wildbill 0 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 This has me wondering if there is going to be the level of grit and gore that made this title what it is, the game we enjoy. I'm concerned if they are going to scale back on this aspect of the game to enjoy more sales revenue. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sup 0 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 This has me wondering if there is going to be the level of grit and gore that made this title what it is, the game we enjoy. ← Quote Link to post Share on other sites
insane snyper 0 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Uh, which title do you enjoy? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Toniezz 0 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 (edited) vs. This has me wondering if there is going to be the level of grit and gore that made this title what it is, the game we enjoy. I'm concerned if they are going to scale back on this aspect of the game to enjoy more sales revenue. ←Please learn to use the search option people! These answers you can find at the topic 'Realistic Death animations? Blood?, What is your opinion on those two?' The Gore level in GRAW will be similar to GR1. It will have a Teen rating though.← Teen rating implies: No gore or pools of blood siping from twitching bodies that sizzel from grenade explosion. For me it is good not to see that in a game. Nothing worse than real war let me tell you. Will you have death animations and blood impacts - yes.←Ur welcome BTW, how 'Mature' was GR1? Mature rated games can contain "content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language". While 'Teen' rated games "have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood and/or infrequent use of strong language". I don't really think the Gore in GR1 was that huge and splashy dispite the fact it was rated Mature. Maybe the rating levels are changed in these few years but to me the Teen rating discription suits GR1 just as well or maybe even more than the mature rating. Unless you can give me some real gore-effects which GR1 has, that I am overlooking. To my opinion the game didn't/doesn't need such a high Gore-level. The gameplay and realism made it so succesfull and satisfying to play as it is. On that behalf I totally believe BoGRIN on his words, "nothing worse than real war let me tell you". Edited March 27, 2006 by Toniezz Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Toniezz 0 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 (edited) On the ESRB website you can see how all titles of Ghost recon are rated now at this moment. Here you see the two diffent ratings, mature and teen. GR|AW pc isn't there yet. But we know the expected (T) rating due to the already rated GR|AW lunchbox360/XBox/PS2 and BoGRIN's reply. Just being informative here. I don't really mean anything with this post. Knowledge is junkfood to me as hamburgers are junkfood for the Americans! (no harm meant) *edit: had to 'fix' the ESRB website url. Edited March 27, 2006 by Toniezz Quote Link to post Share on other sites
simulacra 0 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 T succks, simple as that. to me the T means that the title is suitable for kiddies with an aattentionn span of 30 seconds... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sup 0 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 T succks, simple as that. to me the T means that the title is suitable for kiddies with an aattentionn span of 30 seconds... ← That's right! Ubi should make a game that literally breaks the mind of anyone under 42! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Joseph_Q 0 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 T succks, simple as that. to me the T means that the title is suitable for kiddies with an aattentionn span of 30 seconds... ← That's right! Ubi should make a game that literally breaks the mind of anyone under 42! ← Quote Link to post Share on other sites
simulacra 0 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 (edited) No, they should stop pleasing the ADHD-kids, and scared moralistic politicians. Rememeber, I wanted the EXACT same level of gore as in GR1, not like in SOF or postal. GR1 was perfect, esp. the pool of blood which made the kills look gritty and troublesome, if we can see young kids get their innards blown out of their bodies in saving private ryan for the effect of "bestiality of war" why not have a lesser but still a dramatic effect in GRAW? Have anybody here had any problems with the level of gore in GR1? The problem I'm having is that some games are rlelased as M (splinter cell 3, fsw: ten hammers) without anyone complaining about the lvl of gore, it seems people do have problems with challenging UBIsofts business decisions which are the deciding factor behind the rating. the feeling I'm getting is that politicians paint games as being the number one reason for violence among kids, ubisoft follows that fear like just for the sake of PC... Edited March 27, 2006 by simulacra Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NYR_32 6 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 No, they should stop pleasing the ADHD-kids, and scared moralistic politicians. Rememeber, I wanted the EXACT same level of gore as in GR1, not like in SOF or postal. GR1 was perfect, esp. the pool of blood which made the kills look gritty and troublesome, if we can see young kids get their innards blown out of their bodies in saving private ryan for the effect of "bestiality of war" why not have a lesser but still a dramatic effect in GRAW? Have anybody here had any problems with the level of gore in GR1? ← I didn't miss the pools of blood in LD. And that game has bodies that disappear and wound decal effects exactly the same as GR1. But yet its rated M, does that mean its for adults? GR2 SS, and GR:AW are rated T but they both have the same wound effects, so tell me the difference? How much does it really change the game? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
simulacra 0 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 I miss that particular effect yes, I have no problem with them removing the splatter, that effect fills no purpose to me, but the pool of blood does. It makes the game more dramatic without having to see limbs blown off or seing someones intestines lying around, which I for one dislike to see, mostly because it looks so fake that it's laughable... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
insane snyper 0 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 I guess I never considered GR1 to be bloody at all. Sure there was some discoloration under the bodies, but the bodies remained totally unmutilated, and the little blood splatters didnt actually splatter on stuff. But it seems to me that all along we have been telling GRIN how much we want a tactical shooter, and quite frankly explosions of gore and blood are totally 100% characteristic of action shooters. I wouldnt object to realistic death depictions, simply because I think that if we are playing a game where we are pretending to kill people, we shouldnt try to ignore the death. But I dont think gore or a lack thereof are really relevant to the gameplay at all. Whatever they do I just hope they dont make a game for the little console kiddies who like to mutilate things for fun. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lethal.Ambition 0 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Blood? Please. I could care less if the blood was colored purple. In GR you can see the blood on the body of your victim and that's all I need. I don't need to shoot someone and have blood all over my uniform. Keep it GR. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Joseph_Q 0 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 (edited) Gore level in GR1 was almost perfect. Blood splatters, blood stains on wounded soldiers uniforms, blood pools under killed enemies. Only thing that wasn't right was that explosions didnt affect body properly. Gore isnt one of most important aspects of GRAW of course, but after all this game is supposed to be realistic war simulator ... When You play flight simulator You want to see what your bullets do to enemy plane , You also want to see fire from burning engine of plane which is going down, finally you want to see this aircraft to crash on the ground with realistic explosion and smoke.... i think this is good camparision. I'm a fan of tactical shooters/infantry simulators so i want to see realistic death animations, decent ragdol and blood. I don't think this is something strange. Edited March 27, 2006 by Joseph_Q Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sup 0 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 after all this game is supposed to be realistic war simulator ... ← No it isn't. It's meant to be a tactical shooter. All that implies are tactics, and shooting. The rest is up to the individual game. However, 'simulator' isn't anywhere near what GRAW or GR1 are. There has never been a real 'infantry simulator', and the closest thing there is would be VBS1. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
whoa182 0 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 I don't really care what rating the game is, I think It's childish to moan over such a irrelevant things. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
silent_op 0 Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 after all this game is supposed to be realistic war simulator ... ← No it isn't. It's meant to be a tactical shooter. All that implies are tactics, and shooting. The rest is up to the individual game. However, 'simulator' isn't anywhere near what GRAW or GR1 are. There has never been a real 'infantry simulator', and the closest thing there is would be VBS1. ← The closest 'infantry simulator' for a mass market product would be Operation Flash Point (PC). VBS1 was never meant to be thought of as a game or to be used for entertainment. If only VBS1 did not have the huge price tag. Maybe in a way the price tag restricts the audience to serious and mature (I don't mean simply older) players. I have a feeling that the PC GR:AW will take the Ghost Recon franchise to a higher level of infantry simulator. It may not turn out to be a true simulator like VBS1, but it will be a hell of a lot closer than GR1 ever was. I'm so glad that old Rogue Spear floating reticle is finally gone...There I said it...I've been holding that in for almost 5 years. silent_op Quote Link to post Share on other sites
insane snyper 0 Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 "Customized VBS1â„¢ products and Restricted Access Modules are only sold to federal, state, and local government agencies for military, law enforcement, homeland defense, and first responder training." Real shame too, I wouldnt mind buying that. Kinda pricy, but hey, I've spent more than that on my computer to run GRAW already, not to mention the ppu. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
silent_op 0 Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 (edited) "Customized VBS1â„¢ products and Restricted Access Modules are only sold to federal, state, and local government agencies for military, law enforcement, homeland defense, and first responder training." You can buy it. There is a good sized following. Enjoy... http://www.ghostrecon.net/forums/index.php?showforum=60 silent_op Edited March 28, 2006 by silent_op Quote Link to post Share on other sites
wildbill 0 Posted March 28, 2006 Author Share Posted March 28, 2006 I don't really care what rating the game is, I think It's childish to moan over such a irrelevant things. ← I am a Ghost recon pc player, and i for one had no intention of sounding negative, or that i am moaning and groaning bout this topic. I was just wondering if this teen rating would change the amount or quality of action in this sequel, I just think teen rating sounds like they would naturally be down scaling the responses to kills and wounds do to the rating from mature to teen, or else they would just have left it as mature, in my opinion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
wildbill 0 Posted March 28, 2006 Author Share Posted March 28, 2006 vs. This has me wondering if there is going to be the level of grit and gore that made this title what it is, the game we enjoy. I'm concerned if they are going to scale back on this aspect of the game to enjoy more sales revenue. ←Please learn to use the search option people! These answers you can find at the topic 'Realistic Death animations? Blood?, What is your opinion on those two?' The Gore level in GRAW will be similar to GR1. It will have a Teen rating though.← Teen rating implies: No gore or pools of blood siping from twitching bodies that sizzel from grenade explosion. For me it is good not to see that in a game. Nothing worse than real war let me tell you. Will you have death animations and blood impacts - yes.←Ur welcome BTW, how 'Mature' was GR1? Mature rated games can contain "content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language". While 'Teen' rated games "have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood and/or infrequent use of strong language". I don't really think the Gore in GR1 was that huge and splashy dispite the fact it was rated Mature. Maybe the rating levels are changed in these few years but to me the Teen rating discription suits GR1 just as well or maybe even more than the mature rating. Unless you can give me some real gore-effects which GR1 has, that I am overlooking. To my opinion the game didn't/doesn't need such a high Gore-level. The gameplay and realism made it so succesfull and satisfying to play as it is. On that behalf I totally believe BoGRIN on his words, "nothing worse than real war let me tell you". ← oops didn't know about search.... sorry this has been covered before,my bad Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sup 0 Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 I have a feeling that the PC GR:AW will take the Ghost Recon franchise to a higher level of infantry simulator. It may not turn out to be a true simulator like VBS1, but it will be a hell of a lot closer than GR1 ever was. ← Why? GRAW doesn't want to be a sim, and neither did GR1. Plus, they really can't be. Simulating a human with a keyboard and mouse is near impossible. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
silent_op 0 Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 (edited) I have a feeling that the PC GR:AW will take the Ghost Recon franchise to a higher level of infantry simulator. It may not turn out to be a true simulator like VBS1, but it will be a hell of a lot closer than GR1 ever was. ← Why? GRAW doesn't want to be a sim, and neither did GR1. Plus, they really can't be. Simulating a human with a keyboard and mouse is near impossible. ← I'll answer your "why?" based on what we already know. Really in the end we will all have to see just how much GRIN has delivered on their promise. Just so you understand, I'm not suggesting that GR:AW is attempting to be a VBS1 or even Armed Assault, in terms of those title's degree of simulation and realism. From what I can tell based on feedback from Bo, it seems as if GR:AW will be more than GR1 ever was in the realism/simulation/tactical squad based area (even if it is based on future military gear). I, like anyone else here, can only hope that it lives up to the hype. For more information goto: http://www.ghostrecon.net/forums/index.php...topic=28051&hl= Development Teams Comments: It is really a tactical sim as you never have seen before on any format. Tactical Information: The tactical layer of the PC game is much more advanced than the console approach. We have a real-time 3d view of the battle field where you as a squad leader can see the action and plan it real time. We have four basic orders, that your teammates will execute in different ways depending on the situation. You can use group orders, individual orders, and chain orders in the tactical map. You can also develop parrallel plans, and synchronize several plans at the same time or individually. It is also possible to give orders directly in the 1st person view - it's very intuitive. By using these tools, you can flank, ambush, etc. your enemy. AI will employ tactics. This is Ghost Recon, remember? When we say “tactical shooter†we really mean it. There are several layers of thinking for the AI. The AI is tailor made to the game. The AI we created for GRAW is built from scratch and it is a very dynamic AI. It will respond to the environment, and actions by the enemy. They will actively move from cover to cover when advancing to an objective and, with waypoints, will advance to the place in the stealthiest way possible. The enemy AI will notice if they are under fire. There are three levels of AI awareness: individual, squad, and what we call mastermind that can control several squads for flanking maneuvers against the Ghosts. Next we have an exclusively designed control on the PC that makes the player immersed in the body of Captain M. We are able to control him with great accuracy for both stealth, position in in covers and shooting positions. This is what we call the advanced leaning system which allows 8 way learning, sliding and even diving into cover. Basically you've got what's called body awareness, so if you're in a cover position behind a wall you can actually see your feet, because in a real military situation if you put your foot out from behind a cover position a sniper will shoot your foot. So the idea is with body awareness when you're sliding you can actually see it even when you're playing in a first-person view. There is no jumping, although very low obstacles are automatically surmounted. You can solve each gameplay situation in the game in an unlimited amount of ways and with different tactics/approach. silent_op Edited March 28, 2006 by silent_op Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sup 0 Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 I still think you're missing the distinction between 'Tactical shooter' and 'simulation'. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
silent_op 0 Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 I still think you're missing the distinction between 'Tactical shooter' and 'simulation'. ← I see your point. This is always hard to pin down. Really we all seem to use these terms very loosely. We think we are using them correctly when labeling a game or genre of game. By their definitions, I'd say that the developer is using them correctly. As to the standards these terms are held to within the context of games, I can only say that it all depends on what the developer and the audience want to understand them as. Tell me your distinction between 'Tactical shooter' and 'simulation'. I'm open to it. silent_op Quote Link to post Share on other sites
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.