Jump to content

Would you be happy if...


tb4um
 Share

Recommended Posts

I played GR2 on the XBOX not pc but this seems to be the more popular area to post and it relates to all of you that played the original here is my question to you...

My question to all of you guys is would you be happy if the GR development team went back to the basics of what made GR one of the best tactical shooters of all time by revamping the old GHOST RECON 2 (NOT GRAW). A similar story is happening with the battlefield series if any of you guys are familiar with BF1942which is now BF1943 (huge success) and the upcoming revamping battle field 2 which will now be battle field 3. Personally I would be completely satisfied if the GR development team re-released Ghost Recon 2 with an upgraded game engine and a bunch of new content i.e. new story, weapons, maps, while retaining what made it great such as the original mp maps. Why fix something that is not broke right? I know this is an impossibility because development is far into production but are there any others out there that would be satisfied with a move such as this? I know some of you old school xbox live gamers remember playing team sharp shooter on pagoda, quarry, bunkers, fuel depot, ghost village, and sand mine. I mean come on what made that game satisfying to me was the push to get to the other teams spawn a slow and tactical struggle. I hate the gimmicky graw style game play and all the fluff that was added to the series. GR needs to get back to what made it great, the realism and the tactility of team work.

Just take a look at this old ass youtube video I found brings back memories minus the corny ass music

Simplicity is the key here are the old lay outs of the old maps...look how simple they are nothing too complex..

http://gr2maps.tripod.com/

Edited by tb4um
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I played many months of GR2 on the xbox mostly last man standing/seige and coop. The multiplayer was spot on. I would be very happy if GR4 was a clone of GR2, at least for mp with similar maps and controls, I think the sp could be improved. I liked all the maps but my personal faves were, Lost Convoy, quarry, Ghost Village.

Also, great video, brings back good memories.

Edited by ResidentPSYCHO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tinker and lightspeed i have no clue as to what you guys are talking about nor do I care. I simply put my input down on the new ghost recon and asked of your opinions that is all nor do I care what other people have written down about this upcoming game-- that is why I started a new thread. I voiced my opinion as to what I would have liked to see and clearly said in my post that I'm sure its not possible to be done because the game is far into development. As to whiteknight and residentpsycho thank you for your input. I feel as though all of the original serious GR players miss the old games and the play style that was given. I totally forgot about lost convoy that map was sick the marsh in the back with the no mans area then the hilly area created a sick set up for sniping and sneaking around trying to flank. w00t

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only played GR2 a little bit when I first bought my x360. I just wanted to get the "complete" experience since it was canned for PC. GR2 stock SP was a little cheesy, however, GR2: Summit Strike SP really felt like Ghost Recon to me. I also really loved the "look" of GR2. The graphics were better (though low res on xbox/360emulation mode). I still think it's a shame the game got canned for PC. Even though the stock GR2 may not have been up to PC player's expectations, I think the vast army of GR1 modders would have done wonders with the updated graphics and familiar toolset.

While all GRs have had some elements of "future weapons/tech," GRAW really went corn-ball sci-fi on us. So, I'd be happy if they pull it back into reality a bit more. One of the cool missions in GR2 was when you took the one-man army suit with the cam gun and went through the destroyed city. Not so much the suit and cam-gun, but the sound in that level was amazing. Actually, the sound in GR2 was pretty amazing all around. Under rated even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping they go back further to the gameplay of GR and GR Island Thunder, and give us a 1p weapons view. Ghost Recon 2 + summit strike was ok.. but I only played them cause there was'nt any proper 1p shooters out.. And in my opinion, there has'nt been a good shooter since Island Thunder. It seems like nobody dares to make a super realistic game for consoles :huh: Too many $s in games like cod i guess :wall: And my worst fear is that Future Soldier goes down that path!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now thats a sweeping generalisation. I for one want a GR set in a plausible near future ( 2015-2020 ) with realistic tech. I dont want a space shooter with tech based off smoke and mirror youtube videos. It a shame that people are actually justifying fantasy tech just because it's being used in a Ghost Recon game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the cloaking thing is not just youtube. its on world news, discovery and military channel. how do you know its not being used today? how do you know whats realistic in 10 or 20 years from now? the game takes place in 2030 btw. just don't buy the game if you don't like it and stop acting like the folks who thought the world was flat or that we never landed on the moon.

the problem is the year the game takes place not the tech. not using advanced tech in 20 years from now isn't realistic. i wouldn't be surprised if we made major advancements in body armor. in grfs it should take 10+ rounds on average to put someone down unless there is some super hot laser rifle in the works. i wouldn't be surprised if grfs had laser beams flying all around the maps. remote controlled armed bots will be in there for sure.

thats why i say ghost recon 4 should have been nam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the cloaking thing is not just youtube. its on world news, discovery and military channel. how do you know its not being used today? how do you know whats realistic in 10 or 20 years from now? the game takes place in 2030 btw. just don't buy the game if you don't like it and stop acting like the folks who thought the world was flat or that we never landed on the moon.

the problem is the year the game takes place not the tech. not using advanced tech in 20 years from now isn't realistic. i wouldn't be surprised if we made major advancements in body armor. in grfs it should take 10+ rounds on average to put someone down unless there is some super hot laser rifle in the works. i wouldn't be surprised if grfs had laser beams flying all around the maps. remote controlled armed bots will be in there for sure.

thats why i say ghost recon 4 should have been nam.

This is the old "But, but, it's the future!" argument that was trotted out for GRAW. It most certainly does not warrant repitition. We have still to see any even remotely plausible data that any sort of invisibility cloak (or whatever you want to call it) will be anywhere near a practical stage by 2030. Or 2040 for that matter.

Predicting what state-of-the-art, cutting edge tech will be used just ten years into the future is damn tricky. In the span of the last ten years, we have seen an entire mechanized brigade concept (i.e. Future Combat Systems) appear and then vanish into thin air again. A twenty year prediction is ridiculously dodgy.

Of course, what Ubisoft could have said was something like "With Ghost Recon Future Soldier we're taking a peek into a slightly more distant future, and while we have taken some creative liberties in pursuit of an interesting setting and exiting gameplay, the technology in the game is based on ideas and concepts that are at least theoretically plausible".

What Kimi did say was:

We are, and remain, loyal to the Ghost Recon brand value of authenticity. In general Ghost Recon: Future Soldier is based on the very real Future Soldier Initiative 2030, which is a U.S. Army R&D program run by the US Army Natick Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center. Optical camo, like other technologies in Future Solider, is a near-future reality, and this is why we chose to include it in GRFS

If Ubisoft intends to play the hard science tech card on this then I fully intend to hold them to their words. And be a bit of an, erm, Richard, about it until they do. On the other hand, if Ubisoft choose to fall back and go in the "loosen up, it's just a game" direction instead, I'll fully support and defend that choice as well.

Personally, I don't really care if the game was set in 2090 and had every Ghost equipped with anti-gravity belts and phased plasma rifles in the 40 watt range. Or in 1944 with everyone carrying Tommyguns and De Lisle rifles. Or anything in between. It doesn't really matter. The technology/chronology was not the core issue (i.e. problem) with GRAW (PC) nor will it be with GRFS. But that doesn't mean the Ubisoft PR department should get away with treating us like drooling idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only played GR2 a little bit when I first bought my x360. I just wanted to get the "complete" experience since it was canned for PC. GR2 stock SP was a little cheesy, however, GR2: Summit Strike SP really felt like Ghost Recon to me. I also really loved the "look" of GR2. The graphics were better (though low res on xbox/360emulation mode). I still think it's a shame the game got canned for PC.

Actually, the sound in GR2 was pretty amazing all around. Under rated even.

I mainly bought an Xbox 1 to play GR2 and GR2SS and totally agree with your sentiments above.

I upgraded my PC to play GR2 PC but we all know what happened with that ... turns out I used that same PC to play lots of BF2.

BTW. The GR series has been nominated and won awards for Best Sound in the past

http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/...2002/xbox2.html

http://forums.3dretreat.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2631

BTW, make sure you get the GR2 DLCs before GR2 goes offline from Xbox Live forever

http://serellan.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010...ox-sendoff.html

When we designed the game infrastructure for Ghost Recon DLC on the Xbox (starting with Island Thunder), we didn’t really plan for the day when Live would not be available. We always assumed that anyone with a connection could get the DLC. Thus, if AFTER the Live shutdown, any box WITH the DLC will not be able to connect to a box WITHOUT the DLC. So, the only solution for you if one box has it and the other doesn’t, is for the box with it to delete the content. This was not a problem back in the day when the person WITH the content would just go home, hook back up to Live, and redownload the content. But now, if you deleted the content, it would be gone forever.

So, if you ever plan to System-Link play the game with your buddies, take the 15 minutes to get the DLC. I did this on my 360 the other night. Remember, the DLC for these games is not shown on Xbox Live Marketplace. You need to boot the individual game, go to the option for downloading content, and download it. GR: Island Thunder has a dozen or so individual map packages; Ghost Recon 2 has three variety packs, and GR2: Summit Strike has one bonus pack of weapons, game types, and maps. Even if you don’t ever plan to play these games online, there is a lot of the content that can be used in local play. And it’s FREE. :)

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...