Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

101459

Members
  • Content Count

    622
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Everything posted by 101459

  1. I believe that there was an amazing confluence of opportunity, timing, talent, and game design that has not only made the 'original' Ghost Recon an exceptional high water mark in tactical realism game design, I think it may never happen again, may actually be something we should value, and a good thing! Ghost Recon was developed during and set at the height of the Cold War, where covert warfare peaked in terms of skill based tactical operator intervention. Not that this still isn't a thing today, but contemporary warfare, weapon systems and intervention are designed to obviate operator sk
  2. Not a fan of the WAPO, but I think they were actually generous in their rating of Ghost Recon Breakpoint. Ubisoft had EVERYTHING going their way, again; Wildlands wasn't 'all that' or even Ghost Recon really, but it had the right attraction, and a game design that was good enough. Ubisoft literally ignored all the most supported and vetted complaints and discussion on their forums, in fact did the opposite. In what other market or in what other company could you do that, even get away with it no less expect anything even remotely resembling a good result? I know of no company that treats its
  3. Glad to see mod talent is still here keeping the fire going. I think dropping mod support for the franchise was the biggest and most unrecoverable mistakes Ubisoft made; GRN is a great site, but there used to be thousands, in many languages, some were even GRNs equal -- surpassed it in some regards not as good in others... The lack of a current gen mod-able Ghost Recon game, the long term continuity that offered is something Tactical Realism fans value (look at ARMA) and is an enormous loss here to fans of the genre, as well as all the free marketing which is an enormous, and very well e
  4. Great article link and post ApexMods! I especially liked Jeremy Peel's reference to what used to be called Ghost Recon's 'Ghost Perspective', that this isn't and is not intended to be a first person perspective, and was something I wrote about decades ago in the context of 'there is no "I" in team' and the limitations of realistic scale view distance in realism games -- great to see someone else pick this up and ❤️ it from another well articulated perspective. Everyone here is obviously a fan of OGR has made this a great thread, even though we're 'not allowed' to talk about what's really
  5. The numbers rather suggest a lot of them were never here to begin with; many Ghost Recon fans saw what the game lacked, and never bought it. The numbers on the GRN forums show this too and are in decline with each iteration of the Ghost Recon franchise, and mirrors play share. None of this is surprising with Ubisoft continued heralding a return to the roots of Ghost Recon and tactical realism sounding more and more like little boy that cried "Wolf!", only now it's other publishers and even indie developers eating Ubisoft's lunch. I agree, but look at what else has disappeared from the
  6. Looks like Void Interactive is still hard at it; their latest Devblog 03 was just posted: (clicky) It's a relief to see serious Tactical Realism on the event horizon that's not a 'dress up combat Ken & Barbie ' RPG game to monetize naïve kids with toddler pajama pattern 'skins' and prono cos-play costumes on game design so abaft of realism, anything tactical or even to do with reality it makes you wonder why so many titles even use the word and moniker. Tiny ambitious team to be sure; but their talent, progress, content quality and prduciton volume looks like they're u
  7. So, "PVP" is just death match? No objective based realistic game modes?
  8. Not sure what you're referring to in the context of this game. While it's obvious many publishers believe that allowing free mod content, or improving what they regard as 'commodity product' intended to self-obsolesce (some even by developer admission incorporate design and flaws with this explicit intention) -- there's a lot to argue that this is not the most stable business model and certainly not the most healthy. Markets are replete with obvious examples in this and many other industries where self-obsolescence, finite life-cycle and pay to continue or expand what was already paid
  9. That their giving AI any attention at all is a relief in a realism market where FPS game AI hasn't made any significant advances in over a decade (sadly). While there may be nothing ground-breaking here the UE4 AI subsystem is very powerful, and if given enough time and attention can beat the snot out of the zerging zombie carnival targets that are marketed in 'realism' games as 'realistic' and 'tactical' and *cringe* 'authentic'... I like that that Void Interactive is focusing on explicit feature and design targets -- not vague hype, ridiculous prose, and hideous content they can sell you (L
  10. Void Interactive has posted their second dev blog -- lots of impressive attention to detail that some will love and others won't. They have a very nice HLS sight system: And very nice FF sound capture and render that's quite realistic in to small acoustic steridians: They're promising some actual game-play footage in their next dev blog. While CQC is not my or gonna be everyone's favorite realism sub-genre; it's definitely serious tactical realism, no Liberachie DLC, and it looks like they're seriously committed, making steady progress and fully intend to deliver
  11. Sorry Rocky, I won't accept responsibility for other people's 'bad feelings'... People's feelings and emotions are their responsibility not other people's... Do you or does Ubisoft accept responsibility for the ill will and disdain instigated by their dissembling, bad marketing, and lack of technical support? Not from what I've seen; it's a consenting arrangement -- no one is being forced to buy Ubisoft's games, just as no one is being forced to read my posts. Again? I've never posted anything on Ubisoft's forums to promote anything, they don't have a forum for posting about ot
  12. You're so far off the mark, and obviously have not read 'most' of my posts. I don't like Wildlands or Siege -- two games of how many that wear the 'Ghost Recon' moniker? I've even been very complementary of Siege's game design, which is quite good, but... I'm a Tactical Realism fan, I wouln't think I'd have to be an apologist for it here... There's literally nothing to like in terms of tactical realism in Wildlands, it's not a tactical realism game, and Siege runs on deplorable infrastructure -- that's not being negative those are facts.
  13. Ahh, I see and you're the final authority and abiter of what 'needs ' to be stated... Ok, have fun with your new moderation job... Just what is it pray tell EXACTLY that you object to so strenuously? Not the vague assertions of negativity -- what are you so hostile to?
  14. Petty? I don't know... Maybe, gaming is really pretty trivial stuff in the larger context of what's going on... But don't you find it a little ironic that on THE website that was THE locus of Tactical Realism Gaming, that discussion of Tactical Realism Gaming discussion is now only happening in the original Ghost Recon and other PC game forums?
  15. It's promising looking that's for sure; GR2 content on GR would be... An IMPORTANT scientific investigation that will require... Peer review... Lots of peer review!
  16. Your 'appreciation ' is not my concern; no where have I ever on any occasion -- said, suggested, or implied that 'my opinion is all that matters', ever, in my entire life, in text or words spoken; the assumption here is all yours. Own it... Those opinions I have expressed are opinions concerning the importance of facts, based on facts, and are mine alone, though with respect to Ubisoft's last decade of 'Clancy' games I'm far from alone in holding them, and am entitled to them -- maybe not in expressing them here, but that remains to be seen... I'm not sure how you define 'opinion ' b
  17. Fortunately tactical realism fans disappointed wtih Wildlands, Siege and other cartoon arcade games that promised more may not have too long wait -- there are Developers that understand the genre; Ready Or Not looks poised to fill the void -- check out their impressive Reveal Trailer... With none of the middle-ware limitations of Ubisoft games like their horrible mutant console derivative renderer, Quazal net-code that's literally the worst in FPS gaming in the last decade and only gets worse, match making systems also built on Quazal that put you in join for an asinine amount o
  18. I'd like to see a tactical realism mode with: · no RPG skill and load-out building or magic/fantasy Easter egg hunts for same · no respawn but add AI squad backup support for COOP & soul switching · flesh out some tactical node behavior in the bots so they're challenging · make the bots sound and light aware · play once vo and then off, or text mode narrative only option (it's truly horrible) That would take the game in a 'from the neck up ' direction where there's some play-ability beyond RPG for magic prize rewards for murder sprees and grind Easter egg hunts -- like th
  19. My disappointment with Wildlands is that it doesn't even offer token recognition of the tactical realism -- the popular genre the Tom Clancy and Ghost Recon monikers inaugurated. Wildlands is not in any way shape for form realistic or authentic; in fact if flies in the face of realism in just about every respect of game design. This isn't a value judgement, again it's a fact, just a few examples to illustrate this: · you have to grind and find magic pickups just to get a marginally realistic load-out · first gen fidelity night vision with a ghetto digital affectation -- pseudo fifty yea
  20. I'm glad you enjoyed the game but my take is different... I agree Wildlands can be fun... There I said it... But I do not feel it warrants the moniker 'Ghost Recon' -- perhaps just Wildlands, as is this is not Ghost Recon in any way, shape of form, and not a tactical realism game what so ever. A Tactical Realism is game design by definition and design requires realistic tactics to prevail, Wildlands does not under any circumstances require you to use any realistic tactics -- you may choose to, but that won't improve your chances of prevailing, in fact it will in many occasions slow you do
  21. I'm not sorry, but this approach to argument is a non sequitur. Constructive criticism is not hatred of people. Hard work and passion don't make a thing good, what it's promised to be, or even adequate. Lots of people work hard, I work hard; but telling my clients I worked hard and am passionate wouldn't be adequate if I didn't deliver. Pick your least favorite politician; is the fact they worked hard and are passionate adequate to your forgiving them and liking the fruits of their efforts? Would you pay Bunny Wishful to do your brain surgery because he's 'passionate and works hard' even thoug
  22. I think you are right. I also find it amazing that with Ubisoft owning rights to no less then four LSS game engines capable of this kind of scale; thousands of petabytes of repurposable content they can decorate maps in a game like this with, development and production teams the size they have to put to task, and the budgets they roll -- that this took four years, looks and plays the way it does. It is what it is, I just wish Ubsift would disabuse themselves of using the Tom Clancy, Ghost Recon and R6 monikers and calling it a 'franchise' (it's not) and similarly learn the meaning of the
  23. You missed my point entirely: Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon defined tactical realism, was designed and developed by Red Storm, which was bought by Ubisoft. Wildlands doesn't even give a token nod to any of the features that these games offered that defined the genera.
  24. Well different strokes... But what exactly are the 'tactical aspects of being a Ghost' that Laurent Fisher and company 'focused on '? All I see here is replication of GTA open world action realism with grind reward leveling for action/arcade/fantasy shooting sprees. There doesn't appear to be even a token nod to anything remotely 'tactical ' unless Ubisoft is redefining the word along with the franchise...
  25. Exactly, if it were a game I was actually excited about and looking forward to -- I could enjoy two years of suspense, and I'd be willing to pay even MORE for it. In this market I think Ubisoft could also make hay with a delay and capitalize with on it with good marketing. But I expect their model is churn oriented, they're a business with bills to pay and mouths to feed so this is what we get. As things are now, I'll probably wait till this goes on sale as there are games that are a lot more fun to play already in the wild, and more on the way. I'll just have to wait and look forwar
×
×
  • Create New...