[Not bad, but I'm definitely not impressed...]

>>Hey ScooterMX, welcome to GR.net. Did you try GR2 on the Xbox yet? Let me address each of your points cuz they aren't accurate if you are talking about GR2:

CR6- Thanks very much.  This seems to be the most comprehensive collection of game information I've been able to find.  Cudos to all that have created and participated in GR.net.

I am referring to the Xbox platform.  That's the only platform that I have experience with.  All of my comments and opinion were based on my playing the game for approximately 40 hours. 

Like the really poor documentation.

←

>>GR2 Xbox has a good sized manual included with the game. I'm not sure if you are referring to other games - maybe you should give us some examples.

My point was not that there was an absence of doc's, just that the documentation is poorly done. Elaborate descriptions on some topics, like the HUD, and the single sentence descriptions of other features, like the 'Special Features' description on page two. There's nothing at all on strategy, effective team movements, and there are two illustrations in the entire user manual, one being a layout of the controller, the other the HUD.

In a game as visually rich as this, it's just sad that the half-effort was done on the docs, that was my point.

erratic frame rates

←

>>All games suffer from this, especially PC games since it depends on what system specs you have and what graphic options you turn on. Can you tell me you are getting HL2, Doom 3 or Far Cry running a smooth 30-60 fps on the average PC gamers' system?

>>In fact, console games likely give you better frame rates on the whole since the game is optimized for a fixed set of hardware.

Again, my comments are based on GR2 on an Xbox. I would expect that with a console the game was designed to run properly on it's intended platform. I understand the variances with PC's.

complete loss of saved games

←

>>I think I saved 4-8 times for each level in GR2 Xbox - about 90 saves (so I can quickly go back to any objective I want down the road). Even better, I could save anywhere in the campaign like on a PC. I didn't lose even one save. Again, if you'rereferring to other games, give us some examples.

I saved about the same amount of times per mission, and on average around 10 times on a quick mission. If I left the game run after I saved, and the Xbox shut itself off, then about one third of the time the game that was saved prior to the Xbox sutting off was not there when the Xbox was turned back on. It's a repeatable bug.

hangs that force restarting the system...

←

>>This definitely happens less in console games than PC games.

Yeah, I thought so too. I had never seen the restart warning on my Xbox, and I've had it for a couple of years. It's a stock box, no mods, etc.

And where the console games suffer over PC versions is the inability to patch once released...

←

>>Xbox Live allows you to patch any Xbox game that needs patching. You need to be hooked up online to patch, just like on your PC.

Great, so a kid plunks down $50 for the game, then needs to subscribe to a service to be able to patch it?! That actually is NOT the case with PC games, which I am Not advocating, but at least they allow the capability of patching released software. Short of Ubi sending new CD's to everyone that bought it retail, there's no way to patch without Xbox Live (by he way a completely separate

product. Imagine that when you want to put the latest patch on Microsoft Word, you need to BUY another program that lets you download the patch... How long would that work for you?)

If anyone at UBI are listening, I would've waited a few months for the version you know you should have created.  As a player, and as a producer, it's almost always worth the wait.

←

>>I usually agree with this statement, but GR2 Xbox was actually released 2 weeks ahead of schedule because it was done on schedule, and Microsoft didn't find any major bugs with the release candidate. How many games can claim that?

A lot of games that were designed to meet low design expectations. You can't argue that the game was released on schedule when there clearly are features and functionality that are incomplete or missing.

>>Of course Red Storm could have added/tweaked more things if they had another few months, but so could any game. Successful game developers actually ship their games instead of succumbing to feature creep (can you say Duke Nukem 4?)

As a platform producer for a significant online developer, I have a strong understanding (and sentiment) for feature creep. But maybe you should understand what that really is. Feature creep occurs when (typically management) wants something to happen that wasn't originally desiged to happen.

Unfortunately this often happens because the developers are ahead of schedule. This gives the impression that there is room to fit more into a scheduled release. The release manager works with producers, marketing, etc. to develop a plan that balances features against a release target date. Balance being the key word.

I suspect that rather than feature creep, this game was missing some key design goals, and that is usually either the result of outside forces - like a holiday ship date, or new management for example, or sometimes just incomplete design. Like one of the writers or some of the more experienced designers left.

I've been in software development management in both the design and integration groups, and have lead several retail titles over the line, most on time, and rarely without fighting with senior management wanting to squeeze last minute features into a product. But this game seems to be incomplete in several ways.

I think this is a great game. Especially considering it's a softmore release of a really popular, and really well designed game. But what made this game great, in my opinion, and a lot of others that I've read here and elsewhere, is the intensity of the gameplay. Clearly the graphics have improved from the base release to GR2. But has the game play? Ask yourself the difference between The Commodore 64 release of Microprose' Gunship, and the PC version release nearly a decade later. The C64 version was one of the most accurate, compelling, engaging games ever created. You could easily lose yourself in the action, even though you were dealing with 20x20 pixel sprites moving predictably across your television screen. What makes games fun to look at are graphics. what makes them legendary and memorable are how engaging they are. how well desiged they are.

So please get your facts straight before posting.

←

These are opinions. When I write a review on a software product, which I do for a living, I make that clear. I can tell you about my experience. That, on its own, means little. But as a producer, it's comments in forums like this one that drive me the next time I write a design document. Because most producers know when they are releasing the product that they could have.

I think the people at Ubi did a great job. Compromises always have to be made, but it just seems that with GR2, for me, I would have put more of my resources on other areas.

[Not bad, but I'm definitely not impressed...]

It's in other elements of the game design. Like the really poor documentation. Other things- many mentioned in this thread, erratic frame rates, complete loss of saved games, hangs that force restarting the system...

And where the console games suffer over PC versions is the inability to patch once released...

If anyone at UBI are listening, I would've waited a few months for the version you know you should have created. As a player, and as a producer, it's almost always worth the wait.

Maybe they just had to hit the target with EA coming on board.... First impressions and what.