Jump to content

What will GRAW2 be


Recommended Posts

EA makes crap games,

UBI has been making crap games.

That isn't true.

EA makes games both of us don't personally like, and Ubisoft makes games you don't like, but they both deliver quality products that sell very well.

OK name one quality game that UBI have made in 2-3 years, hehe ok i can name one "Splinter Cell" so name two :P But the rest is crap, stunning graphics and a simple, linear gameplay is what they are delivering now, my opinion of cuase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OK name one quality game that UBI have made in 2-3 years, hehe ok i can name one "Splinter Cell" so name two :P But the rest is crap, stunning graphics and a simple, linear gameplay is what they are delivering now, my opinion of cuase.

Far Cry

Dark Messiah of Might and Magic

Prince of Persia series

Brothers in Arms series

I'm sure I'm missing some, but those all bear the Ubisoft logo. Do I get a cookie now? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd probably say I'd make the comment that, Brothers in arms isn't that great of a game since UBISOFT added starforce to it. great game in it's own right but, when you ruin it with starforce..no thanks. Farcry didn't last at all. tech advanced yes, but not a tactical shooter and VERY linear

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brothers In Arms did not have Starforce. The sequel, Earned In Blood didl it was one of the last Ubisoft titles to include SF protection.

So was BIA a "great game in it's own right", or it "isn't that great of a game"?

Contradicting yourself doesn't help demonstrate your intended point.

Far Cry, sure. It was high tech, it did last quite a while, when taken along side other games of it's genre, and while I agree that it wasn't a tactical shooter, and partially agree that it was linear (partially, as there certainly was only one way to clear each objective, there was definitely more than one way to get to each objective. [GR] wasn't that different in those regards), it wasn't sold as a tactical shooter. It was sold as open, and in many ways, it really was. Ravine to cross? Hang glider. Boat. Swim. Bunker to walk past? Go around the hill. Go in guns blazing. Find a vehicle, and raid the gates. Find a physics trap to set off, taking out half the troops inside.

To go back a few posts, you also didn't really address that the term "obliterate" clearly doesn't mean what you were using it for. Just because you didn't like the myriad of patches RvS required (and neither did I, frankly), doesn't mean that the entire franchise was somehow utterly destroyed.

Papa6, I truly appreciate the passion you present when posting around here; the reason I'm challenging your take is because engaging in hyperbole only weakens your point. It shows an intensity of belief, with no basis in facts to support it. Drop the hyperbole, take on the issues with either supportable facts, or at least a clear indication that it's purely an opinion, and your discourse will carry a lot more weight than it currently does.

Cheers, mate. You've got the passion to stand behind your beliefs, and even if I or others disagree, that's fine, as long as you stand clear as to your reasons. Everyone wins when the discussion is supported by all those involved.

To reiterate one thing: When you say 'obliterated', what is it you are trying to say? That word just doesn't mean what you are using it for, at least not in the context of your explanations. If you mean that you personally feel that the series mentioned above (GR, R6) have been changed so much that they may as well not even exist any more in the sense of your gaming/purchasing habits, then fine. I'll give you that, as at least that would be using the term in a context that is meaningful.

To say it's simply been 'obliterated' outside of that context is an absolute fallacy. RvS may have required a lot of patches. Those needing the patches paid Ubisoft for the game, and downloaded the patches. Ubisoft made money on it. The series continued. Lockdown didn't sell a lot of copies, but it still sold more copies than any game I've made, and although I don't know for certain, I'm reasonably sure it made Ubisoft money. That's the point.

The moment Ubisoft (or any commercial game house) stops making games for the pure intent of profit, is the day they stop making games. Would you rather the perfect game (which, to paraphrase Serellan, would sell exactly one copy, just to you), knowing that there will never be another game forthcoming, or would you rather the companies that make these games keep on making games?

I know I'd rather see a thousand bad games out there, if it means there may be one good one. The alternative is to fund the creation of a game out of your own pocket, just to your liking.

Don't know about you all, but I'd rather risk $50-$60 on a game now and then, than invest a few million every time I want to check out a bit of entertainment.

If I ever win the lottery, though, I promise a true-to-roots OGR2 will get made. Yet, somehow, I bet there will be forums filled with people who will find some reason to justify hating it. Oh, not just hating it, but going out of their way to call everyone involved out for 'ruining' something or another.

Blargh. Papa6, I don't know where you reside, but if I ever pass that way, I'll buy the first round of drinks. If we get through them, I'll buy the second. By the sixth round or so, we'll have napkins covered in great game ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how I've weakened my point. but digging into the past posts about Ravenshield, Lockdown and GRAW and see all the people who've been upset and found the game to be rubbish.

I think certain folks tend to walk through these forums with blinders on oblivious to the fact that past people here, A large chunk of gamers don't come 'round here no more. but my question to you is, Dannik, why would UBI install starforce in an expansion and NOT the original game? I did some research and found information contradictory to what you told me about brothers in arms Here that shows that it's listed as game 17 to have starforce in it. we all know that starforce has some kind of lawsuit against it and ubisoft promptly stopped using it to stop litigation. Splintercell chaos theory has it as I have that game and refuse to install it. I did a simple check. so i believe the above list to be valid.

But I don't want to get off track. My point so there's NO misunderstanding, no jedi mind tricks.

EA and UBISOFT are joined at the hip through EA's 20% or more stake in UBISOFT. So EA does have some say in games. how much is anybody's guess. but for some here to bash what I'm saying as being rubbish is futile as GRAW isn't even fixed and a sequel is on the horizon. GRAW would be like a car on a production line that got stopped before it was finished and now left to be abandoned. I'd have to say this reminds me of american business. turn a blind eye to it and pretend it doesn't exist(the issues are STILL there). then go onto the next edition or model.

I guess we'll see just how much was learned. I'll be honest, somethings in my life have come up that i can't even begin to afford what i used to so i have to play the games i have now for a looong while. I tried GRAW and got dropped as did everyone after each map. I got dropped from servers for no reason and the issues I wrote up during beta testing are still there. but, i wanted to be objective and try again and see if it was me.

as for the obliterate comment, they ruined the games, plain and simple. FARCRY in it's plain jane play was nothing more than a showcase for the technology. what ruined the fun of FARCRY was the lens glare. try hiding sometime and see that no matter, whether you were facing the sun or not, we could see each other. that game was a run n' gun for kids. that game could've been a contender with the great foliage.

LOCKDOWN, more known as rainbow6, a part of the series, was a port. Gay AI and no tactics. I played ravenshield and having to patch that damn game as much as one has to, it wasn't worth playing. Grin, i have to give credit was smart and and released cumulative patches.

Added: I edited out errors in spelling

Edited by Papa6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how I've weakened my point. but digging into the past posts about Ravenshield, Lockdown and GRAW and see all the people who've been upset and found the game to be rubbish.

Absolutely correct, and as I said earlier, you are seeing those who are upset and inclined to complain on a few websites. This is certainly not indicative of the general market reaction to a title, just a vocal subset, one which is trivial to the company's bottom line. Not irrelevant, just so small, it's a pimple on a fly's ###### in comparison to the actual sales figures companies like Ubisoft post on the same titles people complain about.

The contradiction comment was based on the fact that BIA and BIA:EIB were two different games, which you seem to honestly not realized. It made sense in that context. I withdraw it, seeing as it was under a misunderstanding.

I did some research and found information contradictory to what you told me about brothers in arms Here that shows that it's listed as game 17 to have starforce in it.

Brothers In Arms did not have Starforce. The sequel, Brothers In Arms: Earned In Blood did, and that's the entirely separate game listed as #17 there. It wasn't an expansion, it was a standalone game. As for why, Ubisoft was heavily into pushing Starforce at the time of release of said title. They dropped it not long after EIB went to market.

EA and UBISOFT are joined at the hip through EA's 20% or more stake in UBISOFT. So EA does have some say in games. how much is anybody's guess.

About 20%, although that's a simplistic look, as much of the stock EA owns is non-voting, so in practice, EA scoops about 20% of Ubisoft's shareholder dividends, while having a very small say with regards to the Board of Directors. Win 20% of the vote, and you lose to 80% of the vote.

turn a blind eye to it and pretend it doesn't exist(the issues are STILL there). then go onto the next edition or model.

I'll agree there, for the most part. I don't think it's a matter of deliberately turning a blind eye, as much as simply not spending a penny more than is necessary to turn a profit. Either way, it's a bad deal for consumers, but in the latter case, it's merely selfish. In the former, it's the case for major legal action in most markets.

as for the obliterate comment, they ruined the games, plain and simple.

I hate to repeat it again, but if they ruined the game, why are the franchises in question selling so much more than the originals we hold so near and dear? Again, we may think the franchises have been taken so far from their origins that it's almost fraudulent to use the same series name, but the games are selling like hotcakes. If they are ruined, then it's clear that a large portion of the market wants so-called 'ruined' games.

I'm snipping a chunk here, not to ignore or gloss over, but just because you are focusing one the purely MP aspect in your comments. Fair enough, as that's surely the part of the game(s) you enjoy the most. Not everyone buys the same games for the same reason, but I'm in no position to debate your experiences with Lockdown or Far Cry. I had slightly better experiences, but did buy them both out of the bargain bin. Go figure.

Grin, i have to give credit was smart and and released cumulative patches.

I think GRIN have done a lot more good than they get general credit for. I also doubt they will ever get the credit they deserve for what they did achieve, nor will they ever get the chance to really sit down with the hard-core fans (because the casual fans really don't care, they are too busy playing GRAW or shopping for the next game for the collection) and explain what they have gone through. They are, after all, contractors. They could only do and say what the boss let them. Shame, as I think they would have a lot to do/say, if they weren't restricted by contractual obligation and legalese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd probably say I'd make the comment that, Brothers in arms isn't that great of a game since UBISOFT added starforce to it. great game in it's own right but, when you ruin it with starforce..no thanks. Farcry didn't last at all. tech advanced yes, but not a tactical shooter and VERY linear

Dannik is right, you contradicted yourself by saying "BIA isn't that great of a game due to starforce" and then saying "it's a great game in it's own right." I think what you meant to say is that it's a great game, but starforce was the mistake, not the gameplay, not the graphics, not the sound, but the starforce protection.

And saying Far Cry didn't last at all is completely wrong. I just loaded up the game and found quite a few servers up for it (more so than GRAW), and the devs for that game have been VERY supportive of the game. Look at all the patches, the 64-bit addition, and even recently released the 1.4 patch (flashback - 2 and half years ago this game was released). Far Cry was/is around for a fair amount of time, and it was properly supported.

Besides, the question was to list more than 2 games that Ubisoft was involved in that weren't complete crap, no mention of gameplay or genre. I think I made my point relatively clear with four games off the top of my head :)

Edited by Nutlink
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this brings me back full circle...What will GRAW2 be? will it be another game with a 14 month development cycle as GRAW was? GRAW was released in may 2006 and a scheduled GRAW2 release in 2007(when is debatable). I'm a pessimistic person and don't think GRAW2 will advance anything in the way of improvements. I think GRAW will be the support base for GRAW2 and the content will be packed on top like mud.

-Papa6

Here i would have to disagree with you. i consider GR:AW not a sequal to GR1 but as a evolution. you can not build the same stuff over and over again, the developers tried to push themselves in to making a game that could live up to the Ghost Recon name.

Look at hero characters nowadays, the majority of this community doesn't want them but look at the industry at a whole. how many copies did HL2 sell? every developer wants to build the best game but they also pay close attention to the market. what games are really selling and what features can they use for their game?

So what will GR:AW2 look like? in my mind it will build on the lessons learned from the current generation Ghost Recon games and other games that are huge at the moment. So perhaps they will try to implement some RPG elements, like for planning and so on.

just my 2 cents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this brings me back full circle...What will GRAW2 be? will it be another game with a 14 month development cycle as GRAW was? GRAW was released in may 2006 and a scheduled GRAW2 release in 2007(when is debatable). I'm a pessimistic person and don't think GRAW2 will advance anything in the way of improvements. I think GRAW will be the support base for GRAW2 and the content will be packed on top like mud.

-Papa6

Here i would have to disagree with you. i consider GR:AW not a sequal to GR1 but as a evolution. you can not build the same stuff over and over again, the developers tried to push themselves in to making a game that could live up to the Ghost Recon name.

Look at hero characters nowadays, the majority of this community doesn't want them but look at the industry at a whole. how many copies did HL2 sell? every developer wants to build the best game but they also pay close attention to the market. what games are really selling and what features can they use for their game?

So what will GR:AW2 look like? in my mind it will build on the lessons learned from the current generation Ghost Recon games and other games that are huge at the moment. So perhaps they will try to implement some RPG elements, like for planning and so on.

just my 2 cents

Then as some have said, GRAW doesn't deserve the "GR" name. Added: GRAW IS supposed to be a sequel as Capt Mitchell is the character from the prior GR if memory serves.

Edited by Papa6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

graw is the sequel to gr2 and gr2 summit strike not gr1

what is it that it does not deserve the gr title ?

because ubi and rse did not produce a gr2 PC title ?

or because grin tried to do a GR title with what they got from ubi to make it

maybe graw2 will be the same diesel engine with dx10 optimisation, and it would be great because they would only have to polish the diesel engine we have now

(still have not tested it with vista as i would have liked to...)

i just wonder why you keep bashing the same old left overs time and time again,

and with all the words you think of, you would be better of thinking productive and positive,

if graw 2 sucks know you'll have time to spend for crysis or AA or your garden for all i care

you feel like graw is not GR well then graw two will surely not be like GR it will be like GRAW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ubisoft didn't 'obliterate' any franchises. Sorry. They did take certain ones in a direction that alienates a small aspect of the marketplace.

"Small" is the wrong term. How many are playing online at any one time? 6 months after GR's release you could find that many people on a dozen servers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ubisoft didn't 'obliterate' any franchises. Sorry. They did take certain ones in a direction that alienates a small aspect of the marketplace.

"Small" is the wrong term. How many are playing online at any one time? 6 months after GR's release you could find that many people on a dozen servers.

Small is the right term. 'realistic' tactical shooter is a small market. Action tactical shooter, like 360 graw, is a massive market, and as such the game sold very well.

The reason GRAW pc is doing so poorly is because of how similar it is the Ghost Recon 1, unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ubisoft didn't 'obliterate' any franchises. Sorry. They did take certain ones in a direction that alienates a small aspect of the marketplace.

"Small" is the wrong term. How many are playing online at any one time? 6 months after GR's release you could find that many people on a dozen servers.

Small is the right term. 'realistic' tactical shooter is a small market. Action tactical shooter, like 360 graw, is a massive market, and as such the game sold very well.

The reason GRAW pc is doing so poorly is because of how similar it is the Ghost Recon 1, unfortunately.

Ah, you must mean that it was released with a working multiplayer, coop that worked and not demanding as hell therefore limiting the number of people that could actually play it and also very similar in that it has a hero, no squads to order around, maps that are varied? :rocky::rocky:

All the above will probably hamper the sales....

I really think they should have worked on it for a longer time and dumped the hero aspect, and had more varied maps and I would have had a bunch of friends that would have bought it, now it was just me and I got a bitter taste in the mouth after playing for a while. Now it is certainly better but not totally to my satisfaction. Of course I realise that they wanted it out after the xbox version, but not to much after so people would have forgotten the hype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Ghost Recon should be left alone to advance in it's own rights, It's never going to go back to the original and i can't quite see what all the fuss is about. There are absolutely hundreds of complete campaigns to download if you still want the original game, plus a bit more.

Yes Ghost Recon for a SMALL niche was and still is a great tactical game, but you have to look at the overall picture and it has to move on, and if by doing so it loses a few people it's not going to upset UBI, EA or anyone else involved in the slightest, after all, they're in the buisness to make money not please a small party of people who want what they cant have.

Games changed from the moment they were once written by teenagers in bedrooms to becoming multi million investments, the lad programing away in his room could have what he wanted in his game becuase it was his, but now it involves to many other factors, most impotantly sales and MONEY. There is no sentiment involved, if a game fails they will scrap it and move on, so if Ghost Recon isnt the game that you remember its time to go out or wait till your next fix is available.

Look at the franchise of Tombraider! people loved it in their millions, but eventually Core were flogging a dead horse with tired graphics and stale gameplay, so what did they do..... Eidos gave the game to another developer to try and inject some fresh ideas and for some it worked, maybe some people didnt like it, but theres enough new gamers out there who played it for the first time and enjoyed not to give Eidos worries.

So what do we get with GRAW2? who Knows, will it be what you want ? doubt it, Try going on the UBI forum to complain and guess what the response will be from them!

Atleast with GRiN batting on our side we may stand a small chance to see some things we like.

Edited by PONDLIFE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason GRAW pc is doing so poorly is because of how similar it is the Ghost Recon 1, unfortunately.

:hmm: That's a major statement. Most people have been complaining because it has very little in common with GR. I could only wish it was similar to GR then I'm sure it would be getting play time on my PC instead of collecting dust. :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason GRAW pc is doing so poorly is because of how similar it is the Ghost Recon 1, unfortunately.

I don't see how you can compare GR whit GRAW despite it share the same name. GR was very close to a combat simulator as the technology at that time could allow, GRAW is more a story driven ACTION shooter. The damage system in GRAW is very weak and the maps/missions are highly scripted and linear. Plus that GRAW has a very big part of Hollywood in its game-play especially when it comes to the story, characters and the futuristic touch.

GRAW could have been looked at differently if they had just named it Advanced Warfighter only, then there would not have been the same high expectations and I actually think that many would have bought it (even the fans) and enjoyed it for what it really is. (I know I would).

Edited by REC0N
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the high expectations. I had huge expectations. as stated above, the object of the negativity isn't based upon "going back to GR1." It doesn't have anything to do with making GRAW [GR].

I just hope that GRAW2 improves the draw distance. nothing worse than seeing a tree or something "just appear" from out of the thin air.

One thing I'd like to mention, GRAW with 1.30 has the feature to download maps from the server. While it's a great feature and all, It lacks a hell of a lot. I joined BDA's server and there's a map that's custom made. I joined the server fine since I had the map that was being played. But when it switched to a map that i didn't have, it booted me and wouldn't even download the map. that sucks. It should've downloaded when i initially joined the server or when the map(s) change. But getting the boot kills the fun and mood very quick. :wall:

Edited by Papa6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...