Jump to content

OGR vs GR:AW


Recommended Posts

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.

You are doing simplifications which obscures the issue. You can look at a product from the field of consumption or the field of production, in order to determine if it is good or not. You have to separate these things; you got to have a method.

If the product makes a good revenue, that is a large part of the product being “good” on the field of production.

On the field of consumption you don’t care very much if the producers get a lot of profit or not. The most important thing is satisfaction (which you have been a great proponent of; this profitable argument is of a newer origin in your argument).

I am satisfied with a game if I have fun playing it. I have. Ergo, it is good. Not that it can’t be better (standalone files for example), but I still hold it as good.

And on the other side, just checking out how many people who plays online is a bad determinant of if the product is “good” on the field of production, i.e. if the producer gets profit (piracy, high costs, other games can be “better” but is not any online games so they don’t show up as empirical sources for the one who choose the number of players as preferred method to determine if a game is “good” or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sniper could instant reload by switching to pistol and back.

Some of these were not fixed by any patches.

I just tried that and it`s bull..

for a start it is quicker to reload than to switch weapons and back so why is that quicker anyway ??

Incorrect... try it unpatched in Multiplayer. I used to snipe all the time. It was quicker to go to pistol and back. Unpatched means the original... I can't remember if they fixed it in DS or IT. Or maybe they broke it in DS and fixed it in IT.

The m136 also was an insta rocket on reloading.

Edited by ROCOAFZ
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€!

Excellent, excellent post!

Please someone within UBI read this over and over -

(not to mention taking out the "firefight" game mode was utterly silly).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Yet GR:AW 360 MP, done by RSE, has features reminisant of GR1 (and some features making a comeback from Rogue Spear!). Also, we don't have to e-mail Red Storm designers to tell them what we want, they read this board, and know people wanted more players for COOP, more game types, and options. They delivered that on 360. Some people may not like OTS or playing with analog sticks, or just plain turn their nose up at any console title, but there is no denying, Red Storm has the pulse of GR MP communitty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Yet GR:AW 360 MP, done by RSE, has features reminisant of GR1 (and some features making a comeback from Rogue Spear!). Also, we don't have to e-mail Red Storm designers to tell them what we want, they read this board, and know people wanted more players for COOP, more game types, and options. They delivered that on 360. Some people may not like OTS or playing with analog sticks, or just plain turn their nose up at any console title, but there is no denying, Red Storm has the pulse of GR MP communitty.

They also had double the time, and only one set of system specs to make the game on. They did a good job no doubt, cant take that away from them, but lets be fair to the other side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)….

You mean along came Rainbow 6. Loved it & every other T.C. game (& book) after. I loved the SP in GRAW but still love the MP in R6 & R6RS & [GR] much better. I think it will get better though. :g_withgrin:

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 Warfighter”; 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 “Ghost”!

Good post, SimDood.

If non-urban maps were available for GRAW, would that get closer to the feeling you've so eloquently described?

The reason why I ask...I think the urban nature of the current map set is prohibitive to the non-linear, [GR] experience we're used to. Most of the maps in [GR] were wilderness or non-urban.

Additionally, I believe that firing a gun isn't the only way to win a mission. Some of the best missions in [GR] relied upon other weapons...observation and evasion.

That's the really fun (and scary) part of what I'd like to see in GRAW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why I ask...I think the urban nature of the current map set is prohibitive to the non-linear, [GR] experience we're used to. Most of the maps in [GR] were wilderness or non-urban..

i think it would. how many maps in the org was set in a city? i can only think of one (vilnus) while all of the maps in gr:aw is set in a city. of couerse the amount of action and the inenty of them will pick up from the org (which is what UBI wanted and there was nothing grin could do about it)

would the org have had teh same fealing if ti was set in mexico city? i dont think so. id love to see GRIN make a new one set in a rural enviorment id bet they would hit it out of the park there for everyone that played the org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In just the original [GR] (forget IT and DS) there were Vilnius, Red Square, and Embassy for city maps. Add Polling Center and more for the IT expansion.

[GR] had the urban setting going on, but kept mainly to the great outdoors so games like R6 and Rogue Spear could dominate urban/CQB play. It's like the Tom Clancy mafia or something. [GR] was GOOD for stealth, but then Splinter Cell literally redefined that. Clancy titles held the high ground in the FPS battle for some time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post, SimDood.

If non-urban maps were available for GRAW, would that get closer to the feeling you've so eloquently described?

The reason why I ask...I think the urban nature of the current map set is prohibitive to the non-linear, [GR] experience we're used to. Most of the maps in [GR] were wilderness or non-urban.

Additionally, I believe that firing a gun isn't the only way to win a mission. Some of the best missions in [GR] relied upon other weapons...observation and evasion.

That's the really fun (and scary) part of what I'd like to see in GRAW.

Actually, that would be a part of it, but there's a lot more....

I go back again to the definitions of "Ghost" being what they were, and "Recon" being what they did. Couple that with WHEN they did it is where we start to understand the essence of what needs to be achieved.

Ghosts were a pre-emptive taskforce designed to stop problems arising. GR:AW is about fixing problems after they happen, which is better suited to a different style of soldier.

The Ghosts were ultimately responsible for their own actions that were made out in the field. They weren't spoon fed with intel updates, they were free to make tactical decisions as required, not as dictated. You cannot be a Ghost with a small drone flying somewhere overhead working in an environment where you are expected, by the enemy, to be showing up. And that's just it, the Ghosts were NOT exepected, they evaluated the scenarios, and made appropriate responses.

GR:AW has that as well to a degree, but only within specific boundaries.

I say again, the technical issues would be all but a "no problem" if the essence of the "Ghost" and "Recon" intact. The real issues rise in the fact that technical and game dynamics issues are both not working, and look at the result

Gimme my Ghost!

Edited by SimDooD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing how a simple comparison between the scores of both games on a website, and that neither of these two games were considered "great" when they first came out can cause such a lively debate. However, Colin had it right. I was just trying to show that when [GR] came out it needed many fixes to become the game most want GR:AW to become.

I believe with Ubi's annoucement that they want "beta" testers for the (soon to be released?) MP #3 patch, that maybe Ubisoft has been reading a lot of the posts and might believe they have a winner on their hands (if they fix or let GRiN fix the problems with the game).

Give GRiN a chance, they deserve it. Give GR:AW a chance, even the MP might turn out well for all you MP Players! :g_withgrin::D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post, SimDood.

If non-urban maps were available for GRAW, would that get closer to the feeling you've so eloquently described?

The reason why I ask...I think the urban nature of the current map set is prohibitive to the non-linear, [GR] experience we're used to. Most of the maps in [GR] were wilderness or non-urban.

Additionally, I believe that firing a gun isn't the only way to win a mission. Some of the best missions in [GR] relied upon other weapons...observation and evasion.

That's the really fun (and scary) part of what I'd like to see in GRAW.

Actually, that would be a part of it, but there's a lot more....

I go back again to the definitions of "Ghost" being what they were, and "Recon" being what they did. Couple that with WHEN they did it is where we start to understand the essence of what needs to be achieved.

Ghosts were a pre-emptive taskforce designed to stop problems arising. GR:AW is about fixing problems after they happen, which is better suited to a different style of soldier.

The Ghosts were ultimately responsible for their own actions that were made out in the field. They weren't spoon fed with intel updates, they were free to make tactical decisions as required, not as dictated. You cannot be a Ghost with a small drone flying somewhere overhead working in an environment where you are expected, by the enemy, to be showing up. And that's just it, the Ghosts were NOT exepected, they evaluated the scenarios, and made appropriate responses.

GR:AW has that as well to a degree, but only within specific boundaries.

I say again, the technical issues would be all but a "no problem" if the essence of the "Ghost" and "Recon" intact. The real issues rise in the fact that technical and game dynamics issues are both not working, and look at the result

Gimme my Ghost!

Someone give this man a gold star and a cookie! Nail, meet Mr. Hammer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post, SimDood.

If non-urban maps were available for GRAW, would that get closer to the feeling you've so eloquently described?

The reason why I ask...I think the urban nature of the current map set is prohibitive to the non-linear, [GR] experience we're used to. Most of the maps in [GR] were wilderness or non-urban.

Additionally, I believe that firing a gun isn't the only way to win a mission. Some of the best missions in [GR] relied upon other weapons...observation and evasion.

That's the really fun (and scary) part of what I'd like to see in GRAW.

Actually, that would be a part of it, but there's a lot more....

I go back again to the definitions of "Ghost" being what they were, and "Recon" being what they did. Couple that with WHEN they did it is where we start to understand the essence of what needs to be achieved.

Ghosts were a pre-emptive taskforce designed to stop problems arising. GR:AW is about fixing problems after they happen, which is better suited to a different style of soldier.

The Ghosts were ultimately responsible for their own actions that were made out in the field. They weren't spoon fed with intel updates, they were free to make tactical decisions as required, not as dictated. You cannot be a Ghost with a small drone flying somewhere overhead working in an environment where you are expected, by the enemy, to be showing up. And that's just it, the Ghosts were NOT exepected, they evaluated the scenarios, and made appropriate responses.

GR:AW has that as well to a degree, but only within specific boundaries.

I say again, the technical issues would be all but a "no problem" if the essence of the "Ghost" and "Recon" intact. The real issues rise in the fact that technical and game dynamics issues are both not working, and look at the result

Gimme my Ghost!

You already had it... They were ...

FROSTBITE

and

HX5

and

Sum of all fears (based on the GR1 engine)

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.

--------------------------------------------------

O so true. GRAW is food for my microwave. They shipped a BETA. :wall: We gave them 5 years. They handed us a pile of crap.

At one time my entire clan played and modded GR1. It was like crak. One game and I was addicted. I play coop and this sux. The "commander dies mission over" that has been forced on us is pure BS. Lack of options and respawns are BS. No real game editor is pure crap also and tells me there are many bugs they dont want us to see.

As with my friend Prozac 360 I'm gonna feed this title to my microwave rather than trade it in and let some other poor soul be ripped off by this poor excuse of a Tom Clancy title.

Rocky and the staff ought to feel the knife UBI has put in their backs for all their hard work.

I feel bad for them. But I feel good, noone will suffer from my copy.

I came to the dance all giddy and ready to have fun. But UBI rained on me till my hair was a mess , my dress was wet and torn and they left me to be raped by a stinkin bunch of drunk Mexicans.

GR-1 this is not! This is a total failure.

I figure 45 seconds in the microwave ought to do the job. :yes: My only regret is I dont have the ablity to video the cooking and post it.

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.

--------------------------------------------------

O so true. GRAW is food for my microwave. They shipped a BETA. :wall: We gave them 5 years. They handed us a pile of crap.

At one time my entire clan played and modded GR1. It was like crak. One game and I was addicted. I play coop and this sux. The "commander dies mission over" that has been forced on us is pure BS. Lack of options and respawns are BS. No real game editor is pure crap also and tells me there are many bugs they dont want us to see.

As with my friend Prozac 360 I'm gonna feed this title to my microwave rather than trade it in and let some other poor soul be ripped off by this poor excuse of a Tom Clancy title.

Rocky and the staff ought to feel the knife UBI has put in their backs for all their hard work.

I feel bad for them. But I feel good, noone will suffer from my copy.

I came to the dance all giddy and ready to have fun. But UBI rained on me till my hair was a mess , my dress was wet and torn and they left me to be raped by a stinkin bunch of drunk Mexicans.

GR-1 this is not! This is a total failure.

I figure 45 seconds in the microwave ought to do the job. :yes: My only regret is I dont have the ablity to video the cooking and post it.

GR-1 this is not! GR-1 this was never meant to be! :blink:

Sorry to hear ya dont like the game....better luck next time.. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot compare the two-

[GR]! Is and WAS FPS-bar none! If it where not for [GR] we would not be here debating-we would all be casting spells over at WOW.

Until UBI and GRIN can recapture that moment or excitement-this is all technical, financial and emotional masturbation.

I like GRAW it is something better than any other internet game I have ever played. Ask youself this when things are smooth and gold-you love this game!

When thing are not going so good, (connections, lag, cheaters, hackers) you hate it-I also do not care for it much.

Dorothy went to OZ, and she could click her heals and go home! We cannot-new and old Ghosts.

I have been of the opinion for years that I would rather have realism over graphics-maybe GRIN can find it-maybe not. Have we as a group mis-communicated to UBI?

TO UBI and GRIN-my wish is that the server/netcode optimization should favor matched servers with under <=16 players, USE more TCP and less UDP and then use that netcode for other games. Massive games are not a good way to invest your resources, because we cannot control at our level because there is no penalty for RnG!

Modders/co-ordinated play small-they probably play 6 man.

Matchers play small-we like it real and love the competition, but cannot put with the UDP.

Lone Wolves-let em play and they will join a clan-and if not let em play BF2.

Think small, play small, get the netcode right and forget 32 plr server-

32=nade fested spawn camping bad dreams.

More error correction via TCP-remember we do not have <3ms responces-shoot for 64ms.

UDP multicast is safe and easy, but the Guys that made [GR] did not have that luxury, they had to code under for modems-and I was never shot by a "bad guy" that my visual had his back to me. Nor round corner shots because my packet was so late due to where I an sitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people like [GR] 1 and want all the following GR games to be just like it. I don't. GR1 was/is a Great game. So is GR:AW. It isn't and never was intended to be an "expansion pack" of [GR] 1.

I think that since this is a Tacticalshooter with a First Person Shooter quality (Mitchell dies, game over). It should not have been "lumped" with OGR1. This game is similar to the "Brothers in Arms" series. Those are "Tactical" games with a FPS quality and I find them just as difficult as GR:AW. Maybe that is why this game is so hated by some. It is diffilcult. However, I beleive it is because the MP was really left out of the "final" release. However, now, with the patches and MP Map packs, MP should be a lot better.

If some want to 'microwave" their copies of the game, so be it. I am not the one out the 50 bucks! :g_withgrin::rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back on-topic, I think I've figured it out! I KNOW what made the big difference between [GR] and GRAW, and why therefore a lot of folks here aren't too thrilled with GRAW....

Bad news? I doubt it can be remedied through mods...

Good news? WHO CARES?! GRAW is still cool! Anyhow...

Most of this applies to SP, but oh well. It's a big deal to me, even though I DO love GRAW...

First, friendly AI have no value as human lives. In [GR], when one of your frieldlies died he was replaced by another NEW, FRESH dude with WEAK abilities and a DIFFERENT name. This TOTALLY doesn't work for GRAW though. But think on it. As the vanilla campaign progressed, and despite the presence of 'hero' characters, some of the vanilla characters progressed nicely. You put some effort into these guys, rewarding their contribution to mission success with the appropriate ability score boost. You got to memorize the list of various names that might appear, too. But let's say in mission #12 I lost K. Yip. HEY, I put a lot of effort into progressing that dude! He was one of my best riflemen! THAT DUDE WAS ALMOST MAXED ON HIS STEALTH SCORE! And now I have to go back to the drawing board and replace him with Maxwell or someone else who wasn't nearly as good for the next coming mission. You got protective of ALL your teammates, not just the 'hero' characters. It made you more careful. It made you strive to keep EVERYONE alive. Hence, it improved gameplay.

Even the R6 games were like that, and in fact were even better for it. You lose a hero character in Rogue Spear and he's replaced by none other than 'Rookie.' Rookie sucked. Rookie couldn't tag the broad side of a barn if he was posted inside it.

Next were the kits. [GR] kits only allowed TWO weapons or items. I could send a rifleman out with a rifle and 2 sensors, but then what would he do to take-out an enemy behind good cover? He had no grenades! He NEEDED a teammate! You didn't have the flexibility in the kits to have a jack-of-all-trades soldier. In GRAW< I can send Mitchell in with a MR-C/GL/silencer, GI-8 auto pistol, and ZEUS missile. What CAN'T this guy kill with that? I mean, God himself takes cover at that sight. More realistic? Sure. More conducive to team play? Not a chance. Why do I need teammates if I can do it all myself? So you don't take the same care with your teammates when you know you don't absolutely NEED them. In [GR] you HAD to have diversity on a lot of missions. Take the AIRBASE map mission late in the vanilla [GR] campaign. You had to seize the airfield's tower and plant C4 at TWO different locations. OK, so maybe you COULD take that down just playing Nigel Tunney with the SA-80 and C4. But that would be a LOT tougher, since he'd hence have no grenades for the first floor of the tower (dude or two hiding in the dark room) and would have to be QUICK to get both the guys in the top of the tower. Plus he'd have to be VERY cautious with his ammo since he couldn't well sneak-up on the patrols out there and had the whole map to cover. Having THREE teams was the way to go there. One to move out and plant the explosives for each of the two hangars (2 per, 1x DEMO and 1x rifleman or support), and one team to take the tower (1x rifleman, 1x support or sniper). But in GRAW, Mitchell always carries the C4 and can carry any other weapon on there. Any non-AI can do so. There's no point in going overboard to protect anyone but Mitchell. Just that ONE dude has to live for the mission to succeed. Not very TEAMWORK-conducive...

Hey, GRAW is a great game. I love it. And it continues to get better every time the GRiN folks update it. I'm just pointing out a couple of issues I think are key reasons why we're not finding it to be as interesting as [GR] was. We're seeing now why RSE stopped at 2-item kits for [GR] players when they most likely could have given us all the items in the world. They KNEW it would kill team play, and that an emphasis on teamwork was what would make the game. They were right. Whether it was Ubi's doing or GRiN's, that's been lost on GRAW, and I sincerely hope that GR4 (if it ever happens) will account for that creatively and make sure we find a way to make teamwork (ie- covering each otehr's backsides) priority #1...

Thanks in advance for all the flaming I'm gonna take over this one. You guys are the BESTEST!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, friendly AI have no value as human lives. In [GR], when one of your frieldlies died he was replaced by another NEW, FRESH dude with WEAK abilities and a DIFFERENT name.

Yeah that is sorely lacking in GRAW.

It is fun to try to get thru an [GR] campaign (Trilogy mod) with your original team and without resorting to the specialists. Plus, clusters on your CMH look pretty nice.

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...