something missing in the immersion factor.

[Lightspeed]

I have been racking my brains trying to work out what it is in this game that doesn't make it as heart pumping or 'in the moment' as Ghsot Recon was/is.

Yes, I am enjoying it so far, but there was something about launching into a GR game of any sort, COOP or MP that would excite me, lift the heart rate, and the moment I spawned in I was zoned in to what lay ahead.

And I'm just not getting that at the moment.

Remember the first time you launched into Caves in Ghost Recon - the graffix weren't near as good as GRAW2 but it was pure adrenalin.

Every now and then I get capped unexpectedly which make me jump and I love that.

Maybe I'm just a veteran of the FPS now, so like the first tiem you have a drug, its never as good the next time round. But then, I played Rogue Spear and Urban Ops for years before that, and GR was still sumthin new.

I would like people to offer their explanations and maybe we can give GRIN sumthin to work on to take it to its inevitable next level.

I'll start with -

1. The Characters - I feel that while the landscape is incredible, the enemy to me looks very robotic and like one of the Ghosts except for the few guys Ive seen wearing the paramilitary clothing. The Paramilitary clothing makes them look like humans not like bots..and quite frankly I'm here to hunt a human enemy - something that looks realistic.

2. Frags - I want the AI who spot you or know your approximate location to be prepared and actively try to remove you from your cover with frags - not a lot but in GR the enemy would often toss a frag in the direction of the Ghost who shot an enemy to either kill him or force him to move to new cover. In addition, they would bear down on the Ghosts from multiple angles.

They are 2 factors, but I still don't think hit the nail on the head....surely someone must know.

[Sleepdoc-iBeta]

Maybe I'm just a veteran of the FPS now, so like the first tiem you have a drug, its never as good the next time round.

Your comparison of the thrill of gaming (and its decrease in thrill over time) to drugs is probably not that far off. And this is likely a big part of what you are feeling.

The 2 "drugs" wel known to form during gaming are Endorphins (a morphine like molecule) from the central nervous system and Epinephrine (adrenaline) from the adrenal glands (they sit on top of your kidneys).

These are powerful substances and have a differnt levels of 'addictiveness" from person to person. It is likely a genetic componenet in so far as how each individual reacts to the addictiveness of these molecules.

did you know that the US medical officials recently debated whether or not to add "gaming addiction' to the DSM-4 (a list of recognized pshychiatric and personality disorders allowable as valid diagnosis)? They chose to put the debate on hold for now, until more evidence is collected, however they are certainly considering it.

So although there maybe certain gameplay elements missing, it may more likely be that there are endorphins and adrenalin rushes reduced in you that used to be present. You used to be more sensitive to your own internal drugs. It is called "receptor regulation".... when a drug is infused into a person repeatedly, the total number of receptors which respond to that drug change in number over time, thus making it incresaingly more difficult for the "user" to get the high he got previously. As most Herion adddicts can tell you .....

this puts an enormous pressure on game developers. they are trying to create a visceral impact on a huge comunity of long time drug abusers ..... for some of us, we have been expereincing the rush since the first time doom was played in multiplayer back in 1990 ......

Edited July 25, 2007 by Sleepdoc

[Bahger]

I'm sad to say it, but, having been hugely impressed by the demo I think PoW is on the money regarding the almost intangible lack of real excitement in SP gameplay, notwithstanding all the admirable improvements made by Grin.

I've played through five SP missions now and here are my impressions as far as the topic of this thread is concerned:

- The maps are only "open" in limited ways. Gameplay is still basically on rails and there is too much scripting. For me, ArmA and GRAW 2 are like two sides of the same coin. The more open gameplay of ArmA falls down in SP because the UI is unwieldy, the SP missions untactical and slapped together and the buddy AI is not equal to the task of simulating platoon-level infantry combat. GRAW 2 has more a modest, team-level scale and better tactical implementation of spec-ops-style team cover and movement but, as I say, it's over-scripted.

- The lack of overwhelming firepower makes the stealth gameplay (which I have always admired) too much like hard work in this version. Every firefight is a desperate battle for survival in which the friendly AI has had to be painstakingly placed in cover. So much of what we enjoy about FPS games, even when they are tactical, is the experience of wielding the big stick. You don't get a big stick in GRAW 2. It's always four guys or less against platoon or company-sized AI. For gameplay to be satisfying, what's needed is force-multipliers such as having a recon drone in every mission, two teams of four and non-scripted air and arty support. That would make the game both more enjoyable and more realistic but it seems the engine cannot bear it so what we have is gameplay reminiscent of a constant, asymmetrical battle for survival in which the player's best friend is not his tactical adeptness but the script.

- The new Recon/Assault orders are broken and lacking in real tactical applicability on most SP maps.

- Jason Ocampo's review in Gamespot is right on two counts: The game is often too difficult (in proportion to the sense of accomplishment it generates) and the color palette is really dull, with hardly a red or blue in sight. I have finished every mission so far with the team intact, but it takes very, very fastidious gameplay that often feels too much like work and doesn't always compel the player to fight tactically. Often it's just a matter of quicksaving your way through a firefight where recon limitations deprive the player of the initiative.

- It's repetitive: Firefights are essentially exercises in sniping and countersniping with only a few showcasing the need to maneuver. I'd would have liked to see more use of GLs and frags by both the friendly and hostile AI and a much less static, less dug in enemy. I'd like flanking by the enemy to be coded into the AI and reactive to the players actions, not scripted as a story event.

- There's too little variability. The tanks appear in the same place at the same time and must be taken down with the same weapons that miraculously become available for that specific mission. Again, scripting.

Many of these issues would have been addressable in Campaign Coop, but as Sleepdoc has pointed out, it's hobbled, with all the high-tech bells and whistles from the SP gameplay mysteriously stripped away in this mode. It's a pity. I so admire what Grin are trying to do here but the game is a corridor shooter with tactical aspirations rather than a tac-shooter. ArmA is a tac-shooter with SP gameplay that I find an insult to my intelligence. Neither game is satisfying in the long term and I'm not sure how far into GRAW 2 SP I'm going to have the interest to explore.

Edited July 25, 2007 by Bahger

[Papa6]

the game lacks nothing in immersion. GRAW2 on a military level is head on correct. let me explain:

1. I'll use myself as an example. I joined the Army back in 1987. that was a time when the US was using heavy HIC (high intensity conflict) tactics. a large US force against a huge Soviet invasion through Germany. but when the cold war ended and the border was removed back in 1989, our tactics changed almost immediately. we went to LIC( low intensity conflict) tactics and peace keeping operations.

the conclusion of HIC most notably was gulf war I in 1990-1991.

now as this relates to GRAW2, GRAW2 is really a "skirmish" scenario. also to boot, under secrecy. remember, the rebels had that nuke weapon in the game that we go after.

GR was a skirmish operation as well.

But war has changed so much over the years. but realize that the groups of soldiers you face are guerrilla groups or splinter groups and small skirmish's for streets and small sections of town.

[Lightspeed]

I think you're missing the point -

If I switched on a game of GR right now it would still create a bigger adrenalin rush then it does when switch on GRAW2 - why is that?

[sui317]

a slower pace and less clutter in your ears from the narcom ?

less directed from above ?

[edit]

gr was quiet and serene while graw and graw 2 are far more noisy and disturbing

Edited July 25, 2007 by sui317

[NoQuarter]

GR is dirty and open-ended and unpredictable. With consequenses.

:AW* is antiseptic and CQB-oriented and predictable. Without consequences.

[j-man]

1)[GR] you could feel like you were sneaking around (dont want to be caught until right moment => adrenaline)

GRAW(1&2) seems enemy knows your there anyways unless your at more extreme ranges

I remember in [GR] I was actually able to have the enemy walk within 6m of my hiding place (a bush) and keep going. I was excited 3-4 years ago because I thought GR2 (before being canceled for pc) would incorporate some aspects of splinter cell (not as extreme - you were too stealthy in that) into the ai. Too bad

2) while GRAW:X looks great, [GR] to me had better ambient sounds that drew you in

3) its been said a lot before, but the freedom in [GR] really did help. In [GR] you could go to that objective anyway you like, and know that there could be enemies anywhere. GRAW series really only has enemies on route to objective. If you clear it, you pretty much know no ones coming from behind you, so why get your adrenaline up?

[rossiski]

Interesting reading...

[maltgoblin]

Interesting reading...

Okay, this is why [GR] is the greatest game ever in my opinion. I harped on these few things when GRAW was coming out but GRIN didn't implement them. If these two things were accomplished a lot of people would come back to the Ghost Recon series. It would do just enough to resemble [GR].

1. The zoom with the mouse wheel gave you more control of your weapon. Yes, it's not as realistic. But who cares about realism when you want a good competitive game.

2. The peeking control was outstanding. Again, it gives the use more control of the character.

Of course GRIN will never do the two things above so it's the same ol' same ol' to me. The consensus was to heck with the [GR] players. If you don't like GRAW then don't play it. Unfortunately us [GR] players would make up the majority of the people who would stick with this game if it were any good..... as most everyone else has gone to console gaming.

Edited July 26, 2007 by maltgoblin

[Deweyf4]

If they reimplemented the zoom feature the realism fanatics would punce so damned if you do.....I have to agree with Papa on this, I think it simulates RL so much better than [GR] or GRAW1 did. [GR] freedom was awesome and I do have to agree with the placement of AI issues, but the random placement of patrols between each reload makes it awesome!!!

I played an [GR] coop map with a buddy and figured it was similar to GRAW1 where once you figure out spawn points you had the level mastered but the next time it came around where I was expecting 2 guys to come out one guy popped out 50 yards north instead, I love that!!

It makes my day to see people still wishing GRAW was [GR], If 3 does ever come to fruition I hope it sticks more to GRAW2 than [GR], this franchise is finally moving in the direction it should.

[Sleepdoc-iBeta]

I think you're missing the point -

If I switched on a game of GR right now it would still create a bigger adrenalin rush then it does when switch on GRAW2 - why is that?

I'm going to go back to my medical perspective .....

conditioned response ....... you are conditioned to feel that way from back in the day when that game made you feel that way.

I felt an enormous amount of tension and gritty fear and palpitations in GRAW1 PC. Others did not. I never played GR1. I'm not conditioned by it.

Of course, I don't discount other peoples criticisms. But conditioned response is likely part of the issue.

[Kung-Fu]

First, I'll agree with Sleepdoc. Jenny, the namesake of our gaming group has never found a game she likes more than FarCry. She knows there are games that are better than it is and games that she plays way more. But FarCry is still her favorite, why? It was her first MP experience. Nothing will be able to match that mental response that FC provided that first time.

Now I'll also have to agree with Dewey. GR1's open maps were really cool. But GRAW's gameplay is much smoother than GR1's ever was. I'm just waiting for the mapmakers to get their hands on the new tools. We will then see soom truly amazing stuff.

[Lightspeed]

the game lacks nothing in immersion.

yes...........it does.

I felt an enormous amount of tension and gritty fear and palpitations in GRAW1 PC. Others did not. I never played GR1. I'm not conditioned by it.

no offense intended sleepdoc, but if u never played GR1 then you can't possibly understand the difference and why GR was the greatest recon game ever made.

1. The zoom with the mouse wheel gave you more control of your weapon. Yes, it's not as realistic. But who cares about realism when you want a good competitive game.

2. The peeking control was outstanding. Again, it gives the use more control of the character.

Personally, I think GRINs implementation of the weapons, the reload animations, the zoom, etc are the best seen in any game to date - the slides too and the peeking are very well done and a lot mroe closer to realism then [GR].

GR is dirty and open-ended and unpredictable. With consequenses.

:AW* is antiseptic and CQB-oriented and predictable. Without consequences.

Now we are starting to hit that nail in the head - gritty, dirty, open ended and very unpredictable.

GRAW2's random spawned AI is brilliant - but we need to look at exploiting this technique more to really make it unpredictable.

a slower pace and less clutter in your ears from the narcom ?

less directed from above ?

Definitely - one thing I notice in GRAW2 and I know Im not alone - you complete an objective and your natural defensive move to make sure you're not being flanked is to check CROSSCOM is clear. Just at that moment the guy on the radio starts tellin you about someting new happening, but bcoz u switch to TAB it cancels the new intel.

Someone mentioned the AI walking right up to you in GR and if you were well-concealed tey would walk right past you - can that be done in GRAW2? Would love to see it.

But at this stage, the big kicker is definitely the linearity - I am confident that if GRIN or modders can get around that with good scripting, then GRAW will stand the test of time.

Any fresh ideas?

[sui317]

in graw and graw 2 the AI has the spontanious reaction to go where the fire is comming from, so a point man would be passed by them, it happend to me more than once, while hiding in the shadows or an ally

as for linear game play, i think UBI wants it that way, to play things like it is a movie you have seen, and rather a movie that just is too simple and flashy rather than thought out and planned, maybe the difference between the movie SEALS and jar head. jar head being a good movie and SEALS being the simple flashy movie.

Edited July 26, 2007 by sui317

[JJUK]

I think you're missing the point -

If I switched on a game of GR right now it would still create a bigger adrenalin rush then it does when switch on GRAW2 - why is that?

I think its has a lot to do with the way this game has been marketed from the start all the hype then the let down we got Graw 1 all hyped up but there was always a but, then we think Graw 2 but its different to Graw 1, no improvments really maybe behind the senes, but to us mere mortals its another likable game at most at the moment i must stress because i am hoping things will get better but for me Grin are taking the wrong advice on some parts of the game.

When you crank up Gr its done finished well made maps, balanced guns ease of use, run your own serevr no problems, change maps no problems, change gametype no problems. It all lets you concentrate on the game.

Graw 2 doesnt allow this, ok maps nice looking though, unbalanced gun kits, set up your own server yeah right, change maps help plz, set hh spawn time limit plz help, and then you get to play phewwww the rush has gone and now we express this on the forums rather than playing the game.

Grin = unorganized to date. Hopefully things will change.

Edited July 26, 2007 by JJUK

[Sleepdoc-iBeta]

no offense intended sleepdoc, but if u never played GR1 then you can't possibly understand the difference and why GR was the greatest recon game ever made.

No offense taken Lightspeed.

but your response is very telling in support of my theory. Becuase you did play it, and you got the great rush from it, you think it is the gretest game ever made. That is your perception. Perception is very chemical. The other person thought Farcry was the greatest. I think Battlezone is the greatest game ever made becuase i played it many years ago and got a sustainable and repeatable rush from it for 4 years that has never been felt again by me. (not the ray trace thing in the arcades , the atari FPS/RTS combo thing).

So even though I never played it, I "can" possibly understand. I understand that it gave you the awesome chemical rush you got addicted to and you are still seeking to replace and reexperience. And becuase Battlezone gave it to me, I still cry everytime i see the remake, battlezone 2. It failed to achieve that for me too.

I will agree that it is not the entire thing. But science says its a key part. that is all i'm saying. Its just a perspective worth considering.....

I don't know if any game will ever come along again and replace Battlezone's excitement for me. but I keep hoping.

Edited July 26, 2007 by Sleepdoc

[vstwolfhk]

I guess the flashy movie style comes from the console world, where such game is highly appreciated - more action, less depth...

But I have to agree with the other posts about the immersion factor.

In my opinion following factors make for the significant difference:

1. In [GR] SP you had your mission and could complete it at your own pace (I remember watching guards walking their paths for 5 minutes - making sure there's no backup and taking them out at just the right moment!)

2. The Sounds, even if not layered in so many layers, were really quite atmospheric - especially if you take into account that there was no music at all in the game.

3. The Teammates were quiet. It would be good to have some kind of radio silence button to make them shut up in GRAW 2. Even if I play "Get me Rosen" alone I get a "sir?" in my Comm.

4. You could choose the uniforms you were getting by choosing the class of soldier. I'd love to see a Ghillie Suit for the sniper in upcoming titles (doesn't really make sense in the city with all that cover).

5. Most importantly for me the missions had tremedous variation in places jungle, woodland, european towns - not all in one game, of course, but there was something for every taste.

Those are just some of the things that make this kind of immersion different - NOT better but simply different in my opinion.

I for my part would love to see a Ghost Recon 3 in the jungle without all the shouting, screaming and Comm Chatter but with a cool stealth gameplay and a thick atmosphere

[maltgoblin]

the game lacks nothing in immersion.

yes...........it does.

Personally, I think GRINs implementation of the weapons, the reload animations, the zoom, etc are the best seen in any game to date - the slides too and the peeking are very well done and a lot mroe closer to realism then [GR].

I guess I am on the opposite end of the spectrum. I don't care for realism. The zoom control gave me the control. I just want the gameplay that [GR] had and the control of the character. I just don't feel I am the player in GRAW2. It's kind of like Battlefield 2 in the sense that I am not immersed in the character as you put it. I am separated. I didn't feel that in [GR]. I had such control over the movements and it was so fluid that I felt like I was that character. [GR] was the best for me because it was different than Battlefield and the other games. GRAW2 to me, is just not that much different.

[KRP 56]

GR is dirty and open-ended and unpredictable. With consequenses.

:AW* is antiseptic and CQB-oriented and predictable. Without consequences.

That pretty much sums it up. Tis a shame they took GRAW down the linear scripted road.

[Deweyf4]

GRAW2 has been out what, a week now? I could install a vanilla [GR] and have many of the same complaints, I personally think GRAW2 fixed many of the important issues from GRAW1 and left alone what, in all honesty, should have been left alone. The immersion factor in this game is amazing if you don't start it up expecting [GR], that is why I start it up expecting GRAW2. I could sit there all day and say, "well FEAR has these effects" or "[GR] had this movement" and constantly ruin the game for myself.....or I could play GRAW2 and just have fun.

[kretzj]

GR is dirty and open-ended and unpredictable. With consequenses.

:AW* is antiseptic and CQB-oriented and predictable. Without consequences.

That pretty much sums it up. Tis a shame they took GRAW down the linear scripted road.

I've finished the SP campaign now, and have played some of the missions and such... and I've got to say the linear approach is the most disappointing to me so far. Like someone else recently posted... so much wonderful city territory or open plains... and I'm prevented from sending my squads in different directions to flank the tangos, or perform a pincer maneuver.

Sad... the more I play GRAW2 the more I realize that the re-play value will be PURELY dependent upon the editor being released and the mod community stepping up. Out of the box I don't see GRAW2 having a lot of life in it. Without community material I'll be unloading GRAW2 in a few weeks... I'm not a big MP player and I know a lot of value for some will come from that... but without maps I can't imagine the MP players will continue for long, either.

My request to Ubi / GRiN - Patch the sucker to fix the annoying bugs, but seriously... NO GRAW3 next year... make some truly stunning downloadable mission packs that open up the game.... I will NOT buy GRAW3 if that's the direction we're going... that's not a maybe or a probably.... I will NOT buy it. Out of the box, GRAW2 does not have $50 in replay value for me.

-jk

[Papa6]

Here's a question for you all here:

If GRAW2 encompassed everything you've described about [GR], but with the enhancements ie the graphics, sounds then the game would be great? I think so. but I think as a side note that somethings were never EVEN thought about. I lean heavy on the modding issue. but until the tools are released. I can't pass a view on this conclusively.

But I think the modding is indicative of things that were NEVER brought up in UBI/Grin meetings. I don't think there ever was a thought nor care to offer modding tools.

[JJUK]

Here's a question for you all here:

If GRAW2 encompassed everything you've described about [GR], but with the enhancements ie the graphics, sounds then the game would be great? I think so. but I think as a side note that somethings were never EVEN thought about. I lean heavy on the modding issue. but until the tools are released. I can't pass a view on this conclusively.

But I think the modding is indicative of things that were NEVER brought up in UBI/Grin meetings. I don't think there ever was a thought nor care to offer modding tools.

Hey Papa tbh i think everyone hoped for a finished game with good bits taken from Graw 1, good bits from the forums and maybe even good bit from GR, modding shoukld be easy but an afterthought for the gys that mod it shouldnt be part of the game if you get me. Dont get me wrong i like it but find myself thinking shall i play it tonight or not, when i should be gagging for it

[kretzj]

Here's a question for you all here:

If GRAW2 encompassed everything you've described about [GR], but with the enhancements ie the graphics, sounds then the game would be great? I think so. but I think as a side note that somethings were never EVEN thought about. I lean heavy on the modding issue. but until the tools are released. I can't pass a view on this conclusively.

But I think the modding is indicative of things that were NEVER brought up in UBI/Grin meetings. I don't think there ever was a thought nor care to offer modding tools.

I've always said that what I want, in the proverbial "perfect world" was to take [GR] and simply add new graphics, physics, sound, etc. the "gameplay" aspect of [GR] to me was damn-near perfect (I'm an SP guy so I can't speak for MP). The mod tools seemed good (I know we all wanted more, but look at what the community was able to do with the tools we got!

With GRAW series we got the graphics, physics, sound (sort of)... but the gameplay has been stripped away... linear missions, etc.

And I hope/pray that Ubi isn't going to screw us on the editors / tools for GRAW2... I don't think it would be GRiN that jacks us... it will be Ubi realizing that if we had the tools to make our own content then there's precious little reason to keep buying $50 games each year. I PRAY I'm wrong...

-jk

callsign threepoint

Here's a question for you all here:

If GRAW2 encompassed everything you've described about [GR], but with the enhancements ie the graphics, sounds then the game would be great? I think so. but I think as a side note that somethings were never EVEN thought about. I lean heavy on the modding issue. but until the tools are released. I can't pass a view on this conclusively.

But I think the modding is indicative of things that were NEVER brought up in UBI/Grin meetings. I don't think there ever was a thought nor care to offer modding tools.

Hey Papa tbh i think everyone hoped for a finished game with good bits taken from Graw 1, good bits from the forums and maybe even good bit from GR, modding shoukld be easy but an afterthought for the gys that mod it shouldnt be part of the game if you get me. Dont get me wrong i like it but find myself thinking shall i play it tonight or not, when i should be gagging for it

Yep.. the "had to play it" factor for me lasted about 2 days... the SP campaign is over and I'm tinkering with missions to see if I can improve score, etc... but the gotta play factor is dwindling fast. I know the MP players are different but I don't see much new in that arena yet... those few maps will get tiring quickly...

-jk