Install GR, DS, IT; play it, note the user interfaces and options available. Notably direct IP gaming and a 9 man squad in online co-op. Improve GR but please don't eliminate anything from it, including the release of modding and server tools.
I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

Stay on topic and the YEAR.
Read the first post then reply.

quote:

Originally posted by ColinCJ:
If a Ubisoft rep asked you about Ghost Recon and how you would want it to progress.

Lets forget the last three years.

Imagine it is still 2004.

My reply would be the following.

I love the game the way it is please dont make any major changes.

Improve the game graphics.
Improve the respawn methods.

Release a lot more content.
Maps
Missions
Game types

It has a unique feeling to it dont what ever you do lose that.
This is me what about you, what would you say to this rep.

Remember its 2004.



Some of you might be tempted here to blow a gasket, remember your TOS and remember it is 2004.

Some of you may think what is the point, there is one believe me, just bear with me on this.

Very well CJ...i am now back in 2004 'drawing' the OGR sequel.

One important thing to consider is that the RSE engine already saw its limits with GR and SOAF back in 2001 and a new graphics engine would have to be used.

This means technical evolution in all aspects, from having better a.i, character animation, larger and/or more detailed maps, etc. In other words it would be a real sequel improving on the original game.

The concept and theme for the sequel should be similar, this means the game setting and plot should have a fictional, yet believable setting taking place in areas that benefit gameplay (preferably not Mexico, for some reason i feel like i wouldnt like OGR's sequel to take place there).

R E A L I S M

With the ghosts being inspired by RL SF this should be portrayed in the game in more than trying to make it sound cool, composition of an ODA and diferent MOS, equipment, etc could be considered.

No more reticules, sensors and predefined weapon kits.
Customisable weapons actually used by RL units.
Realistic weapon configurations (no, you cant score a headshot using a 50. anti material rifle standing up and leaning behind a corner).

In short thats it, there would be gameplay improvements but most would be technical improvements by taking advantage of more up to date technology.
Other improvements would be to make the equipment portrayed in the game closer to the real life counterpart while keeping the gameplay into consideration, the 'formula' would be similar but it should feel like an improvement over the original, not a 180º turn.

Keep the Ghost Recon Damage Model
Get rid of crator glitches and change the pov from behind the left ear to center so you can't tight peek
get rid of tip toeing
Patch the code against network attacks
Upgrade the graphics and bring the old maps in for MP
Add some physics to game (not sure what was around then though)
Improve the sound
Improve night Vision
Fix support lag issues and MM1
Add tracer rounds
Add mode where you could use vehicles on larger scale maps
Add grid to maps (so it's stock, no modding needed)


I'm sure i'll think of more

ROCO*AFZ*

I'm going to make a comment on this topic. And though I doubt it's what Colin had in mind and I realize this is not a Rainbow Six board but I think it still makes a great point. It's about gaming and gaming history.

In 2003 Rainbow Six fans got an upgraded game called Raven Shield. It was perfect. The game they fell in love with was not reinvented but updated with a new graphics engine, new physics, a few new items and in some cases we lost old features that many loved. But overall it wasn't a huge leap from what Rainbow Six fans fell in love with. And that's gameplay. And today... 4 years after it's release myself and others are still playing it because it's a GREAT game. Raven Shield was a logical upgrade that did nothing to hurt the gameplay that Rainbowsix fans had become accustomed to.

A few more reasons Raven Shield has had such a long lifespan and lasting impact is because it got patched, it got mission packs, it had server side functionality and the modding community got what they needed.

And to be honest I think games like Raven Shield were planned out from the start to live longer than games we're getting these days.

Most gamers I've come across like a game they can really get involved in. And when I say get involved I mean gamers invest a part of themselves in the game they love. So when they take that kind of step they want to see their game last for a while. They don't want disposable software so they can throw their money out the window and repeat the process in another 3 months. But most are pretty happy to see new content if it is in the interest of keeping their game alive.

Again, sorry if I'm way off topic. I thought it applied.

quote:

Syrfer

Hi Your post is dead on different game same principle.

Dev Team is the key.

What ROCOAFZ said
Cheers
Peace

Hear Hear!

Leave the core of the game the same. Enhance/optimize everything that was missing. Some thoughts:

• Better interface options to customize the kits;
  
• make small opstacles crossable, maybe no jump but a 'climb-over' feature (for low fences, walls etc.);
  
• have FPV, FPWV and also FPV with ironsight view to the options (user and server toggable);
  
• add free-look to the options and body awareness (when I look down I see my weapon and toes);
  
• better interface with AI, also more possibillities to capture them instead of kill all and everything you see;
  
• real life physics like stamina model (running up hill is harder and goes slower then on flat terrain);
  
• more real-time weaponry and abilities (smoke grenades that work on AI, flash bangs, cut through fences etc);
  
• 10-15 SP and COOP missions;
  
• 10-15 maps + OGR ones (all maps usable for MP, SP and COOP);
  
• more interface with the environment/physics (breakable/movable objects);
  
• better nighvision and other optics;
  
• possibillity for laser guided bombardments;
  
• enhance the graphics and engine;
  
• and for all leave all good elements as they are.

Rock on!

Mine are only SP requests.....

• Do not turn GR into a hollywood-style scripted "action packed" shooter. Chaos, lots of explosions, and *** like that does NOT = tension. Many of the most tension filled moments in GR are while setting up and executing a swift surgical strike and then disapearing.
  
• I don't necessarily NEED to be able to soul switch, but I do not want a "hero" lead character either. Let me choose my character for a mission.
  
• REALISTIC missions for this type of unit; no over the top-save-the-planet ****. GR missions are great, including many mods such as Centcom, YOTM, NED, Frostbite.
  
• Don't take us into some futuristic adventure with "prototype" weapons and gear. Most GR fans are more interested in current hardware.
  
• I would prefer the ghosts working alone, on focused get-in-and-get-out missions, not fighting along side regular army or locals.
  
• Nooooooo "24" style campaigns. I don't want to save the world in xx hours. The campaign structure in GR and community mods is perfect. There is a real sense of accomplishment and closure with each missions, as well as a desire to get on with the next mission, and the next, etc.
  
• The points system is okay, it adds interest in the characters, yet the ghosts starting out as total noobs with no skills seems odd. I think the Raven Shield system is quite good, including the load-out and team selection interface.
  
• Better enemy A.I., but that does not mean they should be unbeleivable sharp-shooting jedi ninjas. Just making a game more "difficult" does not make the experience more realistic and believable.
  
• The ghosts' dialog and intercom voice acting is perfect in GR. Very mission oriented and direct. Don't turn them into whiny, joking, complaining, cheering dolts as some "pro" game reviewers would like. They are clueless generic gamers, not Ghost Recon fans.
  
• More options are always good. This notion that "streamlining" the UI means removing options so we can "quickly get into the action" is OBSURD. I don't think any GR fan wants that.
  
• Please don't fill the "hud" with a lot of arcade looking info when we can simply refer to the map and find it.
  
• Absolutely no scripted firefights please.
  
• allow the modding community to continue to create content
  
• enemy A.I. should be a bit more random. The game loses everything after the one and only A.I. placement has been figured out.
  
• No hold-the-fort defend type missions, if I wanted that I'd play defend mode right?

Ok, Colin's shameless plug of this thread over at GR.net got me to stop by and see what had transpired over here

I really think most of the posts here do a good job of hitting the nail squarely on the head. In particular I want to echo what "wombat50" said at the top of page 3... If you really want to make a game that will capture the audience that GR has captured, then you had better spend a few weeks with the core of your design/development team actually playing GR in all of its forums and with many of the more popular mods. There is soooo much user developed content out there for GR, and it has done sooooo much to help expand the game beyond what was delivered in the box. I very much believe that a developer can learn a lot about the community and game very efficiently by spending some time actually playing (I'd vote for some time playing siege, SAR, and of course co-op tourney missions). It is only by really taking note of the many things that were "gotten right" that there is any hope of building a successful follow on (in my opinion).

Ok, time-warping myself past 2004 (sorry Colin). It was sometime during GRAW2 development, when I had the opportunity to interact via PMs with some "Grin staff", that it became clear to me that Grin had never played GR and had no interest in investing any time into figuring out how the game and community worked. That's when I understood why GRAW was the way it was, and it was also when I decided I was not buying GRAW2

@Syrfer,

So the question is how much should it change from GR1? TBH, RVS was too far from R6 for my taste, i.e. mainly SP (though co-op wasn't bad). I would much have preferred another expansion for R6, but I also have to admit that it would probably never sell.

*

Ok, I'm going to break the "2004 spell" here a bit Colin, but I'm trying to make an important point please bear with me

How much of what is being posted in this thread had already been posted pre-GR2 and pre-GRAW2, if not here then on GR.net? I wasn't around either forum much at that time, but I suspect pretty much all of it.

GRAW1/2 was developed separately from the console versions to specifically cater to the tastes of the GR PC community. With GR1 (the last GR PC game) in mind, this can only mean a tac-sim.

And while opinions on GRAW1/2 differ (which is only fair), there is a clear majority consensus that it certainly wasn't the same kind of game as GR1. In other words, it wasn't a tac-sim.

Why? Because those in charge (notably the people actually doing the work, i.e. GRIN) simply didn't "get it". They were indeed skillful, competent, knowledgeable, attentive (i.e. they read the forums and listened to the community) and had the best intentions, which is why GRAW2 did indeed have many improvements. But from a tac-sim perspective the changes were somewhat random and helpless and didn't really change anything. Because they didn't "get it". For all their skills, they fundamentally failed to grasp the concept, the "essence", of the tac-sim game.

The point I'm trying to make is that no amount of feedback, suggestions and constructive criticism is going to change anything. And no amount of good intensions and skills of the developers is going to do any good. Unless those in charge have the right tac-sim mindset.. The importance of this cannot be exaggerated. It is quite simply everything.

The bad news is that the developer cannot simply follow a tac-sim rulebook, you have to truly "get it". The good news is that the tac-sim mindset can be learned.

So the "real" answer to Colin's original question is this: "Debating the details is pointless at this point. Show me a developer who understand the tac-sim mindset. Then we can talk "

Respectully

krise madsen

PS: I hope everyone has understood that this post is not intended as a GRAW/GRIN/UBI-comment thread hijack. And sorry for rambling on for so long.

quote:

krise

Very Good post

Yes good post.

And as someone else mentioned, you can't 'get it' if you haven't played it.

Ok. I’l try to put myself back into 2004 and those are my requests :

- Don’t change the core of the game, keep the basics untouched !
- Redo graphics
- Ad FPWV option
- Ad ragdol.
- Create ~15 missions campaign same style as OGR, don’t create “hollywood-like save the world with 4 person squad within 24 h cool campaign for MTV kids.”
- Implement at least 15 good MP maps, and keep the variety from OGR – some rural maps, some urban maps and few mixed maps like castle.
- Fix some weapons damage system ( it was almost impossible to kill with silenced pistol or silenced MP5 in OGR ). Keep the 1-2 shot = kill system for the rest of the weapons.
- Keep the gore level, it was just perfect in OGR.
- Provide OGR MP mods ( siege and hh is a must) plus ad 2-3 more.
- Keep the stock kit system in SP but add custom MP kits. Add more slots in kits , not only rifle + pistol or rifle + nades .
- And finally sit tight grab a beer and enjoy millions of copies sold, then release 1 expansion pack a year and watch ppl playing this game online for next 4-5 years.


It makes me sad everytime I think what they did to this unique title

PS. Highlander 2 comes to my mind :/

This message has been edited. Last edited by: CERT.Kirkegaard,

Its 2004 already !, I'm getting old

I would like to drop few lines . I'll be snappy .
Stick to original recipe . Hire the same team to develop sequel .
Pay them double !
Details ? ... , I bet they know how to improve their " Baby "
Enough said .

Best Regards

quote:

It was sometime during GRAW2 development, when I had the opportunity to interact via PMs with some "Grin staff", that it became clear to me that Grin had never played GR and had no interest in investing any time into figuring out how the game and community worked. That's when I understood why GRAW was the way it was, and it was also when I decided I was not buying GRAW2

Wow...after reading that I barfed a little in my mouth. I would have been more understanding of GRIN if they simply tried and failed (which I do believe for the most part) but to find out that they never attempted to discover the "magic" behind the greatest tactical shooter ever made is inexcusable. I bought GRAW out of loyalty to the franchise.

But to answer the OP's question:

- improved graphics, vastly improved animations, improved weather effects, more ambient sound...all contributing to greater "immersion".

- Dramatically enhance the role of stealth in the game. GR involves asking a squad of about 4 guys to do missions where there is a MUCH larger enemy force. In RL, you can be pretty sure that detection in such circumstances would mean certain death. It would make the game so much more intense...and fun. We tried some of those "Stealth Recon" (or whatever they're called) missions from Alpha Squad. We never succeeded in any mission (it's a "difficult" game type) but DAMN were they fun!!!!

- dramatic improvments have been made in enemy AI since OGR came out. In more recent games, the enemy is more mobile and aggressive, uses cover WAY better than in OGR, reacts more as squads than as individuals, and reacts to how the battle is shaping up. For example, in BIA:EIB, if an enemy squad realizes its being flanked, it will fall back to a workable cover position. GR could really use a tune-up in terms of enemy artificial intelligence. This is where future games will shine.

- I know it would be near impossible to have the enemy in a military combat game play as randomly as they do in SWAT 4, but it would definitely be a goal to strive for. I.E. program the enemy with "intelligence" as much as possible, throw in some randomness and drastically cut down on scripted events.

I guess my instincts to pass over GRAW 2 were correct. Oh well, time to go download some more OGR mods!

quote:

Originally posted by Tilok-IRA:
Its 2004 already !, I'm getting old

I would like to drop few lines . I'll be snappy .
Stick to original recipe . Hire the same team to develop sequel .
Pay them double !
Details ? ... , I bet they know how to improve their " Baby "
Enough said .

Best Regards

The original team could not develop a new Ghost Recon. Several have moved on to different development houses and others have started their own studios and are working on their own game.

quote:

Originally posted by krise_madsen:

Ok, I'm going to break the "2004 spell" here a bit Colin, but I'm trying to make an important point please bear with me

How much of what is being posted in this thread had already been posted pre-GR2 and pre-GRAW2, if not here then on GR.net? I wasn't around either forum much at that time, but I suspect pretty much all of it.

GRAW1/2 was developed separately from the console versions to specifically cater to the tastes of the GR PC community. With GR1 (the last GR PC game) in mind, this can only mean a tac-sim.

And while opinions on GRAW1/2 differ (which is only fair), there is a clear majority consensus that it certainly wasn't the same kind of game as GR1. In other words, it wasn't a tac-sim.

Why? Because those in charge (notably the people actually doing the work, i.e. GRIN) simply didn't "get it". They were indeed skillful, competent, knowledgeable, attentive (i.e. they read the forums and listened to the community) and had the best intentions, which is why GRAW2 did indeed have many improvements. But from a tac-sim perspective the changes were somewhat random and helpless and didn't really change anything. Because they didn't "get it". For all their skills, they fundamentally failed to grasp the concept, the "essence", of the tac-sim game.

The point I'm trying to make is that no amount of feedback, suggestions and constructive criticism is going to change anything. And no amount of good intensions and skills of the developers is going to do any good. Unless those in charge have the right tac-sim mindset.. The importance of this cannot be exaggerated. It is quite simply everything.

The bad news is that the developer cannot simply follow a tac-sim rulebook, you have to truly "get it". The good news is that the tac-sim mindset can be learned.

So the "real" answer to Colin's original question is this: "Debating the details is pointless at this point. Show me a developer who understand the tac-sim mindset. Then we can talk "

Respectully

krise madsen

PS: I hope everyone has understood that this post is not intended as a GRAW/GRIN/UBI-comment thread hijack. And sorry for rambling on for so long.

Oh no m8, you just failed class, first of all:
GR was a simplified R6 type game developed for the xbox.
GR was not a tactical sim, it was a light/simple tactical shooter.

And for your big claim about how GRIN didnt "get it" i believe you're the one who didnt "get it". GRIN werent hired to develop a perfect tactical sim/shooter game, they were hired to develop the PC versions of GRAW and GRAW2 and thats exactly what they had to do (and on a tight schedule too).

The above is self explanatory. GRAW team structure, missions, cutscenes, cr*p com, weaponry, Mexico city, etc. The way Ubisoft wrote and designed the future of the GR series, not them.
If Ubisoft had aproached GRIN and asked: "Hey, make us a very tactical/realistic squad based shooter game will ya?" i honestly believe GRIN would have delivered. They have what it takes.

And RSE? Well they made GR2 for the xbox, was that how anyone here imagined GR2 in 2004? Dont think so.. lol.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex_HS:
Oh no m8, you just failed class, first of all:
GR was a simplified R6 type game developed for the xbox.
GR was not a tactical sim, it was a light/simple tactical shooter.

Semantics, and your definition is probably more accurate than mine. R6=tac-sim, GR=tac shooter?

quote:

Originally posted by Alex_HS:
And for your big claim about how GRIN didnt "get it" i believe you're the one who didnt "get it". GRIN werent hired to develop a perfect tactical sim/shooter game, they were hired to develop the PC versions of GRAW and GRAW2 and thats exactly what they had to do (and on a tight schedule too).

The above is self explanatory. GRAW team structure, missions, cutscenes, cr*p com, weaponry, Mexico city, etc. The way Ubisoft wrote and designed the future of the GR series, not them.
If Ubisoft had aproached GRIN and asked: "Hey, make us a very tactical/realistic squad based shooter game will ya?" i honestly believe GRIN would have delivered. They have what it takes.

Exactly who did what regarding GRAW1/2 is something for historians to ponder, IMHO.

However, in the perspective of a future GR game, I'm reading your post as: "Given a competent developer, time and money - and no undue meddling from the publisher - (insert developer of your choice) can make a good GR (tac-sim/tac shooter) game".

I disagree. Sure, they will need all that, but they will also need to understand what makes the tac-sim/tac shooter different from other shooters. And the difference is an awful lot more than realistic weapons, slowed down movement speed and no bunnyhopping.

Respectfully

krise madsen

Thread cleaned stay ot its 200 bleedding 4 FGS.
No Graw No Grin 2004 hello.



I feel better now.