Jump to content

Not bad, but I'm definitely not impressed...


Recommended Posts

but it plays like ######. It's like for every good new thing they added, they took out something great about the original. <_< And the result is underwhelming at best. At this point, SOCOM is more Ghost Recon than Ghost Recon 2 is, and that's just sad. :(

The AI has been improved greatly in some areas, and it's consideralbly worse in others. I'll start with the team, they move better, when you set them to suppress they actually use suppressive fire and their GLs and frags. I like the new commands you can give them, like you can order them to take out vehicles (something I sorely wanted in GR), patch up fallen comrades (also something I've wanted, the ability to get a wounded man back into the fight, I just wish they would be less effective, they seem to be good as new after you work on them) and plant demo themselves. But, and there's always a but in this game, they dont take out enemies as effectively as the AI in the original did, or take cover when being shot at, or at all, sometimes. You can be getting shot at from behind and these idiots wont even think to look back let alone turn and fire. They cant even shoot an enemy that's directly in front of them out in the open 7 ft away. That's just pathetic.

The enemy AI is ridiculous. They're stupid, but at the same time much better than your boys (and girls, another problem I have with the game), it would seem. They dont have the same one snap shot with Olympic marksman accuracy that the baddies in GR1 had, instead, that has been replaced with things even more irritating like running at a sprint and being able to shoot and hit you when you're 20 ft away prone on the ground, spot-on grenades (that your men dont even bother to move away from, no less), and uncanny detection skills, I swear these Koreans have been surgically enhanced with the nose of a bloodhound, b/c 80% of the time they detect me, no matter what.

That brings me to something else I dont like, the lack of stealth in this game. Besides the AI's uncanny detection skills, the game just does not lean towards stealthy movement and action, even as I may try to be stealthy, it just doesn't work, I find running out there strafing back and forth like I'm playing Counter-Strike while hopped up on crack works better than playing things realistically and using cover and manuever and such like in GR1. The strafing joke brings up another complaint, I dont like being able to strafe side to side at nearly full speed, let alone while maintaining accuracy. It's ridiculous!

Another thing I dont like is the missions. Maybe it's just b/c the games new "style" doesn't lend itself to the way I want to play (the GR1 way, the right way, the only way! :P). But they are way too scripted and fast paced. If I see one more group of enemies pop up from behind me, from an area I just cleared, or if I have another tank or chopper come out of nowhere I'm gonna take a nailgun to my head to stop the pain. These "Lone Wolf" missions suck all kinds of ass, too. I just dont like them.

The new commands you have for your men seem to have come at the expense of the old ones, there's no way to send your men across the map or use waypoints to put them right where you want them, and you cant go too far away from them without them running after you like a bunch of morons. The lack of any CQB is also very disheartening and irritating. You cant even go into a building, let alone shoot a mother ######er once you're inside.

In Ghost Recon 2, they've improved the loadout by letting you carry a primary, a secondary, and 2 special pieces of kit, the bad part is that you cant choose what men you want to take with you, or even what the guys you're stuck with carry. Not to mention that when one of them dies, it doesn't even matter b/c they come right back next time.

The fact that they have women in the game bothers me, as well, I didn't like it in the first game and I dont like it in this one, either. Before you call me sexist: I dont give a ######! Women do not serve in the infantry of the United States Army, let alone Special Forces, for very good reasons and I dont think they ever will, if common sense prevails, but, enough of my personal opinion on the matter. As of right now and for the forseeable future (and 2011 is forseeable in this respect, IMHO) women are not in those types of roles in the US military, and it's therefore inaccurate to have them there. Not to mention that it's ridiculous that they have 2 females on a 12 member SF team, but not a single female troop in the rest of the game. There's a bunch of other little accuracy errors in the game, like nearly every round of every weapon seems to be a tracer, all the same color, instead of the red US forces use (I think, I might be wrong on that bit). I'm sure the more militarily knowledgeable amongst us (and I consider myself at least reasonably smart about it) could pick out many more.

Now, onto the 2 nearly flawless features of this game: the audio/visual dept. :D This game is absolutely ###### beautiful, the amount of detail put into everything is amazing, I'm a really big fan of the animations. The rag-doll effects are nice, but it doesn't seem as well implemented as in other games. Actually, it's pretty half-assed if you ask me. <_< The sound is just as good as GR, if not better. All the weapons sound good, and the ambient noise is just amazing, just stop and listen on mission 4 for a little while, it really sounds like a urban battleground. The sounds of your movement are also nothing short of badass. :thumbsup: I love the sound, although the repetitive and annoying in the first place screams of the enemy are definitely not the high point of the audio. <_<

Well, that's all I can think of for now. Ghost Recon 2 has most certainly not been worth the long wait, even calling it Ghost Recon makes my blood boil b/c it has so little to do with the first game it's not even funny, just sad. As I said at the beginning of this review: as of right now (and just to let you know I'm not expecting a miracle for the PC version) SOCOM is not only a better game but it's more like GR than this stinker. Ghost Recon should be ashamed to share a name with this sad poser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rocky: I could of told you that, even before gr2 was announced.

Remember Xbox games from ubi are more action hollywood types, look at their PC versions theyr usually better and do score higher then xbox / ps2 versions

That beeing said i hope RSE delivers... if not im buy VBS1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wall::angry: Another GR fan turned off by GR2. Sad indeed when you think of how great they could have made the gameplay. :'( Most critics agree with you GothicSnake. Sound and graphics were excellent but the action arcade gameplay sucked. Edited by KRP 56
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rocky:  I could of told you that, even before gr2 was announced.

Remember Xbox games from ubi are more action hollywood types, look at their PC versions theyr usually better and do score higher then xbox / ps2 versions

That beeing said i hope RSE delivers... if not im buy VBS1

That's the only reason I have ANY hope for the PC version, that and the possibility of mods being able to fix alot of the issues. Depending on just how alterable the game is, of course.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH NO! This is just, honestly, depressing. Bad bad bad. I hope this doesn't have anything to do with the PC version, because I'm just about in agreement with Pro, and might have to shell out for VBS1 if it comes down to it. :no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cant believe they have added fast pace strafing to GR2 . that's what seperates GHOST RECON to all other 1st person shooters. When i have to run in GR1 i have to turn and run , not dance around like a monkey. ARRRRR.

Now the guy darting side to side has the advantage to the guy to the guy stationary, I pray multi player is not like unrealistic movement like counter strike.

Running backwards spraying rounds,at full pace.

GR players get ready to

DANCE BABY, DANCE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey GothicSnake, just curious how much of the game did you play so far? How many levels did you complete?

As of the time I wrote the review I was on mission 10, since then I've beaten it and thoroughly replayed many of the missions and while all of my complaints are still there, the game has grown on me a tad. Some of the missions are actually really fun, but overall the game is still a major dissapointment, if I still had the game, I'd probably put GR2 away and play SOCOM, again.

Final grade: 7/10

When compared to GR1: 4/10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been playing GR2 for 2 weeks now and still trying to finish it (hey, I suck with the stupid thumbsticks ok? :whistle: )

Pretty much everything GothicSnake is mentioning, I've found to be true.

GR2 on the XBOX really is a big dissapointment compared to GR1 PC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been playing GR2 for 2 weeks now and still trying to finish it (hey, I suck with the stupid thumbsticks ok?  :whistle: )

Pretty much everything GothicSnake is mentioning, I've found to be true.

GR2 on the XBOX really is a big dissapointment compared to GR1 PC.

Amazing..!! At last I have found a whole thread that echoes what I felt as soon as I took the stupid thing out of the wrapper. I too waited with baited breath for this crock and I think some of you may have read my comments on other threads.. namely that after only training and the first mission and part of the second I took it back the the shop and got a refund. I am one of those with a 'bit more real military experience' as it was described and what drew me and most of my mates to GR1 was the realism, non-linear maps/gameplay and the lack of arcade style unrealisms like strafing etc. Sure there were shortcomings with the original but this new offering is a real turkey. I agree with all the remarks about the team members and I'd like to add that their appearances are rubbish too- the SWAT marksman style baseball capped 'sniper' is embarrassing, the gunner in his stupid t-shirt.. what were they thinking?? I immediatley called some of my mates in to see the thing and they all agreed not to waste their money. I feel the completely linear nature like in MOH etc will not be something lost by the time it gets to PC so I doubt if I will be getting that either. Sad or what? And I don't even agree with tthe positive remarks about the commands. Nobody EVER tells their entire squad to hurl frags at one spot. Its pathetic. When the scout goes for a look-see he/she runs up and back and gets barely 50m. Whats that all about? And why can't I pick my team and become any one of them during the game like the original? Answer? To cater for the HALO and SWAT Global Striketeam fans that this is aimed at.

A classic has died.

Never mind there are so many fantastic mods and stuff on these forums that I will have plenty of GR1 fun yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GothicStrike,

Woman do serve in the US Army Infantry - contrary to your belief that only males are capable and deserve to serve. Woman also serve as members of the US Senate, Congress, as CIA Operatives, FBI agents, NSA employees (worldwide), Naval officers, National Guardsman (which deploy over-seas and fight wars), Marines, members of vairous Special Forces units (which can include the "Ghosts"), and a meriad of other duties in the armed forces. Some of these woman are 18 and 19 years old, and others take care of a Husband and kids. They rank equal to men, which means if you joined the Marines you might just have a femal CO.

The bottom line is that these woman are far more sucessfull in life than any of the civilians here (inluding you), and are more than capable of kicking our asses or taking our lives without effort. Woman have served in the military since the 40's, and there is no sign of them stopping because some ignorant civi like you thinks they have no place defending your life and the lives of millions of others around the world. If you don't believe me you can do the research yourself.

Just thought I'd clear that up for those who are less informed on the way our military works.

Have a good one.

Edited by Shredder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women serve in the infantry? Ok...you show me the proof of that and I'll believe it. You can call me ignorant, you can call me sexist, I dont give a ######, it's my personal opinion and a lot of people agree with me, including a lot of military personell who sit there in front of the cameras and the brass saying it's a good thing, and then let their true feelings be known when they're gone. And just to clear something up, I dont believe women shouldn't be in the military, I just dont believe they should be down in the mud with the infantry, I know I couldn't concentrate with a woman next to me on the line, for many reasons. The only reason women are in danger on the ground, now, it b/c of the nature of the conflict. Women are in direct combat b/c support and other non-combat units are being put in the line of fire b/c of the 360 degree battlefield in Iraq/Afghanistan, not b/c they are a member of the line infantry. I still dont believe that and am waiting for you to provide the proof that women are allowed to and do serve in rifle companies. Cause I am pretty damn sure they dont, and hope it stays that way. As for SF, if they're not in a combat role with the infantry, what makes you think they'd be in SF? I've never seen one, and seeing as SF is my main area of interest with the military, I'd be highly surprised if there's women serving with them and I dont know about it. Actually, correction, I believe I saw one woman with a green beret, and she wasn't on an ODA, she was just support staff at Army Special Warfare or something of that nature.

About the FBI or CIA or whatnot: firstly, there's no problem with a woman serving in law enforcement and we need females in the CIA just b/c of the nature of the espionage game and the need for people of different backgrounds/races/sexes/etc.

Moderator Edit

I'm still waiting for you to prove it to me, I dont need to research it, myself, b/c I've been studying the military for years, now, and you're claims about female infantrymen are new to me. If you can prove this, I'll eat crow, but it wont change my opinion on the matter.

Oh, and by the way, the name is GothicSNAKE, not Strike... :rolleyes:

Edited by Stalker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The menu of the damn game could have been designed better. The layout is extremely choppy and sketchy. I don't like the fact that you can't visually see all the menu options you can select, you can only visually see 3 at a time. Common thats weak sauce!

They should have also made the XBOX Live and server menu's better designed and more user friendly. I know for a fact that the majority of people out there don't read through the manual, and it took me forever to figure out how the hell to view all the servers, not to mention on how to set a bloody server up myself. Really, my biggest rant has to go to the poor menu design, and the poor ability to communicate and deliver simplicity.

On the other hand, I lost the user manual! Is it possible to adjust the sensitivity for my controls? To me, mine are extremely SLOW! I am use to playing Halo 2 with 5 sensitivity, and Counter-Strike on 10 sensitivity! I like it fast so I can turn around a full 360 degree's without sluggish/stress. Just my personal preference...

And has anyone really gotten the chance to check out the differences between the PS2 and XBOX versions? I mean, like how each play and how different the gameplay/graphics are... I certainly can see the xbox about to crap out while im crawling in grass and the frame per seconds get choppy as hell... (sad and lame!)

Edited by Realchaos1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women serve in the infantry? Ok...you show me the proof of that and I'll believe it.

GothicSnake,

After about two minutes of Google searching I found, on the very first page of results, three significant articles. One speaks of a Pfc. Valerie Mitchell, 19, "Computer Operator with the

Army's 24th Mechanized Infantry Division". Need more proof? Another reports on Female Losses as a result of combat in Iraq and goes on to say that "it was not until 1948 that Congress allowed them to be full-fledged members of all the military branches." and before which time, "they were largely limited to the Army and to auxiliary jobs as nurses or other medical personnel." This one, found on the Combined Arms Center's website, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas states that "Although 14 percent of the Active Army is comprised of women, females may only serve in combat support and combat service support units." Confirming your claims that females do not serve in combat units, but doing nothing to disprove anything that I have said. The articles are linked in case you feel further reading on the subject is necessary.

The purpose of my original reply was primarily to correct your statement that "women do not serve in the infantry of the United States Army", and I've done this with the proof you that you've requested. From a scientific standpoint regarding a female's physical and psychological capacity during combat, common sense has nothing to do with it. My moral standing on the subject of woman in combat units is appearent and my mention of Congress was merely an example of their capabilities in society. We all have opinions, but they're just that, uneducated opinions. Not even the military has conducted the proper investigation effectively prooving or disprooving a woman's ability to perform. That said, I'd also like to point out that Ghost Recon is based in the future, when woman's service in SF combat units like the "Ghosts" may become an excepted or necessary part of war. In this respect GR2 is accurate. . .plus it's a fictional game and as such should be afforded some leniency in the realism department :).

Moderator Edit: Political discussions aren't needed in this thread and forum

Edited by Stalker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Ghost Recon 2. . .I completely agree that Socom is more Tom Clancy than Tom Clancy. GR2 is a discrace to Ubi Soft, Redstorm, Tom Clancy, and all their loyal customers. The thing that annoys me the most is the fact that the development team was fully aware of every bug in the game, but pressured by a deadline decided to throw the project onto the shelves half finished, charging up 50 dollars for it. Now they're playing dumb asking everyone to let them know if we find a glitch in the game. You know which direction the enemy is shooting, but you can't tell which team mate is talking to you!? There's hand signals, but the opposing team can't here you speak in your headset when you're close to them, so the hand signals are a useless waste of time and energy that should have went into debugging and testing.

This game has only one thing going for it. Visuals. And even then, frame rates suffer severely in portions of a few maps where It seems I can nearly count each frame by eye. Several unnecessary shapes and faces that could have been removed to improve frame rate efficiency weren't tended to.

The game is clearly unfinished, and I doubt a mere "patch" is going to fix even half of the known illogical discrepencies in the game's design. I have alot of bad things to say, but I'll limit them to this reply and perhaps contribute some more constuctive positive critism at a later date :).

Have a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women serve in the infantry? Ok...you show me the proof of that and I'll believe it.

GothicSnake,

After about two minutes of Google searching I found, on the very first page of results, three significant articles. One speaks of a Pfc. Valerie Mitchell, 19, "Computer Operator with the

Army's 24th Mechanized Infantry Division". Need more proof? Another reports on Female Losses as a result of combat in Iraq and goes on to say that "it was not until 1948 that Congress allowed them to be full-fledged members of all the military branches." and before which time, "they were largely limited to the Army and to auxiliary jobs as nurses or other medical personnel." This one, found on the Combined Arms Center's website, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas states that "Although 14 percent of the Active Army is comprised of women, females may only serve in combat support and combat service support units." Confirming your claims that females do not serve in combat units, but doing nothing to disprove anything that I have said. The articles are linked in case you feel further reading on the subject is necessary.

The purpose of my original reply was primarily to correct your statement that "women do not serve in the infantry of the United States Army", and I've done this with the proof you that you've requested. From a scientific standpoint regarding a female's physical and psychological capacity during combat, common sense has nothing to do with it. My moral standing on the subject of woman in combat units is appearent and my mention of Congress was merely an example of their capabilities in society. We all have opinions, but they're just that, uneducated opinions. Not even the military has conducted the proper investigation effectively prooving or disprooving a woman's ability to perform. That said, I'd also like to point out that Ghost Recon is based in the future, when woman's service in SF combat units like the "Ghosts" may become an excepted or necessary part of war. In this respect GR2 is accurate. . .plus it's a fictional game and as such should be afforded some leniency in the realism department :).

Moderator Edit: Political discussions aren't needed in this thread and forum

Firstly, again it seems as though you think I'm against women in the military and against women in general, and that's just not a fair assumption at all given how specific and narrow my comments were, it's not true. I just dont want women up there on "the line", that's it, nothing more. It's my personal opinion as well as that of many others. It's pretty obvious over the past few millenia that women are not as physically capable as men, I dont say it to be mean, I dont say it for any other reason except that's the way is. I'm aware that there are women who can beat a lot of men at PT and this and that, but they are the exception, not the rule. On average, most females cannot meet the same physical levels a male can reach. That's not an opinion, that's a fact learned over many, many years. However, I do respect most women, contrary to what you might think, both in and out of the military, as I do anyone who actually deserves to be respected.

Ok, now to the meat and potaters...I said women do not serve IN the infantry, maybe you're not understanding my wording, and that's my mistake, but when I say infantry, I dont just mean in an infantry division, a file clerk 3000 miles away from Iraq or even in Kuwait is in an infantry division, but is he up front? No. Is he in a rifle company? No. Are they're any women in those rifle companies? No. They're called combat support units b/c they support the units that are in direct contact with the enemy, not b/c they're up there on the line with a rifle getting shot at, although in some cases this can happen (The Battle of The Bulge is one of the first that pops into my mind) and I once again maintain that the only reason those women are in direct danger this time around is b/c of the nature of this battlefield. In normal (ie: WWII/Korea/Desert Storm) warfare, support units are behind the front where the danger is indirect, it usually comes from (if they're in range of it) artillery and air attack, not marauding enemy infantry and tanks and so on and so forth. It's b/c of the changing battlefields that women are coming into direct contact more often. Even both of the websites you linked to say, "By U.S. law, women are barred from serving in front-line combat units." and, "Public policy and Federal law prevent women from serving in frontline combat units." Do I really have to keep typing, at this point? There ya go, my point is proven, thank you very much, have a good one. Now I go to play more NCAA Football 2005 (best...sports game...EVER!). :thumbsup:;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with all of the original poster's comments they added to much of an arcadish feel to this game, the strafing and the running on gr2 is insanely out of hand, someone can just run up to you and blast the hell out of you now instead of using actual tactics and strategy, same with the OTS it's crap because they get better peripheral vision, someone can sit behind a object and camp it out until someone comes along and gets shot because they couldn't see the person hiding behind the object, and the selecting weapons during the beginning of the match, the enemy ai spawning out of thin air, no more different approaches to objectives or selecting a different order you want to approach them in, now you go in as a one man verses an army approach with linear maps none the less, i've said this before and i'll say it again...yay i like no strategy in my strategy games :wall: i better stop before i get more angry...all i have to say is what in the hell were they thinking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS- or anyone else that cares to respond- how is the game set up for play? I mean specifically, is there a pool of randomly assigned soldiers that you draw your team from, and the guys you see in all the screens specialists, or is that your actual team you play with, because if it is, what happens when they die? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's in other elements of the game design. Like the really poor documentation. Other things- many mentioned in this thread, erratic frame rates, complete loss of saved games, hangs that force restarting the system...

And where the console games suffer over PC versions is the inability to patch once released...

If anyone at UBI are listening, I would've waited a few months for the version you know you should have created. As a player, and as a producer, it's almost always worth the wait.

Maybe they just had to hit the target with EA coming on board.... First impressions and what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey ScooterMX, welcome to GR.net. Did you try GR2 on the Xbox yet? Let me address each of your points cuz they aren't accurate if you are talking about GR2:

Like the really poor documentation.

GR2 Xbox has a good sized manual included with the game. I'm not sure if you are referring to other games - maybe you should give us some examples.

erratic frame rates

All games suffer from this, especially PC games since it depends on what system specs you have and what graphic options you turn on. Can you tell me you are getting HL2, Doom 3 or Far Cry running a smooth 30-60 fps on the average PC gamers' system?

In fact, console games likely give you better frame rates on the whole since the game is optimized for a fixed set of hardware.

complete loss of saved games

I think I saved 4-8 times for each level in GR2 Xbox - about 90 saves (so I can quickly go back to any objective I want down the road). Even better, I could save anywhere in the campaign like on a PC. I didn't lose even one save. Again, if you'rereferring to other games, give us some examples.

hangs that force restarting the system...

This definitely happens less in console games than PC games.

And where the console games suffer over PC versions is the inability to patch once released...

Xbox Live allows you to patch any Xbox game that needs patching. You need to be hooked up online to patch, just like on your PC.

If anyone at UBI are listening, I would've waited a few months for the version you know you should have created.  As a player, and as a producer, it's almost always worth the wait.

I usually agree with this statement, but GR2 Xbox was actually released 2 weeks ahead of schedule because it was done on schedule, and Microsoft didn't find any major bugs with the release candidate. How many games can claim that?

http://forums.3dretreat.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5608

Of course Red Storm could have added/tweaked more things if they had another few months, but so could any game. Successful game developers actually ship their games instead of succumbing to feature creep (can you say Duke Nukem 4?)

Maybe they just had to hit the target with EA coming on board....  First impressions and what.

GR2's release had NOTHING to do with EA. Even Ubisoft didn't know about the EA purchase til it was done, and that was over a month after GR2's release.

So please get your facts straight before posting. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS- or anyone else that cares to respond- how is the game set up for play?  I mean specifically, is there a pool of randomly assigned soldiers that you draw your team from, and the guys you see in all the screens specialists, or is that your actual team you play with, because if it is, what happens when they die?  :huh:

It has preassigned characters for each mission, and if they die, they'll come back in a later mission, which is really stupid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...