Ghost Recon is the GREATEST!!!

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Okay, I've been hearing all of the RvS, RS, and R6 supporters over the last few months tell me how RvS is/has/will kill Ghost Recon.  That everyone will stop playing Ghost Recon, that it is a thing of the past, that RvS is SOOO much better.

Well, I beg to differ....

So far this season, these are the statistics I have found:

RvS Team Matches Played:  25
RvS Teams Ranked:             10
RvS Teams Signed Up:         19

RvS FFA Matches Played:      2
RvS Players Ranked:             5
RvS Players Signed Up:         59

I'm jost gonna put RS and R6 Ladders together here:

RS & R6 Matches Played:                0
RS & R6 Players Ranked:                0
Total RS & R6 Players Signed Up:  17

AA Team Matches Played:     0
AA Teams Ranked:                0
AA Teams Signed Up:            5

(I personally think that this would have been a very active ladder this season if BTs wasn't banned from it)

Now, let's look at the Ghost Recon Side of the Battle League:

GhR FFA Matches Played:     152
GhR FFA Players Ranked:       90
GhR FFA Players Signed Up: 145

GhR CQB Matches Played:     68
GhR CQB Teams Ranked:       11
GhR CQB Teams Signed Up:  21

GhR Team Matches Played:   128
GhR Teams Ranked:                21
GhR Teams Signed Up:            28

So, I would say that Ghost Recon is far from dead.  And if anything, RvS looks like it is dying a quick death.

Be gone with all things R6 Related I say!

[Supernatural Pie]

I would say that there are multiple reasons why RvS has not taken over Ghost Recon.

1. High system requirements. Many people would have to get a new computer to be able to play RvS half-decently. Almost everyone on GameRanger has a computer capable of playing Ghost Recon. However, a much smaller percentage have a computer capable of playing Raven Shield well.

2. Not as many Raven Shield clans established. In Ghost Recon, there are dozens of clans, most of which suck royally, and have very few members. In Raven Shield, you have larger clans, which means fewer clans, but most Raven Shield clans out there are decent competitors, unlike most of the Ghost Recon clans.

3. Upgrading Operating Systems: Rogue Spear died for one reason only: You can't play it in OSX (no, I'm not considering Classic, because it runs like shit there.) Ghost Recon can be played in OSX, which means Jaguar OR Panther, so if you make the switch to Panther, you don't have to leave behind Ghost Recon. But if you made the switch to OSX, it becomes a hassle to switch back into OS9 just to play Rogue Spear. That and the fact that no new computers can have OS9 installed on them. To sum up, if people aren't forced to leave a game behind, they won't.

4. Gameplay. The two games are totally different. Some people just like the Ghost Recon style gameplay over the Raven Shield style gameplay. However, you may or may not have noticed that many former avid Rogue Spear players have made the switch to Raven Shield, because of the similarities in the gameplay. (Though the Rogue Spear gameplay is simply the best.)

5. Ignorance. Ghost Recon blows. Why do people still play it? Ignorance.




So there you have it. That is why (in my opinion) Raven Shield has not "killed" Ghost Recon.

[cO.Vickedson]

RvS would be cool I suppose if the maps didn't blow my asshole so royally....

[GEN BILLY]

RvS would be cool I suppose if the maps didn't blow my asshole so royally....

omg wick i cant believe you said that hahahaha

i have tried rvs cant really get into it like aa or ghr dunno ill give it another try but a game has to snap atcha once you play it and it didnt

[BFG]

In Raven Shield, you have larger clans, which means fewer clans, but most Raven Shield clans out there are decent competitors, unlike most of the Ghost Recon clans....

Larger than *NRG, AGT or :MoD:  for instance?

Ignorance. Ghost Recon blows. Why do people still play it? Ignorance

... i guess because it still beats anything that RvS can offer.

[Supernatural Pie]

BFG, obviously there are exceptions. Don't try to shoot down my explanation with minor details.

On the same lines, I'm not saying that there are no small clans in RvS.

MP5, for example, only has five members.

[SAR(VoLaTile)]

I would say that there are multiple reasons why RvS has not taken over Ghost Recon.

1. High system requirements. Many people would have to get a new computer to be able to play RvS half-decently. Almost everyone on GameRanger has a computer capable of playing Ghost Recon. However, a much smaller percentage have a computer capable of playing Raven Shield well.

There is your major reason right there, I have asked many people why they dont get RvS, and they say "I would if my comp didn't suck." When people get some money and see RvS, they will throw ghr in the trash, and spit on it.

[crypt]

RvS pwns. GhR pwns. CoD pwns. AA sucks. There ya have it.

[SAR(VoLaTile)]

RvS pwns. GhR pwns. CoD pwns. AA sucks. There ya have it.

RvS pwns
GhR used to pwn
CoD sucks
AA pwns

[Typhy]

RS pwns
RvS is ok
GHR is the worst game ever made
AA is ok
COD is good

[SAR(VoLaTile)]

lol Typhy, you never even play RS, you cant say it pwns

[Typhy]

lol Typhy, you never even play RS, you cant say it pwns

Maybe because it's dead. . . It was the only game I played for over 2 years.

[Toxic::Joka]

GhR is still going strong cause it simply has the best gameplay.

RS sucked and so does RvS

[theweakspot]

different strokes for different folks...

I think the high system requirements are a HUGE reason why RvS hasn't taken off.

My clan, *nRg, is a huge clan with over 30 active members, but only 8 or so have Macs solid enough to run it without crashing.

GhR is a fun game that is easy to pick up but also plays well.  There isn't the complexity that exists in RvS.

In GhR you have 'laser' guns that can pick guys off at 400 yards.
In RvS you can literally spray 100+ rounds at times and still miss.  

It can be frustrating and many people don't want to deal with the 'realism' that makes things more complex.  Many GhR games are run, gun, kill, die, respawn, repeat.  This is fun and addictive.  RvS is not that way at all... Its more about coordination, covering, be patient, listening, trapping and then moving in for a kill.  And if you get capped in the process, have fun watching.

The two games are like two boxers.... RvS is the patient, sly, cunning, making the other guys miss, and then taking the right oppurtunity to move in and blam-o the other guy in the mouf.... GhR more just bum rush the oppostion and stick your OICW in their ass or SA80 in their mouf.

Both offer different things, both are fun, choose yours.

or whatever.

[Typhy]

GhR is still going strong cause it simply has the best gameplay.

RS sucked and so does RvS

No, GHR is "going strong" because of dumbfucks like you, and high system requirements.

[BFG]

So now we plumet into the personal insults?


Different Games - RvS is great for what it is, GhR is still great for what it is. AA is great for what it is.... They are completely different games. None of them suck ass by any means. And for the record i beleive GhR has won far more accolade than RvS certainly has.

Lets drop the personal shit please typhy

[crypt]

Why can't we all just accept the fact that there are people who like different things, obviously. People have different opinions, live with it.

[Mr. Lothario]

     I'd be rubbing RvS raw if I wasn't playing on an Etch-A-Sketch. CoD, on the other hand, has one major advantage that neither RvS nor GhR has: the Quake III engine. It looks as good as (better than, in some respects) GhR, and not very much worse than RvS (especially when you're playing RvS with all quality settings on "maximum ugliness", like yours truly) and runs far more smoothly than either. The gameplay favors run-and-gun but can have tactical elements (just not in pickup games on 1.3 with 27 noobs and two cheaters), the weapons have a good heft to them, head shots count, and most importantly, the maps are exquisitely designed.

     If and until I can buy a G5, CoD is my game of choice.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

1. High system requirements. Many people would have to get a new computer to be able to play RvS half-decently. Almost everyone on GameRanger has a computer capable of playing Ghost Recon. However, a much smaller percentage have a computer capable of playing Raven Shield well.

Well, please explain this one to me.  I have a 1.8 GHz G5 with an ATi Radeon 9600 Pro 64MB Card and 2.5 GB of RAM.  I play RvS just fine and dandy.  I even do very well when I do play it.

I just can't stand the game.  It sucks.  The graphics suck.  AA and RvS are running on the same engine and AA is a THOUSAND times better than RvS.  Much better graphics.  Much more realistic.  And you guys keep talking about how GhR has "LASER" guns.  Well, why is it in RvS that every time I aim at something I hit it?  Not the case at all in America's Army.  And I think that you are forgetting that GhR tries to take into account that you are supposed to be a trained soldier who knows how to aim his weapon properly.  So GhR takes into account windage, bullet drop, and proper aim and breathing for you....so what you aim for is what you hit.  It isn't that it isn't realistic, it's just doing some of the work for you.

Now:

RS and R6:  Never played either one so I couldn't tell you if they pwn.

RvS:  Sucks

GhR:  The Best Game On the *DAMN BL

AA:  The Best Game Ever

CoD:  Havn't Played it yet But I hear it is good

BF1942:  This is the game I'm waiting for

[BTs_FahQ2]

This is no different than the old Chevy vs. Ford argument.  They both do relatively the same thing, but have pluses and minuses in different columns.  They also suit different personal tastes and needs.

In the end like them for what they offer to you and any personal opinion you have of the game is just that, personal.

I love how your personal opinions of games are trying to actually justify whether or not the game is actually good.

For shits sake, what the hell is wrong with you people.