Jump to content

Ghost Recon Debate


Recommended Posts

@Krise - agree about MW...once you beat the level...you really kind of know what to expect...but most games are like that now.

One of the points in my blog stated its kind of hard to quantify the debate because there are so many different ways you could look at it. Ghost Recon's bread and butter sure wasn't the single player element (at least I don't think so) - I think most loved the multiplayer side of it.

It's easier for me to overlook dumb A.I., respawn issues or replay value if the multiplayer is solid. I think that is the concern with Future Soldier - some people won't like either. You can play GRAW and GRAW 2 without a lot of the tech (including turning the diamonds off) and it becomes a much more challenging and engaging game. (Not many people will play it this way though, unfortunately).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ghost Recon's bread and butter sure wasn't the single player element (at least I don't think so)
I disagree. Unlike CoD 4, there were several ways to finish levels in GR. CoD 4 is an open environment to a certain degree, but it's more game-on-rails. I posted in the forums back in '02 or '03 that I was really keen to complete each level with all the team vertical and unwounded. For me, that added to the in-game tension and enjoyment. I was rewarded for my perseverance with skill points that I could give to my team, in the hope that their AI skills would improve. I only wanted to play SP once, but I did so at the hardest level and played each level repeatedly until I'd completed them with the team in one piece. The advantage there, was that when I eventually played MP I was at a decent skill level and I knew the maps very well.

I don't feel the same way about CoD 4 or even BiA. I just want to get SP over with, and the storyline of CoD 4 doesn't really interest me, despite it being more dramatic and better looking than GR.

Swapping team mates in GR SP was great. Not just to keep their AI in check, but for immersion. We've never been able to do that since.

Does anyone really care about Scott Mitchell? No offence Scott. :rolleyes:

DS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Day - I have mixed feelings on what you call the "tightly choreographed single-player experience". Some games, and even some levels in some games make it so clearly obvious that it's happening it gets a little annoying. If the map is designed just right and the action is tense, it just flows and you don't even realize it (or you do realize it and don't care). But when the map is designed poorly and gives you enough time to think "I know this is the obvious path but I don't want to go that way" then it's a little frustrating.

In Modern Warfare 2, when you fall from the roof of the building in the slums and are racing to hook up with the helo for evac, I thought that was executed very well. On the other hand, the snowmobile scene definitely channels you along and doesn't give you much time to mess around or explore. I didn't really like that.

One of the problems with "open-ness" is, there are ways to kind of cheat at it. In a lot of the Ghost Recon maps, if you hugged the edge of the map and went way out of your way, you could basically come in behind a lot of the enemy forces and pick them off. While that might seem like a fair tactic, when the patrol paths and enemy locations vary only slightly, it kind of takes away from the game.

HAH...but why am I telling you this...you already know and have commented on it.

Definitely agree that playing through a heavily scripted game a second time is incredibly boring. Honestly though, once I beat a mission, I'm not real big on playing it through over and over. Which lead to the comment that I made that Dick Splash commented on.

@Dick Splash - I guess a lot of it just comes down to personal preference. While I don't play missions with such a strict standard (unwounded) I don't just worry about mission objectives either. If my men are wounded but able to move then I'll play on, but if I lose a man, I reload. Same thing if a civilian gets killed or a secondary mission objective isn't met. Naturally I enjoyed Ghost Recon single player and all of the expansion packs and the single player missions, but multiplayer was the real joy for me. I didn't play the missions over and over (unless there was a reason too) so of course multiplayer was more fun. I agree there are several ways to finish GR, but the end result was still the end result (for the most part).

I think that's pretty cool that you have such strict standards for success and play it on the hardest difficulty level. I can see how that would help you learn the map intimately and make you a rather proficient at MP. I just don't have the patience for it heh heh...I want to see how the story ends.

Again, personal preference...and I know I'm in the minority here...but I never liked being able to swap in and out of players. For me, that's like saying the AI isn't capable enough to make the shot or take care of business on their own (and often, that was indeed the case). I like how GRAW 1/2 do squad control. I can tell them where to go and what to do (Recon or Assault). If they choke, as the squad leader, I have to deal with it. In a realism sense, I always thought that was more realistic than swapping bodies around. I like having a central character, like Scott Mitchell (but I think he could have been developed better). I like how Rainbow Six let you develop a character and glad to see Future Soldier will offer a similar approach.

No offense taken. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Day - I have mixed feelings on what you call the "tightly choreographed single-player experience". Some games, and even some levels in some games make it so clearly obvious that it's happening it gets a little annoying. If the map is designed just right and the action is tense, it just flows and you don't even realize it (or you do realize it and don't care). But when the map is designed poorly and gives you enough time to think "I know this is the obvious path but I don't want to go that way" then it's a little frustrating.

In Modern Warfare 2, when you fall from the roof of the building in the slums and are racing to hook up with the helo for evac, I thought that was executed very well. On the other hand, the snowmobile scene definitely channels you along and doesn't give you much time to mess around or explore. I didn't really like that.

One of the problems with "open-ness" is, there are ways to kind of cheat at it. In a lot of the Ghost Recon maps, if you hugged the edge of the map and went way out of your way, you could basically come in behind a lot of the enemy forces and pick them off. While that might seem like a fair tactic, when the patrol paths and enemy locations vary only slightly, it kind of takes away from the game.

HAH...but why am I telling you this...you already know and have commented on it.

Definitely agree that playing through a heavily scripted game a second time is incredibly boring. Honestly though, once I beat a mission, I'm not real big on playing it through over and over. Which lead to the comment that I made that Dick Splash commented on.

@Dick Splash - I guess a lot of it just comes down to personal preference. While I don't play missions with such a strict standard (unwounded) I don't just worry about mission objectives either. If my men are wounded but able to move then I'll play on, but if I lose a man, I reload. Same thing if a civilian gets killed or a secondary mission objective isn't met. Naturally I enjoyed Ghost Recon single player and all of the expansion packs and the single player missions, but multiplayer was the real joy for me. I didn't play the missions over and over (unless there was a reason too) so of course multiplayer was more fun. I agree there are several ways to finish GR, but the end result was still the end result (for the most part).

I think that's pretty cool that you have such strict standards for success and play it on the hardest difficulty level. I can see how that would help you learn the map intimately and make you a rather proficient at MP. I just don't have the patience for it heh heh...I want to see how the story ends.

Again, personal preference...and I know I'm in the minority here...but I never liked being able to swap in and out of players. For me, that's like saying the AI isn't capable enough to make the shot or take care of business on their own (and often, that was indeed the case). I like how GRAW 1/2 do squad control. I can tell them where to go and what to do (Recon or Assault). If they choke, as the squad leader, I have to deal with it. In a realism sense, I always thought that was more realistic than swapping bodies around. I like having a central character, like Scott Mitchell (but I think he could have been developed better). I like how Rainbow Six let you develop a character and glad to see Future Soldier will offer a similar approach.

No offense taken. ;)

good post, i agree on everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the problems with "open-ness" is, there are ways to kind of cheat at it. In a lot of the Ghost Recon maps, if you hugged the edge of the map and went way out of your way, you could basically come in behind a lot of the enemy forces and pick them off. While that might seem like a fair tactic, when the patrol paths and enemy locations vary only slightly, it kind of takes away from the game.
That never occured to me whilst playing GR and if I'd have played it that way, it would have taken the fun out of it, knowing I was taking advantage of the game's design and AI. In MP however, you need all the advantages you can get.

While I don't play missions with such a strict standard (unwounded) I don't just worry about mission objectives either. If my men are wounded but able to move then I'll play on.
I did that at first and realised that although you could award a wounded team member with experience points and continue to have him in the team on the next mission, he brought his wound with him. This was all the more reason for me to get better at each SP level.

Again, personal preference...and I know I'm in the minority here...but I never liked being able to swap in and out of players. For me, that's like saying the AI isn't capable enough to make the shot or take care of business on their own (and often, that was indeed the case).
You're right, your team wasn't always capable of being left to their own devices, which is why, as I mentioned before, swapping was a good way of keeping them in line. Also, by being able to swap, I could tackle a level with a different weapon. Getting the team into their start positions, aligning their arcs, pressing "Go" and watching the attack unfold whilst watching them on the mini-map was very satisfying. I'm sure that was a popular feature in the early R6 days too.

DS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, personal preference...and I know I'm in the minority here...but I never liked being able to swap in and out of players. For me, that's like saying the AI isn't capable enough to make the shot or take care of business on their own (and often, that was indeed the case). I like how GRAW 1/2 do squad control. I can tell them where to go and what to do (Recon or Assault). If they choke, as the squad leader, I have to deal with it. In a realism sense, I always thought that was more realistic than swapping bodies around. I like having a central character, like Scott Mitchell (but I think he could have been developed better). I like how Rainbow Six let you develop a character and glad to see Future Soldier will offer a similar approach.

I'm not so sure you're in the minority, I'm not seeing much love for soul-switching. We can certainly agree that soul-switching shouldn't be a crutch for lousy team AI (even though that's probably unavoidable). While I'm slowly coming around to the idea that soul-switching isn't absolutely necessary, I still think the best solution is having a team AI smart enough that soul-switching isn't necessary, but still include it. Look at SWAT4: You could order your team mates around by accessing their helmet cam, pointing at a location and order them to move there. But why not go all the way and add proper soul-switching as well? It allows me, within the same mission, to take the role of a specific team member for a specific task: The obvious example is switching to the sniper for the key shot, then back to the soldier for the rest of the mission.

I know there are considerable game play/user interface issues when including soul-switching, but I wouldn't mind if switching to another soldier required some jumping-through-hoops if that's what it takes to include it in the game without interfering with "normal" non-soul-switching game play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure you're in the minority, I'm not seeing much love for soul-switching...The obvious example is switching to the sniper for the key shot, then back to the soldier for the rest of the mission.

Well...just based on people I've talked with or discussions I've seen here...I think I/we are in the minority with "soul switching". I do think you miss some key parts of the game if you have your A.I. buddies do everything, and so having the ability to play from the different perspectives (different class/weapons) does have an advantage...but just not enough of one to make me favor it.

I was messing around on GRAW 2 and you can stay back and play Commander reminiscent of the old Battlefield 2 days for the most part. Just direct your team to go here and there. Obviously there are some things you have to do that they won't do. (This was just messing around, of course I wouldn't recommend doing it because you'll miss out on all of the action).

...anyway...stay tuned...Part 3 should be posted later tonight...the "Ubisoft Money Making Agenda" argument... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers for another good read :)

I'll have to agree - in order to make money on a game nowadays, it has to be more "Modern Warfare/Halo" than "vanilla Ghost Recon". A majority of the market aren't interested in spending a long time in some variety of the good old Rainbow Six "planning phase", they want to be able to jump in and shoot stuff. This is the age of instant gratification, after all.

Sadly, this means that traditional "tactical shooters" or MilSims will be developed with a sigificantly smaller budget, or else the developer would lose money on making games. Whereas the well-developed and polished games will be made with a "feed the masses" mind-set.

In regard to Modern Warfare 2 and friendly fire - I feel this just gives the game a more "casual" approach, and makes it easier for me to just jump into the game and blow the enemy team up. Which, again, is what the majority wants. And for the more hardcore players, there are the appropriately named "Hardcore" game-modes ;)

To back up a bit, to the whole soul switching issue: I'm all for this assuming the open-ness is there to support it. I see no need for such a feature if the game is an "on-rails" experience, but if it leans more towards vanilla GR, I enjoy scenarios such as those described earlier: Switching to the sniper to take those first shots, then back to the assault squad and go in hot. I want to play the game, I don't want the game to play itself for me :P

And since I forget whether or not I mentioned this already, I'll touch on the Ghost Recon franchise thing too. A franchise name, for me, is more about the story and theme rather than the genre/sub-genre. I can't recall any public outcries when Command & Conquer: Renegade, SWAT2 or - more recently - Halo Wars was released. At least GRFS will still be a shooter xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As always, an interesting read. thumbsup.gif

Most gamers do not like real. I do not know why that is, I just know it is. Hop on any random server for any random first person shooter (practically any of the Call of Duty or Battlefield series) and you will find this – an overwhelming majorityhave Friendly Fire off.

I think the reason some online game servers have FF turned off is more a matter of avoiding the hostility it can cause between players rather then "gamers do not like real". Most of them are public servers where generally players are strangers to each other. If FF is on and I am accidently killed by a team mate I do not have a problem with that. However if purposely killed by a team mate, I have a big problem with that. In RL, it is extremely rare for a fellow soldier to purposely shoot or frag his own.

How is Ubisoft doing anything wrong if they're giving the majority of the gaming community what they want?

It may be a matter of them making what they can under the restraints of agreements made with third parties. For example, MS which I am sure they have licensing agreements with for the Xbox 360. What are those restraints and are such agreements a detriment to better titles in general? IMO we will never know.

But supposing for example, the agreements with MS and other console platforms state that the title must be closely similar for all platforms including the PC. This greatly limits the PCs potential for making a superior game.

To some extent UBI is in the drivers seat but they are in the middle of a convoy led by larger and more powerful corporations.

Are they making titles that really are in the best interest of the majority of gamers or making titles that satisfy larger corporations wants and desires?

One thing UBI does extremely well is being tight lipped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, pardon me for playing Captain Obvious, but Ubisoft are allowed to make whatever games they want, and call them whatever they want, and being a business their job is to make money, clearly. They can make "Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Petz" for all I care. I honestly can't blame them for not making an ultra-tactical Ghost Recon game: I would with 99% certainty be a commercial faliure. However, I'm not so sure a niche tactical shooter, borrowing tech and content from Ubis own games and IP's couldn't turn in a nice little profit. I do wish their PR department had a little more respect for the fact that not all of their customers are dimwitted teenage boys though.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm turning into a grumpy old fart :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Day - Thanks buddy.

Agree with "instant gratification"...funny, no one asked me if that's what I wanted. Rainbow Six remains one of my favorite games of all times. I loved the planning phase and would spend longer setting up then executing. There was nothing like storming a room from multiple sides; flashbanging it and running in. Awesome. I don't know that we'll ever get that again...unless it's an independent title or a user created mod.

Don't get me wrong, I like MW2 and BC2...but it's like comparing the movies Heat with Die Hard 5 or 6 or whichever one they're up to. I think Heat is one of the realistic movies as far as gun play and I think Die Hard is one of the most ridiculous, but I still like them both.

Hardcore on MW is a very nice feature and it would be very nice if GRFS had this as well - if they throw in the ability to select/deselect high tech weapons and equipment...that would be fine too.

That's a very good point about the soul switching and it not being needed in an "on-rails" game. Never really thought of it like that but definitely agree.

@wombat50 - Thanks.

Well...I see your point and mostly agree with it...but when you hopped on a random sever on GR...you pretty much "knew" not to shoot your teammates or it would hurt them. Nowadays it's the opposite. Of course there are always the jerks who would do it for fun, but GR definitely seemed to draw in a certain, more mature crowd.

I remember when they patched BF2 and changed the artillery mechanics...before artillery killed anybody in the blast radius and after the patch it didn't hurt teammates...so if a flag was being captured you just dumped artillery on it and didn't worry about if your teammates were spawning or not...I hated that.

That is an excellent point about contractual agreements. Not something I really considered but definitely could be a factor in a lot of the decision making behind the series. I liked the driver/convoy analogy. I think it would be very interesting if they released the data

@Krise - uh oh...couldn't tell if you were annoyed or not...your last comment seems to diffuse the tenseness of the first comment, so I wasn't sure. I'm not sure of the history behind the UBI PR comment...so I can't really comment. Turning into a grumpy old fart...or turned. ;)

And for the record...I am and will always be a fan of the real tactical shooters...but I've given up hope for that...the kool aid wasn't so bad after the first sip.

LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Krise - uh oh...couldn't tell if you were annoyed or not...your last comment seems to diffuse the tenseness of the first comment, so I wasn't sure. I'm not sure of the history behind the UBI PR comment...so I can't really comment. Turning into a grumpy old fart...or turned. ;)

And for the record...I am and will always be a fan of the real tactical shooters...but I've given up hope for that...the kool aid wasn't so bad after the first sip.

LOL.

Heh. I wasn't annoyed, just posting when I really should have been asleep. And I guess in my case the old fart train left the station ages ago ;)

Anyhoo, my point was that I agree: The Ghost Recon IP is Ubi's, and they can do with it whatever they want. And if it was me investing millions in the development, I'd probably look towards a more sellable action game as well. Not that I'm particularly fond of that type of game.

My only real beef is with the Ubi PR department: GRFS is shaping up to be a much more action oriented game than it's predecessors, and the military tech is only loosely based on rather diffuse future concepts. Just come out and tell it like it is, and let GRFS be judged on its own merits. Instead, we get press releases laced with terms like "realism", "authentic" and "tactical". I'm sure they get good bulk deals on fire resistant pants...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only real beef is with the Ubi PR department: GRFS is shaping up to be a much more action oriented game than it's predecessors, and the military tech is only loosely based on rather diffuse future concepts. Just come out and tell it like it is, and let GRFS be judged on its own merits. Instead, we get press releases laced with terms like "realism", "authentic" and "tactical". I'm sure they get good bulk deals on fire resistant pants...

@Krise - oh...I see what you're saying now...I thought you had a specific run in with someone. It's interesting because the Ubisoft website in the product summary for GRFS says, "He uses the perfect combination of diplomacy and force to achieve his objectives while remaining politically invisible. He is a Ghost.". And when asked about the diplomacy and politically invisible part of it, Ubisoft representatives basically acknowledged that it was a bit embellished. I expect a certain amount of fluff from any game...so it doesn't bother me much.

You know...since this is the debate thread...one thing I've been thinking...

I don't necessarily think Ubisoft will include this, but if the game is moddable at all, then I'm sure modders could make it happen...but it's already been released that you will play out the cut scenes and you will play characters that don't rely on the high tech kit. You might have a weapon and you might not. These are playable levels. With that in mind, in a dream world we could play MP with these characters...but even if not, perhaps modders will have the tools they need to make it work.

Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"He uses the perfect combination of diplomacy and force to achieve his objectives while remaining politically invisible. He is a Ghost.".

I wondered about that quote too. What is diplomatic about unloading a clip in an opponents chest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it funny that people are already wishing for alternative ways to make the game playable by their standards. Things like we hope its moddable and we hope all the hi tech options can be turned off. Is it too much to ask that the game is playable tactical straight out of the box ( or steam lol ). The game is so far removed from Ghost Recon that it baffles me why you are even giving it the time of day.

Im not saying GRFS will be bad but its so different from GR that it should be considered a new franchise, thus can only be judged when it is released. Everything that was GR has been stripped away. If only the people on here used their time and skill to support a real game or even a mod which actually caters for their tastes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it funny that people are already wishing for alternative ways to make the game playable by their standards. Things like we hope its moddable and we hope all the hi tech options can be turned off. Is it too much to ask that the game is playable tactical straight out of the box ( or steam lol ). The game is so far removed from Ghost Recon that it baffles me why you are even giving it the time of day.

If you disable the predator cloaking, the exoskeleton legs, the shoulder missiles, the pink diamonds, the robots, the kung fu, replace all the weapons, replace the character models, edit the HUD, implement a FT command interface, increase the squad to 8 guys, switch the game to first person, etc you might end up with an half decent game since it still has ghost recon written on the box :D .

What catched my interest in this discussion is the common belief that these ideas Ubisoft come up with actually increase the comercial success and popularity of the franchise, but does it?

Lets look at GR2, the highly anticipated sequel.. did the changes to gameplay increase the popularity of the sequel and made it more successfull? Do you believe that the game would sell less if there was an option to use 1st person view or command more than 4 elements in your group? Or even if it was closer to the original but improved upon with better graphics, a.i. and more options?

Or even GRAW, was it a successfull title because ubi came up with pink diamonds and sent 4 ghosts to invade Mexico city?

If you ask me it was successfull because of Ubi's "next gen" hype and marketing plus a huge demand for impressive looking titles following the release of the xbox 360, GRAW had little to no competition at the time.

A successfull franchise doesnt have an identity crisis.. im not saying GRFS wont do well in terms of sales, im saying that Ubi would do better if they didnt turn the series in a completely new direction with every new release but expanded, improved and built upon what made these titles good in the first place.

Casuals buy anything that looks good and has guns in it, behiond that they only need to deliver enough options to catter to as wide an audience as they possibly can, GRFS doesnt do that and its going to compete with Crysis 2 and MoH 2010, if you ask me GRFS already lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know. Ghost Recon was one game. Then GRAW series was another. If they would have named it Advanced Warfighter nobody would have cared. Same with Future Soldier it should just be named that. The GR tag is only to give it name recognition to sell units just like Dragon Rising (which I think if they would have left OF off the title it would have done better) So for me It's an all new game period. I'll try it but I have learned over the years that sequels are never the same as the original (except GRAw2 which should have been an expansion pack)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I loaded up Ghost Recon to check on some info for Part 4 of the blog.

I'm reminded how awesome the game truly is/was...and am amazed after all this time I still remember the maps and where to expect the bad guys. Even on Rookie...I got picked off by someone that I never even saw. One shot, one kill. There will only ever be one Ghost Recon...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To back up a bit, to the whole soul switching issue: I'm all for this assuming the open-ness is there to support it. I see no need for such a feature if the game is an "on-rails" experience, but if it leans more towards vanilla GR, I enjoy scenarios such as those described earlier: Switching to the sniper to take those first shots, then back to the assault squad and go in hot. I want to play the game, I don't want the game to play itself for me :P

For me, soul switching always seemed like a cheap hack to make up for AI that couldn't do its job correctly. Unfortunately, no game that I've ever played had a robust enough command interface and squad AI to mitigate the need for it. I like to be able to issue the "open fire" command, then storm the house myself, or take the shot myself and tell the assault squad do their work while I observe through the scope. So I guess what I'm arguing for is not the absence of soul switching, but rather that it shouldn't be mandatory.

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...