Jump to content

my faith is waning on GRAW


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wine is not made in a day, nor was the China wall, both take time.

That's an interesting analogy, and one I'd like to work.

GR1 evolved over a period time to develop a winning formula. Just like a wine, it was tried, tested, incorporated feedback, added a few ingredients, matured and eventually we ended up with a winner. It had the perfect palate, was long lasting, and people have stayed with the formula for many years.

Imagine the cost to the viticulturist if he decided to remove certain tannins, add more oakiness. The product then becomes nothing like the original, which has been served to the same audience for many years. Some would consider it a seasonal grape error, and would try again, but eventually they would see that it has lost all the essence that appealed to them for many years, and would go find a new wine.

It's the subtle changes that can make the difference. A new label, a different shaped bottle. Exactly the same wine, but with a new look. And this would only be done with extensive market research and careful weighing up on potential risks.

And this is where I feel things have gone wrong, or are rapidly heading towards.

We've not only got the new bottle and label (graphics engine and name), but the decision has been made to change some of the ingredients. I've read comments from Grin such as "It's time to move forward" (or words to that effect), and to a degree they are right. I just feel they've moved too far forward, and sacrificed too many of the key elements that have kept us coming back for more.

I have said, and seen echoed, "Gimme GR1 with new graphics!". Why change a winning formula?

Sure, add a few subtle pieces, but if it continues to look like GR1, smell like GR1 and taste like GR1, then we'll get many years of enjoyment on something that is a better GR1!

P.S - I'm a Pinot Nois lover, does it show? o.O

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't begin to dispute the sage comments set forth in this discussion, especially those regarding the maturation process of a classic like GR1, and the need for a similar process for GRAW....

But, I would offer one critical observation of this parallel to the developer group...

GR1 was playable, effective and stable from the first day I popped the CD in and installed it.

That bought the developers a world of time to make improvements, fix those nasty bugs, and concentrate on delivering new mods and features.

To date, that hasn't been the case with GRAW. Gamers by and large will be content with less content to start, if the platorm is robust and stable. Add to that the bonus of mod-ability and scripting, and the developers have even more time to deliver to an already largely happy fan-base.

As I've stated in another thread, UBI/GRIN seems to have failed to learn from the successes of the past.

First, UBI literally slapped the PC community in the face with the withdrawl of GR2... (sorry gang.... you just don't matter...) then, they forced what, IMHO opinion, is at best a very good beta version on the public, with full trumpets and fanfare, proclaiming it to be the rightful successor to the GR throne.

UBI/GRIN KNEW ahead of time that modability was a tremendous requirement for this game, and the amount of play centered around team coop/mission tournaments in GR1 would have been enough for a blind man to see what the fan base wanted. Multiple MP game types were also a requirement. A large number of the GR players got very used to those CTF, LMS, etc. MP styles of playing.

GRAW MP delivered a multiplayer game like BattleField2, only without unlimited respawns, big maps, vehicles, multi-level maps (sorry boys... stairs just don't cut it), smooth graphics, good performance.... I better stop... BF 2 is starting to sound good again... :wacko:

And communications to the userbase is something of a joke.... the only news updates on the Ghostrecon.com are for the xbox 360, with no current news to speak of for the pc gang. I get more up to date intel on GRAW on THIS site, than I do on their own site.

I will commend some of the dev guys at GRIN for their participation in the forums on this site. It's a good gesture of faith, and my hat's off to you guys.

But again, I challenge you to listen to what the fan base is REALLY saying... sure there's a lot of requests for one game type or another, anti-cheat, etc... but at the end of the day, what's the point in adding this stuff if 80% of your potential customer base can't play the stinkin' game? In business speak, that's called developing to a niche market, and if you're gonna give up volume, you sure better beef up your margins...

And like always, nothing stays in a vacuum... if YOU don't make GRAW the game the public needs it to be, someone else will make one that is.... it might not have the Ghost Recon moniker, but at the end of the day, I'll bet most folks won't care one whit about that... if it gives them what they want, they'll buy it. And GRAW will just be one more piece of shelfware that people will buy on eBay in 5 years for a couple of bucks, when they have eventually upgraded their hardware to be able to run it.

The choice is up to you developers... as for me, my interest is already waning to the point that GR1 is looking mighty fine... and I can develop new content for that until my fingers fall off. At this point, GRAW is more or less a game I payed 50 bucks for that I'll probably pack up and put in the closet along with Wing Commander, Flight Simulator, Diablo, Crusader, and a host of others... the only real difference being that with those, I felt like I got more than my money's worth....

:whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Logos if you go back to viiipers poll and look at the results you will see that the Majority DONT have machines that are capable, nor will they.

LT, I know that. In fact, if you'll look at my post, I not only said that, but I said that it was a fair argument.

The quote I was responding to indicated that the graphics were not that great. My point was that the graphics were, in fact, great, but that most people didn't have the hardware to see how great they were. That's all I was saying. I know that fact doesn't do the average gamer much good, but the statement indicated that the graphics were not up to today's standard's, and I say they are, that the problem is really that hardware requirements are tomorrow's standards. With the exception of you stating that you don't think it looks that much better at high resolutions, your post actually agrees with mine. :thumbsup:

Turn everything up. Put it on 1600x1200. Walk around for a while. Just look around. Look at the textures. Pay attention to the lighting. It's actually quite well done. It might not be as aesthetically pleasing, as pretty as, let's say, the lush jungles in the much pubbed Crysis trailers, but that has much more to do with setting than graphics. You could do gorgeous jungles in GR:AW. We, of course, got Mexico City. Our loss, I guess.

I have walked around, anything over 250m is textureless and blurry(thats without "edge smoothing", the Dynamic Shadows draw in like 2m in front of you.Yes up close things look nice and the textures are well done but thats pretty much within that wierd cone your in that moves with you drawing shadows and changing the lighting as you move(its a strange effect really, like running 4xAF and being able to see the edge of the AF effect(I run 16X)

As for 16/12 I will try that towards the end of the week when my new monitor gets here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to disagree with you in the least.

Since UBI Soft is the publisher, and GRIN was hired to make the game, UBI has the ultimate control over the content of the game.

I believe that GRIN knew what everyone wanted, but UBI overrode them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that they have a winning formula, but just like [GR] (GR1)... It took time to get it there.

For me, it's not the game that's at fault, it's the *essence* of the game that is the issue. In [GR] we saw development evolve over time to the game itself, NOT the idea behind the game. Desert Siege and Island Thunder built on that essence, but never lost the plot.

If you look first at Ghost Recon, and the theatre they operated in, it wasn't about an overt presence in the field and the thought that a small group of super soldiers could operate in such an open manner in scenarios where the proverbial crap had already hit the fan. It was much more subtle than that. It was about utilising a small, highly-trained group of men to operate in environments where none of the outside world would realise the benefits of what they did. They didn't seek reward or fame, but went about their business silently. THAT'S why they were called "Ghosts".

Contrast that now with a group of soldiers operating in what would be an arena covered by world-wide news, in an environment that had already escalated to a point where the word "Ghost" is meaningless. In other words, they missed the boat. The ideal would have had them operating in an environment that is trying to avert this outcome. I think the setting is perfect, and would have offered a fantastic array of scenes to operate in, in a way only the Ghosts know.

I've played GR for years, and it's essence is what keeps me playing. I'll keep playing [GR] (when I get the time) until something comes along to replace it. I haven't seen that in GRAW or anything else at this stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't begin to dispute the sage comments set forth in this discussion, especially those regarding the maturation process of a classic like GR1, and the need for a similar process for GRAW....

But, I would offer one critical observation of this parallel to the developer group...

GR1 was playable, effective and stable from the first day I popped the CD in and installed it.

That bought the developers a world of time to make improvements, fix those nasty bugs, and concentrate on delivering new mods and features.

To date, that hasn't been the case with GRAW. Gamers by and large will be content with less content to start, if the platorm is robust and stable. Add to that the bonus of mod-ability and scripting, and the developers have even more time to deliver to an already largely happy fan-base.

As I've stated in another thread, UBI/GRIN seems to have failed to learn from the successes of the past.

First, UBI literally slapped the PC community in the face with the withdrawl of GR2... (sorry gang.... you just don't matter...) then, they forced what, IMHO opinion, is at best a very good beta version on the public, with full trumpets and fanfare, proclaiming it to be the rightful successor to the GR throne.

UBI/GRIN KNEW ahead of time that modability was a tremendous requirement for this game, and the amount of play centered around team coop/mission tournaments in GR1 would have been enough for a blind man to see what the fan base wanted. Multiple MP game types were also a requirement. A large number of the GR players got very used to those CTF, LMS, etc. MP styles of playing.

GRAW MP delivered a multiplayer game like BattleField2, only without unlimited respawns, big maps, vehicles, multi-level maps (sorry boys... stairs just don't cut it), smooth graphics, good performance.... I better stop... BF 2 is starting to sound good again... :wacko:

And communications to the userbase is something of a joke.... the only news updates on the Ghostrecon.com are for the xbox 360, with no current news to speak of for the pc gang. I get more up to date intel on GRAW on THIS site, than I do on their own site.

I will commend some of the dev guys at GRIN for their participation in the forums on this site. It's a good gesture of faith, and my hat's off to you guys.

But again, I challenge you to listen to what the fan base is REALLY saying... sure there's a lot of requests for one game type or another, anti-cheat, etc... but at the end of the day, what's the point in adding this stuff if 80% of your potential customer base can't play the stinkin' game? In business speak, that's called developing to a niche market, and if you're gonna give up volume, you sure better beef up your margins...

And like always, nothing stays in a vacuum... if YOU don't make GRAW the game the public needs it to be, someone else will make one that is.... it might not have the Ghost Recon moniker, but at the end of the day, I'll bet most folks won't care one whit about that... if it gives them what they want, they'll buy it. And GRAW will just be one more piece of shelfware that people will buy on eBay in 5 years for a couple of bucks, when they have eventually upgraded their hardware to be able to run it.

The choice is up to you developers... as for me, my interest is already waning to the point that GR1 is looking mighty fine... and I can develop new content for that until my fingers fall off. At this point, GRAW is more or less a game I payed 50 bucks for that I'll probably pack up and put in the closet along with Wing Commander, Flight Simulator, Diablo, Crusader, and a host of others... the only real difference being that with those, I felt like I got more than my money's worth....

:whistle:I am just wondering why [GR] got so off track with what it was about, I figured why not go off of what the game produced for everyone that brought it to be, the Ghost Recon we love to play. I was for sure thinking that RSE would just go on what Ghost Recon is. That would provide us with the same just some tweaks, graphic wise, maybe some new effects, just an upgrade, with some new maps and such. Maybe there hands got tied, I don't know, but surely these guys know what we are missing. Espessially with Multiplayer being so much fun, with lastman, seige, solo, sharpshooter and all the modding. I still enjoy the competition online with [GR]. Respectfully Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read this thread for sometime now and have made some personal thoughts about GRAW in and of itself.

Grin is a young development company who was big on taking on such a HUGE title as GRAW from UBI. face it, it's a big title for any companies portfolio. I understand business in essence..the bottomline.

GRAW's technology is stupendous to say the least in terms of the military equipment. truly future and apparently well researched. the game itself has many flaws, which one only has to look at the replies to see that the community is now divided in such a way that, it's hard to say if this Game will ever be worthy of team gaming and competitions.

*Anti-cheat doesn't work

*no replays for competition ladders to record matches as proof

*I haven't been able to get the screenshot function to work

this is the BARE minimum for MP competition matches. the lag in MP mode sucks. I have tested my DSL modem and found it to be 100% functioning after working with Verizon and another fact that my other multiplayer online games don't lag even with full servers.

Also, this issue with my Audigy4 card isn't kosher. none of my other games upto AND include Hitman Bloodmoney have any issues with my soundcard drivers causing "crackling" when I play.

No other game I have EVER seen had such high requirements for PC hardware only to run the game on low to medium settings or having GRAW choke the feces out of peoples machines.

Before GRAW, i had NEVER heard of HDR, but i wish now that would have stayed that way. I'd be willing to forgo the diffused lighting for AA( I said this from the beginning). Prevents me from having to buy stock in advil pain reliever/headache medicine. I bought this machine just for GRAW, but can't really run it at 1280x1024 because even thought I'm running a GFX card that is in the second place line and can't run it over 1024x768 to keep high FPS.

I would've rather had another expansion pack for GR than seeing GRAW, which i did in fact support bcz i thought Grin would get it fixed. I now know they won't. the concept is apparent that it wasn't meant to be a GR title rather another run n' gun shooter. the beginning shows me now that this game was NEVER meant to be for competition ladders or true TvT matches.Added: Or why would we have to plead with GRIN to add more and better team games? :blink:

If I think of anything else or missed anything ,I'll post them later here

-Papa6

P.S. in the part i mentioned about the team games and matches. due to Grin answering my question about replays, they never conceptualized GRAW for competition. Could this be due to the games engine or is it because they never intended GRAW to be for laddering? in either case, I"m left to answer my own question(s) because of what I see...the evidence. I think, but don't quote me but i think Grin_bo was the grin member who told me that with the physics engine, replays weren't possible because see Here

Because i had been told earlier that replays would be too wieldy for file size. not good. and having a program rape my PC for 650MB as listed in my task manager is vicious as letting Rocky or WK77 near my beer stash.

Edited by Papa6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Papa... I definitely understand where you are coming from... I felt the same way about Joint Operations... They kept promising to fix the problems and never did.

Their support sucks badly at NovaLogic.

I understand that you are disenchanted with the way GRAW is turning out for you, but most games take at least 2 years to develop, and GRIN had 14 months, well short of a 2 year goal. They are definitely playing catch up because of UBI Soft.

We all can agree on that point.

I personally don't know your system, but I do know some other things that may help solve some of your problems.

Check this site out: http://web.archive.org/web/20041128084144/.../servicecfg.htm You can turn off all the unnecessary services and see what happens then.

Just a curiosity, Papa, what connection speed do you have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.5MB DSL. I've tested it,the modem and other games and i get great online play with other games.

so I'm lead to believe GRAW is the problem.

14 months ok I'll back off that one.

the other plethora of issues i mentioned above are true and real. I don't see this game as a team based tactical shooter....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.5MB DSL. I've tested it,the modem and other games and i get great online play with other games.

so I'm lead to believe GRAW is the problem.

14 months ok I'll back off that one.

the other plethora of issues i mentioned above are true and real. I don't see this game as a team based tactical shooter....

That's only your download speed... What's your upload side?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can also turn off other things other than the what that one site I gave you too...

Have you tried using MSCONFIG and turning off running programs as they startup?

I know that some AV's, Firewalls and spy/mal ware programs like Adaware, Spy Bot Search & Destroy and some others can chinger a network congestion problem right at your network card. Have you attempted to turn off every single thing imagineable, then tried to play GRAW?

Edited by ToW-Angel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that would be silly considering that i have to turn off services that i use. but if i can online play with 64 people with no latency issues then i know my connection and PC are fine.

But the problem is GRAW bcz it takes 99% of my CPU cycles and costs me 650MB at one pop. about 1/3rd of my system ram. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's good! :) The only thing I can think of that would and could cause lag is a Firewall or a crappy DSL modem. The line can check good, the modem may checkout ok...

But, I do know that those two things can cause a world of hurt to gaming, especially a game with high detail like GRAW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if a game is considered "advanced" when it chokes the crap out of high end systems

I can tell you now I'm not a big fan of any manufactured computer like HP, Compaq, Packard Bell, Dell, Gateway or an eMachine.

Proprietary systems, even when customized, do not perform as well as a truly custom built computer.

And this is from years of experience in dealing with all kinds of computers, from the worst motherboards to the most top end manufactuer (With the exception of Alienware, which is now owned by Dell).

I personally don't know what it is about manufactuered computer such as these that perform well.

What I do know is that these manfacturers load up their own version of Windows, and have a crap load of bundled up software that is added, and also starts up with the computer. Also, most of these computers are meant for home use as a desktop for multimedia/web surfing and more towards business applications.

Don't get me wrong here... Out of the top manufacturered computers, so far the best one I've seen perform are Dell's.

Papa, what I would try and do is get another copy of Windows XP from the store and install that. That may or may not work.

But, from my experience, Compaq's performance is not as good as it could be. I know you have no problems with other games, but GRAW requires a lot more out of a computer and IMO a Compaq computer just will not perform in a highend game environment.

I can run BF2 all high settings, Joint Operations all on high, I can run GRAW all on high and still get good FPS and no lag.

Check my signature, that's my system.

My order of manufacturered computer starting with the best performance to the worst performance:

Alienware

Falcon Northwest

Dell

HP

Compaq

Gateway

eMachine

Compaq

My computer is custom built by me.

Edited by ToW-Angel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alienware

Falcon Northwest

Dell

HP

Compaq

Gateway

eMachine

Compaq

HP and Compaq are the same since HP bought Compaq years ago. but i tell you this compaq is a custom built system running windows media center edition 2005. I knew i would eventually upgrade the graphicscard.

I don't think that the order you present is really the answer to the problem. I uninstall all the garbage apps that install when I recover, giving me a clean system.

Emachines...lol surely you jest! :rofl:

Added: to answer your comment about getting a store bought version of windows isn't a good idea. Even though this is a compaq, the drivers are in the recover DVD i made with the PC. it is completely rediculous to install a version like that. drivers for my ethernet, soundcard, chipset are all on the Recover DVD.

with a store bought version of windows, which i do own, windows installs only generic drivers that don't always work. plus i lose the media center stuff i like

Edited by Papa6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alienware

Falcon Northwest

Dell

HP

Compaq

Gateway

eMachine

HP and Compaq are the same since HP bought Compaq years ago. but i tell you this compaq is a custom built system running windows media center edition 2005. I knew i would eventually upgrade the graphicscard.

I don't think that the order you present is really the answer to the problem. I uninstall all the garbage apps that install when I recover, giving me a clean system.

Except for the first two manufacturers, the following is proprietary:

Power Supplies

Motherboards

Cases

Proprietary motherboards are not built for gaming at all. The PS's you get in these systems barely meet system requirements. And the case is just that... Because they are only built to house the proprietary motherboards, you cannot exchange it with a motherboard that you can buy in the store.

I didn't say it was the answer, I'm just stating from my experience in what the best to worst performing manufactured computers are in order.

And, I am aware of Compaq being owned by HP. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...