Live Action Promo Released

[CJo1964]

Is this gameplay?It looks like real characters fits in a video game...Well if gameplay looks like this,I can't wait to tried this one out...for me the more a game looks real the better I have the feel that I am not in a game.

The closer they will get to reality,that's what I expect from a game...to be tactical,emersive and a great story.

I have no problems at all with the path that this game is taking mean all the future gadgets and I don't care if most peoples doesn't agree with me ...

Before saying more....I'll wait for a real time gaming video...but this looks promissing!

I for one agree with you Rpghard.

I am very disappointed at all you lot continually trashing a Brilliant game which IS based on equipment that is a reality, but maybe not as well developed (cloaking, ekoskeleton etc).

The game isnt the problem, its the developers, always has, and always will be.

The only thing that i think would be ridiculous in this game is the DRM thing.

I think all of you should put all of that negative energy into supporting good gaming development like the eventual release of GROUND BRANCH......something worth waiting for.

I for one, have always enjoyed playing GRAW and GRAW 2 and hopefully wont be disappointed with this one.

Will continue to loyally support the GRAW series into the future.

If that video is close to the in game scenes and looks then I cant really see what you are all moaning about.......much more fun than something like ARMA, and in my honest opinion, the maps take more tactics to complete, whereas ARMA is just "bomb the crap out of everything" type maps......lol.

Nuff said......

)

[[SFP]FUNKILL]

It will probably be a great game,the problem is they put the name GHOST RECON to it.

[Scubaman3D]

Exactly. The "GR" and "Tom Clancy" name used to have a particular meaning for me so its a disappointment to see the direction the series has taken.

This disappointment will not allow me to enjoy FS, even though I enjoyed Crysis. I guess its just psychological but if they would've ended the "Tom Clancy's GR" line and just called this "Future Soldier", I'd probably have a more positive view of it.

Sure, I realize I'm probably in the minority but its not like I'm angry or anything - its just an opinion. The company is successful and they are free to make profit in whichever manner works for them

[Malleus]

This disappointment will not allow me to enjoy FS, even though I enjoyed Crysis. I guess its just psychological but if they would've ended the "Tom Clancy's GR" line and just called this "Future Soldier", I'd probably have a more positive view of it.

Lol, yeah, I feel the same way. Crysis was great, and I have nothing against scifi tac shooters, but I just couldn't play this GRFS game and not think about [GR].

Edited April 2, 2010 by Malleus

[Dirites]

after analyzing the trailer I believe Ive found a big mistake. The first two are firing bullets from the underslung, and the other two are firing from the correct barrel that is fed with a magazine.click to see screenshots

I also wonder why they use an old helmet ( modified DH-132 CVC helmet from 1973) with and old 3 point retention system. and why an half-head helmet while they are not using headset?

why not an Ops-Core FAST helmet?

Edited April 3, 2010 by Dirites

[Scott Mitchell]

after analyzing the trailer I believe Ive found a big mistake. The first two are firing bullets from the underslung, and the other two are firing from the correct barrel that is fed with a magazine.click to see screenshots

Interesting...

Also notice no spent brass...and as much as they are firing...should be flying everywhere...I know the Army was pursuing caseless ammunition...but I decided to just chalk it up as a movie blooper since these weapons were probably just non-functioning props anyway.

[Dirites]

yea true,

not sure if this is the ejection port, but its in one line with the charging handle of the subassaultgun

i also noticed the plastic molding lines from the russian ots14 rifles

and this is i think an hk usp or a glock pistol

here a pic of the silenced pistol from the recon ghost, notice the very cheap and old holosight on the pistol

and an SCAR-L with dual mag

[krise madsen]

I showed the vid to a couple of friends of mine. With jobs and kids, they can hardly be called hardcore gamers these days, but an interesting game can still grab their attention.

None of them even knew GRFS (in fact, they didn't know it was a Ghost Recon game until it showed up on the end credits) was in the pipeline so there were no preconceptions or bias about the game. I was careful not to say anything before showing them the vid as I wanted their unbiased reaction.

Their overall reaction is probably best described as "meh". It's not like they hated it or anything, but there wasn't much enthusiasm either. They found the cloaking device rather silly (and evoking a few snide Harry Potter remarks).

And, rather interestingly I think, one guy immediately noted the discrepancy of very small shoulder launched missiles blowing up a very large tank. This guy, I might add, has never served in the military and has neither much knowledge nor interest in the subject.

Then we played some LAN co-op. One guess what game we were playing

[Rocky]

Their overall reaction is probably best described as "meh".

I've been browsing around various other forums and news sites with commenting feature. Without a doubt, the overall feedback is positive, people are really excited about GR:FS and loved the live action demo. The only people not so happy are us old timers who know what GR should be, ie true to its roots. Other folks who have no knowledge of the history and therefore what has been removed, only see the cool stuff, and they like it.

[AlienShogun]

Their overall reaction is probably best described as "meh".

I've been browsing around various other forums and news sites with commenting feature. Without a doubt, the overall feedback is positive, people are really excited about GR:FS and loved the live action demo. The only people not so happy are us old timers who know what GR should be, ie true to its roots. Other folks who have no knowledge of the history and therefore what has been removed, only see the cool stuff, and they like it.

You should add in SOME old timers, since SOME of us old timers also see GR for what it is, a tactical game not a milsim and can appreciate it for what it still is, and what it has always done. That is to provide a futuristic depiction of military conflict through tactical action and futuristic weaponry.

Edited April 5, 2010 by AlienShogun

[krise madsen]

Their overall reaction is probably best described as "meh".

I've been browsing around various other forums and news sites with commenting feature. Without a doubt, the overall feedback is positive, people are really excited about GR:FS and loved the live action demo. The only people not so happy are us old timers who know what GR should be, ie true to its roots. Other folks who have no knowledge of the history and therefore what has been removed, only see the cool stuff, and they like it.

Maybe "meh" is not the right description. More like a shrug and a "it looks OK, I guess".

I think if they were more avid FPS/shooter gamers, the response would probaby have been more positive. But unlike GR oldschooler like me, they don't really have any baggage so to speak, so I thought their "unpolluted" response was somewhat interesting.

They do like GR for the excellent co-op, but I don't think a single of them have ever bothered with the single player part, or adversarial multiplayer for that matter. To them, GR is simply a game they like, but they don't have any attachment to the franchise or other TC games. They also very much appreciate the slower pace and more careful (i.e. not run-and-gun) of GR. Which was rather evident when we fired up an old Medal of Honor MP demo and instantly ran afoul of bunnyhoppers.

[AnthonyLunkwitz]

Yeah, Im also very interested in this one, I just dont want DRM crap.

BUT also am waiting for Ground Branch cause it will be worth the wait in the end. Blackfoot Studio's deserves great support if to achieve what we want.

yea true,

not sure if this is the ejection port, but its in one line with the charging handle of the subassaultgun

http://i39.tinypic.com/2upfqkm.jpg

i also noticed the plastic molding lines from the russian ots14 rifles

http://i44.tinypic.com/35lewjb.jpg

and this is i think an hk usp or a glock pistol

http://i39.tinypic.com/2z4d9uv.jpg

here a pic of the silenced pistol from the recon ghost, notice the very cheap and old holosight on the pistol

http://i39.tinypic.com/mkewap.jpg

and an SCAR-L with dual mag

http://i41.tinypic.com/ixyx02.jpg

I saw that also on the Groza's, have not been able to get a good look at them, it appears to me that they have the grenade launcher inside with the box around it and grip, but I cant get a clear shot.

[unwritt3n]

I've been watching that over and over... This game could have potential. I'm going to stop being biased about it going to suck. I think I'll follow it and see how it turns out. Once we start seeing gameplay videos and in game screenshots we can start to see what its really going to be like. If done properly, this could still be done well and considered the next Ghost Recon.

[calius]

If they finally put the "Ghost" (Stealth) and "Recon" (more open ended approach to things) then its worth of the title again, otherwise its a franchise "tag". All a bit like the whole ARMA/Flashpoint:DR debacle.

I don't mind any future soldier kit, or anything more futurist looking. I just don't like rail-gunner/no easy scripting modding games that have all the eye-candy and tools and no real guts to them.

If they get that balance right, I would be interested (again).

[Cons72]

yea true,

not sure if this is the ejection port, but its in one line with the charging handle of the subassaultgun

At first I thought the under barrel was a 203 launcher, but then looking at the end, the hole is quite small and it looks more like a suppressed weapon. Plus, with should mounted mini missiles capable of taking out tanks, what the hell would you need with a 203 launcher on your rifle?

Any ideas?

[krise madsen]

At first I thought the under barrel was a 203 launcher, but then looking at the end, the hole is quite small and it looks more like a suppressed weapon. Plus, with should mounted mini missiles capable of taking out tanks, what the hell would you need with a 203 launcher on your rifle?

Any ideas?

The best explanation is probably "it's just a game".

[Bota:16]

At first I thought the under barrel was a 203 launcher, but then looking at the end, the hole is quite small and it looks more like a suppressed weapon. Plus, with should mounted mini missiles capable of taking out tanks, what the hell would you need with a 203 launcher on your rifle?

Any ideas?

The best explanation is probably "it's just a game".

Though I like the bottle opener attachment, so you can enjoy a cold one for your mission debriefing.

[Tinker]

You beat me to it Bota, was just looking at that and thinking wth.

[WDA_Slayer]

Wow, sorry, but as a die-hard fan of [GR] I just found my chin dropped when viewing that video. If the game looks like that I think I'll pass on the Ghost Recon series for the first time ever. I don't need shoulder-mounted rockets, cloaking devices, and guns that sound like a star wars fight scene. There are other games to go for that. Give me current realism and tactical play and I'm all about it.

Seems like GR series is getting further and furhter from it's roots, and thus further and further from most of the old school guys that frequent this forum.

Cheerio,

[Tinker]

Wow, sorry, but as a die-hard fan of [GR] I just found my chin dropped when viewing that video. If the game looks like that I think I'll pass on the Ghost Recon series for the first time ever. I don't need shoulder-mounted rockets, cloaking devices, and guns that sound like a star wars fight scene. There are other games to go for that. Give me current realism and tactical play and I'm all about it.

Ghost Recon never was, or ever has been, current realism. As said, there are other games for that.

Seems like GR series is getting further and furhter from it's roots, and thus further and further from most of the old school guys that frequent this forum.

Cheerio,

Modern day combat would be something else with GR, but it is not going to happen any time soon. If you are that interested in the whole GR series, what would you of expected for GR4?

[AlienShogun]

At first I thought the under barrel was a 203 launcher, but then looking at the end, the hole is quite small and it looks more like a suppressed weapon. Plus, with should mounted mini missiles capable of taking out tanks, what the hell would you need with a 203 launcher on your rifle?

Any ideas?

The best explanation is probably "it's just a game".

The fact that people on here think a 203 launcher can take out a tank speaks volumes.

The underslung attachment can be a range of things including a 203 launcher grenade launcher, and shotgun.

You beat me to it Bota, was just looking at that and thinking wth.

That is a wire cutter.

Why are people so quick to bash stuff they are uninformed about.

Edited April 8, 2010 by AlienShogun

[WhiteKnight77]

There are people who do know what an M203 is capable of, after all, the round is used in the M79. To see something smaller take out a tank though is bordering on comical.

[BS PALADIN]

The funny thing is that the developers of GRFS have decided to further offensive tech for the ghosts but not for the Russians. It might be possible that a small rocket with an advanced warhead could take out current tank armour but highly unlikely to take out advanced armour in the future. And Russians are very very good at making tank armour.

I could be wrong but weren't they the first to use reactive armour ( think its called that ) were explosives are used to deflect the explosions of incoming missiles.

[Daywanderer]

The bottle opener comments made me chuckle

I'd like to add that, as Alien said, not all "old-timers" dislike the thematic direction the GR franchise is taking with GRFS. I'd like to believe that this was fairly obvious in my first post as well. Now, as I mentioned, I'm waiting to see how the gameplay turns out before passing any judgement. After all, I absolutely love the feel and atmosphere of the trailer. Next-gen tech, gritty, dirty, sneaking in with cloak while a high-ground sniper gets an overview - and once the target is confirmed, that lovely fifty-cal goes off, 30k blows the command center to pieces and the rest of the squad goes in with heavy fire, drones and explosions xD

I reminds me of how I used to complete missions in GR, heheh..

The fact that it has the Ghost Recon brand doesn't make me expect identical gameplay to an "ancient" game, it's just an added bonus for me that the storyline will involve our beloved D Company. Naturally, I do hope that it will, gameplay-wise, go somewhat back to its roots and sport open-ended environments with multiple routes/solutions, detailed yet optional squad-control and all those things that made the original game so great way back when. With a few additions, of course. I expect any shooter that's released today to have at least the ability to climb over small obstacles And a few other things...

I also hope they keep decent focus on the multiplayer part of the game, as that's really what keeps a game on my harddrive for more than a week these days.

[Cons72]

The fact that people on here think a 203 launcher can take out a tank speaks volumes.

The underslung attachment can be a range of things including a 203 launcher grenade launcher, and shotgun.

That is a wire cutter.

Why are people so quick to bash stuff they are uninformed about.

Sorry if my post was not clear. I never intended it to mean that a m203 could take out a tank or couldn't, just that if you have something on your shoulder capable of taking out a tank, lugging around an M203 under your rifle might not be necessary.

Anyway...

I don't buy the notion that people that don't like the direction of the game are "uninformed." Maybe all the information is not out there, but there is clearly enough for some people to make a decision of whether they like the direction the game is going or not.

If Ford decided to stop making Mustangs, and instead were just going to put the Mustang name plate on a Fusion, would some of you still go buy it because it says "Mustang" on it?