PDA

View Full Version : What if the next GR was a console port only.



ColinCJ
11-29-2007, 05:18 AM
If this did happen and we did not get a dedicated pc version but a port.


BEFORE YOU ANSWER I WILL JUMP BIG TIME ON ANYONE WHO DISREGARDS THE FORUM RULES.


My thoughts:
This is the way a lot of Publishers are going, its a lot better for a number of reasons.

Or is it.

Production time is better spent.
Productions costs are a lot less.
Much better control or resources.

Most of us agree that the 360 version of graw had much more inside than the pc version especially now with the release of the old gr maps etc.

The 360 version had many more standard weapons maps game types than our version, but what about the game play, I cannot speak for the game play as I have not played it and dont use a console period.

But if a port had all my game types,maps,weapons and was capable of being a tac sim like ogr as well as a run and gun type game and also was ported well, then may be I would go for it.

I would however need a lot of convincing.

Vegas left a bad taste in my mouth to the extent that I put in the bin after about 3 hours of play.

If a console developer Ubisoft made this game and proved to me that it could play like old gr and have options within it to play all my game types yes I might go for it.


So what do you guys think.???

WhiteKnight77
11-29-2007, 07:19 AM
No, I would not buy it. Some of their recent games are console ports too and they suffer even more problems than a dedicated PC version and there is still the lack of major support for fixing any bugs that are found.

ColinCJ
11-29-2007, 07:45 AM
Re support seems your right just had a look at the tec pages, lots more than the pc version.

So the actual porting is still a major issue.

oorlogshond
11-29-2007, 08:36 AM
People need to see that the problems today among pc/console ports have nothing to do with the platform and everything with either/or publishers/developers. The problem is that people seem to think that there needs to be a different version for every platform.

Just look at the first Ghost Recon. Same game for all platforms made by the same people YET it was equally succesfull on all platforms.

Another good and more current example is COD4.

noquarter_m21
11-29-2007, 08:55 AM
If from the outset it was clear that whatever developer was involved, that 1.-the game was going to be based on small unit tactics (team/squad) and not some hero character; 2.-that it was open in terms of terrain, environment, and gameplay, and 3.-threw in a bit of simulated ballistics? I just might take the bait.
I don't have a clue what it takes to convert a program from one platform to another, but as long as some of the baggage that seems to be standard issue on consoles isn't carried over into the PC version, and it works, what does it matter where it came from.
However, based on recent history, I will not take Ubis' press (or the third-party previews, ie., IGN) as reliable...independent reviews would be needed.

Oliver_Reed
11-29-2007, 10:10 AM
I think this is a pretty dumb question (sorry Colin!) because it depends entirely on what the console game-play is like to start with - and not necessarily what the the conversion process would do to it.

For example, I thoroughly enjoyed Scarface (PC) - which was a console conversion. Okay, the menus etc were still pretty console-like, but the actual game-play was huge fun because it didn't need much more than console-like controls.

Some games may convert well (like Scarface - a non too taxing gangster sim) or not (Vegas - a wannabe tac-sim which, like you, I played about three or four hours of this).

I don't think you can generalise with a question like "What if the next GR was a console port only" - it could be good or it could be bad - we just don't have enough info.

Tinker1971
11-29-2007, 10:11 AM
NO

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

krise_madsen
11-29-2007, 10:59 AM
Since we can't predict the future, as far as GRAW1&2 is concerned, I believe a straight port from 360 to PC would have been the better solution.

Of course, Ubi hasn't exactly had the best track record with ports *cough*R6 Vegas*cough*.

But think about it: No more confusion about different versions with different features and different content. What you see on the website is what you get. What they say in interviews and press releases is what you get, regardless of platform.

Sure, the old GR1 vets would be rather miffed, but at least they would know what they got: An action shooter. (and for crying out loud Ubi, stop labeling your linear action games as "tactical" !!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif ).

And let's face it: GRAW1/2 on the 360 were pretty good, even though they're hardly the kind of game I really want.

That would still leave the GR1 vets without a good tactical game. But GR loyalty or not, it doesn't really have to be called Ghost Recon, as long as it's a good tactical game. Or you could call it Ghost Recon something-something-else to distinguish it from the GRAW action game.

So to answer Colin's question: Yes, I might go for a console port GRAW3 if it was a well-made action game.

Respectfully

krise madsen

cell.afz
11-29-2007, 11:10 AM
As long as the 3rd person perspective is not a consideration for PC. That IMO takes out any attempt at a realistic shooter....forget ever having this game be a legitimate ladder consideration. Albeit, GRAW2 for 360 is a decent game....but its only advantage or plus over the PC version is Content. Graphics are real nice as well, PC has way better sound & first person perspective. Also the "Lean feature". 3rd person cover system will all but kill GR as we know it or once did and loved for PC. KEEP ALL 3rd PERSON VIEWS OUT OF THE PC VERSION!!!!! Maybe an option for the SP players...but any adversarial 3rd person will just gheyify the MP play. SOCOM is subpar for that reason alone.

If a PC version is at all considered, there is a great thread on "What PC players would like to see in the next GR" somewhere on this board. If I was Ubi...to avoid another PC flop, I would really implement most of what is valued and desired from the GR community.

Revamp the gameplay style. If your looking to keep pumping out GR's year after Year.....Make Ghost Recon: 2008, then 6 months later, a full expansion pack for PC, & an add-on for consoles. 6 months later Ghost Recon 2008...and so on. But the greatest thing about an FPS should be the foundation. The gameplay. Content is huge. Official content can be sold and players will love it. Just keep adding to the original source.
When the base title becomes outdated...make the same loveable game and update it. Revamp all the bells and whistles (graphics, physics, sound) & keep the fundamental properties of the game in-tact. If at all possible, try and produce a new version where previous maps are playable in the new version, or always release maps for a previous version of the "Title" in a Map Pack form, either purchasable in-store as an expansion, downloadable purchases online, or as free-downloadable content.

Understand what this game is supposed to be about. Squad based tactical shooter. Lose the "Hero". It means nothing. No one could care less about Mitchell or any other of his buddies. I bet most GR players, including the consolers, would love to see a return to the roots. There are action shooters out there, make GR what it is supposed to be...& R6 while your at it as well. I want to love playing these titles again...I bet I'm not alone.

BSR_RuGGBuTT
11-29-2007, 11:35 AM
Wanna sell a whole bunch of copies of a tac shooter? Make the PC version like GR was. Make the console version like GR's console version was. You'll sell tons of copies and make everyone happy.

Take a look at the CoD series. Or Halo. They found their formula and they're sticking with it. UBI, you have the formula. Go back and analyze it then updated graphics and sound. And leave well enuf alone. If ya'll need any help UBI, I'm here for ya. I can lay out every reason that GR (and DS and IT) was a huge hit. My mom always told me to learn from my mistakes. Learn from your triumphs too.

Oliver_Reed
11-29-2007, 11:59 AM
Ooops- forgot my caveat.

No GRIN.

They've had two goes and have shown themselves to be usless.

We're not looking for a quick buck for UBI - but for a platform to build on.

And Grin have proved that they cannnot provide that with the technology they've offered.

ColinCJ
11-29-2007, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Oliver_Reed:
I think this is a pretty dumb question (sorry Colin!) because it depends entirely on what the console game-play is like to start with - and not necessarily what the the conversion process would do to it.

For example, I thoroughly enjoyed Scarface (PC) - which was a console conversion. Okay, the menus etc were still pretty console-like, but the actual game-play was huge fun because it didn't need much more than console-like controls.

Some games may convert well (like Scarface - a non too taxing gangster sim) or not (Vegas - a wannabe tac-sim which, like you, I played about three or four hours of this).

I don't think you can generalise with a question like "What if the next GR was a console port only" - it could be good or it could be bad - we just don't have enough info.

So what you are saying is it could be good and acceptable if it was done right development wise.

ColinCJ
11-29-2007, 01:01 PM
I think one question I am really trying to get out and an answer for is.

Can a console version with the right options be appreciated by the pc community.

Also is it technically possible with todays hardware.

krise_madsen
11-29-2007, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by ColinCJ:
I think one question I am really trying to get out and an answer for is.

Can a console version with the right options be appreciated by the pc community.

Also is it technically possible with todays hardware.

Technically? I think so, though I'm certainly no expert.

R6: Vegas, though not my flavor, was actually an OK game. With a bit of polishing it would have been a pretty good game.

A GRAW 3 would arguably be an action shooter and therefore not appreciated for its gameplay by tac-sim fans like me, but I don't see why it couldn't be a good game in its own right.

Respectfully

krise madsen

ColinCJ
11-29-2007, 01:33 PM
Oli in answer no not a dumb post more curious really, im not a console gamer and I have only played one console ported pc game.

I was kinda hopeing that some guys in here use both and give an objective view really.

I know the 360 Graw 1 version was good and had a lot of options but thats about it.

I am trying to gauge how acceptable this would really be.

But like you said it does depend on a few things.

Want2Snipe
11-29-2007, 03:26 PM
P.O.V. from a 100% SP gamer...

I played Ghost Recon on a console, that's how I actually get to know the game (it came with the Xbox), the console controls and I don't get alone very well so I just left the console for the kids.

I played Ghost Recon years later on the PC and didn't find it as attractive as when played on the Xbox but, I think it had more to do that graphics were not up to par with the newer games I was playing at the time.

Being said this, I also played one of the Rainbow six on the pc and didn't like the tactical aspect of it, thought that pre-planning a mission with 3 teams was just a hassle and since I wanted to be the one killing all of the tangos, it didn't bode well with me. At this time, all the shooters I was playing were run & gun.

I hated GRAW at the beginning because it was to slow (read walk speed of the main character) and because of the Supernatural enemy AI, aside from all the bugs and glitches. Once patch 1.35 came along and even though it didn't fix a lot of SP bugs, I liked it a lot and played it a couple of more times.

Vegas came along and I took the hype of it as much as anybody else, made myself a new rig, got the game and I was ready to conquer the world but got dessillusioned by the bad unoptimization of the port. Once some of the members got some tweaks out, I find myself enjoying this linear shooter more and more and thought to myself. I love the pace of the character, I love the cover system even if it is a bit Hollywood-esque because, hell, at the end of the day, if this helps you kill more tangos, who am I to dissagree with it? UBI had something magical in their hands but they are/were to greedy to see it. A few good patches and a few more maps for the SP crowd and they would have made millions more on the sequel or expansion pack. Not that they won't but it is not going to be that easy, to many disgruntled people already.

so, in summation... Yes, I would probably buy the game!

Note: With UBI's bad rep and history of everything that has to do with porting from console... I won't open my wallet to let a penny drop if it will go to any of them blood suckers! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BSR_RuGGBuTT
11-29-2007, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by ColinCJ:
Can a console version with the right options be appreciated by the pc community.
I doubt it. Having played tons of console games (and GR2 for Xbox) I don't much appreciate what has become console-type gameplay. Like I said in my post above, wanna sell tons of games regardless of what platform? Model this new game on GR for it's corresponding platform. It's a proven winner.

Alex_HS
11-30-2007, 03:41 AM
Not a chance, no http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif.

Forrester1975
11-30-2007, 05:09 AM
I haven't read all that's been written. But my comment on the first post.
A console port can be good or bad it depends on how much effort is put in the extra's for the pc version. (where comes the split between the two)
judging on the current graw versions, a complete port I wouldn't buy, 3rd person vieuw built in aimbots arcade gamestyle, nah thanks.
If however the game turns away like graw did( full keyboard support, first person vieuw and better graphics) I would buy the game with the hope that ubi supports it equal to the console counterparts....
I really doubt however that I will buy a UBI product ever again... seen the way they treat us pc gamers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Alex_HS
11-30-2007, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Forrester1975:
I really doubt however that I will buy a UBI product ever again... seen the way they treat us pc gamers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

SHIV sounds good, im thinking of buying it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

unpredictabl3
11-30-2007, 06:35 PM
ColinCJ said:
Most of us agree that the 360 version of graw had much more inside than the pc version especially now with the release of the old gr maps etc.

The 360 version had many more standard weapons maps game types than our version, but what about the game play, I cannot speak for the game play as I have not played it and dont use a console period.
---------------------------
There is no doubt that Microsoft is trying to corner the market for consoles, and by doing so it's hurting the PC market at all costs.

I took this little portion of your post Collin because the mentioning of xbox 360 is all that I needed. However, everything that people want on PC version of Graw is actually on the xbox360. Putting all politics aside on how gaming industry is done, there is no doubt that owning the xbox360 you will get all that you want, maps expansion packs and demos. All for about 400 bucks to get up and running(roughly). And of course Microsoft points to buy things online.(map packs, gamertags and so on are not free you know.)

I spent 450 bucks just on ram for my system http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gifUpgraded my vid card to play Crysis(2900 pro overclocked way beyond xt speeds), and to have games that are ported over to pc just stutter, crash, look like poo graphical wize and my anwser to your question would be NO.

Let's put this into perspective on the xbox 360. It has 512 ddr3 ram 700mhz ddr, ATI 1800gto chip 10mb embedded memory<--(wow stop the press), custom IBM 3 core cpu @3.2Ghz 1mb L2 cache. My system and many others in this forum make this thing look like a turtle in a quarter mile race. These games that Ubi are pumping out should run top notch on peoples systems without video lag, stutter, and video tear. These games that are ported should be not allowed, for we the pc gamer should make a standard on what to expect for a pc game.

Sorry for the rant but when one of my favorite series(Rainbow6) looks like absolute **** on my pc(which btw my card supports 1080iHD) and looks amazing on 2 year old tech(xbox360) there is something wrong.

Say <span class="ev_code_RED">NO</span> to unsupported ports.

ColinCJ
12-01-2007, 06:10 AM
Yes this is one area that is a problem.

Hardware:
The 360 is already outclassed as a gameing platform in the Hardware.

Also to date we have seen very poor ports from console to PC.

The other thing is the console is I think a once every 2 to 5 year product of hardware yes?
which means a PC will nearly always out class it.

The other area which is foremost is profit and I know this drives games into a certain area.

I dont know how many of us there are that enjoy a good tactical game, I like both I love to play CTF and then I would be really happy to do an Alpha mission over a few hours.

I am a minority player, games now days are not made for my type of play or enjoyment.

Will it be my only option to waite on a console ported game, that has my game types in it.?

I think maybe yes, we/I did ok to get Ubisoft to make the Graw series not what we really wanted and definatly lacking but we got something unlike Vegas players.

As PC players I really think our options are getting limited and very narrow as time goes by.

PC development is slowly takeing a back seat, Microsoft has got a new OS with major problems in DX10 and Vista 90% of reported bugs in new games are Vista related, Drivers are takeing forever to become optimized, xp as a gameing platform is still really the only option.

What happens when the day comes when its only DX10 games.

I think the odds are just stacked against us.

The question I started is very difficult to answer I think it bassically depends on many things, a lot of which are out of our hands.

Final thought from me any way, Ubisoft should try and cater for all gamers, this HUB statement does say a lot, Im sorry its very long, but just read some of the statements within it.


.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..........................................

"We are sure you expected this page to have the usual marketing speech, along with an historical (and boring) review of the Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon brand. But you were wrong.

This site is dedicated to those who made the Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon brand, the different development teams that worked on it (Ubisoft's Red Storm, Paris and Shanghai studios), and to those who play Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon titles - you!

So let's start off with the presentation of our beloved Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon brand in the eyes of its creators:

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon by those who make it.

"To all those who live the real deal, Ghost Recon is a tribute to military professionals worldwide. Enjoy!" Steve Reid, Managing Director, Red Storm Entertainment, Inc.


"I started playing Ghost Recon the day it came out. Along with Rogue Spear, it is one of my favorite games of all time. It has been a real privilege to work on the sequel." Christian Allen, GR2 XBOX Designer


"The amount of work the teams put into each Ghost Recon game is astounding... when the fans comment on how much they enjoy them, it's very rewarding." Eric Terry, GR2 XBOX Lead Artist


"We hear how much real soldiers enjoy the previous GR titles all the time. Having our GR2 military consultants tell us the game is looking great is one of the best parts of this job!" Travis Getz, Authenticity Coordinator


"When I first experienced consoles online play with Xbox live, Ghost Recon was the game which caught my imagination. For me this was the dawn of the next mass market gaming experience and whilst playing the game my mind opened up to the tremendous opportunities and challenges that lay before me. Why Ghost Recon, well perhaps it brought back the feeling of when I used to goof about in the woods a child growing up, but whatever it was this was the game (along with the follow up Island Thunder) which would come to occupy more of my time than any other game of this hardware generation. So when Ubisoft invited me to be Creative Director for Online Ghost Recon 2 for PlayStation 2 my only question was when can I start?

What makes Ghost Recon unique in military shooters is its rhythm. In Ghost Recon you need to take your time, to blend into the environment and use it as your cover. The damage system is so brutally realistic that one hit is often fatal. When you find yourself in a squad of like minded players - the experience is escalated to the next level. And there is nothing more satisfying than a head shot to some cocky kid who's stuck in Rambo style 90's hero gameplay." Joe Booth, Creative Director, Ghost Recon 2 PlayStation 2 Online


"The Ghost Recon series is something I am really proud to have worked on." Robbie Edwards, Producer, GR1 Xbox and GR2 Xbox


"When Ghost Recon came out for XBOX, I was at the store with 7 of my friends lining up at the cash register with GR and an XBOX Live kit in hand. We spent the next 6 months making sure every penny we spent was worth it.

Crouching in a swamp, I'm taking point, clearing the way from our hostage to home base. Suddenly, I hear my teammates yelling about an ambush over their headsets, being cut off one by one as the enemy circled us and took the rear. I was alone in a cold, unforgiving swamp. And I was hooked on Ghost Recon.

You're lying in the bushes, an enemy soldier lined up perfectly in your sights... And you know that as soon as you press that trigger, all hell is gonna break loose. That fraction of an instant, when the slow pace of hunting is about to turn into the chaos of war, is what Ghost Recon is all about.

It's always difficult to return to a traditional FPS after playing Ghost Recon. You have to keep telling yourself, 'Yes, I know, it's unrealistic to rush at the enemy, get shot up, get back to perfect health with a medkit and do it all again.

I played Ghost Recon so much it's ridiculous. I unlocked everything there ever was to unlock, and then invented ludicrous challenges to keep on playing. I remember going through Embassy with the goal of taking out 30 enemies with 20 shots: the trick was to line up enemies and shoot them with a high-powered rifle. That's how bad I was." Daniel Roy, Producer, Ghost Recon 2 PlayStation 2


"Multiplayer in the Ghost Recon series flat out rules. One great aspect is getting your friends together after a match and recalling all the cool, hilarious, and tragic moments that happened while playing." Mike Cosner, Cinematic Lead, Ghost Recon 2


"GR2: Turn it UP!" Jeff Wesesvich, Audio Lead, Ghost Recon 1 PC and Xbox GRIT PC and Xbox Ghost Recon 2


"I really enjoy playing co-op missions online. I can depend on my friends to back me up." Heather Chandler, Producer, Ghost Recon Island Thunder and Ghost Recon 2


"GR2's immersive graphical style combined with intuitive tactical commands has kept me glued to my Xbox.......this game is a victory for FPS fans everywhere!" Darren Chukitus, Producer, GR1 PC and GR2 PC
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon by those who didn't make it.

"I just love Ghost Recon. Playing the Ghosts gives a completely different gaming experience from other Clancy games. Walking in a open field, knowing that I can be a potential target, trying to cover all my angles, breathing heavily, hiding in a bush, ordering my team to take cover as well...and suddenly bullets starts whizzing by my head....I press the prone key rapidly, and stop breathing for a while trying to see from where I am being shot at, while hearing bullets still hitting wildly all around me....I am telling you.. this is the most heart pounding experience you will ever live." Chadi Lebbos, Producer, Rainbow Six 3 Xbox


Ghost Recon is such a great game! Many other games tried to imitate the war feeling GR provides, but there is no equivalent. I love the tension and feelings provided by anticipation. To me, anticipation of stress in a game is often even more exciting than the action itself, and GR as it all. It is the best tactical shooter that provides me such feelings, before action, during action and even after... Mathieu Ferland, Producer, Splinter Cell


I like Ghost Recon and Clancy games generally speaking because they make me sweat, I really feel I am there, fighting with a team, taking time to assess the situation, sending my men to control a situation. A GR games can be very different because it is slow, tensed, because the mistakes you are making have deep consequences, you loose a team member. This game calls my brains more than my guts because I have to make tactic decisions, balance action and observation." Julien Bares, Producer, XIII
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon by those who play it: YOU

Naturally we will feed you the most up-to-date information and the latest screens and videos, and help facilitate dialogue with the development team via chat sessions and Q&A's, etc.

But in the end, this site will be what you make of it - your contributions to forums, galleries, polls etc. We hope that you, the Ghost Recon fans, will feel at home.

So, without further adieu, welcome home and enjoy!
The Ghost Recon.com team

BulletTooth
Ubi_Razz
Ubi_Marc
Darkam
tenny70
and Ryosan"
.................................................. .................................................. ............................................

Please dont forget the roots.

Want2Snipe
12-01-2007, 09:46 AM
This is why I am at awe that many people want to spend 3 to 6 grand building high end rigs when it is so transparent and clear that PC gaming is really a dying breed.

Heck, even Crysis is not as optimized as the hyped we got with the videos and stuff, I read forums where people with Quad Cores and dual 8800GTX are lucky if they see 25 to 30 fps's when playing max out.

Now, is this really a crytek issue, a DX10 issue? a Microsoft Vista Issue? who the heck cares, to me... IT IS A REAL ISSUE PERIOD!!!

What is the answer? It will never work and this is why we keep seeing it everyday... STOP BUYING THEIR "USED UP WIPES" as soon as they are available and you'll see how quick they will feel it in their pockets and change their ways.

See! I told you it wouldn't work... I already see most of you afraid of what will happen if they stop making shoddy pc games, or shoddy but otherwise expensive graphic card, etc, etc, would you be able to survive it? what are you going to do if they stop all together, does the worl continue to move around the sun as it has for millions of years? YES YOU FOOLS!!!!

Have a nice weekend! Rant is over... my medications have finally arrived http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

FI_FlimFlam
12-01-2007, 10:58 AM
Colin you last post clearly points to something in priorities at UBI regarding the platforms. It's clear which is the driving platform and where all the money and investment is. The consoles - specifically the XBOX at the time of GR2 and now the XBOX360.

Or at least that is what I got from the quotes you posted.

From what has occured of the last couple of years I feel confident that this trend is currently UBI's SOP regarding development. After a game is developed for the Xbox platform, all the other platforms are derived from this for the most part. Of the platforms currently, they chose to develop for the platform with the largest sales potential and ease of development. Then they port to the others if they feel its financially viable. PS3 does not have the install base and is much more difficult to develop for. The PC is supposed to be an "easy" port but it's clear with R6:Vegas (for example) it's not for whatever reason.

GRAW1 and 2 were exceptions, and suffered from lack of budget, time and poor decisions from the producer and project lead. UBI provided enough to make a functioning Single Player game but it was very lacking in the MP environment. Infact, for all intents and purposes it appeared that UBI waited to see what sales were before greenlighting the multiplayer patch 1.35.

Then GRAW2 came out and again it seems like MP wasn't funded well enough. lack of maps, missing features from the previous version. Now look how long it has taken for the patch arrive. Just now people are seeing "test" server for the patch in the server browser.

I guess it really just shows how little priority UBI places on the PC platform. If the next GR was a port, nothing will change. It will still be a buggy incomplete game with console specific features disabled and (hopefully) PC features like a barely functional dedicated server just sloppily tacked on - and no editor ala R6:vegas. Let's not forget optimization for performance for the PC platform as well which probably won't happen either. Until UBI decides to make the PC a priority enough to support it financially with complete functional PC specific features and optimization, it will never be successful for the platform. All it will do is continue to erode the consumer faith in the Ghost Recon franchise. All one has to do is goto the Vegas forums and see what they've done with Rainbow. Heck here as well.

I just cannot see how UBI can pull it off with their current practices. Vegas is the latest example of a direct port and it hasn't fared well by most of the community's postings. If they do the same with GR, you will get the same thing as Vegas. A functional SP game (whether you like the gameplay or not) albiet with terrible performance and a still-born MP game.

rogerwilco99
12-01-2007, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Want2Snipe:
Heck, even Crysis is not as optimized as the hyped we got with the videos and stuff, I read forums where people with Quad Cores and dual 8800GTX are lucky if they see 25 to 30 fps's when playing max out.


Hmmm. I don't know, Snipe. I have a single 8800GTX (768MB), a 2.4ghz Core 2 Duo and 3GB of RAM. I get between 35 and 50 FPS with all the settings on high on Crysis. Sounds to me like there's something wrong with they way they have their systems configured or they have everything set to the absolute highest setting (can't remember what that's called). It set my system to use "high" on everything when I let it set it.

Given the sheer volume of what's being rendered I think the engine works very well.

Slightly OT part ends.

If the port is a _straight_ port which does not take into account the different way PC players control their machines (i.e. mouse and keyboard) instead of using "thumbsticks" to select everything then I absolutely would not buy it.

I also would not buy it if it's more of the same linear "run 'n gun" stuff.

I also would not buy it without a fully playable single player demo.

And given UBISoft's rather abysmal support record for PC games, I probably wouldn't buy it until it had been out for several months anyway just to see if they are going to support it (fool me once...).

unpredictabl3
12-01-2007, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Want2Snipe:
This is why I am at awe that many people want to spend 3 to 6 grand building high end rigs when it is so transparent and clear that PC gaming is really a dying breed.

Heck, even Crysis is not as optimized as the hyped we got with the videos and stuff, I read forums where people with Quad Cores and dual 8800GTX are lucky if they see 25 to 30 fps's when playing max out.

Now, is this really a crytek issue, a DX10 issue? a Microsoft Vista Issue? who the heck cares, to me... IT IS A REAL ISSUE PERIOD!!!

What is the answer? It will never work and this is why we keep seeing it everyday... STOP BUYING THEIR "USED UP WIPES" as soon as they are available and you'll see how quick they will feel it in their pockets and change their ways.

See! I told you it wouldn't work... I already see most of you afraid of what will happen if they stop making shoddy pc games, or shoddy but otherwise expensive graphic card, etc, etc, would you be able to survive it? what are you going to do if they stop all together, does the worl continue to move around the sun as it has for millions of years? YES YOU FOOLS!!!!

Have a nice weekend! Rant is over... my medications have finally arrived http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Cry-engine2 once again will set the stardard for pc gaming. It's a beautiful engine(BTW i own crysis and its visuals are astounding).

Whats wrong is that(if i remember right) you own a 7800gt(x)? Its what Nvidia's 7 series starter just likes ati's 1800gto. They are alittle weak for this game at 1024x768 with everything set to medium. Someone has to set stardards for next gen gaming and you will definitely see Crysis set for benchmarking.

A little off topic here but i think snipe that i read in the Vegas forums someone is offering you a 8800gt for one of your vid cards and 150 bucks. you should take it, it would be a nice upgrade for about half price and you still have a 7800 to sell on ebay or somewhere locally. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Just say no to ports. Crysis, cod4, Bioshock(unreal3 engine) works flawlessly. True PC games.

Want2Snipe
12-01-2007, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by rogerwilco99:
Hmmm. I don't know, Snipe. I have a single 8800GTX (768MB), a 2.4ghz Core 2 Duo and 3GB of RAM. I get between 35 and 50 FPS with all the settings on high on Crysis. Sounds to me like there's something wrong with they way they have their systems configured or they have everything set to the absolute highest setting (can't remember what that's called). It set my system to use "high" on everything when I let it set it.

Given the sheer volume of what's being rendered I think the engine works very well.

I hear what you are saying and I happen to aggre with you up to a point, I guess what these nuts with the high end rigs are ticked off at is the fact that it was hyped that you would be able to max it all out with rigs of those calibers and it is not happening. I also read that a patch to help, alliviate or fix those issues is coming out soon... only time will tell how true EA is to their word compared to UBI's word (or lack there off!).



Originally posted by unpredictabl3:
Cry-engine2 once again will set the stardard for pc gaming. It's a beautiful engine(BTW i own crysis and its visuals are astounding).

Whats wrong is that(if i remember right) you own a 7800gt(x)? Its what Nvidia's 7 series starter just likes ati's 1800gto. They are alittle weak for this game at 1024x768 with everything set to medium. Someone has to set stardards for next gen gaming and you will definitely see Crysis set for benchmarking.

<span class="ev_code_RED">I am sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say but yes, I own 2 BFG 7800 GTX O/C cards.</span>

A little off topic here but i think snipe that i read in the Vegas forums someone is offering you a 8800gt for one of your vid cards and 150 bucks. you should take it, it would be a nice upgrade for about half price and you still have a 7800 to sell on ebay or somewhere locally. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<span class="ev_code_RED">Yes, I am tempted to do so but I just can't seem to let go of the fact that those cards are way overpriced at the moment. Nvidia's MSRP was from 210 to 250 or something like that and they are selling them for 299 to 330 at the moment. If that's the case, that means that I am paying way to much for it or he's only giving me 50 to 60 bucks for my card. Also, I am in no hurry to upgrade to a DX10 card as I am not installing Vista anytime soon so I won't be able to take advantage of the greatness of both DX10 & Vista!</span> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Just say no to ports. Crysis, cod4, Bioshock(unreal3 engine) works flawlessly. True PC games.

Again, Knowing UBI's history with bad games as of late, it will be hard to believe that they want to change, give good customer service, good tech support and come out with a good game for all of us. Only time will tell but I am just to skepticall and prefer to eat my words than give them the benefit of the doubt.

unpredictabl3
12-01-2007, 06:47 PM
ColinCJ

As PC players I really think our options are getting limited and very narrow as time goes by.

PC development is slowly takeing a back seat, Microsoft has got a new OS with major problems in DX10 and Vista 90% of reported bugs in new games are Vista related, Drivers are takeing forever to become optimized, xp as a gameing platform is still really the only option.

What happens when the day comes when its only DX10 games.

I think the odds are just stacked against us.

For directx 10 really the time line for the last gen cards(Nvidia 7series and ATI x1x00series) will be around for quite sometime.

This is how i Know. Life line for an xbox console is 5 years(been through this with the first line of xboxes). Developers will be aiming for that market hence you will not need for better equipment till the next gen xbox is out.

Devs are slowly implementing directx 10 in games but it will not be the norm for quite some time...this time its different. directx 10 just got re-leased and there is a directx 10.1 now?XP getting a sp3 soon(first quarter of 2008 that will improve over all performance on xp machines by 5% http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif ) and to boot will be supported right up to the release of Windows7? WOW!

Devs will be on a suicide run to make a Vista directx10 only game. This WILL NOT be the norm for a couple more years(untill the next gen xbox comes out. Enjoy your hardware for a couple more years unless you like <span class="ev_code_RED">the lastest and greatest</span> thats out there.

Thanks to Microsoft and poor sales for Vista, you can play games at full setting maxed out. Remember when directx 7,8 and 9 came out and you bought a game and could barely play it? Things have changed, and for the better. Its just that UBI won't cater to PC market and they have proven themselfs for over the last year and a half.

There is a PC market out there(WOW,Vangaurd,Cod4 etc etc) Some campany out there will cater to the FPS games that will qench our thirst but it will not be Ubi untill they change there ways.

unpredictabl3
12-01-2007, 06:58 PM
Snipe:

Yes, I am tempted to do so but I just can't seem to let go of the fact that those cards are way overpriced at the moment. Nvidia's MSRP was from 210 to 250 or something like that and they are selling them for 299 to 330 at the moment.

Hmm i didnt know what the 7800gtx's were going for so much. Sell them for top dollar then on ebay and buy a 8800gt then. There is no comparison. The 8800gt will eat both of those cards up for breakfast. Up to you Snipe. Upgrade for vitually no money http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. It can't get any better than that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Want2Snipe
12-01-2007, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by unpredictabl3:
Snipe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes, I am tempted to do so but I just can't seem to let go of the fact that those cards are way overpriced at the moment. Nvidia's MSRP was from 210 to 250 or something like that and they are selling them for 299 to 330 at the moment.

Hmm i didnt know what the 7800gtx's were going for so much. Sell them for top dollar then on ebay and buy a 8800gt then. There is no comparison. The 8800gt will eat both of those cards up for breakfast. Up to you Snipe. Upgrade for vitually no money http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. It can't get any better than that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hear you, I absolutely hear you and the tempation is THERE!!! but, I am done with CoD 4 and almost done with Crysis so, really, there is nothing I want to play at the moment that would make me want to get it right now (even though the price is cheap for me with the trade!). Gears of Wars is not my cup of tea with that 3rd person view, GRAW & GRAW 2 are gathering dusts as there is no more SP maps I can play with the campaign, Vegas is totally dead... what else is there or in the horizon?

Mysticaly
12-02-2007, 06:38 AM
It's fully possible to make games that are visually buitiful that you don't need Quad core or whatever expensive hardware to run.
Look at CoD4, I have P4 3.40MHz, ATI x1950 256MB, and rarely get below 90 FPS on default. CoD4 is not as visually superior as Crysis (no game is) but it's by far good enough for Joe Doe. Another good example is TimeShift, I can with my hardware max it out, even with 16x af and still have 75 fps, and the game looks far better than i.e. Rainbow Six vegas.

The idea that any new game needs to top off crysis, or that they need to be using a top tweaked Unreal III engine is bogus, anyone claiming this is a hw freak that doesn't care one bit about gameplay which the majority of us actually do!

Now on topic again, console ports do not need to be a bad thing, it's simply a question if the port would be properly adapted for PC.
Will the controls be adapted ?
will the graphics options be adapted ?
will the gameplay be adapted ?
will the netcode be adapted ?
Will it be first person ?
will the server browser be adapted ?
will server options be adapted ? (i.e. text bases ded server or even sads)
Will spawn and AI be adapted for PC (as i.e. not the bs spawn points as in R6V) ?

If all of the above questions will be answered positively then I can't see why the next GR can not be a console port

Want2Snipe
12-02-2007, 11:24 AM
There in lies the problem Mystically, with UBI's proven history and track record, all of those question will have to be answered with a resounding... NO!

+ 100 on Timeshift & CoD4 NOT requiring a 10K rig to make it enjoyable to play with cool graphics to boot!!! I'm starting to think that there are kids out there who build this rigs just for Show and snoobing others as to what they can get with what games but they don't even play those games!

FI_FlimFlam
12-02-2007, 01:00 PM
Off Topic:

W2Snipe, It's a game to them. They are the same ones that wave around their 3dmark and other benchmark scores. It's bragging rights just like any other "game" except the name of the game is hardware.

I also think it's folly to equate PC hardware with the console hardware at this point. The hardware is so specialized that it's not the same and it's not utilized the same. Saying your quad core is more powerful than the XBOX 360's cores isn't exactly correct. The XBOX360's hardware is designed to do 1 thing and do it pretty well. The hardware, OS, memory, on the thing and the coding for it are optimized for that design. The PC is a 'catch-all' design.

I'm not an expert, but it's like saying in the quarter mile, a Harley Davidson motorcycle with a bigger (larger cc) engine is going to out perform a drag bike with a highly tuned engine, tansmission, racing slicks, etc. It just isn't going to happen.

Not the best analogy but it kind of works and I think you get my meaning.

What I do see happening in the next 6-7 years, is a complete re-thinking of the hardware platform of the PC. Look at how NVIDIA is leading the way with their cards and how their extremely fast architecture is being leveraged for computational processing saving millions of dollars (in some cases) from rental time of or purchasing supercomputers. This is a complete shift from processing occurring on the CPU to a faster hardware set that can do it. No currently available processor can even come close to the speed or through put of those processing units on those cards. It's specialized hardware that can be leveraged for just that type of processing. Similar to what the PS3 and Xbox360 are now more specialized than generic like PC's are.

Now imagine a PC without a CPU but many replaceable dedicated processing units. Say good bye to graphics cards. Need to increase your performance just drop another processing unit to increase the parallel processing power. Of course the OS will have to change dramatically. Question is, will MS lead it or hinder it.

Brettzies
12-02-2007, 01:16 PM
What if the next GR was a console port only?

Depends on what the next GR is. If it continues the 3rd person/cover type system, you'll have a lot of pissed off people. If it goes the way of R6:Vegas or PC/Graw2, it might be ok. The problem really isn't the platform at all, it's the way the core game design has diverged from GR1 to the present incarnation.

Having seperate game designs for seperate platforms is good and bad. Good in that you give the PC community a "taste" of what they want, bad in that the major devolpment dollars goto the console version and hence, more features, maps, support, etc.

The best situtaion would be to have a completely seperate game in theme and scope for the PC. Have nothing to do with the console version. But that's not gonna happen. More then likely Graw3 appears with or without a PC-style version. At the very least though, I think they need to finish off with the same system they've been using, then maybe consider consolidating.

unpredictabl3
12-02-2007, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by FI_FlimFlam:
Off Topic:

W2Snipe, It's a game to them. They are the same ones that wave around their 3dmark and other benchmark scores. It's bragging rights just like any other "game" except the name of the game is hardware.

I also think it's folly to equate PC hardware with the console hardware at this point. The hardware is so specialized that it's not the same and it's not utilized the same. Saying your quad core is more powerful than the XBOX 360's cores isn't exactly correct. The XBOX360's hardware is designed to do 1 thing and do it pretty well. The hardware, OS, memory, on the thing and the coding for it are optimized for that design. The PC is a 'catch-all' design.

I'm not an expert, but it's like saying in the quarter mile, a Harley Davidson motorcycle with a bigger (larger cc) engine is going to out perform a drag bike with a highly tuned engine, tansmission, racing slicks, etc. It just isn't going to happen.

Not the best analogy but it kind of works and I think you get my meaning.

What I do see happening in the next 6-7 years, is a complete re-thinking of the hardware platform of the PC. Look at how NVIDIA is leading the way with their cards and how their extremely fast architecture is being leveraged for computational processing saving millions of dollars (in some cases) from rental time of or purchasing supercomputers. This is a complete shift from processing occurring on the CPU to a faster hardware set that can do it. No currently available processor can even come close to the speed or through put of those processing units on those cards. Now imagine a PC without a CPU but many replaceable dedicated processing units. Say good bye to graphics cards. Need to increase your performance just drop another processing unit to increase the parallel processing power. Of course the OS will have to change dramatically. Question is, will MS lead it or hinder it.

It's specialized hardware that can be leveraged for just that type of processing. Similar to what the PS3 and Xbox360 are now more specialized than generic like PC's are.
I agree to somewhat there FL_FLIMFlam but thats the whole idea. Porting a game over from a system that is designed to do one thing is folly all by itself. Thats why we have opengl,al and direct draw so that games can run on different hardware. But porting is just simply bad.

i agree with mystically too. I imagine alot of the porting can be fixed with patches but this is about graw and UBI. They just simply take way to much time to release patches. From what i have seen and ports in a multiplayer are just plain right horrible. Bad, not optimized to utilize the hardware. Single player for Graw? will run like a champ. But be riddled with problems when online cause it was designed for another platform period.

Design graw with unrealengine for pc. Seems like unreal is quite popular. I've read somewheres that 110 titles are going to utilize this engine.WOW.

FI_FlimFlam
12-02-2007, 01:24 PM
Oh I agree with you and mystically. I think we're all basically saying the same things.

It boils down to will the people funding and making the decisions do enough and make the right decisions to have it work on the PC. By work I mean not just simply run on the PC but "fit" the PC platform as that it's fundamentally different from consoles -and I'm not speaking of hardware.

Right now UBI either doesn't realize it, or they do but just aren't willing to invest in the port enough to do the job right. R6:Vegas is a shinning example of either one of the above reasons.

GrimlockCW
12-02-2007, 05:01 PM
I'm not buying Ubi lately either way unless i see some seriously good feedback from the players and NOT the reviews.

i do agree the 360 ones had better stuff, and if they had put some game filters that'd show FPV from TPV servers thats all that coulda made it better.

out of the majority of ports though, the only ones i've really liked are (bum bum bum) Halo, Halo 2, and Gears of War.

they suffer some serious drawbacks having been ports, including high system reqs for little in return, or GoW's lack of dedicated servers.
but all in all they are outstanding ports, with great options for the PC versions.

but if Ubi pumps out crud like R6V's port, then i won't touch it with a 50 foot pole.

i think the biggest drawback to port games right now is the fact companies want to make the new "cross compatible" thing happen, but it can't be done and still give PC gamers the edge they deserve on GFX and gameplay.

there are others that were developed side by side with the console ones and still held high standards for the PC version though, such as Oblivion.
and Bethesda has horrible support IMHO and leaves most bugs for the players to fix.
but Oblivion still can stand on its own nicely.

i'm not saying i'd like port games nore do i like them most of the time as i'm very cautious of them.
but i will say SOME are of decent quality.
the older Splinter Cells were great IMHO right thru Chaos Theory i hadn't hardly an issue to mention.
but anything post that age has gone to h*** fast with Ubi.

so i kinda stand on a thin line when it comes to ported games personaly.
if they're gonna do it though, then for whateverdeityyoubelievein's sake, don't do another Rainblow six vegas port!

ColinCJ
12-10-2007, 03:16 AM
There is some news on a new developer and game engine for the next game ie back door gossip.

If its ported it will definatley need a new engine for sure.

A new developer thats a big change if its not RSE or Ubi.

RSE would be really the only choice, they did a great job on the MP part of Graw.

May be the sp and mp is being done by the same dev team, which is good news for many reasons.

Im still not convinced on a port though, and I dont think I will be any way until I see it first hand, without all the hype.

Syrfer
12-10-2007, 08:27 AM
I don't think it really matters where the code originates from. However, if you sell a product on a particular platform, it had better work on that platform. Or you had better be prepared to stick around and support it.

But even games that are developed strictly for the PC need support. If there's little to no support then you're still going to end up with a lot of irritated customers.

Personally, as a member of the PC community I feel UBISOFT's attitude toward the PC market is half hearted and I'm going to need to see some hard evidence to the contrary before I participate in anymore of their games.

EDIT: I just want to agree with something GrimLock said. If porting games means rediculously high system specs for no good reason, as was the case with R6V, then that's just asking for headaches and I don't see the point.

gundam2009
12-12-2007, 10:04 PM
So i'm curious if MS is pushing hard the XBOX platform that they're also yanking the chain on direct X whenever the want or just simply not updating and fixing it as aggressively as they used to so giving the xbox an advantage to developers.

It does seem to me like developers are fairly locked into what platform they use: go DirectX or go XBOX - either choice and you're dealing with MS. If you've developed all of your game engines and tools to make games for DirectX and steadily microsolf slows down their efforts there for whatever reason they can make up ... wouldn't you be sorta stuck? It isn't like DirectX is open source so the developers can take it over and move it beyond where MS leaves off?

Either way - your comments have made my decision to not buy the PC version. I have the xbox version already - i just don't like it's 1st person view their as much as the one on PC.

baff6
12-13-2007, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by ColinCJ:
I think one question I am really trying to get out and an answer for is.

Can a console version with the right options be appreciated by the pc community.

Also is it technically possible with todays hardware.

Dark Messiah Of Might and Magic, a Console game ported to all platforms was without doubt the finest RPG title on the market last year.

Let's face it the Unreal engine works great on all platforms.

But like Rugbutt says, it depends on the game format. Console FPS games, aren't what I am looking for. I don't want ot play COD4 or Gears of War.
Rainbow Six Vegas came close, but never really escaped it's consolitus. The interface, the substandard GFX.
A brilliant console adaptation of the R6 series, but a gimp of a PC game.

Do you remember the original Rainbow Six on the Playstation?
Totally true to the PC game, and yet totally ****. The interface doesn't lend itself to that sort of gameplay. Imprecise controllers, low frame rate GFX. Unplayable.


What if the next GR is a console port only?
So what?

R6 Vegas was a console port only and it's a damn site more enjoyable a game than either GRAW or GRAW 2 have been.

I'm not a big fan of console ports.
But I'm not likely to buy any more versions of Ghost Recon anyway.
If they can make a fast buck converting a popular console game for a few extra sales on PC they should.

krise_madsen
12-14-2007, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by baff6:
Dark Messiah Of Might and Magic, a Console game ported to all platforms was without doubt the finest RPG title on the market last year.


OT, but...

Erm, Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion? Which, BTW, was a real RPG. As opposed to Dark Messiah which was really a linear FPS with an awful lot of melee combat (but quite good for what it was).


Originally posted by baff6:
Rainbow Six Vegas came close, but never really escaped it's consolitus. The interface, the substandard GFX.

A brilliant console adaptation of the R6 series, but a gimp of a PC game.


What if the next GR is a console port only?
So what?

R6 Vegas was a console port only and it's a damn site more enjoyable a game than either GRAW or GRAW 2 have been.


Yes, more or less. Had it been ported properly, bug fixed and whatnot, Vegas would have been a good PC game in its own right. Not to my liking (pre-Raven Shield R6 SP for me), but a good game nonetheless. If Ubisoft isn't going to bring back the virtures of OGR, I don't see much point in a dedicated PC version. Just do a better job of porting it than with Vegas, please.

And it would really improve on Ubisofts somewhat marred PR reputation if they come clean for once: "We're going with the action style game of the console version from now on. No more slow-tactical GR for the PC". Not exactly what I want to hear, but hey, at least we'd know what we're dealing with.

Personally, I'm looking elsewhere for my tactical FPS fix from now on.

EDIT: I tried GRAW2 again yesterday, just to see if it was (as bad) as I remembered it. It was worse. Or at least it felt worse playing it. Linear gameplay (the most serious flaw of the whole game), hopping from one "event" to another. Plot elements on a string without any real connection to what's going on (i.e. the whole idea of "storytelling" is pointless in the first place).

It is still an "advanced warfighter" themed game without any serious advanced warfighter technology. And the NARCOM is just plain horrible: It looks like the "action movie" me and some friends made in the 9th grade.

So yes, please make GRAW3 PC a port from the console and put us out of our misery, because those responsible for GRAW2 PC obviously had no idea what a tactical shooter is.

Respectfully

krise madsen

baff6
12-22-2007, 02:15 PM
Oblivion was more boring.
There were some nices places to explore, but the combat was never exciting.
Great scenery. Dull gameplay.

Dark Messiah was a game with a storyline, a plot in which you were inextricably involved. Driven even.
And yes it was linear. From quite early on you could predict your charcters fate. His destiny. You knew where it would end and the choices you would have to make on the way. You could see it coming, but you could not avoid it.
You have been given a role, and you play it out.

Linear doesn't have to mean bad. Plenty of games work excellently with a linear progression. How useless would a non-linear F1 racing game be?

Oblivion lost a lot of impetus to it's side plots. They were a great excuse for virtual tourism. A reason to visit all the artwork, but diluted the roleplay.
Dark Messiah never became boring. The game ended first. Oblivion was open ended, it just petered out. One day you just didn't want to play anymore. It didn't feel very exciting. The combat was still dull and you had seen everything before.

I never played Oblivion on the console, I don't know if it ported over nicely. The PC version was certainly very nice and miles better than R6 Vegas.



Despite all I read about bugs in R6 Vegas on the PC, I can't say that I've seen any.
It's a pretty horrible piece of code. It uses far more system power than it needs to produce a pretty low res render.
I don't think they made a lot of effort converting it.

The key difference here for me, is that unlike the GRAW series, the Co-op in Vegas works. It actually functions.
You can complete a map with all players still connected to the server at all times.
So my local players have actually used it a bit. Not a lot. It's not a fantastic game, but at least it works. GRAW never did.

madmanxp
01-06-2008, 09:37 PM
The pc-port isn't a big problem for me, but made sure have equal support for pc version.

If console version has new (weapons/maps) pack, then made one for PC verson. Otherwise, it really piss off the pc gamers.

dacoolstas
03-31-2008, 11:31 AM
We'll it looks as if the PC gamers are more scarce then they used to be and the evil console is trying to take over the world of gaming. But i hope i live to see the day when the PC comes back and slaps the console on the cheek. The pc will triumph over the console one day, i know that much. Its just a matter of time. Eventually console players will be sorry. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Want2Snipe
03-31-2008, 04:43 PM
One thing is for sure, we are at a level playing field with them now... their games are a glitchy and buggy as ours are! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

and boy, I thought we were whinners but them console boys sure have us beat... have you visit the 360 Vegas 2 forums, erm, sorry, the Vegas 2 forums for the 3 platforms http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Longjocks
03-31-2008, 08:17 PM
The problem with that is thoughtless people with complaints will post anywhere they see fit. All the Vegas forums are poluted with Vegas 2 posts.

The same thing happens over at the Codemasters forum with the general discussion forum. The forum's subtitle clearly states that the forum is not for games that have their own sub-forum, and it has a sticky thread reiterating such, yet people keep posting their issues for a particular game in there... not that they generally state what game they're having trouble with. 99.9% of them turn out to be MMO players by the way.

spm1138
03-31-2008, 08:20 PM
But if a port had all my game types,maps,weapons and was capable of being a tac sim like ogr as well as a run and gun type game and also was ported well, then may be I would go for it.

How's that even going to work?

Being a "tactical" game is about more than just making the player move slower or not letting him shoot on the run.

It's in the level design, the interface design, the gameplay balancing. Everything.

As I understand it most games aren't 100% "finished" as in not everything they wanted in the game from Day One makes it in. This is because time and money are finite. Eventually compromises are made.

How does that happen if there's two sets of goals on the go?

No. Doesn't work.

I game on my PC. I like exercising different bits of my brain with different games and what I want from the tac shooter genre is not just cosmetic features like a 3D polygon crosshair or an attempt to make the whole thing a bit look a bit like BHD.

What I think this genre is about is presenting the player with a set of open ended situations, flexible tools and then letting them attempt to solve the "puzzle" using their brain and adapting or modifying their solution as the level unfolds.

Now to my mind the complexity of the problems and the variety of solutions available has something to do with the interface on offer.

A game designed with a joypad in mind just can't have the kind of interface that's ideal.

I also think there's a real issue with target audience. Now I've got a cupboard full of consoles at home and I play old console games on emulation. I grew up with that stuff so it's not like I look down on it or console gamers.

On the other hand there's a definite style of presenting console games. They're "streamlined" for want of a better word.

Pop it in the tray and go. It's a more relaxed and casual approach to gaming which can be great. I think it works where it works.

But the stuff that gets taken out or simplified in this process is part of why I like tactical shooters in the first place.
I don't even think it's a particularly "casual" type of game in the first place. The pace is, or at least should be all different.

edit
Dark Messiah of Might and Magic was fail with a side order of fail and a light topping of fail sauce.

They had one cool idea which they then buried beneath failure. Built a collosal temple of failure on top of, even.