Jump to content

Just going back through an old interview


Recommended Posts

You can't take WHICHEVER route you like in any game I've ever seen.

you probably haven't seen this one either: Soldner Secret Wars. i mean it pretty much had no single player, since the AI was cross-bred with sheep or something, but it allowed you exactly that; any route you like to any objective you like! of course, having helicopters helped, but there was another feature i've NEVER seen in another game...

So invisible or worse - fake looking/feeling boundaries around where you can go in a map is better than someone just telling you that you can't go there?

... no boundaries for millions of square miles, can you imagine that? this was the case with the MP mode as well, but was there any use for that space? not really, unless you forgot that an F-15 can reach 3000km/h...

anywho, i bet GRIN ran into a lot of limitations after Bo gave that interview. those posed by the time given to develop, as well as the current server/client hardware limitations. can't force people to own 4 gigs of RAM and an SLI setup just to add a couple of square miles to a map... so we wait. i'm sure each following expansion will bring us bigger and bigger maps, which in turn will allow for the flexibilty everyone's used to since [GR].

EDIT: i think he was also trying to keep Ubi confident that the game he was contracted to make will be liked by the fans, cause we could've revolted and they could've pulled the plug on GRIN... after trying Letdown, i'm glad we're stuck with the Swedes!

Edited by th33f.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

... no boundaries for millions of square miles, can you imagine that? this was the case with the MP mode as well, but was there any use for that space? not really, unless you forgot that an F-15 can reach 3000km/h...

THAT is what I meant. Eventually you run into a limit for how far you can go in any given direction. Admittedly, GRAW has some more severe limitations than some other games out there, but I hardly think it's worse than [GR]. Sometimes it DOES herd you and your team through a certain path, but frequently it allows you to find your own way to approach any given objective. Like VIP1's limo in coup d'etat- you have three different approaches to that position. Yeah, you still gotta get through that before you can move on.

On the other hand, look at Bulldog- no particular order to attack the two roadblocks. No real herding going on there. Same with Fierce Resistance and the different jamming sites. Take them in whichever order you care to. GRAW will wait for you. Not a completely rigid linear gameplay, but also (as explained above) not truly free-play either. And I'll concede that I prefer the flexibility of mission planning offered by [GR]...

For instance, in vanilla Mission #2, you were given two primary objectives and a secondary. The secondary, by nature of BEING SECONDARY is typically the afterthought to the mission. For RAbbi? NONSENSE! Demo the F/A-18's avionics FIRST THING! Then you don't have to shield your Demo guy(s) for the rest of the mission, and those M4's they carried were great for going room-to-room in the farm house. Even had the option (if you're good) to coordinate your attacks on different objectives simultaneously or on the same objective from different AoA's.

Like many others, I miss these things. But GRAW is not [GR]'s sequel. We were denied that. GRAW is it's own game. And I love it for its strengths, support it for its potential, and accept it for its faults. I should marry it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was amused at this interview with Bo. This interview was done in Sept 05.

Basically just some noteable things obviously missing from the release that were supposed to be in the game. ie the camera gun (to shoot around corners). Direct IP connect support, Kick/Ban options and interesting enough a medic. Also a promise of a non linear game "Mitchel get back here you're leaving the mission area"

For example pre-production motor cars, things are shown that never appear on the final product, things are promised that never make the final and things never mentioned appear and you say, where did that come from.

The fact is, Grin gave alot of things never mentioned in the pre- product release and there are things still to come and things that never will appear.

As for linearity, I found less restrictions in the SP play than 95% of all that came before, eg. FARCRY, MOH, COD, etc etc.... like "Rocky" said all games are linear to a point, the game has no more linearity than other objective games, and if you want to wander off map for ever , I challenge you to find a first person shooter that allows you to do it or to complete objectives higgely piggely .....

Are there any other none linear GRAW style [as you defined it] games on the market for the PC ?

[you don't have to answer].

I know you are pointing out promises but things change and all pre-production released features should always be treated as a guide and famous last words "subject to change" , welcome to the real world. Bummer....

viii

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess some would regard the game less linear if the "You are leaving the mission area" voice were left out. That is why [GR] was sooo non-linear.

So invisible or worse - fake looking/feeling boundaries around where you can go in a map is better than someone just telling you that you can't go there?

Got to tune my ironic style, it is all blunted these days after GRAW release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

like "Rocky" said all games are linear to a point, the game has no more linearity than other objective games, and if you want to wander off map for ever , I challenge you to find a first person shooter that allows you to do it or to complete objectives higgely piggely .....

if BF/BF2 is an FPS, than Soldner is too. and yes, it's literally endless, though not all terrain, since the whole game takes place on a topographic copy of Siberia, which is way too vague of a name if you ask me... and i lived in Russia more than half my life! it's more like the northern half of Asia. when you get to the water after about an hour flight in a Mig, it never ends. people have tried 10 hour expeditions... so did i pass the challenge? where's my cookie! oh, there are about twice as many people playing the game online compared to GRAW, at any given time.

btw, the only reason i can't say i don't care for non-linear maps, is because the extra paths you could take usually contain more enemies in most games, and i like completing levels... well, completely. if it's just empty space, why would anyone care?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remembering also that the interview in question was conducted (by zulater's account, and I credit him for mad acccuracy there) eight months prior to the release of the game. As with the auto pre-production analogy above, a LOT can and will change with a game in the eight months prior to release. SOME of the features Bo's quoted as promising us may still be on the way. SADS we're all but certain is coming, for instance. Others are likely gone from the A-list, as it were. Given all the considerations on Ubi's and GRiN's respective plates to weigh and decide upon, certainly some features will fail to make the final cut...

As I recall, the Mazda RX-8 showed-up at its first car show or two wearing 19" wheels. Mazda promised something to the tune of 255 BHP at the crankshaft. And they assured us a car with 50/50 F/R weight distribution and awesome handling characteristics. They delivered the handling. The HP number dwindled to 250, then to 240-something. The 19" wheels never made production and were never expected to do so. Same thing, less dangerous in the hands of idiots...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for linearity, I found less restrictions in the SP play than 95% of all that came before, eg. FARCRY, MOH, COD, etc etc.... like "Rocky" said all games are linear to a point, the game has no more linearity than other objective games, and if you want to wander off map for ever , I challenge you to find a first person shooter that allows you to do it or to complete objectives higgely piggely .....

Are there any other none linear GRAW style [as you defined it] games on the market for the PC ?

[you don't have to answer].

Operation Flashpoint - http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ - is non-linear. At the briefing time, you have your objectives and intel notes. It's entirely up to the player how to accomplish the mission. That's the kind of freedom I'm looking for in a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

zulater, you have burned my ass. those guys stretch their necks out to give us information, at their own peril since many final decisions are out of their hands, and like a child you throw it back in their face?

When I tell a customer something with my business, I make damn sure that the info I'm giving is 100% correct. I also make sure that I can do what I tell them I can do. It seems to have worked, I'm still in business (and busy as hell) 20 years later.

Zu has every right to to believe what he was told, by the president of GRIN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be able to "decide how to complete the missions" we would have to be allowed to decide which objectives to complete in what order "as in the [Ghost Recon]." We are not allowed to do that thus our objectives are linear making the mission linear espeically when compared to [GR]. Insert-A-B-C-D-Extract

You also can't "take which ever route you like." There are routes that would get you to your objective that are defined as being out of the mission area.

Dude, you had to know I'd chime in on this one...

You can't take WHICHEVER route you like in any game I've ever seen. [GR]- I wanna go around 10 miles to the north. Uh, NO! But take your example mission, StrongPoint. From Checkpoint #1 (the supply drop at the Stryker APC) you have at least THREE different options for routes to proceed from there, and three more from the road at the sight distance limit of the far bunker to whichever one you choose to neutralize first. Wait, I DO NOT have to neutralize Bunker A BEFORE Bunker B?! You're kidding, right? You MUST be! ZULATER SAID THIS GAME WAS LINEAR!!!!!

</crash>

So yeah, it's semi-linear. Can we all compromise to accept that term, decide what this has to do with making the game better, focus on THAT, and move on? Please? I think too highly of you guys and gals (yes, even those I disagree consistently with) to appreciate the constant bashing of the game for bashing's sake...

I wholly disagree Rabbi.In [GR] When you play a coop "mission"and try it sometime, I can place a demo charge at the radio first(castle map), then do whatever other objectives you want. in any order as long as you complete them. that's the freedom people have sought and GOT with [GR].

How do you know GRAW IS linear try the strongpoint. after you take out said bunkers...THEN the armored car arrives with the bad guys but, NOT until you've taken the bunkers out. then you get the crosscom video telling you to take out the electric plant. the enemy on the way don't come into play until the bunkers are taken out by the explosives. this is proof that GRAW is using man i forget the word for it, but when you hit the point on a map the code executes and the enemy "just appear". ah yes a trigger point! so there's no open play and take out what you want to. you do it according to what GRIN made it. How i know this is, i tried it once. I took out one of the bunkers, then ran around and there was no armored vehicle to be found. the electric station didn't become active and have the placement for the explosives until AFTER i took out the bunkers.

now i know you get mad at the gamers who don't like GRAW but you must understand, while GRAW does have cutting edge tech built in, it takes 5 steps back with regards to free gameplay(freedom to finish missions objectives in what order a leader figures) and that isn't a forward progression. I suggest you try what I said sometime and prove me wrong in that [GR] does have freedom to complete missions. BTW, in [GR] if you finish 2 out of 3 objectives and kill all the enemy, you don't have to finish the last objective and the game would register[Added] more truly the game would say last objective complete[/added] then.. "mission complete" because noone would be able to stop your team from finishing the task

Edited by Papa6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok ok so we're done arguing linearity. ofp, soldner, [GR] do it well.

how about the other issues that are left out that "will be"

Gun camera (this would have been nice for SP but I am glad this is not in MP)

Direct IP

Kick/Ban

Medic (though the way it is described it would be useless unless they implemented a bleed out option like AA)

http://www.ghostrecon.net/html/interview-grin-2.htm

All questions are by me, shown in green. Unless otherwise noted, all responses are from Bo Andersson, CEO of GRIN.

Is the gun camera from GR2 in the game? Is it in MP? Are there restrictions on its use?

We will have the gun camera in the game. Gun cam will be in first person and never as in GR2 where you saw it in 3rd person at times. Using the gun cam will be a bit like sniper zoom but with more intel attached to it.

Will the pc version use an in game server browser instead of UGS? Will it support direct IP and ASE, Firefox?

There will be an in game browser and GRAW will have direct IP support.

What are the kick/ban options for MP?

It’s no problem to create it. We are looking at it as a way to keep out cheaters.

Is there a medic feature in MP?

This is a tricky feature to include in a game. We will have a medic feature, but only to stop the bleeding, but not revive someone. There will be an increase in the stress level for an injured player and that will stay even after being patched back up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be able to "decide how to complete the missions" we would have to be allowed to decide which objectives to complete in what order "as in the [Ghost Recon]." We are not allowed to do that thus our objectives are linear making the mission linear espeically when compared to [GR]. Insert-A-B-C-D-Extract

You also can't "take which ever route you like." There are routes that would get you to your objective that are defined as being out of the mission area.

Dude, you had to know I'd chime in on this one...

You can't take WHICHEVER route you like in any game I've ever seen. [GR]- I wanna go around 10 miles to the north. Uh, NO! But take your example mission, StrongPoint. From Checkpoint #1 (the supply drop at the Stryker APC) you have at least THREE different options for routes to proceed from there, and three more from the road at the sight distance limit of the far bunker to whichever one you choose to neutralize first. Wait, I DO NOT have to neutralize Bunker A BEFORE Bunker B?! You're kidding, right? You MUST be! ZULATER SAID THIS GAME WAS LINEAR!!!!!

</crash>

So yeah, it's semi-linear. Can we all compromise to accept that term, decide what this has to do with making the game better, focus on THAT, and move on? Please? I think too highly of you guys and gals (yes, even those I disagree consistently with) to appreciate the constant bashing of the game for bashing's sake...

I wholly disagree Rabbi.In [GR] When you play a coop "mission"and try it sometime, I can place a demo charge at the radio first(castle map), then do whatever other objectives you want. in any order as long as you complete them. that's the freedom people have sought and GOT with [GR].

How do you know GRAW IS linear try the strongpoint. after you take out said bunkers...THEN the armored car arrives with the bad guys but, NOT until you've taken the bunkers out. then you get the crosscom video telling you to take out the electric plant. the enemy on the way don't come into play until the bunkers are taken out by the explosives. this is proof that GRAW is using man i forget the word for it, but when you hit the point on a map the code executes and the enemy "just appear". ah yes a trigger point! so there's no open play and take out what you want to. you do it according to what GRIN made it. How i know this is, i tried it once. I took out one of the bunkers, then ran around and there was no armored vehicle to be found. the electric station didn't become active and have the placement for the explosives until AFTER i took out the bunkers.

now i know you get mad at the gamers who don't like GRAW but you must understand, while GRAW does have cutting edge tech built in, it takes 5 steps back with regards to free gameplay(freedom to finish missions objectives in what order a leader figures) and that isn't a forward progression. I suggest you try what I said sometime and prove me wrong in that [GR] does have freedom to complete missions. BTW, in [GR] if you finish 2 out of 3 objectives and kill all the enemy, you don't have to finish the last objective and the game would register[Added] more truly the game would say last objective complete[/added] then.. "mission complete" because noone would be able to stop your team from finishing the task

Not mad at all. Opinions, m'dear, are the one entitlement we ALL get...

Now, of course, you've come across to me (and correct me if I'm way off here, as I apparently am most of the time) as saying NOW that GRAW is linear because of scripted events, whereas [GR] was not? Did I read that correctly? I get what you're saying here to an extent, and you're right (I don't recall disagreeing with this) that [GR] was more liberal with objectives. But I can't call this game a failure of pure linear play simply because it has scripted sequences between points A and Z. That's too much of a stretch.

I WILL wholeheartedly agree that there's too much emphasis in the SP/COOP campaign on the STORY and the CHARACTERS, where we could have gotten better gameplay at the cost of not having a 'hero.' As established, Scott Mitchell was a male cheerleader before he joined the Army. Not precisely hero material in my book...

Papa6, I love ya man...

Really I do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to be fair and not confrontational Rabbi, the great thing about [GR] was that, if you and I were on the squad together and you were the leader, we could try any mission from any avenue. if it didn't work going through the objectives 1,2,3 then maybe we could do 3 first and then draw the enemy to 3's location you could feasibly have fewer enemy at 2 and 1. the enemy did tend to migrate toward the action.

But with Graw, that didn't work. you have to kill the bunkers with explosives which would trigger the next objective the power station. the armored vehicle that comes is triggered when you get to your weapons and ammo resupply at the chopper. so yes, GRAW is stuck in that manner.

But you did make a comment Here that was indicative to that effect. I think that's one thing people REALLY miss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with zulater on this, and I think there's been far to much hair splitting and simplifying to make the discussion somehow comfortable for some. Linearity in game design doesn't devolve to multi-path vs. a single path approach objectives, level design, or some simplistic definition that literally anyone can plug into Wikipedia.

I doubt anyone would argue that Ghost Recon Classic has made a significant contribution in defining 'open ended' or 'non-linear' game-play on the STS platform; so looking at what it offers and does in the way of play features and capability can go a lot further to understanding what people are looking for or describing when they say 'has non-linear' or 'has open ended game-play;... Obviously the things already discussed and agrued:

· multiple paths to objectives

· multiple objectives that can be accomplished in any order

...are important; but Ghost Recon Classic goes a lot further than that and offers a lot of both genre and 'non-linear' defining features which certainly should include that you can:

· play on literally any part of the map

· fight AI (or other players) on literally any part of the map

· complete the game from one of several perspectives

· approach multiple objectives concurrently

· approach one objective from multiple approaches concurrently

· play games on the same map/mission that are not remotely similar

· generally offers very large scale level designs

· successfully complete some missions by alternative means

There's more but these flesh out a few more of the things Ghost Recon Classic offers (that GRAW does not) in clearly definable non-linear game features that have a rich outcome on game play, and summery outcomes which include:

· level designs that support a vast array of SP, COOP, and MP game modes

· game scale and features that invite new game modes via mods on existing maps

· game-play that is rarely repetitive

· require complex, multi-tasking, and mission planning decision making

A lot of GRAW's limitations in this regard probably just devolves to the fact that it's set in rather tight urban environments, with a just one squad of four -- which makes some of Ghost Recon Classic's larger scale, complex, and multi-task, non-linear tactical maneuver and fire game-play a virtual impossibility.

Add some LSS outdoor terrain maps, another squad of four, more complex and versatile mission design -- and GRAW would have everything Ghost Recon Classic has to offer and then some... I still like both games, but there is no doubt in my mind that Ghost Recon Classic is the deeper, more mature, and richer game with more non-linear and open game-play...

sadeyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you sure said a mouth full there bro- :rofl:

Added: @ waika I'd add that the maps seem to be designed to corral the player. there are 3 ways to take the bunkers if i remember, but it's a roll of the dice. But [GR] maps had more then 3 different ways to get to any point on a map.

Edited by Papa6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lemme post a question.

Do any of you miss the ability to make weapon mods? different varieties from different countries....that was cool. being able to use russian and swedish weapons and others.

As all in the family said in it's lyrics music at the start of the show..."those were the days!"

all-in-the-family.jpg

Edited by Papa6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course weapon mods are great, and would definately add appeal to GRAW. I'd personally much rather see some large terrain maps, more complex (non-linear) objective play, more complete support for COOP, and if it's at all possible some render performance optimization (perhaps via more user adjustable features).

Ya Papa6, I do tend to ramble on a lot... :blush:

sadeyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll tell you what, I'm not at liberty to say anything in detail about what I was involved in. but what was then and now are night and day.

So basically they changed a few things around between those posts and the patch release that caused you to flip flop again? I can't imagine what it might be, but I guess we'll have to take your word for it and hope that whatever it was that you enjoyed about the changes comes back in another patch.

Edited by Nutlink
Link to comment
Share on other sites

to be fair and not confrontational Rabbi, the great thing about [GR] was that, if you and I were on the squad together and you were the leader, we could try any mission from any avenue. if it didn't work going through the objectives 1,2,3 then maybe we could do 3 first and then draw the enemy to 3's location you could feasibly have fewer enemy at 2 and 1. the enemy did tend to migrate toward the action.

But with Graw, that didn't work. you have to kill the bunkers with explosives which would trigger the next objective the power station. the armored vehicle that comes is triggered when you get to your weapons and ammo resupply at the chopper. so yes, GRAW is stuck in that manner.

So the 1337 tactic to draw tangos to a hotspot in order to get less of them at a coming hotspot doesn’t work anymore? What with it? Is it less realistic this way? It is nothing certain about people reacting that way, one could really argue the other way, that [GR] had sucky AI, the tangos predictable and that their military training should be reflected in different behaviour on their behalf.

- "Hey the Iraqi's suck. In the last war they just came upfront at us and we killed 'em off. Nowadays they IED us all the time" - I want my old tactics back g'damit."

I agree that even more flexibility would be nice, but your [GR] example isn't very supportive for the case.

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...