GAMESPOT REVIEW 7.8

[Moezter]

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/tomclanc...tml?sid=6149136

While the PC version of GRAW offers the most impressive and expansive campaign, the extreme system requirements and multiplayer headaches make this tactical shooter feel rougher around the edges than it should.

The Good: Campaign is exciting and challenging, even at normal difficulty; hardcore tactical shooting experience; massive, extremely detailed environments; real-time 3d tactical map is useful and flexible; amazing graphics and presentation....

The Bad: ...if your computer has a ton of horsepower; inexcusable bugs and oversights in multiplayer implementation; ai sometimes leaves something to be desired.

[babydave]

thats a pretty fair review though i dont see how they can give graphics 9 when theres no AA and most people struggle with medium settings.

a solid 7 would be better IMO....pre patch of course considering its missing half of the MP game

[Moezter]

I shoulve waited til the patch came out to get my copy. I'm playing Prince of Persia 2 and Splinter Cell pandora tomorrow instead. They came with my video card bundle and i get excellent fps on them.

Edited May 6, 2006 by Moezter

[zwitherow]

i dont see how they can give graphics 9 when theres no AA and most people struggle with medium settings.

←

that's because when you review a game, you use the proper hardware.

the same could go for any game:

"I don't understand why they rated Doom3's graphics so good when it only plays at 10 fps 640x480 on my GeForce3."

Edited May 6, 2006 by zwitherow

[NYR_32]

that's because when you review a game, you use the proper hardware.

←

To give you an idea of the kind of stress GRAW can put on your computer, the machine we tested on, a Pentium 4 2.53GHz with 1GB of RAM and a 256MB GeForce 6800 Ultra, is considered mid-spec by the game.

I know people with better setups than what they tested with.

[quiznoes]

I agree with everything they said

edit: Really guys, don't defend the game to what it really isn't... The SP is awesome fun which is the major reason I anticipated this title. But really, the uninspired MP and a good amount of bugs leaves a lot to be desired by the majority of us. I can understand what some of you are saying, but even on the highest ended hardware the framerate is still on the low side.

Quote from the review "Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter finally makes its way over to the PC, and as far as the single-player game goes, this version of the game might be the most overall impressive of all."

Edited May 6, 2006 by quiznoes

[Druac_Blaise]

Probably the best review I have seen for GR:AW so far...the 9's are bugus or they just happened to overlook everything that is unfinished about this game. Even 7.8 is high, in my opinion. I give it a 7 at best with potential to be a 9. The ONLY way it would ever get a 10 or best game of the year, etc. is if they went to a more traditional graphics setup and add everything that is missing, with bug fixes of course.

[quiznoes]

Uh oh desmond is reading the forums >< Guys, I'm just trying to express the way I feel please don't flame me

[silent_op]

Yeah, that was a fair review in deed. I'm going through a "love/hate" relationship with GR:AW. There are lots of things that I like about GR:AW and keep me wanting to go back for more. Then there are lots of things that make me feel like, "what did I just load this for?".

I want to play CO-OP (even in the sad present 4 player condition), but Game Spy is an absolute mess. I keep getting dropped after each game ends. It tells me "CD Key Was Rejected".?!?! Sometimes I just simply get dropped from the network. Typing in the chat box doesn't always work either, nothing shows up in the text window (at times). I also hate that chat window always on the screen, it should really not be there (optional only). I won't even go into the Domination stuff, because I am just not a run-n-gun adversarial player. I like the immersiveness of CO-OP (my opinion).

The SP campaign is not bad at all, it just needs more Ghost Recon 1 type ROE commands for the Tactical Map commands. The Ghosts are really not very Stealthy at all. They don't remember the meaning of "Recon". It would also help if the Ghosts would stop crossing my line of fire. Other than that they do seem to be smart in a more "realistic" way than just an all knowing and seeing AI.

However the SP campaign is one of the things that make me feel like, "what did I just load this for?". I'm a CO-OP player, and I guess I've been that way for 5 years too long to want to go back to absolute macro management of a team. I like SP, but not all the time, which is what I have to do now for any real kind of GR:AW fix. SP is just a tease for me.

GRINs, please read our TOP TEN Things to ADD post...Please.

silent_op

Edited May 6, 2006 by silent_op

[quiznoes]

>< I'm Cereal, (5 bucks to whoever knows where that came from) now I know why I don't want to even launch the game at times. I'm afraid of getting bored of the MP, which is why I try to play it the least I can

[GHOST_fatguy]

>< I'm Cereal, (5 bucks to whoever knows where that came from) now I know why I don't want to even launch the game at times. I'm afraid of getting bored of the MP, which is why I try to play it the least I can

←

Review is fair, game definitely needs some touch-ups...but man what a start! I'm in the camp that is happier they released an unfinished game then wait another month for a more polished version. I'm having a blast with the MP and COOP.

[Papa6]

that's because when you review a game, you use the proper hardware.

←

To give you an idea of the kind of stress GRAW can put on your computer, the machine we tested on, a Pentium 4 2.53GHz with 1GB of RAM and a 256MB GeForce 6800 Ultra, is considered mid-spec by the game.

I know people with better setups than what they tested with.

←

Geez, I'm running a Compaq PC with better hardware with no problems. helps when you can custom build the pc you want (except the graphiccard)

Added: I had to fork over $248 to upgrade the videocard to a ATIx1800GTO. runs smoothe now.

Edited May 6, 2006 by Papa6

[Meatwad316]

I completely agree with the review. Single player is fantastic, multiplayer is decent I suppose. The only thing holding this game back is glitches and a lack of content. There just doesn't seem to be enough of multiplayer to keep me playing it and SP will last me a while but I don't know how much I will replay it.

>< I'm Cereal, (5 bucks to whoever knows where that came from)

Al gore on South Park

[Lemartes]

I shoulve waited til the patch came out to get my copy. I'm playing Prince of Persia 2 and Splinter Cell pandora tomorrow instead. They came with my video card bundle and i get excellent fps on them.

←

agree....im disappointed in not being able to play multiplayer and the game issues.

BF2 runs fine....hell even far cry on high settings runs good...but not GRAW..

[quiznoes]

I completely agree with the review. Single player is fantastic, multiplayer is decent I suppose. The only thing holding this game back is glitches and a lack of content. There just doesn't seem to be enough of multiplayer to keep me playing it and SP will last me a while but I don't know how much I will replay it.

>< I'm Cereal, (5 bucks to whoever knows where that came from)

Al gore on South Park

←

http://www.5fingermagic.com/_images/images/fiveone.jpg

[jay316]

7.8 thats roughly in line with the grnet poll so it isnt suprising maby a bit higher than the grnet poll but not to far off. maby with a patch it will go up......

[shaBAM!]

I don't see how you guys say this game requires massive horsepower, I play this game on max settings with very, very little to no lag.

AMD 3200+

X850XT PE

2 gigs RAM

[ruggbutt]

Ok...........everyone except you.

[USMC Maggot]

I shoulve waited til the patch came out to get my copy. I'm playing Prince of Persia 2 and Splinter Cell pandora tomorrow instead. They came with my video card bundle and i get excellent fps on them.

←

Yeah thats what i am doing, i will get this game after a couple of patches are released.

[insane snyper]

I want to see some hardware guides start using this game as a benchmark. More out of an interest in the game than the hardware, but it would also be interesting to see how good a benchmark it makes.

[shaBAM!]

Ok...........everyone except you.

←

I'm having a hard time believing that.

[luger]

7.8 is a little low, maybe an 8.0 or so? Nothing higher than an 8.3, not with the game in it's current state.

They cited many bugs in the browser, all of which are true, but if anyone remembers, BF2's original browser was complete and utter crap. They patched it up and now it's fine. I expect the same with GRAW.

I've made some good choices in single player games lately. FEAR was one of the best I've ever played, I enjoyed Quake 4 a lot, and now I have GRAW. I think it will replace FEAR as my favorite "modern" single player game to date. I had plenty of oh ###### moments in FEAR, but in just the first two missions with GRAW, I've done so much planning and thinking and wow'ing and running and what not, it's just been great. The fact that I was playing and commanding other humans like in real life made the situation even better. Getting through a co-op level is a real accomplishment, and although it's frustarating at times (like when enemies spawn behind you because you've moved up a little too quick) it's still a blast. I'd give the SP alone a 9.0. The multiplayer (minus co-op, which I've had no connection problems with, then again I'm always hosting) does deserve it's rating of a 7.8, probably lower. It's a shame. I truley believe GRIN and Ubi won't abandon us though, the game can only improve from here guys.

[zwitherow]

7.8 is a little low, maybe an 8.0 or so? Nothing higher than an 8.3, not with the game in it's current state.

They cited many bugs in the browser, all of which are true, but if anyone remembers, BF2's original browser was complete and utter crap. They patched it up and now it's fine. I expect the same with GRAW.

I've made some good choices in single player games lately. FEAR was one of the best I've ever played, I enjoyed Quake 4 a lot, and now I have GRAW. I think it will replace FEAR as my favorite "modern" single player game to date. I had plenty of oh ###### moments in FEAR, but in just the first two missions with GRAW, I've done so much planning and thinking and wow'ing and running and what not, it's just been great. The fact that I was playing and commanding other humans like in real life made the situation even better. Getting through a co-op level is a real accomplishment, and although it's frustarating at times (like when enemies spawn behind you because you've moved up a little too quick) it's still a blast. I'd give the SP alone a 9.0. The multiplayer (minus co-op, which I've had no connection problems with, then again I'm always hosting) does deserve it's rating of a 7.8, probably lower. It's a shame. I truley believe GRIN and Ubi won't abandon us though, the game can only improve from here guys.

←

well said, i agree.

[Brettzies]

I'd give the SP alone a 9.0. The multiplayer (minus co-op, which I've had no connection problems with, then again I'm always hosting) does deserve it's rating of a 7.8, probably lower.

←

It's interesting that games are expected to have both robust single and multiplayer capabilites these days. It's almost unheard of for a game not to have multiplayer. So the game gets rated lower for not having a great MP? Weird. BF2 got a high rating because of its MP. Its SP isn't really SP at all, you can't earn badges, ribbons, promotions, or play large maps.

Quake4 suffered the same "ratings game" syndrome. Most said it had a great single player campaign but lackluster MP.

No one really complains about BF2's SP because it was designed for MP mostly. It's just strange is all, would GR:AW be rated even lower if it didn't have MP at all?

Anyway, this brings up another question which is probably better suited for another topic, but here it is: Is a game better off if it's designed for one or the other, MP or SP? Would an SP only FPS even be acceptable these days?

[zwitherow]

It's interesting that games are expected to have both robust single and multiplayer capabilites these days.  It's almost unheard of for a game not to have multiplayer.  So the game gets rated lower for not having a great MP?  Weird.  BF2 got a high rating because of its MP.  Its SP isn't really SP at all, you can't earn badges, ribbons, promotions, or play large maps. 

Quake4 suffered the same "ratings game" syndrome.  Most said it had a great single player campaign but lackluster MP.

No one really complains about BF2's SP because it was designed for MP mostly.  It's just strange is all, would GR:AW be rated even lower if it didn't have MP at all?

Anyway, this brings up another question which is probably better suited for another topic, but here it is:  Is a game better off if it's designed for one or the other, MP or SP?  Would an SP only FPS even be acceptable these days?

←

some good points there that i've never really thought about.

tom clancy games have a unique fanbase, in that just about as many people play SP/COOP as do MP. i would imagine this makes it much harder on the devs.