Comparison of Future Soldier and GRO | Forums

[GotBunkered]

I have now played both games extensively and thought I would put my two cents in on how they match up.


Let me just start by saying while Future Soldier is well designed and actually pretty fun to play, it is clearly catered to the masses. This game is in no way shape or form following the ghost recon franchise. Yes games need to evolve so we can move on from that. The problem is not so much that it does not follow the franchise, the problem is that this game went from a series based on tactical decisions to being a run & gun, spray & pray kinda game.


They pitch to us they made the recoil so bad that you can't spray when in fact that is really your only option. Players run SO fast that your only chance to hit them is to spray at them because you have such a small window to hit them moving cover to cover. Having said that it only takes two well placed shots to put someone to sleep.

Negatives:
1) Spray & Pray with no actual talent in the spray. This is similar to GRO but GRO has a system where you actually have to be skilled to spray players down. In FS you simply have to MOD your gun to have enough control and maneuverability and you can spray w/ very little recoil.

2) The maps are made more like a call of Duty Map and less like a Ghost Recon map. What do I mean? In ghost recon maps you typically had only so many paths you could take to reach the enemy. In this there is 1,000 different ways. The issue w/ this is that it takes away from the tactical feel as you are simply getting flanked constantly unless you have a team who is REALLY good (which never will happen if you play the game for casual experience). I do love the maps I just think they could have been designed more like GRO to force teamplay instead of hoping teamplay will just HAPPEN. I can't really explain this well without you actually seeing the maps. It is like comparing the tactical field of speedball to woodsball in the sport of paintball. GRO being the speedball.

3) You do not have good bunker control. When you are behind cover you can not aim over and down at the other side of your cover and you can not come around the sides of the cover and shoot people who are sharing your bunker on the opposite side. GRO did this perfectly. FS failed miserably. You have to leave the bunker and pretty much do a 1 for 1 in this situation. You kill him which you simply, have to do... and his team will take you shortly after you pop around the corner. It is basically first person to make the move gets the kill but there really is no benefit to doing so.

4) It feels like FS was the answer to COD. Terrible decision as I am sure they have lost many of their loyal fans.

5) Conflict mode is a cool concept, but not with the maps you have to play on. You basically get random objectives that are typically beneficial to one side as it will spawn near their spawn and you can take the objective well before the enemy even reaches you. *you still have to defend it but this makes it much easier as one of 2 steps has already been completed.

6) Player movement is way to fast while running, but way to slow while trying to bunker someone. GRO did this perfectly as well.

Positives:

1) The game looks and feels great

2) You can assassinate players w/ knifes and rifle buts instead of swinging for 5 minutes trying to hit them like in GRO lolol

3) the gunsmith customization is really cool, you can mod everything even your guns gas intake.

4) The maps and the game are beautiful.

5) It is actually really fun to play but will never be competitive not w/ Conflict mode at least.

6) You can way point to teamates and communicate with just your squad

7) you can hack players for intel, really really cool feature!

8) thats about it in comparison to GRO.


While it has many of the features GRO really could use to make it the perfect game, overall I think GRO was more well thought out and fun to play. I will be returning to GRO shortly after I give FS more of a fair shot and play the new game mode.


Anyone else had experience w/ both? Having said everything I just said was based off using a controller which I HATE. I will hopefully be able to try a beta version for PC first.

[gameshoes]

I will just say that I had more fun in GRO than GRFS. Since I've played the GRFS beta a bit and I've come to appreciate GRO more, I may reinstall the beta now.
But do note that the GRFS beta is on consoles, I may have had a better experience if there was a GRFS beta on the PC.

[JoshHardenburg]

Welcome Back!

[GotBunkered]

Thanks! Honestly FS would be perfect if it took the movement and cover system from GRO. Get rid of all of the detection devices EXCEPT for hacking which is a great idea. I hate that you can't slide into cover in FS and the cover system is awful as just sprinting gets you locked into random cover you don't want to be in. The game is just awful for console (looks incredible on PC I will still try it if they release a beta). The game will never be anything more than a public game however as they refused to add servers and everything is host based. Even private matches you can not customize so all equipment and detection devices remain available.