Jump to content

Tom Clancy Supergame [ENDWAR]


Brettzies
 Share

Recommended Posts

Looks like the Tom Clancy Universe has completely gone into one singular universe now. Honestly I don't like it. While some cross over is cool, I think this is going overboard.

Tom Clancy SuperGame interview

Chris Stead: So how many tie-ins are there with the units and the vehicles of EndWar with the broader Tom Clancy universe?

Vinh-Dieu Lam: There are minor tie-ins with this game, but after this [game] there will be a lot more tie-ins. Some of our airstrikes come from the HAWX list of fighter jets, some of the Ghost Recon units are in the game, like Scott Mitchell is the commanding officer of the American army, so there are a few tie-ins. It all acts as a basis for future tie-ins.

Chris Stead: When you say future tie-ins, how far will you take it? Like, would we see a multiplayer game where someone is flying the jets using the HAWX mechanics, while someone else is controlling a squad on the ground Rainbow Six style?

Vinh-Dieu Lam: Yeah, eventually. But in the next versions you’ll find, say, missions generated in the next Ghost Recon (presumably GRAW 3) affecting the world map in the next EndWar (presumably EndWar 2). So maybe in the next EndWar you will need to attack Paris but before you can it may generate some sort of Splinter Cell recon mission or a Ghost Recon mission or things like that. But that is the direction we are looking at.

Chris Stead: Right, so for the next iteration of releases is it a case of the five games being separate, but you have to play one and complete something before you can activate a mission in the next one and then finish that to open the next one?

Vinh-Dieu Lam: Yeah, yeah, yeah. So with EndWar, the meta-campaign side of it is a standalone server so you can feed things into this system so it can basically generate any sort of mission. So its missions generate for EndWar at the moment, but there is no reason why we cannot generate missions from the other franchises. This is where we are looking at tying together the different franchises.

Uh....I like Reese's Peanut Butter Cups as much as the next guy but I have no interest in having to play one game in order to advance in another game that I really want to play. While the conept sounds interesting, it doesn't appeal to me.

Also, what if you don't like RTSs or action Flight Sims but love 3rd person tactical shooters? Do you have to play all 3 just do understand wft is going on in one, or even advance in one?

Lastly, they've really ruined the Tom Clancy name. It's gone from being present day believable universe to near future crazy laser gun overboard fiction. The great thing about all the Clancy games in the past is that they were grounded in what is happening now. I realize they'll put some almost developed tech into the games like cross-com(though I don't like it), but they've gone too far I think. Feels like there is no going back now for them.

Probably a long way off, but eh...I'm not liking the direction they want to take everything if it is true.

Edited by Brettzies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard that in one of the new games, Scott Mitchel will be defending the planet from giant alien insects, and to get from one game to another, you have to cross some sort of "gate."

I'm tired of the current Tom Clancy brand, which is nothing like what a Tom Clancy book would be like. It's "Tom Clancy" in name only. I'm looking foward to a game where I don't have to play in WWII, or in WWX, but in current times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, the announcement got a big yawn out of me.

Looks like more of Ubi morphing the Clancy games into types of games that players are not asking for.

I'm all for taking a great game and building upon it with improved features and gameplay etc. for next-gen hardware (like what Japanese game designers do - think MGS, Zelda, Mario etc), but what the game designers at Ubi are doing is taking franchises and morphing them into significantly different directions than the original games they are based on.

Did they do some kind of poll to find out this is what fans want? Or are the game designers just kind of let loose to just implement whatever they think is cool? It just seems to me that design decisions follow whatever the latest trend is (i.e. hoping to rake in the cash like WoW) rather than being real artistic choices.

I think one of the main reasons is due to Ubi's system of multiple teams work on each franchise so there is no one singular vision or person driving the design decisions - just whatever will bring in the most cash in the short-term.

I'm pretty doubtful about the whole thing, but kudos to them if the new directions make them a lot of money and increase the fan base. Only time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow...what to look forward to in the future from Ubi.

In addition to the multi-colored glowing neon C-4 charges to activate in order to advance through the code restrictive play zones, and the incapacitated team-mates joining you for the next mission, the gameplay will be based on a multi-tiered predetermined storyline, and not the gamers actions...or the game itself.

This does not bode well for the highly suspect rumor of a return to the roots of GR.

Pass, respectfully.

____

Did they do some kind of poll to find out this is what fans want?
Chris Stead: Rad.
Telling.

I think one of the main reasons is due to Ubi's system of multiple teams work on each franchise so there is no one singular vision or person driving the design decisions
Yep. Consistency, be it direction, game quality, or employee/developer retention, is something they could work on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The technical requirements and development time for this seem staggering to me.

Actually, if he's saying what i think he is -- a chromehounds style 'overworld' map for MP games -- (endwar already has one right?) that shares data between games, and is just hyping it up to make it sound cooler... It would be pretty easy to make. And could be fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, if i wanted to go "bjeew bjeew bjeew"(for those of you who go that, i thank you) with my lazer gun, i'd pick up halo, if i wanted to play in a modern setting i'd pick up ghost recon or rainbow six! The whole mission thing is good, until you hit the whole jump between games thing.

Classic Ghost Recon Forever!

This is ubisoft's "NEW" Tom Clancy --> :alien:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what I want this to mean is that say you own EndWar2 and GRAW3. While playing EndWar2 say you have a mission that means take paris, well you use the map from EndWar2 and it saves it on you console, then it switches to GRAW to actually go in a have a looky lou and take paris. But if you also own SC or R6 you could do either of those options also, with each game offering unique mission in that scenario (obviously SC and GRAW can't have the same objectives/mission)

So I didn't do a great job of explaining what I mean, but it makes sense in my head.

But in fact it will probably just be squad-based (using the very loosest definition of that term) Halo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm just gonna keep my hopes up for Rogue Warrior. At least in that game they are going to stay with the style of gameplay from old school recon, but with a more extensive multiplayer experience due to the tile map system Bethesda is working on. Also, I hear in Rogue Warrior we will get to set trip wires to claymores, cell phone activated c4, dragging and hiding of bodies, and a more modern storyline. Ubisoft is taking Recon too far into the future and too fast. I wish they'd slow the storyline down and just give us what we real Recon fans want, and not what all the Galo fans want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think that that merging idea could be the worst idea ever. EndWar was not nearly a good enough game to do that, and I don't want to play a billion different games to progress. I want to play Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell and Rainbow 6 separately. They were excellent shooters alone, and I don't want to play a crappy RTS and a flight game to progress. I think it's just a terrible moneymaking strategy. To play a game we really want to play, we have to buy 4 others and spend around $240 extra because we just want to play and beat one game. I'm fine with them cranking out good games, but merging is just stupid. Are they going to merge AC and Prince of Persia next? No, because it is a ridiculous idea, so don't screw up great games because you are greedy. If they do, screw ubisoft and thank you for ruining some of my favorite games you <deleted> idiots. :wall::nono:

Do not attempt to bypass the swear filter, thank you.

Edited by Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...