Jump to content

Hear me out...


MAX419
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've said some pretty bone-headed things on this forum, but I think that most, if not all, will agree with my statement.

Here goes...

I've seen posts on this forum begging Ubi/RSE not to follow some precedents set by R6Vegas. I couldn't agree more.

However, there are some things about the new R6 that I like a lot: Left Trigger Cover, Nearly Infinite Character Customization, Weapon Customization, Blind-Firing, Accurate Scope Reticles.......etc.

There are definitely some things that SHOULD NOT be implemented though: Sacrificing weapon realism for "balance," SMG's being uberweapons, 5.56 weapons doing more damage than 7.62 weapons (I know this goes back to my first point, but I couldn't NOT add it), Unrealistic looking accessories and armor, I could go on.

I know that GRAW2 is in competent and capable hands. I'm just trying to help in situations where the devs need to make a decision in the interest of player approval.

Feel free to agree/disagree...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've said some pretty bone-headed things on this forum, but I think that most, if not all, will agree with my statement.

Here goes...

I've seen posts on this forum begging Ubi/RSE not to follow some precedents set by R6Vegas. I couldn't agree more.

However, there are some things about the new R6 that I like a lot: Left Trigger Cover, Nearly Infinite Character Customization, Weapon Customization, Blind-Firing, Accurate Scope Reticles.......etc.

There are definitely some things that SHOULD NOT be implemented though: Sacrificing weapon realism for "balance," SMG's being uberweapons, 5.56 weapons doing more damage than 7.62 weapons (I know this goes back to my first point, but I couldn't NOT add it), Unrealistic looking accessories and armor, I could go on.

I know that GRAW2 is in competent and capable hands. I'm just trying to help in situations where the devs need to make a decision in the interest of player approval.

Feel free to agree/disagree...

Agree....some good points! I like the idea of some sort of a similar cover system using the left trigger.....here is my idea......

Left trigger in open areas could still bring the weapon into the tighter zoom style just as it does now in the current GRAW, however if up against a wall the left trigger becomes context sensitive and now acts as the cover function just like R6V......thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would get very confusing, very fast. :hmm:

lol...maybe, however, I often find myself pulling the left trigger in open areas during R6V when I spot an enemy and nothing happens....I wish it would just zoom in a little (tighter reticule)....love the cover system in R6V..GRAW 2 MP needs something....IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, I want the left trigger to do both the tight zoom as well as cover. I see no reason it can't do both. In cover and swinging out/over, I think that type of targeting would fit perfectly.

However, I love the weapons in Rainbow and how they're treated more than in GR. I think they're just as well done. Plus recoil is much more realistic than in GR. Instead of shots hitting within a circle to simulate loss of accuracy, you have that as well as realistic rise of the barrel if you stay on it. You have to compensate for the rise of the barrel or fire in small bursts. I don't know why GR doesn't do that. SMG's are too accurate at distance, but only for the first couple of shots--that could be improved on, but the automatic rifles are done perfectly. GR needs to do that as well (the way the automatics are, not the over-easy to control SMG's)

Of course, Ideally, they would all operate the way America's Army does: no magic floating crosshairs, iron sites only, actual recorded gunfire for sound, and realistic recoil. In AA, you actually had to be a "good shot" unlike other shooters out there that are more or less point & click. Of course, that means going 1st person. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, I want the left trigger to do both the tight zoom as well as cover. I see no reason it can't do both. In cover and swinging out/over, I think that type of targeting would fit perfectly.

However, I love the weapons in Rainbow and how they're treated more than in GR. I think they're just as well done. Plus recoil is much more realistic than in GR. Instead of shots hitting within a circle to simulate loss of accuracy, you have that as well as realistic rise of the barrel if you stay on it. You have to compensate for the rise of the barrel or fire in small bursts. I don't know why GR doesn't do that. SMG's are too accurate at distance, but only for the first couple of shots--that could be improved on, but the automatic rifles are done perfectly. GR needs to do that as well (the way the automatics are, not the over-easy to control SMG's)

Of course, Ideally, they would all operate the way America's Army does: no magic floating crosshairs, iron sites only, actual recorded gunfire for sound, and realistic recoil. In AA, you actually had to be a "good shot" unlike other shooters out there that are more or less point & click. Of course, that means going 1st person. ;)

Not that I'm adding anything to the proceedings... but AA does have a reticle. :D

And yes, a little bit of AA flavor wouldn't hurt. I'd like my GR with more realism this time around... <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the impact of a cover system will be dependent on how well/badly it is implemented. THere are many possible options and variations that could be used - for instance cover but without blindfire, or cover but force a first person view (eliminating the 3rd person peek) ... I am sure there are a lot of other options that we have not even seen yet.

I agree with havign recoil do more than "expand" the reticule and I also like the idea of getting rid of the reticule all together (especially when moving) and forcing iron sites or scope.

But please don't use the squirt gun style gunmodels that we saw in RB6 ;)

To foster team play in MP I would hope to see a lot more distinction in "class"/roles in terms of effect (capabilities with weapons, what can be carried in terms of ammo etc.

Having said that - I don't think we will be seeing major changes like these in GRAW 2 ;)

I am not sure whatif any changes we will see or even if the changes in SP will make it to MP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am hoping for the same game function and features wise. I would like to see these things added:

Party system where me and 7 of my budz can go up against another 8 guys looking for a siege match.

Perhaps a "map" like Test Drive Unlimited where me and my party can traverse the map and encounter AI from mission to mission....with the ability to warp and skip this as well.

A LOT MORE THAN 10 skimpy maps at purchase.

AVOIDANCE of bonehead errors like no blind siege included in the game out of the box.

More consistent and systematic DLC. Start me with 10 maps if you must, give me 5 by DLC 30 to 60 days later, more maps in another 60 days, more maps in another 60 days, more maps in another 60 days...you get the picture.

More host options, especially for co-op or "challenge" style game sets.....like "Force squad roles" setting where you can't have a team of grenadiers against the AI, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cover system will officially mark the death of Ghost Recon. I'm not buying it if it has the cover system. End of story.

I think you're right on that. I'm all for new direction for a franchise... but that would be too much.

Why? Because if there was a cover system, then the devs would make maps that would take advantage of said system.

Look back at [GR] maps. Half of them took place in forested areas, where there was no possibility of taking cover. You think that GRAW 2 would have many forested maps if a cover system made it into MP?

Besides, a cover system would destroy the way GR is meant to be played. I remember a time when "Recon" was more than just a word in the title of an action game. A cover system in GR would encourage a "shoot the hell out of anything that moves, and hope you hit it" way of playing.

What I'm trying to say, is that cover should be unnecessary in GR games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say anything as dramatic as it'll "ruin the game" or anything like that, but for the *environment* that I like GR maps to be (natural outdoor, not urban) I think that it just isn't necessary. I'd love for it to be tied to the left trigger along with the focused aim, but it's not necessary. Mostly, I want GR to get OUT of the urban setting! That's where cover is needed but that's not where I like GR to be. For outdoors, I think the lean is more useful. Both would be nice, but cover mode would definitely NOT be good if it was a *replacement* for a lean. Nice compliment to it, but if it replaces it that would be a huge mistake.

Edited by Raw Kryptonite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm trying to say, is that cover should be unnecessary in GR games.

Hmm.....When I play GRAW I get next to a corner and use OTS to look over and around. I (and my team) use cover quite a bit. So I am not sure exactly what you mean by that. Don't you move from cover to cover in GRAW when moving across the map? I certainly used cover in First Person Ghost Recon as well.

As it stands now in GRAW, when I get next to the tree and use OTS an enemy can see my arm sticking out and pick me off. That is a good thing. I suppose as long as they maintain "uneven" objects that have my shoulder, leg, or head sticking out I am fine with the addition of a "cover" mode. For example, let me go into "cover" mode at a bush..but let me be vulnerable to fire through the bush.....let me go into cover at the tree....but where the roots taper in the the stump...let the enemy able to hit and kill me at my exposed mid-section.

In RAINBOW SIX VEGAS the objects you can use cover on are VERY straight edge and generally do not allow for the shooter to be exposed prior to fire. This would not be too popular with the GR players I know..........although any addition that favors AGAINST the moving shooter slows the game down....and THAT is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OTS and the cover system make camping the smart tactic. Camping = no fun.

Huh?!?!?!

Wait wait wait...before I refute this asserstion I need to preface this post by saying that when I started this topic, I had no idea that it would start such a debate. For that, I'm glad.

Now to the business at hand: I realize that we are talking about GAMES. However, these are games based on REALISM. If we didn't crave and appreciate such realism, we would devote our gaming hours to titles such as Gears of War, Halo or Quake....Am I right in saying this?

Fearlessly charging your opponent in battle was rendered impractical in the early 20th century by the Maxim machine gun (unless you have overwhelming superior numbers such as the Korean conflict). Taking cover became essential at this time and ever since. Brains became way more important than balls...Yes?

There are ways to be aggressive while still using cover....right???

If someone "camps" w/o spreading the field, are they not extremely susceptible to getting absolutely eradicated by successful flanking maneuvers?

I'm just askin'.....

I would be lacking if I neglected to say that yes, I do play games like Gears of War, Halo and others. But it's usually just to try something different. It usually doen't take long for me to go back to more realistic games.

It seems all too often, as a gaming community, we make reactionary decisions about new features in games before they are even given a chance. I say we give them a chance. If we don't like them, we'll most definitely make our voices heard. And, as a captalistic society dictates, the devs will respond. But let's give them a chance, yeah???

Edited by MAX419
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OTS and the cover system make camping the smart tactic. Camping = no fun.

The third person peek is already there - I don't see that adding a cover function woul dmake camping any more or less effective ...

Bigger maps and with a variety of cover and approaches are the best change to alleviate camping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, these are games based on REALISM. If we didn't crave and appreciate such realism, we would devote our gaming hours to titles such as Gears of War, Halo or Quake....Am I right in saying this?

Fearlessly charging your opponent in battle was rendered impractical in the early 20th century by the Maxim machine gun (unless you have overwhelming superior numbers such as the Korean conflict). Taking cover became essential at this time and ever since. Brains became way more important than balls...Yes?

Having the ability to pull the left trigger and get a bird's eye view of the field from 10 feet above your head is not realistic in the least bit. You should not be able to view the field in front of an obstacle without exposing yourself...unless you are using a weapon with a camera attached.

It seems all too often, as a gaming community, we make reactionary decisions about new features in games before they are even given a chance. I say we give them a chance. If we don't like them, we'll most definitely make our voices heard. And, as a captalistic society dictates, the devs will respond. But let's give them a chance, yeah???

Where have you been? We already gave it a chance...twice. And it sucks.

Hey let's all run up to a wall, or a jeep, hold the left trigger, and sit there for the duration of a match. Don't dare move away from that wall or jeep, because if you do, you'll probably be shot by someone else doing the same thing. That sounds like exciting gameplay that will keep fans coming in waves! Welcome to the new Ghost Recon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey let's all run up to a wall, or a jeep, hold the left trigger, and sit there for the duration of a match. Don't dare move away from that wall or jeep, because if you do, you'll probably be shot by someone else doing the same thing. That sounds like exciting gameplay that will keep fans coming in waves! Welcome to the new Ghost Recon.

Lol. I see your concern. My experience is that it doesn't affect my gameplay in the same way. Sure, when there are only one or two guys left the game can become that....but that is the exception not the rule.

Games like siege require the attacker to move....so this also prevents what you are saying.

For the most part siege games come down to communicating locations of the opposing force and trying to flank or prevent movement.

Great fun if you ask me. First person games are nice...but OTS is here to stay and I don't mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fine with the cover system to a point. It's something i would do in real life so yes it's fine by me!

The thing i hate is the 3rd person veiw with the cover system. I believe it may be to late for GR (Console) on going back to FPV. Yet i still would like to see a second options for players like me with a FPWV and iron sights. You can still have the cover system in this view. When you look around a corner your head goes with it! For now they can leave it up to the host to lock this view or not will make me more than happy if it ever makes it way into GR.

Anyways as long as there is 3rd person view there is no need for a cover system. You can hide so far out of sight and still see the battlefield. So until they take away 3rd person view or just add in FPWV as another option i'm with you guys on not adding the cover system to GR MP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clear things up, I meant that a cover system should be unnecessary in GR games.

My reasoning? GR games should go back to their roots... most of the missions took place in the "wild." In a forest, behind what would you take cover? I'd much rather prone than put my back against a tree stump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what i have really enjoyed these last few years of ghost recon games...is purists screaming for the game to go back to its first person roots.....the devs. then procede to include a weaponless first person view only to have the "purists" demand an onscreen weapon view :wall:

Bottom line is we will never return to ghost recon of old as such each and every new game in the "series" will have to be judged on its own merits...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clear things up, I meant that a cover system should be unnecessary in GR games.

My reasoning? GR games should go back to their roots... most of the missions took place in the "wild." In a forest, behind what would you take cover? I'd much rather prone than put my back against a tree stump.

I agree!!!

I would love to go back to the forest myself more than anything as a GR fan. Yet as long as it's in the urban citys if done in FPWV i'm fine with a cover system. I don't know and maybe i really don't care on what they do with the cover system use it or not! I just want the 3rd person view gone at the end of the day and right now i don't see it ever happen.

So yet again i would forget the cover system all togther just to have the forest and woods back! Just as long as they stayen Urban than its still up for debate. Also if i wanted anything from the old GR back the most, i might go with RECON! I just can't get passed playing Ghost Recon today and haven zero recon in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree!!!

I would love to go back to the forest myself more than anything as a GR fan. Yet as long as it's in the urban citys if done in FPWV i'm fine with a cover system. I don't know and maybe i really don't care on what they do with the cover system use it or not! I just want the 3rd person view gone at the end of the day and right now i don't see it ever happen.

So yet again i would forget the cover system all togther just to have the forest and woods back! Just as long as they stayen Urban than its still up for debate. Also if i wanted anything from the old GR back the most, i might go with RECON! I just can't get passed playing Ghost Recon today and haven zero recon in it.

Very good points.

I wouldn't mind urban combat (and the cover system that ensues) so much, if it still resembled the gameplay of [GR].

What do I mean? Well, in GRAW, you had one, maybe two ways to approach a group of enemies if you got lucky.

Urban combat? Fine. But give it to me realistic. Make it bigger, give me more options to flank, and please, lower the enemy density, and give them better AI. I want to fight against enemies that understand the base concepts of flanking and counter-flanking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...