Jump to content

Ghost Recon Debate


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I never forget walking into my local EBGames store and I saw the Ghost Recon box, I was blown away!

I remember installing it and launching into Caves and saying to everyone who came to mu place "Check out the graffix on this".

For the first time, I would shelve Rogue Spear and Urban Operations - I have never played them again.

Looking back now, I think this is the first time I truly fell in love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd...the middle guy with the OICW...on my box he has an M4.

Yep, I'm looking at my original box sitting on my shelf in my study and the middle Ghost has an M4 too.

The image is likely a pre-release image or image used for a different region (i.e. outside North America).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd...the middle guy with the OICW...on my box he has an M4.

Found that pic on the net, cant compare with mine, its destroyed many years ago, btw im playing the steam version now (M4 too).

1948-header.jpg

I still have the original cd-roms in mint condition, i took some photo's, hardly a scratch on them, and i still have the original receipt dated 10/08/02, that's when i purchased it. M16A2's? or M4 carbine's? on front cover, M4's i think. Superb game in it's day and still loved by many. What is amazing though is a combined total of 31 single player missions (inc expansion packs), (15 single player missions in [Ghost Recon], just brilliant), as well as a bunch of dedicated mp maps and modes, and lots of weapons, great EAX sound and many many awesome mods, truly amazing pc game, you don't get that much in todays pc games.

gr1l.jpg

gre1p.jpg

grit.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part 2 - the "Ghost Recon" debate is posted... http://tinyurl.com/yax6esk - feel free to post comments...just please keep it civil.

First of all, how solid is the info on the 2020 date? Since the technology, as per Kimi, is based on the 2030 Future Soldier concept, I assumed GRFS was set around 2030. Which also fits the tech. (but let's save the tech discussion for another blog entry :) ), and would see GRFS jump 20 years into the future rather than the "standard" 7 years.

Not that I think it really matters. What set GR apart is not the near-future setting or the cutting edge technology. Adding or removing tech from the various GR games would not change them to any significant degree. GRAW set in WW2 would still be GRAW, only the looks would really change.

For me, Ghost Recon is all about the game play. In GR, I never, ever got a "you're leaving the mission area" message. In GR, I wasn't funnelled from one ambush to another. In GR I couldn't complete a mission simply by memorizing the location of the enemy AI (in some cases I could even kill AI by blind-lobbing grenades at memorized AI locations). In GR, I never had a whole bunch of AI spawn a few feet in front of me because I had taken a semi-circumspect route that the mission designers hadn't taken into account.

What I did get in GR was a (admittedly only sometimes) cunning AI that would pop up where I least expected them, or move halfway across the map to attack me from an unexpected direction. In GR, I had AI going prone right at the corner of a house and fire at me. In GR, I had AI blind-lobbing grenades at me (specifically the sea wall on the Beach Resort map in GRIT). In GR, I could spread my team across the entire map and complete objectives in any order I wanted, approaching from whatever direction I chose. In GR, I got an exeptionally versatile and flexible MP lobby, enabling me to set up games (in my case all LAN co-op games) exactly the way I wanted, and tweak them as necessary. In GR, I was punished for not coordinating my teams properly and covering my six. In GR, I was punished for blindly strolling into tnem contacts and not taking my time to spot the enemy in advance. In GR, missions could play out in numerous different ways.

Not that some elements of the GRAW games weren't without merit. On the micro tactical level, the AI was sometimes brilliant: Once the battle was joined within a confined area, with the player(s) more or less in pre-determined location, the enemy AI would run away from an exposed position and head-dive into cover. The AI would pop up, shoot, duck, move and pop up somewhere else. But on the macro tactical level the GRAW games failed rather miserably: Forget about winning the battle by being cunning and bypassing an enemy position or attacking an enemy in the back from an unexpected direction: You were nudged, squeezed and forced into very specific locations in order for the game to unfold before your eyes. IMO, the loss to game play wasn't worth the eye candy we got in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I can't say with any degree of certainty how solid the info is. A date is listed in the one screen shot I posted and I think that's about the only reference. The thing that's troubling though is Kerenski's birthday is shown and it looks to be 1995. (Kerenski is the first guy sniped in the teaser trailer) If the timeline was 2020, that would make him 25, and clearly he looks older than 25. Even a timeline of 2030 would mean he is only 35. He looks to be in his 40s. Then again, he does live in Russia. So maybe he aged before his time. :)

I would agree that adding or removing tech from the various GR games wouldn't change them significantly. Certainly not the original, but even GRAW 1/2 to a certain degree. I'm playing through GRAW 2 again paying closer attention to the actual mechanics and not just trying to finish the missions and beat the game. I'm mid way through and really, technology hasn't been a factor. The use of the drone and "Mule" has been minimal. The Cross Com is used a lot, of course. But I don't have too many issues with the Cross Com.

Using game play as the metric to define Ghost Recon, then I can kind of understand your dissatisfaction with the progression of the series. You dug a lot deeper into the mechanics of the game than what I did and provided some obvious differences.

Yes, GR did have more of a "free range" open ended mentality, while GRAW 1/2 herds you along through the missions. You can always tell when you discover a path the developers didn't expect you to take because you often come up behind the bad guys and they never even notice you. I don't think that's always an intentional or expected result.

I don't disagree with your comments on A.I. and how it plays out in the later games, but I think GR shared some of these problems as well. Especially some of the spawn issues and A.I. always being located in the same place. Like most games, the more you play the levels, the more you recognize the layout. GR was no different.

When I think of Ghosts or Ghost Recon, my mind doesn't think of the mechanics of game play, rather, I think of a high speed squad of special forces operators armed with the latest weapons and gadgets, and in that sense, the Future Soldier piece seems to fit.

However, this impression may soon change. I'm not sure if you read my press release summary or my OXM summary, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little concerned with the radical changes the developers are admittedly making in the game dynamic. Adding high tech kit is one thing, and I was onboard with that...but transforming Ghost Recon into a modified Gears of War may result in the loss of our identity altogether.

The Press Release articles make it quite clear that the veterans of the GR are about to witness what it feels like to be a dinosaur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I can't say with any degree of certainty how solid the info is. A date is listed in the one screen shot I posted and I think that's about the only reference. The thing that's troubling though is Kerenski's birthday is shown and it looks to be 1995. (Kerenski is the first guy sniped in the teaser trailer) If the timeline was 2020, that would make him 25, and clearly he looks older than 25. Even a timeline of 2030 would mean he is only 35. He looks to be in his 40s. Then again, he does live in Russia. So maybe he aged before his time. :)

I took a screen of his face where you could see him clearly on. I don't think he is very old, he looks a lot of one of my friends and he is 29. but you never know.

25prcyc.jpg

Edited by Dirites
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy is an actor hired to look like a game character. I would venture to say that the final character looks nothing like this actor save for the bald head.

HAH HAH...I'm reminded of the Joker's quote, "Why so serious?"...this is a game...and I'm having fun with it...and yes, sometimes I can get carried away with it. First stage of senility? Perhaps. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've touched on this earlier, but I feel that it was the simple "open-ness" of GR that made for so much replayability. Other than that, the AI was predictable (and not very smart), enemies spawned in the same locations and some had limited, preset patrol routes. They would also magically appear (read: spawn) a preset locations when you passed certain areas (mission 3 in vanilla GR comes to mind, cross the bridge and push a few hundred meters right, and a patrol spawns back near the bridge).

The replayability came from the fact that you could change your own experience to a certain degree by taking different routes or different kit setups, etc. But I still have most enemy positions memorized, both in GR as well as the first two Rainbow Six games. And this is basically something you had to do due to the light-speed reflexes and impeccable headshots the AI was capable of. It wasn't as bad in GR as in R6, but it was still imperative to know where the enemy is in order to get through most missions.

Most shooters nowadays have a tightly choreographed single-player experience which funnels the player through a series of "sets" and scripted events (and, in many cases, cutscenes). I personally love this, as I enjoy a good story in a shooter game, but it pretty much limits replayability to the multiplayer aspect. I find it incredibly boring to attempt a second playthrough in a heavily coreographed game. It's like watching a movie for second time - if it's really good, I'll do it, but it's nothing like the first time because you know exactly what's going to happen at every turn and you know how it all ends.

On the other hand, open games like GR offers more replayability, but the story itself takes more of a backseat and in vanilla R6/GR, you got all the story through mission briefings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've touched on this earlier, but I feel that it was the simple "open-ness" of GR that made for so much replayability. Other than that, the AI was predictable (and not very smart), enemies spawned in the same locations and some had limited, preset patrol routes. They would also magically appear (read: spawn) a preset locations when you passed certain areas (mission 3 in vanilla GR comes to mind, cross the bridge and push a few hundred meters right, and a patrol spawns back near the bridge).

The replayability came from the fact that you could change your own experience to a certain degree by taking different routes or different kit setups, etc. But I still have most enemy positions memorized, both in GR as well as the first two Rainbow Six games. And this is basically something you had to do due to the light-speed reflexes and impeccable headshots the AI was capable of. It wasn't as bad in GR as in R6, but it was still imperative to know where the enemy is in order to get through most missions.

Most shooters nowadays have a tightly choreographed single-player experience which funnels the player through a series of "sets" and scripted events (and, in many cases, cutscenes). I personally love this, as I enjoy a good story in a shooter game, but it pretty much limits replayability to the multiplayer aspect. I find it incredibly boring to attempt a second playthrough in a heavily coreographed game. It's like watching a movie for second time - if it's really good, I'll do it, but it's nothing like the first time because you know exactly what's going to happen at every turn and you know how it all ends.

On the other hand, open games like GR offers more replayability, but the story itself takes more of a backseat and in vanilla R6/GR, you got all the story through mission briefings.

This.

Well, sometimes the AI in GR would take you by surprise, presumably when a faraway AI heard gunshots and moved to investigate. But I agree that the openness (and just as importantly the ability of the AI to deal with that openness) was the key.

Modern Warfare 1 is the textbook example: Epic single player campaign, zero replayability.

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...