NEW GRAW VIDEO

[Colin]

The movie is the same thing I saw at E3, with a different narrator. 

Geez people blow things way out of proportion.

←

Yep

[Rocky]

Ah, so it is an official Ubi GR:AW video, with an unofficial narration. Now we know.

[OPSIXDELTA]

The movie is the same thing I saw at E3, with a different narrator. 

Geez people blow things way out of proportion.

←

Yep

←

well i guess this is what happens, when we dont have alot of new info lately, no biggie, i can be patient.

[Poita]

I guess that explains the narration. Although to be honest im surprised that GR fans would approach it in such a way. I wonder if they were console GR players or PC

[PSekula]

Take a look at GR, it was released as a Mature title. A mature audience took a liking to the game. Why then was the sequel targeted to a younger clientel

I know Pete was reading this as I started to add this reply, maybe he will take the replies to this thread back to RSE and forward it to those at Ubi who need to understand this.

I sure didn't make any maps targetted to kids. I don't think Piggyson and the rest of the character team made their characters unrealistic so a child could enjoy it. And I don't believe the design of the game was specifically targeted towards minors.

If GR was for kids, it would be on Gamecube with a toon shader. But it's not. It's actually quite realistic. Characters are beautifully detailed. Weaponry and other technology are mirrored from their real world counterparts. Foliage is researched to be 100% accurate to the region in which the games take place. Architecture is researched to fit the style of the region, be it Kazakhstan, Korea, Mexico City, Georgia, Cuba, etc. Enemy vehicles are also chosen based on region as well. Design knows their weapons, clip sizes, rate of fire, range, etc.

All of this attention to detail and authenticity is in Red Storm games, so I'm not quite so sure why people think the games are targeted to kids and can't appeal to an older audience, be it console or PC.

[FA sear]

Certainly GR is a much more realistic game than many that are currently out there, but look at the difference between [GR] and GR2.

GR2 added:

more chatter over the com that is often pointless blabber

linear maps

spawning enemy

more enemy that just charge at you rather than making the AI smarter

Too much equipment being carried by one soldier

making you a central character rather than an anonymous soldier

reducing the squad size and the ability to plan the mission via a tac map

guns that all feel the same

I would have rather seen:

sight sway instead of the pip system

optics that mirror the actual optic in real life

more accurate ballistics (ex. one 5.56mm round to the chest will not down an enemy)

accounting for trajectories/bullet drop over distances

smarter AI, not more AI

maybe three squads of 3men, or at least two squads of four

more buildings to enter that have more complex interiors

I want elements that add realism, not take away from the realism. I don't want a game that attempts to pump up my ego, I want a game that requires me to think and requires tactics as much as it requires good gaming skills.

I first picked up [GR] because I injured myself playing ball on a league, so with the extra time I now had I decided to try gaming. [GR] was a surprise because it was more realistic than I expected. GR2 was a disapointment because it was more "simple" and dumbed down.

I am now looking forward to operation flashpoint more than GRAW as GR2 was a step in the wrong direction IMO. SS was an improvement, but it still has a lot of the elements in GR2 that I did not like.

I personally want something more like a sim not a game, but I also do realise that the marketplace will determine what GRAW "should" be, so whatever it turns out to be I'm not going to be angry, but I certainly will not spend my money on it if it does not meet my criteria.

[Poita]

Well the 'targeted' at a younger audience thing is more about the marketting attitude than the development side.

My only real dev side worry/niggle is the way everyone always has to have tracers and that they are made fat and slow to make sure we all see them. Tracers are selected by soldiers for a few reasons and not imposed. In the game i feel the devs want to make it more flashy and colourfull so we have no choice. In GR1 when taking the socom the tracers negated the silencer somewhat so me and my mates used to have to fire every third round into the ground at our feet to avoic being located.

I think tracers should be in games but every player should tatally be able to configure them. Either not have them at all or choose to have them and even have control over their frequency.

I feel that i'm being patronised a bit when im forced to have tracers and every player in the game has them. part of GR is ambush, bushwhack, waylay and assassinate (thats why it's got 'Ghost' in the name) but if every shot has tracers then it just feels like gimick tomake it look more exciting and force the action. Thats a ploy for kids not mature gamers.

[OPSIXDELTA]

Take a look at GR, it was released as a Mature title. A mature audience took a liking to the game. Why then was the sequel targeted to a younger clientel

I know Pete was reading this as I started to add this reply, maybe he will take the replies to this thread back to RSE and forward it to those at Ubi who need to understand this.

I sure didn't make any maps targetted to kids. I don't think Piggyson and the rest of the character team made their characters unrealistic so a child could enjoy it. And I don't believe the design of the game was specifically targeted towards minors.

If GR was for kids, it would be on Gamecube with a toon shader. But it's not. It's actually quite realistic. Characters are beautifully detailed. Weaponry and other technology are mirrored from their real world counterparts. Foliage is researched to be 100% accurate to the region in which the games take place. Architecture is researched to fit the style of the region, be it Kazakhstan, Korea, Mexico City, Georgia, Cuba, etc. Enemy vehicles are also chosen based on region as well. Design knows their weapons, clip sizes, rate of fire, range, etc.

All of this attention to detail and authenticity is in Red Storm games, so I'm not quite so sure why people think the games are targeted to kids and can't appeal to an older audience, be it console or PC.

←

agreed thank you

[calius]

3. . . "CROSS COM, THIS FULLY UTIIZES THE XBOX 360s' MULTI WINDOWING CAPABILITIES":

So little graphic boxes that pop up on the screen with animated characters talking to you are next gen hardware effects are they? I played a game called 'Xenon 1' on the Amiga in 1988 that had a little video screen pop up with a guy saying 'Sector one' at the start of the level. Whats the difference really?

From the initial post on the thread ... im sorry I just cracked up at the way this was put across ... sounds like a typical down-to-earth British nit-pick that is totaly on point hehe.

Yep the voice over was pure cheese and doesnt help much ... though the game wont be kiddie-fied from what I can see/here/read. The voice over footage seems like a bit of a hype knock-up-job thats all, no real reflection on the game play itself.

Edited October 4, 2005 by calius

[WhiteKnight77]

Gameplay:

PC gameplay will be altered to suit the PC audience. Tactical and strategic elements will be added to create an experience more similar to the original Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon® PC title which garnered Game of the Year awards from IGN and PC Gamer.

This is from Ubisoft's press release about GRAW back in May. If even the console versions are to be aimed at a more mature crowd, then why differentiate between console and PC gamers as stated by Ubi? Ubi admits that the console versions are more action oriented than the PC version. Early console screens even screamed kiddie game with the colored outlines around Piggyson's great models (yes, they are great).

I like the looks of the maps so far and follow the tradition of RSE using actual buildings from the area the game takes place, but still, when marketing hires some beefcake to scream about features in the game, even if directed at people who have no idea that the game is aimed at those over 18, then people will get the wrong ideas. How about putting actual devs up there to walk people through about what is shown? Yes, Serellan was at E3 in 2004 and again this year, but why wasn't he talking to vendors and such for each showing? Why even have an action oriented video if the game isn't aimed at those who crave those type of games (typically kids)?

After my first day at Games Convention 2005 when I commented on feeling bad for console gamers I meant it as Ubi has already stated that their game will not be like the ones PC gamers are getting? Why can't console gamers have the same game as those of us who do not use a console? Why must the game be different? Everywhere I look, console gamers are saying they want a tactical game or one that requires thinking and not just all out action. If GRAW for consoles is a tactical game, where is the Tac Map (command map if you want) that the PC game has? Why even have such an obtrusive HUD on the consoles?

What has been shown and said has already screamed volumes as to who Ubi is targeting with the console versions. I know that RSE has gone to great lengths to provide a better feel to GRAW compared, yet why do I feel that it will not appeal to those who want a more tactical game on the console?

[NYR_32]

Yes, Serellan was at E3 in 2004 and again this year, but why wasn't he talking to vendors and such for each showing? Why even have an action oriented video if the game isn't aimed at those who crave those type of games (typically kids)?

Serellan and everyone else from RSE were walking around talking to people like me, the media, and big company folks.

[FA sear]

Gameplay:

PC gameplay will be altered to suit the PC audience. Tactical and strategic elements will be added to create an experience more similar to the original Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon® PC title which garnered Game of the Year awards from IGN and PC Gamer.

This is from Ubisoft's press release about GRAW back in May. If even the console versions are to be aimed at a more mature crowd, then why differentiate between console and PC gamers as stated by Ubi? Ubi admits that the console versions are more action oriented than the PC version. Early console screens even screamed kiddie game with the colored outlines around Piggyson's great models (yes, they are great).

I like the looks of the maps so far and follow the tradition of RSE using actual buildings from the area the game takes place, but still, when marketing hires some beefcake to scream about features in the game, even if directed at people who have no idea that the game is aimed at those over 18, then people will get the wrong ideas. How about putting actual devs up there to walk people through about what is shown? Yes, Serellan was at E3 in 2004 and again this year, but why wasn't he talking to vendors and such for each showing? Why even have an action oriented video if the game isn't aimed at those who crave those type of games (typically kids)?

After my first day at Games Convention 2005 when I commented on feeling bad for console gamers I meant it as Ubi has already stated that their game will not be like the ones PC gamers are getting? Why can't console gamers have the same game as those of us who do not use a console? Why must the game be different? Everywhere I look, console gamers are saying they want a tactical game or one that requires thinking and not just all out action. If GRAW for consoles is a tactical game, where is the Tac Map (command map if you want) that the PC game has? Why even have such an obtrusive HUD on the consoles?

What has been shown and said has already screamed volumes as to who Ubi is targeting with the console versions. I know that RSE has gone to great lengths to provide a better feel to GRAW compared, yet why do I feel that it will not appeal to those who want a more tactical game on the console?

←

Well said.

I'm already looking forward to Operation Flashpoint more than GRAW at this moment.

Unfortunately there are even adults that prefer and think that the action games are realistic.

I have had debates with adults (not kids) on the SC forum that seem to think that SC is 99% realistic! Inverted chokes aparently are 100% realistic according to these people.

Unfortunately there is a portion of the adult population that is just as ignorant as the adolescent population.

I'm not flaming people who like action oriented games, I'm specifically referring to people who seem to think the action oriented game are what is realistic. I have even heard people say that run and gun game ARE more realistic, because it mimics the "REAL" chaotic feel of war, and that tactical sims are too slow and that real war is not that boring and slow.

I'm okay with people who just like action oriented games on account of their personal taste, but people who say they like it because it is "MORE REALISTIC".

[PSekula]

If even the console versions are to be aimed at a more mature crowd, then why differentiate between console and PC gamers as stated by Ubi?

This is just my opinion, but if I were developing a game on 2 platforms (for example), and 10 people were going to play the game, I certainly would not develop the same game on both platforms. I say, 'Why have a game that plays the same on every system?"

How about putting actual devs up there to walk people through about what is shown? Yes, Serellan was at E3 in 2004 and again this year, but why wasn't he talking to vendors and such for each showing?

Simple answer: Serellan can't be at every convention that happens. Even if he was, how would the game get done?

[FA sear]

If even the console versions are to be aimed at a more mature crowd, then why differentiate between console and PC gamers as stated by Ubi?

This is just my opinion, but if I were developing a game on 2 platforms (for example), and 10 people were going to play the game, I certainly would not develop the same game on both platforms. I say, 'Why have a game that plays the same on every system?"

So then if you want the "tactical" version of a game you have to buy multiple systems to cover all of the bases, so that whenever a maker puts out a game for a platform you can get the tactical version?

Sorry, I don't buy that.

Looks like Operation Flashpoint is the way to go for tactical gaming on a console, or go for the more "mature" format and move to a PC.

[Colin]

Game manufacturers have to cater for all gamers and the different tasts of said indeviduals.

The pc gr crowd are not a majority, but we are still getting a game that was made for us, you cant have your cake and eat it.

Thats just commercial suicide.

[FA sear]

Game manufacturers have to cater for all gamers and the different tasts of said indeviduals.  

The pc gr crowd are not a majority, but we are still getting a game that was made for us, you cant have your cake and eat it.

Thats just commercial suicide.

←

Nobody would disagree with your statement, but remember that [GR] started out as a FP TACTICAL shooter, not a RUN & GUN 3rd person shooter, and this included the Xbox version which was the SAME as the PC version.

The question is if UBI is moving the GR series to a more run and gun shooter, then what will take its place as a tactical shooter. They don't have another modern tactical shooter, so why didn't they just make a new series that is more run and gun? Why not have both?

Either way I don't care anymore, as it seems Operation Flashpoint will fill the bill. I just don't buy the arguement that GR HAD to change to please everyone. There are plenty of run and gun shooters on the market for consoles, but with GR now gone, there is only Operation Flash Point.

[the.ronin]

In fact yes, i do think that console gamers on the whole have a lower IQ than pc gamers. Simplified games attract simpler minds.

←

Uhm ... do you not realize you are referring to VIDEO GAMES? This is about as assinine as it gets and basically renders your credibility null. Get a life.

[Poita]

Ron i'm not sure what your point is by asking if i realise im refering to video games.

If your point is that to discuss the intellectual state of mind of game players is silly then i say that you underestimate the importance and impact on life that the various lessure activities of human beings actaully has.

No one would say it's silly to talk about the intellect of movie goers or day time tv watchers. We are what we eat whether thats litteral food or food for thought. Interactive computerised entertainment whether it's on a PC or Console is to the 21st century what film was to the 20th century. And film certainly had a massive influence on human kind. Maybe not a decisive one but certainly a significant impact.

Computerised interactive entertainment is actually still very much in its infancy. We are with games where the movie world was with Metropolis and Flash Gordon. This medium has yet to reveal it's potential and influence on us. So no i don't think it's silly to discuss the deeper impact and influence of 'video games'. Or comics, or movies, or TV or pop music come to that.

I have a life thanks, and part of it involves games. I devote money and time and care to that part of my life so excuse me for taking it seriously even though it's a 'fun' thing.

Edited October 5, 2005 by Poita

[the.ronin]

If your point is that to discuss the intellectual state of mind of game players is silly then i say that you underestimate the importance and impact on life that the various lessure activities of human beings actaully has.

←

Actually, since you asked, what I think is silly is the mere concept of generalizing one's intellectual capacity based on his or her preference of entertainment. I'm not arguing that entertainment is not an integral part of society.

Also, neither "litteral" nor "lessure" are words. What was your IQ again?

[Colin]

No Dan he is not serious this part of the topic stops here.

[pz3]

whoa, some one delete my post... somthing weired happened

Edited October 8, 2005 by Prozac360

[Jakethejake]

"This is just my opinion, but if I were developing a game on 2 platforms (for example), and 10 people were going to play the game, I certainly would not develop the same game on both platforms. I say, 'Why have a game that plays the same on every system?"

That is the very root of the problem, and why Ubi is starting to fail us as a game maker. Thinking like this makes my blood boil. Do I really need to explain to you that a vast majority of console gamers are ex-pc gamers who love the PC style of play? PC gamers have always enjoyed better graphics and more depth in their games. The next gen games were supposed to bridge both of these gaps. Somewhere, some genious decided that what console gamers want is different than what PC gamers want. WE ARE TELLING YOU THAT YOU ARE WRONG, AND THAT THIS THINKING NEEDS TO CHANGE. WE WANT ALL OF THE SAME BELLS AND WHISTLES THAT THE PC GAMES GET. How many GR and Lockdown fans need to complain before you guys get it right? The fact that you are so out of touch with what the core fans of this series want is scary.