Jump to content

Just a fair note to those who are unhappy with GRAW2


Recommended Posts

ok, this isn't a bash on anyone or directed at anyone person. ok, some ar eobviously unhappy with GRAW2. that's fair and everyone's prerogative. But let's not miss the big picture. every negative I've seen about GRAW2 were smaller issues than overall issues. COOP, lack of, Weapons, the list goes on.

ButI just want to remind people that Grin will be releasing(or claim to be) the SAME tools they use for making GRAW2. We're talkign scriptiing tools for people who want to make missions, gametypes etc. the GRAW2 editor isn't anything like the cookie cutter attaching of tiles to make maps like GRAW1.

so I would think things aren't all bad just yet. BUT, if they fail to deliver the goods as indicated, then I would surly join the (-)'s and leave the (+)'s to themselves. but I just like shooting the enemy AI and blowing ###### up.

But I'd venture to say that what would get me completely over is..if they fix that damn draw distance. seeing peeps appear out of nowhere is ######ty but the distance has improved by appearances and could be better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, this isn't a bash on anyone or directed at anyone person. ok, some ar eobviously unhappy with GRAW2. that's fair and everyone's prerogative. But let's not miss the big picture. every negative I've seen about GRAW2 were smaller issues than overall issues. COOP, lack of, Weapons, the list goes on.

ButI just want to remind people that Grin will be releasing(or claim to be) the SAME tools they use for making GRAW2. We're talkign scriptiing tools for people who want to make missions, gametypes etc. the GRAW2 editor isn't anything like the cookie cutter attaching of tiles to make maps like GRAW1.

so I would think things aren't all bad just yet. BUT, if they fail to deliver the goods as indicated, then I would surly join the (-)'s and leave the (+)'s to themselves. but I just like shooting the enemy AI and blowing ###### up.

But I'd venture to say that what would get me completely over is..if they fix that damn draw distance. seeing peeps appear out of nowhere is ######ty but the distance has improved by appearances and could be better.

If they release good tools, this game will ahve long legs.

Overall, I still give this game an 84% rating which is very good at any level. It has the potential, thourgh support and patches, to be in the 90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, this isn't a bash on anyone or directed at anyone person. ok, some ar eobviously unhappy with GRAW2. that's fair and everyone's prerogative. But let's not miss the big picture. every negative I've seen about GRAW2 were smaller issues than overall issues. COOP, lack of, Weapons, the list goes on.

ButI just want to remind people that Grin will be releasing(or claim to be) the SAME tools they use for making GRAW2. We're talkign scriptiing tools for people who want to make missions, gametypes etc. the GRAW2 editor isn't anything like the cookie cutter attaching of tiles to make maps like GRAW1.

so I would think things aren't all bad just yet. BUT, if they fail to deliver the goods as indicated, then I would surly join the (-)'s and leave the (+)'s to themselves. but I just like shooting the enemy AI and blowing ###### up.

But I'd venture to say that what would get me completely over is..if they fix that damn draw distance. seeing peeps appear out of nowhere is ######ty but the distance has improved by appearances and could be better.

I paid cash money for what is in the box.

The editor does sound nice but that wasn't in the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, this isn't a bash on anyone or directed at anyone person. ok, some ar eobviously unhappy with GRAW2. that's fair and everyone's prerogative. But let's not miss the big picture. every negative I've seen about GRAW2 were smaller issues than overall issues. COOP, lack of, Weapons, the list goes on.

ButI just want to remind people that Grin will be releasing(or claim to be) the SAME tools they use for making GRAW2. We're talkign scriptiing tools for people who want to make missions, gametypes etc. the GRAW2 editor isn't anything like the cookie cutter attaching of tiles to make maps like GRAW1.

so I would think things aren't all bad just yet. BUT, if they fail to deliver the goods as indicated, then I would surly join the (-)'s and leave the (+)'s to themselves. but I just like shooting the enemy AI and blowing ###### up.

But I'd venture to say that what would get me completely over is..if they fix that damn draw distance. seeing peeps appear out of nowhere is ######ty but the distance has improved by appearances and could be better.

I paid cash money for what is in the box.

The editor does sound nice but that wasn't in the box.

I agree with both of you. I'm primarily a COOP player and my team hosts a COOP server. And my choices and gameplay has been VERY reduced compared to what we had previously. But we did get multiple objectives eh? It is pretty darn thin out of the box for COOP. I'm waiting for the tools and the maps and mods to come. I'm hoping someone figures out how to remove those darn kits and gives us back our choices in weapons. I mean a sniper with a sub with no scope? Or why can't I get a silencer with my loadout of choice?

As I said in another thread, I not sure if I got my 50.00 worth out of the game compared to value I got from other games I spent the same amount on in the last couple of years. I do have hope though and am willing to wait a little while. I just hope it isn't so long that interest drops and I'm forced to take down our server before.

Edited by FI_FlimFlam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

modding and prolonging a game's lifespan is bad for publishers. That means they sell less games in the future, because people are still playing the old one.

Good point. AND they don't hesitate to snatch up the good talent from the community...Right Wolfsong?

Edited by Papa6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil's advocate here:

Modding of Ghost Recon has honostly caused way too many problems in the past for me. The original GR had excelent mod support, you could change anything in the game and it would be enabled or disabled based on server settings.

The problem was, I couldn't find any unmodded servers. Everytime I logged on to play, every server had some mod on it that caused the SA-80 to have such a tight ret that you could run full speed...stop...and fire in a split second. It became too much like Counter Strike with people running around arcade style and nailing headshots from long distance.

Now the two versions of GRAW have basically NO support for mods. Sure, you can change them, but it's basically like you're changing the game instead of creating a module for it. I honostly think mods can be really cool, but I don't think GRAW (1 or 2) is really supportive of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think it would interest the devs out there to include modding support. Too many people out there think that if a game doesnt sell 10million copies the first week, then it's a failure. It's continued modding that keeps the game alive and brings people in later who were wary about spending $50 for an unfinished game.

That said, a game maker shouldn't rely on the modding community to finish their games either:) I don't see any disadvantage of building mod support to a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devil's advocate here:

Modding of Ghost Recon has honostly caused way too many problems in the past for me. ............ I honostly think mods can be really cool, but I don't think GRAW (1 or 2) is really supportive of them.

Just to clarify a bit. I often use the term "mod" too loosely. It's actually new content that I want to see. Lots and lots of custom maps and custom coop missions with cool objectives and liinked events (like when you blow up a particular thing, a new objective and possibly a new section of the map becomes available ... etc)

I'm really not too interested in mods .... Brettzies mod was the only miod i ever used in GRAW1. And even that I only under occasionally.

Edited by Sleepdoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I paid cash money for what is in the box.

The editor does sound nice but that wasn't in the box.

By that logic, you'll have to pay for every patch/update that comes out as well.

I you are missing his point and attempting to split hairs. He's talking about playable content and features out of the box. You on the other hand are also lumping in game fixes when generally talking about patches. What GRIN did with the 1.35 is unusual in the game industry. Adding a ton of free content is not what most patches are about. However considering the position GRAW was in and the lack of MP functionality, GRIN really had no choice. If they hadn't done that, GRAW would have been off the radar in a few more months. Infact it practically was by the time the patch arrived.

Game fixes/patches to resolve bugs and fix broken features (not necessarily missing content or major features) are a given in the industry and would be silly to expect to pay for such things. Added content is much less common and there is usually an alternative motivation (like mentioned above) that they would do that. Usually added content is packaged in an expansion pack and priced accordingly, not 50.00.

What is at issue is what is in the box and it's value. Esp compared to other games and basic functionality compared to other games AND based on what was ALREADY available from GRAW. When as many features and functionality are removed compared to the previous version, this can lead to one feeling, well, alittle let down....

Edited by FI_FlimFlam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understood his point, but I think the marketing model is changing. I think there's a trend towards free post-initial release content. The GRAW 1.35 patch is a case in point. Plus there is a considerable amount of energy that goes into post-initial release bug fixes, so I believe the purchase price goes towards more than just the out-of-the-box content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this thread is a good example of open communications (so far!) and I thank Papa for starting it. I've refrained from making much of my opinions known until I finished the SP campaign... that was last night. So, for those interested (not many I assume!) here we go:

Good

1) Nearly all of my personal major complaints about GRAW 1 SP were actioned... Quick Saves (Thank GOD!), a better team selection, etc.

2) Admittedly, I have an Nvidia 8800 card with 640MB, but the performance from the game engine seems better than G1 when compared against the visual quality improvements

3) Look and feel of the game reminds me of [GR]. 'nuff said in that category! :)

Bad

1) Only 10 missions in the box for a price tag of $50? :) Okay, I know some of the maps and missions are rather large so I can't really complain too much.

2) Still linear in nature for the SP missions. I'm hoping the mod community can come up with new missions / campaigns that are more free-flowing in nature. I definitely started to get the "Quake/Doom walk this way, kill bad guys, walk a little further" syndrome by Mission #7

3) Tango shooting distance. I'm sorry but it takes an incredible marksman (like 1 in a few million) to make the shots the tango's seem to make on a routine basis. If I can just barely see the tango in my scope then he sure as heck shouldn't be hitting with me a single shot from a standard combat rifle (not talking about snipers, but just standard riflemen)

4) PLEASE fix this... there is no way in the world that those armor-facing turreted gun positions can hear you, turn, lay down fire and kill you in less than a second. It's simply impossible. Now, in one aspect they definitely forced me to think creatively on finding ways of taking them out... but from a sense of reality, it's simply not possible.

5) Rant mode on: You have no idea how close I was to putting a round in Rosen's head when he refused to get aboard the chopper after I climbed aboard. I spend 15 minutes trying various things to get him to close the episode. If he could hear my directions and follow them from the tactical map, there's no reason why he needed to be told explicitly to follow me just to get on the ###### chopper. :) Rant mode off.

Ugly

1) Many of us begged for a mod activation / deactivation UI similar to [GR] for G2. G1's handling of any mod was seriously deficient from an end-user perspective. I've looked around in G2 and I don't see anything new for this situation. This concerns me greatly, as a good (and logical) UI for mods and content is just as important as the tools needed to build the content in the first place.

2) Still getting CTD's. The quick-save option appears to create weird or corrupted files occasionally that cause the game to act strange after loading (the tank not responding to me is a classic example of a quick-save file not working... I went back to a previous save file and the tank worked fine).

I know there others with different issues regarding the MP gameplay but I'm primarily an SP player so I will let them address those issues. For the most part I am satisfied with G2. I'm hoping Ubisoft allows GRiN to do at least 2 mission packs for G2... if there is a push for G3 by next year then I will be seriously unhappy... $50 games each year seem to be replacing the $25 mission packs every 9 months but I'm not sure I am willing to keep writing checks that way. I bought G2 because G1 really, REALLY missed the mark. What I want right now is to get the product mature a bit (some patches), at least 2 mission packs and for God's sake, release the editing tools so our talented mod community and go freaky on us and deliver some awesome stuff!

Humbly,

-jk

Callsign Threepoint

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree as that I see more negative backlash at the concept of consumers funding the game development. Essentially, you are advocating an incomplete game release and using revenue to complete the build and consumers essentially become beta testers and replace alot of the QA processes in the development cycle because they are the ons finding the bugs.

Now, I see a big difference between post release content like a couple of free maps to what was delivered in patch 1.35. It was much more than a bug fix patch with a couple of maps tossed in to keep people happy and the game fresh. If you think the industry is moving towards giving that level of "content" post release, you are mistaken. The amount of features and gamemodes and maps that were released in that patch was unusually HIGH and could probably have qualified as an expansion according to many publishers. The issue with GRAW was that much of that was promised prior to release, so to some extent it was necessary to release it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I paid cash money for what is in the box.

The editor does sound nice but that wasn't in the box.

By that logic, you'll have to pay for every patch/update that comes out as well.

Hmmh? My point was that in reviewing or deciding to buy really a person should weigh up what they are getting at the time.

If the editor comes out, if it's good and if there's a tonne of fantastic 3rd party content then that's great. That's still three ifs the OP is expecting us to take as done when commenting on the game.

I bought ArmA on the basis of good 3rd party content and I still haven't bothered reinstalling it because the tools aren't out.

You're right that games tend to be released unfinished. It's wildly optimistic to just assume that the extra content in patches post release is going to be up to much though. Bug fixes are just fixing what should have been correct to begin with. You don't really get to charge customers for that.

Point of interest I'd say that the trend is probably moving away free post release content what with XBL and the current "thing" of marketplace content.

I'd bet money that publishers have all seen X-Box Live and they are currently working out how to get PC gamers to pay for what should have been in the initial release anyway.

Gosh. I'm glad I read your second post before replying because otherwise I'd have called you a pedantic ass. :rolleyes:

Edited by spm1138
Link to comment
Share on other sites

modding and prolonging a game's lifespan is bad for publishers. That means they sell less games in the future, because people are still playing the old one.

What? You mean like playing GR Original whilst GRAW was a paid for beta? I'm all for any company that releases a game that we actually CAN play after we shell out hard earned cash for it. I paid for every incarnation of GR from the start till now (on PC). And I can say that until the first GRAW had community made maps etc. I had not played more than an hour of the original game as it was released.

I cannot say the same for the original GR. I played that until my dvd was just about transparent! ;)

GRAW 2 looks to be a winner in my eyes, but we def. need to have the tools to enable it to last. I wonder how UBI felt seeing their GRAW 1 relegated to the bargain bin not so long after initial release? Never mind UBI, take a moment to think about their shareholders..;) A game that fires up the community and the general image of any company is a good thing. And the way to ensure this is to have a gaming community that is actively supporting it with their individual efforts. Thats how CULT status comes about.

Edited by =WO=TekHousE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree as that I see more negative backlash at the concept of consumers funding the game development. Essentially, you are advocating an incomplete game release and using revenue to complete the build and consumers essentially become beta testers and replace alot of the QA processes in the development cycle because they are the ons finding the bugs.

Just to be clear .... and I realize you may not have been addressing me with this statement .....

I do not advocate what you point out. I accept it as a viable alternative over the other alternative ... which may be no such games on the market at all.....

I am a resource realist. As the market for such games (Tac-Sims) shrink, and companies like GRiN and UBI are willing to stay in the game, hard decisions have to be made at teh executive level ..... I think I like the strategy i see playing out on the GRiN side in this context in comparison to the "no game at all" option. Of course, I would prefer a game with the same development time and resources applied to ... say .. Crysis or BF2. But that is unrealsitic.

What fool would spend 10 - 20 million dollars on developing a tac-sim??? and hope to make a profit int eh current marketplace?

Crysis is likely to sell over a million units. A tac sim is likely not to even come close. Do the math. Then pretend you are an UBI or GRiN executive and develop a strategy.

Strategy #1 ---> Don't develop Tac-Sims becuase they dont make a ton of money

Strategy #2 ---> Develop a bad one that has no real meaningful tools or infrastructure

Strategy #3 ----> make one with solid infrastrucutre and good tools. But develop less conttent becuase you spent more time on the tools to develop content. Then let the comunity have the tools and have a game they love.

I'm fairly convinced this was GRiN's limited resource strategy. I hope I'm right.

Edited by Sleepdoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they prefer Therapist or Psychologist over shrink. Unless they're prescribing medicine to you then it would be a psychiatrist.

Pffft. I prefer anesthesiologist to Gas passer, but I have a sense of humor. So I don't care as long as they don't die on the OR table........ LOL

and as far as sliding to irrelevance ... you mean we aren't already there? :rocky:

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...