OFFICIAL RELEASE

[Colin]

Plase check the two sites now.

[Colin]

http://www.ghostrecon.com/us/newspost.php?id=11432

http://www.grin.se/

Alot of information is now available

A snipet from UBI

In the PC version of Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter™, we will develop the tactical aspect further than in the other versions, because this approach best fits this platform, and we know that all Ghost Recon fans are expecting to be able to plan their team’s actions on the battlefield.

Edited June 27, 2005 by =SEALZ=Colin

[Whisper_44]

Interesting read to say the least...still holding my opinion

Introduction

Mathieu Girard is the Ubisoft Producer of Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter™. His role is to ensure that the production of the game goes smoothly, and that Ubisoft reaches the highest possible quality. That means following closely the team at GRIN, and also the group here at Ubisoft.

Who is working on the PC version of Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter™?

More than 100 people are involved with the PC version. Ubisoft and GRIN are working in close collaboration to deliver the next installment on Windows® PC DVD-ROM of the smash-hit squad based shooter franchise.

GRIN has strong experience in military applications (they started developing software for the armed forces). They distinguished themselves in developing groundbreaking technology; actually GRIN made the first game to feature pixel and vertex shaders in cooperation with Nvidia for the launch of the GeForce 3.

What differences can we expect between the PC and the Consoles versions?

There will be many differences between versions, as the platforms themselves are different. For instance, if you take into account that you control your soldier with a keyboard and a mouse rather than with a pad, you know that you will shoot faster and more accurately. For us, that means that we have to adapt the level design (offer more covers), the camera system (immersive first person view), the difficulty (enemies are more challenging)… Basically nearly all areas of the game have to be adapted just considering this simple fact.

In the PC version of Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter™, we will develop the tactical aspect further than in the other versions, because this approach best fits this platform, and we know that all Ghost Recon fans are expecting to be able to plan their team’s actions on the battlefield.

That’s why we are implementing exclusive features for the Tactical Map of the game. With this tool, the planning phase can now happen at anytime in the game (at least when you’re safe enough!). That also means that you’ll be able to change your plans if things do not go as planned, just like real soldiers do. We feel this is an ideal balance between strategy and improvisation.

Also the PC version will provide many other improvements and tweaks to make it fit the expectations of our audience.

Can you please explain us the main differences between the first opus of Ghost Recon and Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter™?

Actually, Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter™ has a lot in common with the features that the fans loved in the first opus, the features from a tactical shooter. We have however improved and increased these tactical features, taking advantage of the technology that the soldiers of the future will use.

The other big difference is of course the visual quality which will benefit from the latest Next Gen PC rendering and effect. Finally, multiplayer expands towards new modes which also take advantage of our new tactical layer and near futuristic context.

A lot of people have been upset with very little information on the upcoming PC-based Tom Clancy games. Have you in any way listened to the input and wishes of fans when doing Tom Clancy’s GHOST RECON Advanced Warfighter™?

Because we do not express ourselves on the forums does not mean that we don’t read them. We know what the expectations are, and our objective remains to provide a deep and involving game.

We are still debating many aspects of the game, and the opinions expressed by the fans are always taken in consideration. For example on Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon 2, feedbacks from the PC community revealed that the “Over the shoulder” view was not appreciated. So on the PC version of Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter™, we decided to stick to a first person view during the whole game.

One of the strongest points of Ghost Recon was the multiplayer mode. Which possibilities will be available to players and what improvements have been made?

This is an area we cannot really talk about right now, because it is still heavily under work right now, and because we do not want to spoil everything ). However, we can already tell you that all the basics you can expect from an online shooter will be here plus most of the classical modes associated with the Ghost Recon brand. But we will also provide some great innovative modes which will fully exploit the tactical layer of the game and the near futuristic context.

- GR.COM SOURCE

[Colin]

I have to admit reading all this article its looking real good.

For instance this bit "We are still debating many aspects of the game, and the opinions expressed by the fans are always taken in consideration. For example on Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon 2, feedbacks from the PC community revealed that the “Over the shoulder†view was not appreciated. So on the PC version of Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter™, we decided to stick to a first person view during the whole game."

Im gonna burst.

[jay316]

ok info but said nothing about squad size player switching or modding tools in the release.

[GRT]

Thats great they took off 3rd person, and im glad to hear about the map. Makes me feel alittle better about GR3.

[Stalker_Zero]

Ya I feel a liiiiiiiitle better too.......but not by much. The fact that they are still pushing that power ranger "futuristic" stuff still makes me feel uneasy.

[ARDelta]

I haven't read the info yet. I'm just glad to see some OFFICIAL news!

[Inc_Doc]

Is that a faint light way down at the end of the tunnel? I think I see it, but it’s not too bright yet.

From the screens I think I'm going to love the graphics. I would really love to see some actual movement to see how smoothly and life like they are but I suspect I will be very pleased with it.

The health bars, sorry gatta go. If not I hope you can turn off in multiplayer.

The screen in the upper left I’m not sure of. Seem it is multi use, you can see what the other team member see, but is it also a command center? HHhhhmmm don’t know.

Still looks to be a 4 man keep Capt. Mitchell alive at all cost, that’s not to my liking, but some others may like it.

Basically it looks real good and it has possibilities. Looks like (and I know it limited info now) I would not like SP but Multiplayer could be interesting, especially after what they said about it.

From what I’ve seen, I'll wait and get some reviews from some ppl here before I go out and buy it. Sorry UBI, but you burned me on GR2, and after you been burned, you learn to stay away from campfires.

[Snake@War]

Tac Map=+1

[Kurtz]

"That’s why we are implementing exclusive features for the Tactical Map of the game. With this tool, the planning phase can now happen at anytime in the game (at least when you’re safe enough!). That also means that you’ll be able to change your plans if things do not go as planned, just like real soldiers do. We feel this is an ideal balance between strategy and improvisation."

This sounds very old school. Great interview. Things are really looking up now.

[EasyCo]

I like what I hear! They are actually listening to us and not just using a console port. Everyone should be happy with that news.

[Rocky]

I like what I hear! They are actually listening to us and not just using a console port.

←

Yeh, someone roll out the "nah nah, nah nah nah" trumpets.

[swartsz]

sounds very good, can't wait to hear and see more!

[Specter]

I like what I hear! They are actually listening to us and not just using a console port.

←

Yeh, someone roll out the "nah nah, nah nah nah" trumpets.

←

I wouldn't do that yet, Rocky.

You know as well as I do that the proof is in the pudding, not the description on the box.

[JTF-2]

it's great to hear news. Thanks for that, seems like you guys listened. Oh, and the news/info all sounds like you're stepping in the right direction.

[Creatch]

Nothing like dangeling a carrot infront of a starving horse.

I am still not convinced nor am I confidant in the info released. That and I find it rather strange that the screens were pulled, which led to a big debate here, then bang all the sudden a release with the same screens ???

I personaly do not like the rather RVS looking backrounds and colors, bit to cartoonish for me.

And all that screen clutter which I am hopeing beyond hope you can TURN OFF !

No mention yet as to if there will be a game editor for us scripters, or how many players it will handle in coop play.

Im definately not holding my breath as we have been bitten before. But that said it is nice to see no over the shoulder view because we bitched about it soooo much.

[Specter]

Nothing like dangeling a carrot infront of a starving horse.

I am still not convinced nor am I confidant in the info released. That and I find it rather strange that the screens were pulled, which led to a big debate here, then bang all the sudden a release with the same screens ???

I personaly do not like the rather RVS looking backrounds and colors, bit to cartoonish for me.

And all that screen clutter which I am hopeing beyond hope you can TURN OFF !

No mention yet as to if there will be a game editor for us scripters, or how many players it will handle in coop play.

Im definately not holding my breath as we have been bitten before. But that said it is nice to see no over the shoulder view because we bitched about it soooo much.

←

Amen, on all points.

[SAF_Night Scope]

Well, I like most of what I read, but I don't really like what I see.

What I mean is that the Q&A is actually a good news for me, mostly because of the fact that this is possibly the first official word on a sequel for GR on the PC, after all of the time we had to wait. It's a relief to know that they're working separately from the console team, and that they're trying to fit the gameplay better for PCs, with more tactics etc.

But there's still a few things I don't like and would like them to clarify. For example, will we get more than a single 4-men squad? Will we actually be stuck with the futuristc scenario and equipments (I've seen quite a few people complaining about it - I really dislike it)? That's related to the HUD as well, considering it probably represents the info displayed on the soldier's HUD (more futuristic stuff).

That's what I can think of for now... I hope they get it fixed and deliver what they promised.

[mordred]

first of all i like the news, it looks better than what we ever gotton on gr2...........

But, and theres always a but....

what are they indeed gonna do with:

1) IGOR ?? >>> this thing kept GR alive during all those years, otherwise it would have 'died' on us a long time ago

2) Squad thingy........hope they stick to the 9 insert which isnt too big nor too little....

3) graphics............its best they push it to the limit to expand gr3s lifetime, but i dont wanna see those arcade (farcry) graphics...........but im sure they wont let us down on that one, since gr1 rocked the pcworld with it excellent graphs.

KEEP IT STEALTHY, KEEP IT REALISCTIC (dont do a RAMBO game), KEEP IT FUN, and KEEP IT ADDICTIVE plssssssssssssssssssssssss

-M-

[Colin]

The mod aspect is a good question. Will it be or wont it be?????? modable.

Well to be realy honest I dont mind, some mods I used were ok some were realy good some were realy awful infact some ruined the game altogether.

It is true they extended the life of gr1 though.

If you read the press in UBI GR2 has had downloadable content and now a comlete new add on Summit Strike which looks realy great.

This SS brings in some things I think they missed because of dead lines etc.

And maybe some moans and groans from the community.

I do realise this is console stuff but this trend I see moving into the PC line.

So I would like to see the developer make the mods/add ons, why not they already have the tools.

They could even involve the community in some way. This subject is vast and covers many areas, it would make sence for the developers to find out about what modding we would like to see and why.

The futuristic part is gonna stay I recon I played gr1 for nearly six years I want somthing different.

It will be ok just need to be more open minded, being set in your ways is not always the best way to go.

The HUD will change in keeping with the PC community Im sure of this.

We have had many questions answered with this news release, Both UBI/Grin.Inc

have gone out of there way to incorperate a lot of what we want to see.

But Im afraid they will not be able to please all of us, Im sure they will try though.

We will get the game most of us want and with any luck ill be playing this one six years from now aswell. With add ons and mods.

Colin

[QB-Paladin]

I agree with Inc Doc on one point... if the game is going to focus on one character (Capt. Mitchell) such that if he ever dies, the game's over, it's a problem. Sorry, but sometimes war means getting people killed. I know there are GR players out there who will redo a mission over and over until they manage to do it perfectly, with zero casualties. I'm not one of them. I will expend my troops to get the job done and move on. I like how Ghost Recon (the original) provided a large enough pool of characters that this was a possible strategy. Not the best one, maybe, and the specialists were so much improved that losing one of them really hurt, but still, I was able to get through the game without getting stuck restarting a mission over and over because one person got killed.

As for the squad issue, I like having up to 3 squads to play with. Hopefully the AI will be improved to the point that it will actually be possible to deploy soldiers and have them do what you want them to without jumping in and having to personally control each of them just to get them to go where you want, when you want. To me, that seems like the number 1 reason for the scaleback to a 4 person squad... it cuts down on the AI overhead. And I don't like it. Plus, having more than 4 people on the same team is crucial if they are going to do what they said in terms of implementing multiplayer. It was Quake 3, wasn't it, that had the 4 player multiplayer limit? And it had nowhere near the success of it's predecessors. Completely different gaming mindset between Quake 3 and Ghost Recon, I know, but it's a good example of eye candy at the expense of community wants, and it was reflected in the sales and longevity of the game.

So, having said they need to improve the AI if they're going to implement multiple squads, I do hope they will allow players to jump in and take control of any character at any time. Even with the smartest AI in the world (which it won't have, even if they manage to make it a good AI), there's a certain satisfaction in jumping in to the boots of your sniper or anti-tank soldier and taking the critical shots yourself.

Finally, on the editing front, I keep seeing people say they want an updated Igor. Are you people nuts? I'll grant you, it's pretty moddable, if you are a programmer, and you can map for it, if you're a whiz at 3DSMax and happen to know a good texture artist. But, for the casual mapper/scenario builder, it's a nightmare. It's poorly documented, buggy, and as I said, requires some serious 3rd party programs and knowledge to do anything except write new scenarios for existing maps.

Here's my editing wishlist...

* Full scripting support

* Drag & drop placement of objects (buildings, furniture, vehicles, people)

* A good terrain editor, with enough generic textures to do most kinds of terrain (woodland, swamp, urban, arctic, dessert)

* Built-in support for importing and packaging objects, textures, sounds, etc. right in the editor (no extra utilities needed).

* Support for multiple 3D editing packages (even if those do take some extra programs to put into the format the built-in importer uses).

* Standardized object files, so that individual objects can be made and shared by the mod community. (Example: Someone makes a BMP model for use as an OPFOR vehicle. When they release that vehicle to the community, the package contains all the stuff anyone would need to import it and start using it in their map right off the bat: all the stats, all the information the engine needs to know it's a vehicle, with a turret, weapons, etc and that it can carry passengers and how many, and so on. Ditto for weapons packs, uniforms, new soldier models and so on).

I know that's a bit rambling, and I'm sorry. I'm writing as I'm thinking. The point is, it sounds like Ubi and Grin are trying to make a game that's both commercially viable to for new players and that'll appeal to veterans. I don't know how likely it is that they'll succeed at both, but now is the time to get the list of what we want out there. Even if some of the features we want (like multiple squads) don't make it into the game, maybe we can at least get them to make it something that's not hard-coded into the engine so modders can do things with those features later. That's part of the reason for my rather long-winded post about the editor features I want to see. Now's the time to get the editor wish lists out there, while there may be some time to get at least some of those wants implemented.

Finally, as a small side-note to Grin...

If you do give us an editor where we can go in and use existing game content in our maps, please...please take the time to make sure the object names are in English for the US version of the game. Whichever Ubisoft Canada studio did the Raven Shield games left half the item names in French, making it hard to find stuff in the resource files. I hesitate to think how much harder finding items would be with Scandinavian names on them.

Edited June 28, 2005 by QB-Paladin

[X69RZX]

Sounds good, thanks for the find. I will continue to hope that those screens are from a very early version and that they will look far far differently when the game is done. I can honestly say I despise the look of the game portrayed by the screens they have posted at GRIN right now.

[jay316]

I would be soo much happier if UBI/grin would come out and say there will be modding support so fans can model their own weapons/maps/vehicles/chrs that happen to not be included in the game, even if ubi releases downloadable content which is a nice thing to have, downloadable content alone isn't enough for me i want to be able to put my models in game. need i say a mission editor is a must! and more than 4 allied characters with 2 or more squads and the ability to switch control of team members is what made gr1 so great for me. Also if modding is supported what software is supported and what versions so modders can start working on things. if i am going to be buying this game i want to know if it is going to have these things. other info is nice but the bottom line is the above is what i really want to know.

Edited June 28, 2005 by jay316

[OSO]

The mod aspect is a good question. Will it be or wont it be?????? modable.

Well to be realy honest I dont mind, some mods I used were ok some were realy good some were realy awful infact some ruined the game altogether.

It is true they extended the life of gr1 though.

If you read the press in UBI GR2  has had downloadable content and now a comlete new add on Summit Strike which looks realy great.

This SS brings in some things I think they missed because of dead lines etc.

And maybe some moans and groans from the community.

I do realise this is console stuff but this trend I see moving into the PC line.

So I would like to see the developer make the mods/add ons, why not they already have the tools.

We will get the game most of us want and with any luck ill be playing this one six years from now aswell. With add ons and mods.

Colin

←

Desert Siege and Island Thunder were developer made mods for Ghost Recon. Developer made mods cost money and while they are nice additions to the game with updates and new features, we the community, shouldn't be mandated to have this as the only outlet.

Realistically, if the first release does well, you'll see developer made add-ons but not too many. They'll be starting on Ghost Recon 4 soon after. It's just the way it is. So now what does the community do in the meantime? Continue to play the same old missions/maps for a few more years while waiting for the next edition?

Ghost Recon has always focused on the US military. What about players that want to see their military forces in action?

Crappy mods are easily disposed of in the recycling bin. All you wasted was a bit of time downloading it and trying it out. The add-on pack cost you money and if you don't like it, well too freakin bad since you already signed the check over.

Do you really want to give total control to Uncle Ubi?

If EA buys them out that just might become a reality.

I'm sure I don't speak for myself in that developer made mods only is a bad idea for the game.

Finally, on the editing front, I keep seeing people say they want an updated Igor. Are you people nuts? I'll grant you, it's pretty moddable, if you are a programmer, and you can map for it, if you're a whiz at 3DSMax and happen to know a good texture artist. But, for the casual mapper/scenario builder, it's a nightmare. It's poorly documented, buggy, and as I said, requires some serious 3rd party programs and knowledge to do anything except write new scenarios for existing maps.

Here's my editing wishlist...

* Full scripting support

* Drag & drop placement of objects (buildings, furniture, vehicles, people)

* A good terrain editor, with enough generic textures to do most kinds of terrain (woodland, swamp, urban, arctic, dessert)

* Built-in support for importing and packaging objects, textures, sounds, etc. right in the editor (no extra utilities needed).

* Support for multiple 3D editing packages (even if those do take some extra programs to put into the format the built-in importer uses).

* Standardized object files, so that individual objects can be made and shared by the mod community. (Example: Someone makes a BMP model for use as an OPFOR vehicle. When they release that vehicle to the community, the package contains all the stuff anyone would need to import it and start using it in their map right off the bat: all the stats, all the information the engine needs to know it's a vehicle, with a turret, weapons, etc and that it can carry passengers and how many, and so on. Ditto for weapons packs, uniforms, new soldier models and so on).

←

So basically what you want is an editor like Sandbox? I played with it a bit and at first I thought it was pretty cool, kinda like a combination of 3ds max and IGOR. I gave up on it waiting for the sdk to be released after I realized how limited it actually was. A 3d application is so much more powerful than any map editor ever released. I've used unrealed, hammer, sandbox, and 3ds max. 3ds max is the map editor of my choice. I'm sure its better now that its out, but I felt that Far Cry lacked the tactical element that GR had.

If you think IGOR was buggy and hard to learn, think again. A full blown scripting language would be welcome in my book, but you're nuts if you think the casual modder will be able to pick it up. At least with IGOR all of the script is in dummied-down drop-down menus for ease of use for non-programmers.

I'm not a programmer btw... and I figured out IGOR with a little effort and trial and error. There was some excellent documentation released on IGOR albeit a bit late. The map level building pdf for GR is less than desirable and I'll give you that.