TedSmith

Gee, thanks for your words of wisdom. I'll just go ahead and keep playing the game however -I- feel like playing it though, considering it'll be MY money I'm spending and not yours. There is a reason they allow you to play lone wolf in the game if you so choose. I'm going to assume that it's not a cleverly designed way to ensure that no one ever plays without a team. As for the score, I wonder if time to complete might have something to do with it. Not sure on that one, but that's the only way I can think that the game would give you an unsatisfactory score even though you've got high accuracy, high stealth and no injuries.

Or maybe the website developer is wrong? No, I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the history of posts by Bo around here he stated that it was correctly written as GRIN. It'd take a solid amount of digging to find it though I'm sure. Alrighty, since I was bored I decided to dig for myself... Source

I agree. But that's a different argument. As I said in an earlier post, creating a sequel is generally looked at from a different point of view than creating the original. [GR] was created with the mindset of, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we could do THIS (insert idea here)?" A sequel is generally created by looking at what worked and what didn't within the original, what the people liked and what they didn't and then basing the new game on that. It's a very different situation and experience tells us that as often as developers get it right, they sometimes get it wrong. I would argue that it's MUCH easier to create a new game than it is to create a sequel since there is so much less freedom when you have to try and fit to a previous mold or pre-concieved notions of what -should- be there. I would completely agree that in this case UBI and GRiN failed to accurately gauge what PC gamers thought was important in the [Ghost Recon] and as such failed to bring those things to the new one. That said, I do not believe for one second that GRiN came into this project with the intent of creating a brand new game in a vaccuum. That's simply not how sequels are done. The problem I think, is that the primary source for information on what was wanted in the game, for what was absolutely critical to be implemented came from UBI who have a track record for just not understanding our niche genre. By the time they got in contact with the community directly, it was likely too late for many major changes to be made, even if they would have been permitted by UBI. Now I'm not suggesting UBI said "Don't include a dedicated server" or "Don't you dare allow more than 4 people in co-op", just that the original design documents came from them. If THEY had stressed the importance of some of what we consider essential, then it's unlikely that so much time would have been misspent. A solid example of what I'm talking about are the character animations. They are absolutely excellent in GRAW, especially the diving and sliding ones. However, as cool as those are, I believe an inordinate amount of time, effort and money was spent on those. If I could choose between super realistic animations and more maps and game-modes or an SADS at release, I would without question choose one of the latter two. That still doesn't make the customer right all the time..... just me.

My comment makes perfect sense if you know anything of game development. It is a far, far different field from creating custom applications for specific customers. They don't have the luxury of sitting down with one person or one group from your client's company to get exactly what they want. Instead, they sit down with one person or a group from a publisher who tells them what THEY want. Major corporations like Ubisoft have people that analyze customer feedback and they do base their ideas on what they think the bulk of their customers want. That of course doesn't mean they're particularly good at their jobs, but if they weren't then GRAW360 probably wouldn't be doing so well, or the Splinter Cell series, or Prince of Persia series... They know where their money is, they know who their primary market is and they know what those people want. The PC Tactical FPS market is a very different beast and in trying to accomodate both groups, companies regularly fail both groups. Following that, many of the great game makers out there have countless ideas of their own as to what THEY want to have in their game and how THEY want their game to look, feel, etc. Then there are the story-writers as well, the graphics artists, etc. This is an artistic endeavor and however much influence you think customers should have on it, the artists start with what THEY want, what THEY feel will make for a great game. Starting any piece of art from the "What do the customers want?" point of view ends up with the fragmented, pointless, soulless drivel that hollywood ships out time after time. If anyone ever thought to create a game in the same manner that a custom application was created, the end result would be absolutely horrendous. Sadly though, we're getting more and more games made the same way hollywood movies are made and we all know how that tends to work out. When was the last time you watched a sequel that was better than the original (LotR movies must be excluded from this argument because all three were made before the first was aired)? Why is that? Because the original was started as an artistic creation, largely independant of what they think the customers want and the sequel was created after the success of the first in the exact opposite fashion. The sequel is started by trying to sort out what people liked from the first and going from there, adding in new things you think people will like. In games, sometimes it works (HL2, Q2, BF2 for example), sometimes it doesn't (Lockdown, for example). As for the NFL deal, yes I know what it is. That was a joke. I'm Canadian, myself, though considering how regularly offensive I am, many people find that difficult to believe. Sportswise, I don't watch much these days. Stopped watching baseball and hockey when the strike BS started in each. Never cared for football (american or otherwise). Currently fascinated with MMA (UFC, Pride, etc). Oh, and I don't drink beer. Thanks though.

I seriously wonder about you people sometimes. Show me where I said the customer shouldn't be listened to. What I SAID was: The customer is NOT always right. I don't understand why that's so difficult for people to comprehend. This is the third time someone has tried to insinuate that I said something other than what I did. Companies should listen to customers. Of course they should, to suggest otherwise would be idiotic. That doesn't mean that companies should agree with everything their customers say or that they should implement or accomodate every single request that is made. If someone hired you to make a word processing program, then two months from release, well into final testing, they said, "Hey, it'd be nice if this thing could create a database too. We want that added in. We're not going to give you any more money or any more time, but we want that added in." Would you listen to them? Of course. Would you agree to those terms? Of course not. N...... F... L...? Yeah, I don't live in your country. Have fun with that though.

Hey HEY! It's Teddy. Remember, I'm soft and cuddly. *edited for exact terms used*

I do hate to repeat myself, but: Why is it when people can't dispute what I'm saying they always try to associate my argument with an illegal and immoral act. Rape? Seriously? That's the best that you've got? Hell, let's go all out and compare me to Hitler or Stalin. You might get a better emotional response if you can link my opinion to torturing babies or kicking puppies. If you have a counter to what I have said, let's hear it. I'd love to hear why everyone's opinion is "Right". Why a game would be better listening to Gamer A that wants slow moving tactical play and simultaneously listening to Gamer B who wants fast paced action play with robots and lasers. After all, they're both customers. They're both "Right".

If you're going to argue with me, at least do me the courtesy of READING what I said. Find one place in there that I said GRAW was a better game than any of those you listed. Hmm... let me check it again... nope, not there. Not there either.... or there. Funny, I can't seem to find that anywhere. I CAN, however, find the place where I pointed out that folks at Valve stated that you CANNOT listen to and implement everything the hardcore fans want without ruining the game. People at id and and Epic have echoed that sentiment at one point or another. If I must, I'll hunt down those sources again. Now, what I DID say, for those that were too lazy to read a few paragraphs was this: The customer is not always right. Bad games get made by listening to everything the customers want and then haphazardly implementing those ideas. Of course your next argument will be something to do with dedicated servers and GRAW or some other feature that should have been there, and you know what? You're right. There are some ideas/requests/demands that the community serves out that are GREAT ideas and absolutely necessary for a successful game. That doesn't mean that every idea is good, or every customer's opinion is "Right". You have to be able to see the trash for what it is to find the gems hidden within it. That process starts with the assumption that customers are NOT always right and experience tells us that not only are they not always right, they are almost always wrong. If you're going to argue, argue on what was said. Making things up in an argument only weakens your position.

that explains so much on GRIN's behalf ... agreed. Please. This "Customer is always right" bull has no place outside service and sales positions. One of the FIRST things you are taught in any technical job is that the customer is almost never right. They make wild assumptions based upon their own ignorance of the technology or situation and consistantly insist that they are correct. There's a reason you're taught to ask direct, closed questions that the customer can only answer in one of two or three ways as a primary means of gathering information. The game industry is almost in entirety based upon the understanding that gamers don't know how to build games. Gabe Newell from Valve and many others have stated consistantly that listening to hardcore gamers and implementing everything they request would destroy ANY game. Most suggestions are made without any sense of foresight or understanding of how that idea would affect the balance of the game or any other technical aspects within the code itself. The challenge for game developers is to evaluate what the customer wants, decide what is viable and how to implement that without distorting or unbalancing the gameplay. If you assume every ridiculous suggestion made by a gamer/customer is "Right" then you waste countless hours poring over how to properly implement things that simply cannot work or cannot be done without massive internal changes to the game. Considering the cost of development for games is now in the millions of dollars (US), the only way to successfully create a game that can turn a profit is to first KNOW what you as a developer want in the game (which yes, comes from what you think the customer wants) and then eventually look with great skepticism at what the customers are demanding. Without that skepticism and critical evaluation of whether or not the customer in that case was "right", games would go way over-budget and likely end up getting cancelled. Even if they managed to ship the game, a mish-mash of ideas from countless customers will generally conflict with one another, resulting in a very poor and unbalanced game. No, the customer is NOT always right. Get over yourselves and realize that your opinion is not holy and sacrosanct just because you are the all knowing customer. There are few adages that I hate more than that idiotic phrase.

Who said Ubisoft didn't know what their intentions were? Colin certainly didn't. He said WE don't know. Ubisoft is a major company and as such always has plans, but they also have a policy of pretty much never sharing those plans with the public. Chances are, we won't know if there will be a next patch until/if it's officially announced, and we won't know if there will be an expansion pack until/if it's officially announced. I suspect UBI will front the money for one last patch (or have already made that part of the contract) to stabilize things (read: bug fixing only), then be done with it. Strictly my opinion, of course. Considering everything that comes out only seems to garner more and more complaints, I doubt they'd spend more money to give people something else to complain about.

Or use the start menu option that the beta patch installer creates. "Uninstall Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter Patch". It works just fine. People just like to make things more difficult for themselves than necessary.

That may be some people's way including yourself, but it's not everyone's way. It's certainly not mine. I'm not a fan of running to the authorities any time someone attacks me. I'm quite capable of fighting my own battles and winning my own arguments without appealing to admins to silence someone. Now of course there's a time when admins are necessary, but it certainly isn't necessary to bring them in the second someone offends someone else with a simple comment. As for the other point, he could have taken it up privately, but then ZA could have taken his direct beef with Bo up privately as well. A public attack generally garners a public response. Everything he said in that post could have been said without naming names or pointing fingers. ZA made a concious choice to call Bo out on this and I'm sure that a response was anticipated, if not expected. Much of what ZA said, I agree with. There were things promised and things suggested that simply never came to pass and as a result, many people feel betrayed. That doesn't however make his attack justified and Bo's response unjustified. If one is guilty, so is the other.

You know the reason for that? Because basically if you look at the whole thread then his post is the most distrespectful of the lot. Up till that point a decent, flame free discussion was taking place. Then a CEO of a company steps in and starts throwing TROLL comments around because people are stating an opinion he doesn't like. On the other hand, of course, I'm sure if someone was calling -you- a liar, you wouldn't consider that post particularly disrespectful and you'd naturally respond with kindness and graciousness... If you're going to hate, at least don't let it be blind hate. He was attacked first. Whether you consider it justified or not is another question, but let's not play like no one was disrespectful to him.

No disrespect, Bo, but yes, you do and more importantly, you SHOULD. The whole xml tweak situation to allow more players was described as a simple fix, yet none of the modders who spent countless hours poring over the files found out how to do it. Evidently it's not as simple as you think it is, or it would have been sorted out by now. This is, after all your game engine and while you are not under any contractual obligation to help us, I personally consider it a moral obligation. If the fix is so simple, why has no one given details on how to do it? I can lay a lot of things at UBI's feet, but I find it hard to believe they would intentionally stifle information that would silence a lot of the co-op community's complaints. I'm personally having a blast with the firefight and recon modes, even just tooling around alone on them, but all the same, things have happened over the course of the development and release of the game that have left some thorns in my side, so to speak. If you guys CAN help us with the player number issue in co-op, then please do. It would be appreciated and while it will not silence all the complaints (nothing ever does for gamers) it will relieve some of the tension around here.