What Gamers Want

[WhiteKnight77]

Check out this interesting read about What Gamers Want. Granted, some of it refers to console games, but could be applied to any game.

Game makers: it doesn't have to be a jumping game for you to give the characters the basic ability to jump low obstacles that all humans have. And when I walk up to little ledges that are 10-inches off the ground, a ledge a toddler could crawl over, and you arbitrarily don't let me pass because it's not a jumping game, you remind me of what I'm really doing: playing a game. We're to the stage where it should be a minimum requirement in the game universe: rock should act like rock, air should act like air and humans should move like humans.

Just the ability to climb over something or up something would be a huge improvement.

[kleaneasy]

I read this the other day WK and found it a good read

[NurFACE]

Great article. I found the game that I have been the happiest with was Splinter Cell.

[WhiteKnight77]

I read this the other day WK and found it a good read 

←

I may not agree with everything, but it does bring up some very good points. More and more, everywhere I look (even the main XBox forums), I see people wanting games that are less arcadelike run and gun games and which require some forethought. Substance over flash is starting to become a wanted feature in games (even if buying trends indicate otherwise) no matter what platform. While nice graphics are a great feature, lack of gameplay can keep a series from maturing.

[PSekula]

Just the ability to climb over something or up something would be a huge improvement.

GR2 (and subsequently Summit Strike) does have the ability to clamber over obstacles..

[WhiteKnight77]

Just the ability to climb over something or up something would be a huge improvement.

GR2 (and subsequently Summit Strike) does have the ability to clamber over obstacles..

←

I wouldn't know, I don't own an XBox and most likely never will.

[kleaneasy]

More and more, everywhere I look (even the main XBox forums), I see people wanting games that are less arcadelike run and gun games and  which require some forethought. Substance over flash is starting to become a wanted feature in games (even if buying trends indicate otherwise) no matter what platform. While nice graphics are a great feature, lack of gameplay can keep a series from maturing.

←

Its not a new trend WK. Its just you have become more aware from recent visits to forums you probably wouldnt normally visit, that xbox gamers (i cant speak for PS2) want the same level of tactical, slow paced gameplay as you guys. I wont argue there are youngsters playing consoles, but the average age of a xbox gamer is 25-35 in the UK (not sure what average age in US is but probably about the same). Ive also had numerous people on my friends list of retirement age lol.

All we need now is for the game companys to realise console gamers are no different and perhaps we will all start to get what we want.

[WhiteKnight77]

Yeah, you are right Klean, I normally wouldn't visit console forums, but I know you have mentioned how much you loved hwo GR played and what you thought of GR2 and after the movement got off the ground, I wanted to see what others said. In general, I know the online community, whether PC or console, is small, but it if you think about it, we are problably just the tip of the iceberg and if someone thinks about it logically, many more think just the way we do.

[audiolab]

is it correct its first person again (albeit with gun view)?

damn i hope so .ghost recon 2 for me was spoilt by the 3rd person feature ,encouraging people to camp around rocks and see higher ,seems they have arcaded the gameplay .anyway im staying true to the game and will see if anyones still playing ghost recon1/island thunder

[Auto+SD]

I'm with audiolab. The third person BS makes no sense whatsoever. GR made its name by being "one of the best, if not THE best tactical shooter of all time" (quote from =UE=Smokin. ). Now I don't think that 8 years of army technology can put you out-of-the-body. Third person gives an insane advantage. In GR1, you would slowly crawl over the hill or peek around a corner. Why risk your life when you could plop into third-person and not even have to risk anything.

Like I said, pure BS. I have no idea why they ever thought that would be "cool" or "realistic" or whatever the hell else they might think it might do.

We shall see.

[D Dialect]

I'm with audiolab. The third person BS makes no sense whatsoever. GR made its name by being "one of the best, if not THE best tactical shooter of all time" (quote from =UE=Smokin. ). Now I don't think that 8 years of army technology can put you out-of-the-body. Third person gives an insane advantage. In GR1, you would slowly crawl over the hill or peek around a corner. Why risk your life when you could plop into third-person and not even have to risk anything.

Like I said, pure BS. I have no idea why they ever thought that would be "cool" or "realistic" or whatever the hell else they might think it might do.

We shall see.

←

its very simple. in the real world you are aware of your immediate surroundings...not a 2D square view placed in front of your eyes, showing a pseudo 3D world. So the first person view is in fact very un-realistic. Yes third person is not realistic..but it can be argued that it does provide a better sense of your surroundings, closer akin to what real life is like than what a 1st person view does.

Edited August 17, 2005 by D Dialect

[FA sear]

its very simple. in the real world you are aware of your immediate surroundings...not a 2D square view placed in front of your eyes, showing a pseudo 3D world. So the first person view is in fact very un-realistic. Yes third person is not realistic..but it can be argued that it does provide a better sense of your surroundings, closer akin to what real life is like than what a 1st person view does.

←

I could not disagree more. I used the OTS view often to peek around corners, see over rocks, hiltops, walls, and in some cases shoot through certain rocks and walls. It was cheap, but when it is available you are going to use what works best.

I have to say that the OTS view in GRAW is much more realistic and it will (or should) end the debate between OTS vs FPV. Although, since there is no advantage to the "new" OTS view I for one will not be using it.

[Tactical Jerky]

its very simple. in the real world you are aware of your immediate surroundings...not a 2D square view placed in front of your eyes, showing a pseudo 3D world. So the first person view is in fact very un-realistic. Yes third person is not realistic..but it can be argued that it does provide a better sense of your surroundings, closer akin to what real life is like than what a 1st person view does.

I don't say it's exactly the same as in real life but imo you can't call 1st person view "very un-realistic" compared to 3rd person.

But now we can make a whole discussion about which type of vision is more or less realistic, but in the end the question is: what makes this game fun?

To have the most realistic vision? Or to have the excitement of the uncertainty of where the enemy is? Imo the 2nd is what matters. And with 3rd person the excitement is ruined because a lot of times you already see where the enemies are. With 1st it stays a question and everyone has the same handicap. Even when everyone would have 3rd person, the one behind an object will have an advantage.

Edited August 17, 2005 by Tchaikovsky

[WitchKnot9]

I wont argue there are youngsters playing consoles, but the average age of a xbox gamer is 25-35 in the UK (not sure what average age in US is but probably about the same). Ive also had numerous people on my friends list of retirement age lol.

All we need now is for the game companys to realise console gamers are no different and perhaps we will all start to get what we want.

←

Yea my whole friends list of 100 is in there 20's to 60's and more than half are in there 25 to 40's. And all of us stick mustly to the most realisc and tactical games Xbox has and we all still want there games to grow up some more with less arcade feel.

[FA sear]

I forgot. What I want in a game is realism, realism, and did I mention realism?

[kjs7]

I forgot. What I want in a game is realism, realism, and did I mention realism?

←

I want the old free form gameplay of GR. I want to be able to control everyone in the squad.

[cdnsniper]

Yes, I wish to control everything too...

[Clum-Z-Boy]

Yeah. I figured I'd run into something like this. No offense, but you guys are way too hardcore [GR] fans. I personally like the faster and more action-oriented pace of GR2. I was really pleasantly surprised when I started playing the 1st mission. I hope GRAW stays as "arcadey" as the newer Ghost Recons are, and as for OTS/FPV... I really can't say I hated the 3rd-person view. Seeing Mitchell's animations was a really nice touch, especially since they were awesome. And the realism... well, you can probably already tell that I'm not looking for realism in everything I play. Remember that reality is boring guys. When's the last time you got shot at? I play games to get away from reality, I dunno about you.

[Tactical Jerky]

No offense, but you guys are way too hardcore [GR] fans.

I think it's up to every person themself to judge that. Same as saying "you shouldn't like arcady gameplay" it's not up te me to demand you my way of thinking.

Remember that reality is boring guys. When's the last time you got shot at? I play games to get away from reality

Imo partially true it should stay a game cause war isn't a pleasant thing but the way I see it is you only take the "fun" of the war and make that into a game.

But GR started as a realistic game so if you like arcady gameplay should they change GR into something it never started as, or should you find a diverent game? GR was something totally diverent compared to all of the many other games. If this will be the new way the ones that like realism have nothing to play anymore compared to all the many other gamers that like arcade games, which there are plenty of.

Edited September 10, 2005 by Tchaikovsky

[Clum-Z-Boy]

I know that most people here enjoyed GR1 way more than the two "sequels" (GR2 and SS), and I respect that. I am not one to impose my view upon others, and that is not how I wanted my post to appear. I have to give props to Ubi for making the decision to devellop two different games on two different platforms; a tactical shooter for the PC, and a more arcadey version for the consoles. That way everyone wins: the diehard GR1 fan, and the casual gamer who likes a bit more action.

[WhiteKnight77]

One thing to though is that there is a lot of die hard tactical players on the console version too. Why should they suffer a different game compared to what they had previously?

[Clum-Z-Boy]

While what you say is true, you must understand that Ubisoft is making a gamble just by selling a more tactical version for the PC. The way I see it, Ghost Recon 2 just sold more rapidly than the first iteration. Also, for most "consolers" it isn't a problem to buy the PC version. Diehard fans would probably be more than willing to keep the 400$ destined for the Xbox 360, and spend it on upgrading their computer so they can play the "thinking man's" version.

[FA sear]

While what you say is true, you must understand that Ubisoft is making a gamble just by selling a more tactical version for the PC. The way I see it, Ghost Recon 2 just sold more rapidly than the first iteration. Also, for most "consolers" it isn't a problem to buy the PC version. Diehard fans would probably be more than willing to keep the 400$ destined for the Xbox 360, and spend it on upgrading their computer so they can play the "thinking man's" version.

←

I disagree, I sit behiind a PC all day and frankly I don't want to do it when I game. I prefer sitting in my easy chair, not behind a PC again.

Don't forget that [GR] sold when Xbox sales were at their lowest. GR2 had the luxury of coming out when Halo2 brought millions of new Xbox owners to the scene.

[Clum-Z-Boy]

Ok, now you're seriously freaking me out. I thought you'd have learned by now you can't have it all. You want tactical? Fine, but you've got to sit behind a PC *gasp!* You want an action game? Get an easychair and kick back. I'm not flaming you... I'm just surprised you came up with something like that.

[WhiteKnight77]

The deal is, the original GR was a tactical shooter on the cosole to begin with. Both the PC and console versions played the same way and that is why people are up in arms over the console version of GRAW. They want the same game as the PC players and not a different game and to tell the truth, there should be no difference between them. GR2 is a good example of it. We PC guys didn't get it due to the fact it was so different and wouldn't make the majority of the fans happy. The same goes for GRAW and the console versions, people are stating their displeasure at getting a different game compared to what they liked about the original. Is there anything wrong with that? Sequels should advance a game and not drastically change it. GR2 and GRAW on the consoles are drastic changes.