to be honest, call me what you like but i really wish people would stop finding the smallest thing wrong with this game and enjoy what's there. but there we go.
I agree, and while I also agree with and understand those that pine revisiting some '
classic' Ghost Recon, we've known for a very long time now what this game
isn't going to be, and Ubisoft is obviously enormously invested in what it
is, as they're way over schedule, probably budget as well, and too far down the track for yet another change in direction.
Sloppy marketing, nasty DRM, and epically bad use of branding aside GR:FS does look like it's shaping up to be a visually stunning, and compelling tactical shooter. And I think those that are able to overlook some of the stylized liberty the Designers have taken with '
realism' in the future, may actually enjoy the game.
I think it's also worth mentioning as someone pointed out elsewhere, that if this game were given a different moniker, perhaps something like
Tom Clancy's Future Special Forces, there'd be none of the expectation and disappointment we've seen, and the buzz around the game might be a lot more positive here on GRN.
Edited by 101459, 23 February 2012 - 05:35 PM.
