Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

Gabrielle Shrager talks to IncGamers


Recommended Posts

I don't get mad, but do have to just shake my head. Everything in the Ghost Recon franchise, from Island Thunder on, has been complete and utter rubbish. Gabrielle and co. need to go back and play the [Ghost Recon], sans mods again. Capture the essence of that game. Enough of this futuristic BS already!

edit -

Why does typing original and then Ghost Recon result in [Ghost Recon] being displayed? That's mildly irritating.

Edited by Parabellum
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does typing original and then Ghost Recon result in [Ghost Recon] being displayed? That's mildly irritating.

It is mildly, but it is for a reason, maybe it needs pinned somewhere.

It is annoying but more importantly confusing, to see Ghost Recon called different things, when it is simply called "Ghost Recon". Some people mistakenly call it O.G.R (without the periods) thinking "Orig. Ghost Recon", but O.G.R (without the periods) is actually a game mode in GR:AW. So when people talk about O.G.R (without the periods) , they are causing confusion if they are actually referring to Ghost Recon. There are other examples but that is the main one. For example some people call it Ghost Recon 1, but that is incorrect too, you will not find any game called "Ghost Recon 1" for sale anywhere in the world. It might sound a bit anal, but it is correct.

So we promote the correct naming convention here, there is no reason to deviate from it, and if it is adhered to, there are no square bracket substitutions, and no confusion. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt most of them have even played a Ghost Recon game before GRAW.
I'm sure that they're well aware of and played Ghost Recon but publicly referring to it would be counter-productive in their marketing/hype of :Future Soldier.

If the target audience is unfamiliar with the franchise and its history, well, so much the better...and probably explains a few things.

____

...For example some people call it Ghost Recon 1, but that is incorrect too, you will not find any game called "Ghost Recon 1" for sale anywhere in the world...

So we promote the correct naming convention here, there is no reason to deviate from it...

This has been asked (and unanswered) before but if the above is true why is the Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter section labeled as GR: Advanced Warfighter 1.

Is Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter sold anywhere in the world as GR: Advanced Warfighter 1?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Everything in the Ghost Recon franchise, from Island Thunder on, has been complete and utter rubbish. Gabrielle and co. need to go back and play the [Ghost Recon], sans mods again. Capture the essence of that game. Enough of this futuristic BS already!
Assuming you mean 'since' I.T. then yes Para, absolutely.

BTW I label the three PC games as GR, GRAW and GRAW2 ;)

DS

Link to post
Share on other sites
This has been asked (and unanswered) before but if the above is true why is the Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter section labeled as GR: Advanced Warfighter 1.

Is Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter sold anywhere in the world as GR: Advanced Warfighter 1?

This site has grown to a massive size, and all the different parts (FAQ, Downloads, RECON, Forums and News Categories, Menu Dropdowns) are all run by different scripts, this is no portal site. That means that when I update one part, all the other parts need updated individually, this affords us great flexibility, at the expense of the risk of inconsistencies, as you have pointed out. . The inconsistency you have pointed out is, therefore, or rather WAS, an oversight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little heads-up on what Gabrielle Shrager considers 'top notch' games - to put her opinion (and work) on Future Soldier into perspective. Just as for Future Soldier, Shrager was head writer for Ubisoft's 'Beowolf: The Game'.

Here's what she had to say about Beowulf in an IGN interview:

I actually joined for this game. [...] I wanted to join because the lead games designer (Giles Matouba) is a brilliant guy. I like to call him the young Stanley Kubrick because I think he's that good. So, when I saw the direction he was taking the game in, I knew this would be a great project to work on. [...] I'm a massive perfectionist so I actually ended up writing absolutely everything to do with the game and not just the script. So, the box, dialogue, manual and even the TCRs have all been written by me. Even when we were doing the first drafts I was extremely hard on myself and strived for absolute perfection.

And here's an excerpt from IGN's subsequent review of Beowolf:

If you're looking for a video game experience that does justice to the revered epic poem, a work that more or less served as the inspiration for Tolkien and all the spin-off fantasy media saturating Western society, get ready to be sorely disappointed. Things have changed in this new adaptation of Beowulf, the video game version of which differs even from the movie in its deviation from the original. [...] It's never exactly clear what's happening, however, as the continuity of the game's story is smashed apart by jarring scene transitions, anemic dialogue sequences, and an overall lack of personality. [...] it appears all of five minutes was spent on the game's story [...] an embarrassment to the medium of video games [...] Beowulf utterly and completely fails to live up to the pedigree of the work on which it's based, and shamefully displays our society's tendency to try and cash in on a cultural touchstone [...] you'll still have to sit through a narrative told with the precision of an oil spill [...] On top of the regrettably muddled story, the game itself is rife with design problems, and delivers one of the most poorly constructed action sequences this reviewer has experienced [...] this game was never meant to be enjoyed for more than fifteen minutes [...] But never fear, the game's monotonous, imprecise, and nauseating gameplay is given a jolt near the end by the introduction of…an ice level. Seriously? And let's not forget the wall clambering mechanics that feel like chicken claws on a sheet of plate glass. [...] Ubisoft [...] did a magnificent job of butchering the reimagining of a classic tale and providing plenty of disposable, derivative gameplay to go along with it. [...] the absurd storytelling often makes deciphering events and motivations as difficult as a non-scholar trying to read the Nowell Codex. As far as gameplay goes, I can understand why a development studio would want to mimic many of God of War's concepts, yet it's still surprising to see it done so badly. Things start out simple, and that's how they stay, right up until the very end. [...] What a waste of time.

Lasting Appeal: 1 out of 10

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am aware of Beowolf the video game but that is about it. So as this was the first review I have read I was hoping to hear glowing things. Wow! That review is scathing and greatly diminishes my hopes and expectations for GR:FS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: Beowolf the game: The game sucked. Hard. If that is the kind of game that GR:FS is going to turn out to be, then it's going to be another huge, steaming pile of brown stuff. Without a doubt, it was the worst game that I've ever had the scathing misfortune to install on my machine. The CD did make an excellent target, however.

@ Rocky: That explanation makes sense. Thanks for that!

RE: GR:FS: I honestly don't think that Gabrielle has any idea what she's talking about. At approx 3:17 in the video, she says "What differentiates us is that we're all about the elite tactical unit gameplay...the story is much more micro-narration, it's about what happens on the ground." Every other shooter on the planet is about elite tactical units. Every other shooter out there is about what happens on the ground. What she seems to fail to realize is that making the game focus primarily on the experience of the character that you're playing leads to a game that feels small. The games that pull people in are the games that make you feel as though there's something more to the story; there's a bigger story to tell, and learning how your character and his team fit into that bigger story is what makes for an engrossing experience. Gabrielle's assertion that the micro-narration is more important than the story tells me that there's no depth to the game, honestly.

Then at 3:39, she starts babbling about four-person co-op, as if that's something amazing and astonishing. Memo to Gabrielle: Ghost Recon had .. what was it ... 9- or 18-person co-op, ten years ago. Operation Flashpoint and its successors have far more than that. Four-person co-op is supposed to be amazing? Please. I know that this is the XBox 360-specific forum, but let's not be deceived into thinking that four-player co-op is something amazing, even for the 360. Then she talks about how it's difficult to have a typical movie foil in this kind of a game. Why is that even an issue? Since when is having a side-kick important in a shooter? It isn't. Again, I don't think that Gabrielle has any idea what she's talking about.

Honestly, I lost any semblance of interest in the interview after that, because it's clear from what she'd said so far that GR:FS will offer nothing new. Everything that she's mentioned, other games have done before. Very likely, other games have also done those things better.

Edited by Parabellum
Link to post
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.

×
×
  • Create New...