Countdown until Ghost Recon Wildlands!

What's to like in GR:FS?

59 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Zeealex remarks here got me thinking, and made me realize that I do like a lot of what I'm seeing in GR:FS, but that I like a lot of others here have been in a rut about what GR:FS isn't -- which is really quite obviously well past being an abject waste of time.

What then is to like, how can any 'real' Ghost Recon Fan be positive if it's not 'really' Ghost Recon 4? Well GR:FS still looks like a solid tactical realism game with a lot of features essential to the genre, and some new ones to boot:

It's NOT Call Of Dude

While it's obviously not Ghost Recon as we know and love it, GR:FS doesn't look like hyper-active Rambo on amphetamines spam-fest either. Firefights look like something to avoid, and something you have to keep your head down in to prevail.

Gunsmith

Have you seen it? Who doesn't like it? And unless Ubi pulls a pink bunny out of a hat it's not gonna be '
Magic Casino Special Prize Unlock
' bs for kills, but a virtual armory where you appropriately customize your load-out per your intended approach to a mission. Perhaps they'll even give us the option to leave the Optical Camouflage™ and Augmented Reality® gear in the Armory and play like contemporary special forces... Please?

Excellent Voice Acting

While even some ridiculous arcade shooters get decent voice actors; the focused, professional economy of the dialog in GR:FS is one of the first things to remind me of Original Ghost Recon. Who can forget the annoying effeminate Cross Com voice in GRAW with all his useless gushing, or the R6 Team in Lockdown that couldn't shut up with all the dysfunctional inappropriate patter and bad voice acting? Purring: "With Pleasure..." -- c'mon, really?

Eye Candy

The handsome engine and fantastic animation are obviously not make or break with respect game quality either way -- but it sure does look good, it's not going to make the immersive aspect of the game more of a challenge.

No Creepy Magi
c

No magic gold stars to wear on your forehead for killing; no magic powers or '
perky
' abilities for more kills; no leveling up based on, you guessed it, more killing; in fact in the spirit of tactical realism games -- GR:FS looks focused on fairly realistic military objectives where killing may be the means not the end, and thank Ubi for leaving out the arcade trash that makes me cringe.

It's Got COOP

Hell Yeah! COOP still sustains some of the best games on Ghost Recon -- if GR:FS has some measure of re-playability COOP will be part of it.

The AI Looks Ghost Recon Good

Only conjecture here, but the AI here looks like it's a notch or several up on previous Clancy games, they loiter more realistically and in more realistic positions, move for cover under fire, use cover fire tactics and flanking as their aggressive behavior rather then just focused shooting.

It's Third Person

I know this is a downer for some, but, this is a squad tactical shooter, and anyone that works and plays with/in the Mil-Sim community knows that having the TPP makes for more realistic coordinated COOP fire maneuver, more effective and realistic use of cover, and more realistic outcomes prevailing.

Obviously we'll have to wait and see, but sans the onerous DRM, I'm looking forward to GR:FS.

:)

Edited by 101459

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Great list! I am looking forward to the game on PC! :thumbsup:

Edited by jjknap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

XD thanks for the agreement, iwas ont he verge of starting a new thread on about the same thing myself. it's a great list.

Have you also noticed the attention Ubi has payed to detail? watch the latest vids and trailers again, and in the tropical areas when Kozak uses his cloak, his bare arms don't cloak :<img src=:'> i loved that when i found that out.

Another thing;

None of that Scott Mitchell Rubbish

I was okay with Scott Mitchell in Ghost Recon 2, because it was still an alright game and he didn't say anything Cheesy, but in GRAW it got worse, he suddenly became more cheesy in GRAW 2, it became apparent if we were to shut his cheesy lines and phrases up, some of us may have enjoyed a bit more and it would be slightly more realistic.

He just became an unrealistic void in the game. along with the soldier's lacking in the ability to keep their mouth shut as well.

Kozak doesn't seem like the team leader (looks like bones is to me), and doesn't seem to blow his own trumpet, he seems to be a quiet part russian man who just seems to be that bit less cheesy and just does his job. unlike our old character Mr Mitchell

Edited by Zeealex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I approve of this thread!

What we have seen recently is lots of tactics, and the evolution of what tactical gamers have been doing for years anyway. The whole co-ordinated takedown thing is one example - that's tactics, and that's what Ghost Recon is about.

What I really want to see is a PC version that is a proper PC version, and not a port. So give us plenty of scalability with graphics options, modding capability, Dedi Server support, feature rich and robust game browser, easy hook up sytem for pals to get together, first person option.

Give us some of that and your list get's a whole lot beefier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

XD thanks for the agreement, iwas ont he verge of starting a new thread on about the same thing myself. it's a great list.

Have you also noticed the attention Ubi has payed to detail? watch the latest vids and trailers again, and in the tropical areas when Kozak uses his cloak, his bare arms don't cloak i loved that when i found that out.

Another thing;

None of that Scott Mitchell Rubbish

I was okay with Scott Mitchell in Ghost Recon 2, because it was still an alright game and he didn't say anything Cheesy, but in GRAW it got worse, he suddenly became more cheesy in GRAW 2, it became apparent if we were to shut his cheesy lines and phrases up, some of us may have enjoyed a bit more and it would be slightly more realistic.

He just became an unrealistic void in the game. along with the soldier's lacking in the ability to keep their mouth shut as well.

Kozak doesn't seem like the team leader (looks like bones is to me), and doesn't seem to blow his own trumpet, he seems to be a quiet part russian man who just seems to be that bit less cheesy and just does his job. unlike our old character Mr Mitchell

Yes! Cheesy dialog, or, professional economy really sets the tone and atmosphere of a game for the genre. Bad voice acting, over acting, excessive emoting, and too much dialog in a game that's supposed to portray elite military professionals is in fact worse then having no dialog imho.

As far as art assets there's nothing that 'takes me out of the game' more then when someone starts yapping when everyone should be silent, or when something important is being communicated it's done inappropriately with someone emoting like it's a soap opera, or someone patters on like they don't know what they're talking about.

'The Best Of The Best' are never Drama Queens; career Special Operators heart rates don't even hitch or jump when other people are catatonic with fear and panic or emptying their bladders -- the atmosphere of seasoned professional military bearing was one of the defining aspects of Original Ghost Recon's productions that surprised and favorably impressed me. Fingers crossed that what we're hearing foreshadows GR:FS return to this sort of production.

What I really want to see is a PC version that is a proper PC version, and not a port. So give us plenty of scalability with graphics options, modding capability, Dedi Server support, feature rich and robust game browser, easy hook up sytem for pals to get together, first person option.

Yes! That could make me over-look my fears about the DRM, and is why I started the YETI thread; hope I didn't jump the gun!

:ph34r:

Edited by 101459

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

i said cheesy way too many times in that comment XD

i'm glad this thread has got the seal of approval from Rocky, that's always a good sign, with the time they have between now and whenever it is they are releasign the PC version (couple of months after the console maybe?) i think they will have a good chance of a true PC version and not a port, the basic framework could obviously be ported and they could still get away with it. but if i'm honest, i couldn't really care less if it was a port, the game looks fab as it is on the consoles, you won't see me moaning if i got the same on my PC, it would just be better if it was pure.

One thing i noticed with the press release on Facebook. Ubisoft had announced the PC version and the 2 month delay. 95% of the people were mouthing off about the delay saying "i'll stick with BF3/MW3 at least they stick to dates blah blah blah" 3% were being numpties, and 2% were pleased with the news of the PC version.

before the press release 95% of the people's comments was "why have you cancelled the PC version blah blah blah" and so on.

I know sometimes Ubi's decisions arent the best in the world at times, but i really do feel for them because they must feel like they can do nothing right.

Edited by Zeealex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Didn't know about the two month delay, perhaps that goes a ways to explaining why they haven't wanted to announce anything regarding the PC release of the game, as that's an obvious target for more Fan ire -- but personally I'm indifferent to when the game releases...

Complaints about game 'ports' are always overblown; 'port' has come to be a vague colloquialism with negative connotations that has little to do with reality -- and most doing the complaining not even understanding what they're complaining about.

I won't mind a bit if GR:FS is a port; the YETI engine is very capable and efficient, LOST looked fantastic, and all that matters in the end is do the Developers have enough time for the target platform design; two months should be ample.

Even though I enjoyed GRAW and GRAW 2 PC, and liked some of the unique features of the Diesel engine, there was a lot on the YETI Console build of the game that would have made decently executed PC port just as good or better.

Also on the positive track, I feel getting Richard Machowicz was a smart marketing move on Ubisoft's part; his narrative presentation is a little weird, but he's respected, always gets the message across in a clear (and compelling for the younger audience) manner that will avoid some of the pitfalls of Ubisoft's more obtuse marketing efforts.

And last but far from least, yes, Ubisoft has rather been the industry 'whipping boy' for some of the very same gaffs made at every corner of the industry, and granted they have made some rather epic bad moves (nasty DRM anyone) -- but on the flip-side Ubisoft is probably the biggest risk taker in the industry, braving some of the most innovative IP, and has some of the most talented Developers.

:)

Edited by 101459

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't mind FS as much anymore, seems they aren't going overboard with the future stuff. Still wish they'd do it in FP, but oh well. Still probably won't buy it, I was disappointed by GRAW2 which crashed on almost every co-op game I played and was too 'you have to go this way and do things this way', unlike [GR] which had flexibility and allowed the players to choose how to play.' I'd say this one has some hope though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't mind FS as much anymore, seems they aren't going overboard with the future stuff. Still wish they'd do it in FP, but oh well. Still probably won't buy it, I was disappointed by GRAW2 which crashed on almost every co-op game I played and was too 'you have to go this way and do things this way', unlike [GR] which had flexibility and allowed the players to choose how to play.' I'd say this one has some hope though.

I'm totally with ya there; nothing that came after Ghost Recon was remotely as feature rich, or as good. I liked GRAW and GRAW 2 only because I regarded them as better then the rest of the 'run of the mill' in realism gaming -- but never saw them as surpassing Ghost Recon in any measure.

I suppose this is a lot like sequels in movie making, where the Talent doesn't want to keep making the same movie over and over, and in an attempt to do something new and innovate may get something new but never delivers the punch of the original.

The other thing, and we have Fellers like you to thank for it, is Ghost Recon (Original Flavor) is far from dead; while there may be more 'modern' games it remains unsurpassed, and still has the ability to draw Players in and keep them like nothing else.

Eventually Ubisoft will either run out of ways to digress with the Ghost Recon franchise and will revisit the Cold War special operations, and the kind of game design the first title in the franchise pioneered. Until then, GR:FS looks like the best digression taken so far, and regardless I'll still be playing Ghost Recon probably for as long as I have hardware that will run the game.

:)

Edited by 101459

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I fail to see how they can ignore the flashing signs in their faces up at Ubisoft. Ghost Recon 1, made 10 years ago, is still loved and adored by many, and while it isn't one hell of a 'oh-my-gosh-I-love-that-game-and-i'm-a-10-year-old-brat-who-loves-xbox, making-millions-of-dollars-off-it' we still remember GR with happier memories than any other. People are crying about GRAW2 dying out after what a year of it? Seems to me they should learn from the past instead of trying to keep up with CoD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well I think if more people looked a little deeper, made more of an conscious effort to understand the thought that's been given to GR:FS's design, or even just took a look at the videos of the Valiant Hammer Walkthrough that Zeealax posted here, they might come to the conclusion you later came to, that GR:FS might well be a very pleasant surprise indeed.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This game might actually have much more tactical options and features and a much improved AI to actually implement the tactics. But the FIRST PERSON OPTION is a must for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i'm sure they'll do what they did in the GRaW (sorry my "a"key is broke, having to use cntrl+v) where they allow classic view in the options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just finished watching all of the trailers and the behind the scenes footage. It's certainly GR in name only. Nothing but a bunch of gimmicky drivel, style of substance, nothing more. I'll be skipping this horrendous port, though I may pick it up for PS3.

Edited by Marines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

well it seems that once again, this has turned into nothing more than a bashing session. last time i checked this was a POSITIVES thread not a negatives thread. <_<

Edited by Zeealex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

well it seems that once again, this has turned into nothing more than a bashing session. last time i checked this was a POSITIVES thread not a negatives thread. <_<

As I said, I'll likely pick it up for PS3 which is where it'll most likely shine. People just need to come to terms with the fact that the day of the GR tactical shooter is long since dead. Sad but true. That said, have you actually watched the videos available? It screams ATFPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Itll shine on the Xbox more like its got the kinect gunsith side to it, and yes, ive watched the trailers, i liked what i saw theres plenty of places to discuss the negative side of GRFS, though this thread isnt one of them

please, dont take it as me pushing you out, its one of those threads that me and perhaps a few others would like to keep intact.

Edited by Zeealex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Zee, you should see what COD community is saying about Kinect and GRFS on youtube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Zee, you should see what COD community is saying about Kinect and GRFS on youtube.

For the short on time, can you summerise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ubisoft needs to pump out more PC news and info, even if the Consoles are a larger sell, the PC sill plays an enormous role in Internet PR, and right now Ubisoft is in sort of a rut of objection handling, where they have a game that's almost out of the oven that's quite a stunner.

I reckon the upside to all this is GR:FS won't be overexposed like so many games and block-buster movies where we've literally seen all the best of what they have to offer (multiple times) before they even hit the market.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'll be skipping this horrendous port, though I may pick it up for PS3.

It's probaly the same game on all 3 major platforms, the pc version will probably have anisotropic filtering setting and some antialiasing, maybe higher texture resolution? and better shadow techniques/filters and lighting?. Think i'll get the xbox360 version myself, i have a feeling microsoft's console will get the the edge?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well if GR:O is any indication there are already a nice number of render settings you can tweak, for now only in an in an GraphicSettings.ini file (posted somwhere about it but can find it), and so far in addition to the in menu options we have access to:

[Graphic Settings]

ShadowMapSize=0

PostProcess=0

ShaderVersion=3

RenderBloom=0

RenderDOF=0

ParticleFX=1

TextureSize=0

DrawingDistance=1

VolumetricShadow=1

Motionblur=0

AutoConfigure=0

LodQuality=0

ShdLodQuality=0

DisplayWidth=1920

DisplayHeight=1080

Windowed=0

DisplayRefresh=60

VSync=1

So I found this an encouraging sign as far as the PC version of GR:FS if it appears on YETI as seems likely...

:unsure:

Edited by 101459

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

well we now know the PC version will feature YETI along with numerous other tweaks available.

(this is more Pro-Ubi btw)

To be honest, there are anti GRFS people, that's fine by me, they have a right to an opinion.

but there are some people who will say things without giving much thought on how much work they put into the franchise. there's been, Shadow Wars, Ghost Recon Online, Ghost Recon Predator, Ghost Recon Wii, Ghost Recon Commander AND Ghost Recon Alpha.

MILLIONS of dollars have gone into the game's success, Ubi have even toned down what they do worst, The DRM to Accomodate a stress free PC experience. EVERY GAMER POSSIBLE has been accommodated for, including Facebook gamers who are bored of the same old ###### you get like Farmville and Fishville, Gamers who may not have the money for GRFS or the Spec, they brought Ghost Recon Online, for Wii Players they brought Ghost Recon Wii (cruddy game, but they tried) and Ghost Recon online for the Wii U, PSP players got Predator, DS players got Shadow wars.

the excitement and happiness in the Ubi Interviewees' voices are all genuine, they've worked hard, and you can tell. there's a difference between using the same engine for four games in a row repetitive chopper crash after every mission games and, shiny new engine, and something different.

(un) fortunately, Ubi have worked hard to accommodate the majority of players. people like me try to look forward to GRFS but i can't because of the constant negative thoughts made by people. i'm not saying you know, people should all be fake smiles and ###### like that, but if they've got nothing good to say, say nothing.

Instead of thinking about the negatives, think again, about how good it is compared to it's predecessor GRAW 2, enjoy what you've got while you've got it, it could have been worse...

Edited by Zeealex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I agree Zeealex, with the DRM announcement Ubisoft has me on board as a GR:FS PC Customer, as with that fixed, the game easily has enough to have sell me. While Ubisoft has made some rather epic blunders, every company has... But issues are made worse if they go ignored or their importance to would be Customers is downplayed -- consider how much kicking and screaming it took to get the DRM debacle turned around...

On the up-tick of positivism: Ubisoft is probably the biggest risk taker in big budget publishing with new IP; they did after all publish Ghost Recon, fund and then buy RSE, expand, grow and continue an innovative franchise against a tide of 'me too' arcade derivative realism shooter clones....

So it's not difficult to see how in taking all these risks Ubisoft would be inclined to secure their investment with DRM, or cover their butts by trying to make their games accessible to a broader audience when the likes of Activision are reporting over $1 Billion on a single derivative title and Ubisoft is struggling with ambitious game designs to keep the ledger filled out in black ink.

Even though GR:FS is not 'Ghost Recon' as its die hard Fans would have it, we've known that it wouldn't be from get-go, so being upset about that at this stage is silly... GR:FS is an innovative game, with a lot of compelling design, capable of appealing to a very broad audience just like the original Ghost Recon, and most are at least intrigued (even if they won't admit it)...

My worry, is that in marginalizing the PC, as Activision and EA have with MW and BF3; Ubisoft will marginalize it more... The most successful PC titles or iterations of popular titles that are a revenue success have made their money more slowly on the PC platform -- it's in the nature of the platform as one of those things that's different about the PC. There are more points of sale, more channels of revenue opportunity then the game itself in server rental and mod-community marketing benefits that burn s l o w l y -- but can make the PC game a huge income earner (for all platforms) and very popular with Fans.

As is, a port of the GR:FS console game that's being advertised, with very low drag DRM; GR:FS PC will be a fun and cool game that a lot of PC Fans will like. But, given stand alone dedicated server support, and an MDK -- GR:FS will be the next realism game that will appeal to every realism Fan as on these two critical features alone it will have no current gen competition making GR:FS the state-of-the-art game design that puts the means, and fire back in community PC gaming that currently only BI is supporting.

:thumbsup:

Edited by 101459

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm just stoked to add GRFS to my PC collection! :thumbsup:

Over in another thread some one seemed disillusioned with GRFS, I don't know why when the game isn't even officially realest yet?

I'm not a computer boffin or an internet whiz kid, but I know quality when I see it.

Here in Australia this gun shy nation where even polite conversation about firearms is viewed with suspicion we're lucky to have any FPS of any kind.

I say give GRFS the benefit of the doubt and give it a go, you might even like it?

Edited by Anthonyf

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