Not to mention one of the maps is entirely outside.
Originally Posted by gameshoes
Obvious fanboy. The cover system is complete trash in FS it is GREAT in Online. Not only can you look over cover and kill enemies who are on the same piece of cover, but hey... you can also look AROUND the cover... what a ****ing concept... it has only been around since the existence of guns. Also, you have no ****ing clue what you are talking about and clearly have not played GRO because you can aim around cover in third person in GRO.
Originally Posted by Avean
Also the lines are to inform you you are in range of someones team abilities. They are not always up. Stop watching ****ing youtube videos and go play the game you ignoramus!
It is in every way better huh? That is funny because last time I checked, visuals and sounds do not make a game a good game they just add to the wow factor. The sounds and graphics are better for one reason only, because the budget was larger. That is the only thing besides weapon customization that FS did better. Ghost Recon Online actually takes teamwork. FS takes run and gun killing and mass intel (so noob). The maps look better but are not in any way better maps. The maps in GRO are actually strategically designed to make the game play competitive and require teamwork. FS it is just small maps with what surely must be random because the objective points and where they are systematically placed is just terribad. Also, you are right in a certain aspect that it takes more, but as you get higher level guns it takes less bullets to kill... Only takes me a few at level 28 w/ a level 15 weapon. In addition to that, you take FOREVER to regen health in GRO which makes the game take MUCH MUCH more talent. FS on the other hand you walk away for 15 seconds and your full life... Newby systems prevail again... Thanks call of garbage and every other game that ruined this for real FPS and TPS players!
Hit registry is a server and or client side issue the hitboxes are perfect, in fact they are pretty much identical to FS. It is just a bit laggy... At least GRO were smart enough to put dedicated servers in.
Last edited by GotBunkered; 04-26-2012 at 09:55 PM.
As far as looking around in cover goes, I really don't have a problem with that. Something that really annoyed me about Rainbow Six Vegas was you could pretty much line up a shot without even exposing yourself. That is in no way realistic, and at least for my own tastes, was unpleasant. That being said, I loved Vegas.
Originally Posted by GotBunkered
I've played GRO for about three days now and there are a few things about it that peeve me. For starters, (and maybe I just haven't acquired leet enough skills yet), ADS seems like a total useless waste of time. One of the things that was nice about GRAW that I particularly liked was you had one ****on to zoom in your sights from a third person perspective, but had a seperate ****on to go ADS (aim down sights). While this is kind of egornomically not as viable for a PC, it'd still be nice to see a similar option. But thats only one thing that bugs me. The second thing (and again, this could be because I totally suck balls at GRO, afterall, I've only played it for three days now) is that I hardly feel any benefit from aiming down sights (unless using a sniper scope with a bipod). Honestly, it feels like there isn't hardly any benefit at all. I've had more luck trying to shoot people at far distances in 'hip fire' mode, than in ads, and to me, that totally defeats the purpose of even implementing it in game.
Animations do feel clunky, I've been incredibly annoyed by getting picked off by snipers even though I've been 'prone' in cover, and have no parts of my body visible at all and directly between me and the sniper is a big atleast 6 inch thick cement wall. A 50. Cal might be able to pull a shot off like that, but a 306?... yeah right. I'm hoping they'll refine that stuff, afterall, it is supposedly in 'early' beta phases still. At least I hope so, because as it stands, the game seems largely unfinished to me.
I'm not fond of the art style, but game play always trumps visuals where gaming is concerned. Well, in most cases. I once enjoyed Ultima Online, but trying to revisit it in this day and age just hurts my eyes.
I'm more of a hardcore player whereas ballistics and bullet damage are concerned. I'd definately prefer GRAW weapon damage over GRO's, as in the game's current state, it definately plays more like an arcade shooter than a tactical realism shooter.
Now with all that being said, I'm not really saying that GRO is a horrible game, infact, I've enjoyed the short time I've played it to some degree. But it isn't something I really see myself playing past this beta. This is very sad for me, because I've enjoyed literally every GR game to date, up until GRO, which really doesn't feel like GR at all.
Now, on to Future Soldier.
I can't really say anything about the game, simply because I haven't played it. From what I have seen, at least in terms of design quality the game looks much better than GRO. Much better visuals, animations seem more fluid and realistic, much more detail in player/weapon/world models and definately higher quality textures, but as I'm really only touching asthetics I can't really say much more than that.
What does concern me the most about FS, is that from the videos I've watched for the beta, the maps feel really cramped, catering to the run and gun play of Call of Duty style games. This to me, is not Ghost Recon. Though GRO's levels seem bigger so far by a long shot, the GRO's level suffer from the same feel due to the rather linear design of the maps. They're very comparable to the rush mode in the Battlefield series only even more bottlenecked than those maps. All in all, I'm a bit disappointed in both new iterations of the GR franchise... If I had to put my money on it though, I think FS might have a better chance of appealing to me... but thats all speculation at this point because I really haven't had a chance to try it myself. I'm really hoping though, that come full release, they'll have some broader and larger maps... but seeing what they've been selling to us so far... I'm not gonna get my hopes up.
Thank you for your views, gaelicwarlord.
And I agree with what you've said; both titles aren't exactly wearing the Ghost Recon name anymore. But for what it is, GRO has produced a good gaming experience despite having way less money than GRFS.
Can't disagree with you at all there. I actually was kind of impressed. When I heard F2P GR game, I kind of expected a lousy knockoff like Battlefield Free2Play or Play4Free, or whatever its called.. Granted it isn't exactly the Ghost Recon experience, its definately a good game all things considered. And there really isn't anything like it at all in the F2P market. Its definately worth keeping an eye on as it continues development.
Originally Posted by gameshoes
That being said I'm sure Future Soldier will also produce a great gaming experience. It might not fill the expectations of what I think is ideal in a Ghost Recon game, but... I do think the Single Player portion will provide enough of a backbone to support its multi-player appeal. It actually surprises me just how much I hear people didn't like Conviction. I actually thought it was the best SC in the series. Atleast in terms of storyline... I didn't necessarily like how it sped up the pace of the game, but I also understand it was going for a totally different side of Sam Fisher, and trying to get that Jason Bourne feel to it, rather than a Cloak and Dagger feel.
It seems like with GRFS, they're trying to take the best of all their latest and greatest titles, the innovative features of R6V, GRAW, Conviction, it kind of bundling it in one. Atleast in a single player perspective, I'm hoping this will provide for a lot of replayability and many ways to approach the same missions. I'll cross my fingers, in hopes that the Multiplayer will live up to its potential come release, but if not... heres to hoping the singleplayer will still be a satisfying experience!
Last edited by gaelicwarlord; 04-27-2012 at 09:01 AM.
I wonder how the PC's optical camouflage will compare. When I saw my first cloaked enemy unit, I did a double-take. I barely saw the person as he walked past me, if I hadn't seen the distortion pattern and been focusing on it. I've seen a lot of GRFS videos showing something that looks like a cardboard cutout basically.
I'm kinda with you, and have the same experience as you, as I've played GRO beta but not GRFS. I also played GRAW and GRAW 2, plus older GR games, and I don't get that Ghost Recon feel from GRO. It seems like another mediocre F2P shooter to me. I mean, people use their mics and communicate, but to me it's just a tad bit slower than what I've seen from GRFS, and that only because of the clunky animations and absence of a real sprint feature. I also do not like the art direction of GRO (it doesn't even look like the 2010 GRFS build). I think a more modern art design, like GRFS, would have been better. I don't like the extreme futuristic stuff in GRO either, like the Blitz for example. GRO is not terrible, but it's not something I'd pick up. I'll have to wait till a demo of GRFS for PC to make a decision about whether or not I like GRFS. And noo, I'm not a COD run and gun fanboy either, so that's not why I'm leaning towards GRFS over GRO. I'm more of the ArmA simulator type. I like realistic gameplay
Originally Posted by gaelicwarlord
About the third person zoom and ADS features, that is entirely possible with PC. ArmA 2 does it just fine. You hold down right mouse ****on to zoom in, and you press the right mouse ****on to Aim Down Sights.
Who says only Recons and Engineers are worth playing? What's wrong with playing Sam Fisher's elbow? :P
GRO is shaping up quite nicely. Shotties a bit OP, but otherwise, plays like Rainbow Six Lite.
After spending a week, I must say that if GRFS disappoints, I will be quite happy living in Ghost Recon Online. It fills in the 3rd person niche better than R6V2 now.
OK, this is the PC section of the forums and there is no accessible gameplay for GRFS on PC yet, so this whole argument has no merit :s