Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums
ApexMods

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

Recommended Posts

What surprises me is how little these high level risks seem to be noticed and appreciated as attempts to shake up the industry and push things forward. Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I think perhaps I was expecting a few more virtual pats-on-the-back for our attempts to do something new.
Sounds like the guy, in free flight toward his watery demise, "Well, somebody told me to jump off the bridge".

____

An oldie but a goodie...

Bring the Recon back to Ghost Recon. Cross-Com...Deactivated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're right. Trying to innovate and be creative is silly, we should all still be playing pong.

If it was not for trying something new we would never have had rainbow six, why is it a sin when ubisoft tried to find a new market for new players?

advancement is good guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with starting a new game and being innovative. Build on those innovations in sequels. Ubi did that with Splinter Cell between SC and Chaos Theory. Unfortunately, they took it a completely different direction with Double Agent.

This is the same thing they did with the R6 and GR franchises. They took them completely different directions. If they kept the core gameplay and added to it, there would be fewer complaints and most likely have more people playing (all platforms) than the handful we see today.

There is a reason Microsoft's Flight Similator and Ubi's iL2 franchises are still popular today. FS is over 25 years old and people still buy it. They have kept the core gameplay and built on it with each successive version. Same with Ubi's iL2 franchise which now 8 years old and is still just as popular as ever and new people are buying the games. Oleg has added to it with content, but it is still the same game as it was when first released.

CoD and HL and other games that are being copied haven't changed their gameplay either, just settings in the case of CoD along with the BF series. Still, all of those games have similar gameplay where the R6/GR franchises had something completely different and it is what many still want, even is a certain publisher doesn't think so. Do you think many people buy a flight sim? Yet, Ubi is still the publisher (supposedly) for a new flight sim by the very developer who created the iL2 franchise based on the Battle of Britain. Will it have Blazing Angels type gameplay to attract more gamers to it? No, it will have gameplay similar to iL2. Will it still have options to make it easier to play like iL2 did (I recall similar features in R6 and GR)? Most likely.

The point is, do not try to recreate a game from it's original premise, advance it, but do nto remake it. That is what gamers want. Imagine taking Halo or CoD in a 180 degree direction. Imagine how those gamers would feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I purchase GRAW 1 & 2 and Vegas 1 and 2 but didn't give me that loving feeling so I left them alone to play COD series. COD search and destroy is tactical and TDM is smash mouth run and gun so I play both just to stay on my toes. UBI has been one big disappointment but they already know because I'm sure they monitor how popular this site is compared to their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Tinker's list of GR supperiority :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I just want to add another couple of essential things regarding flexibility, variability and gameplay that have just gone downhill since GR...

GR had 4 insertion zones each map for each MP game mode with a random insertion option, meaning that in e.g., T vs T you did not know in advance where your team and the enemy would insert. This added a lot to unique and still unbeaten T vs T gameplay experience due to the variability in the direction of firefights, in the use of covers etc on each map.

AW 2 had 2 static insertion zones for each MP gamemode for the maps (which also were rather few)

GR had 1) a damage model that made a difference and 2) a short lasting punishment for taking a hit (if not lethal), still superior any post-GR-game.

In AW 2 it did not matter how much damage you've taken, you could still aim, sprint etc just as fine as ever

Still, the thing is that publishers in this genre seem to want gamers to shelve their game after a few months and move on to the next, so that is why we most likely will never see a new or updated GR. Sorry for being realistic :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're right. Trying to innovate and be creative is silly, we should all still be playing pong.

If it was not for trying something new we would never have had rainbow six, why is it a sin when ubisoft tried to find a new market for new players?

What's wrong is they abandoned the customers who put them in a position to be able to do that, i.e. the punters that bought the original.

advancement is good guys.

Thanks Captain Obvious :thumbsup: The problem is that the GR series has not advanced (even if it says so in the title), by stripping out the features mostly listed above, they stripped out the core of what made it great. Advance SURE, but not for the sake of taking two steps back!

Maybe, just maybe...... they listened!

Nobody says it much that I've noticed, but everyone knows I am the eternal optimist when it comes to GR, otherwise these forums wouldn't be here after all. So yes, I don't just believe they have listened, I actually believe they are listening (present tense) right now. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're right. Trying to innovate and be creative is silly, we should all still be playing pong.

If it was not for trying something new we would never have had rainbow six, why is it a sin when ubisoft tried to find a new market for new players?

What's wrong is they abandoned the customers who put them in a position to be able to do that, i.e. the punters that bought the original.

And rainbox six abandoned the fans of Doom.

GR is an amazing game, why do you want it to be made *again* when the resources could be spent making NEW games that might be amazing?

That'd be like hating on modern music and wishing nobody released anything but cover CDs of your favorite band. It's just silly, even if someone mimiced GR perfectly it would lack the classic feel of the old one.

Not every game is as good as GR, but we're more likely to get games with that level of uniqueness and quality of people experiment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you're right. Trying to innovate and be creative is silly, we should all still be playing pong.

If it was not for trying something new we would never have had rainbow six, why is it a sin when ubisoft tried to find a new market for new players?

advancement is good guys.

Sup, you are of course right - advancement is good, and I think we have discussed and confirmed this point at length before (e.g. see here, here, and here).

Before we start running around in circles on the subject of innovation, I would like to suggest another approach:

Have you played Pong, Sup? Are you aware of the reasons that made this name pop into your mind when you thought of an example for a really old computer game? Let me help you right there: You, and half the people on this planet have at the very least heard of this game because it is the common ancestor of an entire species, a relic that survived through the ages - an icon of computer games.

Play Pong, and you will know why, even today! And it won't matter if you play it in its original form or if you choose one of its many clones - even the most contemporary ones, released just recently. That's right - recently! This game you chose as an image of old technology, as an example for a past better to be forgotten and overcome by innovation - this game is still produced and played today!

There are innovations in modern Pong clones, sure - new graphics, sound effects, and whatnot put this game in modern clothes and change the game experience substantially. But one thing is better left untouched for a new clone to be accepted by the hordes of its worshippers: The original concept of the game!

This concept I mean is more than a name, more than a logo, and more than a rough resemblance of appearance. It is the essence of the game, the thing that defines it - its spirit. If you tried to create a successor sharing the original's name and logo, resembling the original in appearance, and offering a myriad of new and innovative features - but lacking the original's spirit, you would miss your goal - it would simply not be a successor.

If you want to design something completely new and innovative that is only remotely based upon a former original, that is of course fine, and with a lot of luck and talent you might even end up with a new species, a new future relic, a new icon. Hats off to anyone who succeeds with this. But that would have nothing to do with succession - that would be branching off into a new family line.

What I and many other people here look for is a true successor to one particular game. We (and I just take the liberty of speaking for others, here) want the spirit of Ghost Recon to be revived.

In these forums you can find discussions about the shortcomings of other, more modern games, about the reasons why - although these games have so many new and improved features - there is such a discrepancy between the attention they received and the almost cult-like following of Ghost Recon. People here have listed many details as forensic evidence to what might have gone wrong, and to read those lists and comparisons may indeed reveal several issues that can be pinpointed, but the discussion of single details leaves the big picture still blurry and incomprehensible.

A games' spirit is not revealed by listing all of its features, neither can it be attributed to a single aspect of the game. Ghost Recon is more than squad-based, more than tactical, more than a shooter, and it can not be fully described by just combining these terms. You actually have to play it, experience it, feel it - to have a chance of grasping its essence. And there is no guarantee for that either, as some people simply don't feel it.

For some, it is just another "shooter with some realism", and I don't mean this in any disrespectful way. People are different, with different interests, different tastes, different demands towards a game, and Ghost Recon is - admittedly - catering to an apparently quite different crowd. But a crowd it is, still, and this group of people simply hungers for more of that Ghost Recon spirit.

Now it is one thing to grasp the spirit/concept, but then it is another story altogether to actually implement this concept in something new, to transport it into future developments - because as described above, it is very difficult to actually put your finger on what it is, exactly. Just as the definition can not be done by simply listing features, creating a successor is more complex than transporting features one by one to the new design. Only when the sum of all parts is joined with the actual game experience and the player can feel the presence of the original concept in the new game, the "holy grail" of the true game sequel has been found.

I may be going out on a limb here, but sometimes I think that it is not unwillingness on the side of the developer that has left us wanting for a worthy Ghost Recon successor, but rather unawareness of the true essence of what defines the unique character of the original.

If Rocky is right (and he usually is ;) ) in his belief in an open ear that listens to our discussions here, and my daring hypothesis holds even partially true, I strongly suggest that everyone post away like crazy on this subject, so eventually the right words are found to regain that fundamental understanding of what Ghost Recon should be all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I may be going out on a limb here, but sometimes I think that it is not unwillingness on the side of the developer that has left us wanting for a worthy Ghost Recon successor, but rather unawareness of the true essence of what defines the unique character of the original.

You might have seen this before, but for the benefit of others I thought I'd share this article I originally saw posted about in the BFS forums which was quite revealing that in fact Ubi as the developer is aware they are changing the true essence of the GR/R6 franchises and it is indeed a business decision:

http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/03/ubisoft-realist.html

Ubisoft: Realistic Shooters' Appeal Is Too Narrow

By Susan Arendt March 17, 2008

Don't expect Rainbow Six Vegas 2, or any other upcoming Ubisoft shooters, to follow Ghost Recon's lead, says game designer Philippe Therien. GR's one-hit kills and sprawling levels may have made the games more realistic, but they also made them more difficult, thus narrowing their appeal.

"I doubt we will ever go back to really hardcore only shooters. The market was too narrow for it to be a viable business choice. We would like to be able to please both sides but compromises have to be made," said Therien in a LiveText chat at Eurogamer.

Read the whole text chat here:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=94737

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with ApexMods. Give me Ghost Recon. Give it to me with cutting-edge graphics, and give me more options. Let me take more than six men into the field. Let me take whatever I want, not just pre-assigned kits of two items. Get rid of this Cross-Com nonsense. Get rid of the stupid Captain Mitchell story, the glamour, and the glitter. Give me the raw, M-rated, gritty, boots-in-the-dirt Ghost Recon. Or just don't make any more Ghost Recon games. Enough of this GRAW nonsense.

Sadly though, it seems that Ubi has made up their minds, based on the quotes provided by CR6. Again, Ubisoft are proving to be corporately inept. There are no other realistic shooters on the market right now, with the exception of Armed Assault. None. Narrow market? BS. Ubi could have the market all to themselves. I guess we'll see what happens, but it seems to me that Ubi is, as always, just a cash cow cashing in.

Edited by Parabellum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, CR6, I was aware of that Wired article and the EuroGamer interview, and I have to admit that pretty much everything said during the live chat looks very grin... err... grim, indeed. But I also think the assertions made by Phil Terien are no de facto representation of Ubisoft's corporate strategy, let alone a spot-on forecast of its future decisions. Mr. Terien is first and foremost a game designer and his statements on subjects beyond his area of expertise or interest should probably be taken with a grain of salt, as he points out himself during the interview.

Moderator: [...] Phil [...] has worked in the film industry on special effects and props, and has experience in game development ranging from architecture designer to level designer and game designer. He's worked on the likes of Uru Ages Beyond Myst, The Matrix Online, Naruto Rise of a Ninja and Rainbow Sixes Black Arrow, Lockdown, Vegas and of course Vegas 2. So Phil, what specifically do you do on Vegas 2?

Phil Therien: My job title is Game Designer. It means that I handle concepts, game mechanics, scenarios, characters, weapons and I followup on all these things while we are in production. [...]

crestedzulu asks: What's your view on EA's aggressive strategy towards the take-over of Take-Two? How healthy can it be for the industry, and it's long term future, if a publisher with a portfolio as strong as theirs remains vunerable to acquisition?

Phil Therien: I am more focused on making games. The business moves I keep an eye on, but really it doesn't affect the quality of games. On a personal note, whoever signs their paycheck I doubt that these guys will forget how to make kickass games. EA is a big house and they are seeking to expand, Ubisoft is putting out more and more good games, it's the nature of the industry, everyone wants to be on top.

Additionally, Mr. Terien's reasoning contradicts itself on several occasions:

[...] We really wanted to make the game more accessible to newcomers so we created a new casual difficulty mode that adapts to your skill. Someone who is very new to shooters can enjoy the game and finish it. At the same time we also revamped our hardcore realistic mode which is really for veterans. [...]

I doubt we will ever go back to really hardcore only shooters. The market was too narrow for it to be a viable business choice. We would like to be able to please both sides but compromises have to be made. [...]

It's extremely hard to balance choices with an experience that is controlled for emotions. We want to offer the best game possible while maintaining choice. It's something that takes us a lot of time to get to a point where we're happy. In the future we want to push this even further! [...]

<would the team behind the multiplayer ever consider a slower style of play with more tactical gadgets?> Absolutely. Actually, try out Team Leader in Vegas 2. This mode has a much slower pace and takes some serious tactics! [...]

We try to stay in our own direction with the game.

On the one hand, Therien explains that it is no problem to cater to an audience from newcomers to veterans through the use of adaptable or adjustable difficulty (which is not really an invention of 2008!), on the other hand he tells us it is impossible to cater to a "hardcore" audience, because compromises have to be made. Then he goes on to describe the importance of choice in a game, and emphasizes on future plans to expand on this.

These are just some examples I picked pretty much randomly from the interview. I don't want to disrespect Phil Therien in any way (after all, this interview was just a casual community chat) - but again - his stance on several issues should not be interpreted as carved-in-stone either.

Please allow me to throw another source into the mix. This comes from a feature at IGN Insider written by Nate Ahearn on June 14, 2007 (a highly recommended read, found through another post here):

How to Kill a Franchise

We point the finger at franchises that have gone seriously wrong.

US, June 14, 2007 - Seeing a beloved franchise crumble into a defunct mishmash of horrid ideas and misconstrued concepts seems to happen all too often in this day and age of money grabbing bottom-liners. A great game is relatively easy to create in comparison to what it takes to sustain that greatness throughout an entire series. Some franchises are great at keeping a high level of quality, whereas others take a swan dive into the shallow end of the pool. It might not be so bad when a company makes a one-hit-wonder that then flops, but when a series has been in our hearts for generations of systems and then takes a downturn in quality, that's when we have to turn our gaze to the publishers responsible.

We're usually not in the business of calling people out for shoddy development jobs, but in some cases, an exception must be made. In this article we'll detail some of our most beloved series that have taken a grave turn for the worse, and then tell you how future installments can right the ship. And yes, not even Electronic Arts will be spared this time around. [...]

Far Cry - Ubisoft

This is one of the saddest cases on our list. Far Cry began on the PC in 2004 and started a fire under the gaming community with its no-holds-barred AI tactics that made the game both frustrating, and totally rewarding when things actually went your way. After selling over 730,000 copies in a four-month span, the series basically began its downward spiral into oblivion [...]

Doctor's Orders: For the love of all that is good and holy, quit releasing "expansion" (that do no actual expanding on the series) games that are both stale and meaningless. It's obvious that the sales department at Ubisoft saw a fruitful series, then plucked it dry. Please, please just release a true sequel to the original Far Cry. Update the graphics to something that would make Crysis proud, and articulate a well-crafted story to support the awesome action. A foundation was set for the series to really take off from, but that has eroded away to nearly nothing over time. It's now or never to revamp the series and release a bona fide Far Cry 2. Either that, or just let the damn thing die. [...]

Splinter Cell - Ubisoft

When Sam Fisher first graced the Xbox not too long ago I really thought that Microsoft had found their answer to Metal Gear Solid. Snake was cool and all, but how you can go against any character that has Michael Ironside's voice? The stealth action was oh-so-cool, and those lighting effects were unlike anything I had ever seen before. Nowadays though, people are buying fewer and fewer of Sam Fisher's adventures each time out. With Ubisoft juggling the game between their Montreal and Shanghai studios, it's no wonder that the series has lost any form of continuity. Not so much in the story, but in the actual gameplay mechanics.

Doctor's Orders: Stop releasing Splinter Cell games every year. This should not be on a yearly release cycle; it's too good of a franchise to rush it out the door. While it is true that tossing the game back and forth between two studios gives each more time to work on their game, the feel of the game changes too much between each iteration. It looks as though Ubisoft is trying to revamp the series altogether with Conviction, but chances are that game will get lost in the holiday shuffle. Splinter Cell was a special series at one time, even a system seller, it's time for Ubisoft to treat it like one, before it's too late.

IGN's Nate Ahearn is certainly not the only person who has put the finger right in the wound of Ubisoft's dismal game sequel policy, and the voices chiming in on this seem to get louder by the minute. If anyone is still awake at the helm of Ubi corporate (and I am sure that there is), a change of direction becomes more and more unavoidable, because a formerly great franchise can only be milked for so long, and once all the fresh kiddy console customers (no disrespect!) realize that many of the old-school hardcore gamers would not touch their new titles with a ten foot pole, respect and appreciation for the brand quickly begins to wear off.

[...] There are no other realistic shooters on the market right now [...] None. Narrow market? BS. Ubi could have the market all to themselves. [...]

If you know me at all, you are probably aware that I rarely resort to an expression like this, but Parabellum is absolutely right: In my book, the narrow market argument is complete and utter BULLSHlT (sorry, Rocky!), too. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] There are no other realistic shooters on the market right now [...] None. Narrow market? BS. Ubi could have the market all to themselves. [...]

If you know me at all, you are probably aware that I rarely resort to an expression like this, but Parabellum is absolutely right: In my book, the narrow market argument is complete and utter BULLSHlT (sorry, Rocky!), too. :yes:

What about ArmA, or even Red Orchestra?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about ArmA, or even Red Orchestra?

Parabellum actually named ArmA as a sole exception (which I snipped out in the above quote - mea culpa).

Personally, I try to refrain from voicing my opinion on other games as much as possible in this thread, for fear of running off-topic. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*coughs* Yes, I mentioned Armed Assault. BI has never been a company that focused on market share though. They're out to make a good game, and satisfy their core audience. They do both quite well, unlike Ubisoft who do .... nothing ... quite well.

Anyway, I thought I'd mention a few things that GRAW did right. You know, since those folks at Ubi need a pat on the back now and again.

-The ability to customize weapons, choosing scopes, grenade launchers, silencers, etc.

-Carrying more than two items into battle, up to a maximum weight limit

-Weapons visible in first-person, creating a bit more immersion than just 2d reticle pips on the screen.

I can't think of too much else, unfortunately. Following are a few things, to make Ghost Recon great again:

1- Get the heck out of the way. Let Red Storm develop the game.

2- Take the original feel and style of Ghost Recon, and go back to that.

3- Add in the ability to customize weapons.

4- Give us the choice to take whatever we want, until a max weight limit.

5- Incorporate bullet-drop and bullet flight time, a la OFP/ArmA. The ballistics system was GR's biggest flaw, IMO.

6- Incorporate more vehicle insertions/exfils. Make the player feel like they're part of an appropriate force, rather than some Hollywood hero.

7- Do all that, with updated graphics and physics

8- Did I mention, Ubi should stay out of the way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

...If you lose sight of the core game experience that they enjoyed so much, you risk losing the fan. And that would be bad.
Not exactly a hard concept to grasp, is it, and yet Ubi has done exactly that, intentionally stripping out what made GR a GOTY, with such a devoted fanbase, for the sole purpose of moving more units.

Compromise (or in their words making a valid business choice) is one thing, wholesale sellout (as in :AW*) is another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ever more convinced that the problem with the Ghost Recon franchise is that the people in charge (be it producer or developer) failed to grasp exactly what it was that made [GR] so great. Not a lack of developer skill, but a fundamental faliure to grasp the particular elements of [GR] that made it different from other shooters.

Which is also why Blackfoot Studios has me bouncing off the walls with anticipation. They get it.

Respectfully

krise madsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm ever more convinced that the problem with the Ghost Recon franchise is that the people in charge (be it producer or developer) failed to grasp exactly what it was that made [GR] so great. Not a lack of developer skill, but a fundamental faliure to grasp the particular elements of [GR] that made it different from other shooters.

That is exactly what I elaborated on in this post, right here in this thread:

I may be going out on a limb here, but sometimes I think that it is not unwillingness on the side of the developer that has left us wanting for a worthy Ghost Recon successor, but rather unawareness of the true essence of what defines the unique character of the original.

Although, the whole truth is probably more complicated than that. Yes, ignorance to the core fundamentals of the game is a very important issue, but - as often in business - there are certainly other, more intricate powers at play, too, that have been examined to an extent in previous posts in this thread and in other topics, e.g. here and here.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ever more convinced that the problem with the Ghost Recon franchise is that the people in charge (be it producer or developer) failed to grasp exactly what it was that made [GR] so great. Not a lack of developer skill, but a fundamental faliure to grasp the particular elements of [GR] that made it different from other shooters.

That is exactly what I elaborated on in this post, right here in this thread:

I may be going out on a limb here, but sometimes I think that it is not unwillingness on the side of the developer that has left us wanting for a worthy Ghost Recon successor, but rather unawareness of the true essence of what defines the unique character of the original.

Although, the whole truth is probably more complicated than that. Yes, ignorance to the core fundamentals of the game is a very important issue, but - as often in business - there are certainly other, more intricate powers at play, too, that have been examined to an extent in previous posts in this thread and in other topics, e.g. here and here.

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.

Oops, missed that bit, sorry :blush: But hey, we certainly agree :D

It's also why I don't worry much about the game being set in 2013, 1968 or any other date. The key issue is whether the developers really get the point of [GR] or not. GRIN, for all their other qualities, didn't.

What makes me so confident about Blackfoot's work is the little snippets of information, not so much about the game, but about the design thought process, primarily NORG. Whenever the developers talk about the design process, it's evident that they understand the core issues.

If you look at the 3rd Blackfoot newsletter, there are two images of a character peeking round a corner. That's you (or rather your character) in the game; peeking, torso bent forward, weapon lowered. Not just leaning with your gun up like in any other shooter, but actually peeking. Now imagine what Blackfoot is doing with every other aspect of the game. That's totally awesome.

Respectfully

krise madsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oops, missed that bit, sorry

No problem at all - I just wanted to show my agreement. :)

It's also why I don't worry much about the game being set in 2013, 1968 or any other date.

Hmm... I am not indifferent to that aspect at all - one more WWII or "Future Warrior" title and I will :x !

The key issue is whether the developers really get the point of [GR] or not. GRIN, for all their other qualities, didn't.

Agreed.

What makes me so confident about Blackfoot's work is the little snippets of information, not so much about the game, but about the design thought process, primarily NORG.

For the benefit of our readers maybe the acronym NORG should be explained here: It stands for "Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay" - a term coined in the BFS forums and a concept that employs a strong adherence to simulated realism throughout the development process that is thought to - in turn - lead to an equally natural gameplay as a logical consequence. (If I am mistaken would someone more knowledgeable on this subject please correct me? Thanks.)

From what I can gather about this development philosophy so far, it seems indeed the right approach to create a realistic tactical simulation, at the very least the term itself is a good maxim to remember when designing a realistic game. However, I think realism alone does not fully capture the attraction Ghost Recon has for me as a player, either. It is not only in-game that Ghost Recon just feels right - it can also be experienced in other little things like simple game menus, easy-to-use (yet very functional) multiplayer/server setup etc. - aspects that go beyond reality simulation.

In my (humble) opinion, Ghost Recon also profits heavily from several features it actually does not have, and I am not only talking about shiny diamonds everywhere. The game's charm is equally emphasized by its simplicity in many ways, just as by its impressive features in others. This is by no means a call for less features in a new title - it is just a reminder that there is more to getting a game just right than a tag line.

Furthermore, I started this thread as a desperate cry for a true Ghost Recon successor in view of the GR4 rumors, and although I have stated...

As a loyal fan I wished it would be the original makers, but if it is not to be, I would not mind moving on too much, as it is the spirit of the game I admire more than the name on the package.

... I have to admit that I am an incorrigible sentimentalist and optimist still clinging on to the last remnants of hope that maybe - just maybe - the new game I am longing for will have the words "Ghost Recon" in its name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the benefit of our readers maybe the acronym NORG should be explained here: It stands for "Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay" - a term coined in the BFS forums and a concept that employs a strong adherence to simulated realism throughout the development process that is thought to - in turn - lead to an equally natural gameplay as a logical consequence. (If I am mistaken would someone more knowledgeable on this subject please correct me? Thanks.)

That's about it, yes. :thumbsup And it's worth remembering that GR had [a simple form of] NORG as well: The expanding crosshairs.

However, I think realism alone does not fully capture the attraction Ghost Recon has for me as a player, either. It is not only in-game that Ghost Recon just feels right - it can also be experienced in other little things like simple game menus, easy-to-use (yet very functional) multiplayer/server setup etc. - aspects that go beyond reality simulation.

In my (humble) opinion, Ghost Recon also profits heavily from several features it actually does not have, and I am not only talking about shiny diamonds everywhere. The game's charm is equally emphasized by its simplicity in many ways, just as by its impressive features in others. This is by no means a call for less features in a new title - it is just a reminder that there is more to getting a game just right than a tag line.

Yup, it was pretty awesome. As with the original Rainbow Six games, sometimes things just come together perfectly. And considering that Ubi owns the rights to GR and thus can freely rip off their own intellectual property, the co-op/MP lobby of GRAW looks like something slapped together during a lunch break. Not entirely fair perhaps, but when you adorn your game with the brand of an all-time classic, you're also required to live up to the high standards.

I still haven't seen a shred of evidence that Ubi will make the next Ghost Recon game anything but another action slug fest. Which is fine. GRAW (console) was a great pair of games, just not games in a genre that I like, and certainly not the game that GR was.

Respectfully

krise madsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :rolleyes: ) 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think I've said it a number of times but GR:AW (both) was a great (but buggy) game, but it should never have had the GR name as it was not a recon /tactical game. It was a military arcade shooter that I still play on occassion and wish certain things were different.

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

×