If GR2 does suck, what will we play?

[wareagle1990]

I'll keep playing Americas Army.

[Sup]

Have you ever played a console port that was of the quality of a PC game?

Yes, I have, three (maybe 2&1/2). Splinter cell, Splinter cell:PT, and Prince of persia: SOT. All of which, by the way, were by UBI.

[Stig]

Well said Kurtz

Just what I was thinking,

I'ts a shame about the 1 squad & charachter switching but I think it will still be a good game & I do have my eye on CC FTF & BIA

But if It really does suck serious Pooh (which I doubt) & the above mentioned Are utter pap then I'll re-discover my life. GR1 has robbed me of a life & personality for the last 3 years as I got hooked on it's crewl unforgiving web.

Hey I've even forgotten what my wife looks like

[Kurtz]

Stig,

Life is overrated, GR isn't.

[budgie]

Japanese air hostesses aren't overrated either

[titaniumx3]

Take it easy people, why so negative??? Its not the end of the world. We all love GR to bits but wasn't always like that. When we first play GR2 it will look wierd but we will soon get used to it.

If you think Redstorm/UBI is bad you should take a look at the situation at EAs Command&Conquer Generals: Zero Hour forums. I've been playing the original and its mission pack since day 1 and it has been a total nightmare. It could have been one of the best strat. games ever but EA didn't give a squat, they made their money and that was all that mattered to them. Loyal fans are falling off like flies and a patch hasn't been released for over 6 months now. The lobbies are full of cheaters and scumbags. You can barely get a game going because the net code is screwed upside down and even if you do you get your ass kicked by some cheater who thinks its fun exploiting bugs & glitches in the game. People have been pleading to EA to sort the game out and others have been shouting abuse at them from their very own forums but they don't care, no replies, no nothing!!!

It is quite distressing what money can do to people.

[longhorns]

i think the central question that will determine how much i like gr2 will be directly linked to how much of it is modable i could care less if it is developed by x box people as long as they make an igor 2 and stuff plus if it does suk ill have a bunch of free time i might even go outside

also somthing else that scares me i started playing tacticle shooters a few years bak with r6 rouge spear then every expansion but it seems like with every new game the number of team members goes down which i hate how often do u turn on cnn and se just 3 soldiers taking on the world or a swat team consiting of 2 men r6 went from 8 team members to the newest having 4 gr 6 soaf 3 gr 2 i think i hered 4 or 3 swat 3 had 5 swat gst 3 it jus seems there always getting smaller i mis the days of breaching a room from 4 seprate places i fear those days are gone does n e one no of n e games coming out with more then a 4 man team and i hate how thay always say its for order giving simplification thats bull if we wanted a simple game they wouldnt hav got a realistic tactical shooter

[longhorns]

I was so angry i dont believe there is one . in my entire last post. lol

[Dan]

I was so angry i dont believe there is one . in my entire last post. lol

i havnt been able to find one in any of your posts, are you related to snake??

As for me? VBS1. Wait till the new comp comes then im off and racing. Got me all the current addons, so ill be enteratined for a loonnnnnnnngggggggg time!!

[ChuangJiahao]

Anyone see the BF2 videos? Looks very promising.

[V2_Bloodline]

Will the community collapse?

I think so but I hope not.

[2nd Ranger]

It won't collapse, it may just suffer a large number of casualties, but it will remain intact. Even people who think GR2 sucks will still play it, because as long as they can get away from the stock missions and write their own, business will go on as usual. Multiplayer will probably remain largely unchanged.

[whoa182]

Ghost Recon 2 will play how the Community wants to play it, all that matters is the Multi-player, all you guys have seen is single player

[walnut]

2 words.

co.

op.

[Inc_Doc]

I agree, co-op is GR2 only hope. Single player will be like smoking crack, a rush a first then the big let down..

[KRP 56]

Ghost Recon 2 will play how the Community wants to play it, all that matters is the Multi-player, all you guys have seen is single player

More than a few of us only play single player so for us GR2 really is looking like a bust. I also don't think the community will collapse since GR is such an awsome game.

[Dan]

well i dont really come here for GR anymore. Ill answer questions, but the majority of my posts are in Gen Off Topic, other off topic places, or the site section.

You could cut the rest out and it wouldt worry me at all

[Kurtz]

I have been thinking about the change in tactical games toward action games, playing through 1 character. Without a tactical map, you are limited in tactics in directing your squad to the line of sight of the main character or less depending on the order system. You can't give orders to a squad to advance to a far point on the map or attack an unseen enemy, the action is oriented totally around your position. I would prefer the existing GR setup with enhanced AI that could really do what they are asked to do in a competent manner, requiring very strong AI.

The problem is balance, if you make them too superior they could play the entire mission for you like FSW, if you make them too inferior, you end up doing eveything yourself, like GR and HD2. There has to be a middle ground.

The trend away from character switching did not begin with GR 2. OFP does not have character switching and I don't know how the squad command system works, whether you can just order the entire squad to do generic commands like hold or attack, but, you don't get to comand any squad memebers until later in the game.

Replayability will depend on the strength of the command system, you can't very well flank enemy if your squad is going to give away your position by shooting the first enemy it sees. Also, if the maps are configured to be either narrow or blocked with obstacles to funnel your movement, that will diminish replayability. Generally "hero" games have limited replayability because there really are not any alternative ways to do the missions, for me, these games have short hard drive lives, whereas GR is still as strong in SP as it was, more because of the mods.

I am trying to still be positive, but none of the new games including BIA and CC look like they will have the same variability and replayability of GR. Nor will [OFP: DR].

At this point, it's pretty pointless to expect to keep the multiple squads and tac map of GR, nor will this change in direction ever be realy explained. It certainly look like the trend for other games as well, no developer is promising a game like GR with character swiching, multi squads and tac map.

I guess you have to make the best of what is going to be available. They could be good, time will tell.

[Sup]

OFP's command system is great. You have tons of formations, orders great for quick commands in combat, like 'flank left' different combat modes, orders to stay low, or go prone, and you can order moves on the map. These orders can be given to whatever soldiers you choose, who can be assigned into groups for easy order giving.

[2nd Ranger]

Must disagree there about OFP having less replayability than GR.

When you've played GR SP once, it'll be exactly the same the next time you play it. Flashpoint has this random thing going on, where each unit will be in a slightly different location every time you play the mission or load a point in that mission. Also, on the SP and MP side of things, Ofp has a feature that allows you to take a simple search and destroy mission and move around things like insertion zones and enemy patrols. OFp is highly replayable, and of course it comes with a built-in mission editor.

As for the squad-level stuff, like sup said, there are alot of varied commands to issue. Pretty much anything you can tell your entire squad to do, you can apply to a single soldier. The command list really is quite extensive.

That said, OFP is alot more realistic than GR, which is one of the reasons for the excellent command options. OFP is a combat sim, GR is a shooter. While being able to control all of your soldiers is most certainly a plus, Flashpoint doesn't really require it because you have a far greater control over your squad than in GR. This means that you can tell them to move anywhere or shoot anything you want them to, while looking after your own character.

I'm not quite sure how mods work in Flashpoint, as I've never tried any. I don't think there's an in-game mod list like GR, but I could be wrong.

[FuSaKi]

WOW...

I havn't been to this part of the forums in awhile, mostly sticking to the real world military area... and I have to say I'm sort of disappointed.

I think its pretty clear that GR2 is geared to the Ritalin junkies of the console world, but why does that give us the right to criticize RSE and UBI's judgement? After all, we just play the game. Those guys have to put their kids through school. After years of giving us great titles like R6, RS, RVS, SC, GR, and all the expansions who the hell are you to ###### and moan when the developers decide its time to make a bit more money? How have you been betrayed by a software company? really? Its like saying you were betrayed when that stripper gave your buddy a lapdance because he paid her before you did. Give the girl a break, she's just trying to feed her crack habit. RSE doesn't owe you anything more then you paid for. Thats capitalism, baby. Deal with it.

That said, I probably won't be buying GR2. As much as I love GR (the game and the community), it's newer form just doesn't look like my cup of tea. I'm not going to cry over it, I'm just going to look for other games. How long do you think it will take for a game developer to realize the void left by GR? He'll see a market, and exploit it now that he doesn't have to compete with UBIsoft.

[walnut]

WOW...

I havn't been to this part of the forums in awhile....

>SNIP<

clearly.

I think its pretty clear that GR2 is geared to the Ritalin junkies of the console world, but why does that give us the right to criticize RSE and UBI's judgement? After all, we just play the game. Those guys have to put their kids through school. After years of giving us great titles like R6, RS, RVS, SC, GR, and all the expansions who the hell are you to ###### and moan when the developers decide its time to make a bit more money?

woah. hold up. first, "those guys" is a fairly general description in the current context. do you mean red storm? surely you don't mean ubi -- i doubt they're hustling from paycheck to paycheck. it's pretty clear to most of us here that the engineers and artists who created the previous titles aren't completely responsible for the arguably drastic shift in gameplay features that has most of us concerned.

How have you been betrayed by a software company? really? Its like saying you were betrayed when that stripper gave your buddy a lapdance because he paid her before you did. Give the girl a break, she's just trying to feed her crack habit. RSE doesn't owe you anything more then you paid for. Thats capitalism, baby. Deal with it.

errr... i'm not going to comment on your analogy, but i will comment that we do have a say. rse staff read here (or so the rumor goes) and i would imagine that at some point in time their customer's opinions were valued. i mean, capitalism is based on supply and demand, correct?

however, from what i can gather, the changes to the game that have us concerned are most likely the result of either, or both, of the following:

• an ubi mandate to kidify & consolize GR2 in order to gain wider marketshare with the more popular gaming platforms...
  
  
• a management replacement at rse that has an impress-the-suits-at-ubi-agenda so they can keep clawing their way up the ladder...
  

either of these scenarios are troubling because they completely neglect the one thing that any smart businessperson relies on... yes, at the end of the day in a capitalistic world it's about the customer. if you're trying to impress the boss, you should really be focusing on your customer -- not necessarily on "what the competition is doing." and i think therein lies the problem. the new suits at rse/ubi don't have enough information about what made the previous games so great -- so therefore they don't have enough confidence in the product they're building... that is, without copying what the other popular game developers are doing. but that's just my perception -- take it for what it's worth.

That said, I probably won't be buying GR2. As much as I love GR (the game and the community), it's newer form just doesn't look like my cup of tea. I'm not going to cry over it, I'm just going to look for other games. How long do you think it will take for a game developer to realize the void left by GR? He'll see a market, and exploit it now that he doesn't have to compete with UBIsoft.

one would hope. but we were trying to get the game back on track before that happens. GR 1 had great momentum. most of us are realizing it's way too late in the development process to alter it's course. so we're simply expressing our disappointment... i hope we're allowed to continue discussing the issue.... at lteast until something better arriver

[FuSaKi]

first, "those guys" is a fairly general description in the current context. do you mean red storm? surely you don't mean ubi -- i doubt they're hustling from paycheck to paycheck. it's pretty clear to most of us here that the engineers and artists who created the previous titles aren't completely responsible for the arguably drastic shift in gameplay features that has most of us concerned.

By "those guys", I mean the folks who make the decisions about what direction the game will head in. Probably some sort of senior management within RSE, UBI, or both. Frankly, it doesn't really make a difference. Its not about living paycheck to paycheck, its about moving to a bigger house. Somewhere down the line "those guys" decided that they'd make more money if GR was geared towards console playing, generally younger audience. You can't blame them for that. If the engineers and artists feel that badly, they'll leave RSE or UBI and take up a position with a smaller, lesser paying company that has a bit more heart.

rse staff read here (or so the rumor goes) and i would imagine that at some point in time their customer's opinions were valued.

But this forum only makes up a VERY small part of the Ghost Recon community. For the record, I know more guys who play GR on the XBOX the guys who play GR on the PC and of those PC players, I am the only hardcore fan that actually bothered to join a GR internet forum. I'm sure their customers opinions are valued, but they can't make everyone happy. To me, this shift in game style looks like they're working on applealing to the larger console community.

And thats all it comes down to. There are more customers who want a console game then customers who want a PC game. I don't have any statistics, but UBI didn't get to be a succussful company by going where the money wasn't.

I'm disappointed as much as the next guy, but I can't blame a guy who's just doing good business. Its too bad I'm in the minority that can't be accomodated, but you win some and you lose some, right?

Edited July 26, 2004 by FuSaKi

[walnut]

And thats all it comes down to. There are more customers who want a console game then customers who want a PC game. I don't have any statistics, but UBI didn't get to be a succussful company by going where the money wasn't.

it can be said that the console gamers who bought GR based their buying decision upon the good merits of the PC version of the game. in fact, i'm sure that a PC Gamer Game of the Year award is a highly coveted accolade -- no matter which platform you prefer. surely you can't deny that much of the success of the console edition of GR was based upon the success of the PC version. there was, simply, nothing out there quite like it.

and now that the very gaming publication that gave the original game "the nod" has dismissed GR2 as the rightful heir of the franchise... well, it's pretty clear why the original, hardcore, and albeit smaller, fanbase is somewhat miffed at ubi/rse for botching the sequel to our beloved game. i mean come on... the game we're looking at today just isn't the next logical progression in the evolution of the series. it's ratcheting *down* in order to accomodate inferior hardware, and quite obviously, a younger audience. in plain english: that sucks.

I'm disappointed as much as the next guy, but I can't blame a guy who's just doing good business. Its too bad I'm in the minority that can't be accomodated, but you win some and you lose some, right?

can't argue with that.

Edited July 26, 2004 by walnut

[Kurtz]

The point is that a fundamental shift in the game appears to be taking place that completely changes the game. The question for me remains - why? why why! Who wanted this?

I think most of us wanted the same game structure - 3 squads, character switching, command map, then add for GR 2 - much better team AI, on the fly command for your own squad, better graphics, larger maps, more weapons, more goodies, more objectives, better editor, deformable terrain, etc.

There is a reason that tactical games are going in another direction - "hero" character, no player switching, fewer squads, less characters, more simplified command system, more linear gameplay, more scripted events. What is the reason?

GR 2, BIA and CC are all based on the same basic structure, there are no tactical games based on the old GR structure except HD 2. There is a reason that this type of game is going the way of the dinosaur. Why?

AS far as finding another game like GR or expecting a developer to build a game like GR, if that were going to happen, wouldn't RSE do it? It just ain't gonna happen.

The choices are limited. Some people love OFP, I hated it. BFD and JO and AA have no SP component.

It is possible that the PC game will not be the same as the X Box game, but, I am not hopeful. We appear to be a tiny minority even in the PC community and our expectations for what we wanted for GR 2 are not going to be heeded.

I am still hopeful and still will probably get all 3 games, given the alternatives, but, none of them will replace GR.

Edited July 26, 2004 by Kurtz