Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 79

Thread: The Future of Warfare: Ghost Recon's advanced tech, BUT what abt future enemy tactics | Forums

  1. #11
    Senior Member atacms2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,765
    <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:
    [LIST]
    <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:


    http://www.defensereview.com/m...ack-hawk-helicopter/




    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.

    ----In your application of military force, be just, fair, precise, but to conquer your enemies' will, heart and mind, seek to improve his lot- atacms-----
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,152
    Ok lets say for example they have the cloak. How do they implement that in a semi realistic way but yet balance it?

    Because for me have it switch off when you fire is just cheap nonsense. Guille suits don't switch off. Firing wouldn't affect your power supply, that is even if this tech needs a power supply.

    Do you have as experimental tech that works via bending light due to physical properties or powered projection technology?

    Due you limit it's ability to update the image when moving?

    Do you lower the resolution of the suit's projection?

    Do you have it only working in certain light wavelengths?

    Or do you counter act it with thermal vision, electromagnetic vision, personal radar, movement sensors, sensitive fire direction indicators or complicated light sensing recorder with the necessary complex algorithms.?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  3. #13
    Senior Member shobhit7777777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    7,223
    I think we first need to identify the ROLE of the Ghosts before getting into this debate.

    Ghosts were always (IMO) an elite unit of soldiers meant for sharp end operations (killing tangos and dropping buildings) they were quasi-black ops unit you send in to rip an enemies guts out. They are not recon troops, not SF troops for FID, not Delta troops for UC work and prisoner snatches and not Rangers for capturing airfields.
    Ghosts are dropped deep behind enemy lines with a specialised mission and to project some force.
    In this regard I can see them armed to the teeth with cutting edge/experimental tech. OGR tech made mucho sense as the TACMAP and Battlefield computer tied in beautifully with behind enemy lines special ops action. It seemed like a natural part of their gear...yet they did not seem overtly futuristic (as in GRAW).

    It is THIS exact balance that I'd like to see in GRFS. Hard-hitting mobile troops armed with high tech gear to make them 'Force Multipliers'
    GRAW did get it right..somewhat...but the focus shifted on the TECH fom the SOLDIERS and their mission.

    The game should be focused on Ghosts, not the latest AR systems...tech is secondary, I don't know why the devs have made it such a big issue with GRAW and the following games.

    I'm Batman



    Sig: Jazz117Volkov
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,152
    I disagree completely. The Ghosts are about recon, hostage rescue and anything else considered special operations. That's my opinion anyway.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  5. #15
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by atacms:
    This goes back to what I mentioned to Paladin. You have a romantic view of soldiering.
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    No, I have a romantic view of what a video game used to be like. I'd like it to go back towards that kind of gameplay.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by atacms:
    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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    That's an element of the game, but not what made it great.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  6. #16
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by atacms:
    The problem you feel with this issue in my opinion is DIRECTLY a function of you being a romantic...Some current USAF fighter pilots are having the same ambivalence towards drones. They say Predators could never take the place of the human...This argument was also made with tanks when they were beginning to replace horses in the US Army. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    You're making a fallacious comparison between real technology that actually exists (tanks & drones) and science fiction (cloaking devices and robo-skeletons). The technology that was shown in last year's demo was pure sci-fi. Maybe it was loosely based on something that the Army thinks it would someday like to have, but that's a very low bar to aim for.

    In prior GR games, the "future" technology that was fielded was for the most part based on real-world tech that was either in or close to prototype form. The GRFS demo abandoned that in favor of fantastical gadgets, neither of which exists in any form remotely resembling what was shown in the game. I defy anybody to even explain the physics behind the cloaking technology shown in the trailer and gameplay videos, let alone how to build one.

    They've toned that back to a large extent, but there is still a lot of tech in the game that would be more at home in Killzone or Halo - "intel grenades" are a new addition, and the magic cloak seems to still be there as well. These are purely there as game elements because somebody thought they might be fun - not because they're real technology today or in 20 years.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  7. #17
    @MeanMF

    Well an invisibility cloak is underway in its prototype stages. And yes, I do realize that they only cloaked something as big as a red blood cell and cloaking a full human would require imense nanotechnology, but it's a start. They once said that the computer could never be scaled to mobile size because the computing algorithms and energy required was impossible. Also, twenty years ago it was thought that light could never be tricked because light was thought to be always constant. But this and many recent experiments prove otherwise. By the way, sure the cloak isn't what ubisoft detailed it was and I doubt the cloak will be around within 20 years but their developerts, not scientists.

    And as for the intel grenade, I think it is based on a gadget that real special forces use today. It is a cylinder camera that is launched into a room where it takes 3d pictures of the entire room and relays it back to the forces. It would show the locations and count of the enemy. I guess the intel grenade is just a small exaggeration of this gadget but it is pretty close especially coupled with the agumented helmet.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  8. #18
    Senior Member Dirtymurph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,197
    @ Justin-x

    Whats your point?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  9. #19
    It looks like the heads-up/AR system that GRFS is obsessed with is also being abandoned in favor of issuing modified iPhones to soldiers:
    http://www.wired.com/dangerroo...le-computer-program/
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  10. #20
    I don't remember replying to you Dirtymurph. I was talking to MeanMF. Anyways, I was trying to get at that the invisibility cloak isn't pure sci-fi and that there is a little science behind it. As for the intel grenade, it is based off a real gadget and isn't unreal.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •