<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AI.BLUEFOX:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by atacms:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PALADIN_BS:
You make a fair point. But to me it seems a case of Ghost Recon sticking to it principles so much that it's actually changing what it is. Unlike others I don't believe that the main gameplay element of Ghost Recon was future warfare, it was part of it. To me squad mechanics in a semi realistic setting were much more important.
So if Ghost Recon is primarily about future warfare then your points have ALOT of weight. But if not then the game is being changed from the original gameplay.
So I guess it's down to perspective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why does it have to be an either/or? Why can't the game have both. My fetish/wish for advanced tech does not mean I don't equally want squad mechanics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, there's a few mod cons you can carry around these days - GPS anyone -but if you take it too far, it's not camping anymore. It's being too cheap to get a hotel room.
That's how I see GR. IF you stray too far towards the tech it's not GR anymore. The tech should not be the reason for the game. Yeah there should be some, but the original feel for GR was being out in the wilderness on your own. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This goes back to what I mentioned to Paladin. You have a romantic view of soldiering.
It's the experience that:
<LI> you detect the enemy with your Ghost Recon avatar's eyes, rather than have Crosscom 2.0 or some smart sensor that you emplaced earlier at a chokepoint tell you there is an enemy approaching
<LI>you pull the trigger and kill the enemy with your sniper rifle, rather than detect at long distance via an armed drone flying overhead
<LI>you sneakily approach an enemy sentry rather than rely on optical camo to approach him
<LI>you have a AI buddy or real life co-op partner at your side, rather than potentially an armed ground drone that is either directed by you or a teammate
As you can see I do GET IT.
Let's go to the complaint many had with the guncam in GRAW 2. Many said it promoted camping. That is getting to the heart of the issue. It's not the tech per se, but how it's balanced in the game design to not promote a negative behavior in gamers and create a somewhat static battle.
So the issue was really how Ubi did or didn't have gameplay options to counter the guncam, not that they should not have included the guncam because it made the game less one of skill. The problem was how Ubi tackled or didn't promote the use of skill to counter the guncam.
As for the tech in the game, guys please don't forget we're not talking about the TOE for regular army. Just like the US Army isn't equipped with Blackhawks that have tail rotors that look like this:
And we should remember that the game is about a special elite unit which are equipped with special gear that the regular army tends not to see til years later.