Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums
Sign in to follow this  
bigmilt16

FSW or GR2?

Recommended Posts

how do you guys think Full Spectrum Warrior would stack up to GR2, esp. considering all of the changes GR2 is supposed to have from GR1?

I know its strictly an urban warfare game and it deals with full infantry tactics and action, rather than clandestine warfare, but I just got it and I was blown away at the amount of realism and fun I had playing this. I've been playing GR1 since its incranation, many years ago, and it was such a breath of fresh air for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Choose well, and remember that Full Spectrum Warrior is a Real Time Strategy game. You never 'pull the trigger' but instead direct fire teams on where to focus.

I've played FSW, and it is compelling, but it has little in common with Ghost Recon, as a game. If you are the sort who lived for ordering fire teams around in GR, but were content with relying on the AI for the actual shooting, FSW is for you. It's better than GR1 in fact, for those of that bent.

If you crave real frontline control, and want to pull the trigger, FSW is likely not for you, although the Warcraft/Starcraft fans may still find some degree of pleasure from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battlefield 2 looks to be promising. Looks like GR but better graphics. We'll have to wait and see though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question concerning FSW--When is it's PC release date scheduled and what type of MP will it run? I understand in SP you direct the team, what about in MP?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand in SP you direct the team, what about in MP?

Thanks

Well from what I understand, and I could be wrong, but its two man co-op. One player controls one of the fire teams, wile another player controls another one of the fire teams and they work together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sart is right, at least as far as the released Xbox version's MP, and I seriously doubt this will change for the PC release. Two player co-op, each controlling a single fire team as a commander.

As for the PC release date, I believe it's early November.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darn, every game comes out in sept. to dec.! Every game that I want. Not enough time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings feloow Ghosts!

This is not in any way meant to burst anyone's bubble, but it just happens that my brother picked up FSW for the Xbox and unless they plan on an overhaul for the PC version, I will have to pass on this one. It's unfortuneate as I was really looking forward to this release.

Visually, the game looks specatcular and can only inprove for the PC. The tactics (MOUT) that are used are very well done. I was impressed at my AI teamates actually doing things like.....taking cover ;). The interface is simple and intuitive, they really did a nice job on this one.

The game "says" that you have multiple tactics that you can use, but usually its set up nicely for you like conveniently placed cover, or flanking lanes. The campaign seems like one big repeat scenario after the other. Locate enemy, find cover, move from cover, flank, eliminate, rinse and repeat. You can't go into buildings unless the mission script calls for you to "pass through one" even if someone is firing at you from a rooftop! The enemy AI is ridiculously horrid. the funniest thing I saw was when I lobbed a grenade and it landed at the AI's feet. He screamed in panic and then stood there until it blew him to pieces! lol

All in all, a lot of scripted events means no replay value, I can't see a lot of Mod potential due to the linearness(is that a word?) and the scripted events, and controlling the 2 fireman teams is really easy. Co-op is a snore as you only control one team, so you only have half the work. Short??! I finished it on a Sunday when I was bored, just over 10hrs. To get my money, you need more than a, a short, linear, scripted, non-moddable, easy game. It's too bad. Stack this up to yet another game that doesn't live up to its potential.

Just my opinion Some people may really like this game. For them, I say have fun!

PrimusPilus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers PrimusPilus

I've got my eye on FSW & your review has food for thought. Wouldn't it be great if a developer combined the squad tactics of FSW with a realistic FPS game. :yes:

oh! hold on!!! that reminds me of a game that came out a few years back. errmmm Ghost Recon I think It's called. All it needed was destructable enviroment, better AI & uptodate graphics & it would rock....

Oh well I guess it's not to be :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All it needed was destructable enviroment, better AI & uptodate graphics & it would rock....

Hell, just double the AI and it'd be a breath of fresh air for my Ghost Recon 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSW's single player campaign is pretty repetitive,BUT there is a code for the actual army version of the game,where the AI is not scripted,and you can modify the settings such as wind speed,AI presence,number civilians,tons of stuff,and a lot of customization.You can also go indoors on some of the levels,as on the others version you can't.The code is in the official xbox magazine,and a couple of cheat sites.I will not never trade in this game just because of the army version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have FSW and have completed the scenario in two difficulty levels. Currently doing it in Authentic mode.

FSW has to be seen as a tech demonstrator and it's followups have to be changed a lot to make the sim really good. Replayability value is low and MP is like SP mostly.

The common whinge about "It's not a FPS and I can't kill things" is from people who haven't grasped the concept. If someone says "It's too easy" ask him at what difficulty he played it.

A big error from THQ is the "Seargent" setting (easy) as most players complete the game on that level and then dump the game. Sgt Major or Authentic are the manly settings :o=

I made a wishlist on http://forums.xbox.com :

Many are implemented in Happyturtle (Army mode) mode but I put them here anyway

My squad members:

1. They should get more experienced and accurate after some time in the field.

2. Casualties are allowed as it's unrealistic to expect no losses. (look at Iraq) See below before commenting here :)

The enemy:

1. Random OPFOR on maps

2. OPFOR applying tactics (charging, moving under cover..)

3. Large number of OPFOR

4. Technicals (vehicles) more common

5. Booby traps, mines

Maps:

1. A large open city where you can roam freely.

2. No scripted sequences.

The Simulation:

1. A large ongoing campaign with the goal of removing the terrorist organisation from the city. The city is held 100% from the start by the enemy and must be cleared by the Allies block by block. Large numbers of forces work simultaneously and your squad is just a part of the ongoing war (Falcon 4 is the inspiration here). You get objectives from high command depending on where you are needed and if you can move to the location. A roster of available missions is always up. If you must skip one then other assets will be assigned instead. When you request airsupport you might have to wait if no aircraft are available. CASEVAC positions change during the campaign as the front is moved.

The campaign in general becomes a failure if your squad keeps failing it's objectives. And goes better when the opposite is true. Casualties in the unit are replaced by rookies direct from training so it pays off to keep everyone alive. Orders that get 50% of the squad killed will land you in a court martial.

Posted by Fission:

"just started commanding the frontier with fsw, and it got me thinking. as far as i can tell, all the action takes place outdoors. i'd like to see the boys go on joint operations supporting the sas (best special forces in the world) (patriotic bias). you could do all the outdoor stuff with alpha and bravo, have them clear areas and provide fire support, them switch to the sas (or delta, gsg9, etc) and use them to assault interior locations, assassinate enemy leaders and the like, then have them exfiltrate with alpha and bravo providing cover. then you have to exfil with alpha and bravo. failing that, just some indoor stuff. what do you guys think?"

IMO this game needs as many sales as possible. THQ (the developer) has to see that they have a winner here that they can keep developing for their fans. If this game dies, the FPS "rail" shooters will win the market and all alternatives die out. If you have tried the sim and like it you should buy it. If you can't afford it (for any reason) then at least post everywhere about how good this is as a concept. Spread the word! Don't let this tactical simulation go the way GR2 went :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I havn't played FSW, but I have seen it played quite a few times. Its pretty popular here in Petawawa (Cdn Army Base). I'm glad to hear PrimusPilus point out a few thigns about FSW that I generally hate in games, namely linear gameplay. I tend to call these games "Tube shooters", because its like you're walking down a tube where bad guys pop out at you on your predetermined route. But the concept still looks pretty cool.

Imagine what could be done if you take the team controlling system from FSW and put it in a GR environment with a First Person option. Or maybe let a Ghost Recon style game where you can toggle your teams to go into a Black Mode and a Green Mode on the fly and at any point in the mission. In Green Mode your troops would move and act like they would in a wooded area, doing fire and movement and hitting the prone on contact. In Black Mode your troops would behave as if in an urban area, with AI similar to that found in Ravenshield. Orders could be given in the third person, like in FSW to replace or supplement GR's command map.

Green Mode would allow some fast paced "react to ambush", "break contact" and "fire and movement". You would be able to focus on using your team to its full abilities while your troops hold off the enemy assult for second. Then when you've given your orders you could switch back into first person and fight your way through. From the 3rd person view you could use an interface similar to Ravenshield's "open door commands", that let you order your teammates to frag rooms and so on. Commands like "covering!!", "take a bound!!", and "shift left!!" would be awsome in a game like this.

In Black Mode the 3rd person commands would be more similar to those in FSW and RVS. When outdoors, you could order your troops to stack up on a corner and use proper drills for crossing streets. When indoors the commands would build off those already present in RVS. Again, you would need to be able to switch to 1st person view once orders are given and your waiting to press the zulu go code.

A realistic military game would need to accept and embrace the fact that FIBUA (or MOUT) is quite a bit different then traditional field stuff. There are somethings that mean survival in one evnvironment, but would be suicide in others. Simple stuff like movement formations, and spacing between troops make all the difference.

Of course, this game would have to be very open ended. modding is important, as well as big maps with no scripted paths you need to take.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×