GRAW 3.

[EricJ]

lol I was doing a night patrol one night, and I accidentally set off my taclight. My Scout Platoon Sergeant rightfully gave me a nasty look, I felt stupid but hey least that didnt' happen what happened to you. What did happen was that a farmer saw us that night, and he came out with his AK, and we gave him four lights. The joker saved himself by crying and dropping his weapon but we had him dead to rights if he didn't though. Though I hoped you smoked the hell out of the privates for that stuff. And for the record yes, I do know how to use the equipment I'm issued, as I didn't just get stripes to look pretty in

Edited August 22, 2007 by EricJ

[krise madsen]

This thread has taken another turn now, but I will refrain boring you with stories about being shelled in Bosnia. On topic, it is true that there is some degree of fantasy in GRAW2. But we don't know much about the future, so there isn’t anything alternate with GRAW2 yet as the setting is in the future. As Aristoteles said (quoted freely): "The only sure thing we know about the future is that something unexpected will happen". There isn’t anything unrealistic with US-elite soldiers using H&K weapons in the future, even if it happens to be a European brand. Heck IIRC ranger units (correct?) still use Carl-Gustav RCL, and the AT-4 is spread through all forces, both Swedish weapons (a country which on the paper isn't a NATO.-member).

I am all for anything in GRAW2 or GRAW3 for that matter which don’t seriously disturbs my suspension of belief (Rail guns anyone).

Pardon me, you are right, but you are missing the point a little. GRIN/UBI essentially said: "Let's throw in some of this future-ish stuff to make the game cool". It's actually pointless to debate whether they got the future right or not, because they didn't even try to. An awful lot of debating could have been saved if the UBI PR department had been a little more straightforward on this (i.e. less hyping "this is the future of warfare!!!").

Of course we can debate if GRIN/UBI did the future stuff well (as opposed to doing it "right"). They didn't, IMO.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[JASGripen]

This thread has taken another turn now, but I will refrain boring you with stories about being shelled in Bosnia. On topic, it is true that there is some degree of fantasy in GRAW2. But we don't know much about the future, so there isn’t anything alternate with GRAW2 yet as the setting is in the future. As Aristoteles said (quoted freely): "The only sure thing we know about the future is that something unexpected will happen". There isn’t anything unrealistic with US-elite soldiers using H&K weapons in the future, even if it happens to be a European brand. Heck IIRC ranger units (correct?) still use Carl-Gustav RCL, and the AT-4 is spread through all forces, both Swedish weapons (a country which on the paper isn't a NATO.-member).

I am all for anything in GRAW2 or GRAW3 for that matter which don’t seriously disturbs my suspension of belief (Rail guns anyone).

Pardon me, you are right, but you are missing the point a little. GRIN/UBI essentially said: "Let's throw in some of this future-ish stuff to make the game cool". It's actually pointless to debate whether they got the future right or not, because they didn't even try to. An awful lot of debating could have been saved if the UBI PR department had been a little more straightforward on this (i.e. less hyping "this is the future of warfare!!!").

Of course we can debate if GRIN/UBI did the future stuff well (as opposed to doing it "right"). They didn't, IMO.

Respectfully

krise madsen

Communication, as always.

[EricJ]

This thread has taken another turn now, but I will refrain boring you with stories about being shelled in Bosnia. On topic, it is true that there is some degree of fantasy in GRAW2. But we don't know much about the future, so there isn’t anything alternate with GRAW2 yet as the setting is in the future. As Aristoteles said (quoted freely): "The only sure thing we know about the future is that something unexpected will happen". There isn’t anything unrealistic with US-elite soldiers using H&K weapons in the future, even if it happens to be a European brand. Heck IIRC ranger units (correct?) still use Carl-Gustav RCL, and the AT-4 is spread through all forces, both Swedish weapons (a country which on the paper isn't a NATO.-member).

I am all for anything in GRAW2 or GRAW3 for that matter which don’t seriously disturbs my suspension of belief (Rail guns anyone).

Pardon me, you are right, but you are missing the point a little. GRIN/UBI essentially said: "Let's throw in some of this future-ish stuff to make the game cool". It's actually pointless to debate whether they got the future right or not, because they didn't even try to. An awful lot of debating could have been saved if the UBI PR department had been a little more straightforward on this (i.e. less hyping "this is the future of warfare!!!").

Of course we can debate if GRIN/UBI did the future stuff well (as opposed to doing it "right"). They didn't, IMO.

Respectfully

krise madsen

No, and so far it's actually good so far given what some people have said. The eyepiece system is there, but there are other things that probably GRIN (and me) aren't privy to, so they also have to take a stab in the dark as to what "It will be like". About the only thing close is the uniform itself, the helmet? It can be discarded, too gay looking, even for the Army.

[krise madsen]

Communication, as always.

Indeed. Not really UBI's strong point is it? . Though they're really no worse than many other publishers. However, they do seem to have missed the fact that "tactical" games require a different kind of PR though.

No, and so far it's actually good so far given what some people have said. The eyepiece system is there, but there are other things that probably GRIN (and me) aren't privy to, so they also have to take a stab in the dark as to what "It will be like". About the only thing close is the uniform itself, the helmet? It can be discarded, too gay looking, even for the Army.

A "stab in the dark" indeed, that could have been much better IMO.

Part of it is pure product differentiation: You want your game to stand out from the crowd, so you put in stuff that other games haven't got: Thermal imagery, gun-camera (for "aimed shots around corners"), airbursting grenades, more detailed control of the UAV, unattended ground sensors, small unmanned ground vechile (i.e. PackBot), SWORDS armed robot, laser designator (for guided munitions), MULE robotic vechile (both the transport version and the armed version with machinegun and anti tank missiles) and others. The French (I think) have a nifty little single-shot mortar that fires a camera-in-nose TV-guided mortar bomb. There is work in the US on a laser guided .50 cal. sniper bullet and instead of the M1 tank there was a 6t armored robotic vechile with a 30mm cannon and anti tank missile. There was even a small unmanned helicopter gunship in development at one point.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[The Blueberry_EBDA]

Sorry .net im being torn asunder. For one Ive stated nothing incorrect j man.Yet you find it in your soul to belittle me.You have yet to show anything I said was wrong.Other than be a potty but.Be carefull?How many ya bringing. That tells me Ive hit a sore spot and I like rubbing those. Thats Imaturity on your part.Hows that.No yelling.

PS :The game still sucks.But I play as much as I can

Need maps and weapons choices.

[EricJ]

A "stab in the dark" indeed, that could have been much better IMO.

Part of it is pure product differentiation: You want your game to stand out from the crowd, so you put in stuff that other games haven't got: Thermal imagery, gun-camera (for "aimed shots around corners"), airbursting grenades, more detailed control of the UAV, unattended ground sensors, small unmanned ground vechile (i.e. PackBot), SWORDS armed robot, laser designator (for guided munitions), MULE robotic vechile (both the transport version and the armed version with machinegun and anti tank missiles) and others. The French (I think) have a nifty little single-shot mortar that fires a camera-in-nose TV-guided mortar bomb. There is work in the US on a laser guided .50 cal. sniper bullet and instead of the M1 tank there was a 6t armored robotic vechile with a 30mm cannon and anti tank missile. There was even a small unmanned helicopter gunship in development at one point.

Respectfully

krise madsen

Yeah but even those who weren't testing weren't allowed to take photos of certain parts

But yeah I agree... but they did have the Packbot in the opening movie (after I finally watched it) and wondered why they didn't feature it. However, I've seen my roommate play the 360 version, they got the UAV Cypher with dramatically better graphical use, and application, along with the "See around the corner" gun cams. Most of the stuff you listed, computer programmers/devs aren't wholly allowed to participate in such testing of such equipment, so while yeah, they could add it in, but they don't have much to go off of as of now. Or simply budgetary or implementation tactics-wise. Some of the stuff is unusable in the type of missions that are played in GRAW2. Down the line they could be, but the missions don't support most of the equipment. The most I can see is a use for SWORDS, but even then... it's risky given some of the terrain.

And The Blueberry, do you seriously expect me to call you? Dude look, it's not who's cojones are bigger, it's who knows more. Anybody can pull that from the web, but you're acting like it's "so new" to everybody. It's not, so calm down, back off.

Edited August 22, 2007 by EricJ

[WhiteKnight77]

Fact, what is in the works and in testing and what is actually on the streets are 2 vastly different things. Someone who may end up using said equipment may know a bit more than those who just "research" Defense Department websites and weapons manufacturer websites. We all know that while a manufacturer may want to sell a particular weapon to the military and while it may be something that may prove useful to said militaries is totally something different.

Yes, the Army is making changes in unit structure. When it will totally be implemented is yet to be seen. Eric knows he has people coming in from a particular unit type to be integratede into his current unit, he doesn't need someone telling him it's happening, he knew it was happening before anyone else did I bet.

The US military has certain rules to go by when trying to get new gear of any sort. There is also the deal where they are supposedly only supposed to buy gear made by US manufacturers (this may have changed since I was in mind you).

[sgt.hoot]

you n00bz i went to a public service (had to do with military) event in the mall in downtown D.C. and i freakin held a zues in my freakin arms and i saw all these weapons rx4 is REAL cx4 is REAL and px4 is REAL do some freakin reaserch! but i am for revamped gr1

[mwgfghost]

Yeah Hoot I knew the CX4, RX4, and PX4 just by doing google searches for each one a few months back. I didn't know wether or not the ZEUS was real until someone on here mentioned it being the Predator SRAW. I don't think this discussions about whether those guns exist anymore. Now it's basically about whether Stryker Brigades and the cross-com and some other issues at hand about whether or not this game's too futuristic or whether or not some of the things are actually being implemented onto today's battlefield. So far nobody can really argue that except for Eric and the other military/ex-military guys. You can do all the internet research you want but that doesn't come close to first-hand knowledge of the gear, uniforms, weapons, and tactics we're using today(not that I'd know since I' haven't served yet) But I do think we should drop all this and get back to the game cause I think this thread's getting close to being put under the real-world military forums. I agree with krise that UBI's PR department shouldn't have hyped the game up saying this is the future of warfare and all that stuff. I think they should clarify their reasons for putting some of the stuff in game. Whether it's used in real life or whether they thought it would be a cool gun/feature to add into the game. Anyways, I'm trying not to sound like a know-it-all because like I'e stated before, I haven't even enlisted yet. So I don't know too much about all this.

[krise madsen]

Here's the deal:

At some point, someone at UBI decided that the next Ghost Recon game (i.e. GRAW) would have the future military "stuff" developed by the US as a key element. Given that some of the gear was in GR2, the decision probably came from that experience.

In terms of the gear in the game, that essentially left 3 choices:

1- Pure Arcade: Think laser guns, "homing hand grenades" and other sci-fi stuff.

2- Maximum Realism and Authenticity: Very difficult to pull off, particularly because predictions of future equipment keep changing all the time. Systems get cancelled or dramatically revised or new programmes are started.

3- "Let's just make it cool": Add stuff that looks like real deal, even if it isn't, as long as it's cool. In other words, add the stuff from the future concepts that is cool to play with abd adds some new elements (the gun camera is a good example). Never mind if the programme

They wen't for the 3rd option, and rightly so IMO. The "Advanced Warfighter" gear is the "moneymaker" of this game (hence it's mentioned in the title). GRAW hardly redefines the first person shooter genre, so it's up to the hi-tech military kit to set the game apart from the rest. This is business 101: product differentiation.

They just didn't do it very well. Stuff like thermal imagery, gun cameras, airbursting grenades and armed robots would have set the game apart from the rest. The Cross-Com didn't do it alone because it essentially does what every other first person shooter does, i.e. provide HUD info and a command function. The UAV and the red diamonds actually offered very little in terms of gameplay. The ZEUS? Well, a rocket launcher with a guidance system is hardly a unique feature in a modern shooter, is it?

It doesn't matter if the gear in the game was/is real and authentic or not. What matters is that it wasn't really fun and cool to play with.

Respectfully

krise madsen

Edited August 23, 2007 by krise madsen

[mwgfghost]

I feel a sense..of pride...knowing I agree with him. And dere's dat. LOL. But the last line confused me. Did you mean that it WAS fun and cool to play with or did you really mean to type WASN'T? Cause I do like most of the stuff but it's missing the zaaaaz GRAW had. I liked being able to fast rope into a mission in the first GRAW but when I found out they weren't gonna have that feature a little piece of me died inside myself that day::Look of hope:: Sure you can fast rope into one mission in here but I like getting all the news and info on the chopper/stryker ride to the mission and then fast-roping in from a Black Hawk or hopping out of the back of a Stryker by pressing X. Gives the game a little more zazz. But I agree with Madsen. The developers did make a good decision. And I think we've put the ZEUS being too futuristic rumor to bed already. We all seem to acknowledge the fact that it's the same thing as the Predator SRAW. Just with a different name.

[Danish1705]

Guys, thanks for all the comments and personnel experience. Now i know some of the GR fans are military personnel. I salute you guys

On topics, ive read some of the post, i do really feel that GRAW and GRAW2 need a revamped (Major revamped). I miss the "ping" sounds when a nade or flash bang explode near you resulted either an instant death or major injury which if not treated will result to death (eg. Americas Army). The game also missing the medic class. No offence but the best online game featuring military i have played will be the famous Americas Army. Hooah!!

The game also have the shouts commands in it, eg. like "Take Cover","Enemy spotted","Move out" etc. Well most of the clans use TS in MP which is the best way to communicate but if this included in the game it will be great and fun and it will make us forget about the current and future weapons as the game itself will be fun and enjoyable.

Graw and Graw 2 somehow missing all this features.

GRIN if you do read this thread, please consider all of our comments about the game.

Well back to SP untill the patch to fixed the alter files come out. Have fun guys!!!

[krise madsen]

But the last line confused me. Did you mean that it WAS fun and cool to play with or did you really mean to type WASN'T?

I meant it exactly like I wrote it. The GRAW gear was/is not fun to play with. It didn't add the extra dimension to gameplay that it should. Dunno about GRAW2, haven't played it. Instead, it became a "cheap" gimmick.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Lightspeed]

The GRAW gear was/is not fun to play with. It didn't add the extra dimension to gameplay that it should.

I have to say I do agree with this - GRAW was trying to jump out of the box and be something different and unique - a realistic sci-fi if u like. Conceptually it is a good mode, but as Madsen says it turns out to be rather gimmicky - I find the pink diamonds annoying, the Mule "meh, who cares", the night vision nothing new but the colour is ok, and what else is there really?

I really think this concept became too much of a focus - when in reality most GR lovers prefer the bare bones, lets get down n dirty and fight a real war using tactics, not gadgetry.

Having said that, I dont believe GRAW2 is far off the mark - the graffix are great, the animations and weapons views are brilliant, maps excellent, and the potential massive.

Over the next few months - the modding will I believe, strip GRAW2 back to GRW2 - and we'll see a modern day view (enhanced graffix essentially) of the [GR]. Which is really what everyone wanted originally.

Going back to the basics of the GR Concept without the gimmicky gadgets and changing the landscape to an Eastern European rural (maybe a touch of frost/snow) or Asian jungle feel will IMHO launch the GRAW series back to GRs rightful place up at the top end of tactical shooters.

[EricJ]

And that I agree with. Mexico was a good sidetrip, but bringing it back to Europe or as said, Asia would be a healthy change, especially with the better graphics engine

Edited August 23, 2007 by EricJ

[Danish1705]

Hooah!! agree!!

[KRP 56]

I really think this concept became too much of a focus - when in reality most GR lovers prefer the bare bones, lets get down n dirty and fight a real war using tactics, not gadgetry.

Tactics. Piled high and deep. More brainwork makes for a more tense and exciting mission.

[EricJ]

Or at the least, longer missions as well, freaking it gets kinda dull when an hour later when you're like "NEXT!" I mean missions like "Get Me Rosen" you should take your time, but the maps are just too small for any real long missions. I figure if you're going to have a war in Mexico, least you can make it last, or more missions to make up the difference. Some of the 360 missions would have been great for the PC version (and if you notice the NARCOM some are taken from the one night mission in the 360 version) as it seemed like there should be some similarity between the two.

[chilly-willy]

Hi All,

I've had a run at the Medal Of Honor Airborne Demo and in the very few minutes I had with it I can see elements that would have/would be nice to see in GRAW next. Mainly the land anywhere to start the mission feature. The helo inserts in GRAW are cool and fit the game but really... why be locked in to such few start point options? Is this a limitation of the engine or is it just the way the level/mission designers worked each level/mission in the campaigne?

Cheers,

CW

It Occurs to me this question may be answered in another thread... if so, sorry for the spam. If not, please take this into consideration if the developers of GRAW next view this.

Merged as requested

Edited August 23, 2007 by Tinker

[krise madsen]

So far, the PC versions of GRAW have fallen somewhere between the "arcade-ish shooter" (like the console versions) and the "hardcore" tac-sim (like [GR]), and it has been one of the key problems.

The most important issue for GRAW3 IMHO, is to decide one way or the other and stop trying to balance between the two genres. Though I'm very much a tac-sim fan, I'd rather play a dedicated action game (like GRAW360) on my PC than the "half-n-half" experience of GRAW(PC).

Most of the GRAW-for-pc issues are really (relatively) minor tweaks. Though they have been very attentive to community feedback, GRIN doesn't seem quite to have cracked the formula, though the window of opportunity to do so hasn't passed yet.

The greatest issue, IMHO, is map/level design. Here, minor tweaks isn't enough. GRIN needs to fundamentally change the way they approach making maps and missions. They need to be more open-ended and let the player decide how to play a level. Multiple insertion points isn't enough. First and foremost, they need to turn the process on its head and start with where the player ends up on a map, rather than where he starts.

Apart from this, albeit essential, issue, I belive POW_Lightspeed is right that GRAW isn't all that far from the [Ghost Recon]. I'm just not convinced that anyone has a plan how to get there.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[EricJ]

The greatest issue, IMHO, is map/level design. Here, minor tweaks isn't enough. GRIN needs to fundamentally change the way they approach making maps and missions. They need to be more open-ended and let the player decide how to play a level. Multiple insertion points isn't enough. First and foremost, they need to turn the process on its head and start with where the player ends up on a map, rather than where he starts.

Apart from this, albeit essential, issue, I belive POW_Lightspeed is right that GRAW isn't all that far from the [Ghost Recon]. I'm just not convinced that anyone has a plan how to get there.

Which pretty much hits the head on the nail. I think overall GRAW2 is closer to [GR] (as I've said elsewhere, the maps feel less "constricting") where maps have gotten a better feel, but in some cases, the maps in most cases, have to be linear in some respects in overall mission execution, so while more open ended missions are essential for gameplay, even real-world missions are linear in execution (phases of execution, and so on). AI is much better than GRAW in where I feel more confident in their ability to do as their told, a la [GR], which had it's AI issues, but far better than GRAW in all cases. But the argument though with multiple insertions is, at least it's a step forward into making it better. For missions like Get Me Rosen, it's more viable to insert outside the target area, then trying to storm the palace (backyard insertion, which I never do, though either way you can still clean up the area, even by yourself), but Joining Forces is a little different, where regardles if you insert in the action, or from the side, you still have the same linear objective, but then again, for mission purposes, it has to be in order to accomplish it. Maybe to offset the linearity is more randomness that is feasibly possible, to where it can possibly be more difficult, or easy depending on the randomness, while the difficulty level merely adjusts the AI responses.

[Guest]

What I liked about the SP missions in [GR] is that it gave you a list of objectives. It was up to YOU to figure out how and when to attack them. You didn't have roads you couldn't go on, you didn't have a "get back to he mission area" message. All you had was a big box map that only showed where you were and where the main objective was.

What was so wrong with that? Although I agree GRAW2 is defenately a step towards [GR], I still feel like i'm a little kid that can't think for himself when I play.

[krise madsen]

Although I agree GRAW2 is defenately a step towards [GR], I still feel like i'm a little kid that can't think for himself when I play.

Bingo!

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Papa6]

an issue I have is that this franchise was designed with american soldiers in mind. But what was really cool about the game is that many modded the game with mods of militaries from other countries. but the equipment was what was being used by the US and other militaries(albeit the OICW).

But the game was current to what was being used. nothing future again, except for the OICW as some thought it was a sealed deal for the most part. I would think that if UBISOFT were to continue in it's quick release games, it would revisit the GR2PC data files and finish it up. why not? I guess my dissatisfaction with this all has been like with the shutdown of GR2PC, there's been a hole or gouge left in the timeline and GRAW/GRAW2 in my mind couldn't rememdy that.

But let's see if we will finally get GR2PC finally.