Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

Give Me Back My Old Ghost Recon, Rejuvenated! That's All!


Recommended Posts

I support Apexmods opinion of a reborn Ghost Recon Classic with new updated Graphics, AI, and what not. Kinda like how other games were reborn, such as Bionic Commando which was reborn as Bionic Commando Rearmed. I really hope the developers of GR4 and Ubisoft will read these forums and listen to the community, as the community is what is important. :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 297
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Six years later. Time for another bump. 🙂

Challenge accepted... I've played FPS for as long as there has been a PC (never been a total fan of consoles, especially in a FPS)... Loved Return to Castle Wolfenstein "3D", DOOM (I and II), and

Maybe you could change your sig to a slightly less negative tone, then? It is of course your own choice, but if you look back at the years and years of fun Ghost Recon and this community have given y

I hope that giving us what we want doesn't ruin the game though. Not in the sense that its a bad game but that so few like the style and it does not sell well. I want to see this series around for a long time to come.

I still think GR:AW 2 was a good game that had a little more work been put in to it it would have been a great game that was still as active as the original GR is today after so many years.

The biggest things for me are the Maps and CoOp followed by weapons selections being completely open/selectable (No Kits) with the ability of Servers to ban certain weapons/addons. That way if you don't want Grenades/Launchers/Sniper Rifles, you just click on the box and their not selectable for that server. The maps of course need to have a boundry of some type at the edge but other than that they should be completely open and unlike the original, You should be able to climb even steep cliffs if you brought along a rope and hook. The weapons should be as much as possible with todays physics as real as possible in wind drift and drop, however drift may be harder to work in and ###### off the shooter. The damage model needs to have the old wounds model brought back where a hit that is not deadly affects you abilities depending on it location on your body. Head shots should always be a one shot kill on a bare head and knock the helmet off those wearing them. Body armor if worn should actually stop the rounds as in the real armor, unless you're hit with a .50.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Give me Ghost Recon or give me nothing! Give me all that it was, nothing more, nothing less

I agree whole heartedly with the sentiments of my fellow GR mates, but that statement as it stands alone, I cannot agree with. The original game does need less of some things, but more importantly, it needed a whole lot more of some things, which I won't list because this is not a wish list thread.

My point is it is I don't think it is constructive to demand the original game or nothing, because 1) that cry will fall on deaf ears, there is no way we are going to get that, and 2) as I said, there is much that needs to be added to improve the original........

(and no, kids, 3rd person view is not one of them, run along now.)

Edited by bigcat75
Link to post
Share on other sites
Give me Ghost Recon or give me nothing! Give me all that it was, nothing more, nothing less

I agree whole heartedly with the sentiments of my fellow GR mates, but that statement as it stands alone, I cannot agree with. The original game does need less of some things, but more importantly, it needed a whole lot more of some things, which I won't list because this is not a wish list thread.

My point is it is I don't think it is constructive to demand the original game or nothing, because 1) that cry will fall on deaf ears, there is no way we are going to get that, and 2) as I said, there is much that needs to be added to improve the original........

(and no, kids, 3rd person view is not one of them, run along now.)

Yes, bigcat75, there is some room for improving the original, and with my cry for a successor I don't want to suggest otherwise. When I say "all that it was, nothing more, nothing less", I am referring to the game's spirit - it's unique character and concept - which I do not want to see changed, as has happened in previous "sequels".

I tried to elaborate on this in a subsequent post:

But one thing is better left untouched [...] to be accepted by the hordes of its worshippers: The original concept of the game!

This concept I mean is more than a name, more than a logo, and more than a rough resemblance of appearance. It is the essence of the game, the thing that defines it - its spirit. If you tried to create a successor sharing the original's name and logo, resembling the original in appearance, and offering a myriad of new and innovative features - but lacking the original's spirit, you would miss your goal - it would simply not be a successor.

[...]

What I and many other people here look for is a true successor to one particular game. We (and I just take the liberty of speaking for others, here) want the spirit of Ghost Recon to be revived.

[...]

A games' spirit is not revealed by listing all of its features, neither can it be attributed to a single aspect of the game. Ghost Recon is more than squad-based, more than tactical, more than a shooter, and it can not be fully described by just combining these terms. You actually have to play it, experience it, feel it - to have a chance of grasping its essence.

[...]

Now it is one thing to grasp the spirit/concept, but then it is another story altogether to actually implement this concept in something new, to transport it into future developments - because as described above, it is very difficult to actually put your finger on what it is, exactly. Just as the definition can not be done by simply listing features, creating a successor is more complex than transporting features one by one to the new design. Only when the sum of all parts is joined with the actual game experience and the player can feel the presence of the original concept in the new game, the "holy grail" of the true game sequel has been found.

So, while my call for a worthy successor insists on keeping Ghost Recon's spirit in place, this should not be construed as opposition to the addition of anything new. I love surprises - especially of the positive kind. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn that's powerful!

I am in....infact I've created an online petition using your words :yes:

Sign away!

Online Petition : Give Me Back My Old Ghost Recon, Rejuvenated! That's All!

Dav

SIMPLE!

Hi, sorry my english :blush: , i'm an italian player of Ghost Recon saga since 2001

now with my clan are replaying Old Great GR,

i've see this petition, not suficently in evidence I think,

actually we are advertising in italian comunity

Let's go

let us do feel :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome SG.NLY_NOB,

I believe that the petition was not real. As in fake. It was a joke(?)...

Just an observation related to this topic… Just reinstalled RvS, after playing V2 because even though it’s always nice to discover new games, and even nicer to stop playing the same old games, I realized that V2 is just a Raven Shield wannabe. Playing the Import Export map in V2, thinking that it was so nice to have that RvS feel again, it hit me… Why am I playing this pale imitation with limited tactical approach, no lean, with enemies that spawn from the walls, when I have the original? Then I thought, they are trying to mimic one of their own games!? Regardless of what we want, what they want would resemble the original because it was a great game, so

Why not do it right this time around? They will endup copying their own product anyways. Just look at AW2OGR. I have not played it, but I’ve heard that the objective was to obtain the Original feel. They wouldn’t have to do it if they got it right the first time with AW. Gimme back my Old Ghost Recon on a New Engine, turns out to be pertinent in many ways.

So, wanna sell lota copies heh?

The communities already exist. The hardcores are still around. The new ones are onboard. The conjuncture is right. The blueprint exists. The time is now.

Edited by RatoN
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I honestly can say that I usually dont go in for these calls BUT

I WANT GR BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All it needs is new graphics, new sound, new models for characters and weapons, fixed glitches, new physics (destructable environments) and new maps and story on solo to make it game of the year again.

GRAW series failed to have an impact close to [GR] because all UBI made was some Mainstream-Arcade-FPS-Clone with a few gameplay tweeks.

Still, here is what the [GR] community and the thousands of players that liked that game so much dont want and need:

NO COD-GR, NO BF-GR, NO AA-GR, NO CSS-GR

Make it [GR] again, thats all I am asking for.

cheers, =VEGA=.$eRaPh.^iTF

Edited by $eraph
Link to post
Share on other sites

GR:AW was a good games series, it could have been a great game series. IF, they had open maps, and the same types of game mechanics as the original GR. People are still playing GR and modding it today and will continue to do so untill something better comes along.

GR:AW still has a few people playing but not as many, shame cause I thought it had a lot of potential.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for clarification, I would like to once more point out that I do not consider the GRAW's to be "bad" games - quite on the contrary - but to me, they simply are part of a different game genre. In my humble opinion, Ghost Recon is a unique non-linear sim-style squad-based military tactical shooter, while the GRAW's are more common linear adventure-style hero-based science-fiction arcade action shooters.

Both genres of course have an equal right to exist and come with their own fan base devoted to each style of gameplay. As I have said before, action shooters can provide loads of fun, and when I feel like having a nice fragfest, I may even turn to the Doom series or Crysis to get my fix. (I recently stumbled upon my copies of Wolfenstein 3D and Duke Nukem 3D - installed and played for several hours right away - what a blast I had!)

What I deem a real shame in this context is the fact that Ghost Recon's game genre has been changed within a very successful franchise, and even worse - the franchise turned its back on a genre that it invented in the first place. So while Ghost Recon is a unique game in its own genre, the GRAW's are "just another action shooter" in a genre over-saturated with competing game franchises.

The economic justification for such a move on the developers' part are at the very least debatable, and "good sales" for the GRAW's is simply not enough of an argument, because without a contender in the tactical shooter genre it is hard to say which one would have fared better. It has been said that "realistic shooters' appeal would be too narrow" to be a viable market, but as I explored in a previous post, the presented argumentation for that theory is rather questionable, and even if there was a coherent market analysis published to support those claims, the gaming market is a fickle beast which, more often than not, refuses to follow predicted trends.

On the other hand, the many Ghost Recon fans, of which only a small percentage is represented by participation in internet forums like this one, give reason to the assumption that there is a continued interest in the game style Ghost Recon originally stood for. Looking at the "GR 4 (PC) - General Discussion" subforum here at GR.net - this very thread named "Give Me Back My Old Ghost Recon, Rejuvenated! That's All! If you share this sentiment, come in and shout it out!" is the most read and replied-to thread in all the discussions about GR4. Now why do you think that is?

With Kimi's recent announcement that a new Ghost Recon is more than a pipe dream, that it is indeed in production and can be expected to ship soon, there is enough reason to once again get very excited about Ghost Recon's future. I will keep my fingers crossed that RSE will return the franchise to its former glory and provide the many die-hard fans of old-school Ghost Recon with the reborn King we have been awaiting for so long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^

whatvl0.th.jpg

Yep thats why I stressed Open Maps, but I have to admit the "I Kill You" borders in GR:AW were more annoying then the invisible walls in GR. GR maps had a few areas that you could not climb, but GR:AW maps are full of Debris that in RL you could easily walk over but they chose to make them impassable, thereby leading you down a shooting gallery tunnel where you are the target.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are just as many invisible barriers in :AW as there are in GR1. The main point of "you are leaving the mission area" is to stop you triggering more enemy. Something that is simply not possibly in the :AW series. Thus as said, being constantly shovelled around the map in a certain fashion. Maybe I am wrong, but that is the impression it has left for me.

This concerns me more than anything. I really hope we can utilize more troops in the next title, 50 baddies on the map at any time would be an awesome start. Come on, it is 2009, let`s see this improved technology. :whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites

^

Or Panhards falling into place, in plain sight. :D

____

Agreed, with both of you.

Not shown in the above SS but another buzz-kill with these zone blocks was the fact that a new trigger could deny you access to ground that you had previously covered in the mission.

The reason for its use is understood, but its use should have been applied with a little more thought involved. Let the missions objectives chart the players course thru the level, keep the use of artificial boundaries to an absolute minimum, and do not threaten an Article 15 via Nar-Com, particularly when you are currently standing in relatively open ground.

____

GRINs statements on this board that the complicated AI graph was the limiting factor in the active bot count sounded more as an excuse when they were made...if the engine could not cope, they should have looked into freeing up resources elsewhere.

____

Fletch, that was not meant to single you out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully understand why GRIN did it the way they did (map/AI-wise). It's not like they deliberately tried to find ways to tick gamers off.

Problem is, linear map/mission design like that is a big fat no-no when it comes to tac-sims. It just misses the whole point of the tac-sim. Whatever other qualities the game might have (and there were indeed some), it made playing the single player campaign an almost painfully frustrating experience.

Sure GR was not perfect in that respect either, but it quite frankly had better map design, and it was half a decade older.

Respectfully

krise madsen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 72 signatures? :o

I don't think it was a serious attempt, just a outlet for frustration :thumbsup:

How cool to see you post again!

Think I've played all your missions (several times). ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No arguments here...

and HELLO to a bunch of old and dear friends! I'm glad I took a few minutes to stop by and look at the headlines today.... hadn't heard about GR4 (or whatever the heck the name will be) until now.

Here's my list in no particular order:

1) Give me Ghost Recon Redux - [GR] Plus modern graphics, sound and gameplay

2) Give me DIRECT IP CONNECTION and GameSpy

3) Give me Mission Packs at regular intervals and you WILL get my money! :)

4) For Krise - NORG. :)

5) Give me a strong SP campaign but butt-kicking MP abilities, too.

6) Open, non-scripted maps that can be completed multiple ways

7) Make those maps multi-use... same map, SP, MP, COOP, etc.

8) More flexible loadout scenarios... [GR] was old, GRAW was too limiting

9) SOUL-HOPPING... I know this is contentious but I loved being able to jump to other characters on my team and play their roles... also handy when my primary player character gets waxed but I still want to complete the mission.

10) EASY, SIMPLE, NO-BRAINER mod installation, prioritization and deactivation (without uninstall)

11) Multi-threaded development to support latest processors

12) TRUE widescreen support

13) Realistic ballistics / physics for weapons

14) Realistic damage model for all players... 1 shot kills for headshots, partial body damage when appropriate, etc.

15) Accurate night vision simulation, tracer rounds, etc.

16) Realistic silencing for weapons (silenced guns lose muzzle velocity, etc.)

17) Realistic scope / zoom for weapons ([GR] was weak but killer for it's day)

To this very day (this morning in fact), I still play [GR]... Sure the graphics are REALLY looking bad but the GAMEPLAY makes the game, not necessarily the eye candy.

Nuff said from my direction....

-JohnK

Phoenix, AZ

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I want what I've always wanted: an open-ended, some might say FarCry2-style, special forces campaign in a possibly fictional country resembling one of the Stans. You get to manage your team, pick your missions and equipment, take orders from higher-ups and gradually find your way to the end of the main quest. The tech is theere, but Ubi doesn't seem to have the balls to get away from the scripted mission and map mentality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want what I've always wanted: an open-ended, some might say FarCry2-style, special forces campaign in a possibly fictional country resembling one of the Stans. You get to manage your team, pick your missions and equipment, take orders from higher-ups and gradually find your way to the end of the main quest. The tech is theere, but Ubi doesn't seem to have the balls to get away from the scripted mission and map mentality.

Well said!

Until than i hope [OFP: DR] and Arma 2 are everything i am looking for in GR. Just can't help but think if GR was played out like ether of them games just alittle bit. GR would once again be perfect. Only difference i want in GR from them games is you have a call for a ride to get around when wanted/needed. Plus most important stealth. My god Far Cry has better stealth action then GR does anymore!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want what I've always wanted: an open-ended, some might say FarCry2-style, special forces campaign in a possibly fictional country resembling one of the Stans. You get to manage your team, pick your missions and equipment, take orders from higher-ups and gradually find your way to the end of the main quest. The tech is theere, but Ubi doesn't seem to have the balls to get away from the scripted mission and map mentality.

That actually can work out using Far Cry 2's engine tweaked to make it more realistic , picking teammates, equipping weapons with various attachments and using the command map to order around the squads like the original GR. If Ubisoft is going to get any game done right this year, it better be this one. :thumbsup:

Edited by belvucker
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what most have said....

New Graphics but the same [GR] gameplay

EASY MOD SUPPORT [GR] STYLE ( thats a big one for me if you couldn't tell :lol: )

Mod tools out of the box to allow mods to be made faster

GRAW style kit selection ( love [GR] but like the custom kit option GRAW offers )

hell id be happy with the same old [GR] but new graphics.... kinda like the Crysis custom visuals tweaks that are all over the place...

Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...