GRAW 1&2 postmortem and future prospects

[krise madsen]

Having now actually tried out GRAW2, it's time for me to put a few toughts down on "paper". If you want a review, look elsewhere. Others have done a better job of that. This is more about the "big picture" of the Ghost Recon series and tac-sim genre.

I'm one of those "old school" gamers that started with Rainbow Six (I didn't even play RVS, that's how old-school I am ) and eventually ended up playing GR1. While my early R6 days were exclusively single player, GR1 was co-op and (almost) only co-op. Still some of the best gaming I've ever experienced. As you might have noticed, adversarial MP isn't really my kinda game.

Nothing good lasts forever, and when the expected GR sequel didn't materialize, dark clouds began to appear on the horizon. Creating GR2 for consoles first was an indication of Ubisofts new direction with the franchise. There were a lot of grumbles about that from the PC community (including me), particularly when GR2 (PC) was cancelled. But truth be told, Ubisoft decided to take the franchise in a new direction and I can't really fault them for that. Neither me or anyone else (except Ubi) can claim any "ownership" to Ghost Recon. Ubisoft the business created a different product and I the customer could decide to buy it. Or not. Personally, I think Ubi made a bit of a mess of it, whether one agrees with their new direction or not, but that's another story.

Ghost Recon by name...

Not surprisingly then, that I was among the "Oh noes, look what they did to my beautiful Ghost Recon!"-crowd when GRAW1 appeared. However, navigating through my own hurt feelings, I have to admit that GRAW1 is actually an OK game. Not fantastic or brilliant, but OK. GRIN were obviously new to the tac-sim genre (arguably one of the hardest 3D action genres to develop for), and it showed. Except GRAW1 wasn't really a tac-sim, but more about that later.

This, along with the StarForce debacle and a few other mishaps, ensured that I wasn't going to sink any money into GRAW2, or any other Ubisoft game for that matter, before getting to try it first (I'm not boycotting UBI. If the game is good I'll buy it, just not on face value). Since in my case that does NOT include pirated copies, I simply had to wait for the opportunity, and so I got it yesterday at a gaming cafe.

GRAW2 is improved. A lot better. It is obvious that GRIN has listened to the community and generally listened well. There are still a few minor issues of course: Elite soldiers are still stumped by even ankle-high layers of sandbags, or any other such mundane obstacles. The night vision is still not very useful. I still don't get to choose between different optical sights for my weapon and for soldiers of the future, the Ghosts are woefully short on thermal imagery. Though I haven't tried MP, I would imagine snipers are still deady accurate even when moving and strafing (i.e. not enough, if any, scope/sight wobble). But in truth these are minor issues and nothing that a serious round of tweaking shouldn't be able to fix. GRAW 2 is a pretty good game. The real issue is elsewhere.

It struck me while playing GRAW2, as I tried in vain to bypass an urban intersection crawling with heavily armed enemies. I mean, they had everything from heavy machineguns to snipers aimed right at the intersection. Ironically, the perimeter was essentially devoid of any bad guys. Only a suicide candidate or a ###### would walk straight into that killzone. Yet I had no other choice. And that's it. GRAW2, just like GRAW1, essentially funnels the player from one ambush to another, just as first person shooters have done since the first Wolfenstein. That's not the way it's supposed to be in a tac-sim game. Tac-sim maps are more like open playgrounds, like you might find in a turn-based strategy game, really. It's not the essence of the problem though, but it is the key symptom.

The basic issue is that the GRAW series are traditional, linear shooters with pretensions, in essence no different from the first Wolfenstein game. GRIN quite simply doesn't get it. They don't get the tac-sim genre. Actually, there is nothing wrong with GRIN or their work. If anything, they have done exceedingly well. Coming onto the scene as relative newcomers, they created a fairly good game with GRAW1, and with GRAW2 they proved that they certainly can learn from past experiences and improve their game. Just not a tac-sim game.

That leaves the GRAW franchise in a bit of a limbo. They are really traditional action games but without the traditional fast-paced action. Action gamers are a bit bored, tac-simmers a bit frustrated, neither are happy.

GRAW future: Is there one?

So, where do we go from here then? Will there be a GRAW3? Almost certainly. It's a bit early to kill off the golden console game goose. Will there be a GRIN-developed GRAW3 for PC? Probably, depending on sales. That said, Ubisoft have several options for Ghost Recon on PC: Abandon the franchise (make it a console-only title),turn it into a pure action game, continue the current approach or return to the tac-sim genre.

If I was top dog at Ubi, I wouldn't have GRIN develop GRAW3 for PC. I'd simply port the console version. A straight action shooter, killing off the notion of the GR franchise as a tac-sim for good. One great outcry from the tac-sim community and then it'd be over. Ubi did this with Rainbow Six: Vegas. And apart from the fact that it lacked a bit of PC-centric polish (no remapping of keyboard controls? what were they thinking!) it was a pretty good game. Not the traditional PC tac-sim game of old, but a good game nonetheless. To tell you the truth, ports of GRAW1 and 2 would have been faster, simpler, cheaper do make, and probably better games overall. I'd keep GRIN though. They've become very good developers and there are plenty of projects they could do great things with. Just not tac-sims.

There are other alternatives of course. When news of GRAW1 (PC) development appeared, Ubisoft stated that they wanted a PC-specific game, with everything but the basic story, location and characters/content (guns n' stuff) being totally different from the console versions. And they did. Just not terribly well. As mentioned above, GRAW on the PC got stuck between the action shooter and the tac-sim.

Alternate Future

The Ghost Recon franchise could still become the tac-sim of old on the PC though. At the risk of beating a dead horse yet again, I've always found it ironic how Ubisoft was/is in a unique position to develop a tac-sim shooter.

First time I ever played FarCry, I don't think I even completed the first map before saying to my self: "This would be a great platform for a Ghost Recon sequel". Surely, I cannot be the only one to have had that thought? That aside, there is all the knowledge, experience and black-on-white documentation (even if the developers aren't the same people any more) of the [Ghost Recon] games. And Ubisoft owns all of it. Even the CryENGINE. Basically, they can rip off their own products. For free and with no legal hassles. The only serious hurdle is finding people who truly understand tac-sims. People who get it. Without them, they shouldn't even attempt.

Oh and there is a "fourth way": Blackfoot Studios is currently developing a true tac-sim shooter: Ground Branch. If Ubisoft were to fund the development (getting a slice of the revenue in return, obvously) and otherwise butt out, then apply their considerable marketing and PR skills to sell it and you might (and I do emphasise "might". There are no guarantees in this business) have a real money-earner on your hands, AND make amends with the tac-sim community at the same time.

"Making Your Mind Up"

A lot of "please Ubi do this/don't do that!" eh? Well, to tell you the truth, I don't really care if they choose one or the other, as long as they choose something. In 1981, UK band Bucks Fizz won the Eurovision Song Contest with the song "Making Your Mind Up"(yes I'm that old and yes, it was a horrible song). That's what I want Ubisoft to do: Make up your mind. Dump the tac-sim genre like a hot potato or support it 100%. Just, no more half-baked efforts please.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[=WO=TekHousE]

Nice post man!

To call GRAW 2 tactical is stretching the meaning a little too far.

It was such a shame to look at the large maps, seemingly OPEN in construction and then discovering how linear they really were.

One thing that bothered me from the start of GR was that a RECON unit deployed with an arsenal of grenade launchers and other HEAVY gear.

Surely a launched grenade negated all the 'stealth' and tactics used to reach that particular point in a mission?

Maybe thats taking it too far.

For sure the GL has been responsible for turning tactical gaming into 'pot luck' 'nade spamming free for alls. We may as well have had aircraft in the game too, for all the times people are killed from above by a parabolic grenade.

[Cell]

OICWGL ring a bell? 2 sets of 6 automatic grenades? Stealth anyone? And BTW, at least in GR1 when someone went off with the GL, you could figure out there position by the sound of the GL being fired. Where is that in this game? You cannot hear the GL being fired, other than your own gl. That is really bad.

Well, once an unsilenced bullet is fired, or the enemy has detected you , and teams of tangos are firing at you, the stealth issue is out the window. I would much rather have a gl at that point than not. And as far as MP goes, its a trade off....you trade the silent stealth and scope of a Rifleman kit for the loudness of a Demo kit, that would give your position away fairly easily. Linear mission do take away much of the tactical stealthy gameplay though.

[krise madsen]

Well, should Ubisoft dump the tac-sim genre or should they support it? Any bets on the potential revenues of the genre?

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Colin]

We spend a lot of time on this and other forums talking this subject to death, My honest impression of Ubi is this, we say in repeated posts make a game like GR with a long life, add ons, be modable etc like the original game became.

But we get what one might call a six month wonder, then a new game with fixes but still not a long lasting game.

Money speaks and this seems to be Ubisoft direction produce a small game in a short period of time that last only six months and then repeat.

Lets just say for a second this is really what is going on..

This is just a theory the figures are not accurate.

2001

GR 1 RED STORM.

SOLD 50 thousand copies, cost per copy £25.00 = £1250000

Desert Seige

SOLD 25 thousand copies, cost per copy £25.00 = £625000

Island Thunder

Sold 25 thousand copies, cost per copy £25.00 = £625000

Also remember this game was still being sold upto May this year 6 years later you have to add the cost of these copies to the above.

Graw 1

Graw 2

PC SOLD lets say the same ammont of copies but with out the add ons.

And with out six years or so of earning money afterwards which is the case as of now.

So Graw 1 and 2 will not make no where near the same ammont of money over a six year period as GR1 did.

In my mind Ubi is trying not to make too much money on the franchise on purpose.

Because the last 2 games show this.

I agree with Krise they need to either give up, or spend a lot more time and investment on making a proper long lasting sequel, not what we have at the moment.

Grin this comment is no way aimed at any of you I know the resrictions you have had to put up with.

PS I forgot to add this is a great post and needs talked about at every level.

[krise madsen]

Thanks

I wouldn't know if more or less money off the GRAW franchise than off the original GR franchise. I don't really have a problem with Ubisoft trying to make money, or as much money as possible for that matter, off the Ghost Recon brand.

All I'm really asking for is a little clarity. Like Master Yoda says: "There is no try. Either do. Or do not". In this case, either go for a harcore tac-sim or give up on it and just port the next GRAW game (if indeed there will be a GRAW3, my guess is yes there will).

I also honestly don't think GRIN is capable of developing a true tac-sim like GR1. I have the utmost respect for their game development skills. They just don't seem to get the whole point of tac-sims.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Papa6]

to add to what Colin & Krise madsen posted, it makes me feel as though ubisoft makes games like...candy bars. they are tasty and short lived to tease you to desire more and wait for the next candybar(version of the game).

perhaps ubisoft is thinking that subpar modtools will prevent modding and to get us to fork over $$$ for the next tease.

UBISOFT are the pimps and we are the whores.

[gunter]

It struck me while playing GRAW2, as I tried in vain to bypass an urban intersection crawling with heavily armed enemies. I mean, they had everything from heavy machineguns to snipers aimed right at the intersection. Ironically, the perimeter was essentially devoid of any bad guys. Only a suicide candidate or a ###### would walk straight into that killzone. Yet I had no other choice. And that's it. GRAW2, just like GRAW1, essentially funnels the player from one ambush to another, just as first person shooters have done since the first Wolfenstein. That's not the way it's supposed to be in a tac-sim game. Tac-sim maps are more like open playgrounds, like you might find in a turn-based strategy game, really. It's not the essence of the problem though, but it is the key symptom.

I agree

unlikely beeing myself not a mother tongue I can't reach a decent level of speech elaboration anyway since now I've played almost 8/9 missions and inside many of them you are like a pinball ball that sooner or later will reach the central hole.

After some consequent dies you will understand where they are located and you can quite easily go ahead killing them but beeing dead 4/5 times the atmosphere or reality let the space to an arcade approach and this surelly is not intended. Another point of view could be that I'm very weak as player .. ah.. I still remember a time when I was killed from 4 meters above my head from a soldier with a rocket launcher ... but the most irritating aspect is that despiting the unique obliged path very often you have to deal with,when you try to take a different path you are subito warned with " you are leaving the mission area " and few seconds later you are killed automatically due to this alternative path approach . That's sad indeed.

Despite these missions the game is definitely appealing and inside some other regular missions you can play the ball without any chains.

Edited October 2, 2007 by gunter

[kretzj]

Agreed Krise. As the old saying goes (one of many regarding this topic!) "Fish or cut bait".

There are rumors on this board and others that any future GR PC title will go back to RSE. I have not seen any hard proof of that but one of the people that first introduced me to the rumor is someone from the industry and a person whose opinion I highly regard and respect. Based on that fact alone I give the chances at better than 50/50. Question is... will RSE do any better?

I believe GRiN has taken a lot of heat for things out of their control. Ubi pulls the purse strings and they call the shots. I do think GRiN did deserve some of the beats, however, as their implementation of Ubi's directives left a LOT to be desired in GRAW1 and to some extent, GRAW2.

I posted in another threat that I might consider paying for an expansion pack to GRAW2 if certain conditions are met and the price is right. That said, I won't be buying GRAW 3 (or whatever it might be called) without some clear indication of what path Ubi has chosen.

From a pure business perspective I think Krise is right... port the console version of GRAW3 to the PC and make a mint selling to run-n-gun kiddies. Leave us old-timers to lament the future, cast eyes backward at our beloved [GR], and ponder a future that never happened. I, for one, do NOT believe the tac-sim market is dead and Ground Branch will (hopefully) prove that in the future. Ubi has shown a propensity the past few years to shill for a dollar today even if it means losing two dollars tomorrow. With that mentality, the console port idea for GRAW3 fits into their planning perfectly... short term revenue with no long-term plans or commitments.

If the rumors of RSE taking over are true AND if Ubi decides to return the franchise to it's tac-sim past, they will find a community of hard-core game players ready to embrace it once more... from SP guys like me to the hard-core COOP guys... the modders ... etc. I get all misty-eyed when I think of what could have been done with GRAW2's engine and technology if GRiN had been allowed to develop a TRUE tac-sim game instead of the FPS linear game that was delivered.

Unfortunately, I won't be holding my breath for that realization... I'll probably be too busy playing Ground Branch to realize what Ubi has decided to do with GR for the PC.

-John K.

[krise madsen]

Moving development of the next GR PC game to RSE could simply mean that they port the console version. I agree that GRIN has gotten a lot of flak that they probably didn't really deserve. I try not to point fingers at Ubi or GRIN since I really don't know who to point them at, but I'm guessing that a lot of GRAW1 issues can be attributed to GRIN inexperience. The improvements found in GRAW2 is evidence of that IMO. GRAW2 is a pretty good effort. It's just not a tac-sim game.

I really can't figure out if Ubisoft really wants to release true tac-sim games. I do know that they have organisational issues in terms of moving info from those that recieve the input to the decision makers, and making correct and informed decisions based on that info. In short, lessons learned aren't learned everywhere, but that is hardly an unusual issue for a large organisation, nor unique to Ubisoft.

Could RSE do it? I don't know. How many of the people of the original R6/GR team are left? And of those (if there are any) how many of them truly understand the tac-sim genre? I have no idea whatsoever.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[ruggbutt]

UBISoft is interesting in making money. So it's release game of the week, get the cash and move. Screw the support, screw the customers, they got your money.

[krise madsen]

UBISoft is interesting in making money. So it's release game of the week, get the cash and move. Screw the support, screw the customers, they got your money.

Of course they are interested in making money. You think games publishing is a hobby they do in their spare time? Oops, started arguing with Ruggie did I? OK, I'm just going it walk away from that one...

BTW: Has anyone noticed the lack of replay value of GRAW2 SP? That's a fairly good indicateor that this isn't a tac-sim. A true tac-sim has more in common with flight sims, naval sims, tank sims and wargames, i.e. replayability galore. But neither GRAW1 or GRAW2 is a tac-sim. It's a traditional shooter. Not a bad shooter, but not a tac-sim either.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[=warcloud=]

Interesting reading, i wonder where the ghosts will be fighting in graw3?.

And Ubisoft owns all of it. Even the CryENGINE.

Ubisoft don't own the cryengine, crytek own that, if i'm not mistaken Ubisoft own the interlectual properties of farcry on the pc & console platform. As far as i know farcry2 will not use the cryengine, unless they have licenced it from crytek?.

[KRP 56]

Nice post krise madsen and pretty much along the lines with what I think about the GRAW games. As long as UBI makes money they'll continue GRAW just as it is now. Not good for me as I only play SP and GRAW offers little to no replayability where as GR could be played over and over again with different tactics and still be interesting and fun. I kinda get the impression that the GRIN folk were more impressed with games like MOH and COD as the GRAW games seem nothing more than slowed down versions of those games with only a few tactical twists and turns thrown in to give it only a small taste of what makes GR great. To bad UBI canned RSE's version of GR2 as I'm thinking it may have been a lot better game and of course if it could have been modded like GR we all know the talent here could have made it worthplaying.

[=LB=Specter]

GR:AW1 I remember going around to all my friends saying "this game is so advanced!" , "you can see what your team sees through a thing called cross coms" Was supposed to be the game of the future. super advanced. man I was so hooked on the concept of this game. Then I find out the truth. It was forced to us incomplete. Didn't even have all the maps.

GR:AW2 I remember singing the praises of a medic. Most I knew held on the promises of a medic, but the majority said they wont buy it until they saw A: UBI support and B: If the game took off. Both A and B have failed... oh and wheres the medic?

Tom clancy must be rolling about the NON success of this game.

I highly recommend GR:AW3 does NOT exist. Matter of fact. The Advanced Warfighter series is dead. I wouldnt mind another game produced by GRINN. They have proven to learn and create playable games. They have gotten much better. The mexico theme has got to go.

i downloaded the crysis beta. Im not singing its praises but That game has a much more impressive feel about it than GRAW2. If the battle sequences were less complicated and there were not aliens involved it would be high on my list of next games to get.

Why cant game makers create a cross between AA, GR and BF2?

For me Advanced warfighters arenot so advanced.... lol they cant even bandage up eachother.

[kretzj]

For me Advanced warfighters arenot so advanced.... lol they cant even bandage up eachother.

Or jump, apparently.

-John K.

[Fletch]

Why cant game makers create a cross between AA, GR and BF2?

For me Advanced warfighters arenot so advanced.... lol they cant even bandage up eachother.

As long as there is no Bunny Hopping, Shooting the Bullseye at 100 yards while running, or running at superspeeds, I'd buy that.

And if there was a Medic, when he bandaged you up does that "Magically Restore your health" like it never even happened? If so we don't need it. GR has always been about being a game that tries to simulate real life conditions. A medic on the battlefield in RL can't restore anyone to health and cure their wounds. However if applying bandages kept you from dying yet still having to put up with the injuries you sustained in battle, I'd buy that.

[Colin]

Guys just to clear up a point here, we were told at the very start there would be no medic in the pc version.

http://www.ghostrecon.net/forums/index.php...c=41088&hl=

[krise madsen]

Interesting reading, i wonder where the ghosts will be fighting in graw3?.

And Ubisoft owns all of it. Even the CryENGINE.

Ubisoft don't own the cryengine, crytek own that, if i'm not mistaken Ubisoft own the interlectual properties of farcry on the pc & console platform. As far as i know farcry2 will not use the cryengine, unless they have licenced it from crytek?.

Apart from the Far Cry IP, Ubisoft own the rights to use the CryENGINE. I'm not sure if they own it lock, stock and barrel (i.e. they decide who gets to use it or not) but they do own the right to use it for their own games.

Far Cry 2 is made with the Dunia engine, developed for Far Cry 2 by Ubi Montreal.

Nice post krise madsen and pretty much along the lines with what I think about the GRAW games. As long as UBI makes money they'll continue GRAW just as it is now. Not good for me as I only play SP and GRAW offers little to no replayability where as GR could be played over and over again with different tactics and still be interesting and fun. I kinda get the impression that the GRIN folk were more impressed with games like MOH and COD as the GRAW games seem nothing more than slowed down versions of those games with only a few tactical twists and turns thrown in to give it only a small taste of what makes GR great. To bad UBI canned RSE's version of GR2 as I'm thinking it may have been a lot better game and of course if it could have been modded like GR we all know the talent here could have made it worthplaying.

I have no idea how good or bad GR2 (PC) was. If it was a straight update of GR1 then yeah it would probably have been great. If it was more like the console version then I'm not so sure.

GR:AW1 I remember going around to all my friends saying "this game is so advanced!" , "you can see what your team sees through a thing called cross coms" Was supposed to be the game of the future. super advanced. man I was so hooked on the concept of this game. Then I find out the truth. It was forced to us incomplete. Didn't even have all the maps.

GR:AW2 I remember singing the praises of a medic. Most I knew held on the promises of a medic, but the majority said they wont buy it until they saw A: UBI support and B: If the game took off. Both A and B have failed... oh and wheres the medic?

Tom clancy must be rolling about the NON success of this game.

I highly recommend GR:AW3 does NOT exist. Matter of fact. The Advanced Warfighter series is dead. I wouldnt mind another game produced by GRINN. They have proven to learn and create playable games. They have gotten much better. The mexico theme has got to go.

i downloaded the crysis beta. Im not singing its praises but That game has a much more impressive feel about it than GRAW2. If the battle sequences were less complicated and there were not aliens involved it would be high on my list of next games to get.

Why cant game makers create a cross between AA, GR and BF2?

For me Advanced warfighters arenot so advanced.... lol they cant even bandage up eachother.

I'm a sucker for military hi-tech so I had read a bit about the gear before GRAW1 was released and I too was really exited. I was rather puzzled then, that most of it didn't really "do anything". Why go through all the trouble of adding it to the game if it didn't do anything? The reason of course is that GRAW is a traditional shooter rather than a tac-sim.

And the technology is about the visual expression of the game, not about gameplay. 9 out of 10 gamers would just look at the pretty HUD interface and say "so this is the soldier of the future huh? cool." and play on. But the GR community is crammed with armchair generals like me (and quite a few real soldiers as well). Actually, I'm surprised that there wasn't more ruckus over this here at GR.net.

I guess it's one of those features that gamers will debate till hell freezes over: Should there or should there not be a medic/healing pack/dynamic healing in a shooter? Personally, I have no clue what the right answer is. However, GRAW being what it is, it does puzzle me that they GRAW2 lacked the "magic-healing-when-loading-checkpoint" feature of GRAW1, at least on easy level.

As I mentioned in my original post, I belive that the tac-sim is arguably the most difficult kind of FPS to develop. DICE cleverly avoided it with their BF series (apart from one really stupid review: "BF2 is the closest thing to actually joining up!" ) and kept intensely focused on creating a MP action shooter (it does have tools for playing as a team, but you can still do OK with just joining a random server and blasting away). AA is a special case of course, since it's a recruiting tool rather than a commercial game, but at heart it's really Unreal Tournament (or somesuch) without the aliens and rayguns.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[The Blueberry_EBDA]

I seem to remember EA games investing some money into UBI?Maybe they call some of the shots now.

[Papa6]

I seem to remember EA games investing some money into UBI?Maybe they call some of the shots now.

You're right, but it's something like a 20% stake. I don't think they(EA) have that much say but it's 20%. I'm kinda wondering why EA bought into UBISOFT. Perhaps if UBISOFT were to tank, then EA could take their 20% stake and make it 100% in a buyout?

[kretzj]

I seem to remember EA games investing some money into UBI?Maybe they call some of the shots now.

You're right, but it's something like a 20% stake. I don't think they(EA) have that much say but it's 20%. I'm kinda wondering why EA bought into UBISOFT. Perhaps if UBISOFT were to tank, then EA could take their 20% stake and make it 100% in a buyout?

A bit off-topic from the original post, but I would wonder if an EA purchase of Ubi might meet some regulatory scrutiny... those are two very big developers, and it's not like EA hasn't had some problems of their own lately.

-John K.

[gunter]

Of course they are interested in making money. You think games publishing is a hobby they do in their spare time? Oops, started arguing with Ruggie did I? OK, I'm just going it walk away from that one...

BTW: Has anyone noticed the lack of replay value of GRAW2 SP? That's a fairly good indicateor that this isn't a tac-sim. A true tac-sim has more in common with flight sims, naval sims, tank sims and wargames, i.e. replayability galore. But neither GRAW1 or GRAW2 is a tac-sim. It's a traditional shooter. Not a bad shooter, but not a tac-sim either.

Respectfully

krise madsen

You hit the point Mitchell here,

unlikely, kids in their early teeenies are always floating around and they are , from a marketing point of view , the ones who move money and if they prefer games like Halo , well, GRAW2 will be mainly an arcade first person shooter , secondly a kind of emulation of tactical warfare,thirdly a simulation of a simulation

I fully agree about your comparison with flight sims etc.. how comes that you spend 20 minutes only to perform a check list inside a 747 of FS X ? that's boring ....why don't you shoot at the hostesses with a plasma cannon instead ?

I also agree about the missing of replay ...ahh. I still remeber those days of Silent Storm...that was a real tactica lone,even if a turn based one

Best Regards

Edited October 3, 2007 by gunter

[JASGripen]

I seem to remember EA games investing some money into UBI?Maybe they call some of the shots now.

You're right, but it's something like a 20% stake. I don't think they(EA) have that much say but it's 20%. I'm kinda wondering why EA bought into UBISOFT. Perhaps if UBISOFT were to tank, then EA could take their 20% stake and make it 100% in a buyout?

A bit off-topic from the original post, but I would wonder if an EA purchase of Ubi might meet some regulatory scrutiny... those are two very big developers, and it's not like EA hasn't had some problems of their own lately.

-John K.

You mean an insurance against market mechanism, so that none of them are required to make rally good games?

[Papa6]

Of course they are interested in making money. You think games publishing is a hobby they do in their spare time? Oops, started arguing with Ruggie did I? OK, I'm just going it walk away from that one...

BTW: Has anyone noticed the lack of replay value of GRAW2 SP? That's a fairly good indicateor that this isn't a tac-sim. A true tac-sim has more in common with flight sims, naval sims, tank sims and wargames, i.e. replayability galore. But neither GRAW1 or GRAW2 is a tac-sim. It's a traditional shooter. Not a bad shooter, but not a tac-sim either.

Respectfully

krise madsen

You hit the point Mitchell here,

unlikely, kids in their early teeenies are always floating around and they are , from a marketing point of view , the ones who move money and if they prefer games like Halo , well, GRAW2 will be mainly an arcade first person shooter , secondly a kind of emulation of tactical warfare,thirdly a simulation of a simulation

I fully agree about your comparison with flight sims etc.. how comes that you spend 20 minutes only to perform a check list inside a 747 of FS X ? that's boring ....why don't you shoot at the hostesses with a plasma cannon instead ?

I also agree about the missing of replay ...ahh. I still remeber those days of Silent Storm...that was a real tactica lone,even if a turn based one

Best Regards

My minds eye runs a VERY funny scene in my head that might be true. i picture one of these "teenies" playing GRAW2 in MP mode and while he's playing, he's making machine gun noises with his mouth as he plays and says things like, " Die you pig" or "die you commie ######" not to mention all the saliva stains and spots on his monitor.