Ground Control Options

[Flop]

Feel free to comment and discuss this game here. Also, if you have any useful tips or tricks don't hesitate to share them with the others! Thanks!

Review + download

[Abi79]

NOTE: I'm not sure, but the game might work on Windows 2000, ME and XP (because it's a Windows game made in 2000), but I couldn't find those where I looked for minimum specs, so they weren't included by me.

[BeefontheBone]

It does - I've played it on my XP system. Altered the requirements.

This is a great game - does away with tedious resource collection and focuses on the actual gameplay. Plus it's gorgeous, especially considering the requirements.

[PrejudiceSucks]

Aye, however my download must be screwed, sometimes the music/speech stutters/doesn't play sadly.

Good game though.

Oh and it's not that hard. Just perservere and set your units up right. Ignore stuff like Heavy Hoverdynes/Terradynes and focus on the the smaller stuff, which can easily do as much or possibly more damage. Artillery on the other hand should NEVER be ignored. Ever.

[Abi79]

Plus it's gorgeous, especially considering the requirements.

Yes, it's gorgeous, but you wouldn't want to know my framerate when I took those screenshots (on a PII 266 MHz, 8 MB graphic card). Next time I'll disable my net connection and my antivirus to get a bigger speed. It turns out that the screenshots could have been took at a greater detail if I would have disabled my antivirus which slows my computer Oh, well. They are beautiful anyway. I'm tempted to download GC again

[Flop]

I'm tempted to download GC again

Well, this time you can download it straight from our server instead of fileplanet. No more waiting in line.

[Abi79]

Yay. I had to wait for it 60 mins at line and 4 hours for the game to be downloaded, but it worth the time. (because while that was happening I went to a friend and we started playing on his computer )

[Stroggy]

I completely disagree with the statement that the models "are not very detailed or pretty", The models were fantastic! I believe they were even better than some of the infantry-models seen in modern games. Furthermore it is a pity the reviewer neglected to mention the awe-amazing particle effects featured so prominently in this game (mostly in the later missions where artillery become more widely available)

Moreover the two negative points summed up are almost, if not exactly, the same, and a third negative point "One thing I don't like is that in the game there are no resources. You can't build units or buildings" is entirely subjective as a lot of gamers praised this game for taking this refreshing coarse, I do thank the reviewer for not including this in the eventual +/- report and does not neglect to say the game does not suffer under this "weakness."

Some screenshots from later in the game wouldn't have hurt either, since the screenshots supplied are mostly from the first few missions in which the units at your disposal are still rather scarce and not very impressive in terms of firepower.


Anyway, just my own personal opinion.

[Abi79]

My fault. The screenshots are from the first missions (first and second campaign; the game was hard for me ) and about the "no resources" thing I need to say that I thought this to be a weakness because I think that the player is outnumbered by the enemy in almost every mission and feel the need to have more units. **EDIT**: and yes, I now figured out that this is subjective

I completely disagree with the statement that the models "are not very detailed or pretty"

I zoomed in and that's what I saw. Might be by graphic card's fault.

**EDIT**: what did you expect from my first review anyway ?

This post has been edited by Abi79: Oct 16 2005, 07:14 PM

[Stroggy]

It's okay, but you're not "selling" this game properly.
With this I mean: you give it a good, if not great, score but the review is lukewarm. It's as if every positive point you bring up if downplayed by a negative one, which would usually mount up the the lukewarm score of 3.

The text shows that you are able to write a review, but you're approaching it from the wrong angle. It's as if you know it's a good game, but you are thinking up negative points so you can fatten up a review. I apologize if this isn't true, but that's the feeling I got.

[taikara]

Hey, I don't think Abi's trying to sell anything.

He wrote a review for the site, and I'm sure he wrote what he was thinking, and it doesn't matter whether you agree with him or not. Reviews are subjective, they are a matter of opinion, always have been, and always will be.

There's no need to pick him apart for being a contributing member who took the time and effort to express his own opinion.

On that note - thank you, Abi, for writing the review and taking screenshots for us. I personally appreciate it very much.

[Stroggy]

Hey, I don't think Abi's trying to sell anything.

merely a term, it means "making the game attractive."
And you shouldn't criticize me for actually giving constructive comments.

[taikara]

You're basically telling him his review is all wrong because he didn't write it by some imperceptible review-writing law that you apparently follow. If you were actually offering constructive suggestions, that would be one thing... but you're not. You're telling him that his way is wrong. Which it isn't.

Constructive criticism isn't telling someone they're wrong. It's helping a person figure out better ways to do things, but I can't see how you've really done that here. The first post, okay, maybe. The second "constructively critical" post is completely unnecessary, and doesn't help anyone.

His review is fine. He just doesn't do it your way. Get over it, or offer actual suggestions rather than just telling him he's approaching it from the wrong angle because his score doesn't fit your idea of what the score should be based on the review. Better yet, make an effort to find out why he gave the game the score he did while giving it a "lukewarm" review.

We'd like to have more reviewers, not have the ones we do have chased away by your negativity. If you don't like the way some reviewers write their reviews, why don't you write a few more for the site instead of criticizing other's people's methods and opinions

And according to your logic, I can criticize you for whatever I want, as long as I'm being constructive, and as I've actually offered suggestions that can help both you and our community grow in a positive way, I believe I am being more constructive in my criticism than you have been in yours

[Stroggy]

I don't know what kind of grudge you have against me, but I know I did offer constructive criticism, I was never rude and always motivated my writing.
Just because I don't blindly praise every aspect of his review doesn't mean I'm tearing it apart, nor does it mean that I think it is a bad review.

I never said his score was wrong, I said his score was great, but it's odd that his general opinion would usually grant a much lower score. I'd appreciate it if you would actually read my comments throroughly before accusing me of bullying Abi79 - as it were - into rewriting his review to submit to my own views. I did not do that at any point, nor was it at any time my intention to do so.

If you don't like the way some reviewers write their reviews, why don't you write a few more for the site

I would if people would just stop losing the reviews, I believe there is still a review for RISK I wrote floating around somewhere out there, unless we lost that as well.

And according to your logic, I can criticize you for whatever I want, as long as I'm being constructive

That stands to reason.

And now if we could please get back to discussing the game rather than how my non-conformity to the all-around praise has chased away hordes of reviewers that would be great

[A. J. Raffles]

Oh, come off it, Stroggy. This isn't about "non-conformity" at all. You made a (perhaps unnecessarily harsh) comment about a particular bit in the review. That's fair enough, but all reviews are subjective, so there was no real need for giving Abi advice on How You Should Write A Review as if you were his teacher; it sounded a wee bit condescending, if you ask me...

Anyway, is there a particular reason why the link to the game's site leads to the Sierra homepage?