What we want: The Basics

[raleigh_whisp]

I know there is another post like this, but I think we need a clean start, using the knowledge we have now, after it has had time to set in. I wanted to establish this post so that Ubi knows how to make their game and so that we cannot blame ourselves if they make a more run and gun style of game. First off we want realism... realistic realism not GR 2 or RS3 'realism'.

Also, this idea of a 'hero' character needs to end. Now. The reason that the Army says 'Soldiers aren't born. They're made.' is because people or heroes are not good soldiers. Good soldiers can kill and be killed without feeling or emotion, but when the time arises they can have moral judgment so that they can live with themselves. So for the military (especially SF) to have someone wanting to be different is unrealistic and stupid.

Moving to the tactical elements of the game. I don't know exactly what others here want (that’s why you should post your ideas), but I think that most feel that not everyone should be able to grab rockets or special types of explosives because you have to be specialists to handle this kind of equipment. Also, having one squad of four doesn't make sense. You can't fire and move with just one squad of 4. I think that most of us want at least 2 squads of 3. Finally, I noticed that you had health bars in your game. That is not realistic... at all... so remove it.

Don't forget multiplayer! GR first attracted me with it's multiplayer because it was something different. But GR 2 is just another carbon copy of all other shooters. Because you could have OK teamwork, but it wasn't tactical. The only teamwork you need is in spawns. Spawning somewhere and shooting someone while your invincible and then having the same thing happen to you over and over again is not fun. If you want to eliminate spawn killing you need to take away the ability to have ALL spawns on a map unlocked to everyone and you need to take away the camera. Just have a certain number of permanent spawns available (that you choose by looking at your map) and have some key points in the map that can be controlled, kind of like Battle Field. Or, just have the permanent spawns and nothing else (I like the latter option, tell me what you think). To make sure that there is no spawn camping, use very meticulous level design to make sure that all the spawn points are separated so that they cannot be spawn camped all at once, but keep them close together. If a team completely dominates the other and controls all the spawn points at once then they deserve to win. Also, make sure you remember the suppressed guns...

Immersion and basic game design. Now most people want no 3rd person view. You said that it adds immersion, but realize that there are different kinds of immersion. The kind that a 3rd person view gets is one that puts the emphasis on explosions, bells, and whistles. This is not what people want. We want a slow game that has lots of tension. You never know is anyone is behind you or not because you can't see behind you. That makes the game tenser. You may be thinking to yourself, 'But you can turn it off' But that does not apply to multiplayer. Because in multiplayer you have the security of knowing that if your right behind someone they can't see you (unless they use a map). The HUD needs to be simpler. I don't want some talking head to tell me things that I already know like: 'watch out, there may be bad guys around you'... No ****... that’s why its a videogame and that’s why I'm playing it. That totally kills the immersion, so take it out, or give the player an option to turn it off. This is mostly all I have to say about that.

Finally, some main points that will change depending on what people say they want. Now, before you go post how it would be uber cool if aliens could pop out of your stomach and eat your enemy, remember that I will only put your idea up here if they others agree that it would be cool (and not too specific), maybe a mod could do it for me sense I'm not usually awake during the day.


-Make it a FPS

-Make it realistic

-Bring it back to its roots

-Focus on the game play

-No 'hero'

-Remember that its a SQUAD BASED TACTICAL SHOOTER (with more than one squad)

That’s all I got for now... its your turn now.

Edit # 1- Some of you wanted some things a little more specific (like the kind of FPS view you wanted) so I will leave those out and only answer one comment.

-Because the one shot one kill thing bothers you RMaule would you like an arcade option that you could turn on/off like you could with OGR (even in single player I guess). Also, we do not want a simulation of war. I think we do want the game to be realistic enough to set it apart from other games out there. Also, although you CAN move and fire with a squad of four, or just use your super equipment to kill them before you have to truly engage, when the **** hits the fan you have to use the tried and true tactic of huge amounts of fire from one team, and an ambush/flanking from the other.

-Also, just another thought. We need the same system to control the ghosts as we did in OGR, except instead of taking away from the system like they did in GR2 you should simply add more options and a better waypoint system. Quick commands are cool, but they don’t allow for planning so they shouldn’t be the only things you have. Maybe instead of having just recon, suppress, or assault add some others, like cautious (not quite as slow as recon and they will shoot on sight, or with you command) or distraction (where they make a LOT of noise with explosives and all that great stuff, and attract a lot of attention). What do you guys think?

-Finally, I just want to mention that we do want better graphics, physics, and AI. But only AI is really important to us.

Edit # 2- Have buildings that you can actually enter, and have more floors that you can access, but please, please make some outdoor single player maps... please. Also, allow for the same maps to be played in single player and multiplayer, with some multiplayer only maps like you have always done.

Edit # 3- Have more vibrant and living environments, maybe have things in the level that happen unexpectedly (like reinforcements or an extra vehicle), but remember to not go overboard with it and remember to focus on making the level good and not just surprising.

[Agent Green]

To me, being team leader (if we are stuck with the hero) would mean leading around a 12-man group. This group can be split into 2 teams of six or less, based on the mission needs. I highly doubt that every mission should require only four operators.

The AI from GR2 needs some tweaks as well. I hated being unable to perform an ambush (That's right! Flanking isn't the only battlefield tactic.) because every hostile within 60m knew exactly where I was at nearly all times. It's so frustrating to have some third-world Rambo fly around the corner with his weapon pointed right at me the whole time, even though he should never have seen or heard me. Don't make them morons but some steps of contact--see person, determine intent, judge action, and perform action--would be nice. It'd be neat if they didn't always think we were the "bad guy" if they couldn't make a positive identification, then have a guy with binoculars look in our direction to see who we are. Whatever is done, please get rid of their ability to see through bushes or similar visible cover.

One thing that bugs me about the gameplay videos is the first-person. More specifically, the weapon seen. When was the last time you shouldered a weapon and didn't see your firing hand? I fail to understand why games have the weapon so far out of sight, when it should be in front of your face. That little weapon bobbing in the bottom-right corner is just weird.

I think that's all I have for now.

[RMaule]

No offence lads, but at the end of the day it’s a game and its made for entertainment. Sure realism is a great touch but it can also suck the fun out of the game. One thing that got on my tits on GR2 was running through a forest then just falling from a single NK shot, sure it was realistic but it was not fun. If I want that much realism then i will process my Army application quicker but until then i want a decent war game with a nice amount of realisim.



You can't fire and move with just one squad of 4.

Yes you can. The SAS use active patrols of four men (not always). The men just need the right weapons if you want to do it correctly. Say one SAW gunner, a riflemen, a sniper and an M203 gunner.

The SAW gunner and the sniper can suppress while the rifleman and the M203 gunner can flank for the kill.

I don't want to seem all moany, anyway two teams would be a cool touch but one team is enough for me.

- Robert.

[jchung]

Good post Whisp.

What I want most above all things is a tactical shooter. The same gameplay is OGR, not the same game, but the same gameplay.

I am all for realism, so whatever UBI puts in that makes the game more realistic is welcome in my book. I personally don't mind when my character drops from one shot, but that is why you should be able to switch from soldier to soldier. A mission does not end because one person dies.

More realism is always welcome to me, but again, first and foremost is tactical gameplay.

[Kurtz_]

Good post, agree on all parts. I would like to see a return to the old 3 squad setup, with a total max number of operators of 12, in any combo. Big maps, open maps, open gameplay, do objectives in any order, that's my thing.

[Brainlicker]

Holly krapinolly......

Good post whisp.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

And to think, I didn't even write it, and there are more than one person who agrees!

Woohoo, now if only Ubi would really listen and give us our game back, and not just on PC either. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You know, the funny thing is that this weekend I had some time to play with my friends, and we all sat down and played all the Ghost Recon games and the ones we enjoyed the most were in order: GRIT, OGR and then GR2 (which after map freeze on Bonfire and a RED X we quit and went back to GRIT).

Too bad about the step backwards....GR2 could have been a great game. I just wish they would have called it something else instead of cashing in on the Ghost Recon name. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[Oetzi_101]

not all of us want that. i like ghost recon 2. i like the ots view. personally i think all of you wanting a fps with out a weapon there is a complete contradiction if you want it to be realistic. you see your gun and you have to press your against the scope to get iron sights.

and four men can go about as one single unit. i mean, look at the amount of hardware they have been kitted out with. the suits they are wearing can call an airstrike on a unit by tapping one button and they can look round a corner and only expose a small amount of their bodies.
these are the elite of the elite aswell.

if you guys like OGR so much why dont you just play it. ubi and red storm are moving on and thats just tough. they are here to make money and not to listen to you winging at them. the sales on the last game show it worked and red storm obviously like the game aswell so stop complaining.

its getting tiresome.

sorry if i offended people i just fell that this is getting annoying.

[Brainlicker]

This post wasn't intended for prepubes who want to defend Redstorm and GR2. It was intended for Original Ghost Recon fans to let Ubi know there is a large fanbase who wants Ghost Recon to return to the way it was.

You coming on here and spouting off just goes to show that inmaturity and GR2 go hand in hand, so thanks for proving that GR2 is for the unitelligent run and gun type who don't want anything more than big explosions and lots of shooting. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Now if you don't mind, the grown ups are trying to have a discussion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[raleigh_whisp]

First off, you shouldn’t just give up on Ubi not making the game we want. Secondly, your point about just playing OGR or GRIT is stupid. I already do. But we still want a nice GR game that will carry into the new generation of gaming. Now you may think that GR2 was much more popular and sold a lot more copies, but realize this: it was only for consoles. Think of how many PC gamers they will lose/ have already lost, so in that respect it was probably about the same number of people. Thirdly, you are not part of the majority here. You do not run things here. You seem to think that Ubi is on your side, but you need to humble yourself. Start with grammar. No one is perfect, but you are obviously not the kind of person that puts any thought at all into your post. You are the kind of person that doesn't want to put any thinking into your games. And you are the one that the developers are making 'run and gun' style games for. There are plenty of other series out there. You have ruined (for now at least) the GR series because if you don't like to think about your games, or only have action, and GR is not for you. I don't want a flame war and I don't mean to insult you, but that’s what I think. This was obviously a post directed at Oetzi.

[jchung]

Why does everyone take the comments made about a game so personally. People have said that OGR was slow, boring, etc... and frankly I don't care what they think.

Ultimately it is a game. That is all, so if there is criticism of GR2, who cares? I don't take criticism and flaming of OGR personally, I'm just trying to lobby for what I want in GR3.

It would be nice to see people NOT FLAME each other and start talking about just the game. Enough of the labeling people as whiners, idiots, and other remarks. In the end all we are talking about is a STUPID GAME.

Back to the game. Items that are important to me (Ranked by value).

#1 Tactical gameplay

#2 Realism

#3 Friendly AI

#4 Enemy AI

#5 Squad setup (more important than squad commands, because even in OGR if you couldn't get the rest of Alpha to hold, you could leave Bravo in place instead. Also, if you absolutely needed to go it alone, you could take one person in Alpha, and fully equip Bravo etc...

#6 Squad commands

#7 Open objectives

#8 Better targeting system

#9 Graphics

#10 Sound effects

#11 Map size

#12 Weapons

#13 Setup menu

#14 Uniforms, accessories, etc...

Not sure of anything else for the moment, but you get the point.

#13

[Tinydane]

Whisp,
I agree with alot of what you said. One questions I've always had after seeing the progression of OGR,then GRIT and GR2 and now writeups on GR3 is that they seem to keep making it closer and closer to the same gameply as the Rainbow Six series.

Why make them similar? Rainbow is a good solid CQB type faster paced small map game. GR was the best at tactical slower plotting military shooter. Why have both games the same? Keep them individual.

Oh..and one other request I have for GR3..PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make the buildings in the maps interactive. Allow us to got into buildings and go to second floors and through doors...PLEASE.

[raleigh_whisp]

Yes, the thing about going through the buildings is something that I forgot. Thanks. Also, I think that game companies are making games like this because they think that they will make more money. The gaming industry has attracted a lot of hot shots who are just trying to make money and don't care about their product. The gaming industry is growing up and becoming more like Hollywood... Too bad.

[CaptainHarlock]

Okay I really do have a problem with this perception of "Ghost Recon is for adults and all other games are for kids". The message I'm getting is "it's our game and you can't play with it!".

After reading Raliegh's comments I'm thinking that if Ubi Soft did all of the above the game would be so "realistic" that it would most likely tank. Things like "one shot kills" would be frustrating. Besides it's NOT realistic. If you get shot in the hand you most likely wouldn't die immediately. Too much realism can suck the fun right out of a game (and it IS a GAME. It's not a training simulation, if you want 100% "realism" then I suggest going down to your local recruiter).

Again, it's sounding like people are saying "Change=Bad". Change isnt' necessarily bad. Sometimes change is needed. If Ubi Soft went back to the basics as it's suggested then all you would be getting is a recycled version of the first game. A game I thought had some good ideas but felt like it was half finished. You have to consider this; would a five year old game with slightly beefed up graphics be worth Ubi Soft's time and money to make? I'm thinking it wouldn't be. The reason why people buy new games is to play something "new". Playing the same exact game as the first Ghost Recon may be fine for some people, but Ubi Soft wants to attract more players. And the only way to do that is make some changes in the gameplay while trying to retain the core idea behind it.

This isn't Grand Theft Auto. While it's a popular game Ghost Recon doesnt' have that kind of monster following. That's why they are trying different things to see what works. If the game does go unchanged then it's more than likely that sales will begin to fall off and that would be more lethal than any changes that Ubi Soft could make.

[X13lazeX]

i hate captin scott michele or whatever how about i name the main character so it can be me... not some random dumb *** http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Oetzi_101]

thats what i was trying to say captain harlock. oh and thank you to all for insulting me. i like tactical shooters but i really enjoyed GR2. i think you guys need to think before u start insulting everyone. just cause i liked GR2 im a prepube who like explosions. well obviously ure a very mature and thoughtful person having an adult coversation brainlicker.

oh, and raliegh, come on not everyones perfect im just a bad typer. and i do put thought into my games. i hate how i have now been branded as a moron just cause i opposed some of your views.

ok maybe you playing GRIT and OGR for the rest of your life is a bad idea. but in another post i suggested that maybe it would be cool if ubi remade OGR on a next gen platform.

but heres a good idea! maybe, instead of insulting, branding and whining, some of you guys could focus youre energies on a GR mod.

you could all get HL2 and download the source SDK and make your own game if you dont think UBI and red storm are good enough

how many insulting posts? hmmm? 3? 4?

[XyZspineZyX]

Can we possibly stop the 'them vs us' and actually talk about the game and what we would truly like to see.

CaptainHarlock when the guys say one shot kill, they dont mean a bullet to the hand should kill you. In fact a bullet to the foot in GR would kill you and everyone complained about it, so i can promise you thats not what they mean.
When you see them refer to 'one shot kill' they mean if you shot someone in say the head they should die. You might consider this to be a frustrating aspect to a game, frankly i think its frustrating playing a game where the bullet physics make no sense, i want to know that if i take the time to get my shot on target (i.e head) that they will go down with one bullet, and that is realistic. If by some fluke of nature a head wound doesnt instantly kill a person you can be sure as hell they arent getting up to continue fighting http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Too much realism can suck the fun right out of a game
I dont disagree, but some ideas and suggestions on the forums go to the other extreme, and its this people dont want to see. Including the removal of the one shot kill, the reason ? because if you take the one shot kill out there is no realistic eliments left in the bullet ballitics etc so why not just go the whole hog into the world of arcade shooters http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif.


This isn't Grand Theft Auto. While it's a popular game Ghost Recon doesnt' have that kind of monster following
A totally different game and im unsure why you would use this as your example. Contrary to what you may think GR does have a monster following, its not the same type of gamer as GTA but that doesnt make it smaller.

[raleigh_whisp]

RALEIGH whisp... Yeah, not raliegh...

Anyways, the reason that you are branded as an idiot is because the only impression we have of you is how you type and talk to us. Not capitalizing has nothing to do with typing, its just lazy, showing that you don't put time (and therefore the impression of not thinking) into your posts.

No, change is not always bad. We don't want the same exact thing. But if its not broken, don’t fix it. OGR and GRIT where not perfect, but instead of fixing and improving the game they copied every other watered down shooter out there. It needs to maintain its identity and it's identity is a slow, stealthy, suspenseful shooter. Not a flashy game where you have to do things in a way that kills thinking (I'm talking about doing things in a certain order). In this case, the change WAS bad and just because its different doesn't mean that its better. And because it becomes different than GR is becomes closer to other games which ISNT what we want.

Sorry about the insults, I apologize for us all. Lets just forget about it (unless you keep acting stupid) and put it behind us.

About the game... we could... if we all had PCs... But there is a reason why this is a console forum. Also, it may have not occurred to you, but we don't hate EVERYTHING that RSE or Ubi does. We liked OGR and GRIT, but they ruined it and we would be very willing to BUY their game if it was what we wanted. Just because they made it and changed it doesn't mean we owe them respect. We will respect them if we like what they made... we owe them nothing.

Moving on, about the realism. I don't think that we want something so realistic that you have to cry yourself to sleep every night. GR3 probably shouldn’t be as realistic as America's Army, but it should fall between that game and RS3... just about where it was before. That is it's market. We don't want too much CQB and we don't want it to be too realistic because that would just be copying another game.

Also, before you accuse us of branding people realize that YOU are the one who insulted someone first. You can put down your ideas and no one will hate you for them, but if you insult people (especially the majority) then people tend to retaliate.

To address the issue of not doing something new. It will be new. If they improve everything then the game will look and feel different, but if they keep the core game play the same (that is what we are asking for) then it will be a 100% better game. There will be no room left to argue which is the type of game we want.

Again to reiterate, lets just put all the name calling behind us.

[XyZspineZyX]

ok having posted my opinion on one shot kills and various comments heres my views on the game.

There are changes to GR2 i liked, for example

The unpredictable spawns in siege
old GR you always knew which spawn they would attack from and once everyone knew the maps it was pretty boring playing the game 'knowing' exactly where they would appear from.
In GR2 this problem was removed, and while i agree with some peoples past comments about some of the close spawns overall i loved this addition to the game.

Graphics.........well that goes without saying, RSE excelled thereselves graphically in the game.



What i would like to see ..........

Buildings. While i understand that the xbox probably couldnt deal with the graphics, map sizes extra AI AND being able to access buildings i do miss this and want to see it return. If it was removed due to hardware restrictions then i see no reason for it not to return in GR3 on xbox 360.

NONE Linear maps and gameplay. The game took a serious step into linear gameplay, not just in the scripted missions but the shape of the maps. Im very much looking forward to the promised return of open maps like old GR in Summit Strike , but lets see this in GR3 as well. Can you imagine those random attack siege spawns with the old style large maps http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

OTS View............ Well frankly i dont like it, and ive never tried it lol. yes i know your all going to say i shouldnt knock it without trying it but im stuck in my ways hehe.
I wont ever say it shouldnt be there, its not for me to say how someone else should play. So long as this stays optional and server side lockable then im ok with that. Just so long as theres people joining my room who want fpv. If you all move to the dark side of OTS then i will cry lol

Anyway i know theres much much more but its late and im tired, rambling on so i will shut up for now at least

[Climatik]

thank you oetzi and CaptainHarlock

thats what ive been trying to say.

Plus why wouldnt we defend redstorm and ubi after all if we attacked them i dont think that would help.

[CaptainHarlock]

Originally posted by ms-kleaneasy:
Can we possibly stop the 'them vs us' and actually talk about the game and what we would truly like to see.

CaptainHarlock when the guys say one shot kill, they dont mean a bullet to the hand should kill you. In fact a bullet to the foot in GR would kill you and everyone complained about it, so i can promise you thats not what they mean.
When you see them refer to 'one shot kill' they mean if you shot someone in say the head they should die. You might consider this to be a frustrating aspect to a game, frankly i think its frustrating playing a game where the bullet physics make no sense, i want to know that if i take the time to get my shot on target (i.e head) that they will go down with one bullet, and that is realistic. If by some fluke of nature a head wound doesnt instantly kill a person you can be sure as hell they arent getting up to continue fighting http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Too much realism can suck the fun right out of a game
I dont disagree, but some ideas and suggestions on the forums go to the other extreme, and its this people dont want to see. Including the removal of the one shot kill, the reason ? because if you take the one shot kill out there is no realistic eliments left in the bullet ballitics etc so why not just go the whole hog into the world of arcade shooters http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif.


This isn't Grand Theft Auto. While it's a popular game Ghost Recon doesnt' have that kind of monster following
A totally different game and im unsure why you would use this as your example. Contrary to what you may think GR does have a monster following, its not the same type of gamer as GTA but that doesnt make it smaller. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I use this as an example to demonstrate that there are games that cut through a huge swath of the gaming populace. Ghost Recon unfortunatley isn't quite there yet but it has alot of potential to grow. In terms of pure, raw numbers, the audience for GTA isn't nearly as big as the audience for Ghost Recon. GTA: San Andreas sold 5.1 million copys on the PS2 alone in 2004. By contrast Ghost Recon 2 sold 2.8 million copys. The sources for these numbers come from AOL Games Channel.

http://games.channel.aol.com/news.adp?articleID=275630&gameID=7315

http://games.channel.aol.com/news.adp?articleID=295337&gameID=24403

Like I keep saying, you have to find the right balance between realism and, what I'd probably call, being player friendly. The game has to be easy enough to pick up and play right out of the box without fumbling with the controller. And yet no overly difficult where you'd get frustrated and lose interest.

The "one shot kill" I explained better in a post in another thread. Obviously if you get hit between the eyes, that's it. Lights out, you're dead, game over! But if you get hit in the hand or foot you most likely wouldn't die. So in this case a "realistic damage model" is a good thing. Certain parts of "realism" I do enjoy in a game such as this. Weapons, tactics, environments. But others like overly tedious planning stages, and waiting around for something to happen.. those are things I can quite frankly do without. A documentary on Discovery showed that the majority of real special forces operations is actually planning and lying in wait. If there were a "realistic" portrayal of a special forces team in a video game we'd probably spend 10 hours pouring over intelligence, developing a strategy, transporting men and equipment to the target zone and very little time actually on the mission. I don't think that would be very fun. This is where the term "balance" comes into play. How do you blend these elements and still make the game interesting? Which ones are extraneous? Which are the ones that might be good to include but aren't very condusive to the gameplay? And what NEW elements do you incorporate into the mix? These are the types of things I think Red Storm has to look at and I'm sure they do. The one thing I would like to see in a future game is the missions taking place in a living and breathing combat zone. If anyone has played the game Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction you'd know what I mean by that. You have an actual urban environment with activity. Things like civilians, interactive buildings, traffic, enemy soldiers on patrol, etc. More than just wandering around a swamp or forrest. The original game gave you a little of this but not nearly enough for my liking.

As for the OTS camera, that was one of the things I welcomed. First person shooters are my least favorite genre. Too many of them descend into a static pattern of walking around and arbitrarily blowing away non-descript enemys. Also you don't know how many times I've gotten stuck on a tree branch or have been killed because my big toe was sticking out behind a rock. I say keep it as an option so you can play as first or third.

As I've said before I'm one of those people who is on the fence as I imagine that many are. We weren't that crazy about the first game but we liked the concept. I just thought it was lacking certain things that could have made it more player friendly. I'm still willing to give it a chance. But it has to show me something more than just a recycled version of the original Ghost Recon.

[ssn731]

Well, I agree with the thing anout realism and having your gun show on your screen in FPV. I also think that you should be able to drive vehicles and have some missions start differently, like being on a helicopter, or plane at the beginning and having to jump out....Now that would be great to see in GR3.

[IndigoChyld-79]

I would like to see no more cheat codes (if that is possible).

No spawn kills (if it's possible).

Some kind of real clan options (pm's to clan members etc.)

Slow down people that are wounded and are carrying alot of weight. (make it more realistic) I know Socom 3 is doing this.

[raleigh_whisp]

In reply to CaptianHarlock: Too much realism IS a bad thing, but all I want is for GR to have an identity. I think I may have stated this above, but I don't want a simulation. Real events are too boring to include in a game. Also, you don't HAVE to spend time planning anything out with the system of commands that OGR or GRIT had. You could set it to firefight and just run around and shoot people with NO planning at all, or you could play the missions and have a lot of opportunities to plan and use tactics (but you really don't have to).

You are right. We need to find the right balance between realism and playability, but we also have to maintain GR's identity. It can't be so realistic it makes you cry, but it should not be the flashy game that GR2 was.

About the OTS view: If you read the immersion part of my original post than you will see what I have to say about it and why it should be removed.

As an afterthought about the Mercenaries thing. That game was a pretty good model for living environments and GR should probably try to make their game more changing, but not like Mercenaries... the battlefield changed TOO much and would not fit nicely with GR. Maybe having an unexpected tank or reinforcements that you have to deal with unexpectedly.

[Oetzi_101]

did anyone consider a mod like i suggested.

does anyone like that idea?

then you could make our own GR. you could make evrything exactly how you want it. sure it might take a while, but it would be cool having your own GR game.

[WhiteKnight77]

Here is the deal. While I can't say for sure, but it appears that at the most 3 people want GR3 to be similar to GR2 while those who want GR3 to be like GR1 numbers at least 6. That 33% that want an action oriented game compared to the other 66% want a slower paced, tactical game. If one were to extrapolate similar demographics to those who never visit forums or play online, don't you think that it is a pretty substantial number that do not wish to play a dumbed down game?

For every GR, there is a Halo or DF type game (action oriented games are a dime a dozen. Thinking mans games (as I have said before) are few and far between. Why should a deve and puiblisher stoop to cater to that 1/3rd that wish to play simplistic games?

Ask yourself this too, if people like GR2 so much, why was it returned time and again?

[Oetzi_101]

i guess because a lot of the original fans didnt like it. i know alot of people dont like it cause it apparenlty "too hard" alot of people dont realise that it is quite tactical.

[WhiteKnight77]

That's the point. Sales figures do not take into account whether or not people like it. Sales fgures do not tell how many were returned.

I wouls venture to say that many who play GR are either active duty military or ex-military, me falling into the latter catagory.

Now for those who like a FPWV, here is an example of someone seeing more than just the sights:

http://img73.exs.cx/img73/2301/santa9fv.jpg

This is what I used to do.

[Brainlicker]

I've been a good boy this year....

Can Santa bring back the Original Ghost Recon? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[jchung]

As far as sales figures go, remember that OGR was out when Xbox sales were very slow. GR2 came out when Xboxes were making record sales because of Halo2, the new discounted price of $150, and releasing during the holiday season.

BTW, GR2 was not more difficult. I found that GR2 was easier, because of the linear maps and the trigger points, you could easily see the enemy spawn with a sniper. I have even seen vehicles spawn, and because the AI just rush directly toward you, it is easy to pick them all off.

[jagerboy]

To Klean......best post ever http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

One thing I would like to see back in GR, is the ability to go inside buildings. I am sure it won't happen, but one can hope. OGR...The best ever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[crtChunk72]

Originally posted by jchung:
Why does everyone take the comments made about a game so personally. People have said that OGR was slow, boring, etc... and frankly I don't care what they think.

Ultimately it is a game. That is all, so if there is criticism of GR2, who cares? I don't take criticism and flaming of OGR personally, I'm just trying to lobby for what I want in GR3.

It would be nice to see people NOT FLAME each other and start talking about just the game. Enough of the labeling people as whiners, idiots, and other remarks. In the end all we are talking about is a STUPID GAME.


Nice post, jchung...


Originally posted by Kleaneasy:
Can we possibly stop the 'them vs us' and actually talk about the game and what we would truly like to see.

Nice post, Klean...


Originally posted by WhiteKnight:
This is what I used to do.

Now, who here complained about those Bunny suits in the download? See, that kind of stuff really does happen!!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Now, for my thread contribution: By the Coke logo in my sig, most already know that I'll agree with the "back-to-basics" camp, and want a more thoughtful, open-ended GR than GR2 was (even though, being a PC man, I've never played it).