Are you interested in GR:AW3?

[doubletap]

Face it Guys, GR1 is dead and never will be again. GRAW 2 is a new game. In GRAW 1 i hated it because it wasn't GR1. Until i got over the fact and realized it was a fun "NEW" game. I got my moneys worth out of GRAW 1 and 2, even with some of the bugs.. i've had a blast.

I can't say the same.

1. No SP/co-op replay value on all but a couple maps.

2. painfully overbearing storyline, compounded x10 by that blasted annoying narcom.

3. missions in general lack every bit of the feel that GR is known for. Too many reasons to list.

By the time I had installed the mods I needed to somewhat make the game playable (Bretzzies M4 and the NoCom mod) I had already played through the campaign a few times, but the missions get old so fast when there's only one or two ways to play them.

BTW I have my suspisions about that too. The game obviously seems designed to be played for only a few months, after which we should all be ready to buy something new. I have some news for you Ubi, that aint working on me, baby. I'm already looking elsewhere.

Edited November 27, 2007 by doubletap

[Nutlink]

@ nutlink

I disagree. The game engine has plenty of sizable issues. Especially when you compare it to other top end engines.

For the player - draw distance limitations, resource usage and high end requirements (granted that is becoming less of an issue as more time rolls by but look at COD4 and Crysis and how people with lower spec rigs can play it acceptably), connectivity and netcode issues, AC that spazzes out and kicks sometimes randomly, server brower listing servers is off and doesn't filter or list mods in a coherent way, mod "activation" is archaic and VERY difficult for non-technical users, no autodownload for maps, some gamemodes are "broken" according to some players (Campaign COOP for example).

For the server host: No easy kit or weapon restrictions, mods are difficult and confusing to implement and get players to play on your server, screenshots do not work fully, no server logging (screenshot logs do not count I'm speaking of other information), low player retention because there is no autodownload to push custom maps to clients, AC is flakey and players still get random kicks as well as synch issues with it and it's not updated regularly...

General design issues: Bundle system is a MESS. Creates map bloat and increased loading times which can also create client synch issues on modded servers or large custom maps - this forces the client to manually rotate maps to keep loading times down and to allieviate synch issues if they have a large number of maps loaded. If the autodownload is ever provided, the bundle system forces a complete game restart after download because it cannot be added to the "loaded" bundles in memory.

Maps and Mods - difficult to make custom maps and VERY difficult to make custom content. Not impossible but if it were easier, you would see much more content like from UE engine. Crytek's sandbox is going to be very easy to use from the looks of it and they will have LOADS of content from it as a result.

Those are just a few I quickly came up with without much thought. They are also the same ones many people have complained about since GRAW1 and nothing has changed.

As we have seen in GRAW 1, the engine is capable of a higher draw distance (done via mods), map auto-downloads, weapon restrictions, screen shots, server logs, and a lot of the issues people had in GRAW 1. It was game design, not engine flaws that caused a lot of the issues. Heck, even PB could have been implemented earlier on if they wanted to instead of relying on a once or twice updated internal AC. Every engine has issues that are usually fixed with the next revision, but between the time it took to produce GRAW 1 and GRAW 2 I doubt the engine changed a lot (hence the still mess with increased load times on custom maps and resource usage).

[Manure_BAC]

Wow! I couldn't agree more!

All I've been seeing since Rainbow Six 3:Raven Shield is basically toss together console quick money making titles that thrive on the PC game titles successes and seem to be "So Appealing" to the inexperienced so called "gamers" on console systems (They have little to no PC gaming experience so poor quality to them is like impossibly amazing!) and the ports to the PC were not much more than a desperate attempt to say "PC people, we haven't forgotten about you... completely yet."

My clan has already agreed that if Ubisoft doesn't get it together and bring quality and passion back into their PC game products (like the good old days when Parallax Software was breaking new ground on 360° gaming) that we are not buying any more Ubisoft titles.

woflsong told me many moons ago, i think during the GRAW1 days that Ubisoft controlled every aspect of the game.

which makes me wonder what ubisoft really wants from it's titles. It's obvious at this point that Ubisoft couldn't develop a good title to save their lives. as business goes, if they were taken over by another Dev or just fall by the way side, that might change the face of the community of developers. they got too big. they lack real vision and imagination.

they seem like McDonalds to me, one on every corner but more importantly, the lost the concept of quality for quantity.

a revolution is healthy and helps change things. perhaps PC'ers dropping ubisoft titles completely would send a signal.

[RAbbi_74]

No. Flatly and absolutely not. I didn't spend any on the current installment, which I only own courtesy of one of my wonderful teammates (THANKS RET!).

If Ubi/GRIN decided to develop a standalone sequel/prequel to DooM or F.E.A.R, for instance, it might be worth some money. They do LINEAR, MINDLESS SP campaigns very well.

No offense.

[Guest]

exactly. What's the point in putting the W,D,A, and S buttons if it's so linear? Like I said before, I might as well go play that arcade "Area 51" game thing.

[FI_FlimFlam]

For the player - draw distance limitations, resource usage and high end requirements (granted that is becoming less of an issue as more time rolls by but look at COD4 and Crysis and how people with lower spec rigs can play it acceptably).....

That, my friend, is because COD4 is so utterly scripted and linear there is practically NO strain on the CPU at all. Very simply, the CPU is not being tasked to compute and process anything but geometry. That's why games that lean toward simulation always more or less have graphics that leave something to be desired, because there has to be some compromise to allow the CPU to process A.I, environments, etc etc.

@bigcat and doubletab,

I understand the scripted part and the reduced CPU from the AI. But you have almost completely missed my point. COD4 also leans heavily on the graphics hit when you start to turn up the options. However, you can lower them and get much better performance on lower spec rigs. Also you blantantly ignored my reference to Crysis another Graphically intensive with lots of physics and does hit the CPU pretty hard but it scales MUCH better than GRAW or GRAW2 on lower spec rigs. The point is, that there are new games out there that are "cutting edge" and people are able to get better performance than GRAW1&2 on their computers and people who cannot run GRAW1&2 can run COD4 and Crysis. That is what I'm speaking of. Regardless of the scripted nature and and the AI hit on the processor. There is much more that can affect performance than those 2 things.

Besides that is only one point out of many that I chose to list. Even if it were wrong (which it isn't), it still doesn't invalidate the rest of the problems with the game engine.

Regarding Draw distance, while it's not a deal breaker or game breaker for most. But for some, like Papa it can be. Draw Distance can be bothersome and is most prevalent to COOP players because it really only affects you if you are playing against AI. If you do not play COOP then most likely you do not really experience since in Adversarial gametypes, everyone has that same limitation. However, stepping back and looking at the game and realizing that you can only see 150m regardless of the scope you have, it kind of makes no sense coming from a game that supposedly long range sniper rifles. I understand the implemetation of it relative to the damage distance (according to wolfsong you cannot hit something outside of draw distance) for performance reasons. However, it's one of things that just seems wrong when you think tactical semi-realistic FPS/simulation yet you cannot see or shoot further than 150m with a sniper rifle? Come now, that just doesn't make sense. What would everyone have thought if they read that on the side of the box of GRAW. Better yet, what if Blackfoot Studios, puts it on the side of the box of ground breach. All the firearm detail nuts would go ballistic.

As we have seen in GRAW 1, the engine is capable of a higher draw distance (done via mods), map auto-downloads, weapon restrictions, screen shots, server logs, and a lot of the issues people had in GRAW 1. It was game design, not engine flaws that caused a lot of the issues. Heck, even PB could have been implemented earlier on if they wanted to instead of relying on a once or twice updated internal AC. Every engine has issues that are usually fixed with the next revision, but between the time it took to produce GRAW 1 and GRAW 2 I doubt the engine changed a lot (hence the still mess with increased load times on custom maps and resource usage).

You are quite right and I should have remembered that one. I do feel that even though this would be a "feature" not a flaw, it should have been changed or fixed given the nature and concept of the game. GRIN is the one who, I think for performance reasons, chose not to change it. But let's not confuse feature already implemented but is restricted by a setting and ones that simply are not included and must be added by changing the code. Draw Distance could be increased by changing some config files (at least in GRAW1 I never saw mod that did the same in GRAW2 but for the sake of argument I'll say it's the same). But verbose server logging and administration, require code to be changed in the engine. Screenshots being broken allowing people to avoid screenshots because of their in game name is a flaw in the current design. Sure it probably will be easy to fix but it's still a flaw in the current version of the engine that, SO FAR, has not been.

I believe that GRIN did a fair amount of restructuring the engine, not wholesale re-writing it, but I do think they changed a fair amount. The new blanket game design for all MP, multiple objectives, restructuring the bundles, etc. I think this probably took up the bulk of their time and took a fair amount of coding and testing to flesh out. However, I think that it created more issues than is solved or added features to the game. It also destroyed COOP IMO but that is just me.

Between GRAW1 and 2 I felt very optimistic about GRAW2. GRIN seemed to listen to us and respond to our critiques and requests. After the 1.35 beta I was of the opinion, that most of what we saw as issues would be noted and fixed but for GRAW2 as that they just didn't have the green light from UBI to make sweeping changes like some of them would require. I was willing to believe that they would make those changes, however, they did not. I do not know if it was UBI who did not allow them to or if it was internal decisions. In the end, it just doesn't matter. What matters is that what ultimately was changed wasn't what was needed or asked for. Some of the changes like performance increases and the RvA gametype were welcome. But others like seemed like, we could have done without if they had just added the administrative and performance perks to GRAW1 that we were asking for with content and bug fixes.

As it stands, given UBI's track record with TC titles (amazingly on the bug ridden console versions of GRAW and Vegas), I would not purchase GRAW3. I don't care if GRIN were to do it, I think their engine just isn't on the same level as other engines on the PC. Maybe if they can develop console games where nothing changes it's good, but I wouldn't want it for another multiplayer PC game because if it's limitations and current feature set. If RSE were to develop a GRAW3, I do not think I would run out to get it either because, remember they have focused solely on console development for the last few years. They created Lockdown which was terrible. I just don't know if I trust them to make a good TC PC title anymore.

For me to even consider it, GRAW3 is going to have to be getting amazing reviews here and else where and the administration and hosting has to be greatly improved for me to even look at it again. Otherwise, barring a miracle, the series is in the ground for me - right alongside Rainbow Six.....

[mwgfghost]

Way too many words to read, flim. It would have been good if you just posted the last tiny article about how you'd only consider buying a GRAW 3 if it was getting amazing reviews. I thought my posts were long.

[FI_FlimFlam]

Yeah I get a just a little "long winded" sometimes but I do have thoughts I need to express. It's really not that much and I felt I needed to touch on points from other's posts so it is what it is. LOL.

[mwgfghost]

Yeah I know how you feel. I do the same thing. Mean to touch on a few things other people said and somewhere along the way I give my opinion and it's like "This story continues on page A12" LOL But yeah this is a real touchy subject. When I first saw the M416 was in GRAW 2, I was like "No way. I have to get this game now." Cause the SCAR systems are cool and all but I remember seeing so many vids on the 416 and how you rarely had to clean it and how some parts stayed cool even after you put so many rounds through it. I noticed in Snow's thread for his Masada mod, people are asking him to bring in the 417 which is the 7.62 variant of the 416. Not really a variant. Guess you could say it's the 416's older brother. And a lot of people touched on the draw distance with GRAW 1 and it was never really a problem in that game so I brushed it off. And I also noticed in this game, the soldiers were fielding ACUs instead of multicam. A lot of people favor multicam cause it is efficient but I really love the ACUs and for the environments listen in GRAW 2, I thought it was the perfect uniform. So I played the SP demo and first thing I noticed was no first person insertion. I was like "Hopefully it's just that mission" and bought it anyways. The game was so easy, I beat it in like 2 or 3 days. Still til this day, I have not been able to beat GRAW 1. And not only that, the only first person helicopter insertion wasn't even that great. Cuts from a cinematic clip to you suddenly fastroping down right down in front of fifty cals and whatnot. My guys almost got killed on the rope down. That's when it hit me that this was like ###### Hollywood. And I did like how you had to fight alongside Mexican loyalists cause that's kinda what Green Berets do. Except they usually train em first and gain their trust. I'm not 100% sure that's all they do. Just going by the few books I've read and the ex-Green Beret Vietnam veteran my brother works with from time to time. And I know this is a fictional team but most ODA's have twelve men. In the PS2 version of GR, I had atleast six men. I heard for the PC version, you had nine. If you ask me, I think Ubi was taking a step toward making this series like SOCOM: US Navy SEALs. That's pretty much what the console version is. And if you're the top ODA, leading ahead all the other teams, you'd probably have air support on call most of the time. So yeah flim I think me and you have something in common with getting carried away easily. I really do think they took the step toward making it like SOCOM for consoles. Cause when I had it for PS2, there were hardly any players online. But SOCOM was always crowded. Why? Cause console players can't handle a tactical sim/FPS. Look at the Halo series. Run n gun FPS. San Dimas Highschool football rules!

[The Blueberry_EBDA]

Yes I will.For one Grins not working on it.Ubi knows what we want.But,there going to make it to appeal to more people.That mindset is why we got Graw 2.This web site and all of us who play Graw2 could make that game, they dont want to make, great.Come on UBI.You put out the game we asked for,Ill buy 6 copies myself.

Edited November 27, 2007 by The Blueberry

[NoQuarter]

I thought my posts were long.

They are, trust me. You could throw in rambling as well.

Brevity, it's a lost art.

____

I had hoped we could limit this to just the members interest in a hypothetical 3rd installment of the :AW series, based on the previous Ubi/GRIN track record, and not another thread of should of/could ofs or wish lists; they've already been done to death here and elsewhere, and to no affect.

[mwgfghost]

Yeah I kinda cleared that up in my last post, quarter. And you can't make a poll like this and not expect people to put in wishlists and shoulda couldas. Shoulda learned that a while ago. Just messin with ya. But GRAW 2 was a big letdown and although we've lost almost all hope for a new game [GR] style, there's still that small tidbit that holds hope for a new great game. It's just so annoying that we were stripped of RSE and given GRIN. I mean GRIN did a great job but I don't think Ubi really funded em that well. And I think people are gonna wait to see what the reviews and all say before they consider buying another Ubi game. I'm gonna wait til after the first(possibly even the second) patch comes out to see whether or not I should buy it. But the majority are saying they probably won't and I'm leaning that way too.

[Tinker]

I thought my posts were long.

They are, trust me. You could throw in rambling as well.

Brevity, it's a lost art.

____

I had hoped we could limit this to just the members interest in a hypothetical 3rd installment of the :AW series, based on the previous Ubi/GRIN track record, and not another thread of should of/could ofs or wish lists; they've already been done to death here and elsewhere, and to no affect.

Agreed.

[RAbbi_74]

should of/could ofs or wish lists; they've already been done to death here and elsewhere, and to no affect.

Precisely and sadly one of the AW series' biggest problems- for PC it never really addressed what the PC gamer wanted from it so much as it addressed what some Ubisoft art director wanted. For that it gets an A, but for overall effect it's clearly been a failure effort through two installments...

[Tri_Tard]

i think if RSE came back to doing some PC games and they chose to do a GR, if they really tried they would accomplish way more than ubi/grin. RSE made GR2 and i played it for the xbox and it was good. i certaintly played it for a longer period of time than GRAW2. the games just dont have enough SP replay values either. sure you can play the campaign COOP or increase the difficulty but you eventually know where all the bots are going to be even though they supposedly are never in the same spot

or maybe we should just give up on GR and make COD4 the new GR ive heard it is really good. maybe activision should do GR

[WhiteKnight77]

mwgfghost, I have seen you repeatedly state that you would like to see more BDU's in game like MARPAT. Well, a US Army based unit would not use US Marine uniforms. If a game features a US Army unit, I expect them to wear a US Army uniform and not one of a hundred different designs as you request.

[mwgfghost]

Dude, where did I say that? I said I think it would be good to have to be able to customize your characters' skins to give people other options cause I know not everybody likes the ACUs but I've constantly said that I like the ACUs so whatever. I just lmao thanx, dude.

[doubletap]

For the player - draw distance limitations, resource usage and high end requirements (granted that is becoming less of an issue as more time rolls by but look at COD4 and Crysis and how people with lower spec rigs can play it acceptably).....

That, my friend, is because COD4 is so utterly scripted and linear there is practically NO strain on the CPU at all. Very simply, the CPU is not being tasked to compute and process anything but geometry. That's why games that lean toward simulation always more or less have graphics that leave something to be desired, because there has to be some compromise to allow the CPU to process A.I, environments, etc etc.

@bigcat and doubletab,

I understand the scripted part and the reduced CPU from the AI. But you have almost completely missed my point. COD4 also leans heavily on the graphics hit when you start to turn up the options. However, you can lower them and get much better performance on lower spec rigs. Also you blantantly ignored my reference to Crysis another Graphically intensive with lots of physics and does hit the CPU pretty hard but it scales MUCH better than GRAW or GRAW2 on lower spec rigs. The point is, that there are new games out there that are "cutting edge" and people are able to get better performance than GRAW1&2 on their computers and people who cannot run GRAW1&2 can run COD4 and Crysis. That is what I'm speaking of. Regardless of the scripted nature and and the AI hit on the processor. There is much more that can affect performance than those 2 things.

Besides that is only one point out of many that I chose to list. Even if it were wrong (which it isn't), it still doesn't invalidate the rest of the problems with the game engine.

I was agreeing with bigcat about COD4 because what he said is spot on, regarding the reason for having much less performance hit, this is the case with all linear games with such little physics and no real A.I. It's something I've been wanting to point out but never had reason in this forum. I've never seen Crysis so I had no comment to give. You have a good point about the scaling down for performance though, I just think with COD in particular it has to be clarified that it is not a great example of a good "performing" game. It's entirely different from graw2, the only similarities being superficial (modern combat concept, shooting), and the comparison is unfair.

The point is, that there are new games out there that are "cutting edge"

See that's my point; COD4's cutting edge status is unwarrented as long as you're comparing it to a game which is so much more cpu intensive. Completely different ballparks. A comparable game would be MOH or something. But COD4 vs graw2 is like Ace Combat vs Combat Flight Sim. (not to give graw that much credit as a sim, but you get my drift)

Edited November 28, 2007 by doubletap

[doubletap]

or maybe we should just give up on GR and make COD4 the new GR ive heard it is really good. maybe activision should do GR

I can't tell if you're joking or not. I hope so. GRAW2 could be better, as far as more like Ghost Recon, but that COD4 arcade garbage is .....well I can't continue without cursing every other word, so......

Seriously people, I'm disapointed how many times that arcade game is mentioned in this forum. I swear if they came out with a Mario Brothers Urban Combat, there would be discusions like "the multiplayer is so much fun in MBUC, the next GR should have those types of features like heat seeking bullets, spider web grenades, and invisibility power ups.

Edited November 28, 2007 by doubletap

[Nutlink]

CoD4 is fun and all, but the much toted "hardcore" mode is anything but. All it is is normal Call of Duty 4 without a HUD and higher weapon damage. That's it. The constant jumping, run and gun, twitch shooting is all still there. Personally it feels faster paced than even Unreal Tournament 3 does right now. There really is nothing to compare GRAW 2 to because there is nothing in that category right now. The only thing I'm really looking forward to is Blackfoot Studios creation that is looking better and better with every update.

[Peace]

If a 3rd GRAW title would appear, which I severely doubt, I would be interested to check it out-Yes.

By the way, currently I have completely dropped GRAW 2 for COD4 (mostly hardcore mode), not because it is better gameplay, but there is a fully functional T vs T MP, with map numbers, options, variability, user friendly and functional interface, players etc. The COD4 MP T vs T game and content is more solid than GRAW or GRAW 2 ever came to be after all patching.

The damage model in COD 4 (as in the GRAW series) suck, and the game is way too fast for my taste, but I still enjoy it even if I suck badly at this "high-mobility-twitch-and-shoot-game" .

Ground Branch looks more promising day by day as there is definitely something missing on the market.

[thales100]

Ground Branch looks more promising day by day as there is definitely something missing on the market.

Absolutely.

[doubletap]

Ground Branch looks more promising day by day as there is definitely something missing on the market.

I don't know; Ground Branch . . . . . . COD5 . . . . . halo4 . . . . . tough decision that will be, deciding on which game in THAT genre I want most.

[deco147]

Are you interested in GR:AW3? YES!

The real problems with GRAW2 PC are:

1) Hardcore gamers do not have the power to set up their servers exactly how they desire. A monumental mistake, I just cannot understand why they did that.

2) Too few maps.

3) GRAW2 has a ‘poor’ deathcam. Deathcam is still the most important tool for determining whether or not a player is cheating or not.

All the other ‘faults’ with GRAW2 are, in my opinion, superficial.

All PC games have ‘bugs’. That is just the nature of PC games; there are just too many PC configurations. I expect most of the serious bugs to be fixed.

GRAW2 for the PC sets the standards for tactical first person shooters. GRAW2 is the standard. GRAW2 is a man’s game. Games like COD4, Crysis, HL2, UT3 and GRAW2 on the Xbox 360 are for little ‘boys and girls’. They are fun to play but lack substance. Hardcore gamers play GRAW2 on the PC.

I would expect improvements in the implementation of military tactics in GRAW3, I would expect superior graphics and sound, more interaction with the environment, superior artificial intelligence, superior physics, more real world weapons, multiplayer designed for hardcore gamers and perhaps the use of voice command. I have no doubt that GRAW3 will be superior to GRAW2. But at this moment in time GRAW2 for the PC is the best tactical-action shooter on the planet, period.

Edited November 28, 2007 by deco147

[doubletap]

nevermind

Edited November 28, 2007 by doubletap