*DAMN R6 Forum

I just wanted to say that playing AA definitely changes things when you come back to GhR.  I definitely hold RS and R6 on a different level than GhR.  RvS will be the game that replaces RS and R6 of course, but will AA be the next replacement for GhR?  Here are a couple... um... quite a few of points that make AA superior to GhR, as well as deeming it a suitable, if not a more enjoyable, replacement.

?   Defined Kit Selection (Only one sniper usually if any at all, and one M203 GL)
?   Penalties for TK's
?   Gain Points to Access Maps and Kits
?   One Account (If you create multiple accounts, you always start at ?)
?   Punkbuster
?   No Ready Box (No waiting for idle players)
?   No Command Maps
?   No Sensors (Thank God!)
?   Real Teamwork is Needed (As opposed to the typical ghR 3 v 9, where the tema of 3 wins)
?   You CAN Jump :)
?   Nade Spamming Somewhat Eliminated
?   Cool Command Vocals ("Grandma was old, but she was slow!")

Wow.  Just by looking at what I wrote down here, I can plainly see what GhR lacks.  I would say most of the enjoyment in AA happens in the public rooms, where the majority of the points I made above fit perfectly.  Of course, AA has its many downsides.  Shall I list a few?

?   You Have to Pay for a Server (If you want to CB, or play privately.  At least as far as I know.)
?   Changing Maps = Cumbersome (I wish there was a better way...)
?   Guys with 87 Honor Points Eat You for Lunch (God I hate that!)
?   Penalties for TK's ;)
?   Your Horse Breathing When You're Still Throws Off Your Gun Sight (I don't breathe that heavy in real life... even during sex.)
?   The Keys Are Completely Different than GhR (Can be a good thing as well...)

Well, I think that sums it up for the most part.  I know each of the lists could be longer of course, but it's 04.00EST here (09.00GMT), and I'm getting tired.

So... does anyone think that maybe in order for GhR to survive in this league, we should adopt some of what AA gives us, or should I say, takes away?  I know much of what I pointed out can't be added or taken away from GhR, but it's a thought.  Items such as 'No Sensors' would definitely change how GhR is played now.  I know from my experience on the PC server that 'No Sensors' is always on.  It definitely keeps you on your toes.

Well, does anyone have some suggestions?  I'm not saying that GhR is now dead and needs CPR or anything, but with AA gaining popularity finally, and with RvS just around the corner, it looks as if GhR might be out the window due to sheer competition.  Can we save this game, or this ladder?  As much as we say GhR isn't dying... "We're just taking a break"... yeah right.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out some of those things.  I have really enjoyed playing GhR, but I think the changes that we have been looking for haven't come fast enough.  Aspyr seems to have abandoned it due to developing RvS and other games.  Evill has made it a bit more difficult to do certain things, although his intentions were great (Anti-Cheat Plug-in / NF Block / No IP Joining).  GhR just seems more difficult to play these days, not to mention that many of us have taken GhR so seriously, we have sucked out the fun completely, and not just for us either.

In closing, I hope that the majority of you out there in GhR land haven't given up on GhR, or are just biding your time playing other games or waiting for other games to be released (There has been an enormous decline of GhR activity on GR since Season 5 ended).  With RS and R6 being mostly obselete these days, GhR is what keeps this league going.  AA isn't exactly something that's easy to include into a league, so that new resource it out as well.  It looks like without GhR, this league will gradually decline.  I'm sure RvS will be a hit, and I hope it is.  But, if RvS turns out to simply be a merger of RS, R6, and GhR, I don't see a silver lining to the dark cloud that looms in the distance.  I think people out there want something different, and right now, AA is satisfying that hunger.  Unfortunately, if this league cannot harness AA somehow, or if RvS doesn't pan out the way we all hope it does, I think we will have issues on our hands, and very soon as well.

.::|N| Noto

I would rather be proactive in issues like this than to suddenly be smacked in the face.  Please, post your opinions.  Caution though, I'm not attempting to start a flame war on why or why not GhR is declining, or why or why not this league depends on GhR.  I think we can all unanimously agree that there will be issues in the near future.  Let's try to proactively solve them now, if we can.

played AA for the first time properly last night, i did all the training in 2hrs (except special forces) it was pretty cool and is different to GHR..... the only thing i would say is:

I could only run AA because i have just bought  a G5 (dual 1.8) which runs it so good.... I couldnt run it on my 733 Quicksliver...it couldnt cope with it. This would have applied to RvS as well.

So, until everyone gets a new mac or seriously upgrade the macs they have, i dont think GHR will die, sure some of us are bored of it, but some people wont get a choice to swap to these new games for a while. GHR will be around for a long time,  and new clans will be around. all we can do is wait and see.

p.s. no flame war intended, but Noto... the DAMN BL survived peoples attempts to start a new league. I am sure it will survive a quiet period in clan battles

THe damn kit selections, you just join servers hoping that you can pick a good gun.
One of the best things of AA is that you can pick up guns so you can steal a sniper when you didnt did the snipertraining.
Penalties for tk, you do nothing else then tking in that game
One account is so stupid if your account doesnt worka nymore or so oyu can start all over again. Like happened to me
real teamwork is needed??? Your just running arround the same as you would do in a GHr game the only thing that could add some teamwork is when you are on a voice app jsut the same as in GHr. If someone with 83 honor points comes in he cna probley kill all of the enemy without needing help of his teammates.
Its good that that game doesnt have an oicw with nades
Spend hours searching for that one vocal you want to use.
get lost in the map because there arent commandmaps.
Punkbuster? Well I was on a server getting owned by an aimbot but cant remember if punkbuster was on or not. Was really funny the guy had a grenade launcher and never missed its cool to see a nade fly right into someones head.
and the keys are different then Ghr well you can take different keys then not?

AA definitely is an adjustment.  No command maps, no sensors, can't tell if it's friend or foe for a distance all that well, keys are different (I actually remapped my keys to match GhR, so that made it a little easier).  

I didn't get into AA at first, it has a much steeper learning curve that GhR, but after spending some time with it, i'm completely hooked.  You get used to using the compass vs having a command map.  It just takes time getting used to a new game and how it works.  It will be the same with RvS.  From the people i know that have played, they say it's nothing like R6, RS, or GhR.  I can certainly see the correlation between GhR -> AA.  you have some maps that are more open like GhR.  And here a few other cool things:

* Flash Bangs/Smoke Grenades - I have yet to actually successfully use flash bangs, but man I've been smacked dead on a few times with these.  And although it sucks to get hit, I always laugh my ass off when the screen goes completely white, my ears are ringing, and I know i'm screwed.

* Partially opening doors - You can open a door just a sliver, pop a nade or a flash bang in there, close it, and BAM!

* Cooking Grenades - you can the pin BEFORE you throw the nade, so you can time it to blow up right when it lands.

* Objectives - Every map is objective based.  Objective based = no camping.  You have to secure the objectives to win

* Definitely Team oriented - With multiple objectives to secure or defend, if you want to win decisively, then you have to work together.

* You can actually shoot through wood/holes - So many spots in GhR that you can't shoot through, even though it's open air (i.e. the railing in embassy).  in AA i've been on the other side of a wooden door thinking I'm fine, but turned into swiss cheese from a guy on the otherside with a big support gun.  You get to see the splinters from the door fly everywhere as you're dead body drops to the ground.

The training is a pain, but if you spread it out inbetween much multiplayer games, it takes a bit of the pain away.  You just have to get through basic to start going online, and that is pretty easy.

The one major thing I see from keeping AA being adopted in a battle league setting is the fact that servers are damn expensive.  Even if you want a 12 person PRIVATE server, you have to shell out $50 a month.  Twice that much if it's going to be a public server.  I can't see too many clans wanting to do this.  

One possible solution, which would come with many hassles, is charge a small fee for each person wanting to play on the AA ladder.  Then have the proceeds go to renting a couple of *DAMN sanctioned AA servers for general play & CBs.  Then have some sort of scheduling system to reserve the servers for CBs.  

I do realize the gigantic pain this would all be, and the fact that most people would be resistant to pay to compete, but if AA is to succeed, the cost of the servers is going to have to be distributed somehow.  It's not fair for one clan to have to encur all the costs.

As far as Lin making a comeback to c| (and virus making a comeback for that matter) I think it's unlikely.  There is no Mac -> PC networking compatibility, so it's pretty much gauranteed that it's going to be a Mac only RvS league (unless all the PC players want to buy RvS for Mac, which by nature i'm sure will have far inferior performance).  Lin may drop in for a few games, and take us all to school (which he pretty much did in GhR, so it won't be that new of an experience), but I don't think he was all that fond of staying up until 7am to CB with us.  Which I can't blame him for. Although we would definitely love to have him back, and we all in c| miss his surly drunkeness, I think Lin has gone off to greener pastures. :(

Awh poor flies. I could come into an AA game to kill you if you like so you can taunt me? ;) (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/icon_bluh.gif)

In understand that there are some severe issues when it comes to System Requirements for AA.  Personally, I think there are more people out there who can run AA than who cannot.  I can run AA on a G4 800MHz w/ 640MB Ram.  It's runs better on my G4 1GHz w/ 1GB Ram.  All i can say is that maybe some of you need to simply increase your memory.  AA is definitely a memory hog.  

But what about RvS?

?   Mac OS X 10.2.6 or later
Hmm, there go the die hard OS9 fans, and quite a few of the folks who already play RS and R6.  I doubt people will buy a new system for a game.  AA also requires OSX.

?   G3/G4/G5 Processor at 733 MHz or faster
Well, I believe GhR only needed 450MHz to play, and some have played with less.  733MHz is a chunk when you barely meet the minimum requirements.  AA needs at least 800MHz to play.  I currently play with a 1GHz G4 and I have absolutely no problems at all.  In fact, it's pretty damn nice.  Great fps too.

?   256 MB of RAM
If you don't have at least 512MB of Ram right now, you have issues... or at least you're having issues.  AA has the same requirements.

?   1.9 GB hard drive space
Not too bad since most of the 733MHz systems out there have at least 10GB HD now.  AA requires less HD space (1.6GB HD).

?   3D Graphics Acceleration required (ATI Radeon/nVidia GeForce 2 or better, 32MB of VRam)
Ah, video cards.  I know many of you think this aove requirement can easily be met.  As we all know, if you are playing a game with the minimum video card requirements, you have to set the settings so low that the game just starts looking like shit.  Personally, I like seeing every detail of a tree or a bush and I like seeing the color of my enemies eyes before I shoot them.  That's what I paid for, right?  AA wants a 64MB Video Card, but that's understandable.  definitely a ton of graphics.  I actually do not have a 64MB card... Still runs great for me. ;)

?   Network play Mac to Mac only, GameRanger supported
Complete horse shit.  And as for GameRanger, one of the things that makes these games fun is voice communication.  But since the block on NF, KDX, and multiple users, many of the noobs out there aren't getting into these games as much as us older folks.  I remember first joining clans and really playing a lot of GhR.  A lot of it had to do with being able to speak with people.  It made the game much more enjoyable, and at the time when I spent the $40 to buy GhR, I wasn't about to shell out another $50 for Premium, although the in game voice communication wasn't available in November 2002.  As for AA, I love that fact that I'm playing against other users.  I don't even think about who has a Mac or a PC, I just play the game.  But like I had stated, and Splinter had reiterated, to have a server on AA, you pay for it.  Meanwhile, there are a ton of Server to play on.  Much more than what's available on GR.  I hate the fact that PC players can no longer IP join my games though.  I have many friends that have PC's, like most of you do, and now I can only play other games.  I find myself playing GhR less and less due to little things like this.

Like I stated above, my original post was intended to invoke discussion on how to encompass some of the overwhelming attributes of AA.  The biggest issue is the server and paying for it, but since The .::|N|etwork already has a server that many of you have played on (.::|N| Server 2) I don't see the problem as of right now.  I don't believe The .::|N|etwork has been asked to use our server for a CB, nor have we been challenged to a CB.  For as much money as some of you spend on games, memory, G5's, Premium Accounts, and other shit, chipping in a few bucks a month for an official server isn't that bad.  I just PayPal'ed .::|N| GEN BILLY some cash this morning for usage on .::|N| Server 2.  I also know some folks outside of the .::|N|etwork have already done so.  We thank you graciously for your support.  

In the mean time, I will continue to play games.  Whether it's GhR, RvS, AA, Civ3, WC3, UT2K3, SC, or HIV, I'll be playing something.  I'm just thankful I met up with the people I did and when I did.  It has definitely been a fun 2003 on GR and GhR.

.::|N| Noto

AA is the shit.  If you think its too difficult to play your bitching for no reason.  Everyone wanted this option and that option for Ghr when they played it all the time.  Now the options are here for AA.  The only reason why some of you think its cumbersome is because you need to remap your keys or use the bindings.  Bindings = Success.  

Did i mention its FREE?!  How can someone pass up FREE, not even a Jew like me could pass up FREE. :o

 I'll quote the whole thing, because it's what my post is based on.

For starters, on the issue of Punkbuster: Back before 2.0 came out for mac, only the newbies were left at 1.9.  Both myself and Rebel picked up dozens of 15+ kill matches ( 7 games ). I had a high of 26 kills in a match using my M203 at Insurgent Camp. Don't assume that just because someone's good, they're cheating.

A lot of people claim that AA is to hard - players are to good. We all, myself included, love to own large groups of newbies. It's fun to score dozens of kills against people who don't know what they're doing. However, it's also fun to play against the best players.

I'm a good AA player, but not a great one. I probably average a little over 1 kill per death. ( 36 honor, all training ). But I love to play against the best players; it adds the aspect of challenge.

I have no doubt that Raven Shield will be a popular game on GameRanger. Many of the GHR players who have machines powerful enough to run it will consider it "their game". Why? Is it because RvS is some awesome game? No. Is it because mac players are deprived of good games? Yes, partially. Is it because people's expectations are so high that they won't allow themselves to be let down? Yup.

Difference between AA and RvS in terms of how people in this community treat them: People will give RvS a shot. Wether they like it at first or not, they'll keep playing it until they become used to it - it's easy to make yourself a fan of any game if you play it long enough. AA; if people don't like it right away, they'll give it up.

A2 is the only reason that I still play AA. When it first came out, my thoughts were "it gets poor framerates on my machine ( 1GHZ, 1GB, 64MB ), people can take a lot of shots, and I can only join servers about 1/10th of the time ( there was an authorization bug back at 1.7 ). I kept playing it, because, without thinking, I'd joined A2. I figured I owed it to my A2 teamates to learn the game, and give it a chance. When 1.9 came out, the authorization bug was fixed, I'd learned AA's tactics, and adapted my aim to fit them, so I put my kills away quicker, and I'd cranked the graphics settings all the way up, figuring "if I have to get 20-30 FPS, it might as well look good". Now I love it. Why? Because I gave it a chance.

The system requirements? Get used to it. You want to play the new games, you need a new machine. It's not the game's fault if your computer is to old. Raven Shield's graphics aren't quite as nice as AA's, however, if Aspyr's recent history is anything to go by, it'll be a terrible port.

Graphics cards and RAM are cheap. An 867Mhz G4, 1GB RAM, 64MB ATI or NVIDIA will hold up pretty good; far better than a 867Mhz G4, 256MB RAM, 32MB ATI or NVIDIA.

There are both cheap and expensive solutions to the problem.

Just to throw my opinions into the mix.

System Requirements:
Both are high.  I don't care what minimum requirements are stated for either, they are both damn high.  You are going to need a high end machine to play either game if you want decent frame rates, or suffer.

Also, I don't think bringing up OS9 is an issue.  OS9 was replaced years ago now.  If people want to cling to it for whatever reason, they are not going to play very many new games at all.  The machines that these games are now being designed for wont even boot into OS9.

AA:
AA has some good maps, pretty realistic.  The gun accuracy seems realistic too.  I like the different speeds you can walk and crawl, I like what it does to your accuracy.  I really like some of the SF maps.

I'm not happy with the quality of the game going down in the latest releases.  They rushed this last one.  They know about a bunch of sound issues, but just plowed them to the next update.

I hate it not being on GameRanger.  Playing with people you know is half the fun to me.  And I've been on too many servers where people are too quick to vote to kick someone.  I really don't like that feature.

Punkbuster is great in theory, has bugs in reality.  I like it, like it a lot.  But too often there's a problem with punkbuster that will kick you.  This is in all games, not just AA (btw, I did get an e-mail on one way to help prevent it).

RvS:
RvS will be the next big game on GR.  It will bring many GhR players, and many of the RS/R6 players that never made the jump.  Why?  Because it will be on GR, not gamespy.

Also, I think that many of the people that didn't make the jump to OSX and GhR are going to have to soon anyway, because those old iMac 350's and 400's that they are running need to be replaced soon anyway.  

RvS also uses the UT engine (not it's own this time).  That engine was already ported and done well in my opinion.  I would guess better framerates then GhR on my machines (but it's just a guess for now).

In conclusion, I really don't think AA is going to take off.  look at games like RTCW and MoH.  Both good games.  RTCW is superior to GhR in many ways even.  But games that are server based like them don't seem to do well on GR.  And both of them can be hosted on GR.  AA can't.  So it's just plain easier to find your buddies on GR than it is otherwise.  

One extra note here.  I'm also going to be trying to add a nVidia 5200 Ultra to my machine in the next week or two.  I'm just waiting to hear from anyone that may have tried it already.  It's a better video card then anything but the 9800pro that we can buy, and it's under $100 for the 128MB, and only $130 for the 256MB models.  So I'll let you guys know if it works, and how well.

Well first of AA will not be the next GhR.

I love AA and think its a great game. I play it more than I play GhR but it is defiantly not for everyone, only Me and Archer out of the Core Clan play AA regularly and Joka a little (Kinetic got so pissed off with it that he deleted it and says he will never play it again).

The main things that people seem to hate are High System Requirements, Getting Killed, Training and Getting Killed.

But I like the Training and getting my ass kicked but not everyone dose. As for it running on my system I have a 700Mhz G4 iMac 512RAM GeForce 2MX 32mb and I get an average of 10fps and I am fine with that (The system requirements for RvS are also the same and it uses the same engine).

The thing I am worried about is that everyone seems to think Raven Shield is going to be the game that will bring back the good old days. But will it? I have been looking at those PC reviews sine it was released and they are gradually getting better as each patch is released (how many now?). But its still not great.

Remember Ghost Recon when it was released? You were lucky if you could play 2 rounds without it crashing out then the host had to restart. We eventually got patch's the next year that started to help but it was Evill who eventually fixed all the problems. Hopefully we will get the patch's for RvS from Aspyr in a timely fashion but it will still be months.

But we have AA here and now it has punkbuster, cross platform multiplayer, a mix of close combat and long-range combat and realistic gameplay.

But it will not be long till we find out if Raven Shield will really be this great game that we have been waiting for.

Oh just to add one more thing I love how in AA it is just like real combat how you can't tell friend from foe and that it probably one of the main things I love. It takes practice to tell who is enemy and who is not and it takes more reflexes and skill not to shot friendlies.

And another is that you don't have a zoom like GhR and it is very hard to hit a target at long range and the new 3D sight's that actual move as if you were breathing.

Then there is the sniper. In GhR you can be standing and aim and shot at a target and get an easy kill but in AA you can't stand and hit a target with a sniper because just like real life there is no way you can keep the sight steady when standing or even crouched.

So many cool things.

Ross

Oh, I forgot to mention, I hate not having maps in AA.

I don't need a map that tells me where everyone is, but face it, they give soldiers MAPS in the army.  Going through the SF E&E training would have made sense if we had a freaking map.  Maps are good, maps are smart.  Soldiers should have GPS!

The real difference between AA and GhR is that AA has everything set up the way the U.S. Army is currently, and GhR is actually based on the U.S. Army of the near future.  The current Army doesn't yet use OICW's, Sensors, or the Land-Warrior System like GhR does (although all three are currently in the works).

I think the point of it was that you were escaping from a POW camp or something (thats why you had no gun) so I don't think they would have a map of the area or GPS down your shorts.

Actually, there is a company working on such an endeavour as we speak.  This is the only article (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0BPW/8_13/90679246/p1/article.jhtml) I found in a quick search, but there was something on CNN about two days about that showed a chipmaker presenting a small little GPS tracker for individuals.  They had won a contract from the Department of Defense for creating GPS trackers for soldiers and much smaller equipment.  Currently there are already GPS locaters for vehicles.

.::|N| Noto

Ghr sucks...and if i may say, pelase dont compare it to AA. GhR is a waste of hard drive space to any good FPS gamers such as myself and fellow KoS members and RS vets that stood a chance against KoS. GhR was a horrible game and ill probably get bashed for it but compared to AA its like atari tennis. AA is sooo much better then GhR and it is great for matches since a2 used to play on PC ladders till they kicked us off cause they got owned so bad...(9-2 record against PC clans). AA is a good game and i will defend it to the end.

Rebel, you didn't give one reason AA was better, you just kept repeating that it is.

Oh, and as for the "any good FPS gamers such as myself", Deadeye says blow him, since he cleaned your clock to get in your first clan =D (and he also thinks AA sucks, btw).

My own opinion is that if you could merge the strength's from the two games, you would have a nice game in the end.

Noto, I have two buddies overseas right now, they both took GPS's with them.  http://www.garmin.com/products/etrexVista/

They popped for their own because the government doesn't give them out to everybody.  Nice thing to have for about $200 on average.  I have one and love it for going to different cities.

Getting back to maps, maps are a good thing.  If that was supposed to be escape, you wouldn't have had checkpoints (or it was just a shitty shitty design, take your pick).  But in normal games, you'd expect at least the squad leader to have a map of the area.

Ok, GHR hater here.

AA's advantages: ( Note: I left out things that are a matter of opinion, everything on here is undisputable, yes, that includes #3 and #4. )

1.) AA has superior graphics.
2.) AA is a better port.
3.) AA is objective based, which helps to eliminate campers.
4.) AA accuratly portrays shooting while moving.
5.) AA has a built in server tracker.
6.) AA is free.
7.) AA does not require that you insert a CD ( or mount an image ) each time you want to play.
8.) You don't have to wait forever for people to "ready up".
9.) AA servers don't crash.
10.) You have the ability to votekick people.
11.) You lose points, and lots of 'em, for TKing.
12.) There is medic class.
13.) No more gay "zooming" guns. In AA, you'll find iron sights and scopes.
14.) You have the ability to cook off grenades.
15.) You have smoke grenades and flashbangs
16.) You can jump.
17.) You can see your gun!
18.) Punkbuster.
19.) Ability to crack doors.
20.) Ability to shoot through doors.
21.) Ability to roll.
22.) Bipods.
23.) Ability to customize your weapons.
24.) Better movement selections ( walk, sprint, run ).
25.) Changing rate of fire is no longer instant. You actually have to move your finger.

There, 25 reasons AA is better.

Now, I may have broken the rule I stated at first a couple times. Some things I pointed out are a manner of opinion, some could argue that the ability to roll is nice, but it takes away from the ability to peak while laying down. Some could argue that the votekick feature is abused. And I'm sure that some people perfer, gay as they are, their "zooming" guns.

However, I think everyone here can agree on most of the things on that list.

GHR's superiorities:

1.) GameRanger support.
2.) Not made by the US Army ( that ones for you, GhostSniper. ;) )
3.) Supports, by default, more resolutions.
4.) You can create mods for GHR.
5.) Has single player.

The first one of GHR's superiorities is questionable. I mean, sure, I'd love to be able to play it against my friend's on GR easier, however. . . In many cases, I'd rather go play on nice, dedicated, fast, lag free servers than on small, laggy servers on GameRanger. Both lack a lot in this field. You can play GHR on GR, but it lacks a built in server tracker. AA has a built in server tracker, but you can't play it on GR.

The second of GHR's superiorities is just me being a troll. ;)

The third is a nice little feature, I hate having to go through data files just to set my nice wide screen res, which I still haven't found out how to do in AA 2.0. This is unquestionably an advantage of GHR.

The fourth, you can create mods for GHR. Another useful thing. Simply makes the game more expandable. However, AA continues to come out with new realeases which act like official mods.

The fifth, GHR's single player: While AA does of course have the option to play training missions, there are no training missions where you get to shoot anything other than targets. Single player is definiantly a nice feature of GHR. However, in this case, it doesn't really come into play, since we're talking about multiplayer.

I'm sure I left out a few advantages about both games, but those are the ones that jumped to my mind first.

Your opinions?

8. That can be a down side too, if your on a decent GhR server where everybody has a brain and is by the computer it will go fast and smooth, even faster

9. Yes they do, and GhR servers don't crash, not atleast to such a length that its worth mentioning.

10. You dont need that if the hoster/hostess is present.

Other that that you are pretty much right, its a fun game. And I really like the abilty to go around a corner and acctually have a chance.

What? noooo, I dont have to aim at the ground to get decent framerates. Just as long im in a narrow passage and theres no enemy or friendly guy in sight its allright.  :D

Thanks for the pic Joka.  I know have a complete image of what a Fin looks like when shitting into a cup when looking for a job at the local fast food stand.  By the way, how much do you make at McDonald's now, and is it in Euros?

;)

.::|N| Noto

Not as of 2.0  Not even close now.


Not entirely true, it's just one big siege game really.  Now I'm all for objective based games, but at least GhR gives you the choice of them, not just one game type.  This one goes in favor of GhR, not AA.  Even with the new SF objectives like the blackhawk, in GhR, you can have different types for each map.


They both do, just in different ways.  This is a tie to me, since it's pure opinion as to which one does it better.


Since I'm not a fan of the built in server games, this one means nothing to me.  


Got me there.


That one is again meaningless to me.  I don't mind companies trying to put some copy protection in.  Also, see later the authentication problems with AA.


Here is another way where GhR is superior to AA.  GhR has options.  You can wait for people to ready up, or not.  It's all determined by the host.  Options are superior to not.  And since you can set timers in GhR, it reacts the same as AA, but better, since you see the timer.


I've been on AA servers that crash.  And let us talk about the "failed authentication", shall we?  


Again, you have it backwards.  Since you can vote kick people in GhR too, but the host has the option of having that on or off, this makes GhR the superior game.


Pretty good, although I think AA takes it too far.  This is now the second plus for AA, but you have three for GhR listed so far.


I don't know if this makes it superior or not.  It's purely opinion, but I don't know if I like a medic in the game yet.


Like the gay zooming guns of RS and R6?  Now this is pure opinion too.  But if I'm playing a game, I don't want to be an average grunt with iron sights.  I want to be in an elite force with customized weapons, not standard M16's.  I like how they've done the extended weapons in AA for the most part, but not completely.  

Also, while I think the OICW/GL is the worst gun I've seen in a game of this type, the grenade launching whores in AA aren't much better.  


Yep, I'll give you this one.  I like most of what they did with the nades.


Ok, few more points here in a hurry.  I don't like jumping, climbing is better (think quake or SOF2, I fucking hate the jack rabbits).  Punkbuster is good, but not needed when playing all macs.  Seeing your gun is not superior, it's just pure opinion.  I'll give you bipods.  Customize weapons again would go to GhR for the bigger selection (you can only customize a couple weapons in AA, only on SF, where you can pick different kits like the mp5 or mp5sd in GhR).  Changing rate of fire is too slow in AA, it should change as soon as I click the key, since that's all it takes in real life, you don't have to move the gun away and look at it to change the rate of fire.  

But, you also forget that AA is missing nice things like claymores and rocket launchers (getting better with the RPG's now though).

GR support is a big thing too.  Look at MoH and RTCW for instance, both server based games.  If you join through GR instead of through the in game menu, your buddies can find you easy.  This is going away with AA (according to something Evill said the other night).  

And sorry, but the sound is just too fucked up in AA.  If you rely on your ears you'll get fucked now, because too many sounds are closer than the objects really are, and often coming from 70 degrees off the wrong direction.

AA is no more superior to GhR than SOF2 is.  They are different games.  Both have advantages and disadvantages that appeal to different people.  Especially when many of the things you listed are options in GhR.  If people aren't using that option, I guess most of them don't find it superior, do they?

Bucc-

I think the sound is obviously a big factor.  Infact, I started actually paying attention to sound more and have been more successful.  The sound in AA really does make a difference and can really be accurate at times.  

I agree with bucc on most parts:

- GhR has advantages and disadvantages just like AA. No need to think AA is superior. They both have flaws. Remeber one thing Ghost Recon came out for pc in 2001 that's almost 3 years ago. AA is updating all the time.

- You are right on the zoom of the weapons in GhR, although some weapons have a zoom. I like the inability to define Friend or Foe on a big distance in AA. (a quick tip: Friendly forces almost always have backpacks and a helmet)

- I like the nades in AA, specially when I try to cook of a flashbang and it explodes in my hand, because it only has 1-2 secs :D

- I like the grades of being wounded, but GhR has it too. Although the bleeding to dead part is a bit to much...

- The movement options on AA are superior to GhR. The different walk, crawl and run speeds are good. I don't like the rabbit jumping though, not realistic, and stupid when you try to shoot at someone. I never saw a soldier in real battle jump his way through bullets, that would be funny as hell! There should be some way that the soldier gets tired after jumping 3-4 times. Then the only option he has is to go prone.

- Objective based games don't rule out campers. It just encourages campers to camp more, to find a spot almost untouchable for the enemy but close enough to the objective to take every enemy out. Its like bucc said another form of siege.

- AA is free, but you need internet access to play it, because you have to upload every single score you make on training + you need to play online otherwise you can't play at all. GhR has single missions no need to go online. AA doesn't.

- The lack of commandmaps is certainly a bummer, not to spot enemys, but to know where to run. Specially when you have a compass on top of your head.

- The graphics on AA are great, I love'em, much better then on GhR. But as I said, AA is newer. The FPS on GhR are the same as AA I got 40-50 avarage on AA and 50-60 average on GhR.

- AA requiers a better mac, like most new games. GhR still has a bigger public because it even runs on my 300Mhz G3 and I get 20-30 fps so that's not even bad.

- On GhR its easier to switch maps. When you play AA you always play the same map, unless you wanna loose 10 min, to disconnect, find another server, connect and wait untill you can join the other game.

- You can shoot through doors on GhR and AA.

- The sound in AA is totally fucked, the sounds are nice, but the stereo is bad, really bad, I always use sounds to spot the enemy, but now I can't use it, because when I think an enemy is in front of me, he's actually standing behind me. So that's a major bug that has to be fixed. I'm gonna try to play with dolby surround this weekend see if it works. But I still need to be able to use my headphones because I can't always play with dolby surround, specially in the evening and at night.

So my opinion, AA is superior on Graphics but thats only because its newer. For the rest its almost the same as GhR. I don't like it when ppl say GhR is a piece of crap, because it was built to run on slower machines and its only a matter of opinion if you like it or not. So don't talk about GhR as it is some BS game when you don't even play it. I like AA as much as GhR, but I still play both.

th.Sent

I'm pretty sure that the sound has something to do with the rushed port. The stereo and everything seems fine on PC.

Which is a better port: AA's graphics are far better, yet, my framerates are about the same. What's up with that? That alone should say which is a better port. I agree that the sound problem is a royal pain in the ass, however, I'd rather have weak ass sounds than get bad framerates on something with bad graphics ( GHR ).

About the amount of points you lose for a TK: All it is, is a game. It can't judge what happened. I've gone to jail before for things that were completly my teamates faults, however, I've also gone to jail for dumb mistakes by myself.

I hate getting TKed, especially in really bad spots ( the other day, at Insurgent Camp, I'd flanked. I was in the South East corner, just about to take out a sniper and a 203er who were laying down, when our sniper shoots me in the head ). It's a little bit comforting to know that he'll have to reconnect and probably lose his sniper spot. I've probably lost about 1,500 points sense I started playing AA for ROE. Really, that's no big deal. If I want to be a honor leech, I can gain all that back in 3 matches.

About objectives: This is a point where we disagree. What's Siege in GHR? A bit camping match. One side camps, the other side tries to get into one posistion on the map.

In AA:

??The weapons accuracy plays a bit roll in how well an objective based game works. In GHR, if I see a team looking out of an alley 100 yards away, I can drop at least the one who is peaking out, in a couple of shots from my ?ber accurate gun. Things like this make the assault much harder, and the defense more inclined to camp.

??In AA there are multiple objectives. Off the top of my head, Swamp Raid is the only map where there is only one objective. ( Admittably, some places like Weapons Cache and Radio Tower, you could stack one objective and just let the enemeys take the other.

??Grenades and Flashbangs. Whenever I'm going for the computer at Pipeline, it involves come sort of combination of smoke, grenades, or flashbangs. All that GHR has is under-powered nades that you can throw about 5 miles.

??AA features all sorts of different objectives. Let's see GHR have a scene where you have to prep a Black Hawk then throw Thermite into it, or hit it with an RPG.

AA's objectives are clearly more complete.

About shooting while running: IRL ( Paintball and Airsoft ), I almost never shoot while running, for the simple reason of the fact that there's no point. However, I can take a running shot far more accuratly than my "elite character in GHR". GHR's characters have packs on, etc, yes. I'm sure that 50lbs of gear doesn't help matters, however, even with that, I could shoot better than them.

Shooting while moving in AA isn't all that accurate. Anytime that I can, I stop and crouch down to take my shot. However, it's far more realistic than GHR. The ability to shoot while moving is one of the best ways to prevent against campers.

Jumping: Personally, I'd much rather jump than climb. When I first started playing, I hated jack rabbits. Now, I honestly could care less. If you're jumping, you're not shooting. If you give me a second where you're not shooting, you're dead. In real life, jumping isn't really used, diving, yeah, once in a while, but not jumping. Next Paintball war, in a CQC situation, I'm going to start jumping around. My only hope will be that my oponent laughs so much he can't shoot me.

I'd consider the high system requirements a good thing. Rainbow Six Eagle Watch runs ok on my 233 Powerbook. Does that mean I'd want AA's graphics to look like that, but get those framerates? Hell no. The better the graphics, the higher the requirements.

Btw, Bucc, I haven't gotten "Failed Authorization" sense 1.7.

KoS coming back was already discussed on our forum... and unfortunatley with myself having a pc, I have already tried RvS. It is completley different then RS and alot less fun for me. So I deleted the game off my HD and now spend all my time playing call of duty. For me to buy a new mac just to compete with the mac community again, in a game i don't even enjoy is about the same odds as winning the LOTTO.

With all of the RS Vets anticipating a "new rs" in RVS, prepare to be let down  :(

It is in the port, it's mentioned on the beta site a few times.


Everyone but you seems to have a 10% or more drop in frame rates for AA Typhy.  I drop from a solid 50-60 in GhR to 25-40 in AA (with 2.0).  That's 33% to 50%+ drop in performance?  My frame rates dropped in 2.0, they didn't get better.  And since the sound is part of the port, I would say that the latest port of AA was bad.  You may think that sound isn't as important, but throwing in bugs is throwing in bugs.  


That's your opinion, mine differs, but they are both opinion, not fact.


It got it when 1.9 was fresh too, so did the guys I was playing with.

Point is, AA isn't the perfect port, it has it's issues, just like GhR has it's own.  And both have been patched on many (and neither on all).

I refuse to believe that. Why? I get 20-30 FPS on my G4 700.

I agree ultimo, but look at how shitty of a game ghr is but yet it is the highest played game on gameranger. I think once RvS is released we will see ghr dissapear.

And Buc...I know you love a good debate but you know as well as I do that A'A owns Ghr and only after playing A'A did I realize how crappy ghr is.

Don't agree with you at all Voo.  After this last release, I doubt I'll even stay a beta tester, it's pissed me off that much.

I'm with Vood on this one.

Back when there were all the "RS vs GHR" debates, I'd argue infidently. However, inside, I knew I could never win; GHR was newer, better servers, better graphics, less glitches, dedicated servers. No matter how much I loved RS, this kind of argument was unwinnable.

I still like RS 100 times more than GHR, however, I'd never try and argue that RS is a better game, because the only thing that's better ( and this is, of course, a matter of opinion ), is the gameplay.

In your opinion, the gameplay of GHR may be better, but when it comes down to it, AA's a better game.

As Vood said, I have no doubt that tons of Mac people will play RvS, for 2 reasons ( 33% of it ), Mac gamers are deprived. ( 66% of it ), so many people have high expectations, and won't allow themselves to be let down.

Typhy, don't forget that some others just wont agree with you.

Yes, it has mixed reviews on the PC side, but guess what, so did RS when I played it on the PC side.  It's also still popular on the PC side.  If I can find it (I'll look) I'd be willing to bet it's as popular or more popular then AA on PC's.  And AA's free.

I know people here that have played it on the PC and can't wait for it to be on the Mac because they loved it.  Opinions vary.

As for AA being superior, no, I don't agree because your arguments didn't hold weight.  Look back to points you made about not having to ready up, or vote kick.  Where you high or did you just forget that those things are in GhR?

To me, they are kind of a draw.  They are different games with different features.  While one has better graphics, the other doesn't have fucked up sound, while one has better default maps, the other is expandable.  For everything AA does better, it does something else worse (like not give the options for ready up or disallow vote kick).  

So yeah, while gameplay makes you like one more than the other, and different people will see things differently, I don't agree that AA is superior.

Remember, you still think RTCW is superior to GhR, and it never took off as a BL game, not even close.

Uh, as far as I know we've never had an RTCW League. . .

Although, I know it'd never take off. It's not a game that lots of people in this community play. You want to argue RTCW vs GHR, RTCW kicks it's ass six ways to sunday.

In GHR, you can only "votekick" at certian times. Not during a game.

Ready up? That's not something that the two hold in common. You don't have to "ready up" in AA. Or are you refering to the fact that in GHR, the server can have a start-timer on it? Yes, that's true. But half the time, the start timer doesn't work because someone's crashed.

Which is half my point


Which is probably two less then it kicks AA's ass.  I think RTCW is much better than AA.  But does that make it "superior by fact"?


And the host can stop a vote in GhR, and stop voting at all.  More options = superior in my book.


The host can also click the start button at any time Typhy.  You still seem to either not know, or just ignore some things GhR has.

One more post and Bucc will hit 1600!  wOOt!  ;)

I hope it will be a flame...

.::|N| Noto

Do i even dare comment on this again? I think so....Ive heard bad things about RvS from many pc people. But the thing is that we losers on macs dont get many games like pc does so when a new game that has multi comes out its a hit. Even games that arent very good ( GhR ) are still hits cause they are NEW and on mac a new game comes out every say year. I dunno what to expect, maybe it will be the fps lag of AA combined with the shitty gameplay of GhR. Good God lets hope not.....i might just stick with AA but then again, raping on XboX r63 was fun......

RS3 for xbox is a great game, I don't think they even wanted it to be similar to RS or R6, I like the style of RvS. It looks like a winner in my book, if it runs smoothly on my computer.

Not all of them are winners on the mac Rebel.  RTCW wasn't.  MoH never took off on Mac like it did on PC (maybe do to a shitty port).

I just don't see how anyone can be competative on a FPS with a consol and not a keyboard and mouise.

GhR is not a good game? RtCW wasn't a bad game.. it wasn't great but certainly the MP was good fun (medics LT's etc... in some ways more tatical than AA regarding teams helping themselves out).. MoHaa .... Good fun.. Graphics were perhaps lagging somewhat... yeah bad port. again the SP is ok to pass a few hours away.

I think people are really trying and the port qualities are definatly getting better in some case's. Look at the fantastic work done on Halo -  Westlake have put a lot of effort into getting the best out of the engine, and they have brought pixel and vertex shaders in the game ? a first in Mac history. Thats really a pretty great step forward for us.

Its not that our hardware is no lacking... half the problem i think is the quality of the ports and the crazy ass shit Graphics API codes used by Micros... Micr.. Sorry i hate saying that word.. the company that is very small and very hard ;)

Console FPS games can be every bit as competitive as Mac or PC games, with a mouse and keyboard. For instance, with everyone having the same specs and broadband (E.G. Xbox Live),  it turns into a true test of skill, instead of seeing who is wiling to spend more money to play games. Also with everyone having voice, there isn't a time in the world when you can't trashtalk anyone you choose. :)

RTCW was a great game, I played it many times, just not on GR where it never took off.