Jump to content

Paris studio versions announced (x360+PS3)


Pave Low
 Share

Recommended Posts

Why just for Xbox360?

Intentional forgetting players pc for beta testing?

Simply because this is the announcement for the Ubisoft Paris studio version(s) which are the Xbox 360 + PS3

so naturally are worded for the 360 market

The PC team's version hasn't been officially announced yet

PC info details coming at a later time

Either UBI don't care about PC players :(

or

they wanted to quickly get the Paris studio's announced first because they know the PC team's is so awesome that the Paris team would be instantly overshadowed and all consolers will be rushing out to buy PC's :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Peace I think you raise a good point.

A lot of people seem to focus on the future aspect of GRAW and now this title, yet they seem to forget GR was a title based in the future with future weapons.

There are limits to this. Including a prototype assault rifle is a lot different than featuring exoskeletons and active camouflage.

Even when they're real??

If a game set in the future is meant to be realistic why would it not include real weaponry?

Show me a for-real personal cloaking device prototype and I'll concede your point. Until then, if I want a bloody cloaking device I'll play bloody Crysis.

EDIT: I was going to post something on the Ubi forums, but it as already gone beyond stupid.

Edited by krise madsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that Future Soldier is the continuation of the GRAW franchise and not the base GR franchise. Though I know more than I'm leading on to here I'll respect the lovely Kimi as information in this industry is guarded like the thermal exhaust port of the death star.

I do admit I never like seeing just the hype CG adverts since it really shows nothing of what the game will be like (outside of cut scenes). There's always that "ooohh mysterious.." side to a lot of the marketing blitz for different games that I partly think is pretty played out at this point. I'm just a jaded old developer anyway I guess ;).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peace I think you raise a good point.

A lot of people seem to focus on the future aspect of GRAW and now this title, yet they seem to forget GR was a title based in the future with future weapons.

There are limits to this. Including a prototype assault rifle is a lot different than featuring exoskeletons and active camouflage.

Even when they're real??

If a game set in the future is meant to be realistic why would it not include real weaponry?

It depends on how you define 'real'. Because personal active camo technology appears to be quite a ways off from anything that could actually be fielded. Right now what's being shown is closer to a parlor trick than something that will have real-world applications in the foreseeable future.

And something much more grounded -- the HULC exoskeleton -- is likely a long way off from actually being fielded as well, at least by ground troops, and likely in a very different form.

But beyond that, I fear exactly how Ubisoft will use these 'real' technologies in the game. Will it be like GRAW, where they take something 'real' and use it as an excuse for implementing it in an extremely unrealistic, fancied manner? For example, what will the exoskeletons in GR:FS actually do? Will they merely allow you to hike around all day without becoming as fatigued? I really doubt that because that's not very sexy. Or will they allow you to run fast and jump high without being a huge hindrance in other ways? Sure, these sorts of exoskeletons will likely come into existence... in 30 or 40 years probably.

Even today 'real' and 'prototype' technologies -- even those based on well-sorted and relatively simple technologies -- take a long time to work their way into active service. SOCOM decided to open up bidding for a new assault rifle nearly a decade ago and the first models are just now being used into the real world.

High-tech stuff, even designed with 100% intention of making them viable, real-world assets, take decades. I'm not talking DARPA-style brainstorming projects. I'm talking things like fighter jets. The F-15 replacement originally started to be designed in 1981. The F-22 went into active service just a couple years ago, and that's with an actual working prototype that was up in the air 15 years earlier.

Granted, that's not exactly the same thing, but the point is it takes many, many years for even relatively well understood technologies to make it out onto the field. But ground-breaking stuff that only kinda works today and in a way that isn't anywhere near ready for prime-time? We're talking quite a long ways down the road.

Where do you want to draw the line? The military has been working on laser weaponry for a long time. Are they anywhere close to creating hand-held laser rifles? No, but they are probably not much further off than supersuit exoskeletons or active camo. Do you want laser guns in Ghost Recon: Future Soldier? And remember, just about everything in HALO or Crysis is loosely rooted in real world prototypes as well. The 'loosely' should be the key, but the same can be said for GRAW, and it seems likely that GR:FS, will be even looser in this respect than its predecessor.

Edited by TheNatureRoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH MY GOD. Are they serious... cloaking.... far out. It's good to say GR is dead and GRAW is alive and kicking. We will never see GR as it should be ever again. :unsure:

I can see this game being a 1 man army. You'll have a squad of 4 to control, that will do absolutly nothing. They will complain when under fire, run infront of your gun when shooting, stay on the opposite side of cover and never listen to your commands.

Enemy AI will just stand there and gameplay will involve shooting stationary enemies that do not respond.

Trust me, I bet that is what we will get again!

R.I.P Ghost Recon

Edited by unwritt3n
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me a for-real personal cloaking device prototype and I'll concede your point. Until then, if I want a bloody cloaking device I'll play bloody Crysis.

EDIT: I was going to post something on the Ubi forums, but it as already gone beyond stupid.

One of the guys on the GR forums posted these links

Its worth noting the dates of the videos as well

EDIT - Pave beat me too it

I r also in ur post fixin 1 of ur links :P

Edited by Pave Low
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can show you a link to a working laser from 10 years ago shooting down a remote controlled plane. But we sure as hell wont be seeing soldiers using lasers rifles in the field for the next 20 years.

No matter how you try to sell this, it's still HALO crap.

RIP Ghost Recon.

Now we can grieve.

Edited by BS PALADIN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me a for-real personal cloaking device prototype and I'll concede your point. Until then, if I want a bloody cloaking device I'll play bloody Crysis.

EDIT: I was going to post something on the Ubi forums, but it as already gone beyond stupid.

One of the guys on the GR forums posted these links

Its worth noting the dates of the videos as well

Yes, these are the parlor tricks I was talking about. Doing this with a projector and camera is far removed from a standalone active camo cloak system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone fancy doing a RIP Ghost Recon sig?

Make sure its the right size for UBIs anal boards.

You might want to remember sigs/avatars designed to create/support hate groups arnt allowed on ubi

Yeh and that sillyness won't be tolerate here either.

Seriously the "not buying" crowd are really over reacting a tad, this is a very short promo piece and putting too much emphasis on what is imparted in a few seconds is not a good idea. Even the cloaking thing, this is tech that is probably well underway in DARPA labs and there is a probablility that it will be used in some form, come the actual time that FS is set in.

I guess I'm saying, don't say now something that someone might quote back to you in a few months. :thumbsup:

@ Paladin, come on dude, you know better than that. RIP after viewing a 1 minute video? Yes, folks really have gotten stuck in a negativity rut, but I didn't expect you to fall in quite so soon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the PC version is done by another studio RSE??????? fill me in I just came back from work

According to the press release Ubi Paris is doing the 360/PS3 versions, no mention of Red Storm. They haven't said what studio is doing the PC version yet, so it's one of those wait and see deals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone quotes back to me that I was wrong and that GRFS turns out to be a great game then I will be a happy man. But even you have to admit Rocky that things dont look good.

No, I don't admit that at all. Firstly because everyone knows I am the eternal GR optimist, but secondly because I refuse to go all suicidal because of one extremely short promo video. A video created specifically for the console crowd at that.

Really, you guys have NO, ZERO, ZIP, NADDA idea of how this feature is implemented in game so it's a bit premature to go all "ain't buying it", in my humble optimistic opinion :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's a new g.r game. thats all i care about. i'd rather a new one than nothing. so they have some crappy cloaks - big deal.

no point knocking it until you have played it. who know's....it might even be good.

from this point on i shall be crossing my fingers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Rocky I'll hold of the negatively and wait to see some more concrete details. I'll hold onto the small glimmer of hope I have left and pray that RSE is doing the PC version. Because I believe, no actually I know that the RSE guys get GR. Just depends on how much responsibility Ubisoft bestowed them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me a for-real personal cloaking device prototype and I'll concede your point. Until then, if I want a bloody cloaking device I'll play bloody Crysis.

EDIT: I was going to post something on the Ubi forums, but it as already gone beyond stupid.

One of the guys on the GR forums posted these links

Its worth noting the dates of the videos as well

EDIT - Pave beat me too it

I r also in ur post fixin 1 of ur links :P

The "Japanese cloaking device" doesn't really cut it, since it requires the viewer (or camera) to use a special lens filter. It was never intended to be used as an "invisibility cloak", but rather where transparency in a non-transparent material is desired, like, say, an aircraft cockpit. Unless Ubi can come up with a convincing tale as to why all the Ghosts enemies would voluntarily wear makes-the-enemy-invisible-goggles, it's entirely moot.

This one http://www.defensereview.com/stories/aae/a...t051Partial.jpg caught my attention, I must admit. If anyone can show me that this actually works as a personal cloaking device (and to be fair, the definition of "cloaking" would be dramatically reduced detectability, not necessarily totally invisible) and I'll eat crow.

I also have crow in the fridge, ready if an actually-works-cloaking-device is implemented in GR:FS in a realistic manner (see the GRAW pink diamond wallhack for what is NOT a realistic implentation). Though I have a feeling it won't be me eating that one.

Look, I'm huge military hi-tech whore (and my beef with GRAW was about anything other than the hi-tech scenario), but I draw the line when Capt. Mitchell is replaced with Capt. Picard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Rocky I'll hold of the negatively and wait to see some more concrete details. I'll hold onto the small glimmer of hope I have left and pray that RSE is doing the PC version. Because I believe, no actually I know that the RSE guys get GR. Just depends on how much responsibility Ubisoft bestowed them.

Well, I've been looking into that, and assuming our info that RSE are doing the PC version is reliable, there are actually quite of few members of the original 2001 Ghost Recon dev team still working at RSE, that's got to be a bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...