Jump to content

Degamer

Members
  • Posts

    236
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Degamer

  1. Anyone intrested in templates for the rest of the characters?
  2. That would be the very first mission that included such nescasary instruction as "Move to the waypoint" and "Fire off a few rounds". It was quite in depth as you can tell.
  3. I love the iron sights. Ever since WWIIOL forced me to use iron sight only, there was just no going back to rets. The enemy AI is fantastic, one of the top AI i've seen in a long while. The immersion factor on the weapons, from the modeling, the effect of your bullet stricking concrete, and the EXCELENT sound work, is all top notch. I like the fast roping and helo inserts (but wish we could skip it if nescasary). Full body awareness is kinda neat, if gimmicky. I like that higher calibur rounds will penetrate different materials. In fact, I would like to see GRIN do more with that.
  4. Having played WWIIOL for many years (its been around since '02), I'm quite happy with it. It does a lot of things right that I wish would be adopted by others. If you are really serious about realism (and all the pains that go along with that), check it out.
  5. Perhaps we should get a "GR:AW isn't like GR" thread, and "GR:AW is like GR" thread, stickied?
  6. So I'm replaying through the SP campain, and I've got to the resuply checkpoint, where afterwards you are supposed to run to the embassy and watch it explode. Except the entire plaza is now "outside the mission area". There is no way to get to the next waypoint, all routs are either blocked or banned. I've tried reloading the save game, searching every posible route, nothing. Anyone else have this problem?
  7. Any particular reason why the attack order works diferently than the team attack order? I think a lot of the frustration withthe ai comes from the fact people asume that the attack order works/should work, like the team attack order, where the specific ghost will choose the appropriate weapon, and do what is necasary to complete the attack.
  8. Yes, even if yoour just hit in the arm. You should be shocked/impared enough that the follow up bullet is an easy kill. Even if modern day day armor gets to the point that you can shrug off a chest shot with little ill effects, its still a bad gameplay descision in my book. The point is to reward thoose with superior tactics and get the drop on there oponent, not who can twitch the fastest.
  9. Not everyone plays ladders or MP even, and enjoys the expanded gameplay from mods.
  10. Not specificly chevys but I think the point is the same.
  11. speaking as a red blooded American, that was completely uncalled for. Is this really true?... For me, the enemy in GRAW always comes back exactly the same. This is one of my usual complaints. It greatly reduces the replayability of any mission. As I see, the GRAW enemy AI are scripted without any random occurance. This is also normal in GR1 and in all games that I know except for SWAT. In GR1, it was possible to create new mod missions with an enemy working with new random actions defined within certain areas. Maybe the GR modders will be able to do this with GRAW, once we start making our own missions???!! Enemies are shuffled when you restart a mission completly, not when you load a saved game.
  12. We were all 15 once, not all of us realized it.
  13. Unfortunetly the .XMLs are kinda limited in what we can do. But, once we have an SDK, things will explode.
  14. I think GRIN could do the GR game we all want if the were completely unshackled from UBI. I see it in GRAW. GRAW might not be the game I or other wished it was, but its not a bad game and I think that GRIN "Got" it, even if it didn't come through in the final game.
  15. 1st paragraph: Most Developers and publishers want money. They don't think like the gamer, they don't think how we gamers do. They're just in here to make a gigantic buck. That's why huge and ######astic companies like EA need to be destroyed immediately, and developers need to turn to digital distribution if they want creative freedom. Sentence: When a publisher knows that a series will sell because it's in a certain line of games, (Take example, the Mario name and Mario: Sunshine.) despite the content, they know it will sell, because it has that "Quality name". In the guitar world, it's like this: "Oh, it's a Gibson. It HAS to be good." When infact, the Flying V and SG Faded have less quality wood and ######tier pickups. 2nd paragraph: And why are you taking this here, in a thread of me explaining my opinion on why GRAW shouldn't be like GR1? That type of posting should be taken to the official UBI forums, but UBI won't care, because they think we are idiotic and mindless drones buying re-hash after re-hash, but, we're too scared to say that because we don't want our favorite franchise to be taken away from us! Which would you rather have? GR4: Bunnyhopping or no new GR at all? EDIT: Hypercam sucks for recording in-game videos. Lots of ghosting. I have a video ready to go, but it's a gig in size and encoding it into a .BIK format will take at least two hours. because of this post: You want intelegent conversation, I'm here to provide it with counter points to your argument, in a non-flaming manner. I apologize if I got a little of track there, but I being lit up by bolth sides, because I believe being disapointed in GR:AW to be reasonable. Ahh.. a common misconseption. GR4: Bunnyhopping IS "no new GR", anymore than Checkers is Chess 2. If its not in the style of the original, its not a sequel. as per UBI's descisiouns, I'm fully aware WHY the made them, I just do not agree with them, or the notion that we should just accept it as "idiotic and mindless drones". There IS a market for simulations. It may be small, but its not going away no matter how hard publishers try to squash it. You like Checkers, thats great (I like checkers too). There are plenty of checkers games out there, and plenty of new checkers games being developed. But that is no reason to turn our chess game into checkers, as there are plenty of people who still want to, and do, play chess. I hold the same argument for people who say SP should be ditched for MP (or vica versa). What makes that opinion so important that others should have to sacrafice the way they like to play? There are plenty of MP only games to play as well. All in all I argue that GR:AW should be more like GR1 BECAUSE its a Ghost Recon game, and really thats all there is too it. Americas Army is there for people who want ot play Americas Army, if you want more features like that, ask the AA developers for them.
  16. Don't know about anyone else here, but I fully support that if your shot, you should be dead already!
  17. If GRAW was the same as GR1, I wouldn't be here, and still playing AA. GRAW was messed around with because there is only one thing that only a few developers don't care about: Cash. Most publishers/developers are in the industry to make cash, and nothing else. Not to make a kickass game, like Valve is trying to do. GRAW was made into what it is today so it can be made mainstream that way the average Joe can play it. There are PLENTY of games out there for Average Joe. AA, CS, BF2. GR1 isn't one of them. You've said yourself you don't like it. So why bother with GR when you have all theese other games to choose from? There is no need to destroy an established line and genre of game to turn it into something else. If the goal is to make an entirly new game, make it an entirly new game and sell it on its own merits! If GRAW was entilted Americas Army: Future Force Warrior, I still would have bought through its own merits, AND would still be anxiously awaiting a sequal to GR, instead of being ###### that my favorite series has been destroyed by mass market mooks. Its like if you bought a Chess set, then opened it to find out that the was only checkers peices inside. Shure, checkers might be a fun game, enjoyed by millions of people, but you bought a chess set because you wanted to play chess, not checkers. If you wanted to play checkers, you would have bought a checkers boards. To Illustrate: UBISOFT basicly used the Ghost Recon tag to trick the fanbase into purchasing a game based of an already established notion of gameplay. People have every right to be upset that that aspect of gameplay is lacking in the product they bought.
  18. It warms my heart ot hear a GRINer hates thoose stupid briefings as much as I do!
  19. Comeon A.S., don't dodge the question, if you want to debate with the mature mebers of this forum, then debate.
  20. Agent Smith, why turn Ghost Recon into AA, when you can just make a newer AA? Why not let GR be what it is, for thoose who enjoy what it is?
×
×
  • Create New...