valve, 2K Games and Steam giving Mac users some of the newest FPS releases, dispelling the old myth that there are no good games on a Mac. Macgamingfiles.com was one of the web sites which kept the movement for great Mac gaming alive. May it rest in peace.
  4. (OK - before you read this please place the cat outside of kicking distance, make yourself a nice cup of tea, listen to some whale song and light a soothing aromatherapy candle.......) I have been an avid GR fan since the VERY beginning, indeed I recently re-bought GR Classic from STEAM beause I love the original so much! And I have quietly read, with interest, the continuing pleas of other fans that we 'want our old GR back' since the release of GRAW...But here's the thing... 'We' will *never* get our old Ghost Recon back - not because UBISOFT (or any other development team) is ignorant to our pleas or needs, and not because of the growth of consoles, and not because of the recession and cut backs in the games industry. No. 'We' will not get our old Ghost Recon back because I don't think 'we' really know what it is we want back! Oh, I think we *think* we know - I certainly think I know - but in reality that image of what GR Redux would look like that we each have in our heads just doesn't seem to be exactly the same game when we articulate to the greater GR community what it is we are after. I will give you an example of what I mean... When I recently read a preview of the forth-coming Operation Flashpoint: Red River (and despite the fact that the last OFP was pants) I got VERY excited! Wow - I thought - this is EXACTLY how I (note the 'I') imagined GR Redux would be! OFP:RR is based in the here and now - it has authentic weapons and technologies and uniforms - it's a realistic theatre of war - IT HAS CO-OP - it has a hardcore mode - etc, etc... And when I saw the teaser movie and saw the squad ordering system in use I actually exclaimed 'OMG! It's Ghost Recon!' (I half expected the game characters to come over a hill and find a castle standing there - OUR CASTLE!) ...So then I hurried over to Ghostrecon.net to express my excitement on the forums only to find there was already a thread started on OFP:RR - and guess what? Was there a host of other GR fans all excitedly enthusing over the new game? Was there even relatively similar views to mine that at last we had something approaching our dear old game back? NO.............NO, NO, NO! I read with growing disappointment comment after comment berating the game and how no where near it was to classic GR!!! But after the initial deflation I started to think - hang on, OFP:RR looks and smells like what 'I' thought I was after, so why can't others agree with me, I mean we all AGREE what it is we are after - right? Well, after much thought I now believe this is not actually the case - I don't think we REALLY do agree, not deep down. I do not believe that the little movie of the game 'we' want that we all have playing in our heads is the same little movie. In fact I think while it's easy for us GR fans to write broad ideas about what it is we all like in the form of WORDS in a forum, that is as close as we will ever get to agreeing on what it is we like as a concensus... As soon as a game idea becomes anything other than VAGUE notions and becomes a concreate WORKING example that you can see a actual screenshot or trailer of the spell is broken. And this is why we will NEVER have the game we THINK we all want - because in reality we ALL want a different game. NOW - I don't expect you all to agree with this theory (note: 'theory') and I fully expect to get flamed to high heaven by writting this. But if you think about it for a moment and just take on board what I have said it does actually explain a lot... Many have wondered how UBISOFT was able to get it so 'wrong' with GRAW and GRAW2 (and some are already thinking they are getting it wrong again with Future Soldier). Why do you think this is? Why do you think that a company like UBISOFT that takes so much trouble to investigate what product the market really wants continually gets it so 'wrong'? My answer is - they didn't, not really. It's just that WE could not agree that the game that the market research said was wanted is the game WE have in each of our heads! In short WE (you and me) are rubbish at articulating what it really is that is playing in our heads. And in any case if we all really have a different idea its no wonder we can't agree on one unified concrete physical concept. OK flame me now - but I'm sticking to my guns. I truely believe that we won't get a game that we can ALL agree on that is the game that we ALL want because that game can NEVER actually exist. And even if by some miricle a game came a long that the *majority* of us believed was something like what we were afer I think it will have been a case of PURE LUCK. In conclusion -please do not think that I am having a go at the GR community in saying what I have said. I am not, I am just highlighting that we are all individials with wonderfully creative imaginations. But I think if by some MAGIC each of us could have the game that is our heads made real by a developer we WOULD NOT have ONE Ghost Recon Redux, we would have hundreds of DIFFERENT games!
  5. I'm a very happy man - just finished downloading GR/DS/IT from STEAM and sparked them up and they work fine! Just have to sort out my controls again for my Nostromo N52 and I'm away! - I guess the only thing I have to figure out is how to add mod to my STEAM version of the games - I'm presuming STEAM keeps the usual Ghost Recon directory and mod folder in the usual place! LOL M
  6. Many thanks - and sorry I didn't come across the prior threads discussing this (I did a search but I probably spelt WINDOWS wrong! LMAO) -- Isn't it amazing that after all ths time we are still intent on running the original game...I guess I'll be back asking the same question for Windows 8! LOL Thanks again. Milgeek
  7. Hello guys, I just noticed that STEAM is selling all teh [Ghost Recon] series at a rediculously low price - and now that my old CDs are scratched to buggery I thought I might like to buy teh games from STEAM...BUT.... STEAM warns potencial buyers that Ghost Recon's are "Windows® 2000/XP (only)" Anyone with Windows 7 who has bought from STEAM - do they work OK or is [GR] now dead to me now that I am on Win7? Milgeek PS - I should add that I know this has been kinda handled in the forum FAQs and it does agree with STEAM that "Windows® 2000/XP (only)" - HOWEVER, I - and others I suspect - have found that Windows 7 seems to be better at playing old Windows games than VISTA was. Which is why I ask.
×
×
  • Create New...