Jump to content

Why we will never get the Ghost Recon 'we' want


Recommended Posts

(OK - before you read this please place the cat outside of kicking distance, make yourself a nice cup of tea, listen to some whale song and light a soothing aromatherapy candle.......)

I have been an avid GR fan since the VERY beginning, indeed I recently re-bought GR Classic from STEAM beause I love the original so much! And I have quietly read, with interest, the continuing pleas of other fans that we 'want our old GR back' since the release of GRAW...But here's the thing...

'We' will *never* get our old Ghost Recon back - not because UBISOFT (or any other development team) is ignorant to our pleas or needs, and not because of the growth of consoles, and not because of the recession and cut backs in the games industry. No. 'We' will not get our old Ghost Recon back because I don't think 'we' really know what it is we want back!

Oh, I think we *think* we know - I certainly think I know - but in reality that image of what GR Redux would look like that we each have in our heads just doesn't seem to be exactly the same game when we articulate to the greater GR community what it is we are after.

I will give you an example of what I mean...

When I recently read a preview of the forth-coming Operation Flashpoint: Red River (and despite the fact that the last OFP was pants) I got VERY excited! Wow - I thought - this is EXACTLY how I (note the 'I') imagined GR Redux would be!

OFP:RR is based in the here and now - it has authentic weapons and technologies and uniforms - it's a realistic theatre of war - IT HAS CO-OP - it has a hardcore mode - etc, etc...

And when I saw the teaser movie and saw the squad ordering system in use I actually exclaimed 'OMG! It's Ghost Recon!' (I half expected the game characters to come over a hill and find a castle standing there - OUR CASTLE!)

...So then I hurried over to Ghostrecon.net to express my excitement on the forums only to find there was already a thread started on OFP:RR - and guess what?

Was there a host of other GR fans all excitedly enthusing over the new game? Was there even relatively similar views to mine that at last we had something approaching our dear old game back? NO.............NO, NO, NO!

I read with growing disappointment comment after comment berating the game and how no where near it was to classic GR!!! But after the initial deflation I started to think - hang on, OFP:RR looks and smells like what 'I' thought I was after, so why can't others agree with me, I mean we all AGREE what it is we are after - right?

Well, after much thought I now believe this is not actually the case - I don't think we REALLY do agree, not deep down. I do not believe that the little movie of the game 'we' want that we all have playing in our heads is the same little movie. In fact I think while it's easy for us GR fans to write broad ideas about what it is we all like in the form of WORDS in a forum, that is as close as we will ever get to agreeing on what it is we like as a concensus...

As soon as a game idea becomes anything other than VAGUE notions and becomes a concreate WORKING example that you can see a actual screenshot or trailer of the spell is broken. And this is why we will NEVER have the game we THINK we all want - because in reality we ALL want a different game.

NOW - I don't expect you all to agree with this theory (note: 'theory') and I fully expect to get flamed to high heaven by writting this. But if you think about it for a moment and just take on board what I have said it does actually explain a lot...

Many have wondered how UBISOFT was able to get it so 'wrong' with GRAW and GRAW2 (and some are already thinking they are getting it wrong again with Future Soldier). Why do you think this is?

Why do you think that a company like UBISOFT that takes so much trouble to investigate what product the market really wants continually gets it so 'wrong'?

My answer is - they didn't, not really. It's just that WE could not agree that the game that the market research said was wanted is the game WE have in each of our heads!

In short WE (you and me) are rubbish at articulating what it really is that is playing in our heads. And in any case if we all really have a different idea its no wonder we can't agree on one unified concrete physical concept.

OK flame me now - but I'm sticking to my guns. I truely believe that we won't get a game that we can ALL agree on that is the game that we ALL want because that game can NEVER actually exist. And even if by some miricle a game came a long that the *majority* of us believed was something like what we were afer I think it will have been a case of PURE LUCK.

In conclusion -please do not think that I am having a go at the GR community in saying what I have said. I am not, I am just highlighting that we are all individials with wonderfully creative imaginations. But I think if by some MAGIC each of us could have the game that is our heads made real by a developer we WOULD NOT have ONE Ghost Recon Redux, we would have hundreds of DIFFERENT games!

Edited by Milgeek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'We' will *never* get our old Ghost Recon back

OFP:RR. GRAW and GRAW2.

I doubt Ubisoft will re-make Ghost Recon with a different scenario and keep to the original including the unique reticle (optics). I won't be purchasing red river because it is download only for pc (don't have any way of buying online right now). I enjoyed GRAW 1 and 2 on pc and 360.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well thats just it. Ghost recon IS ghost recon 1 and GR2/ss GRAW is an utterly different game, its just AW and AW2 and GRFS is FS. they will NEVER be GR. Ubi is ignorant VERY ignorant all they see is money, i will only have respect for UBI if they remake GR. they just dont realise that people want GHOST RECON back.

all respect to Kimi who at least tries to communicate with us every now and then. but she really needs to say to the team "hey this is what they want make it and dont delay it for god's sake!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matters how we see the game, what matters are engine and gameplay. If you keep both, with some enhacements, you got GR back.

Small-squad, no vehicles, infantry based, stealth (or not) gameplay in not that big maps is Ghost Recon, just it.

Your point is good, but I think everybody here at GR.net see GR the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree that GR.net has about a million different ideas for what GR redux should be, I don't believe that the reason why it hasn't happened is because we won't admit that what we want is what focus groups claim we want.

I believe the reason we haven't seen GR redux is too fold:

First, we're a very small market that simply isn't that profitable to cater to. Honestly, we've gotten 10 years of play out of the original GR, that's at least 20 games per GR player that Ubisoft (or EA, or whoever) hasn't sold. That's a major part of it.

The other problem is that most of the community is so set in their ways that even the slightest move away from their cherished (read: dated) GR framework is blasphemy. When the loudest feedback a developer gets from the community amounts to inviting the developers to kill themselves, do you really think the developer wants to work with that community? We need to be willing to enjoy (or not, as the case may be) a game on its own merits, not how it measures up to a game that is (nowadays) wanting in a very large number of ways. For instance, while ultimately I became quite frustrated with a lot of things about Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising, it was just about as close to the original Ghost Recon in terms of tactical approach as I had yet seen. Unfortunately, the efforts of Bohemia Interactive to take back the name won it a lot of bad press amongst the right community so that when it failed to deliver on what it promised (and indeed, specifically betrayed it, especially that 60 unit, 450m limit thing), there was no community there to say "this is what you got wrong, but this is what you got right". All you got was a lot of very angry voices about how the game was catering to console players, which is to say that it improved the user interface to the point that a first time gamer knew how to issue commands without reading a 60 page manual. I've owned ArmA 2 for nearly 8 months and I learn about a new command EVERY TIME I play, which is about 4 times a week. OP:DR had the same breadth of control, and I was able to use it all within 3 days of buying the game. So now the sequel's coming out, and it looks basically the same, minus the powerful editor (which was hamstrung by that same 60 unit limit anyway).

The same thing happened with both GRAW games on PC. The crosscom was easily the most effective first-person order system I have ever seen, but people hated it because of the red diamonds. On top of that, what won our ire was the often laughably bad AI, and a design document that wanted to emulate the Call Of Duty approach (that is, strong single player character) but failed to take into account that such a thing requires both a well written story and convincing supporting characters, either via scripting or decent AI. But again, instead of simply pointing out that better AI, non-linear levels, and a script that wasn't written by a Michael-Bay-wannabe would make the game better, we compared it directly to Ghost Recon, feature for feature, and found it wanting. For instance, a lot of people disliked that you couldn't soul-switch. The absence of that "feature" was only an issue because the AI was bad. Such an obviously unrealistic feature is howled for, because that's the way Ghost Recon did it. Surely, the better solution would be to have artificial intelligence that doesn't need a player character to take over whenever the actions become more complicated than "walk" and "shoot". Instead, we howl for soul switching.

To put it all in a nutshell, I think the reason we will never get the Ghost Recon we claim we want is because (as shown with Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes) you can't simply give a graphical update without calling attention to some very real (and very frustrating) feature limitations, and simply addressing those feature limitations will only draw attention to still more feature limitations. Too many in the PC Ghost Recon community are unwilling to admit that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, petsfed, you're absolutely right. And a little bit wrong too. :)

You're right that there's absolutely no consensus on what a "true" GR-sequel should be like, except for some vague "like GR, only better" pipe dream. Opinions on details vary greatly. I'm big on soul switching, others are not. Many dislike fancy hi-tech ironmongery (robotic vehicles and whatnot), while I love it. Some (including me) wouldn't mind the maps a little bigger and maybe some drivable vehicles, while others want to stick to infantry only. On occasion, discussions on these issues can get quite heated. But there's still a consensus: Non-linear and open-ended SP and co-op, realistic weapons handling and movement, and leaving as much of the decision process to the player (i.e. "tactical").

And Ubisoft didn't get anything wrong with the GRAW games, at least not the console versions. They got exactly the game they wanted and by all accounts an excellent one. The fact that it was very far from the kind of game GR vets wanted doesn't detract from the quality of the game in it's own right. The PC versions were a little different. I personally believe the desire to cater to old-school GR gamers was genuine. It was just horribly borked. GRIN tried their best, and to their credit they listened and learned. But the basic game was too much "not GR" for the stretching, twisting and tweaking to get something really good out of it. And no one at Ubisoft or GRIN truly and seriously understood what it was with GR that made us tick. They simply didn't get the "GR experience". And when trying to apply a conventional game design formula to the tactical shooter (as in hardcore-GR-like-tactical-shooter, not Call of Duty "tacticool sh00trz") the end result was a failure with little glimpses of seriously cool stuff. There was undoubtedly also a budget/time issue, but that's a different story.

The Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising/Red River issue is both the same and different. The Dragon Rising pitch was a "simpler OFP", which was not to the liking of some, but right up my alley. My only caveat was a nagging feeling that the development team didn't really understand what they were getting themselves into, and that turned out to be far more correct than I would ever want. That the PR side grossly oversold the game merely means that Codemasters now get to lie in the bed they made themselves. Likewise, Red River could be a fantastic hybrid of the best OFP and GR features. It's just that I'm getting the same bad vibes I did with Dragon Rising. With time and proper mod support, modders could possibly hone it into a true spiritual sequel to GR, only mod support seem to be out of the question from the get go.

Anyway, what it all boils down to is that while we disagree on a million different details, it doesn't really matter as long as the core, the essence, of a true GR sequel hits it's mark. That's the real challenge, and unfortunately not something I see happening any time soon unless some publisher starts throwing money at John Sonedecker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We commit this body to the ground.......

Earth To Earth

Ashes To Ashes

Dust To Dust

ok now let's just see what the future brings games wise.

I am looking forward to some coop action with friends on Socom 4 and Red River.

one thing hasn't changed all these years despite games changing.. that is FRIENDS will always be there to enjoy a game with ya no matter what game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, petsfed, you're absolutely right. And a little bit wrong too. :)

You're right that there's absolutely no consensus on what a "true" GR-sequel should be like, except for some vague "like GR, only better" pipe dream. Opinions on details vary greatly. I'm big on soul switching, others are not. Many dislike fancy hi-tech ironmongery (robotic vehicles and whatnot), while I love it. Some (including me) wouldn't mind the maps a little bigger and maybe some drivable vehicles, while others want to stick to infantry only. On occasion, discussions on these issues can get quite heated. But there's still a consensus: Non-linear and open-ended SP and co-op, realistic weapons handling and movement, and leaving as much of the decision process to the player (i.e. "tactical").

That's really not the meat of the criticism though. Typically, the criticism (and I use the term loosely when referring to what we say over here) amounts to "originally, GR did this, and your new GR won't do that, therefore its totally betraying what it means to be Ghost Recon!". Ghost Recon, as you rightly pointed out, is not a feature set. But the reason we won't get the game we want is because we have convinced ourselves that by recreating all of the features of the original Ghost Recon, but upgrading the graphics, we will somehow be happy with that product. And the truth is, we won't be, because all of the things that R6:Vegas and OF: Dragon Rising, and Call of Duty, and Medal of Honor, and GRAW 1 & 2 did right by improving on the things that Ghost Recon (and Rainbow 6) got right.

I definitely prefer GRAW2 over Ghost Recon, because I don't play online. And while yes, the pink diamonds make it a little too easy sometimes, the absence of a really robust command system and kit selection system means playing the original Ghost Recon is a frustrating process of reminding myself that I can't do intuitive things and I just have to deal with it. GRAW1 & 2 were hobbled by AI and level design. In terms of tactical feel right out of the box, I've yet to find better than GRAW2. Its not even like the tactical feel was fleeting, as some claimed, its just there was no continuity to it. You'd have this great open-ended sequence, then you'd complete an objective and boom, you're reminded by the face in the corner of what to do next. I think the quarry level, the dam level, and the hacienda level have the most continuous high-tension feel to them. A lot of people really criticized the scripted nature of the story, but I think the problems are largely due to the still uneasy balance between an unchanging battlefield required by completely open-ended approaches, and the narrative power of scripted sequences. Think about it: how do you tell a player that the objective has changed without either spoiling it in the pre-mission briefing (if you don't kill badGuyLeader before you complete task:rescueHostageA, badGuyLeader will do something that doesn't really make sense if you're not party to his entire evil scheme), or telling them (perhaps reminding them might be more accurate) about what's happening outside of their field of view? Sure, the current method of faces in the corner is heavy-handed to the extreme, but if you want to tell a cohesive story, rather than having a sort of Green-berets-at-war greatest hits album, you have to have some way to change the objectives mid-mission, and inform the player of that fact in a fashion other than text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the biggest thing ive noticed over the years is that there are ppl who post in these forums who are just stuck in a dream world - they dont play GR anymore or play it rarely, and want something fresh and new. But everything new just doesn't feel exactly the same, and therefore, cannot be the GR of old.

some ppl in fact are so disillusioned that they think the unrealistic nature of having a no weapons view, for example, is better and the preferred option then having a realistic weapons view. how do you resolve that? they want GR realism without the realism - maybe thats why Ubisoft thought the Cloak was ok bcoz some of the GR fans clearly think fantasy is ok in GR, i mean they like the invisible weapons with the floating ret they gonna love the magic cloak.

the missions i built for Arma2:OA were a gr8 example of how some ppl will never escape the time warp - those who played the missions recognised it as a valid new GR, but there are many here who will never try it bcoz its Arma2 and therefore it cant be GR.

now some ppl here will think this is me trying to promote my stuff but its really not - the point is a modern GR could slap some of the ppl here in the face and they still wouldnt recognise it bcoz they are still living in the past.

so Milgeek - i could go on and on about this but you are right - i think many of the diehards see things with rose coloured glasses and will never really be able to accept a new game as being the GR sequel and prolly dont even know what they are looking for anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matters how we see the game, what matters are engine and gameplay.

Yes, each to their own opinion but i disagree about how one would see Ghost Recon. Ghost Recon had it all for me personally, less chitter chatter over comms, a very unique reticle (optics), different weather effects, great night and day time levels, great sound (EAX in its day), i liked the scenario, not too many cut scenes, graphics were top notch in its day, more than four man squad, 15+ missions and a whole bunch of user made content. More to add but you all have heard this before.

That's the game i would love UBISOFT to re-make.

It would have to be UBISOFT that makes the game, it would have to be the exact original assets, identical in every way except updated render path and a different scenario in a european setting, russia for the win haha!. For me, it is that unique reticle that does the job and would have to be in, no weapon view, or else it is the same as most other fps out their. Not that i don't enjoy other authentic shooters but Ghost Recon wins over most military type games personally speaking. It would be awesome to play an exact remake, here's hoping and wishing for the return of GR on PC.

the point is a modern GR could slap some of the ppl here in the face and they still wouldnt recognise it bcoz they are still living in the past.

The past was a pleasant place to game in on the pc platform, Ghost Recon was a beauty, imho nothing can replace it, only an exact carbon copy with a different scenario/theatre of war. I enjoy present games and i think your work/effort is great mate, much appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That, of course, is my point: if they simply gave you higher resolution (and I've run GR at 1920x1080), you'd see the cracks in the game design. If you want a different theatre of war, get cracking: Blender is an open source 3d editor, if you don't want to pay for 3dsm.

If, after seeing those cracks, and the realistic features that should be in there from GRAW and R6:vegas, and Medal of Honor, you still want the same old Ghost Recon (with its terrible order system, frustrating kit system, and completely static mission structure), then obviously you're not going to get it. It'd be like building a carbon copy of the original Super Mario Brothers, with different levels (which, you may recall, was considered too hard to be sold outside of Japan).

I'm not crying out for faces in the corner, or Clint-Eastwood-esque characterization, or magical healing. I'm just saying that remaking Ghost Recon today, for it to be competitive, would require the order system from GRAW, a hybrid movement system from Medal of Honor and GRAW (sliding and diving), a hybrid kit system from GRAW and R6:Vegas, and (ultimately) the onscreen weapon. GRAW2 almost got it right, suffering from AI problems, (slightly) too small a squad, engine limitations, and the imposition of a lousy narrative. It should be telling that the combined efforts of modders managed to address all but the AI issue, with an engine that was really poorly suited to modifications. What I'm saying is that Grin managed to get A LOT right to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but I'm really not seeing this "it's not exactly like GR therefore it sucks" sentiment on GR.net. I see a lot of complaining over this and that game falling way short of GR for a number of reasons, but I don't really equal that to any call for a carbon copy GR. Rather, I see a call for a game that just gets the basics right and then we'll get to the rest later. The basics being a realistic fire and move system and an open-ended, non-linear gameplay and (most importantly) an AI/mission design structure that support this.

GRAW2 was, well, almost there is a bit generous. The fire and movement system was almost there. Not perfect (but then neither was GR), but fairly close. A better weapon inertia system was really all it needed to earn the "acceptable" label. Problem was that the mission design and AI fell woefully short, particularly compared to GR.

And I agree that a carbon copy GR would really not be much to write home about, making all the imperfections of this very old game all to obvious.

Anyway, it all boils down to the fact that no one is seeing potential earnings of a hardcore tactical shooter justifying the size and risk of the investment to make it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People WAY over think fun and ruin it with too much structure.

there is no such creature as a "hardcore tactical shooter" I don't care what you say. It's a made up term by a bunch of wannabe couch soldiers.

Games are just that games. You can pretend you're GI Joe but you are just doing the same thing you did as a kid when you played "Army men"

I for one want an enjoyable experience for an hour or so. not a 6 hour tour of duty trying to capture an Island NOR do i wanna sit in a game for hours with someone telling me where to move every 10 feet or so.THAT is WAY too much.

I am a dad and a husband and i'm employed I don't have that kind of time to waste. I wanna get online, play a couple rounds with friends and when I gotta run off and do something else I can take off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my 2 cents,

Most of the GR already moved on and you can tell by the fact that this section of the forum is dead, sometimes a week goes by and nobody post in here...they came to realize that after all these years they won't get a tactical sequel with up to date improvments but of course there are other people that like they currently sequels. UBI soft is aiming to the casual and console marquet and that my friends is where the money at, this trend started with GR2 which to me is just a SOCOM PS2 clone, problem is this sequels sold well and that's UBI soft goal to get revenue.

There are other alternatives out there but like somebody said above I don't have the time or patience to run an hour to objective and on top of that somebody ordering me do this or do that in the process every 20 seconds, I can deal with that in my RL life with my Army unit but not in a video game and let's be honest that other alternative SP portion of the game is horrible. Thats why I still like GR alot both SP/MP are excellent

and the game is tactical but not to the extreme, also the commands/controll are easy to learn after awhile (still remember when I got the game on release, the first mission.... Iron Dragon I was kind of lost on what the hell I'm going to do now but after a few days I narrowed down the game) with ARMAI that's another story

Edited by Sgt. Atoa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

now some ppl here will think this is me trying to promote my stuff but its really not - the point is a modern GR could slap some of the ppl here in the face and they still wouldnt recognise it bcoz they are still living in the past.

so Milgeek - i could go on and on about this but you are right - i think many of the diehards see things with rose coloured glasses and will never really be able to accept a new game as being the GR sequel and prolly dont even know what they are looking for anyway.

your ArmA 2 mods are great GR in another light, so i have seen, but in a good way.

hmm, i'm not a die hard but the comments i make about GR are just what i think, i know exactly what i want out of GR, i could list them all here, but i think it belongs in another thread and plus it is that long i would probably bore you to death. i dont accept GRAW or GRFS as a sequel, because everything, including the gameplay has changed too much for me and i think it would be better if they were brand new titles altogether, it's like Ace Combat letting you drive a car not ace combat then is it? it's something utterly different, sure blown out of proportion a bit, but [GR] DS and IT let you change characters, GR2 onward didn't, [GR] had limping GR2 onward didnt. [GR] had pretty much faceless characters, they didnt have a role other than to do their job, they didnt say to some commander dude "i'm a ghost, thats all you need to know!" the only good thing out of GR2 onwards is the graphic updates and gun/3rd person view, but even they have understandable cons.

Edited by Zeealex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well instead of just enjoying a game people like to tear em down. Now I love GR I also loved Warfighter. But i have watched in forums how people ripped GRAW a new one and GRAW2 as well. Tho I wouldnt even try to say they are the same they are both fun to play (OGR and GRAW series). Instead of wishing for GR2 for the PC I just look forward to games that A. Run B. Are fun and C. I can play with my friends. Problem with communities is they can never agree as to what they really want. Examples of this are mods. I remember trying to get in games with people (and newer games thru Gameranger) and not having the mod they were playing or they are playing 10 gigs of mods on top of a 1500 meg game. Same with Flashpoint and ArmA. 90% of the time people run small obscure mods that when you try to join you can't.Now BIS is offering mods or addons as DLC. Also they have 3 versions of ArmA2. So realistically it's almost impossible to make a list of "what we want" when we can't even decide what it is we actually want,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, though that's true for practically any game. Also, GRAW1/2 on console were by all accounts (haven't played it) an excellent games in their own right, albeit a departure from the original. The PC versions were, however, designed specifically to cater to GR oldschoolers, and as such they failed rather badly, mostly for the lack of open-ended gameplay. Ignoring their GR heritage for a moment, GRAW1 in particular was a bit of a mess. GRAW2 was much better and refined in many ways. Adding more fidelity to the squad command was a major improvement, and the ability to execute orders for different squad members simultaneously was a major improvement, particularly in the refined version of GRAW2 (and superior to GR). I'm still on the fence about detailed control over a single squad vs. the more general control over multiple squads of GR, but I suspect the mix of both found in GRAW2 is the better solution.

And I agree that mod compatibility is a serious problem if you want a game to have a wider appeal. It's fine for a small group of niche diehards to conjure up a list of mods and tweaks required for their particular game, but unless I'm in a clan I doubt I'll ever bother with that. What is needed is a "click this icon to download the complete mod" feature. Ideally, the game would automatically activate the proper mod (providing it's installed, of course) when you join that particular server.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want OGR back or revamped.... i was just lucky to play a great game that will forever rank as one of my top games ever played. And those fond memories will stay with me forever.

So that said, what I really do want is a realistic, first person shooter (with some third person if it must be included) that has good graphics, amazingly well thought out maps, an engaging single player content, multi player action that keeps me and my buddies coming back for more (I'd pay for good & regular updates btw, so please consider this), a host of different camos and weapons (ie not just everyone taking 1 or 2 mian weapons and the rest being pretty much redundant).

Anything else is bonus. But DO NOT make an ORG. It's too much for anyone to live up to. Just stick to the above and all will enjoy it and you'll benefit from fat wallets.

Oh and Apple Mac compatibility would be sweet too! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The probable reason why we will never get the Ghost Recon "we" want is because "we" all want different things for a Ghost Recon pc game. I would simply love to revisit the past and play a graphical and scenario updated version of the first Ghost Recon game, other than that then no other change from the original. You lot confuse me, i thought most wanted a return to the original?, haha. Oh well, bring on future soldier then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You lot confuse me, i thought most wanted a return to the original?, haha. Oh well, bring on future soldier then.

Thing is, you will never get that so I don't want to wish for something and end up getting pretty dissapointed.

Besides, after playing GR on the 360 as well as a couple of the other shooters out there it's made me realise that a new GR could and should be so much more than the orginial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...