Ghost Recon Debate

[Scott Mitchell]

I am posting a series of blogs that discusses the ongoing debate between the Ghost Recon and Ghost Recon Future Soldier. The Introduction and Part 1 - The "Tom Clancy" Argument have been posted. Part 2 will be posted in the next day or so. Feel free to read at your leisure and come back here to comment...or not. Up to you.

Introduction can be found here.

Cheers.

[Bota:16]

Somehow I can only picture a dead horse.

I just think current (and assuming FS) is too Hollywood-esque. It annoyed me in GRAW 1/2 that there was almost too many things going on at once, too many distractions. I felt like a red-headed stepchild in the GRAW series being constantly "directed" instead of just using my own imagination and intuition to do what was needed.

I equate it similar to how the music industry cranks the volume of their music up artificially. You lose the fine details and fidelity of music. Similar with newer GR and many other games, you are getting a constant stream of "noise" and you never get to appreciate any subtle "noise" that helps give the game some "color" (fidelity). You also don't have any range of emotion. It's just GO! GO! GO!, there are no lulls in action for "quiet time" to set the stage for a big event, build up suspense or add complexities to a story. In GRAW I feel the action is being forced on me instead of me forcing the action as it was in [GR].

I just feel that in [GR] there was a much broader range of "feelings" in the game. Every mission has a unique mindset to it, in GRAW it all feels very similar. Again there is no range of emotion it's just GO! GO! GO!.

I think developers in general are too worried with people getting distracted from their game if there isn't a constant stream of "noise". You need to allow the player to "take in" what effects his/her decisions have had. Give them time to 2nd guess themselves, give them time to plan their next move.

[steveb]

Personally, I'm looking forward to GRFS. I have been lurking in the shadows of the GR community for years now, my favourite game of all time is definately ([GR]) but I think we have to move on.

If the developers can provide the stealth, atmosphere and gameplay in a modern version they will be on another winner. I think one of the reasons for Ghost Recon's success and popularity was and is the "modability" of the game, new misssions, maps and weapons. Let's hope that is also maintained, if so I'm sure we will see the GR community, and the game, continue for another decade.

Bring on the stealth cloak and any other technology but please keep the gameplay at a realistic level.

steveb

[Lightspeed]

Pink Diamonds - definitely one of the things that killed it for me.

No more searching for the enemy - just wait for the pink diamonds to appear.

[=warcloud=]

No more searching for the enemy - just wait for the pink diamonds to appear.

But you can turn the aids off, right?.

[krise madsen]

First I'd like to commend Scott Mitchell for his debate blog

Anyway, on the subject of Part 1:

I've seen "the Tom Clancy Argument" stated rather more bluntly:

Tom Clancy would be rolling in his grave - if he was dead

Well, dead or alive, the only thing Tom Clancy is rolling in is money.

And I'd have to agree with Mitchell: Tom Clancy, to the extent that he'd care, probably wouldn't have any problems with the 2030+ scenario of GRFS. Personally, I think it's at least a decade too far into the future for predictions with any reasonable sense of accuracy, but I'm also a total military tech whore, so I (somewhat reluctantly) accept a 2030+ scenario game as a thought experiement.

What would, IMO, be really interesting to know, is whether Mr. Clancy would be pleased with the implementation of future technology in these games? My guess is: Not so much. At least if GRAW PC is anything to go by.

Whatever one might think of Tom Clancy's books, they are extremely well researched, and the technology is represented as accurately as possible within a work of fiction. In contrast, the implementation of technology in the GRAW PC games seem rather ham-fisted, with apparently scant regard for authentic, realistic implementation of these technologies. But rather treated as a promotional novelty. Though in many ways that has a much to to with the serious issues I have with the gameplay of GRAW.

OK, so GRAW isn't GRFS, true. But I'm picking up much the same vibes as I did prior to the release of GRAW

Edited April 8, 2010 by krise madsen

[Scott Mitchell]

Well, dead or alive, the only thing Tom Clancy is rolling in is money.

And I'd have to agree with Mitchell: Tom Clancy, to the extent that he'd care, probably wouldn't have any problems with the 2030+ scenario of GRFS.

@Krise - LOL. True. I know you are hesitant (perhaps even rightfully so) of GRFS and have voiced your issues over the previous titles, but what I respect about you is the way you are able to articulate your point even though it might contradict the norm and yet do so in a professional manner. That is a difficult ability to master but a valuable one to possess. We've debated some other issues before and I truly do enjoy it.

While we both agree that TC would very likely support the tech in FS, you make some fair and valid arguments about the tech (which ironically I was going to discuss in Part 3, I believe) but I'm hoping you can clarify some of your points so I can better understand them (and who knows, maybe include them in my blog if you don't mind).

First though...there is a screen shot in FS that shows a date of 2020, which is only 10 years in the future (one might assume the time frame for FS). Even I'm a bit skeptical to think that's a realistic time frame for this tech to become standard issue. Having worked in military procurement, it's never fast. So, if I am understanding you correctly, one of your arguments is that this tech won't be fielded in the time frame that FS occurs?

Also...apparently my memory of the GR games is a bit rusty (comes with old age) because I don't remember all the details of each. I am playing through GRAW 2 (PC) now as when it came out I played it mostly on 360 and even then it was mostly MP. I plan to play GRAW (PC) next - yeah, I know...backwards...WTH right? What are the implementation issues with GRAW (PC) that you have mentioned? I am very interested...if you don't mind sharing your thoughts...

Also...I hope you take the time to read Part 2 - the "Ghost Recon" argument...should be up in a few days. I look forward to your response. Cheers.

[Tinker]

First though...there is a screen shot in FS that shows a date of 2020, which is only 10 years in the future (one might assume the time frame for FS). Even I'm a bit skeptical to think that's a realistic time frame for this tech to become standard issue.

Highly doubt standard issue is the point. Having this available for 4 highly trained ghosts is acceptable. Why not? Probably going to costs millions, not something any military force could kit out there troops with for now. But to make a few available for this exercise is plausable, has to be real some day. Tech is advancing so fast these days, hope to be able to teleport to work soon.

[Scott Mitchell]

Highly doubt standard issue is the point. Having this available for 4 highly trained ghosts is acceptable.

Tech is advancing so fast these days, hope to be able to teleport to work soon.

Agree...and that's kind of why I was asking for him to clarify. Not sure if you ever watch Future Weapons (show on Military or Discovery channel). They showcase some wonderful toys...most of which will never be used on the battlefield because either its too expensive or doesn't pass the certification process. One of the joys of using private security firms...they don't have to play by the same rules.

Funny point on teleporting...because I read this news report a day or so ago...

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/05/...llel-universes/

And another that the Navy wants a beam weapon capable of tapping into and defeating encryption of wireless radio signals. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/02/...ons-shoot-data/

I'm getting to old for all of this tech...heh heh.

[Lightspeed]

my memory of the GR games is a bit rusty (comes with old age) because I don't remember all the details of each. I am playing through GRAW 2 (PC) now as when it came out I played it mostly on 360

I question whether you ever played GR actually based on this comment.

[thales100]

Who is Scott Mitchell ? Rocky ?

[Daywanderer]

Very good read, looking forward to the rest

I won't touch on the whole subject of whether or not the tech in FS is realistic in the timeframe, seeing as how I haven't been keeping up with the "news" in that regard for a few years and I haven't been in the armed forces at all, so I have no first-hand knowledge how fast or slow tech progression really is. Apart from the fact that I know the Norwegian military just recently started exchanging the good ol' G3 battle rifles...

I will say that absolutely nothing surprises me anymore in regards to technology, and being as open-minded as I am, I have no problem swallowing what's showed in the FS live-action trailer. We already have "drones" (aka remote-controlled robots, used for everything from entertainment to bomb defusal) and there have been working prototypes of "cloaking devices". In the private sector. With the resources available the the military, I wouldn't be surprised if there's already a working, mobile cloaking unit somewhere in the world right now. There's a lot of research going on that we probably won't know about for a decade or two. Or maybe at all, if it's something that doesn't "work out"

I do agree that Tom Clancy probably wouldn't have much trouble with the tech used in GRFS. Like you, I'm judging from the TC books I've read and who I always felt were quite "sci-fi" in several aspects. I also believe that the Clancy-branded games (the few I've tried at least) live up to the name. For me, having the Tom Clancy name on a game never gave any indication of what genre the game would be in or how realistic it would be, just what kind of backstory, setting and overall atmosphere one could expect.

[Scott Mitchell]

my memory of the GR games is a bit rusty (comes with old age) because I don't remember all the details of each. I am playing through GRAW 2 (PC) now as when it came out I played it mostly on 360

I question whether you ever played GR actually based on this comment.

OMG...I'm sitting her literally laughing out loud over that comment. What a hoot.

@day - great response...I'll comment later as doing so on a phone is rather challenging.

[petsfed]

Whatever one might think of Tom Clancy's books, they are extremely well researched, and the technology is represented as accurately as possible within a work of fiction. In contrast, the implementation of technology in the GRAW PC games seem rather ham-fisted, with apparnetly scant regard for authentic, realistic implementation of these technologies. But rather treated as a promotional novelty. Though in many ways that has a much to to with the serious issues I have with the gameplay of GRAW.

No more ham-fisted than his explorations of quantum computing as code breaking (its not software Tom), or the now infamous heartbeat sensor flub. Shoot, the climactic battle of Patriot Games is ridiculous. I think the Scott Mitchell of the games is actually very true to Clancy's writing, in that he's as one-dimensional and Eastwood-esque as all the other Clancy action heroes (Clark, Chavez, the FBI dude who marries the Secret Service agent, the entire cast of Rainbow Six, etc).

[krise madsen]

@Scott Mitchell,

Hey, I enjoy these discussions too!

Can you track down that 2020 reference in GRFS? All I've seen is the reference to the Natick Future Soldier 2030 showcase so I assumed that was also the timeframe GRFS aimed for. A 2030 timeframe is exeptionally ambitious, but 2020 is just ten years from now. And looking back to 2000 and the military equipment used today, the technological development assumed in GRFS begin to look downright silly. And yes, I do mean in the sense of non-standard cutting edge gear for special operators.

Anyway, the case of "this tech won't be avalible within that timeframe" is the much-vaunted cloaking device. From what we know so far, it consists of a suit or blanket fitted with micro-cameras projecting the image from the opposite side of the wearer onto a display within the material itself, thus creating the illusion that you're looking straight through the wearer. And both camera and display work in both the visible and infrared (thermal) spectrum, hence the name "thermoptic camouflage". So this is a device that is not only small and light enough to be worn by a single person, but also able to withstand wear and tear (like sitting, walking and crawling). On top of that, it has to work even when dirty or wet (or you will have very suspicious "floating mud stains" showing up).

But most damning of all, the device has to "know" exactly where the opposite of each camera is: We're not talking about a tank where it's quite obvious where exactly the opposite side it. We're talking about a human being that can bend and twist in endless permutations. From what we've seen so far, the cloak takes the shape of a "blanket" that flaps about, bends, twists and folds like a blanket would. Computing where the opposite is in relation to each camera is presumably an enormous task.

Predicting this equipment will be availible in 2030 is quite a stretch (that it, assuming it will actually ever work), that it will be availible in 2020 is beyond ridiculous.

I didn't mind the tech in GRAW, but then again, I'm a tech whore (or "Gear Queer" as someone on YouTube put it ). When the first info on GRAW appeared, all sorts of cool tech dansed before my eyes: Small ground drones for recon, medium drones with armament (like a machinegun or grenade launcher) and heavy MULE drones either carrying spare weapons and supplies, or heavy armament (like AT missiles), even tiny "camera balls" (thrown like a hand grenade, with a camera inside); small UAV's for spotting nearby threats and bigger armed UAV's; modular small arms festooned with accessories, airburst munitions. Instead we got a MULE with ridiculously poor pathfinding, a small UAV with woefully simple controls (rather than actually control it, you just drove it to a spot and it acted like a radar). Instead of real modular small arms, we got a "paper-rock-scissors" system where fairly-magic made rifles with scopes more accurate, and rifles with vertical grips less accurate.

Though it has to be said that it was all rather moot, since the game lacked GR "tacticalness": Rather than roaming free across the map, where you would have the opportunity to actually take advantage of properly implemented tech, you just transited from one ambush site (and scripted "cinematic event") to another (i.e. the game was too linear) and your best weapon was the ability to memorize the map and the location of AI enemies. With regard to the Zeus used-against-all-things-big missile this was rather lucky, since the enemy Havoc helicopters obligingly (and grossly unrealistically) hovered at extremely close range so you could shoot them down with a weapon demonstratively not suited for the job.

Overall, IMO, tech in GRAW was used for the sake of "tech is cool" without any attention to how such actual hi-tech could affect the events and outcome of a battle. Try imagining drones, advanced munitions and other GRAW-style tech transplanted to the [Ghost Recon] game: It would be an entirely different experience than GRAW.

This is why I have sometimes argued against the "drop the GRAW tech" sentiment, even though I am no fan of the GRAW games: The 2013 setting was the least the problems with GRAW.

Looking forward to the next blog entry

@petsfed,

If you're saying that Tom Clancy is not the greatest author in the world then you'll get no argument from me

Anyway, my point is that when technology appears in a Tom Clancy book (and by that I mean a book actually written by Tom Clancy*) it serves a purpose, either as a McGuffin (like the lasers in Cardinal of the Kremlin) or as a key plot element (the superior E-767 Kami AEW aircraft in Debt of Honor). The tech serves only as a wow factor in GRAW since it doesn't really affect gameplay in a key manner, nor is it a necessary part of the plot (the Mexican revolt might as well have taken place in 2006).

* Full disclosure: I have only skimmed a few "not-actually-written-by-him" Tom Clancy books, then turned away in disgust.

[Scott Mitchell]

@Day - What are the Norwegians shifting to? (I suppose I could look it up LOL) I did a little research on the plans by other countries for Future Soldier technology (for a lack of a better title)...it's amazing how many countries are pursuing it and some of the tech they come up with.

I hear ya on future tech...but I'm just as amazed at some of the stuff we're doing now...getting network connectivity and IP voice comms to a soldier in the middle of the desert is amazing... Almost as amazing as sending emails from a submerged submarine.

As far as the "unknown" technology - well there is all the UFO tech out in Area 52. Maybe that's where the cloak originates from. (@all - I'm only kidding, but I know how Rocky loves the UFO conspiracy theories)

Agree on TC...not sure if you saw my comment on TC, but all of his stuff seems to be near future, global conflict, and heavy on the tech. Like Krise said, TC does his homework. I've read some forums where a lot of people question where he get's his material, and the stuff he would reveal was always spot on. I'm actually not a huge TC fan, although I have read a few of his books. He definitely has connections and I'm sure they help him with accuracy issues.

@Krise - the 2020 reference...now I don't know for sure if that is the timeline, because Ubi Kimi responded to a post in the forums here and made a comment that information would be forthcoming on the timeline...but if you watch the teaser trailer, there is one section that shows the date. I posted a screenshot in response to that thread. I'll track the link down and post it. Again...I'm speculating based on the information in the trailer, but sometimes my speculations stir up trouble...so believe it at your own risk.

As far as the rest of your comments...I'm going to read through it a couple of times, make some notes...and with your concurrence...perhaps use it or at least respond to it in Part 3. I don't want to use all my data now and then have nothing to blog about, heh heh.

Thanks for the observations on GRAW. Too be honest, I never really looked at it from that perspective. I know a lot of this tech is being developed (the Mule for example) and just associated its inclusion in the game with actual projects being developed, and since the game occurs in the future, it seemed to fit. Looking back though, a lot of that technology even from then isn't used today...so it is an interesting perspective.

More to follow.

Cheers.

[krise madsen]

As far as the rest of your comments...I'm going to read through it a couple of times, make some notes...and with your concurrence...perhaps use it or at least respond to it in Part 3. I don't want to use all my data now and then have nothing to blog about, heh heh.

Feel free to use whatever you want

To make a long story short, I do feel that Ubi has gone a bit off the deep end with the "even futher into the near-future" setting in GRFS, but it is only a problem in and of itself insofar that Ubi is being rather, well, let's just say they have a very liberal interpretation of concepts like "real" and "authentic" (proper explanation of cloaking and tiny-missiles-that-can-kill-a-tank wanted).

IMO, the GRFS setting does not disqualify the game as a tactical shooter. But all the alarm bells that went off with GRAW are going off again, even louder.

[Daywanderer]

@Day - What are the Norwegians shifting to? (I suppose I could look it up LOL) I did a little research on the plans by other countries for Future Soldier technology (for a lack of a better title)...it's amazing how many countries are pursuing it and some of the tech they come up with.

The M416 has been introduced to the military police at least (have a co-worker who happens to be a national guard MP), no idea if they're the first to get it, the last or whatever xD Apparently, it was quite the "upgrade" over the G3, heheh. Sure, it's a smaller caliber, but the military police in Norway don't fire at live targets too often anyhow

As far as the "unknown" technology - well there is all the UFO tech out in Area 52. Maybe that's where the cloak originates from. (@all - I'm only kidding, but I know how Rocky loves the UFO conspiracy theories)

I enjoy those theories myself, and I'm sure there's something cookin' there that would blow our minds if we found out Isn't it Area 51 by the way, or did I miss something?

The cloaking tech obviously comes from Japan though xD

Oh, forgot to mention in my first post: Kudos on actually trying to get a comment from Mr. TC, thumbs up

[Scott Mitchell]

Isn't it Area 51 by the way, or did I miss something?

Oh, forgot to mention in my first post: Kudos on actually trying to get a comment from Mr. TC, thumbs up

Hah...Area 51 is the old place...there is an Area 52...I saw it on UFO Hunters...

Tonopah Test Range, also known as Area 52, is a military installation located about 30 miles southeast of Tonopah, Nevada. It is part of the northern fringe of the Nellis Range and is inaccessible to the public.

Did exchange a couple of emails with TC many years ago...he didn't answer any of my questions but did ask me one or two which I thought was pretty cool. No joy this time though.

[Scott Mitchell]

@Krise...

Looks like 10/19/2020. Maybe the actual time frame of the game or maybe just providing historical reference...

Could 10/19 be the release date...hah hah...time will tell.

[AlienShogun]

@Krise...

Looks like 10/19/2020. Maybe the actual time frame of the game or maybe just providing historical reference...

Could 10/19 be the release date...hah hah...time will tell.

The release date is currently 1 October.

[[SFP]FUNKILL]

@Day - What are the Norwegians shifting to? (I suppose I could look it up LOL) I did a little research on the plans by other countries for Future Soldier technology (for a lack of a better title)...it's amazing how many countries are pursuing it and some of the tech they come up with.

The M416 has been introduced to the military police at least (have a co-worker who happens to be a national guard MP), no idea if they're the first to get it, the last or whatever xD Apparently, it was quite the "upgrade" over the G3, heheh. Sure, it's a smaller caliber, but the military police in Norway don't fire at live targets too often anyhow

New weapons to the Norwegian military is:

Heckler & Koch MP7, Heckler & Koch HK416 and Heckler & Koch HK417

http://www.hkpro.com/forum/showthread.php?...416-Norway-Spes.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showt...ce-MP5-with-MP7

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showt...an-armed-forces

Edited April 9, 2010 by [SFP]FUNKILL

[Lightspeed]

When I first played GR and Rogue Spear - Recon and Stealth was a skill not a poncho with cameras.

Not saying GRFS wont be fun but it certainly wont be as tactical or skilful as GR.

Krises description of the cloak in an earlier post is how I imagined it would have to be done and highlights some of the issues involved with building and using such a tool. Mud on the images, images reflecting exactly what is behind you from any angle, cameras and picture screens completely malleable and unbreakable, and God forbid if a camera or the power drops out halfway between moving from cover to cover or half of your stealth cloak fails and you are unfortunately the last person to know about it.

This cloak will never see the light of day imo on a Ghost in a cloak form on a battlefield, on a fixed immoblie object perhaps.

Its Ghost Recon: Fantasy or Fictional Soldier...not Future Soldier as we would be led to believe.

[Scott Mitchell]

Ubi Kimi hinting at more news coming soon. Guess I better finish up this series...stay tuned.

As far as a release date, it's true some of the pre-order sites are listing it as 01 OCT 2010, but that is not an "official" Ubisoft release date.

Ubisoft is currently stating Fall of 2010.

...3rd edits a charm...new pics up now too...offer a lot of information on the headgear and weapon...gonna be a busy weekend.

[=SEALZ=MATRIX]

Late at night, just remembering the Old GR the way it was meant to be played. My fondest memory is when I was driving around Panama City, FL while at a work conference trying to find Island Thunder on the day of its' release. I remember the people at Wal-Mart looking at me funny like I wasn't "from around there". Anyway, I eventually found it and flew it back home with me so I could hop of the plane, drive home and install it.

GRAW 2 I waited until it got to the $19.99 bin before buying.

After all these years I just want my OLD GR back

From member #181

Edited April 10, 2010 by =SEALZ=MATRIX