GRAW 1&2 postmortem and future prospects

[kretzj]

For my money, the only replayable SP level in GRAW2 was "Get me Rosen"... that was an open map and I enjoyed it tremendously, but it wasn't a large map (lots of open space, yes, but it wasn't a map filled with environment to interact with). "Get me Rosen" showed me the POTENTIAL for GRAW2, but that ended up hurting more because the rest of the SP gameplay was so scripted. I've played Rosen several times, trying different strategies, weapons, etc. But that's only ONE map. After the sixth time I'm now bored with that, too.

A set of TRULY open maps like [GR], plus patches to fix the existing issues, plus some SERIOUS re-think of equipment and kit issues... and GRAW2 "could" be a fairly worthy successor to [GR]. With what we have now? No.

-John K.

[[30+]Retlaw]

The problem I see is, that the same map limitations that you see in GRAW SP are in MP. You get funnel to the same place every time. I remember the "Farm" map in [GR], where every single inch of that map could be use. Very hard to tell from where the enemy was approaching, nerve wrecking.

[buttercupp]

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.

Funny you should say that! We had one the other night on HH...called one of our allied clan players a dick. Warned him for language, and he said "What? My dad's name is Dick". Well, we decided to have some fun with this particular guy. So we said "Really? So what's your mom's name? et al... His behavior screamed *12 year old making machine gun noises*, I tell ya.

And that's why I wish they would have made graw2 more tac-sim like...to bore the run and gunners into not playing. Keep a more mature audience interested in tactics and advanced game play.

[Cell]

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.

Yeah, kind of like the system they have in AA.... your wounded, and your health drains slowly....medic stops that, so you can regain your compsure. When your wounded in AA, or out of breath it affects your aim and shot negatively. Something similar needs to be applied to the GRAW series. I mean we have all screamed about a wound model since the beginning of GRAW ...and nothing. Shoot an enemy, and he can still run away full sprint, then turn and fire accurately.... = NG.

Just because it is not here now doesn't mean it will never be there. The title is a few years old...yes, but perfection takes time. And I have not played one FPS title that I have found "has it all." Video games are here to stay, and FPS games are starting to really take shape with advances in Graphical and sound technology and because it is not right now doesn't mean it can't be fixed down the line. When all the eye and sound candy is perfected, maybe the meat potatoes and side dishes will be perfected. No need to throw in the towel. Just keep requesting the features you would like to see. Maybe the most popular ones will be heard eventually.

Just a side note: Halo 3 - Xbox 360. The most pre-ordered game to date. This the signature FPS of the 360? Now I really like the 360...great system, but after being an FPS player on the PC for so long, I really wonder, what is the Fuss about Halo? It is rather bleh, from what I have played so far. And people I know that have never played FPS on a PC have said..."Halo3 is sick!". So, I bought it.and $60 later I wonder why....I don't get the hype. The sales figures of Halo3 can't be overlooked by game companies....yet to players like most of us that want some kind of realism.....Halo 3 is mediocre at best. Though it does have some really cool features outside of its gameplay.

I don't think what we as Ghost Recon fanatics want, is something that can be developed in a short amount of time. Whoever gets the job for GRAW 3 or GhR3 needs to be given adequate time to really deliver a winner. BTW: A multi platform release on the same day might be a good idea as well.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Cell*AFZ*

[V.P.]

The first post was very well put Krise, and you pretty much nailed it. I agree on the most part.

[sui317]

i think ubi wants to sell it to the old gr players and atract new players, and fear that if it were to be a Tac Sim, that only fewer copies would be sold as a shooter has more audience,

secondly i think that grin is capable of making a good tac sim, but i doubt they would ever get the freedom to do so.

third, looking at the front page here seeing that RPGhard has got interviewed because he has been the most downloaded modder, i think we also have to look at the game attitude amoungst players,

RPG hard makes fun coop games, but are far from [GR] coop games.

this only shows or a lack of modders making [GR] style coop maps/missions, or that the majority of players will settle for the shoot em up coop. (this is not ment as any negative critic to RPGhard as i am thankfull for his efforts and modding, but it is not near [GR] coop for me.)

so where do we go from here ? i still enjoy graw2, but like many have said, you get from one kill zone to the next though if i remember my moscow/red square a bit, it was also like that, so maybe it is inherent to the city fighting. (or we are all just claustrofobic)

but i would like to see grin push it one time more. cause the improvements they made were good, (just that coop kit... that sucks and a few little things)

and i do think they can make a tac sim, but would ubi let them ?(in a grin graw3 case)

[Colin]

For my money, the only replayable SP level in GRAW2 was "Get me Rosen"... that was an open map and I enjoyed it tremendously, but it wasn't a large map (lots of open space, yes, but it wasn't a map filled with environment to interact with). "Get me Rosen" showed me the POTENTIAL for GRAW2, but that ended up hurting more because the rest of the SP gameplay was so scripted. I've played Rosen several times, trying different strategies, weapons, etc. But that's only ONE map. After the sixth time I'm now bored with that, too.

A set of TRULY open maps like [GR], plus patches to fix the existing issues, plus some SERIOUS re-think of equipment and kit issues... and GRAW2 "could" be a fairly worthy successor to [GR]. With what we have now? No.

-John K.

This post sums up my feel of the game really well, only this mission came close to [GR], the stealth and tension at the start was perfect, it did fall down a bit ie rosen was definatly a noob no prone or avoidance skills lol.

The problem the game was made for all types of gamer, pity.

[The Blueberry_EBDA]

I think all of this is because they realesed the game in Eu on Friday the 13th. Personaly,with grins small budget They did good.Its just getting to boring.I wouldnt be surprised to see a massive patch or a expansion about the time Call of duty comes out in november.If not,then poop.Cod looks like a Xbox port though.

Speaking of single player.I think no game can capture the thrill that [GR] provided.It is so old and such. But I wish they would try.You got to admit we are nastalgic about those days.[GR] was the first FPS to capture my imagination.Now its run and gun.Who has the highest frame-rate wins.Bull.There still is a market for technical games.We are right here.

Edit: 20% should at least give them 1 person on the Board

Edited October 3, 2007 by The Blueberry

[gunter]

I propose a new MP mission schema :

a hundred of customers wait for 4 Ghost Ubisoft programmers inside a city where only a unique path is allowed.

I would like to have fun seeing how their creature could be reversed against themselves,in this case I would bet 100 euros that they will die at least 10 times each before reaching the end.

We have the same tactical approach inside Graw 2 , maybe this mission could convince them to incline the game more to a tactical approach instead of a shoot'n'up plenty of ambushes and ambushes and only ambushes.

They simply labeled this game wrongly,the correct name is RAMBO 2.

[krise madsen]

I propose a new MP mission schema :

a hundred of customers wait for 4 Ghost Ubisoft programmers inside a city where only a unique path is allowed.

I would like to have fun seeing how their creature could be reversed against themselves,in this case I would bet 100 euros that they will die at least 10 times each before reaching the end.

We have the same tactical approach inside Graw 2 , maybe this mission could convince them to incline the game more to a tactical approach instead of a shoot'n'up plenty of ambushes and ambushes and only ambushes.

They simply labeled this game wrongly,the correct name is RAMBO 2.

Again, the problem isn't merely maps/missions, IMHO. That's just a symptom. I see a fundamental faliure by GRIN/Ubi (whomever the finger should be pointed at, I have no idea and it doesn't really matter to us end users anyway) to grasp the concept of a tac-sim shooter. Adding more path options won't solve the issue.

Respectfully

krise madsen

And yes, you can make a true, playable, entertaining and alltogether excellent tac-sim within the basic GRAW story premise. But you have to start completely from scratch by analyzing the three keywords: "Tom Clancy's", "Ghost Recon" and "Advanced Warfighter".

Edited October 4, 2007 by krise madsen

[kretzj]

I think my primary concern began when Ubi slapped the "Advanced Warfighter" tag on the game.

Ghost Recon ....

Ghost, as in "not really there"... spectral entities.... did you see them?

Recon, as in "sometimes you don't want to fire a single shot"... intel, sniper, counterintelligence, spec-ops

But "Advanced Warfighter" brings images of Quake.... run-n-gun FPS... all sci-fi, no tactics or stealth...

IMHO, the franchise lost it's soul with GRAW 1...

-John K.

[gunter]

I think my primary concern began when Ubi slapped the "Advanced Warfighter" tag on the game.

Ghost Recon ....

Ghost, as in "not really there"... spectral entities.... did you see them?

Recon, as in "sometimes you don't want to fire a single shot"... intel, sniper, counterintelligence, spec-ops

But "Advanced Warfighter" brings images of Quake.... run-n-gun FPS... all sci-fi, no tactics or stealth...

IMHO, the franchise lost it's soul with GRAW 1...

-John K.

That statement summarizes the whole concept in a excellent way,I am only astonished that Tom Clancy could permit such an " arcadization " of his games or at least as you pointed out they should have changed the name to " Quake Marines " or something like that.

[kretzj]

I think my primary concern began when Ubi slapped the "Advanced Warfighter" tag on the game.

Ghost Recon ....

Ghost, as in "not really there"... spectral entities.... did you see them?

Recon, as in "sometimes you don't want to fire a single shot"... intel, sniper, counterintelligence, spec-ops

But "Advanced Warfighter" brings images of Quake.... run-n-gun FPS... all sci-fi, no tactics or stealth...

IMHO, the franchise lost it's soul with GRAW 1...

-John K.

That statement summarizes the whole concept in a excellent way,I am only astonished that Tom Clancy could permit such an " arcadization " of his games or at least as you pointed out they should have changed the name to " Quake Marines " or something like that.

Tom Clancy has ZERO to do with the game. He licensed his name to the original and Ubi retains the legal rights to continue using it. As long as they use "Ghost Recon" in the title, they can call it "Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon". That's one reason why they may never STOP using Ghost Recon... that would mean the end of the license agreement with Clancy to use his name for this franchise. I'm assuming the license agreements for other franchises are separate.

-John K.

[krise madsen]

I think my primary concern began when Ubi slapped the "Advanced Warfighter" tag on the game.

Ghost Recon ....

Ghost, as in "not really there"... spectral entities.... did you see them?

Recon, as in "sometimes you don't want to fire a single shot"... intel, sniper, counterintelligence, spec-ops

But "Advanced Warfighter" brings images of Quake.... run-n-gun FPS... all sci-fi, no tactics or stealth...

IMHO, the franchise lost it's soul with GRAW 1...

-John K.

Ah, but you equal "Advanced Warfighter" to over-the-top sci-fi action. I don't. You could strip away all the Advanced Warfighter stuff and the game wouldn't change one little bit.

Here's my take on it:

"Tom Clancy's": Contemporary setting. US protagonists. Usually elite or special ops military personnel). Some sort of regional/global threat, be it nation states or terrorists, possibly involving weapons of mass destruction. Realistic (realtively speaking, i.e. no "ZOMG secret alien technology death ray" stuff). Technology always works and wins the day.

"Ghost Recon" (not literally but as it relates to the computer game): True tac-sim (as opposed to slowed-down conventional FPS): Realistic (or realism-oriented). Squad based w/squad control. Soul-switching (contested subject, I know, but it works for SP, trust me ). Non-linear, open-ended map/mission design. Stealth and camouflage (to an extent). Equal emphasis on SP, co-op and MP. Highly moddable. Extensive server/host options. Extensive MP lobby/laddering e.c.t. Oh, and NORG

"Advanced Warfighter": Note that it's not "Future Warrior" or "Objective Force Warrior" or somesuch, but a Ubi-made-up term, which offers a bit of creative freedom (but adhering to the other buzzwords you can't go sci-fi crazy). Enhanced navigation and communication (actually not important since it already features in most FPS). Night vision and thermal imagery. Unmanned areial- and ground vehicles (several versions, some armed). Unattended ground sensors and munitions. Remote camera viewing (rifle camera, unmanned vehicles, helmet cam, survelliance aircraft e.c.t.). Airburst grenades. Direct target designation for standoff weapons (cruise missiles, precision guided bombs/arty e.c.t.). And probably a few more I've forgotten about . In a true tac-sim the AW tech actually makes a difference. In a conventional shooters it's just window dressing.

Respectfully

krise madsen

Edited October 4, 2007 by krise madsen

[gunter]

I think my primary concern began when Ubi slapped the "Advanced Warfighter" tag on the game.

Ghost Recon ....

Ghost, as in "not really there"... spectral entities.... did you see them?

Recon, as in "sometimes you don't want to fire a single shot"... intel, sniper, counterintelligence, spec-ops

But "Advanced Warfighter" brings images of Quake.... run-n-gun FPS... all sci-fi, no tactics or stealth...

IMHO, the franchise lost it's soul with GRAW 1...

-John K.

That statement summarizes the whole concept in a excellent way,I am only astonished that Tom Clancy could permit such an " arcadization " of his games or at least as you pointed out they should have changed the name to " Quake Marines " or something like that.

Tom Clancy has ZERO to do with the game. He licensed his name to the original and Ubi retains the legal rights to continue using it. As long as they use "Ghost Recon" in the title, they can call it "Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon". That's one reason why they may never STOP using Ghost Recon... that would mean the end of the license agreement with Clancy to use his name for this franchise. I'm assuming the license agreements for other franchises are separate.

-John K.

Here you are not completely right IMO because you know Tom, his intellective skills are quite developed and for sure he is not in urgent needing of money therefore you can't release garbage naming it ghost recon just because Ubi has bought the rights. Tom is a brand name and it is a guarantee of a certain level of quality in terms of realism and if Ubi releases garbage Tom can sue them for sure and his possibilities to win are around 100 %.

Told that he must have trusted them too much and I hope that he will kick someone in the ass to have arcadized Ghost Recon to a Quake level.

[Papa6]

Tom clancy actually sold the rights to Ghost recon name to Ubisoft.

[gunter]

Tom clancy actually sold the rights to Ghost recon name to Ubisoft.

Uhh, I wasn't aware of that, now everything is clear to me...

[krise madsen]

Warning to animal lovers: Dead horse beating in progress.

Mainly as an experiement, I fired up Far Cry last night. Of course, I only played though the first couple of missions until I reached the cave with the bloody Trigens.

From the moment I stepped outside the ruin onto the first island, it yet again struck me how much potential the CryENGINE has as the basis of a tac-sim. Admittedly, the mission design is rather linear and the map makers are just a little too fond of funneling the player through specific paths. But the potential is there. I feel I can almost see the Ghosts popping out of a Zodiac at the nearby beach and sneak up on the mercenary camp.

CryTek has moved on to bigger and better things. Fine, best of luck to ya . But Far Cry/CryENGINE is still a thermonuclear bomb of tac-sim potential that is being ignored while everyone nervously eyes the little firecracker in the corner.

*drops stick and walks away from horse cadaver*

Respectfully

krise madsen

EDIT: The Far Cry revisit also gave me renewed respect and admiration for CryTek. I just hate that they always stuff their games with mutants or aliens. Damned Krauts!

Edited October 5, 2007 by krise madsen

[WhiteKnight77]

I just read where Bungie left Microsoft with MS holding a small stake. Maybe RSE can try and do the same thing?!

[Nutlink]

Wouldn't be the same, a lot of the RSE guys that worked on Raven Shield, [GR], R6, etc are gone, so it's basically pointless. All they would have is the RSE name. And remember the last PC version of a Clancy game they released? Letdown?

[semprogno]

are ended the patch of graw2?

no new maps?

no correction bug?

grin!! where you are ??????

[kretzj]

Wouldn't be the same, a lot of the RSE guys that worked on Raven Shield, [GR], R6, etc are gone, so it's basically pointless. All they would have is the RSE name. And remember the last PC version of a Clancy game they released? Letdown?

Agreed. I'm not sure if the rumor about RSE taking over the Ghost Recon PC franchise is good or not, to be honest, for the very reasons Nutlink mentions... that being most of the people are long gone and RSE has been doing a LOT of console work these days.

Hate to sound like a broken record (unless a Ubi or GRiN rep is reading this...) but GRAW 2 isn't bad... but we need bug fixes, some minor changes to gameplay (some work on kit restrictions and such to be sure), and...

C O N T E N T

GRAW 1 was a mess. GRAW 2 has a LOT of potential. It's unfair for Ubi or GRiN to EXPECT the modding community to save this game. Give us content, patches and some gameplay updates (sure would be nice to have the option of playing ALL maps in all modes!) and there's a decent chance GRAW 2 can survive.

If they don't do this? I give the game another 4 to 6 weeks and the MP community will be an even bigger wasteland than it is right now. And THEN we all get to make the hard decision... the patient is on life-support at that point... do we "pull the plug" and mercifully put it out of it's misery (for me that would be uninstalling it and moving on)... ?

-John K.

[FI_FlimFlam]

I'll wade in here and try to give you my view of the game. Aside from the hollywood cinematic story-esque gameplay which is still very linear, there are many other issues with the game that are holding it back and continue to frustrate players and server admins.

With GRAW2 the game changed quite a bit. What I find interesting was that GRAW1 while it had it's issues, had alot of promise. If they had improved the scripting of the missions a bit more, tweaked the movement and gun handling, and improved the dedicated server and hosting options. Instead they scrapped MOST of GRAW1 infavor of the new "one structure for all multiplayer". While this gives alot more flexibility in the scripting and running different gamemodes without restarting the server, most of the good things from GRAW1 have been ripped out and discarded.

As a server host, I can say for a few steps forward we have taken several twice the steps back. We lost autodownload, we cannot perform any kind of simple restrictions. You must rebundle maps or create mods to do a simple weapon/kit restriction how cumbersome is that? Mods still require people editing files to activate further discouraging the use of them. Then there is no logging to speak of. What about remote admin? Preloading bundles and map bloat. Having to restart the server (will be the same with GRAW2 I imagine) after a autodownload. All of these things are problems and annoyances to server admins and players.

The improvements to the dedicated server such as ports and screenshots were nice but don't make up for the missing or removed capabilities that we had before. Grin has made the hosting a server a barebones endeavor that you can only do the most basic of things with. Heck even their server config files require you to find the setting and add it to it. No documentation what so ever. Then if you want to change or tweak your server in some cases you must be able to unbundle and bundle files to perform kit restrictions. This is not a simple or even remotely friendly endeavor with very little choices given to the novice admin.

Compared to other game engines, hosting GRAW is very difficult and extremely limited in what the admin can do. We have told them what we wanted to see with GRAW1 from the beta, but most of it has not been implemented. I believe that the choices they made to implement, were the wrong ones and the community and hosting GRAW in general would have been better served by focusing on other things and making it easier to host and administrate then what they have done with GRAW2

I think GRAW2 improved the player movement and graphics, single player is improved in players abilities to command the ghosts. Weapon handling and accuracy went to heck which is a disappointment.

Coop has been gutted. Simply put. Gutted. Lack of player choice is a common complaint at this point. We argued a while back about the removal the weapon outfitting and many of the adversarial players got on their soapbox and defended it for coop, but many of the coop only have voiced their feelings as well and I think it's pretty clear that it was a mistake to remove them from coop. Then there was the removal of squads and spawn on leader. Yet another bad decision for the gametype and removed one of if not the best teamwork fostering feature for public servers.

While we still have a server up, I hardly play GRAW2 any more. The reason, I'm bored with it. It's the same thing over and over again. The same maps, with the same weapons and limitations with no variation because of the kits. In adversarial, you find 2 maybe 3 kits that work for you and that's it. Then it's the same thing over and over again ad nauseum. Coop is the same thing.

I don't know, but GRAW2 is missing something that GRAW1 had. I could probably go on and on about this and that which I think may be it. But it doesn't matter. All that matters is that "something" is gone, and I have all but stopped playing. Unless something changes I don't know how much longer our COOP server will be up as that our membership has for the most part also moved on to other games. I'm just waiting for the next patch to see if anything is really improved. Unfortunately I'm not sure if with the current design of the game that's it's going to be possible to get that "something" back.

Edited October 6, 2007 by FI_FlimFlam

[krise madsen]

Just for the sake of repeating myself:

I truly believe the fundamental problem is that GRIN does not truly understand what a tac-sim is. Everything else is, IMHO, a question of tweaking and polishing.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Demanufakture]

I haven't posted here in a while because I've been too busy playing games. I just want to say again, thanks to GRIN for making my favorite special ops sim games GRAW and GRAW2. I think both games are fine the way they are, of course there are bugs but what game doesn't have bugs? The PC versions of GRAW and GRAW2 are my favorite special ops sims right now and I just want to give thanks to GRIN again. I know many of you don't share my opinion but honestly I don't care. I love GRAW and GRAW2 pc and I am done talking about it now. Cheers.

Edited October 7, 2007 by Demanufakture