Jump to content

OGR vs GR:AW


Recommended Posts

I was running through Gamespot.com and decided to see what "score" they gave [GR] when it came out (BEFORE it became game of the year). Amazing, the score for [GR] was LOWER than the score for GR:AW (7.3 [GR] to 7.8). Also, in their review of [GR] they complained of a "buggy" interface and that you really need to be able to switch teammates because you can't always get them to do what you want. Sounds suprprisingly similar to GR:AW. Now the add ons for [GR] received much higher ratings because of the developer "learning" from the mistakes and takeing care of the community.

I mention this because of all the posts that wanted GR:AW to be like [GR] got their wish! It is just as "buggy" as [GR]! Now GRiN is patching and developing progams to enhance the gameplay of GR:AW and I believe that GR:AW will become just as popular as [GR], for the same reasons (this community, the modders and the people willing to stick around). :g_withgrin::whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I received this game three years ago, when I bought a video card from Newwegg.com. It came with all the add ons, to include the 1.4 patch. I was very impressed with the game, played it a lot, still do. I never had to play the game before the patches and the add ons. I am commenting on the similarities between the two games on Gamespot.com and how it seems that [GR] didn't become an instant hit. It took some very dedicated people to do...and I am not just talking about the developers/publisher, but the community.

I find that the gameplay in [GR] was greatly enhanced by the community modders that have developer some very good addtions to [GR]. Just as the Modders have with GR:AW, so far.

Now, about MP, I don't play. I like the SP game of both games. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not as buggy. Install [GR] and don't patch it. See for yourself.

hmmmm, let's see... if you head on over to GR.net downloads, you can find each of the GR patches notes, and find out just how buggy it was to begin with. tons of netcode/performance issues, plenty of map bugs/exploits. but guess what, they still haven't fixed the #1 mother of all bugs in GR - the character's view imbalance! it quickly got labeled as a glitch, but is in fact a bug, that eventually caused a bunch of glitches i won't mention...

in GR 1.4 you can still lay down in a crater, be seen, able to shoot, and stay invincible.

you still end up with 5 working frags instead of 6 every few games.

you can still explot the lowest setting for Z buffer and see through walls.

servers still crash, clients still get disconnected for no reason, and support still causes lag.

so i don't know what by your standards "not as buggy" means, but it sure wasn't perfect. still isn't!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not as buggy. Install [GR] and don't patch it. See for yourself.

hmmmm, let's see... if you head on over to GR.net downloads, you can find each of the GR patches notes, and find out just how buggy it was to begin with. tons of netcode/performance issues, plenty of map bugs/exploits. but guess what, they still haven't fixed the #1 mother of all bugs in GR - the character's view imbalance! it quickly got labeled as a glitch, but is in fact a bug, that eventually caused a bunch of glitches i won't mention...

in GR 1.4 you can still lay down in a crater, be seen, able to shoot, and stay invincible.

you still end up with 5 working frags instead of 6 every few games.

you can still explot the lowest setting for Z buffer and see through walls.

servers still crash, clients still get disconnected for no reason, and support still causes lag.

so i don't know what by your standards "not as buggy" means, but it sure wasn't perfect. still isn't!

Let me add to the unpatched...

GR1 unpatched... shoot a claymore and the server crashed.

Server needed restarted almost daily and crashed near 12 people

Shadow bug (modders will know this one)

M136 could shoot almost as fast as you pulled the trigger

Sniper could instant reload by switching to pistol and back.

Some of these were not fixed by any patches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:o

How DARE you utter an unkind word about [GR]! [GR] PWNz. [GR], like the Beatles, is better than Jesus or something!

</sarcasm>

So, like, yeah. Three years from now, assuming the anti-GRAW bunch don't build a basement nuke and make Rocky's neighborhood glow in the dark for the next 60 years, GRAW should be about on-par with [GR] in as much as it's non-bugginess. I'd bet it'd be as much closer to what we're constantly whining for as Ubisoft will let it get. And we'll STILL be at each other's digital throats about whther or not the last patch was worth the time it took to download.

Only the names will change...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC Gamer is about the only mag that i would come close to trusting. Even then their scores are usually higher than they should be. why? they get the bulk of their money for advertisments for the games they are rating. why ###### off your revinue source?

Wanna know how good a game is? See how many people are playing it.

from cert clan i see 106 graw

from ase 53 [GR]

from ase 112 RvS

from ase 880 ut2k4

from ase 67 quake 4

from ase 2339 quake3

from ase 88 fear

from ase 44413 css

from ase 3779 AA

from ase 1591 cod

from ase 5606 cod2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to go by reviews, IGN gave GR1 a 9.3 and GR:AW an 8.1. But any way you shake it GR1 shipped as a complete title. It had a full campaign (whose maps were all playable in both TvT and COOP), more players for online COOP/TvT, IGOR, and a fully functional MP component, with more than one gametype. GR:AW shipped with a finished SP campaign, but MP is lacking, majorly (both COOP and TvT). I can live with some bugs, and yes GR1 and GR:AW both have/had them, but GR1 shipped as a complete game. GR:AW PC did not. With GR1 we didn't have to wait for patches to add the MP component found in the previous Red Storm titles. As a sucessor to GR1 PC, I know I was expecting an evolved GR style MP experience, similar to 360.

I honestly do not see GR:AW PC being as popular as GR1 was; 1 year and 2 expansions later GR1 was still rockin'. You could hop on UBI, ASE, or even this sites game room/dedi and people were playing, a lot of people. 4 months after release GR:AW PC is still lacking a fully functional MP component (by that I mean, IMO, it hasn't even reached the level of GR1 on ship) and there aren't many people playing.

Yeah I still play it (GR:AW), but I don't rush home and start playing like I did when I first got GR1. GR1 is/was an addictive drug, you weren't always playing the same maps or gametypes. You had options and choices, and it didn't grow stale. Sorry to say, right now, GR:AW is like the bagel I didn't eat on Monday morning. . . I hope something makes me want to put in the toaster oven, or I'm going to feed it to the birds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been mulling this over and over for some time, and so finally decided to get it down here.

From a gaming perspective, I’ve been using [GR] since it came out, and also loved Operation Flashpoint. I’ve tried many other games that have come out as well, but they all end up being uninstalled. [GR] is the only game I have installed on my PC, I just wish the rigours of work allowed me more time with my Alpha Squad brothers than I have been able to commit in recent times. The rest of the games just haven’t met expectation.

Anyway, on with the post…..

Hands up if you’ve read a Tom Clancy novel (me sir!). Hmmmm, that’s quite a few of you!

For me, the reason these novels are so great is the subtlety of what goes on in the story. The intricacies of diplomacy and action that are designed to take you on a journey where the success or failure of situations, that could impact globally, can be dependent on a single decision by key people. All of the decisions and the following actions are conducted in a covert way to influence outcomes, by people who do not seek nor want any recognition, but understand the need for utmost secrecy so as to not “rock the boat†and achieve a favourable outcome, BEFORE they reach world prominence.

And along came “Ghost Recon†(the game)….

Ghost (n) : a faint shadowy trace.

Recon(naissance) (n) : an exploratory military survey of an enemy territory or position.

Doesn’t those terms just beautifully sum up the experience of “Ghost Recon� To me it does.

We had locations we’d never heard of, missions that required thought before action, and outcomes that were satisfying to us but we didn’t have a street parade to celebrate. The subtlety of the game completely embodied the ideals of the books in all aspects and gamers fell in love with it, as evidenced by the strong following it still has. These subtleties carried over to DS and IT, and despite the early technical issues that manifested itself in [GR], the game was so unique as compared to anything else, that we worked through the issues (good and bad) to where we are today.

Ghost Recon as a “game brand†had been firmly cemented for most of us, and for me it is why I still play it, because it gives me exactly what I want in terms of style of play and the subtleties of intrigue and decision-making etc (not forgetting the wider community either, it’s a big part of it).

Now we have been presented with Ghost Recon : Advanced Warfighter….

Well, right from the start when I saw the new game title, alarm bells began to ring. “Ghost Recon†and “Advanced Warfighterâ€; two phrases that are so diametrically opposed, that I knew something was going to be wrong here.

Ghost Recon was about subtle, early intervention against the odds, to prevent escalation. The GR:AW storyline is set in an environment where the opportunity for early intervention has already passed. We have a team of soldiers working in an environment where the world knows what is going on, in a location we’ve mostly heard about, doing stuff that would probably be done by a team of Special Forces. The whole scenario is being played out in an environment of overt operations, no matter how sneaky you do things.

On that point alone, and going back to my dictionary definitions, I see the use of the “Ghost Recon†to be totally redundant.

One can only wonder why they used it. Some will say, “to sell more copies†and well, maybe it is, BUT…..

We are Ghost Recon brand junkies, so our Nirvana is having any game that bears the name Ghost Recon have the same subtleties we have enjoyed for years. They could have added absolutely no new features, and just updated the graphics, and most of us would have been happy.

The second issue is around the technical issues we have seen so far. Now think back to [GR] and the technical issues it had. Sure, they were frustrating but we had a very special game, and were willing to do anything we could to get it right. The result has been years of happy gaming. Now with GR:AW we have a game that has technical issues, and I’m sure that we would all like to get them sorted, but to me these problems are greatly compounded by the fact that we don’t have a true Ghost Recon game that satisfies the GR brand junkies needs.

Taking all technical issues out of the equation, I have tried and tried to find a common ground between [GR] and GR:AW in terms of what made me love [GR] so much. I cannot find it. Solving technical issues is not going to make the “magic formula†of [GR] return unless we are given enough control to make it like the [GR] we know so well.

What Ubi needs to understand is where the brand equity lies. It’s not with them; it’s with the game. If GR:AW had been released without the “GR†bit and by another publisher, it would have rapidly gone the same way as Soldner and other games that were supposed to “break new ground†and the like, and we would have just continued playing what we love.

Unfortunately we’re not getting the “GR†bit, and that’s a shame. The community here wants to see the “Ghost Recon†bit in the game for all the RIGHT reasons.

Give us back the legend of the “Ghostâ€!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC Gamer is about the only mag that i would come close to trusting. Even then their scores are usually higher than they should be. why? they get the bulk of their money for advertisments for the games they are rating. why ###### off your revinue source?

Wanna know how good a game is? See how many people are playing it.

from cert clan i see 106 graw

from ase 53 [GR]

from ase 112 RvS

from ase 880 ut2k4

from ase 67 quake 4

from ase 2339 quake3

from ase 88 fear

from ase 44413 css

from ase 3779 AA

from ase 1591 cod

from ase 5606 cod2

Yes of course, the only variable which determines the number of online players is of course the greatness of the game. Prove that one without making me smoke über crack. Genre, access to DS-files and copy protection (Gamespy primarily in GRAW's case) could be entities to take into account, just to name three of them.

But then again “good“ is a relative term, so if one decides that # of players is definition of “good”, then you are spot on right – but that is not even near my take on the term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you judge a game by the number of people playing it, that must mean that Counter Strike is one of the best games ever!

:rofl: too funny.

Both games are good, one got got the time to be finished the other one didn`t.

Its as simple as that.

I expect if GRAW had have been released in November it would have been a different story.

The real point here is that GRAW is and will just get better and better, Ubisoft and Grin are seeing to that as we speak.

Edited by Colin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to go by reviews, IGN gave GR1 a 9.3 and GR:AW an 8.1.

And Gamespot gave [GR] 7.3 and GRAW 7.8.

However, they gave Lockdown 8.0, so I probably souldn't trust them ;)

Anyway, we souldn't compare reviews. I mean, the games are five years apart, the demands are higher today. If GRIN had released GRAW five years ago with the technology of today, GRAW had probably been the best game in the world!

Edited by Hockeystick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you judge a game by the number of people playing it, that must mean that Counter Strike is one of the best games ever!

Every game has its fans, i guess [GR]/GRAW attracht very different players then many other shooters, i couldn't even think of playing BF2 or so, just not my stile of game. COD2 I only play because I like ww2 shooters, but these kind of games are too lineair, just like being caught in a movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gotta agree with original topicstarter. There is no GR in GRAW. Many people still like this game, like they like Serious Sam 2. Totally different games, but so is audience, those Xbox junkies never played GR or if they have mayby console version is something like this new game we have? I never had any consoles after that first Nintendo at 80's and some tv-pingpong game before that late 70's.

Ghost Recon got same treatment as Raven Shield with that Letdown thingy. It will be harder and harder to please PC gamers anymore. Theres been nothing new in games in last 5 years because of those consoles and they thumpcontrollers. Money talks here and all we can do is not to buy these "games".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed with OP. It's not true GR. Glad also that he pointed-out Ubisoft as the main culprit here. 2 Reasons I feel that way...

1.) The realism factor is also strangely missing. I see a general talk to me like I'm a kid, wearing some oddball left-field crap on what only vaguely (or to a 12 year-old Korean exchange student) resembles a military uniform. I've got some dude in a t-shirt talking to me about the good old days and his innermost personal feelings while I'm trying to assemble my team to go find a MAJOR piece of COMSEC equipment from some 2-bit rebel buttmonkeys. These are voice-over clips (courtesy of the mindless automatons in LA) with not-so-cleverly looped 5-7 second animations (apparently also forcefed by Ubi's pride and joy) that fail to impress. GRiN's folks have already come out in this forum and stated publicly that they were an Ubi forcefeed. Fits the bill of a profiteer...

2.) As stated above, the Ghost and Recon terms do not apply much to the SP campaign. What DOES seem to apply is the intent of making hero characters and a Hollywood-worthy story line. Face it, DooM sucked on film, and so will GRAW. But someone wants on that train, because sly advertising combined with smart casting can make that first weekend pay for the whole film. :Play the SP campaign again and TELL me it doesn't roll like some B-flick Rambo wannabe film. Someone needed a big name to tag onto it. They chose Ghost Recon. Gone is our stealthy approach (SR tourneys, anyone?), replaced with the bravado of combined-arms, laser-designating, sky-controlling direct unconventional warfare. Thanks, Ubi.

I don't hold GRiN so totally responsible for this. They didn't stick the cheesy half-anime, half-MS Paint characters with their Scooby Doo voices in our game because they WANTED to.

You'll kindly note the silence of Ubi folks in these forums, as opposed to the consistent feedback of those at GRiN. Who's ashamed of what they've done to our game, I ask....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting points made. With what you've said, reminds me of the saying, "everything they(UBISOFT) touch goes to hell." Be it Ravenshield, Ranbow 6, Ghost Recon.. three games or thre game series that could've rocked, 3 games, 2 of which i can say for sure were made by RSE BEFORE UBISOFT bought them. UBISOFT needs to close shop, they are ruining gaming...

originality and invention are no longer the issue, Microsoft doesn't invent new things, they buy companies who do and then they can lay claim to the new technology. UBISOFT does the same thing.

Edited by Papa6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think we are getting out what we think. sometimes it's hard to put into words.

But I'd say that Armed assault once it gets a publisher will be awesome. sniper shots will be REAL sniper shots

When Armed Assault comes out will this be the end? Those that promise to end it all are still saying so and those that are so disappointed and can no longer play GRAW are still posting 4 months later........

Viva la "Allied assault" to waft away the odder of anti-graw protestors

All I read is I want my [GR], I want my dummy, well your not getting it, it's a new game called GRAW, [GR] was a different game and if you wanna [GR]-2 then post emails to RSE, Whoops forgot !! RSE is UBi !! lol [RSE subsidiary of Ubisoft Corp. :rofl: ], there goes your dreams and I think I now understand why your all so upset, You will never see [GR]-2

[truth be told, me too]

viii

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gone is our stealthy approach (SR tourneys, anyone?), replaced with the bravado of combined-arms, laser-designating, sky-controlling direct unconventional warfare. Thanks, Ubi.

If you want to strick to the idea about future warfare, then you have to live with these kind of hi-tech things. Of course it could be Uzbekistans own Ghost Recon team, then we would have guys with the [GR] equipment even in the 2020's. When it comes to bravado I can't say that the SP missions in [GR] were kind of subtle - you went in and killed the tangos even back then. Very little of ghastly recon, very much excessive combat recon.

I don't think it is possible to sell a game about 1980's 1990's special forces. Instead, if you want low tech recon, you got WW I (indeed) and WW II - the latter will always sell. I weould really like a game were you play German on the West Front, performing combat with Stormtroop tactics (that is: infiltration into the enemy line and take them out asap).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said to the OP, Ive only just started playing GR (The gold edition) and i have to say that now i see why so many people were disapointed with the initial release of GRAW. The thing that i notice and as people have stated in this thread is the lack of RECON!

Before i get flamed i will state that i have bought GRAW and am very happy with it (from a SP player point only) but as mentioned the lack of ability to make the ghost go recon on demand is a real lack on gameplay, on the [GR] i've had tangos walk within feet of one of my team mates without being spotted and that builds atmosphere and excitment which goes against GRAW. The lack of being able to swap between team mates is also a big minus when getting shot at or after they report Tangos spotted.

Only my 2 Cents.

Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes of course, the only variable which determines the number of online players is of course the greatness of the game. Prove that one without making me smoke über crack. Genre, access to DS-files and copy protection (Gamespy primarily in GRAW's case) could be entities to take into account, just to name three of them.

But then again “good“ is a relative term, so if one decides that # of players is definition of “good”, then you are spot on right – but that is not even near my take on the term.

If you judge a game by the number of people playing it, that must mean that Counter Strike is one of the best games ever!

Hey in the world of buisness, (grin and ubi are buisnesses eh?) it's about dollars and cents. more people playing the game more money for the makers. While we may not like the dumbed down 'realism' of css or the outright fakeness of quake 3 the games are wildly successful and have made a lot of money. So yes, the game greatness in a buisness sense is defined by how much money it makes. You can argue that it's not realistic until you are blue in the face but it's simple, easy to play, and fun. not to mention the original was free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes of course, the only variable which determines the number of online players is of course the greatness of the game. Prove that one without making me smoke über crack. Genre, access to DS-files and copy protection (Gamespy primarily in GRAW's case) could be entities to take into account, just to name three of them.

But then again “good“ is a relative term, so if one decides that # of players is definition of “good”, then you are spot on right – but that is not even near my take on the term.

If you judge a game by the number of people playing it, that must mean that Counter Strike is one of the best games ever!

Hey in the world of buisness, (grin and ubi are buisnesses eh?) it's about dollars and cents. more people playing the game more money for the makers. While we may not like the dumbed down 'realism' of css or the outright fakeness of quake 3 the games are wildly successful and have made a lot of money. So yes, the game greatness in a buisness sense is defined by how much money it makes. You can argue that it's not realistic until you are blue in the face but it's simple, easy to play, and fun. not to mention the original was free.

After buying halflife ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting points made. With what you've said, reminds me of the saying, "everything they(UBISOFT) touch goes to hell." Be it Ravenshield, Ranbow 6, Ghost Recon.. three games or thre game series that could've rocked, 3 games, 2 of which i can say for sure were made by RSE BEFORE UBISOFT bought them. UBISOFT needs to close shop, they are ruining gaming...

originality and invention are no longer the issue, Microsoft doesn't invent new things, they buy companies who do and then they can lay claim to the new technology. UBISOFT does the same thing.

Indeed.

BTW, I still love to play GRAW...

:g_withgrin:

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...