Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums
Sign in to follow this  
101459

Review & Refund

Recommended Posts

It's unfortunate that there weren't any really honest objective reviews of Grfus like this one, with all the time at hand before the PC iteration of the game became available -- but that's how it is with most Developer/Publishers that strike media/marketing deals with the entertainment media hegemony.

I guess I'm one of the fortunates; the game actually worked for me in SP without issue, but when I couldn't get MP to work reliably, got tired of digging for something to redeem the SP game -- I asked for and got a refund.

I'd suggest anyone on the fence about buying Grfus wait to see if the forthcoming patches resolve what for far too many is an unplayable game (first 6+ pages of Ubisoft's GR:FS PC forum) read Michael Douse's review here on OKS Reviews, it's fair and offers an honest recitation of what you're getting and not getting for your money...

No hard feelings here, I got my money back, but I really wanted and tried to like this game, and it's sad to see that indicators are pointing toward this being the conclusion of the Ghost Recon 'franchise' -- I'd really have preferred it had gone out with more of a bang than this rather tawdry finish...

:(

Edited by 101459

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will almost certainly be a GRFS 2. They've done this with practically every previous TC game. Same engine with minor tweaks, a new campaign, and new multiplayer maps. It's a good way for them to cash in on their investment at relatively little expense. I don't know what the GRFS budget was, but given the way the game is selling, it might even be something they need to do just to try to break even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be mere hearsay, and we won't know till Ubisoft's next financial report. if then, but the little birds (or BS Pundits) are saying Grfus didn't break even (all platforms), and the PC version is already seen as throwing too much good money after bad, so that may well will be that...

I'd love for this not to be the case, for someone at a decision making level at Ubisoft to sign off on giving yet someone else the creative 'go' to turn this 'franchise' around and leverage what distinguished it from other FPS realism titles, rather then the direction of the last decade that made in incrementally more like other games and a model of mediocre game design.

Regardless it doesn't look like smooth sailing ahead for Ubisoft, or the Ghost Recon moniker except in the historical sense -- but we can still thank our lucky stars for GRN, the amazing, stubborn and talented Mod Developers that keep the Tactical Realism gaming of the RSE influenced design alive!

Vive la Ghost Recon!

:)

Edited by 101459

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind seeing this franchise fail to the point someone else buys it from Ubi then hope another dev company can get this going in the right direction

Added: It might bring the franchise back to where it should have gone

Edited by Papa6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very afraid for Red Storm. Ubisoft has made it pretty obvious that their strategy going forward is to run studios in places where labor is cheap (eastern Europe, Asia) or where they can get massive subsidies from the local government (Montreal, Toronto). Red Storm has neither of those things going for it.

I've been holding out hope that somebody will eventually buy Ubisoft and replace the management team. The company has been bleeding money for a long time now and their stock price is a fraction of where it was a few years back. EA made moves to buy them at one point but it never panned out and they gave up. Frankly if it wasn't for Assassin's Creed, they would have been dead or sold a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing's for certain (and I say this as someone who agrees with all the above sentiments while confessing to having gotten a certain amount of guilty pleasure from GRFS PC): The nature of this game and the dismal quality of the port bodes ill indeed for the upcoming Splinter Cell title.

However, has GRFS been successsful as a console game and, if so, does this justify Ubi's strategy (and preserve the franchise, albeit in a debased form?)

Edited by Bahger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I better be careful how I put this so... here it goes. As Bahger stated, I think Ubisoft IMHO (my own opinion) has gotten lazy. This game started as a PC title but ends up as a console port? for real? I honestly think UBISOFT is lazy. It was so much easier to build the entire PC version from probably the XBOX360 version, then put it on PC code/script.

I don't know, maybe PC programming has gotten too difficult? But I'm really seeing it this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not laziness, Papa6, it's their business model. There is much, much more money in consoles. No large game publisher canafford to develop primarily for PC these days. I don't blame Ubi for this but I do hold them responsible for pandering in their game design and for cynical profiteering from sloppy ports, which include not just the GRFS debacle but also SCC. PC users might not be at the top of the consumer food chain, but we made the franchise what it is and deserve to be treated with more respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah I see. I see. They build a game for a console and then slap it in some PC code. that is lazy. but I see your point Bahger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless it doesn't look like smooth sailing ahead for Ubisoft, or the Ghost Recon moniker except in the historical sense -- but we can still thank our lucky stars for GRN, the amazing, stubborn and talented Mod Developers that keep the Tactical Realism gaming of the RSE influenced design alive!

Vive la Ghost Recon!

:)

Agreed, but lets face it, Ubi have brought it on themselves here, they need to learn that they can't just throw their loyal customers around like ragdolls with delays and buggy games! admittedly their customer support (from my experience) was good, they were very kind and knew what was going on, oh wait, that was Pentax Customer Support, sorry. no, Ubi were kind, but they weren't very knowledgeable.

At the End of the day, if you port games, you are bound to get bugs, if you port games and rush it, you are going to make the bugs worse.

it is a Shame that GRFS and the franchise itself, has gone to ###### because of bad PR, Dumbing down of a franchise people loved with crap storylines with a Useless main character (mitchell) PLUS a lack of beta testing for PC FS that would have made the PC release MUCH smoother. and when they did do a Beta Test for the consoles, they gave it to people who were more interested in getting to play the game earlier than actually looking out for bugs, so instead of getting decent bug zapping, they got whining about preferential issues, that STILL weren't listened to!

they should have Brought the GRIN brothers or even BFS in to build GRFS PC from the ground up. in fact, they should have given the WHOLE FRANCHISE to someone who would give put the game to the name again.

if Ubi payed BFS to do so, then that money could have gone to GB, win, win. but unfortunately they didn't

To be honest Bagher, they are being lazy, all of the glitches in the PC version proves just how lazy they were.

I don't know what I'm more sorry for, all the PC gamers having to suffer for Ubisoft's cheap port, or the fact that I actually defended the PC version of this game thinking that Ubisoft had tried their best, it sickens me looking back on it. either way, i'm sorry for both.

it also sickens me that legitimate and legal PC gamers have not been given the respect they deserve, instead they are pounded into dust, meaning that Sony and micro$oft can shove last gen consoles down our throats.

i'll stick with GR1, at least i know Ubi and red storm DID try with that one.

please don't take this as a rant, it's a strong opinion and an apologetic speech

Glad you got your Refund though 101459 :thumbsup:

Edited by Zeealex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not denying that they've been lazy; I'm saying they can get away with it because pleasing the PC constituency is simply not profitable for Ubi, so you won't find them spending money on beta testing for the PC nor spending any more than the bare minimum on their ports.

There's not a snowball's chance in hell that this will change because it has now become Ubi's culture. Even if we all voted with our feet and refused to buy their next sloppy port (the Splinter Cell game) it would not make enough of a dent in their profits to motivate them to change their ways. They do not take pride in making good games for the PC any more and they probably think we should be grateful for the sloppy seconds they serve up to us; in fact, I would not be surprised if, after this latest debacle, they decide to cut their losses as stop porting their games altogether.

I've been enjoying some of the action-game aspects of GRFS, just as I enjoyed some of the faster-paced stealth action in SCC. However, I realise that it's essentially empty calories compared with the satisfaction to be gained from well made PC tac-shooters. We will have to look elsewhere for those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they will either do away with the GR franchise then or sell it. It can't be selling very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they will either do away with the GR franchise then or sell it. It can't be selling very well.

How do you know it hasn't sold well on console?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

every store i looked in apart from Asda they were all sold out for ages

Yup. We're irrelevant I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm. this is interesting. I think I heard a toilet flush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, good. Even if it deprives us of their sloppy ports in the future it would be good for Ubi's nose to rubbed in this mess of their own creation, I think. They are going up against the COD series and other established action-shooter franchises; it might have behooved them to make an honest tactical game instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think calling Ubisoft a 'lazy' company is probably inaccurate; anthropomorphic characterizations in general like lazy, stupid, indifferent, and even greedy are are at best over-simplifications that may apply to some individuals working at or for Ubisoft, but it's doubtful they characterize the situation accurately or even issues that may present in Ubisoft's corporate culture that brought us Gurfus in its present state.

What's now nearly a quarter of a billion dollar game by some estimates; that looks, feels and plays like an awkward Freshman student committee design where no one agreed on anything so only the ideas everyone agreed on were implemented or finished -- seems a more reasonable extrapolation of what may really be at fault when the resources Ubiosft has to bring to bare on on such a project are weighed.

Paraphrasing a story told by John C. Dvorak, that was in turn told to him by a Senior Developer at Microsoft might characterize the kind of issue that prevail in a large Corporation like Ubisoft -- where the different interfaces on the Windows OS, Office and a plethora of other Microsoft products is not down to the desire to create unique product identities, the real story is one competitiveness and destructive professional jealousy that ran good design, efficiency and unified interfaces into the ground -- not to mention a bulwark of bureaucracy and inefficiency that allowed this to happen.

I take no pleasure in seeing Ubisoft run its IP into the ground, and considering what they've invested so far in just buying Tom Clancy's now virtually worthless name it's doubtful there will ever be a positive outcome; unless Ghost Recon: Online were to become some sort of run-away success and there are Ghost Recon Fans here that would consider that game becoming the marquee title for the franchise a good thing.

:o

Edited by 101459

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, i do not see any improvement from UBISOFT. They will assume they know what we want, which isn't what we want and they quite obviously sent those who knew what a tac shooter is, this to include one of the best developers of this genre to go independent and create a true to life tac sim. seems like there's no such thing as initiative, invention or creativity. kind of like music. sometime ago, music creativity and ability left for the lady gaga's of today, or justin biebers. no talent at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think calling Ubisoft a 'lazy' company is probably inaccurate; anthropomorphic characterizations in general like lazy, stupid, indifferent, and even greedy are are at best over-simplifications that may apply to some individuals working at or for Ubisoft, but it's doubtful they characterize the situation accurately or even issues that may present in Ubisoft's corporate culture that brought us Gurfus in its present state.

What's now nearly a quarter of a billion dollar game by some estimates; that looks, feels and plays like an awkward Freshman student committee design where no one agreed on anything so only the ideas everyone agreed on were implemented or finished -- seems a more reasonable extrapolation of what may really be at fault when the resources Ubiosft has to bring to bare on on such a project are weighed.

Paraphrasing a story told by John C. Dvorak, that was in turn told to him by a Senior Developer at Microsoft might characterize the kind of issue that prevail in a large Corporation like Ubisoft -- where the different interfaces on the Windows OS, Office and a plethora of other Microsoft products is not down to the desire to create unique product identities, the real story is one competitiveness and destructive professional jealousy that ran good design, efficiency and unified interfaces into the ground -- not to mention a bulwark of bureaucracy and inefficiency that allowed this to happen.

I take no pleasure in seeing Ubisoft run its IP into the ground, and considering what they've invested so far in just buying Tom Clancy's now virtually worthless name it's doubtful there will ever be a positive outcome; unless Ghost Recon: Online were to become some sort of run-away success and there are Ghost Recon Fans here that would consider that game becoming the marquee title for the franchise a good thing.

:o

Rather an intelligent post, I must say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ubisoft will make money on the console versions. I honestly think GRFS was never really planned for PC hence the GR Online version. I think they decided at the last minute to try and capitalize on PC people being upset and buying it and even if it was a brutal failure I bet they make some money on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Ubisoft will make money on the console versions.

How? The sales figures have been atrocious... The time window for reaching 'sell-through' on an 'AAA' title is quite narrow, as the expense of marketing and advertising is typically greater then the game, and once that budget is blown, sales hit a brick wall...

Add to all of this the lukewarm reception the game has received from Fans, Press and Pundits that cautioned 'doesn't look like Ghost Recon, or even a particularly good game' -- and it's difficult to feature how sales could recover...

:huh:

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  

×