Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Clum-Z-Boy

  1. I, like many others, would love to see Ghost Recon go back to what it used to be. Preferably, [GR]. If not, at least go back to SS, and we can go from there. No "Advanced Warfighter" crap. Like Newman said: make me question every step again.
  2. I really don't mean to rile anyone... But all of those screenshots are photoshopped. Well, maybe with the exception of one. Don't feel like going into details right now... but if you want me to clarify, I'll give it a shot tomorrow.
  3. Well... the first 3 aren't "shots" at all, they're photoshops. Also, I always knew the PS3 wasn't the graphical powerhorse it was made out to be!
  4. I really don't mean to bash or upset people... but those "screenshots" are terrible. Before even going into the graphics of real screenshots... let's quickly establish that at least half of the truly "new" ones aren't screenshots at all. Below are two pics to prove my point. Is that the exact. Same. Painted Mitchell twice? Okay, one more Photoshop job for the road. Hmm... check out the character to the right. At least Ubisoft implemented easter eggs this time around... Crackdown cel-shaded characters! The medic to the left doesn't fit at all either. Now... a real screenshot. Go on the site, and maximize this screenshot. Half-size, it still looks decent. Horrible textures, anyone? Again, I am sure these issues will be addressed. I'm just saying that as the game stands now, it still has a ways to go. By the way. Maybe it was mentioned that the Photoshopped "screenshots" were meant to be inspirationals, something to go by for art direction, etc. I wouldn't know. I just assume, because I'm somewhat of an idiot, prone to outbursts of sarcasm and unjustified critique. Anyway... it's Beonder's cue now.
  5. Very good point. Can't believe I forgot about that! Yes, SP weapon selection was very limited.
  6. Not too much has been said about the game yet... but part of it is supposed to take place in the great outdoors, so expect less linearity. Still, I don't think level design will equal [GR]'s freedom. Short bullet list? Why not... -Cross-Com can now be switched to full-screen, and you can give commands from said screen. -You can command the MULE, and also order air strikes. -Graphical upgrades here and there. Basically, this is the game that Ubi wanted to make the first time around, so don't don't count on a groundbreaking sequel. That said, it should still be fun. I'm sure someone can chime in with more details... in the meantime, I hope this is enough.
  7. I agree with both points. Not much to say about Co-Op that hasn't been said before... But I'll vent about Cross-Com distorting the screen. It's supposed to be an asset, not a liability. Oh, and if you ask me, if my monocle started spewing static into my left eye on the battlefield, I'd tear it off. I understand a soldier doesn't go around destroying expensive military equipment, but if it endagers his safety...
  8. Just to get this out of the way: if the rank is hidden, people care much less. Take Microsoft's TruSkill (or whatever they call it). Sure, sometimes people will cheat to get on leaderboards, but generally, when they don't see the rank, they don't care. Now, of course, if we're talking in-game rank (the military ranks, in this case), then yes, people probably cheat to get them. That said, I've been playing Vegas for a while, and I haven't seen anyone cheating just yet. On to the reason why it's hard for developers to implement a party system into matchmaking on the 360: Microsoft's TruSkill matchmaking system doesn't allow parties. Plain and simple. It's the only reason Gears of War didn't have one, and it's why FASA has to create its own matchmaking system for Shadowrun to allow parties. So yeah, I somehow doubt Red Storm took the time to come up with their own matchmaking system. Therefore, I expect an MP similar to GRAW.
  9. ok but I just do that to have a little fun Hehe, same here. Although most of the time people tend to overreact...
  10. I said no more rebuttals, but I never said I won't post again! In any case, guess I shoulda gone over my posts more carefully since I was being a smartass. I'm exhausted... truce?
  11. -I didn't judge the graphics by the video. If you can show me where I said that, I'd be much obliged. -No, you aren't the only one. Right after the first misinterpretation, I clarified. Obviously, you ignored said clarification. -"Slightly reterded moment." That speaks for itself. -The only game that I saw IGN put low-res screenshots up for wars Gears of War. The rest is sharp. -It's not a book about you, per se. It's a compilation of everyone that ever attacked my vastly superior IQ (that was sarcasm right there, in case you didn't know). Anyway, I'll leave you the last rebuttal, and then we'll let the thread get back on topic... or die. The latter is most likely.
  12. -"High res" videos aren't anything to judge a game's graphics by. Not on IGN, they ain't. -When I said the camo was pixelated, I didn't mean the ACU pattern itself, I meant that the texture was muddy and not nearly sharp enough to look like real digicam. You persist in ignoring everything I say if it's convenient, don't you? -That was quite the mature comment. -Screenshots always look bad? Which sites do you frequent?
  13. Thanks for the heads-up, was waiting for those to go up!
  14. 19" LG without any knobs (now you're gonna pick on me that I'm "showing off" when you're out of arguments?). First thing's first. I'm entitled to my opinion, and you needn't attack me personally just because I give it. Furthermore, if you're to attack me, at least back it up with valid arguments, not the "I think," and "you suck" variety. And before I start, let me point out the fact, for the second time, that I didn't even see the videos when I was commenting, because they weren't up. Were you actually paying attention, or did you zone out when I offered up some mildly sarcastic criticism on your all-time favorite game? So, we get to the videos that I just saw. You know what? I won't even comment on the graphics based on those vids. They are low-res (like anything else on IGN unless you're an "Insider"), and until I see HD stuff up on GameTrailers, I can't either sing praises nor spit and grumble. But no, you can't control other members of your team. You can just see what they see. Full-screen. Your eyes were obviously deceiving you. As for textures... again, no comments on the video. But in the screenshots, they looked bad. One more thing... Forza Motorsport 2 has better 3D grass. And since everyone here missed that part: this is merely criticism based on a Beta or even Alpha version of the game, and I am more than willing to change my tune when the placeholder stuff is replaced by real assets.
  15. Well, I was 'smoking' screenshots. You see, when I was posting this, the videos weren't still up. My criticisms were based on the screenshots only. More enemies on screen? Alright... now I just wish for a bit more health, or perhaps a rechargeable health system, and an option to put a bag containing an ammo belt feeding my M249, so I can run around, rambo-style. Not. As for a score... yeah, that was one of the things which impressed me most in GRAW1, and I expect they'll do a good job this time around too.
  16. Very good points. I wouldn't mind urban combat (and the cover system that ensues) so much, if it still resembled the gameplay of [GR]. What do I mean? Well, in GRAW, you had one, maybe two ways to approach a group of enemies if you got lucky. Urban combat? Fine. But give it to me realistic. Make it bigger, give me more options to flank, and please, lower the enemy density, and give them better AI. I want to fight against enemies that understand the base concepts of flanking and counter-flanking.
  17. I meant pixelated in a bad way. I realize this is digital camo, but the texture itself is muddy. As for the 203 'nades... I knew I should've done more research, but you'll admit, that does look quite... odd. EDIT: Yes... me making fun of the "203 belt," and subsequently making fun of Doug Perry for his inaccuracies is quite ironic.
  18. I b'lieve the title says it all, so here's the link. GRAW 2 SP Preview. Check out the screenshots... I'm unimpressed by Mitchell's camo (seriously pixelated), the explosion in one of the new screenshots looks like something I'd see in a Saturday morning cartoon... but at least Paul Smith looks like one helluva badass... not (I especially like the twelve, count 'em, twelve 203 'nades he's carrying. He's the new rambo for sure). Okay, okay, I'm being overly critical. I'm more than willing to give the game a chance... most of this stuff is probably still placeholder. Except for Paul Smith, sadly. What can I say? That non-regulation haircut left a mark on me. Oh, and before I finish: Mr. Doug "Military Expert" Perry did it again. Ah, those mortal shells... I feel like hurling a small bomb myself now.
  19. Just to clear things up, I meant that a cover system should be unnecessary in GR games. My reasoning? GR games should go back to their roots... most of the missions took place in the "wild." In a forest, behind what would you take cover? I'd much rather prone than put my back against a tree stump.
  20. I think you're right on that. I'm all for new direction for a franchise... but that would be too much. Why? Because if there was a cover system, then the devs would make maps that would take advantage of said system. Look back at [GR] maps. Half of them took place in forested areas, where there was no possibility of taking cover. You think that GRAW 2 would have many forested maps if a cover system made it into MP? Besides, a cover system would destroy the way GR is meant to be played. I remember a time when "Recon" was more than just a word in the title of an action game. A cover system in GR would encourage a "shoot the hell out of anything that moves, and hope you hit it" way of playing. What I'm trying to say, is that cover should be unnecessary in GR games.
  21. Not that I'm adding anything to the proceedings... but AA does have a reticle. And yes, a little bit of AA flavor wouldn't hurt. I'd like my GR with more realism this time around...
  22. That would get very confusing, very fast.
  23. That, or the Miracle Syrum, Vegas-style. Yes, I predict magical revivals.
  24. Anything that has light hit it needs specularity. A good spec map is what removes that shiny look, it's bad spec level that creates it. And 17500 faces is a good four times what that character ought to have. Disgustingly inefficient. A simple Material would do the trick in this case. Say... a Lambert. That way the shader knows it's supposed to absorb most of the light, end of story. ~4000 faces is a last-gen character.
  25. If they can push the system, then why don't they go ahead? No offense, but what you're saying is just a little ridiculous. Almost any graphical effect can be labeled "useless," as almost none add to actual gameplay. This generation is all about lighting effects, as much on the 360 as on PC. I expect that in the next generation, things like ambient occlusion will actually enhance gameplay. For example, with an enemy sneaking up behind you, you'll notice very subtle changes in lighting around you. Things that actually culminate to what could be considered a "6th sense" in real life.
  • Create New...