Confusion about the animations

[Moonwalker]

We all remember the incredibly realistic animations from the E3 footage, right?

And also more recent footage showing soldiers standing with their backs against a wall and pop out and shout (Metal Gear style) to me it looks totally different than the today released IGN and Gamespot Mulitplayer movies, what i see in these MP movies is that the animations hardly have been changed, .....am i right

when i say the SP mode has the realistic movements, while the MP mode remains the same as GR2 and SS?

Check the movies out...and notice the difference, the point of no return trailer for example..watch how your soldier runs, the way he behaves is totally different than these MP vids....i'm just hoping the animation from "point of no return; trailer is still in....

someone on IGN asks this..and i wanna know too.

where is all the great animations we were promised? sliding on your butt, diving, reacting to bullet fire? wasnt that all supposed to be in MP as well?

Edited January 26, 2006 by Moonwalker

[Zoolabs]

that's what you get when you have 2 diff companies, 2 diff engines working on the same title. = Identity crisis.

[Dannik]

that's what you get when you have 2 diff companies, 2 diff engines working on the same title.  = Identity crisis.

←

Three companies, two engines, as far as I know.

PC: GRIN developing entirety, their Diesel engine

Console: Ubisoft using Ubi Tiwak's engine for SP, RSE developing MP on same engine.

Serellan, feel free to correct me, if I've misunderstood.

[WhiteKnight77]

RSE is using their engine for MP.

[Dannik]

If you're sure about that, WK, that makes it three and three, across the board.

[recklessmind]

Yup, (not including PC and Xbox1) you have two totally different games. You basically have GRAW and GR2.5 coming in the same box.

This is not much different than what Ubi did w/ SC:CT. I really, really don't like this type of development. And I don’t so much have a problem w/ what Red Storm is doing... I like those guys a lot and they seem to really be trying to please the fanbase... my problem is w/ UBISOFT thinking they can package two different games together and people wont notice or care. How do you make huge improvements in graphics, animation and gameplay in your sequel and not expect people to feel gypped when they start up a MP game and none of its there? I really hope someone in the games media gives these guys a hard time about this.

Knock off some points on the review. Maybe that’ll get their attention. It’s tantamount to packaging GR2 w/ [GR] MP. (Some people may’ve liked that, actually. But that’s really just a copout)

Edited January 26, 2006 by recklessmind

[Zoolabs]

Yup, (not including PC and Xbox1) you have two totally different games.  You basically have GRAW and GR2.5 coming in the same box.

This is not much different than what Ubi did w/ SC:CT.  I really, really don't like this type of development.  And I don’t so much have a problem w/ what Red Storm is doing... I like those guys a lot and they seem to really be trying to please the fanbase... my problem is w/ UBISOFT thinking they can package two different games together and people wont notice or care.  How do you make huge improvements in graphics, animation and gameplay in your sequel and not expect people to feel gypped when they start up a MP game and none of its there?

←

well said

[Moonwalker]

But this wasn't the case with GR2 and SS, was it?

I mean....i've played multiplayer adversial but also co-op on live playing SP missions, and they all looked the same in terms of graphics compared to eachother, not the case with GRAW. But for Ghost Recon this is the first time then....or am i wrong?

[Cons72]

I have to agree I don't care for two different teams working on the game. I still can't easily go between SC:CT SP and MP, the button layout is totally different. Now GRAW might not be that bad in the case of controller layout working different, but it does seem like you may feel you are playing a different game in SP than in MP.

That being said, the maps for MP are looking good. I think Old Town looks very good.

[OPSIXDELTA]

Yup, (not including PC and Xbox1) you have two totally different games.  You basically have GRAW and GR2.5 coming in the same box.

This is not much different than what Ubi did w/ SC:CT.  I really, really don't like this type of development.  And I don’t so much have a problem w/ what Red Storm is doing... I like those guys a lot and they seem to really be trying to please the fanbase... my problem is w/ UBISOFT thinking they can package two different games together and people wont notice or care.  How do you make huge improvements in graphics, animation and gameplay in your sequel and not expect people to feel gypped when they start up a MP game and none of its there?  I really hope someone in the games media gives these guys a hard time about this.

Knock off some points on the review.  Maybe that’ll get their attention.  It’s tantamount to packaging GR2 w/ [GR] MP.  (Some people may’ve liked that, actually.  But that’s really just a copout)

←

while i dont always agree with stuff you say regarding graw reckless, i do agree with you on this. while the new mp videos look great to me, it does look more like gr2.5 and then graw sp being packaged together. you are right sc:ct was like this. chaos theory sp and coop were great but the adversial mode was almost strikingly different in a bad way. anyway good call. i for one will be happy with the multiplayer because i play alot of gr:ss, with friends and we have a lot of fun with it. i will say alot of people say gr2 is run and gun, and i will agree that it may seem that way especially compared to gr orignal, HOWEVER, me and my friends play gr2 and ss as a very slow, tactical type way, and we almost always slaughter the run and gunners, anyways, i am looking forward to graw now a lot more than i was originally, based simply on the fact that it looks like they have made some strides recently, also kimi likes it so hopefully it will rock.

[recklessmind]

chaos theory sp and coop were great but the adversial mode was almost strikingly different in a bad way. anyway good call. i for one will be happy with the multiplayer because i play alot of gr:ss, with friends and we have a lot of fun with it. i will say alot of people say gr2 is run and gun, and i will agree that it may seem that way especially compared to gr orignal, HOWEVER, me and my friends play gr2 and ss as a very slow, tactical type way, and we almost always slaughter the run and gunners, anyways, i am looking forward to graw now a lot more than i was originally, based simply on the fact that it looks like they have made some strides recently, also kimi likes it so hopefully it will rock.

I hope so too and completely agree. I liked GR2 MP and I think the improvements being made here are really awesome. They're listing to us and I'm very impressed w/ the way RedStorm is talking to and treating the GR community.

But I’m still really annoyed w/ what’s happening here.

I mean, one of the coolest things about SC:CT was how much smoother the game moved and felt than its predecessor. It was miles better than Pandora Tomorrow.

Looking back, though, Ubi really had a solid thing going w/ the unique MP mode they (bravely) introduced in SP:PT. People really liked it. I really liked it. I was really looking forward the next addition (CT) and thinking about the graphics and animation I’d been seeing as those PC previews were released.

I remember finally buying and playing Chaos Theory SP and thinking…â€Omg. MP is going to be wicked!†And then jumping into the training for MP and saying, “Uh, what the… **** is this?â€

I didn’t hear about the huge differences in how the two modes felt from any of the reviewers. I was pretty much blind-sided by that. I wondered why something like that had drifted under the radar. Thinking back… It was almost like the media didn’t want to criticize Ubi about it, and give them any bad press, because Ubi had the balls to even create that type of MP mode at all.

Everyone liked what Ubi did w/ Splinter Cell MP… but the media gave them a free pass on the sequel.

CT MP was still a blast to play, because it was fun to begin w/ and of course fans who already played the mode regularly would like it… because it was more of the same w/ a bunch of improvements… but it felt like a cheap “tack-on†after playing the incredible SP.

Let me ask a question: People really loved the new SP:CT co-op mode. Everyone raved about it. Do you think folks would’ve given the mode such high praise if it’d played more like the decrepit MP component, than it did the amazing SP? I think people would’ve been saying “Meh.†a lot more.

The media dropped the ball on SC:CT and we now have a GRAW identity crisis because of it. RedStorm appears to be working their butts off on this game. I feel kinda bad that they’re reading a bunch of negative crap from me… but I’m hoping this **** doesn’t develop into a trend for Ubisoft games. I don’t like it.

Edited January 26, 2006 by recklessmind

[Clum-Z-Boy]

Yup, (not including PC and Xbox1) you have two totally different games.  You basically have GRAW and GR2.5 coming in the same box.

This is not much different than what Ubi did w/ SC:CT.  I really, really don't like this type of development.  And I don’t so much have a problem w/ what Red Storm is doing... I like those guys a lot and they seem to really be trying to please the fanbase... my problem is w/ UBISOFT thinking they can package two different games together and people wont notice or care.  How do you make huge improvements in graphics, animation and gameplay in your sequel and not expect people to feel gypped when they start up a MP game and none of its there?  I really hope someone in the games media gives these guys a hard time about this.

Knock off some points on the review.  Maybe that’ll get their attention.  It’s tantamount to packaging GR2 w/ [GR] MP.  (Some people may’ve liked that, actually.  But that’s really just a copout)

←

To me, it sounds like you're saying that you'd rather have a crappier-looking Single-Player campaign so that the Multiplayer wouldn't be different in terms of graphics. Is it just me, or do you have a gripe with Ubisoft?

[recklessmind]

I'm not saying that at all, Clum. I think GRAW MP should look and play more like GRAW SP. At this point, it’s GR2.5 and I’m kind of bummed. Not what I was expecting after seeing the E3 vids. I assumed the modes would be similar. We are getting two different games.

[Lysander]

We are getting two different games.

So what, you can`t say you won`t get a value for your money, eh?

I like MP, it`s precise and well made. It`s using different military gear (custom) and weapons than SP and scenery is different etc. I don`t think it`s arcady. It has 1000 options so you will get what you want.

[Arachneya]

Lysander, you are completely missing reckless's point.

[Lysander]

Lysander, you are completely missing reckless's point.

←

Perhaps. What is really his point? That mp feels differently that sp and that you can not hide behind corners. In true I never played gr2, only gr1 and Island thunder, but I like what I see in mp. Yes demo looks fast but it is demo, in real this could be serious and slow millitary shoter (if you want to stay alive). If mp plays the way as it was presented at x05 (mexican beach environment) then animation is smooth and functional.

[Clum-Z-Boy]

Now, now. GRAW sports some very high-polygon counts, high-res textures, but it does seem to sacrifice animations.

I'll admit: at first glance, it looks like GR2. But once you actually take a look around, you'll see that this game would absolutely not have been possible on previous gen.

I like the fact that Red Storm went with High -Poly and -Res instead of using normal and spectral maps, since those make everything shiny, and the game becomes unrealistic.

[audiolab]

all some of us people would have liked would have been a major overhaul of the [Ghost Recon] but its very unlikely,anyway

[PoonTaco]

I think we should all be worried about single-player, rather than multi-player.

I'd trust anything RedStorm does over Tiwak's efforts any day.

Look at all the information and media we've received for multi-player.

Where is the same for single-player?

The release of GR:2 may not have been RedStorm's finest hour, but I have full faith that they are making a great, if not their best game yet.

With the four bonus co-op missions(designed by RedStorm) included, we'll be able to see who makes the better missions.

I know who I have my money on.