Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SimDooD

  1. well done Rocoafz, you just won "The ###### of the Week Award" GJ Hey Lighty, I want that award coz I earn 3 times that
  2. ZeroAlpha, it's a real shame that things have got to this point for you. I think your post, and what you are feeling is felt by a large community of Co-Op people who are coming to realise that you can only say "wow" to GR:AW on the back of promises for so long, and that there is a cut-off point. For you it has been reached, and that is not a good thing. For me, I knew GR:AW was in trouble when we got the following statement.... "The built-in missions offers a challenge and an urban gameplay experience adapted to 4 players, inherently different from the first Ghost Recon. GR:AW stands on it's own and follows a different path from GR1, by now that's something everyone is aware of." This was the point where I went "uh-oh!" I tried GR:AW, and tried GR:AW again but this is a game which should not have the name "Ghost Recon" associated with it. Such a damn, damn shame to see posts like this.... not a good day in GR land
  3. Actually, that would be a part of it, but there's a lot more.... I go back again to the definitions of "Ghost" being what they were, and "Recon" being what they did. Couple that with WHEN they did it is where we start to understand the essence of what needs to be achieved. Ghosts were a pre-emptive taskforce designed to stop problems arising. GR:AW is about fixing problems after they happen, which is better suited to a different style of soldier. The Ghosts were ultimately responsible for their own actions that were made out in the field. They weren't spoon fed with intel updates, they were free to make tactical decisions as required, not as dictated. You cannot be a Ghost with a small drone flying somewhere overhead working in an environment where you are expected, by the enemy, to be showing up. And that's just it, the Ghosts were NOT exepected, they evaluated the scenarios, and made appropriate responses. GR:AW has that as well to a degree, but only within specific boundaries. I say again, the technical issues would be all but a "no problem" if the essence of the "Ghost" and "Recon" intact. The real issues rise in the fact that technical and game dynamics issues are both not working, and look at the result Gimme my Ghost!
  4. I’ve been mulling this over and over for some time, and so finally decided to get it down here. From a gaming perspective, I’ve been using [GR] since it came out, and also loved Operation Flashpoint. I’ve tried many other games that have come out as well, but they all end up being uninstalled. [GR] is the only game I have installed on my PC, I just wish the rigours of work allowed me more time with my Alpha Squad brothers than I have been able to commit in recent times. The rest of the games just haven’t met expectation. Anyway, on with the post….. Hands up if you’ve read a Tom Clancy novel (me sir!). Hmmmm, that’s quite a few of you! For me, the reason these novels are so great is the subtlety of what goes on in the story. The intricacies of diplomacy and action that are designed to take you on a journey where the success or failure of situations, that could impact globally, can be dependent on a single decision by key people. All of the decisions and the following actions are conducted in a covert way to influence outcomes, by people who do not seek nor want any recognition, but understand the need for utmost secrecy so as to not “rock the boat†and achieve a favourable outcome, BEFORE they reach world prominence. And along came “Ghost Recon†(the game)…. Ghost (n) : a faint shadowy trace. Recon(naissance) (n) : an exploratory military survey of an enemy territory or position. Doesn’t those terms just beautifully sum up the experience of “Ghost Reconâ€? To me it does. We had locations we’d never heard of, missions that required thought before action, and outcomes that were satisfying to us but we didn’t have a street parade to celebrate. The subtlety of the game completely embodied the ideals of the books in all aspects and gamers fell in love with it, as evidenced by the strong following it still has. These subtleties carried over to DS and IT, and despite the early technical issues that manifested itself in [GR], the game was so unique as compared to anything else, that we worked through the issues (good and bad) to where we are today. Ghost Recon as a “game brand†had been firmly cemented for most of us, and for me it is why I still play it, because it gives me exactly what I want in terms of style of play and the subtleties of intrigue and decision-making etc (not forgetting the wider community either, it’s a big part of it). Now we have been presented with Ghost Recon : Advanced Warfighter…. Well, right from the start when I saw the new game title, alarm bells began to ring. “Ghost Recon†and “Advanced Warfighterâ€; two phrases that are so diametrically opposed, that I knew something was going to be wrong here. Ghost Recon was about subtle, early intervention against the odds, to prevent escalation. The GR:AW storyline is set in an environment where the opportunity for early intervention has already passed. We have a team of soldiers working in an environment where the world knows what is going on, in a location we’ve mostly heard about, doing stuff that would probably be done by a team of Special Forces. The whole scenario is being played out in an environment of overt operations, no matter how sneaky you do things. On that point alone, and going back to my dictionary definitions, I see the use of the “Ghost Recon†to be totally redundant. One can only wonder why they used it. Some will say, “to sell more copies†and well, maybe it is, BUT….. We are Ghost Recon brand junkies, so our Nirvana is having any game that bears the name Ghost Recon have the same subtleties we have enjoyed for years. They could have added absolutely no new features, and just updated the graphics, and most of us would have been happy. The second issue is around the technical issues we have seen so far. Now think back to [GR] and the technical issues it had. Sure, they were frustrating but we had a very special game, and were willing to do anything we could to get it right. The result has been years of happy gaming. Now with GR:AW we have a game that has technical issues, and I’m sure that we would all like to get them sorted, but to me these problems are greatly compounded by the fact that we don’t have a true Ghost Recon game that satisfies the GR brand junkies needs. Taking all technical issues out of the equation, I have tried and tried to find a common ground between [GR] and GR:AW in terms of what made me love [GR] so much. I cannot find it. Solving technical issues is not going to make the “magic formula†of [GR] return unless we are given enough control to make it like the [GR] we know so well. What Ubi needs to understand is where the brand equity lies. It’s not with them; it’s with the game. If GR:AW had been released without the “GR†bit and by another publisher, it would have rapidly gone the same way as Soldner and other games that were supposed to “break new ground†and the like, and we would have just continued playing what we love. Unfortunately we’re not getting the “GR†bit, and that’s a shame. The community here wants to see the “Ghost Recon†bit in the game for all the RIGHT reasons. Give us back the legend of the “Ghostâ€!
  5. Irrespective of whether a player was cheating/exploiting (or whatever), or you could be the cleanest player in town, you would not be welcome on our server if you resorted to racial/abusive behaviour. I know the rest of the community wouldn't tolerate it either, and for that very reason alone I'd be broadcasting requests for planet-wide bans. Too strong? Who cares! We all define the quality of the community no matter what style of play, or even what game you play, and that behaviour is unacceptable. (I also noted that he did not deny these remarks, so has no moral integrity whatsoever) Keep it clean, keep it fun!
  6. For me, it's not the game that's at fault, it's the *essence* of the game that is the issue. In [GR] we saw development evolve over time to the game itself, NOT the idea behind the game. Desert Siege and Island Thunder built on that essence, but never lost the plot. If you look first at Ghost Recon, and the theatre they operated in, it wasn't about an overt presence in the field and the thought that a small group of super soldiers could operate in such an open manner in scenarios where the proverbial crap had already hit the fan. It was much more subtle than that. It was about utilising a small, highly-trained group of men to operate in environments where none of the outside world would realise the benefits of what they did. They didn't seek reward or fame, but went about their business silently. THAT'S why they were called "Ghosts". Contrast that now with a group of soldiers operating in what would be an arena covered by world-wide news, in an environment that had already escalated to a point where the word "Ghost" is meaningless. In other words, they missed the boat. The ideal would have had them operating in an environment that is trying to avert this outcome. I think the setting is perfect, and would have offered a fantastic array of scenes to operate in, in a way only the Ghosts know. I've played GR for years, and it's essence is what keeps me playing. I'll keep playing [GR] (when I get the time) until something comes along to replace it. I haven't seen that in GRAW or anything else at this stage.
  7. That's an interesting analogy, and one I'd like to work. GR1 evolved over a period time to develop a winning formula. Just like a wine, it was tried, tested, incorporated feedback, added a few ingredients, matured and eventually we ended up with a winner. It had the perfect palate, was long lasting, and people have stayed with the formula for many years. Imagine the cost to the viticulturist if he decided to remove certain tannins, add more oakiness. The product then becomes nothing like the original, which has been served to the same audience for many years. Some would consider it a seasonal grape error, and would try again, but eventually they would see that it has lost all the essence that appealed to them for many years, and would go find a new wine. It's the subtle changes that can make the difference. A new label, a different shaped bottle. Exactly the same wine, but with a new look. And this would only be done with extensive market research and careful weighing up on potential risks. And this is where I feel things have gone wrong, or are rapidly heading towards. We've not only got the new bottle and label (graphics engine and name), but the decision has been made to change some of the ingredients. I've read comments from Grin such as "It's time to move forward" (or words to that effect), and to a degree they are right. I just feel they've moved too far forward, and sacrificed too many of the key elements that have kept us coming back for more. I have said, and seen echoed, "Gimme GR1 with new graphics!". Why change a winning formula? Sure, add a few subtle pieces, but if it continues to look like GR1, smell like GR1 and taste like GR1, then we'll get many years of enjoyment on something that is a better GR1! P.S - I'm a Pinot Nois lover, does it show? o.O
  8. The offer has always been open for Grin to come and spend time with us on this aspect of gameplay. Whether it be on the public server, or on our private server, they and anyone else are more than welcome. Heck, change yer name and leave the microphone turned off in TS, it's ok.... just as long as you follow the mission leader, who has the best intention of not only trying to help the team complete the objectives, but get everyone else out alive. Just as a bit of information that may assist Grin in trying to understand the Co-Op (Players vs AI on our server) scene for future development, I would be fairly accurate in stating that the makeup of players would roughly be as follows... - Aged 30 and over (heck, I'm over 21...... *cough* 40ish) and we have players who have retired! - Good proportion of players have done/are doing miltary service in some form - Take a very serious approach to doing missions with regards to code of conduct and following a chain of command - Respect each other a lot - Have fun and take satisfaction in knowing a job has been done well I remember that we ran a poll of what type of missions players wanted to see on our server, and if I recall, most preferred the stealth type with a small component of action. And it's interesting, because ultimately THIS was what the Ghosts were all about. They were NOT an overt suppressive force that openly went about their business in an open warfare scenario. THIS is the way they have been portayed in GRAW and almost got portayed in GR2. The Ghosts were originally there to fulfill a specific role, where others dared not/could not go without compromising themselves and their countries. THAT is why they are called GHOSTS. I think that the whole aura of who the Ghosts are and what they do has been lost in the effort to make a game a big seller with lots of eye-candy and slick moves, without any consideration to the Ghost legacy, and that is sad. And that is what we strive to maintain on our server and the missions we run; The legend that is the Ghost.
  9. Not being able to select leader to anyone other than the host is just wrong. What was wrong with the original voting system in GR? It was perfect for planning deployment chain-of-command setup in the event that the leader went down, prior to insert. I can't recall any teams who didn't clearly establish their chain-of-command via the voting system prior to insert in the SR2005 (and previous) tourneys. If they didn't use the voting system, it was usually done over TS with bribes of pizza and beer and not delineated by who ran the server (urk!) As for doors and the like, it sounds like the engine has maximised the playable area at the expense of functionality within that area. i.e smaller map, more features. Hopefully the mod kit will allow us to make/test the balancing of the two "in-game" for best results. Some smaller maps in GR1 were fantastic because they were so intricate, whilst bigger playfields didn't require fancy networks within them. 4 man Co-Op? Come on guys.... let's get it right... 9 man minimum! Ultimately, as the mission leader, what I need to see before launching a Co-Op mission is this.... 1) clearly defined and configurable chain-of-command structure (vote style is cool) 2) loadout of each team member to ensure it meets my requirements of leader. I don't want to have to keep asking what each team member is packing, I want to see it visually 3) pre-planning map to set initial waypoints for each squad 4) a big, fat, green "GO" button
  10. EXACTLY! When I heard what was happening early on, and the fiasco of GR2, I said back then..... "just gimme GR1 with a new engine and I'd be happy"... funnily enough, many agreed.
  11. Okay, so I got bored..... On the 1st day of Xmas, my GR gave to me... A Ghost Recon Co-Op I.P On the 2nd day of Xmas, my GR gave to me... 2 hand grenades, And a Ghost Recon Co-Op I.P On the 3rd day of Xmas, my GR gave to me... 3 way points, 2 hand grenades, And a Ghost Recon Co-Op I.P On the 4th day of Xmas, my GR gave to me... 4 demo charges, 3 way points, 2 hand grenades, And a Ghost Recon Co-Op I.P On the 5th day of Xmas, my GR gave to me... 5 green ping bars... 4 demo charges, 3 way points, 2 hand grenades, And a Ghost Recon Co-Op I.P On the 6th day of Xmas, my GR gave to me... 6 noobs a-playing, 5 green ping bars... 4 demo charges, 3 way points, 2 hand grenades, And a Ghost Recon Co-Op I.P On the 7th day of Xmas, my GR gave to me... 7 mags of ammo 6 noobs a-playing, 5 green ping bars... 4 demo charges, 3 way points, 2 hand grenades, And a Ghost Recon Co-Op I.P On the 8th day of Xmas, my GR gave to me... 8 rostered team-mates 7 mags of ammo 6 noobs a-playing, 5 green ping bars... 4 demo charges, 3 way points, 2 hand grenades, And a Ghost Recon Co-Op I.P On the 9th day of Xmas, my GR gave to me... 9 screaming smacktards 8 rostered team-mates 7 mags of ammo 6 noobs a-playing, 5 green ping bars... 4 demo charges, 3 way points, 2 hand grenades, And a Ghost Recon Co-Op I.P On the 10th day of Xmas, my GR gave to me... 10 tangos dying 9 screaming smacktards 8 rostered team-mates 7 mags of ammo 6 noobs a-playing, 5 green ping bars... 4 demo charges, 3 way points, 2 hand grenades, And a Ghost Recon Co-Op I.P On the 11th day of Xmas, my GR gave to me... 11 GL's firing 10 tangos dying 9 screaming smacktards 8 rostered team-mates 7 mags of ammo 6 noobs a-playing, 5 green ping bars... 4 demo charges, 3 way points, 2 hand grenades, And a Ghost Recon Co-Op I.P On the 12th day of Xmas, my GR gave to me... 12 second life span 11 GL's firing 10 tangos dying 9 screaming smacktards 8 rostered team-mates 7 mags of ammo 6 noobs a-playing, 5 green ping bars... 4 demo charges, 3 way points, 2 hand grenades, And a Ghost Recon Co-Op I.P Enjoy, and Merry Xmas to you all!
  12. 7/10... great choice of nut BTW! Be nice!
  13. How about in New Zealand? Ever since Lord of The Rings was made over here, my back yard has become infested with hobbits who all think they can conquer the world! They need to be taught a lesson! We've got so much scenery to use, it gets boring looking out my window at sun, surf and half nekkid chix (and sheep too, but they're completely nekkid)!
  14. hehehe.... remember the old 80's movie "The Last Starfighter"? Recruitment of humans for intergalactic warfare based on how well they did on an arcade game.
  15. I wonder if the lack of a demo is due to the whole Starforce issue. From what I have been reading, one of the primary ways in which a cracker breaks protection is by identifying differences in the main executables between a demo and a full version to determine how to switch protection off. Maybe there is some agreement between Ubi and the Starforce guys to this effect. I believe Silent Hunter III uses Starforce, and it never had a demo (or am i wrong here?). Just some thoughts. A demo would be great!
  16. Well, they either give us expanded Co-Op teams in MP, or hopefully the sandbox editor is decent enough for us to do it ourselves!!! Here's hoping!
  17. I thought that the GR1 in-game lobby/ready-room was fine as it is, but if I could add 2 things, these would be it.... 1) More mission briefing space available, for more extensive briefings. 2) The ability to see what other team players are kitted with, both primary and secondary kits. This would make it a lot easier to visually confirm an entire team loadout before insertion, without having to remember what you assigned everyone with or getting them to confirm their kit back to you.
  18. I'm thinking that GR:AW's sandbox editor is going to be something quite special for us. This is based on the information at hand so far that Grin has said it would be supplying one as part of the package, and they stated that early on. This would indicate that they have thought beyond just the game itself, and really looked at what extended the life of GR1, which we are still playing (among other things). Face it, most of us have moved on from the standard available missions, and it's the modders/scripters/modellers that have given plenty of hours of continued enjoyment on GR1 (not counting TvT type action, where it's still loads of fun to go kick the crap out of other players, or in my case, get the crap kicked outta me). Now, IGOR was (in reality) quite a clunky devil, but incredibly powerful in what it could deliver to the user in the way you could mod/script etc. It served an initial purpose: to allow RSE to design and deliver the original GR missions. Similarly it's modelling capabilities are basically zippo, but it had rudimentary import facilities designed for one purpose: get new models in so that they can be defined as maps, weapons, characters etc. and allow RSE to design and deliver the original GR missions then IT and DS. I think the release of IGOR was more of an afterthought. Face it, the documentation wasn't first class, although understandable, but RSE gave it all to us anyway. I'm glad they did, because some of the community work that has evolved from it is outstanding. In reality, it is not (generally) comercially viable for game developers to build 3D creation tools beyond a basic level that may suit a particular need. They mainly use programs like 3DS Max and Maya for the majority of the work, and develop import/export tools that will allow them to get the finished models into the game engine (a la GR's MAX tool). These 3D programs have far more tools available for generating complex enitities (and quicker), and finding people who work with these tools well is easier than finding people you can teach new tools to. The cost of doing this would be horrendous to the business. Anyway, what I believe we will see is this. A sandbox editor that has rudimentary object creation tools (some preset model types, and land creation tools), an expanded file import/export facility with far better controls (hopefully .MAX format although .3DS would suffice for introducing new objects and lighting), the ability to fully interact with all objects in the sandbox editor, and a full scripting capability matching or exceeding what we have in IGOR at present (scripting is really only a subset of what a total sandbox editor should have anyway). All this wrapped up in an intuitive interface that will perhaps extend the life of GR:AW for years to come? My thoughts, and I hope I'm close to the money!
  19. It's all up!!! Let the registrations begin! Don't forget that regsitrations can ONLY be made at www.stealthrecon.net
  20. Changing things over as I type this..... stay alert!
  21. We will have a brand new v2.5 available for SR2005. It will be available on www.stealthrecon.net shortly after registrations close for download from several servers in the U.S and Europe. As stated, this mod requires Ghost Recon version 1.4 and the following other mods loaded in the following ORDER: 1. Desert Siege 2. Island Thunder 3. DTD Team Mod v1.1 4. Standard Upgrade v1.1 5. Alpha Mod v2.5 Once the tourney participants have had a good lead in time for downloading, it will be available to the rest of the GR community.
  22. When the portal goes live, it will have the links to everything you need.
  23. Yes there is ... and it rhymes with dial up ... I dont get my hi speed for a little while Will replays be available? Nothing like watching people who know what theyre doing!! ← Replays will be available direct to the teams only. You'll have to cross their palms with silver, and they may let you have them.
  24. This is a good an excuse as any to start again!
  25. There will be a v2.5 available shortly after the portal goes live. It is planned that this will be the version used.
  • Create New...