Jump to content

X05:Ghost Recon 3 Close Look


WhiteKnight77
 Share

Recommended Posts

OK I think I have a better understanding now.

We have players that like both.

We have players that like one

We have players that like the other one.

Correct me if I am wrong.

You have a Development team that gave you one to start with.

The same Development Team gave you the other one.

And the same Development Team Gave you the opertunity to either one on or off.

And you are still moaning about it, :wall: come on guys be reasonable.

The Development Team has to try and satisfy all gamers, and you know it will never happen, all they can do is the best they can.

Im sorry Im at a loss to say any more I think some of you need to be more thank full with what you have.

I would imagine that a person that develops games for a living is highly motivated, creative, and has a love of the games.

If I read some of the things that you guys post I would be realy upset, and yes I would take it personally.

I will give you an example of somthing I would like to read as a Developer.

Ok I love the scernary, the roads and foot paths look great, the wide open maps are awsome. The sky and sun going down is a major relisation touch it is real good.

The enemy in the game have red diamonds on them, when you point in that direction, it looks ok but is there any way you could make the diamonds realy small, or have the option to be sent a grid reference to the location instead of the diamond marker.

Ok this is just an example. As a Dev this would be much better than saying the diamods are crap I hate them.

Do you see what I mean.

Please think about what you are saying, there 2 ways of getting things changed a possitve way and a negative way.

Nine times out of ten the negative way just sends the reader back to his tea and biscuts.

Colin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here is the deal with options that are toggable and I stated this about RvS. Everyone says to find a room with the options you want, but the problem is, there are none to be had. I dislike FPWV, yet on every server I went to while trying the MP demo forced me to use FPWV. There were no servers without it. OK, people say host your own server. I tried that, no one from AGR-S could see it and I ran around an empty map shooting out windows. Where is the fun in that? Why should people have to change they way they play because an option ceases to be an option? Hence the need to do something other than OTS in it's present state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You raise a good point that it is difficult to find a FPV only room. I think the key to organizing quality FPV only rooms is going to be networking with people on forums like this one. When the 360 launches, I hope to add many of you to my friends list. Another thing I hope for is more server details returned by optimatch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they should do is offer 3 views. FPV, FPWV, and OTS. Allow the servers to lock either FPV or OTs, and give the individual players the choice of their first person view. With or without weapon. That way people can lock the view to first person only, but it will throw a bone to OTS players by giving them the option to see their weapon or not.

I like the OTs view, but I would gladly play in rooms with FPWV, or host that way if it was the consensus. Most of the time people don't bring it up, but I understand the issues with OTS vs FPV. For me the FPWV is a compromise, and an option that could unite the community. I think that there are a lot of people who like the FPWV, and would be happy to play that way. (There are a lot of R63 players out there) Then the people who like FPV would have plenty of rooms to play in and wouldn't have to change their playing style at all.

I thought that this game was going to have three views, but I guess that has changed. Hopefully they'll change it back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I think I have a better understanding now.

We have players that like both.

We have players that like one

We have players that like the other one.

Correct me if I am wrong.

You have a Development team that gave you one to start with.

The same Development Team gave you the other one.

And the same Development Team Gave you the opertunity to either one on or off.

And you are still moaning about it, :wall:  come on guys be reasonable.

The Development Team has to try and satisfy all gamers, and you know it will never happen, all they can do is the best they can.

Im sorry Im at a loss to say any more I think some of you need to be more  thank full with what you have.

I would imagine that a person that develops games for a living is highly motivated, creative, and has a love of the games.

If I read some of the things that you guys post I would be realy upset, and yes I would take it personally.

I will give you an example of somthing I would like to read as a Developer.

Ok I love the scernary, the roads and foot paths look great, the wide open maps are awsome. The sky and sun going down is a major relisation touch it is real good.

The enemy in the game have red diamonds on them, when you point in that direction, it looks ok but is there any way you could make the diamonds realy small, or have the option to be sent a grid reference to the location instead of the diamond marker.

Ok this is just an example. As a Dev this would be much better than saying the diamods are crap I hate them.

Do you see what I mean.

Please think about what you are saying, there 2 ways of getting things changed a possitve way and a negative way.

Nine times out of ten the negative way just sends the reader back to his tea and biscuts.

Colin

You raise some good points. I think that the core players of this franchise feel like Ubi has forgotten us. Yeah, I know it's a business, and they have to sell games, but they had some extremely popular games that have basically been gutted. The thing that I don't understand is that SS tried to move in the direction that I wanted. I really liked it, and still play it regularly. From what I understand, it was a very good seller. I cannot speak for anyone other than myself when I say that I would rather of had a full sequel to SS than what I see GRAW is. Nobody has come on here and answered any questions about why they got rid of so many options that we really liked. We keep asking these questions here and in the Ubi forums, but we never get a definitive answer.

GRAW and Lockdown don't even resemble the previous installments. These changes have been made mostly without our input. Very few people on here would have made many of the changes that you see in GRAW. We must sit by and watch as the game we love is systematically dismantled. We are basically treated as freaks by Ubi. Fanatics whose opinions don't echo the sentiment of mainstream gamers. Yet I consider myself very much a mainstream gamer. Some of the changes like OTS, I loved, and I would have voted for. But I can see the valid points of having this view in multiplayer. I would think that Ubi would listen and add the third view, but again, we are treated as fanatics, and our views on this subject, however valid, don't echo the general publics.

I guess after being treated this way, we give some back from time to time. As it stands, I won't be buying GRAW because it just doesn't appeal to me. I know that the devs will say that I haven't played it, so how can I pass judgement, but SS looked like a game that I wanted to play. GRAW doesn't. I think a lot of people feel the same way. Ubi needs to stop treating us as fanatics, and treat us like mainstream gamers who post their opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think part of the problem here is that the old FPV is just too static. It is the same thing, with the same poor reticle, the same poor pip system, etc...

There is virtually no evolution of the view, and IMO this is destined to die. There needs to be change, and by that I am not talking about moving on to the OTS view, I'm talking about improving the FPV. Adding a weapon view is NOT the solution either. I'm talking about making it more realistc, letting you see more of your body to give you the ability to properly seek cover, adding real views of optics, sight sway, etc...

Here is a thread devoted to the upgrading of the FPV.

http://www.ghostrecon.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=28494

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put it plain, I would be more that satisfied with first person point of view as on e3 GRtrailer (with the same graphical quality) in combination with squad tactics system of GR1 and GR:IT, and with the feel of weapon and movement of body as in Rainbow6(3) for xbox. wow!

edit:RB6(3) is not Lockdown but first game; there is no necessity that weapons are visible from player view.

Edited by Lysander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the deal with options that are toggable and I stated this about RvS. Everyone says to find a room with the options you want, but the problem is, there are none to be had. I dislike FPWV, yet on every server I went to while trying the MP demo forced me to use FPWV. There were no servers without it. OK, people say host your own server. I tried that, no one from AGR-S could see it and I ran around an empty map shooting out windows. Where is the fun in that? Why should people have to change they way they play because an option ceases to be an option? Hence the need to do something other than OTS in it's present state.

EXACTLY!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they should do is offer 3 views.  FPV, FPWV, and OTS.  Allow the servers to lock either FPV or OTs, and give the individual players the choice of their first person view.  With or without weapon.  That way people can lock the view to first person only, but it will throw a bone to OTS players by giving them the option to see their weapon or not.

I like the OTs view, but I would gladly play in rooms with FPWV, or host that way if it was the consensus.  Most of the time people don't bring it up, but I understand the issues with OTS vs FPV.  For me the FPWV is a compromise, and an option that could unite the community.  I think that there are a lot of people who like the FPWV, and would be happy to play that way.  (There are a lot of R63 players out there)  Then the people who like FPV would have plenty of rooms to play in and wouldn't have to change their playing style at all.

I thought that this game was going to have three views, but I guess that has changed.  Hopefully they'll change it back.

Also a very good idea!!! I don't mind ots, just make it fair. make it more a cosmetics thing, rather than totally changing the gameplay. If they draw the camera ALOT closer to the character, all three otions would be somewhat even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Strictly FPV [ 13 ] ** [41.94%]

OTS [ 2 ] ** [6.45%]

Both [ 15 ] ** [48.39%]

It doesn't bother me either way. [ 1 ] ** [3.23%]

http://www.ghostrecon.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=28444

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Strictly FPV [ 13 ] ** [41.94%]

OTS [ 2 ] ** [6.45%]

Both [ 15 ] ** [48.39%]

It doesn't bother me either way. [ 1 ] ** [3.23%]

http://www.ghostrecon.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=28444

Here is one for you on the IGN boards...you can see it if you're a member.

POLL: If you had any of these view options for the new Ghost Recon what would you prefer?

[47%] - 1st person with Gun showing

[7%] - 1st person no gun showing (Like the Original)

[26%] - 3rd person like Ghost Recon 2

[18%] - 3rd person with a close-up "Over the Shoulder" zoom (Newer GRAW videos)

LINK

Edited by BIGOLBRAIN
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...