Jump to content

Caine

Members
  • Posts

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Caine's Achievements

Recruit - 3rd Class

Recruit - 3rd Class (2/13)

0

Reputation

  1. And there you have it...in a nutshell, the BIGGEST reason why PC games and console games differ so dramatically is the control model. How can you possibly think that? Do you really think a simple interface device is the reason why there are more PC players on the PC side of the GR.net site (as an example)? You know you can buy all sorts of console style game controlers for PCs. Are the console guys rushing over to play PC versions of the same games that are on their consoles? The biggest reason why console players and PC players don't go switching over to the other platform has to do with their preference in games. It is all about the games and the style of the games. It has nothing to do with game version or hardware, playng on a platform of choice depends on whether or not you like the games. silent_op ← Yes, I honestly DO believe what I wrote...as shocking as it may seem. Since the PC control model allows for so much more complexity, the PC games can be more complex. Console games, on the flip side, have to be pared down to their basics in order to fit the control model of their respective console. I played NHL 2005 on the PC with a Microsoft controller that was "minus a few buttons". I had to pare down my options during game play because my "control model" was less flexible than the originally intended model. The same holds true with games crossing platforms. Personally, I didn't play GR on a console...ever...for any reason. I saw no need to do so. After all, I was enjoying the game on it's intended platform, why bother with the diluted format? But I have seen a rash of diluted games comming out in recent years. Games which are obviously intended to be (or originally were) ports. The game play was unrealistic, the options limited. But, control model is only one facet of the issue. The other is, "Who plays where"? Console gamers, since they tend to be younger, prefer a faster game - or a "twitch" game if you will - versus their older counter-parts on the PC. And, a faster game requires a pared down control model. The downside is that kids also tend to have a higher proportionate amount of disposable income and free time. Face it, the target market for game developers ISN'T the 26-35 year old segment of the population, it's the 14-21 year old segment. And, quite frankly, they want a different game than we older guys do...for the most part. I referenced Joint Ops in my original post as a great example of a game ruined (IMO) by the developer's desire to appeal to the younger segment of the gaming group. There are countless others as well. Strategy is fast becoming extinct in gaming, and what now passes for it is simply an increased hand-eye coordination ability. After all, I have yet to see ANY military organization or Law Enforcement agency teach the "bunny hop" as a viable means of avoiding enemy fire while crossing open spaces...yet evervirtually every shooter out there allows it. Caine
  2. And there you have it...in a nutshell, the BIGGEST reason why PC games and console games differ so dramatically is the control model. With a console game, I have a grand total of 14 buttons that I can use in various combinations to impliment features. On a PC, I have many times that. For me, it comes down to - quite simply - the mouse. I can't stand targetting with a joystick...it's too herky-jerky. My mouse is dead on, all the time. So, to level that field a bit, the console games assist your targetting...which is sometimes counter-productive. Ever run into a situation where the guy in back was the more dangerous target, but your reticule was locked into the guy in front? Not on the PC you haven't. I don't like console shooters...not in the least. Sports sims are the opposite, they seem to play much better on consoles. Flight sims and Mechwarrior type games are again PC oriented. Everything else appears to be a wash. What is unfortunate is that Developers are taking console ideology and transposing it to the PC games. They spit out wave after wave of unoriginal and unprovoking titles, designed only to lure players in for a week or two (to the tune of $50.00 each) before they tire and move on to the next piece of eye-candy laden simplicity disguised as a game. I saw this happen first hand in Joint Operations when NovaLogic tried like sin to cater to the transitory whims of the 12 year olds and turned a potentially great FPS into aracade candy. Ever heard the phrase, "appeal to a broader market"? That's a games death knell. Truthfully, I hesitate to rush out and buy GRAW. After being let down so many times with games that were "supposed" to be the next great thing, I don't feel like risking yet another $50-60 on yet another "made for kiddies" twitch shooter with "gee whiz" graphics and weapons that blow up entire city blocks. I'm going to wait until a demo is released...or overwhelming public acclaim from trusted sources comes gushing forth. I'm keeping my fingers crossed...but I'm not holding my breath. Caine
  3. Depends upon what you want to do. Each branch has their "High Speed, Low Drag" units. And each has their "Specialty" MOS's. On the whole, the cushiest life is Air Force. AF guys I knew would talk about having 15/1 duty rotations (15 off, 1 on - this is in addition to their regular "Working Hours" M-F). The Navy will afford you the opportunity to be confined with large numbers of men for months at a time...and wear prison garb (Dungarees)...and eat prison food (Grade "D" beef, for Prison and Military use only - seriously). In port, expect 2, 3, or 4 section duty (4 section gives you 3 off, 1 on...the others are worse...this is, again, in addition to regular working hours M-F). Between Army and Marines, it's a toss up. I prefer the Marines, but I'm biased. Caine
  4. No...they are not just reservists. There are active and reserve components in virtualy every MOS (With a few exceptions). The unfortunate truth is that those who were responsible for what happened were Reservists. Remember the US pilot that accidently bombed the Canadians in Afghanistan (Thought the training fire was ground fire at him)? Reservist. In the reserves, you "train" for one weekend per month, and 2 weeks in the summer...the quality of training depends upon operational budget. Also, with the exception of Special Forces and a very few other jobs, anyone can enlist for anything. Want to be an MP? Get a high enough test score and voila!! There are pros and cons to this system - the cons raising their ugly heads a lot of late - but the feasibility of fielding enough troops on regular active duty to maintain all of the US commitments throughout the world is overwhelming. And, since we (The American taxpayers) usually wind up funding this on our own, I find it highly unlikely that we will ever see the day when all of our troops over seas are "Active" only. We simply can't afford it. So, back to your original question; It's a Military thing. It is misleading in that it implies that thre is no difference between the quality of Active and reserve components...there is. Caine
  5. I think, DS, that you'll find that true of almost any holiday. Each one becomes another day off work and a "long weekend". Does that mean that America as a whole forgets? I hope not. But with 260 million people, most of whom have never served in the Military, it becomes something remote. Keep in mind, aside from Iraq, we haven't had a MAJOR conflict since Vietnam in the 60-70's. But, there are plenty who honor Memorial Day and what it represents. Each in their own fashion (As is America's way). And, while some have tried to incorporate the lost of foreign nations in our remembrance, we honor our own. We're quirky, I know. But we grow on you. Caine
  6. I rarely played the SP missions in a run-n-gun fashion. Too many casualties that way. I much prefer to set up the rest of the squad in a cover formation, and take out the enemy with a sniper at range. What worries me is the 3rd person view...not for the MP disadvantages, but because I personally can't stand it. Soldner uses it, and I thought that demo was atrocious. Fortunately, that appears to be an "Optional" feature (One that I will opt NOT to use). When I see Devs and Publishers talking about getting closer to the console versions do I worry? Absolutely. When I hear catch phrases like, "Broader market appeal", what do I think? "Dumbed Down". Unfortunately, history tends to support my assumption. On the other hand, RSE has yet to put out a crap game. The same cannot be said of UBI. Since GR2 is a RSE project, I have higher hopes for the end product than I would if UBI was staying "In House" on it. Can there be action and stealth? Absolutely!! Can RSE pull it off? Absolutely!! Will they? We'll see, won't we. Caine
  7. So, the terms are used to maintain unit identity until such time as it is feasible to reform the original unit. Makes sense. I appreciate the info. Caine
  8. @ Hatchetforce Thanks for the info. Out of curiosity, how is Squad/Fireteam integrity maintained when broken into Chalks/Sticks? I guess I'm asking if units revert to "Squads/Fireteams" once deployed, or if the "Chalk/Stick" designator sticks throughout the op? Caine
  9. "Broader Appeal" translates to "Dumbing Down"...that's a universal truth. If RSE are indeed doing that, it would be a break in their tradition...a sad break. I remain hopeful, however, that the end result won't be the complete departure many fear. OTS view blows chunks - one only needs to look at the Soldner demo to see that. I guess I will have to wait for more info before abandoning ship. I watched another game franchise destroyed by doing what that preview suggests is happening to GR. Time will tell. Caine
  10. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!! What were the criteria for "Bricks"? Caine
  11. Veteran players may not...but what about new players? I believe this aspect is specifically targeted at them. The rest of us get to smile and play along until the "meat" arrives. I'm ok with that. Caine
  12. Ok, I agree with this...almost completely. Leaving this in R/W terms, I agree absolutely. Applying the GR2 unit sizes "controversy" to it, however, removes the "absolute" element from it, doesn't it? And the more I type and think on this, the more confused I become.... We can agree that a Fire Team is 4 men. A Squad is 9 men. Right so far? At least, that's what I remember from my USMCR days (Yes, damn you, I was in the Reserves!! No glory, no coolness, just the Reserves ). In my Navy days, however, we had little use for these types of definitions (4 years active there...we'll call it "Poor Decision Making" skills in my youth). So, if the Ghosts are deployed from a boat/helo in a group of 4, 6, 8, 10, etc that would be a Chalk, right? It might be a Squad deplying, but isn't neccesarily. On that we agree still, right? So, along comes RSE and their 4-man Ghost teams. If they parachute in, they're a Stick. If they're dropped off, they're a chalk. If they simply walk in...well...I suppose they're tourists then. However, the good folks at RSE recognize quickly that there aren't many people out there who will instantly appreciate the finer points of sticks, chalks, squads, fire teams, and a good Key Lime pie. What to do? Simple, go with what is commonly recognizable...call it a Squad. The whole "Stick/Chalk" had been a nagging question for some time...it seems the answer to the "How many men in a _____" question is, "It depends". Yep, Z, clear as mud. As for GR2, beats me. And if you followed this, hats off to ya. I lost myself about 3 paragraghs ago. Caine
  13. So, it is theoretically possible that Red Storm is using the term "Squad" in place of "Stick" or "Chalk" - which might be technically more accurate - due to the recognizability of that term over the others? Personally, I don't care if they call it a "Lettuce Patch"...as long as the game is good, they can designate the units in any terms they choose Caine
  14. So, these designators have no actual number associated? No, no number designation as it will vary depending on aircraft size. Hope that helps. Not really, as that is such an open ended figure and presents a mind boggling number of conflicts when talking about standard unit structure and C-o-C (Unit size, etc). I started this due to the "Squad Size" debate thread(s). I recall reading a book (By S.M. Stirling) where the unit term "Stick" was applied. As I recall, it was a 3-4 man team. Then, the movie "Blackhawk Down" used the "Chalk" designators. Both of which bypassed the standard Squad size doctrine (2 4-man fire teams + Squad leader). It was my thought that perhaps, with the Ghosts being possibly inserted by Helo or parachuting in, that RSE was using this as their model and simply calling it a "Squad". Follow me? Caine
  15. So, swedish is simply ? Hmmmm, I would've thought it was more complex than that. Caine
×
×
  • Create New...