Where I think GR:FS should be heading....

[Lightspeed]

Must have weapons view and reload animations - absolute must - the reticule only view is just wrong for a game of today.

This was never as apparent to me as the other day - yes I have been playing some Arma2 (hold it against me if you will) and in that game you need to take into account distance of your enemy when engaging - you cant put the crosshair on the tango and pull the trigger a la Ghost Recon and he's dead - it actually takes skill and patience (as it would in a real life tactical sim).

Watching a youtube video of GR the other day and seeing the reticule only view and placing the crosshair on the target for a guaranteed kill - it just seemed so basic and underdone.

Love or hate Arma2, there are many attributes that should be implemented into GR -

- the weapons view and reload animations

- the ability to zoom weapons aim with or without scope

- real time insertions by air/land/sea

- real time artillery strikes, laser designating

- realistic sniping - bullet drop and ballistics

- weapons loadouts realistic and effected by the class you choose

- easy modding - and ability to choose time of day or night and weather conditions

- enemy vehicles that appear to think and act for themselves - unpredictable and deadly

- free look (weapons remain static while you turn)

- v key to leap over waist high objects

- walk/run/sprint options

- stinger/javelins/smaws

- pop smoke for cover

- unrestricted terrain - freedom to move down a steep mountain face or fall off a buidling if not careful

Now Arma2 isnt GR and Gr isnt Arma2 - but bringing the best of both games together is the direction GR should be heading.

Put more of Arma2 in GR - for the ultimate tactical sim.

I wonder if BIS will win the race to produce this game.

And just a quick addin - an engine like that being used for Dragon Rising would be fantastic - that is just spectacular.

[krise madsen]

Must have weapons view and reload animations - absolute must - the reticule only view is just wrong for a game of today.

I don't think anyone really prefer not having the weapon view; I certainly don't. I do, however, prefer effective simulation of weapon weight, inertia and recoil, which GR did extremely well, and R6/RS even better (it was even more important in a CQB environment). What it boils down to is having the real life differences between a huge machinegun and a small submachinegun be evident in the game, and in a manner that doesn't do more damage than good (like making machineguns extra inaccurate to compensate for the lack of weight and inertia simulation).

Now Arma2 isnt GR and Gr isnt Arma2 -

Truer words hath ne'er been spoken.

but bringing the best of both games together is the direction GR should be heading.

I agree, to an extent. Lots of GR and a pinch of ArmA2.

[Lightspeed]

I would have said equal parts of both

GR was great for stealth and had decent cqb - Arma2 brings everything else to the table.

And I think most ppl would agree that the weapons feel and recoil of Arma2 is very polished now.

Edited September 14, 2009 by ZJJ

[ZJJ]

Several posts have been removed.

Let's keep this thread in the discussion of where GR4 is heading. That can include comparisons with other games; HOWEVER, that does not include promotion of playing other games to prove your points.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

[ROCO*AFZ*]

I seem to remember this thread somewhere else, but i'll re-post my thoughts since i have played GR1 since the demo in May of 2002 and have ran a squad through many o years.

GR4 for clans to adopt needs replays. (Record feature in COD4 is nice but nothing beat GR1 replays

GR4 needs Big maps (GRAW2 size was perfect, Arma size is not for squads and laddering)

GR4 Needs random spawns (4 would be great)

GR4 needs options for up to 4 teams to duke it out

GR4 Needs Balanced Weapons

GR4 Needs Injuries and penalties besides flashing red for taking hits. (GR1 style)

GR4 does not need vehicles (except in co-op situations)

And for comparison.

Arma does not support clan laddering in any way. Great for co-opers but not all of us have 5 hours to play a mission.

COD and 5 even on hardcore although matchable, has no injuries (penalties) and maps are too small. (if i can run 5 steps and frag the enemy... it's to small. I miss the 10 minute maps of GR1 days)

Battlefield - don't even go there. Fun but not what we are looking for

Frontlines Fuels of war - Some really good concepts, and a very small injury model where you would flash red and blur as you were hit. Maps were right size but it was very buggy

Graw1 - had some fun matches but didn't last long. Good concepts and new game play. Very few Server hostings hosted it, and it required to much from a home connection.

GRAW2 - again Very fun. Lotsa changes over Graw1 Some hosts would host it for you but server was very unstable. By the time the server side showed promise, it was already overlooked for matching by most clans.

[Lightspeed]

Im curious Roco - why do you think GR MP was so good compared to most other games.

I agree but cant really pinpoint why it was so much better then the rest to date...its got me puzzled.

Was it the range of varied environments and the size = felt large without being too big?

Definitely would like to see the first release of GR4 with lots of maps in different environments like the first release of GR. Caves to Mountain to Red Square - lots of variety. But would like to see them at least double possibly triple the size - say 1000m x 1000m but then does that potentially kill the good MP size of Ghost Recon?

I would agree with all of what you said about the MP aspect of GR - used to love 4 team GR, random spawns and random respawns, real gimping system which directly affected your ability to fight back or retreat to safety, and no vehicles as well.

[ApexMods]

I think a very important factor of (original) Ghost Recon's superiority in online MP and international league competition is its very effective netcode, which e.g. is very forgiving when it comes to higher latency / ping response. Had a long conversation about this with Ben from GhostLeague.net in which he explained many of GR's technical advantages over other FPS' online MP implementations in some detail. Will try to find the corresponding emails.

[WhiteKnight77]

I remember many people complaining of GR's map size as being too big when it first came out, now some of those very people are saying that the maps are too small. Make up, y'all's minds.

Regarding map size, more than 500x500 meters is too big really. Even at 400x400 (think an area the size of the Pentagon in DC) you have an area, while seemingly small is bigger than one realizes. With the way John and company designed the maps, they appeared even bigger than they really were. That alone helped gameplay for both MP and SP. A person can walk across a 500 meter distance in about 7 minutes or so. Do any of you really want to spend 10 minutes to walk more than a half mile in a game to get somewhere?

[Lightspeed]

thats a great point WK - although only 400x400 they felt for me like they were closer to double that.

so again it does raise the question for MP at least - how big is too big?

i think you're right - anything over 500 is getting too big for MP while COD is too small - 400 x 400 is virtually perfect imho.

one of the things i did with my GRAW2 mod was to take coop sized maps (around 800 x 800 were they?) and split them or break them off into interesting but smaller MP maps - which might be an easy way for RSE to cater for both without having the burden of making all new maps.

[Toughie]

As an old GR player, I would love to see GR4 just like original GR, with beefed graphics and good anti-cheat program. And I would be happy. I don't want to complicate things that worked so well. Things change, games change, but I play GRAW2 on xbox360 and it's amazing. There are new things introduced but general principle stayed the same.

Hopefully map size will remain the same as well. Big maps look good only as a marketing gimmick.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Toughie

[NoQuarter]

^

Big maps look good only if you prefer not to start a level (or a match) with your back up against the wall...with limited options out of the gate.

Hopefully, the devs will split the difference and increase the amount of elbow room, as not everyone plays on the x-box.

[Toughie]

GR or R6 series didnt have huge maps and games were fantastic. After playing other games on huge maps the only option I had was running a lot and looking for action as everything was spread apart.

It doesnt really matter if you play on xbox or pc, you still have to do the same things.

[NoQuarter]

Origmiss, MP1, & MP2, good as they are, are not without their faults or limitations...player-accessible map size being front and center among them.

As for wandering around and looking for something to shoot at, well, isn't that kind of what recon is all about.

____

The marketing gimmick introduced with AW* i.e., hero role-playing -and all that that entails,was as a direct result of Ubisofts decision to split the development between console and PC teams and then trying (and failing IMO) to tie the different games together again, with the PC-user ending up getting short changed.

Present company excluded, PC and console audiences are not as a whole looking for the same thing in a title.

Porting from another platform is the one design choice/mistake that the devs should avoid if they plan on offering up a worthy PC successor this time around...but judging by Ubis' recent track record, that is about as likely as pigs on the wing.

____

Sorry, ZJJ.

[Toughie]

Perhaps just walking around and shooting someone once in a few min is ok to some in single player but it's boring once you try playing adversarial multiplayer games.

I'm not even gonna go into difference between console and pc gaming as it is beyond scope of the discussion. I play shooters on pc with few exceptions but I neither care nor see how console prevents from making squad based games. There are those types of shooters available on console, some are quite successful.

The point is I hope they avoid making huge maps, OFP, Delta Force comes to mind, where it takes forever to get to action and you often get shot soon after you get there. Ghost Recon was different type of game, perhaps not your type. GRAW had even bigger maps, sufficient enough for tactical depth without of necessity of excessive running.

[mordred]

I wanna see:

- NO-linear gameplay

- GREAT COOP MODE

- GOOD modding tool , letting modders do guns, maps,missions....

- Great graphics

- NO ARCADE gaming, but stealthy like old GR when the need is there

- LOTS and LOTS of different weapons, also SD versions.

- Great sounds and weather effects.

Mordred

oh yeah and

!!!!!!! an SR25 SD Version !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lightspeed]

Perhaps just walking around and shooting someone once in a few min is ok to some in single player but it's boring once you try playing adversarial multiplayer games.

see when you say that Toughie you just sound like a run'n'gunner not a GR tactical player at all. Let me guess you love unlimited respawns too?

im not sledging at all here so please don't get me wrong, but GR is about slow and stealthy, one shot one kill - its the thrill of the hunt and the jump out of your chair when you get shot bcoz you weren't expecting it feel. this is original GR and thats what GR should always be.

once it moves away from a tactical game where preserving life is as important as completing objectives then it ceases to be a Recon game.

[BS PALADIN]

I disagree. [GR] wasn't just about slow paced tactical gameplay. The gameplay could be fast and tactical as well. I played many slow, no respawns siege matches but I also played alot of unlimited respawns LMS games on emnbassy and later on, Polling center on GRIT.

Modern warfare can be fast as well as slow but the important thing is that the tactical element remains. Which it did no matter what gametype you played on GR.

[Lightspeed]

actually i do remember those LMS fast paced matches - they were cool - alomst forgot about those thanx for the memories