Ubisoft announce officially the incoming Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon

[Sup]

All these statements about kids not wanting tactical games is nonsense really, remember many of us actually started as kids

Agreed. The implication that 'tactical' games are any better than other games is also absurd. It's simply personal preference.

Tis true. I remember on my 1st PC back when i was around 14/15/16 (cant remember lol), i played Rainbow Six the original, and i absolutely couldnt get enough of the tactical gameplay. I loved picking a team, giving them each there own weapons then setting up waypoints etc to complete each mission. Also, being taken out in like 1 or 2 shots also was a breathe of fresh air to me, it felt tough and each mission a genuine acheivement if you did it well (Wouldnt mind some of these features brung back tbh such as squad management etc but o well).

Definitely. I understand why most of the more mainstream games of this sort (r6, gr) have somewhat moved away from this, though. It is a somewhat frustrating design, and while some of us may really enjoy that it makes sense to add a bit of playability to the game by altering the damage system.

Squad management does benifit from a bit of simplification, but I don't think anyone has really gotten the right balance of usability and depth in the tactical shooter.

[CkZWarlord]

First off, get your facts straight. It's not the damn HDR lighting that everyone thinks doesn't allow you to use AA or the likes. It's the deferred lighting, which if you look it up, has a LOT of potential. GRAW is just beyond it's time when it comes to technology. HDR lighting is in a LOT of games these days (Oblivion, Half-Life 2, Far Cry, Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, Rainbow Six Lockdown, and a lot more).

I don't care what type of lighting they use, as long as they pick the right one for the job... and guess what... HDR isn't the right one for ANY game where only 1 lighting source is used. Just to give you an idea of what I am talking about: 1024x768 resolution causes for 28 MB *JUST FOR HDR*, now factor in super-sampling and all that other crap that is used. The reason that HDR is the *WRONG* lighting technique is because it was designed to give better preformance when multiple light sources are used. They should've just done GR:AW with true AA, it would've looked just as good, preformed better and done so on lower system requirements.

Second, how do you know when development started? I'd take Wille's word that they had 14 months to do the game over your 2+ years guess.

It was 14 months when they released GR:AW which makes the start-point almost 2 yrs ago now and I don't see them finishing GR:AW shortly... do you? ... I don't ...

I'm tired of these self-proclaimed experts that think they know everything about everything just because they heard it from another self-proclaimed expert.

Yawn kid, <CENSORED MYSELF> I got my facts straight...

Edited October 29, 2006 by CkZWarlord

[Hockeystick]

The reason that HDR is the *WRONG* lighting technique is because it was designed to give better preformance when multiple light sources are used. They should've just done GR:AW with true AA, it would've looked just as good, preformed better and done so on lower system requirements.

You know that HDR is NOT the reason why there is no AA, right?

[buellsrusx1]

Obviously you get what you put in.

By not listening to original GR base and giving us the same game play and time attention to the pc flatform we have this thing POS . That will not last and is dead in the box. Countless [GR] clans sit around around watch the talk like its BS . We been burned too many times. UBI doesnt or didnt want to give the time any money to make a sequel. BIG mistake. The base didnt want AW 1 and wont want AW 2 . Plain and simple.

I believe politics and Sept 11 have all but ruined PC tectical shooters. People are scared of us playing such games. UBI caved in and agreed.

Edited October 29, 2006 by buellsrusx1

[kingotnw]

We got a sequel, it just evolved. Much like Gameplay evolved from R6 to Rogue spear to Covert Ops... Maps got smaller and smaller and they got more focused on CQC. I personally was unhappy with that change,not everyone was though. As a matter of fact I found that most people liked the change, which was amazing to me.

GR1 was suposed to be an alternative to R6, since R6 started forcusing more on CQC. It worked too I thought, to a degree. It still naver matched the fun I had when rogue spear was released, and as I always say Urban Ops as the best expansion to any game ever released IMO.

I am just trying to say that we did get a sequal, it just evolved, like everything has to and does. The original GR game was what it was... But thats sort of "done" now you know? A company can't keep making the same game over and over.

God, I remember back when compaines started making games in 3D instead of 2D. For soooo long people screamed and yelled about 2D being better. The industry moves forward and evolves. I actually give credit to GRIN for trying to combine the two games. GRAW was designed to be more linear than the previous games with all of its scripted sequences.

This thing about the "base" not wanting GRAW is sort of silly because I am in the base and I wanted it and like it. I don't even believe that "most" didnt want it. Personally from sort of staying on the outside of the situation and looking in, it seems like the thing "most" people had issues with were the monsterous system requirments of the game. Thats a problem that every leap in generation has it seems.

Ok... Jumping back to the peek thing in R6:Vegas... I can understand how people who havent played the game could have issue with the way it is set up in the game. However, when you are actually playing the game it is a cool feature. I was in the same boat before I got to play the demo, but all in all I REALLY like the demo a lot and am very excited for the game. I find that on the realistic setting that it is actually quite a bit HARDER than previous R6 games. Even the normal setting is fairly difficult.

Edited October 29, 2006 by kingotnw

[REC0N]

We got a sequel, it just evolved. Much like Gameplay evolved from R6 to Rogue spear to Covert Ops... Maps got smaller and smaller and they got more focused on CQC. I personally was unhappy with that change,not everyone was though. As a matter of fact I found that most people liked the change, which was amazing to me.

GR1 was suposed to be an alternative to R6, since R6 started forcusing more on CQC. It worked too I thought, to a degree. It still naver matched the fun I had when rogue spear was released, and as I always say Urban Ops as the best expansion to any game ever released IMO.

I am just trying to say that we did get a sequal, it just evolved, like everything has to and does. The original GR game was what it was... But thats sort of "done" now you know? A company can't keep making the same game over and over.

God, I remember back when compaines started making games in 3D instead of 2D. For soooo long people screamed and yelled about 2D being better. The industry moves forward and evolves. I actually give credit to GRIN for trying to combine the two games. GRAW was designed to be more linear than the previous games with all of its scripted sequences.

This thing about the "base" not wanting GRAW is sort of silly because I am in the base and I wanted it and like it. I don't even believe that "most" didnt want it. Personally from sort of staying on the outside of the situation and looking in, it seems like the thing "most" people had issues with were the monsterous system requirments of the game. Thats a problem that every leap in generation has it seems.

Ok... Jumping back to the peek thing in R6:Vegas... I can understand how people who havent played the game could have issue with the way it is set up in the game. However, when you are actually playing the game it is a cool feature. I was in the same boat before I got to play the demo, but all in all I REALLY like the demo a lot and am very excited for the game. I find that on the realistic setting that it is actually quite a bit HARDER than previous R6 games. Even the normal setting is fairly difficult.

They didn't evolve thats the point, they took whole gameplay concept and changed it completely. When you evolve something, you take the main things and try to make them even better, that was not the case whit GRAW and it doesnt seem to be the case whit Rainbow Six: Vegas.

It's like making Splinter Cell and selling it as a Rainbow Six game, sure it's one heck of a game but it isnt Rainbow Six.

Don't know how to explain it better really, so I hope you get the picture.

Edited October 29, 2006 by REC0N

[Nutlink]

I don't care what type of lighting they use, as long as they pick the right one for the job... and guess what... HDR isn't the right one for ANY game where only 1 lighting source is used. Just to give you an idea of what I am talking about: 1024x768 resolution causes for 28 MB *JUST FOR HDR*, now factor in super-sampling and all that other crap that is used. The reason that HDR is the *WRONG* lighting technique is because it was designed to give better preformance when multiple light sources are used. They should've just done GR:AW with true AA, it would've looked just as good, preformed better and done so on lower system requirements.

Depends on the HDR used. This uses SM3.0 HDR I believe. Almost ANY system can handle HDR without a problem, and even if it is SM3.0 HDR and not SM2.0. While I do think it should have been an option, and it may be your opinion that HDR was a bad idea instead of going with the old bloom effects, or that deferred lighting was a mistake, but the gaming industry might be saying otherwise. There have been rumors that Crysis and UT2007 will also be using deferred lighting.

It was 14 months when they released GR:AW which makes the start-point almost 2 yrs ago now and I don't see them finishing GR:AW shortly... do you? ... I don't ...

Support and development are two completely different things. Developing gives them a LOT to do in a short period of time, while supporting means they can do whatever they want, including giving us the finger and walking away. Besides, everyones definition of "finished" is different.

[Sup]

Besides, everyones definition of "finished" is different.

No videogame is ever finished, only abandoned.

[WillieP]

Besides, everyones definition of "finished" is different.

No videogame is ever finished, only abandoned.

hmmm Star Craft, UT, or should I go on. Those games were almost perfect out of the box. Those games should probally be abandoned. But guess what they are made by good companies, so they are not. I know I still play them just to get a feeling of what game making should be, I can name others if you like.

You don't see the consoleness pushed on us. Buy a game and play it for a month and then buy another, rinse and repeat. This is what the console platforms live on: your ADD. Better yet, buy what is good and trash the rest (openly and publicly). BF2 burned me on thier hype for mods and etc, GRAW well I think I have stated where I stand. Vote with your dollars, this is the only way to reach the game companies. From now on UBI/Dice/EA/GRIN get none of my money. I would rather give it to valve, epic, blizzard, atari, and sierra.

I buy some games just because they are well made and always supported. UT 2003 and 2004, for example, not my style but very good games (bought and paid for). Epic and Blizzard always get my money. Killer support editors and mods. The rest can die, and I will try to help them do so.

Edited October 30, 2006 by WillieP

[Sup]

Besides, everyones definition of "finished" is different.

No videogame is ever finished, only abandoned.

hmmm Star Craft, UT, or should I go on. Those games were almost perfect out of the box. Those games should probally be abandoned. But guess what they are made by good companies, so they are not. I know I still play them just to get a feeling of what game making should be, I can name others if you like.

...

I quit. Somebody else can explain.

[ROCO*AFZ*]

Back on my commodore, all games had to be finished. There wasn't any real internet to download a patch from.

Ah the days of airbourne ranger, world games, summer games and bruce lee.

[Sup]

Back on my commodore, all games had to be finished. There wasn't any real internet to download a patch from.

Ah the days of airbourne ranger, world games, summer games and bruce lee.

'Finished' is the label you put on a game before you ship it out; not a magic level of success. If every game strived for perfection none would ever come out.

You think starcraft couldn't have been better? Doom? Ghost recon 1? Absurd; there's always room for improvement. Great games and not so great games, it just reaches a point where you have to bite the bullet, ship the game, and hope it's good enough. That point is 'finished;' not once it's got all the features the grnet community wants.

[WillieP]

Besides, everyones definition of "finished" is different.

No videogame is ever finished, only abandoned.

hmmm Star Craft, UT, or should I go on. Those games were almost perfect out of the box. Those games should probally be abandoned. But guess what they are made by good companies, so they are not. I know I still play them just to get a feeling of what game making should be, I can name others if you like.

...

I quit. Somebody else can explain.

Ok quit.

I will hit the other side of game making. Despite GR bugs and problems, it was a game that was ahead of its time. I punched my computer more than once saying "This game is so bugged I will not play it anymore". But I came back time and again. It is possible to make a game that will succeed your wildest expectations and still have flaws. I present GR. If the flaws had been fixed the physics and graphics updated, well I would not be typing now. I would be playing. I tried GRAW again after a 3-4 month break, my verdict stands. My question is explain what, that GRAW had less than 100 players when I reinstalled, the fact that I uninstalled in the first place. Sorry but I do expect more from game companies, expecially ones that hold the titles and controll of such a great franchise.

Ok EDIT again. When will GRAW be finished. When they say, when the sequel comes out. I think it is about time to make a judgement on the game. You can take your time, until it is abandonware if you wish, but at some point the excuses have to stop. Yours and theirs.

Sorry what were you saying. StarCraft is still for sale at my local walmart. Where is GRAW? When exactly was StarCraft released, I cant remember I have only bought 7 copies, was it 97 or 98 may have been later. I still own it and play it. I buy a copy to give to others that show interest in PC gaming. Kind of what you should expect from games. Unpatched or patched it is still a finished game, beyond any other game released patched or unpatched.

Edited October 30, 2006 by WillieP

[Nutlink]

hmmm Star Craft, UT, or should I go on. Those games were almost perfect out of the box. Those games should probally be abandoned. But guess what they are made by good companies, so they are not. I know I still play them just to get a feeling of what game making should be, I can name others if you like.

You don't see the consoleness pushed on us. Buy a game and play it for a month and then buy another, rinse and repeat. This is what the console platforms live on: your ADD. Better yet, buy what is good and trash the rest (openly and publicly). BF2 burned me on thier hype for mods and etc, GRAW well I think I have stated where I stand. Vote with your dollars, this is the only way to reach the game companies. From now on UBI/Dice/EA/GRIN get none of my money. I would rather give it to valve, epic, blizzard, atari, and sierra.

I buy some games just because they are well made and always supported. UT 2003 and 2004, for example, not my style but very good games (bought and paid for). Epic and Blizzard always get my money. Killer support editors and mods. The rest can die, and I will try to help them do so.

Actually, I think Sup was right, games are only abandoned, but never finished. Star Craft had balance issues before (although I can't remember what, it was a good 6 years ago or so since I last played it), and that game received patches to fix bugs and stability. Not to mention it was a LOT easier to create a game like Star Craft than it is to create something like GRAW, [GR], R6, Doom 3, Half-Life 2, Far Cry, etc etc.

"Consoleness" as you put it, is being pushed on PC consumers as well. Games these days take MUCH longer to create the engine, artwork, coding, etc. Therefore, being more complex, you're bound to have more issues than something as simple as Star Craft, and, of course, less content because of the deadlines/time limits imposed on the devs. I do agree with you though, vote with your money. It's a shame people don't think and buy items based on hype rather than research.

Epic and Blizzard are also known for making the occasional crappy game, though. Look at Unreal 2 (and all the crap pinball titles). No multiplayer out of the box, although XMP was released later on it didn't take off because people abandoned the game. Blizzard puts out good games, but they are released few and far between and lack variety (WoW, Warcraft II/III similar to Star Craft/SC:Brood Wars, Diablo I/II). As for Red Storm....they started off small (like Grin) and were eventually bought by Ubisoft due to the success of ONE title (unless you count Politika) and that was Rainbow Six. Good games are released fairly often, but great games are released very rarely, especially for this genre.

[The Blueberry_EBDA]

Sorry,But im wondering if half of you ever played GR1.Graw is much better tactics game than GR 1 ever was.Gr1 had choke points.If you controlled the choke points you controlled your pace of advancement.That was it for tactics.Graw gives a much better assortment of tactics ,fireing lanes ect. if you guys new what tactics were in the first place.Yes the drab colors of alot of the maps suck,sorry mexico dont look like that,but,Graw you have to use your ears.It has choke points that can control parts of the map,you can be stealthy,it also has good cover and concealment if you know what to look for.We need some grass man.lol.Trees ,grass.buildings we can get in and out of.I bet if they came out with a expansion pack in the jungle or forest.It would be a complete new game for ya.Trust me when I say that teamwork can get the job done.Fan out,you know there are more than one egress points in the game.Wake up. :wall:Sorry camping for some is a tactic.Spawn killing is a tactic,its called attrition.use some tactics and pertect it.I get tierd of admins yelling about spawn camping.Well hek.no ones there to pretect it.Grin could give us a 5 second spawn god mode.Tactics?Recon?I think this game has it all.Do you do your recon?Do you run for specific choke point some were?Do you lob grenades at elivated cover?Do you try to hold the high ground?Do you take advantage of shadows?Do you take advantage of colors that match your uniform?Do you use stealth to listen?Do you use team street clearing methods?Theres tactics there.More than i care to type in right now.For Gods sake.There a gaggle of options.Yes we want more.But,This is a awsome game.If your computer can run it.

Edited October 30, 2006 by The Blueberry

[CkZWarlord]

The reason that HDR is the *WRONG* lighting technique is because it was designed to give better preformance when multiple light sources are used. They should've just done GR:AW with true AA, it would've looked just as good, preformed better and done so on lower system requirements.

You know that HDR is NOT the reason why there is no AA, right?

No, deffered lighting is, which is a part of HDR. No HDR, no deffered lighting either...

Edited October 30, 2006 by CkZWarlord

[Forrester]

I had some games in Siege mode yesterday, and the real siege was to protect the spawn zone we were coming from to get to the siege area.... didin't stand a chance on the comm station map

[Wille]

The reason that HDR is the *WRONG* lighting technique is because it was designed to give better preformance when multiple light sources are used. They should've just done GR:AW with true AA, it would've looked just as good, preformed better and done so on lower system requirements.

You know that HDR is NOT the reason why there is no AA, right?

No, deffered lighting is, which is a part of HDR. No HDR, no deffered lighting either...

Deferred lighting is not a "part" of hdr, deferred lighting is simply a way to render in screen space.

and hdr isnt designed to give better performance with multiple lightsources; deferred rendering is, together with the ability to push around ALOT of polygons and other neat "minor" features . HDR means "High dynamic range" and really has nothing at all to do with deferred lighting. As far as a simple minded artist as myself knows

[ROCO*AFZ*]

Sorry,But im wondering if half of you ever played GR1.Graw is much better tactics game than GR 1 ever was.Gr1 had choke points.If you controlled the choke points you controlled your pace of advancement.That was it for tactics.Graw gives a much better assortment of tactics ,fireing lanes ect. if you guys new what tactics were in the first place.Yes the drab colors of alot of the maps suck,sorry mexico dont look like that,but,Graw you have to use your ears.It has choke points that can control parts of the map,you can be stealthy,it also has good cover and concealment if you know what to look for.We need some grass man.lol.Trees ,grass.buildings we can get in and out of.I bet if they came out with a expansion pack in the jungle or forest.It would be a complete new game for ya.Trust me when I say that teamwork can get the job done.Fan out,you know there are more than one egress points in the game.Wake up. :wall:Sorry camping for some is a tactic.Spawn killing is a tactic,its called attrition.use some tactics and pertect it.I get tierd of admins yelling about spawn camping.Well hek.no ones there to pretect it.Grin could give us a 5 second spawn god mode.Tactics?Recon?I think this game has it all.Do you do your recon?Do you run for specific choke point some were?Do you lob grenades at elivated cover?Do you try to hold the high ground?Do you take advantage of shadows?Do you take advantage of colors that match your uniform?Do you use stealth to listen?Do you use team street clearing methods?Theres tactics there.More than i care to type in right now.For Gods sake.There a gaggle of options.Yes we want more.But,This is a awsome game.If your computer can run it.

I agree for matching. It's the only game out there that is, if not exceeds GR1 in matching ability (except it needs more the 2 spawn zones)

As for sound though, to take advantage of it you need to trash your onboard for something higher end. They you will know what we mean when we say you can hunt by sound.

[Hockeystick]

The reason that HDR is the *WRONG* lighting technique is because it was designed to give better preformance when multiple light sources are used. They should've just done GR:AW with true AA, it would've looked just as good, preformed better and done so on lower system requirements.

You know that HDR is NOT the reason why there is no AA, right?

No, deffered lighting is, which is a part of HDR. No HDR, no deffered lighting either...

Deferred lighting is not a "part" of hdr, deferred lighting is simply a way to render in screen space.

and hdr isnt designed to give better performance with multiple lightsources; deferred rendering is, together with the ability to push around ALOT of polygons and other neat "minor" features . HDR means "High dynamic range" and really has nothing at all to do with deferred lighting. As far as a simple minded artist as myself knows

And think about all the whining about GRAW not being as good looking as the X360 version if they didn't use deffered lightning

Now it looks just as good, if not better.

Edited October 31, 2006 by Hockeystick

[DAZZA]

I cannot bring myself to play GRAW until the stability issues are sorted. It gets you down when the bugs kick in, being booted is the hardest to take, cause you know when your emersed in a game and your kicked, it deflates you that much you think, I won't load it again just to get kicked again

This game would absolutley kick ###### if they sort out the stability issues and make a Jungle add-on or Snowy add-on (PC). It would clean up imo.

[CkZWarlord]

Hmmz weird... that is not what got from an article on deffered lighting, I'll look it up again and post the link when I get home. Then please tell which parts I misunderstood or are wrong in the article.

[Toniezz]

Back on my commodore, all games had to be finished. There wasn't any real internet to download a patch from.

Ah the days of airbourne ranger, world games, summer games and bruce lee.

Ahhh.... - and dreams on those nice times behind the C64- ohhhh some times that were! Remember Boulder Dash, Rambo, sk8 or die, commandos and many more!

[RaP7oR]

man, someone is making graw2?SWEET! cant wait to play that!

(no this is not grins official comment, I cant comment on anything ofcourse, but maybe this counts as commenting anyway, anyways, im not telling you lot anything!not a word! did I just say too much? man...)

seriously.no comment.really. im really not very helpfull today, am I?

Well, someone up there said that if GRIN was involved they would think twice... I disagree

The game (GRAW) isn't bad like so many people try to make it seem, I think it actually has a great potential and I still love playing it... it is a great game, but only a few months old. We all know that it needs some bug fixes, but what game doesn't?

If you guys are involved in GRAW2, I wouldn't think twice about purchasing the game.

We live and learn, and I'm sure you guys are no exception.

[kingotnw]

We got a sequel, it just evolved. Much like Gameplay evolved from R6 to Rogue spear to Covert Ops... Maps got smaller and smaller and they got more focused on CQC. I personally was unhappy with that change,not everyone was though. As a matter of fact I found that most people liked the change, which was amazing to me.

GR1 was suposed to be an alternative to R6, since R6 started forcusing more on CQC. It worked too I thought, to a degree. It still naver matched the fun I had when rogue spear was released, and as I always say Urban Ops as the best expansion to any game ever released IMO.

I am just trying to say that we did get a sequal, it just evolved, like everything has to and does. The original GR game was what it was... But thats sort of "done" now you know? A company can't keep making the same game over and over.

God, I remember back when compaines started making games in 3D instead of 2D. For soooo long people screamed and yelled about 2D being better. The industry moves forward and evolves. I actually give credit to GRIN for trying to combine the two games. GRAW was designed to be more linear than the previous games with all of its scripted sequences.

This thing about the "base" not wanting GRAW is sort of silly because I am in the base and I wanted it and like it. I don't even believe that "most" didnt want it. Personally from sort of staying on the outside of the situation and looking in, it seems like the thing "most" people had issues with were the monsterous system requirments of the game. Thats a problem that every leap in generation has it seems.

Ok... Jumping back to the peek thing in R6:Vegas... I can understand how people who havent played the game could have issue with the way it is set up in the game. However, when you are actually playing the game it is a cool feature. I was in the same boat before I got to play the demo, but all in all I REALLY like the demo a lot and am very excited for the game. I find that on the realistic setting that it is actually quite a bit HARDER than previous R6 games. Even the normal setting is fairly difficult.

They didn't evolve thats the point, they took whole gameplay concept and changed it completely. When you evolve something, you take the main things and try to make them even better, that was not the case whit GRAW and it doesnt seem to be the case whit Rainbow Six: Vegas.

It's like making Splinter Cell and selling it as a Rainbow Six game, sure it's one heck of a game but it isnt Rainbow Six.

Don't know how to explain it better really, so I hope you get the picture.

Actually I thought they evolved quite nicely. GR2 was a decent game and was middle ground between the two for sure. I know it never got to the PC, but it was a good game none the less I thought. As far as Vegas goes... It sounds like you havent played the game. R6:Vegas is NOTHING AT ALL like Splinter Cell. It is very much a R6 game. Just because these games evolve into things some fans don't like does not mean they are bad games.