Jump to content

What will GRAW2 be


Papa6
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

I agree with you. You can't compare the two. If we take away the Diesel engine and superimpose GRAW on the GR engine, it's clear that there isn't much resemblance beyond the name.

Edited by ruggbutt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

I agree with you. You can't compare the two. If we take away the Diesel engine and superimpose GRAW on the GR engine, it's clear that there isn't much resemblance beyond the name.

If you distill it into basic gameplay concepts, they're very similar. It's all in the details, Rugg. :thumbsup:

Obviously we all really liked how GR1 did it more, but, really, these are very similar games. Exact same broad concepts.

(To explain further, since someone will surely argue:

Squad based, military, high enemy -> teammate ratio, shooter, mission based, 'realistic' weapon handling. GR just did command map and a different firing/movement system, plus two more squad members. .)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget to mention the fact that Grin stated sometime ago that Modding GRAW(to extend the life and favor of the community) wasn't figured into the mix until long standing cries from the community.

But what makes GR1 surpass GRAW is the draw distance. There have been discussions about this and 150 meters isn't good. what about snipers? Snipers can shoot well past the stock 150 meters as well as rifleman. the draw distance needs to be addressed for us snipers. I have preached this from the start, Where's the M24 SWS? It is a crucial piece of equipment. the .50 BMG sniperrifle is nice but my research has found it's meant for anti-armor, anti equipment. but this all means jack###### if you can't use your weapon the right way.

Now some of you may or may not pipe in and say, "The game would lag and run slow." yes and you're right. but why make a game that limits your eye view when in real life you can see further than what GRAW gives you? Drop all the bells and whistle hyped graphics and work more on the content of the game rather than pretty uniforms , skyboxes and that orange environment. GRAW2 would be fantastic if they would do away with some of the graphic bloat and still maintain a beautiful game. Remember this: [GR] IGOR allowed for the modder to extend the view distance as PC's got stronger and faster. @ GRIN; please change this with GRAW2. allow for modders to determine the draw range. In time this will lift the GRAW2 fun much more than having Grin try and force us to a certain limit themselves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Papa6

Play with editor and you will see why GRAW is the way it is. There is actually more fundamentally wrong than you can imagine. I have been around long enough know that you personally have had your ups and downs with this game, hell I paid for a dedicated for the first few months of GRAW. If you like the game play it, but if you have a fundamental problem with the game, please preach with all you got, convince others and hopefully make the change. Draw distance is really becoming a big problem. With most games now-a -days you are better of if you turn your graphics down. Since the bush the enemy is hiding behind will disappear with lower graphics settings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget to mention the fact that Grin stated sometime ago that Modding GRAW(to extend the life and favor of the community) wasn't figured into the mix until long standing cries from the community.

But what makes GR1 surpass GRAW is the draw distance. There have been discussions about this and 150 meters isn't good. what about snipers? Snipers can shoot well past the stock 150 meters as well as rifleman. the draw distance needs to be addressed for us snipers. I have preached this from the start, Where's the M24 SWS? It is a crucial piece of equipment. the .50 BMG sniperrifle is nice but my research has found it's meant for anti-armor, anti equipment. but this all means jack###### if you can't use your weapon the right way.

Now some of you may or may not pipe in and say, "The game would lag and run slow." yes and you're right. but why make a game that limits your eye view when in real life you can see further than what GRAW gives you? Drop all the bells and whistle hyped graphics and work more on the content of the game rather than pretty uniforms , skyboxes and that orange environment. GRAW2 would be fantastic if they would do away with some of the graphic bloat and still maintain a beautiful game. Remember this: [GR] IGOR allowed for the modder to extend the view distance as PC's got stronger and faster. @ GRIN; please change this with GRAW2. allow for modders to determine the draw range. In time this will lift the GRAW2 fun much more than having Grin try and force us to a certain limit themselves

GR1 Draw distance on stock maps wasn't that far. They fogged it. You remember the crappy clear maps that made you dizzy and also reduced your framerates to minimal don't you that the modders made?

Well in Graw they used posteffects to make it blur at long distances with almost a heat like mirage. (turn in on high and you will see that it looks correct) Problem is high post effects = bigger hit on graphics card so most don't run it on high. That doesn't bother me as i understand it. Check strongpoint TVT if you really want to see what post effects can do on high.

What does however is the drawing of shadows and trash. Granted it was for performance, but... there had to be a better way to do it as you can see the shadows being drawn as you pace along and trash majically appearing.

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.

A dozen crashing servers ;) GR1 wasn't really that stable on servers until after desert siege. It was born during the lets use 2000 server as a game server / or 98/me era. It's 16mb video requirement killed it for host providers also. Why does everyone forget the hardships of it's 1st year like everything was peachy?

Edited by ROCOAFZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my oppinion all GRAW needs are a few more weapons.

People are mapping & Skinning (Including Myself) like theres no tomorow..

The only thing everyones having trouble with are weapons.

I think the community would grow quite abit if there was more of a selection.

P.s;

GRIN is much better support and gameplay wise then any other developer IMO.

Eags.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm UBI has yet to even announce there will be a GRAW2 on PC. But I am all for it. Maybe there will be more "rural" type maps as opposed to the urban maps. Though I think they would have to tweak the draw distance for those type of maps. At least maybe the PC will get an expansion pack with maps/missions/gamemodes/weapons. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eagle_Eye is right, there are very few developers that have listened to the community as much as GRiN did. Listened to the point they couldn't take the whining anymore even. However, few are in a position to listen to the community and act on their requests. One of the few good examples of such developers is Obsidian with Neverwinter Nights 2. Much of the added functionality they brought to that title came directly from user community requests and mods the community had made for the original game. But very few developers brought in to make a game based on an existing franchise will be given the time and money necessary to do that. The facts are that there probably was neither the time nor the budget for GRiN to build in advanced editing tools, so we got what they had. Stuff like the Mexico City setting, the mission tree and the hero character were all in the design document from the beginning, and it was a PC version of a multi-platform game with shared assets. Adding rural or artic mission settings wasn't ever in the cards no matter how much we wished they were after the game was announced.

It's a safe bet that GRAW 2 will be a similar game. Single player will still be a 4 man squad with a hero PC who has to survive the mission. Multiplayer will be where we may see some improvements, like the hero off switch and [GR] game modes being included in the box. What we may get is more varied mission locales, but again, they will be very similar to what the 360 version has... if it globetrots, GRAW 2 PC will globetrot. If it's set in Berlin, or wherever, we're going to get Berlin or wherever.

The best bet for recreating the [GR] experience will likely come courtesy of a user mod for the first Unreal 3 powered game in the Raven Shield franchise. That combo should give the ability to render complex indoor and outdoor environments and have the built in tools to squad based AI and weapons selection. Although, Ubisoft also has a tendency to lock out sizable chunks of UnrealEd's functionality, and that probably won't change in the future either.

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. :(

Im not sure if this is possible but wouldnt it be nice if they had graw graphics with [GR] feel and balistics like ELITE SNIPER all in one. Who knows, maybe thats what well get from GRIN when GR2 gets released, the way the keep working on patch after patch after patch, they might aswell just do it and GET IT OVER WITH. hint hint GRIN. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

graw2 will be what ubi wants it to be

grin might have some "artistic" freedom, but ubi makes up the rules

when you go to a construction company with a drawing of a house, you expect that the end result will look a lot like the drawing, and not the wild fantasy of the people who have to drive past it every day....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spoke to a soldier today at work and to further on what i said about the M24, the M24 SWS IS a focal weapon in Special forces TO&E. The soldier i spoke to said that the barrett .50 BMG sniperrifle in GRAW is meant as a anti armor/ anti vehicle and anti equipment weapon system. the M24 is meant for human targets. maybe Grin can add that one into the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A dozen crashing servers ;) GR1 wasn't really that stable on servers until after desert siege.

I don't know what kind of servers you were playing on, but we had a dedicated server up within months of release. And it ran just fine, but we paid top dollar for a quality server. Heck, we even used 12 gigs of transfer one month! And that was just insane for GR. I could give you all kinds of real time stats, as one of my best friends ran X Drive servers. There were plenty of real dedicated servers out there, the kids that tried to run GR on their machine and play at the same time are the ones that crashed constantly.

XCal and the FAST sirvir were just a couple that I cut my teeth on. They were almost always full when I was a n00b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

omg.. I could only read the first two pages.. It seems to be the neverending story about big and bad companies with the single aim of maximizing their shareholder value and ######ing off the good old PC GR players, who they dislike so violently.. Ubi just wants you to play console and make the good pc times forgotten. lol

That new games have new aspects and new gameplays doesn't get in your mind, right? I admit that I wanted a rvs 2 with a better netcode and better graphics, like a "source"-version. But after all I put this intense onlinegaming time with rvs to history and I am looking forward to upcoming games like ETQW and Vegas. I am sure that they won't be able to give me a rvs-like experience, but they have the potential to give me another multiplayer experience, maybe an even better one. Lockdown couldn't satisfy my expectations so I didn't buy it. Easy, isn't it?

And that is the freedom which you as a potential customer have. YOU select the games which you want to play, NOT the big and bad companies. YOU can give a damn about what they do! If they release a game which doesn't fit in your gaming style, don't purchase it! Don't spend your money on console portations and unready products! It is so simple..

I bought GRAW when it was released because I like the single player and co-op gameplay. Okay, it is not something I'd call an alternative to rvs regarding the multiplayer, but the co-op missions give me a slight GR1 feeling. I expect with GRAW2 a modified GRAW1 with another location, improved gameplay and graphics and maybe a better mp support. If I will purchase it? Maybe, it will depend on how many improvements they have made and on what I will play at that time. But it is my decision, not Ubi's!

To all those old GR fans: if you like GR so much, why do you want another game which is just like GR?

And just think about the game developers: Would you like to develope a game which is exactly the same that others have developed 5 years ago just to improve graphics? Or imagine a doom3 with the controls of doom1/2 lol

Forget about the game politics, purchase only the games you like! You can only win this "battle"! If there are no games that you like, play the old ones! I don't see a problem there...

Just my 2 cents..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A dozen crashing servers ;) GR1 wasn't really that stable on servers until after desert siege.

I don't know what kind of servers you were playing on, but we had a dedicated server up within months of release. And it ran just fine, but we paid top dollar for a quality server. Heck, we even used 12 gigs of transfer one month! And that was just insane for GR. I could give you all kinds of real time stats, as one of my best friends ran X Drive servers. There were plenty of real dedicated servers out there, the kids that tried to run GR on their machine and play at the same time are the ones that crashed constantly.

XCal and the FAST sirvir were just a couple that I cut my teeth on. They were almost always full when I was a n00b.

Let me refresh your memory... shoot a claymore or was it a sensor... server crashed. Servers had to be constantly rebooted. Support was banned for lagging and crashing server. Then after the IT days the boom came out and everyone's server was being knocked down. Did Red Storm (gotta stop posting at odd hours as i had RVS THERE LOL )patch it?... no game is no longer supported was the answer. 3rd party reconlog patched it thank god.

I will say this for GRAW... even though the clients crash, the server has been rock solid. I think i have only had it go down once, and our server never needs rebooted because of it.

Edited by ROCOAFZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

omg.. I could only read the first two pages.. It seems to be the never ending story about big and bad companies with the single aim of maximizing their shareholder value and ######ing off the good old PC GR players, who they dislike so violently.. Ubi just wants you to play console and make the good pc times forgotten. lol

Well, if you're completely satisfied with the status quo for gaming, let me develop a game that has the problems of GRAW and let you buy it. Some folks like to buy buggy games. kinda hard to argue against the said negativity when numerous folks report the same issue.

as for the console comment, do you even see that consoles are the future? alot more console games come out before the PC version. plus, Console games don't need patches and that kind of support. so yes, there seems to be a big shift towards console games. perhaps it's more expensive to develop PC games over console.?

But you MUST read the now closed GR2 thread, which is read only. then you'll see why GRAW was such a disappointment. yeah, we knew GR would be advanced in terms of game engine etc, but we didn't expect to have a complete version pulled out from underneath us(to simplify this). then when we DO get a GR game, hence GRAW, "this is what we waited for?" seems to be the feeling.

added: just got my kid off to school. anyway, we were fooled. look at the demo. the demo didn't have the proper MP support. so some geniuses found that the demo could be played via hamachi or something like that. so that takes MP out of the picture along with the bugs it has. we couldn't fairly assess MP to determine whether GRAW was worth it or not. next, the environment. I was even fooled by it at first. I loved playing the demo as it was new, everything was new to me or all of us. kinda hard to critique a game when you're amazed by the look of the environment. one thing that perked everyones ears was the jaggies issue. but we made quick note of that. then there was the patches. People who love GRAW were ###### by those of us who weren't impressed by the retail version because the patches added content yes, but fixed a bug here and opened another there. You can't get past most hardcore gamers these days. face it. we find things out, but the demo didn't offer enough of th egame and features of the retail to assess and know that GRAW was going to be DOA as some put it. Ravenshield had the same issue with bugs. they fixed this problem opened another, patched again then we were back to square one again. new content is great when with patching games, but the bugs MUST be addressed or the content means nothing. most have serious disconnect problems STILL.

Edited by Papa6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

your expectations were and are just not real

you need to go in to ubi shoes to see the future

you wanted a follow up game like DS and IT , not a new game in the series....

but GR went on to GR2 and summit strike (for ubi and consoles) and graw is a somewhat logical next step

but you and a lot of people just focus on GR and some wet dream, not reality, not thinking of ubi's goal in gaming

or finance

they want a game that feels like a movie, not war...

they want semi realisme, but just not the same as you had in mind

please get this in your head, you have a beautyfull dream of a game (and i hope that dream does come true) but for your sake please get off the cloud and look at reality, look at ubi's goals and track record, and get your facts to make a new expectation, not just your wet dream of the ideal game

(i really don't want to offend you or any one, but these posts are asking for a reality check, and that is my feeling from day one, check the icon on the dvd of graw, it says gr3, thus messure it as such, not as a gr2 PC but a GR3 over all)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are right on the mp part and the jaggies

but the jaggies will remain untill dx10 hardware and the mp part is debatable

i can connect with out much problems, i don't have much disconnects (yesterday i played two sessions of two hours, no disconnects besides a missing map)

but i might be the only one

i miss a lot of stuff from [GR], but i stop complaining because ubi does not want it to be [GR], it wants it to be graw,

and graw two will be like graw, and even less like [GR] if it depends solely on ubi (or they have changed opinions on gameplay or gave in to the [GR] fans)

ubi gave grin a hard task to do, and we can only hope that grin gets the chance from ubi to include our wishes to get it closer to [GR], but be realistic, it was mission impossible for grin, and they pulled of a good game (i am pleased with it)

and many don't think it is good enough, and the things you raise like mp part and jaggies, you are right but the "it is not [GR] or doesn't feel like [GR]" is in my eyes unfair and unrealistic

i myself don't have much disconnects, maybe because i shut all things down and go to servers with a ping of 150 or less

but i see them go off the server, but i can not say it is net coding or just miss management of the client pc running msn or other apps while playing graw

we know it was a rush job, so for the next patch i do not want it to be rushed, but the game it self should be seen as such

and judged as such (that is my opinion, it being rushed to the market)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the i don't want it to be [GR]. I guess that's NOT what we were looking for but content of [GR] like, firefight(which is the GRAW Cooperative), last man standing, rural maps and the lot.

this way, [GR] gamers can play their old school style gameplay in that fashion.

I envy your connection bliss. If it were just me having the issue then I'd be mindset on the problem as me. what the problem is, is anyones guess. I did however question the use of gamespy. I'm surprised that Ubi doesn't use it's own ubi.com servers.

But if you'll give me a chance, alot of issue that I have as i stated pages before is the draw distance. 150m sniping isn't sniping. i understand that the workload would be tremendous but [GR] in that light offered modders the chance to alter the fog and draw(clip)distance in IGOR. sure at first fogless maps were hard to play. but as the years went by, PC's got stronger and tag clear maps were played heavy. sniping was a killer for riflemen. but having a game that worked like that allows for a more open approach to the game rather than hinder it. the mod tools also are a factor for driving a games popularity. I'm no good with XML and can't see myself making/editing xml files if i took on making a custom map or other content.

As for the GR name, when you use a name for a sequel, you naturally expect the new to encompass the old WITH the new. there has to be a continuity so that it can be believed as a sequel. but to develop a whole new game and say it isn't supposed to have anything to do with the last version, doesn't bode well. most movie sequels die hard time because people expect a sequel to follow the storyline of the previous. maybe just "advanced warfighter" was a good name for the game?

Edited by Papa6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sui317 hit the nail on the head I think, with his comment that Ubi wants GRAW to play like a war movie, not like a war. The "hero" way of approaching it is one way to do it. Look at the success of "hero" gaming on the PC: Half-Life's Gordon Freeman, Duke Nukem, Doom's nameless marine, and even Ubi's own Sam Fisher. The original GR wove it's story around a squad. GRAW follows the path of more recently proven success by focusing on an individual. In the process, it fundamentally changed the gameplay. It could have happened from the other direction. If GR:AW had been Splinter Cell: Advanced Warfighter and Sam Fisher got put in charge of a special ops squad, taking most of the stealth aspect out and making it more of a run and gun game. Would it still be a Splinter Cell game? No. And then the core of Splinter Cell fans would be upset, like the core [GR] fans are.

Papa6 makes a good point. If your company is going to make a game as part of a franchise, the core elements of the gameplay need to go unchanged. Changes should be evolutionary, not revolutionary. Doom 3 may have changed the control scheme and have a new engine, but the run and gun gameplay of the original was left alone. A Wizardry game needs to be party based, and allow the player to make each character in the party, not be a solo hero with a bunch of AI followers or a single person hack 'n slash. A Ghost Recon game needs allow teams composed of multiple squads, with the ability to jump from character to character in single-player, and no essential hero in multiplayer.

GR:AW could have been a great game, instead of a good game that disappointed some core of the original's fan base if Ubisoft had looked more to the special ops force in "Clear & Present Danger" (the movie) for inspiration and less to "Saving Private Ryan".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i also agree with papa6 to some extend, but most people tend to forget there was a GR2 (not pc) and this is the follow up

and probably if you have seen gr2 and summit strike this is a logical step

everyone who just playes pc games (me incl.) thought we would get a sequal to gr1, well wrong and from ubi's point of view rightly so cause they launched gr3 /aw for the pc, which is kinda like a sequal to a game we never had, but the planners there behind the ubi desk did have a file with gr2 pc and its content

they will say it is the sequal to gr2 even if the pc gamers did not have part 2

they just follow their franchise with a part 3, and care less for the jump pc gamers have to make to get in line, because they missed out on part 2 (and thus can not relate to graw)

graw is a logical step after gr2, atleast in the eyes of ubi

changing it back to gr1 in their eyes would be going backwards or a future development which can not yet be realized due to hardware demands and grafic demands from players

looking at this forum or ubi forum you might think ubi knows what the hard core gamers want, but i think everyone atleast once filled in a ubi querry about what you like in games what games you play etc.

from that info they decide what to make and do next

and probably we are in the minority and not heard by the designers/planners at ubi

or we are heard but creating a more [GR] like game would hurt sales more than the hero type game and our comments here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand I'll have to disagree with you about Raven Shield. The patches were a nightmare and we never did get an SDK but that game stands way above GRAW with all the different gamplay modes,plus they gave us Iron Wrath free. :):notworthy:

True that. RvS is/was a great game...now when you have something right, why change it? Just modify/improve/add to it. Why, there are literally hundreds of less than realistic so called tactical fps's would they ruin what us the fans so loved about our games? GR:AW is barely there, hopefully it is rectified in the next version/booster. Advice:Take GR1 & RvS....mix them in a pot=perfect fps game.

I bought GR2 for PS. As a huge huge fan of the great contributions to fps games by Ubi (RvS/Gr1) i found GR2 to be a giant pile of dog ######. Single player was from a 3rd person view. Smell the stink? I don't think that people are necessarily looking for replicas of RvS/Gr1, but there were so many things that were right about the both of those games. Multiplayer options are very important. Gr1 had about 75-100 more weapon combinataions possible than GR:AW and RvS maybe more. I'll accept that....maybe with a patch or 2 maybe a booster we will see more. THe gametypes and the ability to play coop on the same maps as multiplayer is one of the greatest inclusions in a competitive tactical fps. When you can't find a server for mp or just feel like polishing up, you can always play the maps your going to play in MP/matches. The fact that this is not possible is one of the biggest mistakes in GR:AW. HUGE. THe lack of gametypes available for all maps is pathetic. If you can play TDM and Domination on say Avenues...you should be able to play HH/Coop/Firefight/Warzone and so on for this map as well. To play other game types you have to play different maps as well. The flexibility doesn't seem to be there.

The in-game lag is horrific. I don't think that players see the same things as they happen. Your sitting, a guy is running, gun down, you shoot..his gun never comes up, your dead.

Most hard core gamers are playing for the gameplay. The ability of a game to not be all bells and whistles, but an extension of your eyes ears and hands. The most beutiful game in the world with bad gameplay/lag/bugs/lack of flexibilty is worse than a game who's graphics aren't as good, but runs smooth and plays real time.

Most of the real fans played the original religiously daily for 4-5 years. DAMN! that's a long time for a game. MAybe not so great for business, but if Ubi was smart , they could have made about 5 more expansion packs, and I bet they would have flew off the shelves.

The frustration comes from those that just want/expect GR:AW to be all they hoped for. I bet even if it fell slightly short there wouldn't be nearly the complaining that there is. If there was a bit more information on what we could expect it would be nice too. Its not sensitive military secrets we are after, its a game that many people pass time with. Please clue us in to some of the plans for the future of this product (on the PC the way it was meant to be) , so we can stop sounding like a nursery in a maternity ward, before enough people move on, that it is just dead.

Make a solid core that is expandable, and add on. If its business/money that is worried about, a solid core of a series will reap the benefits when well accepted. It will be loved, and content add-ons will sell.

Edited by Cell*AFZ*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your damn right...

Most of the real fans played the original religiously daily for 4-5 years. DAMN! that's a long time for a game. MAybe not so great for business, but if Ubi was smart , they could have made about 5 more expansion packs, and I bet they would have flew off the shelves.

I would have bought them all and would still be playing everyday.

Now after no GR2, and AW. I wont buy another Ubi product. Unless they really put out a good GR game that is exactly what we wanted without a bunch of problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...