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.

Not going to touch the topic directly, but for co-op players, keep an eye on the next version of America's Army that's due to be released soon. 2.7 is bringing in AI and co-op play. It already has dedicated servers and is highly configurable. The problem, of course aside from it being on an older engine (ut2k4) is that there will only be two co-op missions added and we cannot create more for the game, but still, it's free so you've nothing lost but time in trying it.

The problem in this case is that 'making money' also likely means a contractual obligation not to say anything negative at all about the physx hardware or software or anything that might make users uninstall the free advertisng *cough* I mean, PhysX drivers.

While I appreciate the effort Willie, this only serves to further substantiate my point. It may seem easy to you and other computer literate users (note that even some savvy users are having issues understanding what to do) but the average gamer will NOT do this sort of thing. They will not write scripts, or even cut and paste scripts that someone else wrote, or likely even in many cases download an external exe that someone else has set up for them. All they want is to load the game up and have it work. Install a mod and turn it on or off with a nice gui that tells them clearly what's running and what's not. Now while someone external to the game's developers could make a 3rd party app that will accomplish that task, the problem for them becomes convincing all the modders to use their loader program, since the mods will have to in some form or another be tailored or set up to function WITH that program. SierraSeven's (I think it was his...) modloader was an example of this. It required you to create a relatively simple informational file for the program to locate your mod and activate or deactivate it. Problem is, few if any modders used it and it faded into obscurity. The only way to stop that from happening is to have a centralized system built into the game by the developers to select and run mods. They (you) are the only ones with the capability of distributing a unified system of mod management to the ENTIRE community. Relying on everyone in the community to agree on a 3rd party program just isn't going to work, nor is showing them how to write scripts or batch files. The former problem is one of distribution and standardization, while the latter is one of education and most gamers simply don't -want- to educate themselves in unrelated subjects just to play a game. Again, to dull the impact to that of a gentle bludgeoning... I realize that you are in a difficult position and that you're trying to help, and I do genuinely appreciate it. However, the solution offered simply will not gain wide-spread approval or use. Bear in mind that while it would be nice, I'm not asking for a solution to this problem for GRAW. It's late in the cycle and with so much expenditure on patches already, a larger endeavor like this is just not feasible unless the game was a mass commercial success (think BF2, HL2, etc. in terms of units sold). What I'm suggesting is that if you guys are working on an expansion, or even creating any other game based upon your engine, then you NEED to look at creating a unified and easy to use mod management system before you ship that or the mod community of that game will face the same fate as that of GRAW - dwindling into obscurity.

It's not really the modding that's difficult, it's the ability to enable and disable whatever mods you want to use that is. I can't have 2 skin mods for the same thing (ie US uniforms) installed, but not activated. I either have 1 skin mod activated, 1 sking mod not activated, or no skin mod at all. Not to mention being unable to use some basic mods with the anti-cheat enabled, and mods just don't seem worth it to some (such as myself). Some mods look great, but I won't download them because I can't really use them. This is exactly the issue and the reason many modders simply gave up on GRAW. You can make the game engine as moddable as you like, but if there is no functional way to support USING mods, then there's really no point. No matter how much effort you put into creating modified content for the game, people are not going to bother messing with files and moving folders around just so that they can use a mod or play on a standard server. The addition of the AC was a good idea, but the way it was implemented was certainly not very well thought out. Rather than having the game force you to use ONLY the information from unmodded .bundle files when connecting to an unmodded server, you simply get the boot, get accused of cheating and have to move the folders of whatever modifications you have installed. Now, of course you should not be able to use mods on unmodded servers, but making it so that we have no way to enable or disable without moving files and folders about is what crushed the concept of modding GRAW completely. Making a game easy to modify from a coding, skinning and mapping point of view is not the same thing as making a game mod friendly or supporting mods. A mod friendly game is one where it is easy to USE modifications. - How difficult the modifications are to make will define how many people are willing to make them. - How difficult the modifications are to -use- on the other hand will define how many people are willing to use them, and let's face it... if no one is willing to use the mods you're creating, why bother creating any? Making mods easy to use is FAR more important than making them easy to create. You guys went ass backwards on that and the results didn't turn out well. All the same, I'll certainly give you kudos for making an engine that's easy to modify from a coding standpoint, but for next time, take a long hard look at your policy on this subject. Modders are generally technically bright people. They can figure out how to make the mods even if it's difficult. The average gamer on the other hand will not even move files around to use a mod. If they can't install it and turn it on or off at will, they won't even bother and THEY are the important people in the equation, not the modders.

Yep, but it do not happen often. I guess you have to see the enemy in the open or even "full frontal", almost... Negative. The only time an enemy shows up on the minimap in multiplayer (adversarial) is when they are in your base zone. It NEVER happens in any other case.

That's a pretty big screw up on the part of ubisoft then. That might also explain why there were so many people complaining about the scope sway in the early months of the game. They were led to believe that the game would work with their system because of an error on the requirements listing. Pity, since I imagine some people would have just thought it was intentional as an exaggerated simulation of breathing/scope sway, called it stupid and tossed the game aside when they might have actually enjoyed it had they known.

The minimum requirements are the MINIMUM required for the game to function properly. The fact that it does not function properly with less than 1GB makes that a requirement. Recommendations are to run the game with all or most of the bells and whistles included in the game. A major game element failing to work unless you meet the recommended settings IS misleading and I'm quite sure that it's against the law to sell a product under those conditions. What's next? The screen is just a blurry haze if you don't use a Logitech keyboard? Hey, you can still play, just not very well unless you buy product X. Sorry Rocky, respect and all, but that argument is bogus in the extreme. That being said, every single box I have ever seen, every website I have ever seen (with the exception of EBGames prior to release which was corrected before release) have stated clearly that 1GB -IS- a requirement and not a recommendation. Can't speak for the UK boxes, though.

Read again. It's in GAME settings, not advanced sound. Go to the GAME tab in the settings menu.

1 - Not going to happen, too large an undertaking for a patch and aside from that, it was an intentional design decision to NOT include it. 2 - Could be decent, but then the problem arises that the cross-com view by default is wireframe with red diamonds to display enemies, while in MP there are no red diamonds. Full screen I imagine would be doable, but really... that's not very useful considering it takes up your entire vision. 3 - Never paid much attention to this myself, dunno if you're right or not. 4 - Points are already a server option. Removing them from the game entirely serves no purpose when server operators can already choose if they want them or not and how many if they do. 5 - Not possible, period. It makes no difference who you talk to about it, who they work with, or what has been done with other games. The situation with oblivion was with HDR. The issue here is NOT HDR, but deferred lighting and that has been covered to death. The only type of FSAA that is possible is not viable because of how demanding it is on the hardware - Unless of course you enjoy playing at 1-2 frames per second. 6 - Haven't had a problem myself since it was fixed in an earlier patch. 7 - No comment. 8 - I agree completely with that. A sliding bar controlling the percent of sepia tinting would be perfect and should not be difficult to manage. 9 - Variety in maps would be nice, naturally, but I highly doubt we'll get any more official maps after this coming patch. Too time consuming to be profitable. 10 - I'd never thought of this one, but that's a fantastic idea. Say green diamonds on squadmates instead of the blue for teammates. At current, I see no point in even using the squad system as the only incentive for it is the spawn on leader which is very overpriced. You're generally better off using those points for weapons and humping it to wherever your squad is. 11 - Meh, more patches are always nice, but GRiN doesn't have a sugar daddy like World of Warcraft to fund continued patching of other games. 12 - No comment.

There's nothing wrong with the HDR. I think too many people seriously don't understand what HDR is in the first place. That shade of orange deal is NOT from the HDR. It has nothing to DO with the HDR. It's a sepia tone overlay on top of the rendered images. The only connection it has to HDR is that they are both post-effects, which is why when you turn the post effects off both go away at once. They are entirely seperate entities. What I'd like to see if a sliding bar that lets me set the sepia tone to my own personal preference. HDR should remain, though it does need some tweaking still in my opinion as I find the effect a touch too powerful. Looking into a dark room from outside should not be like looking into a black void. Should still be able to make out shapes and whatnot, just not specific details.