How tactical is GRAW 2?

[Joriko]

I'm pretty new to the forums and as I was sifting through the threads, I was shocked to find multiple posts more than a page long each criticizing the game for it's lack of tactical depth.

Now I've never ever played the [Ghost Recon] or the console versions of GRAW 1&2, and I totally agree. Most of the missions in GRAW 2 have two different insertions and beyond that it's a straight line through the mission. The only difference between the insertions is stealth or assault, stealth usually always ruined by a scripted event. But there are exceptions. In Search and Destroy (Mission 2) The beginning of the mission is a path through the canyon, but once you reach the camp you have more options. They're not massive differences, but you have a choice of how you want to tackle the mission. ANother example is Get Me Rosen. You have two different insertions that are more varied than the other missions, a large map, and your objectives. There are downsides though, as the cliff offers the best position to command your troops and pick off the enemy. Besides, once you get inside the camp, it's basically the same, but there's some tactical depth there. In my opinon GRAW is more tactical than GRAW 2, and we all know from playing the first GRAW that the Recon part is nopt exactly the same. Who cares, they're special forces and there will probably be a time where Stealth is not an option. I know GRAW 2 is not very tactical, but give it a chance. With a few more missions like the two examples and more customization GRAW 3 can be the best in the series.

[thrush213]

moderately tactical. but gone are the days of true ghost recon. this future warrior stuff with the space helmets and cross com gets boring fast

[Nutlink]

Honestly I feel the only things holding it back from being extremely similar to [GR] are the (mostly) linear missions and the AI. The AI can be so damn dumb it won't see you 10 feet away crouched, while once they do spot you they can pick your head off from 100m away if you so much as peak around a corner while prone. The tanks are 10x worse as there is no way to sneak around one.

[doubletap]

In my correct opinion a good word to decribe how 'tactical' graw2 is, is inconsistant. There are lots of tactical oriented features and options, yet there are several missions a bit heavy on scripted engagements. Scripted events aren't so bad, and even since GR1 they have been used to give a mission and campaign some structure, but scripted engagements are a big

Then there's the narcom, which is not nearly as intrusive and annoying as in graw1, or GR2 xbox, but it leads the player thru missions like a total noob. Special forces are self relient, and in fact you'll probably find that exact term in the very definition of this type of unit.

Triggered objectives and other events also lead to repetative 'gamer tactics' as apposed to improvised, or original, or variations on planned tactics.

I believe the a.i. can be fixed. Everyone knows what the problem is, but many misinterpret it as "dumb a.i.". But as Nutlink pointed out, they also are rediculously sharp in some situations. They problem, me thinks, lies in the way that the ghosts are depicted as in recon, or in assault modes. The effect on enemy a.i. detection is highly exagerated. When crouched in recon, you are too concealed, yet as soon as you stand, you are detected and zeroed in on as if with radar lock, and you invariably start taking hits.

The missions that do facilitate tactical gameplay actually do it quite well. Get me Rosin, Recon in Force, and Price of Freedom are okay, and Welcom to Juarez is not bad, regarding tactical play.

Having said all of that, I just recently played the 360 version, and compared to that ****, we have a real jewel of a tac sim, LOL.

Edited February 14, 2008 by doubletap

[NoQuarter]

Welcome!

I know GRAW 2 is not very tactical, but give it a chance. With a few more missions like the two examples and more customization GRAW 3 can be the best in the series.

You play poker, Joriko?

[Joriko]

No...why?

Anyway, I see your points, and I myself am new to Tactical Shooters. I was particularly annoyed when I played the first GRAW because there were no smoke grenades, which would have been useful against machine-gun nests. They add them into the second game, but where's the thermal vision that was in the trailer. In short, yes there are probably more tactical games out there that are way more realistic or open-ended and I have yet to play them. Another point...I know nearly squat about ballistics, but shouldn't more weapons penetrate cover besides the M99? Another question, who developed [GR]?

[Nutlink]

The "thermal vison" you saw in the trailer was probably a 360 trailer. Yes, more weapons should penetrate other than the M99, especially through wooden and tin fences. And Red Storm Entertainment (RSE) developed [GR].

[Joriko]

Thanks. I'm curious as to why the console version gets all the goodies that would be nice for PC gamers. Also, is it possible to create all new maps for GRAW 2. If it was, an experienced member could help in creating larger maps with more tactical depth. Another question, were the missions in [GR] like Get me Rosen, and Recon in Force, or were they even larger with more planning required?

[doubletap]

were the missions in [GR] like Get me Rosen, and Recon in Force, or were they even larger with more planning required?

More so than most of the other missions, yes. But the real difference between the original game and every sequel since, is that the original gives you unlimited freedom to do the missions any way you want. No narcom, no kit limits for certain missions, no hero character, and no triggered objectives. You are inserted, and left totally in command.

It's a perfect example of "less is more".

Ubi seems to believe adding hollywood-inspired "atmospheric" features adds to immersion. I strongly disagree, to put it mildly. It may make the game a more grand spectacle to behold, and it may keep you busier by being more action oriented and having very chattery comms, but it's not a more immersive environment at all. Ironically, the more over-the-top they make it, the more GR becomes just a video game and less of a virtual world, AKA simulation.

And as far as the console versions getting all the goodies, that's great. I don't want them, most of that stuff has no business in a GR game. In fact as I alluded to before, playing the 360 version made me appreciate the PC version a LOT more.

Edited February 15, 2008 by doubletap

[Joriko]

By goodies, I was referring to thermal vision. I don't know a whole lot about SF, but if you have weapons that can penetrate cover effectively, wouldn't thermal vision add a new layer of tactical depth?

I know everyone has different opinions, and with ll the great stuff I hear about [GR], I might go out and buy it. My only point with this thread is GRIN is not failing completely. Yes they could seriously rework the current system to be more like [GR], but don't people wan't innovation nowdays?

I'm probably going to play the original and then open up a new discussion. I understand what your saying. By giving the player his objectives and dropping him on a large map with multiple paths, you enhance the replayability of the game. I honestly don't think GRIN is doing that bad of a job. They tried to add more depth with a choice of insertions for each mission. Unfortunately, these usually just change how you start the mission, and then it merges into a linear path. From all the stuff I hear about [GR], it sounds like it kicks some serious ass.

[doubletap]

My only point with this thread is GRIN is not failing completely. Yes they could seriously rework the current system to be more like [GR], but don't people wan't innovation nowdays?

I agree about GRIN, and I make a point to not criticize them because it's MicroUbisoft who are the problem. And I surely don't want the same old GR year after year but there's a difference between improvement and gross alteration.

When Blackfoot Studios releases Ground Branch, obviously it won't be GR, but it should give us just a taste of how great GR could actually be today, if the series had not been so disgracefully compromised.

with ll the great stuff I hear about [GR], I might go out and buy it.

Get the Gold Edition (GR/Desert Siege/Island Thunder). It should only be about 10 USD. And then there are the many mods!

Edited February 15, 2008 by doubletap

[Joriko]

Well. Thanks for the chat. You put a game on my radar and helped me see things slightly differently than before. I'll be sure to try out [GR].

[ROCO*AFZ*]

Apparently this thread is more geared toward sp and co-op... but here is a mp player vs player opinion

In tdm for example nothing is scripted except where you spawn. Random spawns chosen at beginnning of spawn would have been nice ... but is is not linear for my gametypes in any way.

You talk of futuristic weapons.... didn't GR1 have the oicw which was in development to be the "next weapon" but also was a "future weapon" Gr1 also ... i don't remember being ever able to shoot through a single object including trees (note i did not say leaves)

It is one of the most hated things about cod4 by me. there is no anticipation, wondering if the enemy is going to round that fence. You just blast them where the sound is waving your gun around. I'm glad not all weapons in all GR/GRAW series cannot do this. I've seen people in COD4 in shipemnt shoot others spawn to spawn through all the crates.

btw the ai in gr1 was dumb also. If you killed one with a silenced m4, the others would not react unless it was scripted. if you fired a nade, they could instant kill you half way across the map.

For us TDM'ers our main disappointments were

1) no replays

2) no injuries

3) for the cheapskates, higher system specs... can't play on our old p3 lol

4) no server gui that you can still remote into using radmin or such or a web interface... lets face it, console scripts suck.

5) no player stats to post on our websites proudly.

6) higher requirements drove the cost of renting servers up.

7) weather effects and different terrain (terrain though was added with expansion packs)

8) expansion packs

What it does have though is...

1) stock command maps which promote team play

2) Big maps .... you can get outta your spawn without a jumping nade landing in yours (yes i know another cod4 bust... i'm not liking the game much anymore)

3) can't shoot through all objects. This makes you more tactical. You have to decide... risking going around the corner, or waiting, or calling in your teammate to come up behind the guy as you round the corner to get the kill

4) auto screenshots. - hey they aren't replays but it can catch wall hacks and names which replays couldn't if the guy was smart.

5) Great support with one on one dev help. Ty to wolfsong for helping all the modders and passing the word on any bugs

6) Sound... what can i say... there isn't a game out there with any better sound. GR1 was the best in it's time. GRAW1 and 2 take the cake for the present.

on final... for the space helmet comment. You don't get what GR and GRAW are about. It isn't about todays weapons only nor situations. It's susposed to be in the future. It depicks what weapons and technology may be availabe to us in the next 10 - 20 years, and also what weapons may still be around. in Gr1 we thought the oicw was so cool, because we were playing with a weapon that was only a drawing, and later a prototype.

[doubletap]

for the space helmet comment. You don't get what GR and GRAW are about. It isn't about todays weapons only nor situations. It's susposed to be in the future.

Sorry, GR was not "about" futuristic warfare just because they included ONE prototype weapon. It was one weapon, not the game's entire concept. If you don't want to concede that GRAW is a departure from what we came to expect in a GR game, that's fine. I think you're wrong.

And as far as TDM, no I don't play virtual paintball modes, which is what every PVP game is reduced to, but in any case, of course there is no scripting, it's TDM, lol.

But I agree with you, it's probably better not to be able to kill through objects, but only because the wrong type of player (most gamers) would instinctively just rely on that.

I won't comment on COD4, I refuse to include a cinematic arcade shooter in a tactical discussion. Apples and oranges.

Edited February 15, 2008 by doubletap

[krise madsen]

This one seem to pop up at regular intervals: The "future" part of GRAW is just window dressing, nothing else. The HUD doesn't offer anything that you don't get in other "non-future" shooters: Crosshairs, health meters, ammo counter, mini-map e.c.t. We've all seen this in a ton of games. It's just packaged to look future-ish in GRAW. The NARCOM is simply a way of having in-game cutscenes without stopping the game, and lots of games have done the same but with audio (and subtitles) only. It is NOT any future stuff that differs [GR] from GRAW.

I belive Nutlink got it right: If the missions in GRAW weren't so damn linear and the AI a bit smarter (and contact ranges well beyond 150m thank you very much!), there would be very little difference between [GR] and GRAW.

[GR] paid very little attention to the storyline and offered non-linear gameplay. [GR] was all about the mission. GRAW was preoccupied with having the player care for Mitchell and really hate the bad guys for being bad. GRAW was all about the story. The story-oriented approach is fine if you're making an action shooter like CoD4, but for a tactical shooter the story is almost irrelevant. Then again, you weren't really interested in making any more tactical shooters, were you Ubisoft

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Colin]

GR 1 was a tatical game.

Graw 1 and 2 are tatical but only against the console version, if you compare the 3 games pc wise GR1 comes out on top all the time.

Its simple really you cant play a tatical game with 3 players especially when they dont follow orders all the time or dont use the correct weapons for the type of engagment.

Ths mp side can be tactical only if you work as a team, but it does have choke points in it which make it predictable.

Once you get used to the maps and download some modded ones and get used to them the game seems repatative, this is confirmed by the ammount of players online.

People get bored and move on.

Or as in some cases like myself move back.

[doubletap]

The story-oriented approach is fine if you're making an action shooter like CoD4, but for a tactical shooter the story is almost irrelevant.

THANK YOU Mission briefings as in GR, R6, SWAT, give the game a much more authentic feel, without all the bad acting and stringing along.

krise you're right about the actual application of the futuristic gadgets, however my argument is not whether they are of any use, but how they alter the entire feel of the game. The action may not differ so much due to the gadgetry, but I don't play GR just for the action, the overall feel of the game, the immersion is a huge part of GR, to me anyway.

Its simple really you cant play a tatical game with 3 players especially when they dont follow orders all the time or dont use the correct weapons for the type of engagment.

It would've helped (some) if they had not made the missions such large scale operations and fighting along side regular troops, and stuck to small unit infiltration behind enemy lines; I mean the Ghosts are green berets right? But yeah, 4 player co-op is not adequate. I would have settled for 6 minimum. Even worse, in SP, when you finally get a 4-man mission (Rosen), they limit you to TWO!!

The only way two men would do that mission IRL is if the other half of the squad fell out of the chopper and didn't make it.

A.you would have at least one sniper on the high ground. B. you would have at least 3 guys moving together thru that compound. It's not a matter of only requiring two to complete the mission. that's the "video game" perspective. To play realistically, even if you don't fire one shot, you need a certain number of troops for proper movement and cover. [/rant]

Edited February 15, 2008 by doubletap

[Joriko]

I've never played Multiplayer, so I can't comment on it. As for the Futuristic HUD, I think it was mainly an excuse to put the crossair and stuff onscreen. And finally, I do see what your saying. I was annoyed when I gave my men a ZEUS and told them to take out the tank or helicopter they fired at it with their primary gun, they can't even set C-4.

[WhiteKnight77]

While you are the person that takes out tanks and other artillery type pieces in GR, at least the AI would place demolition charges if you put them close enough to the objective. Cool to watch at the Sub Pens on Docks Night.

[Tinker]

Pick up Rosen, he should follow stance to you.

Only reason he died for me. Behind a wall, but no crouch. This is a big disability for co-op. And not tactical.

[Joriko]

We've been over this before. The AI isn't the greatest...

[ROCO*AFZ*]

Doubletap...

Futuristic in GRAW2... Cross com and Mrc (i don't think that gun exists, but i could be wrong) Helmets and crosscom are based on a concept.

Drone is real although not exactly like depicted.

and although not in service yet i do believe the system was based on this...

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyweapons...turewarrior.htm

the future warrior program. Note the date... the one like GRAW is for 2010. It also has heavy (note not in weight but by strength) armor which goes in line with. Note also GRAW2 is dated for 2014

Not that much future "space age" stuff. Name some others.

Wasn't gr1 based on future battles also? aka 2010?

Here is some more reading on GRAW2 vs Real

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...ws/4215749.html

Although this was a comparison to the xbox GRAW2

[doubletap]

I understand that Roco. But what if the next GR is 2040? If the future of combat is (for example) unmanned aircraft, robotic demolitions, robotic patrolling, remote controlled sniping, remote/robotic CQB, etc etc. Okay, let's say it's "realistic". Is it really Ghost Recon? Does it not say GHOST RECON in big letters on the box?

Where's the thrill of doing it yourself? Being dropped behind enemy lines and being ON YOUR OWN?

Where's the tension of moving your squad, from tree to tree, building to building, relying on special forces combat tactics and weapons to complete the objective?

Just because future warfare ideas are profiled on discovery channel doesn't mean today's weapons and tactics are anything less than cutting edge.

But regardless, if you don't see where the narcom and magic IFF and other future concepts have altered GR gameplay to the point it's no longer GR at all, then what can I say? You and I are simply not wired the same way or something.

Wasn't gr1 based on future battles also? aka 2010?

2008.

by: Tinker: Pick up Rosen, he should follow stance to you.

Only reason he died for me. Behind a wall, but no crouch. This is a big disability for co-op. And not tactical.

Actually it would be much better even if your (SP) squad would follow your posture. What's the point in going prone if some idiot is standing right next to you screaming "Captain I'm taking fire!!", lol.

Edited February 16, 2008 by doubletap

[krise madsen]

The story-oriented approach is fine if you're making an action shooter like CoD4, but for a tactical shooter the story is almost irrelevant.

THANK YOU Mission briefings as in GR, R6, SWAT, give the game a much more authentic feel, without all the bad acting and stringing along.

krise you're right about the actual application of the futuristic gadgets, however my argument is not whether they are of any use, but how they alter the entire feel of the game. The action may not differ so much due to the gadgetry, but I don't play GR just for the action, the overall feel of the game, the immersion is a huge part of GR, to me anyway.

De nada

All I'm saying is that the "It's the future" discussion is pointless because GRAW doesn't depict the future: It's standard FPS features repackaged.

The thing is that GRAW isn't "tactical" (in the GR1 sense) and therefore futuristic gadgets don't really do anything since the non-tactical game cannot exploit any tactical advantages that future equipment might provide. I agree that it's a matter of aestethics and while I'm nuts about near-future gear, I don't like the GRAW aestethics either, specifically the HUD.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Joriko]

IFF removes the tension to some degree because you know what's coming. As for NARCOM, I think it's a step towards scripted events, but it guides you through a mission. Are you saying just plain audio feed would be better?

I don't care much for the breifings, and the general telling you what you already know, but parts like when Bravo Team is disabling the nukes, logically they would report in on the situation so you and the general knows what's going on. right?