Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As a community we need to stop telling people what we think their game needs. I have looked at a ton of pre released games and what people want and you could NEVER satisfy that list. It's udder ridicu

My curiosity lies in the MP... With such a huge map, I would hope the "arenas" would just be sections of map cordoned off for MP.. hopefully huge sections of maps, using the various environments..

Not sure how soul swapping will work at this point. Gimping? We told the devs it was a popular feature, no commitment though. 1 Shot kills, for sure, they were talking about hit zones etc.

ok, yeah as I write this, wathcing the video. definitely need to toggle FP or 3rd person mode. Love the massive world idea. seems sort of along the lines of Arma in that realm.

If you guys have contact with the company ubisoft, I'd ask that a .338 lapua be added. shoots a .338 magnum round and can shoot upwards of 2500 meters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2UFdFeFgQ8

edited to misspelling.

Edited by Papa6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so glad I wandered back to GR.net. Some good news is possibly on the horizon.

let me just +1 to FPS view, 9 squad slots, and moddable COOP missions.

(LOVE me some Alpha-squad tournaments)

Question: Whats with the xbox controllers in the video... was that all that you guys had to work with? I don't remmeber seeing a good shot the good ol K&M setup.

Thanks for still being around rocky.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: Whats with the xbox controllers in the video... was that all that you guys had to work with? I don't remmeber seeing a good shot the good ol K&M setup.

I'm a PC gamer so was a bit disappointed to see controllers laid out for us, but as it turned out, I held my own with that fiddly thumbstick lol. At this stage in the build, keyboard support wasn't implemented - but this was a very early build.

Good to see ya back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rocky Said:

They asked us to the workshops to pose difficult questions, not to be ignored... I can assure you of that. Same deal with R6:Siege, the devs wanted to hear everything we had to say, good and bad.

While I'm hopeful about everything Ubisoft is showing and is saying, and their apparent receptiveness to input; what they've shown for previous games has always been equally impressive...

It's comments like these, made here and elsewhere in the press in response to questions about the game that raise my red flag, make this look like another one just like the other one and no more encouraging or compelling then what we've seen before:

At this point they were only talking co-op...

We're not discussing that at this time.

They are not talking about a release date yet.

We're not talking about that.

Et al. it's not much of a reach to assume the new marketing campaign is really the old marketing campaign, with new parties invited and involved.

This is especially apparent when difficult questions are asked about deal-breaking features like Ubisoft's on-going epic failure at being able to offer functional networking to a PC game, and their dismal MMS design. When more then 90% of the paying PC audience can't even play the on-line part of the game it's something you should not only be willing to 'talk about' you have something to prove you can do right...

"Look Here! A cute fluffy kitten!" with the "Don't look at the man behind the curtain, or ask THOSE questions, we're not talking about that!" is as old as marketing. Consider: when ever someone shuts down a 'discussion' with "We're not talking about that..." -- what kind of discussion you're actually having... How would that go over with your coworkers, your friends, your spouse?

Let's not soft pedal it, it doesn't help anyone; Ubisoft or fans of their games to be anything but blunt: the networking and MMS on their PC games has been and continues to be an abomination; it's crude, primitive, broken and backwards (as is their support system). When most of the audience that buys the game on PC can not even play the multi-player portion of the game (and bought it for that reason), this would be reason enough for a return and refund in any other market and would be regarded as product design failure.

While hopeful I'm not encouraged by all the 'cool' and 'pretty' -- I want to be, but, Ubisoft has proved a long time ago and multiple times since then that they can put compelling art in a game, market the crap out of it, and get repeatedly disappointed fans to buy the broken abortion it was strapped to... But, we're not talking about that...

Edited by 101459
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not marketing speak it's common sense.

"Look Here! A cute fluffy kitten!" with the "Don't look at the man behind the curtain, or ask THOSE questions, we're not talking about that!" is as old as marketing. Consider: when ever someone shuts down a 'discussion' with "We're not talking about that..." -- what kind of discussion you're actually having... How would that go over with your coworkers, your friends, your spouse?

So what you are saying is if you can't talk about ALL the game elements in detail don't even reveal the game? Of course there are going to be elements that are not ready for public release with a game this early in development.

That type of discussion goes on/doesn't go on, all over the world in businesses every day, I don't think you are suggesting that all aspects of business are openly discussed with all levels of staff all the time....otherwise we can all sell our Confidential stamps :)

This game is in early development, it gets developed in stages; you do not talk about stage C when you are still working on stage B and Stage C hasn't even made it passed concept stage. It's not even necessarily a "difficult question", it's just a part of the game that has not made it to a point in the development process that means it can be talked about with confidence.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I understand the cynicism, and let's face it a lot of it is well deserved, you can't read too much into this. As Rocky points out, it is normal business/marketing to have a managed amount of information released into the public domain. Partly as a tease, yes, because the marketing campaign has to maintain momentum, but mainly at this time because the game is still a work in progress.

It doesn't run any deeper than balancing aspiration with revelation, and you guys really do know pretty much most of what has been decided so far. There isn't a smoke and mirrors act going on to generate an illusion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not marketing speak it's common sense.

What is?

So what you are saying is if you can't talk about ALL the game elements in detail don't even reveal the game?

No, no where did I say or suggest this, this is know as a logical fallacy using performantives... When ever you see or hear a sentence beginning with "So what you're saying is...", generally its going to be a straw man argument with some characterization of something that wasn't said or even implied. I said, exactly what I said, for reasons clearly explained.

Of course there are going to be elements that are not ready for public release with a game this early in development.

Another logical fallacy frequently begins with 'Of course...' -- 'Of Course...we all KNOW the Emperor's new clothes are beautiful so let's not even dream or DARE of confronting the fact they may not only not be beautiful, they may not even exist.'

That type of discussion goes on/doesn't go on, all over the world in businesses every day, I don't think you are suggesting that all aspects of business are openly discussed with all levels of staff all the time....otherwise we can all sell our Confidential stamps :)

Yet another logical fallacy 'It goes on everywhere so it's ok here...' -- not only is it not true, the world of business at large, and the game industry specifically gets in trouble for it a lot; from Golden Poo Awards to lost revenue in the millions or even billions and much worse...

I honestly think it's GREAT that Ubisoft finally has acknowledged you, and all you've done with GRN and given you some (not enough) recognition. God knows they've made plenty of money off your efforts Rocky... But I don't think Ubisoft deserves you of all people being their apologist.

I'm not being rude or impolite; it's a simple moral issue of who do you reward and who do you punish by soft pedaling Ubisofts trenchant proclivity for not acknowledging or addressing egregious issues. Look no further then all our growing glowing enthusiasm for Ghost Recon Future Soldier and what happens there when it was released, the game couldn't even be played at all on spec systems for over a year, at all, not even single player; the netcode was and remains, years later, an unplayable abortion.

This game is in early development, it gets developed in stages; you do not talk about stage C when you are still working on stage B and Stage C hasn't even made it passed concept stage.

Oh really why don't YOU? I sure do, other developers and publishers sure do... Even big publishers like EA, Valve and Activision that have made onerous mistakes have acknowledged them specifically and made commitments to redress them, and fulfilled those commitments. Why should Ubisoft get a special pass?

It's not even necessarily a "difficult question", it's just a part of the game that has not made it to a point in the development process that means it can be talked about with confidence.

It certainly is not a difficult question to answer, in fact it's dead simple and not only can be answered at any point in development it should be answered up front and first. No car manufacture decides to build a car and figures out later if it's actually going to have wheels or not, and of they're going to be made of cardboard or steel and rubber. Software and Game Development is no different.

Ubisoft has not released a Tom Clancy PC game with properly functioning netcode since GRIN was developing games for them, and Ubisoft's miserable DRM rooted networking and MMS seems to be repurposed code across all their engines and games.

The net code on the last Ghost Recon game: Ghost Recon Future Soldier was so bad, that less then 0.02% of the paying PC audience was on-line at peak hours on the game's best day by Ubisoft's own statistics -- and that was the BEST Ghost Recon Future Soldier ever achieved in on-line play.

The issue being raised here is clear and simple; if Ubisoft intends a multi-player game of any sort, do they intend to advance the game and offer functioning net-code for PC. This is not an unreasonable question; other developers and publishers large and small, even indie developers building games on zero budget proprietary engines have been able to deliver complex games with brilliantly functioning net code, server browsers and occasionally even decent match making systems. Ubisoft hasn't been able to deliver a PC game with even mediocre net-code in the last eight years. Why shouldn't we talk about that?

Sal 'Sluggo' Accardo was writing about netcode for GameSpy over a decade ago on how netcode, MMS and Server Browser systems were mature, and there was no longer any excuse for crummy netcode, poorly implemented MMS in TPS/FPS on-line gaming, and he was right. What's Ubisoft's excuse? Why should they get an exclusive pass on not just crummy, but abominable and unplayable netcode and their ridiculous adherence to a broken MMS on PC?

Edited by 101459
Link to post
Share on other sites

Really enjoyed reading your rant with the AIbluefox , a very detailed read, but I have to agree with rocky here , it still is in beta stage , even the videos aren't likely to be full released product footage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really enjoyed reading your rant with the AIbluefox , a very detailed read, but I have to agree with rocky here , it still is in beta stage , even the videos aren't likely to be full released product footage.

Que? Did you miss that it was 101459 quoting Rocky and my post was a fairly short two liner, LoL?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally the only real logical fallacy above ...

1) Future Soldier net code on PC was poor

2) Ubisoft wish to reveal information on a gradual basis when they have decided features

3) Therefore Ubisoft are trying to hide that the net code for Wildlands will be poor.

Come on, 101459, this is a non sequitur. Nowhere was the question "will the net code be poor?" asked and the response given that "we're not talking about the net code right now, we'll decide if it's going to be poor later". As said, I understand the caution and cynicism, but Rocky an apologist? Nothing could be further from the truth. He represented this community with honesty, integrity and was straightforward and clear in what the community would like to see.

To address your net code worry specifically, however. There won't be a console port to PC. The game is not being developed for 360/PS3 and is being developed for Xbox One and PS4 which are essentially x86 architecture. Therefore net code issues should be a lot better tested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally the only real logical fallacy above ...

1) Future Soldier net code on PC was poor

2) Ubisoft wish to reveal information on a gradual basis when they have decided features

3) Therefore Ubisoft are trying to hide that the net code for Wildlands will be poor.

Yes, you are correct you are in fact stating a a text book informal fallacy that's led with everything but 'So, 101459 what you're saying is:'... The reductio ad absurdum here is all yours, you need to read more carefully, without emotion what was written for meaning, not a petty sophomoric debate or argument. To wit you're not quoting me, and your statements are your inferences -- not what I said, implied, or concluded. Let me clarify, so that you aren't so easily confused or compelled to dissembling, or gross error:

Ghost Recon Future Soldier's netcode and MMS were not merely poor; there were an abomination, atrocious (like your debate skills), virtually completely inadequate to the task of multi-player -- summarily and literally an abortion.

I have neither implied or made stated assumptions about Ubisofts marketing 'plan' for game design revelation, and have made no statements that even suggest I accept any second hand versions of reality in this regard. Neither am I interested in Ubisofts' marketing plans; they are and have been wholesale insalubrious and sophomoric.

I have neither implied or made stated assumptions that Ubisoft intends to, or is 'trying to hide' anything -- this use of words and assumption, like your previous assertion, is again: completely yours.

I have have neither assumed or implied that Wildlands' netcode will be 'poor'; however Ubisoft's eight year track record on PC in this regard has not been good. A forthcoming statement that Ubisoft acknowledges this, and intend to do something about it would be however be encouraging for those that like multi-player realism gaming on PC.

Come on, 101459, this is a non sequitur.

Yes, it is, but it's your non sequitur, not mine, you're not quoting me and the mistaken inferences here are yours, not mine; I neither made implied any of where you're talking this...

Nowhere was the question "will the net code be poor?" asked and the response given that "we're not talking about the net code right now, we'll decide if it's going to be poor later".

No one suggested it but you. My point is explicit and clear; that this kind of market speak is cheap, and suggests Ubisoft's intentions insofar as how they're going to market or 'discuss' Wildlands, has not changed from how they marketed other whole sale failures where critical issues were 'not talked about' even after the fact.

As said, I understand the caution and cynicism, but Rocky an apologist?

Clearly you do not understand because my remarks are not cynical, they offer a recitation of corroborated historical fact and consequences. Any cynicism (please understand the objective meaning of the word before you criticize others with it) that you claim to understand would have to be your own. Neither have I asserted Rocky is an apologist, he's a Journalist and a good one, but he's treading a slippery slope with a publisher that previously has shown less then no regard for his efforts...and is obviously seeking approval actively now they they rather desperately need it.

To address your net code worry specifically, however. There won't be a console port to PC. The game is not being developed for 360/PS3 and is being developed for Xbox One and PS4 which are essentially x86 architecture. Therefore net code issues should be a lot better tested.

Any 'worries' here would have to be yours, as is lack of understanding of API's, render budget, and the render targets on these platforms vs PC....

Edited by 101459
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of you had any communication or updates from UBI since your trip to Paris?
Are any future trips to Paris or UBI workshops planned?

Is there any information about any of the below:
Will UPlay be used to connect to MP?
Will a internet connection be required for SP?
Direct IP gaming?
Dedicated server files?
Demo recorder or Replays?
How do re-spawns work? One location or a choice such as on a squad leader?
How do saves work. Save anywhere, save point, autosave?

If UBI straps on the same MP networking for PC as in GR:FS that will be a mess. They absolutely need to revamp that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm skipping past the argumentative tone, and the debate over whether you are making statements, implying them, being cynical or not, and talking about me being on a slippery slope..., yadayadayada.... but I simply cannot stand for this....

previously has shown less then no regard for his efforts...

THAN, 101459, THAN!!!

:whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites

No comment.

I can only assume Uplay will be used for games from Ubisoft.

We did talk to one of the producers who did work on GRAW 2 on PC and he understood the value of dedicated servers on that project.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rocky, you posted the new video, matt stated the game has been three years in development. Now based upon assumptions, I know never assume.. but with 3 years of work so far, that was a pre-alpha build, I'd guess would possibly could see a Christmas 2015 spring/summer 2016 release?

3 years is a looong time. I'm impressed they took the time to really work on this that long considering what GRAW and GRAW2 went through. patience is a virtue

Edited by Papa6
Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of that time has gone into creating the game engine and making it work how they want. It takes more time when you have to build a new engine and create completely new assets along, you can't reuse anything from prior games and start fresh.

I highly doubt we'll see it in 2015. With Siege being delayed for 2 months I hope the devs in Paris will be given enough time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rocky, all journalists are on a slippery slope, all the time, it's in the nature of the work. To make a summery case: the game has been three years in development, Ubisoft has announced there will be multi-player, Ubisoft has not delivered a game on PC from their own studios in over eight years with mature robust netcode with a server browser of any kind or a properly functioning MMS. Whether by design or happenstance Ubisoft isn't discussing any of this. As yet no one has confronted them in any public venue about it, and they still resort to the 'we're not discussing that at this time...' sort of dismissive prose, which has never guided well in corporate PR. Compare this to EA or Activision PR (not suggesting these are two cherubs of good will) where virtually everything at least gets a direct response.

It seems a reasonalbe assumption that everyone that might like this game for some form of multi-player would agree that the performance, stability, and capability of Ubisofts netcode, MMS, and DRM to at least perform at parity with other games that have gotten over this hurdle over a decade ago will be an important consideration... It should (perhaps I'm being too argumentative) I would think be a reasonable assumption that people that wan't to play multi-player, and pay for that privileged should be able to actually play it. Could we agree on that? Could we agree that based on history of repeated demonstration that this appears to be a challenge that Ubisoft has had difficulty surmounting, and that it would be a similarly serious issue to what has gone before if they don't at least make some effort to acknowledge this and address it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

101459 I too was down on Ubisoft for the years after OGR. Companies try new things, create new experiences and sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong. but with wildlands, I wish to remain optimistic until we know more.

my biggest gripe was we lost the ability to tackle different objectives in any random order like in OGR. that gripe came to fruition with GR:FS.

But I'll remain optimistic.

Edited by Papa6
Link to post
Share on other sites

The reductio ad absurdum here is all yours,

Correct, I was arguing that your logical assertion is false, because the result if it is accepted is absurd.

... lack of understanding of API's, render budget, and the render targets on these platforms vs PC....

The graphics capability of PCs has nothing to do with the reduced amount of developer resource wasted on porting code developed for last gen consoles. Completely irrelevant response; as my point was that the effort could be spent on bettering and testing the net code.

Anyhow, you clearly like a debate but as I have no wish to derail this thread then I'll make no further comment or reply to any further responses you may make. I'll just leave it to you, in your own words, in the hope that you might see why people may get confused about what your assertions or points actually mean.

I have neither implied or made stated assumptions about Ubisofts marketing 'plan' for game design revelation, and have made no statements that even suggest I accept any second hand versions of reality in this regard. Neither am I interested in Ubisofts' marketing plans

... it's not much of a reach to assume the new marketing campaign is really the old marketing campaign, with new parties invited and involved.

This is especially apparent when difficult questions are asked about deal-breaking features...

I have neither implied or made stated assumptions that Ubisoft intends to, or is 'trying to hide' anything -- this use of words and assumption, like your previous assertion, is again: completely yours.

"Look Here! A cute fluffy kitten!" with the "Don't look at the man behind the curtain, or ask THOSE questions, we're not talking about that!" is as old as marketing.

... My point is explicit and clear; that this kind of market speak is cheap, and suggests Ubisoft's intentions insofar as how they're going to market or 'discuss' Wildlands, has not changed from how they marketed other whole sale failures where critical issues were 'not talked about' even after the fact.

... Neither have I asserted Rocky is an apologist ...

... God knows they've made plenty of money off your efforts Rocky... But I don't think Ubisoft deserves you of all people being their apologist...

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...