NYR_32 Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 One thing I've noticed....some people want all games these days to play the same way...whats sets GR and RSE games apart are that they play their own way and have their own feel. Vehicles is not GR, vehicles is not an RSE game. Player driven of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpreacher Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 I myself Would like too see vechiles add as a Modders choice. But for GR2 itself for SP Mission? I Might say no, but maybe just maybe if thing goes really bad you need too Drive some Hostages out of a HotZone fast might be cool! Every now and than things go really bad where vechiles are ok! Just not a full aspect of the game... But for Multiplayer, Emmm it should be Host's choice or modders. So i say yes too have the Engine at least support it! And than let the modder's choose! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoa182 Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 I dont think i can get through to most of you !, MULTI PLAYER IS NOT EXACTLY GHOST RECON ANYMORE, its a war between 2 sides that know each other is there , its not SECRET OPERATIONS! , sorry for caps , but you gotta understand that there is nothing ridiculous of having vehicles in multi player. so im dumb for Transporting Troops on other games for an hour or 2 without hardly shooting a weapon. You really need to totally seperate ur Single player from the Multiplayer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYR_32 Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Hmmmm.... I play MP more than SP...last time I played an SP mission was when I was beta testing something....I personally am talking MP mostly. I don't see the need for it in TvT or Coop for that matter. Its not what this game is about in either mode of play...its about the player, their weapon and most importantly their teammates...not the player and their armored vehicle or humvee etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoa182 Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 well even if GR 2 doesnt have vehicles i guess i'll have the best of both games. GR 2 and joint ops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 well even if GR 2 doesnt have vehicles i guess i'll have the best of both games. GR 2 and joint ops Exactly, where's the fun if they both offer the same thing? They need to offer different things, and if Ubi are going to hold true on the Press Release, Red Storm has some special treats in store for us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxtrot360 Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 well i play around 1-15 games maybe and they all work on my crappy dial up im just a little confused with JO and me and a friend yester day were searching for ISDN i want atleast 111k since everyone and i mean _everyone_ says i shoudl be able to get it in my area but oh well what can i say if they put vehicles in GR 2 ill buy it maybe but then it will set in my case and collect dust for spring cleaning and JO im sure ill try and get that but im just wondering if it would lagg maybe i should start another topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxtrot360 Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 one reason i dont want vehicles in my GR 2 is because people on the same team will fight over them! and it promotes TKing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoa182 Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 (edited) inuyasha,Apr 14 2004, 20:55 ] one reason i dont want vehicles in my GR 2 is because people on the same team will fight over them! and it promotes TKing Nope. i play JO everyday , it makes us work better as a team , we dont tk each other over vehicles and there are usually around 100 of us in the server But i do understand most of your points now after reading again, and i Really wouldnt mind GR not having vehicles at all now, But at the same time i dont think it would make poor online gameplay. Whatever RSE decides. i dont mind as long as its as good as i thought GR 1 was Edited April 14, 2004 by whoa182 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j-man Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 GR2 really doesnt need player controlled vehicles. People are saying "with huge maps you have to have a vehicle to get around," but thats not fully true. Huge maps offer different potential paths to an objective, you don't need to traverse the whole map. SF guys dont go across an entire area they have a map to unless they really need too. Bigger maps just provide for more tangos so you are less likely to kill every thing in the entire map- something that was unrealistic in original GR. Plus, why make GR2 an exact clone of the other games out there with drivable vehicles? Just having the ai control them and you maybe getting a ride (but not driving) is fine for SP. Also, mp maps should be reduced in size compared to SP maps (well, MP maps should be at least same size as original GR maps, if not a little bigger) to decrease lag and eliminate what some complain are long hikes back to the action. I say, more reason not to get killed & use stealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STU_Snake Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 inuyasha,Apr 14 2004, 20:55 ] one reason i dont want vehicles in my GR 2 is because people on the same team will fight over them! and it promotes TKing I play UT2004, and there are plenty of vehicles to go around, and vehicles like the leviathan, that can hold 3 machine gunners, a passenger, and a driver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammo Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 I dont think i can get through to most of you !, MULTI PLAYER IS NOT EXACTLY GHOST RECON ANYMORE, its a war between 2 sides that know each other is there , its not SECRET OPERATIONS! , sorry for caps , but you gotta understand that there is nothing ridiculous of having vehicles in multi player. so im dumb for Transporting Troops on other games for an hour or 2 without hardly shooting a weapon. You really need to totally seperate ur Single player from the Multiplayer Very good point. Ghost are usually used for preping the battle field. However, in online this is a very different type of mission. Its a war, with both teams looking for eachother and ultimately trying to defeat the other team. In battle one of the most important elements you can have is speed. Transporting troops as fast as possible. Wheather it be just regular infantry or spec ops. Check out black hawk down (true story) when delta force is delivered into the heat of battle by helicopter. In the heat of battle you need troops quick. If the enemy knows you're there than a vehicle is not going to give up your position. Now, if theres a different game mode like siege or demolition, then vehicles would be absolutely useless and you should have the option to not use them (if you're smart you wont) For a regular search and kill type game I think they should be implemented to heat things up (not as a weapon but as transport), in other gametypes I think they should be implemented but to where no one will use them because it will just get them killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainman2k Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 I dont think i can get through to most of you !, MULTI PLAYER IS NOT EXACTLY GHOST RECON ANYMORE, its a war between 2 sides that know each other is there , its not SECRET OPERATIONS! , sorry for caps , but you gotta understand that there is nothing ridiculous of having vehicles in multi player. so im dumb for Transporting Troops on other games for an hour or 2 without hardly shooting a weapon. You really need to totally seperate ur Single player from the Multiplayer Very good point. Ghost are usually used for preping the battle field. However, in online this is a very different type of mission. Its a war, with both teams looking for eachother and ultimately trying to defeat the other team. In battle one of the most important elements you can have is speed. Transporting troops as fast as possible. Wheather it be just regular infantry or spec ops. Check out black hawk down (true story) when delta force is delivered into the heat of battle by helicopter. In the heat of battle you need troops quick. If the enemy knows you're there than a vehicle is not going to give up your position. Now, if theres a different game mode like siege or demolition, then vehicles would be absolutely useless and you should have the option to not use them (if you're smart you wont) For a regular search and kill type game I think they should be implemented to heat things up (not as a weapon but as transport), in other gametypes I think they should be implemented but to where no one will use them because it will just get them killed. hmm. i fully understand your point, but do you think, that rse/ubi would bring in an extended multiplayer-part with transportation (i.e. jeeps, humvees), whilst the sp would be without the vehicles? i don't. but who knows....the flash animation on gr2.com shows an airstrike....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoa182 Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Well this is all speculation. so to be continued in may if more details are out about what we can expect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainman2k Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 so...with the last article on the news here at gr.net everything seems to be possible again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortfeaser Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 I have been observing in these forums and the UBI forums for a while and I have to ask a question. Why are so many people opposed to the introduction of vehicles in the sequel? Clearly, US Special Forces use vehicles including motorcycles, ATVs, certain helicopters, and armed buggies. Granted, I don't necessarily like games where you can hop out of the gunner position of a tank, get into the pilot position of a helicopter and fly away, land and ditch the thing, then hijack an enemy T72, etc…this can get a bit ridiculous. Limited use of vehicles, or more interaction with the vehicles in the game, could really enhance the gaming experience. It's just like asking the light infantry guy why he doesn't join a mech unit, or a mechanized infantry guy to leave his Bradley behind and hoof it. Light v. heavy forces - very different experiences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordo_Viper Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 GR1 is great, I like the experience, drivable vechiles on a mall a map as the original is not as valid as a larger map with real world terrain. BTW SF units do use vechiles quite a lot as it grants them greater speed, larger payload, and more firepower for those missions that require these properties, however not all missions are vechile based and not all are foot patrols either-depends on mission, duration, environment and opposition. Depending on scope of the mission depends on insertion and extration in RW and so it could in game esp if we start looking at maps in the area of 50km by 50km (b ehnady esp with ability to call in on call CAS strikes- rtaher than pre planned strikes) - think vehicle fighting patrols as Brit SAS, Aussie SAS and US SF Groups have done in desert Environments and mountaineous terrain- obviously jungle fighting limits usefullness of vechiles in some situations. I'm all for a balance some missions pure foot patrols and some with some level of vechile involvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimusPilus Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 Greetings fellow ghosts! I, for one, do not want drivable vehicles in my GR experience. I don't care if "JO does this so well it's really Sweet," or "Ya, let's it make like AA, that would be Kay-oooo-lll," or "Just like BF1942, that would rock!" If I wanted that experience, I would buy those games. What attracted me to GR in the first place was "squad-based tactical combat." I do not want to experience "all-out war." Sartilles, NYR32, you guys are right. I bought GR because it was different, because there was no drivable vehicles (Rocky, I have to disagree with you on your "which game is casual boy going to buy", cause I am casual boy), bacuse there was no bunny hopping, no medpacs, no overdone arcade BS. For those of you whining about MP, "We need vehicles in MP, look at this game, and that game, and this other one, and this one over here, aren't they sooooo SWeeeeeet??!?!?!?" Well, they probably are and I really am glad you enjoy them, go and play them. I am afraid that with the commercial market the way it is, we will see another clone. The only saving grace is that RSE has not let me down yet. I am reserving my judgement for the release. If there are drivable vehicles or anything else that turns this game into a clone or an arcade soot-em-up, I will not be purchasing it. Just one man's opinion. The band is playing this weekend so I'll catch you gents Sunday. PrimusPilus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZJJ Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 I understand that Serellan will be making an official announcement regarding vehicles in GR2 at the Ubi forums sometime today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sup Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 Well, he posted... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=...043&m=427101583 And told us absolutely nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super-Bob Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 The "use" of vehicles could just be that we will be able to control where they go via the command map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suli Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 sb if thats what there planning on doing it that would be nice, allow us to " control" the vehicles with out making it like other games, it would be nice to get in a " insert vehicle here " and tell the driver where to take you. it would keep the experience while giving us vehicle support where needed/ if needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1madcow Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 You may need vehicles in order to get to place to place. Which would mean much bigger maps. The Ghosts do need some sort of tranportation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoa182 Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Ghosts also do Travel a on foot a lot of the time , across miles. But yes im sure Some sort of Insert and extract transport would be ideal to get from place to place and i dont mean cut scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortfeaser Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 If GR 2 doesnt have Vehicles, well i dont know if i will get it, IMHO alot of fans will be thinking along the same lines. And in the stores the casual buyer will pick up two games, and when he sees that one doesn't have driveble vehicles and one does, he will put back the one without. The casual buyer will get Doom, Halflife, or Halo 2. I don't think RSE seeks to appeal to the casual buyer. GR is not just a first person shooter.......it is a First Person Tactical shooter. Having actually driven a Hummer and an Abrams, I don't see what the glitz is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts