Ghost Recon Announcement

[WhiteKnight77]

I wonder what other promotions Ubi will have to help move titles that didn't sell as well as Ubi expected.

Considering all the problems reported with the DTD GR series promo of a few weeks ago, they still apparently have their hands full trying to pull their heads out.

Kleaneasy is fond of saying that change is coming and that that change takes time, but in order for things to start changing Ubi must actually have to start changing things...and so far there is absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever.

Incomplete titles -lacking core gameplay elements, poor support, inaccurate/misleading PR...yep, business as usual for Ubisoft.

I remember ms-kleaneasy stating that change was coming back in November 2007, that is 15 months ago and yet, nothing has changed outside of Ubi's CEO admitting that their games didn't meet the quality they were looking for and as a result, you see them trying to give away a somewhat decent, albiet buggy game with a full game that did not sell well if you buy it at full price. Not the kind of change gamers are looking for.

We gamers want Ubi to put out quality games that we want to play, not the buggy games they think we want to play. That is the difference and until they see that, they will have to continue the promotions that they are offering now. From what I see, they are better selling niche market games than they are selling mainstream market games. Maybe they should concetrate their efforts there instead.

I say that it was somewhat refreshing to see the CEO admit that their games are lacking in quality, now the question is, what does he intend to do about it?

[kleaneasy]

I remember ms-kleaneasy stating that change was coming back in November 2007, that is 15 months ago and yet, nothing has changed outside of Ubi's CEO admitting that their games didn't meet the quality they were looking for and as a result, you see them trying to give away a somewhat decent, albiet buggy game with a full game that did not sell well if you buy it at full price. Not the kind of change gamers are looking for.

We gamers want Ubi to put out quality games that we want to play, not the buggy games they think we want to play. That is the difference and until they see that, they will have to continue the promotions that they are offering now. From what I see, they are better selling niche market games than they are selling mainstream market games. Maybe they should concetrate their efforts there instead.

I say that it was somewhat refreshing to see the CEO admit that their games are lacking in quality, now the question is, what does he intend to do about it?

Given the time since I made that comment even if they were making a perfect faultless title to your very own personal specifications it wouldn’t be out yet so I don’t understand why you post here as if that were evidence of nothing changing.

Changes are taking place and there is some evidence of this in the CEO admitting the games were not to the standard we’d have liked, PoP having no DRM and so on. But it will take much longer to see the bigger impact of those changes.

However you shouldn’t confuse those changes being evident by you personally seeing what you want because they can make those changes and produce a great game with good support that isn’t what you want, that won’t mean nothing’s changed only that what you want isn’t wanted by enough people to see said idea supported in a final product

[doubletap]

Now Blackfoot Studios, well maybe thats where the hope lays for us as with Bohemia releasing ArmaII for Flashpoint fans.

I'm not trying to be negative, But to pin hopes on RSE saving and bringing back the Ghost Recon name to what we know and love I think is being very optimistic.

I am absolutely confident the next "GR" will be an even further departure from the gameplay established in GR1. I have no plans whatsoever of buying the next instalment falsely titled "Ghost Recon: xxxx". The last GR title I bought retail was GR2 xbox, if you don't count the GR Gold I bought 2 years ago.

The only reason I participate (for lack of a better word) in this thread is for the friendly interaction with like-minded Ghosts, and because although I'm nobody as far as Ubi is concerned, it gives me great pleasure knowing some of their marketers may be annoyed when reading my pointed remarks, should they happen to browse though them.

As for the conversation about undergoing or upcoming changes, I'm not concerned (at this time) about anything other than getting the gameplay itself right to begin with.

Edited February 26, 2009 by doubletap

[Fletch]

I have no plans whatsoever of buying the next instalment falsely titled "Ghost Recon: xxxx".

Having bought GR:AW1/2, I have to say I did enjoy the SP campaign of both BUT the MP was a horrible experience. Dropping through the ground, not able to get more than 3 people online and sometimes 2 before the game would crash. And a slew of other issues that made wanting to play MP with friends an experience to avoid. So I cautiously say while I hope that GR4 will be a great game I also don't plan on picking it up till I read Rocky's reviews of it and he can honestly give it 2 thumbs up.

[WhiteKnight77]

I do not expect a perfect faultless game, at least for us PC gamers due to hardware configurations and what not. I do expect a complete game that can be fixed in a patch or two even if the smallest of bugs still remain afterwards. The bugs that should not be in a release are the game or show stopping bugs that create havok for people playing online or even trying to complete a SP campaign (this is for all game genres and not just these games we discuss here).

I also know that some changes will take place behind the scenes, but others should be in the public eye. The CEO admitting that his company is releasing substandard games is just one small step, but others need to admit that they failed to do their job. As I said this time last year, Ubi needs to talk about what they are going to do creatively to create the games gamers actually want. Still, we have not heard anything from the creative department though we did hear from some developers (not the people we wanted to hear from) and what they said just reinforced what gamers have thought of Ubi employees.

Remember, ms-kleaneasy, I am not the only one who sees what is happening at and with Ubi. There are those here, at the Ubi forums and elsewhere that have seen what is going down.

Here is a euphamism that you might understand, Ubi threw the baby out with the bath water. Ubi had built in customers and by changing direction of the games that they bought, they tossed away thousands of customers, loyal customers and that is a Business 101 failure on Ubi's part.

[kleaneasy]

I think you misunderstand my post Wk, I’m not saying the changes shouldn’t be public (although as you said yourself many will be behind the scenes and not visible). What I am saying is that the kind of changes you ask for wont show at this stage no matter what is or isn’t changing.

Comments like this do concern me though...

The CEO admitting that his company is releasing substandard games is just one small step, but others need to admit that they failed to do their job.

It reads as if you want to see a public flogging, I honestly don’t see how this would benefit anyone least of all future final product and support. Shouldn’t we be focusing on getting it right rather than throwing tomatoes at people?

[[NH]4x]

Tomatoes would be too lite................time for

the tar and feathers,IMO......take a look at any/all the ubi forums (except maybe the IL 2 forums)......not many happy campers

Edited February 27, 2009 by [NH]4x

[WhiteKnight77]

No public floggin, just accountability.

As you can see, I am not alone, even [NH]4x notices that there are many unhappy campers at the Ubi forums though I will say that the forumites in the SH forums seem pretty content. Time to drop in on the LockOn forums to see what they are saying. You have seen me post in many of Ubi's forums so you can't deny what I am seeing. HAWX, FC2, GR, R6 and a bit of PoP has those that are unhappy. Outside of a few of us on the GR and R6 forums, they are practically dead, but then you already know that.

As I said before, at least I am looking for accountability. I think many would like to see Ubi state that they messed up and are gonna take a look backwards to move forward. Until SC:C is released, we will not see how well Ubi is doing and I see that as a benchmark game due to it's time in development and the "extra attention" it is getting (all games deserve extra attention really).

Another telling change is if Ubi doesn't release a new sequel in less than 2 years time as they have recently (and according to a recently quoted Ubi developer/representitive), stated that they are not trying to milk franchises.

[kleaneasy]

As I said before, at least I am looking for accountability. I think many would like to see Ubi state that they messed up and are gonna take a look backwards to move forward. Until SC:C is released, we will not see how well Ubi is doing and I see that as a benchmark game due to it's time in development and the "extra attention" it is getting (all games deserve extra attention really).

But here’s the problem, you said you wanted Ubi to admit they made mistakes with the current games, none other than the CEO himself admits that in a financial statement and it wasn’t enough. The problem as I have said many times before is you will not be satisfied until such time as you have a game in your hands that works as you want it to. Now there’s nothing wrong in that, so long as you know that.

The problem comes when you will only be satisfied by that game release yet continue to request other demonstrations of ‘change’ despite the fact none of those requests ever fulfilled will change how you feel, only opening the gate to the next request which also won’t change how you feel.

You and I have had this conversation many times now, I have no issue with fighting for the game you want, but I do think you’re wasting both your time and mine by asking for things that won’t change anything least of all how you feel and certainly won’t improve the chances of the next game being what you want.

[Bota:16]

Change...how about UBI fix the more recent titles. What does change have to do with future releases? I can think of a couple of UBI games that could use some TLC, but instead they (UBI) CHOSE not do anything. That is not change.

They can CHANGE the way they communicate, meaning talking to EXISTING and potential future customers on more than a monthly basis. Sorry but having a ComDev post info in a forum once a month is hardly much of an effort. FC2 was supposed to be a huge AAA title for UBI but look at it's forum...it's a ghost town as are the R6 and GR forums. Of course that goes back to my initial statement in communicating with EXISTING customers and fixing recent titles instead of abandoning them while they are still riddled with bugs and features that don't work properly.

People can preach change all they want but until something actually changes then it's frankly just smoke. The CEO just admitting to quality issues is not nearly enough. OK, the problem has been admitted but why is it too "late" to fix those games? It's not like there is a length of time that patches must cease to be released. Why would they not release a fixed dedicated server *.exe for Vegas 2? That is a small change that could of done wonders for UBI and Rainbow Six. But no, they never even attempted to remedy the problem.

The problem as I have said many times before is you will not be satisfied until such time as you have a game in your hands that works as you want it to.

True, but why cant this include existing games? Why have they stopped making patches for those games that didn't mean quality issues? Why not issue partial refunds to people who aren't happy with them? There is a hundred different things UBI could do to help rememdy the situation but they have chosen to do NOTHING. Much like the supposed changes.

[BS PALADIN]

I agree that FC2 was a HUGE letdown. The shame is that there is a great game there waiting to get out. The developers made some of the craziest design choices I've ever seen in a game. From dropping Assault to the hyper accelerated aiming system to the lack of an SDK to stupidly massive health to repetative missions to near instant enemy respawns to extremely casual orientated multiplayer gameplay etc etc. They are patching it but with this much wrong with the game it will takes along long time to get it right.

A SDK would enable the community to make the necessary mods to turn FC2 into a kickass game. Of that there is no doubt. But will they? If they are serious about changing then that would be the first significant step to rebuilding community spirit. FC2 has the potential, if only Ubisoft can drop bad habits then it could become a worthy sequel to FC1.

[KRP 56]

I agree that FC2 was a HUGE letdown. The shame is that there is a great game there waiting to get out.

A SDK would enable the community to make the necessary mods to turn FC2 into a kickass game. Of that there is no doubt. But will they? If they are serious about changing then that would be the first significant step to rebuilding community spirit. FC2 has the potential, if only Ubisoft can drop bad habits then it could become a worthy sequel to FC1.

Can't say that it was a let down for me as UBI finally got away from the linear crap they've been churning out. FC2 allows you to do your objectives anyway you choose and take however long you wish to complete them. Reminds me of GR as I watch the enemy and plot by best way to attack them or sneak by them if I choose. Can't say I agree with your health comment as the game does not require you to give yourself injections or drink water to improve your health. Try playing on infamous without doing either of those and see how much tension and pressure that puts on you. The biggest letdown for me is no SDK as I'm sure some good mission scripters could take this game to the next level.

[BS PALADIN]

Can't say I agree with your health comment as the game does not require you to give yourself injections or drink water to improve your health.

I must be playing a different game as you have to inject with syringes to gain more health.

[Fletch]

Can't say I agree with your health comment as the game does not require you to give yourself injections or drink water to improve your health.

I must be playing a different game as you have to inject with syringes to gain more health.

Maybe he meant you don't automatically use them when you walk over them/pick them up. IF I remember correctly you physically have to use them (hitting the heal button), giving you the option of playing without using them.

[ApexMods]

Today I posted in the Ubisoft forum for the very first time, after reading through page after page of comments on the GR4 announcement over there. It was a heat-of-the-moment kinda thing, as once again my feelings about Ghost Recon and it's future found a way to take over. Anyway, for the benefit of our readers I might as well quote my post for you here:

First of all, I would like to thank Kimi and Kleaneasy for this topic and their efforts in keeping our frustrations about the lack of information at bay. Everyone here should keep in mind that it is not the fault of the community managers if Ubisoft corporate decide to keep a lid on the state of the development process and planned release dates. Under the circumstances, I think Kimi and Kleaneasy have a tough enough job as it is, and just like most of us they would probably prefer to be able to provide more details and positive news. Thanks again - I know it's not easy being in our shoes.

So there will be a new Ghost Recon, that much is certain. Whether it will come out in a couple of months or a year from now is actually not all that important to me. I am, first and foremost, glad that there is in fact a Ghost Recon sequel on the horizon at all, as this once again gives me some hope that maybe - just maybe - this time there might finally be a worthy Ghost Recon successor in the works somewhere. For those of you who don't know my posts over at GhostRecon.net this probably sounds rather confusing, so I will try to explain myself.

I am a 'hardcore' Ghost Recon fan, and I have been from the very first day of its release back in November 2001. Yes, I am talking about THAT Ghost Recon, the one sometimes referred to as 'O-G-R', 'O-r-i-g-i-n-a-l Ghost Recon', 'Ghost Recon 1', or 'Ghost Recon Classic'. To me, all of those titles sound terribly wrong, because in my personal opinion there is only ONE Ghost Recon - THE Ghost Recon.

Yes, I am well aware that this might be a controversial opinion to utter here, especially since this forum thread is shared between console and PC gamers, but I simply feel compelled to make a stand for my all-time-favorite game here. Because to me, comparing Ghost Recon to the later Advanced Warfighter installments of the franchise feels like comparing chess to tic-tac-toe.

This is by no means flamebait, but merely the expression of my personal opinion which I don't expect to be shared by all of you, and before you attack me for my admittedly extreme point of view, or - even worse and equally futile - attempt to convince me otherwise, please allow me to give you my reasons.

Ghost Recon is a squad-based military tactical shooter, an infantry simulation of a special forces unit if you will. It was the first of its kind back in the day, and it took realism and strategy in shooter games to a completely new level by combining tactical aspects of Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six series with non-linear gameplay in an open 'sandbox' outdoors environment and adding cutting-edge hierarchical multi-level AI, completely unparalleled to this very day.

Although it contains some hints of 'future warrior' technology in a couple of weapons and and equipment (military materiel in actual field-testing at the time), Ghost Recon basically delivers a very accurate depiction of what infantry combat of elite special forces units far behind enemy lines really looks and, more importantly, feels like.

The result is a game that will totally immerse you in its simulated reality and have your palms sweat of suspense within minutes of gameplay. Complete non-linearity and unsurpassed enemy AI guarantees that no two missions are ever the same and keeps you on your toes whenever you sign up for yet another round on the battlefield. Yes, even today. Almost ten years after playing this game for the very first time, Ghost Recon has lost none of its fascination for me.

Luckily, I am not the only one who feels that way. As WhiteKnight77 already stated before me, when you look up the rankings of tactical shooters played online today, you will find Ghost Recon - that game title from 2001 - among the top ten most played every single day. An active online multiplayer community including several active ladder/league competitions from 2001 to 2009... and with no end in sight - that should give you a clue that there must be something very special about this game.

And the online multiplayer numbers only tell half of the story. A recently published collection of Ghost Recon mods (fan-made modifications) spans a total of 7 Data-DVDs, with several hundreds if not thousands of mods released for the game to this day. And when you head over to GhostRecon.net you will find that there are still more mods under active development for months and years to come.

In the entire history of computer games there is only a small handful of titles that have had the privilege of such amazing longevity and ongoing fan support. To achieve this kind of following, a game has to be more than a short-whiled diversion, it has to offer more than cheap action thrills and eye candy, it has to provide something that is found nowhere else - something that makes it stand out in the crowd.

It has been argued again and again, and it seems quite difficult to pinpoint and easily define what exactly the reason for Ghost Recon's incredible success is. I probably don't know the full answer to this riddle either and trying to explain it here would certainly go beyond the scope of this already very long post, but I know one thing for sure - for me, that special quality which set the game apart was completely lost in all of the so-called 'sequels'.

When I look at the franchise today and I see the GRAWs withering away in Ghost Recon's shadow within just months of their release, I cannot say that it surprises me. Being completely different in all but name, they utterly failed to follow their ancestor in his huge footsteps off the beaten track and rather walked off on the broad and comfortable road of shallow mainstream rail-action-shooter entertainment. While it may look promising and easier to travel at first sight, this road is used by many contenders, and in the end only the newest ones get their short moment in the sun of novelty on this path.

While the GRAWs delivered some new graphics and catered to the fresh young two-thumbs-controller console clientele, they have none of the qualities of a tactical shooter. Where Ghost Recon earned its game-of-the-year awards by being praised far and wide as "the thinking man's shooter", the GRAWs took their place among countless other no-brains-required-just-follow-this-path-and-shoot-everything action games, with all the on-screen-comic-strip-HUD-diamonds-cross-com-health-charge-meter-and-i-don't-know-what that comes with that kind of arcade run-and-gun shovelware these days.

Sure, this is a popular genre - especially among console kids, but why on earth would someone want to take the Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon game franchise down that road? Why not create some new game identity for that market, with some fancy name that better targets the new key audience, e.g. something with "Ultra", "Mega", "Super", or even "Advanced" in the title and many 'cool' and 'phat' colorful pictures on the package? But if I buy a new Clancy novel I don't expect to get a comic book, either.

The magical real-world combat sim immersion of old is gone, wiped out by a Captain Mitchell superhero fantasy story, an overbearing cross-com-toting sci-fi HUD, clumsy console-centric third person view puppet-string controls, supernatural bullet-resistant health, and "you are leaving the mission area" messages if you try do something other than following that narrow path prescribed for you by the developers. The spine-tingeling edge-of-your-seat experience of Ghost Recon is replaced by a semi-interactive cinematic sequence that requires about as much firing brain cells as watching television, with the level of excitement to match.

As you can see in other posts of this forum thread, there is indeed an audience for this kind of shallow action entertainment, and rightly so. Video games, especially console titles, are often played for the sole purpose of a slight diversion, for a quick break from reality and some fun time that allows you to 'switch off your head' for a moment and let your subconscious and reflexes take over. The plethora of games catering to this kind of entertainment certainly has a valid raison d'être, but there is also another audience of gamers out there which expect their games to deliver more than just thoughtless diversion, and their choice of games is traditionally a lot more limited.

Tom Clancy games used to provide exactly what this audience wanted. They delivered on the computer what Tom Clancy novels offered in paper form: Superbly clever entertainment with a twist of highly detailed realism that in combination delivered a much deeper and involved enjoyment for the consumer than previously experienced in computer games - especially of the 'shooter' breed. The GRAWs have taken that quality away from Ghost Recon, just like Vegas has killed the tactical aspects of Rainbow Six - so an entire family of once uniquely smart computer games has left huge parts of their fan base behind to jump on the mainstream bandwagon of shovelware.

Just like countless other first-hour fans of Ghost Recon, I have waited for the future installments with bated breath, hoping for a worthy successor. As it turned out, we've been holding our breath now for almost ten years, so by now we are in desperate need of life support! To add insult to injury, the makers of those new games not only failed to provide us with a breath of fresh air, but also spat in our collective face by completely ignoring the wishes and desires of their most loyal customers, because what we got form Ubisoft so far is nothing short of an insult to any serious tactical shooter fan.

Let's not forget where this franchise is originally coming from. The early fans of Ghost Recon, the ones that ate it up with spoons back in 2001, the ones that started hundreds of fan web sites, created countless mods, founded multiplayer clans, established online gaming leagues - these fans made Ghost Recon into much much more than the simple silver disc it came on: They turned it into a cult.

This cult following is what allowed the franchise to come into being in the first place, this devoted fan-ship created the huge wave of word-of-mouth recommendations that put Ghost Recon on the map for masses of its players. Please forgive the demonstration of self-confidence here, but without us devotees, Ghost Recon would have come and gone just like thousands of other games before and after - with a short life span of shining novelty and an early death once that novelty rubs off and something new comes along.

So far, all that Ubisoft has done with the capital of fan devotion is milk it. They slapped the Ghost Recon brand name on some unrelated half-baked games to quickly and repeatedly cash in on the runaway success of the series' founder, abusing a unique masterpiece to bolster support for common and average-at-best so-called 'sequels', and as mentioned before, they did it to other brilliant games like Rainbow Six in a similar fashion. When you browse the web in search of discussions around this subject you can easily find thousands and thousands of posts of the same general tenor: What an absolute shame!

Well, after all this venting of suppressed anger that had build up over the years, I want to end my little rant on a positive note. Because in spite of all this abuse, the true Ghost Recon fans are still here... waiting. Waiting, because we simply refuse to believe that this will have been the last word in a saga that began with such unimaginable promise, waiting with a child's unwillingness to believe in the unjust.

So here I stand in front of you, Ubisoft, with nothing to offer but a desperate plea to finally do right by the loyal fans and give us what we have been waiting for all these years:

Please give us our beloved Ghost Recon back!

[Big]

Today I posted in the Ubisoft forum ......

You don't expect many answers, don't you? with such a long story

Anyways, it was a nice read and nice written.

I hope it doesn't fall in deaf ears.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Big

[BS PALADIN]

Great read and very well put. But we'll see if has any effect on Ubi.

[NoQuarter]

You don't expect many answers, don't you? with such a long story

We all have our own crosses to bear, Big, his is that penchant to treat posts as piecework...bless his heart.

The lost art of brevity.