SnipesR1 Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 I am an old player of the original GR and RVS those games are nearly 6 years out but still alot of fun with the added mods and unlimited ammounts of maps. Well as far as i care GRAW is now pretty mutch at its optimum levle for Multiplayer Combat, but my current concern is the fact that the weapons in it right now are just plain old boring and are begining to suck. Now im sure their will be some to disagree but really, do you think future special forces would really carry a .50Cal sniper rifle into combat? ? and as far as sights go their is no way they would be limited to weak old Aim Points. Now secondarys are as good as to be expected but the main weaponry is lacking alot imo. so will we have to rely on Mods for adittions to the guns or will Grin soft be making some updates to the armory like the Xbox360 version has gotten? oh plus a flasbang would be nice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAbbi_74 Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 The .50 seems to be the caliber du jour for snipers these days. On the very razor's edge of what's allowed by international law for antipersonnel, but still effective against light vehicles (hence the M82's designation as an AntiMaterial Rifle). Agreed, flashbangs would be cool and the sights will likely be significantly mo betta for an SF team seven years from now. But will we ever see additional weapons from Ubisoft? I doubt it, but having said that I invite someone to riddle me this: the enemy weapons in GRAW (HK G36 and HK21 at least) have their own distinct sounds, rates of fire, and weapon models. Ballistics and impact force have apparently also been figured out. So what's left for some enterprising modder to make thos two at least available? Also note, a weapon I saw nowhere in the SP campaign (not to say I didn't bypass the AI carrying it) but that showed up in [GR] COOP: SR-25 SPR. The two rooftop snipers just north of the overpass in JDHH map both carry those, as does the one who occasionally shows up north of the playing area in the same map. I'd bet that's an addition that wasn't available even to the enemy in any previous iteration of GRAW, and it begs an interesting question: what else is in there or in the works that we don't know about? And for that matter, what's to stop a GRiN'er from creating a standard user account here at GRnet and showing off some 'mods' he created as a regular dude/dudette and diehard GRAW fan (hiding his/her identity as a GRiN employee, of course, in order that Bo not strangle him/her)? Just in case Ubisoft has ticked off the devs the way they have ticked off the players... I'm thinking happy thoughts tonight... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoQuarter Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 I doubt it, but having said that I invite someone to riddle me this: the enemy weapons in GRAW (HK G36 and HK21 at least) have their own distinct sounds, rates of fire, and weapon models. Ballistics and impact force have apparently also been figured out. So what's left for some enterprising modder to make thos two at least available? If they can create the missing animations and import the out-going .wav file nothing. Also note, a weapon I saw nowhere in the SP campaign (not to say I didn't bypass the AI carrying it) but that showed up in [GR] COOP: SR-25 SPR. The two rooftop snipers just north of the overpass in JDHH map both carry those, as does the one who occasionally shows up north of the playing area in the same map. I'd bet that's an addition that wasn't available even to the enemy in any previous iteration of GRAW, and it begs an interesting question: what else is in there or in the works that we don't know about? They are using the PSG-1. No new weapons folders or .XML revisions in the patch.bundle. [GR] Co-Op JDHH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricJ Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 (edited) Confirmed, they would have mentioned it during testing, and somebody would have caught it. Too bad they can't make the PSG-1 player usable... Now im sure their will be some to disagree but really, do you think future special forces would really carry a .50Cal sniper rifle into combat? ? Which begs the question, why should present day forces use it then? It does what it does, it inflicts alot of damage on soft targets. And from a long distance too If it's available, and you need to use it, why not? Edited September 19, 2006 by EricJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ59 Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 While this game is supposed to take place in the future, there still should be a LOT more current weapons in the inventory. Look how long the AK-47 has been around and is still the assault weapon of choice world wide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAbbi_74 Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 They are using the PSG-1. Good catch. I hadn't gottn THAT good a look at the weapon apparently. MY BAD... Further on the .50 sniper rifles, I somehow doubt they're the best choice for the given environment in GRAW. Mostly urban environments with engagement ranges under 150 meters? And no vehicles I've seen stopped by non-explosive means? I'd have to wonder if something like an M14 or M24 wouldn't be better for EXCELLENT accuracy in that situation, along with a substantially lighter payload. PERHAPS another reason so many are asking for more weapons choices... On the other hand, the weapons available each present their own unique strengths and weaknesses, both on their own AND as part of a total kit (weight restrictions). The last thing we need is another SUPERGUN (think [GR] OICW w/o nade launcher) that is clearly superior to its peers for accuracy without compromising in weight or zoom or anything else. In THAT perspective, GRiN did a pretty darned good job with the weapons selection we have available (and seemingly within the constraints provided them by the publisher)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnipesR1 Posted September 20, 2006 Author Share Posted September 20, 2006 (edited) still good in all it dosent make up for the massive weapons choice differences between GRAW PC and Xbox. Now i know that for each system Ubisoft used different publishers that fact is always going to be aparent but damn i really doubt that their would be sutch a amount of weapons difference, to me it seems PC users are gettin the shaft on this one, but asuringly their will hopefully be a few modders out their who can give us a wider variety of weapons right?? Edited September 20, 2006 by SnipesR1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nutlink Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 (edited) Ubisoft - Publisher GRiN - Developer Red Storm - Developer Two different teams made the PC and 360 games, they are nothing alike except in basic concept (Mexico, Ghost Recon name, ingame videos, and possibly a few other things). Hence why they difference in the gameplay, options, number of weapons, etc etc. I believe the XBox version had more time in production that the PC version as well, although I may be mistaken in that regard. Edited September 20, 2006 by Nutlink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sui317 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 okay i will ask again in this thread if ubi needs to buy licenses for guns to be copied in to the games don't they buy the licence for graw or do they have to buy for xbox graw, ps2 graw xbox360 graw and pc graw all seperate ? would suck if it was seperate but then it would surely be ubi's choise because they figured we will have modders out there to do it for them and they get a free ride i would love some weapons extra in game but i don't see the problem, open every other game out there, it is all m4 and AK great things but graw pc does have originality with the stock weapons (what if a stock m4 in graw pc would have sucked because the scar had to be better because it was new like the oicw in [GR] compared to the sopmod) we can only hope for a miracle .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silentwolf Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 GRIN did do a great job, but the lack of weapons is a little frustrating! Rabbi, you are right about the M24, it would have been a much better choice of weapon for the style of locations in this game, accuracy on that weapon is second to none! and what about the L85a2, i know its largely British made (which i know someone is gonna say an "American Ghost would never carry") but surely a weapon as formidable in accuracy and power would have to be a must! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAbbi_74 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Since we ARE talking about SF dudes, I'm certain they can get their hands on just about any firearm they feel does the trick. If an L85 fits their needs better than a M99 or M24, then by all means they like to go grab a couple and thoroughly test them. Within reason, of course... Can't have them running around with one of every deer rifle out there (can you say THOUSANDS) trying to figure out which they like better. As for personal tastes (game, not IRL) I loved that PSG-1 SD they had in the old AlphaMod (I think). My favorite PC game sniper rifle... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rbrad1 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 I know we have had this discussion before, but I would still like to see the 10 round Magazine feed, .50 cal sniper rifle. But a M24 would also be good. Just so long that the "sniper" was allowed to carry more than 50 rounds. I would also like to see the M4 and the M14 with slightly better optics. You would think that 13 years from now "we" would have better optics for SF and even the "oridinary" infantry soldier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silentwolf Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 more than 50 rounds? wouldn't you rather an automatic rifle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rbrad1 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 more than 50 rounds? wouldn't you rather an automatic rifle? If I am the "sniper" and we were on a "lengthy" mission, I would want as many rounds that I could carry. I might be the best shot in the world, but situations where you are being shot at, might be the type you might want to take out more than anticipated. However, if I was on a totally "sniper" mission. my "partner" would be required to carry most of the ammo, not me. On these missions, it is usually one target, not many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAbbi_74 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 more than 50 rounds? wouldn't you rather an automatic rifle? That's if you carry the extra ammo for the sniper rifle, which means you pretty much can't carry much else. 20 rounds is the basic load. Make 'em count! And yeah, I'd like to see a magazine-fed .50 instead, but I think I understand what the thought process was. The .50 sniper rifle we get is heavy enough. Complicate that a little more with the extra mechanisms required to accomodate magazine feed, and it just gets heavier. As it is it's a strain on our poor SF guy to carry that rifle and a respectable secondary. I think the point of selecting the single-shot bolt-action variety was to minimize the carried weight of a VERY heavy weapon. This guy DOES have to sprint around the streets of Mexico City in what's apparently some fierce heat. I envy him not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rbrad1 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 more than 50 rounds? wouldn't you rather an automatic rifle? That's if you carry the extra ammo for the sniper rifle, which means you pretty much can't carry much else. 20 rounds is the basic load. Make 'em count! And yeah, I'd like to see a magazine-fed .50 instead, but I think I understand what the thought process was. The .50 sniper rifle we get is heavy enough. Complicate that a little more with the extra mechanisms required to accomodate magazine feed, and it just gets heavier. As it is it's a strain on our poor SF guy to carry that rifle and a respectable secondary. I think the point of selecting the single-shot bolt-action variety was to minimize the carried weight of a VERY heavy weapon. This guy DOES have to sprint around the streets of Mexico City in what's apparently some fierce heat. I envy him not... Neither do I, but I guess I WAS spoiled by the Modders in OGR1, where I had that magazine FED (got it right this time) .50 cal rifle in MOST, not all missions. I would look at what the upcoming mission was and determine what weapon "my" sniper would use. In OGR1 I was usually the sniper. ( Oh, how nice it was to "switch" characters! ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoQuarter Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Let's get old school...an ART equipped M-21 with a realistic combat load. Better suited to the situation than that telephone pole. If the M-99 takes as many rounds to soft-kill a vehicle as a standard weapon it's hard to justify the weight penalty, other than being a rather clumsy spotting scope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rbrad1 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Let's get old school...an ART equipped M-21 with a realistic combat load. Better suited to the situation than that telephone pole. If the M-99 takes as many rounds to soft-kill a vehicle as a standard weapon it's hard to justify the weight penalty, other than being a rather clumsy spotting scope. You"re right, however, since this is a game, would not you want to have the "most and best" firepower available? In real life, I would outfit my sniper with the most "reasonable" weapon and loadout that I could, within the parameters(sp) of the mission. I surely wouldn't have a .50 cal sniper in an urban environment. However, in the the mission where I need to take out the bunkers, before the armor can move, a .50 cal sniper (who knew what he was doing) would come in quite handy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAbbi_74 Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Handy part of the .50 round in this game is the ability to defeat the metal shields on the .50 HB MG turrets. No need to be sneaky, just have your sniper pop him from his 12. Though I prefer to keep the sniper out of it and use distractions to get the .50 guy to look away so I can shoot at his profile. Or toss frag at him. Either way. So yeah, I'd definitely benefit in SP from a lighter rifle in maybe 7.62mm with about a 6X zoom. Even if it can't guarantee the single-shot kill, 9 out of 10 hits in the top half WILL drop one of those rebels if it's 7.62. And being able to carry grenades (prefer smoke for the sniper) AND a secondary at the same time? Priceless... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricJ Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 more than 50 rounds? wouldn't you rather an automatic rifle? That's if you carry the extra ammo for the sniper rifle, which means you pretty much can't carry much else. 20 rounds is the basic load. Make 'em count! And yeah, I'd like to see a magazine-fed .50 instead, but I think I understand what the thought process was. The .50 sniper rifle we get is heavy enough. Complicate that a little more with the extra mechanisms required to accomodate magazine feed, and it just gets heavier. As it is it's a strain on our poor SF guy to carry that rifle and a respectable secondary. I think the point of selecting the single-shot bolt-action variety was to minimize the carried weight of a VERY heavy weapon. This guy DOES have to sprint around the streets of Mexico City in what's apparently some fierce heat. I envy him not... Well true enough, I'd prefer an M24 to a Barret (which is the M99-1, which comes in around 9 kg, which is what the GRAWs weapon weight anyways), but bringing up the .50 issue is the thing. However, if you get a good enough shot through the "U" on the front part, it doesn't matter if it's 7.62 or .50, but the Barrett makes it easier . Only thing though like most weapon use discussions, shouldn't it be up to the player given the limited selection available? Sure in Strong Point it's damn necessary, for the one overwatching the road (i.e. the second one), but then again, if you gotta make do with what you got then so far we don't have too much of a choice. And sometimes a GL or hand grenade, a weapon that doesn't jerk that much works just as well. Sure though, I'd still go with an M24. More practical given that the HK21E uses 7.62 x 51mm. Sure you can't get the best round (ball versus match) but maybe make battlefield resupply easier. Which can open the can of worms, do I get a different performance vs. stolen HK21E ammo or the high speed match grade I jump out of the chopper with? And going with the scope, heck I'd be happy with an ACOG on a SCAR-H as a "sniper weapon". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoQuarter Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 You"re right, however, since this is a game, would not you want to have the "most and best" firepower available? I thought I was referring to the game. And since the amount of rounds required to disable a vehicle is similar (albeit slower, you do have to work that bolt), to that of a basic 5.56mm weapon (or a sidearm for that matter), the only reason to carry the M-99 is for the optics. If the damage models reflected the difference of the calibers more accurately then it would be easier to justify the M-99 in the limited inventory and to be considered "most and best" (ingame). If and hopefully when there is an expansion I think that the PSG-1, HK-21E would have first dibs on any new slots (half the work is done allready). You would think that 13 years from now "we" would have better optics for SF and even the "oridinary" infantry soldier. Couldn't agree more. You have 24hr access to a dedicated satellite and a drone, but they can't spring for a set of Steiners? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rbrad1 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 (edited) I know that this is a little off-topic, however, why don't we have the 3 rd burst option? Full auto is so "wrong". Edited September 22, 2006 by Rbrad1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnipesR1 Posted September 22, 2006 Author Share Posted September 22, 2006 (edited) I know that this is a little off-topic, however, why don't we have the 3 rd burst option? Full auto is so "wrong". heh well to tell ya most Special Forces weapons need to be full auto for the fact that they often go through urban enviroments, so in close quarters its essential to be able to layout supressive fire. Also most weapons commonly used by SpecOps teams is The M4, remember burst was made cause the military thought full auto was too mutch for new recruits. anyways their is one gun with the burst option and thats the MP5SD secondary weapon. anyways it would also be sweet to see a H&K G36 in the inventory, and hell why not the AR-15 semi auto Sniper rifle,.... was a total favorite of mines in [GR] with the DX9 mod.. i think thats what it was. Edited September 22, 2006 by SnipesR1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAbbi_74 Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 MR-C also has the burst option. In Vietnam, the standard rifle for the US Army infantryman was teh M16. Not sure if the M16A1 came along during that time, but my first assigned weapon in the Army (for like 2 years or so) was an M16A1. SAFE-SEMI-AUTO. Anyhow, prior to the A2, the M16 was used with only a full-auto setting and magazines of 20 or 30 rounds. Some scared 19 year old kid in a steel pot and Army green in 'Nam wasn't going to make a magazine last very long when the proverbial dookie hit the fan. They proved this. It was kinda common for Joe Soldier to blow-off a full magazine in one pull of the trigger. So, the Defense Department went back to Colt with the issue... Along comes Mister M16A2, with the AUTO replaced by BURST. Reasoning? Well, even in Basic Combat Training we were taught that automatic fire was to be kept to bursts of 3-5 rounds, for obvious reasons (though IRL we don't get reticle pips). This was, we just had no choice but to comply with that guidance. Can still go through an A2's magtazine pretty quickly if you try. AND seize the bolt to the carrier, but that's why the HK416 went to a gas piston. Sorry, whole other topic... Not sure about the M4's or the newer M16's (A4?). Might wanna ask someone like EricJ, who actually gets to tote one. As for the SF guys, I think we can rest assured that they know how to fire their weapon appropriately in combat. And keep a mental note of how many rounds are left in the magazine and how many more magazines they have. WITHOUT a silly counter on the screen... Which gives me an idea for the modders.... What was I talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnipesR1 Posted September 22, 2006 Author Share Posted September 22, 2006 lol yup thats pretty mutch it in a nut shell, burst is good en all but its no good for me if i need to spray en pray you know, but still it would be nice to have a full range option on the other guns to be like the MRC with Single Burst and Full Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.