Bahger Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 For some reason we got SWAT 4 with bigger maps. No, that's not fair. The only thing they have in common is the four-man team and the on-the-fly orders system, which is, of course, the same orders system that GR1 had. Otherwise, SWAT 4 is CQB, stealth, banging down doors and entering rooms, flashbangs, rubber pellets, blah blah blah, there are hostages and the player is not supposed to use force except as a last resort. If possible, suspects surrender and you cuff them and call it in. How is that like GRAW?? By far the better version of the comparison is this: LOCKDOWN = SWAT 4 with a lobotomy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rackrunner Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 (edited) The truth? No, your opinion. Atleast they continued it. They could have just left us pc gamers with no more ghost recon. GRIN had a job to do, (NOT EASY either) Lets respect that, get together and see what WE as a WHOLE can do to help GRIN improve upon it.... GEEEZ... PS: Grippen, I thank you for your service.... The reason the job was HARD, is because they gave us way more than they needed to. The original game brought up to 2006 specs (ie: new game engine, better graphic interface) with a bunch of new maps, weapons, and camos, plus an effective anticheat would have easily breathed new life into the franchise and shut us up for another 5 years. BTW, if GRIN really cares what we think, they could still maybe commit to building something along the lines of this and release it as another title. Maybe Ghost Recon-a new beginning. or something like that. Edited May 10, 2006 by rackrunner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa6 Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 It amazes me. the MP gametype "domination" was NO secret, GRIN told you about it. 4 man squad in SP mode...Again Grin told you about it. the lighting scheme that seems to beat most peoples machines down...that one I don't know about. but i see this consistent "ooooooooooo it doesn't feel like GR1" Gimme a break, this is a different company, different game engine and different advanced Game design techniques. Sorry but gaming has advanced since GR's release years ago. I don't know exactly WHAT some of you expected, but even the screenshots should've told you that GRAW was in no way going to emulate or be GR! GRAW has numerous hiding spots, GR has a few, that are already known by everyone to the point that, where ever you are someone knows you're there. Not to mention the wall glitches, incline glitches and never changing gameplay. GRAW, you can come from so many different places that you really have to use buddy teams. domination game type sucks in that it, it forces a run n' gun game style just because of the game type.. "trying to capture points on the map." so in closing, GRAW wasn't meant to be GR, rather a successor TO GR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maltgoblin Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I don't buy that successor crap.. if they wanted to make a completely different game then they should have renamed the game something else.. because as it is it doesn't resemble the original version.. They should have just called it SWAT5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rackrunner Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 (edited) Like I said earlier, if they (GRIN) actually bother to read our posts, maybe we can possibly get them to commit to a redesign of the original, making a new game out of a classic that stays true to its roots. Edited May 10, 2006 by rackrunner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigy Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I don't buy that successor crap.. if they wanted to make a completely different game then they should have renamed the game something else.. because as it is it doesn't resemble the original version.. They should have just called it SWAT5 hmmm... what sequels out there for PC's are exactly like the first, note, I am saying SEQUELS. This is what GRAW is, isn't it? Everyone has their own taste, personally, there is no better tactical game out like it, so I continue to keep playing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBA_Bludawg Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I don't buy that successor crap.. if they wanted to make a completely different game then they should have renamed the game something else.. because as it is it doesn't resemble the original version.. They should have just called it SWAT5 hmmm... what sequels out there for PC's are exactly like the first, note, I am saying SEQUELS. This is what GRAW is, isn't it? Everyone has their own taste, personally, there is no better tactical game out like it, so I continue to keep playing. tactical= Americas Army,Flashpoint, and VBS1 by far better than graw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigy Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I don't buy that successor crap.. if they wanted to make a completely different game then they should have renamed the game something else.. because as it is it doesn't resemble the original version.. They should have just called it SWAT5 hmmm... what sequels out there for PC's are exactly like the first, note, I am saying SEQUELS. This is what GRAW is, isn't it? Everyone has their own taste, personally, there is no better tactical game out like it, so I continue to keep playing. tactical= Americas Army,Flashpoint, and VBS1 by far better than graw Cool, go play those then, I'm getting tired of people whining about how bad GRAW is, when it's really not, considering they only had one year to create it from nearly ground up. Most other games take 3 years to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa6 Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I don't buy that successor crap.. if they wanted to make a completely different game then they should have renamed the game something else.. because as it is it doesn't resemble the original version.. They should have just called it SWAT5 LMFAO!, I'm under the impression that you think this should be another GR. Excuse me kind sir...But the military tactics have changed. The weapon from GR, the OICW? it was cancelled years ago. Besides it's only a nade spam pop gun. I'm venturing to say people are more ###### because they can't run the game. Spend a little quid and upgrade! bet that'll change the mind of some... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maltgoblin Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 (edited) I'm getting tired of people whining about how bad GRAW is, when it's really not The numbers are growing as more people play it.. The test will be how long it takes GRAW to taper off on multiplayer play. People have spent a few years waiting for this game while playing GR are whining for a reason. If it's not a huge let down to you, then go play it.. meanwhile i think the rest of us oldschool GR players deserve a little more than a crappy multiplayer game. I have a RAdeon 1800 and athlon 3500,, the game still is crap Edited May 10, 2006 by maltgoblin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa6 Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 (edited) I'm getting tired of people whining about how bad GRAW is, when it's really not The numbers are growing as more people play it.. The test will be how long it takes GRAW to taper off on multiplayer play. People have spent a few years waiting for this game while playing GR are whining for a reason. If it's not a huge let down to you, then go play it.. meanwhile i think the rest of us oldschool GR players deserve a little more than a crappy multiplayer game. I have a RAdeon 1800 and athlon 3500,, the game still is crap Guess that's why mod tools will be handy.. I have an HIS ATI Radeon X1800GTO, 256MB and it runs great ALL on a Compaq custom made PC with a AMD64 3700+ 1MB L2 cache and 2GB DDR400 ram. Edited May 10, 2006 by Papa6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigy Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I'm getting tired of people whining about how bad GRAW is, when it's really not The numbers are growing as more people play it.. The test will be how long it takes GRAW to taper off on multiplayer play. People have spent a few years waiting for this game while playing GR are whining for a reason. If it's not a huge let down to you, then go play it.. meanwhile i think the rest of us oldschool GR players deserve a little more than a crappy multiplayer game. I have a RAdeon 1800 and athlon 3500,, the game still is crap I'm not so sure you understand the position that GRIN is in. They were given a deadline of 1 year to create the game, and, they are releasing a patch in June that will hopefully fix some bugs and it will add more MP game types according to GRIN. How could you have spent a few years waiting for GRAW, when it was only announced like a year ago anyways? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYR_32 Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 It wasn't started a year ago. Development started in November of 2004. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa6 Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 (edited) Ok, just over a year, like 13-14 months november 2004 to 2005 plus months to may, ok maybe a bit more than a year but still alot less than alot of games. Kudos for what came out in that amount of time Edited May 10, 2006 by Papa6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collector*AFZ* Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 The point that is being missed is that GRIN did, in fact, promise (for lack of a better word) to stay true to the original GR, which by reading everything in these forums they didn't do. If you are an SP player, or a COOP player, then the game had answered your expectations. Most of the MP players, however, have been put off for another month and must still HOPE that the forthcoming add-on will give them what they have been waiting for. I don't think, having read these forums daily forever, that GRIN was completely honest about the direction that the game was heading, and they may not have had authority to do otherwise. Either way, some are going to like it, some aren't. I'm one that can't run it, and probably won't spend the money to upgrade so that I can until I see it get fleshed out some. Not mad, just sensible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa6 Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 True, because they did agree with UBI to stay mum due to an NDA. UBI is at fault for keeping Grin Mum on what really was expected now to think of it. I think Ubisoft could've been forthright to confirm all these negative fears. But as for gaming..sometimes change is good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*CDN* 12Gauge Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Why can't you guys just look at the release as it is as a Single Player Game for now. Forget about the MP, right now its buggy and the interface/lobby systems just plain sucks. However, treating this game as a SP, then don't care about the MP, atleast until it is patched, then, if we don't get what we want, there can't be any excuses anymore. You know, the absolute superb sound, well crafted and detailed level (good for MP repawns, seige, or C&C type games)( with multiple paths and elevations in every map it will be difficult to "clear" a map zone and advance in a LMS no-respawn type game.) and graphics that are ... growing .. on me (wonder what they will be like on a x1900xt) I think there is promise here. I have the game, am very frustrated attempting to play consecutive MP games, but I don't consider it a total waste ... yet. But I will wait for the "finished" game before I render a final verdict. This game, for me, is not comparable to [GR] until I can play in a TvT LMS no respawn, first to 5 ladder match with any number of other like minded clans on a vibrant gaming ladder league, just like I did with GR. For now I am actually enjoying SP quite a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logos Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Yes here we go again.. the game is good.. BUT you are all saying it needs some modders work.. can you see the ironi? The game that [GR] is and was in our minds is not the game that shipped on that first CD release. The greatness of [GR] came with patches, expansions, and modding support. That's the irony here -- people claiming that GR:AW isn't what [GR] was when [GR] wasn't even what [GR] was at release. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logos Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Yep but for the hardware at the time it ran very well, whether you had a high or low spec machine Wrong. It would not run "very well" on a low-end machine. You weren't running [GR] on a lowend machine back then at high resolutions and all the effects turned on. When I made the move from single-player to multi-player, I upgraded to a Ti4200 so I could run at decent resolutions. That was a couple of years after the game came out, and I still wasn't running at insane resolutions. I'm sure the midrange at the time of release was put to the test by that game. That Ti4200 was a midrange card. Current midrange cards, not the midrange cards you bought 18 months ago, that's CURRENT midrange cards run GR:AW well. I'm running it acceptably with late 2004's midrange -- the 6600GT. Upgrade your systems. It's time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logos Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 The point that is being missed is that GRIN did, in fact, promise (for lack of a better word) to stay true to the original GR, This is such a ridiculously subjective idea that's there no way GRIN could satisfy it because no two people would agree on what TRUE TO THE ORIGINAL entails. What does it mean?? The gameplay is exactly the same? Or my favorite -- gameplay like GR, only on an updated engine -- which = NOT LIKE [GR]. I really am starting to think that most of the incessant complainers would have only been satisfied by the same exact gameplay with current graphics, which it was NEVER going to be. BTW, so as not to impune everyone who has offered negative criticism, let me be clear, by "incessant complainers", I mean those people who repeatedly state/indicate that they've written the game off, yet for some reason feel the need to stay around and complain further. If you've written it off, take the next logical step. Don't waste any more time on this utter failure. We can't be saved. Leave us to suffer in our blind fanboism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightspeed Posted May 10, 2006 Author Share Posted May 10, 2006 (edited) OK, perhaps I was a little harsh with GRIN, and particularly the SP campaign. I was extremely fired up after the MP fiasco, and started to pick apart all aspects of this release. The SP is good, and you can see that GRIN has clearly put in a big effort with the city creation and campaigns. Turn it into a COOP, and obviously still being the same Campaigns, it is even better. I still think there are elements missing in this which were great in [GR] like the ability to switch players, the use of multiple teams, and a wider of map terrains. But, GRIN have still created their innovative version of the new installment and kudos for that. Its the fact that we wait so long for this game to hit the shelves and when it does, its clearly not ready and missing a lot of the components that the GR diehards asked for years ago. Sure, their might be a lot promised in follow-up patches, but the missing componenets should never have had to patched in...they should have been there from the beginning. If I pay $100AUS and upgrade a computer system at a cost of arond $1000AUS, I expect to get a game that is ready. Bitching and moaning I am not......just giving my last word, opinion, whateva u want to call it - on the game that I waited years for. And Im also adding the comment to those that have not yet bought this game, hold onto your money until a patch does fix it, because it is still a 'work in progress'. Oh and for those who wish to argue about my claim that [GR] only had variety in maps after expansion packs, take a look at [GR] without expansions: POW Camp Caves Farm Railroad Bridge Village MBC Castle (day and night) River Battlefield Swamp Vilnius Docks Docks Night Airbase RedSquare Mountain Valley Trainwreck Night Battle (19 quality and hugely varied maps - no expansions) TY GGZ Edited May 10, 2006 by PoW_LigHtsPeEd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enven Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Lightspeed; you pretty much spoke for every person who played gr from the get-go. Anyone who is anyone knows (in fact!) that gr:aw was a big upset...If you notice the people defending..Most are new to gr..and do not understand how amazing [GR] was...and what we as a community were hoping for... It was a big upset..and to be honest...I a more than disenfranchised by the entire ordeal. [GR] as a 'raw' whole...amazing..The game was jam packed with everything from the start..Load-outs/gameplay styles from coop to mp/sp modes!! an SDK/MOD/MAP TOOLS!! EVERYTHING!!!! grin/ubi ruined this..I wonder what would have happened if redstorm did graw... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage-nl Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 I just hope that the patch with solve all the problems and if not there is no excuse, like some other people said before me in this topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggy. Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 grin/ubi ruined this..I wonder what would have happened if redstorm did graw... you'd have have GRAW- 360's version.... they would have just ported it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babydave Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 (edited) Wrong. It would not run "very well" on a low-end machine id call a P3 500 with a geforce 2 a low end machine. i had a 4600 that was overkill for [GR]. and i dont think its time to upgrade, definately not because of one unopitimized game. theres plenty of people with high end rigs that have exac tly the same problems. why would i pay 200 pounds so i could gain maybe 20fps? Edited May 10, 2006 by babydave 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.