Jump to content

Option to get back tactical play to GR.


BS PALADIN
 Share

Recommended Posts

Right guys most people here want to see a return to the GR of old. Preferably [GR] or GRIT style. But we know its unlikely UBI/RSE will drop OTS and the fast and futuristic gameplay. So i've thought of a way around this. Give us a simulation mode. That way Run and gunners, rock huggers and halo style players can play a normal mode which runs similar to what GRAW2 is now but we will have a simulation mode that will include -

1. Greatly reduced accuracy when moving. Reticule disapppears when moving quicker than a slow walk.

2. No left trigger.

3. Strafing speed reduced so that you can only walk ( not run ) sideways. In general lower the running speed and introduce stamina.

4. FPVW or FPV view choices only. OTS is not realistic.

5. No cover mode.

6. Increased recoil.

7. Large open maps. Maps like Crash site and station but bigger. Then these maps can be segmented for use in normal mode for run and gun play. Get 2 medium sized maps or 4 small sized map out each huge map. That way we could have 10 huge maps but a total of 40+ maps.

8. Interaction with the environment. Walking through water should make your player walk slower. Leave footprints in the ground.

9. Greater benefits for using weapons in crouched and prone positions.

10. Greater damage model ( 1-3 hits MAX to die).

11. Bleed out if not attended to by a medic. Injury GREATLY reduces accuracy and speed. Maybe introduce a slow blurring effect when injuried until treated by a medic.

12. Objective based gameplay. Instead of siege, blow up a bridge, take out a moving armour column or defuse a bomb. One team defends the other attacks.

13. Add secondary objectives that help achieve the primary goal ie take out the communications tower and the other team cant hear each other.

14. When being shot at your returning accuracy would dramtically drop. Simulating real life fear factors.

I dont know what you guys think of this but i hope you all agree in essence to the principle. Please add your own suggestions. And please goto this UBI FOUMS THREAD and vote yes and post your approval if you agree to simulation mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of objective based T V T gametypes. I play TVT and LMS with friends, with no respawns and the gameplay is totally [GR], especially TVT on comms, the gameplay is slow, deliberate and tactical. People who run around get cut down quickly.

The main drawback to good gameplay is the respawn, as long as there is no consequence to dying, you get nothing but run and gun, in fact, you are penalized if you don't. I prefer not to play with respawns, games like COD 3 are rediculous. But, that's just my $.02

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of good ideas Paladin!

I don't totally agree with the "OTS is unrealistic" statement but would love to see a game engine that would close down the field of view from OTS to FPV as you get closer to objects to eliminate peeking.

That would keep the "Peripheral" vision of OTS but eliminate the ability to look over/arouind objects without exposing the body.

I also think the removal of th ereticule when moving is a good idea. I wouldn't mind seeing the left trigger be more of an "iron sights" mode with movement slowed down considerably.

I also agree with recoil vs. reticule bloom - make the various weapons recoil in unique ways (harder/lighter, pull left/right etc.) so you have to learn each weapons tendencies and can than compensate accordingly.

Objective based Versus gamemodes would be great. Team Mission was a step in the right direction but it would be great to see more in depth scenarios ... on larger maps ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of objective based T V T gametypes. I play TVT and LMS with friends, with no respawns and the gameplay is totally [GR], especially TVT on comms, the gameplay is slow, deliberate and tactical. People who run around get cut down quickly.

The main drawback to good gameplay is the respawn, as long as there is no consequence to dying, you get nothing but run and gun, in fact, you are penalized if you don't. I prefer not to play with respawns, games like COD 3 are rediculous. But, that's just my $.02

I play non respawn games and they are either run and gun or people camping behind corners or rocks with OTS. So i disagree that GRAW2 is anything remotely like [GR]. GRAW is a different animal to [GR]. As a fast paced arcadey military themed shooter GRAW2 is great. It just that i want a tactical realistic shooter.

BTW if you play with the right people you can make the game seem slow and tactical but if someone wants then they can do the arcade stuff mid game and quickly rack up the kills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought about this quite a bit from yesterday with Raw Kryptonite's question about "what is wrong". In fact, I wasn't really paying attention when playing GRAW2 either...I was thinking about the state of first person shooters.

I think a lot of the problem is becoming "boredom" with the first person shooter. To a certain extent, seen one, seen 'em all.

Furthermore, there is a severe lack of core strategy in a lot of shooters. What I mean is, if a guy is a top player in H2, he is probably going to be a great player in Rainbow Six Vegas or GRAW. That makes things a little one sided. Heck, even a game like Chromehounds is at it's core a first person style shooter...but more on that.

No, I think the answer is in a totally different direction. The shooter genre needs to undergo a revolution. There needs to be several changes in the shooter genre................BANG! enemy dies is just too simple for next-gen consoles.

1. Oblivion/Test Drive Unlimited style absolutely HUGE open worlds with sub-missions, sub-challenges, varying terrain, etc.

2. Party systems like Halo 2 or Chromehounds. I want to get a group of 8 guys together without having to have some pre-set clan...and have at it against another 8 guys. And none of this constant Chromehounds "abort" crap either.

3. Absolutely FIXED pre-announced consistent and significant DLC. When I buy a game I want to know that I am going to get a great experience that is going to last several months...with refreshing maps, gametypes, and weapons that expand my purchase and improve my long-term enjoyment. How in the WORLD can these game companies think that this mysterious DLC announcement approach does anything other than DAMAGE games. I would be willing to bet that if a company gets the BALLS to pre-announce a pre-determined and SIGNIFICANT commitment to DLC would see their game sales impacted SIGNIFICANTLY.....especially one of these hum-drum gettin' old series like Ghost Recon. OK, here is a marketing plan....let's make a great product, plan to enhance it with DLC.............AND KEEP IT A SECRET!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a GREAT marketing strategy! If any other industry promoted its product this way....they would be out of business. It is TIME TO GROW UP GAME INDUSTRY!

4. Give me a global or cross-island style WAR to track.....something even BETTER than Chromehounds war. Something my unit can make a contribution to...that doesn't have Morskoj winning the first 15 wars because EVERYONE selects that faction.

5. Give me intricacy yet balance. Chromehounds was great for pre-game garage strategy....bring IR vision and night vision? Build for speed? I dunno...you gotta say within reasonable and balance...but can't I choose not to bring IR goggles and Night Vision goggles and get some appreciable advantage over my opponent? Chromehounds was great for this kind of pre-engagement strategy.

Edited by Ick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some great points. If you read some of my other posts you'd see that i would love a change to shooters as well. Wide open worlds with wars going on in seperate parts of that world that we could be part of. Objective online adversarial gameplay. These are all great ideas. But lets be realistic. GRAW/GRAW2 is actually a more simplfied game than the older GR games in alot of departments. It purposely designed to appeal to casual gamers. I cant see them taking the chance and creating a deeper, more fulfilling and more complicated experience . Which is a pity.

I think if the got the likes of us in as part of the design and testing then they would end up with an incredible product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It purposely designed to appeal to casual gamers. I cant see them taking the chance and creating a deeper, more fulfilling and more complicated experience . Which is a pity.

I think laying the Ghost Recon framework over a Test Drive Unlimited or Oblivion world for purposes of multiplayer would be just the ticket.

Add to that a Halo2 style matchmaking that doesn't require clan formations.

Add to that something like forced fire team roles (Preventing a team of grenadiers) and other matchmaking pre-set game type mixes....and you would have a next gen shooter for the next gen of gaming.

Me and 7 buddies could play "Squad-based Sharpshooter" or "hard core no launchible siege" MAtchmaking types against unknown human opponents all night long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Paladin you know me so you know I'm all for a more realistic game. Since GR 2 came out I've spend a lot of time posting on all these forums in the hope to get the old school recon back. Ofcourse I do hope they will change it back just like you but my advise would be to leave "Ghost Recon" for what it is. We are around 5 GR games further and as you can see it's getting worse and worse.

Let Ubi keep misusing the good name of "Ghost Recon" which [GR] earned, no point to waste your time anymore. Also my thought is that a game should follow a certain direction instead of a game with arcade and serious gameplay, otherwise it will only lead to a split community. Better hope for a new game like the guys at Blackfoot Studios are making. Personally I think I'm done with the series I even had my doubts when buying GRAW2. Now I have it I've found myself spending more time playing Worms which says enough.

Still, good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good stuff Ick!

TDU's attempt ata free roaming world wher eyou could jump from SP to MP very easily was great.

I also agree that the currrent DLC situation is F'd. New content should be planned well in advance and dropped every other month or so depending on its depth.

In GRAW2 it would be great to see a new Coop mission on a large map with some new weapons and maybe gametypes on a regular basis. So you get a coop fix, a new map for MP and new gametype that breathes life into old maps. New weaponsare nice but since they can not be overwhelming they don't add asmuch to gameplay and replay as maps, missions and gametypes.

In an ongoing conflict youmay have to step away from the US Ghosts and create a Mercenary (Blackwater style) organization so it would make sense that you would fight for whichever side paid the most or provided the best support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While i agree those ideas whould make a better game, i think there are other features that should be implemented as well.

Dynamic weather and lighting.

More realistic movement and accuracy.

Limited carrying capacity. Ie you have set number of slots. People wouldn't be quick to chose grenadier if they could only take 5 grenades at the expense of clips for their gun.

Mission Editor. They should have this part of a premium pack that costs £20/$30 extra.

Destructable environment. If OFP elite can do it on the xbox then im sure the 360 is capable of doing it.

I could list even more options but you get my drift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an ongoing conflict youmay have to step away from the US Ghosts and create a Mercenary (Blackwater style) organization so it would make sense that you would fight for whichever side paid the most or provided the best support.

How the heck did you get to be a "Consultant"?

Yeah, we talked about this before. I suppose you would have to play as (in the example of GRAW2) on the side of Mexico, US, or France.

I suppose this could be:

--open ended--->any player from any faction could pick any weapon...skins and starting point just differ

--factoin specific-->US gets their weapon set, Mexicans get their weapons, French get white flags and smoke.

Edit: OK, french get the FAMAS and P90 if you must.

Edited by Ick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Paladin you know me so you know I'm all for a more realistic game. Since GR 2 came out I've spend a lot of time posting on all these forums in the hope to get the old school recon back. Ofcourse I do hope they will change it back just like you but my advise would be to leave "Ghost Recon" for what it is. We are around 5 GR games further and as you can see it's getting worse and worse.

Let Ubi keep misusing the good name of "Ghost Recon" which [GR] earned, no point to waste your time anymore. Also my thought is that a game should follow a certain direction instead of a game with arcade and serious gameplay, otherwise it will only lead to a split community. Better hope for a new game like the guys at Blackfoot Studios are making. Personally I think I'm done with the series I even had my doubts when buying GRAW2. Now I have it I've found myself spending more time playing Worms which says enough.

Still, good luck.

I was in the same boat about 4 months ago with GRAW. But after talking to a good friendof mine i decided to try a constructive approach. The fruit of that will be seen soon. After the poll i did to get the old siege types back got 141 votes to 1 in favour, if thats not implemented in the next DLC then im sure i'll just give up all hope and move on.

It would be funny ( and not in a good way ) if they gave us a cover mode and not the old sieges back. That would be a killer. But i think they will be forced to make the series more realistic as they face stiff competition in the next year. We have the Rogue Warrior, the BFS project and the recently announced [OFP: DR] all coming to 360.

BTW whats a consultant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an ongoing conflict youmay have to step away from the US Ghosts and create a Mercenary (Blackwater style) organization so it would make sense that you would fight for whichever side paid the most or provided the best support.

How the heck did you get to be a "Consultant"?

Yeah, we talked about this before. I suppose you would have to play as (in the example of GRAW2) on the side of Mexico, US, or France.

I suppose this could be:

--open ended--->any player from any faction could pick any weapon...skins and starting point just differ

--factoin specific-->US gets their weapon set, Mexicans get their weapons, French get white flags and smoke.

Edit: OK, french get the FAMAS and P90 if you must.

Overall, I really don't like the idea of that type of development in Ghost Recon. Perhaps more like Oblivion in that an invading force needs countered. Think of it as if it was the Chinese invading Hawaiian Islands. You can combat them at the beaches as they land, infiltrate their temporary command post on the part of the island they controll, take a high point and engage materiel and equipment with high-caliber sniper and get out before capture, recon behind enemy lines, patrol an area, help defend a strong point in a dire situation, etc.

Heck, the other Hawaiian islands could each be their own DLC mission packs.

....throw a snow mission in there as a special force trying to incapacitate a Chinese Pacific Operations Center in snow covered mainland China.

Give me one of three Ghost Units I can be part of once a week...and let my unit be compared to the other two units other players choose. Kind of like comparing me to my peers. Like Chromehounds except we are three army units all competing to do a better job of ousting the Chinese from Hawaii. Bragging rights.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to have a merc group like Wing mentioned working a scenario like the Neroimus war in Chrome Hounds. I think that's what Huxley plans, but the gameplay will be Halo/Unreal like instead of what we like around here.

Give me a Chrome Hounds-like war

America's Army realism (no crosshairs, custom skill progression, physical exertion factors & mission objectives)

Ghost Recon & Rainbow Six situations (open field and CQC)

...and I'll be a happy camper.

WHY is that not out there already?

I agree, shooters are usually the same thing, over and over. The difference is the emphasis on a little more realism or a little more arcade. They all seem to be combinations of the two. When a game presents something just a LITTLE BIT different, we get all excited. Then it's over. Almost every game has the same MP:

Capture the flag and bring it somewhere (but called different names)

Kill all the others, no respawn

Kill everyone repeatedly, respawns

Capture this "thing" for territory and hold it

THAT is what's wrong, as much as the SP game details. It's the same game over and over, only the game title changes. MP games get old. That's why we starve for DLC now.

Oh, and I DO NOT want anymore video games styled after the show 24. This has been adopted in GR and Rainbow and it just plain sucks. LOL

Variety is the spice of life, and variety is what enables a game to be played for long periods of time.

Edited by Raw Kryptonite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll add this, that I've mentioned before:

I'd like to see more random events in games. Like spotting the super mechs in Chrome Hounds, but smaller events.

Random weather. One map that's usually sunny, you go in another day to find rain. Snow. Blizzard. Whatever.

Random civilians. Check your fire! I want non-combatants popping out, running away etc. Take cover off the road in a house and find a family there. You need to get out before you draw fire towards them by being there.

Random equipment failure. Take a Hummer into town. 1 out of 20 trips though, the Hummer breaks down and you have to hoof it. Or the mounted gun jams. Planting a bomb? Better bring 2 fuses or you might fail due to the first fuse failing.

Random enemies. During a battle, have a group of militia come in and harrass you AND the enemy. Malotov's tossed. A building gets bombed and explodes that normally doesn't.

Random all hell breaks loose: a combination of these factors hits. Your squad has to cope since the mission has to go on.

Keep it random and maps/missions don't get old. You play it over and over to see everything the game offers and to cope with it.

Also, IMO, random events would cut back on the run & gun solo players that are supposed to be playing a team game.

Edited by Raw Kryptonite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another option that could be interesting is to see more character development based on MP Coop. I don't like havign MP versus play affected by rank advantage but if you r character progressed in terms of skills and availableweapons based on coop play that could add a lot to a game.

For instance everyone starts as rifleman but as you progress you gain more skill with a class as you get kills etc. more weapons become available and more classes open up as you gain experience/rank.

This could lead to some nice squad development as players would become specialized as grenadier, Sniper, gunner, medic etc.

This would also work well with the periodic release of DLC Coop chapters that would have a singel large and in depth mission (the mission area could then be civided into 3 or 4 MP maps).

Add to that the randomization and "Simulation" settign that others have mentioned and I think you start to really develop and indepth game that takes FPS to a new level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another option that could be interesting is to see more character development based on MP Coop. I don't like havign MP versus play affected by rank advantage but if you r character progressed in terms of skills and availableweapons based on coop play that could add a lot to a game.

For instance everyone starts as rifleman but as you progress you gain more skill with a class as you get kills etc. more weapons become available and more classes open up as you gain experience/rank.

This could lead to some nice squad development as players would become specialized as grenadier, Sniper, gunner, medic etc.

You know I agree with that, that's what America's Army did, but it didn't have the co-op part (which would be really nice). :thumbsup:

This would also work well with the periodic release of DLC Coop chapters that would have a singel large and in depth mission (the mission area could then be civided into 3 or 4 MP maps).

Add to that the randomization and "Simulation" settign that others have mentioned and I think you start to really develop and indepth game that takes FPS to a new level.

I wonder if all of this can be put in the games? I'd assume it can, since adding weather randomizers would just be like adding additional or relit maps.

Edited by Raw Kryptonite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is alot here thats been said i really like, Though i really want FPWV to make it here in GR sometime! Blows my mind that they still haven't added it yet.

Also,

Mission Editor. They should have this part of a premium pack that costs £20/$30 extra.

Destructable environment. If OFP elite can do it on the xbox then im sure the 360 is capable of doing it.

Mission Editor would love to see a default one in must games nowadays! Just a simple one to make CooP mission would do me in just fine. Also from what i here from inside people. Modding games and given your work out to others still might happen. Sounded like it may still at least be a year away or so for modding games. They are going to try out the XNA homebrew on the Market Place first which will be out at around the Fall update (thats if all stays on track that is).

As for OFP, I'm filled with joy that there is a [OFP: DR] coming out for the x360 soon! Hope it stays a open battle field like the last one and also keeps the Mission editor!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cant wait for [OFP: DR] either. OFP was one of my favourite games of all time. On that point ,within the year there will be alot of AAA+ war titles released. On the fun side we have BF2 bad company and COD 4 : Modern Warfare ( looks absolutely amazing ) and for realistic side we have [OFP: DR], BFS title and rogue warrior. Whereas GRAW/GRAW2 had the war genre to itself on 360 up until now, they now find they have stiff competition.

So because of that i think the next GR game will have to step it up and produce a far better online experience. Catering more for the hardcore gamers. A simulation mode would be a start. Because at the moment GRAW2 is dying on its feet. Down to 7th on the most played 360 game online. Clans ladders are dwindling and once hardcore fans who once played 5+ hours a night now play 1-2 hours maybe once or twice a week. GR is in a bad way. Admittely i think the lag and server search options have had a negative impact but they are just quicking the process rather than creating it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cant wait for [OFP: DR] either. OFP was one of my favourite games of all time. On that point ,within the year there will be alot of AAA+ war titles released. On the fun side we have BF2 bad company and COD 4 : Modern Warfare ( looks absolutely amazing ) and for realistic side we have [OFP: DR], BFS title and rogue warrior. Whereas GRAW/GRAW2 had the war genre to itself on 360 up until now, they now find they have stiff competition.

So because of that i think the next GR game will have to step it up and produce a far better online experience. Catering more for the hardcore gamers. A simulation mode would be a start. Because at the moment GRAW2 is dying on its feet. Down to 7th on the most played 360 game online. Clans ladders are dwindling and once hardcore fans who once played 5+ hours a night now play 1-2 hours maybe once or twice a week. GR is in a bad way. Admittely i think the lag and server search options have had a negative impact but they are just quicking the process rather than creating it.

Yeah, they have pretty much killed off GR as anything but another generic shooter that entertains for a month. They changed the game to broaden the appeal and sell more games. The problem is the game doesn't do what it used to do well, and the other games in the general shooter genera (GoW, Vegas) just simply do that style of game play better.

Just a rough guess, but I bet there is about 10% of the traffic/posts on this forum 2 months after release of GRAW2, than there were 2 months after release of GR2. More than once, this forum literally has gone several days without seeing a post.

Congratulations Ubi, you sold more copies of a game that is collecting dust on people's shelves. :thumbsup::clapping:

P.S. It doesn't show it on my gamercard below, but my last game played was GRSS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I played SP GR2SS the other night. The SP is a LOT better than either GRAW SP. More realistic missions, it's slower, not so directed (go down THIS alley, over THAT bridge etc). I do like GRAW2's MP, but the SP is great on Summit Strike. We need a return to briefings and missions with open environments and good objectives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I played SP GR2SS the other night. The SP is a LOT better than either GRAW SP. More realistic missions, it's slower, not so directed (go down THIS alley, over THAT bridge etc). I do like GRAW2's MP, but the SP is great on Summit Strike. We need a return to briefings and missions with open environments and good objectives.

I agree. I don't want to feel like I am playing a movie. I want to feel like I am playing a military sim.

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...