CanOfCorn Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 AGAIN... OTS view needs to be tweaked to ELIMINATE the ablility to see around/above obstacles (pull the camera ALOT closer to the character. Maybe only see the characters head and neck - like the E3 demo). As long as FPV is a server option everything is fine. It looks like the devs are intentionally giving you the ability to peek corners in OTS view, and they are right to do so. A lot of people like having this aspect of OTS (although I hate it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serellan Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I give as much information as I can. I generally don't comment on a feature or give details if features or implementation is not final or definite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinity22 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I give as much information as I can. I generally don't comment on a feature or give details if features or implementation is not final or definite. ← Okay... well, can you comment on the OTS view we saw in the Germany demo? Is that the final view, or are you guys still working on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoolabs Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I just got done watching the 20 min. video. My hopes for this game are back on the rise. There are only a few things that must be made optional or eliminated for the game to be awesome. -OTS view / ability to peek corners (already confirmed a server option) -neon triangles / diamonds / enemy outlining (has this been confirmed a server option? I sincerely hope it is optional.) -Kill camera (eliminate) -Gigantic muzzle flash when weapon is fired (eliminate) -Smoke trails on projectiles (eliminate)← I'll add to this.... one button, rate of fire switch (Think black button from GR1/Island Thunder) movement right/left/backward is not as fast as forward movement (think GR1/Island thunder movement). The reticule is good (for the lack of aiming in controllers). Anything but the half circle that's in GR2/SS (again, we are playing with controllers). Maybe give us a choice on aiming sensitivity (ala Battlefield: Moder Combat, or Halo2). AGAIN... OTS view needs to be tweaked to ELIMINATE the ablility to see around/above obstacles (pull the camera ALOT closer to the character. Maybe only see the characters head and neck - like the E3 demo). Make the lean function more responsive (when I push left to lean, make the character lean right away, instead of a 1/2 second delay). White button should be used to talk in the lobby (with the server having the ability to cut people off, and free talk to be used in game). The server having the ability to chim in will let him calm the room down (bring order), give direction (as in map changes, respwan changes, etc. that's needed for the game). Realize that NO ONE uses the hand signals in multiplayer!! Use these buttons for talking, switch single shot/rapid fire (most important), etc.← These are awsome suggestions(in Red). I agree %100 percent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchetforce Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 This is my last post on this topic so reply away. I couldn't care less. It is patently obvious with truth staring people in the face they simply kick and scream harder. GR2 brought the series into the mainstream public eye. The fact is among the standard Xbox community, GRAW is so highly anticipated it isn't even funny. It came away from E3 second only to Gears of War as a wanted title. Flail away and whine. It didn't do any good prior to GR2 and it won't help now as long as you think the universe revolves around you and your wants. The fact is that GR2 headed in the direction most Xbox gamers wanted and GRAW is headed down that path too. Thank goodness. And it will sell tons of copies on it's current path, not because they will make it like GR1 the way you want. Market analysis from Ubisoft is a little more accurate than you are. It is a fact. They are right about their approach to sales and you are wrong. Period. Move on to a new topic. Otherwise your inability to accept a fact makes you look like a fanatic. Fanaticism is redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim. Ubisoft will continue to be right about GRAW because they have the resources and they don't look at the gaming world through a tunnel of personal want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinity22 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 (edited) This is my last post on this topic so reply away. I couldn't care less. It is patently obvious with truth staring people in the face they simply kick and scream harder. GR2 brought the series into the mainstream public eye. The fact is among the standard Xbox community, GRAW is so highly anticipated it isn't even funny. It came away from E3 second only to Gears of War as a wanted title. Flail away and whine. It didn't do any good prior to GR2 and it won't help now as long as you think the universe revolves around you and your wants. The fact is that GR2 headed in the direction most Xbox gamers wanted and GRAW is headed down that path too. Thank goodness. And it will sell tons of copies on it's current path, not because they will make it like GR1 the way you want. Market analysis from Ubisoft is a little more accurate than you are. It is a fact. They are right about their approach to sales and you are wrong. Period. Move on to a new topic. Otherwise your inability to accept a fact makes you look like a fanatic. Fanaticism is redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim. Ubisoft will continue to be right about GRAW because they have the resources and they don't look at the gaming world through a tunnel of personal want. ← [Edited] We are the people they are trying to sell the game to. [Edited] Third, THE MARKET DID NOT TELL THEM TO ADD THE OTS VIEW. They tried it out to mixed reviews. If you want to say more people liked it than not, then that is your opinion. The FACT of the matter is, more kids are playing GR now because it IS less tactical and more arcadey. THIS is the purpose of the DISCUSSION. Fourth, OBVIOUSLY they heard SOMETHING we were saying if they made the expansion based of off CONSUMER discussion (or complaints as you will). It was an expansion, so obviously they couldn't change the engine and the core gameplay, but they DID make the maps with more paths, etc. [Edited] [Flaming and Personal attacks are not tolerated here.] Edited October 10, 2005 by Pave Low Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FA sear Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 OTS is clearly flawed, but in the early GRAW trailers it appeared that they "fixed" this by moving the camera view closer to the player. This would be the most realistic view, as it gives you peripheral vision, but does not allow you to see over rocks and walls, and it also limits your ability to see around corners. Now whether this "new" OTS view makes it into the game is the real question. The current OTS view is NOT more realistic than the FPV. They are both equaly flawed and unrealistic, so to argue that the current OTS is better representative of reality is a poor statement. GR2 is also NOT more realistic than [GR]. In some respects, yes it is, but there are some glaring flaws in GR2 that really damage the credibility of the game in terms of realism. In GR2 you can see the enemy spawn. How realistic is that? In the Dam map you can even see a tank spawn. I can't believe anyone can say that GR2 is more realistic than [GR]. Yes, GR2 brought many improvements that made the game more realistic such as improved lateral motion, the ability to roll, etc..., but ti also brought things like spawning enemy and vehicles that appear right before your eyes, and when you pass a certain point they stop pouring out, hit detection that is a bit worse (I know some people will say that it is a lot worse, but I tend to disagree with that), etc... Either way, I see GR2 as a game that clearly improved the series in some ways, but then took the game back a few steps in other respects. Now whether you like GR2 better than [GR] is a matter of opinion, but to say that GR2 is clearly more realistic is an overstatement at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYR_32 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 In GR2 you can see the enemy spawn. How realistic is that? That was always present in GR1, it wasn't used as much, but spawning is nothing new. The PC game even has a MP bug which illustrates this, at times you can see blacked out, unspawned enemies. They are present in both stock and user made missions, and let me tell you, user made missions utilize spawning, a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakethejake Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 (edited) This is my last post on this topic so reply away. I couldn't care less. It is patently obvious with truth staring people in the face they simply kick and scream harder. GR2 brought the series into the mainstream public eye. The fact is among the standard Xbox community, GRAW is so highly anticipated it isn't even funny. It came away from E3 second only to Gears of War as a wanted title. Flail away and whine. It didn't do any good prior to GR2 and it won't help now as long as you think the universe revolves around you and your wants. The fact is that GR2 headed in the direction most Xbox gamers wanted and GRAW is headed down that path too. Thank goodness. And it will sell tons of copies on it's current path, not because they will make it like GR1 the way you want. Market analysis from Ubisoft is a little more accurate than you are. It is a fact. They are right about their approach to sales and you are wrong. Period. Move on to a new topic. Otherwise your inability to accept a fact makes you look like a fanatic. Fanaticism is redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim. Ubisoft will continue to be right about GRAW because they have the resources and they don't look at the gaming world through a tunnel of personal want. ← [Edited] Look, I'm a mainstream GR gamer. I use the OTS view, I liked and still play SS, but it is becoming clear that Ubi is feeling the pressure from this community. How was Ubi's market analysis on Lockdown? That seemed to work out pretty well for them. I was on live with a bunch of guys today, and they all had returned the game, noting that it was a huge dissapointment. None of my friends play the game! We played R63 and SS today, but none of us even own LD. Contrary to what you may think, Hatchetforce, most of us want Ubi to succeed and to build great games. I just think that you guys are trying way too hard to put in all the ultra cool elements of the 21st century warrior when what we really want is pretty basic and simple. Had LD just been an updated version of R63, with the whole Rainbow team, customizable weapons, great maps, and a few other things, it would be the number 1 game out there. The same for GRAW. Take SS and do the same exact thing. Voila! Instant classic. The funny thing is that most companies will ride a winning horse to death. Ubi shot and killed the winning horse, and is bringing in a jackass as its replacement! Edited October 10, 2005 by Pave Low Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FA sear Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 In GR2 you can see the enemy spawn. How realistic is that? That was always present in GR1, it wasn't used as much, but spawning is nothing new. The PC game even has a MP bug which illustrates this, at times you can see blacked out, unspawned enemies. They are present in both stock and user made missions, and let me tell you, user made missions utilize spawning, a lot. ← There is a huge difference between a few enemy spawning, and pretty much all of the enemy spawning. Also, in GR2 as I said you can even catch the odd vehicle spawning. I didn't flame GR2, I said that it brought certain improvements, but lacked in other areas. I just said that both games have flaws, and to say that GR2 is clearly more realistic is a flawed statement. More realistic in many ways, sure, but also more unrealistic in a equal number of ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYR_32 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 There is a huge difference between a few enemy spawning, and pretty much all of the enemy spawning. Also, in GR2 as I said you can even catch the odd vehicle spawning. You also have to rember though, GR2 used alot more resources than GR1. With the style of maps, and the mission design, if they put everything on the map on startup... KABOOM! Oh there are plenty of cases of vehicles spawning in GR1 as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FA sear Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 There is a huge difference between a few enemy spawning, and pretty much all of the enemy spawning. Also, in GR2 as I said you can even catch the odd vehicle spawning. You also have to rember though, GR2 used alot more resources than GR1. With the style of maps, and the mission design, if they put everything on the map on startup... KABOOM! Oh there are plenty of cases of vehicles spawning in GR1 as well ← I did see some enemy spawn on GR1, but I don't recall seeing vehicles spawn. Anyway, the main point of my post is that both games clearly have flaws, and they are just games. I personally prefer GR1 over GR2 on account of the openended maps, which is why SS was a much better game than the first GR2 IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoolabs Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 (edited) Hatchetforce you are a funny dude. It's the internet guy and a video game forum where people offer there opinions about games. Nobody's whining. Were all having some healthy debate about the future of our favorite game, and what we've seen of it so far. And yes fan reactions and opinions do matter in any business. Sometimes fans opinions have a positive effect on what the devs are doing. I'm sure Serellan will tell you that they enjoy and welcome feedback from the fans. Hell, If I were a game developer I'd find this unique forum quite refreshing cause here you've got intelligent people offering very specific opinions and feedback on their work. Feed back that could actually be useful, as opposed to some sites where kids just yell "that sucks". The Devs can take it or leave it, but I'm sure after the Lockdown fiasco UBI values the idea of listening to it's fans even more. Of course there's money to be earned, but what these designers do is a form of art, and I'm pretty sure they don't just trivialize their game as just being a cash cow. Neither do we. And like any art whether it's music, sculpture, cooking,..etc.. the fans play a big role in influencing the creative process and the end result. And just for the record, out of the hundreds of people I played [GR] with on Xbox live over 2 years competitively in the community at www.teamcompete.com, %95 of them thought GR2 was a BIG step Backwards for the series. Edited October 11, 2005 by Zoolabs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoa182 Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 more and more kiddies are starting to play this game BECAUSE you guys put in the OTS Isnt that the idea? TO get more and more people to play the game... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasyCo Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 (edited) more and more kiddies are starting to play this game BECAUSE you guys put in the OTS Isnt that the idea? TO get more and more people to play the game... ← Without losing the ones they currently have, yes. PS: I don't mind OTS, but hopefully it will be an option. Edited October 11, 2005 by EasyCo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoa182 Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 but sales are good right? and there are a lot still playing it on the consoles... So even tho a small miniority here on GR.NET and a few on other forums don't like it, it doesn't seem to be hurting their sales. GR3 is probably going to do far better than GR2, even with sticking to OTS... I perosnally don't prefer it but they have to go with what works I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FA sear Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 I have said this many time before and I will say it again. A more realistic view can be had without "destroying" the tradition of this game. The first videos of GRAW that I saw showed an OTS view that gave you the "real" peripheral vision that you have, but you could not see around corners, or see over walls etc... This would be very welcome IMO, and as it does not allow you to do anything that you could not do in real life, FPV fans should not have any complaints about it, or have a need to lock it out of servers. This would go a long way in bringing the fans of the two views together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clum-Z-Boy Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 (edited) Jchung is right again, really. Oh, and also, you guys are weird. Instead of being thankful there are no cinematics to "drive the storyline," you're complaining about the Advanced Warfighter system Didn't you realise that from the beginning, Ubi was guiding you towards beleiving there'd be more technology involved? They were talking about all these cool features of the Advanced Warfighter system... and now that you see it in action, you guys freak out. I really don't get all those hardcore die-hard uber-[GR]-fans that complain about stuff that can be turned off. Wow, the people that get a big blue pointer on their screen have an advantage over you because... what? You can't pull up a map and check which direction to go? Come on, people. Stop being elitists. Naw, that, I could understand. I've seen the same thing with Halo 2. Fans of the first iteration saw all the changes made from the first game, and they just went bonkers. Adapt to survive, people. GR2's sales were higher than the first game's, and that was enough for Ubi. They even went to the lengths of creating a game just for the [GR] fans on the PC. I can understand that console gamers that were fans of [GR] would want to buy an Xbox 360 knowing that they didn't buy a system that runs games for kids with a lot of blood in them, but hey. Money makes Ubi's world go around. Would you rather have some form of Ghost Recon, or no Ghost Recon at all? Q: So, are you confident this is going to be a launch game? A: Yes Looks like we weren't the only hyped ones Edited October 11, 2005 by Clum-Z-Boy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 more and more kiddies are starting to play this game BECAUSE you guys put in the OTS Isnt that the idea? TO get more and more people to play the game... ← Without losing the ones they currently have, yes. PS: I don't mind OTS, but hopefully it will be an option. ← Please be sure to read all posts concerning this OTS You have options in game that alow you to use both. Serellan/RSE That is precisely the reason for a server option, so people that don't like it can play games with out it. 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. Colin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinity22 Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 We aren't worried about it not being an option. We are worried that we won't be able to use the option because the people using the ots have a HUGE advantage. Just like in SS and GR2, I have the option, but the people looking around corners and over obstacles, have the advantage. This is why we are asking them to bring the camera right behind the player. What's the point of having an option, when one view is so superior to the other? I hardly call it fair when someone is in fp and the other guys are in ots looking at the whole map, while safely behind something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Whats stopping you using the same option.?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 As long as FPV is made a server option, everything is fine. The server can lock the entire room to FPV only. From the videos I've seen, the devs are making the OTS view specifically to be able to look around corners, which is fine....as long as FPV is a server option, which it will be. They don't need to adjust the OTS camera to be made closer to the character. The entire point of OTS is so that you CAN look around corners. If you're playing in a room that allows OTS, but you prefer FPV (like I do), then you would be well advised to start learing how to use OTS. I realized long ago that I had to learn to use OTS because I was at a disadvantage playing in FPV while in an OTS room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoolabs Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 because then you have everybody looking around walls, rocks and there goes all realism and fun for the huge number of players that prefer the sim style. It detracts from the experience. Especially in multiplayer. It's the same thing as looking through walls. why do people need the handicapp? Why not play with risk and expose yourself if your gonna have a look. Makes the game more fun and intense when risk is invovled. But I agree OTS as an option is ok in my book, as long as they bring the camera in close so you can't see around objects. Seems like a fair compromise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasyCo Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 more and more kiddies are starting to play this game BECAUSE you guys put in the OTS Isnt that the idea? TO get more and more people to play the game... ← Without losing the ones they currently have, yes. PS: I don't mind OTS, but hopefully it will be an option. ← Please be sure to read all posts concerning this OTS You have options in game that alow you to use both. ← You missed the point of my thread, but thats ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinity22 Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 (edited) and let's not mention the chances of finding a FP only room. That will never happen. I can hop on SS right now and look alllllll night for a FP only view, but I guarantee you it will be a long and boring night (optimatch, looking for game, entering game, backing out bc of ots, repeat for the next 2 hours). Edited October 11, 2005 by Trinity22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.