PDA

View Full Version : Ubisoft sellouts



dek83ftd
05-02-2012, 07:22 PM
BIG disappointment in the new GRAW....having played GRAW2 endlessly over that past 4 yrs i was looking forward to this coming out for sometime.

Basically they have sold out to the stupidness style of play of COD/Battlefield..run about like headless chickens following a red dot on a radar

This game has took 4 yrs to develop and i was expecting something special...but its just another what we can already buy each october...COD!

FRDyNo
05-02-2012, 07:34 PM
I agree, but it takes millions and millions of dollars to make a game, they had to cater to the broader audience to make money. After all, it is a business.

dek83ftd
05-02-2012, 07:45 PM
Fair enough...but obviously they didnt listen to the hardcore fans that played GRAW2...How much would it cost to bring out some new maps for GRAW2 for the real fans rather than just sellout until the latest COD comes out in october. Lets see how many are playing this after october!

KorpusDraige
05-02-2012, 07:46 PM
Their not sell outs, from a business stand point, it's a good idea to try and get a bigger group of people onto your game. They tried to merge both groups into this game.

Once again I see this game being compared to Call of Duty or even Battlefield. You DO REALIZE that there were run and gun games before Call of Duty, right? Is this your first console in your life?

TRAJEKTURY
05-02-2012, 07:54 PM
I do kind of see what your your talking about, but then again the small maps on Future Soldier are bigger than most COD maps. We just need to push them to produce bigger maps in the DLC. This game plays nothing like COD to me though. For that I am grateful. Yes people do alot of run and gun , but there is far less on here than COD. There is no kill streaks,and on here one man can get a crap load of kills but if no one get the objectives, game over. So there are some good things about FS when compared to COD. Think about it man.

dek83ftd
05-02-2012, 07:59 PM
Their not sell outs, from a business stand point, it's a good idea to try and get a bigger group of people onto your game. They tried to merge both groups into this game.

Once again I see this game being compared to Call of Duty or even Battlefield. You DO REALIZE that there were run and gun games before Call of Duty, right? Is this your first console in your life?

The point i'm trying to make is that Graw has always been different to your run of the mill shooter...thats what made it so good...and btw my 1st console was a zx spectrum! :p

Kashtrodamus
05-02-2012, 08:07 PM
Two things to the OP...

1. This game coming is called Ghost Recon FUTURE SOLDIER, not Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 3. That's WHY they changed the name. If they make a sequel based on THIS game's style of gameplay, then that will be Ghost Recon Future Soldier 2. Different name, different gameplay.

2. CoD comes out in November

A lot of people misunderstand the subtle differences of IP's and branding. It's a Ghost Recon game, it's made by the guys that have to right to produce those games. It's about stealth, objectives, and such, if you play it that way. GRAW1&2 were fine games. I enjoyed them thoroughly. Do I expect another game of the Action Warfighter brand? No. It's called Future Soldier. I am thinking it's going to be something different than Action Warfighter. Thus, it makes sense for this game to have this branding under this IP.

I think most people are hating on intel because it's like throwing the emergency brakes on your car at 80 miles per hour. You're on the offense, now you're spotted, you are SUDDENLY on the defensive for a while. That's what I find exciting about the game. It's a constant drifting back and forth of offensive strategies for each person, but if you involve your teammates, you are stacking the odds in your favor. So you get spotted, call for support, back up and tell your teammates to expect an contact. You ambushed the ambushers. That's how I am looking at it.

As the current game stands, it's like most sandbox style games. The players you congregate with with enhance or ruin the experience the game. With a solid group of friends COMMUNICATING, I'm sure this game will be a blast. With randoms w/no mic, it might be a little dicey of a proposition. Saboteur is a wild ride when both teams are working like teams. In the 10 minutes on 1 match, the bomb was brought to both teams base AT LEAST 3 times. That's an EPIC tug of war. Much more so than the games where one side goes all snipers and are hanging at the base while the other team takes the bomb to the objective and arms it with no contest. Again, it's what YOU contribute to the battle. The less you are getting in there to PTFO, the worse you are hurting your team. This will not happen in games with friends. Or the friends will steamroll the randoms that aren't working together.

I deeply appreciate the hardcore focus on objectives in multiplayer. If I want to mindlessly run around trying to shoot targets, I'll go play CoD:BlOps or Em-Dub3. If I want to play a team based game on a grand scale with vehicles, I have BF3. If I want team-based objectives in a more intimate scale with a squad of friends instead of a platoon of people, I'll play GRFS. That's all I'm saying. But then again, Su'um, cuique (To each, their own.)

I applaud Ubisoft and Redstorm for following the vision that they had for this game. Remain true to your intent, then if you can, implement things for the fans. If you put the fans before your vision, you become CoD. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Just being an artist, I don't draw to please people. I draw what I enjoy. Then if someone approves, that's great. If I draw to please other people, sure I'll have fans, but I will feel hollow in the process. It becomes a chore instead of something I love. Regardless of what you/EA/Activision/Redstorm does, there is ALWAYS going to be someone that you piss off. So if you are creating something that SOME people are not going to like or understand, why shouldn't you make it the thing that you really enjoyed producing.



That's why they extended the beta, they need people to point out technical/mechanical issues to try and get people's input ON THEIR VISION. If you don't like it, that's cool. If you do, that's cool. Either way good or bad, I can just about guarantee you, the posts that they are REALLY paying attention to are the posts that will improve THEIR VISION of Future Soldier. Not convert it into Action Warfighter 3. Even those that approve of it, they are probably skipping over the one's that say "lulz awsum gam yo! Mor mapz!". They are paying attention to the posts that can articulate the problem and offer a solution that doesn't require a TON of ridiculous new assets and coding.

Given what I have said, I do dislike the fact that Host Migration makes Saboteur a pretty much pointless game mode. You could be by yourself getting ready to arm the bomb but if the host D/C's, or worse just leaves, it was for naught. Try it again, bro!

iimpactx
05-02-2012, 08:10 PM
BIG disappointment in the new GRAW....having played GRAW2 endlessly over that past 4 yrs i was looking forward to this coming out for sometime.

Basically they have sold out to the stupidness style of play of COD/Battlefield..run about like headless chickens following a red dot on a radar

This game has took 4 yrs to develop and i was expecting something special...but its just another what we can already buy each october...COD!

Maybe it's a disappointment to you cause you think it's a new GRAW. I have heard alot of people complaining saying it's not like GRAW. If you want a GRAW game then go play GRAW. What did you do after GR2 Summit Strike and the first GRAW came out. Graw was a whole new type of Ghost Recon then and now we have a whole new type now.

The first 2 Ghost Recons were in first person. GR/DS and GR/IT.

Then Ghost Recon 2 and GR2 Summit Strike came out and those was 3rd person and a whole new type to people that was used to first person.

Then you had GRAW 1 and GRAW 2 which was a whole new type of Ghost Recon then it was from the previous 2.

Now you have Ghost Recon Future Soldier and it whole new type of Ghost Recon from the GRAW series.

Do you see the trend here?

Like I told some of my friends that don't like the beta, they were hoping it was gonna be like the GRAW series and it's not.

I told them if you go play Future Soldier thinking it as a WHOLE NEW GHOST RECON then you might like it and a few as came back with that in mind and now enjoy it.

moon_boy_jamie_
05-02-2012, 08:30 PM
Maybe it's a disappointment to you cause you think it's a new GRAW. I have heard alot of people complaining saying it's not like GRAW. If you want a GRAW game then go play GRAW. What did you do after GR2 Summit Strike and the first GRAW came out. Graw was a whole new type of Ghost Recon then and now we have a whole new type now.

The first 2 Ghost Recons were in first person. GR/DS and GR/IT.

Then Ghost Recon 2 and GR2 Summit Strike came out and those was 3rd person and a whole new type to people that was used to first person.

Then you had GRAW 1 and GRAW 2 which was a whole new type of Ghost Recon then it was from the previous 2.

Now you have Ghost Recon Future Soldier and it whole new type of Ghost Recon from the GRAW series.

Do you see the trend here?

Like I told some of my friends that don't like the beta, they were hoping it was gonna be like the GRAW series and it's not.

I told them if you go play Future Soldier thinking it as a WHOLE NEW GHOST RECON then you might like it and a few as came back with that in mind and now enjoy it.

well said i'm not expecting graw 3 and am lovin future soldier but a few more of the lobby options would have been great.

iimpactx
05-02-2012, 08:32 PM
i agree but it is what it is.