Is There Anything RIGHT With GRAW?

[OldGhost]

With the announcement that GR4 is on the way, this forum has been active with what everybody would like to see in the new game. Myself included. Being a new member of this website and reading what people have written in this and other forums on this board, I have observed two things. 1...almost everybody on this board is interested in multiplayer and not singleplayer as the game came out of the box. And 2...everybody hated the GRAW series of games.

So I thought it would be intertaining to ask all you ghosts......was there anything RIGHT with the GRAW series??? And is there anything that you would like to see carried over into GR4?

I will start this out saying that watching the Military Channel I have seen programs documenting how the military is going Hi-Tech trying to marry up the soldier with an extra small computer carried by the soldier connecting him to the internet and all the militaries assets around the world. I have also seen programs about the research and development of flexible body armor that in a few millisecond goes from flexible to stiff protecting the soldier from bullet impacts.

I liked the GRAW series because they reflected the direction that the real military is taking and......I like Hi-Tech gadgets.

I also liked the control you had over the main character what with sliding and diving into cover and having the use of the UAV.

There's more but let's hear from you all.

OldGhost.

[Phlookian]

Personally, I only play games SP (I just don't have the time to schedule anything like a co-op match in, or wait up 'til midnight to join a decent server from another continent)

So my comments are from a SP perspective

The one thing GRAW really got right (IMHO) was the point and click team orders (of course it didn't really work but the idea was sound)

This was true to a real life situation, if you wanted your team mate to walk a few yards and cover a street, you'd tell him to do it (not bury your head in a map)

The weapon loadout also wasn't bad but it's no real difference to any number of similar shooters

[wombat50]

I only played the SP campaigns in the GRAW series.

I thought the sound in general was very good.

I liked how the weapons handle and have the sense of recoil when using them.

I thought the building architecture and layout of the maps was very interesting in GRAW1 more so then GRAW2.

I agree with you guys, I liked the sliding and diving and the point and click to maneuver your squad was a big improvement on the original GR.

[NoQuarter]

I like Hi-Tech gadgets.

There is nothing wrong in bringing new features into a series, that is afterall what keeps them going - but it has to be done correctly and the :AW* entries failed this in numerous instances...take your Hi-Tech gadget fetish for example.

The UAV and the somewhat redundant real-time satelite-fed Tac-Map, (while always nice to have two stones for one bird), should not take the place of usable gear which will still be in use in the 22nd Century and beyond -come hell or high water- i.e., POV binoculars.

____

Replying to: Is There Anything RIGHT With GRAW?

The ambient and weapons audio of both titles were very good.

[Fletch]

I really like GR:AW except for being unable to play MP with out crashing or falling through the earth and small maps that led you up kill zones and missions that had to be done a certain way.

[krise madsen]

I play almost exclusively SP, with a teensy weensy bit of co-op with friends (on the rare occations where we can match our schedules).

I'm a total military tech whore and absolutely love hi-tech gadgets, so having hi-tech gear as such was something I liked about GRAW. It was just somewhat poorly implemented and was really a dressed-up front for bog standard shooter features such as the map and squad command. Considering the hi-tech gadgetry either in use or on the drawing board these days, the selection of gear in GRAW was not very good IMO.

GRAW2 in particular was an honest attempt to improve on the squad command system of GR, adding such valuable features as the ability to set up commands and have the squad execute them simultaneously. It just wasn't really perfected, and the lack of soul switching kinda hurt the squad tactical experince IMO.

The weapons did indeed have a great feel to them, but in terms of actual use, they were somewhat lacking in realism. The selection of weapons improved dramatically from GRAW1 to GRAW2 though.

The source of all the less satisfactory features was that whomever signed off on the design decisions didn't quite grasp the whole concept of the tactical squad-based shooter, as opposed to the GR1 design team.

[Kingkat]

I agree with all the posts. There has been a lot to like about the GRAW series. Simple order system for squad and excellent maps, missions, graphics, etc.

I believe that GRAW is spot on about military in the (not too far) future. Weapons, systems and comms are as real as they get.

They got a lot right.

[Rocky]

Yeh there is a lot to like about AW, just because it lacked in some areas should not detract from some of the new stuff that was very cool.

[KRP 56]

I also only play SP and there wasn't much of anything I liked about GRAW but GRAW 2 just about hit the nail on the head. Had GRIN spent more time scripting random enemy movements I would have been very satisfied even though I hate the one hero concept.

[MadMike]

My friends and I have played through the GRAW1 and GRAW2 campaigns cooperatively again and again and we love it.

The only "complains" we had with GRAW1+2 was the bugs (CTD), the lack of weapons (compared to GR) and the fact that there were no subsequent Add-ons published (unlike DS and IT for GR).

MadMike

[Brettzies]

The weapon customization was very good in both, but took a step back with the mp/coop "kits" in Graw2. I like the idea of having different soldier classes, but having to "code" different kits or shuffle through them was quite annoying when they should have just put limits on which weapons and/or attachments were available to which class. As well as maybe give them some other bonuses.

[Lightspeed]

I liked a lot about GRAW and GRAW2 actually - so close to being the game I wanted in many respects.

Unfortunately, my biggest dislikes about it outweighed the positive.

For example, no pink diamonds and less hollywood and linear scripting so that you COULD do objectives in any order as per GR and I would have loved this game for a long time.

Also connection issues and poor coop and mission editor killed it.

But it was actually very close to being great imho.

[OldGhost]

Interesting. So far, 330 people have red this post but only 11 people have bothered to reply. And of those 11, some could not help sneaking a criticism into their posts. This was supposed to be a thread about what was right with the GRAW series.

No offence to anyone. This is just an observation that I think tends to back up my feeling that most members of this website didn't like the GRAW series.

I was hoping that this thread would help the creators of GR4 identify what the fans liked about the GRAW series and carry them over into GR4.

Things like the Cross Com as a means of controling the movenemt and mode of operation of the squad. In my opinion, the Cross Com along with the tactical map in GRAW2 gave me the most precise control of my men of any of the GR series. I hope that the game creators build this feature into GR4.

And I would like to ask the game creators to add a command to the tactical map. This would be a move and cover command that tells the Ghost to both move and then cover a direction while in recon mode. In GRAW2 this required two commands to compleat. This new command would be a time and effort saver and make the game run smoother.

OldGhost.

[oz-ares]

My opinion:

I started to play Multiplayer with a "free game" , a gimmick to my old 8800 GTX... called GRAW 1.

I was a hardcore embarassing noob with a bad knowlege about the engl. language and had had my first game with americans. "XE" (Xtreme Eagels). Very nice polite ppl. who adopt me and show me the game.

Maybe i souldnt say something in here, because i never played GR 1 before.

I started with GRAW 1. But if i compare the community of GR (AW) to other ones like CoD or Crysis, there are a lot of arrogant kids and "...".

The small community of GR (AW) is a very nice one. I can talk to ppl. all around the world without problems. A lot of clans are very polite and give a feeling of "your welcome here".

Morover i like the Mods in GRAW 1+2. Never saw and played mods that make the game that much better.

All in all: Fakk GR1 , GRAW 1 + 2 and keep up the community.

Michel Jackson said: "... It doesnt matter if you re black (GR) or white (GR:AW)"

I only totally disagree with the lack of support of the publisher. But that is not only a problem of GR or GRAW. Its an actual problem with / of all publishers.

But the basic and concept of a tactical shooter is great. So i give a fakk

Edited August 6, 2009 by oz-ares

[krise madsen]

No offence to anyone. This is just an observation that I think tends to back up my feeling that most members of this website didn't like the GRAW series.

I was hoping that this thread would help the creators of GR4 identify what the fans liked about the GRAW series and carry them over into GR4.

Things like the Cross Com as a means of controling the movenemt and mode of operation of the squad. In my opinion, the Cross Com along with the tactical map in GRAW2 gave me the most precise control of my men of any of the GR series. I hope that the game creators build this feature into GR4.

And I would like to ask the game creators to add a command to the tactical map. This would be a move and cover command that tells the Ghost to both move and then cover a direction while in recon mode. In GRAW2 this required two commands to compleat. This new command would be a time and effort saver and make the game run smoother.

OldGhost.

I'm not sure those of us who dislike the GRAW series are the majority, we're just rather vocal. Not that I in any way represent the "GR-was-great-GRAW-not-so-much" crowd, but I guess it boils down to GRAW being fundamentally flawed with a few good features here and there, whereas GR was fundamentally brilliant with a few niggles here and there.

And yes, the squad command system was indeed one of the things that the GRAW series did quite well (though it still requries a good deal of additional polish), especially since it was one of the weaker points of GR.

[OldGhost]

"I'm not sure those of us who dislike the GRAW series are the majority, we're just rather vocal. Not that I in any way represent the "GR-was-great-GRAW-not-so-much" crowd, but I guess it boils down to GRAW being fundamentally flawed with a few good features here and there, whereas GR was fundamentally brilliant with a few niggles here and there.

And yes, the squad command system was indeed one of the things that the GRAW series did quite well (though it still requries a good deal of additional polish), especially since it was one of the weaker points of GR."

There is no wrong or bad opinion here. We in this community are the collective judges of the game submitted to us and no mans opinion is better than the next. And we are all on the side of GRIN who somehow has to compromise it's way into gaining as many favorable opinions as possible. I myself through my wish list posted here in this forum have put in my two cents about what I think would make the game better.

From what I have red in these forums, I think that I can sum up a lot of peoples feelings by saying that with the GRAW series the game creators came up with some really good ideas but failed to perfect them to our satisfaction.

OldGhost.

[oz-ares]

Nobody knows what UBISOFT / Grin will do with GR4.

I think we should hope the best, while answer the questions of e.g. Kimi

(What would you like to add or remove in GR4).

But anyway. I would be surprised, if they do a gimmick like thermography sights (glasses)... like in "Splinter Cell".

[krise madsen]

Just to avoid any confusion:

GRIN isn't making GR4. Red Storm Entertainment is.

[petsfed]

I really enjoyed the action phase interface. The weapon switching, the command interface, and the command map from GRAW1. You had an incredibly powerful and intuitive system at your fingertips. I even liked the enemy tagging system (although it had an ESP quality to it that certainly detracted from the realism) and the lack of soul-switching, at least in principle. Its just that the some of the other choices made the game into too much of an action game, rather than a tactical game. The health system, the AI, the plot, the frustratingly linear missions, the limited team size, etc were all so non-realistic as to cast a pall over that interface.

Just to be clear, if the friendly AI is good enough to follow your orders precisely (and a command interface robust enough to express your orders), you don't need soul switching to accomplish the mission.

[OldGhost]

The health system, the AI, the plot, the frustratingly linear missions, the limited team size, etc were all so non-realistic as to cast a pall over that interface.

As far as the health system is concerned, I have watched the Military Channel and have seen where the U.S. government is doing research on flexible body armor that in a nano second or so turns stiff apon a bullet impact to protect the soldier and sense GRAW is set in the near future, I am willing to give the game creators some creative licence on this one.

OldGhost.

[petsfed]

The health system, the AI, the plot, the frustratingly linear missions, the limited team size, etc were all so non-realistic as to cast a pall over that interface.

As far as the health system is concerned, I have watched the Military Channel and have seen where the U.S. government is doing research on flexible body armor that in a nano second or so turns stiff apon a bullet impact to protect the soldier and sense GRAW is set in the near future, I am willing to give the game creators some creative licence on this one.

OldGhost.

I meant more the little meter. No matter how advanced armor becomes, hit points are still an unrealistic way to describe overall health. The injury feedback compared to the original GR left something to be desired.

[OldGhost]

I meant more the little meter. No matter how advanced armor becomes, hit points are still an unrealistic way to describe overall health. The injury feedback compared to the original GR left something to be desired.

Your right. In original GR if you got hit you were momentarily knocked off balance and then you herd labored breathing. These things should be brought back along with slower movement, seeing your squad mates limp when they are hert and maybe some slightly blurred vision would be nice.

OldGhost.

[[NCA]Metatron]

I was really disappointed by GRAW or GRAW2 as old Ghost Recon player.

The imprecise and jerky control, the strong limits in the multiplayer options, the monotone and poor variety of maps and indoor/outdoor transitions, the ugly AI, the limits in squadron control and tactical planning, the pointless kit buy/sell system for such a kind of game in multiplayer, the lack of camo change, the lack of editor... just to mentioned some points

Nice graphics are not sufficient to make a - more imporant - fascinating game.

[mwgfghost]

I like being able to customize my weapons in GRAW more than GR. I thought the kit system in GR was flatout dumb. Another thing I like about GRAW(not GRAW 2) is the insertion. It makes it feel a lot more personal. Everybody was telling me "Well you can edit it to get it to the point where you can have insertions like that" One: I dont know a thing about mods. And two: It should be in the game already. I shouldn't have to make a mod for that. That's what was wrecked in GRAW 2. And I too liked all the high-tech hardware even if it's not in production or being used a certain way. It's like someone complaining about everything that can't be done in movies because Mythbusters proved it wrong. I know you can't curve a bullet around someone's head and hit the target behind them but it's still a cool concept let me watch the movie(even though I find Angelina Jolie to be extremely annoying)

[funk]

I am a great co-op believer, when I see a ghost game I think of co-op. If I want to play deathmatch I will play counter-strike source or COD4 modern warfare. I see GRAW as co-op only! I cannot stress that enough!

Now, to business, ;-)

I have just started playing GRAW again because I missed the friendly people who once populated the servers with me playing co-op. I started with GRAW which IMO is far better than GRAW2. GRAW has a custom loadout of weapons, you can pick what you want, which is how it should be. I hate custom packs with a passion, I want to pick what I want to carry. The "spawn on leader" option is an absolute must with squads of 4. The map must display who is where with their names aswell, very important.

There must be a download map option if you join a server and do not have the map, and you should not have to re-start the game after you have downloaded! COD4 MW has this, why cant GRAW!

The cross-com system is/has to come to co-op, this would be unbelievably great, to give a player instructions would be a winner in my book.

Now, voice-coms has to be an option aswell, counter-stike source has it and it works perfectly.

GRAW2 was a big diss-appointment from the start with no spawn on leader so straight away GRAW2 turned into a deathmatch option just like the rest. I tried co-op but it was just not the same, one of the reasons why I stopped playing GRAW series. GRAW put me off because of the obscene loading times, a joke at modern standards. I still think GRAW is the benchmark which [GR 4] should aim at. GRAW with the ability to pickup other players weapons is an absolute winner.

Oh, and please no vehicles. ;-)

Anything else I can remember I will post later.