So Srry to all of the COOP players out there

[RAbbi_74]

@Waika- that might just be the single most intelligent and well-expressed version of the seemingly popular opinion on GRAW I have ever read.

Exceptionally well done!

[viiiper]

Very well put ! 100%

[Judge_Recluse]

@Waika- that might just be the single most intelligent and well-expressed version of the seemingly popular opinion on GRAW I have ever read.

Exceptionally well done!

Im a fan as well. Great post, and thanks for saying it.

[IrishStout]

@Waika- that might just be the single most intelligent and well-expressed version of the seemingly popular opinion on GRAW I have ever read.

Exceptionally well done!

Yup.. I would have to agree.. good post...

[KRP 56]

@Waika Excellent statement. I guess I would be a fan of GRAW if I could just get past the thought of how tremendous it could have been had it used all the elements of GR and expanded and added to an already great game. But it didn't and that leaves a lot to be desired.

[Peace]

[Ghost Recon] came with more level designs, depicting wildly varying settings then sets in an epic block-buster movie... Rich in detail, complex Foley, atmospheric weather and monochromatic light effects; [GR]'s maps alone were a testament of possibility... But there was more, a lot more: more game modes then all other realism shooters at it's release offered combined! More weapons, more game features, more detail... The list goes on...

Sophisticated real time tactical way-pointing, a fundamental game design and theme that made every replay a new experience that allowed vastly and completely different approaches to game-play with each replay -- from 'balls-to-the-walls and hairy solo assaults', to 'don't be spotted or leave a trace in achieving your objective'; no killing required... Ghost Recon was the only game that could replicate the game-play of just about any other realism game, even those that appeared five years later -- yet never needed to because it set a standard.

Then there's [GR]'s mod capability that probably by both design and chance happened to allow an almost idea depth of mod capability, opening the door to nearly a quarter of a million mods and total conversions while keeping a familiar and internally consistent level of realism across the retail game, mods and total conversions.

...

Excellent read

It still beats me (and others I guess) and we will probably never get the answer... why UBI and GRIN chose to deviate from that successful path (as depicted above).

[Bonehead]

...why UBI and GRIN chose to deviate from that successful path (as depicted above).

I think its UBI rather than GRIN IMOHO.

[FI_FlimFlam]

I seem to remember reading in relation to the Rainbow series, that UBI is taking the reigns from the multi-squad, wide-open play and turning it to a more story oriented, lead character, movie like experience. Their marketing says fewer teamates and smaller teams makes it less complicated. Couple that with the "emotional attachement" that they are trying to make you get by assuming the role of just one character and you have a universal design that will play well on the console as well as the PC (ports most of the time) and you will net more sales. At least that is what they believe and limit the design to that gameplay. It's what they did with Rainbow as well. We just got the shaft before most of you guys here when we were delivered Lockdown.

However GRAW, even though it's not in the same vein as [GR], it is a good game by itself. If it didn't have TC or GR in the title, it would have been marked as a good first effort by most people here. It is fun to play even with it's blemishes.

I would be willing to bet that you will NEVER see the gameplay and multi-squad dynamic that made GR and the Rainbow series so unique - at least not from UBI. Which also means you will never again see that in a Tom Clancy title as long as UBI owns the intellectual property. I LOVED [GR] - granted I wasn't a MP person because of my limited net access at the time. I was disgusted by GR2 and extremely happy it was canned for the PC given what it was for the XBOX and the PC was looking to be a port (can you say Lockdown). GRAW took what UBI wanted with team size and more personaliztion on the central character (Mitchell) and then let GRIN run with it. I think they did a bang up job with what they were ALLOWED to do with the intellectual property.

[GR] is dead for future games. It will only exist for [GR]. UBI will never green light a similar gamemechanic again - much to our loss. It's going to be up to modders to make the game be as close to what you want. If you can see that you might open your eyes a bit more and throttle back on the venom of your dislike of GRAW and give it another chance. You might even like some aspects of it. Who knows. Of course, for some it won't be possible as that the only thing that would satisfy them is to repackage [GR] on an updated IGOR engine.

Edited September 14, 2006 by FI_FlimFlam

[Bonehead]

Well said and thought out. Can't agree with you more!

[Toniezz]

I just had to put it on my wall :'(

[Cangaroo.TNT]

I seem to remember reading in relation to the Rainbow series, that UBI is taking the reigns from the multi-squad, wide-open play and turning it to a more story oriented, lead character, movie like experience. Their marketing says fewer teamates and smaller teams makes it less complicated. COuple that with the "emotional attachement" that they are trying to make you get by assuming the role of just one character and you have a universal design that will play well on the console as well as the PC (ports most of the time) and you will net more sales.

This crazy, crazy idea just struck me reading this...but, with more movies based on video games, and all the cross-promotions going on (movie ads in Splinter Cell) is it POSSIBLE that they are trying to create the "emotional attachment" to create a future movie audience? I always thought that Splinter Cell would make a great movie, and it would be easier to make a movie about Scott Mitchel & GRAW than it would be to make a movie about BF2.

[RAbbi_74]

' date='Sep 15 2006, 05:20 AM' post='420261']

This crazy, crazy idea just struck me reading this...but, with more movies based on video games, and all the cross-promotions going on (movie ads in Splinter Cell) is it POSSIBLE that they are trying to create the "emotional attachment" to create a future movie audience? I always thought that Splinter Cell would make a great movie, and it would be easier to make a movie about Scott Mitchel & GRAW than it would be to make a movie about BF2.

That's actually quite good. Wow, this thread is FULL of wisdom!

I also thought SC would make a great film, so long as they keep Ben Affleck out of it. (sorry, had to be typed) I feel that each of the games payed much like a film, especially a trilogy. What with the recurrence of certain characters' names and likenesses form one episode to the next (Doug Shetland in both PT and CT, Zherkezi (sp?) in two, Phillipe Masse (again, sp?) being alomost as popular as Sam Fisher throughout... So long as Double Agent doesn't damn the series, a la Lockdown, it's entirely possible to see a movie deal in the future. Wouldn't Ubisoft love that?! (let's hope it fares better than DooM's reliance on the gimmick perspective in the end of the film)

As for an emotional attachment to a GR personality, I'm more likely to take a liking to Ramirez. That was THE name in [GR]'s IT expansion, not to mention a pretty darned good recon dude in vanilla [GR] (especially handy in the POW Camp mission along with that blonde gal). A GRAW hero? Brown, for certain. He expends more rounds in any single mission than the entire United States Marine Corps did in Operation: Desert Storm! The guy's a spamfest in combat boots, and I DIG that about him!

[GreyHaired]

' date='Sep 14 2006, 08:20 PM' post='420261']

This crazy, crazy idea just struck me reading this...but, with more movies based on video games, and all the cross-promotions going on (movie ads in Splinter Cell) is it POSSIBLE that they are trying to create the "emotional attachment" to create a future movie audience? I always thought that Splinter Cell would make a great movie, and it would be easier to make a movie about Scott Mitchel & GRAW than it would be to make a movie about BF2.

Are you thinking in this direction?:

Attempted translation of an article that appeared in a Danish newspaper, October last year:

“Computer games close to Hollywood”

According to an international producer of pc games, such games will make it possible to play movies within the next five years.

(Edit: the article continues with a description of Prince of Persia, the main character’s effortless movements to the top of a building from where he has an overview of Babylon in war) then continues:

Interactive games

“Very soon and within the next 5 years we will see pc games with graphics quality as we saw it two years ago in “Lord of the Rings”, says Ubisoft’s producer Ben Mattes.

While graphics in pc games will develop towards Hollywood productions, there will always be the difference that games are interactive. Ben Mattes concludes: “It will feel as if you play a movie. Actually we have the first games on the market e.g. “Fahrenheit”, an interactive drama where decisions in the course of the game have consequences later on. Just like in real life”

[Wille]

' date='Sep 14 2006, 08:20 PM' post='420261']

This crazy, crazy idea just struck me reading this...but, with more movies based on video games, and all the cross-promotions going on (movie ads in Splinter Cell) is it POSSIBLE that they are trying to create the "emotional attachment" to create a future movie audience? I always thought that Splinter Cell would make a great movie, and it would be easier to make a movie about Scott Mitchel & GRAW than it would be to make a movie about BF2.

Are you thinking in this direction?:

Attempted translation of an article that appeared in a Danish newspaper, October last year:

“Computer games close to Hollywoodâ€

According to an international producer of pc games, such games will make it possible to play movies within the next five years.

(Edit: the article continues with a description of Prince of Persia, the main character’s effortless movements to the top of a building from where he has an overview of Babylon in war) then continues:

Interactive games

“Very soon and within the next 5 years we will see pc games with graphics quality as we saw it two years ago in “Lord of the Ringsâ€, says Ubisoft’s producer Ben Mattes.

While graphics in pc games will develop towards Hollywood productions, there will always be the difference that games are interactive. Ben Mattes concludes: “It will feel as if you play a movie. Actually we have the first games on the market e.g. “Fahrenheitâ€, an interactive drama where decisions in the course of the game have consequences later on. Just like in real lifeâ€

I think thats alot of bullcrap really:) games with movie quality graphics are far and far and far and far off, not only beacuase the the hardware wont be able to handle it all in realtime for a loong time but also because of the production cost, the fact that you cant fake as much in a game as you can in a movie, and because it will take far too long to make a game like that with current production standards.

[Cangaroo.TNT]

I think thats alot of bullcrap really:) games with movie quality graphics are far and far and far and far off, not only beacuase the the hardware wont be able to handle it all in realtime for a loong time but also because of the production cost, the fact that you cant fake as much in a game as you can in a movie, and because it will take far too long to make a game like that with current production standards.

Even if you can't make a video game look like a movie, you can make movie based on video game characters, which is the jist of my original comment, and perhaps a motivating factor in Ubisoft's decisions

Edited September 15, 2006 by Cangaroo[TNT]

[Nutlink]

I think thats alot of bullcrap really:) games with movie quality graphics are far and far and far and far off, not only beacuase the the hardware wont be able to handle it all in realtime for a loong time but also because of the production cost, the fact that you cant fake as much in a game as you can in a movie, and because it will take far too long to make a game like that with current production standards.

Not true! I'm willing to bet you your next paycheck that I can make a game in less than one week with realistic graphics and system requirements lower than Windows Vista.....

Now, granted, there wouldn't be any animation in it.......

Edited September 15, 2006 by Nutlink

[Rocky]

I think thats alot of bullcrap really:) games with movie quality graphics are far and far and far and far off, not only beacuase the the hardware wont be able to handle it all in realtime for a loong time but also because of the production cost, the fact that you cant fake as much in a game as you can in a movie, and because it will take far too long to make a game like that with current production standards.

Not true! I'm willing to bet you your next paycheck that I can make a game in less than one week with realistic graphics and system requirements lower than Windows Vista.....

Now, granted, there wouldn't be any animation in it.......

Those posts reminded me of that game that came out a while back, it was less than 1Mb in size, and yet looked amazing. Here it is, look at the sceenshot even if you don't download it and try it. I guess what I am thinking is, if somebody can produce a game looking like that in under 1Mb, who knows what clever programming in the future has in store for us.

[Wille]

there are loads of cool little demos like that, but thats all they are, cool little demos, couldnt really be used in a working affordable massive production pipeline

[WhiteKnight77]

*cough* Peter Berg to Direct Splinter Cell *cough*

*cough* Rainbow Six *cough*

Now the R6 movie has been in planning for years, but hasn't moved forward very much and is supposed to be based on the book. With Ubi going to new characters on the R6 team (Vegas) and a smaller team at that, it may very well not be the movie anyone wants.

[Cangaroo.TNT]

*cough* Peter Berg to Direct Splinter Cell *cough*

*cough* Rainbow Six *cough*

Now the R6 movie has been in planning for years, but hasn't moved forward very much and is supposed to be based on the book. With Ubi going to new characters on the R6 team (Vegas) and a smaller team at that, it may very well not be the movie anyone wants.

Wow, when I made my post I had no idea. But, it meshes with the idea of UBI changing GR to focus on a hero character, that being Mitchell. That's not to say that EVERY game can or would be made into a movie, but if the possibility exists, it makes sense for video game publishers to explore/exploit the possibility of a wildly successful game becoming a movie. They'd rake in a LOT of extra dough with little or no additional effort. Then, think of the additional merchandising: action figures, clothing, etc.

Just think of the possibilities: trick-or-treating in an officially liscensed Splinter Cell costume...do a coop with a buddy...one guy rings the bell to distract the homeowner while the other sneaks in a window and steals all the candy!

[WhiteKnight77]

Since you are fairly new to GR.net, you don't know that the only reason I even bought a computer was to play Rainbow Six even though it was 2 years old and Rogue Spear was coming out. It got even better with the release of Rogue Spear and it's expansions. Then came Ghost Recon. I don't play any other FPS games, not HL, not UT, not Doom or even Quake. Yet now, I am faced with game franchises that mimics the games I do not play. They could make movies based on the original games and keep the games as they were, but Ubi wants more money plain and simple and changing the face of the games is how they plan on doing it.

They don't care that people still play Rainbow Six some 8 years after it was first released nor do they care if we still play GR almost 5 years after it was first released. They want a game that people will buy and play for a few months and then toss it away (this is what has happened with the designe of Lockdown) and then buy the next game in the franchise the following year even if it stinks from the original premise of the franchise. Making the games more movie like will be the death of franchises that some of us love dearly.

[Cangaroo.TNT]

Making the games more movie like will be the death of franchises that some of us love dearly.

I'm not debating that. I'm just saying that maybe it explains this:

...Ubi wants more money plain and simple and changing the face of the games is how they plan on doing it.

Two weeks ago I replayed Day of the Tentacle for the I-don't-know-how-manyth time. Lucasarts sure don't make games like that, anymore.

The progress train keeps rolling crushing everything in it's path.

[Dai-San]

Since you are fairly new to GR.net, you don't know that the only reason I even bought a computer was to play Rainbow Six even though it was 2 years old and Rogue Spear was coming out. It got even better with the release of Rogue Spear and it's expansions. Then came Ghost Recon. I don't play any other FPS games, not HL, not UT, not Doom or even Quake. Yet now, I am faced with game franchises that mimics the games I do not play. They could make movies based on the original games and keep the games as they were, but Ubi wants more money plain and simple and changing the face of the games is how they plan on doing it.

They don't care that people still play Rainbow Six some 8 years after it was first released nor do they care if we still play GR almost 5 years after it was first released. They want a game that people will buy and play for a few months and then toss it away (this is what has happened with the designe of Lockdown) and then buy the next game in the franchise the following year even if it stinks from the original premise of the franchise. Making the games more movie like will be the death of franchises that some of us love dearly.

Amen that man, a sad indictment on the corporate mentality overshadowing what was once a creative and inovative industry.

The idea of what players actually want has been overshadowed by the holy dollar

[Cangaroo.TNT]

The idea of what players actually want has been overshadowed by the holy dollar

Isn't that a bit contradictory? They make the most money based on what market research tells them MOST players want. When is the last time you bought toilet paper embedded with shards of glass? Masochists would love it, why is it not available? Times & tastes change, and that leaves some people behind. Why do you think our parents (& grandparents for the younger crowd) are so Goddamned cranky?

(I just know this reply is going to be misinterpreted )

Edited September 15, 2006 by Cangaroo[TNT]

[Sheldon_AS]

' date='Sep 15 2006, 04:04 PM' post='420599']

The idea of what players actually want has been overshadowed by the holy dollar

Isn't that a bit contradictory? They make the most money based on what market research tells them MOST players want. When is the last time you bought toilet paper embedded with shards of glass? Masochists would love it, why is it not available? Times & tastes change, and that leaves some people behind. Why do you think our parents (& grandparents for the younger crowd) are so Goddamned cranky?

(I just know this reply is going to be misinterpreted )

And you've proven his point. Its the short-sighted corporate mentality that goes after the largest dollar amount at the detriment of a games biggest fan base that sinks the ship.

Personally, (and I know I'm not alone), I'm back playing [GR] and my GRAW disk is back in the box and sitting with the rest of the bad game purchases I've made over the years. I wont be giving any more of my dollars for the add-on packs that UBI/GRIN are surely planning on releasing for GRAW. I also wont be pre-ordering any other game from either of them as well.

They've both shown their mettle by the promises they've made in regard to GRAW that were never delivered.