Ghost Recon ~ Revisited

[Saker]

Hello [GR] gamers,

Please let me point out that this is not a spam topic!

This is a posting for the benefit of all who would like a New [GR].

If Rocky or another Admin would desire to make a sticky out of this, it would be great.

I will post the link to the site where the original topic is and will make a quote of the topic so people can respond to the questions here as well if desired!

Let me point out: PLEASE POST YOUR ANSWERS, DON'T JUST READ!

Every post is extremely important !

Rogue Gaming Productions-Topic Chat > Here is your chance to voice your opinion for a new [GR]

http://www.roguegamingproductions.com/modu...ic&t=67#185

Well gamers it has been 8 years now and Redstorm has come out with many games since.

I have spoken to Ubi Soft Entertainment over the phone for many years now.

Today I got through to the main dept for making game decisions in France.

Now you have a chance to VOICE YOUR OPINION FOR A NEW [GR] WITH NEW GRAPHICS.

So here is what they are asking of me:

1. Why should they come out with a new game called Ghost Recon Revisited?

2. How would it benefit their company?

3. Would gamers buy the new product?

4. Why would gamers?

5. What would you like to see changed in Ghost Recon, DS, IT?

We need to get as many postings as possible. You tell them now me. I will forward all messages and posting to them. Or you can go to FNG-CLAN and post with FNG Saker. We need as many post as possible.

Thanks

The_Clown

__________________________

Best Regards,

Saker

[thales100]

Great idea Saker, ill be posting at that thread tomorrow ok.

[Rocky]

Ah, that's what that page says? I've been trying to open that webpage.forum post for over a week but it never loads, anyone else get that?

That aside, the same sort of feedback has been shouted from the rooftops right on Ubisoft's doorstep in their own forums for the past year or more, and most recently in this pinned post here, and also regularly in these forums.

So it's fair to say that we really have been voicing our opinion, rather loudly, for a long long time. All we have had back is an indication that Ubisoft are infact moving away from "niche" tactical shooters, more than being prepared to consider what we really want.

Was there something said in the phone call that changes the above? It would be nice to get some encouragement from somewhere, that someone at Ubisoft is at last about to listen.

[thales100]

Its loading ok here.

[Colin]

Ah, that's what that page says? I've been trying to open that webpage.forum post for over a week but it never loads, anyone else get that?

That aside, the same sort of feedback has been shouted from the rooftops right on Ubisoft's doorstep in their own forums for the past year or more, and most recently in this pinned post here, and also regularly in these forums.

So it's fair to say that we really have been voicing our opinion, rather loudly, for a long long time. All we have had back is an indication that Ubisoft are infact moving away from "niche" tactical shooters, more than being prepared to consider what we really want.

Was there something said in the phone call that changes the above? It would be nice to get some encouragement from somewhere, that someone at Ubisoft is at last about to listen.

Word

[Saker]

Ah, that's what that page says? I've been trying to open that webpage.forum post for over a week but it never loads, anyone else get that?

No rocky, mine opens fine as well!

.........Was there something said in the phone call that changes the above? It would be nice to get some encouragement from somewhere, that someone at Ubisoft is at last about to listen.

The above quote from The_Clown states part of his and Ubi's conversation and what Ubi is wanting in feedback in the posts to the 5 questions asked.

Any more information other than that you will have to contact The_Clown at his website for any more details.

[Blackstar]

Didn't we all just hope that GR:AW was going to be the same as [GR], but with better graphics?

Aside from a very small number of issues [GR] still hasn't been matched in terms of playability, expandability and flat out enjoyment.

If you gave me everything [GR] had, but with GR:AW graphics, I would never need another game.........

[abnegnejs]

After the GRAW and Vegas games, I no longer trust Ubisoft when it comes to making tactical shooters. If this changes however, I would have no problem with a new GR. But why Ubisoft? Sure, they own the rights to the name, but not to the game(play).

Edited June 25, 2008 by abnegnejs

[krise madsen]

The amount of time I'm going to waste on Ubisoft is finite, and most of it has already been expended. Nobody would want a Ghost Recon Revisited more than me, and if I had even the faintest hope that anything would come of this I'd be all over it. But I don't.

TBH, even if Ubisoft decided to make the game, I doubt they could. The number of compentent developers that are/can be tuned into the very specific genre of the tactical shooter is very small indeed.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Kyle_K_ski]

I have quickly come to appreciate the finer points of GR. I must admit, that having played Infiltration for so long has created a nearly insurmountable level of low-level frustration with what GR didn't/can't do, which is fine tune kits and firearms to one's desires, have round penetration, visible weapons, stamina system, and the like. Infiltration is just leaps and bounds beyond GR in regards to these features. But Infiltration is missing one major feature that GR does have, and that's semi-sensible AI. I can't express just how large a bummer it is to have a fantastic infantry simulator at one fingertips, and then get stuck with pretty much default Unreal Tournament AI that's still engaging far too often in bunny hopping, "instant proning", "instant turning" and the like.

Whenever I play(ed) Infiltration offline, the only way it was challenging was to max out the AI, and then the game became deadly because in Infiltration, the rounds do penetrate materials, and the AI, while not using true suppressing fire, would semi-frequently spray and pray, and oh boy, when they did...!

Occasionally, one encountered AI tactics that were surprisingly believable, like retreating, reorganizing, and flanking, but this was so rare (maybe twice an hour) that all it did was leave me wanting more.

GR makes up for INF's AI, and as much fun as I'm having with it now, and while I would certainly purchase a version of GR with a face lift, I feel that the short term future of tactical shooters lies in the hands of those crafting Ground Branch. We'll see, but it certainly sounds like they're focusing on all the right things.

What I would like to see is AI that's a perfect blend between what we have in GR and the SWAT series. I still have SWAT 3 installed, as its AI is pretty commendable in its CQB urban tactics. They peek around corners, hose when necessary (frequently leaning around cover while doing so), and are quite cunning about retreating and flanking. Even with mods, SWAT 4's AI just seems inferior to SWAT 3's, I don't know why this seems this way to me, but I'm almost willing to bet money that SWAT 3's AI could kick SWAT 4's butt.

Please oh please make Ground Branch rule!