Why did RSE cease to have full control over GR.

[BS PALADIN]

Let me see if i got this right.

RSE made [GR], DESERT SIEGE AND ISLAND THUNDER for PC.

They also made [GR], GRIT, GR2 and GRSS for xbox

They were making GR2 for PC before it was delayed ( not 100% on this )

They made MP only for GRAW and GRAW 2 for 360 while UBi paris made the SP for those games on 360. And GRIN made the PC versions of GRAW and GRAW2.

Now why after making so many great games for PC and xbox ( [GR], DESERT SIEGE, ISLAND THUNDER, [GR], GR2 and GRSS ), not to mention great R63 games for PC and Xbox, were they then scaled down to do only MP of the GRAW games. It doesnt make any sense. You produce quality games so you lose the responsibility for the entire game. I know there is probably a official statement along the lines of "We felt it would be better to allow RSE to concentrate on the Mp aspects of GRAW as they have excelled at this in the past " etc etc. But if someone knows the real answer then please tell me. If it cant be posted then please pm me.

Its really bugging me now.

[Dannik]

Perhaps because RSE made [GR] while they were an independent company, but Ubisoft purchased them around the same time as [GR] went gold?

Oh, and R6:3 for PC was an Ubisoft Montreal title.

[BS PALADIN]

Perhaps because RSE made [GR] while they were an independent company, but Ubisoft purchased them around the same time as [GR] went gold?

Oh, and R6:3 for PC was an Ubisoft Montreal title.

They still made GR2 and GRSS after they were bought over. So it cant be that. Something happened between GRSS and GRAW that made UBI take SP control on the GR franchise.

Thanks for the info on R63 for PC. I was near sure RSE made that LOL

[ZJJ]

Now why after making so many great games for PC and xbox ( [GR], DESERT SIEGE, ISLAND THUNDER, [GR], GR2 and GRSS ), not to mention great R63 games for PC and Xbox, were they then scaled down to do only MP of the GRAW games. It doesnt make any sense. You produce quality games so you lose the responsibility for the entire game. I know there is probably a official statement along the lines of "We felt it would be better to allow RSE to concentrate on the Mp aspects of GRAW as they have excelled at this in the past " etc etc. But if someone knows the real answer then please tell me. If it cant be posted then please pm me.

Its really bugging me now.

To make a quality game in the time alloted, the work was split between two studios.

[BS PALADIN]

Thanks ZJJ. If thats the case then i hope they give the entire project for the next GR to RSE and enough time to come up with a quality cohesive game.

[Cons72]

Step 1. Ubisoft realized the hit of [GR] as it won "game of the year."

Step 2. Ubisoft decides they better get more hands on with a property that now has this kind of recognition.

Step 3. Ubisoft begins the process of killing the GR series.

[Dannik]

They still made GR2 and GRSS after they were bought over. So it cant be that.

Amusingly enough, GR2 was an Ubisoft game. It was made by RSE, but Ubisoft controlled the project. GR2SS was all RSE, though, from design to completion.

[Brettzies]

Despite its detractors as a console kiddie game and the OTS view, I think the mp portion of the new GRAW games is probably a lot closer to [GR] then PC GRAW is. Heck, Summit Strike felt like a real Ghost Recon game to me. For mp, the characters, the settings, the weapons, the overall presentation is GR...hmm, why is that? Duh, RSE. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is just like [GR] in every single way, but it's closer.

Now the sp portion is definetly glossy and beautiful, but also fun. However, to me this is UBi's vision as a company. They want to make "movie" games. It's not always a bad thing, but you can see what they are after. I've said it before and I'll say it again, they are making a "day in the life of a super-soldier" type game. It has a great cinematic feel, it's fun, and there's nothing wrong with games like that, but they aren't really the essence of Ghost Recon. It's only slightly different from GOW, Unreal, Quake, Doom3, whatever you want to put there.

I dont' know if their visions or strengths were too far apart or what, but you can feel the difference between the two modes. The only reason manpower comes into the equation is because we're dealing with Ubi here, and they demand a game come out within a certain time frame, so they'll divy up the work accordingly. It's not like Valve who says, "screw this, we're making the game we want, who cares if direct x changes 5 times during development!" If RSE had the luxury to do the same, I'm bet they would.

[CR6]

Now why after making so many great games for PC and xbox ( [GR], DESERT SIEGE, ISLAND THUNDER, [GR], GR2 and GRSS ), not to mention great R63 games for PC and Xbox, were they then scaled down to do only MP of the GRAW games.

The reasons that Ubisoft decided to make Red Storm just responsible for GRAW Xbox 360 MP are as follows. (Note most of this info is my opinion based on years of being a webmaster covering the Clancy games, and info about the various studios can be readlily found around the 'net):

1. Business: GR is a huge money-making franchise for Ubisoft and they have decided to "milk the cash cow" as it were. Nothing wrong with that business-wise since Ubi is a business and needs to please its shareholders. So in order to pump out a new iteration of GR every year, as ZJJ said, RSE would not have enough time, resources, and manpower to produce a full SP and MP game each year.

Thus, following their successful model of having Splinter Cell SP (made by Ubisoft Montreal and Ubisoft Shanghai alternating years) and MP (done in Ubi Paris) made by different studios, Ubi applied this to GRAW as well.

If you look at the results of this business decision on the GRAW franchise, it was actually VERY successful as GRAW came out (almost) in time for the 360 launch, blew away the competition and won multiple Game of the Year in a large part due to Red Storm's MP component.

So although true-blue RSE fans are disappointed that the whole SP/MP GR experience is now out of RSE hands, Ubi's decision to allow RSE to capitalize on their talents and experience creating a top-notch MP experience has paid off in spades.

2. Timing: A second reason is that Ubi decided that GR3 would be a "next-gen" game in time for the 360 launch, as well as being released just a year after GR2. Ubi had already bought a studio called Yeti Interactive and turned it into their Ubisoft Tiwak studio. They determined that the Tiwak studio's Yeti engine was suitable to create the next-gen GRAW single player visual experience. However, as above, Ubi made the wise decision to leave the MP to RSE.

There is no doubt that RSE could have renovated it's in-house engine to produce a next-gen visual experience (and they pretty much did since a lot of people didn't realize GRAW1's MP engine by RSE is different from the SP engine by Ubisoft Tiwak) but the timing was a factor.

Many critics call GRAW2=GRAW1.5 as there isn't a huge overhaul of both engines, again because GRAW2 was mandated to come out 1 year later. Personally, I could care less that GRAW2 is a huge technological leap over GRAW1 since GRAW2 obviously delivers the solid gameplay we want more of, as well as several important improvements that fans have asked for.

Hope that helps to answer your question. You won't hear an official response from Ubi except for their financial statements

Personally, I am holding out the very faint hope that we will see RSE's GRAW 360 multiplayer portion "ported" over to the PC, since it already has all the ingredients for a great PC game, and many great PC games are multiplayer-focused anyway (read: Battlefield series). GRAW 360 multiplayer has:

- Up to date visuals

- An independent storyline playable by 1 person or co-op

- Adversarial MP

Anyone else agree on this?

[BS PALADIN]

It answers alot of my questions. So basically the answer to my original question is MONEY. UBI wanted more of it. Simple and true lol

But on another point i really dont think GRAW 2 is the kind of game that tactical PC gamers will want to play. For one thing its OTS. GRAW2 plays too arcadey for the PC crowd.

[BS PALADIN]

Amusingly enough, GR2 was an Ubisoft game. It was made by RSE, but Ubisoft controlled the project. GR2SS was all RSE, though, from design to completion.

Dam dannik you know your stuff. I think im one of the few people that preferred GR2 to GRSS. I think the siege bases had better locations in most maps. And some of the maps were great. Lost convoy and pilot down were two of my favourites.

[Sup]

Step 1. Ubisoft realized the hit of [GR] as it won "game of the year."

Step 2. Ubisoft decides they better get more hands on with a property that now has this kind of recognition.

Step 3. Ubisoft begins the process of killing the GR series.

Which culminates in them winning goty again and selling an awful lot more games.

[BS PALADIN]

Which culminates in them winning goty again and selling an awful lot more games.

You are right GRAW/GRAW2 are far bigger than any other GR game. The GRAW franchise dwarfs what the GR franchise was. And at the end of the day its all about money. But the GRAW games arent a patch on the quality of [GR]/GRIT. Its all a matter of tastes. And my tastes are for realistic tactical gaming.

[WytchDokta]

So basically the answer to my original question is MONEY.

Money is power.

Edited May 3, 2007 by WytchDokta

[Brettzies]

You are right GRAW/GRAW2 are far bigger than any other GR game. The GRAW franchise dwarfs what the GR franchise was. And at the end of the day its all about money. But the GRAW games arent a patch on the quality of [GR]/GRIT. Its all a matter of tastes. And my tastes are for realistic tactical gaming.

They took the popularity and critical acclaim of GR and made it more accessible to the general masses but to the detrement of those who liked it for what it was. Which pretty much means making it like almost every other shooter. Monetarily successful because the audience is much broader with that type of game. Sure there are some unique things and it has nice graphics, but it's still a linear hero driven campaign. The multiplayer, like I said, is closer to [GR], but still not it.

With the success of the last two GRAWs, I have a hard time believing ubi will ever let an [GR] like game be developed under their banner and hold the GR title. They will see their success as giving the people what they want. And while they have published two good games, they've merely taken and already established franchise away from its core audience and changed it into something a larger, perhaps even more casual, audience would like. It's business, not passion. I think the first GR probably had more of the latter.

[BS PALADIN]

They took the popularity and critical acclaim of GR and made it more accessible to the general masses but to the detrement of those who liked it for what it was. Which pretty much means making it like almost every other shooter. Monetarily successful because the audience is much broader with that type of game. Sure there are some unique things and it has nice graphics, but it's still a linear hero driven campaign. The multiplayer, like I said, is closer to [GR], but still not it.

With the success of the last two GRAWs, I have a hard time believing ubi will ever let an [GR] like game be developed under their banner and hold the GR title. They will see their success as giving the people what they want. And while they have published two good games, they've merely taken and already established franchise away from its core audience and changed it into something a larger, perhaps even more casual, audience would like. It's business, not passion. I think the first GR probably had more of the latter.

Very true. But the popularity of the GRAW franchise is mainly due to the SP. I still think they could make the MP play like OGRs MP and not lose many( if any ) of the new casual audience. I agree that GRAW2 MP is closer to [GR] than GRAWs MP was , but its still a miles away from playing like [GR]. OTS isnt GR, fast running and strafing arent GR, modifiers and increased accuracy while moving arent GR, small linear maps arent GR. Not the GR i started playing anyways. A perfect example in the casual change in GR series is moving through water. In the original games moving through water slowed you down. Now its doesnt affect your speed at all. For example in aftermath. You run through waist high water like it wasn't even there.

Some people love the easy nature of the game now. It has more fans than ever. But fans who only stick around for a couple of months.

[Cons72]

You are right GRAW/GRAW2 are far bigger than any other GR game. The GRAW franchise dwarfs what the GR franchise was. And at the end of the day its all about money. But the GRAW games arent a patch on the quality of [GR]/GRIT. Its all a matter of tastes. And my tastes are for realistic tactical gaming.

They took the popularity and critical acclaim of GR and made it more accessible to the general masses but to the detrement of those who liked it for what it was. Which pretty much means making it like almost every other shooter. Monetarily successful because the audience is much broader with that type of game. Sure there are some unique things and it has nice graphics, but it's still a linear hero driven campaign. The multiplayer, like I said, is closer to [GR], but still not it.

With the success of the last two GRAWs, I have a hard time believing ubi will ever let an [GR] like game be developed under their banner and hold the GR title. They will see their success as giving the people what they want. And while they have published two good games, they've merely taken and already established franchise away from its core audience and changed it into something a larger, perhaps even more casual, audience would like. It's business, not passion. I think the first GR probably had more of the latter.

All spot on.