[ Game listed at Play.com ]

[Rocky]

It was the PC specific such as dedi server support etc I was thinking of, but I hear ya.

[Bota:16]

Woudn't it be Ghost Recon 5? [GR]>GR 2 (Cancelled on PC)>GR:AW>GR:AW 2>GR 5....Considering all the viral advertising stuff tieing GR, R6, SC with EndWar I imagine it's going to be along the lines of Advanced Warfighter and not anything like GR (again).......

All I can say is.. bring back.

[Rocky]

Woudn't it be Ghost Recon 5?

4

[Nightwatch]

That was a very good surprise just before the Christmas Considering that my birthday is also approaching. Top news!

(I hope suddenly someone doesn't say that they meant that GRAW3 would be named as GR4 or something...OK...banish the thought )

[NoQuarter]

Dont assume because you dont see someone physically ask that they didnt pay attention to feedback

Sorry. So what you are suggesting is that they simply chose to ignore the feedback given in the past but things have taken a turn and will be different this time 'round?

Missouri.

[AJ59]

Not that my opinion has any value, but I would rather see a "GRAW3" rather than GR4.

A lot of people have spent a lot of time learning to mod GRAW2 and some people actually are even starting to get into modding GRAW2. A GRAW3 that could be merged with GRAW2 would be sweet... sorta like the expansion packs of GR1. But it would also be a standalone game if desired. (It was done with the IL2 series so I know it can be done.)

Of course it would require that someone also fix the bugs that still plague GRAW2.

So I don't know. I have a feeling that the bugs will never be fixed in GRAW2... so I guess I'm outta luck.

While it would be great to have a whole new tactical sim that actually does what we want... I am not going to get my hopes up.

I guess I have mixed feelings about this and some how have a "deja vu" feeling about this thing.

What is stunning to me is that someone actually went a pre-ordered a game that they know virtually NOTHING about.

[kleaneasy]

Dont assume because you dont see someone physically ask that they didnt pay attention to feedback

Sorry. So what you are suggesting is that they simply chose to ignore the feedback given in the past but things have taken a turn and will be different this time 'round?

Missouri.

I'm not saying any such thing, given I wasnt involved with the feedback process prior to 12 months ago I dont know how they did bit

[methz68]

What is stunning to me is that someone actually went a pre-ordered a game that they know virtually NOTHING about.

Considering my account won't be debited the amount until dispatch and dispatach is a LONG way off, I have plenty of time to cancel my order!, Oh and the card I used expires before the release date so I am pretty safe.

I preordered simply to prove to myself that play would accept orders on this item, and was not just a lisitng.

[RAbbi_74]

Good find.

Not that Ubishaft will ever get another penny from me after the Advanced Warfighter junk, but I DO hope, for sake of you fine pals here, that it turns out well and fulfills every child's dreams.

Or something...

[Papa6]

It's so sad just how GR has changed, not for the better, but it has changed. I guess UBISOFT didn't like the popularity of GR circa 2001-2003.

an interesting note: some people say change is good, to bring in new fresh ideas. to me, naw, fresh talent leads to loss of the core ideas of the original.

[beonder13]

All I'm gonna say (yeah, right) is that after spending all my hard earned oyster crackers on all these maps they better be either backwards compatible with a future installment or offered, free of charge, shortly after the new game launches. AND WHERE THE HELL IS LOST CONVOY???

[Tactical Jerky]

an interesting note: some people say change is good, to bring in new fresh ideas. to me, naw, fresh talent leads to loss of the core ideas of the original.

The saying "Never change a winning team" applies to the GR -> GRAW transition (if you agree that the GR series went downhill since GRAW). However, by saying that change per definition is bad you say that GR is perfect and you prevent it from evolving. You should make the distinction between radical change and change as in improvement. GRAW was obviously radical but that doesn't mean GR shouldn't improve as even GR wasn't perfect.

[NoQuarter]

^

Ditto.

Update the program to current/near future standards, build on those elements (of GR) that are successful and improve in the areas that are lacking. Most of us here would agree that that is a pretty easy production goal.

Unfortunately, recent history and the limited amount of info on the direction of the franchise so far suggest that's not what Ubi intends, nor does catering to a bunch of holdouts appear in their gameplan.

Their bottom line (to move units) is the lowest common denominator.

[BS PALADIN]

While Ubisoft havent given us any intention that they are willing to improve their franchises in the way the original core fanbases wanted, just look at Far Cry 2 for proof of that, RSE have given us ever indication that they are very interested in the original fanbases. Admittely this just stretched to Xbox 360 as they were responsible for that. But if runours are true and they are making GR4 over all formats that I think we should remain positive.

We could all be negative and we would have the right to be after GR 2 cancellation on PC and the less than stellar GRAW series. But being negative will only guarntee that we wont have your opinions heard. Isnt Ghost Recon worth one more chance.

[WhiteKnight77]

As far as I am concerned, Ubi had a chance to give us a decent GR game. Now they have to prove to us that they can give us a GR game worthy of my hard earned money before I shell out any more for one, no matter if Ubi or RSE creates it. Now they have to take a chance on no one buying it, especially with the route they are taking now, tying it into the End War scenario. That appears to be suicide plus the end of the franchise.

As noted elsewhere (maybe the Ubi forums, I forget), I do not want to play some games to find out an answer in a game I do want to play. Tying SC, R6 and GR to End War appears to be doing just that.

[RAbbi_74]

Isnt Ghost Recon worth one more chance.

A noble thought. One that I think most of us had after GR2. And again after GRAW (when we were shown at least SOME indication of a willingness to work toward the community's wants and needs). Fool me once...

Hey, I really do hope that it turns out to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. But Ubi already burned that bridge with me. As long as their name is on the box, the box will not be tolerated within my home. I have no problem with the GR franchise, just its publisher. And THAT doesn't appear to be changing any time soon...

[=US=PUNiSHER]

How about ditching [GR] 4 and making a game called Ghost Recon: Source. The original [GR] game with CoD:4 quality graphics and other modifications. Every single [GR] 1 map included with graphic improvements and other adjustments.....weapons such as the flash grenades, stun grenades, smoke grenades........I think I'm dreaming someone pinch me.

UBI should stop telling us what we want and give us what we want!

[BamBam38]

I don't understand why people are all over the Ghost Recon series and how it's gotten worse. I got Ghost Recon 2 for original xbox and loved it. When I got my 360 GRAW was my first xbox live game and I LOVED IT, i thought the campaign was also really good too. I also felt GRAW 2 was a pefect sequel. I felt these were the best games on 360 and i played them more than any other game.

Now I have no problems with getting away from mexico cause i would rather change the setting and be more stealthy in the forest and other settings and infact I would really enjoy GR4 in the original theme of the franchise. I just find the community is whining that they can't make a game perfect for everyone. I think GRAW was a good change for the series for a bit and I am extremely excited if they bring GR4 back to what it was in [GR] and GR2

[krise madsen]

As far as I know the important stuff has gotten through to the developers. So they do listen. If GR4 turns out to be a bad game then I will be truly disillusioned with the whole process.

I envy your optimism. I do not envy the blow you'll get when GR4 is released.

I don't understand why people are all over the Ghost Recon series and how it's gotten worse. I got Ghost Recon 2 for original xbox and loved it. When I got my 360 GRAW was my first xbox live game and I LOVED IT, i thought the campaign was also really good too. I also felt GRAW 2 was a pefect sequel. I felt these were the best games on 360 and i played them more than any other game.

Well, "worse" is subjective of course. The original GR1 was a different beast, all tactical and realism. All subsequent titles have become increasingly action-arcade oriented.

GRAW1 for the console was, by all accounts, a great game. GRAW1 for PC was not. It was developed entirely separately, specifically to cater to the tastes of the PC audience. As such it failed completely: It lacked the realism and non-linear tacticalness of the original. GRAW2 for PC was a markedly better game, clearly showing the developer GRIN learning from their mistakes and improving on their product. It wasn't a bad game. But it was still not the realism-oriented, non-linear tactical game that GR1 was.

Personally, I've become convinced that Ubisoft simply can't produce a worthy hardcore tactical-realism first person shooter even if they try. That doesn't mean that they can't make good games as such. But I'm not looking for "games as such".

Respectfully

krise madsen

[methz68]

I am quite optimistic about GR4, I don't buy UBI titles anymore but I have to give GR a another chance.

Seems like UBI like to press the self destruct button on its titles, Hopefully Redstorm have read all the posts about what people want and hopefully they deliever that, maybe we wont get the guille suit, maybe the current xbox is crap at drawing grass and 400 metres?

The main problems for me with the past titles was join room, fill room. start game and everyone drops out. repeat. or try to find a room with the content so I dont have to play HQ for the 100 time. and spawns out in the open. I am really hoping they dont have exclusives maps on the first day of release. I am still coming across people who still havent downloaded nowhere and wonder why they can't join rooms.

I am looking forward to hearing more about this game, maybe a real MP beta would be great start?

the way I look at it is, id rather them make a New GR then not at all.

[Tinker]

I don't understand why people are all over the Ghost Recon series and how it's gotten worse. I got Ghost Recon 2 for original xbox and loved it.

Well good for you. Sure the PC players feel the same way too. Oh, 1 little thing, we did not get a GR2.

Now I have no problems with getting away from mexico cause i would rather change the setting and be more stealthy in the forest and other settings and infact I would really enjoy GR4 in the original theme of the franchise. I just find the community is whining that they can't make a game perfect for everyone. I think GRAW was a good change for the series for a bit and I am extremely excited if they bring GR4 back to what it was in [GR] and GR2

Do we really need to list the serious bugs that the PC games have left in them?

Ordering my copy as usual, no high hopes, just an open mind.

[RAbbi_74]

As far as I know the important stuff has gotten through to the developers. So they do listen. If GR4 turns out to be a bad game then I will be truly disillusioned with the whole process.

I envy your optimism. I do not envy the blow you'll get when GR4 is released.

I don't understand why people are all over the Ghost Recon series and how it's gotten worse. I got Ghost Recon 2 for original xbox and loved it. When I got my 360 GRAW was my first xbox live game and I LOVED IT, i thought the campaign was also really good too. I also felt GRAW 2 was a pefect sequel. I felt these were the best games on 360 and i played them more than any other game.

Well, "worse" is subjective of course. GR was a different beast, all tactical and realism. All subsequent titles have become increasingly action-arcade oriented.

GRAW1 for the console was, by all accounts, a great game. GRAW1 for PC was not. It was developed entirely separately, specifically to cater to the tastes of the PC audience. As such it failed completely: It lacked the realism and non-linear tacticalness of the original. GRAW2 for PC was a markedly better game, clearly showing the developer GRIN learning from their mistakes and improving on their product. It wasn't a bad game. But it was still not the realism-oriented, non-linear tactical game that GR1 was.

Personally, I've become convinced that Ubisoft simply can't produce a worthy hardcore tactical-realism first person shooter even if they try. That doesn't mean that they can't make good games as such. But I'm not looking for "games as such".

Respectfully

krise madsen

Quite well said.

@BamBam38- maybe you're right, in at least one sense. Bugs aside, GRAW and GRAW2 were NOT bad games. Of course, they were completely unplayable for at least a few folks, and the bugs were annoying enough for most of us. Initially, the responsibility for that falls on the developers, but when the money faucet runs dry for them to fix the game, all eyes rightfully turn back to the publisher.

GRAW ended at v1.35, as I recall, and while that included many new features specifically requested by this bunch here at GRnet, it was not at all a polished, finished product. From the grenade-launcher bug to the rate-of-fire bug to the missing texture in John Doe's Hellhole (I THINK that's the name of that MP-only map), and on to some far more serious problems like the lack of a decent anti-cheat, GRAW was a diamond very much in the rough.

And one needs merely check the tech support thread for GRAW2 to see how unfinished a product that one is. I mean, over a year later we STILL can't get a fix to the missile-launcher bug in that level with the dam and the two helicopters.

I know nothing of the console versions, granted. I've played neither (aside form a few minutes at a BestBuy store with GRAW for XboX360) and could therefore offer no intelligent assessment (some would argue I've never offered anything intelligent anyhow... ) of those games. For all I know, they were the ultimate in gaming. But I only play ONE game on console, and it's got nothing at all to do with guns...

But the biggest problem is what GRAW/GRAW2 did NOT deliver, relative to their namesake- a solid open, tactical shooter. To this day, the [Ghost Recon] (with expansions IT and DS) has never been matched, in my humble opinion. It is (not was) a benchmark for many of us; a benchmark which has been all but abandoned for greater profit and flashier graphics. This is truly the PC player's problem, and clearly not a big issue for the console players. The difference between [GR] and GRAW for PC was night-and-day. And along with the disappointing recent releases in it's sister franchise, Rainbow Six (Lockdown, Vegas and Vegas II all failing to hold up to the standard of Raven Shield or any previous installment), this indicates a direction for Ubisoft, the publisher of the whole Tom Clancy universe. It's not a direction that we fans of [GR] and oldskool R6 are happy with. It's a direction that sacrifices the feeling of realism, tactics, and teamwork, for a flashy, Hollywood, hero-centered game experience which we fled when first we turned to [GR].

Damn the man! FISTS IN THE AIR! I still play [GR] to this day, and I'll never touch another Ubisoft title again, so help me...

[methz68]

The link seems to no longer work, here is the lisitng that was on play.com

[BamBam38]

i got a question.... is everyone on these forums for PC cause i'm console only. All my opinions on the GRAW series I said before were based on the console games.

[methz68]

I am a console gamer.