This game is terrible, stay away tactical shooter fans.

I find it sad that some devs are forgetting where their roots.

@laserbolts said:

@xaLieNxGrEyx said:

I've been a huge fan of Tom Clancy since the start, and I competed in MLG Toronto for Rainbow Six Vegas 2.

This game is streamlined in the best way possible and it's awesome. I disagree to the fullest extent of my ability.

I was a huge fan of rainbow six vegas 2 multiplayer and was wondering if this is something you would recommend?

It's essentially the same idea. You have to stick to cover and work your way to the enemy side of the map to spawn trap. Just the maps are a lot bigger than R6V2 and there's a lot more long range combat. The MP is fast and fun, and it's a great break and change up from Call of Duty.

The big difference from Rainbow is that the game is much more focused on teamwork with a balanced team of assault, engineers, and snipers to get objectives done. If you have another friend or two to go into it with this game has potential to be a lot of fun. I myself however play alone ATM (waiting for friends to pick it up) and I still have a lot of fun.

On top of that you have a pretty well paced and cool single player, that leaves the COD frantics few and far between. When a set piece actually happens it's impactful and rarely involves the destruction of an entire duplex collapsing into a street. I found on of the cooler ones was simply the destruction of two helicopters in front of your squad crashing into the ground.

In short I quite enjoy it, it's a lot of fun with friends campaign or multiplayer, and if you're a fan of R6V2 there's a lot to like here. Also the gunsmith is totally badass.

Also if you pick it up on PS3 I need people to play with!

Here's me playing it for 2hours, not the best quality but it gives you an idea of what it's like.

http://www.twitch.tv/xalienxgreyx/b/319470446

I liked Conviction.

Didn't you hear? PC Gaming Tactical shooters are dead.

@Brodehouse said:

I liked Conviction.

You and me both.

@DeF said:

@FancySoapsMan said:

I really wish they made another game like the original Ghost Recon :(

I haven't played more than a few minutes of the first Ghost Recon but just in general, wouldn't (the recently Kickstarter'd) Takedown be up your alley in theory (although that might be more like Rainbow Six)?

Agreed with Takedown. I hope they are able to stretch their funding enough to bring it to console, but depending on the delivery mechanism, it might end up selling better on PC by a wide margin. I was a Vegas/Vegas 2 person, so I'm more looking forward to something akin to that. What fundamental changes were made since the original, other than (from what I see) the removal of the tactical map and change to 3rd person?

@Cloudenvy said:

@Brodehouse said:

I liked Conviction.

You and me both.

you, him, and me. Both? Throth?

They never will bring back the old formulas. It's obviously not what sells, as people seem to like this streamlined, simplified garbage for whatever reason, lol.

They need to strike the nice balance they had in Vegas 2. Good equipment customization, tactics are still encouraged, but you're not punished for shooting dudes in the face, which for a game with guns is pretty damn essential.

@Cloudenvy said:

@Brodehouse said:

I liked Conviction.

You and me both.

you, him, and me. Both? Throth?

@Brodehouse said:

@Oldirtybearon

@Cloudenvy said:

@Brodehouse said:

I liked Conviction.

You and me both.

you, him, and me. Both? Throth?

I actually just played through it again. Still holds up. Gets annoying in the later levels on Realistic though, it's horseshit that guys can take a bullet in the head and keep going.

the last third of the game felt rushed for sure, but considering the major inspiration of Conviction seemed to be Jason Bourne style action, I'd say they succeeded in blending classic Splinter Cell gameplay with the lethality of Bourne action. Going from prey to predator is the shot in the arm stealth games needed, and I'm glad for the direction Splinter Cell went with in Conviction.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@aspaceinvader said:

games have changed dude.

Has the definition of the word "tactical" changed in the English dictionary?

No, the way people make games have changed. @aspaceinvader is right. Embrace change people, wether its for good or bad.

It's a pretty good game so far, having done a fair amount of the campaign (I have no idea how long it is, mind, but I've done a lot of levels) and had maybe 6 or 7 games of the multiplayer. I legitimately have no idea what the story of this game is but I enjoy the missions. I'm not a great stealth fan in any game but those sections are fine, they give you some nice gadgets to play with and the team kills are pretty satisfying when you clear a section with them. Really does remind me of the move from the old Splinter Cells to Conviction which isn't a bad thing if you just like good games, maybe not so good if you want a particular sort of game though.

I started as your standard rifleman in the multiplayer and that first game was horrendous. I died so much and got maybe 2 kills. Once you get into the various objectives, however, it's pretty good. The gun customisation's pretty cool but I can imagine them going so in depth appeals to a pretty scary subset of the population.

I'm guessing the PC version is a straight port of the console game? Instead of almost a completely different game like GRAW was for PC.

I'm more on the side of disagreeing with you, but for anyone who wants reference, I was a heavy GRAW player.

I used to do LOTS of clan matches in GRAW1/2 and I can tell you that the multiplayer was extremely tactical, at least siege mode was. It was 100% teamwork based and you would get completely owned if you didn't work together. Bringing that into GR:FS, I personally love the game for what it is, but this isn't just Ghost Recon.

Future Solider is essentially a combination of Gears of War, Call of Duty, and Ghost Recon all in one. A couple matches and you'll know exactly what I mean for the most part. With only four modes, some of them are highly more tactical than others, but the biggest problem with this game so far is rushers. People just don't understand how to work as a team, don't use mics, and just run at objectives or enemy players like mad men. I'm hoping this fades away, as a lot of the people I've talked to are CoD players wanting a new game to play... but the game feels so different because of map size.

These maps are just tiny, plain and simple. To the point that they really only work in Conflict mode (which is a mode based on capturing different objectives and holding them down). The fast paced gameplay works incredibly well here, but once you hit the other modes the game's weaknesses show a bit more.

Siege is a mess. It's my preferred mode anyways, but they made some stupid design choices. For one, the base is always right in the middle of the map and the attacking team spawns are random (generally two or three different spots). What ends up happening is that the defenders have a bonus 10 seconds to get positioned, but since the spawns are so close to each other, it really turns into getting killed about 10 seconds into the match. If you've ever played Siege on a Ghost Recon game, this is a joke.

With a full team it is slightly better, but the nature of small maps and only 6v6 is kind of embarrassing. Especially when your previous games held higher player counts.

Even with the negative tone, I'm having a ton of fun with the game. I want bigger maps, though, that's for sure. I personally think that if their were bigger maps a lot of the complaints would end from hardcore GRAW players... but oh well. It is what it is. Worth my money, at aleast.

@LLIINNKK: Yeah the rushing/ Call of Duty-ing can be a real problem at times and if you get stuck on a team of like minded people you're going to have zero fun. On the flipside of that people hanging back as the red objective square fills up can be equally frustrating, I quite often have to run in and sacrifice myself just for my team to move up.

I went through all the other modes for the achievement and found myself having a lot less fun than the standard conflict mode. I think it's pretty well balanced for the most part unless youre on the team where you have to protect the HVT twice in a match. It's almost a free 100 points to the other team.

The single player is pretty mediocre, but conflict is a hell of a lot of fun. None of the three classes feel like they have an edge over the other and I think the maps are the perfect size. (Rig is a confusing mess though) I think bigger maps would just encourage a lot more use of the scout, and as everyone levels up and will be able to move and be invisible it will take a little of the fun out of it.

I don't understand how a game can be so fun and suck so much. The game-play itself, at least in multiplayer, is awesome. However, depending on a group of people on Live to actually go for the objectives and help you win the game is fucking useless. I am 1/18 for wins right now, my buddy and I can only carry the team so far. I usually don't give a shit about ratios at all but getting destroyed over and over is tiring. It seems like every game I join the other team has 3-4 people on mics and I have only had one game where someone on my team was mic'd up.

I think the game is good, a great break from BF3; but praying to every religions God to give me a team is exhausting and stressful. This is why I drink!

/rant

"They are raping your childhood, so buy this game but totally take it back when you're done"

Gahhhhhhh

I could care less about any console versions of Ghost Recon but if the PC version is just a straight port (as it seems like it will be) without any sort of tactical map/commands like the previous two games, then I will probably not buy it. Well, I guess it would depend on how fun the coop is. GRAW 2 on PC was incredibly fun to play in coop (I just recently played through the game coop and it was a blast even with just 3 people) so I hope that still remains the case with Future Soldier.

At least we've still got ArmA! Also you could just go back and play Raven Shield again. That game still holds up great, played it yesterday. And while I never played Rogue Spear the original R6 is still great as well, and from my understanding it and Rogue Spear are pretty similar.

@AhmadMetallic said:

@aspaceinvader said:

games have changed dude.

Has the definition of the word "tactical" changed in the English dictionary?

No. But their niche appeal simply cannot financially support a modern AAA title. I'm trying to think of a tactical shooter that has been even remotely successful recently and most of them are small PC games that certainly don't sell enough to justify a big-budget Ubisoft release.

It's a shame, yes, but it's also a little idiotic to expect a modern Ghost Recon game to live up to their extremely tactical heritage. While I haven't played the game myself, I'm sure it's a well-produced action thrill-ride that has been focus-tested all the way into the lowest common denominator market--in the same way that nearly every major seventh console generation Ubisoft title has been.

Tactical shooters have lost their appeal to modern gamers. Most gamers want their games fast paced and that includes shooters. The old style of planning your actions are long gone for a more on the fly approach, most of the tactical play is now focused on multiplayer with teamwork. Modern gamers want things simple and easy and a more arcade style of approach.

They really really wanted this to be good.

Man fuck the last mission in this game, fuck it in it's stupid lazy face. Time limited, run and gun, lazy, lazy level which is nothing like what Grecon games should be. Whoever designed it, you're an asshole. A talentless asshole.

@deathstriker666 said:

The original Ghost Recon games were hardly tactical. They were punishing, unforgiving, and required you to be methodical. But tactical? No, you're clouded by nostalgia. Ultimately, all it boiled down to was to never let your Ghosts get shot at while taking out enemies one by one. Same for a lot of other games at the time as well.

The first Brothers in Arms did tactics way better. Scouting an area to figure out where best to put a fireteam, locating the best possible flanking routes were located for your assault team, hell Gearbox had that Army Colonel appear in every one of their promotional videos to tell you about the 4 F's. Find, Fire, Flank, Finish the job.

Never played it, but I heard a lot of good things about Full Spectrum Warrior. Remember reading some news articles that it was used to help treat PTSD. The Army seemed to like it so much that they didn't mind spending millions of dollars on it. Granted, they've wasted far more money on far more useless, unnecessary things. Like the Commanche or the Crusader programs.

GRAW introduced some squad and other various support mechanics into the series. The AI wasn't always the best, but they generally knew what to do once the red diamonds appeared on the HUD. I always thought the Network stuff was pretty cool, i.e. being able to see live video feeds from cameras on the helmets of other Ghosts, on UAV's, tanks, etc. Added greatly to a lot of the tactical elements to the game. Both games were short and fairly linear, but overall not bad games.

From what I've seen of Future Soldier, it seems to take the Ghost Recon down to a new level of crappy, linear stealth sections. That's not what I want out of any FPS/TPS. Do you even get to control your squad besides marking targets? I can only imagine Tom Clancy games getting worse from hear on out.

I agree with most everything you stated regarding previous GR games. I also loved the Brothers in Arms games. I did play Full Spectrum Warrior, and really enjoyed it, but IMO Brothers in Arms did the whole "4Fs" thing better. I would recommend FSW if you liked BIA, just know that you never directly control one your squadmates.

I think the multiplayer is as bland as the campaign. It's so dry and boring, I almost fall asleep. Normally I keep on playing but I can't in FS. It's just too crappy.  
And the textures are so bad...

I too enjoy *insert name of niche PC series from 2 decades ago that has been done to death* but just because it's not exactly like that, doesn't mean it's bad.

@Extreme_Popcorn said:

Man fuck the last mission in this game, fuck it in it's stupid lazy face. Time limited, run and gun, lazy, lazy level which is nothing like what Grecon games should be. Whoever designed it, you're an asshole. A talentless asshole.

Heaven forbid the Ghost Recon team get thrust into a situation where they don't have an unlimited period of time to sneak around and complete their objective. What you've just outlined is the opposite of lazy.

@sofacitysweetheart said:

I too enjoy *insert name of niche PC series from 2 decades ago that has been done to death* but just because it's not exactly like that, doesn't mean it's bad.

It is bad on its own (lacking) merits. Straw men dressed as fans won't change that.

@xaLieNxGrEyx said:

I've been a huge fan of Tom Clancy since the start, and I competed in MLG Toronto for Rainbow Six Vegas 2.

This game is streamlined in the best way possible and it's awesome. I disagree to the fullest extent of my ability.

@SeriouslyNow said:

@sofacitysweetheart said:

I too enjoy *insert name of niche PC series from 2 decades ago that has been done to death* but just because it's not exactly like that, doesn't mean it's bad.

It is bad on its own (lacking) merits. Straw men dressed as fans won't change that.

Bad? Most of the reviews of this game say it's flawed but good, or merely average. Not very many of them say it is bad.

@Teran said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@sofacitysweetheart said:

I too enjoy *insert name of niche PC series from 2 decades ago that has been done to death* but just because it's not exactly like that, doesn't mean it's bad.

It is bad on its own (lacking) merits. Straw men dressed as fans won't change that.

Bad? Most of the reviews of this game say it's flawed but good, or merely average. Not very many of them say it is bad.

A boring game is a bad game because the one thing a game has to do beyond anything else, especially a triple A title, is to avoid being boring. Simple as that.

@Teran said:

@Extreme_Popcorn said:

Man fuck the last mission in this game, fuck it in it's stupid lazy face. Time limited, run and gun, lazy, lazy level which is nothing like what Grecon games should be. Whoever designed it, you're an asshole. A talentless asshole.

Heaven forbid the Ghost Recon team get thrust into a situation where they don't have an unlimited period of time to sneak around and complete their objective. What you've just outlined is the opposite of lazy.

Making a level where on the hardest difficulty you need to rely on luck more than the ability to play the game is a lazy level.

@cburdick90: This is a 7 year old thread! What are you mad about?

Oh yeah, I remember this game. I thought it was fun for a bit. It's a shame Ghost Recon is now a ghost of a game.