Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
JohnDoe wrote on Wed, 30 September 2009 17:37 because skins are for faggots... ^ lulz DISCUSS
JohnDoe's post made me so embarrased that I deleted all my skins and sounds and reticle and clearscope. I am running pure now and it feels nice!
stuff like this, yes
i use pawky's nod soldier nod urban camoflage skin Di3's laser sniper reborn railgun nod cyborg sbh and thats it really... so uhmm no
I love the fact that I can change the appearance of Ren, it is like a coloring book... The problem is, some people have not learned to stay inside the lines and color their ren like 5 year olds. Luckly their are are also the ones that make a old game feel kinda new again. Skins Edit: That whole thing where people turn their bloom way up... that shit just hurts my eyes.
Spoony wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 08:45 gimme puremode anyday tbh
Chew wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 09:57 I love the fact that I can change the appearance of Ren, it is like a coloring book... The problem is, some people have not learned to stay inside the lines and color their ren like 5 year olds. Luckly their are are also the ones that make a old game feel kinda new again. Skins Edit: That whole thing where people turn their bloom way up... that shit just hurts my eyes. Gotta agree with this, it's easy to say all skins are rubbisch but there is a big difference between a plain red nod sniper and dregs tiberium sun nod sniper. So it all depends on the skin.
There's nothing wrong with crosshairs and puremode should acknowledge that IMO...personally, I love the default crosshair and am quite glad that it's offered in UT2K4's options . It all boils down to personal preference and nobody's getting an unfair advantage by using a cross instead of a circle. Other skins either give you an unfair advantage or lower the game's nostalgic appeal...so you're either a faggot or the type of guy that wears white socks when wearing a suit because he doesn't know any better...Philistine phaggot.
lawl... i guess i am a faggot
Definitely Philistine..only Mylo could give a definite answer on your level of gayness.
Like stated, it depends on the skin. I don't use any model skins. I do use a modified reticule and a HUD skin, though. I don't really like changing the model skins, but I would use ones that literally make the model look better by using an updated or higher-detail/quality skin of the original. Like a serious skin replacement. Not some stupid color changing thing or some stupid clown car skin. JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 11:54 There's nothing wrong with crosshairs and puremode should acknowledge that IMO... Not true. There are different crosshairs that make it easier to use. It removes a level of guess/positioning that allows you to aim your weapon more efficiently. The kind of crosshair I'm talking about is the ones that are really really small. The ones that are simply dots in the center of the screen. It's easier to control those because the actual spot the projectile is hitting is around the center dot of the crosshair. In the default one or modded ones that leave open space between that center dot and the outlining shape, you need to compensate for the open area of the crosshair with the geometry of the terrain. But if the crosshair is a simple dot, you can simply control it in a way that doesn't require you to think about the shot as much. At least, that's the effect I got when testing a bunch of different reticule mods. The smaller the crosshair, the easier it was to use for me. This is what I'm talking about: Normal Styles that should be allowed: Advantage style that makes it easier to aim:
@ R3: Till yesterday I was using that little so-called "advantage" reticle. With the default one now, my aiming is not affected at all. I think since no matter what the surrounding reticle looks like, it's always the dot that matters.
Yes. Exactly. That's why I consider it an advantage. The dot is what matters. But the outside reticule still exists. Thus, removing it, makes it easier to use. It's the removal of an optical illusion originating from the outer crosshair. I've tested it in many different aspects and found that the smaller the outer reticule (or closer it is to the center dot) the easier it is to aim. One may not notice if they aren't necessarily looking for it, but the difference is there. It may also depend on who is using it, because people see and perceive different ways.
http://www.renegadeforums.com/index.php?t=msg&th=34765&start=0&rid=2 2654#msg_num_6
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 18:14 Like stated, it depends on the skin. I don't use any model skins. I do use a modified reticule and a HUD skin, though. I don't really like changing the model skins, but I would use ones that literally make the model look better by using an updated or higher-detail/quality skin of the original. Like a serious skin replacement. Not some stupid color changing thing or some stupid clown car skin. JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 11:54 There's nothing wrong with crosshairs and puremode should acknowledge that IMO... Not true. There are different crosshairs that make it easier to use. It removes a level of guess/positioning that allows you to aim your weapon more efficiently. The kind of crosshair I'm talking about is the ones that are really really small. The ones that are simply dots in the center of the screen. It's easier to control those because the actual spot the projectile is hitting is around the center dot of the crosshair. In the default one or modded ones that leave open space between that center dot and the outlining shape, you need to compensate for the open area of the crosshair with the geometry of the terrain. But if the crosshair is a simple dot, you can simply control it in a way that doesn't require you to think about the shot as much. At least, that's the effect I got when testing a bunch of different reticule mods. The smaller the crosshair, the easier it was to use for me. This is what I'm talking about: Normal Styles that should be allowed: Advantage style that makes it easier to aim: I'm going to respond to this nonsense one time in a civil fashion. Here are a few reasons why the "normal style" can be more useful than the "advantage style": 1. Short range fighting. This is common knowledge...pro players who use custom crosshairs for different weapons will always use a large crosshair for shotgun-type weapons and a small one for sniper weapons. I like the Renegade-style crosshair because it combines both. 2. Leading with shells/rockets/grenades. While variants of cross-shaped crosshairs (wow..) are best for this type of aiming, the larger circle crosshair is still more useful than the smaller one. The outer rim of the crosshair will be closer to the opponent, making it easier to guess whether he's going to run into the center of the crosshair. 3. Sniping opponents behind objects at long distance unscoped. Let's say you're fighting someone at a long distance and he's hiding behind a barrier and you don't want to scope because it'll make you an easier target or because you're busy hugging a wall. Now the small crosshair will actually obstruct his model from your view, while with the larger crosshair, only the dot is covering his character. It's even more evident when he's being partially covered by a vehicle, thus eliminating your ability to guess your shots as the crosshair changes to red. This is not a major issue , but it can be the crucial factor deciding a close battle. Now the "advantage style" is probably better at medium distances, where most Renegade combat takes place, and when sniping scoped...it's still a tradeoff, tho and I prefer the "normal style" because it's essentially the most balanced type of crosshair. Clearly, it boils down to personal preference just like mouse sensitivity or mouse grip.
Depends on the skin. Flamboyant (read: anything by scrin) skins are retarded. But a few simple changes to make things look a little bit better are always nice. also johndoe eats babies
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 12:14 Like stated, it depends on the skin. I don't use any model skins. I do use a modified reticule and a HUD skin, though. I don't really like changing the model skins, but I would use ones that literally make the model look better by using an updated or higher-detail/quality skin of the original. Like a serious skin replacement. Not some stupid color changing thing or some stupid clown car skin. JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 11:54 There's nothing wrong with crosshairs and puremode should acknowledge that IMO... Not true. There are different crosshairs that make it easier to use. It removes a level of guess/positioning that allows you to aim your weapon more efficiently. The kind of crosshair I'm talking about is the ones that are really really small. The ones that are simply dots in the center of the screen. It's easier to control those because the actual spot the projectile is hitting is around the center dot of the crosshair. In the default one or modded ones that leave open space between that center dot and the outlining shape, you need to compensate for the open area of the crosshair with the geometry of the terrain. But if the crosshair is a simple dot, you can simply control it in a way that doesn't require you to think about the shot as much. At least, that's the effect I got when testing a bunch of different reticule mods. The smaller the crosshair, the easier it was to use for me. This is what I'm talking about: Normal Styles that should be allowed: Advantage style that makes it easier to aim: I don't even look at the dot, I just shoot randomly and sometimes I get a headshot.
pawkyfox wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 07:47 JohnDoe's post made me so embarrased that I deleted all my skins and sounds and reticle and clearscope. I am running pure now and it feels nice! Really? I run puremode, but you made some awesome skins. Why waste your work like that? =/
reborn wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 11:07 Spoony wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 08:45 gimme puremode anyday tbh
JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 16:31 1. Short range fighting. This is common knowledge...pro players who use custom crosshairs for different weapons will always use a large crosshair for shotgun-type weapons and a small one for sniper weapons. I like the Renegade-style crosshair because it combines both. 2. Leading with shells/rockets/grenades. While variants of cross-shaped crosshairs (wow..) are best for this type of aiming, the larger circle crosshair is still more useful than the smaller one. The outer rim of the crosshair will be closer to the opponent, making it easier to guess whether he's going to run into the center of the crosshair. 3. Sniping opponents behind objects at long distance unscoped. Let's say you're fighting someone at a long distance and he's hiding behind a barrier and you don't want to scope because it'll make you an easier target or because you're busy hugging a wall. Now the small crosshair will actually obstruct his model from your view, while with the larger crosshair, only the dot is covering his character. It's even more evident when he's being partially covered by a vehicle, thus eliminating your ability to guess your shots as the crosshair changes to red. This is not a major issue , but it can be the crucial factor deciding a close battle. How can you tell me it's nonsense? You are not me. You don't know how I think nor do you know how I perceive surroundings or react to stimuli. How can you tell me that what I know I feel for a fact is wrong? I can only agree with point #1. And that is a little iffy because of the way shotguns, or I should say weapons in general, work in Renegade. They aren't as style intensive in Renegade as other games make them to be (such as maybe Halo or Call of Duty) However, I found it much easier to lead shots without the obstruction of the outer reticule obscuring the target (I watch where the bullet lands and adjust my trajectory, not were the dot goes). This goes for no scoping far targets. Regardless of the size of the outer reticule, the dot is always the same. For me, it's never been about actual aiming at long distance unless the enemy doesn't see me. When in shot-for-shot combat at long distance, I just hover the dot on the level of the upper portion of the targets body and fire when it turns red. A smaller reticule makes it easier for me to do that. Especially since the "glow" of the bright color of the outer reticule doesn't aid in the obstruction of my view if the target decides to run far to the left or right. [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 21:20] reborn wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 11:07 Spoony wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 08:45 gimme puremode anyday tbh Says the guy who leads a team that recreates the mod on an entirely new game engine. People skin for a variety of reasons. One of the main ones is because they don't like the look or feel of the old version. So they make their own 'better' version. Renegade X is essentially "skinning" taken to the Xtreme! (lolpun)
[NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 20:20] reborn wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 11:07 Spoony wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 08:45 gimme puremode anyday tbh
nikki6ixx wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 19:07 pawkyfox wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 07:47 JohnDoe's post made me so embarrased that I deleted all my skins and sounds and reticle and clearscope. I am running pure now and it feels nice! Really? I run puremode, but you made some awesome skins. Why waste your work like that? =/ Thx! Well, I took em out of my data folder that is. My work is still there on my external hdd.
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 20:38 [color=royalblue]How can you tell me it's nonsense? You are not me. You don't know how I think nor do you know how I perceive surroundings or react to stimuli. How can you tell me that what I know I feel for a fact is wrong? Just read that out loud a few times and maybe you'll get it. This debate is clearly over.
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 20:38 How can you tell me it's nonsense? You are not me. You don't know how I think nor do you know how I perceive surroundings or react to stimuli. How can you tell me that what I know I feel for a fact is wrong? BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU FEEL IS ACTUALLY WHAT YOU FEEL HOW CAN YOU PROVE YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY KEANU REEVES WITH YOUR HEAD PLUGGED INTO A GIANT COMPUTER MEANT TO KEEP YOU COMPLACENT WHILE YOUR BODY HEAT POWERS A CYBORG ARMADA BENT ON DESTROYING HUMANITY? HOW DO YOU KNOW THE SECOND AND THIRD PART OF YOUR DELUSION DON'T TOTALLY SUCK?
R3 has a point, how he perceives things may be different. JohnDoe's post itself states that it boils down to "personal preference". How well the point has been made, however...
JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 03:33 R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 20:38 [color=royalblue]How can you tell me it's nonsense? You are not me. You don't know how I think nor do you know how I perceive surroundings or react to stimuli. How can you tell me that what I know I feel for a fact is wrong? Just read that out loud a few times and maybe you'll get it. This debate is clearly over. If you are referring to the word "fact," then you misread what I said. It's a fact that I perceive things the way I perceive them, not that I'm right in saying that smaller reticules are easier to use.
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 07 October 2009 19:35 JohnDoe wrote on Tue, 06 October 2009 03:33 R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 20:38 [color=royalblue]How can you tell me it's nonsense? You are not me. You don't know how I think nor do you know how I perceive surroundings or react to stimuli. How can you tell me that what I know I feel for a fact is wrong? Just read that out loud a few times and maybe you'll get it. This debate is clearly over. If you are referring to the word "fact," then you misread what I said. It's a fact that I perceive things the way I perceive them, not that I'm right in saying that smaller reticules are easier to use. Yes, just keep reiterating my original point that crosshairs boil down to personal preference...are you autistic? stfu already..
what's wrong with using a skin that isn't an advantage? some stuff just looks cool and people like seeing it
excatly i mean if wanna make ren look realistic ( like mine then theres no problem
Sir Kane wrote on Thu, 08 October 2009 18:13 Anyone voting 'No' is a fag. You're a fag.
GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Thu, 08 October 2009 18:13 Sir Kane wrote on Thu, 08 October 2009 18:13 Anyone voting 'No' is a fag. You're a fag. I voted 'yes', so I'm clearly not a fag.
Sir Kane wrote on Thu, 08 October 2009 18:15 GEORGE ZIMMER wrote on Thu, 08 October 2009 18:13 Sir Kane wrote on Thu, 08 October 2009 18:13 Anyone voting 'No' is a fag. You're a fag. I voted 'yes', so I'm clearly not a fag. Clearly you're in denial.
Sir Kane wrote on Thu, 08 October 2009 19:21 And I thought you're a cool dude! ! My bad. We can make up for it with some hot, gay sex. I mean video games.
clarification: The poll question is "Skins are stupid." The thread title is "Skins are for fags?" Therefore, voting yes or no doesn't declare you a fag or not. You can still be a fag for voting yes because of that loophole.
R3, my head exploded after I read that post.
pawkyfox wrote on Fri, 09 October 2009 16:53 R3, my head exploded after I read that post. rofl
I vote no, and I also think we shouldn't be talking about this. It will just end up in an OMG ADVANTAGE SKIN!! discussion. Iran wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 16:12 They're for American queers, yes. Ban please?
Sir Kane wrote on Thu, 08 October 2009 18:13 Anyone named 'Sir Kane' is a fag. well said
Glock~ wrote on Sat, 10 October 2009 23:58 I vote no, and I also think we shouldn't be talking about this. It will just end up in an OMG ADVANTAGE SKIN!! discussion. Iran wrote on Mon, 05 October 2009 16:12 They're for American queers, yes. Ban please? irans already been banned
How are skins stupid, I mean if you don't like how something looks, you have the choice to change it to anything you want! Mostly nod, I hate red so I changed it, Makes ren better for me, Its the skins and model replacements you choice that define if its stupid or not.
They are stupid because most of the remaining community has no sense of creativity or style. They throw random things together (that look horrible) and call it a work of art. Then they release and wonder why everyone hates them. Also, if you strictly follow the guidelines of what an 'advantage skin' is, then "making the game look better for me," is considered an advantage in itself. :V
R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 17 October 2009 04:53 Also, if you strictly follow the guidelines of what an 'advantage skin' is, then "making the game look better for me," is considered an advantage in itself. :V I disagree. The standard skins for characters and vehicles are quite bright themself. Bright red and bright gold. It's not hard to make something look better but less / just as bright for these. The moment people start to putting colours on timed c4 and beacons, however, that's different.
R315r4z0r wrote on Fri, 16 October 2009 21:53 They are stupid because most of the remaining community has no sense of creativity or style. They throw random things together (that look horrible) and call it a work of art. Then they release and wonder why everyone hates them. Also, if you strictly follow the guidelines of what an 'advantage skin' is, then "making the game look better for me," is considered an advantage in itself. :V Anything non-standard IS considered an advantage (Including transparent skins, you can see through the enemy) As far as I'm concerned, if you make/use a skin made strictly for improved visibility (considered advantage skin), YOU ARE A FAG. If you're one of the people that say "LOL ADVANTAGE BAN HIM/HER/OTHER" when this was not intended, you are a FAG. I've seen/made some skins that could help visibility but that was not the point (see Black GDI skin pack). Clear scopes, IMO, is an advantage that is rather annoying. I tried to make an awesome scope skin but it keeps coming up clear.
Yes, that's what I'm getting at. The level of degree to which it is an advantage doesn't hold any value in itself. The fact of the matter is that it is still an advantage. Regardless of if you use a skin to see people's heads better or to see C4 better or to see through walls or just to make it look more visually pleasing, it is still considered an advantage. Think of it this way: Everyone else has to suffer through looking at the bad textures, so what makes you any different? If you don't like the way the standard game, that everyone uses, looks, why isn't it considered an advantage to make it more visually appealing to yourself? Does that necessarily mean you are actually gaining any performance increases out of that advantage? No. But it still doesn't change the fact that you are tipping the game in favor of your preferences.
You can't change the texture's resolution, so in 2009 every texture you change will still look awkward...just take the game for what it is and stop being a homo.
JohnDoe wrote on Mon, 19 October 2009 07:48 You can't change the texture's resolution, so in 2009 every texture you change will still look awkward...just take the game for what it is and stop being a homo. Changing the color scheme and such can have some decent results, actually. A good example would be: http://www.renegadeforums.com/index.php?t=msg&th=34790&start=0&rid=2 0896 It's not overbearing, but it makes it more like how it should be. It's also easier on the eyes.
Is that a new map or just new textures/models? Still looks like a game that was technically outdated the day it shipped nearly 8 years ago...I believe it's time to look at this game in nostalgia instead of trying to cure a hopeless case of visual cancer.
Blasphemy. The W3D engine can handle way more than what was shown to us in the 2002 release of the game.
The W3D engine is capable of higher resolution textures and a few improved effects as shown in Renalert/Reborn, but you can't change Renegade like that without turning it into a mod...and even with the "improved graphics", these mods look hideous compared to Halo, which was released back in 2001. The W3D engine has the most messed up physics of any game I've ever played. I guess the vehicles behave OK in most battle situations, but jumping a Warthog still is lots of fun in 2009, while Renegade vehicles either seem ridiculously nose-heavy or strangely behave like a feather in the massive artillery's case. The character physics are nonexistent. Your character changes directions without slowing down at all and every engine since the release of Doom in 1993 has realized that you should be pushed back a bit if something (rocket/grenade/barrel) just exploded in your face. Renegade has great gameplay, but everything else is terrible...including the engine.
I'm not disagreeing that it's not the prettiest engine. But it is user friendly and opens up a lot of creativity for people. However, the only differences this engine has to a game like halo, is it's visual effects and physics. Halo had a light blending thing going on as well as bump/normal mapped textures. If Halo did not have these visual effects, it would look the same as it does on the W3D engine just because of the fact that you can't change how a model looks by looking at it through a different window. Models are models. They look the way they are designed to look in the modeling program (such as 3DsMax) You can't change their appearance or quality by putting them into different engines. I can extract a Halo map from Halo and put it in W3D and it would look the same. The only differences would be the obvious physics and visual effects such as bloom, shaders, and texture resolution.
So your point is that the W3D engine isn't worse than the Halo engine except for the things the Halo engine is better at??? And if you want modability, I heard there's this Unreal engine released in 98 that looks about as good as Renegade and became quite popular with modders...all that came of Ren were failed projects and gay server side mods.
Well, I just used the W3D engine as an example. My point was a 3D model can't be altered just by viewing it in a different game. Extracting Walls_Flying and putting it into Crysis wont make the map look any better.
...you have no clue what you're even arguing for...shut up.
You said that Halo, which was released about the same time as Renegade, looks much better than Renegade does. I'm saying that is only because of special visual effects, not specifically because of the engine. Models, are like images. Regardless of if you open an image in MSPaint, Photoshop, or Windows Image and Fax viewer, it will always look the same. It's the extra things done to it that make it seem different. That's why Halo looks better than Renegade. The W3D engine is capable of the same things, but Renegade didn't take it's capabilities into the fullest consideration.
If I out myself as a homosexual, does that mean I can use skins?
LeeumDee wrote on Wed, 21 October 2009 10:07 If I out myself as a homosexual, does that mean I can use skins? The no votes are ahead by a good bit... so I think it is safe to say skins are not limited to fags.
R315r4z0r wrote on Wed, 21 October 2009 09:58 You said that Halo, which was released about the same time as Renegade, looks much better than Renegade does. I'm saying that is only because of special visual effects, not specifically because of the engine. Models, are like images. Regardless of if you open an image in MSPaint, Photoshop, or Windows Image and Fax viewer, it will always look the same. It's the extra things done to it that make it seem different. That's why Halo looks better than Renegade. The W3D engine is capable of the same things, but Renegade didn't take it's capabilities into the fullest consideration. Shut up.