Ubisoft to GR Hardcore fans: Your opinion is unimportant to us

[MeanMF]

Ubisoft is conscious that "super-hardcore" Ghost Recon fans yearn for the series to go back to its roots, but according to UK brand manager Matt Benson, commercial realities dictate otherwise.

The upcoming Ghost Recon: Future Soldier will tread a path between "classic" Ghost Recon and "the market expectations of gamers these days", Benson told us during a presentation of the Kinect-exclusive Gunsmith Mode, which allows players to assemble and disassemble weapons with gestures.

"It's the balance these days, with the rising costs of development," he said. "It puts real pressure on us to make sure that we strike that balance between the creative and the commercial. And innovation, which is the reason I joined Ubisoft in the first place.

"There's always going to be that hardcore player," Benson went on. "There's always going to be super-hardcore players and you're never going to keep them happy. They're just going to want the first Ghost Recon on first-gen Xbox, and they're going to want to be lying on the ground, camoed up, waiting 10 minutes for a guard to walk all the way back round and then pop him.

"And that's fine, but in terms of where we are right now as an industry, there are commercial needs that need to be met in order for us to make the game in the first place. That's the balance you've got to strike. And that doesn't mean dumbing down, although obviously the net is very quick to say 'Oh, they're dumbing down Splinter Cell, they're dumbing down this, they're dumbing that'.

Jonty went hands on with Future Soldier's main game at E3 last month. Apparently, it borrows a roady run from Gears of War and in-game text prompts from Splinter Cell: Conviction. Expect a preview in the not too distant future.

All future Tom Clancy titles will support Kinect. Multiplayer designer Thad Sasser has said that Future Soldier's Kinect functions "will appeal to a wide variety of players".

Source: http://www.oxm.co.uk/31100/news/ubisoft-youre-never-going-to-keep-hardcore-ghost-recon-fans-happy/

Edited July 12, 2011 by MeanMF
Changed title

[remix79]

All I read is blah blah blah we want to turn a quick buck by making a CoD clone blah blah blah I'm ignoring the commercial existence and viability of Arma II and the recent OFP games completely blah blah lowest common denominator blah blah blah we can't make a game as good as [GR] is blah blah blah. Blah blah.

[Operative]

BIS is exactly the turning point remix. How a hardcore-tactical game can be inviable? An Indie producer made already three of those in the past years (ArmA, ARMA2 and ARMA2:OA). Ghost Recon was not even near ArmA in terms of realism, it just featured squad planning, one shot one kill and some stealth in medium to small sized maps. ArmA went much further, featuring all this in huge maps, with much more entities and including some features Ghost Recon simply lacks (like driving, piloting or whatever). I'm not saying the ArmA series are more enjoyable that Ghost Recon, but one must admit the work employed to deliver such a game is colossal and, even when the market dictates otherwise, BIS is still out there.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Operative

[Dannik]

I'm trying to find a single reference to that inflammatory headline, since "drop dead" only appears in this thread.

[Rocky]

....UK brand manager Matt Benson, commercial realities ...

"There's always going to be super-hardcore players and you're never going to keep them happy...., and they're going to want to be lying on the ground, camoed up, waiting 10 minutes for a guard to walk all the way back round and then pop him.

Rock on.

Except, that's not super hardcore at all - that's merely hardcore.

Super-hardcore is driving in a jeep for 40 minutes to get to that lying up point, then timing the guards route before popping him.

For clarity then Ghost Recon = hardcore, ArmAII = super hardcore.

Ps Dannik has a point, but that was pretty poor attempt at sensationalism MeanMF

[101459]

I think this is a setup for a straw-man argument; if you accept the premise, word choice, and arguments of the Author at any level you're validating a simplistic and erroneous categorizing or type casting tactical realism Fans and Ghost Recon. If we must be simplistic, I'd say there are roughly three categories of realism games:

· Action Realism

· Tactical Realism

· Simulator

Action Realism are games that are derivative of Hollywooden action Movies, will have their emphasis on aesthetic realism over functional realism, and intensity over reality... Games like Call Of Duty and Counter-Strike are the poster children of Action Realism games.

Simulators are intended to offer as much scale simulation as is possible, even at the expense in some cases of functional realism as some tasks that are natural and intuitive in the real world become complex operations in a simulator in order to preserver scale. Obviously BI's ArmA and Eagle Dynamics games offer good examples of simulators.

Tactical Realism games are games that while some might consider as 'down the middle' of Action Realism and Simulators, are unique, in that they are designed primarily to deliver realistic tactical game-play. Scale, perspective and other features may not be 'simulated' in order that the game may focus on realistic tactical play -- and game task management is realistically intuitive. Ghost Recon, Raven Shield, and SWAT 4 offer popular examples Tactical Realism games.

Obviously my counter-argument here is simplistic too, and there are games that don't fit neatly in any of these categories -- like R6 Lockdown, and probably in the opinions of many the R6 Vegas games -- as the tactical depth and realism of actual play execution in these games is heavily compromised even though the adjustments to remedy that might be quite small.

It's just a personal preference but I don't like the term 'hard core' in the context of Ghost Recon, I don't think it's appropriate. 'Hard core' maregenalizes and implies 'extreme', 'fringe', and 'minority' -- and as the interview and Ubisoft have clearly alluded to in other contexts: a lack of economic viability... All of which are difficult to reconcile in the face of Ghost Recon selling over 11 million units, still selling strong, all the while being a game that's effortless to pirate.

Edited July 8, 2011 by 101459

[Parabellum]

The French have never been very good at war in the first place, so why are we still surprised and angry that a French game company can't make a good war game? The best we can hope for is another unsubstantial game that plays like a Jerry Bruckheimer film, and is entertaining for about as long.

[Deadpreacher]

Bla bla bla, i just want Ghost Recon not a new game they tring to make going off of the name of Ghost Recon. Then saying suck it up GR fans this all together new style of game that has almost nothing to do with what you love about GR. Is now what you must call Ghost Recon even if you dont see or feel it.

Just scrap the name gr and use another name on all this new b s games they calling Ghost and i think we all can enjoy it so much more. Its hard to stand by when you loved Ghost Recon and you stillhear the name being used on another game altogether. They wonder why we are vocal. Then they dont understand what GR truely was and what ths whole new totaly diffrent game is today.

[Zeealex]

i think one thing this matt person is forgetting is that the first Ghost recon is still widely being bought today, despite its age and the fact it challenges people. in fact the latter is probably why people buy it. along with it's modifiability. that is one thing he is missing out, a challenging game makes people want to strive to complete it, and it sparks the competitiveness in the players friends to try and be better than them, so they buy the game. then it will go into a chain like that. IF done right.

this franchise has bee turned into a linear crowd follower, it has been dumbed down, no matter what argument or jargon he throws at us it has been made too easy. the cover system for example and the third person view allowing better situational awareness, the situational awareness is down to the player to sort out, not the Dev team.

i dont care for a revamp of the original ghost recon. as it means all those fantastic mods out there would either be ignored, or more stress on the modder to get the updated version to follow. the original ghost recon is the original ghost recon. we have to accept that, Hardcore fans should too, as they are the ones so reluctant to let it go. i don't think [GR] really needs it at this point in time as people are still widely playing it.

but a unique type of game play (tactical), will get the interests of many reviewers and players worldwide. jumping on the same bandwagon as everyone else in the game developing world secures the game's fate, it won't be bought. there are ALLOT OF [GR] fans out there that would immediately buy a revamped version of [GR] if one was brought out, in fact i think the overwhelming majority of GR fans are [GR] fans, so how the hell money loss is an issue i don't know.

i just want a believable scenario, with believable characters and a believable storyline.

but if you ask me, i think this is some sort of foreshadowing of things to come, i think they are trying to cover up something here, as they would have said what they said allot earlier than now. anyway suspicion over. that's my take and it's a wrap

[remix79]

I agree with you, Operative. There is a market for tactical, mission-focused, team-oriented shooters.

Plus hearing the gameplay of [GR] being boiled down to "wait ten minutes for the guards to come back around" irks me to no end. If you're doing it that way, you're missing the point of tactical team-based shooters, IMO. A situation like that is when engage your other team members in tactics; it's not where you simply sit around for "ten minutes". Oh well, he's got his own opinion which will be duly reflected in the gameplay of the product, I suppose...

[wombat50]

For some reason, that is beyond me, I'm drawn to this type of thread. I know UBI will never deliver like RSE did in the original.

Oh well, he's got his own opinion which will be duly reflected in the gameplay of the product, I suppose...

This is the best way to look at it for me. However, it is sad the current makers have marginalized and discounted a previous "Game of the Year" title. It has been beyond me for years that someone sitting on a gold mine will not start digging.

[MeanMF]

Even without this statement, Ubisoft's dismissive attitude towards fans of their games comes through pretty clearly. There is basically zero communication with anybody except pay-to-play game magazines and web sites. They make up nonsense like "Everything in GR:FS is reali technology" and expect people to be stupid enough to believe it. And then when they don't, they just dismiss it as a few "hardcore" weirdos who don't know what a good game is anyway.

It's no wonder Ubisoft is at the bottom of the pile when it comes to major game publishers. With one or two exceptions, everything they put out is either a cheap knock off of a better, more populargame, or pure shovelware made on the cheap and designed to sell just enough copies to make a few bucks. That's their marketing strategy. Making good games is hard. Making games cheaply and slapping a AAA brand name on it isn't.

[TrueGiga]

Hardcore for Ghost Recon Gamers was in 2001

Super Hardcore for Ghost Recon Gamers was in 2004 - 05

Everthing After was Mud

[Lightspeed]

Arma3 next year - who needs ubi? Leave it to the experts @ BIS

[MeanMF]

Ubisoft isn't an American company, but this article still sums up their mismanagement nicely: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2081930,00.html

Edited July 10, 2011 by MeanMF

[=warcloud=]

Action Realism are games that are derivative of Hollywooden action Movies.

Ivan Buchta, Creative Director of Bohemia Interactive had this to say....

Everyeye:We are seeing great things forthcoming for the FPS genre and ArmA 3 is one of those titles that will most likely make the difference. You already have a solid fan-base and that's certainly a great opportunity for you to make it even bigger within the ArmA franchise. What are the ArmA 3 key elements and innovations that, in your opinion, would appeal to a larger gaming public?

Ivan Buchta:Most shooting games keep focusing on the action-packed cinematic experience, emphasizing the little details at the cost of the player's freedom and gameplay possibilities. We would like to deliver a completely different experience, offering player true and unparalleled freedom of choice in an environment which reacts to his actions. In other words, Arma 3 will hopefully be more demanding on one's brains than fingers, rewarding the creative players with a proper response to their tactical efforts.

⇒ Arma 3 - INTERVISTA (PC)

Arma3 next year.

It is probably the only game i'm really looking forward to on the PC.

[petsfed]

The French have never been very good at war in the first place, so why are we still surprised and angry that a French game company can't make a good war game? The best we can hope for is another unsubstantial game that plays like a Jerry Bruckheimer film, and is entertaining for about as long.

[threadjack]The "France is terrible at war" thing is entirely motivated by the very quick defeat of France at the start of WWII and their subsequent creation of a German controlled occupation government. Certainly, if England weren't an island, it would share the same fate. And when has occupation government been composed of anyone but nationals complicit with the occupying force? This point of view has only been exacerbated by France's habit of ignoring trade (and especially arms) embargoes established by the US. In other words, France's reputation as a lousy wartime figure is motivated entirely by their nasty habit of acting as if they were a sovereign country, and not some vassal of the United States of America.[/threadjack]

I'm glad UBI has finally come out and said that they're not so much interested in interesting gameplay as interesting dividends for their stockholders. As I am not one of their stockholders, I really have no vested interest in giving their game a fair shake.

[Tinker]

I'm trying to find a single reference to that inflammatory headline, since "drop dead" only appears in this thread.

Fair do, topic renamed.

I agree with you, Operative. There is a market for tactical, mission-focused, team-oriented shooters.

Yup, Arma is apparently too complicated for those who like small closed maps to play on. Outside of Arma, what is the game we should play? Which FPS tactical game do we play these days?

camoed up, waiting 10 minutes for a guard to walk all the way back round and then pop him.

Hope to never play a single mission like that! Well maybe a few minutes works good. Missing the picture here. Once that bit of RECON is done, ghost recon can go wild, bombs, bangs and all the stuff. Get me rosan mission in graw2 was a geat example of a good ghost recon mission.

Unable to find the topic, but sure something was posted about devs/pubs too scared to be innovative, just follow the mainsream?

Is it too hard to understand that COD is so popular because it is COD

Ghost recon could be the same.

[MeanMF]

Fair do, topic renamed.

Seriously?

[Tinker]

Does anyone even know of a mission in ghost recon / desert siege / island thunder, you need to 10 minutes for a guard to walk all the way back round and then pop him

This guy must of played the battlefield and vilinus mission for sure, no? The original gameplay is going to be made by someone someday.

[Rocky]

Does anyone even know of a mission in ghost recon / desert siege / island thunder, you need to 10 minutes for a guard to walk all the way back round and then pop him

In fairness, this was a regular part of competitive co-op play, at least in the missions I played!

[Hammer]

Well i cant actualy say that i have sat there for ten mins,But In alot of the early missions i played as a GR-net team member with Zero Alpha in charge the mission were long, and there were times when you were stationary for a while, as you worked out how many gaurds were about, which ones had the RPGs and MGs and the order you were going to drop them, In order to complete your mission with the minimum amount of uncontroled contact with the enemy. Many a time things didnt go to plan and players got killed, Did we get board waiting for the remainig players to finish? no we jumped around soul swapping in the remaning player watching, and still being part of the action, willing the last man on to make it to extraction with the hostage cheering as he makes it or groaning if he didnt.

That to me is what makes Ghost Recon Great and IMHO there has not been a game since that has given me the same feeling in game as that. The clue is in the title really Ghost RECON There does not seem to be an aufull lot of Recon in the titles that followed.

[WytchDokta]

devs/pubs too scared to be innovative, just follow the mainsream?

Same with music. Most people would rather follow the mainstream. They prefer not to open their eyes, to 'go underground' as it were, to see what else is out there. Now you understand why I don't do hype; Mainstream = hype.

Video game scene or music scene, not everybody wants the same ######.

[Rocky]

Many a time things didnt go to plan and players got killed, Did we get board waiting for the remainig players to finish? no we jumped around soul swapping in the remaning player watching, and still being part of the action, willing the last man on to make it to extraction with the hostage cheering as he makes it or groaning if he didnt.

That to me is what makes Ghost Recon Great and IMHO there has not been a game since that has given me the same feeling in game as that. The clue is in the title really Ghost RECON There does not seem to be an aufull lot of Recon in the titles that followed.

Oh man I can still remember a game just like that when the entire team bar NYR and 1 or 2 others had been wiped out during a custom co-op mission and we all watched as he grabbed the hostage and ran like the wind over a bridge, knowing there were still hostiles around, racing for extract with only seconds left on the clock. I never thought he was going to make it but he got that hostage out with like 2 seconds to spare.

How many games leave long lasting memories like that?

GGs

[Deadpreacher]

I been saying pretty much the same thing since graw came out. The true feeling i want back in GR is in the name itself. The tactics of splitting up in small teams around a camp as we recon. When everyone is in there place we do a ghost aprouch attack on the camp. Tring to take all are enemys out without the enemy every knowen what hit them. And we all meet in the middle happy days when you have team mates that can work together and pull it off without ever alerting the enemy. Everyone had there part in the mission and if one fails it all falls apart and the rest of the team are normaly to deep in and its a hell storm getting back out or getting it back under control. Great times we could play a mission over and over until everyone got it right cheering everyone on the whole time.

I have always said.. If the ghost make it in the news, they failed!

It was great in the first gr games. We had tactics 'team planning', recon 'stealth', open maps to achive the mission how ever you pls and if you just want to let loose with a friend. Some of the best firefights ever! Then there was the team games with no respawns. I could go on, but yes the spirt of gr is in the name and thats how we all played. This is why almost every time i post now i say change the name Ghost Recon because i don't see it no more. Besides i starting to hate this future tech they going for. I would like the ghost too go back in time to when they where first being put together or even just todays specail ghost teams doing missions that CANT make the news or WWIII would start if anyone know what they where doing!