Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
|Welcome to Grizzled Ancients. We hope you enjoy your visit.|
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:
, New Co-op gameplay footage
Member No.: 3
Joined: 14-May 09
Folks over at the official UBISOFT forum are fuming over the direction of this new game, which I find interesting. The following comments are based on the BETA and posts from the developers.
While I agree that this new version seems to offer a lot less in terms of ‘customization’ (i.e. round length, weapon restrictions, number of respawns, etc…) and game modes (i.e. no terrorist-hunt mode for example), I generally like the direction of the game in terms of combat mechanics. Still, I can’t help but feel that GR:FS takes yet another step away from what made the Ghost Recon franchise a household name in the combat sim community (PC days).
As the BETA wraps up, I’d like to share a few thoughts. Would love to hear your own if you’ve had a chance to play the game. My experience stems from ranking my riflemen to 10 and my engineer to 14.
1) Graphics look good, especially given the age of the XBOX now
2) The pace of the game is generally faster, a result of both smaller maps and faster movement (especially when ‘dashing’ from cover to cover)
3) I like the cover system; works better than in any other game I’ve played where it is implemented
4) Shooting feels solid and organic, with accuracy affected by posture and whether you are scoped in or out
5) Did I mention the maps are small?... Yes I did… It bugs me so much it has to be mentioned twice…
6) … Which brings me to the most used criticism I’m reading on various forums: this game is slipping into COD/MW territory with its approach to adversarial modes. While not entirely true (don’t look to rabid fanboys for cues on objectivity), I do think the pace is faster. The observation that you can’t run-and-gun in a GR game is being stretched to its limits with this new sequel…
7) My biggest disappointment, not BETA-related, is the absence of a ‘us vs. bots’ mode, which had been a staple of the Tom Clancy shooters since the days of the original ghost recon on the PC: R6V, R6V2, GRAW, GRAW2, and even Splinter Cell Conviction offered such modes. At least we can look forward to coop action with both the campaign and guerrilla modes
8) The BETA showcased how very intel-driven this game will be. UAV, motion sensors play a HUGE part in this game. Not sure I like it to be honest… Too much reliance on gadgets to spot the enemy serves to accelerate the pace of the game further… And since UBISOFT, apparently, will not support ‘options’ to enable/disable guns and/or gadgets, those of us wishing for a more ‘classic’ experience may be out of luck
9) The gunsmith functionality is uber-sweet. Unlocking and customizing your weapons for either power, control, range or maneuverability doesn’t get old… Great addition
In conclusion, while I enjoyed the BETA, I am really worried this game will simply not offer the amount of content, and enjoyment, its forefathers provided. I dig the graphics and the combat mechanics (cover in particular). I am not a fan of the adversarial modes in general, due to map sizes and over-reliance on gadgets to detect and engage enemies. The absence of options to setup your own types of games, if confirmed, will no doubt reduce interest, as will the lack of t-hunt modes. What’s left are the campaign (4-man coop) and a horde mode (guerrilla), which I hope will deliver. For a game which has been in development for so many years (with two delays in between), you would think GR:FS would provide ‘more’ and not ‘less’, especially if it wants to compete with the Battlefield, Modern Warfare and Medal of Honor series. I hope I’m wrong but what I’m seeing here is a developer diluting its core strength in order to capture a bit of the Activision market-share (not unlike BF3)… An economic reality which hurts those of us who were hoping for a spiritual successor to the original Ghost Recon, but instead will be getting a third-person version of COD/MW, with a little bit of GoW sprinkled-in for good measure...