This second poll is more in the line of confirming certain things.

To answer the below questions you must have played both Ghost Recon and Graw.

Thanks.

Question:
Am I happy with the direction the game has taken over the last 3 years.

Choices:
Yes
No

Question:
Do you believe the tactical elements from the original game have been lost.

Choices:
Yes
No
May be. Explain.

Question:
Do you feel the Tactical Element has been put to one side in favour of Looks.

Choices:
Yes
No

Question:
Does the MP part encourage Team Play for large Teams.

Choices:
Yes
No
Sometimes. Explain.

Question:
AI. Your ai in the last 3 years has become more complex.

This has led to less team members.

Do you feel the more complex ai have removed tactical elements, in other words you dont have the squad members you used to have.

Yes this was this a good thing.
No this was a bad thing.

Choices:
Yes
No

Question:
Current Team Members.
Are you happy with 3 Team Members in SP/MP Missions.

Choices:
Yes
No

Question:
The Franchise has moved away from a Multiple Squad based FPS to a small Single Team FPS.

Would you agree with this statement.

Choices:
Yes
No

Question:
The Franchise has moved away from a Multiple Squad based FPS to a small Single Team FPS.

Was this a good idea or a bad idea.

Choices:
Good Idea
Bad Idea

Question:
Do you like the idea of a single lead character.

Or no lead but squads.

Choices:
Lead Character
Squads

Question:
What would you really want.

A game that looks stunning and is at the front of the newest Game engine design.

Or a game that looks half decent but plays great.

Choices:
Looks Stunning
Plays Great

Question:
Game Play.

We have seen many changes in the gameplay, would you like to see these changes stay and be added to.

Or.
Return the Game Play back a few years to the original game.

Choices:
Return to the old Gameplay
Stick with the New Gameplay

Question:
Online Mission Tournaments.

Ghost Recon had a strong element in this area.

Graw has not seen this because of engine limits.

Would you like to see a return to online Tournaments where missions based objectives are concerned.

Or.

Leave it as it is with no tournaments.

Choices:
Yes Tournaments
No Tournaments

Question:
Has the new game deminished online activity in all areas.

Or has it helped create new online activity in all areas.

Choices:
Deminished
Created

Question:
What would you buy today.

Ghost Recon as it was with better graphics and some minor tweaks.

Or.

Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 3.

Choices:
Ghost Recon
Graw 3

Question:
Do you feel Ubisoft have enhanced the Ghost Recon Franchise by releasing Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter PC.

Or.

Have not enhanced the franchise.

Choices:
Yes enhanced it.
No not enhanced it.

Question:
As a Ghost Recon/Graw PC player.

What do you enjoy playing the most.

Choices:
Ghost Recon
Graw

 

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ColinCJ,

Ok I have got this under way now.

I hope you are not too confused over the content I was trying to nail specific things here, please feel free to answer in type as well that would be great.

Colin, if this thing is going to make me vote on every single question, then, I believe you should include a third option answer for us lowly SP players that have no clue when it comes to answering MP questions.

I could just wing it but I want to be fair even though I know this won't get us anywhere, I am still old school and like to help others whenever I can.

Just curious Colin, but any feedback at all on the last series of polls from the Community Manager, or anyone at Ubi...if you are in a position to discuss?

quote:

Originally posted by Want2Snipe:
Colin, if this thing is going to make me vote on every single question, then, I believe you should include a third option answer for us lowly SP players that have no clue when it comes to answering MP questions.

I could just wing it but I want to be fair even though I know this won't get us anywhere, I am still old school and like to help others whenever I can.

The only section that does not cover the sp is the tournament section, but even that can be done on sp after the tournaments are finished, so yes mate all include sp.

quote:

Originally posted by noquarter_m21:
Just curious Colin, but any feedback at all on the last series of polls from the Community Manager, or anyone at Ubi...if you are in a position to discuss?

No not as yet but I do know how some of them feel, it is good though they will read it and see how we feel about the series.

I have not been told off yet so perhapes thats a good sign.

This was one of the quickest poll answering sessions I've ever participated in. Most of it was pretty obvious.

But just so the good folks at Ubi don't draw the wrong conclusions:

No I'm not asking for a GR1 carbon-copy. I'm asking for a game that retain the gameplay elements of GR1, a game that retain the essence of GR1.

What really set GR1 apart was that the developers "got it". They understood that this sub-genre was different from most other first person shooters. To capture the essence of GR1 in a new game, the new developers must understand this too. They have to "get it". They have to have the right mindset.

Dead horse beating on my part, I know, but it just can't be repeated often enough.

Respectfully

krise madsen

PS: Good poll Colin

I'm new to the Ghost Recon series, but I've spent a good deal of time reading about the previous games so I have an idea what the differences are. I am also a fan of the various other Clancy franchise games' gameplay (not so much the plots).

This is a good poll, but one of the questions doesn't make sense to me:

"The Franchise has moved away from a Multiple Squad based FPS to a small Single Team FPS."

This is just a true/false question that asks the voter whether they know what's going on or not...it's like asking if the sky is currently blue or brown. Answering "no" would be simply wrong, unless I'm missing something.

Anyhow, I like that they've given PC game players a more tactical type of game compared to the consoles. It makes me wonder what Rainbow Six Vegas would've been like if they had tweaked it to be more tactical...although to be fair that game was fun enough that it probably wouldn't have been a good idea.

That said, I'm not a 100% hardcore tactical game player. I'm not sure if I'd like to go back to character switching or not; Vegas used scripted sequences pretty well, although it seems to be the curse of Tom Clancy games to have vaguely unimpressive scripting, even in Vegas to a degree (although it was much more cinematic than previous games).

The *big* downside to that is you're corralled along a set route, which I don't like at all - being able to relatively freely explore an area is very important to me. Even though I have some issues with the game, GRAW 2 PC gets a thumbs up from me for being relatively wide-open.

I like being forced to move along slowly and methodically clear out areas, even (especially?) by myself (playing lone wolf adds a sense of danger to the game). I don't like the friendly AI currently (it's pretty terrible) and don't like being penalized for leaving squadmates at home (during the earlier missions when you can get away with it) when the game simply doesn't have good enough AI to make them helpful.

I also really dislike having squadmates break my concentration to beg me to hold their hands. Usually I'm far ahead clearing out bad guys with a sniper rifle and they need to be herded along closely behind to avoid getting wiped out near the end of the mission. There really wasn't anything about the AI that I felt made them worthwhile, in short.

So far I have only played co-op in multiplayer, but even when reading about the Recon vs. Assault mode I can't get too excited by it, having been a longtime Battlefield 2 player. Maybe I'll have to try it out, but to me there doesn't really seem to be any specialization worth noting in the game. As I haven't actually played that mode, I could be wrong.

Back to core gameplay issues...

I'm not sure. It is true that the game has kicked up close-range detail at the expense of long range combat, but that mainly affects the draw distance. While that has a big effect on tactical gameplay, it's not the whole story. The game doesn't have perfect tactical gameplay simply because it isn't designed well enough for it. It has many of the pieces in place, but AI and dividing up responsibilities are two points where it needs work.

I know it doesn't seem especially realistic, but it'd be nice if the game brought in some specialization that allows players to work together.

It also could use some of the more "crazy" (and fun) modes from the past, like R6 3 Athena Sword's "capture the enemy" mode.

Online mission tournaments, if that means more objectives for one team to take care of, sound good.

Add: Tripwire spawns also bugged the heck outta me. Do not like those. It's fine to throw in new enemies (like sending in convoys if you dawdle/"get made"), but...

Also, the way in which they handled the conversion of the storyline from console to PC is pretty terrible; I haven't played or seen the console game but it's pretty obvious they've thrown a bunch of lines into the planning sequence (i.e. some sound bites have a radio filter on, coming right after clear audio, so you can tell it was cobbled together with minimal extra effort). I hated, HATED all the call-in/movie NPCs, actually, besides my AI squadmates who just got a bit grating (they were at least trying to be helpful). I really started to hate Rosen when he repeatedly kept calling me to tell me about the artillery in the first mission, and I hated needing to point out on the map where he needed to go in his rescue mission (once I figured that out it wasn't too bad, though; he even took out a sniper with his pistol).

I also didn't like the "overblown dramatic movie sequence" music loop playing every time the game tried to be difficult.

If the PC version of the game is meant to be more tactical, then it should be more quiet.

Combining the weird autosave with the low draw distance made enemy encounters sometimes frustrating and made them feel like trial and error too often.

RAbbi <33333 OGR
RAbbi </3 GRAW
RAbbi </3 GRAW2
RAbbi </3 UbiShaft

Here's hoping these polls help out those of you still willing to give the big French weenie (aka- Ubisoft) your money, but they'll get ne'er another penny of my money. I refuse to support these slobs...

Ed Hi that question re squads.

In gr1 you had 3 squads 9 men A-B-C-.

Graw has only 1 and only 3 men plus yourself.

From a tactical point this is not good coping with 3, it offers you far less coverage.

But understandable if you put a lot of work into the indevidual AI.

So those questions were there to see what you thought about how one worked against the other.

Is that ok?

quote:

Originally posted by krise_madsen:
This was one of the quickest poll answering sessions I've ever participated in. Most of it was pretty obvious.

Not to everybody unfortunately.

thales I think its just about knowing all 3 games inside out, sorry if it seems complicated.

comment some more see if I can or some one else help clear any parts up.

This poll is way too difficult to answer compared to the first. The questions/answers are too black & white and the choices can often be at odds. I'll try and explain what I mean when I have more time, but at the moment I can't fill it out.

Hi ColinCJ
I just within the last year was able to acquire a newer computer so playing GR1 was ok in the tactical. GRAW1&2 was superior in graphics and weapons. If Ubi redoes GR1 with the new graphics engine and cross platform that is being touted then would they please redo GR2 and GRAW1&2 and make it all plug and play compatible so all we do is to load the next dvd .

quote:

Originally posted by ColinCJ:
Ed Hi that question re squads.

In gr1 you had 3 squads 9 men A-B-C-.

Graw has only 1 and only 3 men plus yourself.

I re-read the first part again more carefully, and now I'm confused. Did you put up these questions about how the original GR works to exclude people who haven't played GR1? I think that if you're going to try to present these opinions to the people who are making the games that excluding part of the fanbase isn't the right thing to do. I'm respectful of the investment fans of the game series since 2001 have in the game series, after all. I'm here in the forum since the game is a tactical type game, after all

quote:

So those questions were there to see what you thought about how one worked against the other.

This is where I started getting more confused...was the question of the three squads vs. one squad just confirming that we know how it works, or asking which one we think is better? I'm seeing two possible answers depending on where I look.

Anyhow, to give my answers on what I think about the balance between 9 squad members vs. 3:

I don't think the game AI in GRAW is sufficient to drive three squadmates properly, and nine squad members traveling across GRAW 2's areas would fare even worse.

I'm not saying that I think nine Ghosts across three squads total is a bad idea; just that as the game currently is made you'd need to totally rework the game to support it.

I would say that supports fans of the original Ghost Recon game, which had a big emphasis on the wide outdoors (as far as I can tell), but on the other hand the AI in GRAW 2 had problems just getting around the maze of rock formations in the first level of GRAW 2 PC. Other features, like going underground, also seem to be something you can't cut out of Ghost Recon without limiting the kind of environments you can have. Again, in my experience, the AI squadmates seemed to have problems navigating around lots of types of geometry, even to get from one area to another connected by a single passageway. Seeing them turning around constantly from the command map was pretty common.

I wouldn't mind having a Ghost Recon game set entirely in the woods if it meant AI would act properly, but I don't think that is a sustainable path for the future of the series. At some point they are going to need to fix the AI, and the AI is the reason I say nine squad members is currently too many.

Anyhow, 9 players would be good, but I think you'd also need to have pretty epic battles to make it all worthwhile from the standpoint of the demands on my time (and taking away from my ability to spend time playing a specific character).

This of course also gets into the issue of graphics...sometimes I actually think about what could be done if a DOOM-style game with flat characters were made again, think about how many different characters you'd be able to get running around in an area. It's just not the sort of thing that's going to sell, though, which is why I don't think it's realistic that Ubisoft could consider going back to GR1 style visuals for the sake of scale. Of course, that doesn't mean that the latest graphics engines and games which are featuring increasing amounts of characters and stuff onscreen won't make up for that deficiency by brute force.

I'm optimistic about that area for the future, but right now, I would like to see GRAW 2 and the immediate next game to take a closer look at what's happening in a relatively small-scale battles across larger landscapes.

Eh, sorry for the length of that post - there's just a lot of stuff to cover.

quote:

Originally posted by ColinCJ:
thales I think its just about knowing all 3 games inside out, sorry if it seems complicated.

comment some more see if I can or some one else help clear any parts up.

No, its ok, ive answered all questions , i mean not everybody the ppl that could have made GRAW 2 a different game.

Done, hope they've listen to us now !

Ed yes see your point, cant do much about as it would screw up the poll.

Understand though.

It`s a close 1..