Is There Anything RIGHT With GRAW?

[NoQuarter]

^^

Users wanting mind-controlled warp bullets because its cool and done in the movies. Lord.

Users demanding Spawn on Leader because as everyone knows there should not be any consequences at all to the Fire Team for a member getting shot online along with the fact that all that running across the map to rejoin the fight gets boring after the 15th time in a row.

Just two of the latest examples in this topic which go to prove that there will never be a true sequel to the original...assuming of course, that the decision-makers at Ubi actually hear of or read any of these wanted features and act upon them -instead of getting back to the basics and covering the bases.

____EDIT:

Replying to: Is There Anything RIGHT With GRAW?

Well, they didn't exactly set the bar on the top rung with these last two titles did they, so any follow-up could not possibly fall short.

Or could it?

Edited September 8, 2009 by NoQuarter

[chiles4]

Red Storm Entertainment is.

But that is no longer the RSE of old, correct?

I can't really comment in this thread because the GR series fell off a cliff, IMHO, with GRAW...but I'll say the following.

If Ubisoft has the last word on the game, I hope we don't see the following:

- no moddability whatsoever

- the ability to see through walls

- incredible array of faces for character customization

Personally, I'd prefer if they completely stripped all the tech out of the game and set it in the late 70s or early 80s.

I'm very curious to see what direction this goes in? What is the actually name of the game, Ghost Recon 4? If so, that's a bit confusing.

[OberstGeil]

i like playing brettzies mod ... gives a more gritty and dirty feel to the game , i'm not getting comfortable with this robocop stuff ....

... though we have to face that GRAW 1+2 are the best tac fps out there , [OFP: DR] DR is also big in this genre now from what one can read in reviews .

GRAW 1+2 are good games , but they couldve been three times better with just a little more effort ...

i see this lack in effort mainly in level design and AI , plus everything (weapons,movement,animations,etc.) couldve been a tad more realistic .

it hurts that in every genre i like to play , only halfassed games are produced ( arma and arma2 , [OFP: DR] , GRAW and GRAW , rainbow six , etc . )

it seems as if gameproducers dont have enough balls nowadays ... or the publishers have too big ones

regards , max

[JASGripen]

Ok, I am all about PvP, I did not play through the SP missions and only did like 4 COOP missions taken together on the both titles.

Negative:

* No anti cheat. That was actually the worst part with the game. I was GRAW2 moderator at TWL for a time and it was sometimes kind of hard to be cheerful when people started to bicker about SS tis or dat.

*No SADS at release, they came later but some of the community where already gone then.

*Game Spy did turn some people off. These days the third party system is common, criticism was perhaps to harsh.

Positive:

Well the game in itself was not that bad, not at all. I reinstalled it the recent week after OPDR showed what a let-down it was. Cod MW2 seems to go the same way, less unexpected though.

And GRAW2 had in its haydays not much fewer players than ARMA2 has now. Perhaps GRAW2 wasn't such a PvP on-line disgrace after all.

When it comes to actual ingame stuff I must say that I liked the sound in GRAW/2. Some parts were made unrealistic due to underestimation of the players knowledge. But most of it was the best I have heard in any game.

[doubletap]

I think there's tons of things "right" with GRAW. But there's too much of a departure from what makes GR what it is, and it does say GHOST RECON on the box. I think it's a really good game, and if you try really hard you CAN use realistic tactics and pretend that you actually need to. But.

In short, I wanted a GR sequel and never got one. Never will, apparently. Fortunately another company has stepped up and delivered

Edit: my point of view is from the SP/co-op perspective. I don't care how realistic and tactical a game is developed, PvP always turns out like Quake Arena.

Yes it does.

Edited October 20, 2009 by doubletap

[JASGripen]

I think there's tons of things "right" with GRAW. But there's too much of a departure from what makes GR what it is, and it does say GHOST RECON on the box. I think it's a really good game, and if you try really hard you CAN use realistic tactics and pretend that you actually need to. But.

In short, I wanted a GR sequel and never got one. Never will, apparently. Fortunately another company has stepped up and delivered

Edit: my point of view is from the SP/co-op perspective. I don't care how realistic and tactical a game is developed, PvP always turns out like Quake Arena.

Yes it does.

In short you could have quoted Dilbert: "I ask for so little, and boy do I get it".

[doubletap]

^^

Users wanting mind-controlled warp bullets because its cool and done in the movies. Lord.

In fairness, he was using that only as an analogy, not actually saying this particular feature should be in GR. He was comparing criticisms of those features in movies with criticisms to futuristic items in GRAW.

I think it's a flawed analogy though, because GR is all about being an ultra-realistic approach to FPS. This is what set GR, OFP and R6 apart from typical FPS.

With regards to what shooter fans expect from GR or GRAW or GR4, I get much satisfaction knowing "gamers" jump into a tac shooter and find it boring, too slow, too difficult, has boring REALISTIC weapons, etc etc.

When will shooter fans learn that just because a game has guns and shooting in it doesn't mean it's for YOU. You can't jump from Ace Combat into Falcon 4 and expect to just start flipping switches and pushing buttons and have a good experience. You're gonna get bored, and you're gonna suck really bad. And then hopefully.......you'll move on, lol.

Edited October 20, 2009 by doubletap

[twcrash]

Its actually all about having fun. It's a game nothing more. If you try and make it anymore than that you set yourself up for disappointment. They are games and fun to play. I get in a game with friends and we have a good time. Mods like Brettzies add more to it and make em better and the community adds missions and maps that keep it fresh and fun. Multiplayer can be tough especially if you don't play it regularly. Over all some great games. For the cost of less than ten bucks for either they are great buys as well. I would say get em.

Edited October 21, 2009 by twcrash

[doubletap]

Its actually all about having fun. It's a game nothing more.

COD is a game, nothing more. Vegas is a game, nothing more. Games like GR, OFP, Arma, these are not just games to their fans, they are a hobby. Gaming in general is not my hobbie. Tactical shooters are. If that doesn't make sense to someone, then that shows the difference between us, as GR players.

You say it's all about having fun, and that's true, but there is much to that statement. Halo is "fun", but it's not GR. I like both, but one is a fun game, and one is my hobbie. It's closely related to other interests like real world military topics, firearms, hardware, history, current operations, etc.

So when the topic of what's good or not good about a GR game is brought up, I look at it from a less simplistic point of view than someone who regards the series as just another shooter, lumped in with COD and the rest; just a game.

[twcrash]

COD is a game, nothing more. Vegas is a game, nothing more. Games like GR, OFP, Arma, these are not just games to their fans, they are a hobby. Gaming in general is not my hobbie. Tactical shooters are. If that doesn't make sense to someone, then that shows the difference between us, as GR players.

Still all games. You can have a Vega with a number sticker you put on it and call it a race car but guess what... it's still a Vega.

The whole use of the word "tactical" is WAY overused and means absolutely nothing. What makes a tactical assault team? The weapons and clothes? No, its the training and execution of preplanned movements and "tactics". I watch people all the time run thru GR like bats outta hell and fire the MM2 (auto grenade launcher i believe) into spawns. Nothing tactical there other than shear saturation in my opinion BUT did they play the game and was it tactical? Well yes they did they used the "TACTIC" that they have refined in dealing as much carnage as possible with the least amount of effort kinda like carpet bombing.

So trying to use the "Holier than thou" approach to games doesn't work. I mean I own VBS1 does that mean I can say there's a difference between me and you? And I am a more tactical player because of it? And does my opinion override yours since you don't own a true "Tactical Simulation" ? Answer is no. I am no better than the guy who went out and found the game in the bargain bin last week.

Actually of you were gonna quote what a tactial sim is I would say Dangerous Waters is a true tactical simulation. But then again that is my opinion. Hell I watched a group of Marines play KumaWars and they were using RW tactics the whole time. Now is KumaWars a tactical Shooter? Probably not in your opinion but those Marines sure impressed me with it.

[doubletap]

Don't try so hard to be offended.

I never called GR a simulation, I called it a tactical shooter. That IS the genre in which GR, R6, OFP and a few others belong. And the games in that genre are more REALISTIC, not more "tactical", than COD and the sort. Can you run and gun in a tac shooter? Of course, especialy in PvP, but far less so in SP and co-op than you can in an arcade shooter.

You're right, "tactical" is overused, and misused. But you're wrong that it "means absolutely nothing". It's a valid term when properly used, and it most definately is relevant to the topic of Ghost Recon. But I concede it does tend to lose it's effect when it's so widely misused.

I also agree with you 100% about the way people run n gun and grenade spawn points etc in MP. That is the "shooter fan" approach to every shooter regardless how realistic the subject matter of the game is. It can't be avoided, they infest every title which involves shooting of any kind. Their pitiful execution and pathetic tactics don't change the fact that the game they are ruining is in fact a tac shooter and in a different class than COD and Halo.

You look at how gamers play a game to determine it's category. Hence they all fall under "just games". That view is flawed. My position is that the difference between tac shooters and typical shooters is in what the game offers YOU, not what you do with it.

Now is KumaWars a tactical Shooter? Probably not in your opinion but those Marines sure impressed me with it.

I've never heard of KW, and I can't say I'm one of "those Marines" you refer to, but I am a disabled Army vet. But I get your point, you can play just about anything realistically to a degree.

And you don't have to be "better" than someone to know a little more about something than they do. Has nothing to do with being "holier than thou".

Lastly, the Vega/race car analogy is anemic. Tac shooters, and to a greater extent, combat sims, are not merely shooters dressed up as something more than regular shooters. They facilitate not only more realistic gameplay, but a greater level of immersion and an authenticity not found in games with sticky grenades and a hollywood style offering. How the game feels is just as important as how it is played, if not more so.

Edit: and BTW, my post had little to do with "tactical" or what a true simulation is. I was trying to explain why many GR fans look at it as a lasting hobby, not merely just another shooter. We all have our reasons but I'm willing to bet that for the majority of fans it just comes down to the authentic FEEL of the game. To get somewhat back on topic, I feel this has not been preserved in any sequels to date.

Edited October 22, 2009 by doubletap

[twcrash]

Not offended at all. But there is no difference between cod4 (your arcade shooter) and GR (tact shooter). They are both great games and how they are played are dependent of the player. I have played in MANY tactical COD4 servers and it is some of the best gameplay around.

"Arcade Shooter" along with "Immersion" is another highly overrated set of words thrown around that are misused.They are used to demean a game.

COD4 was THE game of 2007. in 2010 it will STILL be selling for over 30 bucks. Name another game besides Counterstrike that still sells like that 6 months after release? I found ArmA 2 already for 14.99 and it isn't even 6 months old. Don't be so condencending about a game try just having fun with it. Anything can Immerse you into subject being laid out before you.

Doom was great at that. It's really all subject to the player.

But I still say for the money GRAW and GRAW 2 are great games and you will have a good time playing them.Same with Vegas,Vegas2 and COD series. They all are fun to play and bring their own feel to the Genre of PC shooter. Another free game that is a great tac sim is Full Spectrum Warrior which can be downloaded for free thru FileFront HERE. Which is a former U.S. Army training tool.

Edited October 22, 2009 by twcrash

[Tinker]

But there is no difference between cod4 (your arcade shooter) and GR (tact shooter). They are both great games...

Agree they are both great games but...There is a HUGE difference, i.e. COOP. Sneaking around the map, taking a look around. Going the long way.

[twcrash]

Well there are maps that play large. Custom maps are what most tactical servers use and they are some great maps. Like I said it's all in the way you play it. As for Coop you really can't compare due to the fact that there is no coop on COD4 (at least not native).

Edited October 22, 2009 by twcrash

[doubletap]

Like I said it's all in the way you play it.

And like I said, that's exactly where your view is off the mark. If all that matters is how you play it, then if you try hard enough, Frogger can be played "tactically" and therefore is just like GR.

The way a game is developed, and the virtual world it provides you with, is what defines it. What you do with it beyond that is up to you. That doesn't change the type of game it is! In fact, your phylosophy of "they're all the same", is precisely what leads to all the rediculous run/gun ARCADE gameplay in even the most realistic of shooters.

You can dance all you want to Iron Maiden, that doesn't make it disco.

COD4 was THE game of 2007. in 2010 it will STILL be selling for over 30 bucks. Name another game besides Counterstrike that still sells like that 6 months after release?

Halo.

Edited October 22, 2009 by doubletap

[twcrash]

COD4 was THE game of 2007. in 2010 it will STILL be selling for over 30 bucks. Name another game besides Counterstrike that still sells like that 6 months after release?

Halo.

Yes another great example I forgot about. But I am not sure how well it is still selling. And if you can even get it anymore in general population except places like Amazon.com

Edited October 22, 2009 by twcrash

[doubletap]

BTW I agree with you twcrash that COD, doom, and other shooters are great fun (I'm partial to doom and halo). And I don't beleive just because they aren't the same type of game as the tac shooters that they are any less great games. Just a different offering. Neither is a Tac sim fan any "better" than anyone else. Just simply a tac sim fan, and therefore has a different perspective on gameplay.

[NoQuarter]

Replying to Is There Anything RIGHT With GRAW?

The swarm(s) of flies buzzing 'round the trash cans & dumpsters in :AW were kind of cool.

[NoQuarter]

Replying to: Is There Anything RIGHT With GRAW?

It wasn't GR:FS.

Sorry.

[Tom_Anger]

To be quick here. There was plenty right with GRAW. I loved the sounds, smoke effects, realism of destroying cars, barrels, etc.

I think some things that hurt the game was ability for competitive gaming, server controls when it came out, and a few other options to tailor servers for fun tactical gaming. The gameplay got a bit boring after a while and I think the community at one point started to drop off for other games. I don't have many high hopes of UBI soft being a part of GR. I said I would never give them another shot. I am starting to come around and think about considering GR:FS, but honestly I would love to see a remake of original GR with enhanced graphics, similar gameplay with tools to customize servers for Hardcore gameplay, include a global stats system so that folks can monitor their own activity and efforts, plus tools for matching.

[petsfed]

Its actually all about having fun. It's a game nothing more.

COD is a game, nothing more. Vegas is a game, nothing more. Games like GR, OFP, Arma, these are not just games to their fans, they are a hobby. Gaming in general is not my hobbie. Tactical shooters are. If that doesn't make sense to someone, then that shows the difference between us, as GR players.

You say it's all about having fun, and that's true, but there is much to that statement. Halo is "fun", but it's not GR. I like both, but one is a fun game, and one is my hobbie. It's closely related to other interests like real world military topics, firearms, hardware, history, current operations, etc.

So when the topic of what's good or not good about a GR game is brought up, I look at it from a less simplistic point of view than someone who regards the series as just another shooter, lumped in with COD and the rest; just a game.

I rock climb, as a hobby. Personally, I think your analogy and justification is a load of hooey, predominantly because getting it wrong in my hobby can kill me; getting it wrong in your hobby necessitates restarting the mission. If I can relax and recognize that I'm not curing cancer up there, I expect you can do the same.

I can't really speak for you, but the reason I have hobbies is so that I have something enjoyable to do during my free time. Don't get me wrong, one of the visionaries of my other hobby said "It doesn't have to be fun, to be fun", so there's a level of discomfort I find acceptable within these hobbies. Still, the fact remains that these games are games. The only person with delusions about that fact is the one who tries to elevate hobbies to some kind of higher leisure time activity.

[CJo1964]

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.

I absolutely love the GRAW series of games and hope GRFS will top everything out there to shut up the rebukers of the game series. Yes, the previous 2 are missing bits here and there but what game out there has it all ? Answer = none ! The one we are all waiting on is GROUND BRANCH, which is suppposed to encompass all the problems we have had in all games and put them right. I would make you a bet that when it finally comes out, people will slate that game too. As long as GRFS has single player mode as well as coop and doesnt have the DRM, then i will buy it and probably really enjoy playing it......after all, isnt that what its all about ?

We should concentrate on whats GOOD in the games and stop whinging about all the bad things all the time.

I for one have supported the GRAW series in our group (Brothers In Honour BH.....ex PXS Phoenix Soldiers) when they wanted to shelve it for ARMA and think this series of games has many many years playability value left in them yet. The map makers are still making maps for GRAW !!! Doesnt that tell you something ?

YES.........people out there DO like GRAW, GRAW 2 and now hopefully GRFS will be fully supported by the community too.

[krise madsen]

The ability to command a tank, and sometimes a squad of friendly troops was a nice feature as well.

[Dirites]

The ability to command a tank, and sometimes a squad of friendly troops was a nice feature as well.

indeed it was, it gives somehow a more realistic feeling to it.

[thales100]

I absolutely love the GRAW series of games...Yes, the previous 2 are missing bits here and there but what game out there has it all ? Answer = none !

Yep thats true, great games, im playing GRAW and GRAW 2 again these days.