PDA

View Full Version : Comparison: GRAW features vs. R&:5 want-to-have features



DreamMarine
05-03-2006, 02:46 AM
I played the GRAW demo. And though I realized that this kind of gameplay is not exactly _my_ favorite kind of gameplay, I appreciate some features of it.

So it came to my mind, that we could talk a little bit about the matter which GRAW features we would love to have in R6:5 and which _not_... and what features were missing for an R6:5 game.

So I do the start:


<span class="ev_code_RED">Features from GRAW I would love to see in R6:5:</span>

1) I love most of the movement animations from GRAW. It gave me a feeling of real movements from the first second on. In particular those "bumpy" movement when running is awesome. (Though we probably need getting used to)


2) The speed of movement is great. The walk is well paced. If you run... your weapon drops. So no more freaks running around in MP with shooting while running! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


3) We talked about the behavior of the weapon and the reticule when moving and shooting. I think that GRAW gets it right!!!


4) Actually, I also have to admit, that I _might_ get used of this kind of in-action planning editor. I like about it, that you can plan multiple tasks parallel and then hit "Execute".

Nevertheless, I am still convinced that a CQB game like R6 is much more about planning than a military shooter. So I would still love to see a pre-mission planning phase... or at least the possibility to use such a feature. Maybe a combination of both (pre-mission _and_ in-action planning) would be perfect.


5) The AI seems to do a decent or even good job in the GRAW demo. (But I have to admit that I played only for about 2-3 hours up to now)

For example I don't have to worry about the exact location when setting waypoints for my team members. The AI seems to be aware about taking cover nearby, open fields and so on.


<span class="ev_code_RED">Features from GRAW I DON'T want to see in R6:5:</span>

1) First and most important of it all (though obvious): A totally different kind of gameplay. The tactical situations are different if you do streetfighting with a military unit or CQB to enter a building to rescue hostages.


2) I experienced myself all those jagged edges the graphics engine of GRAW produces. I read about this that the implementation of the graphics engine does not support AA. At least I found no way to turn it on in the demo.

If this is true, then it's a bad design decision. You can't play around with the newest graphics features and _force_ the player in a certain graphics setting.

BTW, I believe that a lot of game producers make bad design decisions when it comes to graphics. Sometimes you can reach with much less graphics power a much better atmosphere (and performance, of course).

A real good example for this, imho, is WoW, where you have an obviously very aged graphics engine with low resolution. But with the unbelievably great scenery design (great use of different colors for example) and very good sound they created a world I still prefer to all the better engines in other roleplay games (including oblivion and guild wars).


3) This point is related to the previous one. I personally think the (demo) map of GRAW is VERY boring. Very much grey and almost no colors. The graphics really does not appeal to me. It even turns me down.

But from the screenshots of R6 Vegas I have seen that they were full of bright colors. I loved that. Keep on going this way! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And please, plaase, PLEASE don't forget to vary the scenery very much! It's getting boring if I have to lead my team into the same situations with slight differences. I want to think about the locations: WOW... it's exciting to be here!!!


4) Of course, in a CQB shooter you have to change the map design. LD was a desaster (linear map design AND fake doors and no possibility to reach every point of the map.)

GRAW is not linear, but the map concentrates on street fighting. So you again have a lot of fake doors and places you cant enter. But this is no critics towards GRAW since the style of game is a different one. I just wanted to make this point about R6:5 clear again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


5) I still think that R6:5 should stick to its concept of multiple teams.

OK, the in-action - and hopefully the pre-mission - planning gets a little bit more complicated for the developers to develop. But NOT for the players, since everybody STILL can decide to go in with just one team.


That's it for the moment. Now, I am curious about your points...


DreamMarine

DreamMarine
05-03-2006, 02:46 AM
I played the GRAW demo. And though I realized that this kind of gameplay is not exactly _my_ favorite kind of gameplay, I appreciate some features of it.

So it came to my mind, that we could talk a little bit about the matter which GRAW features we would love to have in R6:5 and which _not_... and what features were missing for an R6:5 game.

So I do the start:


<span class="ev_code_RED">Features from GRAW I would love to see in R6:5:</span>

1) I love most of the movement animations from GRAW. It gave me a feeling of real movements from the first second on. In particular those "bumpy" movement when running is awesome. (Though we probably need getting used to)


2) The speed of movement is great. The walk is well paced. If you run... your weapon drops. So no more freaks running around in MP with shooting while running! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


3) We talked about the behavior of the weapon and the reticule when moving and shooting. I think that GRAW gets it right!!!


4) Actually, I also have to admit, that I _might_ get used of this kind of in-action planning editor. I like about it, that you can plan multiple tasks parallel and then hit "Execute".

Nevertheless, I am still convinced that a CQB game like R6 is much more about planning than a military shooter. So I would still love to see a pre-mission planning phase... or at least the possibility to use such a feature. Maybe a combination of both (pre-mission _and_ in-action planning) would be perfect.


5) The AI seems to do a decent or even good job in the GRAW demo. (But I have to admit that I played only for about 2-3 hours up to now)

For example I don't have to worry about the exact location when setting waypoints for my team members. The AI seems to be aware about taking cover nearby, open fields and so on.


<span class="ev_code_RED">Features from GRAW I DON'T want to see in R6:5:</span>

1) First and most important of it all (though obvious): A totally different kind of gameplay. The tactical situations are different if you do streetfighting with a military unit or CQB to enter a building to rescue hostages.


2) I experienced myself all those jagged edges the graphics engine of GRAW produces. I read about this that the implementation of the graphics engine does not support AA. At least I found no way to turn it on in the demo.

If this is true, then it's a bad design decision. You can't play around with the newest graphics features and _force_ the player in a certain graphics setting.

BTW, I believe that a lot of game producers make bad design decisions when it comes to graphics. Sometimes you can reach with much less graphics power a much better atmosphere (and performance, of course).

A real good example for this, imho, is WoW, where you have an obviously very aged graphics engine with low resolution. But with the unbelievably great scenery design (great use of different colors for example) and very good sound they created a world I still prefer to all the better engines in other roleplay games (including oblivion and guild wars).


3) This point is related to the previous one. I personally think the (demo) map of GRAW is VERY boring. Very much grey and almost no colors. The graphics really does not appeal to me. It even turns me down.

But from the screenshots of R6 Vegas I have seen that they were full of bright colors. I loved that. Keep on going this way! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And please, plaase, PLEASE don't forget to vary the scenery very much! It's getting boring if I have to lead my team into the same situations with slight differences. I want to think about the locations: WOW... it's exciting to be here!!!


4) Of course, in a CQB shooter you have to change the map design. LD was a desaster (linear map design AND fake doors and no possibility to reach every point of the map.)

GRAW is not linear, but the map concentrates on street fighting. So you again have a lot of fake doors and places you cant enter. But this is no critics towards GRAW since the style of game is a different one. I just wanted to make this point about R6:5 clear again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


5) I still think that R6:5 should stick to its concept of multiple teams.

OK, the in-action - and hopefully the pre-mission - planning gets a little bit more complicated for the developers to develop. But NOT for the players, since everybody STILL can decide to go in with just one team.


That's it for the moment. Now, I am curious about your points...


DreamMarine

KungFu_CIA
05-03-2006, 08:59 AM
I apologize, but in order to tell you what I want in R6:5 from GRAW, I am going to have to tell you the two main problems I have with GRAW:

1) The engine is not scalable.

I am not just talking about no AA, but the fact even people with FX-60s and SLI 7800XTs are getting only 30-40 FPS at 1024x768. This kind of performance is unacceptable and alienates a good 90% of the potential market who may have bought GRAW, but now can't, or won't due to hardware limitations alone.

The main reason I feel this lack of scalability exists is because I feel the Diesel engine is primarily a simulation engine first and was never designed to be a mainstream game engine from the start.

2) The pace of the game is far too slow to be a true simulation of urban combat.

I have never been in any kind of combat, but from what I have read and the footage I've seen, urban warfare is far more choatic and fast paced than what is depicted in GRAW.

It is my opinion game developers need to start getting away from the "Tactical = Slow and Stealth" style of gameplay to a more realistic reflection of tactical operations execution and that is there is a balance between SPEED and ACCURACY more than anything.

To be clear, I am not asking for it to be another run-and-gun arcade game like Lockdown, CS, or BF2, but I personally think GRAW's current gameplay model is far too slow for what it is trying to depict.

In addition, there are some other glaring inconsistencies highlighted in this thread:

THREAD (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2791043913/m/8751003834)

This thread was started by an actual SF Operator who trains soldiers and was commented on by another SF Instructor who advises RSE (both identities have been confirmed; they are the real deal).

.....

I apologize if I high-jacked your thread into a "What is wrong with GRAW?" instead of "Features I want in R6:5 from GRAW" thread, but the main reason is because GRAW addresses a major on-going issue the R6 community has been discussing amongst itself and with UBI and that is...

GRAW plays more like a simulation than a mainstream game.

I know a lot of R6 fans have been begging UBI to release a game like this for our fanbase...

But in all honesty, in my personal opinion, GRAW is too much of a niche product where it feels like it was designed for a specific group of fans (GR.net members) with no real after thought for the rest of the market and fans outside that specific community.

I realize the irony because R6 fans like myself keep asking UBI to make a game "for us" instead of trying to make a game which pleases the masses of casual gamers...

But I also feel GRAW is the exact opposite where it may only appeal to a certain select few and thus, goes overboard to the other extreme as well.

There needs to be a BALANCE between catering to the wants/needs of a specific fanbase as well as balancing the game to be a GAME and accessible to those outside that fanbase. I finally realize how important this is... And hope my fellow R6 fans can see it as well... After my experiences playing the GRAW demo and a few of the retail releases missions at a friend's house.

O_SHOGTUK_O
05-04-2006, 04:00 PM
Sorry, i read the second point of your post and had to stop... I am dissapointed that u cannot firing whilst running in GRAW but i can understand it is a long range/tactical game and GRIN are trying to control gameplay to be a lot wiser. R6/CQB is a lot more free, the tactical possibilities are greater. In a large area, running around like an action hero will get you picked off before you can say 'hey! shoot me if you can'! CQB however allows (and sometimes requires) running around/more fast paced play.

Freaks running around shooting? you have obviously never fired a weapon. It is easily possible to shoot someone whilst running. It is actually fake that you cannot in GRAW but 1: GRIN are trying to manipulate the gameplay into a slower more 'tactical' style and 2: most of the map areas are quite large so running and firing accurately would almost be impossible. Running and shooting can never be removed from R6... People talk of 'run and gun freaks' but it actually does take skill to master control of ones weapon whilst running/strafing. It takes a lot more skill than camping or crawling round a map, peaking and throwing smoke grenades. Most people who say its easy to run and gun successfully are co-op only players who cant hack human V human (yet use the excuse of MP being too 'nooby, fraggy, campy' for them to lower themselves to it). Long live Run and Gun!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

MsF-InSaNe
05-04-2006, 08:54 PM
From GRAW I would like to see multiple attachments for the weapons, and being effected by the weight, very realistic.

Maps with many differnt routes, keeps things new and players trying differnt strategies.

Wider slection of guns.

subzero1900
05-04-2006, 10:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3) We talked about the behavior of the weapon and the reticule when moving and shooting. I think that GRAW gets it right!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

wow...this couldn't be further from the truth if you tried

(looking through the sites non moving)
WOW, I must be drunk even prone i cant hit the side of a barn.

yeah, realistic, *Sarcasm*
A. Find a weapon (even a bbgun will suffice), and go prone, see how much sturdier your stance is
B. Try in a crouch stance, see how sturdy your stance is
C. Try standing straight up...


second of all (which is a bad road ubi is already takeing)

Maps that are all in one location...thats like wow, no variety....just

Stripper club/Hotel/casino/gas station/stripper club/ hotel/casino/gas station....rise and repeat...

nothing new, just another casino with a diffrent layout...nothing unique...nothing like say...A dam, a Nuclear powerplant, A train Station, a School, a Hospital, a Space Launch Site, Ect...nothing extremely Exotic.....nothing A terrorist would see as a Terrorist Target, and to target the same city would be ******ed,


Terrorism is about Spreading caos, not containing it to a hellhole city

DreamMarine
05-05-2006, 01:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KungFu_CIA:
I apologize if I high-jacked your thread into a "What is wrong with GRAW?" instead of "Features I want in R6:5 from GRAW" thread, ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You didn't! This thread was exactly meant this way... it's about positive AND negatvie "results" from GRAW! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">People talk of 'run and gun freaks' but it actually does take skill to master control of ones weapon whilst running/strafing. It takes a lot more skill than camping or crawling round a map, peaking and throwing smoke grenades. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly the problem with run & gun: It takes a lot of skill... but less brains! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Though I do agree, that this throwing around with smoke grenades in RvS coop is a big nuisance. The problem was that the AI did not react to the smoke!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">second of all (which is a bad road ubi is already takeing)

Maps that are all in one location...thats like wow, no variety....just

Stripper club/Hotel/casino/gas station/stripper club/ hotel/casino/gas station....rise and repeat... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with that! There is a great risk, that the maps get boring, if they all play in one location... (i.e. Las Vegas)

DreamMarine

KungFu_CIA
05-05-2006, 12:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by O_SHOGTUK_O:

Most people who say its easy to run and gun successfully are co-op only players who cant hack human V human (yet use the excuse of MP being too 'nooby, fraggy, campy' for them to lower themselves to it). Long live Run and Gun!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's keep this civil.

No generalizations and baseless accusations, please. This is a discussion forum, not an e-go boost forum.

Defuser
05-05-2006, 11:37 PM
I haven't been around much lately as I've been giving a number of games I recently missed out on a good going over, and replaying a few of my favourites. That and the pressures of an increased workload dictating the amount of free time I have - which, of course, I like to spend playing games, too!

On the subject of GRAW, I find it to be a huge waste of MASSIVE potential that was spilled right down the toilet, probably from the earliest stage. The engine, while the lighting is massively impressive, is terrible. Really, really terrible. They have messed up big time. I get the feeling that by basing the game on their in-house engine, which is barely scaleable and denies one the use of AA, as well as being a REAL system hog (I can barely run it* - at a resolution that doesn't look horrible - and everything else, literally everything else I have runs perfectly) mark it out as a unprofessional production.

That said, I really appreciate the effort that has gone into making GRAW a 'tactical' experience, and I appreciate the dev input with the fans. Not only that, but the game itself IS fun to play, it's exciting, it's engaging, the sound is phenomenal, the pacing just right. I ultimately LIKE the game, just not as much as I feel I should be allowed to oweing to the nature of the engine and various other problems - such as the lack of a well-developed and engaging multiplayer facility.

What I would like to see replicated from GRAW into R6:5...

* Multiple attachments and an expanded weapons selection section (somehow it weapon selection seems more visceral and connected to the experience if you actually see the weapons available to you before the mission... Can scale them, scroll them and rotate them). Perhaps an armoury section for the next R6?

* The ability to split/regroup your team at will - you can, genuinely, move your team into a variety of configurations, like two-man teams, if you wish. Although you have only three men under your command, you can if you so wish, reconfigure their roles within the squad if you want. That level of tactical flexibility would be very useful if we are going to be, as suspected, in charge of only one team in R6:5. Which would not be good, of course!

* Communication from the squad. Shouts of mag changes, calls for cover and various bouts of military lingo from the squad put you in the situation and convey useful info. Although there are sections of gung-ho serious sammery, GRAW feels somewhat authentic in its squad comms. Put it this way - it's better than Lockdown in this regard, which is a start.

I'm struggling to come up with more because I feel like my good nature towards GRAW is slipping away the more I want to analyse the game outside of its context of a tactical shooter. The problems with GRAW are many, too many to list, but my chief problem stems from the utter lack of regard for the current-gen gamer. They're building a game for the future, they'll claim... But for crying out loud, without scaleability how the hell is anyone NOW going to play it? You may as well release it a year down the line for all the good it will do!

* By barely run it, I consider 30fps my minimum requirement for smooth gameplay.

KungFu_CIA
05-06-2006, 08:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Defuser:

On the subject of GRAW, I find it to be a huge waste of MASSIVE potential that was spilled right down the toilet, probably from the earliest stage. The engine, while the lighting is massively impressive, is terrible. Really, really terrible. They have messed up big time. I get the feeling that by basing the game on their in-house engine, which is barely scaleable and denies one the use of AA, as well as being a REAL system hog (I can barely run it* - at a resolution that doesn't look horrible - and everything else, literally everything else I have runs perfectly) mark it out as a unprofessional production. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This above all else is GRAW's major failing from a technical standpoint... But I have my theory as to why the engine is this way, but won't go into it here (unless someone is interested http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

The irony is the Ghost Recon 2 engine -- Which Lockdown was built on -- Looks better and performs much better and had they just added the current tactical elements that are in the present game to this TESTED and proven (GR2; GR2:SS; LD) engine performance would probably be a moot point since everybody would be playing the game right now -- With superior and scalable visuals -- Instead of using every client-side tweak in the book to compensate for bad programming/design decisions.

Also, the other irony of GRAW is the current Diesel engine doesn't look as good as other current-gen games like BF2, CSS and other FPS who don't require a third of the resources to run, have full scalability and have huge, robust MP features out-of-the-box.

Yen Lo
05-06-2006, 08:44 AM
Well G KF I'll take the bait, why is the GRAW engine the way it is?
Something magical needs to happen before I buy that game.
Did you check out pscyfilms threads over on the sh3 boards, hilarious, its like Monty Python does "Das Boot".

reggo
05-06-2006, 09:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KungFu_CIA:
But I have my theory as to why the engine is this way, but won't go into it here (unless someone is interested http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well go ahead... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

KungFu_CIA
05-06-2006, 06:23 PM
My main theory regarding the Diesel Engine is this:

It was never meant to be scalable because it was never meant for wide-retail consumer use.

GRIN was hired to design a FPS sim to train the Swedish military... The Diesel Engine... And if the government funded the project then I am sure equipment specs were no concern because when the government is footing the bill, "the sky is the limit" as they say.

In other words, unlike AA (funded by U.S. government) and most regular consumer releases, if the game can only run on the latest and greatest hardware this is fine because the "customer" in this case is the Swedish military and therefore, cost of said hardware is no object in comparison to a wider, retail consumer base.

This is theory number one.

Theory two is they (GRIN and UBI) also wanted a cutting-edge FPS just like when Far Cry and similar games (Doom III; HL-2) where released which also raised the bar as far as hardware specs and performance as well. In other words, be the first publisher and developer to have the most up-to-date engine of all time -- Including the first game to use the new Aegia PPU which isn't even out yet.

I don't fault them for this as this is what this industry is built around... But like others have already said, they've completely made a niche game for all the wrong reasons. It isn't because the gameplay only appeals to a select market, but those who have hardware capable of running the game at acceptable levels is a very small one at the moment and always will be as contrary to what internet forums portray, very few gamers will literally have something like an FX-60 and twin crossfire or SLI cards and a PPU compared to more modest and mid-to-high range specs like you see for most of today's games like BF2, CSS and countless others, regardless of genre.