Jump to content

PC Gamer Preview


Recommended Posts

No where in the article did Dan Morris state that he played the PC version actually. Please Find the quote because I didnt see it the few times I read it. He didnt lose credibility he gained it. Bullet Tooth to me, posted a horrible reply claiming that he trashed gr2 when in fact he said the game would be fun just not to the calibur of the sequel to the GOTY.

Yes, it appears to me that BT posted a reply without even reading the article in question, because as you say, PC Gamer never said they played the PC version, and yet that is what BT seems to think. :blink: And then goes onto to say PC Gamer loses creditbility for it... uhu...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...but hey...when i read a pc-magazine i must assume they previewed the pc-version, right? imho they should've made a statement, that they testet the x-box-version, because no pc-version was available at that point (or did they? :unsure: ) besides: they do not even have evidence, that the pc-version will be like the x-box-version (see rvs vs. r6:3).

so bt made one good point: to let the ppl know, that pcgamer didn't preview a pc-based version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is about 4 muhillion of data and 3 shangrilas of incorrect anger shouted at RSi who are making a game to make money, so they can pay coders to make the next game.

That's a bit harsh, RSi are a good bunch, and they put out some good mods :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wall: Whoops, sorry to any members of RSi who took offence to my remarks. I knew it looked wrong when I typed it.

Stop bullying me Rocky, first Chems, now you. I think the staff/admin have got something against my boyish good looks and happy go lucky nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

effin_Gits stated "(I do play single player missions but find the ai to be too crap.

GR1 has kept me happy for years in mp though so ask yourself this question: Is all the negative impressions we have from the previews and E3 info actually relevant when it comes to team dm in multi play? probably not i think. Maybe some things but on the whole )"

:ph34r: Now do you really believe the pile you are tring to give here. Every body think back to the [Ghost Recon] and the 2 mission Packs that followed. When it made game of the year and for several months after, there was still no xbox and any other version made yet. It was not until the 1st mission pack arrived that we started to here the rumors that there might be a x-box in the making.

Now really remember it was almost a year or so before the xbox arrived.... :wall: we need to know that we are going to be waiting for a long while on any type of ghost recon 2 for the PC...so get ready..we are going to be waiting a long time if we even get it at all........hawk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the hardcore realism fans who want it as close to reality as you can get on a pc for now would like to check out this lil baby here:


the downside: its heeeeelllllaaaaaaaa costy, so all you rich mofos out there, enjoy, poor me i dont have enough money for that kinda ######...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I changed the topic's title to reflect what PC Gamer actually did. Now I promised I would give my take on it once I had been able to read the complete article and decipher what Dan Morris had said personally verses trying to make sense of bits and pieces posted here from the rest of you. While I intend to quote Mr. Morris (and give him credit), I will make my comments on those quotes as most have you commented on the preview. I am not gonna pick apart everything that was said, but I will pick the parts that are important apart. This is not a PC vs. console reply.

Dam Morris is a Ghost Recon fan, there is no doubt about it and that is how he viewed the demo he tried (that fact has been established by others here as well).

Here was a shooter unlike any we'd ever played before - with tense, slow-placed, white-knuckle missions that erupted in brief but intense outbursts of violence. In other words, it was a lot like a Special Forces combat mission.

Unless I miss my guess, this is what attracted lots of gamers, whether it be PC or XBox (I have heard from other gamers that the XBox version wasn't half bad gameplay wise, I can't say as I have never played it). GR offered something unique and not found in the other FPS that had saturated the market at that time. It just wasn't a mindless shooter.

The conventional wisdom was that Ghost Recon "underpreformed" - a great and acclaimed game, perhaps, but not a big-money blockbuster. And after the success of Ghost Recon on XBox (a function of a killer app for XBox Live), the powers that be decided to make the sequel into a more "console"-friendly game

The way I read it is Ubi wants GR2 to be the next UT2004 (or what ever verison the masses have to have). Yes, console games outsell PC games by a large margin

and Ubi wants to capitalize on that fact and wants to sell GR2 to even more players and while nothing is wrong with that, they are doing it at the expense of a good game by consolizing it.

Say goodbye to the days of jumping in and out  of different soldiers - you're stuck in Mitchell's boots (Capt. Scott Mithell is the character we will play as - WK). Red Storm wants to build up the sense of being a single character in the gameworld, to keep us personally invested in one person's story. In keeping with this concept, the game is designed for play from a third-person view: you follow Mitchell from a slightly elevated camera (the over the shoulder view - WK). You drop into the first-person "shooter" view when you need to get  bead on an enemy and take the shot, but for the most part you're intedned to play though this in third-person.

We know that we will be playing it as one character instead of being the one to accomplish the tasks set forth in the mission objectives briefing that GR had us do (IMO RSE did this right, it would be boring to have the AI play the game for us and who wants a game that does that?) by being any of the soliders we had to take for the mission. This alone set GR apart from other games as we could play any character we wanted, yet take over another character to do what was needed (or place a character where we wanted them).

It seems that GR2 is intended to be 3rd person with a 1st person option. This alone shows that GR2 is more of a console game than a PC game, when combined with the ease of directing commands (ala RvS with point and click) and no command map puts this IMO, in who cares about the PC version territory.

The level of destruction looks as high as ever. There are enemy helicopters to engage as well as a plethora of tanks and armored vehicles. Friendly jets will come in to help out with close-support airstrikes, and the devs promise that several missions will return to the "total war" chaos of Ghost Recon's craziest scenarios.

      It all looks cool. And I am genuinely enthusiastic about playing this game. So why am I somewhat less than fulfilled?

GR2 is offering stuff that fans wanted included in game, but at what cost?

It's time to debunk a myth. There is no difference between what makes a game "good for PC" or "good for consoles." Successful titles jump across platforms all the time and the elements that make a game successful are the same no matter what platform it ends up on.

      So why is UbiSoft laboring under the delusion that Ghost Recon 2 will be more successful if they can somehow "console-ize" it? Pay close attention: Ghost Recon was a massive hit on XBox because it was the game it was, not ins spite of it. its gameplay was an even more breath of fresh air on XBox than it was on PC! And so now Ubi proposes to strip it of the elements that made it so distinctive and refreshing - whether gamers found it on PC or an XBox.

Ubi has basically told RSE to make GR2 to be sold to the masses instead of those who can actually keep the game alive as others of you have even professed. The thinking mans game has been gutted to become mindless shooter #154,870 (just some random number, but you get the picture) and a clone of other games. GR was a great game because it offered things that no other game did and most of all it made us, the gamer, think about what we did before we actually did it. IMO this is what made GR, not the great (for it's time) graphics or the real world weapons, or the many modes of gameplay for MP (though that didn't hurt).

The end result may (or may not) be a game that outsells the original Ghost Recon. But even if it does, the only thing proven is that the developers made a totally different game and it met with success. It isn't a "better" Ghost Recon.

     The bottom line: The hundreds of thousands of devoted fans of Ghost Recon basically aren't getting their sequel. They are getting a SOCOM with the Tom Clancy brand applied to it.

      Don't get me wrong: Ghost Recon 2 doesn't look bad or even mediocre. It looks like, well, a souped-up SOCOM]. That is to say, it looks like an action-oriented game intended to be played primarily from a third-person perspective. It also jettisons the "jump into bodies" feature of its forefather, restricting you to one character. In other words, it abandons two of the key concepts that made Ghost Recon soi unique and Cool! - the slow-and-steady tension of controlling multiple characters through a mission, plus the essential first-person nature of the tactical genre.

GR2 seems to have lost the vision of the original game. It may outsell the original, but it doesn't mean that it is a similar game. Or even better. SOCOM was an action-oriented game if I miss my guess (from what others have said) and was pretty mindless. Just run and gun. Ubi wan't RSE to abandon some of the key elements that made GR what it is (I have said this already) by removing the parts that make us think. Dan Morris thinks we will be getting a new game, but not the sequel we all have been anticipating for more than a year. He does think that GR2 will be fun, but not what we have expected.

These comments are my opinion on what Dan Morris has said and not that of GhostRecon.net. If anything I have said was taken out of context, please correct me and show us the difference.

BTW, we all have seen the screenshots with the laser beam tracers. Check this pic out from Island Thunder in GR:


It is just how well the screenies are captured. Click the pic for the wallpaper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I think you are right in every respect. The game may be fun but it won't have the challenge, the unique character, and most importantly, the replayability of GR.

I don't care though, I am going to continue to harangue every GR game forum until either I am banned for annoyance or I provoke a rep into responding. I still hold out some hope that some reason will prevail and the game will not be X Boxed.

Call me mule headed....don't care....must rant....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well. the difference with the tracers in gr1 is that they're more realistic, every third shot from the support gunner is a tracer round, in gr2 EVERY shot seems to be a tracer round...

Edited by simulacra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well. the difference with the tracers in gr1 is that they're more realistic, every third shot from the support gunner is a tracer round, in gr2 EVERY shot seems to be a tracer round...

That is very stupid. It looks like the guns are firing lasers. Everytime u shoot half of the other team sees ur laser-tracers and propably will spam grenades and rockets at ur direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That VSB is basicly Operation flashpoint and u can get OFP with 20$.

I'll keep it quick in a threa dbaout GR2. In short No, it's based on OFP, but thats about it.

VBS Link

As to GR2- until someone comes out with PC version who knows, verdict still out for time being. If GR2 flunks [OFP: DR] will be around corner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a great disscussion.

I have bought GR when it first came out, and I literally played this game over and over again. I have played R6, RS and whatever that RSE put out, emphasizing on multiplayer COOPs.

I also came to enjoy shooting real weapons when DS came out, and the more I learned about marksmanship, the more I enjoyed how GR was designed and played. (except the reticule thing but the game was designed to have reticule so I can't complain about that. At least GR doesn't show you the side view of your weapon like most of shooters do. You never see the side view of your rifle when you are actually shouldering it.)

I have experiences with most 1st person shooters and nothing ever came close to GR. As a matter of fact, I have been playing Americas Army for a while after I was finished with DS, and I'm was getting frustrated over and over again that I had to uninstall it. Many claim AA is realistic, but compared to GR, its arcade movement system and run-and-gun playing style is not for me. Also I would not have to mention how I hate "oh well since he is wearing body armor he should be able to take several hits" comments. Yes in GR sometimes you don't kill the enemy with one shot, but you do see him flinching and he can't do anything at that instant (ie. shoot right back at you, moving side ways or doing bunny hopping/crouching).

From my experience, in Ghost recon first person to spot the enemy 99% gets the kill. In AA it is more like 50%. I have found myself saying "that is BS" too many times playing AA, while I hardly said that in GR. When I got hit while playing GR, I knew I did something tactically wrong and was realistic and admittable. It was not that the game was unrealistic, it was just my fault.

Now that I left AA, I came to see screenshots, demo footage and reviews of the upcoming GR2. When I first saw the screenshot, without reading anyother comments, it seemed like the game was more geared for arcade style players. You just can tell it if you are accustomed to seeing GR's graphics. While GR2's graphics are certainly more smooth and detailed, it seems to lack GR's cold, realistic feeling. Then I saw the footage, and it does look like arcade style game. Yes, they say they've used cheats and stuff to show off the exciting part of the game. But just looking at the interface alone tells me this is a very different Ghost Recon.

However, one very good thing I've noticed is when you use your scope/sight on your weapon. From the footage, it shows the actual outline of your optic's body, and the outer area is blurred. I find this to be very realistic after using Aimpoint/ACOGs on my rifles. Much more realistic than GR1 had. (GR1 just zoomed the center of screen for non-sniper rifles with zoom)

I think I rehased what most of veteran players here said, but I had to get this off my chest. I'm now going back to install GR/DS/IT and play some serious COOPs. I just hope GR2 is still the tactical shooter where it features lots of tense, careful planning, communition, vigilant movement and "every shot counts" instead of going full auto/bursts and running everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeh, that's the artcile by Dan Morris, I have read it and he really wades into Ubi Soft for what they have (potentially) done to GR, and he denounced Ghost Recon 2 as a sequal.  :(

Rarely have I seen a magazine editor get so hot under the collar about a major title.

He said we are not getting a sequal, we are getting Socom with  a Tom Clancy sticker on it.

If he is a fan, I wonder what his GR.net username is?

But fair play to the guy for not holding back on his true feelings. Although from what I have heard, he did say it WAS a good game in it's own right, just that it wasn't really what he thought GR2 would become.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, I'm going to get GR2, but I have this foreboding feeling that it will indeed be somewhat of a disappointment.

For some reason, I played through nine missions of GR yesterday, and the game is just great. Great, I tell you. All we can do is hope that GR2 gives us the same feeling of being Special Forces behind enemy lines. Remember that feeling you got when you first saw the behind-enemy-lines-and-blowing-stuff-up missions? Fantastic.

People have been talking about GR2 dispensing with the stealth of GR, while others said that Ghost Recon never had any real stealth missions. That's true, but we've all used stealth at some point to get teams into position to set up crossfires and ambushes and such. It's unreasonable at this point to conclude that stealth will take a back seat based on that one demo video, so we'll have to wait and see (them Chinese jungles would be perfect for some dusk n' dawn raids though, wouldn't they?).

The main thing that put me off, aside from the OTS view, was that series of scripted (linear) events in that demo. Again, it would be foolish to conclude that the entire will game will incorporate such things, but it looked to me like GR would be losing its non-linear approach to missions. If you think about it, pretty much all of the missions in Ghost Recon had that 'do what you want' element to them. You can literally complete each mission how you see fit, which is what makes Multiplayer Co-op so enjoyable. Different leaders will use different strategies.

Will GR2 lose this feature? I mean, how many times can you play a mission online when there is only one way to move around the map to complete your objectives? Each mission in GR can turn out completely different depedning on which way you choose to go.

There's a word I like in a game: Choice.

I wonder what [Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising] will be like...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much agreed on what 2nd Ranger said.

I replayed some of GR missions yesterday and for first few tries my squads totally got decimated. I have played America's Army for too long that I lost the notion of "only move when you absolutely must". I was moving my squad too fast without checking 360 degrees at all times (which I used to do when I played GR/DS a long time ago) When I saw an enemy aiming at me, it was a lost cause. I had to hit them even before they saw me. Now this is what I call a realistic shooter. One, two or three shots at the most puts them AND me, equally down.

Stealth was a critical factor in all my GR mission plannings. I beat (just as many of you veteran folks here do) GR/DS missions on elite without losing any of the squad members and their combat points were almost full. Yes I always took 6 members to mission and got all of them out alive. Yes it did take time and planning. Yes my eyes got red trying to find any enemies in any directions while I was going through the entire mission. No I didn't use the save feature, I simply restarted mission when I lost one squad member. I don't know how some people would do it, but without stealth this was generally not possible (except in some night missions where you had a distinct advantage over the opfor)

This was even more critical during Multiplayer CO-OP and some altered CO-OP maps (with adjusted difficulty, some missions taking over 30 minutes for "one round"). Communication was essential and run-and-gun got you or your team nowhere. If you run-gun, you die quickly and have to wait for another half an hour.

Ah yes and the linear approach. In GR missions where timing wasn't a huge factor, I usually had two squads spread out and attack different locations at once while taking full cover. Sometimes all the squads attacked one first. This had a good replay value both on single and multi co-op. I think it would be really ridiculous to if we were forced to play these missions in linear order, especially in co-op maps. It would be just same procedure all over again. One hope is that RSE greatly randomize the opfor locations, but as far as completing objectives go, this doesn't look too good.

Now of course being a GR (and a general military sim fan) I will give GR2 a chance before I beat it down completely. But as you know, generally there is no successor that is better than the precedessor. One exception is that RSE disproved that with R6 -> RS. I hope they do it again with GR -> GR2. (but then again RS was nothing more than an upgraded R6 in my opinion. Maybe thats what I just want with GR2. IMHO "don't fix it if it isn't broke" plays a bit here, but maybe it is the same thing that hampers "progressive game development")

Edited by MaverickAR15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one thing that brings warm to our digital earth tough:

united we stand !

Knowing Ubi, I did expect something like that. E3 feedback confirmed them. Some of us did take the news as a surprise, but even then, we all admit that it does not look bright, plus, if you have experience, in video games, and already having been in this situation several time with other games, you must know that a nice surprise never come. Forget it.

My only hope is that a smart edtor sees the need for a real suit of ghost recon, and jumps in. I don't care about the brand or the name (i just want my dose :lol: ). We all sense what so great about GR that other games miss. This mix of coldness, un-flashy actions (enemy down), perfectly balanced action, somth gameplay, and even nowdays, tactical freedom. I don't know how to express it clearly but I'm sure you get the point.

AA. True, most of my friends (herm... 4) do actually play it. But the one that started already get bored, and only play when his friend are online too. The other onlyplay coz the graphics are better, and the action tense. (I love that part, but i prefer the possibilty to chose to not make it a fast-paced rush).

I realise I wont be unhappy with ghost recon 1, and refreshed graphics... However, as it was said, GR was great coz it had a lot of real new ideas in, which were as cool as unexpected. Tell me why I don't except to surprised at all by GR2 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...