Lightspeed's last words

[slipRock]

Yes, it's quite clear that GRIN weren't allowed to finish their game. I'm sure they aren't entirely happy with it either in it's current shape. But considering it's been in development only about 18 months(I think this is correct?), and that the GRIN team is relatively small, I think they have done a good job. Of course they could have delayed the game another month or two, but then people would've been cancelling their orders because of that instead.

I don't think that they've been sitting around in the GRIN HQ rolling their thumbs these past few months, just waiting for their holiday. I'm guessing that UBI decided that focus should be put on finishing the SP part of the game, and the SP part is very good imo.

I do think that GRIN will support their game and that we will se some great things in the upcoming patches/addons. So... And some day GRAW will be a worthy successor to [GR], of this I am sure, because this game has alot of potential.

[ZJJ]

Where do you people live that you can return computer games/software? I've never been to a store where they will accept opened software.

In the US, it is against copyright regulations to return opened software (games, music, etc.). You can get an exchange for the same title if the software was damaged.

All this came about because of people ripping off the system by buying software, copying it and then returning it. Piracy really gets on my nerves.

[JASGripen]

Gripen, you're pretty much a fanboi. You refuse to see that this game has serious issues. Your "I am happy with no lag" comment shows that as long as it doesn't affect you it doesn't matter. That's whats wrong with this "new" GR community. In the old days people banded together to make needed changes to GR. I know alot of squads that didn't play coop but they stood behind the coop guys every step of the way cuz that's how the community was.

It isn't that way anymore. Too many kiddies who are looking for instant gratification. The"as long as it affects someone else it's ok" attitude is BS.

You can call me whatever you like. I do see the issues in the game, especially the MP-part. I have posted constructive posts about these very issues too. But guess what, I do not whine about it. I trust the patching will be made as attention has reached the devs. IMO GRAW is far better unpatched than GR was. How you trawl Ubi.com, man it is pathetic; you call me a “Fanboi” [sic] as I don’t suffer not so constructive whiners gladly. Fine. I have played the game from the start, so you don't get any where with your old school GR attitude. I have wasted so much time on MP-gaming GR, but I do not brag about it. As you have directed your post towards me. I think you draw pretty funny conclusions about "kiddies". Let me put it straight, I have played GR from start, got the T-shirt, I am 36 years old with two kids, a PhD, done a Mission abroad, and works with Military Operations at a military college. I leave the soap box to you after this, especially at ubi were you are the champ.

[Bahger]

Singleplayer only: I've played through GR1 and all its add-ons and enjoyed it hugely but GRAW is better.

- The SP campaign is no more linear or scripted than GR1's.

- More reactive enemy AI makes tactics like flanking and suppression much more viable and realistic than in GR1, where enemies basically stood and waited until you popped 'em. Unlike in GR1, there is a certain amount of randomization of enemy placement/tactics, sometimes dictated by the player's actions.

- The weapon choices may be limited, but this is intended to represent a realistic tactical loadout for the mission-types presented. MP is a different matter, but in a SP campaign dedicated to realism, why would I want to use an AK-47? This range of choices represent what a rl US special forces team might have available in the field.

- Controlling your four-man squad is not a pain in the ass and squad management has evolved considerably from GR1. In GRAW your squad will find cover and move from cover-to-cover with appropriate "Follow" orders. The limitations of buddy AI in GR1 dictated a need to babysit teams, which many people on these forums mistake for fine control. By contrast, GRAW invites you to let them fend for themselves but two conditions apply: Your orders have to be tactically sound and you need to adapt to a slower and more deliberate style of gameplay that reflects the odds involved with a four-man covert team taking on multiple platoons of rebel forces plus armor. It's as simple as this: GR1 was more of a light infantry sim where GRAW is more like SAS/Delta, i.e. highly outnumbered manpower-wise, with tactical compensation provided by force multipliers like air support and advanced comms. The player needs better situational awareness than he did in GR1 because the threats are more versatile, random and lethal. GRAW's buddy AI is not perfect but I've seen them use frags, secondaries and M203s, they run for cover on their own intitiative and they are much more "corner aware" than friendly AI in any other comparable game.

- The maps are superb, just as GR1's were five years ago. Advances over GR1 here include more verticality (you have to watch the rooftops for snipers), a much greater draw distance, a wider range of cover objects and superb implementation of destructable elements in the environment.

Here are a few other areas in which GRAW excels, for those with the inclination to approach the game with an open mind:

- State-of the-art graphics: I'm no longer bothered by the jaggies, sorry.

- The game runs flawlessly on my mid-range system and has never crashed.

- Great weapon modelling.

- Fantastic sound quality.

- Very high production values across the board.

- Excellent physics that include the promised "body awareness" concept, which, unlike GR1 or most FPS games, makes you feel like an infantryman who has to move and fire subject to his own realistic physical limitations rather than a disembodied, floating specter with a recticle.

- Really strong mission design, with a great deal of variability, tactical realism and spectacle. The interaction with allied forces in some of the missions, such as the convoy and its support team in Mission #3 is very intelligent and adds to immersion, it's not the old "your four guys against the world". And as for the save-point feature, somebody on the Ubi forum wrote that this is what designers use to disguise thin content. He couldn't be more wrong. In a glitchy game with wrongheaded or goofy mission design, this feature is intolerable. In a great sp game like GRAW, however, it's there to compel the player to use appropriate tactics and caution, something that even the most tactics-driven player will not do if salvation is only as far away as the F5 key. In a game that "plays fair" -- like the original Rainbow Six games -- (i.e. no excessive glitchiness or bad mission design) save-points are totally reasonable IMO and, as I say, impose a tactical challenge upon the player that could not be met without such a system. The save-points are very well distributed in GRAW and represent a good compromise between creating tension and rewarding achievement. Again, this cannot be appreciated without a much less caffeinated style of gameplay.

I hate the childish gamer-geek appellation "fanboi" almost as much as it irks me to see people calling what they don't like "gay". But go ahead and call me a "fanboi" if you want, when in fact I'm just an appreciative -- and discerning -- consumer of GRIN's product. I genuinely regret the issues some of the negative posters have had with the game and I cannot yet comment on MP although I'm an experienced MP gamer and will try it. As far as SP is concerned, however, GRAW is not perfect but it's by far the best and most ambitious tac-shooter I've ever played and I've played 'em all.

Edited May 9, 2006 by Bahger

[WytchDokta]

Woo, this is gettin' hot!!

[calius]

Fanboy (Boi !? ) = Happy with game to the point of defending anything remotely negative towards it with such passion its being unrealistic & attack negative posters too quick & even have a bash at highlighted bad points of positive posters.

Negative Posters = Make the point of the bad while NEVER speak of ANY good and then flame people who are Fanboys or Postive Posters.

Positive Posters = People who may say bad of "one area" then chip in with ways to make it better and balance that with comments of areas they do like of "another area" and undertand Negative posters comments or ignore them (untill its hard to ignore ) 7 the same view with Fanboys.

Calius = Patronising, commitment issues, and in some cases no better than any of the above.

[newman]

Awesome Post Bahger!

[CkZWarlord]

I hope everyone hasn't got the "too much info before the release" syndrome.....as I call it. Also known as "Online media burnout". It happened to me when I was looking up everything and anything before the movie: Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones came out. It ruined the movie for me....I hated it......

Keep it in mind.........

No that movie in fact was crap... didn't have the Star Wars thing going on like GR:AW hasn't

got the GR thing going on...

[Judge_Recluse]

Singleplayer only: I've played through GR1 and all its add-ons and enjoyed it hugely but GRAW is better.

- The SP campaign is no more linear or scripted than GR1's.

- More reactive enemy AI makes tactics like flanking and suppression much more viable and realistic than in GR1, where enemies basically stood and waited until you popped 'em. Unlike in GR1, there is a certain amount of randomization of enemy placement/tactics, sometimes dictated by the player's actions.

- The weapon choices may be limited, but this is intended to represent a realistic tactical loadout for the mission-types presented. MP is a different matter, but in a SP campaign dedicated to realism, why would I want to use an AK-47? This range of choices represent what a rl US special forces team might have available in the field.

- Controlling your four-man squad is not a pain in the ass and squad management has evolved considerably from GR1. In GRAW your squad will find cover and move from cover-to-cover with appropriate "Follow" orders. The limitations of buddy AI in GR1 dictated a need to babysit teams, which many people on these forums mistake for fine control. By contrast, GRAW invites you to let them fend for themselves but two conditions apply: Your orders have to be tactically sound and you need to adapt to a slower and more deliberate style of gameplay that reflects the odds involved with a four-man covert team taking on multiple platoons of rebel forces plus armor. It's as simple as this: GR1 was more of a light infantry sim where GRAW is more like SAS/Delta, i.e. highly outnumbered manpower-wise, with tactical compensation provided by force multipliers like air support and advanced comms. The player needs better situational awareness than he did in GR1 because the threats are more versatile, random and lethal. GRAW's buddy AI is not perfect but I've seen them use frags, secondaries and M203s, they run for cover on their own intitiative and they are much more "corner aware" than friendly AI in any other comparable game.

- The maps are superb, just as GR1's were five years ago. Advances over GR1 here include more verticality (you have to watch the rooftops for snipers), a much greater draw distance, a wider range of cover objects and superb implementation of destructable elements in the environment.

Here are a few other areas in which GRAW excels, for those with the inclination to approach the game with an open mind:

- State-of the-art graphics: I'm no longer bothered by the jaggies, sorry.

- The game runs flawlessly on my mid-range system and has never crashed.

- Great weapon modelling.

- Fantastic sound quality.

- Very high production values across the board.

- Excellent physics that include the promised "body awareness" concept, which, unlike GR1 or most FPS games, makes you feel like an infantryman who has to move and fire subject to his own realistic physical limitations rather than a disembodied, floating specter with a recticle.

- Really strong mission design, with a great deal of variability, tactical realism and spectacle. The interaction with allied forces in some of the missions, such as the convoy and its support team in Mission #3 is very intelligent and adds to immersion, it's not the old "your four guys against the world". And as for the save-point feature, somebody on the Ubi forum wrote that this is what designers use to disguise thin content. He couldn't be more wrong. In a glitchy game with wrongheaded or goofy mission design, this feature is intolerable. In a great sp game like GRAW, however, it's there to compel the player to use appropriate tactics and caution, something that even the most tactics-driven player will not do if salvation is only as far away as the F5 key. In a game that "plays fair" -- like the original Rainbow Six games -- (i.e. no excessive glitchiness or bad mission design) save-points are totally reasonable IMO and, as I say, impose a tactical challenge upon the player that could not be met without such a system. The save-points are very well distributed in GRAW and represent a good compromise between creating tension and rewarding achievement. Again, this cannot be appreciated without a much less caffeinated style of gameplay.

I hate the childish gamer-geek appellation "fanboi" almost as much as it irks me to see people calling what they don't like "gay". But go ahead and call me a "fanboi" if you want, when in fact I'm just an appreciative -- and discerning -- consumer of GRIN's product. I genuinely regret the issues some of the negative posters have had with the game and I cannot yet comment on MP although I'm an experienced MP gamer and will try it. As far as SP is concerned, however, GRAW is not perfect but it's by far the best and most ambitious tac-shooter I've ever played and I've played 'em all.

I agree with every Paragraph, sentence, and word in this post. Thank you for saving me the time of having to type it all myself

I dont find GRAW flawless, in fact there are a few things I would like to see fixed. But overall this game is exactly what it says it is.

[RuTHlezz1]

Singleplayer only: I've played through GR1 and all its add-ons and enjoyed it hugely but GRAW is better.

- The SP campaign is no more linear or scripted than GR1's.

- More reactive enemy AI makes tactics like flanking and suppression much more viable and realistic than in GR1, where enemies basically stood and waited until you popped 'em. Unlike in GR1, there is a certain amount of randomization of enemy placement/tactics, sometimes dictated by the player's actions.

- The weapon choices may be limited, but this is intended to represent a realistic tactical loadout for the mission-types presented. MP is a different matter, but in a SP campaign dedicated to realism, why would I want to use an AK-47? This range of choices represent what a rl US special forces team might have available in the field.

- Controlling your four-man squad is not a pain in the ass and squad management has evolved considerably from GR1. In GRAW your squad will find cover and move from cover-to-cover with appropriate "Follow" orders. The limitations of buddy AI in GR1 dictated a need to babysit teams, which many people on these forums mistake for fine control. By contrast, GRAW invites you to let them fend for themselves but two conditions apply: Your orders have to be tactically sound and you need to adapt to a slower and more deliberate style of gameplay that reflects the odds involved with a four-man covert team taking on multiple platoons of rebel forces plus armor. It's as simple as this: GR1 was more of a light infantry sim where GRAW is more like SAS/Delta, i.e. highly outnumbered manpower-wise, with tactical compensation provided by force multipliers like air support and advanced comms. The player needs better situational awareness than he did in GR1 because the threats are more versatile, random and lethal. GRAW's buddy AI is not perfect but I've seen them use frags, secondaries and M203s, they run for cover on their own intitiative and they are much more "corner aware" than friendly AI in any other comparable game.

- The maps are superb, just as GR1's were five years ago. Advances over GR1 here include more verticality (you have to watch the rooftops for snipers), a much greater draw distance, a wider range of cover objects and superb implementation of destructable elements in the environment.

Here are a few other areas in which GRAW excels, for those with the inclination to approach the game with an open mind:

- State-of the-art graphics: I'm no longer bothered by the jaggies, sorry.

- The game runs flawlessly on my mid-range system and has never crashed.

- Great weapon modelling.

- Fantastic sound quality.

- Very high production values across the board.

- Excellent physics that include the promised "body awareness" concept, which, unlike GR1 or most FPS games, makes you feel like an infantryman who has to move and fire subject to his own realistic physical limitations rather than a disembodied, floating specter with a recticle.

- Really strong mission design, with a great deal of variability, tactical realism and spectacle. The interaction with allied forces in some of the missions, such as the convoy and its support team in Mission #3 is very intelligent and adds to immersion, it's not the old "your four guys against the world". And as for the save-point feature, somebody on the Ubi forum wrote that this is what designers use to disguise thin content. He couldn't be more wrong. In a glitchy game with wrongheaded or goofy mission design, this feature is intolerable. In a great sp game like GRAW, however, it's there to compel the player to use appropriate tactics and caution, something that even the most tactics-driven player will not do if salvation is only as far away as the F5 key. In a game that "plays fair" -- like the original Rainbow Six games -- (i.e. no excessive glitchiness or bad mission design) save-points are totally reasonable IMO and, as I say, impose a tactical challenge upon the player that could not be met without such a system. The save-points are very well distributed in GRAW and represent a good compromise between creating tension and rewarding achievement. Again, this cannot be appreciated without a much less caffeinated style of gameplay.

I hate the childish gamer-geek appellation "fanboi" almost as much as it irks me to see people calling what they don't like "gay". But go ahead and call me a "fanboi" if you want, when in fact I'm just an appreciative -- and discerning -- consumer of GRIN's product. I genuinely regret the issues some of the negative posters have had with the game and I cannot yet comment on MP although I'm an experienced MP gamer and will try it. As far as SP is concerned, however, GRAW is not perfect but it's by far the best and most ambitious tac-shooter I've ever played and I've played 'em all.

I agree with every Paragraph, sentence, and word in this post. Thank you for saving me the time of having to type it all myself

I dont find GRAW flawless, in fact there are a few things I would like to see fixed. But overall this game is exactly what it says it is.

Yup great post man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It’s funny to me how everyone bashed the GRAW demo, it seems they forgot the bug in the GR1 demo that would blue screen your PC.

Does GRAW have issues, Yes without a doubt and a lot of them will be fixed next month. When we get our sandbox editor we will have more field, mountain, desert and swamp maps than you can shake a stick at. Hopefully when we get the editor and see how the modding will go we can start to make new game types like we did with GR and if all goes well we will get our 3DSM pluggins as well.

[ruggbutt]

Yes without a doubt and a lot of them will be fixed next month.

If it doesn't happen I'm gonna remind you not to assume anything.

[tangovictor]

Woo, this is gettin' hot!!

LOL - some people can make my day with the most simplistic humor posts.... bravo!

[jay316]

In the US, it is against copyright regulations to return opened software (games, music, etc.). You can get an exchange for the same title if the software was damaged.

All this came about because of people ripping off the system by buying software, copying it and then returning it. Piracy really gets on my nerves.

Looks like all you guys who planned to return your GRAW PC games are out of luck, guess all you can do is write a letter to ubi, but who knows if that would do anything.

[FA sear]

who ever buys a game for sp only is missing alot and has no right to really even post here.

That has to be one of the most ignorant posts made. So then SP and COOP people shouldn't careless of we get more MP modes? Just so that you get it right, everyone who runs GR has a right to post here.

[Bahger]

who ever buys a game for sp only is missing alot and has no right to really even post here.

That has to be one of the most ignorant posts made. So then SP and COOP people shouldn't care less of we get more MP modes? Just so that you get it right, everyone who runs GR has a right to post here.

Yeah, I had to reread that statement just to reassure myself that he had in fact written what I thought he did. And then he follows it up with another gem:

Should have just put old GR on this engine and not touched a thing and we would all be in heaven.

That kind of enlightened sentiment is bound to motivate the devs to work even harder on the patch.

[Trident-za]

Bahger, your "analysis" of GRAW is spot on and I agree 100% with every sentence of your post.

It is, obviously, important for mod tools and MP modes to be sorted as fast as possible, though.

[Logos]

As far as SP is concerned, however, GRAW is not perfect but it's by far the best and most ambitious tac-shooter I've ever played and I've played 'em all.

Truth. And nice post.

Also, people should remember that drivers are frequently optimized with specific games in mind. As we sit here and talk about what GRIN needs to do, we should recognize the ATI and NVidia might give us a boost here in the future, as well.

[chilly-willy]

I agree on the linearity part of lightspeeds post to some extent, the first time I got the "leaving the mission area" warning in SP i was stunned. Here is this expansive city laid out before me offering me a number of different approches but I was forced to choose from only a few. Not what I was expecting.

I'm still 100% pleased with the game though, I would just like to see this issue removed or addressed in any expansions.

Edited May 9, 2006 by chilly-willy

[REC0N]

Blah blah.. blah blah blah.. ok so you find GRAW as a marvels game, so do I in many areas. (Forexample I really like the atmosphere in the game very much and the movement).

But in my world you only give good credit for the whole package, not the half.

Therefor its just incredible how people react when some are negative about game, because please let us all admit this game IS full of flaws and missings.

And have you ever have heard about the term called "what is spoken about is bad, what isnt is good".

And seriously COME ON the [Ghost Recon] game was so far ahead of any military tactical shooters of its time. GRAW isnt. Many of the awesome features in the [GR] have even bin pulled out and have not bin replaced whit even better ones.

And lets all remember GRAW should be aiming at the Tactical Realistic Gamers, not the avarage ones, we already have a dusin games like BF2, BlackHawkDown and ect. ect.

And GRAW has become more avarage. Forexample you can now take three hits even one in the face whitout dying, and thats b-o-l-l-o-c-k-s.

We all are just crying for a game that has it all, Realism, Tactics and a long lasting gameplay.

(I dont give me that responce "if you want realism join the army", NO war sucks thats why I play video games).

Really what do we have to do, before we will have a game that even gets close to the [Ghost Recon]?.

Ok GRAW has potential, but it just left me whit that" Woohoo - Ouch" feeling.

Anyways I'm not saying I want a second Ghost Recon, I want a worthy follower that has moved even further than the [Ghost Recon], not only the half way.

But I'll end this by thanking GRIN for trying the best and hope that some of the future expansions and patches will make this game more likeable.

Blah blah out!

Bring back the "CLASSiCS"

Edited May 9, 2006 by REC0N

[KRP 56]

Its a sad moment after such a long wait. Those looking for the next installment...its not here.

I realized that after about my 3rd go around with the demo. Then when I found out how many great aspects of the [GR] were left out of the retail version of GRAW I knew I wasn't going to waste $50 on something that offered so little.

[Logos]

I also wanted to post a little reminder for those who seem to be upset that this game can't be handled by their systems or can't give them the framerates they want. I'm sure everyone is familiar with the hallowed Half-life 2 as many have been comparing GR:AW to it. Anyone out there remember this from 2004:

Note the NVidia 5900 getting outperformed by the lowly, half-as-expensive ATI 9600, and that's with a mixed mode that Valve had to write specifically for NVidia, AFTER the game was near the end of development.

Those different DX paths that HL2 has? Check this:

Guess the 5900 isn't that great with DX9, even after Valve wrote in new code especially for it. Maybe that's why it won't work with GR:AW.

New games tax old hardware. This is a new game. Give it time. The devs are at work.

[Logos]

And seriously COME ON the [Ghost Recon] game was so far ahead of any military tactical shooters of its time. GRAW isnt.

Was it? Was it that much better than Rogue Spear at its release? Rogue Spear was pretty freakin' sweet.

[GR] was the best, don't get me wrong, but people talk about it like nothing had ever been seen before that was like it, and I don't know if that's the case.

Really what do we have to do, before we will have a game that even gets close to the [Ghost Recon]?

Anyways I'm not saying I want a second Ghost Recon....

[REC0N]

And seriously COME ON the [Ghost Recon] game was so far ahead of any military tactical shooters of its time. GRAW isnt.

Was it? Was it that much better than Rogue Spear at its release? Rogue Spear was pretty freakin' sweet.

[GR] was the best, don't get me wrong, but people talk about it like nothing had ever been seen before that was like it, and I don't know if that's the case.

Rogue Spear was CQB.

And yes it was a pretty sweet game.

Edited May 9, 2006 by REC0N

[Bahger]

Thanks for your support, Newman, Recluse, RuTHlezz, Trident and Logos, glad not be a lonely voice in the desert.

Trident-za, you are right, the mp and mod situation needs to be sorted. As with every PC game of its era, GR1's roots are in single-player gaming, as this was the only available mode for most people until about five years ago when broadband was adopted widely enough for multiplayer to become big business. Since then, many games have been built for mp, like the BATTLEFIELD series, but just as CSS's roots are in HALF-LIFE sp and SPLINTER CELL'S superb S vs M mp concept was launched only when the sp game took off, GR's longevity as an mp game can be traced back to very solid sp concept and execution. The sp game is the laboratory, the engine, and GRAW's is a Ferrari. Sometimes, an innovative concept needs to be executed in sp first just to acclimatise the audience to the game's unique or challenging gameplay qualities; it's impossible to imagine SWAT or the BROTHERS IN ARMS series (which I love) as having either a commercially successful or a creatively exciting mp concept without having proven itself in sp first. That's why we have to let the devs give priority to their Domination mode and support it as best we can; if we refuse to allow people the freedom to innovate we'd always be ending up with different, more boring, if better executed versions of the same thing.

Having said all that I'd be annoyed, too, if I were a dedicated clan gamer faced with GRAW's current administrative, game-style and playability limitations in mp but I think GRIN must have been under huge corporate pressure from Ubi to make the release date, which is essentially the launch of the flagship, the singleplayer game. In the end, they produced a superlative sp game and set to work on an mp patch before it even hit the stores. Surely we are more fortunate to be able to anticipate the possibility of an mp game that lives up to the high standards set by its sp predecessor rather than have to live with a mediocre sp experience whose mp version, while more playable than GRAW'S currently is, more wide-ranging and delivered on time, lacks the kind of innovation and creative ambition to be found in GRAW sp. That's what CLOSE COMBAT - FIRST TO FIGHT was. Having set the bar as high as they have in sp, it's reasonable to assume that the devs want to deliver to that level in mp. I'm not saying it's guaranteed that they will deliver, but they might; even then, though, some people will complain that it's not GR1 with a glitzy graphical overlay and there will be those, too, who will want to play it like CSS and when they cannot, it will be the devs' fault for letting them down. Some of the clan diehards here are just going to have to live with a more innovative and ambitious development mentality on the part of GRAW's devs; these are talented, ambitious guys with a strong concept and a well-defined point of view. They didn't sign up to do a GR1 port for modern technology and we are going to have to meet them in the middle.

[REC0N]

Thanks for your support, Newman, Recluse, RuTHlezz, Trident and Logos, glad not be a lonely voice in the desert.

Trident-za, you are right, the mp and mod situation needs to be sorted. As with every PC game of its era, GR1's roots are in single-player gaming, as this was the only available mode for most people until about five years ago when broadband was adopted widely enough for multiplayer to become big business. Since then, many games have been built for mp, like the BATTLEFIELD series, but just as CSS's roots are in HALF-LIFE sp and SPLINTER CELL'S superb S vs M mp concept was launched only when the sp game took off, GR's longevity as an mp game can be traced back to very solid sp concept and execution. The sp game is the laboratory, the engine, and GRAW's is a Ferrari. Sometimes, an innovative concept needs to be executed in sp first just to acclimatise the audience to the game's unique or challenging gameplay qualities; it's impossible to imagine SWAT or the BROTHERS IN ARMS series (which I love) as having either a commercially successful or a creatively exciting mp concept without having proven itself in sp first. That's why we have to let the devs give priority to their Domination mode and support it as best we can; if we refuse to allow people the freedom to innovate we'd always be ending up with different, more boring, if better executed versions of the same thing.

Having said all that I'd be annoyed, too, if I were a dedicated clan gamer faced with GRAW's current administrative, game-style and playability limitations in mp but I think GRIN must have been under huge corporate pressure from Ubi to make the release date, which is essentially the launch of the flagship, the singleplayer game. In the end, they produced a superlative sp game and set to work on an mp patch before it even hit the stores. Surely we are more fortunate to be able to anticipate the possibility of an mp game that lives up to the high standards set by its sp predecessor rather than have to live with a mediocre sp experience whose mp version, while more playable than GRAW'S currently is, more wide-ranging and delivered on time, lacks the kind of innovation and creative ambition to be found in GRAW sp. That's what CLOSE COMBAT - FIRST TO FIGHT was. Having set the bar as high as they have in sp, it's reasonable to assume that the devs want to deliver to that level in mp. I'm not saying it's guaranteed that they will deliver, but they might; even then, though, some people will complain that it's not GR1 with a glitzy graphical overlay and there will be those, too, who will want to play it like CSS and when they cannot, it will be the devs' fault for letting them down. Some of the clan diehards here are just going to have to live with a more innovative and ambitious development mentality on the part of GRAW's devs; these are talented, ambitious guys with a strong concept and a well-defined point of view. They didn't sign up to do a GR1 port for modern technology and we are going to have to meet them in the middle.

Yes GRIN has obiviosly bin under alot of presure from us and UBI Softs time limit, but that doest mean we shall all clap in our hands and thank "god" for what we get. end of story.

I know it might sound a bit harsh but really, we are getting alot of crap games in these dark times where the consoles have the priority.

Edited May 9, 2006 by REC0N