AlienShogun

As long as you are attached to them they have total control over you, or at least they should. That's how it's supposed to work until you get tasked out to someone else in the BN.

You guys Infantry? A bit hard to tell from those pics as anyone can get scouts and snipers attached to them. Jodie might have a name, but he never found my house, and if he did I would perform a home invasion . Nice to see another service member. I was active duty infantry and deployed in 03 and 06, we did/saw it all. Especially during the surge.

Ah, national guard. NASTY GIRLS! I notice you keep saying "your gunner" and "Your TC" I'm assuming you just mean the gunner/TC in the team/truck you are in. Since you are only an E-4 I would HOPE there is an NCO in your truck over you guys.

When you feel better I really suggest playing on realistic, it really does make the game better.

I'm only guessing...but that tool looks like it is detachable and perhaps the other end is a bayonet like weapon? Which is exactly what I said.

The release date is currently 1 October.

HAH...too funny. The reports have indicated you'll be able to do melee attacks. Can you imagine getting slashed with that thing...ouch! The melee attacks refer to krav maga and russian combatives. However I wouldn't put it past them to include a "swap" to CQC attachment instead of the wire cutter/utility tool.

Sorry if my post was not clear. I never intended it to mean that a m203 could take out a tank or couldn't, just that if you have something on your shoulder capable of taking out a tank, lugging around an M203 under your rifle might not be necessary. Anyway... I don't buy the notion that people that don't like the direction of the game are "uninformed." Maybe all the information is not out there, but there is clearly enough for some people to make a decision of whether they like the direction the game is going or not. If Ford decided to stop making Mustangs, and instead were just going to put the Mustang name plate on a Fusion, would some of you still go buy it because it says "Mustang" on it? Even by your "clarification" you show that you believe that a 203 can take out a tank. The grenade that goes into a M203 launcher is typically either HEDP (high explosive dual purpose) or simply HE. HE is anti personel it's simply meant to be a longer range grenade. HEDP fills that roll as well, however it is also designed to penetrate thin skinned armor allowing it to take out lightly armored or unarmored vehicles. (Humvees) By your logic it would make no sense to carry both an AT4 and an M203 launcher, or a Javalin and a M203 launcher. They do not serve the same purpose. As for your "mustang/focus" argument it is flawed, as a mustang and a focus are not the same type of car. Ghost recon is still what it has always been a tactical game, some people complaining just don't like the direction it is going. That is understandable, however some people also don't understand that the game was never a milsim, it's always been a tactical shooter. Some people also act like simply because they played the original their opinion is the only one that matters and that anyone who doesn't agree with them couldn't possibly have played the original, which is also ignorant. There are plenty of people just like me who played the original and have enjoyed every GR since. The other big issue is people complaining/commenting on weaponry/technology without knowing what they are talking about. Also the ones complaining about Ghost Recon using future tech, especially since Ghost Recon has ALWAYS been about future combat.

The best explanation is probably "it's just a game". The fact that people on here think a 203 launcher can take out a tank speaks volumes. The underslung attachment can be a range of things including a 203 launcher grenade launcher, and shotgun. That is a wire cutter. Why are people so quick to bash stuff they are uninformed about.

I've been browsing around various other forums and news sites with commenting feature. Without a doubt, the overall feedback is positive, people are really excited about GR:FS and loved the live action demo. The only people not so happy are us old timers who know what GR should be, ie true to its roots. Other folks who have no knowledge of the history and therefore what has been removed, only see the cool stuff, and they like it. You should add in SOME old timers, since SOME of us old timers also see GR for what it is, a tactical game not a milsim and can appreciate it for what it still is, and what it has always done. That is to provide a futuristic depiction of military conflict through tactical action and futuristic weaponry.

You could always just pie the corner.

@AlienShogun: This means you, in general. ____ General Posting Guideline 2.2 What are you talking about? Everything being discussed is on topic. This is a thread about people buying or not buying the game based on the direction the series is going.

GR followed in the Tac-Sim footsteps of R6 which defined the Tactical Simulator genre of games. RSE created that particular genre subset of FPS games. While not a military sim, R6 simulated the planning and execution of a hostage rescue and information collection with the planting of bugs. GR simulated the execution of obtaining certain objectives to complete a mission based on a small squad of highly trained soldiers, Green Berets, and not regular soldiers in major direct action as you would find in OFP or ArmA. Ubi has removed many of the original features of both games like the planning stage, hostage rescue, and planting of bugs for R6 and the completion of objectives in any order, open terrain and soul switching found in GR. Both games now feature hero characters and linear gameplay over the open ended gameplay each had. They are instead of being atypical, they are now typical shooters. What sets each apart from a game like CoD or Halo? Ghost recon has always felt different than games like COD or Halo. It has always had its own feel, has always (and still is) been tactical, and has always had a following that reflects its more mature game play. The best people I have ever met online were from GR and R6 (through every iteration). To say that GR has become like Halo or COD is to show your ignorance in the series (or that you are just trolling). Has it lost more of the "tactical minutia? Yes, but it's become more accessable to people who don't/won't play that way. But to completely say the game is no longer tactical and is akin to typical shooters is just asinine. Edit: The use of "you" is not indicative of white knight. It is a more general "you" to people who keep saying Ghost Recon is like Halo or COD. Edit2: The soldiers in Arma/Arma 2 are spec ops. You also play Specops in Operation flashpoint, as well as Marine Recon (which also do specops missions). So there is clearly a parallel. Like I said, GR was never a Milsim. Tac sim? On a minor level, but it was never a mil sim. There were also PLENTY of missions in the [Ghost Recon] with "major direct action" as you put it. As I said. GR has always been about tactical game play. Even though the game has changed substantially the need for tactics is still present, and heavily so. Flight sims are marketed as flight sims you wouldn't expect one to be marketed as "secret weapons over normandy" Same with Milsims. Arma and Operation flashpoint continue to fill that roll for a niche market. Ghost Recon was NEVER a sim. It was a game that required tactics. The use of those tactics as well as the tools has changed but the need for tactics remains.

Except a flight sim is a flight sim. Ghost recon was NEVER a mil sim. Operation flashpoint and Arma are milsims. GR never was. Ghost Recon is a tactical game. Always has been, and as far as I can tell always will be, no matter how it has changed it has ALWAYS relied on tactics, and "teamwork." GR has evolved in its own way. As times have changed it has changed. I have not seen a GR yet that I thought was garbage. I take each game for what it is. I understand what GR has always been and where it is going. It would seem some do not.

Yeah, I WAS infantry. I was up for E6 promotion when I left. Spent 27 months in Iraq 2003 and 2006. Saw plenty of action. Thank you for your service. I find it funny yall called it the "60cal." "Thems smoking words!" haha. I've fired from 9mm all the way up to a Javalin. I love me some good ol life ending projectiles.

A 50cal round API or not will kill with a center mass shot. In fact, it probably would have tore that guy into pieces. Military are taught to shoot for center mass. When dealing with increasingly larger rounds. The lethality also rises.

Yep drop in drop out 4 player coop. On consoles it even has the option of split screen.

Except that Ghost Recon has always been future/near future. I understand why people want a "back to the roots" game, but the market isn't there. The avid complainers (in my opinion) need to save their energy and just get the games that ARE marketed to them. I personally buy those, AND any Ghost recon Rainbow game that comes out and I will continue to until one of them is actually a bad game. Judging the new iterations off of past glories is just ignorant in my opinion since the market has changed, dramatically.

All in, hook line and sinker. I'm one of the BIGGEST Ghost Recon fans I know, hell when I first joined the army GR scored me bonus points when my NCO asked me a question he thought I wouldn't know, the nomenclature for the AT4 (M136) Which I only knew because of Ghost Recon and the countless hours I put into it right before joining the army in 2003. Games change. This is a business, I seem to be one of the few that realize that. They are trying to market to a broader audience. The market for the more hardcore [Ghost Recon] games is no where near as large as the market for games like GRAW and Rainbow six vegas. I understand that, and take the game based on it's own merits. Regardless, the Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six story line is still there, and I find it VERY enjoyable. If people want a mil sim there are niche games made just for them, Arma and Operation flashpoint for example. Both of which I own and love. People need to quit crying about the past, and judge these new games on their own merit. If the game is good the game is good, no matter what came before it.

That was awesome.

In regard to the "new look." The army has said it realizes the "gamer" soldiers are the future and wish to have unmanned equipment reflect that. They did say that they want the "controls" for this equipment to reflect modern console controllers. I'm sure the drone being controlled by the soldier reflecting a console controller is intentional.

Play BFBC2

Less than 8 months to release too. I'm sure we can expect to see the game in action at E3.

It does indeed have some stiff competition though, especially with COD, MOH, and Reach coming out this year.

Regardless of who is right about what (we will learn that soon enough) I really can't wait for the game. That OXM info got me even more excited.