For me GRAW2 just doesn't have that lasting appeal

[Kakanater]

I don't know about others but for me GRAW2 doesn't have that lasting appeal that makes me want to play it when i am doing something else, for example games like Madden 08, oblivion, hitman blood money, sim city 4, those are games that i play today that i have been playing for months, the greatest example for me is BF2, now i know some here will say that game is run n' gun but i played that game so much until i lost the cd key and reformated my comp, now i am considering buying it again just to play it, with GRAW2 i just don't feel like playing it that much, it is a good game but not one made to last for the ages, some may agree some might not but GRAW2 for me had a very short life span.

[ruggbutt]

What I've seen is that people who like the run and gun stuff don't necessarily like tac-shooters. You have a bit of crossover but I prefer the more cerebral shooters. I have twitch skills, anyone that's played against me in a respawn server has seen that. But it's mindless as it's just point and shoot.

[Nutlink]

I love the tac shooters, but I do agree that this game is getting somewhat stale and starting to be put on the back burner for me. The lack of balance between the weapons doesn't make for a fun game, the lack of players playing something other than TDM makes for repetitive play, the lack of coop maps that were officially released was like a slap in the face for coop players. The gameplay itself is great, but it needed just a little more testing and a few more options on release, maybe even a better marketing group so people actually knew that this game was released. Or not, I don't know, but the game is starting to feel stale.

[Agent Smith]

What I've seen is that people who like the run and gun stuff don't necessarily like tac-shooters. You have a bit of crossover but I prefer the more cerebral shooters. I have twitch skills, anyone that's played against me in a respawn server has seen that. But it's mindless as it's just point and shoot.

As people grow older, their tastes change along with their age.

I used to dig tactical shooters as much as anyone back when I was 12 and 13 (Heavy, heavy America's Army player, and loved Ghost Recon 2), but now I've grown more fond of the twitch area of FPSs which dominate the tacs in terms of quantity. I haven't looked back since. Turns out I prefer over-the-top, completely exaggerated, absolutely brutal and gorey combat (The more gore, the better! There's no such thing as too much gore for me.) over the 10 minute crawl fest just to kill a single squad. I also prefer science fiction over any modern time game, and it shows in my favorite game list. Turns out I don't belong in the Clancy world.

I'm modding just for enjoyment and for the sake of the community. When Crysis comes rolling around, you know where I'm going. Just look at how much you can do with the new Sandbox.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Agent Smith

[ROCO*AFZ*]

I love the tac shooters, but I do agree that this game is getting somewhat stale and starting to be put on the back burner for me. The lack of balance between the weapons doesn't make for a fun game, the lack of players playing something other than TDM makes for repetitive play, the lack of coop maps that were officially released was like a slap in the face for coop players. The gameplay itself is great, but it needed just a little more testing and a few more options on release, maybe even a better marketing group so people actually knew that this game was released. Or not, I don't know, but the game is starting to feel stale.

Any game can get stale. It's all in the community. I'm into matching so TWL keeps it fresher since every team has a different tactic and appoach. Modders may breath new life also. the original GR (yeah i'm beating that dead horse) became stale also until it was patched many times and desert siege brought new life (Yeah grin...expansion 20$ with maps is what it takes) Matching took off, servers were stable, and modders had figured it out. then IT came out and gave it new life once again. With Graw2, the ladders are starting... but new. And the patches are fixing things. And the modders are working hard for soon to be released new maps (Still drooling over Castle day remake... WOOT!) It still has a chance... if the community can work at it, and an expansion is born I could see it getting popular.

[Nutlink]

I know Roco, I'm also matching in TWL, and maybe an expansion pack would breathe new life into the game, but as it stands now it's getting stale a lot quicker than the majority of the games I've played.

[EricJ]

Yeah, I agree, as I'm now finishing missions in one shot, rather than die, reload, die reload. Oh I died? Oh well. I agree though, if anything a real expansion pack (rather than a new game being one....) or the hint would breathe life into it. It's good but yeah, there's not much in GRAW2 to hold on for long, guess it's time to go to flight simming again.

[Danish1705]

As of now, ill just have to wait till GRIN release major patch and will see from there. The rest, ill just have to put my faith in our beloved community/modders to release maps/mods etc. to keep the game moving.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Danish1705

[doubletap]

I agree with the getting stale point of view, but I see it differently than 90% of you (or more). I see it from a SP campaign perspective only, since I don't play any vs modes (sorry, arena paintball is not for me). And IMO GRAW and GRAW2 are too linear.......GRAW2 is not too bad but is a bit too short.

Problem #2 for me: the whole futuristic techno theme is just not interesting whatsoever to me. I have had to mod the living **** out of this game (or install others' mods) to make it the real-world military action I want in a GR game. I don't make or install mods that "add to" the game, I use mods that REMOVE or replace all the stuff I don't want, to try and make it more Ghost Recon.

So now what pulls me into the game is not the missions, it's mods like Bretzzies weapons, and Nocom.

Now, GR1 grew stale for a perfectly acceptable, and unavoidable reason; you can only play one campaign so many times regardless how open-ended it is. GRAW series is different; the campaign gets stale after ONE play-through because of the not-so-subtle lean toward interactive cinamatic presentation, as apposed to what GR started out as, open-ended sandbox, with zero intrusive "guidance" from the game itself, or as it calls itself in GRAW2...."Command" and "Bud" and General Whats-his-face, and "president whatever". But thankfully Nocom fixes that problem entirely.

I don't mean to be too harsh, GRAW2 is way better than 1 (and WAAAAYYY better than GR2) in regards to options, gameplay, and that "recon" feel. I'm just pointing out why I think it lacks the replay value, or longevity of GR1, which I still play all the time.

As a matter of fact, I would pay full price every couple of years for GR1 upgraded with current graphics, sound, AI, etc. Same as I do with MS Flight Simulator every 2 years.

______________________

Doubletap

Edited September 2, 2007 by doubletap

[ERIXX]

whenever i want to quickly play MP, GRAW2 is the first choice...

[Cell]

Now, GR1 grew stale for a perfectly acceptable, and unavoidable reason; you can only play one campaign so many times regardless how open-ended it is. GRAW series is different; the campaign gets stale after ONE play-through because of the not-so-subtle lean toward interactive cinamatic presentation, as apposed to what GR started out as, open-ended sandbox, with zero intrusive "guidance" from the game itself, or as it calls itself in GRAW2...."Command" and "Bud" and General Whats-his-face, and "president whatever". But thankfully Nocom fixes that problem entirely.

I don't mean to be too harsh, GRAW2 is way better than 1 (and WAAAAYYY better than GR2) in regards to options, gameplay, and that "recon" feel. I'm just pointing out why I think it lacks the replay value, or longevity of GR1, which I still play all the time.

As a matter of fact, I would pay full price every couple of years for GR1 upgraded with current graphics, sound, AI, etc. Same as I do with MS Flight Simulator every 2 years.

______________________

Doubletap

This is a great point to bring up yet again for the future additions/installments of the "Ghost Recon" series.

So I will go ahead and beat the now tenderized dead horse.

I can see where the cooper's and SP players feel short changed. If all the maps that are in the game were available for [GR] COOp/firefight/campain missions/tdm/hh/siege/RVA there would be much more content for the everybody. More content=more happy players.

People often go off on their GR1 tangent, each game is relative to each other because of the Ghost Recon name and that is why it happens. The working model of a successful tac shooter is already present(GR1) and most of the fans of the series are fans because of that game. Many critical parts of GR1 have been removed or forgotten in future installments, and probably contributes to much of the disappointment.

It is not so much of the gameplay that is the problem in GRAW2. The gameplay(movement, shooting, weapon feel,) are great, graphics rock(what I wanted to see GR become when it was time for the upgrade), sounds are awesome. Nice new weapons are really cool. New cammo, new theatre...MP nice diversity of MP maps but many more are needed. Much of the groundwork for what I personally would like to see in an updated "Ghost Recon" game is there, yet missing key elements.

Missing elements that are huge disappointments:

Wound model(One of the biggest missing peices)

Server GUI (GR1 had one of the best Server Graphical user interfaces that I have used as far as admining a server.

The ability for all maps to be played in all gametypes without having a modder fix them for it. Keeps everyone happy. Also may give incentive to each style of player (campainger, MP player, coop player) to try other gametypes. They know the maps already! It transfers to all gametypes.)

No auto dl with the ability to join a server without having to relaunch the game. Let's face it..many of todays gamers lack the sense to stick around for a dl/relaunch/find the server you were trying to enter and play. Plus its happened to me too many times...you dl the map, quit, relaunch, find the server, and the map has changed to something else you have to dl and go through the whole process for.)

Server browser needs more info

After action stats in MP are cut to almost nothing. Gone are the days of being proud of your accuracy. How many nade kills did I have? I have no Idea. No respawn games - "who killed me again?" I don't know, doesn't display. How many tk's did TKman have? don't know, doesn't show. Remember 3/1 meant 3 kills 1 TK.

You should be able to log into a dedicated server, provided you have the pass, as soon as you join, not once a round starts.So frustrating

There is more, but this is not a bashing post..not meant to be...just pointing out some reasons why IMO feel this game isn't what it should be. Don't get me wrong, it is one of the best option out there, I happen to really like the game, but I am starting to feel the slipping of "the lasting feeling".

Even though GR1 had an few expansions the initial release of the campaign was pretty sick. No "hero" main character,hell..I often would change the name of one of the soldies to my name so I could see what kind of awards I would collect.

Another beauty was the decorations(medals) after a mission, the theatre badges you would receive..incentive to keep your favorite soldiers alive, Unlocked specialists with "special locked weapons" & Attributes upgrades for doing well & survuving missions. The ability to pick from a pool of soldiers to choose your own course.

There was also something about the mission preview screen that was so cool in GR1 and Ravenshield kind of had it too. You have completed the previous mission, and are now being briefed by the CO for the next one. Maps and tactics/intelligence photos and info. Great stuff.

Once the map launched, you could pretty much go anywhere following any path and completing the mission the way you felt was the right way to do it. The ability to see through any of your soldiers eyes and execute orders as individual teams was awesome. Also, what you saw as far as the map goes was the full "mission area". No messages about "leaving the mission area".

Couple that with 3 teams A,B & C and you had a sick campaign mode. No main character that if killed would end the mission.

I am just guessing that this is some of the stuff that is missed. Its what I loved about SP in GR1. Not to say the new delivery of GRAw2 is bad, but it is just different and maybe not as good in a presentation sort of way.

MP....is simple...fix some of the important bugs like fire rate & collision, add more content....wide variety of MAPS MAPS MAPS MAPS a few more gametypes and it has lasting value.

The wound models and other stuff are big, maybe an expansion can deliver.

Next Ghost Recon:

Ghost Recon:Redüx (All the Ghost Recon games wrapped into one package maybe with a few minor twists, with the newest game engine and bonus content)

Expansion Pack 1: New Theatre, New Missions, New MP & Coop Maps

Expansion 2 Repeat above

Diarrhea of the fingers. I don't know how this became so long, but thanks to whoever took the time to read it. I wonder if I deferred from my original point?

Edited September 5, 2007 by Cell*AFZ*

[ERIXX]

great post Cell! Spot on!

Still I like GRAW2 with all it missing features....

[buttercupp]

for Cell*AFZ*'s post! I read it all.

Love the game; it just needs a few important things fixed to make it complete.

[squad_e]

I'm Lovin this game so far, It's easy to get into... No sign of any Teamkillers yet as BF2 was known for the TKin game...

Great for Co-oP, You actually feel your shooting something, atmosphere is really nice.. .. It's not too arcadish.. It's totally stopped me playing BF2142..

It's spreading to ArmA, But I like to paly ArmA alot too.. But ArmA has its own great qualities to keep you playing..

The only downer is the SP campaing, as i cant be arsed with it.. I'm More of a MP person ...

[Bahger]

I think GRiN has a right to be proud of the way it has revitalised the GR name for the PC, even if it cannot satisfy the GR1 die hards in every respect. Unfortunately the devs were saddled with the console version's goofy storyline, stock characters and bad voice-acting and that did them no favours. However, the SP game is well-crafted in every respect and GRAW2 has more opportunities for genuine fire and movement tactics. I believe the criticisms of squad AI to have been unfair and wrong-headed; when deployed with patience and tactical SA my AI team get about sixty per cent of the total kills in most missions.

I'd prefer to see less cinematic contrivance in the game and less "channeling" of the player altogether. I'd like player-controlled arty and air support missions to be non-scripted. And there is no doubt that a lot of the developers' most ingenious efforts have gone into making the missions look less linear than they actually are. However, like Doubletap, I'm an SP player mainly (with frequent campaign coop) and I find the mission design, tactics and gameplay to have been well harmonized. Many times I've attempted to love ArmA but I think the SP game is a total abomination. Implementing good squad AI in a "sandbox" tac-sim without linear objectives and pathing seems to be very difficult and for me, the precision of spec-ops style tactical AI in "linear" GRAW2 is far superior to the extremely limited AI capabilities in the "open" light-infantry sim ArmA. Just my 10c.

[Cell]

Please don't get me wrong, I love the game. I think Grin did a great job with taking this title beyond the previous installment. More content will keep the players more satisfied. I am just pointing out what minor details helped keep the original going for so long. I would love to see the same with this game. The little things are really appreciated long after the meat and potatoes have been eaten repetitively. All in all this is a good "base". Right on target for where this game should have been. I also do appreciate all the hard work, and advancements this game brings that no other has to offer. Just hoping this game is added upon and not lost in the shuffle of the constant game releases. Modders can do so much, but most of the public look to the companies that released the game to deliver a community wide patch/booster/expansion for it to be taken 100% seriously. On the other hand I am really looking forward to some of the planned mod maps and old GR1 recreations that are being crafted by extremely talented mod community. I hope Grin has a few surprises up their sleeves as well.

[doubletap]

Implementing good squad AI in a "sandbox" tac-sim without linear objectives and pathing seems to be very difficult and for me, the precision of spec-ops style tactical AI in "linear" GRAW2 is far superior to the extremely limited AI capabilities in the "open" light-infantry sim ArmA.

Ironically, the perfect balance of open-ended(arma) vs linear(graw) is none other than......Ghost Recon(1). Totally open ended yet providing enough structure to facilitate spec-ops based gameplay.

I think GRiN has a right to be proud of the way it has revitalised the GR name for the PC, even if it cannot satisfy the GR1 die hards in every respect. Unfortunately the devs were saddled with the console version's goofy storyline, stock characters and bad voice-acting and that did them no favours. However, the SP game is well-crafted in every respect and GRAW2 has more opportunities for genuine fire and movement tactics. I believe the criticisms of squad AI to have been unfair and wrong-headed; when deployed with patience and tactical SA my AI team get about sixty per cent of the total kills in most missions.

I agree with all of that 100%.

I'd prefer to see less cinematic contrivance in the game and less "channeling" of the player altogether.

If I agreed with that any more I would self destruct or implode from agreement overload. IMO that is precicely the core of all other issues I have with the SP game. It all stems from there.

Edited September 6, 2007 by doubletap

[Bahger]

Ironically, the perfect balance of open-ended(arma) vs linear(graw) is none other than......Ghost Recon(1). Totally open ended yet providing enough structure to facilitate spec-ops based gameplay.

There's no denying that. Also, for tac-heads it was useful to have a larger squad. Remember that great (but difficult) GR scenario that involved crossing a long bridge, securing a small gas station and outbuildings and then rescuing a couple of captured U.N. troops from a heavily-defended village? It was great that the open terrain enabled you to conduct a real flanking maneuver, with a team placed prone to suppress from a hump in the road while another assaulted the village from the flank. Opportunities like this are comparatively rare in GRAW2 although the dev team is really trying to make gameplay less of a corridor experience. Oddly enough (to me, anyway) the one mission in which they really succeeded was the very first mission of the campaign, which was also the demo mission. You can take many paths through that one, all of them tactically valid and with unique pros and cons. Very few of the later missions (good though some of them are) seem quite so dedicated to the concept of "free" pathing. "Get Me Rosen" is up there with some of the best GR1 missions, though, maybe because it's not MOUT.

[JJUK]

I hope Grin has a few surprises up their sleeves as well.

mate thats what i thought wouldnt it be nice if they supprised us with a mappack it would go down well im sure.

[TRC]

I actually paid full price this time around, waited for graw1 to hit bargain bin. Enjoyed the sp campaign but it was too short for my tastes. What leads to not having lasting appeal was lack of sp game modes, firefight/recon for sp types. [GR] gametype doesn't allow for friendly ai and thus sp types are forced to go lone wolf or do without and the lack of weapon selection screen really hurt---pre-defined kit's may be an aid for mp type players, not for sp or even coop players from comments I've seen. It shouldn't require a modder to provide at least a couple sp gametypes. Lesson learned, any game without sp gametypes I will wait for it to hit the nine dollar bargain bin like I did with Far Cry. I liked how GRAW 2 played on my machine, smoother than GRAW1, but sticking marines in and calling them loyalists or giving you a loyalist driver when crosscom chatter was of US soldier showed they rushed this and cut corners to save time. The manual talks of server player in [GR] being able to set victory conditions for firefight/recon yet those gametypes weren't included. A shame, it could have been better.

[stormcrow]

Have to agree, a good post there Cell, some very interesting points with regards to the GR1 aspects (or missing aspects that should be). GRAW2 is a big improvement on GRAW but its still missing some key elements that the old timer still has.

I remember some of the first missions I played, GR came across as groundbreaking, especially the night missions in GR, they absolutely rocked, blew me away...........I don't get that same feeling with the GRAW series, but I still will play GRAW2 and appreciate it as a very good tac. shooter.

As for MP, I have yet to finish the SP missions.................

[Papa6]

to add to what cellAFZ said, [GR]'s maps were quite well laid out. to make a map, you made a map, went into IGOR and placed all zones for the different gametypes you wanted to present on it, then saved it to a mission file. all within the editor.

but now with GRAW/GRAW2, you have to also do the lightmaps which takes hours. oh BTW, wanna add a new gametype to a map? in [GR], open the mission file in IGOR and add the zones and save. GRAW/GRAW2, open the bundle, open the map in the editor, clean it of the current zones and add the zones and script, THEN redo the lightmaps.

now most games I've seen with modding, had open ends to the game engine so modding was..erm..fluid. modding has to be a factor from the conceptualization of the entire game and carried through all aspects of the game. Not just added at the end like a troop hatch. but I think modding is more difficult as these games get more massive in terms of the technology. so modding might be way more detailed, I'm not 100% exact on this but it is plausible.

what would satisfy me would be for RSE to take over GR/GRAW/GRAW2,3 whatever and finish GR2PC. albeit by today's standards it would be an older engine but, that would fill in what was missing for so many years now.

this comment about GRAW2 being stale, that could be true. I sat for hours and late into the night play [GR] because for whatever reason, I just can't put my finger on it, it seemed replayable. MP [GR] was replayable. playing the same stock maps, over and over then add later the homemade maps from harntrox etc andthe game even became more re playable and never the same ending. but then that was then and this is now.

added:

I have no idea who conceived [GR] at RSE but, they struck an artery in gaming. one that made this whole frnchise what it is/was.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Papa6

[th33f.]

RSE had a way with maps. [GR], SOAF, all R6 games all had perfectly designed maps. now GRIN seems to be learning because GRAW1 maps were a mess, and now we have some sort of pre-designed action in GRAW2. it's all about the paths, i think. freedom of choice is great, but when there's too much freedom - people get lost; a game turns into a tedious search for opponents.

[KRP 56]

I have no idea who conceived [GR] at RSE but, they struck an artery in gaming. one that made this whole frnchise what it is/was.

It indeed struck an artery.

[Bahger]

RSE had a way with maps. [GR], SOAF, all R6 games all had perfectly designed maps. now GRIN seems to be learning because GRAW1 maps were a mess, and now we have some sort of pre-designed action in GRAW2. it's all about the paths, i think. freedom of choice is great, but when there's too much freedom - people get lost; a game turns into a tedious search for opponents.

That's very true and GR1 deserves praise for finding the most successful compromise between the illusion of openness and strong, directed, objective-based gameplay. As someone pointed out on this board, the only really "open" maps in GRAW2 are the first two but even the subsequent, more corridor-like maps offer branching opportunities for flanking at certain key bottleneck locations. I'd like to know just why tactical shooter gameplay appears to have taken a step backwards in this one respect from GR1 to GRAW2. Is it something to do with the demands made by the need for bleeding-edge graphics?