Not much at all, I just wanted to make clear that the titles you mentioned did indeed had excellent options, other than you said. :O:

For me, it doesn't boil down to those two arguments, really. There is a lot wrong with the game, so much that I, for myself, can clearly say it is broken.

Let's just... hope.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...xgc54nGGY#t=77


They are working on patches though, and to be honest, getting the AI right in tactical shooters is never an easy task, getting that balance right between god-like and dumb as a brick. Look at Bohemia, different genre I know, but they will often release a brick and then chisel the edges off in patches.
A pity that this has happened, but given the options out there...ie none, you just have to roll with the punches, give the guys constructive feedback rather than rage-quitting and hope that it'll get fixed. I'm pretty sure it will.
Until then, well, make the best out of what you have, as we always do.

Alright, fair enough.


Wonder if Fraps will record to a network drive. Might record some bits of us playing. :hmmm:

After a few hours ingame I'm not finding Takedown quite as bad as some of the comments suggest. Actually I've got only three major complaints: Lack of variation in missions, friendly and enemy AI and easily the biggest problem of them all, the complete lack of any teamplay whatsoever.

Really, in a shooter that promotes itself with words like "tactical" and "hardcore" you have practically no means to control your team. You can tell them to follow, stop and then there's a rudimentary ROE implementation. The "team" has no practical use, they're just extra lives tagging along in case you get hit. It also bothers me quite a bit to get sent into the fray very little to none intel on the target area and the perpetrators.

Anyway, the team issue is easy to fix for now. Anyone up for multiplayer tonight?

Doesn't seem to be in the cards tonight on our end.

Not necessarely broken, but it is lacking a ton of stuff, some of it pretty basic.
Like no options or loadout menu in-game, you have to go back to the main menu
to change all that. No map, no indication of who is still alive and who's dead,
basically no info but the time remaining when it comes to mission progress.
Basic server tools are non-existent AFAIK, can't kick anyone, can't put a password
on your server.

Then there are the more serious issues with levels where some objects have their
collision models completely screwed. Just now I tried to shoot a guy in the "HQ"
level who was standing behind a WAIST high table. I couldn't hit him, bullets
wouldn't go over the table. :down:

What you summed up is pretty much my definition of broken. :D
I see that the term isn't perfectly fitting, since broken would mean "unplayable" technical wise. Yet it fits for me since it lacks so much features and is so bugged that I really think it is "unplayable" or more "unsuitable". Well, definitions...

I for one, have reinstalled RvS and are going to check out a mod called "Raven Shield 2.0" which was shut down by Ubi (bunch of retards, really) a few years ago put was updated in June or so, which for RvS that is quite current.

See I have had RS3 installed for a long time with Raven 2.0. I have Take Down as well and it is buggy as all hell that is for sure.

It just sort of bugs me when I see someone say "I am going to re-install X game that is better" I see that a lot when a new game comes out that is not up to snuff.Anyway to me if one really liked a game they would keep track of it and not remove it or at least keep track of it.

Not saying that you are doing that but in a way you are.I do not see any tactical shooter coming along that has a the budget needed to be a 1 for 1 successor to the old time games.That would cost much more money than they can muster Take Down or Ground Branch for that matter.On top of this the market may simply be to small.Most people when they think tactical shooters they of Rainbow Six Vegas or GRAW.:Kaleun_Sick:

And this lousy launch is not going to make things any better.It is like the roaring 20's tactical shooters their heyday has long passed.Games might come along trying to go for that feel but they will never fully pull it off and part of this is also the nostalgia effect.at one time they where very popular and had the required supporting budgets to be as good as they where.I do not see that happening any time soon.

I struggle to understand what you mean :hmmm:

He's saying (I think, feel free to call me on this) that reacting like that doesn't help anything. The notion is that by supporting a game like Takedown you can help show that there is a market for these games. It meeting its sales target enables Serellan to possibly make a better sequel (and support the current release with the patching it needs and possibly expand it through DLC/expansions) with a more appropriate budget available. It can also encourage other developers to take a stab at it.

It just helps to maintain the status quo of no tactical shooters being produced. Giving it a chance, which can be as simple as not saying a thing (or at least giving balanced feedback) and letting people decide for themselves, opens up possibilities in the future.

That is one way to look at this I guess. As a customer who paid for a finished game, who got garbage in the end, I do not feel the need to support a developer who, obviously, fooled his customers.

It all would have been a different story if they would have sold it as it is, an early access alpha. Then I - and all the others - would have known and there would be no reason to complain.

So, if I am hungry for a tactical shooter and the one I just bought doesn't deliver at all, I see nothing wrong in saying "I am going back to XY, screw this mess", really.

Additionally, I do not have the slightest hope that this title will ever recover, nor do I want to see more from those developers.

http://highlysensitive.org/wp-conten...p-Cry-Baby.jpg

HunterICX

There's a difference between not liking something and actively undermining it.

God... very bad mental picture reading that.