Sup
-
Posts
4,821 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Sup
-
-
*before WK or Para tells me i'm wrong and ubi would make more money with us, look at the numbers. We are only a few thousand people -- counting the ones who don't post on forums and giving them a VERY generous number, 5k people. That's a drop in the ocean.
The same is true for the complaints on ubisoft's boards. Maybe 1% or less of their players, and an additional couple hundred people who never even played the game. That's not a big deal, not worth investing the money to make go away.
Honestly people like you with your crusade against all things Ubi are going to be more of a PR threat than either the ubi forum complaints or us, and even so ubisoft doesn't seem to even acknowledge your existence, i can't imagine you're denting their sales that much. Or at all. More people like GRAW than liked GR. It did just as well critically, it did much better in sales, it's easier to make quality sequels for. It's easier to advertise.
Ubisoft wants to make GRAW, ubisoft is wise to make GRAW, and another, SMALLER company would be wise to make tactical shooters for this community. It's a different business model, you can make profits both ways, but it is not the most efficient way for ubisoft to make profits, with their products lined up how they are.
If you'd take half of your attempts to break down ubisoft's establishment by beating your head against the mortar and diverted it to spreading the word about BFS they could stand to make enough money to actually release their game. Since unlike ubisoft they aren't exactly rolling in ridiculous, ever growing amounts of capital.
-
With all due respect to BFS, since they strike me as a bunch of really good guys, they have never released a commercial game and have very little funding.
Either their game is going to be awesome or fall very flat -- making a good game is harder than most people think, even teams with a lot of experience miss the mark sometimes.
As for ubisoft having developer skill but lacking the right idea, i totally agree. But let's keep in mind our right idea is another man's bad idea -- being in with the 'teeny bopper' crowd (you know, 16-35, has a job and buys their own videogames, kids
) i have heard time and time again how GRAW is an improvement over GR because GR was hardly playable.Of course, that sounds like blasphemy to us, but as much as ubisoft ostracized a few thousand fans when they took GR in this direction, they'll lose THOSE fans if they bring it back. They've picked their market, they're making money, let's try to drum up support and interest for developers like BFS, who sorely need our money in order to grow, not a company like Ubisoft who is growing every year and has no interest in our (legitimately small) market.
Ubisoft's business model isn't a bad one, and it's not stupid to have forgotten us fans -- it works great, they've grown at record rates the last five years. Let them have their action shooter market, we don't need them any more than they need us. Whereas companies like BFS planning to focus on the niche market are going to require a deeply symbiotic relationship with this community to function, and BIS already has one.
-
WK producing a game on the same engine/with the same AI code/reused art assets has a significantly shortened development cycle. Vegas2/graw2/sc:PT had MORE time for gameplay refinement than the longer first titles, despite the shorter dev cycle.
And all got reviewed better than the previous games. Criticize their quality, but don't bring out strawman arguments about release schedules, too many factors are at play to just say the games were rushed out of the door.
-
Kleaneasy, can you fairly say GRAW1/2 PC were not as successful as ubisoft would have liked? You guys got nowhere near the criticial acclaim of the GOTY GR or its expansions (despite a laughably equal 80 metacritic score on both titles)
You guys honestly delivered a subpar product to the PC gamers, be it Grin, Ubi, or some breakdown inbetween at fault.
And vegas, despite Vegas 2 snagging some GOTY nominations in a few places and both games doing critically and financially very well on consoles was a sloppy, poorly optimized port.
We all know ubi's games are selling well and a significant majority seems to enjoy them, but do you really think you did the best that ubisoft possibly could for the pc gaming market this last couple years? Or are you working to try and improve quality in that sector?
-
I got the pleasure of playing a beta version of this once, it was incredible at the time, i bet it's even better now.
-
you're right. Trying to innovate and be creative is silly, we should all still be playing pong.
If it was not for trying something new we would never have had rainbow six, why is it a sin when ubisoft tried to find a new market for new players?
What's wrong is they abandoned the customers who put them in a position to be able to do that, i.e. the punters that bought the original.
And rainbox six abandoned the fans of Doom.
GR is an amazing game, why do you want it to be made *again* when the resources could be spent making NEW games that might be amazing?
That'd be like hating on modern music and wishing nobody released anything but cover CDs of your favorite band. It's just silly, even if someone mimiced GR perfectly it would lack the classic feel of the old one.
Not every game is as good as GR, but we're more likely to get games with that level of uniqueness and quality of people experiment
-
you're right. Trying to innovate and be creative is silly, we should all still be playing pong.
If it was not for trying something new we would never have had rainbow six, why is it a sin when ubisoft tried to find a new market for new players?
advancement is good guys.
-
You know all evidence points to his birth being more spring-summer and that the ritual to celebrate it was moved to coincide with the end of the year for overall religious symbolism purposes right?
Yes. In fact, MSNBC recently ran an incredible story on the subject. Of particular fascination is the conjunction of Venus and Jupiter in the constellation of Leo. As the article goes on to state, Leo was the tribal sign of the tribe of Judah, the tribe into which Christ was born. Thus, the symbolism of the planets representing king and deity, seeming to unite within the symbol of Judah would have been massively important. Given the many prophecies concerning the Messiah coming out of the tribe of Judah, this particular event would probably have had profound meaning to those who were looking.
Aye.
And it doesn't really detract anything from celebrating christmas at the end of the year (the end and beginning of the earth's travel around the sun, specifically, late december) seeing as it's just about as symbolic of life/creation (and consequently, obviously, god) as anything could be.
Still, it's not a fact/theory many people are familiar with, which is a shame.
Anyway, merry christmas everyone.
-
You know all evidence points to his birth being more spring-summer and that the ritual to celebrate it was moved to coincide with the end of the year for overall religious symbolism purposes right?
-
I think it would be very healthy for more people, especially Americans, to turn away from mainstream news media for a while and watch with an open mind, some or all of the above videos.
Sure, but why turn directly to sensationalist, biased sources?
It's trading one line of false information for another. Most of the facts are usually available, why not just take short time to research the possibilities of facts presented to you instead of listening to people with either mental disorders or reasons to lie say 'no it isn't, yes it is'?
We can, for example, with logical science, explain away all of the reasons there could have been a '9/11 conspiracy' -- EXCEPT for the possibility the government was aware of the attacks well ahead of time, which is shady and hard to call either way.
Despite this, many people blindly believe that the government took the towers down with explosives or there was no third plane or other absurd, easy to disprove ideas. Dissidence is all well and good but movies like zeitgeist only further the situation they claim to be trying to address -- misinformation and propaganda through media. Listening to either a liar or an idiot talk about other liars is ridiculous.
-
picking random kernels of truth and historical facts and drowning them in bizarre, outthere conspiracy theorizing is ridiculous.
Also making a piece of propaganda as texbook as this and then blasting the government is too ironic to respect.
-
Downloaded this last night, read the readme, this is honestly an inspiration man -- i'm as negative and whiny as hell about the gr community in general but it seems like you've really done something with merit. Almost makes me want to find time to make some real mods for Ghost Recon, seeing as it's one of my favorite games and i've never made more than a little wounds patch. You're honestly a real example of how the gaming community should show interest in a title, way to go man.
The mod plays excellently, way better than any compilations i've played before it. It comes across very coherent and cohesive, as if all of this content was made originally to fit together. Weapons are all balanced great, there's none of the awkwardness normally associated with compilations where half the guns are balanced entirely differently. It's great to have a single mod full of content i can point new people i introduce to GR to, too.
-
This is cool and all, but i don't really understand what people see in his art?
It's novel and i'm glad he's pursuing it by why does he, for learning a little sculpting and using a gimmick, does he deserve more money than artists who have spent 10-50 years perfecting sculptures of figure and things?
Just one example of an artist who deserves more money, for example...
-
There's a setting in the options for how big the 'dead zone' for your aim to float around in is. Make it a smallish number (i like a little slack for snap aiming, but you can very well make it 0 and aim like in other shooters) and double tap shift ingame to toggle walk as default and your cqb woes should be fixed.
-
Everything listed here has been done.
I don't know the names of all the mods, but i'm sure the ShackTactiacl guys do.
-
Stunning New Arma2 Trailer
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/43779.html?type=
a series of vignettes of missions, it looks like.
They've made some impressive adjustments to Arma's engine.
[Merged with existing thread (Where that video was already posted about in the 3rd post)]
-
Well if someone picked up Ghost Recon and said it was no fun because everytime they tried to run forward to find enemies they died, what would you tell them?
-
And seeing as how few people seem to care.
This will be news if the boycott is sizeable enough to have a dent on youtube's numbers that day, but as is it looks like a minority whining with some good publicity.
-
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/43687.html
He's mostly just defending it, but there's a little interesting insight too.
It's understandable the man is a bit biased, he worked for 3 and a half years developing this game.
(Keep in mind this is a ubi developer, not a ubi publisher, he's not trying to come at this from the draconian money making angle, take his opinions for what they're actually worth.)
-
This is also an example of ubisoft going back to the roots of a franchise they 'GRAW'd' and changed the direction of dramatically, it's definitely a good idea to support.
Interview about the game
http://www.ghostrecon.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=51133
And reviews
-
[*]Mission Script editor with GUI i.e. no hand coding
[*]Realistic weapon dynamics, ie.e damage and accuracy over distance.
[*]Open maps, with indoor CQB too.
These are all things we definitely need. Also scale of missions. Due to the play structure of GRAW (console) it was very easy for players to sprint around and finish objectives without playing through carefully? I think that was one thing the PC version did better, right? (to those who've played it, more than the demo)
As for 8 or more players, ability complete objectives in any order, and kit selection, we already had that. As for ability to play all missions co-op, i don't care if they give us the SP missions or not (if they're scripted to plan for SP i don't want them to waste time porting them) i just want a fully featured, quality campaign i can play online.
This is all assuming PC and console get the same version instead of the ridiculous outsource and spend less money on the PC version tactic.
-
This bodes well for most gamers, but i dont think it means anything different than more of the same for the GR franchise.
So they'll put more time into polishing the art and scripting their campaigns, that's awesome if you like their games how they are.
Doesn't mean they're going to change their design philosophy back to the old [GR] days, though.
-
Sup (et al.), this thread is not meant to become a battleground of arguments between GR and AW aficionados - please look closely at the thread's title and description:
Give Me Back My Old Ghost Recon, Rejuvenated! That's All!I guess i'm saying it would really make more sense to find games that look remotely like worthy successors and encourage them to be more like GR than it is to try and imagine ubisoft is going back to a formula that, while it definitely worked, did not work (financially) as well as their new one does.
It's far more likely another developer than ubisoft will give you another game that feels like GR than it is they or rse have any interest remaking their old product.
-
But does our small niche market really have any entitlement to RSE/Ubisoft taking their game backwards just to please our bizarre tastes?
Just a few thoughts off the top of my head:
AW2 has awesome maps, vehicles, in fact all models are fantastic, guns, characters, the lot. And the sounds are even better. But feel free to swap them with the ones from [GR], and most would not bat an eyelid. Not that this is what I want, but good looks don`t make a new Ghost Recon.
[GR] Campaign co-op available for 9 people, when modded, avaialable for 27.
AW2 Campaign co-op for 4 people, when modded only by an actually dev, available for 6.
[GR] had freindlies, pow`s, variety of leaders and refugees.
AW2 has a few freindlies, with no possible way to use them unarmed.
[GR] captives follow each and all of there captives stance while escorted.
AW2 they can only follow a path set in the editor, standing, outside of campaign mode, and there it is still very limited, with no change of stance.
[GR] you have as many mods as you can shovel in your mods folder active.
AW2 you can have 1 active.
[GR] you can give ai teams as many new plans as you like by scripting. Script your heart out sunshine!
AW2 you can give them 1, with an option to make them combat mode.
[GR] we had fog and spotting distances that the AI worked flawless with.
AW2 we do not have anything that works in this fashion.
[GR] you can play with over 100 enemy active with no issues.
AW2 has a very limited number of actors that can be active, heck after all this time, we don`t even know what that number is.
[GR] had a lobby you could chat to others in, arrange games and so.
AW2 has none.
[GR] has Bino`s, yeah recon usually requires these items.
AW2 has none.
[GR] had Igor.
AW2 has the most unstable editor I have used so far.
Backwards?
GR had no dedicated lobby, that's false. Only ubi.com
Again, anyway, it's a matter of perspective. And i have to admit i'm speaking only for the console versions of GRAW, seeing as Ubi made it pretty clear they were the primary development (and rse worked on them!)
GRAW2 had... (separating them since they were two different engines and showed some very different gameplay)
MP by Red Storm
A multitude of large, open ended multiplayer maps.
A large, varied selection of kits.
A very well implemented optional UAV mechanic. (for those who never played, it was controlled by the team commander, could be given orders to recon around the map, could be shot down, and was the only way to have those 'red diamonds' in MP)
A co-op campaign featuring [GR] style maps with... Ahh, you'd have to look it up, i dont remember how many maps. Not a huge amound.
Co-op firefight, defend, and recon, all with variable settings, on every map.
Accessible gameplay without sacrificing depth. GRAW may not have had the harshness of GR -- it was a lot easier to move and shoot and generally not die, but that did not invalidate the effectiveness of stealth and teamwork. Just gave the new players a chance to have fun with the game they spent 60 dollars on.
AI is fairly mechanically simple in MP, and mostly dynamic. Flees, flanks, serves its purpose.
SP by Ubisoft
A somewhat competently written storyline
superb mission variety
encouragement of stealth and tactics (albiet '2 man' tactics, since your team was given orders as one)
very effective enemy AI (take cover, flank, fall back)
weapon and team member switching -- all team members were named characters with specific weapons, you did not want them to die
a well implemented, if arcadey, cover system
for the most part, linear levels
implementation of smoke grenades
I look at that feature list and (having actually played both the game and GR extensively, unlike most posters here) i have to say that is a very high quality, well produced game.
Is it exactly the same type of game as GR, or what i would call a faithful sequel? No. But it does follow the vision or RSE's last game (gr2) and it succeeds in making a 'tacticool' product like Call of Duty. It appeals (and sells!) to the masses, teenagers and adults alike (no kiddies, sorry guys, you'll have to pick another cliche) and it carries the Ghost Recon name as a mark of quality. It may not be exactly what i wanted out of the Ghost Recon franchise (i was with you all in disappointment for GR2, rememeber?) but i can't say it's a bad game or attack ubisoft for it.
And considering it's a high quality product, with a lot of fans, very positive reviews, and a lot of sales, why would they take their game design back to 2001?
I sincerely hope someone makes a good small team tactical shooter in the vein of ghost recon, but i can't how why it can or should be Ubisoft with ghost recon. They've made something else very good already.
Analysts: Hardcore Gamers Drive Economy
in The Video Gaming Industry Discussion
Posted
Worth noting patcher's definition of hardcore is anyone who plays more than a few wii games and madden -- not necesarly people obsessesed in a niche genre like us.