bugkill Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) I've noticed a number of the original GR/RB6 gamers having issues with today's crop of games and I just want to address a couple of things. Look, I'm just like many of you that miss the old games and have desperately wanted the sequels to have the core gameplay, but updated with new animations and graphics. UBISOFT has taken over the franchise and went into an entirely different direction, building it for the console gamer, and that is exactly what GR:FS is designed for. The PC version for any GR/RB6 game should be radically different from the console version, but can still have some components from it. GR:FS is a fun game to play and is pretty cool, but it is NOT meant to invoke old memories of planning missions and having a great deal of custominization. I do not understand why UBISOFT would release a port of a very good console game for the PC since the series has already established itself as the best milsim shooter (outside of the Arma games) that had a strong following years ago. I don't work for them and I do not sit in their board room discussions, but I wonder where such an talented company like that does not have the presence of mind to make the game much like the originals, but updated with all the cool stuff with even smarter AI and map design to make it a challenge for us milsim PC gamers. The game would sell well over a million if they did that and I'm sure the production costs won't be nearly as high. Don't take much to have a awesome map, waypoints for the high speed AI to patrol, objectives, insertion points, and some in-game cinematics. All the PC gamer wants is the armory and planning room to create his teams and come up with a plan to assault the objective in whatever way they see fit. That is all wishful thinking and that game has not been made and we have been asking for it for years now. Like I said, enjoy GR:FS because it is a fun game and has a number of cool moments. It is not what we want, but the game is not horrible, not bad, or sucks. Then again, that is just my opinion. Edited June 27, 2012 by bugkill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101459 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 I think most OGR Veterans have acknowledged this for a long time, have little or no expectations that anything with Tom Clancy's name on it (including his books sadly), or the Ghost Recon moniker will even remotely resemble anything that came before, or that even defines the 'Tactical Realism' genre. Hopes, perhaps -- but with respect to expectations I think most that are old enough to have played the original Ghost Recon when it was new have fairly realistic expectations with respect to the kind of 'product' Ubisoft...delivers... For most that are disappointed the biggest issue with this iteration of morphing Ghost Recon into some sort of populist game is not that it isn't 'Ghost Recon as we knew it', or isn't open sandbox game design, isn't 'Tactical Realism' or even that it's obviously a rushed console port -- the biggest issue is that GR:FS PC is not a very good value at it's current retail price -- you don't get much of anything in terms of quality or depth regardless of the kind of game on offer. Summarily GR:FS plays like a poster project of 'features & benefit' market driven game design that's totally lacking of real game design. Regardless of what genre we label this game with it's still fraught with rather enormous limitations in terms of what it isn't, what's not, and what it doesn't have that overshadows what it does have to offer -- where there are games that cost far less and offer much more. You're obviously welcome to adore GR:FS PC, and think it's great, delivers on all its promises that resonated with you, and feel it's going to give you minutes, hours or even weeks of fun -- but for me, and no small cross section of the others that have paid for this game, it doesn't deliver anything much but a derivative shooter with a new paint job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa6 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 I agree. during the GRAW/GRAW2 era did it occur to me that, the GR franchise will NOT return unless ubisoft asks for it and goes after THAT style of play. I saw and played GR:FS during the beta of GR:online. I saw the game in action vs. the screens of the PC version and I had my WHOA! moment. I will say this; UBISOFT never offered a Beta of the game to help familiarize the public with what to expect. suffice it to say, "It is what it is, to me it is just a game..NOT GR." looking at it from that aspect, This community has changed too. But does that mean we abandon GR.NET because it changed into something we didn't expect, or like? -no. We go with what we know. I will say on the opposite hand for those who are disappointed, You spent your money on a game you couldn't test drive, you can't return for a refund... THAT I can totally understand... But since you bought the game, why not find some redeeming qualities and get our monies worth out of it somehow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101459 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) But since you bought the game, why not find some redeeming qualities and get our monies worth out of it somehow? Personally when I compare GR:FS to similar action/arcade realism shooters, like: · Frontlines: Fuel of War · Homefront · Breach · Spec Ops: The Line · Red Orchestra 2 · Raven Squad · SWAT 4 · Crysis 3 These games cost the same or less than GR:FS and: · Look As Good Or better · Have Mod Tools · Have Stand Alone Dedicated Servers · Run Virtually Bug Free On Most PC's · Offer Functional Server Browsers · Offer External Server Browser Support · In Some Cases Offer More Modern Engines · Offer Similar/Better Game Design & Features · Have More Maps & Game Modes · Have A Larger More Sustainable MP Audience I certainly don't 'hate' Gurfus, the way many clearly do, I'm just not particularly thrilled, and ferreting my 'mony's worth ' out of the $60 I spent, is rather like trying to find the pony or corn to eat in what's rather a steaming pile of...disappointment... Sorry... Panda is not happy... Edited June 28, 2012 by 101459 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa6 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I can see this is going to get real ugly unless UBI steps up fast to fix it. Nvidia and AMD will have to write new drivers to fix the issues as well as they seem to be an issue with how the game talks to the graphiccards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanMF Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Grfs fails at this as well, IMO. The stealth/sync shot mechanic is enjoyable when it works, but the game occasionally arbitrarily decides to prevent you from being able to use it by means of invisible triggers that make you detected even when you weren't, and enemies that spawn into areas that you've already cleared. And sometimes your squad mates just bug out and refuse to target an enemy or acknowledge that they even exist, even when standing literally right next to them. The game is broken. There is very little chance of them ever fixing it. And don't get me started on multiplayer or how terrible the coop is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101459 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Nvidia and AMD will have to write new drivers to fix the issues as well as they seem to be an issue with how the game talks to the graphic cards. I really don't see how blame can be deferred to NVIDIA and AMD, when tens of thousands of games run without issue on the current reference drivers -- especially so when Ubisoft has broken DirectX 9 on the 11 render backplane support that is to be fixed in another yet to come patch... What really blew my mind is I bought the game on Amazon and can't even play multi-player, apparently Ubisoft has yet to get their networking/master server back-end to support the PC game aka 'The Ghost Recon Network' -- the one feature that may redeem the game doesn't even work because isn't 'ready' yet... Add to all this that Steam has apparently issued thousands of refunds for Gurfus, and this lowers the bar to a level that might be par for a $19 bargain bin title, but that Gurfus cost more than most people spend on food in a week, and three times what games cost that work fine out of the box -- is a jaw dropper. This is such a shocking disconnect with accountability and professionalism for an 'AAA' priced title, I'm sure there will be many more cancellations and plenty of bad press that will likely feed an unfortunate piracy frenzy and add fuel to Ubisoft's business as usual fire... Sad Panda looses hope... Edited June 28, 2012 by 101459 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa6 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Nvidia and AMD will have to write new drivers to fix the issues as well as they seem to be an issue with how the game talks to the graphic cards. I really don't see how blame can be deferred to NVIDIA and AMD, when tens of thousands of games run without issue on the current reference drivers -- especially so when Ubisoft has broken DirectX 9 on the 11 render backplane support that is to be fixed in another yet to come patch... What really blew my mind is I bought the game on Amazon and can't even play multi-player, apparently Ubisoft has yet to get their networking/master server back-end to support the PC game aka 'The Ghost Recon Network' -- the one feature that may redeem the game doesn't even work because isn't 'ready' yet... Add to all this that Steam has apparently issued thousands of refunds for Gurfus, and this lowers the bar to a level that might be par for a $19 bargain bin title, but that Gurfus cost more than most people spend on food in a week, and three times what games cost that work fine out of the box -- is a jaw dropper. This is such a shocking disconnect with accountability and professionalism for an 'AAA' priced title, I'm sure there will be many more cancellations and plenty of bad press that will likely feed an unfortunate piracy frenzy and add fuel to Ubisoft's business as usual fire... Sad Panda looses hope... Easy. I have seen Nvidia AND AMD both release drivers that fix issues with certain game specifically. I'd say it would have to do with how the cards render the game and how it deals with the game. I'm no GPU genuis though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeealex Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) But since you bought the game, why not find some redeeming qualities and get our monies worth out of it somehow? Personally when I compare GR:FS to similar action/arcade realism shooters, like: · Frontlines: Fuel of War · Homefront · Breach · Spec Ops: The Line · Red Orchestra 2 · Raven Squad · SWAT 4 · Crysis 3 These games cost the same or less than GR:FS and: · Look As Good Or better · Have Mod Tools · Have Stand Alone Dedicated Servers · Run Virtually Bug Free On Most PC's · Offer Functional Server Browsers · Offer External Server Browser Support · In Some Cases Offer More Modern Engines · Offer Similar/Better Game Design & Features · Have More Maps & Game Modes · Have A Larger More Sustainable MP Audience Sorry To butt in BRILLIANT list, i play most of those games and love them, but i don't remember FFOW having mod tools? On topic, GRFS PC sounds hugely Buggy, hopefully Ubisoft know know that they need to bring out a beta for the PC just as much as consoles. i'm glad these issues have popped up as genuine issues, Ubisoft's just lost my vote and i'm buying Spec ops instead. to me it sounds like Ubisoft rushed this to avoid delays, or focused so much on the graphical side that they forgot the more useful side haha! i didn't realise famous game developers were huge comedians too! well they just killed the joke! the long awaited punch line failed to deliver. either way, it sounds like sloppy port work there, i was happy to wait for a port of this game but a port as ###### as that?! wow, ubisoft have stooped so low this time. i'm really hoping they've felt the pinch of this and realised just how important it is to triple check everything before release including handing out beta versions to trusted gamers who won't be complaining over preferential issues. Five years for a Glitch infested port? i think not... Sorry i'll shut up now. Edited June 28, 2012 by Zeealex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowblade Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Hmm, it's not a "bad" game but there are issues like the linearity of missions, lack of planning a mission and the overarching story invading the game during a mission which makes it a bit groan worthy, especially when it goes a bit 'on the rails' with the shooting sequences. Once you've ironed the kinks out with the mouse and graphics settings it's ok to play. It will be better with patches released. I like the cover system and the 3rd person view, its what I expected through SC:C and R6V but alot better. In terms of games, ARMA II: Combined Ops is probably the closest thing to OGR though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101459 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) ...but i don't remember FFOW having mod tools? QueDeeLuHoo! Actually it did, but being on an early version Unreal Engine 3, the editor was launched in-line with the game like this: "C:\Program Files\THQ\Frontlines-Fuel of War\Binaries\FFOW.exe editor" There were quite a few mods for FFOW too, including a third person mod! But all (or most) of the mod support sites disappeared when Kaos Studios was closed and the official site was take off line... FFOW is the game that Grfus reminds me of most; in many ways FFOW was a better, more original game -- that Ubisoft could have obviously borrowed from, and have been better for it where they didn't by going all the way and making the game unashamedly more cartoony, or reeling it in and sticking to GR canon... On a related note, Grfus appears to have some editor assets still hanging around, that probably weren't cleaned up in the last minute release rush, making me wonder if the modified version of UnrealEd YETI is using is launched with parameters similar to FFOW -- no luck getting anything to work but I'd totally change my tune of there was a fully functional but 'unsupported' editor in there somewhere... Sorry i'll shut up now. Don't ever! Hmm, it's not a "bad" game but there are issues like the linearity of missions, lack of planning a mission and the overarching story invading the game during a mission which makes it a bit groan worthy, especially when it goes a bit 'on the rails' with the shooting sequences. Once you've ironed the kinks out with the mouse and graphics settings it's ok to play. It will be better with patches released. I like the cover system and the 3rd person view, its what I expected through SC:C and R6V but alot better. In terms of games, ARMA II: Combined Ops is probably the closest thing to OGR though. I agree with all your sentiments, and don't think Grfus is 'bad' either, just not a very good value for $60... Unlike other games that I can recommend without hesitation that cost as much or more with all their expansions... Edited June 28, 2012 by 101459 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=warcloud= Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I agree. during the GRAW/GRAW2 era did it occur to me that, the GR franchise will NOT return. Tom Clancy titles changed for the PC platform at Ghost Recon 2 and Rainbow Six Lockdown. Yeah, Ghost Recon 2 never came out on the PC. I will say on the opposite hand for those who are disappointed, You spent your money on a game you couldn't test drive, you can't return for a refund.. It is a shame for those that are dissapointed in the pc version that they didn't do some research before they made a purchase, but It had been mentioned quite a few times that the console and pc version are identical in every way except maybe the extra graphical improvement on pc. There was plenty of single player and multiplayer youtube gameplay videos that would of helped in the decision to buy or not to buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa6 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I agree. during the GRAW/GRAW2 era did it occur to me that, the GR franchise will NOT return. Tom Clancy titles changed for the PC platform at Ghost Recon 2 and Rainbow Six Lockdown. Yeah, Ghost Recon 2 never came out on the PC. I will say on the opposite hand for those who are disappointed, You spent your money on a game you couldn't test drive, you can't return for a refund.. It is a shame for those that are dissapointed in the pc version that they didn't do some research before they made a purchase, but It had been mentioned quite a few times that the console and pc version are identical in every way except maybe the extra graphical improvement on pc. There was plenty of single player and multiplayer youtube gameplay videos that would of helped in the decision to buy or not to buy. As for the refund part, I've seen posts on ubiforums that state they got a refund. Problem is, noone could make an informed decision unless ubi would have released a demo. only other way wasfor folks to have gotten a GR:online beta key, play it, then see the PC screenshots and put 1+1 together. This was a debacle I will admit. with todays supreme court decision on obamacare, nothing surprises me anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.