Old School GR

[Brainman2k]

i cant see graw2 being anywhere near doom. cap. mitchell is somewhere waaay down the line of chain of command. he gets his orders and he has to do so. did it ever occured to you that completing goal#2 before goal#1 could be completely senseless? its not mitchells call to decide where he should go and where not. maybe he hasnt the overview over the situation either.

in [GR] you had mission goals like "destroy aa here and there" or "gain control over missionarea" or "kill all enemies". with missiongoals like these its nor important which you complete first. in graw1/2 its more back-to-back. you HAVE to secure corridor #a fisrt before you can go further. you have to destoy all the aa before you can get airsupport, etcetcpp.

so what im saying is, that in fact [GR] had more firefight-missions, because you got no priorities in missiongoals or even a real stoyline which the game itself followed....

Not to start another thread flaming contest here, but you should really put down the glass pipe and get help.

I'll give you a perfect example of how [GR] had the flexibility that this game lacks- M02-FARM. I've got two different dudes to rescue and a plane to blow up, and I know this going in. It matters not ONE LITTLE BIT what order I complete these three objective in. And I've done it in each order just to prove it to myself. What makes sense to one player does NOT make sense to another.

Who knows how realistic it is- I'm not in the SF. Are you? Is ANYONE here?

So what takes over is the increased interest one takes in how well a mission is completed compared to the increased amount of control he or she has over how it's completed. If I connect the dots from point A to point Z, hitting all the in-betweens in order, I feel like a GRAW2 AI- comfortably dumb. In [GR], I could blow the whole deal if I didn't PLAN and CONDUCT my mission well. Yeah, I'm the guy who would start a MP server offline and rehearse a mission a couple times before executing it in my campaign. Call it a rock drill. THAT is real.

GRAW was horribly linear. GRAW2 is scarcely any better. I just need someone to mod in some Imps tossing fireballs at me now and I'll have a much better feeling for GRAW2 SP.

i must admit i havent read the whole post...sorry, but the introduction killed this posting for me. i do not need any help nor am i using drugs. i suggest you grow up and realise, that were talking about games. if you want the real deal, enlist to the army. and if you want an [GR]-like game: theres already one you obviously know already as well. go play it. the concept of graw 1/2 isnt that of [GR]. basta.

[[RS]Stalker]

...if you want the real deal, enlist to the army.

I believe Rabbi is currently stationed in Afghanistan. You are now free to remove your foot from your mouth.

[ROCO*AFZ*]

Stalker' date='Aug 25 2007, 03:47 PM' post='491331']

...if you want the real deal, enlist to the army.

I believe Rabbi is currently stationed in Afghanistan. You are now free to remove your foot from your mouth.

Yep!

[ARDelta]

Stalker' date='Aug 25 2007, 02:47 PM' post='491331']I believe Rabbi is currently stationed in Afghanistan. You are now free to remove your foot from your mouth.

That is affirmative!

[Brainman2k]

so? whats this going to do with gr or graw or him offending me directly? fine, hes with the army.

the thing is: i think he should think about his attitude, thats all. if this board is about "not starting a flamewar" and in the same sentence going straight at it im out of here. the whole thing wasnt about [GR] or graw....it was about him starting to flame.

[RAbbi_74]

so? whats this going to do with gr or graw or him offending me directly? fine, hes with the army.

the thing is: i think he should think about his attitude, thats all. if this board is about "not starting a flamewar" and in the same sentence going straight at it im out of here. the whole thing wasnt about [GR] or graw....it was about him starting to flame.

Hit a nerve, did I? I apologize, retract, and if you like will even edit that out of the post in question.

FWIW, I know I have the option to go back to playing [GR] or whatever other game I prefer over this one. I've done that. And the fact is that if this game's name didn't start with the words GHOST and RECON, I'd likely never have played it. Same for GRAW. But to insist that it's this whole other thing that shouldn't be judged against it's predecessors and namesake is ABSURD. Tell me who would buy Splinter Cell titles that failed to follow the same premise as their predecessors, or another Rainbow Six title that failed to deal with antiterrorist operations. When you stray too far from the formula that won you the 2001 Game of the Year and has a loyal fan community still producing NEW mods and tournaments SIX FREAKING YEARS LATER, you've made a bad choice.

THAT being the case, I will continue to whine incessantly about GRAW2's shortcomings, or more appropriately MY opinion of where GRAW2 falls short of earning the namesake. Just as with anyone else insisting that it's the coolest thing since sliced bread, I consider myself free to express that here, whether or not anyone else cares to read it.

And just as I have the right to play another title and shut up about this one, my fellow GRnet members have the right to ignore my posts, and even block me completely. I invite them to do so if my attitude offends. I won't justify it to anyone here- I'm in no way obligated to do so.

if you want the real deal, enlist to the army.

so? whats this going to do with gr or graw or him offending me directly? fine, hes with the army.

Feet taste bad. I know. I've been there a few times myself. Doesn't mean I don't respect your opinion on the game, but next time read to the left of a post before you go telling the poster what to do with his life. If I was a used car salesman, I wouldn't be in freaking Afghanistan. It doesn't take a NASA rocket scientist to research that.

(no drug abusers' feelings were harmed in the making of this post)

[Lancer]

When you stray too far from the formula that won you the 2001 Game of the Year and has a loyal fan community still producing NEW mods and tournaments SIX FREAKING YEARS LATER, you've made a bad choice.

In a nutshell. Amen brother.

[Brainman2k]

Hit a nerve, did I? I apologize, retract, and if you like will even edit that out of the post in question.

apology accepted. you must know im a moderator on some other forums. im simply not used to being personally addressed in that kind of way. our boardrules prohibit that...

I've done that. And the fact is that if this game's name didn't start with the words GHOST and RECON, I'd likely never have played it. Same for GRAW. But to insist that it's this whole other thing that shouldn't be judged against it's predecessors and namesake is ABSURD. Tell me who would buy Splinter Cell titles that failed to follow the same premise as their predecessors, or another Rainbow Six title that failed to deal with antiterrorist operations. When you stray too far from the formula that won you the 2001 Game of the Year and has a loyal fan community still producing NEW mods and tournaments SIX FREAKING YEARS LATER, you've made a bad choice.

i can see why you feel like this about gr and graw. i still like [GR] or even rs, but its not 2001 anymore. [GR] lacked much things. mainly storywise and the one being not ably to identify / relate to the maincharacter in the game. that was fixed in graw 1/2 imo. now its 6 years later and a different developer is creating the game. im happy they kept some of the spirit [GR] had but combining that with new features and an own concept. if theyd update [GR] to 2007 with a new gfx-engine and kept all the gameplay-mechanics 1:1 the game would have no chance on todays market. and maybe they wanted to add to the game what they felt the series lacked back in 2001.

in my opinion they should have dropped the "ghost recon" and shouldve named it "advanced warfighter". it wouldve been an entirely independent game and theyd have much less complaining about graw not being "ghost" and "recon" anymore.

heres another example:

maybe you know the game "fallout 1/2". two of the best 3rd-person-round-based-rpg ever developed. black isle got the job from interplay to develop fallout 3. black isle had to close its doors and interplay sold the rights to bethesta. now they are developing a game called "fallout 3" with 1st-person-view and real-time-combat. they claim to have kept the spirit of the original game, but enhanced the game and put it on the level of 2007.

When you stray too far from the formula that won you the 2001 Game of the Year and has a loyal fan community still producing NEW mods and tournaments SIX FREAKING YEARS LATER, you've made a bad choice.

i dont know. maybe in the past six years i changed myself considering playing games and what i expect of a good game. its not unthinkable that today i wouldnt buy an [GR] with updated graphics and a few bugfixes...

i think its strongly got to do with the point of view youre looking at the game (graw): i didnt expect theyd bring a direct sequel to [GR]. i put [GR] aside and played a whole new game. and from that kind of perspective you cannot be let down. its like with going to the movies. if youve got too many assumptions of how the movie is going to be youre not open to something new and enjoying it.

so cheers and no hard feelings.

[RAbbi_74]

[GR] lacked much things. mainly storywise and the one being not ably to identify / relate to the maincharacter in the game. that was fixed in graw 1/2 imo.

Ouch. Man, you lost me right about there. We differ on our opinions of whether a main character was good for the game or not, and I personally feel that GRAW's deviation from the perceived spirit of [GR] begins with the name, Scott Mitchell. But to each his own, and if you like the character-centric story deal then this shooter IS for you.

now its 6 years later and a different developer is creating the game. im happy they kept some of the spirit [GR] had but combining that with new features and an own concept.

Sounded great in theory, and we all had high hopes for GRIN's big adventure with the long-awaited PC follow-up to Ghost Recon. Many of the cool features seemed like great ideas. And they would be AWESOME additions to [GR] (CrossCom orders system, UAV, air and artillery strikes, etc.). But for what the game lost versus [GR], it wasn't worth the gains.

if theyd update [GR] to 2007 with a new gfx-engine and kept all the gameplay-mechanics 1:1 the game would have no chance on todays market. and maybe they wanted to add to the game what they felt the series lacked back in 2001.

Strongly disagree. Look no further than three forums down, and you'll see that not only are there still a LOT of folks playing the six year old game, but there are tournaments up for it. Something that didn't happen with GRAW. Time will yet tell if GRAW2 can maintain the support for a tourney, but a 2001 game still pulls big participation in 2007. I'd say it's a sound game for more than simply eye candy- it plays like a champ. Ubisoft or whoever may have wanted it changed in fundamental ways but most of us here just wanted new content and updated graphics.

in my opinion they should have dropped the "ghost recon" and shouldve named it "advanced warfighter". it wouldve been an entirely independent game and theyd have much less complaining about graw not being "ghost" and "recon" anymore.

i dont know. maybe in the past six years i changed myself considering playing games and what i expect of a good game. its not unthinkable that today i wouldnt buy an [GR] with updated graphics and a few bugfixes...

i think its strongly got to do with the point of view youre looking at the game (graw): i didnt expect theyd bring a direct sequel to [GR]. i put [GR] aside and played a whole new game. and from that kind of perspective you cannot be let down. its like with going to the movies. if youve got too many assumptions of how the movie is going to be youre not open to something new and enjoying it.

so cheers and no hard feelings.

Yeah, I've said it before. I know I unfairly approached GRAW with expectations based on [GR], and now GRAW2 with expectations based on everything that was lacking in GRAW. Let's face it, GRAW 1.35 isn't finished. There are missing textures, collision errors, and all manner of bugs and glitches out there. I caught some on video. I'll send them next year when I get home. They USED to be on YouTube.

So when I installed GRAW2 and started playing, it was just GRAW FINALLY debugged, with a little more refinement to a few features. I've addressed SOME of my percieved GRAW2-improved list in another thread recently. But again, I don't feel that ANY of it was worth the trade in gameplay. And while I can't speak for MP, I know the SP feels identical to GRAW. I can't bring myself to finish the campaign. I can't stay interested. It's equal parts cheesy story and underwhelming gameplay.

[GR] left out a LOT of story elements. And in fact, the mission briefings went into a little more extra detail than I'd like. It was cool that way. It let you think for yourself for the story, just like it did for mission planning.

At day's end, I think most folks who doubt this game and its predecessor would have been quite happy to have never had another Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon title, and for these two to have been produced as just Advanced Warfighter 1 & 2.

And you're right- make no mistake that I'd be FAR happier with a graphics update to the same old 15 original missions and otherwise identical game. I miss playing [GR] online with the team, matching sometimes three nights a week, sometimes running 3-way matches, playing pickup games on whoever's server, and thoroughly enjoying every second of it. It's a feeling I never really got with GRAW or any other FPS before or since [GR]. The feeling that I have found a truly great game.

GRIN has waded through neck-high toilet water of the many complaints about GRAW, and surely Ubi knows of it all too. What it would take to satisfy people like me, they're aware of. They've made their choice.

[[RS]Stalker]

Feet taste bad. I know. I've been there a few times myself.

On the contrary, sir. My feet taste like pumpkin pie with a healthy dollop of whipped cream on top. OK...no they don't. But if they did, that would be sooooo awesome.

[KRP 56]

When you stray too far from the formula that won you the 2001 Game of the Year and has a loyal fan community still producing NEW mods and tournaments SIX FREAKING YEARS LATER, you've made a bad choice.

In a nutshell. Amen brother.

Amen again!

[Papa6]

When you stray too far from the formula that won you the 2001 Game of the Year and has a loyal fan community still producing NEW mods and tournaments SIX FREAKING YEARS LATER, you've made a bad choice.

In a nutshell. Amen brother.

Amen again!

someone at UBISOFT thought they'd make a name for themself by trying to put a twist on what was a great franchise. if it isn't broken, don't fix it.

[Brainman2k]

if theyd update [GR] to 2007 with a new gfx-engine and kept all the gameplay-mechanics 1:1 the game would have no chance on todays market. and maybe they wanted to add to the game what they felt the series lacked back in 2001.

Strongly disagree. Look no further than three forums down, and you'll see that not only are there still a LOT of folks playing the six year old game, but there are tournaments up for it. Something that didn't happen with GRAW. Time will yet tell if GRAW2 can maintain the support for a tourney, but a 2001 game still pulls big participation in 2007. I'd say it's a sound game for more than simply eye candy- it plays like a champ. Ubisoft or whoever may have wanted it changed in fundamental ways but most of us here just wanted new content and updated graphics.

im aware of the fact, that a lot of players still play [GR]. but sadly enough todays publishers want to please a broad audience. the broader the audience, the better. because pleasing more people means gaining more money. the whole tom clancy-franchise shared this fate. and you can only please a broad audience when you make the game more accessable.

i dont know exactly how much a developer can change the developers plans for conceiving a game. fact is: graw 1/2 has more publicity than [GR] ever had (imo). back in the day i asked a lot of people if they wanted to play some coop-matches in rs or [GR]. almost none ever heard of tom clancy or the games. ubi comercialised the whole series. happens with a lot of things nowadays...

however im the kind of guy that tries not to mix up [GR] with graw. the concept of the games are totally different. HOWEVER i do feel the homage graw pays to [GR]. somethimes i DO feel im back in the day playing [GR] again....and THAT is it i like about the game.

just returned from a 4-man-coop-session btw. we had a lot of fun, almost like we had with [GR] when it was new on the games-market. but im a little dissapointed from the difficulty level. we played on easy, normal and hardcore and you dont feel too much difference....

Edited August 26, 2007 by Brainman2k