A Real Shame

[spm1138]

Why would Ubisoft pay for extensive work on GRAW2?

We all bought the game already so they are getting no money back on any such work.

We're a very small part of their demographic too so there's no point doing it to keep us sweet.

I bet they haven't even decided if we get a seperate version of the next GR or a straight console port

The thing with Vegas is it's a console game. The PC version is a straight port and they have the team in house to develop the extra content. GRAW2 on the other hand...

I wouldn't hold my breath tbh for expansions or a half decent tacsim. It might be a decent enough FPS with tactical aspects but it isn't going to be the game we want.

[Nutlink]

I bet they haven't even decided if we get a seperate version of the next GR or a straight console port

I bet a straight port would have played out pretty good for GRAW 1/2 with a few minor and gameplay changes, so if it comes to that and GRAW 3 on the consoles is as good as it was on the PC, it'll be a pretty good game overall.

[Darkblue]

It's a real shame. I watch the forum submissions diminish and feel annoyance that such a diffinitive game of it's type should be cast aside by publishers for profit.

GR and it's latest offspring, Graw2, have not been bettered by anything I've seen since. Ok, Crysis and the like are big on graphics (so they say) and appeal to the 'run and gun' fraternity, especially on game consoles and I've got one! a Playstation 3, but I can tell you it comes nowhere near the realism or slickness of play that the PC version provides!

Unfortunately, the order of the day is low attention span and quick results for minimum effort. Superficial, 'shoot everything that moves' tactics, are the most challenging it gets. So it's unlikely that we'll get a 4th version of the best military sim in the business or even add ons.

Well, from my point of view that's bad news for UBI because I won't be buying any of the less challenging stuff and certainly not game console versions!

You've hit the mark here on a number of points. It's not restricted to GR though, it's right across the board for all game types currently. There are exceptions, and it's these that keep me going as far as single player/multiplayer games go. It's really sad to see game communities break down and disappear when not given support by publishers.

This attitude reminds me so much of why we are the 'use once, throw away' society. I think to be honest, publishers are just getting super lazy, rather than it being purely a financial thing, as has been mentioned in this thread before - there is still plenty of scope in GR/GRAW.

Ground Branch sounds interesting, I wish them success - the sad thing is, if it is successful how long will it be before one of the big publishers moves in and 'aquires' Blackfoot? Thus saving all publishers the trouble of getting themselves up to a high standard and competing with each other, not least for the benefit of their customers (us) I might add.

[WhiteKnight77]

I don't think BFS would be for sale. In my interview with John several years ago, he stated he formed BFS due to not wanting to work in that kind of corperate atmosphere. Time for a new interview.

[Papa6]

Here in the US, I'm now learning that PC and console games are just a distraction to what's really happening here in the US. We play games to get our minds taken off the fact we are 9 trillion dollars in debt, our dollar sucks and our mortgages are in jeopardy and we play PC and console games to keep our minds off the real ###### of an issue..

our country is in ruins..

[ROCO*AFZ*]

But our gas even with prices rising is cheaper then Europe.

As for BFS... a few million dollars for a bi-out may change someones tune.

I agree though. No one puts the time to put out a good title, and sequels / expansions anymore. Instead they sell a new game with the same name, that doesn't resemble the 1st.

I would still buy a GRAW2 expansion though for the record.

[NoQuarter]

A video game conspiracy, aimed at a 14 year-old demographic, Papa? That's evil.

About time to change Operating Systems, isn't it?

____

Agree with OP.

[Papa6]

naw don't misunderstand. long story. but gaming devs and the entire industry should be ashamed. I was always taught, if you do something..do it right and to the best of your abilities.

[viiiper]

graw2 has the best gun sounds ever.

I gotta agree with you. ArmA has some things right with the sounds as well, the hypersonic

"snap" of the bullets are correct. Overall GRAW2 spoiled the hell out of me and my 5.1 Logitechs............

That's one thing I have always said about GRAW & GRAW II, Simon and crew @ Grin did a cracking job with the sounds & sound field, it is without doubt the strongest aspect of those games.

For the record: I would not buy another GRAW Series Product.

[tecmic]

Here in the US, I'm now learning that PC and console games are just a distraction to what's really happening here in the US. We play games to get our minds taken off the fact we are 9 trillion dollars in debt, our dollar sucks and our mortgages are in jeopardy and we play PC and console games to keep our minds off the real ###### of an issue..

our country is in ruins..

It's not just the US Papa! Western society's lifestyle is changing the mindset of many nation's young. Minimum effort, fast buck and ###### you Jack are the new rules. It applies to business, too! Quality is not high on the agenda for most, as it requires innovation and consistent effort.

The game industry is slavishly led by profit (maximum sales) and these are achieved by appealing to the new massed market, the young, who have been raised in an atmosphere of 'pile em high, sell em cheap' marketing techniques. Their standards are those that are the easiest to maintain and in some cases, whatever they can get away with without penalty.

Like water, our society's are finding the lowest points to settle at and there's no time to indulge minorities in this headlong scrabble to make money.

Edited July 14, 2008 by tecmic

[The Blueberry_EBDA]

Ahe you guys are still pushing that game and demeaning your bread and butter. If,,,,BFS releases the game in 09, In march or so , a new Ghost Recon will amerge. I really hope they do it. The game looks great. Unreal engine? That aint going to cut it. Not unless the turn off the bunny hop.

[WhiteKnight77]

There will be no bunny hopping in GB. Those that try will surly die.

[Nutlink]

Why do people always associate an engine with the game it initially came out on? People thought Doom 3 couldn't handle outdoor areas, but Quake Wars and Quake 4 proved that wrong (and many custom maps). People thought that anything on Unreal Engine 2.0 and 2.5 would be run and gun, but Raven Shield was built on 2.0 (as was Splinter Cell and Red Orchestra). Unreal Engine 3 is accused of being run and gun also, but Medal of Honor Airborne was anything but (and had the best controls of any FPS ever IMO). Even the new Mortal Kombat game is being built on UE3.0.

[tecmic]

I don't give the 'engine' a thought when I'm looking at a new game/sim. It's what it looks and plays like that makes my decision for me. GR/GRAW has always looked and played well. Need I say more?

Mike.

[The Blueberry_EBDA]

So, will it be as hackable as all the other games that use UE3?

[Nutlink]

So, will it be as hackable as all the other games that use UE3?

Hate UE3 much? Every game is hacked. Counter Strike, GRAW 1/2, [GR], Rainbow Six series, Doom 3, Crysis, Company of Heroes, ArmA, MechWarrior series, STALKER, Call of Duty series, Gears of War, Halo, Quake series, everything. Of course the game is bound to be hacked eventually. But even games with poor ACs or no AC at all can have hack free servers if they have good admins that play and pay attention on a regular basis.

[Sup]

The notion that a 'action blockbuster' game is easier or cheaper to make than a tactical shooter is absolutely ridiculous. In fact, the art and 'special effects' side of game production requires a much bigger staff and a lot more time and money than the planning and conceptual side of things.

Developers aren't being cheap, they're developing, at some cost, what the *majority* of the market, and the *average* gamer wants. I'm sure they'd love to please anyone, but two thousand disenfranchised fans isn't even a dent in their sales. And unless you're a five man indie team, there's no way to justify the expense of time and money to appeal to such a small market.

[tecmic]

Absolutely right, Sup!

You've said what has been said many times on this forum. The unfortunate truth in what you say is that the 'average gamer' now, is younger rather than older and has an arcade style mentality, so that's the type of game the developers produce. This simply means that computer gaming has become driven by the console and is destined to finish up as nothing more than a stylised funfair coconut stall. See how many you can knock down.

I'm obviously one of the minority who demand more because that holds zero attraction for me. Today's games are obviously prettier but that style reminds me of PACMAN when computers first came onto the market!!

Mike.

[Sup]

I don't think the age distinction is true. I don't have the figures on hand, but i'm just about positive the average age of gamers has been climbing yearly for quite some time. It's an inaccurate stereotype. Action games aren't 'kiddy' or 'dumbed down' -- they're just different, and appeal to different people. The same goes for 'consolized' It's true that consople games have more streamlined menus and simpler interfaces, in general, but that has nothing to do with the style of gameplay. Up until halo, in fact, consoles were not in general considered a viable platform for action shooters -- Soldier of Fortune, Call of Duty, Doom, Quake, Half life -- the action game is a PC staple as much as it is a console standard.

That said, at the moment, the high cost of game development coupled with the fast pace of the market has left quite a big hole in the realistic tactical shooter niche, and i definitely agree with just about everyone here that we could use more.

There is however something of light at the end of the tunel, a lot of promising games have been announced.

I would suggest looking into Armed Assault, personally -- it's slow and clunky, but quality and incredibly deep. My personal favorite tactical shooter out right now.

Short of that, consider following Codemasters '[Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising]', Blackfoot studios 'Ground Branch', or Zombe studios and Bethesda's 'Rogue Warrior '; any one of the three could turn out to be the game you're looking for, on release.

I would not expect anything resembling the [Ghost Recon] or Rainbow Six from Ubisoft. They have very talented teams making very high quality games, but it's in a more 'arcade' mold, which has so far turned tremendous profit and worked very well for them. They probably will not turn back to more realistic gameplay any time soon.

If it's not *realism*, strictly, that you're looking for -- merely an appreciation of tactics -- Consider games like Ubisoft's Brothers in Arms, and other more 'cinematic' tactical shooters. They still have a focus on fire and maneuver tactics and thorough planning, but with a more 'action blockbuster' stylization.

[tecmic]

That's a nice response Sup. You're probably more informed than me regarding current trends, but the generality is still true. I have looked at Ground Branch and it does look promising but I regret the demise of Ghost Recon, it's such an atmospheric game with incredible realism and an instinctive user interface. Some of the others you mention seem like cardboard imitations by comparison.

I'll watch the scene with interest.

Mike.

[wildbill]

The notion that a 'action blockbuster' game is easier or cheaper to make than a tactical shooter is absolutely ridiculous. In fact, the art and 'special effects' side of game production requires a much bigger staff and a lot more time and money than the planning and conceptual side of things.

Developers aren't being cheap, they're developing, at some cost, what the *majority* of the market, and the *average* gamer wants. I'm sure they'd love to please anyone, but two thousand disenfranchised fans isn't even a dent in their sales. And unless you're a five man indie team, there's no way to justify the expense of time and money to appeal to such a small market.

My question is why did they use this platform to begin with if that is the case. I feel these developers are just not using the platform that started this series to begin with. I realize that times change and there are the youngsters out there wanting to run and gun i suppose. It just seems to me that the focus for creating a game for a younger crowd is just an exploitation of the classic GR game. I feel that the younger audience, teen rating would enjoy the core basics of the GR original series. I actually think GRAW 2 was a success in many aspects of the GR game. I just feel that they where on the right track and then they just dropped the ball on this series. Graphics are decent and weapons and sound are really nice IMO. I am a multi player so the coop is a little out of whack in many aspects, I can see lots of gripping in that area, sorta glitchy and all sorts of issues. I have a strong feeling the Grin learned alot about development in this series and i would like to see them come out with a up to snuff recompilation

or the Ghosts back in Georgia fending off Russians trying to obscure missile defense plans in the region. I just think that Grin was on the right track with GRAW 2 and that idea of a new series with those old maps redone would be a great game. Bill

[Papa6]

Alot of peeps have probably contributed alot of insight as to what went wrong. It appears IMHO that large devs are missing the mark in terms of design and quality. This appears to be a cutthroat market and any new technology will be exploited until it too is boring. what is going to happen is, small devs like blackfoot studios will take over with ...CREATIVE content(games) geared for what players want. face it, there are a few goliath devs that are trying to out do each other. actual insight for your target clients(customers) will determine who comes out on top.

now that being said (within the general thread topic), what is happening to the games market is, Alot like what the professional IT market. Why build a feature when you can buy the company who owns it? alot of companies are buying BI(business Information) firm to add it's cloud computing software to it's own product.

I read about it all the time. Example, MS wants to buy up BI firms to get into the cloud computing business. Added: MS "KNOWS" it is too late to build a BI software to play catch up int his ever increasing market. So they bought a company to get themselves BI software to use for themselves.

So I think Game dev firms, the bigger ones are doing this. I think this is a prime example of what happened when UBISOFT bought out RSE. UBI knew it didn't have the skill nor the time since it was behind the curve so...let's buy RSE and do it OUR way?

this is an honest educated guess

Edited July 19, 2008 by Papa6

[jonathan.li]

I agree, I also think the reason GRAW/GRAW2 isn't so popular within the tactical shooter community or the larger market (CoD4, Counter Strike, etc) is because it, in my opinion stands a middle ground between the two genres, leaning more to the tac side.

Also, GRAW/GRAW2 is harder than the [Ghost Recon] to play in some aspects, notably the last mission in the GRAW2 campaign where there are rebels with machine gun nests that have sharpshooter accuracy, and the lack of an effective friendly AI.

But then again, I don't think we would get a true GR or R6 game from RSE these days. Just look at GRAW/GRAW2 for the consoles...Those things play like HALO IMO, more emphasis on action then tactics.

In short, my opinion is that if friendly AI were a bit better and you could have regenerative health CoD4 style, than sales would go way up ). But thats not what GR is, is it?

BTW, Kudos to the GRIN team who still are users on the forums here

BTW...I know GRIN learned a lot these past 2 years devloping GR for us ....If GRIN/Ubi decide to make another GR, I think they would be willing to listen instead of having Ubi control everything, and that they would have a much better idea of what we want.

They should follow Black Foot Studios' Example.

Until then I'll be playing CoD4.

[WhiteKnight77]

Exactly. Take a look around. Stardock is another example of a small company releasing quality games that have listened to the gaming market and doesn't pander to the pirates either. Small companies are going to change the face of gaming by releasing quality games that gamers want. The big companies, while having large budgets for their games, are going to find that they are going to be spending money on developing games that no one wants to play. It's happening already.

[ByY]

Jul 18 2008, 06:54 PM, Sup

...

I would suggest looking into Armed Assault, personally -- it's slow and clunky, but quality and incredibly deep. My personal favorite tactical shooter out right now.

ArmA = quality... What? You are kidden us, aren't you? If there is one truth then that: Arma is n o t quality.

ArmA AI goes through walls, for ArmA-AI the gras does not exist, ArmA-AI looks through smoke from smoke-grenades, the audiblities of running persons (foot-steps, etc) are imbalanced (you can hear footsteps of running persons in the wood not before the person is 10 - 15 meters near you = absolutly unrealistic).

I can go on and go on with this list but this is not the place to speak about ArmA.

For me ArmA is one of the most bugged and glitchy game and so beyond doubt i will not give money for ArmA-2.

Apropos ArmA-slowness: thats one of the better ArmA-things because its realistic.

For me its simple like that: if a shooter is childish like COD4,Crysis, rainbow-6 vegas or other #### like that, i will not spend my money for this.