X05:Ghost Recon 3 Close Look

[WhiteKnight77]

Holy ####### #### Batman!!!!

X05:Ghost Recon 3 Close Look is a 70MB movie with comments from Ubi France Associate Producer Olivier Dauba.

Does anyone know what game they were previewing in that video? The only resembelence to Ghost Recon is the name that I can see. What is up with the arrows showing which direction the teammates are? What is up with the laser beams from the shooters rifles? Is this Star Wars Battefield? Why is this game more like Splinter Cell with a 3rd person view only? Since when does an F mean third in FPS? What is it with the Full Spectrum Warrior type objective markers? Now no one has to worry about cheaters using OTS over those in FPV as no one will have FPV.

I have to wonder what the lead designer is thinking when making a FPS game into a 3rd person shooter with all sorts of arcade features in it. GRAW for X360 will be a 3rd person shooter as Olivier Dauba states at 17 minutes in. As I said after Leipzig, I feel bad for the console gamers. If I played console games, this is one game that would not be on my gotta have list.

"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.

Those words speak volumes and what fans have been saying for 2 years yet, someone isn't listening. Why?

[FuryTM]

The fact that you are so out of touch with what the core fans of this series want is scary.

Wow I like that quote a lot! It sums up pretty much everything that has been going on the last couple of years.

[Colin]

W.K. are the French UBI Responsable for this?.

[WhiteKnight77]

W.K. are the French UBI  Responsable for this?.

←

I don't know, that is why I am asking why.

This goes back to my statements of having the one development house doing all the work and not farming out platforms. As evidenced by Lockdown after the RvS fiasco, RSE will do the PC version, but after the PS2 version (a port, maybe not a direct port, but a port just the same).

I have word that RSE is at it's highest ever staffing level, yet still, RSE franchises are getting farmed out. While I am not trying to downplay GRIN's role in GRAW, I have to wonder why RSE cannot hire even more people so all work can be done in house for all games on all platforms. Take and assign one of the old hands that are still around to each of the teams and go back to "making games that they want to play" and stop making games that the accounting departments will not play or even begin to comprehend.

Yes, there is the argument of statistics don't lie when it comes to XBpx Live stats and who is playing what, but when one looks at it, if there are 8 out of 10 people are saying that they want one kind of game over another game type, then the same would hold true with those who do not visit forums. For every person on XBox live, there is another 4 wanting something different that are not playing online. That 80% is a large number to ignore really.

[Zoolabs]

you have got to be kidding me. it's all OTS crap now ?? no First Person ?? Why does this Socom clone even wear the Ghost Recon name anymore.

Edited October 9, 2005 by Zoolabs

[Pave Low]

Why is this game more like Splinter Cell with a 3rd person view only?  Since when does an F mean third in FPS? What is it with the Full Spectrum Warrior type objective markers? Now no one has to worry about cheaters using OTS over those in FPV as no one will have FPV.

I have to wonder what the lead designer is thinking when making a FPS game into a 3rd person shooter with all sorts of arcade features in it. GRAW for X360 will be a 3rd person shooter as Olivier Dauba states at 17 minutes in.

at 17mins he's talking about the help and support they are getting from Microsoft,

but if what your refering to is the same bit I just heard, it's at 07 mins 27 seconds and I don't think thats what he says

Q. "Can you show the 1st person viewpoint" ?

A. "ahh we don't have it in this demo"

Isn't it that FPV is only not in that demo version they were previewing there ?

That video is a hell of a lot more tactical than the ones I've seen recently (on that same mission) Instead of standing out in the streets blazing away for the whole thing, Olivier used cover a lot more when he demonstrated it, hugged the walls and peaked round corners, goes a different route down the back ally and actually snipes a lot more than I've seen so far

and it was very nice to see him using the drone and ordering the A/I teammates to engage hostiles the drone spotted, in fact the A/I were so efficient they killed them before he rejoined them.

Sure there are a few thing that aren't so good, eg The smoke trails and that massive blue waypoint symbol

Edited October 9, 2005 by Pave Low

[Jakethejake]

It looks pretty bad to me. Actually it looks OK, just not anything close to GR.

For the life of me, I'll never understand Ubi. When FN built the SCAR for SOCOM, they consulted the SF world, and actively worked with them to ensure that the rifle would fit the SF mold. Companies all over the globe do the same thing with their product developement, except for Ubi.

The sad thing is, these forums hold some of the most passionate, well informed gamers around. The game that we would want would sell like hotcakes. Summit Strike is a prime example. This was made to be more like [GR] than GR2, and while it was far from perfect, EVERYONE whom I talked to liked it a lot more than GR2. It sold pretty well too. It was OUR input that made SS possible.

Our input is critical. I hope that if Ubi is going to continue to thumb their noses at us, then maybe an ambitious competitor will get it right. My dollars are up for grab, it's all a matter of who will build what I want first.

[Poita]

ha ha the poor guy states absolutly that it will be a launch title.

Also, was that Brit guy a nerd or was he takin the wiz when he suggested 'Is it good when a plan comes together'? (see the A team)

To be honest i'm impressed by these video's but the enemy looks boring.

[WhiteKnight77]

I may have gotten the time mixed up, but I heard the part you are talking about, but I swear I heard only 3rd person elsewhere, but I may be wrong.

Still, why has RSE and Ubi replaced the 3rd person views when so many people keep saying they do not want it and after RSE game fans petitioned RSE to exclude them from future games? That is a huge step backwards with their games. Maybe Serellan can shed some light on this ashe is the lead designer. Why put a mode back in a game that allows for unrealistic views and the ability to see around objects such as that rock that you were hiding behind in the MP demo? I keep hearing devs say that the game is aimed at a mature crowd, yet kiddie views are still around.

[Serellan]

I may have gotten the time mixed up, but I heard the part you are talking about, but I swear I heard only 3rd person elsewhere, but I may be wrong.

Still, why has RSE and Ubi replaced the 3rd person views when so many people keep saying they do not want it and after RSE game fans petitioned RSE to exclude them from future games? That is a huge step backwards with their games. Maybe Serellan can shed some light on this ashe is the lead designer. Why put a mode back in a game that allows for unrealistic views and the ability to see around objects such as that rock that you were hiding behind in the MP demo? I keep hearing devs say that the game is aimed at a mature crowd, yet kiddie views are still around.

←

Lots of people HERE say they don't like it. I talk to and play with gamers on a weekly basis on Xbox Live that love it. They love seeing their character, and knowing for sure when they have good cover (unlike in FP). Yes, there are debates back and forth, but that is another sign that people like it. You cannot make the case that the vast majority of Xbox players do not want OTS in the game.

It is planned that it will remain as a server option on 360, just like in GR2. That way gamers have a choice in the way they want to play the game, and I firmly believe that we should provide gamers choice. I don't believe in pulling a feature from a platform because gamers from another platform don't like it. On PC, the game is FP, in response to fan feedback from PC gamers, like you.

Personally, when I first saw OTS a few years ago, I hated it. But playing with it, I came to like it. It gives a spacial awareness that is not present in FP, and helps to make up for the lack of precise control that you do no have when using a controller vs mouse and keyboard. Is it unrealistic? Yes. But so is FP. Neither is an accurate representation of your field of view and senses in the field. I know lots of people that like OTS that are not "kiddies." Some of them are SF operators.

BTW: http://serellan.3dretreat.com/christian/history.htm

[Jakethejake]

"It is planned that it will remain as a server option on 360, just like in GR2. That way gamers have a choice in the way they want to play the game, and I firmly believe that we should provide gamers choice. I don't believe in pulling a feature from a platform because gamers from another platform don't like it. On PC, the game is FP, in response to fan feedback from PC gamers, like you."

It seems to me that you guys listen to some things and not others. You'll seperate the views, (even though most people have noted that they prefer first person weapon view, or reticule only) but you won't listen to console gamers when we say that we want the same game that the PC crowd is getting. I hate to say it, but your company is running out of credibility with its most hardcore fans. If you really were listening, you would know enough to stop seperating the two platforms and crowds, and start building GHOST RECON again. Build a good solid tactical shooter that will play well on all of the platforms. Given the technology, there should be little to no difference in the PC and 360 versions. That is what we want. Console gamers are tired of being the forgotten step children. You say that you are listening, but we really don't believe it. Start showing us that you are, and maybe you'll earn some of our trust back.

[Zoolabs]

im sorry, but for online multiplayer OTS is just ridiculous. If you can see around objects when your not actually exposed to your enemy like you can in OTS, you are essentially cheating. How is this different than other glitches found in Ubi games where players exploit flaws in game code and look through walls????. It's the same thing. Why condone and build around this type of gameplay in a game that is supposed to be "realistic" OTS has no place in multiplayer. I agree the concept of choice is nice, but when one of the choices allows players to essentially cheat other players by seeing around solid objects, then the choice is not welcome and seriously hinders the "realism" and "tactical" aspects of the game.

How can you be tactical when your opposition can see you coming without ever exposing themselves. Kinda kills it dont ya think?

[Serellan]

That is precisely the reason for a server option, so people that don't like it can play games with out it.

[NYR_32]

I guess there is something wrong with me because I liked OTS and wanted it in the PC game....

Thats the whole point, there are some people who love it, some who hate it and some who don't care. What the heck is wrong with giving people the option to play the way they want?

[Zoolabs]

lol but why even have the option?? if it's the same thing as cheating and looking through walls? Why even offer that? If I optimatch into a room where the server has settings that allow either view, it forces honest players to play in OTS because OTS gives such a ridiculous cheating advantage. Weren't [GR] and GRIT 2 of the most incredibly successful online titles for xbox that were strictly FPS ??

[CrowmanUK]

I dont think the PC gamers would have liked a 3rd person only view but if its an option then thats great, more choice for us thanks for the clarification Serellan.

[NYR_32]

lol but why even have the option?? if it's the same thing as cheating and looking through walls?  Why even offer that?  If I optimatch into a room where the server has settings that allow either view, it forces honest players to play in OTS because OTS gives such a ridiculous cheating advantage.  Weren't [GR] and GRIT 2 of the most incredibly successful online titles  for xbox that were strictly FPS ??

←

Thats your opinion. Others share a different one, just play on FPS only servers, problem solved.

[Zoolabs]

Believe me, I do but the option shouldn't even be there in a "realistic military" shooter. It's the same thing as cheating and looking through walls. There's no refuting that.

[NYR_32]

I can't tell when I'm properly in cover, nor do I have peripheral vision. Those are things that should be in a realistic militarty shooter. In reality you see a lot more than what current FP views offer, and we're all aware where our body is.

[BornToKill]

It's not cheating when both sides have it, so it therefore is not an advantage that your adversary doesn't have.This makes it even and therfore not a cheat.

I'm not an OTS, but it's obvious and has been stated already that it's an option that can be used or not used.If the server has it turned off then no-one has it.

If you don't like it just turn it off, just as IFF can be turned off in GR1.Simple as.

Just watched the video, think i know why the delay, it's being re-branded to 'Peter Jacksons King-Kong'

Edited October 9, 2005 by BornToKill

[Zoolabs]

ok let me give you a scenario that happens many many many times when playing on xbox live in OTS view. This will illustrate the ridiculousness of OTS view in multiplayer. Here we go:

2 players for this scenario - Alpha and Bravo

Alpha slowly approaches a corner wall or rock keeping an eye on the corner as he approaches. He is primed and ready to fire on any target that might expose themselves from that corner. He doesn't know what is there. He cannot see what's behind that corner wall or large rock, but if a target shows himself, then Alpha will have to react quickly to eliminate the threat. (very realistic and intense)

Then we have Bravo - Bravo cautiously waits behind his cover in OTS view. He uses the Camera to expose the territory beyond his cover. What's this?? Here comes Alpha and he can't even see me because I am not exposed. I can see him though because of this handy 3rd eye they call OTS. Perfect!!! Now all I have to do is strafe out prefiring and Alpha won't know what hit him. He's dead. Even if both players are in OTS view then this still happens quite often.

See this situation illustrates how OTS takes away 1 of the most important aspects of what made [GR] and GRIT great. In [GR] or any FPS view game, when you and your opponent suddenly see one another, neither of the players with any pre knowledge or advantage, it comes down to a intense moment of reacting to your surroundings. All of a sudden both players know that it's kill or be killed and they both have an equal chance to win the battle based on their reaction time and shot.

[Colin]

That is precisely the reason for a server option, so people that don't like it can play games with out it.

←

The Key word here is option.

If you make the game with, you half your player potential.

If you make the game without, you half your player potential.

Have both and you dont.

I read some where there are over 200 options in this game, it looks to me like some one is making an effort to cover all the bases.

Colin

[NYR_32]

Here's a senario, Alpha plays on FP only servers, and has intense games every night. Its Bravo's choice to play in OTS, so its their loss in the above senario.

[Serellan]

It is interesting to note I had almost this exact same discussion years ago about respawns in GR1 PC, before I worked at RSE. I was a hardcore RS fan, and was staunchly opposed to respawns in the "new" PC game. I had lots of arguments with people on forums, because I felt respawns were totally unrealistic and would ruin gameplay. I think time has proven me wrong.

I still prefer non-respawn games, because it is more intense for me, but I don't think people would argue for taking respawns out of GR (well, I'm sure some would). You can't really say that respawns are realistic, so should they be removed from GR? Or should players have a choice?

[Hatchetforce]

OTS is absolutely the best thing to hit GR since it's inception. It allows the peripheral view that occurs naturally in the real world. SA - Situational Awareness is at the heart of individual combat survival and you do not get that in a strict FPS view due to monitor limitations.

It is ridiculous, and you know what else? It is moronic to attack a feature you can disable with the click of a controller or mouse. Where is the harm in allowing gamers a choice. When did user features become a bad thing in a title. Every SF guy I know that has looked at OTS prefers it. Why? Realism. Because of SA it actually feels more real that a strict FPS view.

There is a slight ability to hedge one's view in OTS, but this is by far offset by the realism of SA. And the alternative is quite a bit farther from realism than OTS.

As far as Lasers being on weapons, get used to it. We have 3 different versions at the moment for personal weapons. One I can't discuss openly right now. But it is real and we use it. The PAQ4C and PEQ2A both have been around for a while now. And nobody operates at night without the PEQ2A. I also can't discuss thermals coming online but they are getting more advanced than you know.

Not everything in GR2 was realistic. But the amount of realism in GR2 so overshadows the realism in GR1 it isn't even funny. And that opinion comes from real Ghosts. Scream all you want but that is a hard fact. If you want to debate about GR1 and GR2, and you support the former, leave realism out of your argument. Otherwise you are disproving your own argument.

Handhelds such as the GCP and the IZLID - both which can be mounted on crew served weapons, are also prominent in current ops.

I have beat this issue to death but it is a DA (Direct Action) atmosphere right now for SF and predicted to remain that way for the forseeable future. Urban Combat is here to stay as terrorists realize that remaining sequestered in some back country equals sure death from the West. They have to move in and around the populous in order to secure some manner of concealment.

The series that does not evolve is doomed to failure. And the screaming about GR2 and GR2SS don't amount to a lot when one looks at the sales and Xbox LIVE numbers. Like Serellan I game with a great many people on LIVE every week and they are clamoring for more of GR2. They love it, I love it, and numbers don't lie. For every person that posts a message of dissatisfaction about GR2, there is a thousand that feel differently.

Here is another fact. Consoles run the video game world. Get used to it. Their sales already dwarf PC figures and the trend will continue. I am not one of those idiots predicting the doom of PC gaming. It will be around for a long while. But as the next gen hits the gap will continue to broaden.

At the end of the day, games have to make money so the studio survives. Why begrudge devs the right to make an honest living? They have enough to deal with due to publishing constraints, pirating, and people complaining because their personal idea of GR wasn't the one that hit the shelf.

Here is a prediction. GRAW, when it hits the shelf is going to blow a huge hole in the sales charts. Why? Because people like the direction the game has taken. A far, far greater number than those not happy about it.