Waika

Insect Infestation is a total conversion for Half-Life 2 that really warrants being called a game more then a mod or even total conversion as the Developers have really gone balls-to-the-walls in creating something that really pushes the envelope, is original, visually stunning, and offers some impressively original game-play to boot. Even if you don't have Half-Life 2, the videos you can download through the site are quite impressive and worth a look. These are some talented, motivated and committed souls that have obviously poured enormous effort into something that will unfortunately probably only get a fraction of the attention it warrants. Worth a peek.

Please, resorting to feeling insulted just because I responded to your remarks and questions and you don't like the answers, doesn't qualify as me "condescending" to you. I never regarded this as some manner of prize fight for audience share or approval that required "tactics" -- are you suggesting that you do? Neither is a recitation of facts that you solicited is not the same as a tirade; quite unlike the last paragraph of your post quoted below... Now if that isn't bottom of the barrel, personalizing, petty, insolent swill I don't know what is. You're the one dive boming threads, insulting people an going off topic Pal, if you can't meet the measure of the discussion your attacking; flake off...

I don't think waving the red flag helps anyone unless you're a Moderator... To actually solve the issue would require moving the thread back to the PC forum where I started it, and even that probably won't help much as the same individuals dive bomb threads on the PC forums with unsolicited proselytizing for the console. The nature of the debate, the sophomoric remarks, and the fact that this happens on the PC forums and there's no reciprocal behavior from PC Fans (who are in fact experiencing declining support for their platform) in the console forums -- suggests something about the nature, ages, and outlooks of the two audiences. I guess the outcome in this thread serves to illustrate another sorry answer to the question I posed in the topic post -- when Clancy PC Fans want to discuss their games independent of the console dreck, can't, and that outcome is even indulged to a certain extent by GRN Moderators... Not good IMHO...

My contribution to the off topic discussion is not a digression to what people 'see' it's a recitation of the limitations and differences of respective platforms; I've said absolutely nothing about what people: 'see', like, prefer, or perceive as a benefit. That is a gross oversimplification and over-generalization... As there are on consoles... Another over-generalization and oversimplification; even if you had a point, which is certainly arguable and miles more then you've already gone off topic -- many serious realism Fans are not looking for the Counter-Strike nirvana of verses play on magic level playing field with a mggical weapon casino prize shopping spree. Real combat offers nothing that remotely resembles a level playing field, fair play, or good-sportsmanship; that's why many of us that prefer and seek more realism; perfer COOP games, not to mention that they makes for a much more camaraderie, a more mature, and friendlier game-play environment. A totally false and completely incorrect assumption. In good game design skill always prevails and this has been demonstrated exhaustively where players on the below minimum spec system are able to prevail over player on the SOTA PC. Another ridiculous over-generalization and oversimplification that Microsoft would like you to believe (at least before you give them your money, but one that's patently false. The Console after-market is now more rife with hacks, tweaks, and add-ons to improve your console's 'edge' and give players an advantage in versus play gaming then the PC market... It's simple marketing and commerce 1001 -- people go where the money and opportunity can be found... If it were allowed I could post links to literally thousands of Xbox 360 tweaks, hacks, cheats, exploits. and after-market parts that improve performance -- there are hundreds if not thousands of web sites dedicated to just to hacking, tweaking, exploting, cheating and improving the 360's performance... Not only that it's far cheaper, lower risk proposition to hack and tweak a 360 then a PC; if you break your 360 your out at most $300, burn a PC CPU or video card to the ground, and it can be twice or three times the replacement cost of an entire Xbox 360 for just the fried part, not to mention the time involved in recovering a system... I don't know were you got that I 'got that' as I never said or implied anything of the kind; perhaps you should try reading the thread before posting, and posting on topic when you do...

Yes, those games are virtually the same because they are ports, that is thae Developer took a design-build approach to make the game most appealing on a specific platform; in the case of Vegas the Xbox 360, and they shoe-horn that game design into and on to other platforms with little/nothing changed but new i/o device code and compatibility code for render back-planes etc.. The point here is not that games can be made to behave similarly on two different platforms; you can make an F1 spec car perform just like a Ford Pinto -- but what company would want to make a billion dollar racing car perform like a poorly designed consumer commuter car? The point I'm making, and it's a point acknowledged by many game Developers and even their Publishers; is that every platform has unique features, advantages, and disadvantages; and these differences favor certain and specific approaches to game design-build, and make various aspects of game-play and game features virtually impossible on one platform and a sure bet on another. Let me give you just one very simple example of hundreds of critical design points that separate how an Xbox 360 scale realism shooter would have to, by design. be both different, less realistic and to scale then a PC game, if as a Developer we were trying to realize the best each platform had to offer: Microsoft in its wisdom has made it impossible to interface game i/o with anything but a Microsoft licensed controller. You can not use an after-market controller unless the Manufacturer has paid a rather enormous licensing fee for access to Microsoft's proprietary USB i/o driver and game interface. Similarly. as a game Developer, my Studio would have to pay Microsoft this enormous fee to give our game access to anything other then the Microsoft controller; like a keyboard and mouse, and I'd have to find a hardware Developer also willing to pay Microsoft the license fee to license their hardware, and stuff the manufacturing costs of building hardware to support Microsoft's propritary i/o. The cost of interfacing games with a keyboard and mouse on the Xbox 360 is as big a barrier as making it technically impossible to do so. Eventually it may happen as it did with the Xbox and third party vendors breaking the law, but for now it's an insurmountable fact that virtually requires we design games for the Microsoft controller and it's limitations. Those limitations are many, very real, and stuck in the laws of physics and human physiology; surely ou've heard the bromide "He's all thumbs"? Human thumb motor control can not move as precisely or at even a reasonable fraction as fast as the other five digets, so all kinds of game design compromises have to be made in a first person interface for games that rely on this controller. Due to the limitations of the thumb, and they very design of the controllyer itselef -- the creation of null zones, slow control time constants and features limitations make tp-scale control of movement an out-of-the-question proposition with this controller. Also, because human thumb motor control is less precise and fast; weapons must be made very unrealistically out of scale with regard to accuracy; the game design will have weapons are grossly inaccurate, and game design must emphasize full-auto fire, and unrealistically large hit areas. Precise movement like leaning, and Raven Shield's 'fluid posture', are either an out-and-out impossibility, have to be simplified into one button hide and lean presses like the Vegas feature, or end up being too awkwardly implemented for console players to bother using them. The end result is very different game-play prevails on the console and always will; even for just this one and tiny among many larger and more significant design limitation and difference -- and these differences are not going to go away, they're part and parcel of why consoles exist and how they can have been made financially lucerative. You may not like or even accept these things as the very limiting facts they are -- but facts they remain, and they do completely obviate similarities in game design between console and PC when you are truly using the hardware capabilities of the platform you're designing and building for to the better of it's capabilities.

Your remarks are nonsequitars. And you can disagree till the cows come home; that doesn't make me an elitist any more then it makes the Moderators segregationist or elitist for having separate forums for PC and console... Neither do your opinions and the gross simplifications and over generalizations based on those opinions regarding the differences between consoles and PCs make them fact.

The topic pretty much says it all; I'm just wondering if PC [GR] Fans still reading and posting here recall their first contact experiences with Ghost Recon? What appealed to you? And what kept you playing the game for so long? Just to sort of illustrate, I'll share some of my experience... My first contact with Ghost Recon was the demo, on a system that was below the minimum spec capable of playing the game, and I'd only had whimsical exposure to the R6 games: read everything about them, but couldn't afford a computer capable of playing them. When I first got my hands on the Ghost Recon demo my first impression was strongly positive; I'd never seen such an atmospheric game with so many features, and of course for it's time it looked very realistic. But I was appalled at how difficult the game was (at the time) which also had a lot to do with how poorly it ran on my PC (frame rates in the teens and single didgets), so I back-burnered Ghost Recon, and stuck to more familiar games that my crusty PC could play like chess and solitare -- until I bought a more capable PC, and had more exposure to the R6 games. One of the things that compels me to enjoy games like Ghost Recon so much today (in addition to my infatuation with the genre), is that the game is not easy and not meant to be. I don't understand why it's become so pervasive that entertainment has to be mindless and effortless to be fun -- but that's definition of fun very different from my own, and an outlook I've never agreed with. So for me, the richness, the openness, the non-linearity, the feature complexity, and the challenging game play -- all play a big part in what makes the game so appealing and repayable. I also think Ghost Recon has achieved a unique level of artistic parity where all its art assets while no longer state-of-the-art -- are more balanced, consistent and offer a level of attention to detail and continuity that has not been surpassed... But that's a topic for another post, and I'm really more interested in what you love about Ghost Recon, what your first brush with the game was like, and what has kept you interested in the game for so long?

No hard feelings of any kind; it's your forum to moderate as you please... But the discussion in this thread is just one more poster child example that there is a lot that seperates Console STS Fans, from PC Fans of the same genre, and the differences really don't make the discussion more constructive or productive. I did start what I feel might be a more productive discussion for PC [GR] Fans here called What Attracted You To Ghost Recon?, it will certainly be more helpful for something I'm working on...

Yup, that's the what I thought it was CR6, but it looks like swartsz actually beat me to it... Depending on who's using it, it will be a custom job that probably won't look as pretty -- some will have a kick counter (even though you're expected to do that in your head), be illuminated, have black duct/gaffer tape all over them, and means to strap other junk you may be hauling along to your destination and want easy access to in murky/zero visibility water. Does sort of look like a U.S. Army camo pattern we can see in the teaser, but only JS knows...

By moving my thread to a forum where PC and Console discussion for the 'ideal game' are lumped together; I think my post, the thread it created, and the intentions of this sub-forum are all made irrelevant to what they've intended to achieve. Even though I like the 'virtual guy' and enjoy many of his posts; I hold to a position that's the epistemological opposite regarding console/PC game design to the one implied by the quote in Sup's signature; which is little more than marketing proselytizing based on Ubisoft's inevitable console marketing shift. There's obviously explicit and implicit vested interests represented in that quote, and in avoiding or voicing disdain for critical discussion regarding the inevitability and differences between the Console and PC platforms and the kinds of games that can/cannot, will/will not be developed for either. These differences are not a matter of opinion or subjective 'touchy feely' issues that can be easily "designed around" -- or designed around at all... In many respects critical to this genera; no level of game design parity can ever be achieved between Console and PC, unless or until there are dramatic differences in how consoles are built, licensed, supported at all levels of the design build chain, marketed, and sold -- something that's not likely to ever happen as Consoles were conceived to establish many of these precedents, that close not just the hardware but many aspects of licensure, development, and marketing. Many discussions devolve just to the hardware differences, but ignore licensure and the equally decisive Marketing and Publishing significance that due to sheer financial might and top heavy corporate inertia obviates PC consiol similarities due to how console games are developed, the costs involved, licensure, and the fact that most Game Studios (and all Studios germane to this discussion) are wholly owned by Publishers that have a vested interest in established (and in establishing) canned product development, 'franchise', licensure, product cycles, and marketing practice. Real innovation, risk taking, and most critically to this genre: creating products that challenge Consumers are not and never will be a product of mainstream commerce... The Console is the vehicle and venue of mainstream gaming commerce and the original Clancy game designs some of us covet were not created for a mainstream audience.

A fair number of people still do, and the volume and the quality of the mods available is an easy match for Ghost Recon... With some of the mods from the 'Best Add-On List' the game gets a complete make-over that adds: · new animations · high resolution textures · new Foley · DirectX render backplane configuration · leaning · new maps/islands · new vehicles · new weapons & equipment · new high resolution foliage ...in essence updating the game and bringing it much closer to the current state-of-the-art; not to mention offers you virtually every weapon on the planet handsomely rendered, almost every operational military unit in and out of existence, and tens of thousands of realistic SP, COOP and adversarial missions... OFP can be a bit of a headache, but the game offers a lot of unique 'gee wiz' moments; that can make it worth the effort.

Probably not, but I think BIA will create a means for motivated individuals that really want to experience VBS·2 and have a lot to offer to contribute. It also makes a certain amount of economic sense when the product has reached sell through and bottomed as far as support contract income, to seek other venues of income -- as nothing lasts forever.

Well, as to my 'semi' getting it right'; I didn't recognize any way to make an educated guess based on the image as to which force this image is representing; the uniform and other equipment you can just make out appear pretty generic -- though I could make a few WAGs about the camo pattern it could be an easy miss for several reasons. At least two hundred special ops units that have trained in the use of blind underwater navigation, and all use something that resembles this item. But the SAS and SEALs were the first to use and train others in various techniques of blind underwater navigation, and even created some of the tools and toys to get it right; so I guess I feel more in the way of loyalty in giving credit where I felt it was earned, then perhaps a best guess as to what operational unit the game my present. How about another hint? That one was pretty clever and a lot of fun!

Yeah, looks to me like a Navy SEAL or SAS underwater kickboard/counter & nav compass...

Everything that has been modeled in first person shooter's jet aircraft HUDs can now be fully integrated into the game as virtual world scale modles and interactions; which not only add more realism, but more depth of play, and to scale play skill to a game: Realistic ironsights aiming machinery, with real vection based accuracy systems model realistic weapon handling and make shooting a man target a much more of a scale/skill marksmanship experience. Modeled magazines can replace magic digital bullet counters, with realistic load/unload, look and count ammunition management making it a realistic and tactically significant aspect of play... Damage skins, breathing, and gimping all surpass magical perfect metric bar graph representations of health, stamina and casual injury. In-game handheld compass, maps, and navigation aides have already been done in many games, as have realistic target designators, communication and signaling gear -- virtually nothing in the way of realistic combat equipment surpasses the capability of current generation game engines. Personally I think STS game Fans have gone soft and gotten lazy from too many shallow death match shooters, and too much 'psych up the brain injured children for another trip to the zoo' marketing that makes what are really trivial features into some kind of 'everyone wave and flail your hands and drool' marketing epic... Ghost Recon when it was a new game was challenging, required you to think, do a lot of complex tactical task management, and actually master some quasi realistic scale/virtual marksmanship and maneuver war fighting skills that went beyond just killing everything that moved as quickly as possible. IMHO a squad tactical realism game making the "next gen" claim to the STS throne should confront game Fans with new, realistic and to scale challenges; not be another effortless 'out of the box' experience that can literally be played passively in neck down, brain dead relentless kill everything that moves as quickly as possible fashion... I suppose a HUD could be offered as a legacy 'option' for the terminally inept and/or lazy, or those who want arcade game-play and features that reinforce it... But then I'm personally not in the least interested in another pretty death match shooter with SOTA realism paint job, jet aircraft HUD, with goof ball arcade game play to match that's 100% interchangeable with a literally hundreds of other 'shooters' on the market.

Having played GRAW 36O I can "definately" say that's a subjective matter and subject to opinion, as well as many exceptions based on fact, game-design and game metrics. Nice game that GRAW 360 is, it doesn't hold a candle to [GR], and there's a lot more then just strafe speed that separates it from far more tactically sophisticated and realistic games like the one that proceeded it and who's name it bares. Just a few deal-breakers from the top of the list include grossly inaccurate weapons with "here I am" Star Wars tracers fired from every weapon, a mean engagement distance that's often ridiculous even for realistic CQC/B, play speed and death-match kill count play that prevail over anything like realistic mission objectives and stealthy complex squad tactical maneuver, and maps that look more like hyper compressed and surreal miniature golf courses or Disney Land dioramas then something that offers realistic scale terrain and settings. It may be your cupa, you may love it, and it may be the answer to all you seek in gaming but there are plenty that don't find it in the least engaging or remotely relevant to what attracts them to squad tactical realism gaming or that originally interested them in Ghost Recon.

OK, now it's neither a PC or console thread as I've moved it from the GRAW 2 PC forum to the "ideal" shooter game forum (Let me know if you think it fits better elsewhere) The Clancy franchise now encompasses both PC and consoles, and I think we're all talking about what we think should be in a Clancy game. It's a useful and interesting and mature (so far) discussion ... so carry on!

As long as you guys are going to continue to Troll the thread off topic into ANOTHER consoles vs. PC thread and the Moderators are going to do nothing about it; take a look at the TOPIC post where I even acknowledge some of what you're saying... As the topic post clearly explicates; I was soliciting a discussion as to whether the current issue of Clancy games were Relevant to the Audience that helped make them what they are -- which includes console Fans of the original games: Ghost Recon and R6. No where did I solicit or present the case that PC's are better or "more tactical" then consoles, neither has anyone else -- however some of what is presented as discussion here is so petty, sophomoric and below the basement I'm moved to respond... Reading into other peoples posts, digging for dirt, trying to drive a pet agenda and assuming meaning that is not there is just ######; read Hacksaww's post, no where does he say, imply, suggest, or hint that he thinks. feels or otherwise believes: "that the hardware you use determines if your game is tactical or not" -- he as quite simply and literally stated that if the current issue of Clancy games as seen by console Fans is regarded as tactical it bares no resemblance to the kind of tactical development offered in [GR] (which was and remains available on many console and even hand held platforms). The statement is about what's determining how tactical game play is defined by popular gaming culture, not hardware. And Ick your post and assumptions are so off the charts I can't feature you have enough introspection to appreciate what you're own assumptions: "I understand that this whole discussion is emotional for PC gamers.... What a load! "The discussion" as you so aptly phrase and then completely disregard it, was not even about consoles vs. PC until you got emotional and had to drag the topic into a console vs. PC comparison that's not even germane to anything anyone has said here. Why not confine your console discussion to the console forum? This was a PC game discussion, in a PC game forum for PC game fans, that could apply to those console Fans that liked and understood the original Clancy game designs -- and was moved to this forum for god knows what reason.

Well, out of the box Armed Assault a much better experience and a much more polished game. But this not an entirely fair comparison because VBS·1 is not really intended as a game, or one where elements of game-play like fairness and balance are considerations (though it's quite possible to create mods that are game like). I could never get the networking going on VBS·1 with my cable modem; so my experience is limited to SP missions that came with VBS·1, downloadable SP missions, missions I've created, and COOP missions I've played alone. Box stock Armed Assault is better looking, has better animation, and better AI (if you understand its design as you seem to from your comments elsewhere). However wtih add-ons and mods VBS·1 can match and even surpass Armed Assault aesthetically with regard to some assets, with some hardware configurations at comparable render settings. Based on earlier builds of the OFP engine, and having been on the market longer; VBS·1 has also reached a very stable and robust build level, and it offers a suite of tools and toys that are pig heaven for tactical realism Geek... That said I don't think anyone that has Armed Assault already will be that engaged by VBS·1; it doesn't have the audience, will probably not see the level of long term support, both commercially and by fans that Armed Assault will have. and due to compatability across BI games Armed Assault will quickly surpass VBS·1 in sheer volume of mods and add-on options. Still, VBS·1 is a great product, and perhaps with the release of VBS·2 it becomes more affordable and might support a larger audience...

Yeah, that's one way to take a thread really off topic... But with all the ridiculous console discussion it looks like that's already a mission accomplished; this just 'rubber stamps' it and makes me want to say: "As if to prove my point"... :'( Ladies & Gentlemen, Tom Clancy has left the building...

Yes, I just wondered if this was a complete new version or if I copied the files over the older version; some information here and elsewere make it sound like an update to the other mod...

Really cool! Seeing this mod go virtually abandoned because it looked too ambitious to get working with GRAW's mod capabilities was really discouraging; seeing it working is really exciting! How exactly do ya install the thing though? Copy over original files, or...?

I acknowledge that Ubisoft has taken a 'value' approach (at premium prices) to PC game development with it's "Franchise" titles -- and now regards the PC versions of these games as 'value product' that exist as accessories to the console 'product' to be developed at the lowest cost possible; either as ports or by out-sourcing 'value title' game Studios (their ridiculous jargon not mine)... What has me bewildered is it sounds like some of you believe (or hope) that the future of tactical realism will be supported on Consoles in some way or other, so the PC ports and value versions will be better games; which I personally think a ridiculous proposition and not will come to pass for a slew of reasons, just a few of which include: · limited control interface support · even though unified -- limited memory footprint · mass market marketing and development precedents · very few independent console developers · high development, license and delivery costs · no in-depth mod support on consoles · little or no developer/community interaction · the console > PC 'value game' model is working fine There's more but each of these almost completely obviate the possibility that a game that surpasses [GR] Xbox in depth, scale, features, and sophistication (no less [GR] PC) will ever happen in console development. What's more there is substantial disincentive to pursuing this approach to game design for consoles. I don't want to make this a slag Vegas and GRAW thread, they're both decent games on console and PC -- but they're both giant steps back from previous Clancy games in: depth, sophistication, realism, and non-linear game play; both have decade old cartoon silly path-node AI, canned linear scripted game design, and stripped of their lush art assets and SOTA engines are little different then DooM or even 3D Wolfenstine... My point is I don't think it's happening or going to in the foreseeable future with the "Clancy Franchise" as far as adult games of any depth or sophistication are concerned, but there are alternatives; and I wonder why more of you aren't playing CENTCOM. the Armed Assault demo, working on a mod, total conversion, or game that addresses the paucity of depth in Tactical Realism gaming...

Ya, Ick, sure... But the PC and PC Games didn't replace Chess, card, or board games... And even if everyone on the planet bought a console, that's not going to make the PC go away, or people that prefer the kind of games and depth of game-play PC's offer disappear. Even if console game sales surpass PC game sales a million fold, there is and will remain a market for PC games that will still be enormously lucrative for those that pursue development for it in a steadfast manner. But like I said, my post wasn't geared for or even directed at everyone...

So it would seem... "Game over man... Game over..." :'(