I think canceling GR2 was a wise decision

[sightreader]

I think that any poll of gamers would probably point to something more like GR2 than like original GR, mainly because most people are not obsessive-compulsive enough to appreciate the limitations of realism as opposed to the freedom of high velocity fragging. This sort of research is probably what drove the "dumbing down" of GR2: an attempt to expand the fan base to more casual gamers.

What such research fails to appreciate, however, is how hopelessly saturated the market already is with military style shooters for casual gamers. When a market is saturated, the key to survival is being different. A highly realistic shooter will get very negative reviews in any poll ("How come I can't hit targets while running? Why does everyone just sit and hide behind rocks? Where is my Medic kit? Why are these guns so inaccurate? Why can't I shoot rockets instead of bullets? Why is everything so boring?") The problem with appealing to such needs is that the casual gamers who requested them will quickly move on to a plethora of newer projects with identical gameplay but bigger explosions. I believe Ghost Recon was successful because it occupied a specialized niche for intense realism and strategy freaks who really have no other game to turn to. These folks are unlikely to wander off to games with flashier graphics.

I think canceling GR2 was a wise decision as long as GR3 pushes things back to a more realistic, strategy based direction. There is plenty of short term disillusionment, of course, but I really think it's more important to maintain their monopoly on gamers who find realism more important than a fast pace. Perhaps the harsh reactions can be ameliorated a bit by simply marketing this as a thoughtful strategy game instead of an intense prove-your-manhood shooter...?

[Brettzies]

Maybe your right. We'll never know though.

Check this out. I remember when they were doing a poll n November about what platform you would buy it on. PC was going around %50. Not so accurate I'm sure, but who knows.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=205105043&m=3371093532&r=3371093532#3371093532

[sightreader]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brettzies:
Check this out. I remember when they were doing a poll n November about what platform you would buy it on. PC was going around %50. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmmm... would the masses of kids who buy consoles bother answering polls? I think most of them are a bit too impatient for polls, forums, or strategy. I hear the "tween" market pushes a lot of industry these days, since behavior that's 90 percent impulse and 10 percent taste is easily influenced.

[Brettzies]

I'm just pissed all around and rationalizing. I never liked the idea of GR2 being only 1 soldier and 1 team. Everthing they seemed to be doing to it seemed to be geared for console play.

If they had said they were making a console only GR game and not calling it GR2, I would have been fine with that. Of course, I would have wanted to see a real sequel for the PC, but I wouldn't mind them dumbing down a game for console and calling it a GR game. Just not GR2.

Anyway, I agree, they dumbed it down to expand the fan base. That's fine. I just don't think they should have called it GR2. They should have gone the "no number" route like Splinter Cell or Prince of Persia. Even the new Rainbow Six game is "numberless." People are calling it R6-4, but I think it's just an R6 game.

They have just created a mess in my mind and I am super disappointed that we have to wait so long to see a new GR game, if at all. I still can't bring myself to uninstall the first one with all expansions and mods.

[PoW_LigHtsPeEd]

good post

[sightreader]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brettzies:
They have just created a mess in my mind and I am super disappointed that we have to wait so long to see a new GR game, if at all. I still can't bring myself to uninstall the first one with all expansions and mods. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Uninstall??? Heck, I'm still playing the dang thing every day.

I sincerely don't think they made as much of a mess as they would have if they went ahead and released GR2 for PC. If they released GR2, then they'd be stuck trying to patch and support it, never mind dealing with the endless waves of criticism from realism minded gamers. As you know, the patching process and getting all the multiplayer lobbies and stuff working can take upwards to a year to settle down, perhaps more if they find themselves dragged into creating expansion packs. Only after all that can they finally resume work on GR3. That's a full year or more for realism PC fans to get disillusioned with the whole project. Furthermore, they will find themselves trying to support two very different communities with the same title: the explosion and graphics oriented tween market, and the perfect ballistics and troop fatigue wargamer market. That tension and the organizational divisions it would cause within the GR team would last for the forseeable future.

I think it's better that they just drop this line before creating a monster on the PC. At least they can still split off a clean, separate console effort that doesn't sap away the talents from their realism effort. Of course, all this goes to naught if GR3 turns out to be yet another console oriented release with bigger explosions for people with even shorter attention spans.

[Brettzies]

I understand your arguments for dropping the GR2 game, and I think they are well put. I just hope you are right and we get everything we've been wanting in GR3 or whatever it gets called.

[Kurtz_]

I wish they had released aport of the Xbox game.I played it and despite some arcade features and linearity, and in spite of the horrendous controller, the game was a lot of fun. It was more fun than HL2 or MOHPA, it was better than BIA. Given the disappointing releases in BIA and CCFTF, it would still have been a better game than these. And now that both these games have shown to be disappointing, I am holding out hope for GR 3. Just release it!

[crtChunk72]

Originally posted by Kurtz_:
I wish they had released aport of the Xbox game.

I can't help but think if they did that, then whatever small remaining fanbase for PC there is, would have evaporated...

They should not have released it "just to release it"... release it when it's ready, and hopefuly with GR3 it will finally be "ready"...

[AlphaDelta219]

im not sure how many of you guys know kids who are like 15 or younger but my friends for one buy xbox games like most people buy food. if it gets good reviews (which are usually good because the companies often pay them so what would you expect. I have 2 games for my Playstation2 GTA:SA and Madden 2005. i rented GR2 and was contemplating buying it but decided against it. If people bought computer games like some people buy console games we'd easily be on top.

[Le Tigre]

Thats an intresting thought if nothing else, I know I personally probally average less than one game purchase a year.

[sightreader]

Originally posted by AlphaDelta219:
im not sure how many of you guys know kids who are like 15 or younger but my friends for one buy xbox games like most people buy food.

Yep, those tweens represent some major money, but their impulsive nature draws them to the brightest and flashiest within weeks, making them a very unreliable source of income. It's just too much of a stretch for the sober minded GR title. Perhaps they can take their chances in that market with a line of console only spin-offs, but they shouldn't underestimate nor casually throw away the powerful grip they have on the simulation market. Perhaps they have forgotten their roots: how many kids under 16 even READ Tom Clancy?

[silent_strike22]

15 or younger but my friends for one buy xbox games like most people buy food

as luck would have it my birth certificate says i'm 15 so i'll help with the matter. i have seen some of my friends buy games solely from reviews or just decide to go to the store to buy whatever looks good. they sicken me. i own console as well as pc, i have only bought a few games without renting them a few times and that only happened when i kneew it would be good by looking up websites or previous installments in the series were good. i also try and find downloadable dems for pc games i plan on buying. i'm sure the 15 year old demographic produces results more inclined to what you're getting at, but i'm just posting this to show whoever cares that it's not always the case.


how many kids under 16 even READ Tom Clancy?

he's one of my favorite authors. Rainbow Six, Red Storm Rising, The Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games, started The Sum of all Fears and currently reading the non-fiction Shadow Warriors.

sorry for the horrid sentence structure and long post, try and make as much sense as you can from it.

[sightreader]

Originally posted by silent_strike22:
i have seen some of my friends buy games solely from reviews or just decide to go to the store to buy whatever looks good. they sicken me.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> how many kids under 16 even READ Tom Clancy?
he's one of my favorite authors. Rainbow Six, Red Storm Rising, The Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games, started The Sum of all Fears and currently reading the non-fiction Shadow Warriors.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately, you're right: the very fact that you can actually spell puts you far outside the "Tween Male Violent Console Game" demographic. The few intelligent kids who can actually finish a Tom Clancy book and don't end all words with the letter Z generally fail to cough up to enough money to alter marketing decisions targeting the lavish spending habits of your brain-dead contemporaries, just as my spending habits are unlikely to alter the marketing of the "National Enquirer".

[Mjr_Kumar]

I'm 15 and read tom clancy too, when i dont get my books taken away and told to do some revision for my GCSEs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

[silent_strike22]

generally fail to cough up to enough money to alter marketing decisions targeting the lavish spending habits of your brain-dead contemporaries

hit that right on the nose. are you a psychic?

[gibsonccr]

They (UBI + RSE)should not have canceled GR2. If they were that unsure of the game for PC they should have made up a "beta" or demo if u will. Then done some polls to let us decide if it will fly or not.
The bottom line is... If they say they're going to deliver GR2 they should deliver GR2. Fix the graphics, fix the gameplay, do what ever it takes to make it happen but "NOT!!!" skip it.

A,B,C's are just like 1,2,3's You cant get to C without going through B so what makes you think you can get 3 without going through 2.

[sightreader]

Originally posted by gibsonccr:
They (UBI + RSE)should not have canceled GR2. If they were that unsure of the game for PC they should have made up a "beta" or demo if u will. Then done some polls to let us decide if it will fly or not.
The bottom line is... If they say they're going to deliver GR2 they should deliver GR2. Fix the graphics, fix the gameplay, do what ever it takes to make it happen but "NOT!!!" skip it.

A,B,C's are just like 1,2,3's You cant get to C without going through B so what makes you think you can get 3 without going through 2.

For better or worse, if software must be retargeted to a fundamentally different purpose that what it was designed for, it is far better to rewrite it than to patch it. This violates the notion of A-B-C refinement that is so intuitive in all other real world problems we deal with. If software is hacked in an attempt reverse basic architectural decisions, it becomes an extremely unreliable to both user and developer: to say it would become buggy would be an understatement.

For this reason, I believe refocusing effort on GR3 was a wise decision. To me, it seems clear that the GR2 architecture was optimized for fast and furious combat rather than realistic simulation. This almost certainly affects the very guts of the code in almost all aspects. Code for casual but intense play will generally sacrifice accuracy calculations in the interest of speed and scale: allow more objects that move faster, smoother, and are more graphically intense rather than waste effort on figuring out how relative humidity and air pressure alters a bullet's ballistics. Code that exploits this basic trade off, everything from basic physics to graphics to AI, is then used by the rest of the project, and all that other code assumes that the flawed code is not going to change its behavior. It's like a house of cards: if the reason your card house is pointing the wrong way is because of the bottom card is set wrong, you really can't replace that card: all you can do is try to rearrange all the cards on the top to try to get it lean the way you want, but obviously it's an intensely risky thing to do when it just isn't built to go that way.

Test marketing with beta code is also foiled by the nature of software. A huge percentage of the code must be complete and functional before you can even get an idea of what the program is going to play like. As in the house of cards, beta testing will only help you fix the top layer of your house: if beta testing reveals a flaw in the bottom layer there really isn't anything you can do about it except try to get your house to lean in unstable ways. Nevertheless, the top layer is often extremely complex due to the number of interactions with layers beneath, so the bugs residing there are often both numerous and severe. This is why you see betas at all: not as test marketing or rapid prototypes, but as a way to get real customers to find bugs that folks locked in their closed environment can't see.

[sightreader]

Originally posted by sightreader:
I think canceling GR2 was a wise decision as long as GR3 pushes things back to a more realistic, strategy based direction.

Sounds like my suspicions have been confirmed:

Eurogamer: How did you feel GR2 fared with long term fans?

Ubisoft: Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon 2 shifted its game design from a 100 per cent tactical shooter to a more action-based game in order to broaden the audience. Fans of the original Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon questioned this shift.

Eurogamer: So where are you pitching Ghost Recon 3 this time? More authenticity?

Ubisoft: Yes, we're keeping the realism that the core fan base has loved since the original Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon, but we are looking to give the game a huge boost with the help of next generation technology in terms of immersive gameplay. In terms of tactical gameplay, you now have Intel from unmanned drones which you control, you can call in Apache Air strikes which will work in conjunction with your team. You order your team to move in on enemy positions. The vision of the Integrated Warfighter System is that you now have situational awareness on the battlefield near, mid and far range.

[KungFu_CIA]

Sightreader

The fact is the average console gamer is 25 (various statistics say 29+). That is far outside the "tween" market. Teens may buy more games, but guess who buys more consoles: Those adults close to and in their 30s who are working professionals and who have the money to spend.

THIS GROUP is the one you should blame if you're going to "blame" anyone for the rise in the popularity of consoles. Them and Microsoft and the XBox to be more specific.

Playing games now is a hip, cool thing for Yuppies to do. It is not just reserved for gaming geeks and PC enthusiasts who need an IT degree in order to configure and tweak their systems to get some games just to run like in the "old" days (pre-XBox and console mainstream acceptance; just a few years ago [sarcasm]).

And it is these same ADULTS that want "simple" games like Halo -- Which is just Quake -- And simplified versions of Ghost Recon than the original PC version.

I am addressing this because there is a huge MISCONCEPTION about who consoles appeal to and who is responsible for the "dumbing down" of console games because A) As I said, it is mostly adults who are driving a lot of these design decisions that developers make (and you can't really use UBI, or RedStorm as the "model" of what is really going on in game development as a whole; you really can't), and B) I don't know where this attitude that just because someone owns a PC that they are somehow superior to someone who owns and or plays a console came from either. You didn't specifically exhibit this attitude, but it is evident with all the anti-console fervor I read on countless forums like this.

I think it is really sad that people's egos are so fragile that they are afraid that since consoles have gained mainstream popularity that this somehow threatens their virtual man/womman hood in some way to where they aren't "special" anymore. Please. As if playing a video game on one system makes you better than someone else???

My point is that consoles are here to stay...

BUT there will always be PC games (because PC tech drives console tech; always has, always will) AND as a PC gamer, you're just going to have to find who specializes in PC games and go to them.

The best analogy I can make is if you want to buy a Ferrari. You're not going to go to your local Dodge dealer and expect to get one because Dodge specializes in mass production, domestic automobiles. You're going to have to go to the import dealer who specializes in exotic cars and even Ferrari's.

And there are still "Ferrari" dealers out there. Take Two Interactive is one; they specifically designed SWAT 4 for the PC. Obsidian Entertainment is another. They are desinging Never Winter Nights II for the PC and PC first... And you just have to go and find them.

[WhiteKnight77]

Originally posted by KungFu_CIA:
Sightreader

The fact is the average console gamer is 25 (various statistics say 29+). That is far outside the "tween" market. Teens may buy more games, but guess who buys more consoles: Those adults close to and in their 30s who are working professionals and who have the money to spend.

THIS GROUP is the one you should blame if you're going to "blame" anyone for the rise in the popularity of consoles. Them and Microsoft and the XBox to be more specific.

Playing games now is a hip, cool thing for Yuppies to do. It is not just reserved for gaming geeks and PC enthusiasts who need an IT degree in order to configure and tweak their systems to get some games just to run like in the "old" days (pre-XBox and console mainstream acceptance; just a few years ago [sarcasm]).

And it is these same ADULTS that want "simple" games like Halo -- Which is just Quake -- And simplified versions of Ghost Recon than the original PC version.

I am addressing this because there is a huge MISCONCEPTION about who consoles appeal to and who is responsible for the "dumbing down" of console games because A) As I said, it is mostly adults who are driving a lot of these design decisions that developers make (and you can't really use UBI, or RedStorm as the "model" of what is really going on in game development as a whole; you really can't), and B) I don't know where this attitude that just because someone owns a PC that they are somehow superior to someone who owns and or plays a console came from either. You didn't specifically exhibit this attitude, but it is evident with all the anti-console fervor I read on countless forums like this.

I think it is really sad that people's egos are so fragile that they are afraid that since consoles have gained mainstream popularity that this somehow threatens their virtual man/womman hood in some way to where they aren't "special" anymore. Please. As if playing a video game on one system makes you better than someone else???

My point is that consoles are here to stay...

BUT there will always be PC games (because PC tech drives console tech; always has, always will) AND as a PC gamer, you're just going to have to find who specializes in PC games and go to them.

The best analogy I can make is if you want to buy a Ferrari. You're not going to go to your local Dodge dealer and expect to get one because Dodge specializes in mass production, domestic automobiles. You're going to have to go to the import dealer who specializes in exotic cars and even Ferrari's.

And there are still "Ferrari" dealers out there. Take Two Interactive is one; they specifically designed SWAT 4 for the PC. Obsidian Entertainment is another. They are desinging Never Winter Nights II for the PC and PC first... And you just have to go and find them.

What you fail to realize is that RSE was not the Dodge dealer, but the Ferrari dealer. RSE games started on the PC from the get go. It was Ubi who decided to make RSE games Dodges.

The funny thing is, I see many console gamers wanting exactly what we PC gamers want. While there are many who want "easy" games, there are many of us who want something challenging. If someone wants to play Halo (I know many of them are kids playing that and not just adults wanting "simple" games) let them keep playing Halo. The games I nor my friends and others prefer do not need to be dumbed down. I don't have an IT degree to build or repair PC's but because of one company, I know how. Their games are the ones I had wanted and no one elses. I along with many others had already found our Ferraris. Now they are being turned into Dodges.

If you don't want a Ferrari, go find your Dodge elsewhere.

[sightreader]

Originally posted by KungFu_CIA:
I don't know where this attitude that just because someone owns a PC that they are somehow superior to someone who owns and or plays a console came from either. You didn't specifically exhibit this attitude, but it is evident with all the anti-console fervor I read on countless forums like this.

I think it is really sad that people's egos are so fragile that they are afraid that since consoles have gained mainstream popularity that this somehow threatens their virtual man/womman hood in some way to where they aren't "special" anymore. Please. As if playing a video game on one system makes you better than someone else???


Hello there CIA!

I'm very sorry if my attempt to contrast console gamers to simulation gamers ended up treating the casual gamer as an inferior being. Certainly I have no right to criticize the action gamer: in these stressful times I am often more in mood for the crazy hopping and shooting of Call of Duty rather than the plodding deliberation of Ghost Recon. To me, the purpose of action games is EMOTIONAL escape, not INTELLECTUAL escape. Appreciating intellectual stimulation does require some level of education and maturity, but EVERYONE, mature or not, requires emotional release at some point. Since the need for emotional release is far more universal, I would conclude that action games have a much larger market. I don't think it's inappropriate to classify intellectual release as a more refined form of entertainment; however, it would be simply silly to conclude that this means the people THEMSELVES are somehow superior, especially when they are often one and the same player! If you don't like simulation games it doesn't make you mentally deficient: you may simply take intellectual pleasure from activities that do not require a video monitor.

A quick look at console hardware and the game titles available indicates that the market for console games consists mostly of action gamers. My conception that it is the "tweens" (or at the very least adolescents) who populate this space comes from news articles I've seen and the timber of chat I've experienced in action communities. I guess I have trouble picturing the guy trash talking about "skillz" and "ownage" being a married man in his 30's, which adds to my surprise that the average age of console gamers is actually 29. In contrast, a quick inspection of the PC reveals a relatively expensive machine designed not just for games but also for white collar productivity. I think it would be self-evident that people buying tools for intellectual production would also be likely to have intellectual entertainment needs.

No matter how flawed these sociological stereotypes may be, players requiring emotional release are simply looking for a different sort of experience than simulation freaks. Action games evoke a emotional response through flash and speed, not through meticulous detail. That doesn't mean action software can't have detail, nor does it mean that simulation software can't have flash and speed. It does mean that you must prioritize one or the other, and that often requires design changes at a very fundamental level. I even heard that GR3 was being implemented by a team out in Sweden somewhere, which would seem to support my hypothesis that the architecture of such software is vastly different. Thus, I continue to maintain that it was proper for the PC team to refocus effort on GR3: the PC community, although smaller, is likely to have a higher percentage of players seeking a sort of intellectual entertainment not provided by any other game.