GRFS Old vs. New Debate Part 2 - The "Ghost Recon" argument.

I'm going to open with a disclaimer first because, of all the various parts of this blog series, I think this will likely be the most controversial. One of the things I admire about www.ghostrecon.net is the mature audience that, for the most part, can carry on a civilized debate (I'll be the first to admit I'm guilty of getting out of line from time to time, so I'm certainly not pointing fingers). I enjoy discussing and debating the different perspectives because I think it's interesting how people respond to the different aspects of a particular game - in this case Ghost Recon.

So...Let's roll...

This is Part 2 of 5 in a blog series I am publishing on the Ghost Recon (new vs. old) debate. In Part 1, I discussed the "Tom Clancy" argument, which is the opinion of some that Tom Clancy would be disappointed with the direction Future Soldier is steering the series.

Similarly, the "Ghost Recon" argument suggests that Future Soldier is not in line or true to the rest of the series, or at least more specifically, the [Ghost Recon] and expansion packs, which is where the apparent divide seems to occur.

Simply put...Future Soldier is NOT Ghost Recon and should not be associated with Ghost Recon.

As much as I like the [Ghost Recon] and the basic core ingredients that made it such a unique shooter, when compared with the progression of the series, it’s hard to deny that Future Soldier should not be the next step in the Ghost Recon series.

In order to capture a brief history of the series, the below information is provided (apologize for the low quality graphic):

Whether a person agrees with or likes the direction Ghost Recon has evolved, there is certainly a clear and consistent trend the game has followed with each subsequent release that can really be summarized as it is characterized in the [Ghost Recon] manual,

“…an Elite American infantry unit using the most advanced technology the United States has to offer; onto the front lines and into battle.”

While the actual language may vary to a certain degree, each title makes this same basic claim and as the series progressed, more advanced technology was incorporated into the game. For the purpose of this blog, specific discussion on technology will not be included as this will be covered later in the series. Additionally, note that each episode of the game occurs approximately 7 years in the future from the actual date of the release. With a probable time frame of 2020, Future Soldier will be approximately 10 years in the future.

So, what makes Ghost Recon, Ghost Recon?

Due to the broadness and all encompassing reach of this question and ultimately, this argument, it's difficult to ascertain exactly what is meant when this argument is used to question the relationship between Ghost Recon and Future Soldier. The reasonable consensus is that either the "game setting" or "game play" exhibits such a stark contrast and are so significantly different that they should not be associated with one another. The ambiguity is further compounded with the existence of a single player and multi player element.

Game Setting:

Defined as the components of the game that includes the story or environment (location, timeframe, characters, missions and plot)

The game setting elements, for the most part, remain consistent throughout the series. A global conflict exists and the Ghosts are sent in to deal with it. The locations are relevant and somewhat edgy. The games always seem to suggest ultranationalists or insurrectionists from potential hotspots like Russia, Korea and Mexico are responsible for the conflict which in turn, avoids making a game use the actual governments as the instigator (which prevents offending anyone). As previously discussed, the games seem to occur, on average, 7 years prior to the date of release. The missions are roughly equivalent; eliminate bad guys and complete mission objectives.

Of the various debates pertaining to old vs. new Ghost Recon, the missions and game play are typically not the primary issue of concern.

Game Play:

Defined as the components of the game that includes the actual mechanics of the game (interface, controls, modes, movements, abilities).

This area of the game has definitely seen some changes over the years and been the source fueling some of the debates.

The original game play was very limited in many regards, but was intentionally built this way to add to the realism and tactical game play. Players couldn’t really run jump or climb over even some of the simplest obstacles. They couldn’t pick up an enemies weapon. There were no melee attacks and they were rather limited on the kit they could carry. The damage affects were fairly brutal. If you were shot and managed to live, which you usually didn’t, there was a good chance you were going to hobble around the remainder of the mission. Many people gave up on the game because it was so difficult. It’s certainly not a game where you can run around with guns blazing and expect to get very far.

Throughout the series, the game has refined many of these limitations. One might wonder whether this was to appease the mass of gamers that liked the Ghost Recon concept but not the challenging difficulty or if it was just the natural progression of the game. In the latest installment (GRAW 2), your movements are more versatile, you can suffer a bit more damage (you have a health bar) but you still die very easily. You can pick up dropped weapons now. (Although it still kicks my butt, I do like how if you reload, you lose any remaining rounds from the magazine you drop).

While I would agree that Ghost Recon and Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 are very different games, when compared collectively with other games like Modern Warfare 2 or Bad Company 2, the similarities between GR and GRAW 2 become more apparent. GRAW 2 maintains many of the realistic tactical shooter qualities reminiscent of the original GR.

To summarize, Ghost Recon has always followed the model of being an “in the near future” tactical shooter that has incorporated prototype weapons and technology on the battlefield. That much is undeniably true. But I don’t think these components are what made the original series a success or captivated the crowd. I believe the key elements that made the original successful are the degree of realism, the reliance on teamwork and the solid tactical game play, especially in the area of multiplayer implementation.

So, there is an obvious disparity in the definition of what Ghost Recon is.

Is it “an elite unit using high tech kit on the battlefield” or is it a “realistic shooter that relies on dedicated teamwork and solid tactical game play”?

Well, of course that can only be defined by each individual.

I suppose for me, I agree with the language used in the original game that I know and love; the basic fundamental of the “Ghost Recon” name is that it is “an elite American infantry unit using the most advanced technology on the battlefield.”

Feel free to share your thoughts in the Ghost Recon Old vs. New debate thread located in our forums. And stay tuned for Part 3…

The “Ubisoft Money Making Agenda” argument…

Happy Hunting.