The real lowdown(letdown) in GRAW2

[Papa6]

The real problem with GRAW2 isn't the "being there" feel or anything else. now that the novelty of GRAW2 has worn off and rather quickly, the problem is, that the missions or "THE MISSION" either be SP or MP mode is, that game takes the leadership away from the leader. the basic design of the GRAW2 missions is like Pandora's box. You have to complete this part by unlocking with this key(objective) in order to go complete the next. but what I mean is, the next objective can't be tackled until you complete this objective..linear. Why even have a captain mitchell if he's hamstrung and can't complete a mission if he sees an alternate method? in [GR], the leader could always be selected by everyone selecting an individual. but more approriately, that leader can use the command map to set way points on the map as to where to send your soldiers. Also, [GR] allowed for leadership to change. GRAW2, the server is the leader always. this paragraph tells me that GRAW2 was/is a regression rather than a progression.

[GR], albeit the dated graphics engine and what not, the objectives are "completely open". i can complete ANY objective in ANY order I choose. sometimes commanders may find a better route or method to complete a mission. like the caves in [GR], first you HAD to take out the foxhole position. that is a gimme, but then I could go take out the camp or the cave at my discretion(or yours). in GRAW2, if you want to do an objective, you have to follow the yellow brick road. EVERY time i want to go to the next instead, i got this "i can't refresh your hud if you leave the mission area" crap. sometimes on some objectives when you complete one, then the enemy will show up at the next. triggered objectives..probably a better word for it.

example, if there are two objectives 1) kill the soldiers at the guard tower and 2) destroy the tank at the tank yard. I'd wanna hit the tank first, but i have to attack the soldiers first but Mr. tank will come after you. why not give yourself the advantage by taking the tank out first? as tactical training teaches, take out the most dangerous weapon(s) first. But GRAW2 would never be able to do this.

[Cangaroo.TNT]

I disagree 100%. But, c'est la vie.

[chilly-willy]

Hi All,

Don't throw rocks at me or anything for saying this please.

I think the comparison to [GR] as the gold standard is growing old. I think GRAW:2 is better. I may be in the minority here but I never play [GR], it doesn't live on my hard disk and hasn't for quite a while.

[NoQuarter]

And then there is this...

If they could increase the distance, by even a couple of meters, where this occurs it wouldn't be so obvious.

But then the limited/limiting draw distance and the scripted mission structure have been/are just the cost of doing business in :AW*.

[Cangaroo.TNT]

Well, from what I have read here, the draw distance is a big issue for people that like to snipe. For you snipers out there, it's a legitimate gripe. For myself and others that prefer CQB and mid-range engagements, it's a non-issue. So, while the draw distance is an issue for some people, it does not in-and-of itself make it a bad game.

As far as GRAW 2 not being able to pull off non-linear objectives, that 100% contradicts other statements by Grinners. Just because it's not in the SP campaign does not mean that it cannot be done with the (yet to be released) mod tools.

[ematsui]

yawn

How many "GRAW 2 dissapoints" threads can you make Papa?

Edited August 8, 2007 by =KI=Maximus

[KRP 56]

Looks like Papa6 sure has a bad case of the letdowns. While I do agree with most of your points,I don't think things will every change for the GRAW series as the Ghost Recon that we all know and love has taken a serious step backwards with the GRAW games. Seems like there must be enough gamers who prefer the lame scripted yellow brick road missions for GRIN/UBI to keep using this concept. Looks like the only hope to get out of the linear mission rut is to look foward to a game being developed by another studio.

[Zoot]

Yeah, I agree. Papa, stop making all these graw2 blows threads. You got your point across with the first few.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Zoot

[NoQuarter]

Just because it's not in the SP campaign does not mean that it cannot be done with the (yet to be released) mod tools.

A little proof of concept would have been nice, in either of the two campaigns to date...it's one thing to post in the forums about the theoretical possibilities of the editor, and quite another to actually include an example of said capabilities ingame, out of the gate.

After awhile, Grins posts (while appreciated) relying on modders to unlock the secrets of the editor (open-ended gameplay), which so far have been unsuccessful, begins to seem more like a defensive posture, rather than anything else.

Now where did I put my pom-poms.

[thales100]

i agree with papa6, splinter cell had all linear gaming i would need for all my life lol

nic

Edited August 8, 2007 by niccola

[Rocky]

1. You have to complete this part by unlocking with this key(objective) in order to go complete the next. but what I mean is, the next objective can't be tackled until you complete this objective..linear.... [GR], albeit the dated graphics engine and what not, the objectives are "completely open". i can complete ANY objective in ANY order I choose. s

2. i got this "i can't refresh your hud if you leave the mission area" crap.

Some of the [GR] comparisons that keep cropping really don't hold much water.

1. Lightspeed goes on about this too, but really, pick virtually any [GR] co-op tournament mission over the years and you'll see the same thing, and I include Lightspeed's current 7 mission tournament in that. The objectives are laid out in a specific order, sometimes the next objectve does not appear until the first next is complete. When it comes to linearity, I think some look back with rose tinted glasses.

2. This one is really old. In [GR] you hit an invisible wall!! What difference does it make if it's an invisible forecfield ala [GR] or a mission command to stay in the zone in GRAW?

[Cangaroo.TNT]

Now where did I put my pom-poms.

That's a fair enough"criticism," because I do like the game. And I'll admit, I am being optimistic/hopeful about modding possibilities. Just yesterday I was telling someone (about an unrelated topic) "the proof is in the pudding."

[Brainman2k]

1. You have to complete this part by unlocking with this key(objective) in order to go complete the next. but what I mean is, the next objective can't be tackled until you complete this objective..linear.... [GR], albeit the dated graphics engine and what not, the objectives are "completely open". i can complete ANY objective in ANY order I choose. s

2. i got this "i can't refresh your hud if you leave the mission area" crap.

Some of the [GR] comparisons that keep cropping really don't hold much water.

1. Lightspeed goes on about this too, but really, pick virtually any [GR] co-op tournament mission over the years and you'll see the same thing, and I include Lightspeed's current 7 mission tournament in that. The objectives are laid out in a specific order, sometimes the next objectve does not appear until the first next is complete. When it comes to linearity, I think some look back with rose tinted glasses.

2. This one is really old. In [GR] you hit an invisible wall!! What difference does it make if it's an invisible forecfield ala [GR] or a mission command to stay in the zone in GRAW?

thank you for this post. otherwise i would have posted almost exactly the same.

[stevenmu]

I haven't had time to finish the SP campaign yet, but I can think of at least two missions where there were multiple objectives presented and you had the choice of the order in which to complete them.

Granted they were only small parts of the overall missions i.e. do x, then destroy all three outposts a + b + c in your own order, then do y etc. But it does make me hopefull that the editor when released will allow to easily create one large mission with multiple objectives that can be tackled in any order. I think, or at least I hope, that the technical ability to do it is there now and readily available, but in the interests of telling a story Grin's own missions did force certain parts to be done in order.

The "out of mission area" stuff does annoy me too, I do get that there obviously has to be limits to the map, but it also seems to be used to force you to stay within a certain part of the map untill you complete some objective aswell. Hopefully that is something that map/mission designers have to manually add in and with custom maps/missions we can be left free to roam.

[Papa6]

yawn

How many "GRAW 2 dissapoints" threads can you make Papa?

hey, nothing like stimulating conversation on observations.I've made many I'm sure, but I make different ones about varying topics and points of view. I just re-installed GR and had the time of my life. my point is, I don't think the way this franchise went and the way things are, were worth the wait. Kinda saddening really though. I mean think about it: we all know about GR2, waited on GRAW, the community got splintered. GRAW2 was a real plus in alot of areas, and yes I did say there are alot of +'s, but overall, the franchise is driving down the same path of R6.

I just keep asking myself, why does the community keep accepting the status quo? I Really and Honestly thought from my first impressions(since the beta) that, Grin was on to something. but when you start to see things that don't impress, then..well, as a famous saying I learned goes: If you forfeit the confidence of people once, you can never get it back.

Too many things wrong with the first rendition of GRAW that have been carried over to GRAW2, ie the draw distance. I really think the diesel engine just simply can't push the envelope. I think this is just a engine design issue. Can't make a VW a Ferrari, or a honda a ducati.. honda's just don't have the design to make it but, they do come close.

Most if not all of the GR modders are gone.If this game were to have been a hit, then you would, or would have seen a resurgence from hell as the old school modders would be whipping out mods. Ok, albeit mod tools for GRAW2 aren't out yet, but from GRAW's perspective.

I told my wife I won't be purchasing anymore UBISOFT titles. burn me once...shame on you(UBI), burn me twice, shame on me...yes I'm ashamed I fell for something and should've known better.

That's basically what I'm feeling and my first post in this thread were further observations and how I felt. like I said, I haven't fired up GRAW2 in a couple weeks or so now.

1. You have to complete this part by unlocking with this key(objective) in order to go complete the next. but what I mean is, the next objective can't be tackled until you complete this objective..linear.... [GR], albeit the dated graphics engine and what not, the objectives are "completely open". i can complete ANY objective in ANY order I choose. s

2. i got this "i can't refresh your hud if you leave the mission area" crap.

Some of the [GR] comparisons that keep cropping really don't hold much water.

1. Lightspeed goes on about this too, but really, pick virtually any [GR] co-op tournament mission over the years and you'll see the same thing, and I include Lightspeed's current 7 mission tournament in that. The objectives are laid out in a specific order, sometimes the next objectve does not appear until the first next is complete. When it comes to linearity, I think some look back with rose tinted glasses.

2. This one is really old. In [GR] you hit an invisible wall!! What difference does it make if it's an invisible forecfield ala [GR] or a mission command to stay in the zone in GRAW?

thank you for this post. otherwise i would have posted almost exactly the same.

now this GR to GRAW thing DOES hold water. Because the game doesn't even stack up upon the original. the missions that are open are the MP COOP, not coop campaign. I guess the difference is that GR maps are that GR maps were the play area and GRAW/GRAW2 are larger. sectioned maps. Once you progress from a to b, then you move on to c, GR's area of operation(AO) was the map. everything was contained on the map. I guess the best analogy to what the GRAW2 maps are like are, doom or unreal. you are basically corralled in one area and have NO latitude(SP mode more so.). GR's you had the whole map within the boundaries of the maps edge. this was a really open option and I think made GR what it was. You guys can't go forward without knowing where you or the franchise came from.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Papa6

[NoQuarter]

Sorry Papa, Just alittle housekeeping.

That's a fair enough"criticism," because I do like the game.

That wasn't directed at you in particular, but to the booster club as a whole.

____

I too like the game, warts and all. The positives have always outweighed the negatives in :AW*; the positives of the game do not, however, make the negatives go away, and IMO they tend to make the negatives stand out even more. So be it.

Besides, just think how boring these boards would be if every thread was devoted to praise of the new floating seed pod effect or of the games brilliant musical soundtrack?

[mwgfghost]

Well, from what I have read here, the draw distance is a big issue for people that like to snipe. For you snipers out there, it's a legitimate gripe. For myself and others that prefer CQB and mid-range engagements, it's a non-issue. So, while the draw distance is an issue for some people, it does not in-and-of itself make it a bad game.

As far as GRAW 2 not being able to pull off non-linear objectives, that 100% contradicts other statements by Grinners. Just because it's not in the SP campaign does not mean that it cannot be done with the (yet to be released) mod tools.

It was a pretty big issue for me in the final mission. Kept seeing muzzle flashes but no man therefor I couldn't engage him. And I like CQB/mid-range engagements. But I never really played [GR] on the computer. Only on PS2. I did like it but I like in this how I can see my weapon. Although that never bothered me in PS2 [GR]. It's been about a week and a half since I last played GRAW 2. Just too boring and still too glitchy. I'm gonna wait for a patch to be released. If it ever is released.

[Rocky]

GR's you had the whole map within the boundaries of the maps edge. this was a really open option and I think made GR what it was.

What about the very first map in GRAW2, or how about the Hacienda map? That's two off the top of my head where you have the whole map to tackle in any order you like with only the map boundaries as a constraint.

GRAW2 can handle maps exactly the same as GR1 (but bigger and better to look at), I don't see the problem in this respect.

How about the remake of Vilnius that Lightspeed is making? It's the same map! I really can't see the point of lambasting a game because some of the map designs were limiting, when it is not a limiting factor of the game.

[viiiper]

I told my wife I won't be purchasing anymore UBISOFT titles. burn me once...shame on you(UBI), burn me twice, shame on me...yes I'm ashamed I fell for something and should've known better.

Crysis due 16 Nov, Nothing to do with Ubi all EA Crytek (but it still may not be your cup of coffee but draw distances are in excess of 18Km+, good for snipering ? )

http://www.ghostrecon.net/forums/index.php...st&p=485595

[Sleepdoc-iBeta]

To this day, I can't believe GRAW2 had the audacity to be released when my favorite game from the year 2000, called Battlezone, was oh so much more fun. We had hover crafts and we could arrange our RTS base right from inside the cockpit of our first person hovercraft. and our sniper rifles could reach across the map all the way to the fog layer.

I could play Battlezone for hour and hours in tense, strategic games across nonlinear maps and ... and...

oh. wait a second. that was a different game from a different era made by different developers and the IP was owned by a different publisher. The market was a different place and it was all pre-9/11. Hell Global warming was just starting to become a new buzz word on the political landscape ...

<Sarcasm mode off>

ugh.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Sleepdoc

[Tinker]

The mission scripts clearly indicate you can do what the heck you want if scripted. Multiply objectives, completed in any order you like. Controlling the AI stats doesn`t look too big a job also. If people try to learn more, maybe we will have more fun.

Tinker

[Papa6]

well, if you like the game then, good for your money. I think I might have made a mistake about the SP and MP maps. MP maps are one contiguous map.

But to be fair I want to back up and say, that the SP maps in GR were also available in MP mode. so the maps were just as open. GRAW2's are sectioned off too much. now, some of the SP maps might work with MP mode but who knows?

To this day, I can't believe GRAW2 had the audacity to be released when my favorite game from the year 2000, called Battlezone, was oh so much more fun. We had hover crafts and we could arrange our RTS base right from inside the cockpit of our first person hovercraft. and our sniper rifles could reach across the map all the way to the fog layer.

I could play Battlezone for hour and hours in tense, strategic games across nonlinear maps and ... and...

oh. wait a second. that was a different game from a different era made by different developers and the IP was owned by a different publisher. The market was a different place and it was all pre-9/11. Hell Global warming was just starting to become a new buzz word on the political landscape ...

<Sarcasm mode off>

ugh.

if that sarcasm was directed at me..duly noted. but don't take my word for it, but all the great modders of a few years ago are gone. I'm just one fish but the pond seems pretty empty. not just modders even, players. I'm curious though, how much has GRAW2 made to date? aside from the elevated release date amount? you know, since release?

[Rocky]

but don't take my word for it, but all the great modders of a few years ago are gone.

Let's keep it real Papa, "all" the great modders are not gone, just take a look in the weapon modding section for a start. It's wrong to infer that the GR1 modders are gone because of some failure with the GRAW titles. Remember we had to wait 5 years for the sequal to GR1, many modders had gone LONG before that. And are you saying that the newer modders can't hold a candle to the modders from GR1 day? That's pushing it a bit too, some of the work produced recently would stand up against any GR mod produced in days gone by.

[Papa6]

keep it real...ok. now with all these mods you say are going on, won't work together. this brings up the other issue (-) of GRAW2. we may get new weapons maps and the like. but the weapons mods will cause altered game files issues.

you may have a m4 weapon pack and I don't. I might use sleepdoc's carbine pack, you don't. and having to remove it from a local folder is nuts. planning, planning was not a high priority in the way of mods. get what I'm saying? pretty soon tons of players will have a mod they use but can't even log on to a standard official server. a trunk hatch if yo u will excuse the phrase.

I'll just end my discussion and everyones misery with this, the 6 P's need to be adhered to: Prior, Planning, Prevents, ######, Poor, Performance.

GRAW/GRAW2's never got past the second "P"..there..I'm done guys.

[Sleepdoc-iBeta]

Oh Papa. It wasn't really directed at you personally so much as it was directed at "yet again another GR1 comparison post". its just one of those things that seems ot have run its course and seems painfully old and tired now.....

Not you. Just the posts that speak to that concept over and over and over and over ...