Give Me Back My Old Ghost Recon, Rejuvenated! That's All!

[Parabellum]

Whether another developer has grasped the true spirit of Ghost Recon and is aiming to follow suit in its footsteps remains to be seen. I certainly don't want to diminish any expectations towards the one mentioned - on the contrary - the information shared so far looks extremely promising, indeed, and I have high hopes that their games will catapult them right to the top of the game developer food chain.

On the other hand I cannot say for certain at this time whether they intent to really fill the void of a worthy Ghost Recon successor. It could of course be just my negligence to look for it with more resolve, and if I err it would be delightful to be corrected, but so far I cannot see this plan expressed in so many words.

Mate, in case you weren't aware, Blackfoot Studios is run by John Sonedecker. John was one of the driving forces behind Rainbow Six, Rogue Spear, and Ghost Recon. If anyone understands what made Ghost Recon a great game, it's John. Likewise, if anyone can recapture that essence, it's John.

[ApexMods]

Mate, in case you weren't aware, Blackfoot Studios is run by John Sonedecker. John was one of the driving forces behind Rainbow Six, Rogue Spear, and Ghost Recon. If anyone understands what made Ghost Recon a great game, it's John. Likewise, if anyone can recapture that essence, it's John.

Actually, I am aware of that, and John is certainly in an excellent position to understand that essence - although being one of the driving forces behind the original does not necessarily have to guarantee this - but I was also referring to BFS' objective: Do they really want to create a GR successor?

On the other hand I cannot say for certain at this time whether they intent to really fill the void of a worthy Ghost Recon successor. It could of course be just my negligence to look for it with more resolve, and if I err it would be delightful to be corrected, but so far I cannot see this plan expressed in so many words.

[Gunsmith]

Apex has it right.

Ghost recon is a THINKING game. It was and is still great.

Yet for some strange reason there are people I know who only see the older graphics and couldn't be bothered to learn this different style of play.

I would love to see the [GR] done up pretty, a lot of other golden oldies as well.

However, if they give us a new game entirely that Brings back the feel of the original...

I will be content.

[ApexMods]

With all due respect to BFS, since they strike me as a bunch of really good guys, they have never released a commercial game and have very little funding.

Either their game is going to be awesome or fall very flat -- making a good game is harder than most people think, even teams with a lot of experience miss the mark sometimes.

As for ubisoft having developer skill but lacking the right idea, i totally agree. But let's keep in mind our right idea is another man's bad idea -- being in with the 'teeny bopper' crowd (you know, 16-35, has a job and buys their own videogames, kids ) i have heard time and time again how GRAW is an improvement over GR because GR was hardly playable.

Of course, that sounds like blasphemy to us, but as much as ubisoft ostracized a few thousand fans when they took GR in this direction, they'll lose THOSE fans if they bring it back. They've picked their market, they're making money, let's try to drum up support and interest for developers like BFS, who sorely need our money in order to grow, not a company like Ubisoft who is growing every year and has no interest in our (legitimately small) market.

Ubisoft's business model isn't a bad one, and it's not stupid to have forgotten us fans -- it works great, they've grown at record rates the last five years. Let them have their action shooter market, we don't need them any more than they need us. Whereas companies like BFS planning to focus on the niche market are going to require a deeply symbiotic relationship with this community to function, and BIS already has one.

*before WK or Para tells me i'm wrong and ubi would make more money with us, look at the numbers. We are only a few thousand people -- counting the ones who don't post on forums and giving them a VERY generous number, 5k people. That's a drop in the ocean.

The same is true for the complaints on ubisoft's boards. Maybe 1% or less of their players, and an additional couple hundred people who never even played the game. That's not a big deal, not worth investing the money to make go away.

Honestly people like you with your crusade against all things Ubi are going to be more of a PR threat than either the ubi forum complaints or us, and even so ubisoft doesn't seem to even acknowledge your existence, i can't imagine you're denting their sales that much. Or at all. More people like GRAW than liked GR. It did just as well critically, it did much better in sales, it's easier to make quality sequels for. It's easier to advertise.

Ubisoft wants to make GRAW, ubisoft is wise to make GRAW, and another, SMALLER company would be wise to make tactical shooters for this community. It's a different business model, you can make profits both ways, but it is not the most efficient way for ubisoft to make profits, with their products lined up how they are.

If you'd take half of your attempts to break down ubisoft's establishment by beating your head against the mortar and diverted it to spreading the word about BFS they could stand to make enough money to actually release their game. Since unlike ubisoft they aren't exactly rolling in ridiculous, ever growing amounts of capital.

Again, I have to ask you, Sup: Why are you trying to convince us here, in this thread, under this very topic?

What part of "Give Me Back My Old Ghost Recon, Rejuvenated! That's All! - If you share this sentiment come in and shout it out" don't you understand? I really don't get it!

But OK, for arguments' sake...

With all due respect to BFS, since they strike me as a bunch of really good guys, they have never released a commercial game and have very little funding.

Either their game is going to be awesome or fall very flat -- making a good game is harder than most people think, even teams with a lot of experience miss the mark sometimes.

What do you know about their funding, Sup? And how can you predict the success or lack thereof for their games? On which facts do you base these prophecies? And yes, even teams with a lot of experience miss the mark sometimes, just like teams without any experience have a chance to hit the mark. Which is totally besides the point in itself (John Sonedecker - no experience? Please?) and certainly has nothing to do with this tread's subject, by the way.

As for ubisoft having developer skill but lacking the right idea, i totally agree. But let's keep in mind our right idea is another man's bad idea -- being in with the 'teeny bopper' crowd (you know, 16-35, has a job and buys their own videogames, kids ) i have heard time and time again how GRAW is an improvement over GR because GR was hardly playable.

So - again - why do you participate in this thread at all? If AW is all that great, why don't you start a topic here in the GR4 forum and name it "Just Keep On Doing GRAW! That's All!" and fight FOR that, instead of fighting AGAINST us?

Of course, that sounds like blasphemy to us, but as much as ubisoft ostracized a few thousand fans when they took GR in this direction, they'll lose THOSE fans if they bring it back. They've picked their market, they're making money, let's try to drum up support and interest for developers like BFS, who sorely need our money in order to grow, not a company like Ubisoft who is growing every year and has no interest in our (legitimately small) market.

Then you are trying to discourage people to participate here in an appeal to Ubisoft and rather support some other software company? Why would you do that, Sup? What is your agenda?

"A few thousand fans", Sup? How did you come up with that number? "our (legitimately small) market"... where is the proof for that? In that interview that I discussed here?

Ubisoft's business model isn't a bad one, and it's not stupid to have forgotten us fans -- it works great, they've grown at record rates the last five years.

That's your opinion on a business model? "Forget the fans - just make some quick cash!"... Well, I guess the not-too-distant future might tell us how that idea works out...

*before WK or Para tells me i'm wrong and ubi would make more money with us, look at the numbers. We are only a few thousand people -- counting the ones who don't post on forums and giving them a VERY generous number, 5k people. That's a drop in the ocean.

Where can I "look at the numbers", Sup? How do you come up with them?!? Did you deduct them from forum members and their participation in threads? If that is the case, where would that leave AW/AW2 fans? A "generous" 10k people? Oh boy... I guess they better drop the whole shooter market then, or stop making games altogether?

The same is true for the complaints on ubisoft's boards. Maybe 1% or less of their players, and an additional couple hundred people who never even played the game. That's not a big deal, not worth investing the money to make go away.

Another case of mixed "special" maths and clairvoyance, Sup? How do you know who did not play the game? And what kind of skewed perspective is it to view constructive criticism as an annoyance to get rid of?

You know what happens when a developer stops listening to it's customers? Most of them simply stop giving their feedback! Maybe at first just the vocal feedback in the forums, but later they also restrain from monetary feedback by not buying the games, anymore. Customer feedback - whatever kind - is the next best thing to sales that can happen to a developer, as it is the only other TRUE market analysis!

Honestly people like you with your crusade against all things Ubi are going to be more of a PR threat than either the ubi forum complaints or us, and even so ubisoft doesn't seem to even acknowledge your existence, i can't imagine you're denting their sales that much. Or at all. More people like GRAW than liked GR. It did just as well critically, it did much better in sales, it's easier to make quality sequels for. It's easier to advertise.

Are you accusing me of a "crusade against all things Ubi", Sup?!? I certainly hope not, as my intentions are - hopefully obvious for everyone else - to show my resolute support and do whatever I can to help them in my humble ways. Contrary to your view, I am constantly faced by people who share my way of thinking in that Ubisoft has run astray from the foundation of very successful game franchises, and although in your world everything seems to be bright and shiny for them now, some people undoubtably disagree.

You think I want to "dent their sales"?!? Sheesh... first of all I wouldn't want to hurt any developer - I am far to grateful for what they do for us all - and secondly I know I can be overconfident at times, but I wouldn't give in to any delusions of grandeur that my little posts here could ever have that magnitude of influence.

"More people like GRAW than liked GR. It did just as well critically, it did much better in sales, it's easier to make quality sequels for. It's easier to advertise" - do you state your opinions or facts? I'm really having difficulties to keep that apart, as you constantly keep saying things without backing them up with any kind of source, without any clue on how and where you got to your conclusions?

Let me try that for once: "Ghost Recon is the best game in the history of the world and the majority of people on this planet share this view!" Hmm... that surely felt good, but I don't know if it holds any water.

Ubisoft wants to make GRAW, ubisoft is wise to make GRAW, and another, SMALLER company would be wise to make tactical shooters for this community. It's a different business model, you can make profits both ways, but it is not the most efficient way for ubisoft to make profits, with their products lined up how they are.

If you'd take half of your attempts to break down ubisoft's establishment by beating your head against the mortar and diverted it to spreading the word about BFS they could stand to make enough money to actually release their game. Since unlike ubisoft they aren't exactly rolling in ridiculous, ever growing amounts of capital.

And thus the prophet spoke again...

Sup, I am really very curious now... Are you a market analyst in the computer games industry? Or are you in fact UbiSoft's CEO? Seriously, you say those things with a lightness of conviction as though they are undoubtable facts that need no explanation at all. In what position exactly are you, to not only explain to all participants of this thread that our entire common endeavor for a revived Ghost Recon is completely futile, but also give gracious expert advice to UbiSoft and other game companies on how to run their businesses, including but not limited to forecasting their profits and measuring their commercial efficiency.

"UbiSoft is wise to... [...] another company is wise to..." - why don't you share some of your obviously limitless wisdom and explain to us all WHY? Why are you right and we are all wrong? Why do you know how to produce a game and BFS have no clue? How do you know what's the most efficient way for UbiSoft to make profits, while we are all just a bunch of idiots that simply don't understand?

"If you'd take half of your attempts to break down ubisoft's establishment by beating your head against the mortar" - now maybe your extrasensory perception works on other things, but you absolutely miss the point of my intentions, and when I think of somebody's head beating against mortar, I have to admit that currently a different name pops into my mind.

Sup, I really respect you very much and value your contributions in these forums. You are a shining example of continuous support for our favorite game franchise, and the entire Ghost Recon fan community is indebted to you for your resolute participation over all the years.

But please - and I am really begging you - please start your own topic for the purpose of spreading your off-topic wisdom to the masses, as this one is for us fools who apparently are not capable of learning anything!

[krise madsen]

Mate, in case you weren't aware, Blackfoot Studios is run by John Sonedecker. John was one of the driving forces behind Rainbow Six, Rogue Spear, and Ghost Recon. If anyone understands what made Ghost Recon a great game, it's John. Likewise, if anyone can recapture that essence, it's John.

Actually, I am aware of that, and John is certainly in an excellent position to understand that essence - although being one of the driving forces behind the original does not necessarily have to guarantee this - but I was also referring to BFS' objective: Do they really want to create a GR successor?

On the other hand I cannot say for certain at this time whether they intent to really fill the void of a worthy Ghost Recon successor. It could of course be just my negligence to look for it with more resolve, and if I err it would be delightful to be corrected, but so far I cannot see this plan expressed in so many words.

Well, they don't intend to make a Ghost Recon sequel. But like GR, they have their sights set squarely on a non-linear, realistic tac-sim. And, as noted, they get it. It's practically impossible to underestimate the importance of that. In some ways, Blackfoot's games may be closer to GR than I would really prefer (from an "ideal first person shooter" point of view), but it will certainly not be "Ghost Recon Mk. 2". Besides, I want Ubisoft to make that game.

Apex has it right.

Ghost recon is a THINKING game. It was and is still great.

Yet for some strange reason there are people I know who only see the older graphics and couldn't be bothered to learn this different style of play.

I would love to see the [GR] done up pretty, a lot of other golden oldies as well.

However, if they give us a new game entirely that Brings back the feel of the original...

I will be content.

Truth be told, I don't really want a prettied up Ghost Recon. I want more. But I want a new game to capture the essence of GR.

On a sidenote: I just installed GR on my laptop. And I was surprised to find it runs great on Vista! Is there nothing this game can't do? It's also still more fun to play than virtually any other shooter. At least from my limited-time-single-player-only perspective. It was just lightyears ahead of it's time.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Sup]

Apex, i admit i made a lot of statements without any evidence to back them up -- it's out there, and you honestly deserve it for the quality of discussion you're trying to have, but i'm really exhausted of the whole debate, having bashed my head against the wall long enough that i can't really be bothered to dig it up. I won't match you point for point, but i will at least offer a little legit information, you seem to deserve more than my usual scornful ranting.

Considering their games outsold GR it's fair to say they're doing ok, at least. Considering they're a publicly traded company...

Google 'Ubisoft Growth' and your year of choice -- the company is rolling in money, and it's a fact. If you want a specific source, how about forbes? They mention gr (GRAW, judging by the dates) and r6 (vegas, again) by name.

Incredible growth considering the market at the time

As for your IGN link, the editorial opinion IGN on GRAW may come into question. You say they think ubi is killing a franchise.... That article was written before their recent games, which tend to get editor's choice. Hit up metacritic too, Vegas and Graw were massive critical successes.

BFS's funding --

We have spent a year and a half talking

with publishers trying to find a partner

to both fund and publish Ground

Branch. During that time BlackFoot

Studios has managed to stay in business

and lay the foundation for a successful

company. However, regardless

of the foundation, there needs to be

progress with building on top of it. I

have self funded this company up to

this point and unfortunately we have

not been able to find an appropriate

entity to fund our projects so we have

been forced to also seek contract work

on outside projects. This is not a sustainable

business model for us so the

time has come to take our future in our

own hands and work under our own

resources and be 100% responsible

for the outcome.

(page 4 here http://www.blackfootstudios.com/newsletter...ter_Vol1is7.pdf )

Stonedecker's experience is that he's a brilliant level designer and hopefully just as good at designing games, but he actually has no credited experience as a director of a tactical shooter under his belt to my knowledge. As much as he may know about tactical shooters (i think he's a perfect person to develop one) that resume is not necessarily the kind that will impress investors -- this is not an insult to the man at all, i'm excited about the titles he's working on, but we need to be realistic. Just because he worked on rb6 does not make his name a financial powerhouse in the industry, and does not automatically help him recruiting talent of investors to his company. I wish the best of luck to him, but it's not like this risk he's taking is a done deal.

Parts of my post that really are purely my own opinions and conjecture are ->

-That it is a minority which is unhappy with GRAW. I admit that's only my own observation and i have no numbers to back it u. Personally i really think we'd see a bigger dent in sales if it was the case. I was a big fan of another franchise ubi changed radically to please a mainstream crowd, and despite how important the hundreds of us complaining wanted to feel, when the game outsold the previous ones in the franchise it was hard to feel like a majority anymore.

-That a smaller company is better suited to target the niche crowd. Again, my own opinion. My logic is that moving more units with less profit on each is how a big company is conditioned to operate and moving a small number of units to a small market is how a small company is conditioned to operate. This is not always the case, but i personally feel it applies in this situation.

If there's anything else you'd like me to address specifically i'll PM you or start another thread, i think this is enough of this filling up yours.

[ApexMods]

Well, they don't intend to make a Ghost Recon sequel [...] I want Ubisoft to make that game.

Agreed.

Truth be told, I don't really want a prettied up Ghost Recon. I want more. But I want a new game to capture the essence of GR.

You know what? I (partially) agree on that one, too! Because I think there is room for at least another two tactical shooters in the market. In my ideal world, UbiSoft publishes the "Ghost Recon Mk. II Mod 1" I have longed for since the stone age, and BFS creates a tactical shooter that opens up a completely new playing field for the genre. Both titles are runaway successes and from that moment on developers fall over one another to make "intelligent" shooter games.

On a sidenote: I just installed GR on my laptop. And I was surprised to find it runs great on Vista! Is there nothing this game can't do? It's also still more fun to play than virtually any other shooter. At least from my limited-time-single-player-only perspective. It was just lightyears ahead of it's time.

And you needed to reinstall it to notice...?!? ...just kidding! I'm glad we agree!

[ApexMods]

Apex, i admit i made a lot of statements without any evidence to back them up -- it's out there, and you honestly deserve it for the quality of discussion you're trying to have, but i'm really exhausted of the whole debate, having bashed my head against the wall long enough that i can't really be bothered to dig it up. I won't match you point for point, but i will at least offer a little legit information, you seem to deserve more than my usual scornful ranting.

Considering their games outsold GR it's fair to say they're doing ok, at least. Considering they're a publicly traded company...

Google 'Ubisoft Growth' and your year of choice -- the company is rolling in money, and it's a fact. If you want a specific source, how about forbes? They mention gr (GRAW, judging by the dates) and r6 (vegas, again) by name.

Incredible growth considering the market at the time

As for your IGN link, the editorial opinion IGN on GRAW may come into question. You say they think ubi is killing a franchise.... That article was written before their recent games, which tend to get editor's choice. Hit up metacritic too, Vegas and Graw were massive critical successes.

BFS's funding --

We have spent a year and a half talking

with publishers trying to find a partner

to both fund and publish Ground

Branch. During that time BlackFoot

Studios has managed to stay in business

and lay the foundation for a successful

company. However, regardless

of the foundation, there needs to be

progress with building on top of it. I

have self funded this company up to

this point and unfortunately we have

not been able to find an appropriate

entity to fund our projects so we have

been forced to also seek contract work

on outside projects. This is not a sustainable

business model for us so the

time has come to take our future in our

own hands and work under our own

resources and be 100% responsible

for the outcome.

(page 4 here http://www.blackfootstudios.com/newsletter...ter_Vol1is7.pdf )

Stonedecker's experience is that he's a brilliant level designer and hopefully just as good at designing games, but he actually has no credited experience as a director of a tactical shooter under his belt to my knowledge. As much as he may know about tactical shooters (i think he's a perfect person to develop one) that resume is not necessarily the kind that will impress investors -- this is not an insult to the man at all, i'm excited about the titles he's working on, but we need to be realistic. Just because he worked on rb6 does not make his name a financial powerhouse in the industry, and does not automatically help him recruiting talent of investors to his company. I wish the best of luck to him, but it's not like this risk he's taking is a done deal.

Parts of my post that really are purely my own opinions and conjecture are ->

-That it is a minority which is unhappy with GRAW. I admit that's only my own observation and i have no numbers to back it u. Personally i really think we'd see a bigger dent in sales if it was the case. I was a big fan of another franchise ubi changed radically to please a mainstream crowd, and despite how important the hundreds of us complaining wanted to feel, when the game outsold the previous ones in the franchise it was hard to feel like a majority anymore.

-That a smaller company is better suited to target the niche crowd. Again, my own opinion. My logic is that moving more units with less profit on each is how a big company is conditioned to operate and moving a small number of units to a small market is how a small company is conditioned to operate. This is not always the case, but i personally feel it applies in this situation.

If there's anything else you'd like me to address specifically i'll PM you or start another thread, i think this is enough of this filling up yours.

Sup, once more you have proven yourself to be a true gentleman, and I again want to express my deep respect for you!

All the points you made in this post are valid ones, and although there could still be some debate about minor details here and there, I think we can both agree to just leave it at that and move on for the sake of this topic.

Hopefully, we will have lots of chances to engage in lively discussions here at GR.net, and I look forward to facing your unwavering energy in debating matters close to your heart, again! I am sure you have noticed that we share this characteristic, and so I think it is safe to assume that we both can enjoy a healthy controversy again!

[Parabellum]

Sup, once more you have proven yourself to be a true gentleman, and I again want to express my deep respect for you!

All the points you made in this post are valid ones, and although there could still be some debate about minor details here and there, I think we can both agree to just leave it at that and move on for the sake of this topic.

Hopefully, we will have lots of chances to engage in lively discussions here at GR.net, and I look forward to facing your unwavering energy in debating matters close to your heart, again! I am sure you have noticed that we share this characteristic, and so I think it is safe to assume that we both can enjoy a healthy controversy again!

Just a friendly rib here, but .... are you talking about the same Sup that the rest of us know? Our friend Sup has been anything but a gentleman in days past, lol.

Edited January 8, 2009 by Parabellum

[ApexMods]

Just a friendly rib here, but .... are you talking about the same Sup that the rest of us know? Our friend Sup has been anything but a gentleman in days past, lol.

Parabellum, I have to admit that due to time constraints I'm always rushing through here a lot faster than I would like, and I can therefor only speak for my few personal encounters with Sup's posts. Maybe he can be a bit of a hothead now and again, but can't we all at one time or another?

So in reference to his latest post here in this thread I stand by my position, which can of course by no means address the thousands of other posts he made here at GR.net, and I do not want to offend anyone who might have had a less positive experience.

Maybe I am just too naive in this regard, but in a closely knit community such as this here at GR.net, I tend to see the positive side of things a lot better than the negative.

I'm sure you'll understand, mate!

[Parabellum]

I was just teasing, mate.

[HoppinRaven]

<snip>

Backwards?

Thanks Tinker, I was going to respond to the "backwards" post too, but you did a much better job than I was going too.

Sadly (for today's gamers), going backwards in time to GR would actually be a step forward in many many respects, as you have shown.

Well said indeed!.

I agree with both Apexmod and Sup, and Tinker you do bring in all very valid points but all are from modder perspective (no offense meant) only. Again they are VERY valid points!

From playability perspective I think that GRAW(2) offer more than GR.

True the AI gave a lot less hasstle in modding and is, scriptwise, a little more intelligible but again in gameplay I found the AI often very frustrating; single shot headshots from the hip at 200 metres are not very realistic. And don't get me started about glitching...

GR worked better on the greater scale of things, but brought annoyances in playing the game all too often. Still GR is way better than so many of the other tactical shooters out there. ArmA brought wonderful scenery but bogged down in playability with the extreme number of possibilities almost as if they were saying: 'hey, why not pick up a toy gun and go play soldier outside? Thats much easier than this game!', but perhaps its just me ;-)

I for one, would much rather see a game that incorporates the solidity of modding from GR with the playability from GRAW(2). And hell yes I want that non-linear mission type back too...

I am wondering: how long did it take for the development team to put GR in reality? And how much time was spent on the succesor(s) GRAW(2)? Anyone?

[krise madsen]

HoppinRaven, what do you mean by "playability"?

Respectfully

krise madsen

[NoQuarter]

And how much time was spent on the succesor(s) GRAW(2)?

For GR:AW (PC) I believe setup started mid 04 and then full production in 11-04...released 05-06.

[Al-Cobra]

I guess I'm one of the few that really thought GRAW 2 had it's feet in the right space. I think if AI had been better and COOP had been about 12 people with more varied game modes, I'd still be playing it. I have not been on here for a while so maybe one of the awesome modders here have already filled my wish list.

As for an improved version of [GR], if there is the amount of mod support the first one had, the same scope and general mechanics and a real variety of game modes including 12-16 man coop,I'm totally into that and all my friends would be too.

Edited January 8, 2009 by Al-Cobra

[+Medic+~SPARTA~]

I agree. Nuff said.

[Fletch]

I guess I'm one of the few that really thought GRAW 2 had it's feet in the right space. I think if AI had been better and COOP had been about 12 people with more varied game modes, I'd still be playing it. I have not been on here for a while so maybe one of the awesome modders here have already filled my wish list.

As for an improved version of [GR], if there is the amount of mod support the first one had, the same scope and general mechanics and a real variety of game modes including 12-16 man coop,I'm totally into that and all my friends would be too.

No I think you would have a lot of people with you on that if CoOp had been just like the original set up. The biggest part of GR that made it last as long was the Tourney's that were set up. People like those type of competetion between other humans as well as playing the AI. That is why people are still playing CS to this day as well. Although it is a different crowd that likes a fast paced respawn vs GR slower one whrere one shot and your out waiting till the match is over.

[Hellyeah]

Give me Ghost Recon or give me nothing! Give me all that it was, nothing more, nothing less - just pull it out of the past and push it into the present! Give me up-to-date 3D models and graphics, a new physics engine, modern sound, the latest AI routines, cutting-edge scripting capabilities - and use it all to simulate reality to the highest degree possible on contemporary hardware! And don't forget the most important thing: Give me all the tools necessary to mod the game in any way I see fit!

[HoppinRaven]

HoppinRaven, what do you mean by "playability"?

Respectfully

krise madsen

Well the posts I was quoting were all referring to moddability, which is important for people like us who enjoy creating maps and scenarios to play for others. Modders look at the game from their perspective and most importantly if what they put into the map/scenario actually works in play.

I am not saying that modders can't be players, mind you, and my findings are from my own persective and I am more a player of the game though I've tried my share in modding (at which I found I am not that good at... yet).

With playability I mean how well the game functions for those who play it.

On a larger scale: does the game offer the functionality and the expectations one as a player has?

As Apexmod points out quite well: GR has a certain feel to it. But so far we all merely nipped at describing that feel of the game. I know and realise full well that that is hard to do. Yet I think it is very important to do, as that alone may give developpers a good idea of what we as a community want from the game.

Not just what functionality the game offers, but the feel we get from it.

What I like most about GR is that it offers players and modders a full scale of possibilities which not just in modding that scenario but also in playing: it lets you as a player decide fully what route of approach you take. Each and every descision you make determines the lives spent and the outcome of the scenario within the limits of the game.

The boundaries of GR were laid in the scene it was set: warfare in personal combat based on the knowhow of the cold war.

In GRAW(2) they tried to up the ante on that: personal warfare with technology edge on the urban front. Now Urban warfare is much more limited than the previous scene they took, plus you are stuck to the streets as you cannot bound over a building in a single leap. They limited themselves in the game in choosing this scenario.

I am not sure but I think GR was one of the first to take that scene, and blew us of our socks with what the game offered. There was no other game that offered the graphic content, the smooth play, the moddability, the immersion into a reality we (thought we) knew as the cold war and the things we dared dream as black ops. It immersed us into a hard core shooter where one hit could mean your death and failure in the mission. Not a FPS that lets you know you are being shot at because a grenade blew in your face as you reel to find the shooter since in GR you would be dropping to the ground, quite dead and cussing to reload the mission.

The game let you be in control of your actions and moves, you knew the enemy was there but not precicely where nor if they had seen you but if you were careful enough you could suprise them and win the day. But at least you were left to your senses: sight, hearing, tactical sense, patience and wits.

(You had no darned computer gimmick that tells where your enemy is. First thing I did after playing the tutorial in GRAW was switching those triangles off, then went on my way in the campaign.)

I think that scene in which the game is set is one of the key elements what makes the game and in another way how it limits the possibilities therein.

I too want a GR remake, a similar scene with more of today's weaponry: how our soldiers in the field fight.

But I do want that the game expands and outgrows its shortcomings.

Lastly: I am very curious, after all these years and considering this community, how the original developpers wanted this game to be. Is the end result what they truly wanted? And with this day and age's technology in computers, its possibilities and the increase of CPU/GPU power and all that, how they would like to see the game now. Would be wonderful to invite them to this forum!

Does all this give more clarity as to what I mean with playability?

Hop...

[RatoN]

Welcome HoppinRaven,

Just for the sake of analysis. If they come out with a zoomed-in perspective view, like Vegas or the 'Yellow Game' , it’s not gonna work for most of us 'old timers'. The wide peripheral view of Ghost Recon is greatly responsible for the immersion feel that all of us experienced with that game.

[ApexMods]

The wide peripheral view of Ghost Recon is greatly responsible for the immersion feel that all of us experienced with that game.

Good point, RatoN!

BTW - Snake@War has started a great thread about Ghost Recon's immersive qualities.

[RatoN]

Thanks for pointing that out ApexMods. Just what I’ve feared…

Forgetting about the boundaries of a monitor is very important especially for a FPS. You can limp and souls switch and have all the features you want, if you feel trapped inside a box, they will not be enjoyable.

Ghost recon didn’t feel like playing a video game, that’s why most people refer to it as a sim. It was the peripheral view folks! Fearing for your life at times or just stopping and take a look around and going 'this is beautiful', it was the impression that you were there or that you had been somewhere else for a couple of hours after the session. Not being outside playing but being inside doing. The zoomed-out view was the premise to all other features enjoyment of that shooter. Judging from Snake@War’s pole, I’m not sure all understand or realize this.

Most blame the HUD or the other gadgets of AW for not feeling immersed in that game, but the zoomed-in view is the prime suspect for that unease felling experienced by many.

Were the maps all that big in Ghost recon, or was it the perspective view?

Edited January 10, 2009 by RatoN

[ApexMods]

Thanks for pointing that out ApexMods. Just what I’ve feared… [...] The zoomed-out view was the premise to all other features enjoyment of that shooter. Judging from Snake@War’s pole, I’m not sure all understand or realize this.

Just what you feared...? Did you read Snake@War's opening post in which he underlines the importance of GR's FOV, RatoN? Although I can agree on its importance, I am not convinced that the FOV alone is responsible for making Ghost Recon so remarkably immersive, but I think this is something that can be discussed in more detail in the corresponding thread.

There is another thing I should try to get across more clearly: The AW's aren't bad games, at all - especially compared to the competition - but in my opinion they simply don't hold a candle to the original when it comes to being a tactical shooter. And this is what I find so sad - that there are many good action shooters out there and it seems superfluous to take the Ghost Recon franchise even more in that direction, leaving the field of tactical shooters empty!

There are days when I feel like playing Crysis, for example. And when I do, I enjoy myself very much. But I could just as well play DOOM III, or Quake IV, or COD4, or whatnot! But when I want to play a squad-based military tactical shooter - in the true sense of the term - I still have to turn to Ghost Recon, for lack of an alternative.

[RatoN]

hey Apex, howdoyoudo,

I wos refereeing to the result of da poll. Not the opening post, which I agree with.

And this discussion is very pertinent over here bro. As you are well aware, they are not gonna develop a remake of Ghost Recon, but a true sequel of the original is long overdue. That my friend would start with a good engine and a wide peripheral view, or 90Ëš peripheral vision, like Snake@war said. Sure, other great features made it the classic that it is, but without 'the view', close the book. I am so sure of this that it just might be my battle horse for this title, if this piece of software to be, is worth my time. Worry not, a new thread will be created for this battle...

[ApexMods]

I wos refereeing to the result of da poll. Not the opening post, which I agree with.

OK, I see what you mean, now.

Sure, other great features made it the classic that it is, but without 'the view', close the book. I am so sure of this that it just might be my battle horse for this title, if this piece of software to be, is worth my time. Worry not, a new thread will be created for this battle...

Please don't get me wrong, RaToN - if this is what you miss most about good ol' Ghost Recon, by all means ride your battle horse in here, as long as we are not starting a poll over what exactly contributed to the King's immersive qualities the most, because that would probably be more appropriate in the other thread.