Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums
Sign in to follow this  
struth__

Ghost Recon Future Soldier PC WARNING

Recommended Posts

Ghost Recon Future Soldier PC WARNING

I think this is an appropriate title for this post assuming that GR-FS will break the Ten year tradition of producing a GR title as a First Person Shooter or release map editing tools or a SADS. :stupid:

This should send out alarm bells to all those who have been following ghost recon, GRAW, GRAW2 or supporting it, as our community has done for over five years. GraveDiggers DownUnder When GRAW was released we had waited for over 4 years for the sequel to arrive and wasn’t it worth the wait? One short year latter the GRiN developers gave us the Holy Grail “Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2”

The GRiN developers set out with the intention to create... “A pure specific PC game”

It’s the first thing Nouredine says and that my friends say it all, not only did they succeed; they stayed true to the previous community that played Ghost Recon. I for one was one of those people.

Let me take the time to say thanks to Bo Andersson, Nouredine Abboud and anyone one else that was involved in the process of developing GRAW2.



  1. Thanks GRiN for respecting the features in the original Ghost Recon that we all got used to and loved so much for so long, you successfully carried all these features forward into the new version while enhancing the useability with the cross com system.

  2. Thanks GRiN for having the foresight to include a map editor with the vital tools so that the community who play can be inspired to create & learn about coding and the level writing process continuing to games life long after the ruthless UBISOFT executives and directors have finished with the game.

  3. Thanks GRiN for including a standalone dedicated server (SADS) so that the community can host their own server (maybe even multiple versions) and learn a thing or two about Networking and TCP/IP standards included in layer 3 of the OSI. I know I have accumulated a much appreciated knowledge in this and other areas of technology I attribute as a direct result of the inspiration spawned from hosting this game.

  4. Thanks Grin in understanding that computer hardware and software is evolving and therefore including support for x64 bit OS and multi core platforms, including the SADS at a time when multi-core was only just starting to enter the public domain, it was way back in July 2007, it wasn’t until I ran a server with the AM2 processer that I realized multiple versions of the SADS were automaticity setting up on core0 and core1 respectively.

The Ghost Recon Future Soldier PC WARNING is:

We are seeing promotional material associated with a third person view with Ghost Recon Future Solider. A port over from X-Box is what we are seeing? OW! Do correct me if I'm wrong, I will be only too happy to be informed otherwise? But don't bother trying to convince me the over the shoulder "parrot view" has any relevance what-so-ever with Ghost Recon on the PC? :nono:

How can they do this to a series that has been a FPS for ten years?

We have advised all our members to not buy ghost recon future soldier until we can be assured it is in the first person. We were all looking forward to the retune of the legendary Ghost Recon series at gddu.net.

We got sucked in with HAWKS and we won’t be pre ordering this one, HAWKS was a cheap attempt to create a Jet flighting sim, once again a direct port-over from the console, no tools, no SADS and we smell a rat with GR: FS.

It’s not good enough UBISOFT, even EA managed to stay true to a PC FPS with BF2 to BF3. I here there doing quite well with on-line participation on BF3 servers, from what I am seeing EA and their BF3 have taken all your online participants? We all know BF3 is the state-of -the-art PC FPS game at the current time, sad as it may be at least it's in the first Person view.

My OP:

I don’t like BF3 :wall: as much as I like playing any of the GR series to this day, largely because shooting feels realistic! with GR, GRAW & GRAW2, I love them all and will endeavour to support GR, GRAW & GRAW2 into the future however we will not support Future Fu{ k3d up Soldier.

Most of our members are a little board after playing GRAW2 for 5 years but thanks to the GR community providing new content the coop lives on...

...Struth!

System Admin

www.gddu.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread seems rather redundant; frankie_the_g already started a more constructive discussion about TTP with the thread: 3rd Person - Just on Console or PC too? Is it a deal breaker?; and it seems rather unlikely that the TTP in GR:FS is going to come as a shock to anyone that warrants a warning... It's already been made clear that GR:FS goes so far off OGR canon that TPP is the least significant change as far as Ghost Recon fans looking something familiar. TPP is not inherently a bad thing as far as a tactical shooter is concerned and does not necessarily obviate realism or tactical depth.

Looking around the forum when replying to frankie_the_g's post, I found this thread that has some interesting discussion about TPP; what's more some of the most deeply tactical games and simulators like: VBS, RTI, ArmA, Hidden & Dangerous, Tactical Strike and Full Spectrum Warrior rely heavily on TPP for some of the reasons discussed...

Even Ghost Recon Original didn't have an FPP but a hybrid 'Ghost Perspective' in order to solve some of the issues of view distance realism and FOV scaling. Heck, 'First Person' in games really isn't even technically 'First Person' -- those aren't your hands on the screen after all, and unless or until we have VR gloves and tracking VR goggles that work, all we really have is 'Second Person' which presents as many game design issues in terms of realism and tactical depth in a game as any of the alternatives.

:blink:

Edited by 101459

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does not necessarily obviate realism

Really?

Yup.

How often in life do you find yourself with a viewpoint over your shoulder?

About as often as you find yourself manipulating your hands with a keyboard, or constrained to a flat anamorphic 2d projection, or, have to turn your entire body with your eyes, or have your FOV limited to < 90°, or, have no proprioceptive peripheral cues.

But to take your rather sarcastic line of your question in a more constructive direction; there is a lot more to realism in game or simulator design then subjective aesthetic preference regarding perspective; there's how the game plays, things you can't see, perceive, or do in the real world or that require very disruptive or greater (or less) effort then in the real world.

:rolleyes:

Edited by 101459

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creating a game that allowed the player to manipulate his movements through virtual simulation would be expensive for both developer and customer, while at least ALLOWING a first-person viewpoint would not only be appealing to many customers, but would also stay true to the series, instead of this third-person watch-our-cool-state of the art-animation-crap thermal shoulder mounted heat-seeking rocket launcher and sniper tracking grenade stuff. The viewpoint is only a small fraction of the game's problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're rather missing my point -- which is that in games as they're currently played FPP is not any more technically realistic then TPP and can in just as many regards be less so with respect to how the game is played, making the argument of TPP vs FPP more of a discussion of aesthetic preference then one of correct scale realism... The thread linked above discusses just a few of the problems a TPP can solve in the interest of more realistic game play, ArmA Fans take this discussion a lot further...

I came to the the realization and acceptance that GR:FS is not going to be remotely on canon with respect to Original Ghost Recon, when pre-reboot our reconnaissance team was described as this:

vf-25-2.jpg

And post-reboot when the fantasy projected HUD, always glowing visors and other histrionic fantasy goo-gaws made it clear that "F" in GR:FS might as well Fantasy... It's also been just as obvious for even longer that Ubisoft doesn't recognize Gamer's as Game Players, but as an Audience -- and is about as receptive to our input as Universal Studios is about making 'Block Buster!' movie. We're just way too far down the tracks and sans there being some sort of dramatic upheaval at Ubisoft there doesn't look to be much prospect for change.

The only real hope I see are Indie Developers like this one, or Developers like BI that are receptive to Fan input... In the case of the former, it seems most everyone is too conditioned to passive complaining rather then participating, and in the case of the latter if you don't like the bulwark of design that is ArmA, you're back to wishful thinking and pining for Ubisoft to wake up -- meanwhile the Indie Developers shy on resources and recognition plod slowly on -- or fade away...

:huh:

Edited by 101459

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread seems rather redundant; frankie_the_g already started a more constructive discussion about TTP with the thread: 3rd Person - Just on Console or PC too? Is it a deal breaker?; and it seems rather unlikely that the TTP in GR:FS is going to come as a shock to anyone that warrants a warning... It's already been made clear that GR:FS goes so far off OGR canon that TPP is the least significant change as far as Ghost Recon fans looking something familiar. TPP is not inherently a bad thing as far as a tactical shooter is concerned and does not necessarily obviate realism or tactical depth.

I purposely used the title as you see it so that if you Google “ghost recon future soldier PC” you will get a warning and hopefully not blow you money on a game that’s just going to attempt to inappropriately profit from the good GR name and its reputation as a hard core First Person Shooter when it’s a port-over from the console.

Don’t you dare try to convince me otherwise, I think I made that clear, shame on you, SHAME! Lol

I would rather bury my head in the .net framework, php or html and give up gaming all together.

If you want to play the “Parrot View Soft Cockatoo Third Person Version” (PVSCTPV) so be it, get you console and buy that version an beat yourself up on it, better still get a pirate game so you can immerse yourself in the PVSCTPV affect.

There are many other games in development that are only too happy to cater for the FPS PC market and us gamers have an endless supply of cash to contribute to the companies that will produce the content that we like. for instance It’s now certain we will support BF3 though we were prepared to convert that support to GRFS if necessary.

We will further our relations with support for Sniper Ghost Recon a little polish co. that clocked over a million copies cross platform with their $15.00 bargain basement game, they were clearly shocked by this. The sequel will be out very soon, It won’t be delayed, it has a standalone dedicated server, the devs respond with new DLC, patches to further refine the game, you know like GRiN did for GRAW2. This is one of many young development houses now popping up all over the world, there is hope. People are desperate to experience realism from there gaming experiences, the console is no exception. Not even City Interactive would be stupid enough to try to package a third person version of SGW, that would be the end for that title and they know it, the new console version as is the old will be in the first person, same for EA and BF3 at the top end of town, how is UBISOFT exempt from this responsibility recognised by the for mentioned?

I shake my head; ghost recon the realistic shooter is dead!

Thanks to the experienced minds in this forum; you are truly of comfort to a game host who may well be old and out of date however not alone in his frustration with this game. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ghost Recon Future Soldier PC WARNING

I think this is an appropriate title for this post assuming that GR-FS will break the Ten year tradition of producing a GR title as a First Person Shooter or release map editing tools or a SADS. :stupid:

This should send out alarm bells to all those who have been following ghost recon, GRAW, GRAW2 or supporting it, as our community has done for over five years. GraveDiggers DownUnder When GRAW was released we had waited for over 4 years for the sequel to arrive and wasn’t it worth the wait? One short year latter the GRiN developers gave us the Holy Grail “Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2”

You know, what really makes me laugh was that a LOT of us said this when GRIN brought out GRAW.

In my opinion the GR franchise died with the origin GR/DS/IT

GRAW was a PALE comparison and GRAW2 no better.

The 'Holy Grail' indeed :nono:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to be speculative here and go out on a limb and say for all of us old time hardcore GR 2001 gamers, GR will never return to the style of play we have ranted on. I kinda think that, As this franchise goes, GR will never go back and focus on a theatrical/movie/heavily controlled game like GRAW/GRAW2 were. that being said, GRAW/GRAW2 while I'm on the subject was heavily controlled. kind of like an amusement park ride. You get on and go through the various turns and twists and then the end. GRAW/GRAW2 which looked good since Grin brought in Post effects which made the game look rather unusual for me at the time. Added: What I also forgot to mention was, GR maps were open/able to be completed anyway you chose. one leader would do objectives 3,1,2 and the next 1,3,2 and the game still functioned out of the box so to speak in that, GRAW/GRAW2 was completely controlled and I expressed this ad nauseum because when you completed one objective, THEN the next objective would become active, basically leading you by the hand. missions don't always go as planned and being able to adjust and do things in a various order, that was awesome in my opinion.

But we all must come to some point of view with ourselves that the only way to go back to that old school GR feel is to re install GR and play that on the archaic graphics.

This franchise is catering to the younger "current" generation.

~papa6

Edited by Papa6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3rd person view killed any intereset in this. GR/DS/IT showed a unique way to play tactically, that no game has been able to beat so far. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're rather missing my point -- which is that in games as they're currently played FPP is not any more technically realistic then TPP and can in just as many regards be less so with respect to how the game is played, making the argument of TPP vs FPP more of a discussion of aesthetic preference then one of correct scale realism...

3rd person view gives you the ability to see around corners and through walls and other obstructions without sticking your head out or being seen. That's a major difference in terms of realism, and it dramatically alters the tactics that are effective in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're rather missing my point -- which is that in games as they're currently played FPP is not any more technically realistic then TPP and can in just as many regards be less so with respect to how the game is played, making the argument of TPP vs FPP more of a discussion of aesthetic preference then one of correct scale realism...

3rd person view gives you the ability to see around corners and through walls and other obstructions without sticking your head out or being seen.

Incorrect, it may allow those things to happen in some games with primitive camera; even most really old TPP games use OTS or primitive camera ducking to prevent this; most modern games use techniques like Voronoi or nodal camera effects that uses the same engine mechanics used for cover systems to manipulate camera. These methods are so far along, the R6 Vegas games which are FPS, used TPS from cover -- for more realistic proprioceptive effect.

That's a major difference in terms of realism, and it dramatically alters the tactics that are effective in the game.

And that can and often is in favor of more realism in terms of how the game is actually played; the Mil training community has long known that practicing realistic fire-team and squad fire maneuver just isn't practical in FPS games, and it's why virtually all their combat simulators are TPP.

As alluded to in this thread -- in an FPS you don't have the FOV, or peripheral distance cues, and your depth cues are grossly distorted, which makes realistic fire maneuver, setting up fire lines, and effective bounding awkward at best, impractical on virtually all FPS pub games (even OGR and GRAW 2), and dosn't allow realistic tactics to consistently prevail as they would in real combat.

I'm not saying GR:FS's execution of TPP camera will be up there with a decent sim, but it's reasonable to assume it should be as good as or better then what's in Vegas 2, and at least as good as the camera technology in the YETI engine used for GRAW 2 Console, not to mention some of what's been developed by Ubisoft for their Anvil engine games -- Ubisoft's Developers aren't stupid people...

I just think your camera crusade is silly, we've known virtually from get-go that GR:FS was going to be a TPS so it's hardly a surprise, and there are far more onerous issues like the game's DRM, that should discourage PC Fans far more then the choice of camera which has worked well in many games...

:whistle:

Edited by 101459

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has worked in other games, yes, because that's what they were. Ghost Recon is not a third-person shooter. For three games, ten years, they have been a proud line of decent first person shooters, and now we have to appease the kiddies who sit around staring at X-box's. Ghost Recon is a first person shooter, and I will venture so far as to say a first person simulator. I don't think there are any games as realistic as GR (I speak of Ghost Recon 1 here, not the hyped up super four man squad crap in GRAW1/2) and those that are, like ARMA, suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has worked in other games, yes, because that's what they were. Ghost Recon is not a third-person shooter.

Ghost Recon is not technically a first person shooter, it's something else entirely with it's ghost/zoom perspective...

For three games, ten years, they have been a proud line of decent first person shooters, and now we have to appease the kiddies who sit around staring at X-box's.

The choice of camera has nothing to do with the audience, there are actually more console Fans upset that GR:FS will be TPP, then PC Fans... Neither is history with respect to the Clancy tactical franchise much of an argument either; R6 and Rogue Spear offered third person perspective before Ghost Recon, and again -- Ghost Recon isn't even technically first person, and Ghost Recon 2 was back to TPP again...

Ghost Recon is a first person shooter...

Not really...

I don't think there are any games as realistic as GR (I speak of Ghost Recon 1 here, not the hyped up super four man squad crap in GRAW1/2) and those that are, like ARMA, suck.

Well that's obviously a subjective impression based on your feelings, which of course you're completely entitled to run with, but you're not arguing it in terms of any facts; and while Ghost Recon is perhaps my all time favorite game, as far as scale realism and fidelity it's far from the most realistic tactical shooter, even with mods that intend to improve that.

But again, we've known for a very, very long time coming that GR:FS was not going to be realistic, follow any previous Ghost Recon canon, heck it was initially marketing 'The Ghosts' as 'F-15's with legs' -- which is about as far out into fantasy land as you get short of making them Unicorn mounted Trolls. It's also been known for over a year the game would be TPP, why all the shock and surprise ire all of a sudden?

:zorro:

Edited by 101459

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how you can say that GR isn't realistic. Would you like to tell me which one is the most realistic? You would probably say CoD multiplayer though.

Edited by rileyfletcher_01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know how you can say that GR isn't realistic .

I didn't... Read what I wrote, not what you wrote...

Would you like to tell me which one is the most realistic?

Most realistic in what regard? Ballistics modeling? Weapon handling? Support for realistic squad fire maneuver? Scale scenario? In most regards VBS·2 is more realistic then Ghost Recon...

You would probably say CoD multiplayer though.

Why do you have to resort to nasty sophomoric sarcasm and/or assumptions?

dry.gif

P.S. Still love your mod, and regardless of any differences or disagreement, my whole point here is that in essence pining for Ubisoft to revisit OGR design canon in GR:FS is obviously not going to happen -- and that there may well be a lot to appreciate about the game even though it's clearly not OGR...

Just Say'n...

:zorro:

Edited by 101459

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing against you, I love to argue, so...

I assume that when you say

'which is about as far out into fantasy land as you get short of making them Unicorn mounted Trolls'

That means unrealistic, but then I don't get out much these days...

Oh, glad you like my mod, I assume you meant Claiming Liberty. My new one, Texas Militia is gonna kick CL's tail though.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×