I hear a lot of bad feedback on this boards.

[haloboi]

So that shows me that most of the people here are not true Ghost Recon fans.You see, Ubisoft is taking it's time to do this game right.But because many of you here are so impatient,all I hear is "I'm canceling my pre-order","Ubisoft doesnt care about me","The devs lied!".Guess what?No one cares, and neither does Ubisoft.The devs listen to FAN feedback.So I suggest if your not a fan,then leave and go play your glorious Black Ops(which in my opinion is the worst game I have ever played).I have been a fan of the Ghost Recon series since Island Thunder and I can tell you although it takes some time,I cannot complain to the team that has made so many good games.//Fan statement ended.Trolls Quarantined.

[jssport]

What ?? ... true fans ???


Just how long ago was GRAW 2 released ?


.. we love the game, we just hate the marketing, public releations, and development decisions that are being made by UBIsoft's powers that be.

... and sometimes these shills that parrot the aboves disception and dishonesty.

[kalenath]

They listen to fan feedback? WHA...? When? Oh, wait... They listen like Sony Online Entertainment did before they sprung the NGE on Star Wars Galaxies. They listen to the fanbois and to NO ONE ELSE. People like those of us with questions or concerns are ignored.

Please show me ONE instance where they LISTEN. Kimi and the other mods nonwithstanding, NO ONE at Ubisoft seems to GIVE. A. ****.

And as for us being negative? Welcome to the internet, pal.

I know, I know, we shouldn't get mad when they LIE to us, when they ignore us, when they tell us one thing and then disregard it. We shouldn't get mad when they make what are ALMOST false advertising claims and don't BOTHER to fix the things. We shouldn't get mad when they don't tell us a DAMNED thing.

Just like I shouldn't get mad when people like you come on and insult my intelligence by saying that Ubisoft is perfect and 'why can't we all just get along'.

I shouldn't... But then again... I am not like you. I am not perfect. When someone LIES to me, IGNORES me, or ABUSES my trust, I get mad. Silly, I know.

I hope for a miracle, or for Ubisoft to actually give a flying **** about their fans again. But I am also not going to hold my breath.

[Kaiskune]

so Ubisoft developers listen to feed back do they? you could have fooled me.. why don't you take a look at HAWX2? I saw dozens of releasable ideas what would have turned that game into an ace combat beater... and what did Ubi do? copy the story line of ace combat 2 complete with laser beams from the sky and flying into a silo to destroy a nuclear missile. the only thing they picked up on was people wanted to be able to customize their payloads.

sure... that's really developers listening to their core fan bases for suggestions... if you say so...

respect is earned... not given and its pretty safe to say almost all the respect for UBISOFT-paris has been lost through their incapability to live up to what they advertised and blatant refusal to offer anything to keep the fans and investors interested (yes a "FAN" is an investor too, they pay for the product and part of that payment would go into the planning and development of future products)

a "true" fan doesn't accuse of fans of not being "true" to the series when they become disillusioned by the lack of evidence of progress

a REAL fan would voice his opinion without claiming to be superior than anyone with a different or opposing view

[awaters76]

Haloboi...really? If you have been a true fan of this game and this forum you would know why people in here are so negative. Ubisoft has done nothing that the true fans have asked for in this game other than transform it into something unrecognizable. I'm hoping that the changes being made to GR:FS from what we have seen on the E3 showing, are things they have taken from input of true fans. Unfortunately, given my experience with this forum and past GR titles; I'm sure they didn't. I'm still waiting on that guille suit for GRAW 2 btw.

[ms-kleaneasy]

Originally posted by kalenath:
Please show me ONE instance where they LISTEN. Kimi and the other mods nonwithstanding, NO ONE at Ubisoft seems to GIVE. A. ****

Just in case there’s any confusion as this post would appear to indicate, Kimi is a community developer. This means she works directly with the dev team, her purpose is to communicate on their behalf, listen to the community on their behalf and let them know what your feedback is, how you feel, what you want, why etc.

Equally while I do not work with the dev team its also a major part of my job to collect the feedback you guys post throughout the various game forums. So while you might not see the devs posting directly be assured that doesn’t mean they’re not listening, Kimi does this job for them so they’re able to focus their time on the game.


Originally posted by Kaiskune:
so Ubisoft developers listen to feed back do they? you could have fooled me.. why don't you take a look at HAWX2? I saw dozens of releasable ideas what would have turned that game into an ace combat beater...

This is a difficult one, by that I mean that everyone thinks they know of great ideas or saw great ideas that would make a game… well great. The reality is something entirely different however, as I said above we do go to great lengths to collect everyone’s feedback, but the community here on the official forums represents only a small portion of the overall fanbase so isn’t always an accurate reflection of what the entire community want to see.
On the other side of the coin its easy for us gamers to come up with ideas that we think are just great, but implementing those ideas into the game isn’t always so straight forward. Quite often a development team will start out with many ideas they are keen to see feature in a game, but as development progresses it can become clear the idea won’t work in practice for a multitude of reasons, and so they have to accept they cannot be included.

Before anyone reads into that I am talking about games in general not any particular title.

[OctanePenguin]

.. we love the game, we just hate the marketing, public releations, and development decisions ..

Focusing on what you hate makes for a bad post. Focusing on what you love makes for a good post. Forums often tend to be a way for people to anonymously express their hatred of all things which lends itself into bad posting habits. However, if you come to the forums with your love for a game and the desire to connect with other people and talk about it you'll actually realize the things that you like have a logic behind them that winds up hitting some points in the things that you hate.

[kalenath]

Originally posted by ms-kleaneasy:
Just in case there’s any confusion as this post would appear to indicate, Kimi is a community developer. This means she works directly with the dev team, her purpose is to communicate on their behalf, listen to the community on their behalf and let them know what your feedback is, how you feel, what you want, why etc.

Equally while I do not work with the dev team its also a major part of my job to collect the feedback you guys post throughout the various game forums. So while you might not see the devs posting directly be assured that doesn’t mean they’re not listening, Kimi does this job for them so they’re able to focus their time on the game.

This is a difficult one, by that I mean that everyone thinks they know of great ideas or saw great ideas that would make a game… well great. The reality is something entirely different however, as I said above we do go to great lengths to collect everyone’s feedback, but the community here on the official forums represents only a small portion of the overall fanbase so isn’t always an accurate reflection of what the entire community want to see.
On the other side of the coin its easy for us gamers to come up with ideas that we think are just great, but implementing those ideas into the game isn’t always so straight forward. Quite often a development team will start out with many ideas they are keen to see feature in a game, but as development progresses it can become clear the idea won’t work in practice for a multitude of reasons, and so they have to accept they cannot be included.

Before anyone reads into that I am talking about games in general not any particular title.

Ok, my bad. Now, why not just TELL us that there is a problem with it? Oh, wait. That violates the silence rule. Funny that. I have sen various sites where the devs or whoever come on and say 'Yes that would be cool, but I am afraid it won't work and here is why.'

What do we get from Ubisoft? NOTHING.

Makes you wonder if anyone IS actually working on this. Oh, intellectually I know people are. Emotionally? Makes me wonder sometimes.

I have nothing against Kimi or ms-kleaneasy. But enough is enough. I will still lurk here, hoping for a miracle. But as time goes by all I get is a puckered feeling.

I know that whatever game your company gives us will be pretty, buggy as hell, be non tactical (ie Run and Gun) and have totally implausible gadgets that are 'supposedly' cutting edge. It will have no story and the singe player campaign (IF there IS one) likely be less than ten levels long. THAT is the wave of the future.

*Sigh*

I miss when I had SQUADS to command and actually had to move tactically. I miss it when you had to THINK before you moved. If you made a misstep, people got killed. Now? Run, run, gun, gun, rinse repeat...

[FORGOTTEN HER0]

Sometimes I feel like players are looking in the wrong places for tactical games. For instance, on consoles. If CoD shows anything, it is that the consoles are filled with casual players.

Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising was a average game on consoles, but on PC it was something different. There was a mission editor, mods of course, and a community which uploaded plenty of their own stuff. Then there is the game that I've heard several 'hardcore' people swear by, ArmA 2. This game seems to be exactly what people ask for, but they never seem to realize it is right out there within grasp.

[Kaiskune]

Originally posted by mrs-kleaneasy:
This is a difficult one, by that I mean that everyone thinks they know of great ideas or saw great ideas that would make a game… well great. The reality is something entirely different however, as I said above we do go to great lengths to collect everyone’s feedback, but the community here on the official forums represents only a small portion of the overall fanbase so isn’t always an accurate reflection of what the entire community want to see.

so a storyline NOT copied almost word for word from Ace combat 2 is too much to ask is it? ubiscum is VERY lucky Bandai NAMCO hasn't pressed over copy right infringement


Originally posted by H3RO91:
Sometimes I feel like players are looking in the wrong places for tactical games. For instance, on consoles. If CoD shows anything, it is that the consoles are filled with casual players.

Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising was a average game on consoles,

dragon rising on the consoles failed because everything it advertised on the back of its box was not there to begin with (sound familiar?) and when they finally did add its 'free roam' mode it was not what the developers claimed when they were talking people into wasting 400 ms-points on buying its as down loadable content. all in all while the campaign was lengthy it was a poor game.
a Chinese campaign would have been nice as well... not everyone believes in the "America must own all" ideology that infests the game development sector

CoD is not a game you can really use as an example of tactical warfare on consoles OR pc... CoD is a impulse shooter where the closest thing to tactics on CoD is the hunt for the best glitches.

while ArmA2 is 'within' grasp but not everyone wants to play shooters on a PC, personally I cannot get a feel for using a mouse and keyboard combo on the pc and using a controller will put me at an extreme disadvantage due to reaction time difference between a thumb stick and a mouse.

i dont care what the pc elitists claim... shooters are better on the console than pc. but thats just my opinion

[awaters76]

I'd have to agree with Kaiskune. I have always played shooters on consoles and the conversion to a mouse and keyboard isn't very easy for me.

As for Kalenath's comments: I think the guys at Red Storm and Ubisoft should go back to the basics. Remake the original GR...call it Ghost Recon: Reloaded or something stupid. New grapics, some new maps, and get rid of all this sci-fi crap.

I had some call of duty fan-boys play GRAW 2 and they loved it...especially the ability to change the environment from day to dusk to night. Come on Ubisoft, you have a great game stop complicating it. KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)

[FORGOTTEN HER0]

Yes, I've expressed much about the false claims for Dragon Rising as well, but much of what wasn't there was quickly being made up for by the modders on the PC. Not to mention that the mission editor alone added much more to the game.

I was trying to use CoD as an example for the casual market. The game has the largest following in the gaming industry and it is made primarily for a casual audience.

"shooters are better on the console than pc. but thats just my opinion". This is what I was talking about. We can say all we want about how games are better on consoles, but all the realistic games are made on the PC and left out of the consoles. Most of us here say we want those games, but we aren't all willing to go out and get them.

I'm not trying to get into a big PC vs Console debate, but the PC seems like the obvious choice if you want more realistic games. The console is slowly but surely becoming a lost cause for these games. Perhaps this is why we were all so hopeful for this game?

[illicitmags]

I agree with the console argument. PC controls are hard to use for me personally and I don't like sitting up right next to the screen to play the game. Also PCs cost more than consoles + they go out of date very quickly. New software, hardware etc are released regularly meaning the value of the PC drops quickly. I also have a very bad history with virus's which puts me off PCs a lot. I'd also rather buy a laptop than a PC and they can't run games as well.

Aside from that I like the consoles controls better. I don't know how many people are gaming on PC these days but there are many on XBL so I'll stick with it.

[BS PALADIN]

I think if developers use clever and well thought out design they can incoporate mass markets and niche markets in the same product. I dont even think it would be that hard for some franchises.

[kalenath]

But that would require thought.

Nope, not going to happen. Much better to just coast, ignore anything that doesn't fit the preconceived notions and do whatever they want to do.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe Ubisoft does care, maybe they are actually trying to make a game that will appeal to the people that have waited patiently for a new addition to the Ghost Recon franchise.

Oh, wait... I should not think, all I should do is buy whatever they deign to throw at me, like a good little drone. After all, they are working hard to make a great game that will bring back all the core gameplay aspects that people loved from the original Ghost Recon. Right?

Oh well, probably not, but it was worth a try...

[Kaiskune]

Originally posted by H3RO91:
"shooters are better on the console than pc. but thats just my opinion". This is what I was talking about. We can say all we want about how games are better on consoles, but all the realistic games are made on the PC and left out of the consoles. Most of us here say we want those games, but we aren't all willing to go out and get them.

a good point but the fact is not everyone can afford to constantly update a pc. a quality 'gaming' computer will cost in excess of £1000 initially and £500+ per year to keep at top specs to do the same thing you can do on consoles that cost less than a 3rd of the price.
the last hardware update to my pc cost me around £300 for a graphics card thats been out a year, 700VA power supply and a Xeon 2.13quad core for a 775 socket.. granted that Processor was a bargin(£80 instead of the £250+) those updates will need to last me at least another 3- 4 years before i even contemplate upgrading again and i can guarantee that if i was playing 1st person demanding games that hard ware would be out of date within a year

[FORGOTTEN HER0]

The good thing about PC games is they last longer, usually because of the modding community. About all the upgrading talk: Say you didn't know about ArmA 2 until I brought it up, so you went out and got it. The game isn't new, meaning you won't need the newest tech. Since you're only upgrading to play one game, you'll never need to upgrade again. Except maybe when ArmA 3 comes out. With all the stuff in that game, you could do without the sequal for a while.

I'm no PC elitist, I play more on consoles myself. However, sometimes I feel like I'm missing out. Especially when it comes to simulation games, or even somewhat real games.

By the way, I too do not play the very game I am suggesting to everybody. We just seem to ask for a lot of things around here, only to have those things implemented in a different and already developed game. I imagine ArmA to be the game that Dragon Rising could have been. I intend to try it out someday.

[FanOfHaloboi]

Originally posted by haloboi:
You see, Ubisoft is taking it's time to do this game right. But because many of you here are so impatient,all I hear is "I'm canceling my pre-order","Ubisoft doesnt care about me","The devs lied!".


Yes haloboi, you are perfectly right my friend. Don’t listen to those negative people.

You perfectly understand the strategy of Ubisoft; making the game as perfect as possible and take all the time needed to do this. Ubisoft doesn’t care that the development costs of this game are way over the initial planned budget. Ubisoft is not the kind of company that cares just about profits. Ubisoft cares about only two things: quality and customer satisfaction!

If the development costs of this game way exceed the revenues from the sales, Ubisoft will be nonetheless proud to release a quality game, and there’s no doubt in my mind that the shareholders will agree with Ubi’s decision.

Like the kimi_ said in another post, the game is delayed to enable the developers to make the game the best it possibly can be, and they’re taking this extra time to do just that. Dear heloboi, you can trust the kimi_; this girl doesn’t know the meaning of BS, and moreover, she has an IQ at least half as high as yours, so you can trust her when she says that optical camo is already around the corner because she has the patent for it (she failed the patent for hot water though, but nobody’s perfect).

If Ubisoft thinks it’s in the best interest of the customers to let the developers polish the game until 2013, you can be sure that’s what they are going to do. Think about it my friend: we are going to get a game that exceeds the initial budget by hundreds of millions of dollars! We are going to get the first game in history that costs more than Avatar! (I mean the movie, not the crappy game...).

I am so looking forward to see the result…

But a question remains...
What studios are developing Assassin’s Creed 3 right now?
Hummmmmmmmmmmmmm..........

[FanOfHaloboi]

Originally posted by ms-kleaneasy:
we do go to great lengths to collect everyone’s feedback, but the community here on the official forums represents only a small portion of the overall fanbase so isn’t always an accurate reflection of what the entire community want to see.


Some ''negative'' people would call this process dumbing down to cater to the lowest common denominator, and at the totally insignificant detriment of alienating the original and true fans of a franchise, but I'm not the kind of guy who would suggest such a thing...

[TRAJEKTURY]

People just want news and updates. Ubisoft does like that because the prefer the force feed technique, just in case most people hate their changes. Just look and Splinter Cell, that series was recently murdered. You would think a lesson would pulled from that whole mess. Not staying true to your fan, keeping the lines of communication open, forcing unwanted changes upon them, and generally treating us as peasant, in you video game kingdom. Is what kill all your greating games.

[kalenath]

But why would they CARE?

They make money, that is all that matters. PERIOD.

Do they give a **** about their fans? WHY WOULD THEY? Fans don't matter. All that matters if the people BUY. THEIR. GAMES.

Who gives a flying **** if the people DETEST the games AFTER buying them? It doesn't MATTER because THEIR GAMES SOLD!

Ghost Recon was THE best tactical simulation out there. But the casual gamer couldn't deal with the fact that if you got shot, YOU DIED! See and do not be seen, strike hard, fast and without mercy. Oops, not politically correct anymore.

Some of us liked the hard, the challenging, the rush that came from doing something HARD. I know, I know, Hard is bad nowadays... Nowadays the gamer wants fast, and lots of explosions. They don't want a game that requires them to THINK. They want a game that satisfies their need for blood, guts and gore. They want things to explode. They don't want realism, stealth or tactics. They want fast and bloody.

Some of us are pining for the days of hard games that required more than mashing a controller button a few thousand times, but we are in the distinct minority these days it seems.

And why would Ubisoft care about us? All we did WAS BUY AND PLAY THEIR GAMES!

WE

DON'T

MATTER

ANYMORE!

((IF of course we ever did...))

[FORGOTTEN HER0]

Do you ever get tired of posting the same thing everytime kalenath? lol

The way I see it, our presence alone speaks volumes to the GRFS team. Not in a bad way either. People who stick around after months of nothing must really want the game. You don't have to care to see how desperate we are for this game to come out, whether it's good or bad. Even the people who hated the E3 demo were in outrage that they haven't gotten the chance to play a beta.

Every 'big' new game that comes out is just a pure clone of CoD mixed with a little Battlefield. Yes, I'm talking about you MoH and Homefront. When there is nothing else for us 'hardcore' console players, how bad can Ubi really do?

[Kaiskune]

Originally posted by H3RO91:
how bad can Ubi really do?

now THATS a difficult question ...

and one that can really only be answered by everyones different opinion of ubisoft's history of games
(important note:- this is only my opinion and does not denote what other consumers think or believe)
1 Rainbow six vegas 1 was brilliant yet 2 was butchered by the stupid decision to limit co-op campiagn to 2 players and a pair of Ai's so stupid they make Ubisoft Paris game developers look intelligent... and the inability to equip tee-shirts was a bit of blow as well (damn you for taking them away!)
2 HAWX 1 was ok if a little limited on multiplayer... then there's HAWX 2... which is a plagiarist's wet dream.. the fact my local game station recieved 67 returned copies within 10 days speaks volumes on that failure.. didnt help they ran the DLC scam yet again either (all the so called 'new' planes were already on the disk to being with)
3 Endwar... well thats like marmite... you either love it or hate it... personally i loved it. best real time tactical gmae ive played in a long time... then they butchered the engine by turning it into a *shudders* world war 2 game instead of focusing on a second endwar... in a sense im grateful for it... that means they haven't f**ked up that series yet!

so to answer that question it can go every way possible. here's i'm guessing 2 extremes and on more realistic case scenario
-Future Soldier could be a market beater so good that I and possibly many others would forgive ubisoft for the conviction 'exclusive access' false advertisement scam and bring a rebirth of hope and faith in the Ubisofts developers abilities
-Future Soldier could be a stable game thats both liked and loaved at the same time for being a decent to half-decent game but not worth the money put into acquiring the beta as well as the full game
-Future Soldier could be this years biggest flop as thousands of once loyal fans openly boycott Ubisoft products and shares fall as all those in partnership with Ubisoft jump ship so they are not brought down when the FTC and OFT come hammering on their door over their advertisement scandals...

naturally im hoping for the first outcome second at the worst case... but after the last 'TomClancy' game ubisoft produced... i'd be lying if i said the 3rd outcome happening would surprise me

it really is getting to the point where if i personally knew tom clancy I'd advise him to pull his name sake out of the mess ubisoft has made and try somewhere else

[kalenath]

Originally posted by H3RO91:
Do you ever get tired of posting the same thing everytime kalenath? lol

Yes, I do. But maybe, just MAYBE... If I irritate people enough, SOMEONE will ban me and I won't have to check every day religiously to see what new way they have come up with to ignore or screw us over.

As to how bad the game can be? Well... HAWX 2 is a stellar example of how NOT to make a game. But, its the 'new direction' and the 'wave of the future' so we better get used to it.

[FORGOTTEN HER0]

Right, there are several outcomes. My point with that question was that no matter how bad GRFS turns out to be, it won't affect us one bit. It can hurt them though like you pointed out.

Anything that turns out good in the game will be great. Anything that turns out bad can only hurt the sales, not us. Unless of course we blindly pre-order the game, which I do not advise anybody do.

A terrible game will put us right back where we alrady are, in the CoD/casual shooter era. What can go good strongly outweighs what can go bad. For the fans anyways.


Originally posted by kalenath:
Yes, I do. But maybe, just MAYBE... If I irritate people enough, SOMEONE will ban me and I won't have to check every day religiously to see what new way they have come up with to ignore or screw us over.
You would still be able to check back in wouldn't you? I imagine you can look at the forums but can't participate in them.