PDA

View Full Version : Urban Scenario?



BSR_Dude
05-19-2005, 10:58 PM
Serellan was asked: What do you find particularly impressive about Ghost Recon 3 visually?

His answer: The lighting. The shadows and lighting work very well in the urban scenario and really bring something special to the visual aspect of the game.

What's w/that? I didn't like RvS the first time.........

S-n-A-k-E1
05-26-2005, 10:02 PM
Whats wrong about urban scenario?...yes exactly nothing! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WhiteKnight77
05-26-2005, 10:09 PM
A pure urban campaign would be nothing more than a BHD (already done by Novalogic) or a SAT game. GR had a nice mix of rural and urban maps. Urban only leads to a linear gameplay which would get boring rather quickly. GR1s urban maps allowed for several avenues of approach to an objective. That still hasn't been seen in GR3 yet, but GR2 was reported to be much more linear than GR1 was.

RWG.Jackal
05-26-2005, 11:33 PM
I sure that the Sp campains are gonna be all Urban.

But MP will probably have a good mix.

buddhiraja
05-27-2005, 01:36 AM
Urbans maps only and nothing else, can get monotonous. I like urban warfare a lot but the wide open spaces of GR allowed the player to carry out a mission using various routes and have firefights at innumerable places. This was special.

I hope the GR2 and GR2 Summit Strike maps are included along with GR3 as a TOKEN OF GOODWILL to the pc gamers who missed GR2 altogether. Then we can have the wide open spaces, mountains and jungles. Summit Strike is being marketed as having non-linear maps and missions. So I would really like to try them out with GR3 A.I and graphics.

Kurtz_
05-27-2005, 05:57 AM
The best part of classic GR was the fact that it was set in large outdoor maps, big open maps that let you go anywhere and do anything. This was a new and refreshing change from the "corridor" shooters. I've played RVS, SWAT 4 and FTF and the SP gets very repetitive and boring after a short while. FTF is a perfect example of how not to do an urban shooter - totally linear, very arcade.

GR was the opposite, an open game that gave you total freedom of movement, but balanced it with some urban maps.

If Grin is smart, they will add some open rural maps for balance and variety. Also, urban does not have to be linear. Games are linear, like GR 2, because the dev chooses to make them linear. If Grin thinks that most pc gamers are half brain dead and ADD, then they will fill the maps with hard barriers and channel players like rats in a maze, while doling the objectives out 1 at a time. On the other hand, if they understand why GR was so successful, they will make the maps open with a lot of side and parallel streets, with lots of different routes to the objectives. Think of Vilnius, Embassy or Polling Station, only 3 or 4 times larger. Remember, balance, variety and complexity are good for both maps and objectives.

kainite
05-27-2005, 08:14 AM
Urban warfare and Mexico City may not be such a bad choice after all. Such a huge city should offer (never been there though) a lot of different environments, both open and narrow. This sort of variation can help make GR3 an even better game than GR1, which IMHO didn't have the best urban maps I've seen in a game. But I really don't want GR3 to turn into just another RvS or FTF.

Fury23
05-27-2005, 11:52 AM
Mexico City is very diverse, maybe the devs will use the different landscapes that Mexico City has.

Mexico City (huge parks within the city): http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t3119.html

These pictures are taken moreover within the city. If you consider the suburban and desolate areas of the city edges it can realy be a contrast to the urban areas within the city centre.

WhiteKnight77
05-27-2005, 01:18 PM
I wonder if the devs are gonna replicate the smog?

Handy5432102004
06-06-2005, 01:06 PM
What I dont get is why it's based in just one city and not the country, Mexico. Cause Mexico isn't just urban. It has some desert. Atleast I'm sure it does. Never been to Mexico and never plan on going. But you gotta be open to new things. Urban Warfare's what we're fighting over in Iraq. Maybe they just wanted to give us a better idea of what it's like. But the Poll Station in either jungle storm or island thunder(cant remember) is an urban map. That's one of my favorites. I love the idea of Urban Warfare but that's just me. I only read books and watch documentaries remember?

Kurtz_
06-06-2005, 04:28 PM
Your point is a good one, why restrict the game to one city, when there are varied environments in Mexico. Urban street warfare, desert settings, coastal jungle settings, coastal beach areas, jungle settings with vast stone Mayan temple areas, resort areas, mountainous regions, islands like Venados and Cozumel - there is plenty of variety of map environments to set a combat game in. Throw in the Juarez and Tijuana cartels and you have it all.

RWG.Jackal
06-06-2005, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Kurtz_:
Your point is a good one, why restrict the game to one city, when there are varied environments in Mexico. Urban street warfare, desert settings, coastal jungle settings, coastal beach areas, jungle settings with vast stone Mayan temple areas, resort areas, mountainous regions, islands like Venados and Cozumel - there is plenty of variety of map environments to set a combat game in. Throw in the Juarez and Tijuana cartels and you have it all.

Maybe they are saving those areas for the Xpacks.

Handy5432102004
06-06-2005, 08:30 PM
Well, first we gotta see if this game is even worthy of having expansions made for it. I'm just so nervous. Four-man team just isnt classic Ghost Recon.

buddhiraja
06-06-2005, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by Kurtz_:
Your point is a good one, why restrict the game to one city, when there are varied environments in Mexico. Urban street warfare, desert settings, coastal jungle settings, coastal beach areas, jungle settings with vast stone Mayan temple areas, resort areas, mountainous regions, islands like Venados and Cozumel - there is plenty of variety of map environments to set a combat game in. Throw in the Juarez and Tijuana cartels and you have it all.

I agree. A nice mix of urban and open areas, would be the ideal combination. I am especially fond of mountainous maps. They add a lot to gameplay because the enemy may be closeby but because of the undulating terrain, you cannot see them. Plus we can fight at various levels and there are lots of cover.

Handy5432102004
06-10-2005, 03:29 PM
It doesnt really what terrain it is to me. I really like urban but either way, I'm gonna beat the map sooner or later.

th33f.
06-11-2005, 02:32 AM
most played GR MP map of all time? ...MBC, without a doubt.

the least played GR MP map? probably M07 River, but if you count DS, then its definitely Wilderness. long range, open space maps are often the most boring to play on... too long a wait for the action to start, if ever... not that i like really tight maps. it, of course, depends on the number of people playing as well. city environment was a wonderful choice i think, and it being Mexico City you can expect some variety...

WhiteKnight77
06-12-2005, 10:00 AM
Maps like Embassy and Vilnious are fine for TvT play, but Coop play (which more and more people are wanting) is great for maps like Wilderness or River.

One thik I see, with more people wanting larger maps, TvT play will need smaller maps (RS had good TvT play on 200x200 meter maps). Once maps start getting over 1000 meters square, I think gameplay would suffer as people will start wanting vehicles, thus changing the game and that is not a good thing.

Maps that size are doable without vehicles if the enemies and objectives are placed to break up the distance. Natural barriers can also be used. With enough enemies, the distance will not seem like much and distract from the time it takes to traverse that area. Even walking, it shouldn't take more than 10 minutes.

SackersUK
06-12-2005, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by th33f.:
the least played GR MP map? probably M07 River, but if you count DS, then its definitely Wilderness. long range, open space maps are often the most boring to play on...

I disagree. Plenty of the people I know of in the GR scene love the Wilderness map, me especially and that's coming from someone who hates using sniper rifles.

I'd like larger maps in GR3, but no too large. Running for 5-10 mins then getting shot, only to have to respawn and run around again for 5-10 mins is not appealing.

silent_strike22
06-12-2005, 07:28 PM
i agree with cobblers, if the map is too big then you spend 80% of the game getting to the hot zone, i like embassy and other small maps on GR but i also really welcomed the variety in tactics i got to use in the larger wilderness maps.

Handy5432102004
06-12-2005, 08:42 PM
I didnt think more people played coop. In joint ops, there's more people in TvT. I dont know how the GR fans are the. Still need to get Gold Edition. Well I'm out.

Alex_HS
06-12-2005, 09:17 PM
Im all for huge forest maps, america's army makes me claustrophobic and i poo on arena maps where people learn the best spots easy and the gameplay gets repetitive and even linear.
I want freedom to flank, move, comunicate, etc. I want to search, chase and hunt the oponents, use the terrain and cover, creep in the bush like a... Ghost. I want to chose my route and aproach, not spawn 50 meters away from the oponents team with 2 or 3 possible routs. Plus people tend to stick to groups if they have to move towards the objective instead of being thrown into the action the moment the game starts, thats for Rambos, large maps improve realism, tactics and teamplay alot so no more invisible walls please, if all you wanna do is shoot the big guns play something else, GR should include tactics aswell http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

th33f.
06-13-2005, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by Cobblers:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by th33f.:
the least played GR MP map? probably M07 River, but if you count DS, then its definitely Wilderness. long range, open space maps are often the most boring to play on...

I disagree. Plenty of the people I know of in the GR scene love the Wilderness map, me especially and that's coming from someone who hates using sniper rifles.

I'd like larger maps in GR3, but no too large. Running for 5-10 mins then getting shot, only to have to respawn and run around again for 5-10 mins is not appealing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ever play Wilderness in a match? "Running for 5-10 mins then getting shot" is exactly what happens on that map, unless you're suicidal and go straight for the center bunker thing...

here's my view on map structure in original GR...

first i'd like to name my favorites, in descending order: Day Docks, Polling Center, Embassy, being the main three. i know Ghost Town and Tank would be on top of the list for a lot of people(and i own those maps), but they're simply too easy to camp... almost forgot Red Square, great map!

imo, the most critical ingredient for a "successful" map is the design of the paths for both teams. the beatiful thing about GR's implementation of this principle is the multitude of choices the player gets upon spawning. in other words, the variety of ways to play a map is the fun part, and whether you want to rush the enemy or tactically advance inch by inch - you can! the thing is, it has to be done just right... if, for example, the "seams" of those paths are almost non-existant - you end up with a huge mess across the map and the possiblility of getting shot from behind is always there. on the other hand, when the teams are forced to get through a "bottleneck", like the bridge on the big River, the game often comes to a stall and it's time for marshmellows. also, the fog density is a big factor.

another thing that seems really important to me is the existence of areas on the map, that can be controlled one at a time... like if you're behind "this" hill - you get a view of "that" valley, or peeking "this" corner - means being able to shoot within "that" block. i'm not saying i want another RvS, where you could play a game identical to the next one 3 times in a row... what's unique about GR is that its up to you to create those "areas of control" using any feature of terrain or any object in an infinite(exaggeration) number of ways. a well designed map is where both sides are presented with equal opportunities to take advantage of the surroundings, each player in his own way. i guess this still applies to those long range foliaged maps, only it leaves the player witha lot less options: hide in a bush or watch the horizon line for people appearing in the fog, not a really fun experience...

i want GR3 maps to be made in a smart way, with lots of cover, presenting every single weapon with its unique advantages and disadvantages depending on the "area". i want hundreds of ways to advance through each and every block/alley/square/tree patch/room/hill/whatever! not to mention the spawn points have to be "timed" correctly for both sides.

hope GRIN staff takes a look at this post and puts it to good use!

Delta_Hoot
06-13-2005, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by silent_strike22:
i agree with cobblers, if the map is too big then you spend 80% of the game getting to the hot zone, i like embassy and other small maps on GR but i also really welcomed the variety in tactics i got to use in the larger wilderness maps.


if the map is too big then you spend 80% of the game getting to the hot zone

That's still a lot better than spawning right in front of your enemies. Anyway, GR3 should have more spawn choices to prevent that long marathon to find the enemies. That will do it, don't need to reduce the size of any map. Not to mention that not every player cares about Team VS Team game type though, bigger maps are very nice and challenging when playing SP or CO-OP.

Delta_Hoot
06-13-2005, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by th33f.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cobblers:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by th33f.:
the least played GR MP map? probably M07 River, but if you count DS, then its definitely Wilderness. long range, open space maps are often the most boring to play on...

I disagree. Plenty of the people I know of in the GR scene love the Wilderness map, me especially and that's coming from someone who hates using sniper rifles.

I'd like larger maps in GR3, but no too large. Running for 5-10 mins then getting shot, only to have to respawn and run around again for 5-10 mins is not appealing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ever play Wilderness in a match? "Running for 5-10 mins then getting shot" is exactly what happens on that map, unless you're suicidal and go straight for the center bunker thing...

here's my view on map structure in original GR...

first i'd like to name my favorites, in descending order: Day Docks, Polling Center, Embassy, being the main three. i know Ghost Town and Tank would be on top of the list for a lot of people(and i own those maps), but they're simply too easy to camp... almost forgot Red Square, great map!

imo, the most critical ingredient for a "successful" map is the design of the paths for both teams. the beatiful thing about GR's implementation of this principle is the multitude of choices the player gets upon spawning. in other words, the variety of ways to play a map is the fun part, and whether you want to rush the enemy or tactically advance inch by inch - you can! the thing is, it has to be done just right... if, for example, the "seams" of those paths are almost non-existant - you end up with a huge mess across the map and the possiblility of getting shot from behind is always there. on the other hand, when the teams are forced to get through a "bottleneck", like the bridge on the big River, the game often comes to a stall and it's time for marshmellows. also, the fog density is a big factor.

another thing that seems really important to me is the existence of areas on the map, that can be controlled one at a time... like if you're behind "this" hill - you get a view of "that" valley, or peeking "this" corner - means being able to shoot within "that" block. i'm not saying i want another RvS, where you could play a game identical to the next one 3 times in a row... what's unique about GR is that its up to you to create those "areas of control" using any feature of terrain or any object in an infinite(exaggeration) number of ways. a well designed map is where both sides are presented with equal opportunities to take advantage of the surroundings, each player in his own way. i guess this still applies to those long range foliaged maps, only it leaves the player witha lot less options: hide in a bush or watch the horizon line for people appearing in the fog, not a really fun experience...

i want GR3 maps to be made in a smart way, with lots of cover, presenting every single weapon with its unique advantages and disadvantages depending on the "area". i want hundreds of ways to advance through each and every block/alley/square/tree patch/room/hill/whatever! not to mention the spawn points have to be "timed" correctly for both sides.

hope GRIN staff takes a look at this post and puts it to good use! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



first i'd like to name my favorites, in descending order: Day Docks, Polling Center, Embassy

Docks day is a fun map for Teams, while Polling Center and Embassy were respectively, 'Rats in a Maze' and 'Glitch City', not suprisely these two maps were the ones which used to attract more cheaters, hackers, CS/Quake/Unreal- ******* teens and plain morons who doesn't care about tactical elements of playing GR. I avoid these maps like the plague.

On the other hand, the more mature players, tactical CO-OP players enjoyed: Beach Resort, River , Village, Railroad Bridge, Battlefield, River Bed, Ghost Town, Road Block, Tank, Creekbed, Hunting Lodge, High Sierra and Mountain Stronghold.

WhiteKnight77
06-13-2005, 10:04 AM
That all is fine for TvT play, but what about Coop? Your 3 favorite maps are all urban maps (or a smaller part of a larger map). You talk about camping to easily, but the embassy map has at leat 3 good places to camp. While urban maps do offer the chance for some Coop, it's the open rural maps that allow for Coop. GR had a perfect mix of maps that allowed for TvT and Coop.

GR3 could have 1000x1000 meter maps for people who like Coop and use a portion of that same map for the TvT players. GR did this 4 maps that I recall.

Alex_HS
06-13-2005, 10:24 AM
Whats wrong with versus mode in large maps, just because it isnt coop/sp doesnt mean it shouldnt involve tactics and realism, plus they could limit the combat zone even if the maps are big, maybe a option to select spawn zone distance like 250 to 500M but having the freedom to move in a map without bumping into invisible walls would be very high on my wish list http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif.

Delta_Hoot
06-13-2005, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Alex_HS:
Whats wrong with versus mode in large maps, just because it isnt coop/sp doesnt mean it shouldnt involve tactics and realism, plus they could limit the combat zone even if the maps are big, maybe a option to select spawn zone distance like 250 to 500M but having the freedom to move in a map without bumping into invisible walls would be very high on my wish list http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif.



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif SPOT ON PEOPLE!!!!

You nail it on the head! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

th33f.
06-13-2005, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Delta_Hoot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by th33f.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cobblers:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by th33f.:
the least played GR MP map? probably M07 River, but if you count DS, then its definitely Wilderness. long range, open space maps are often the most boring to play on...

I disagree. Plenty of the people I know of in the GR scene love the Wilderness map, me especially and that's coming from someone who hates using sniper rifles.

I'd like larger maps in GR3, but no too large. Running for 5-10 mins then getting shot, only to have to respawn and run around again for 5-10 mins is not appealing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ever play Wilderness in a match? "Running for 5-10 mins then getting shot" is exactly what happens on that map, unless you're suicidal and go straight for the center bunker thing...

here's my view on map structure in original GR...

first i'd like to name my favorites, in descending order: Day Docks, Polling Center, Embassy, being the main three. i know Ghost Town and Tank would be on top of the list for a lot of people(and i own those maps), but they're simply too easy to camp... almost forgot Red Square, great map!

imo, the most critical ingredient for a "successful" map is the design of the paths for both teams. the beatiful thing about GR's implementation of this principle is the multitude of choices the player gets upon spawning. in other words, the variety of ways to play a map is the fun part, and whether you want to rush the enemy or tactically advance inch by inch - you can! the thing is, it has to be done just right... if, for example, the "seams" of those paths are almost non-existant - you end up with a huge mess across the map and the possiblility of getting shot from behind is always there. on the other hand, when the teams are forced to get through a "bottleneck", like the bridge on the big River, the game often comes to a stall and it's time for marshmellows. also, the fog density is a big factor.

another thing that seems really important to me is the existence of areas on the map, that can be controlled one at a time... like if you're behind "this" hill - you get a view of "that" valley, or peeking "this" corner - means being able to shoot within "that" block. i'm not saying i want another RvS, where you could play a game identical to the next one 3 times in a row... what's unique about GR is that its up to you to create those "areas of control" using any feature of terrain or any object in an infinite(exaggeration) number of ways. a well designed map is where both sides are presented with equal opportunities to take advantage of the surroundings, each player in his own way. i guess this still applies to those long range foliaged maps, only it leaves the player witha lot less options: hide in a bush or watch the horizon line for people appearing in the fog, not a really fun experience...

i want GR3 maps to be made in a smart way, with lots of cover, presenting every single weapon with its unique advantages and disadvantages depending on the "area". i want hundreds of ways to advance through each and every block/alley/square/tree patch/room/hill/whatever! not to mention the spawn points have to be "timed" correctly for both sides.

hope GRIN staff takes a look at this post and puts it to good use! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



first i'd like to name my favorites, in descending order: Day Docks, Polling Center, Embassy

Docks day is a fun map for Teams, while Polling Center and Embassy were respectively, 'Rats in a Maze' and 'Glitch City', not suprisely these two maps were the ones which used to attract more cheaters, hackers, CS/Quake/Unreal- ******* teens and plain morons who doesn't care about tactical elements of playing GR. I avoid these maps like the plague.

On the other hand, the more mature players, tactical CO-OP players enjoyed: Beach Resort, River , Village, Railroad Bridge, Battlefield, River Bed, Ghost Town, Road Block, Tank, Creekbed, Hunting Lodge, High Sierra and Mountain Stronghold. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

cheaters, hackers, ******* teens, and morons? you've got it all figured out, buddy(whatever works to help you feel better about being old and sucking at games)! you just summed up the complete GR community, with the exception of a few mature, tactical co-op players, like yourself, who never played GR on Embassy or Polling Center. i can understand how all the "noobs", randomly running through the complex maze of those maps could often get lucky and "accidentally" shoot you in your mature and tactical a$s! you guys should have your own elite forum section on here, seriously...

Squall_Rifleman
06-13-2005, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by th33f.:
cheaters, hackers, ******* teens, and morons? you've got it all figured out, buddy(whatever works to help you feel better about being old and sucking at games)! you just summed up the complete GR community, with the exception of a few mature, tactical co-op players, like yourself, who never played GR on Embassy or Polling Center. i can understand how all the "noobs", randomly running through the complex maze of those maps could often get lucky and "accidentally" shoot you in your mature and tactical a$s! you guys should have your own elite forum section on here, seriously...
LOL! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Calm down there bud, Delta_Hoot may be generalizing it, but you don't have to take it personally and start ranting like that...