What the title says. There apparently is a great deal of confusion here about what Ghost Recon WAS.
Was it a casual shooter? Did people enjoy bunny hopping, glitching and exploiting like modern COD and MOH games? Was it only about kills like modern shooters?
Was it a tactical game? What is a tactical game? By SOME regards it is tactical to bunny hop your way across a battle field with a shotgun in each hand, blasting everything you see. By others, it is tactical to hit your inviso suit and snipe your enemies down from half the map away.
The original Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon were easy to get into, fairly easy to play and very hard to master.
Was it a pile of annoyance for people who wanted to run in guns blazing and got killed regularly?
I didn't think that was the point of the game, but modern shooters all do that. Any so called 'stealth' parts that modern shooters do is totally scripted and an afterthought to provide a little diversion between shooting things loudly.
For me, Ghost Recon was different. It was not a run and gun kind of shooter. If you tried to play it that way, you failed.
It was hard. Some of the missions took multiple run through attempts.
It was challenging If you took one or two hits and DIED, you had to watch where you were going, what you were doing.
It was not totally scripted. Until GRAW, you COULD go to different objectives first.
And last but not least, you had a squad to command. In OGR, you had up to 3 squads. In GRAW, you had 4 soldiers.
The game that they showed at E3 has none of these. It doesn't look hard, it doesn't look tactical, it doesn't look challenging, it looks totally scripted and you have 1 guy to command.
They can put the name on it, but that does not make it Ghost Recon. So what WAS Ghost Recon to you, since Ubisoft seems to have forgotten?
To me at its most basic level Ghost Recon is a squad combat based shooter set in a semi realistic game world.
I really like Ghost recon, but what I need myself to understand is that this game isn't really what it is supposed to be.
To me this game should be more about what the game really is , meaning only what the people say about it, the general populations opinion... Whith this in mind Ghost Recon still holds up to be the franchise the gets a lot of criticism even when the game hasn't been launched there have been several occasions in which the company making it had to say "slow down"(quite from the Ubisoft's own gaming forums website) to the general public trying to push it out. there are many other things that could factor into what Ghost Recon really is, not only is there the environment that the squad, and I mean a 4 person SQUAD actually tries the communicate with the enemy before killing them, jsut to give them a chance. I mean, why kill when you can have peace??? But wha kind of a game would that even make...
I can't quite get a wraps over it, but I'm simply just hoping that other people will understand what I am trying to say
Ghost Recon is, at least in my mind, supposed to be a realistic and plausible modern day tactical shooter with working military prototype weapons and gear.
being new to the forums I thought I would share what GR is to me. At first it was a nice change from the Rambo filled, multi player Team death match arenas. Not that those aren't fun, but having a hands on understanding of what it takes to complete a REAL combat mission was intriguing to me. You got to use some high tech hardware that hadn't at the time been released to the general masses of the military. So the solo missions were a lot of fun for me, playing as part of a team. They forced the player to think about how to deploy his team and use other assets to take advantage of the enemy. Having a fast computer was a real help so the flow of the game was smooth.
The new Future Warrior version looks even better I hope that on-line team work is a focus and that teams will form and make a challenging combat world. Beside that what players need to understand that together you can kick butt, being a Rambo just gets you dead faster.
All i know is GR and R6 are both dead to me.
OGR was everything the modern first person shooters are not. It was realistic in every possible way. You had to consider cover, exposure, approach, teamwork, individual roles within the team. But mainly it left the gamer (me) with a feeling of actual being there in a so realistic lifelike fashion that i often had my body filled with adrenaline, pounding heart and sweaty palm after and during a clan match. the exitement of working as a team, and see you stealth approach succeed was a great thrill.
Modern day first person shooters, that being the newest addition to the GR series, og any other compeeding game, has a tendency to celebrate the running and gunning way, which is as far fetched from reality as one can possibly get. To that OGR atleast was true to reality.
Sure the graphics might not have been as good and 'lifelike' as of today, but the gameplay and approach that OGR brought into play outcompeeds theese nowadays 'realistic' tendencies at anytime. My decision is clear i'd choose the OGR first any day - just a shame it got ruined by hackpacks, but thats another story
As a personal note, I must say, that OGR actually has been the only fps-game that ever has captured my interest beyond a couple of month - infact I played it with a great joy and dedication for almost 3 years online... and still today occationally play it in single player mode - just for good old times, sake. Shame its not 'alive' online anymore (not enough players playing to even fill up a server...)
DSRTD completely agreeeeed.
GOSH I MISS CLAN BATTLES :[
Ghost Recon 220.127.116.11 RIP
Best Game Ever.
<3 Red Storm Entertainment