Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

Dai-San

Members
  • Content Count

    494
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dai-San

  1. Seeing as it all appears done and dusted and ready for release can someone answer some questions.

    1: Has the number of players able to play MISSION based Co-op increased from 4?

    2: Has the Mitchell dead game over been sorted in MISSION based Co-op and if so does someone else then have access to the Team Leader functions such as waypointing on the map etc?

    Hope someone is able to/allowed to answer this.

  2. Certainly, one cannot think that GRAW was ever gonna be like [GR]!!! I never did... Have to consider the technological advances since [GR]... I knew the graphics would be advanced as they are... AND I for one am happy about it....

    To be honest though Stormin, apart from the graphics, everything else seems to have taken a step backwards from [GR].

    We had 9 player Co-op in [GR] (loads more when modded), multiple gametypes, no gamespy, good server options, good crosshair bloom and ret spread etc.

    Personally when Ford bring out a new car I don't expect a great new body but model T technology that will be 'patched' up to the previous models spec.

    [GR] style co-op is right around the corner. Graw has multiple game types. Ok, ill give ya the gamespy issue...hehe . As of good server options..its my understanding that came later...and we are getting those too...soon! The crosshair and ret stuff ill give ya cause i never played [GR]...hehe

    I hope your right about the [GR] style co-op, but remember that would mean to me that you could play co-op in many different ways, Firefight/Mission/Defend/Recon etc, etc with at least 9 players and able to split them into 3 squads identifyable on the map etc, etc. That would be [GR] style co-op.

    We shall see.

  3. Certainly, one cannot think that GRAW was ever gonna be like [GR]!!! I never did... Have to consider the technological advances since [GR]... I knew the graphics would be advanced as they are... AND I for one am happy about it....

    To be honest though Stormin, apart from the graphics, everything else seems to have taken a step backwards from [GR].

    We had 9 player Co-op in [GR] (loads more when modded), multiple gametypes, no gamespy, good server options, good crosshair bloom and ret spread etc.

    Personally when Ford bring out a new car I don't expect a great new body but model T technology that will be 'patched' up to the previous models spec.

  4. Sorry to continue, but I also feel that some of the frustration is due to the fact that there just isn't much out there in terms of quality FPS games. I played Doom 3, finished the game, and decided it was a lousy experience. Haven't picked it up since. There have been other letdowns, as well.

    I think Rossiski has hit the nail squarely on the head.

    If anything better had actually been released since GR:AW arrived you would find a lot of the people who hang around and gripe would have actually moved on. But GR:AW has actually benefitted from the lack of decent FPS's at the moment by hanging on to a lot of people that just haven't got anything else to play.

    I find myself in this group. I still play [GR] but don't play GR:AW anymore. Now I don't tend to moan much on here but I still hang around because basically I'm bored at work and to be frank GRNET has been home for long enough that I still visit to see whats going on, and if something catches my eye I may post.

    Just my take on the situation ;)

  5. I would say lockdown is better than graw

    :o

    I would have to agree with Jay316 tbh.

    As everyone here likes to keep pointing out, GR:AW shouldn't be compared to [GR]. Fine

    If we apply the same to Lockdown (don't compare it to the rest of the R6 series) then we have a game that you can at least play online, has multiple modes of online play, good Co-op (ok more than 4 would have been nice but at least you don't end the mission if someone dies), and it has infinetly less bugs than GR:AW has.

    So it's a different game, but all in all at least you can play it with a moderate spec system without it falling over all the time and can play it in loads of modes online.

    That in my book makes it better.

  6. BaMBaM my friend, whilst I don't disagree with anything you say, the [GR] vs GR:AW debate has been done to death on this forum as even a cursory search will reveal.

    I am the last person to defend GR:AW as I gave up playing it even before the last patch/addon as being someone who played [GR] from day one it just didn't grab me.

    I think what i'm trying to say m8 is that posts like this do nothing to persuade or disuade anyone and GR:AW is what it is. The developers know it's not [GR]... UBI know it's not [GR] and to be frank, they never meant to make [GR] the remake no matter how badly people like you or me wanted it.

    The time for explanations of the 'IT' [GR] had passed a long time ago. It was ignored then and they aren't gonna re-write the entire game now ;)

  7. I heard the reason for the patches and the ongoing problems is that they couldn't get more than 4 staff to Co-operate on any part of the game, as soon as they tried the lights went out and they were left staring at a black screen. Either that or whenever the project leader left the room the other 3 all ran around screaming "Mitchell... Mitchell... Man Down... Abort, Abort! :grin1:

  8. It would be interesting to know exactly what the AC checks besides the exe. Does it check for modified XML's that can only be modded after using the unbundler (hope so), XML's such as weapon recoil, spread etc. It would be nice to know what cheats this thing will detect, so that we all know the games we are playing are clean. I personally don't care how it checks, but what it checks would be some good info.

    Priceless :rofl:

  9. Well said Peace.

    Unfortunately, as much as this game has potential, I don't feel that potential is in the direction that I, and a lot of old time [GR] fans, want.

    I have given the game a try and tbh if I wanted to play this type of game then quite frankly BF2 does it better (another one of the games gathering dust on my shelf).

    Looks like I'm gonna have to continue with [GR] for my Co-op kicks until that next big thing comes along.

    Just a shame GR:AW wasn't it :(

  10. Dai-San,

    all very valid points. However, the game in itself is mod friendly in nature, with the bundle structure. We might make the exe read a mod.bundle file in addition to quick.bundle and patch.bundle, and then have a simple loader/activation interface to let you choose what mod you want to activate. Then it's a matter of adding a filter list to the multiplayer browser to let users only see those servers that share the mod, or somehow display it in the general interface.

    Just ironing out the wrinkles.

    Stickan

    The options you list would be great.

    What a lot of people forget is that being a mod friendly game is a lot more than being able to actually Do the modding, that is only half the story. Once you have a mod completed you need people to be able to use it.

    Without an easy to use interface for activating/deactivating mods then you put the casual gamer off. They don't necessarily want to have to 'Make' local folders, copy .xml files in and out of directories etc.

    Hopefully your discussions will take this into account ;)

  11. We had to find a short term solution between allowing mods and stopping the quick and easy cheat hacks - and mods suffer from it. We have some ideas on how to deal with the mods, this is still being discussed.

    And yes, you will. If you're an avid modder my suggestion at this point would be having 2 installs of the game, or 2 "local"(local and local-mod) folders with a batch file to rename them properly before starting your game.

    I find this comment slightly worrying. I was under the impression (it would seem mistakenly) that GR:AW was going to be a mod friendly game, continuing on the fantastic community that has grown around the GR series.

    Saying that you are still discussing a way to deal with mods implies that it was never actually a consideration in the initial game concept from the start. Now i'm not saying this is or was a GRIN decision (more likely UBI).

    Most mod friendly games have a menu option for mods and this is delt with as a seperate issue to cheats (ie a legitimate mod is not seen as part of a cheating problem and therefore not made difficult to implement).

    Just because an xml can be edited does not in my opinion make a game mod friendly, it just makes it moddable. There is a whole world of difference.

  12. Im sorry, but I still dont understand how to install the post effects (anti sepia) mod. Can some one tell me from square one how to install it? Whats this about a local folder? Im sorry, but this is the first time i have done anything with GRAW mods. :(

    Try This m8 ;)

  13. QUESTION OF THE MONTH

    What classic game [at least 5 years old] keeps you coming back for more? What is it about that game that makes you toss aside the latest and greatest technological gaming marvel?

    Ghost Recon without a doubt.

    No other game has lasted the test of time like Ghost Recon, and 5 years down the line it’s still there taking pride of place on my Hard Drive.

    Other games come and go, spend a week or so installed until the eye candy and wow factor wears off then they are consigned to my ever growing ‘Game drawer’ never to see the light of day again. Yet Ghost Recon get’s played at every opportunity, the community, the Mod content, the atmosphere in game just make it something special.

    Heck, What classic game keeps me coming back? I never left.

  14. I will be glad to see the back of this June patch thread.... but only to be replaced by

    the June patch thread problems, quickly followed by the What’s in the next patch thread and then the JULY PATCH THREAD. The cycle starting all over again till August ... lol

    June patch thread problems

    What we didn't get moan

    What’s in the next patch

    JULY PATCH

    the above titles can be used, there is no copyright and title is available for free didtrubution. 2006 viiiper®™

    Viiiper m8, give it a rest with this 'Moaners' crap, it's getting old hat now and you do a pretty good impression of it yourself in This thread.

  15. Yeah the sound is in the game, it's just not called for by the weapon scripts. We'll fix it in an upcoming patch. Hopefully untiul then, you'll be able to undertand that you're out of ammo by the fact that you don't hear BANG when you pull the trigger...

    Desmond, the way you did the "out of ammo" sound is in my opinion realistic and should be left alone. Last week I was in Prague and I passed some time at a shooting range. You do not hear or even feel a click when you are out of ammo. This goes for pistols (not revolvers) and assault rifles. For example when you fire your last round from an M4, what you feel is that the trigger can not be pressed. The gun just suddenly feels like dead metal in your hands. You don't feel recoil or hear a "bang" is exactly what the experience is like.

    Asking for clicking sounds when you pull the trigger of your gun that has just shot its last round is ridiculous. Unless you want an arcade feeling.

    silent_op

    See my thinking here is you just made a case FOR a clicking sound.

    Explain to me how you would translate

    For example when you fire your last round from an M4, what you feel is that the trigger can not be pressed. The gun just suddenly feels like dead metal in your hands.
    into the game. Stop people being able to click their left mouse button?

    As much as realism is a worthy goal, gameplay choices, and the enjoyment of the gamer is the ultimate driving force. When something is impossible to translate into the game then a workaround has to be made and if a 'Click' when empty sound would improve the game for even 50% of the GR:AW players then it is worth considering as tbh, you guy's that count your rounds or use the HUD indicator won't ever hear it will you ;)

×
×
  • Create New...