PDA

View Full Version : Defining a GR PC experience



REMORSELESS
02-14-2010, 08:16 PM
On Twitter (I know, I know) I (sort of trolled) kimi and said that I didn't want GR to be consolized and she asked what I meant. 140 characters doesn't cut it. Here's how I feel on the subject:

The engine: The most basic element of the game, this gives the player the experience as a whole. Engines coded for consoles quite frankly don't play right on PC. They usually have a myriad of different issues, which often go unfixed for whatever reason. Using an engine that was built for the PC goes a long way towards making the gameplay feel right. Having played many ports, the games just have an off feel about them that you can pick up on when they use a console-developed engine. Whether it's mouse acceleration, inability to bind certain keys, performance issues, lack of detailed options for things like graphics, audio, HUD, or things of that nature, it makes the game feel as though it's an afterthought and gives us a bad connection to Ubi/the developer (should they be separate, as they were last time).

Openness: The PC is an open platform. We like this to translate to our games, especially our tac-sim style games. Open maps and openness towards modders is a must for this style of game. A game in which you can create scenarios and run through them in open-ended levels would go a long way towards increasing the value we feel we get from our $50 investment.

No hand-holding: I know I don't speak for all PC gamers out there, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of PC GR players will agree with me that we don't want our hands held. I don't want or need enemies pointed out for me. If I miss them because I don't see them, it's on me. Having an option to call out enemies by looking at them and issuing a command is far better, IMO, than highlighting them for me. If I wanted an easy gameplay experience I wouldn't be playing a GR game.

Realism: OGR had an authentic feel. It never felt as though it wasn't believable. Things like an OTS view and bullet trails (to use an example from the console versions) take me out of what I feel is a GR experience as set forth by GR 1, my intro to the series. Authentic military hardware with authentic handling and authentic utilage is something that I feel a GR should have.


I don't mean to put down the consoles with the term "consolized", but the simple fact is that a good console game does not directly translate to a good PC game. We're two very separate audiences in terms of our expectations as gamers and our likes/dislikes in this particular genre of game, IMO. I feel that PC gamers on the whole (there will always be exceptions for every such general statement) are far pickier about how "tac-sim" types of games are handled.

BSR_RuGGBuTT
02-14-2010, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by REMORSELESS:
Engines coded for consoles quite frankly don't play right on PC.................the games just have an off feel about them that you can pick up on when they use a console-developed engine. Whether it's mouse acceleration, inability to bind certain keys, performance issues, lack of detailed options for things like graphics, audio, HUD, or things of that nature, it makes the game feel as though it's an afterthought
Couldn't agree with you more.


Openness: Open maps and openness towards modders is a must for this style of game. A game in which you can create scenarios and run through them in open-ended levels would go a long way towards increasing the value we feel we get from our $50 investment.
Preach on, brother!


No hand-holding: I'm pretty sure that a lot of PC GR players will agree with me that we don't want our hands held. I don't want or need enemies pointed out for me.
Exactly! We (my squad) matched over 2000 matches on one ladder alone and we had to IFF our enemies the old fashioned way, with the Mk.1 eyeball. Just like real soldiers have to do. IRL this isn't likely to change for quite some time. We also never used the threat indicator.


Realism: OGR had an authentic feel. It never felt as though it wasn't believable. Things like an OTS view and bullet trails (to use an example from the console versions) take me out of what I feel is a GR experience
QFT



I don't mean to put down the consoles with the term "consolized", but the simple fact is that a good console game does not directly translate to a good PC game. We're two very separate audiences in terms of our expectations as gamers and our likes/dislikes in this particular genre of game, IMO.
If only publishers understood this. Honestly, I have to wonder about how far detached these people are from the consumer. Maybe this is why the CoD series sells hundreds of millions of dollars, they know what their target group wants. Too bad UBI is so myopic that they can't figure this out for their market.

REMORSELESS
02-14-2010, 08:40 PM
Yeah, they're pretty detached from the gamer it seems. I understand that it's a business, but a happy customer should ALWAYS be the endgame for a company, and that means understanding and striving to meet the customers' needs and wants.

I see these things as simple basics of PC gaming. I don't feel as though these are part of any of the complex issues that could arise during something like a beta involving gameplay elements, HUD/graphics issues or any number of other things which affect PC gamers that are a result of ports.

Blindspot1993
02-14-2010, 09:00 PM
In my opinion, games made for the PC and then ported over to a console are better games all around. Even when a game is made for a console it still feels like it is missing something, even though that game was made for that console. It is very hard to explain.

xB0NES
02-14-2010, 09:17 PM
I agree. I have never been much of a PC guy, but I still agree with everything that the PC crowd has to offer. GR and GRIT were the best two games that I have ever played, and I played them on XBL, alot... On the other hand, I also played a few of the earlier RS titles on PC. Along with games like Red Faction, Half-Life, etc. So, I think I can relate a little. I guess you could say that the only reason I've switched to consoles is because of the lack in support for PC. Maybe it's time to switch back? Pray for something new all together? I'm not really sure what to do...

BSR_RuGGBuTT
02-15-2010, 05:14 AM
Great post Lenney. I've heard your sentiments echoed quite a bit from consolers back in the day. If UBI does the run and gun thing with this game then it's going to fall in between the cracks with every other military shooter out there. No offense UBI but you guys just aren't smart enough or talented enuf to compete with the Battlefield and CoD series of run and gun games. Go back to what put you on the map in the first place and sell bajillions of copies of this game.

REMORSELESS
02-15-2010, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
Great post Lenney. I've heard your sentiments echoed quite a bit from consolers back in the day. If UBI does the run and gun thing with this game then it's going to fall in between the cracks with every other military shooter out there. No offense UBI but you guys just aren't smart enough or talented enuf to compete with the Battlefield and CoD series of run and gun games. Go back to what put you on the map in the first place and sell bajillions of copies of this game.

Yeah, pretty much. I'd much rather they do exactly what makes the original GR and R6 games great - the tactics and realism, but without Hollywooding it up to make it easier for newer players to enter. I mean, it's not like it's ArmA 2 or something, there's a lot smaller of a barrier to entry for an OGR or one of the original R6 titles than an ArmA 2/1/OFP.

spm1138
02-19-2010, 12:30 PM
The Clancy franchise on PC was basically the thinking man's shooter/whatever.

At the time a lot of the "semi-tactical" shooter features you now see everywhere weren't in every shooter you looked at so it was a real difference.

It was also defined by being a very tense experience.

GR had open levels non-linear objectives and a real feeling of sand-box play.

Decent tactics like bounding overwatch and setting up fields of fire really paid dividends too.

ST2_Pootin
02-28-2010, 02:53 PM
well said remorseless.

Burawura00
03-01-2010, 09:30 AM
The original Ghost Recon was so successful because it made the tactical, squad-based military sim accessible and fun to the general gaming community. The AW games that followed moved away from the refined tac-sim gameplay that made the franchise a success in favor of an action-based gameplay typified by COD MW in an effort to chase the big bucks. In the process the franchise lost its soul, and lost the appeal that caused so many to continue to play the original for nearly a decade.

I can promise UBI one thing: if you make a game that is true to the spirit and gameplay of the original Ghost Recon, you will make LOTS OF MONEY and revive this franchise. Future Soldier will be a huge success. If you continue along the AW path and do not listen to the fans, the game and the franchise will be a failure.

UBI, You don't need to try to keep up with the MW2s and BFBC2s to succeed with this game. All you need to do is create a quality squad-based tactical military sim with contemporary game tech. Then you need to stick with it and support the game with patches and expansions. The tac-sim void in the market is just waiting to be filled. Bohemia made a good try at it with Arma 2, but that game is not polished and accessible enough to have industry-wide success. The belief that the tac-sim genre is a niche market is a LIE. The original Ghost Recon proved that.

BOTA-16
03-01-2010, 01:05 PM
I've always felt what made GR/R6 unique and overall just better than most FPSs is that they were not arcade shooters nor were they hardcore military sims. They were right in the middle, not too arcadey and not too simulation. But the more recent GR/R6 titles have shifted to the arcadey end of the spectrum and now are too similar to flavor of the month shooters.

I enjoy the Call of Duty games as much as the next guy and the COD gameplay hasn't changed significantly since COD1, so you always know what type of game you are going to get when you play COD. It was the same way with Tom Clancy games. When you played a TC game you knew what type of gameplay were going to get. It seems with each iteration UBI is changing the face of what a TC game means. The Vegas or GRAW "series" of TC games in no way shape or form resemble a TC game, only in name. Instead of building upon what made TC games so great they seem to just start over every time. How can UBI build (err rebuild) a franchise where the core gameplay changes with every iteration?

COD is successful because IW in very good at making that type of game, they've been doing it since COD1. The same members of that studio have been there since then. Same with the Battlefield series, DICE makes the "Battlefield" experience pretty similar across all Battlefield games. They've kept the core features of the game largely unchanged. UBI on the other hand seems to change its mind constantly, with no real consistency.

ghostjwm1962
03-07-2010, 10:33 PM
Well there are a couple of things that define a real GR PC experience. First it needs at least 4 player campaign coop with hopefully 8 player coop. This I believe is an essential part of the game as I have played every GR game on the PC that has come out and that coop play definied the game. If Left 4 Dead is so sucessful utilizing coop then UBI should not leave that out. Second we need the one shot kill, I don't want to see a heal bar or regenerate health when I hide if I get shot I should either be dead or be bleeding out. I am tired of the more brain dead shooters where you don't have the fear of taking a bullet. And last but not least the PC version needs to allow mods the way the orginal GR did. I have hundreds of megabytes worth of DLC content that I still enjoy playing. If you have those 3 components with a great strategic shooter it will be a winner on the PC.

CyStryker
03-24-2010, 12:16 PM
ghostjwwm1962: Well stated. I think the original GR developers called it "combat ineffective" If u were shot and u were effectively combat ineffective the game killed you off. This should be in GR:FS. I can see stopping u from bleeding out but u may not be able to move or shoot effectively after med attention. Even in BC2 on hard core mode u can be regenerated after a head shot kill! I can see stabilizing a player who took a non penetration hit to body armor but if pen'ed ...u die... u r combat ineffective.
If u provide limits on respawn per team or player .... as per administrator you would substantially stop the run and gun attitude because I will just respawn .. endlessly.

Rol