Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums
Rocky

The Strafing Run Rips into Future Soldier

Recommended Posts

I debated whether to put this video in the GRFS forums, or the Ghost Recon forums, because he is playing GRFS, but comparing it to Ghost Recon. Also, this was first publsihed a few months ago, but hey I am just getting through my to-do list! Woops, then I discover it was already posted by Apex a while back. Worth re-visiting though. :)

Anyway, this video podcast from Strafing Run verbalises a lot of the comments you'll see posted here, at Ubisoft and at countless other gaming websites. Hardcore Ghost Recon fans are going to find some solice in hearing confirmation of what they have been saying for years. Perhaps Ubisoft will consider the direction of the franchise if they hear this kind of concise feedback often enough.

What do you think? Is he right on the money, or should he let Future Soldier be what it is, and let gamers get on with enjooying it?

[media=]

"he survives a point blank grenade blast"

"wouldn't you want a more realistic experience?"

"butchering franchises"

"stop trying to be like eveyone else"

"you expect a game with Tom Clancy's name on it...."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually in the video you linked may 29th 2012 he was talking about blacklight or somesuch title.

>_>

*Edit

Oh, he only talks about GRFS, I did not watch it, just skipped through.

Looks like you posted it here:

http://www.ghostrecon.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=58673&st=45#entry588666

Is there an audio version? I really do not care about blacklight and do not want to waste the bandwidth on the video portion if it is completely unrelated.

Edited by Oelmuvun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there an audio version? I really do not care about blacklight and do not want to waste the bandwidth on the video portion if it is completely unrelated.

IF you had watched it, you'd realise it is related.

Seeing as how it's been posted twice now, you've had two opportunties to watch it, but apparantly not enough bandwidth to spare about 200Mb :ninja: . Good job I posted a few quotes for ya then :fingersx:

He doesn't talk about backlight, he mentions it to make a point, he spends the video talking about Future Soldier, and his opinions on its failings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually using a youtube downloader thing I grabbed the 144p 3gp version so only had to use 13MB!

Now I can listen to the audio but not waste all my bandwidth on the video.

but apparantly not enough bandwidth to spare about 200Mb :ninja: .
roughly 200MB (up and down and overhead) is total for each day if I want to stay within my cap. And above my cap it is $2.50 per GB.. But you may think that 200MB is not very much versus 1024MB, however it adds up FAST and gets expensive FAST because it is never just once that you say "oh, 200MB is ok". And it is not just downloading or uploading files, it covers everything.

When I have access to a better connection there is always something more important to download. Always. Never enough time either.

So, yea. I am not going to use up 200MB for that video and I have my reasons for it.

But back on topic:

GRFS sux kthxbai.

Edited by Oelmuvun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] What do you think? Is he right on the money, or should he let Future Soldier be what it is, and let gamers get on with enjooying it?

Who's enjoying it? You mean those 37 people currently playing Future Soldier - worldwide? :blink:

*Edit

Oh, he only talks about GRFS, I did not watch it, just skipped through.

Looks like you posted it here:

http://www.ghostreco...=45#entry588666

LOL, a little confused today, eh? And no, that was me posting it before, not Rocky. :)

[...] he spends the video talking about Future Soldier, and his opinions on its failings.

But back on topic:

GRFS sux kthxbai.

Well Rocky, you asked for it, so here it goes...

I don't think either of the above quoted statements fully captures the situation. I mean, yes, Sidestrafe points out the failings of Future Soldier, and yes, the game sucks, but that doesn't paint the full picture. As Sidestrafe keeps reiterating, the main flaw of the game is not the fact that it basically offers the same completely unrealistic no-brains-required-run-and-gun gameplay as the myriad of other cheap generic action shooters out there.

The main flaw of Future Soldier is that it is an impostor, a complete fake. This game comes along with the words "Ghost Recon" attached to its name, yet it offers absolutely nothing of what Ghost Recon used to stand for. Ubisoft went out of their way telling people how this was to be a "return to the roots" and yet there is not a single thing reminiscent of Ghost Recon to be found in the game. They say it is a "tactical shooter", yet the only thing "tactical" about it is Ubisoft's deceptive marketing.

THAT is what makes it so unbelievably bad, THAT is why it "sux kthxbai", and THAT is why I consider Future Soldier to be the absolute worst game in the entire history of gaming. Because it is a vicious lie, a callous betrayal, it represents a complete loss of morals and of honor, as it cowardly abuses one of the greatest brand names in gaming to hide the fact that it is nothing more than a cheap despicable rip-off, an also-ran CoD wannabe oozing both negligence and incompetence.

Everyone involved with the creation of this abomination of a game should be ashamed to their very core, and I have no understanding whatsoever how these people could possibly be able to look into a mirror without feeling sick to their stomach. There's just no way to go any lower on the scale of developer achievement than to take a masterpiece of excellence like Ghost Recon and drag it into the worst gutter of shovelware trash like this, all for the sake of ripping off a few bucks from your own loyal customers and fans. Shame on you! You have lost the very last remnant of respect and deserve nothing but contempt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone involved with the creation of this abomination of a game should be ashamed to their very core, and I have no understanding whatsoever how these people could possibly be able to look into a mirror without feeling sick to their stomach. There's just no way to go any lower on the scale of developer achievement than to take a masterpiece of excellence like Ghost Recon and drag it into the worst gutter of shovelware trash like this, all for the sake of ripping off a few bucks from your own loyal customers and fans. Shame on you! You have lost the very last remnant of respect and deserve nothing but contempt!

:clapping:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone involved with the creation of this abomination of a game should be ashamed to their very core, and I have no understanding whatsoever how these people could possibly be able to look into a mirror without feeling sick to their stomach. There's just no way to go any lower on the scale of developer achievement than to take a masterpiece of excellence like Ghost Recon and drag it into the worst gutter of shovelware trash like this, all for the sake of ripping off a few bucks from your own loyal customers and fans. Shame on you! You have lost the very last remnant of respect and deserve nothing but contempt!

:clapping:

:notworthy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be so harsh with the people involved in the creation of the game Apex. Most of them are scripters, programmers, modellers, level designers, etc. They, most of the time, cannot give their own ideas to the gameplay core, and most of them probably didn't even had the chance to enjoy (The Original) Ghost Recon. It's their job: they just follow the script.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The main flaw of Future Soldier is that it is an impostor, a complete fake. This game comes along with the words "Ghost Recon" attached to its name, yet it offers absolutely nothing of what Ghost Recon used to stand for. Ubisoft went out of their way telling people how this was to be a "return to the roots" and yet there is not a single thing reminiscent of Ghost Recon to be found in the game. They say it is a "tactical shooter", yet the only thing "tactical" about it is Ubisoft's deceptive marketing.

Now that sums it up for me :clapping:

As Operative said , alot of poeple were just doing what they were told to do.

Edited by Hammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you see is UBI turning games into sweatshop labor work.

They have a concept artist sketch up everything, characters, levels, weapons (or what ever) They give it to the modelers and animators and say make a game. Then the few programmers get a task and knock it out as quick as possible.

Thats why the game seems mind numbing and boring. Sonedecker wrote a good article on how free map creation is a good way to go because it is truly artist inspired way of making a level.

The thing about it is Future soldier just has a horrible people in charge. That have no clue about anything. If there is a good representation on what these guys might really look like....

Just imagine the dork from Grandmas Boy when he is listening to techno. Thats who develops our "GhostRecon" games these days. Obvious gear heads that think technology makes soldiers super coolio elite and stuff.

Any real soldier knows what makes them a soldier is much deeper inside. The heart of a warrior is what it takes to be the best of the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be so harsh with the people involved in the creation of the game Apex. Most of them are scripters, programmers, modellers, level designers, etc. They, most of the time, cannot give their own ideas to the gameplay core, and most of them probably didn't even had the chance to enjoy (The Original) Ghost Recon. It's their job: they just follow the script.

Same goes for the front line Ubisoft staff, they have to support a game designed and built by others, working to a brief for the publisher, so giving them a hard time is a bit wide of the target too.

Having said that, somebody has to be held accountable for the stability of the PC version and the lack of movement on key outstanding issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember GR back in 2001. For the life of me, some ###### at UBISOFT got some idea that he would improve the game and has driven this franchise into the ground. they obviously saw the popularity of GR and thought they'd create their own perception of the game.

I still honestly think they'll crash the bus so to speak to justify not having to develop for the PC anymore.lol, they develop the DLC and no one will be around to buy it. That'll be a riot to behold.

Ubisoft has turned the way of Microsoft. they "used to" innovate, and create great software. But they are two blind men walking in the dark trying to find their way around. all Ubi had to do was improve on the game engine they already had. but they sucked up red storm into the abyss and that's all she wrote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Apex's post offers a much more accurate synopsis of what Ubisoft's version of 'Ghost Recon' has become, and his ire is justified. What other market would anyone tolerate this kind of duplicity in without getting mad? Would you let a grocer sell you rancid cattle feed as 'peanuts' -- and then politely tolerate him telling you 'no those are good gourmet peanuts'?

In any other market venue this kind of abuse of trust would result in returns for refund, legal redress where that didn't work, and some very pi**ed off Customers typically well supported by market Pundits that review those products. But here, because they're 'just games' we're supposed to quietly and politely tolerate being blatantly lied to, and ripped-off -- in some cases for nearly triple digit prices...

As for Apex's remarks about shame; I'm sure he'd concede the qualification of 'decision makers' involved in producing and marketing the dreck that is Gurfus; and that line workers were for the most part 'just following orders', but even there a little full context examination of that premise shows that's not a precedent anyone should want to follow too far, or for very long, or be very proud of -- and that is what Apex was going on about: pride and shame...

And Ubisoft did go well over the line with Gurfus into the territory of blatant lies, or is demonstrating a level of product ignorance so profound it's difficult to feature how that would even be possible -- but here we are!

It is true that if you 'say it nicely' more people listen and perhaps that is the appeal of Strafing Run's vlog -- but over a decade of that really hasn't raised any awareness at Ubisoft about the the game design it's talented RSE studio innagurated that it has wholesale abandoned and the GRN website and forums are a testament of that.

Obviously 'Tom Clancy' is no longer a man, or even an Author it's a brand like 'Levis' owned by Ubisoft that can and probably will be put on any and everything that can be sold where it can make them money -- I nominate the 'Tom Clancy Borat Thong' as the perfect product, as the Author has become an insalubrious twit, and his name sake is being used represent the same quality.

Similarly 'Ghost Recon' is no longer a 'Tactical Realism' game, title, or even series -- it's literally a 'franchise' that can be and has been used in the marketing equivalent of boxing a brick and selling it as a game. 'Ghost Recon' can and probably will appear on anything from concepts as loose as 'Hello Kitty's Ghost Recon Super Mario Reunion' to 'Barbie's Ghost Recon Playhouse' -- Ubisoft has demonstrated it can and is willing to strap 'Ghost Recon' and the word 'tactical' on literally anything from games to porn stars, has no inhibition about doing so, and we're probably no where near seeing them push those limits...

Noblesse Oblige, a month of articles of morning the loss of a genre, and 'A Contemporary Review and Reconciliation of Tactical Realism'* is needed. I can understand and even enjoy the cheek of games like Loadout that are lampooning literally every sense of the word, title, name, franchise and verb 'Rambo' -- but the bizarre middle ground occupied by arcade magic casino shooters like Modern Warfare and especially now the 'new' Clancy games is getting increasingly creepy with their 'magic casino prize rewards' for not even killing but virtual mass-murder, through a very weak veil of thematic realism, 'Bro-Fisting' cut-scenes that are a voyage to the bottom of the barrel -- which only leaves one to ask what's next taking body part trophies?

For me Modern Warfare and Ghost Recon have become two stand out franchises that are the most culpable of callous, trivializing, and disrespect for military professionalism -- and it goes without saying their ridiculous casino prize, death match game-play has absolutely nothing to do with 'Tactical Realism' or even 'realism' in any sense but a paint job. But what galls and makes me sad at the same time is there's a growing audience out there that craves what Ghost Recon started, that doesn't even know anything about Ghost Recon but Gurfus...

:blink:

*an article I'm writing...

Edited by 101459

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear you guys waxing on about how the franchise used to be tactical. I would be interested to hear how it used to be tactical, and in what way GRFS isn't tactical. If you want to see change..rather than just raging against the machine, educate people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hear you guys waxing on about how the franchise used to be tactical. I would be interested to hear how it used to be tactical, and in what way GRFS isn't tactical. If you want to see change..rather than just raging against the machine, educate people.

Did you really just make that your first post? Man, better stay clear of ApexMods..... :sweating:

It used to be tactical because doing dumb things got you killed, and using tactics was rewarding and would always make you the winner. I'm not going to go into detail because there are hundreds of posts already about this subject, and I won't talk about FS since I have never owned it, I'll let the six people who actually got it working tell you that. Educate people? Are you serious? There are so many threads about this, just use the search function instead of accusing us of raging against the 'machine' -- one that is in great need of replacement parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL Riley I doubt Apex would give this guy the time of day, as he's got bigger (and better) fish to fry, and thank goodness for that as we're all the lucky benefactors of his good will. I'll give DawntreaderSea the benefit of the doubt, but I suspect this is not only his first post, but is disingenuous and will be the last we hear from him... If not, this could be some good and honest vicarious fun for all concerned as a new Player discovers Tactical Realism.

I hear you guys waxing on about how the franchise used to be tactical.

First of all, when Ghost Recon was released it was a Squad Tactical Realism 'game', it was not a 'franchise' -- it didn't have 40:1 marketing:development budget, in fact there was barely any marketing at all, and there were no Ghost Recon game's before it; it was a game, and a very good one...

All games can be accurately described as 'tactical'; even Super Mario Whatever, or Barbi's Magic Porn Dream House, even Tic-Tac-Toe -- all have tactical elements to their game design; the distinction most Tactical Realism Fans make is realism when applied to the kinds of tactics that prevail in actual game play.

I would be interested to hear how it used to be tactical, and in what way GRFS isn't tactical.

Again, no one has said Grfus 'isn't tactical', it just isn't REMOTELY realistically tactical: it's a fantasy arcade shooter that's conspicuously derivative of Gears Of War, with the added 'magic bonus' of SPECIAL casino prize rewards for mass murder, the missions are ridiculous linear objectives, the emphasis of the game is run and gun death-match, the AI is a line of plushly animated shooting gallery targets on rails, and there's no squad or fire-team level CCC system in place...

What Tactical Realism games offer that Grfus does not is a list that literally fills 2/3 of these forums; just have a look (your obviously very new here), but I'll give you a surreptitious sketch of some of just a few essential prerequisite to tactical realism:

· the design intention that realistic squad and fire-team tactics will consistently prevail

· unrealistic trick play or 'gaming the game' level tactics will not prevail

· realistic weapon, movement, and view distance metrics

· complex non-linear missions with inter-active mission elements

· AI that at least gives the appearance of using realistic tactics to thwart you

· realistic squad and fire team level CCC (Communication, Commnand & Control: RTTP, navigation, grid maps, RTFA)

This isn't to say that games that have Tactical Realism as their design intention succeed on every level, obviously being in play for over a decade Ghost Recon Original has had it's game design 'gamed' and there are arcade tricks and exploits as there are with every game -- but if the design intentions are there the game can still be played accordingly; and Ghost Recon has the added benefit of mod support that has improved on a lot of found limitations.

If you're sincere, and that remains to be seen; some recommended introductory reading to understanding what makes Ghost Recon more realistically tactical then Grfus can be easily gleaned from these threads:

· Tactical Gamer's Ghost Recon SOPs

· Give Me Back My Old Ghost Recon, Rejuvenated! That's All!

· The Good Old Days

If you want something more in-depth, Dslyecxi's ArmA II Tactics, Techniques & Procedures Guide while written for ArmA and ArmA II has a lot of information pertinent to all Tactical Realism games... But the best way to get an idea of what's going on is to actually buy and play the game -- it can be had for as little as $5 U.S. and with more high caliber mod content then most 'realism' games combined and with this site and it's enormously Staff of Military Professionals and talented Developers to support all of it -- Ghost Recon is still one of the best investments you'll ever make in a game.

If you want to see change..rather than just raging against the machine, educate people.

Oh really?! In making your first post to a forum that has been dedicated to Tactical Realism for over a decade, with members that have written letters, organized petitions and development game and mod teams, met personally with Ubisoft Developers, and created one of the vastest libraries of TR mod content on the Planet -- you're more then a little off line and late to the party.

The conclusion most have come to after beating their heads against the wall that Ubisoft has erected between Tactical Realism Fans, and whatever it is they're making on the other side of that wall is that Ubisoft is far more interested in its 'vision' then what a few million (eleven million or so) Ghost Recon Fans actually want...

:mellow:

Edited by 101459

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear you guys waxing on about how the franchise used to be tactical. I would be interested to hear how it used to be tactical, and in what way GRFS isn't tactical. If you want to see change..rather than just raging against the machine, educate people.

i will say one thing, play the first Ghost Recon game (plus Expansions) complete it, then play FS right after.

you will be educated enough...

Edited by Zeealex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And by the fist game Alex means, Ghost Recon, with the expansion packs Desert Siege and Island Thunder, and Not GRAW as alot of new people on the forum seem to think, Because UBI never seem to mention the original game ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And by the fist game Alex means, Ghost Recon, with the expansion packs Desert Siege and Island Thunder, and Not GRAW as alot of new people on the forum seem to think, Because UBI never seem to mention the original game ?

Yea, I have never ever seen UBI mention the original game at all... even removing it from their Ubishop a while back... disappointing really...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Ubisoft just based on profitability has decided to run GR and the other games into the box to oven arena like a cheap cake mix.

as little storyline, cool pretty explosions and sounds, lack of replay-ability (whew! this is probably the biggest ding) along with trying to carve whatever meat is left on the carcass.

When i first worked in customer service I once learned;

It doesn't matter how many good remarks you get because, one bad experience can ruin your reputation
So this goes without saying, they may have made a great game in the original Ghost Recon, but with the debacle that was Ghost Recon 2, I think alot of us saw the writing on the wall. when they pulled Ghost Recon 2, oh boy... that was when this insanity began, and the original members of the development team from red storm left. it has been awhile but yeah... I can't forget a monumental screw up like this.

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

×