PDA

View Full Version : OT - GRAW demo is out and no multiplayer only LAN



FI_FlimFlam
04-26-2006, 05:28 PM
I know this is off topic, but most everyone here has been waiting with anticipation for GRAW.

Well the demo is out (you can get it on FilePlanet *yeuch* or other sites) and guess what there is no internet play! Sure you can use Hamachi to set up a virtual LAN but there is NO way to set up an unattended server~! ROFL. You're going to have to go through alot of hoops to play with a buddy if you aren't on the same physical network.

There are no words that can express my disappointment. This is just to similar to LD for me.

On the flip side single player looks great and is quite tough. It feels alot more like the original GR's than that excuese of a game GR2. Definitely returns more to it's roots in the single player vein. If the play wasn't so good in the single player portion I would completely write off the game at this point. In fact the gameplay is QUITE good and seems like it would absolutely rock in multiplayer. Buuuutttttt well you know, they don't really have it set up for it.

Here's hoping that they sort out the multiplayer part of the game. As it is the demo is enough for me to HOLD off buying because they aren't showing an adequate Hosting ability for any kind of dedicated server. Sounds familiar eh? Oh well - I might get banned for this but, WOW, I just had to let you guys know.

SODsniper
04-27-2006, 04:46 AM
I gotta agree with ya on this, FI... If the LD Debacle taught anyone ANYTHING, it is that an FPS Demo MUST include good Dedicated Server files or the game will not be a success.

I'll reserve all my other comments for the GRAW forum, but from all indications, it looks like UBI is forgoing/forgetting the MP/DS side of things again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

KungFu_CIA
04-27-2006, 08:24 AM
The GRAW demo is nothing to write home about. It is clearly an unoptimized version of the game which is usually an indication of the final retail whether most want to admit it or not.

The worst part in CO-OP is the round ends if whoever is playing the leader (Captain Mitchell) gets killed!

This is clearly a console port ala Lockdown, and takes the "one man hero" concept way too far.

I can deal with it in SP, but actually forcing the game to end if ONE crucial team member is killed is a REDICULOUS contrivance I've never heard of in any game on any platform until this one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

EDIT: I guess it doesn't matter which character you are, but the round still ends whenever the HOST (person hosting the game) dies. Give me a break...

SODsniper
04-27-2006, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by KungFu_CIA:

EDIT: I guess it doesn't matter which character you are, but the round still ends whenever the HOST (person hosting the game) dies. Give me a break...

Basically, we're gonna be looking at a bunch of hosted games with only ONE player... The Host. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

SODsniper
04-27-2006, 09:30 AM
Welp, I think this seals it:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=2...901024734#6901024734 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=2791043913&m=2201014734&r=6901024734#6901024734)


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

All bets on VEGAS.......

subzero1900
04-27-2006, 06:55 PM
ROFL, wow, hate to say it, but I was right, Graw wont be seeing a dime, sorry you guys had your hopes up, but who's to blame?....(you all know the awnser and it isn't you)

now you say "Hopefully Vegas (aka LD 3.0) Will be better"

Just from only The Developer's attitude on this forum basically shows you what UBI's general stance is towards the PC Community (we are listening...but with ear plugs!)


Console = $$$$$$ (may we wipe your butts sirs, we love all you broke children)

PC = .01cents (go away you bums with Salaries, we don't want people who have cash)


Console = Your always right you ADD SOB's, if we put out like 20 games with Tom Clancy on the title and they were all crappy, you'd still buy it

PC = Who cares what you guys want, it dosent matter, we got more kids who will constantly buy any napkin we poop on and package

Yen Lo
04-27-2006, 07:41 PM
Dont care for it either, really I wanted to like it, cancelling pre order so sorry.

Dirtydog28
04-27-2006, 08:14 PM
If this is the case, I feel im awakening from denial now, and that I will give up on PC gaming all to gether soon. But a lot of new PC gamers whom havent played most other games wont know any better and will like Graw LD or the working title. I wont be waiting for the working title I dont care any more it is just to obvious now of what is to be expected.

Not that I have given up on GRAW, Just waiting on the first patch and see how the community in general feals about it, No big judgments yet.

KungFu_CIA
04-27-2006, 11:42 PM
A recent Gamespy article said the patch promised by GRIN won't be out until JUNE and it didn't specify what part of June either (early, middle, late)... So, it could be July until they get the MP fully working with standalone packages and additional gamemodes which should have shipped with the retail to begin with such as LMS, TDM, Hamburger Hill, etc.

This sealed the deal for me.

Putting all the technical aspects aside (poor performance; un-optimized engine; clunky game controls; etc.) I smell another LD and I am just not going to fall for it this time. I will wait until JUNE to see if anything is really happening with this game and THEN make my decision to buy.

The only good thing about the Demo and GRAW itself is it truly is a tactical game where you must use your AI Team to survive and the way the tac mac is implemented is a cool mini-game in itself because it ressembles an RTS game.

Le Tigre
04-28-2006, 02:44 PM
I have yet to play the game, from what Im reading there isn't enough there to warrnet the upgrade needed. But this is my take on things.

Bugs aside, beacuse they happen and can be fixed, and from what Im reading there are none that are too extreme or unfixable, I see the biggest problem with this game is substance. There just isen't enough there.

I'm hearing some good things about the single player experince, while diffrent, still really well done and fun.

Part of the problem is location, having a GR game that takes place enitrly in a city setting cuts out a lot of what made the first game "feel" and "play" like it did. You lose all that sneaking/stealth gameplay in the rugged woodlands. The game takes on an entirly diffrent experince.

Another issue is weapons. There just arn't enough to please the gamers. Look how many GR1 had. It makes a diffrence, the 360 version had lots of weapons, gamers like that stuff.

The controls, from what I've read just seem to over complicate simple tasks. And can't be re-mapped properly because the whole system is based around the scroll wheel, something gamers would rather use to zoom or change their stance.

Multiplaer is an issue of sunstance. Where is the multiplayer? 5 maps is just unexceptable. GR1 had over 20 at launch. 360 had 10 I believe. Added to that there are zero of the wood land type maps GR was built around. Mexico is a great location, there could have been jungle maps.

Game modes issues. Coop being restricted to 4 men is a bummer, but dealable. Not offering a coop dedi server option is unexceptable, and just plain illogical. I ask the question why do you have to set up a seperate server for coop and regular mp games? That is another issue.

Only releaseing domination. I dont think anyone has a problem with this new mode, but being the only one till some time in June is, again, unexceptable. Fact is this mode is a respawn kind of game, a lot of fans love GR beacuse it does death diffrently then the competition. If you're dead, you're dead. This mode should have come second to your typical LMS gametype.

Sure you can set respawns to zero, but then you are restricted in gun choice (as far as I've been able to determine.) And again we have the problem of not including enough guns in the game.

The stand alone Dedi server option is important to this community succeding, it is clear to everyone envolved. Priority should have been given to making sure this was released at launch.


So looking at his product, I see a game with huge potential, but I also see an unfinished product, and something Im not willing to pay for.

Im left asking myself, where is the substance? What happened in its development that this is only as far as they got done? Why was the 360 team able to accomplish so much in less time? Why was it released in this state? Is it the result of the communities constant yelling and screaming for something?

And I ask myself if come June when I re-evaluate this product, will it have what we are all looking for by then? Will it be a complete game?


And most of all I wonder, if this product does poorly as a result of all these issues, will this be the end of all truly PC dedicated developed products? because I'm sure UBI will be weighing a lot on the success of this product.

It will be an interesting summer.

teebus
04-29-2006, 02:28 AM
I was under the impression that GRAW was supposed to be really realistic in terms of weapon handling, but comparing the XM8 to the assault rifles I have fired, it just isn't! It is way too inaccurate and unstable. As for the M99- there is no variable zoom scope (and why you would want to use this weapon when you are restricted to street level and therefore no more than 100m from the enemy) is behind me.

This added to the fact that there is no AA, so the game looks really ugly, makes me happy that I haven't preordered it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

KungFu_CIA
04-29-2006, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Le Tigre:

Bugs aside, beacuse they happen and can be fixed, and from what Im reading there are none that are too extreme or unfixable, I see the biggest problem with this game is substance. There just isen't enough there.

Very good observation. The game is basically a beefed-up Full Spectrum Warrior meets BF2... Only it takes four times the CPU and GPU horsepower to run, yet the graphical intensity in terms of simultaneous things going on on screen at once and the overall art design doesn't justify these increased requirements.



I'm hearing some good things about the single player experince, while diffrent, still really well done and fun.

The problem is while certain aspects of the SP game are done really well like the tactical map and having access to other things like UAVs and such... The gameworld still feels very static and too slow to be a "real" ubran combat game.



Part of the problem is location, having a GR game that takes place enitrly in a city setting cuts out a lot of what made the first game "feel" and "play" like it did. You lose all that sneaking/stealth gameplay in the rugged woodlands. The game takes on an entirly diffrent experince.

In an ironic twist which goes back to the graphics engine it is my theory the reason it is an urban setting instead of a more wide-open AO is because the draw distances aren't that good and therefore, it has to be in urban settings to hide this fact. Again, this is really astounding considering games like BF2 and Far Cry have huge outdoor areas at half the processing power.



Another issue is weapons. There just arn't enough to please the gamers. Look how many GR1 had. It makes a diffrence, the 360 version had lots of weapons, gamers like that stuff.

Another good observation. I am hearing reports from those who have their full version and the game only has like 4 assault rifles, one sniper rifle and three LMG, one MP5 and only one sidearm. While the assault rifles can be modified with scopes and grenade launchers this still isn't a large arsenal by any means and this decreases replay value because it won't take players anytime at all to go through the arsenal to find what they like best -- Or whatever weapon does the best job over the others -- And just stick with that, thereby decreasing the actual choice(s) they have.



The controls, from what I've read just seem to over complicate simple tasks. And can't be re-mapped properly because the whole system is based around the scroll wheel, something gamers would rather use to zoom or change their stance.

Another good observation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The control scheme is too complicated for a game that stresses real-time tactics. Commanding the AI squad is cumbersome and does not flow naturally in the heat of battle. It is like GRIN went out of their way to make it more difficult in an effort to appeal to the 'hardcore' gamers when in fact, even hardcore gamers want things to flow from one function to the next... Especially, in MP where the majority of focus is going to be if and when they actually relase the patch in June which finishes the MP mode properly.



Multiplaer is an issue of sunstance. Where is the multiplayer? 5 maps is just unexceptable. GR1 had over 20 at launch. 360 had 10 I believe. Added to that there are zero of the wood land type maps GR was built around. Mexico is a great location, there could have been jungle maps.

Again, most likely a draw-distance issue regarding woodland and jungle maps. Also, the fact the game just is not done yet as far as MP is a clear sign to hold off on this game to see how well GRIN really does follow through because if the MP "add on" schedualed for June is dependent on sales, we may never actually see this patch since I don't predict GRAW selling well for the reasons we are discussing here.




....

So looking at his product, I see a game with huge potential, but I also see an unfinished product, and something Im not willing to pay for.

Im left asking myself, where is the substance? What happened in its development that this is only as far as they got done? Why was the 360 team able to accomplish so much in less time? Why was it released in this state? Is it the result of the communities constant yelling and screaming for something?

And I ask myself if come June when I re-evaluate this product, will it have what we are all looking for by then? Will it be a complete game?

And most of all I wonder, if this product does poorly as a result of all these issues, will this be the end of all truly PC dedicated developed products? because I'm sure UBI will be weighing a lot on the success of this product.

It will be an interesting summer.

Amen, brother. Amen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

KungFu_CIA
04-29-2006, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by teebus:
I was under the impression that GRAW was supposed to be really realistic in terms of weapon handling, but comparing the XM8 to the assault rifles I have fired, it just isn't! It is way too inaccurate and unstable.

You know what GRIN and the die-hards are going to say?

This is for MP balance and to give a steep learning curve for players http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I am so sick of poor programming being let off the hook in favor of "multiplayer balance" when in fact games like RVS and now GRAW have highly innaccurate representations of real world weapons, yet everyone who (will) play them will state these are the most realistic representations of weapons and contemporary ballistics they've ever seen.

I can't "wait" until (IF) when MP is finished and you hear all the "pros" saying how great they are because they are supposedly playing a game which is "more realistic than CS and BF2". Right... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JulietHotel13
05-01-2006, 11:04 PM
unlike you guys here i love the game...yes graphics maybe not the greatest weve seen but it is one of the most challenging...the ai are a MAJOR improvement from the original ghostrecon...stealth still actually works in this game...its a matter of how well you know the area that you can avoid conflicts and rush on by the ai without them seeing you...the tac map is very interesting...it takes time to get used to but once you get the hang of it you can command your teammates and they literally become walking weapons...the first time i saw the ai i was like the rest of you saying "wtf is this?!" but now its one of the greatest...and seeing how you guys are comparing graw to lockdown i have no clue how you guys came to that conclusion...i dont think ANY game can compare with lockdown...for crying out loud cs was more tactical than lockdown...the only issue people seemed to have was the graphics...but tell you the truth the minumun specs were updated and stickied and people had enough time to fix their problems...and if you guys are planning on saying that i must have a good computer for saying that i dont...i have a 80gig harddrive, 128mb geforce 6600gt agp, 512 ram, and 1.60ghz...and i run everything on low but can still get 45-50fps...but takes a hella long time to load...but graw is still a wonderful game with GREAT potential...you can actually shoot and hit someone thats infront of you know...not like the orginal ghost recon or rvs where if the reticule wasnt perfect you couldnt hit anything...so that was also a major improvement...plus you cant shoot if your to close to a wall which also had a bit of realism...and the friendly and enemy bots actually take cover...i can actually suppress them...or they can suppress me...died quite a few times cuz i couldnt figure out how to flank the machine gun nest...after like 6 tries i finally figured out what to do...use to of my teammates to cover fire while me and another bot flanked the machinegun nest and it worked...this is a game where you cannnot run and gun and must go cover to cover to survive...over all i would give the demo(cuz thats what i have) a 9.0 out of 10.0 just for great gameplay...

Aj6627
05-02-2006, 02:04 PM
I like the demo kinda, but I am probably going to wait til the end of the month to buy it because I will hopefully be able to get a new video card with my graduation money, and that will make my game run better.