I like only headgear honestly. Personalization through headgear/face and weapons while having your class determine what your armor looks like. Making it easily recognizable if a scout, rifleman, or engineer is peering at you from a vantage point.
There are panaramic views of some of the maps in the picture section, about 10 or so pages deep (it might take a couple minutes but they are there) and they look rather open.
As for size, no above view maps have been seen
Originally Posted by Rufeezo
If it means that the game runs smoother, then to hell with character customization. Doesn't really belong in a military shooter anyway if you think about it.
I don't think it has anything to do with running smoother, the character customization has always been like that I think. And I do agree that uniform and color customization does not belong in any military shooter, it completely negates the purpose of the uniform in the first place.
Here are more questions which certainly won't be answered, but maybe we can hypothesise together:
I'm wondering about the quality of the infrastructure for GRFS Multiplayer. I've seen many an FPS die within a blink for not including now standard streamlining to a smooth Multiplayer experience, because it mimicked too closely an unguided PC experience. Just too much clicking for console.
So, will GRFS have? ..
Host-Migration - or will our tense simulations have their atmosphere untimely ripped from them by rage quitters?
Join-in-Progress - can be contentious this, as players do not want to be surprised mid match. The way I see it, it's the only way to ensure balanced matches. With small parties essential, more players will be in them, and so what happens to our 6 v 6 match when a party of two quits immediately after launch. No fun for anybody. Which leads me on to..
Parties - we know we have them, and the interface can be seen on the latest Network video from Antoine (Challenges sound cool huh?). But I'm wondering if they glue like in Halo. If party host quits will players leave with him, and most of all, between matches will the party stick together. Some Ubi games have broken your party after each match - this is cardinal. Which leads to..
Match Cycles / Playlists - Do game types cycle on and provide a rolling and changing competition? Will it pick or suggest a new map, and have you keep playing? Or do you get dumped after each match? This gets old fast.
Honestly having hosts in MP games is old school now. Any company worth it's salt should be able to muster up dedicated servers for ranked matches.
Some of the best tactical games have been plagued by this, the one that most recently made me angry was OFP dragon rising. You would be in a no respawn coop or a limited respawn adversarial mode and the host might die with 30 minutes left on the game. They would just leave, disconnecting everyone else from the game and dropping them back at the menu's. This was a HUGE issue, although since coop is 1 death = restart it doesn't bother me there. But what about ragequitting hosts in MP? If ranked matches being fair are going to rely on the host not being a ragequitter, well that's the opposite of fair.