Jump to content

Some thoughts about GRAW


Papa6
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As a bigtime former [GR] player, I agree generally with what you said. I also looked through the thread, and have a couple of things to say as well.

1) [GR] was not slow. Part of what made it fast was long firing distances, and sight lines. Part of what made it fast was double-tap style killing. The game was very, very deadly. Whats missing in all of todays games, including GRAW, but also BF2, etc, is the idea that if a guy is stupid enough to leave cover in front of you, he's dead.

2) We all would have been better off if the GRAW people had just licensed the BF2 engine, and then basically made a GR mod, and sold it. BF2's engine allows better scale for its expense, while the GRAW engines designers seem caught up with glow effects, and lots of tan colors. Seriously, considering the medium quality level design, in terms of PLAYABILITY, not looks, and the crazy hardware requirements, we really would have been better of with BF2+GR mod.

3) The basis of [GR] was outdoors, long sight lines, varying cover. GRAW seems to be cities and cement, and no soft cover, and very few long sight lines. I was hoping that the GR people were going to use the increased hw to give us LONGER sight lines, and greater differentiation between snipe and regular, like Americas Army did, or great cover differentiation, via more vegetation, grass trees, etc. The pioneering stuff of GR included that you couldn't just pick out the moving thing- because alot of the backdrop moved a little.

4) I play currently GRAW, BF2, and Americas Army. Both BF2 and Americas army are more GR then GRAW.

5) The Scott Mitchell super soldier stuff is dumb.

6) By calling it GR, people expect GR, not super glowy tan city fighting with super weapons, where you swear you are playing Rainbow Six. I guess thats the biggest reason why the franchise is probably toast- no title differentiation, if its almost the same as Rainbow Six, and Rainbow six isn't infinitely playable to begin with (too tight quarters, so same killing runs every round) why buy either, now that you've played a few versions of Rainbow, and seen the same thing every time?

7) Why was [GR] the most popular multi player game on original XBOX until Halo2? Because even with the crazy XBOX controls, every game was different. You could creep around, or charge. There wasn't to many weapon exploits- if you had a guy dead to rights, he was dead- no dolphin diving craziness, no power ups for invulnerablility, and easier, QUICKER kills, because the bullets actually hurt. I know alot of people who played Halo2 a little bit, realized that it was 13 year olds with powerups hell, and went back to GR.

If you are over 25 years old, you want to do something other than run to the ammo box, spray people before they spray you, and wait for next life.

The shooter is no longer going to be a best seller by great graphics, they all have that. Instead playability, and level variability, and new multiplayer stuff, like BF2s commander stuff, and airstrikes and smokes, and more ways to tell other players what you want to do as a squad.

Its funny that people think shooters are more fun when you make the weapons less deadly. It just means people run straight down the middle of streets trying to cowboy and dive, instead of using cover. Thats the biggest problem with BF2. Can you imagine if all shooters just did the Strike Force/[GR]/Americas Army thing of making you pay for getting hit and limping around, and all shooters were single good hit equal incapacitation? People would actually be scared to stick their head up! People would stick together in fire teams, to maximize being able to drop the other guy before he dropped you! You wouldn't need to play balance weapons as much, because it would more be a matter of fire rate vs weight and ammo supply, and accuracy.

So I guess for me [GR] > Americas Army or BF2 > GRAW. But if you take BF2s engine and add the deadliness of [GR], and more soft foilage and varying cover and sightlines, but now with the multilevel, tall buildings, etc, but bring back the varying light conditions of [GR], and make people limp like [GR], but keep the BF2 commander, squad leader stuff, and add more smokes and sensors, and claymores, etc, THAT WOULD BE A GAME.

Oh, and I still want my 3 squads, so I can play my brother on big maps, and have the mother of all battles with our guys. Doesn't everyone else?

spot on, wher've you been all this time?

welcome to GR.Net

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a bigtime former [GR] player, I agree generally with what you said. I also looked through the thread, and have a couple of things to say as well.

1) [GR] was not slow. Part of what made it fast was long firing distances, and sight lines. Part of what made it fast was double-tap style killing. The game was very, very deadly. Whats missing in all of todays games, including GRAW, but also BF2, etc, is the idea that if a guy is stupid enough to leave cover in front of you, he's dead.

2) We all would have been better off if the GRAW people had just licensed the BF2 engine, and then basically made a GR mod, and sold it. BF2's engine allows better scale for its expense, while the GRAW engines designers seem caught up with glow effects, and lots of tan colors. Seriously, considering the medium quality level design, in terms of PLAYABILITY, not looks, and the crazy hardware requirements, we really would have been better of with BF2+GR mod.

3) The basis of [GR] was outdoors, long sight lines, varying cover. GRAW seems to be cities and cement, and no soft cover, and very few long sight lines. I was hoping that the GR people were going to use the increased hw to give us LONGER sight lines, and greater differentiation between snipe and regular, like Americas Army did, or great cover differentiation, via more vegetation, grass trees, etc. The pioneering stuff of GR included that you couldn't just pick out the moving thing- because alot of the backdrop moved a little.

4) I play currently GRAW, BF2, and Americas Army. Both BF2 and Americas army are more GR then GRAW.

5) The Scott Mitchell super soldier stuff is dumb.

6) By calling it GR, people expect GR, not super glowy tan city fighting with super weapons, where you swear you are playing Rainbow Six. I guess thats the biggest reason why the franchise is probably toast- no title differentiation, if its almost the same as Rainbow Six, and Rainbow six isn't infinitely playable to begin with (too tight quarters, so same killing runs every round) why buy either, now that you've played a few versions of Rainbow, and seen the same thing every time?

7) Why was [GR] the most popular multi player game on original XBOX until Halo2? Because even with the crazy XBOX controls, every game was different. You could creep around, or charge. There wasn't to many weapon exploits- if you had a guy dead to rights, he was dead- no dolphin diving craziness, no power ups for invulnerablility, and easier, QUICKER kills, because the bullets actually hurt. I know alot of people who played Halo2 a little bit, realized that it was 13 year olds with powerups hell, and went back to GR.

If you are over 25 years old, you want to do something other than run to the ammo box, spray people before they spray you, and wait for next life.

The shooter is no longer going to be a best seller by great graphics, they all have that. Instead playability, and level variability, and new multiplayer stuff, like BF2s commander stuff, and airstrikes and smokes, and more ways to tell other players what you want to do as a squad.

Its funny that people think shooters are more fun when you make the weapons less deadly. It just means people run straight down the middle of streets trying to cowboy and dive, instead of using cover. Thats the biggest problem with BF2. Can you imagine if all shooters just did the Strike Force/[GR]/Americas Army thing of making you pay for getting hit and limping around, and all shooters were single good hit equal incapacitation? People would actually be scared to stick their head up! People would stick together in fire teams, to maximize being able to drop the other guy before he dropped you! You wouldn't need to play balance weapons as much, because it would more be a matter of fire rate vs weight and ammo supply, and accuracy.

So I guess for me [GR] > Americas Army or BF2 > GRAW. But if you take BF2s engine and add the deadliness of [GR], and more soft foilage and varying cover and sightlines, but now with the multilevel, tall buildings, etc, but bring back the varying light conditions of [GR], and make people limp like [GR], but keep the BF2 commander, squad leader stuff, and add more smokes and sensors, and claymores, etc, THAT WOULD BE A GAME.

Oh, and I still want my 3 squads, so I can play my brother on big maps, and have the mother of all battles with our guys. Doesn't everyone else?

:thumbsup:

I am going to agree to disagree with most everything said here...

As a direct quote... "GR:AW was not intended to be [GR]." Which has been stated so many times that even a rock would understand. It cannnot be put into the same category as BF2... BF2 is a complete console kiddie arcade piece of crap. America's Army is an excellent game, but has it's limitations compared to GR:AW.

I'm skipping your number 1, and moving on to #2...

The BF2 Engine is good, but GR:AW's engine is twice what BF2 could do... The ONLY thing BF2 "HAD" going for it was graphics, which have been outdone and cannot be compared to what I've seen in GR:AW.

Skipping #3, as I partly agree with you in the distance part of it. I'm use to a much longer shot.

#4 BF2 sucks wind compared to GR:AW... If you play BF2, then you must like the arcadishness of the game... EA over did that game way, WAY too much and took any kind of tactical gameplay out of it... It's vehicle against vehicle, against artillery, against UAV against Satellite... That game played directly into the console kiddie type of gameplay that totally takes away from any kind of slow tactical type of gameplay. BF2 lasted 1 month in my squad because it lacked the type of gameplay that GR:AW has.

#5 If it was a "super soldier" kind of thing, then I'd never die at all playing in Co-Op mode, but I have my butt handed to me constantly when I play... Uh... yeah ok...

#6 What super weapons are you referring to? All the weapons in the game are extremely realistic to their real world counterparts.

#7 There is no comparing of a PC game to a Console Game, they are competely and utterly 2 different beasts... Consoles have their place, just like PC's have their place, but there is no comparing of the two possible... As much as the games are alike graphically, the type of gameplay is extremely different. Which is why I play PC games much more than my PS2...

But, this is a dead horse... So dead that you are tapping on the bones of it which are turning to dust... Even the guys that have said exactly the same things you just have will say that it is beating a dead horse's bones.

If you don't like the game? Put it on the shelf, sell it, give it away, destroy it or whatever...

Like I said... I agree to disagree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

disagreeing is fine, but one thing i think you missed is the fact that any new version of something incorporates the features of the "old" with the "new".

Graw doesn't have anything from the "old" to say that it is the "new". It's just "there". it's just a game is what most are saying.

when i try something that is labelled as "new and improved", i look for those things i liked and that made the previous great. if nothing is there, then to me it's just an item.

Now in another thread, we have confirmation of Ghost recon 4 (PC) coming out. So what's going to happen now? it has a slated march '07 release date(which remains to be seen), but will IT have anything from the [GR] series that people can identify with? that too remains to be seen.

i think that's why, for sake of analogy why movie sequels bomb. alot of the sequels have nothing to do with the prior movie and people say that the sequel bombs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real question is...did Grin try to get that [GR] feel and gameplay in Graw or were they trying for something new? I think something new personaly! Main reason i say this is cause of the name. There was GR then there was GR 2 which got canceled for PC but was still released nonetheless. Why wasnt Graw labled GR 3? There was most likly a reason behind this. Of course im only speculating here...hehehe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real question is...did Grin try to get that [GR] feel and gameplay in Graw or were they trying for something new? I think something new personaly! Main reason i say this is cause of the name. There was GR then there was GR 2 which got canceled for PC but was still released nonetheless. Why wasnt Graw labled GR 3? There was most likly a reason behind this. Of course im only speculating here...hehehe

Dark forces

Dark forces:jedi knight

Jedi knight 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real question is...did Grin try to get that [GR] feel and gameplay in Graw or were they trying for something new? I think something new personaly! Main reason i say this is cause of the name. There was GR then there was GR 2 which got canceled for PC but was still released nonetheless. Why wasnt Graw labled GR 3? There was most likly a reason behind this. Of course im only speculating here...hehehe

I think GRAW was meant to be developed with a fresh game engine, graphics and gameplay. they might have missed the "target" that it doesn't seem to be a future or continuing story in the saga of GR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real question is...did Grin try to get that [GR] feel and gameplay in Graw or were they trying for something new? I think something new personaly! Main reason i say this is cause of the name. There was GR then there was GR 2 which got canceled for PC but was still released nonetheless. Why wasnt Graw labled GR 3? There was most likly a reason behind this. Of course im only speculating here...hehehe

Dark forces

Dark forces:jedi knight

Jedi knight 2

I dont know those games so i dont see your point but i hope you didnt take my post the wrong way. I like Graw...i wasnt putting it down in any way. I just see people wanting [GR] in Graw but to me Graw wasnt meant to be like [GR], it was meant to be something new! Correct me if im wrong...it does happen from time to time...hehehe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know those games so i dont see your point but i hope you didnt take my post the wrong way. I like Graw...i wasnt putting it down in any way. I just see people wanting [GR] in Graw but to me Graw wasnt meant to be like [GR], it was meant to be something new! Correct me if im wrong...it does happen from time to time...hehehe

let me help you, wille's mind could be..well..complicated :shifty:

dark = Ghost

forces = Recon

jedi = Advanced

knight = Warfighter

2 = 2

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may sound like a noob or whatever but i still dont understand. I have never heard of that game. ( i dont play star wars games) Dont know why...i liked star wars...lol Geuss cause ive never tried them.

Anyways...was that game a sequal that was nothing like the first?

the way im looking at is dark forces adn dark forces: jedi knight was simnler while jedi knight was different? not sure but they ahd the advantge fo teh actual #2 game ebing released while gr didnt i think that is why there is so muhc bitterness. we are at teh stage of the 3ed game in the series but ahve only got to play one of them since the send was cancled

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real question is...did Grin try to get that [GR] feel and gameplay in Graw or were they trying for something new? I think something new personaly! Main reason i say this is cause of the name. There was GR then there was GR 2 which got canceled for PC but was still released nonetheless. Why wasnt Graw labled GR 3? There was most likly a reason behind this. Of course im only speculating here...hehehe

Dark forces

Dark forces:jedi knight

Jedi knight 2

I'd guess 'GR4' will be called 'Advanced Warfighter 2' :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he was hinting at the fact that eventhough the games were popular, each new game was different from the last and still did well. Just a guess.

Maybe I'm jumping the gun too quickly here, and correct me if i'm wrong. But if it is easy enough to write up a little mod switching utility in VBS couldn't it be that much easier to put it into the game?

I'm pretty sure the basic concept of the script would be this.

Create a Mod folder.

Mods come with their own custom bundles and what not.

In-Game menu to activate Mod, tells game to run off of those bundles instead of the bundles in local.

For example you have local/quick.bundle with the original files.

Then you have Mods/killerweaponsmod/quick.bundle

Activate the mod in game and the game is told to run off of that quick.bundle .... quickly activating the mod into use.

Isn't that the basic concept behind a Mod Activator/Deactivator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when you're in the main menu screen the game has already loaded all the xml's..this mean you can't change mods at this point without restarting.. the way I see it is a pre-utility to load mods (similar to those setup.exe or gameconfig.exe you see in other games)

anyway there's always the problem of shared files between different mods <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when you're in the main menu screen the game has already loaded all the xml's..this mean you can't change mods at this point without restarting.. the way I see it is a pre-utility to load mods (similar to those setup.exe or gameconfig.exe you see in other games)

anyway there's always the problem of shared files between different mods <_<

yes, but there was [GR] so good at by setting activity level/order. The mod with the highest order determines the way 'shared' files are used. Would be nice if an external application (mod/multi manager) could be made in which you could change the mods and launch GRAW. Maybe even give the oppertunity to change game-options (multi-manager).

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the prob is that graw is more complex than [GR].. even a simple thing like mod priority can be hard to add if it wasn't planned from the start :(

One more reason I'm a fan of the external mod manager idea. LOOK, someone pulled it off (to some extent) with [GR]. I KNOW they're separate programs, and GRAW is far more complex, but as far as MOD installation goes it's still pretty simple. Extract to such-and-such folder, start GRAW, and enjoy. Don't make ME, of all the idiots in the GR-universe go learn enough about modern programming to do this and take all the credit for it when there are TONS of talented folks out there already capable of doing this anyway. THAT would b bad...

VERY bad...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the prob is that graw is more complex than [GR].. even a simple thing like mod priority can be hard to add if it wasn't planned from the start :(

One more reason I'm a fan of the external mod manager idea. LOOK, someone pulled it off (to some extent) with [GR]. I KNOW they're separate programs, and GRAW is far more complex, but as far as MOD installation goes it's still pretty simple. Extract to such-and-such folder, start GRAW, and enjoy. Don't make ME, of all the idiots in the GR-universe go learn enough about modern programming to do this and take all the credit for it when there are TONS of talented folks out there already capable of doing this anyway. THAT would b bad...

VERY bad...

:coolspeak:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Again,

To answer posters questions, I was playing [GR] as long as possible, and trying to make do with the kiddie shooters.. Those games teach you such bad habits... :wacko:

The point I was making about BF2 is the engine, not their use of it. [GR] was GREAT, but needed a new engine. My point about BF2 is the engine is great- it scales much better than the other ones I've seen, enabling long firing lines, it has the soft and hard cover we liked in [GR], but more of it, and has vehicles, which if done well, are really useful.

I agree with other posters that BF2 is not a tac shooter for real men, not my point. My point is if you take the tools provided with BF2, and made a GR3, it would be much better than GR:AW. As I said, GR:AW has extrememly high requirements for what you get.

Personally I really liked the desert siege levels use of combinations some long sight lines, where you could cover your compatriots from range, and also spots where you had to go around the corner, and duck, and pray. :huh:

Its about playability. PLAYABILITY. BF2 is still going strong because they did 3 things well:

- multi player works, including built in voice chat that works well, and some hierarchy so you work as a squad, and with your commmander for bigger missions. --- I would have loved to have that when playing maxed out [GR] sessions. ^_^

- level design is varied, but some of the levels are very well done- Mashtuur city, Sharqi Pennisula, and Jalalabad are all levels [GR] players would recognize as home. w00t

- There are some great sniper spots, so if you like sniping, despite the fact that BF2 is not a tac shooter, you can blend into the war, and play exploding watermelon. :shifty:

- Like [GR], there are enough different things to do, that you don't get bored. My brother and I will sometimes just D- up at a base, and wait for the onslaught to come, instead of attacking. This is similar to playing siege in [GR], except you are sure they are coming, or from which way, because the BF2 levels are MUCH bigger.

So I guess for me, again, what I would want is:

- bigger levels

- deadly weapons (all deadly)

- very long range sniping (Carlos Hathcock had kills at VERY long range, why cant we)

- more foilage, ground effect soft cover (grass, bushes, etc.)

- true 3D levels, with inside and out

- getting wounded means you limp, and bleed out.

- 203's like Americas Army. If you are in the area, you are toast.

- lots of outdoor levels, that don't feel like rats mazes.

- built in voice comm

- sensors. (controversial back in the day, but it generated variety of playing styles)

- jeeps, choppers, landing craft

- missions involving scuba beach landings

- moddability

- saved games for full playback after a great round

- ability to climb up any wall with equipment. (good BF2 feature, somewhat used there)

- means you don't always know where they are coming from

- ability to blow up any wall with enough pounding (at least put a hole in it) :wall:

- parachute in levels like AA and BF2.

- custom uniforms for clans.

- ability to generate a movie for posting on web from a saved game. (clans would dig that)

I promise in exchange for the generosity of all of you reading my post, I will try GR:AW again, and if I like it better, Ill even get my brothers to try it. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

As a bigtime former [GR] player, I agree generally with what you said. I also looked through the thread, and have a couple of things to say as well.

1) [GR] was not slow. Part of what made it fast was long firing distances, and sight lines. Part of what made it fast was double-tap style killing. The game was very, very deadly. Whats missing in all of todays games, including GRAW, but also BF2, etc, is the idea that if a guy is stupid enough to leave cover in front of you, he's dead.

2) We all would have been better off if the GRAW people had just licensed the BF2 engine, and then basically made a GR mod, and sold it. BF2's engine allows better scale for its expense, while the GRAW engines designers seem caught up with glow effects, and lots of tan colors. Seriously, considering the medium quality level design, in terms of PLAYABILITY, not looks, and the crazy hardware requirements, we really would have been better of with BF2+GR mod.

3) The basis of [GR] was outdoors, long sight lines, varying cover. GRAW seems to be cities and cement, and no soft cover, and very few long sight lines. I was hoping that the GR people were going to use the increased hw to give us LONGER sight lines, and greater differentiation between snipe and regular, like Americas Army did, or great cover differentiation, via more vegetation, grass trees, etc. The pioneering stuff of GR included that you couldn't just pick out the moving thing- because alot of the backdrop moved a little.

4) I play currently GRAW, BF2, and Americas Army. Both BF2 and Americas army are more GR then GRAW.

5) The Scott Mitchell super soldier stuff is dumb.

6) By calling it GR, people expect GR, not super glowy tan city fighting with super weapons, where you swear you are playing Rainbow Six. I guess thats the biggest reason why the franchise is probably toast- no title differentiation, if its almost the same as Rainbow Six, and Rainbow six isn't infinitely playable to begin with (too tight quarters, so same killing runs every round) why buy either, now that you've played a few versions of Rainbow, and seen the same thing every time?

7) Why was [GR] the most popular multi player game on original XBOX until Halo2? Because even with the crazy XBOX controls, every game was different. You could creep around, or charge. There wasn't to many weapon exploits- if you had a guy dead to rights, he was dead- no dolphin diving craziness, no power ups for invulnerablility, and easier, QUICKER kills, because the bullets actually hurt. I know alot of people who played Halo2 a little bit, realized that it was 13 year olds with powerups hell, and went back to GR.

If you are over 25 years old, you want to do something other than run to the ammo box, spray people before they spray you, and wait for next life.

The shooter is no longer going to be a best seller by great graphics, they all have that. Instead playability, and level variability, and new multiplayer stuff, like BF2s commander stuff, and airstrikes and smokes, and more ways to tell other players what you want to do as a squad.

Its funny that people think shooters are more fun when you make the weapons less deadly. It just means people run straight down the middle of streets trying to cowboy and dive, instead of using cover. Thats the biggest problem with BF2. Can you imagine if all shooters just did the Strike Force/[GR]/Americas Army thing of making you pay for getting hit and limping around, and all shooters were single good hit equal incapacitation? People would actually be scared to stick their head up! People would stick together in fire teams, to maximize being able to drop the other guy before he dropped you! You wouldn't need to play balance weapons as much, because it would more be a matter of fire rate vs weight and ammo supply, and accuracy.

So I guess for me [GR] > Americas Army or BF2 > GRAW. But if you take BF2s engine and add the deadliness of [GR], and more soft foilage and varying cover and sightlines, but now with the multilevel, tall buildings, etc, but bring back the varying light conditions of [GR], and make people limp like [GR], but keep the BF2 commander, squad leader stuff, and add more smokes and sensors, and claymores, etc, THAT WOULD BE A GAME.

Oh, and I still want my 3 squads, so I can play my brother on big maps, and have the mother of all battles with our guys. Doesn't everyone else?

:thumbsup:

So, you make some good points in this, and in your follow-up post, but a couple things bugged me, so I thought I'd throw them out here.

1) GR:AW was apparently designed with the idea that one-hit kills do not make for someone trying to drag themselves through the given level to the next save point over and over again. Though I think they addressed the health scale in varying difficulty levels so that it gets easier to kill your character. As far as killing the tangos? Aimpoint and any weapon and I can put a tango down with a shot to the head. Occasionally, they get back up again, another shot, fine. I hit his helmet the first time around, I guess, but whatever. It's deadly enough.

3) You have to understand the current environment and modes of thought of at least the US Army. The brass are busy saying that the future of conflicts will be CQB (Close Quarters Battle), urban warfare and so on. This is not to say they've completely changed their traditional training and modes of thought concerning other theaters of battle, but I think what the GR:AW folks were trying to do was take that current trend of thought and run with it. No, not a lot of long sight lines in an urban environment, and if you want to snipe, your options are limited. The tangos get to find high ground and snipe YOU, but not the other way around. I would at the very least like a way to get to where the enemy snipers were positioned...if only to pick up sniper ammo.

4) BF2 is NOT GR. Period. America's Army is...AA. AA is more about individual accomplishments (Army of One) regardless of the touting of teamwork and the like. GR:AW is its own game, IMO, and not really an improved GR.

5) Games will always have issues with that sort of thing. In campaign style missions and a continuous storyline, one may have to single out the player's character as some sort of ubermensch in order to drive the story. What can we say?

6) GR:AW and R6 are similar in some respects, but not enough. Both concentrate more on CQB than anything else, for one thing. R6 is more about hostage rescue and so on than anything else, and that requires different tactics and weapons. Have you ever BEEN to Mexico City? It may not be the washed out tan that everyone's used to complaining about everywhere, but wow. In R6-3, the tight quarters are to be expected for the most part. Lockdown, in case you haven't been blessed with it, is a waste of time and money, IMHO - avoid it at all costs.

7) I'm right there with you. I despise the spray and pray spawn-camping monstrosities of the MP shooter world for anything other than maybe ten minutes of playtime once a year just so I can rest assured my intelligence isn't atrophied... :huh: Seriously, though, ROE is important - there is supposedly a way to use ROE that is called out in the actual game manual, but damned if I can make it work on cue.

All this said, no game will be perfect. Some are less not-perfect than others. Each have their pros and cons. GR:AW could be a great game. Part of the replay value of R6-3 (for me, anyway) was the fact that tangos were not always in the same positions I remembered them in the last time I ran the campaign, or even from replay to replay of the same mission within the campaign. I think that's an important piece of replay value - otherwise you get into a routine when playing. GR:AW was too eager to make a lot of use of new technology to show off the beauty of the game without really taking into account the replay value - [GR] was and still is replayable out the wazoo, especially what with several fan-modded campaigns. If we could do that with GR:AW, it might help. I tend to agree with you about fire teams, maximizing fire, etc. Many folks who play shooters, however, are more into the BF2 style of 'teamwork' - even when playing COOP games (SWAT 3&4, AA, R6-3, etc.), which is a crying shame, really. If I'm thinking from a 'realistic' point of view, I don't want to be teamed up with Rambo - he's going to get my butt killed.

Just my own observations from afar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...