Tactical state of mind.

[DBest1]

Wow a lot of ppl are dogging this game already and it wasn’t even show cased in its entirety yet. All we saw was a few minutes of a demo. A demo that more than likely was on the easiest mode and stripped down. If you noticed the character had no side arm or exoskeleton on (except for the enemies by the truck) or extra equipment on him. They were no game modes shown or any shoulder mount rocket to showcase and no indicator as to how big that map was. All we saw was an almost empty Hud ( which I liked) and the cloak ability. The game play was smooth and a lot less sluggish than GRAW2 but not in any way like Halo, I didn’t see anyone jumping 15 feet in the air with a sniper rifle, or no force fields, and I know I didn’t see any aliens in that demo. The game has a ways to go before anyone can say anything negative about it; and even though we may see more game play footage in the future, one still have to play it first to make an honest opinion. But I’m optimistic.

From what I saw the game looks amazing, a nice step up from GRAW2 and now with the ability to have multiple views when zooming with the scope is long overdue (I was hoping to see those views in GRAW and GRAW2) but now we got em. The game looks very tactical from what I saw. But you can’t honestly think you can go run and gun on that beach front with all those snipers and heavy gunners entrenched along the board walk, it would take a skillful approach and a lot of stealth for that small unit. It all depends on how you play the game and who you play with. Honestly even Halo can be played tactically if you approach it in the right mindset (though I wouldn’t care for it, but you know what I mean).

What kills me is that ppl are acting like Ubi came up with all this futuristic stuff to put in the game on their own, when they have repeatedly stated that all of this stuff is from the R&D departments of various Military agencies that they are working on or are researching for future use. So how is that Sci-Fi when it actually exists or will exist? I even heard them say that they only used some of the stuff in the game because the other stuff was just too unbelievable.

Either way I’m a huge fan of the Ghost Recon series and right now it is the only game that I haven’t traded and still play after all these years. I can’t wait to play Future soldier with some true tactics, and run it like we run GRAW2, no icons, all levels on hard and no responds. 4 man units all different classes and a lot of professional communication with each unit ran by team leads. That how we do it in Co-op Elite and we plan on carrying on that same standard when Future soldier drops. You can either keep complaining about how you’re not gonna buy the game or you can approach it in a tactical state of mind and enjoy the game, cause truth be told 90% of the ppl dogging the game are gonna end up either playing the demo, renting it or buying it cause everyone else on their friends list is gonna have it. Keep it tactical!!

[atacms]

Well said.

[Parabellum]

You can either keep complaining about how you’re not gonna buy the game or you can approach it in a tactical state of mind and enjoy the game, cause truth be told 90% of the ppl dogging the game are gonna end up either playing the demo, renting it or buying it cause everyone else on their friends list is gonna have it. Keep it tactical!!

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I'm going to do so. Even Counter-Strike can be tactical if you play it that way. That doesn't mean that the game itself is a tactical game. GRAW and GRAW 2 were both standard-fare arcade shooters. Nothing more, nothing less. Just like Counter-Strike and CoD. I don't expect that FS will be any different. Why? Ubi's track record of making arcade shooters should be enough evidence to support my view there. GRAW didn't require tactics, for example. GRAW required manipulation of game mechanics. There's a vast difference.

[MeanMF]

Any game can be played with tactics.. It's a question of whether they're real-world tactics or video game tactics. Many of the multiplayer modes in Halo are very tactical and team oriented, but it's 100% video game tactics. The great thing about GR is that it was one of the few games where actual real-world tactics worked, and worked well. The addition of the 3rd person perspective killed most of that, and the new gadgetry looks like it could just end up being a technological rock-paper-scissors game, where everything has a particular use and some other gadget that will defeat it.

[atacms]

Any game can be played with tactics.. It's a question of whether they're real-world tactics or video game tactics. Many of the multiplayer modes in Halo are very tactical and team oriented, but it's 100% video game tactics. The great thing about GR is that it was one of the few games where actual real-world tactics worked, and worked well. The addition of the 3rd person perspective killed most of that, and the new gadgetry looks like it could just end up being a technological rock-paper-scissors game, where everything has a particular use and some other gadget that will defeat it.

Out of curiousity what do you define or feel are real world tactics? The more detail the better as I'd like to see if you have in mind the same thing as the official FM's.

[MeanMF]

The most basic would be using suppressing fire to flank a defensive position. Basically you try to locate the defenders, then gunners lay down fire to keep them pinned down and unable to observe your movements. Then the maneuver team advances on the enemy's flank and takes them out. There are a lot of variations on this. Another one would be bounding where you take turns with part of the team providing cover while the rest are advancing.

The third person view really shifts the balance to the defender/camper in both cases. Finding a defender is much more difficult when they can see you through cover, but you can't see them, so it's less likely that you'll correctly know where to lay down fire. And suppressing fire isn't effective if the guy you're suppressing can still watch all of your movements without fear of being shot, then pop out when or where it's safe and kill your maneuvering teammate who he's been watching the whole time. Also ambushes become much easier to pull off because you can just sit behind an obstacle where you can't be seen, then pop out and shoot when you see somebody coming your way. It's possible to set up ambushes in 1st person view too, but it's harder because you have to at least expose your head in order to look around.

It also reduces the effectiveness of snipers. The sniper carries a heavier weapon that takes longer to steady and aim. So when they use the x-ray vision capability of the 3rd person view, when they pop out from behind cover they're at a disadvantage because they're going to have to wait an extra second before they can make an accurate shot. If they don't use cover this way then they're at a disadvantage because they can be seen but can't see other people who are behind cover. With the 1st person view, everybody has to come out of cover in order to see what's going on. So if the sniper is positioned well, he has a much better chance of spotting the enemy and taking a shot before the enemy spots him.

You can adjust to all of these things, but it means using video game tactics to counter the defender/camper's advantage. Things like tossing random grenades, strafing/prefiring around corners, etc. It may work, but it kills any illusion that you're not just playing yet another video game.

[DBest1]

You can either keep complaining about how you’re not gonna buy the game or you can approach it in a tactical state of mind and enjoy the game, cause truth be told 90% of the ppl dogging the game are gonna end up either playing the demo, renting it or buying it cause everyone else on their friends list is gonna have it. Keep it tactical!!

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I'm going to do so. Even Counter-Strike can be tactical if you play it that way. That doesn't mean that the game itself is a tactical game. GRAW and GRAW 2 were both standard-fare arcade shooters. Nothing more, nothing less. Just like Counter-Strike and CoD. I don't expect that FS will be any different. Why? Ubi's track record of making arcade shooters should be enough evidence to support my view there. GRAW didn't require tactics, for example. GRAW required manipulation of game mechanics. There's a vast difference.

Parabellum your point is well taken and I understand where you’re coming from. But what you are looking for along with me and mostly everyone else, is a Sim style military game and you’re not going to find that on any console. I believe the closest thing we got to that on the 360 was OFP:DR. With that being said, GRAW and GRAW2 were the only military style games that offered a form of tactical game play even though it may have been dummed down a bit to include other gamers who may not be as military oriented as the GR community.

Yet still with the little that it has, when blended with a tactical approach it can be rewarding (I’m speaking of the co-op modes by the way. I find modes like Exfiltration and Blind Siege to be much more tactical imo) There is a list of things I would love to see in GR:FS, from map editors to customizable load outs and assigned squad units. Will we get it? I would say probably not unfortunately but it is still early so who knows. But what we will get would still be the closest thing we have to any kind of Tactical military game on the 360. Hopefully Ubi will stick to their words and maintain the core game play that made GR so great, because at this point that is all I can ask that shouldn't be to hard to deliver.

[Parabellum]

Parabellum your point is well taken and I understand where you’re coming from. But what you are looking for along with me and mostly everyone else, is a Sim style military game and you’re not going to find that on any console....

If I may be so bold, playing on a console is half your problem. Do I like consoles? Sure. Do I play shooter games on them, hoping for something that's actually tactical and somewhat realistic? No. Hell no. Consoles, with their simple controls, are better suited for arcade games. Always have been, always will be. While it is possible to play them tactically (I've seen Hatchetforce play Navy Seals on his PlayStation, and ... damn) consoles really aren't suited for 'realistic' military games.

Beyond that, most console players are children. There have been several studies done which prove that fact, and if memory serves correctly, we had some discussion on that matter here on these boards some time ago. The point there is that children typically (but not in all cases) don't have the attention span for games like Ghost Recon or ArmA. Kids like big bangs and "oh wow!" moments. Instant gratification. Since children make up the bulk of console users, it makes sense that the products are designed for their attention and interest. Hence, true tactical shooters have largely gone the way of the dinosaur.

[atacms]

The most basic would be using suppressing fire to flank a defensive position. Basically you try to locate the defenders, then gunners lay down fire to keep them pinned down and unable to observe your movements. Then the maneuver team advances on the enemy's flank and takes them out.

Ok, I would definitely agree that fire and maneuver is essential. Bounding as a subset of maneuver is key to adding immersion. I recall THQ's Full Spectrum Warrior: Ten Hammers allowed you to bound your fireteams and ensure you had a base of fire covering your maneuver element. It would be great to see that in GRFS. If Ubi insists that there will be no squad controls, then I would hope we get to see always bounding movements performed by the AI. It seemed that the E3 demo seemed to show that where one Ghost would move to one position and set up a support base before the other moved on to his next cover position. As I said hopefully that will be indicative of how the team ALWAYS moves in SP. If playing in MP with bots to fill in, I would hope they also do the same.

I'd also add the use of cover and concealment which we see Ubi has addressed. One can argue that concealment has been marred a bit through the use of the active camo, however the game is set in the future and it is true that this is tech that is being developed with plans to roll out probably in 15 year or so. I do like that Ubi has implemented logical gameplay limitations regarding adaptive camo in the sense that you can't move fast. You can see how adapting the surrounding environment would take a lot of processing power and tax the tech to match its surroundings in real time if the soldier is moving quickly. My hope is that Ubi equips the Ghosts with smoke grenades since the enemy will still at some point be able to locate the Ghosts if let's say an EMP went off and destroyed their electronic gear. This way you are always able to fall back on the "old school" way of concealment.

Combined arms is another key part of tactics and you have this also in GRFS through the different loadouts that each Ghost represents in the team; however I hope that both in SP and in MP, Ubi take a page out of EA's Battlefield book and make some missions/modes larger than life where Ghosts are tasked w/supporting large conventional allies. The idea being that they're in the middle of a major engagement. This would THEN allow the Ghosts to use or assist the other elements of the conventional military's combined arms such as artillery, aviation and armor.