Colin Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 "Mission briefings feature video feeds that offer a strange mix of live action stock footage of riots and violence, presented by computer generated characters. The live-action makes their mannequin-esque features all the more apparent, making the video sequences difficult to take seriously, as opposed to if the developers had decided to stick with either one format or the other. Once players overcome this distraction, they must choose the soldiers they'll bring into battle and outfit them with equipment. The game only supports four soldiers per squad and each carries one main weapon, a backup rifle and a sidearm. Upgrades can be added onto weaponry for free, but soldiers have weight capacity limits, and adding silencers and grenade launchers will quickly fill it. Some missions feature changing objectives and will drop equipment vehicles called mules onto the field to restock ammunition or change out weapons altogether." Some new info here with a good insight. The game tactics look to be promissing. Full Article. http://www.gamedaily.com/tom-clancys-ghost...articleID=43135 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockeystick Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Losing squadmates to enemy fire will also lead to mission failure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted July 2, 2007 Author Share Posted July 2, 2007 (edited) Losing squadmates to enemy fire will also lead to mission failure. I would imagine this is the same as gr, you lose a key soldier ie demo/sniper/AT the game ends, if its part of a mission to AT a vehicle and you lose your AT guy this would make sence. Edited July 2, 2007 by Colin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepdoc-iBeta Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 (edited) "Mission briefings feature video feeds that offer a strange mix of live action stock footage of riots and violence, presented by computer generated characters. The live-action makes their mannequin-esque features all the more apparent, making the video sequences difficult to take seriously, as opposed to if the developers had decided to stick with either one format or the other. Once players overcome this distraction, they must choose the soldiers they'll bring into battle and outfit them with equipment. The game only supports four soldiers per squad and each carries one main weapon, a backup rifle and a sidearm. Upgrades can be added onto weaponry for free, but soldiers have weight capacity limits, and adding silencers and grenade launchers will quickly fill it. Some missions feature changing objectives and will drop equipment vehicles called mules onto the field to restock ammunition or change out weapons altogether." Some new info here with a good insight. The game tactics look to be promissing. Full Article. http://www.gamedaily.com/tom-clancys-ghost...articleID=43135 Just curious colin. Why did you find the part about the manequin like NPCs for live video feed the part to be quoted? Becuase it was something new? I'm having a flashback after reading this review/preview. I recall all the reviews and previews that I read about GRAW1 PC. for that matter, I recall all the wild complaining and crying on te forums about this and that and "I'll never buy from GRiN (or Ubi) again etc". And funny thing. I was all the while having a pretty good time with the game. SP and coop were not perfect, but they were fun. I was enjoying them and not feeling any particular issue was a super game stopper for me. annoyed at time? sure. but having fun. Then 1.35 came out and the fun started all over again. What I am getting at is that not one of the rviewers ever palyed to a level of depth, prior ot his rview, to get from teh game and see what it really was as I did. Not one of the reviewers ever described what I ultimtely expereinced. For that matter, this rule seems ot hold true witht respect the reviews of movies nd restaurants too. But here is the kicker. Certain players seemed to have the same mix of fun, excitement and frustration as I had. Those non-professional reviewers seemed to see it just like me. Probably becuase they played it past the "initial impressions" level and probably becuase their expectations were tempered, without really attaching them to previous games of a similar name. I don't give reviewers much weight. i give gamers (who I know have 20 + hours in the game) oh so much more. somuch more. Enough with the "reviews" already. I wanna see what Papa and nutlink and RocoAFZ and Cell etc have to say. And yes. even what Cangaroo has to say. : ) Edited July 2, 2007 by Sleepdoc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoQuarter Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Losing squadmates to enemy fire will also lead to mission failure.I hope that if this is accurate that it only applied to limited demo that he tested and not across the board. I would imagine this is the same as gr, you lose a key soldier ie demo/sniper/AT the game ends, if its part of a mission to AT a vehicle and you lose your AT guy this would make sence.Right, but in GR you have the ability to switch to the other Fireteams or team members so that problem can be countered...with :AW2 you have the ability to pick up weapons on the fly, shouldn't this also be true for any mission-specific equipment in the downed mans backpack? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa6 Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 meh, that review seems a bit cryptic. not alot of info to warrant excitement yet. being that as it may, the MP side does have me excited so maybe that's a plus for things to come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted July 2, 2007 Author Share Posted July 2, 2007 (edited) The new stuff I thought was the fact we get a full briefing prior to choosing teams and weapons, as oposed to in game, which was a major pain because its hard to look at what you need before starting a mission, this has been taken onboard. Haveing a full mission brief is new and common sence. In sp only haveing 4 members is still a resriction, you will have to be very sure about what kit to take and read the visual briefings with care. If you are only using 4 men it makes it more imperative to choose kits and protect your key player at all costs to be able to complet a mission. Live coop with 12 players if this sp routine is in that will be very helpfull. We dont know what build steven wong had also we dont know what mission it was, but Grin have implememnted in early missions a learning curve to ease you into the campaing so things get harder as you progress. This sp demo I also assume has been out in the gameing sites for a couple of weeks it might indicate we may be getting a sp mission before release, fingers crossed. Edited July 2, 2007 by Colin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonFMX Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Unfortunately, they don't always play things smart, and will occasionally give away a position or get themselves killed if left unmonitored Thats why they are called the "special" forces..........the friendly AI are certainly speical alright. I was hoping they had gotten rid of this. Hoopefully at the very least its vastly improved from before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGhost Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Figures! GRAW2 = GRAW1.b Complete waste of time, money and resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demanufakture Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 (edited) Losing squadmates to enemy fire will also lead to mission failure. I don't really mind that if it is the case. In GRAW I always reload the last checkpoint if a man goes down. "Captain Mitchell has a reputation for getting his men back alive." Quoted to the best of my memory in GR2. In fact, in any Ghost Recon game I reload if I lose a man. Figures! GRAW2 = GRAW1.b Complete waste of time, money and resources. Maybe to you. To me it is a totally justified waste of time, money and resources. Edited July 2, 2007 by Demanufakture Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cangaroo.TNT Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Figures! GRAW2 = GRAW1.b Complete waste of time, money and resources. Maybe to you. To me it is a totally justified waste of time, money and resources. I agree w/ Demanufakture. I eagerly await GRAW2. This site is dedicated to the GR series. This forum is dedicated to GRAW2 PC. McGhost, since the demo, most of your posts have been negative. If you're so down on the game and are not going to "waste" your money on it, I don't understand why you're still here. To me, that's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demanufakture Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Figures! GRAW2 = GRAW1.b Complete waste of time, money and resources. Maybe to you. To me it is a totally justified waste of time, money and resources. I agree w/ Demanufakture. I eagerly await GRAW2. This site is dedicated to the GR series. This forum is dedicated to GRAW2 PC. McGhost, since the demo, most of your posts have been negative. If you're so down on the game and are not going to "waste" your money on it, I don't understand why you're still here. To me, that's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charliebrownau Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Too many Single player focus reviews missing out on Multiplayer features and what the game is like in coop/org coop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 Too many Single player focus reviews missing out on Multiplayer features and what the game is like in coop/org coop. Agreed this will be a selling point for many players, at this point in time I would like to have seen much more info on coop aspect and missions with the 4 man set up and 12 man set up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rookie Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 There is so much info about MP and even a demo. I like the fact that at least reviews are spending attention to SP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAbbi_74 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I gathered a lot of fascinating tidbits from that article, not the least of which was that the writer hasn't apparently spent much time with GRAW or GRAW2, or any other FPS for that matter. Probably a Starcraft junkie... Anyhow, first is "However, some maps feature a selection of different insertion points." I should hope ths doesn't represent the full extent of the effort to reduce the linear feel of GRAW SP missions. But it IS an interesting new feature. Choosing the point of insertion might reasonably mean also choosing the method of insertion. That would be cool. It would go SOME part of the distance to improve upon the demo that was GRAW 1.35. "Unfortunately, the mission briefings don't inform players of the benefits or risks involved with each entry point." Proof the article was written by a ######. "Unfortunately, [AI friendlies] don't always play things smart, and will occasionally give away a position or get themselves killed if left unmonitored." Deja vu, all over again. "Losing squadmates to enemy fire will also lead to mission failure." I should think, or at least HOPE, that this is a reference tothe common sense, you-can't-kill-tanks-without-missiles kind of mission failure criteria we remember from [GR]. It SEEMS that way, as if this was another GRAW it might have stated that losing the TEAM LEADER would result in mission failure. But you never know what UbiShaft insisted on. I wouldn't be surprised by much in an UbiShaft title anymore. "We took control of a turret gun and fired upon enemies as they were being dropped on the other side." Refreshing! If the enemy can use it, why can't I? GRIN and UbiShaft seem to have answered, 'No reason you can't!' Thanks! "With the exception of some interface, weapon and graphic upgrades, this sequel plays like its predecessor." How much are they paying this genius? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cangaroo.TNT Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Here's my impressions so far as a GRAW 2 media junkie: Anyhow, first is "However, some maps feature a selection of different insertion points." I should hope ths doesn't represent the full extent of the effort to reduce the linear feel of GRAW SP missions.I believe non-linear gameplay was addressed though multiple pathways in that you could approach each objective from multiple directions. I don't think you will have too much leeway when it comes to completing objectives (I don't think all of the objectives will be available for you at the beginning of each mission with the ability to complete them in any order you choose). Also, I believe "random spawning AI" may be promoted as a non-linear gameplay feature. "Unfortunately, the mission briefings don't inform players of the benefits or risks involved with each entry point." Proof the article was written by a ######.The same applies to internet dating. "Unfortunately, [AI friendlies] don't always play things smart, and will occasionally give away a position or get themselves killed if left unmonitored." Deja vu, all over again.Don't be so pessimistic. The AI, even vastly improved, is still bound to have a few idiosyncrasies. I like in R6V when I tell my team to stack at a door, they go THROUGH the room I want to breach instead of around "Losing squadmates to enemy fire will also lead to mission failure." I should think, or at least HOPE, that this is a reference tothe common sense, you-can't-kill-tanks-without-missiles kind of mission failure criteria we remember from [GR].I interpret this meaning you NEED a 4 man team for each mission (maybe a scripting issue). An injured teammate will not be available for the next mission, which is why there is a spare to round-out your foursome. So, if you completely bone a mission and get 3 of your guys injured, you cannot go out with only 1 other guy. Also, it could be mission-specific; perhaps pertaining to the communications specialist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARDelta Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 "Unfortunately, the mission briefings don't inform players of the benefits or risks involved with each entry point." Proof the article was written by a ######.The same applies to internet dating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAbbi_74 Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 "Unfortunately, the mission briefings don't inform players of the benefits or risks involved with each entry point." Proof the article was written by a ######.The same applies to internet dating. EL. OH. EL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.