Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums
moakes2783

The Good Old Days...

Recommended Posts

You guys remember when you played a mission in GR, you carefully considered every step, plotting and planning every movement over wide and varying terrain in order to have the upper hand on a challenging and often unforgiving enemy? What happened to that? That feeling of tension you felt, knowing that any wrong move could often prove fatal? That tension is long gone for me. As I bound from objective to objective, encountering the same scenario of a group of guys waiting to ambush me in one direction, just so that I can blow something up and then run off to my next task of 10 in a mission, I can't help but feel like a high-speed errand boy. It would seem these days players are content with scripted sequences and lots of incompetant enemies.

Remember when you used to praise GR for it's realism and attention to detail? I used to be quite impressed with the detailed textures and models, most of them modeled directly from real loadouts currently used in the field. Yeah, the game was set in the near future, but what was really catching was GR's similarity to present-day combat. Now, GR seems to be a medium for military speculation, as our Army's "concept programs" are being showcased as realistic. As I recall, the XM22, the M8 weapon system and Crye Multicam have all gotten the hatchet, and the Future Force Warrior suite as a fully functional and operational tool has been reshaped many times over since it's conception and has no definite future. Bottom line is that I didn't like GR1 because of it's soothe-saying qualities, but because it made me feel and think like I was in combat today. In fact, I believe the origin of having the events that take place in the future in most Red Storm games is to lend an heir of legitimacy to and cohesiveness with actual world events and circumstances. That's not the case, anymore. Now, apparently the best way to make a stealthy entry for a recon mission is to HALO jump INTO A CITY in the middle of the day! Nothing out of the ordinary about that, and what could be a safer LZ?

I guess I'm rambling, but stuff like this has been bothering me about the GR series since GRAW. I expect the transformation of military simulation to action/adventure for the console audience, but I don't know how so many old-school GR Boys can stomach the departure from reality the current UBI offering has taken the series. The game is a charicature of it's old self and I don't think it will ever move back in the other direction with any degree of significance. Guess it's time to let go of this series and move on, I guess. I have heard some good things about Armed Assault...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I do agree with what you are saying, I don't think this belongs in the GRAW 2 forum since you only mention [GR] and GRAW ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys remember when you played a mission in GR, you carefully considered every step, plotting and planning every movement over wide and varying terrain in order to have the upper hand on a challenging and often unforgiving enemy? What happened to that? That feeling of tension you felt, knowing that any wrong move could often prove fatal?

Yes, but you think it's missing here, you should see what's happened to the R6 series! I played R6:Vegas last night and for the one or two hours I played the campaign, I never died ONCE. It goes without saying that my longevity was not down to personal skill, far from it, I was almost doing it Rambo style, in fact, I was doing it Rambo style :unsure: I'm sure that'll send a shiver down the spine of all old school R6 fans.

So in light of that, by comparison, yes I do actually still feel the tension in GRAW, and the wrong move does prove fatal, over and over and over..... >_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys remember when you played a mission in GR, you carefully considered every step, plotting and planning every movement over wide and varying terrain in order to have the upper hand on a challenging and often unforgiving enemy? What happened to that? That feeling of tension you felt, knowing that any wrong move could often prove fatal?

Yes, but you think it's missing here, you should see what's happened to the R6 series! I played R6:Vegas last night and for the one or two hours I played the campaign, I never died ONCE. It goes without saying that my longevity was not down to personal skill, far from it, I was almost doing it Rambo style, in fact, I was doing it Rambo style :unsure: I'm sure that'll send a shiver down the spine of all old school R6 fans.

So in light of that, by comparison, yes I do actually still feel the tension in GRAW, and the wrong move does prove fatal, over and over and over..... >_<

I love the planing stage in Rogue Spear. I want it in GRAW2! Oh crap, that will never happen. The kids would be furious as they could never get into the game...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am the same way Rocky. I die very infrequently, yet I know that MY SKILLS have not improved THAT much!!!

After playing R6:V, it is apparent that GRiN did a far superior job ( with GR) than we may have realised in the beginning. I am still analyising RS Vegas........ :blush:

I hope GRiN will continue their success in this next edition. So far from what I have observed, it does look good.

It is apparent that the games are moving towards an "action" FPS, with tactics rather than a "tactical" FPS with some action.The "good old days" of the planning and making waypoints before you begin are sadly gone. Its plan on the fly now.

The only part about these two games ( that I kinda don't like), is the "necessity' for some initial action to take place while your "character" is alone, and trying to link up with his squad. I want to start with my squad, and finish with my squad.

Kingkat........................... :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ghost Recon, GRAW, R6, Raven Shield, they are all tactical shooters.

R6 Vegas and Gears of War are NOT tactical shooters and I hate when people atleast call Gears of War a tactical shooter just because you can order your team to attack, cease fire, or regroup. You can't tell them where to go or something like that, so it's not tactical at all IMO.

Also, you never need teamwork when you have auto-heal as in Vegas and Gears of War. I guess that's why you didn't die Rocky ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vegas was crap... sry I tried it at a lan party the other night and worse multiplayer on the X360 ever.

Gears of war was more tactical then vegas

Edited by Prozac360

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vegas was crap... sry I tried it at a lan party the other night and worse multiplayer on the X360 ever.

Gears of war was more tactical then vegas

That isn't really a fair comparison, GOW is pretty peerless on every level right now.

I enjoyed the vegas SP demo, myself. On the hard difficulty I had to make pretty good use of my team, and the system for calling targets and breaching rooms worked well. Enough variety to let you feel creative, and some neat tricks to keep you having fun (bashing windows instead of shooting when you're under one for cover is awesome,) but linear enough to keep the player on the right track through the entire game, and appeal to a really wide audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys remember when you played a mission in GR, you carefully considered every step, plotting and planning every movement over wide and varying terrain in order to have the upper hand on a challenging and often unforgiving enemy? What happened to that? That feeling of tension you felt, knowing that any wrong move could often prove fatal? That tension is long gone for me. As I bound from objective to objective, encountering the same scenario of a group of guys waiting to ambush me in one direction, just so that I can blow something up and then run off to my next task of 10 in a mission, I can't help but feel like a high-speed errand boy. It would seem these days players are content with scripted sequences and lots of incompetant enemies.

Remember when you used to praise GR for it's realism and attention to detail? I used to be quite impressed with the detailed textures and models, most of them modeled directly from real loadouts currently used in the field. Yeah, the game was set in the near future, but what was really catching was GR's similarity to present-day combat. Now, GR seems to be a medium for military speculation, as our Army's "concept programs" are being showcased as realistic. As I recall, the XM22, the M8 weapon system and Crye Multicam have all gotten the hatchet, and the Future Force Warrior suite as a fully functional and operational tool has been reshaped many times over since it's conception and has no definite future. Bottom line is that I didn't like GR1 because of it's soothe-saying qualities, but because it made me feel and think like I was in combat today. In fact, I believe the origin of having the events that take place in the future in most Red Storm games is to lend an heir of legitimacy to and cohesiveness with actual world events and circumstances. That's not the case, anymore. Now, apparently the best way to make a stealthy entry for a recon mission is to HALO jump INTO A CITY in the middle of the day! Nothing out of the ordinary about that, and what could be a safer LZ?

I guess I'm rambling, but stuff like this has been bothering me about the GR series since GRAW. I expect the transformation of military simulation to action/adventure for the console audience, but I don't know how so many old-school GR Boys can stomach the departure from reality the current UBI offering has taken the series. The game is a charicature of it's old self and I don't think it will ever move back in the other direction with any degree of significance. Guess it's time to let go of this series and move on, I guess. I have heard some good things about Armed Assault...

agree completely, well said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sup you would agree with everything a developer does.

Even though the LAN party was a HALO event at the end of the day we tossed in R6 to get some good coop going on.

While the loading screen was going on.... statements from the other guys like " This is a Clancy game guys dont run n gun or you will die" and then playing for about 20-30 minutes the other guys were wondering what happened to that dont run n gun type of gameplay.

I didn't even open my mouth just listened carefully. Their opinions not like I was forcing mine on them. Hell they were halo guys to.

Needless to say we all got really bored taking 20 rounds before dieing and slaughtering dumb ai and went back to gears of war.

Edited by Prozac360

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys remember when you played a mission in GR, you carefully considered every step, plotting and planning every movement over wide and varying terrain in order to have the upper hand on a challenging and often unforgiving enemy? What happened to that? That feeling of tension you felt, knowing that any wrong move could often prove fatal?

Yes, but you think it's missing here, you should see what's happened to the R6 series! I played R6:Vegas last night and for the one or two hours I played the campaign, I never died ONCE. It goes without saying that my longevity was not down to personal skill, far from it, I was almost doing it Rambo style, in fact, I was doing it Rambo style :unsure: I'm sure that'll send a shiver down the spine of all old school R6 fans.

So in light of that, by comparison, yes I do actually still feel the tension in GRAW, and the wrong move does prove fatal, over and over and over..... >_<

I love the planing stage in Rogue Spear. I want it in GRAW2! Oh crap, that will never happen. The kids would be furious as they could never get into the game...

That is what i loved so much about R6, Id spend like 20 minutes just making the plan!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in light of that, by comparison, yes I do actually still feel the tension in GRAW, and the wrong move does prove fatal, over and over and over..... >_<

I'll go you one further. Even without the comparison I think GRAW is a really underappreciated tactical title. It most certainly still has the tension like you said and I definitely consider every step. The only drawback is that the quicksave system mean that you often have to run through a large segment of the mission where you already know where all the bad guys are and what you have to do to kill them. So, by the 3rd or 4th run-through, the tension is far lower and unfortunately that sticks with you. Want a real challenge though? Try playing any mission on hard with a DiD policy. (if you die, you stop playing!) Talk about tension.

As for realism, I'm quite happy with Snowfella's M4 mod and have yet to use the M8. (although I occasionally use the compact version) Either way, I consider weapon accuracy to be the least significant of realism issues and won't complain until they add a BFG twirling laser or an anti-gravity gun. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO GRAW is quite fun in MP. I really feel the tension since you really don't know where the enemy is. When I walk around the maps in MP my heart really beats fast, I'm not kidding. When someone shoots me I almost jump of my chair :)

Now that's how tension should be in any game. To bad it's gone in GRAW SP now when you know where the enemy is. Better luck next time GRIN :thumbsup:

Edited by Hockeystick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those days aren't over, they are just taking a vacation. ;)

The premise and execution of the GRAW games is great, but evolved a considerable amount, in my opinion, from the originals. The same can be said for the R6 series as well. That original design philosophy and love of the core gameplay mechanics are alive and well in one particular place.

Stay tuned.

Sounds tasty! :drool:

You guys remember when you played a mission in GR, you carefully considered every step, plotting and planning every movement over wide and varying terrain in order to have the upper hand on a challenging and often unforgiving enemy? What happened to that?

Oh yeah. After playing the demo, thinking it was a little too indepth of a game for me, the whole soul switching thing was new for me, then trying it a little more, I got hooked when the sniper started taking people out on his own from a concealed location, a couple of guys sneaking up on my position from around the castle wall. WOW. Went out and bought the game the next day. First mission took me an insane amount of time to complete because I was so careful and scared every step of the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vegas was crap... sry I tried it at a lan party the other night and worse multiplayer on the X360 ever.

Gears of war was more tactical then vegas

I couldn't disagree more. Neither game is terribly tactical, but I was running and gunning a lot more in GOW than I did in Vegas. How can you possibly say it has the worst multiplayer on 360? The persistent ranking system, the different game modes, 16 players, unlockables, it has the making of Battlefield and yet you think it's the worst multiplayer ever?

Give me some reasons, I'm really curious. IGN did their weekly Live special on how much fun Vegas is. Your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You nailed it moakes2783; I said something similar a few months ago that sort of summed up my feelings, the reaction I was seeing from Ghost Recon to GRAW, and summed it up this way:

Fundamentally I think the differences and the disappointment in GRAW stem from 'possibility' -- when anything: a relationship, a novel, a film, a game, even your job ceases to exists for you in terms of it's possibilities and instead primarily exists in terms of limitations -- most people become frustrated, disappointed, estranged, disenfranchised, or even angry...

[Ghost Recon] came with more level designs, depicting wildly varying settings then sets in an epic block-buster movie... Rich in detail, complex Foley, atmospheric weather and monochromatic light effects; [GR]'s maps alone were a testament of possibility... But there was more, a lot more: more game modes then all other realism shooters at it's release offered combined! More weapons, more game features, more detail... The list goes on...

Sophisticated real time tactical way-pointing, a fundamental game design and theme that made every replay a new experience that allowed vastly and completely different approaches to game-play with each replay -- from 'balls-to-the-walls and hairy solo assaults', to 'don't be spotted or leave a trace in achieving your objective'; no killing required... Ghost Recon was the only game that could replicate the game-play of just about any other realism game, even those that appeared five years later -- yet never needed to because it set a standard.

Then there's [GR]'s mod capability that probably by both design and chance happened to allow an almost idea depth of mod capability, opening the door to nearly a quarter of a million mods and total conversions while keeping a familiar and internally consistent level of realism across the retail game, mods and total conversions.

GRAW by contrast has one setting (Mexico City), one aesthetic (Urban, Mexico City), limits to squad strength (four men), limits to objective approach (linear objective path play), limits to the kind of tactics (high volume killing/inflicted casualty required as part the objective)... There's little stealth (other then stealthy killing), none of the advanced/alternative game modes, and no where near the depth and variation of game-play possibility...

Another conspicuous limitation is GRAW's limited modable feature set and the ease with which it can be modded. Though there's still room for hope here; at least one decisive tool to modding (a DXE Decompiler) remains out of reach as the only individual with the talent and ambition to create one has fallen off the radar for some months without a word...

There is a lot to love about GRAW PC, it a unique game, with unique new perspective on realistic weapon handling, player movement, and all-around game feel. The Diesel engine is capable of some incredible effects, detail, and while not presently accessible to modding, appears to be technically very mod capable...

All that said, I like GRAW, but could like it a lot more -- and perhaps if and when mods are able to exploit more of it's capability we might realize something new in terms of what the game offers, rather then what it doesn't... For example: due to some of the advanced render capabilities it's obviously going to push the net-code too hard to put a lot of players in a game together, but perhaps four is enough if each man can control a squad of AI... That could make for some really spectacular COOP I should think, even if it is just four real players.

It appears that GRAW's render design is geared for BSP like render limitations, i.e. vis constrained urban settings rather then large sprawling LSS outdoor settings. If that's the case, mod tools allowing; perhaps it's would be more effective to take GRAW mods along a path closer to Rogue Spear then it's namesake -- Ghost Recon...

All in all, whatever the longer term outcome with GRAW -- I'm glad we have it, glad it has shaped up as well as it has, and I feel fortunate from what I'm reading that there was a team like GRIN behind it.

I don't think we're going to see anything gratifying along the lines your or my posts discusses from Ubisoft for the foreseeable future -- though I'd love to be wrong...

The good news is Armed Assault really does a good job of filling the void, and there are at least three more titles in the mill that have game design goals similar to Ghost Recon. So I think there's finally cause for some optimism as there's stuff 'out there' on the event horizon.

:santa:

Edited by Waika

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You guys remember when you played a mission in GR, you carefully considered every step, plotting and planning every movement over wide and varying terrain in order to have the upper hand on a challenging and often unforgiving enemy? What happened to that? That feeling of tension you felt, knowing that any wrong move could often prove fatal? That tension is long gone for me."

That was the essence that is now last lost. Couldnt describe better.

Ah the good times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give me some reasons, I'm really curious. IGN did their weekly Live special on how much fun Vegas is. Your opinion?

My opinion is that bringing IGN into this isn't really helping our point. :rofl:

Anyway, Prozac, I'm not completely disagreeing with you. If I also had Gears, Halo or GR1/graw on hand Vegas would definitely be my last choice. I just don't think it's fair to label perfectly valid design choices as 'crap' simply because they don't appeal to you in particular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give me some reasons, I'm really curious. IGN did their weekly Live special on how much fun Vegas is. Your opinion?

My opinion is that bringing IGN into this isn't really helping our point. :rofl:

Anyway, Prozac, I'm not completely disagreeing with you. If I also had Gears, Halo or GR1/graw on hand Vegas would definitely be my last choice. I just don't think it's fair to label perfectly valid design choices as 'crap' simply because they don't appeal to you in particular.

I think, as an ex-military son of a ######, that modding is long gone in these future titles.

Shame

Tinker

:cowboy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another post that does an especially good job of articulating what Ghost Recon was, and is especially germane to this thread is this excellent post by SimDooD:

I’ve been mulling this over and over for some time, and so finally decided to get it down here.

From a gaming perspective, I’ve been using [GR] since it came out, and also loved Operation Flashpoint. I’ve tried many other games that have come out as well, but they all end up being uninstalled. [GR] is the only game I have installed on my PC, I just wish the rigours of work allowed me more time with my Alpha Squad brothers than I have been able to commit in recent times. The rest of the games just haven’t met expectation.

Anyway, on with the post…..

Hands up if you’ve read a Tom Clancy novel (me sir!). Hmmmm, that’s quite a few of you!

For me, the reason these novels are so great is the subtlety of what goes on in the story. The intricacies of diplomacy and action that are designed to take you on a journey where the success or failure of situations, that could impact globally, can be dependent on a single decision by key people. All of the decisions and the following actions are conducted in a covert way to influence outcomes, by people who do not seek nor want any recognition, but understand the need for utmost secrecy so as to not “rock the boat†and achieve a favourable outcome, BEFORE they reach world prominence.

And along came “Ghost Recon†(the game)….

Ghost (n) : a faint shadowy trace.

Recon(naissance) (n) : an exploratory military survey of an enemy territory or position.

Doesn’t those terms just beautifully sum up the experience of “Ghost Recon� To me it does.

We had locations we’d never heard of, missions that required thought before action, and outcomes that were satisfying to us but we didn’t have a street parade to celebrate. The subtlety of the game completely embodied the ideals of the books in all aspects and gamers fell in love with it, as evidenced by the strong following it still has. These subtleties carried over to DS and IT, and despite the early technical issues that manifested itself in [GR], the game was so unique as compared to anything else, that we worked through the issues (good and bad) to where we are today.

Ghost Recon as a “game brand†had been firmly cemented for most of us, and for me it is why I still play it, because it gives me exactly what I want in terms of style of play and the subtleties of intrigue and decision-making etc (not forgetting the wider community either, it’s a big part of it).

Now we have been presented with Ghost Recon : Advanced Warfighter….

Well, right from the start when I saw the new game title, alarm bells began to ring. “Ghost Recon†and “Advanced Warfighterâ€; two phrases that are so diametrically opposed, that I knew something was going to be wrong here.

Ghost Recon was about subtle, early intervention against the odds, to prevent escalation. The GR:AW storyline is set in an environment where the opportunity for early intervention has already passed. We have a team of soldiers working in an environment where the world knows what is going on, in a location we’ve mostly heard about, doing stuff that would probably be done by a team of Special Forces. The whole scenario is being played out in an environment of overt operations, no matter how sneaky you do things.

On that point alone, and going back to my dictionary definitions, I see the use of the “Ghost Recon†to be totally redundant.

One can only wonder why they used it. Some will say, “to sell more copies†and well, maybe it is, BUT…..

We are Ghost Recon brand junkies, so our Nirvana is having any game that bears the name Ghost Recon have the same subtleties we have enjoyed for years. They could have added absolutely no new features, and just updated the graphics, and most of us would have been happy.

The second issue is around the technical issues we have seen so far. Now think back to [GR] and the technical issues it had. Sure, they were frustrating but we had a very special game, and were willing to do anything we could to get it right. The result has been years of happy gaming. Now with GR:AW we have a game that has technical issues, and I’m sure that we would all like to get them sorted, but to me these problems are greatly compounded by the fact that we don’t have a true Ghost Recon game that satisfies the GR brand junkies needs.

Taking all technical issues out of the equation, I have tried and tried to find a common ground between [GR] and GR:AW in terms of what made me love [GR] so much. I cannot find it. Solving technical issues is not going to make the “magic formula†of [GR] return unless we are given enough control to make it like the [GR] we know so well.

What Ubi needs to understand is where the brand equity lies. It’s not with them; it’s with the game. If GR:AW had been released without the “GR†bit and by another publisher, it would have rapidly gone the same way as Soldner and other games that were supposed to “break new ground†and the like, and we would have just continued playing what we love.

Unfortunately we’re not getting the “GR†bit, and that’s a shame. The community here wants to see the “Ghost Recon†bit in the game for all the RIGHT reasons.

Give us back the legend of the “Ghostâ€!

After some comments, questions and a generally favorable response he then followed up with:

Actually, that would be a part of it, but there's a lot more....

I go back again to the definitions of "Ghost" being what they were, and "Recon" being what they did. Couple that with WHEN they did it is where we start to understand the essence of what needs to be achieved.

Ghosts were a pre-emptive taskforce designed to stop problems arising. GR:AW is about fixing problems after they happen, which is better suited to a different style of soldier.

The Ghosts were ultimately responsible for their own actions that were made out in the field. They weren't spoon fed with intel updates, they were free to make tactical decisions as required, not as dictated. You cannot be a Ghost with a small drone flying somewhere overhead working in an environment where you are expected, by the enemy, to be showing up. And that's just it, the Ghosts were NOT exepected, they evaluated the scenarios, and made appropriate responses.

GR:AW has that as well to a degree, but only within specific boundaries.

I say again, the technical issues would be all but a "no problem" if the essence of the "Ghost" and "Recon" intact. The real issues rise in the fact that technical and game dynamics issues are both not working, and look at the result

Gimme my Ghost!

Since Ubisoft really isn't doing much of anything to market and support the PC Clancy games, I wish they'd just let GRIN do their own thing, and let the PC Clancy game design diverge from Console games the way they always have... In my guts I really thing GRIN 'gets it', knows how to build the game we want, but is strapped with making a game to serve Ubi Marketing's idiotic plan...

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in light of that, by comparison, yes I do actually still feel the tension in GRAW, and the wrong move does prove fatal, over and over and over..... >_<

I'll go you one further. Even without the comparison I think GRAW is a really underappreciated tactical title. It most certainly still has the tension like you said and I definitely consider every step. The only drawback is that the quicksave system mean that you often have to run through a large segment of the mission where you already know where all the bad guys are and what you have to do to kill them. So, by the 3rd or 4th run-through, the tension is far lower and unfortunately that sticks with you. Want a real challenge though? Try playing any mission on hard with a DiD policy. (if you die, you stop playing!) Talk about tension.

As for realism, I'm quite happy with Snowfella's M4 mod and have yet to use the M8. (although I occasionally use the compact version) Either way, I consider weapon accuracy to be the least significant of realism issues and won't complain until they add a BFG twirling laser or an anti-gravity gun. :P

GRAW is Tactical? how do you figure? [GR] atleast allowed for modders to put grid overlays on the commandmap. How can you tell your team where you are grid wise? "I'm at the 7 eleven, back aisle by the dorrito stand with the pony keg of Heineken beer. GRAW, the leader can't even plot a spot on the map for a teammate to go to. why? because there's no leader delegated in GRAW. [GR] the team delegated a leader and he controlled where each person went. The leader can see where his team is in relation to grid coordinates. GRAW you see a teammate all the way across the map and have no idea who the hell it is. tactical ...um erm no. a run and shoot, yeah as all folks can do is run and shoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GRAW is Tactical? how do you figure? [GR] atleast allowed for modders to put grid overlays on the commandmap. How can you tell your team where you are grid wise? "I'm at the 7 eleven, back aisle by the dorrito stand with the pony keg of Heineken beer. GRAW, the leader can't even plot a spot on the map for a teammate to go to. why? because there's no leader delegated in GRAW. [GR] the team delegated a leader and he controlled where each person went. The leader can see where his team is in relation to grid coordinates. GRAW you see a teammate all the way across the map and have no idea who the hell it is. tactical ...um erm no. a run and shoot, yeah as all folks can do is run and shoot.

Errm... I am an almost exclusively offline player in GRAW (and was for the limited time I played [GR] too) and was referring only to that aspect where the absence/presence of a grid is quite irrelevant. And quite frankly offline, I find GRAW as tactical if not more so than [GR] - for one thing, you can't count on ghost switching to safeguard your plans.

Still, having played many other online games, let me address the online aspect. Thing is, I sincerely believe that the tactical (or otherwise) nature of a game is not determined by the game's mechanics. e.g. we did not have a numbered grid in IL-2 at first, so our squad printed out navigational maps and stuck them next to our monitors. Even when the developer adopted a grid that mirrored our own creations in-game, we still managed to improve upon it by using subgrids for further accuracy. We adopted proper wingman and schwarm tactics and even a complete command heirarchy with OpOrders, Frag Orders, ATC procedures, etc... In contrast, there were (and still are) servers limited to mindless furballing down in the weeds. And yet, it's the exact same game. (and even sometimes the exact same people, just on a bad day ;) )

In other words, "tactical" gameplay, when it comes to multiplayer at least, is more a function of the people playing than the game itself. At least that's my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GRAW is Tactical? how do you figure? [GR] atleast allowed for modders to put grid overlays on the commandmap. How can you tell your team where you are grid wise? "I'm at the 7 eleven, back aisle by the dorrito stand with the pony keg of Heineken beer. GRAW, the leader can't even plot a spot on the map for a teammate to go to. why? because there's no leader delegated in GRAW. [GR] the team delegated a leader and he controlled where each person went. The leader can see where his team is in relation to grid coordinates. GRAW you see a teammate all the way across the map and have no idea who the hell it is. tactical ...um erm no. a run and shoot, yeah as all folks can do is run and shoot.

Exactly...

But not only that; [GR] more then allowed for realistic navigation, and tactical communication that benefited from it; [GR] offered missions that had a larger strategic and tactical context then just eliminating the opposition. In [GR] you could often accomplish a mission with little or no killing using stealth, diversion (I've used moving my squad AI around, and worked with real players to move enemy AI around), and counter-flanking maneuver.

The larger scale of [GR] alone encouraged more open-ended, non-linear, and sophisticated mission/game-design, and cocomitent game-play with the same benefits in depth and realism. Add realistic navigation aids, real-time tactical way-pointing, squad equipping -- and in [GR] you have a platform for realistic tactical land combat simulation, gaming and everything in between.

GRAW, nice game that it is; is a single setting, urban CQC/B shooter, with finite multi-path gauntlet based death-match play to reach simple either/or objectives. I had rather hoped GRAW was going to offer more then space-man aesthetics and some cool player/weapon interface metrics; i.e. take [GR] to the next level of complex, realistic scenario on scenario and complex multiple outcome objectives. That ----------- unfortunately, is just not the case...

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game is a charicature of it's old self and I don't think it will ever move back in

the other direction with any degree of significance.

All you've said are right but this phrase is the essence of all! Just the name is still

there ... I remember weeks at this board where everyday a new mod for GR was

released.

Armed Assault is nice and looks very well but it's not the same. In very much things

in my eyes GR was avantgarde. The preperation menü, the loadout, the different

and various character models, the leveldesign, the navigation ingame - just to name

a few! But all in all GR had atmosphere.

These days I see more quantity than quality.

Ghost Recon gives me five years of excellent entertainment! Ghost Recon is dead,

long live Ghost Recon ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good comments / discussion in this thread! Funny remarks:

"Ghost Recon" & "Advanced Warfighter" are basically opposites in meaning...alarm bells rang just hearing the title.

How can there be tactical / stealth (common sense) in sending a recon team into a large city via HALO drop :rofl: !

"As I bound from objective to objective, encountering the same scenario of a group of guys waiting to ambush me in one direction, just so that I can blow something up and then run off to my next task of 10 in a mission, I can't help but feel like a high-speed errand boy." :wall:

Of interest...

You guys remember when you played a mission in GR, you carefully considered every step, plotting and planning every movement over wide and varying terrain in order to have the upper hand on a challenging and often unforgiving enemy? What happened to that [and to the] textures and models...modeled directly from real loadouts currently used in the field?
[Answer:] Those days aren't over, they are just taking a vacation. ;) That original design philosophy and love of the core gameplay mechanics are alive and well in one particular place. Stay tuned. -John
Any updates... :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×