OldGhost Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 ...the feeling I get in this forum is one of fear and disgust...I read more like dejected resignation. You mean to say that you thought that the Cypher UAV operating totally invulnerable to -let alone even noticed by- the oposition, the Tac-Maps satellite feed being somehow able -as if by magic- to determine and mark Friend from Foe (complete w/audio), or the MULE being able to be manuevered from infil to extract without triggering the badguys while at the same time not being able to equip/reequip your AI Teammates if you choose were realistic features? Maybe I'm just more forgiving then some here in this community. You have to give the game creators SOME creative licence. Your right. Having the enemy just totally ignore the drone just isn't real life. In the Middle East I am aware that a few predator drones have been shot down but when was the last time a B52 (or maned spy bird) or satellite was shot down? Maybe in the next game the drone could be shot down in the middle of one mission forcing the Ghosts to resort to other means to get the job done. Right now through the use of GPS the military is working to map all friendly forces on the battlefield. If this can be done, is identifying and marking enemy forces that for off? I mite say to myself.....with friendly forces already identified, maybe that guy Louie is working to mark the enemy forces for me. As for the audio, that mite be a bit much. I know that DARPA is developing robot vehicles and choppers capable of manoeuvring around obsticles and finding their own way. So why not the MULE? Or how about a remote controlled MULE like a UAV? Either way, the Ghosts would have to take care to keep it behind them far enough so as not to alert the enemy. Wow. Maybe I AM watching too much Discovery Channel. Other thoughts. Remember the GRAW1 mission "Ready For Bear"? At the point where you enter the quansit hut to free the tank crews, after sitting there with their hands behind their heads they all jump up and draw pistols. You just have to say....I guess the Ghosts all brought some extra pistols for this purpose. Dumb Question. How come Mitchell is the only Ghost with a computer screen mounted to his helmet? Dont the other Ghosts need computers to communicate with Mitchell and follow his orders? OldGhost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubletap Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 (edited) IMO, we shouldn't read to much into a name, so long as the final product delivers the goods then that's really all that matters. What about reading into the direction both GR and R6 series ever since GR2 xbox and R6 vegas? I hear all the time, from casual shooter fans, that a game shouldn't be too realistic at the expense of "fun". It's ironic these same people fail to see that taking GR into a futuristic hi-tech standard infantry setting erodes almost all of the type of gameplay that made the game so great in the first place. GR is special forces "deep inside enemy lines. Tip of the spear" and all that. It's just your squad vs the enemy and the terrain, having to make instant decisions as UNFORESEEN challenges arise. But now we are told when and where to go, exactly what is there, and who is around every corner; and worst of all this is all done very much in Hollywood fashion. Thankfully there are other titles out now so I don't have to get as worked up about the "GR:star trek" series anymore. Edited December 26, 2009 by doubletap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petsfed Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 I hear this again and again and again: the blue and red diamonds make life too easy! I'm aware of attempts to make them work on the ground, you're just looking at cycle times above a minute before location and disposition are updated. But suppose the infrastructure was up to the quarter-second response that we see in GRAW? Say, by 2014? Ignoring all the stupid garbage that went along with GRAW, the bad mission design, the lousy plotting, the occasionally stupid limitations on micromanagement, the bad squad AI, ignoring all of that, was the cross-com method of giving you battlefield intel really that bad? I see that they're doing some really neat things with last known position in the Splinter Cell series. Suppose the Cross Com gave you similar information. The point of the system, as it is currently being developed, is to eliminate the keep-quiet-or-warn-the-commander problem that troops face today. Considering that your teammates cannot gesture like you need them to, and even voip is ungainly for pointing out enemy positions, isn't the red diamond a better solution, especially given that something similar is under development? Given that something similar has been used by aircraft and attack vehicles for decades? There is an awful lot to hate about GRAW, but I don't think that the cross-com, especially the tools it put at your disposal, are what made it bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Atoa Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 (edited) I hear this again and again and again: the blue and red diamonds make life too easy! I'm aware of attempts to make them work on the ground, you're just looking at cycle times above a minute before location and disposition are updated. But suppose the infrastructure was up to the quarter-second response that we see in GRAW? Say, by 2014? Ignoring all the stupid garbage that went along with GRAW, the bad mission design, the lousy plotting, the occasionally stupid limitations on micromanagement, the bad squad AI, ignoring all of that, was the cross-com method of giving you battlefield intel really that bad? I see that they're doing some really neat things with last known position in the Splinter Cell series. Suppose the Cross Com gave you similar information. The point of the system, as it is currently being developed, is to eliminate the keep-quiet-or-warn-the-commander problem that troops face today. Considering that your teammates cannot gesture like you need them to, and even voip is ungainly for pointing out enemy positions, isn't the red diamond a better solution, especially given that something similar is under development? Given that something similar has been used by aircraft and attack vehicles for decades? There is an awful lot to hate about GRAW, but I don't think that the cross-com, especially the tools it put at your disposal, are what made it bad. I know we are talking about a game here so bear with me I been seeing the Army experimenting with this kind of technology since 1992 (When I joined up) You know the name of this Army experiment before Future Soldier or whatever is called right now? It was called Land Warrior in the early 90s it it was supposed to be in the field by year 2000...since that time this project has changed names at least 3 times the only time that this kind of tehcnology saw the field was in 2007 and and it was limited used, btw but you know why? because Army spend too much $$$$$$$ and they have some future force warrior unit in their inventory they wanted to use. Granted I'm not a grunt but if I have to go out there we all the stuff we carry right now at 110-130 degrees and with armor can go up to 10 additional degrees plus lets say additional 5 pounds with FFW stuff wich can take your peripherial vision 50% I rather kill myself With that been said our SF go out there and do their job with what we have avaliable right now maybe they have some gadgets (smaller satellite radios, L designator and so on) but that's about it The only reason they Red Storm put those diamonds and crosscom in there is to make life easier to the casual player because of the lack of good AI (XBOX VERSION ) as a matter of fact the original GR AI is better and I don't know why ...I hope I'm wrong here but we can expect more Star Ship Troopers stuff in the next GR since that's what sells games and last time I saw Ubi was doing badly and with this title I think they are going to the safe road..the one that gives them $$$$$$ Edited December 26, 2009 by Sgt. Atoa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petsfed Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 I seem to recall that the future-tech that showed up in the original GR was from the Land Warrior kit. In the intervening time, I've seen top of the line computers shrink in mass and volume by a factor of a 100 or more. The laptop I'm typing this on is smaller than the average composition book, and is 10-100 times more powerful than any computer commercially available at the time of Ghost Recon's original release. I understand your observation about extra weight, but lets face it, we've never seen any of the Ghosts with a full ruck, survival gear, parachute, mess kit, etc. Their models feature web, about 300 rounds of ammunition for all of their firearms, and maybe a camelbak, but not always. That our average serviceman is moving with 100 pounds and really doesn't want to toss on the extra 5 pounds of LW kit makes sense. But if every single one of the modeled Green Berets is running with max 30lbs of kit before you toss on LW, the weight argument makes less sense. Don't misunderstand me, I understand the weight argument, especially when you need to be agile. As a rock climber, I tend to pick and choose what I carry off the ground, reasoning that if something won't help me move faster, then the added weight will certainly slow me down. But I also understand that if I can get away with carrying a piece of kit that will help keep me from burning in, you better believe I'll do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Atoa Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 (edited) your point is valid but future soldier tech is at least 10 years off and I'm been conservative by that time Mitchell will be a 5 star General and is going to replace Gen Martin Anyway game wise I like the game to be of what Special Forces do right know or maybe 5 years down the road PS. I was at a military forum earlier and 2 soldiers din't like the idea of having a screen covering 1 eye they said it was anoying flipping that screen to be able to see and shoot Lets hope Ubi/RSE relesase mod tools Edited December 27, 2009 by Sgt. Atoa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingkat Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 IF I am such a well-trained-soldier, why would I need all this future-hi-tech-PC stuff? and a general yelling at me to do what I should know how to do? Aren't I supposed to be a silent-tip-of-the spear? First in (almost) last out? Can't I think out side the box.........on my own.........as the situation requires? Well, maybe THIS game will make a marked difference than the previous ones.....or has the FPS changed so much to make them all run-n-gun clones with super-action and no mod tools? Keeping the fingers crossed............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petsfed Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 IF I am such a well-trained-soldier, why would I need all this future-hi-tech-PC stuff? Predominantly because knowing where the enemy was never got anybody killed, but not knowing gets people killed every day. I know, its a techno-weanie battle cry, but information wins wars a lot more than any individual soldier does. That is, if a commander knows where the enemy is, he can better position his troops to engage them without putting them in as much danger. A good soldier and a good commander may not need the equipment, but the amount they can get done with it is probably a lot more. I'd lay money that if we could find an effective way to get the information to the troops without interfering with their view (the GRAW version, by the way, is particularly speculative), we could increase their effectiveness by quite a bit. I wonder how resistive the average soldier was to URVs, from the little RC cars with cameras all the way up to the Predators? All the intel side of the Future Soldier programs tries to do is to unify that same set of information (alongside vocal calls "enemy 6 o'clock low", etc) in such a way as to allow the commander to focus on commanding, not collating intel reports, and the troops to focus on engaging the enemy like they were trained. Since you're always cast in the role of commander of these guys, you always have all that information at your fingertips. Maybe your NCOs don't have the whole suite of information, maybe there's just a compass and the red diamonds where appropriate. Like I've said, again and again and again, here and elsewhere, there's an awful lot to dislike about GRAW, but the way your troops deliver intelligence to you is brilliant. If they reprogrammed it so it didn't seem so much like ESP or a wallhack, it would be even better, but we're so quick to throw the whole thing out the window that we can't see the good parts. Think about it, which did you hate more? The intel from the UAV, or the fact that it couldn't be shot down? Personally, I hated that it was so bleeding obvious in the sky, was completely impervious to harm, and never looked in the direction of the guys I was trying to keep an eye on. It certainly didn't help that it was only ever trotted out on the missions where I simply didn't need it. But when I had that intel, it was great! The MULE itself, or the fact that it was a nearly immortal, infinite ammo box with spectacularly bad path-finding and a complete inability to be remote controlled like one would expect? The point I'm trying to make is, which was worse, the idea or the execution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGhost Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 The point I'm trying to make is, which was worse, the idea or the execution? GREAT POINT! And I would add that this could be applied to other areas of the GRAW series. The consensus here is that the GRAW series AI was weak. I agree, but it had it's moments. Like when an enemy sniper would back away from his position when he knew that you were looking for him. And especially the cross-com. Think about it. the ability to simply point and click and have your Ghost go there and do something. GRAW1 introduced it. GRAW2 improved apon it but not enough. If this feature as well as both friendly and enemy AI can be further inproved, think of how much smoother the game would become. But for more complicated movement as well as intel the Tac Map must be retained though. Seems like for all the focus and discussion of where the GRAW series failed, we tend to forget about the good things that the series gave us. OldGhost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krise madsen Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 (edited) Good points petsfed, and I've been making the same argument. The issues I have with GRAW have practically nothing to do with the hi-tech gadgetry. Hey, some people like it (like me), some people don't, but my point is that the most aggrevating problems with GRAW would exist whether the game was set in 1968 or the near future. Like a game centered on urban warfare where nearly all the buildings were magically sealed off. OK, so the engine can't handle it. Fine. Then don't make an urban scenario. Put us out in the boonies instead. When you have snipers located at positions (rooftops) that you cannot reach yourself 99% of the time then you've got a serious gameplay problem. Trying to make movement realistic is of little use when you cannot climb a simple ladder or even step over an ankle-high obstacle. The game was far too dependent on the player being at a specific location to trigger the action/AI. On at least one occasion (in GRAW2) I took a semi-circumspect route and ended up with a half dozen AI enemies spawning six feet in front of me. The maps were horribly bottlenecked and linear and it made for repetitive and uninspired gameplay. When the primary reason for completing a mission is memorizing the location of the enemies, then the game is badly flawed, at least by tactical shooter standards. The squad control was, especially in GRAW1, poor. AI teammates were given a level of independence (so you didn't have to micromanage them) but was far too stupid to make use of it. I cannot count the number of times a teammate insisted on standing on the wrong side of cover, in plain sight of the enemy, no matter how many times I repeated my orders. GRAW2 was, it has to be said, an improvement, and in some ways even better than GR. But again, the horrible linear gameplay made it a moot point, as you trotted from one setpiece ambush to the next. There is a whole bunch of this hi-tech gadgetry that would be really great to toy with in a real, non-linear tactical shooter, but any such features were wasted on GRAW as it were. Edited December 29, 2009 by krise madsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingkat Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 Always information wins battles......... ..........but I disliked that you were ORDERED out when a man was down. No ability to continue...? No thinking the situation through...? Give me info, just not what to do with it in the current situation. Maybe I am not very clear about this, I liked the Cross-Com stuff. Very good. BUT, when it came to being the leader of a team, I think it should be up to ME to continue the mission. And the inane chatter of the team. I guess I am worried that Techno-Stuff replaces a lot of game play. IF you are willing to insert a team of guys into a hostile situation, their mission goals needs intel...very ture.....but also a very good leader to think his way through IF the situation goes to hell.......just my $.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krise madsen Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 I guess I am worried that Techno-Stuff replaces a lot of game play. That would be bad game design and, at best, an admission of faliure - much like adding tits to a boring action movie. My point with GRAW is that the techno stuff didn't replace any game play. The game play was missing from the start. Remove the AW from GRAW and you're still left with a linear and repetitive shooter with a lousy friendly AI/squad control, poor draw distance, nonsensical maps (sealed buildings) and poor environment interaction (i.e. no climbing or crossing small obstacles). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingkat Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Well said krise. The game play had nothing to do with the gadgets, or the other way round. It was just there. In game, being used by the team. What good did it do to be able to "see" what a team mate could see, (via the cross-comm),without being able to act upon it. Soul switch and use his weapon? Even as I would order them around, they were just not that good on their own. I guess I saw the gadgets as shiny objects that were placed in the game to create an advanced-soldier feel. I am anxiously awaiting more info about GR4. This community has been loyal and faithful for a very long time. I am sure the devs understand what we have been saying. I know that I want a return to what made GR great in the first place. True tactical game play. Absolute control of the team. Realistic dynamic-missions. Up to date weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petsfed Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 What good did it do to be able to "see" what a team mate could see, (via the cross-comm),without being able to act upon it. Soul switch and use his weapon? Even as I would order them around, they were just not that good on their own. This, I think, really gets at the heart-and-soul of the GRAW issues. I really liked the idea of the cameras, but the inability to command the AI teammates effectively neatly mitigated the advantages of it. If the AI was good, then you could use that camera to really carefully order your teamates in such a way that maximized their effectiveness AND didn't require an unrealistic tack like soul switching (which was a necessary evil of the original GR, not a brilliant design move). By the way, I really think that allowing soul-switching precludes you from total immersion, which is part of what I look for in a good tactical game (or any game, really). Switching de-emphasizes the individual experience and, to a certain degree, allows the Rambo-style lone-hero experience without violating that illusion of realism. I actually disliked, when I played GR and R6 before it, the occasional necessity of soul switching. It broke that immersion, and reminded me that I was playing a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingkat Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Maybe I was different,but I used the "soul switch" as re-spawns. I always tried my best to return the entire team. But that always didn't work out. Tried to balance my loadouts as well. What good is having a sniper-soldier if he doesn't use his wep properly? I tried to put him in the correct position and then I became the sniper. I see your point petsfed, immersion versus just playing a game. A delicate balance isn't it? Its comforting to read all the posts about this game. We really want it to succeed . But are they listening....? Are any of the Dev Team around,reading these posts? I truly hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krise madsen Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 The soul switching issue is for me two-fold. Yes, it does kill immersion to some extent. But then I've never played tactical shooters (like the R6 and GR originals) immersed in the role of a protagonist, but rather as the guy juggling a whole team (we're talking single player, of course). Sure, the soul switching was in part a remedy to the limitations of friendly AI and squad commands. But it was also a nice gameplay feature in its own right. Take a game like SWAT4 (with the added features of the expansion pack) which had an extremly functional squad command system. Sure, the soul-switching wasn't missed the way it would have been in, say, Ghost Recon, but it wouldn't really have hurt the game to add it either. In contrast, GRAW pretty much the whole time had me on point with the sniper rifle, plinking enemy AI that I had memorized, with the useless teammates tagging along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoQuarter Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 (edited) @Admin: Just noticed this sections rename and was wondering if it has been clarified somehow as to whether Predator is really Future Soldier, a prequel or a sequel, a throwout name/old working title, or are we just playing musical titles here until Ubisoft decides to make some sort of actual announcement regarding GR4?...it'll no doubt lead to more speculation as to what exactly Ubisoft has in store for Ghost Recon 4, not least because the trademark was only filed this week, which might cast doubt on whether it is for the shortly to be released Ghost Recon 4, or indeed a later title. Edited January 5, 2010 by NoQuarter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted January 5, 2010 Author Share Posted January 5, 2010 @Admin: Just noticed this sections rename and was wondering if it has been clarified somehow as to whether Predator is really Future Soldier, a prequel or a sequel, a throwout name/old working title, or are we just playing musical titles here until Ubisoft decides to make some sort of actual announcement regarding GR4? We don't wait for official announcements from Ubisoft, as you know, they are only released after the fact There is no "musical" titles going on, once we change the forum titles from "GR3" or "GR4" to a proper title, you can take it as read that is the official title. We've never got it wrong before anyway. The Predator thing is either (1) a working title, as Redstorm are known for doing - CR6 can rattle them off, or (2) something else. I say something else kind of vaguely because the whole Australian Board of Classification thing was a bit strange, and hence why it was never used as a forum title here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CR6 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 The Predator thing is either (1) a working title, as Redstorm are known for doing - CR6 can rattle them off Haha, can't quite rattle them off like I used to, but I dug around the 3dR forums and found a few code names for RSE projects. They generally name them after historical military leaders so "Predator" doesn't seem to fall into the mold, but things might have changed ... http://forums.3dretreat.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5452 Rainbow Six: "Sherman" Eagle Watch: "MacArthur" Rogue Spear: "Rommel" Urban Ops: "Patton" Shadow Watch: "York" Force 21: "Genghis" Ghost Recon 1: "Ike" (as in Eisenhower) Desert Siege: "Powell" Island Thunder: "Kincaid" Sum of All Fears: "Hannibal" Raven Shield: "MacArthur" Ghost Recon 2: "Stonewall" (as in Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson) Here's an old Gr.net thread about the same topic http://www.ghostrecon.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=18929 I wonder what game was code-named Montgomery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted January 5, 2010 Author Share Posted January 5, 2010 They generally name them after historical military leaders so "Predator" doesn't seem to fall into the mold, but things might have changed ... Hmmm I see what you mean, so what do you make of "Predator"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CR6 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Hmmm I see what you mean, so what do you make of "Predator"? Honestly, I have no idea what to make of it Actually, I think Ubisoft is just registering a bunch of names to cover a few bases because they haven't quite decided what they will call the game yet. (If Ubi is listening I vote for Predator over Future Soldier ) This often happens with other game companies for the same reason, or perhaps even to sometimes to throw fans off track. One example I recall is Nintendo who has sold a bajillion copies of their Pokemon franchise. When they registered the names of the latest gen games (Diamond/Pearl/Platinum) they kinda did a shotgun trademark registration to cover names of other precious gems but eventually just picked a few of them: ãƒã‚±ãƒƒãƒˆãƒ¢ãƒ³ã‚¹ã‚¿ãƒ¼ã€Žã‚¨ãƒ¡ãƒ©ãƒ«ãƒ‰ã€ç‰¹è¨±ç™»éŒ²æ—¥/å¹³æˆ15年（2003）2月7æ—¥ Pokémon Emerald - patent registration date / 15 years as of 2003 February 7 ãƒã‚±ãƒƒãƒˆãƒ¢ãƒ³ã‚¹ã‚¿ãƒ¼ã€Žãƒ€ã‚¤ãƒ¤ãƒ¢ãƒ³ãƒ‰ã€ç‰¹è¨±ç™»éŒ²æ—¥/å¹³æˆ15年（2003）2月7æ—¥ Pokémon Diamond - patent registration date / 15 years as of 2003 February 7 ãƒã‚±ãƒƒãƒˆãƒ¢ãƒ³ã‚¹ã‚¿ãƒ¼ã€Žãƒ‘ールã€ç‰¹è¨±ç™»éŒ²æ—¥/å¹³æˆ15年（2003）2月7æ—¥ Pokémon Pearl - patent registration date / 15 years as of 2003 February 7 ãƒã‚±ãƒƒãƒˆãƒ¢ãƒ³ã‚¹ã‚¿ãƒ¼ã€Žã‚¢ãƒ¡ã‚¸ã‚¹ãƒˆã€ç‰¹è¨±ç™»éŒ²æ—¥/å¹³æˆ15年（2003）5月30æ—¥ Pokémon Amethyst - patent registration date / 15 years as of 2003 May 30 ãƒã‚±ãƒƒãƒˆãƒ¢ãƒ³ã‚¹ã‚¿ãƒ¼ã€Žãƒˆãƒ‘ーズã€ç‰¹è¨±ç™»éŒ²æ—¥/å¹³æˆ15年（2003）5月30æ—¥ Pokémon Topaz - patent registration date / 15 years as of 2003 May 30 ãƒã‚±ãƒƒãƒˆãƒ¢ãƒ³ã‚¹ã‚¿ãƒ¼ã€Žãƒ›ãƒ¯ã‚¤ãƒˆã‚´ãƒ¼ãƒ«ãƒ‰ã€ç‰¹è¨±ç™»éŒ²æ—¥/å¹³æˆ15年（2003）5月30æ—¥ Pokémon White Gold - patent registration date / 15 years as of 2003 May 30 ãƒã‚±ãƒƒãƒˆãƒ¢ãƒ³ã‚¹ã‚¿ãƒ¼ã€Žãƒ ーンストーンã€ç‰¹è¨±ç™»éŒ²æ—¥/å¹³æˆ15年（2003）6月30æ—¥ Pokémon Moonstone - patent registration date / 15 years as of 2003 June 30 ãƒã‚±ãƒƒãƒˆãƒ¢ãƒ³ã‚¹ã‚¿ãƒ¼ã€Žãƒˆãƒ«ãƒžãƒªãƒ³ã€ç‰¹è¨±ç™»éŒ²æ—¥/å¹³æˆ15年（2003）6月30æ—¥ Pokémon Tourmaline - patent registration date / 15 years as of 2003 June 30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted January 5, 2010 Author Share Posted January 5, 2010 LOL, that's ace. The thing to remember about Ghost Recon Predator, is that a trademark application has not been filed for it, as far as I know. Ghost Recon Future Soldier however is applied for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krise madsen Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 If they go with Predator, I wonder what 20th Century Fox (aren't they the IP holders for the Predator franchise?) will say to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteKnight77 Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Remember that there is a UAV called Predator, I don't think that Fox would have a problem, unless Ubi made a movie by the Predator name. Also, would Fox want to have a complete class of animals renamed. What would be a good name for predators instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serellan Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 The Predator thing is either (1) a working title, as Redstorm are known for doing - CR6 can rattle them off Haha, can't quite rattle them off like I used to, but I dug around the 3dR forums and found a few code names for RSE projects. They generally name them after historical military leaders so "Predator" doesn't seem to fall into the mold, but things might have changed ... http://forums.3dretreat.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5452 Rainbow Six: "Sherman" Eagle Watch: "MacArthur" Rogue Spear: "Rommel" Urban Ops: "Patton" Shadow Watch: "York" Force 21: "Genghis" Ghost Recon 1: "Ike" (as in Eisenhower) Desert Siege: "Powell" Island Thunder: "Kincaid" Sum of All Fears: "Hannibal" Raven Shield: "MacArthur" Ghost Recon 2: "Stonewall" (as in Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson) Here's an old Gr.net thread about the same topic http://www.ghostrecon.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=18929 I wonder what game was code-named Montgomery? Summit Strike = Brewer GRAW MP = Cortez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts