Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    Greenville, SC USA

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

QB-Paladin's Achievements

Recruit - 2nd Class

Recruit - 2nd Class (3/13)



  1. Well, if there is still another patch in the works, it makes sense that the tester could/would still be working on the original GRAW. The bit about it being published in the string makes it sound like the article was probably written some time ago and pulled out of the file when the paper needed a filler piece though.
  2. Sui317 hit the nail on the head I think, with his comment that Ubi wants GRAW to play like a war movie, not like a war. The "hero" way of approaching it is one way to do it. Look at the success of "hero" gaming on the PC: Half-Life's Gordon Freeman, Duke Nukem, Doom's nameless marine, and even Ubi's own Sam Fisher. The original GR wove it's story around a squad. GRAW follows the path of more recently proven success by focusing on an individual. In the process, it fundamentally changed the gameplay. It could have happened from the other direction. If GR:AW had been Splinter Cell: Advanced Warfighter and Sam Fisher got put in charge of a special ops squad, taking most of the stealth aspect out and making it more of a run and gun game. Would it still be a Splinter Cell game? No. And then the core of Splinter Cell fans would be upset, like the core [GR] fans are. Papa6 makes a good point. If your company is going to make a game as part of a franchise, the core elements of the gameplay need to go unchanged. Changes should be evolutionary, not revolutionary. Doom 3 may have changed the control scheme and have a new engine, but the run and gun gameplay of the original was left alone. A Wizardry game needs to be party based, and allow the player to make each character in the party, not be a solo hero with a bunch of AI followers or a single person hack 'n slash. A Ghost Recon game needs allow teams composed of multiple squads, with the ability to jump from character to character in single-player, and no essential hero in multiplayer. GR:AW could have been a great game, instead of a good game that disappointed some core of the original's fan base if Ubisoft had looked more to the special ops force in "Clear & Present Danger" (the movie) for inspiration and less to "Saving Private Ryan".
  3. Eagle_Eye is right, there are very few developers that have listened to the community as much as GRiN did. Listened to the point they couldn't take the whining anymore even. However, few are in a position to listen to the community and act on their requests. One of the few good examples of such developers is Obsidian with Neverwinter Nights 2. Much of the added functionality they brought to that title came directly from user community requests and mods the community had made for the original game. But very few developers brought in to make a game based on an existing franchise will be given the time and money necessary to do that. The facts are that there probably was neither the time nor the budget for GRiN to build in advanced editing tools, so we got what they had. Stuff like the Mexico City setting, the mission tree and the hero character were all in the design document from the beginning, and it was a PC version of a multi-platform game with shared assets. Adding rural or artic mission settings wasn't ever in the cards no matter how much we wished they were after the game was announced. It's a safe bet that GRAW 2 will be a similar game. Single player will still be a 4 man squad with a hero PC who has to survive the mission. Multiplayer will be where we may see some improvements, like the hero off switch and [GR] game modes being included in the box. What we may get is more varied mission locales, but again, they will be very similar to what the 360 version has... if it globetrots, GRAW 2 PC will globetrot. If it's set in Berlin, or wherever, we're going to get Berlin or wherever. The best bet for recreating the [GR] experience will likely come courtesy of a user mod for the first Unreal 3 powered game in the Raven Shield franchise. That combo should give the ability to render complex indoor and outdoor environments and have the built in tools to squad based AI and weapons selection. Although, Ubisoft also has a tendency to lock out sizable chunks of UnrealEd's functionality, and that probably won't change in the future either.
  4. Bo's post about the map/mission editor was very specific that it would indeed use the game itself as the editor, so you are probably right in saying the developer interface has been left out...or we haven't figured out how to turn it on yet. Likely it's also a collection of XML files, just like the HUD. I suspect the main reason for the delay, aside from adding polish to it to make it relatively easy for anyone to play around with, is they are waiting to be able to make the additional gametypes coming in the June patch available in the editor. No good would come from releasing a hard to use editor that has to be patched itself in the boxed game, when they can take a month and get it up to release quality with all the gametypes available. Plus, they get a month's reprieve from having to answer "how do you edit this?" questions from us. Looks great. What did you change?
  5. It's also entirely possible the editor will ship with it's own set of models, like the Battlecraft editor for BF1942/2. It has no need to see "inside" the package because everything the editor needs is a seperate download. Why DICE chose to do it that way instead of using the game models I don't know, but I suspect it has to to do with rendering the lighting. GRAW may do something similar. I did reread Bo's post about the mod tools this morning, nad his comment was something to the effect that we'd see the editor available before most people completed the game. So in other words, not at launch, it should be soon thereafter. Link to his post: http://www.ghostrecon.net/forums/index.php...72entry356072
  6. The map editor which is coming out sometime after release is supposed to give level builders access to all the all the level building tools the developers had. So, while I'm assuming that means we'll be able to make single-player and co-op maps (although how the briefings will work I have no idea, since they're video now), it certainly means making maps of whatever size for adversarial multiplayer gametypes should be possible.
  7. Played some single player and some co-op using BattleLAN. System specs... Pentium 3.0 HT Asus P4S800-DE 2GB Ram Ati All-In-Wonder X800XL Agp 256MB On-board sound - 2 speakers + powered sub For me the game looks and plays just fine. I hadn't even noticed the lack of anti-aliasing until I started seeing the posts here about it. They don't bother me or take away from the immersion. The graphics are a quantum leap beyond GR1 which is all I ask for. Gameplay is dead on, to me it feel like I'm playing a Ghost Recon game. That's the highest compliment I can give. Grin nailed the gameplay. Feedback and issues: The squad-leader death resulting in a failed mission in co-op is probably my single biggest complaint. I have posted elsewhere defending it as a design choice, and I stand by my arguements, but I also said it wasn't fun and it isn't. This needs to be addressed. Someone suggested it result in a change of mission objectives to the rest of the team playing to reach an evacuation point. Someone else suggested making it possible for another team member to pick up and equip the Cross-Com. Still another option would be a game mode that replaces objectives that only the squad leader could complete with ones that the entire team can do. Personally, I'd be satisfied if a Tango Hunt mode is added later. The second issue is teammate AI. In general, it is excellent. However, I have had problems where I will move them using the Covering Fire command, tell them where to go and what firing arc to cover, and instead they will move near that point and face a completely different direction. Since there is no way to exercise fine control over their stance and facing, this needs to be tweaked. The AI should be able to go exactly where told and face exactly where told if it is possible, and only if it is impossible try to do the next best thing. The angle when laying prone on a curb needs to be fixed. It feels as if the player model is laying as stiff as a board, which is what's causing the weird firing angles. On the weapons loadout screen, it would be helpful if the currently selected weapon model and configuration would light up and display the model, rather than the currently equiped one. On the tactical map, a reference grid is needed for multiplayer. Also on the tactical map, the commander should be able to highlight visible enemies so the diamonds show on the teams' HUDs, at least in Co-op play. Finally on the tactical map, a quick "zoom to soldier x" option needs to be added so it's easier to locate teammates in trouble. Server settings: Need an option to turn off the fly-in and briefing, and have a text briefing show up during the level load delay instead. It's neat and immersive in single-player. In co-op, it gets extremely repetitive. Need an option to toggle the squad-leader death mission failure. Need an option to set a number of respawns in co-op. I know most people will balk at the realism of that, but the option should be available for server admins who want it.
  8. I'm sorry Calius. It wasn't my intention to not address your post and go off on a rant of my own. So, let me make amends for it... 1. It's hard to say how much money people will spend on hardware, because it depends on how much each person buying it needs to improve their system. Certainly anyone not already running a 9600/9800 video card (or Nvidia equivalent) will have to upgrade. Figure if they are going from something that old, they are likely to buy a lower end, most bang-for-the-buck card, so maybe $130 for one of those. Figure those same people will stick with their AGP-slotted motherboards and lower-end processor, but have to increase ram, so add $99 for 1GB. You'd be looking at a bare minimum upgrade for a low-end system of $229. $229 will also buy someone with a better system a nice mid-level AGP or PCIe video card, let's run with that and assume they already meet the minimum specs but want a better video card upgrade to get more eye-candy. What's left are the people who either can't upgrade their old computer to run it and have to start fresh and those who simply want to run GRAW with as close to bleeding edge technology as they can. You can build as system that will run it, cannibalizing just your optical and hard drives from an old machine for $600. A friend of mine just built a system with SLI dual-7900GTX's, 2GB of ram and an Athlon 64 processor for under $1250, including a new case and power supply. So, let's take a median and say those users, it will be more like a $925 upgrade. Sounds like alot (and it is), but that's going to be a relatively small number of people and it's going to last them for the next 2 years, give or take a few months. If GR:AW sells 100,000 copies initially, I'd say you would have 30% who will go for the $229 upgrade, 60% who won't upgrade any hardware and 10% who will go for the $925 upgrade. For the $229 people, that totals $6,870,000 and for the $925 people, that is $9,250,000, for a grand total of $16,120,000 in upgrades. That's alot of money, but a drop in the bucket in the overall hardware market. 2) No. In terms of hardware units sold, I suspect the PC version will be directly responsible for more units of hardware being sold than the 360 version. On the 360 side, it is a top-shelf title that many new 360 buyers would pick up and it will likely sell more software units on the 360 by several times, but no more than a very tiny percentage are buying the 360 specifically to play GR:AW on it, so it's not a hardware sales driver over there. But on the PC side, a "unit of hardware" could by a stick of ram or video card, without being a whole system. However you slice it, though, I don't think GR:AW on either side was made with the intent of selling hardware. I think it is consumer demand for gaming software that pushes the technology envelope with is driving the hardware requirements, not a concerted attempt to set the hardware requirements so high they drive PC hardware sales. 3) Again, I think it is consumer demand for software that pushes the envelope that is driving the high system requirements, not any attempt by the publisher to drive hardware sales for anyone else. 4) We'll never know what was in the contract, but I think you're looking for a conspiracy where there isn't one with that question. In other words, no, I don't think there was anything in GRIN's contract to make the game require people to upgrade hardware to run well. If anything, Ubisoft would probably have preferred they build it to the lowest acceptable hardware specifications possible so they could sell their game to the widest possible PC audience without making people upgrade from integrated video and so forth. But that wouldn't have been a realistic expectation either given that the majority of dedicated PC game players will demand better performance than that. And appeasing that segment of the market is necessary for the game to sell enough initial units to create a market "critical mass". 5) No. I think you are thinking GR:AW will be bigger than it is. GR:AW could sell 1 million copies during it's useful life like Ghost Recon and it's affect on the hardware market be minimal. As a market driver, a game is only going to have an impact when it's released. In 6 months, what is bleeding edge hardware now will be second tier, and in 12 months it will be considered old. That means you really should only look at the first six months or so of initial sales when asking if it's driving the hardware market. And I don't think it is. GR:AW is too much of a niche product. It's not going to drive a mass upgrade on anything near the scale the launch of Half-Life 2 did, and if any game is in a position to actually drive PC hardware sales right now, it's World of Warcraft. 6) To a large degree, I think the way you have phased your questions are driven by paranoia, even if the ideas behind them aren't. Marketing GR:AW as next generation, or Unreal Tournament 2007 or Crysis, or Gears of War...whatever the game, is just that...marketing. What is going to drive hardware sales is competitive nature of the industry. The artisitc need of developers to create something new, to program something that hasn't been programmed before. It's going to be driven by the hardware manufacturers, who come out with a new batch of cards and go "look what we can do now!". And it's being driven by consumers who get bored with seeing the same thing over and over again. I don't think it is any way a case of Nvidia or Ati telling any software maker "We'll pay you $X if you make you game not run on hardware below this level.", which is what your questions are implying.
  9. I find it very interesting that in the 3 years + there's been forum discussion about GR2 and GR:AW here, so many people said they'd be happy with a remake of the original GR with improved graphics and mod support. What we are getting is a richly detailed, and from what I've played so far in the demo, very good game that to me feels EXACTLY like the [Ghost Recon], with better control and better enemy AI than the original ever provided. Notice I said many people wanted "improved" graphics. Nobody, to my knowledge or memory, ever said it had to be photo-realistic or filmlike. Yet, now so many forum posters are complaining that the graphics aren't as pretty as the were expecting. To all of you, I say "Why?" Why, after years of begging and pleading for a realistic combat model and saying the most import aspect of the game is getting the gameplay "right", are you now choosing to focus on a lack of anti-aliasing and some jaggy edges to complain about how the developers got it wrong. The graphics engine is on-par with Half-Life 2 and any other current game you choose to name, and better than many. It's not perfect, I'll grant you that, and probably in certain ways not as good as some of them. But since when has Ghost Recon been about state of the art graphics? To everyone who is now upset over the graphics, keep this in mind: Every major game to come out in a while, from F.E.A.R. to Half-Life 2 to World of Warcraft required fixes in the video drivers to run optimally. These fixes have to come from the video hardware manufacturers, and always come about after the release of the game and the performance of the final code has been evaluated. This isn't a Grin issue, or a Ubisoft one. It's Nvidia and Ati, and I have no doubt they will be making adjustments to their drivers once the game is out. If you can't wait for that, and you choose to take the stance that some less-than-gorgeous graphics are going to ruin the game experience for you, then shame on you...where were your sensiblities back when GR2 PC got canned because we, WE, made it known we demanded gameplay over eye-candy? To the forum admins, I apologize if this rant has gotten off topic. It's been burning me up since the complaints about the graphics started yesterday and I looked for suitable thread to post in. This one seemed best suited to it.
  10. Unfortunately, changing this will be difficult, and I would imagine it was incorporated specifically because certain mission functions, most notably the airstrike, have to be done by the squad leader. If the squad leader dies, the mission cannot be completed if something like that is required. I suspect that's the main reasoning behind making the mission fail if the squad leader dies in all cases, not just on missions where the objectives can no longer be completed by the remaining members. Making it so someone else can become squad leader would entail adding, at the very least, animation for removing the cross-com gear from the dead player and putting on the new squad leader and recording additional cross-com audio/video for all three other team members (or 7 if we get 4 more unique players with the xml hack) for much of Mitchell's unique dialog. Not an easy thing to change at all. I think the "fix" we will be looking for will be a Tango Hunt style game mode, just seek and destroy without the mission objectives. That was always my favorite game mode in the original GR, so I'm not overly upset by the team leader importance in Co-op. Is it frustrating when the team leader dies and everyone has to restart? Yes. Is it a game-breaker? For some people, probably. Is it a bad design? No, not really. It's logical and applied consistantly. We will never have an issue where, in one level, the rest of the team can keep going because the squad leader doesn't have to do anything unique to complete the mission objectives and in another level where the team cannot complete it's objectives but keeps playing to a dead end anyway because they didn't know. It's a rule of the gametype we know going in, seems fair to me (not fun...but fair).
  11. Played some using BattleLAN last night. Getting it up and running was a snap. We did have a problem with the demo crashing though. Every time we played, it crashed at different points. Hopefully it won't be an issue with the internet play in the full version and it's a problem caused by tricking it with BattleLAN. The multiplayer is definitely great. We consistantly got much farther into the level without losses than I have been able to manage in single-player with AI teammates.
  12. 3DGamers is giving me a 403 Forbidden
  13. Actually it'll be 1pm eastern. Daylight savings time. Look at the bright side, by 3pm there should be plenty of mirrors.
  14. Please, this isn't a wish list thread. There are other threads for wish lists. Please stay on topic and only help with listing/identifying weapons we have seen in the still/video media. Thanks. (And yes, I know I violated my own intent for this thread by adding my own comments in an earlier post. It won't happen again after this request).
  • Create New...