An idea for a GREAT GR game.

[BS PALADIN]

I have this as a poll on the ubi GRAW 2 forums as well, just want to see the response from here. Personally i think this is what GR4 should be like. A game that caters for alot of tastes and expands on the [GR] gameplay.

Massive world - An entire island or group of small islands to explore. With dynamic weather,lighting and destructible environment. Changing seasons and varied terrain. Mountainous , desert, grassland, forest/jungle areas.

Game content reliant on difficulty setting - On easy setting alot of the world is locked off and there is a distinct feel of being led by the hand via comms and markers. On medium the map opens up and the comms are less precise. On hard there are no map constraints and very little comms.

Online difficulty level - Each level of difficulty produces a different online experience. With easy level having simplier gametypes and alot of game assists. While at hard there are no assists and the game acts very realistically. Also the gametypes could be more advanced like capture the city/port.

Mission/map editor - Ability to script online co-op missions like Operation flashpoint elite. And also the ability to insert spawns/bases anywhere on the map and the additional ability to add houses, trees, forts to the static topography.

Customisation - Weapons, camo and additional tech. All unlockable via offline and online achievements.

Expansive DLC - As this game wont need new maps, DLCs should be in the form of items that expand and enhance the gameplay. For example adding new terrain options to the mission/map editor.

Believeable storyline - A story involving a modern day scenario that might actually happen. It makes it more immersive and tense.

New viewpoint - 1st person weapon view with a slight fish lense affect around the edge of the screen. This produces a more immersive feel to the game and gets rid of the complaints about OTS degrading gameplay.

Edited June 26, 2007 by BS PALADIN

[Ick]

BS Paladin,

Yeah, those are good thoughts. There are some other threads in here that have additional assessments and comments like this.

Also, you might like this. Heck, perhaps you know about it:

http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/index.php

Check out the forum titled "Current Project to be named later".

There are some great ideas to improve game experience.

[BS PALADIN]

I agree that the BFS game will bring back tactical gaming and i will be first in line to buy it when/if it's released for xbox 360. But it still isn't in the same scope as my ideal. [OFP: DR] might be close. I want to play a sandbox tactical shooter.

[Kurtz]

Also, Rogue Warrior & America's Army True Soldiers. There isn't a lot of interest by developers in making tactical, squad based games, the flavour runs to single character, scripted cinematic type games, like COD 4, Battlefield Bad Company. I would settle for a game that even let you control one squad, let alone 2, if they just opened the maps up to allow some tactical movement.

The only game that matches your criteria is Armed Assault.

But, for the 360, I would be surprised to see a game any more advanced in terms of tactical realism than GRAW 2. Whether [OFP: DR] goes beyond that or whether Blackfoot even releases their game on console remain to be seen. However, I remain hopeful.

[BS PALADIN]

And im sure they said the same about a expansive RPG on a console. But oblivion sold by the bucket full. There is a massive market for a tactical shooter.

[Deadpreacher]

I been saying this for along time now! Good to hear more people thinking the same way i am.

[BS PALADIN]

Thousands of people think the same way. GRAW/GRAW 2 are at the end of what they can do. The series needs to evolve drastically.

[Cons72]

Thousands of people think the same way. GRAW/GRAW 2 are at the end of what they can do. The series needs to evolve drastically.

Actually, it needs to devolve.

A great GR game would simply be Ghost Recon...

[BS PALADIN]

I dont think a complete return to [GR] would be wise. I think the next GR needs to take what is great about [GR] and build upon it.

GRAW took what was great about [GR], threw it in the garbage, forgot about it and then kept the name. Then added arcade elements and hollywood storyline. Honestly what do [GR] and GRAW 2 have in common apart from being military based and the name. They are completely different games. Its like comparing Rainbox six and timesplitters.

[Alderei]

Ghost Recon could be amazing again.

First, destroy linearity.

Second, make the objectives suit the team. Urban combat is fine, but honestly, an advance recon unit should routinely get stuck engaging 200 enemies in the middle of the city in broad daylight. Its why the US has the Marines and the Rangers.

Instead, if the Ghosts are in an urban combat role, make them part of a larger battle. The US forces are engaging the enemy in the streets, but a Command in Control center behind enemy lines is slowing the US advance. The Ghosts manuever to take it out WHILE the battle is raging around them.

Third, make the game a simulation and screw the arcade. People that want the arcade combat can go play COD or Halo. Keep GR a niche game and screw the broad appeal.

[BS PALADIN]

Ghost Recon could be amazing again.

First, destroy linearity.

Second, make the objectives suit the team. Urban combat is fine, but honestly, an advance recon unit should routinely get stuck engaging 200 enemies in the middle of the city in broad daylight. Its why the US has the Marines and the Rangers.

Instead, if the Ghosts are in an urban combat role, make them part of a larger battle. The US forces are engaging the enemy in the streets, but a Command in Control center behind enemy lines is slowing the US advance. The Ghosts manuever to take it out WHILE the battle is raging around them.

Third, make the game a simulation and screw the arcade. People that want the arcade combat can go play COD or Halo. Keep GR a niche game and screw the broad appeal.

The next Ghost Recon Game needs broad appeal, thats why i added the option for an easy and medium difficulty for offline and online play that will appeal to the more casual gamer. While hardcore simulation fans get the elite difficulty.

[Alderei]

I guess I just don't see where the difficulty settings will be enough to make the game fun for all...some people just won't like it because its not Mario Kart. Easy or hard has nothing to do with it then.

I guess if you're just talking about grabbing the run-n-gunner Halo players, well, I can see where the difficulty setting could work. But a lot of gamers have too much pride to say "I only play it on easy because that's what I like."

I've read a lot your posts Paladin, here and at xbox forums, and I agree with you about making the next one more realistic. I think making the game play open-ended would go a long way!

For instance, on Caldera, its interesting that reinforcements arrive if an alarm is tripped. Reminds me of the SubPen mission on [GR]. You know, once those reinforcements gunned me down a couple of times I got smart, and started placing claymores by the fence gate to the barracks....worked everytime.

On Caldera, if you trip an alarm, there should be reinforcements, but shouldn't they come in trucks from all roads with armor support to boot? Have them show up at varying times, too. Or, perhaps like in Splinter Cell, when an alarm is tripped defensive awareness increases? Maybe the guys guarding the towers take up entrenched positions to hold off attackers if an alarm is tripped, forcing a change in offensive tactics. That way, if you're RECON enough, you can sneak into the camp and catch the guards unprepared, hitting them before they're ready...

Edited July 31, 2007 by Alderei

[Cons72]

There is a great article in either the latest issue of Official Xbox Magazine or Game Informer on the relationship between publishers and developers.

It does a very good job of laying out why we see so few games developed that are truly unique and take risks.

Basically there are huge costs in developing a game and developers rely on publishers for that money and publisher expect in return a game that will have broad appeal.

They also talk quite a bit about how there is a basic lack of trust and communication between publishers and developers, which hampers a lot of projects getting made at all, though some of that is getting better.

[BS PALADIN]

It seems game develpement is moving from a creative experience to a more profit driven one. Which is bad for us gamers.

[Alderei]

Another improvement idea I've seen floating around here is the idea of multiple objectives tied to other situations.

For instance, I think Ick suggested a Chinese invasion of Hawaii idea...(page three or so of threads).

Co-Op objective based game-play (even team vs. team) would make this game incredible. For example, one team's objective is to take down a bridge to halt opposition armor, with a secondary objective of holding a river ford for their own armor to cross downstream. If they fail the first objective, a tank battle ensues and their objective changes to "keep at least 1 tank alive while repelling enemy attack."

Meanwhile, the opposition is tasked with holding the bridge until their armor is across as a primary objective and destroying all enemy tanks as a secondary objective.

The tanks could all be on rails, it wouldn't matter.

[BS PALADIN]

Thats a hell of an idea. Nows thats a game i want to play.

[Alderei]

Or, thinking more about Ick's proposed invasion idea, and borrowing some CoD elements...

Have an on-going war between two sets of bots. The standard army for each side...they are concerned with typical army objectives, taking land, air superiority, and turning the opposition.

The Ghosts perform objective-based missions to help their side win the battle. For instance, the Ghost's could scout an advanced armor column (all bot controlled). (Their objective would be: locate main battle column. Destroy). Their map would indicate possible routes and definite choke points. Both sides would know the choke points (like bridges) and the "defense" would be much more rigorous (large infantry presence, heavier suppressive weapons). The ultimate goal would be to call in an airstrike on the column, but the Ghost's could delay the column at a choke point by damaging the lead vehicle (like in the last mission of Desert Seige). Alternatively, the Ghost's could recon the column, track them to an ideal spot, and laze the target for the airstrike. The trade off would be possible detection. Of course, a team vs. mode would put another team out with the objective of elimintating the Ghost team. Maybe make the airstrike only available while "undetected," so detection of an assault team would be a way of slowing them down.

If the Ghosts want, they can go after a different obejective, like limiting the communication of the enemy by destroying a mobile Command Center. The idea would be that different objectives would change the direction of the war if successfully completed.

[Sup]

And im sure they said the same about a expansive RPG on a console. But oblivion sold by the bucket full. There is a massive market for a tactical shooter.

Actually, they didn't. Everyone expected Oblivion to sell from the moment it was announced -- well made RPGs have a strong history on consoles, and Elder Scrolls is a long and respected series.

The unfortunate fact is, along with being harder to market/sell, the game you proposed is much more difficult and expensive to make. The reason nobody has made the 'perfect tactical shooter with super realism and giant maps!11!11!1!11' is twofold.

Firstly, there's no way to convince a publisher it will sell.

Secondly, there's no get anyone to give you more money than a well made linear game would make, considering conventional wisdom says you won't even make as much back.