View Full Version : What size is the squad?

03-24-2006, 06:17 AM
I have read that the AI squad in the 360 game is down to 2 men, that's 8 down to 3 (LD) down to 2. One more evolution of this game and you will be flying solo. Does this make any sense?

03-24-2006, 06:17 AM
I have read that the AI squad in the 360 game is down to 2 men, that's 8 down to 3 (LD) down to 2. One more evolution of this game and you will be flying solo. Does this make any sense?

03-24-2006, 07:30 AM
Well if it is one thing it doesn`t then it is to make sence in my opinion.

I`m not really into consoles so I haven`t read it though.

03-24-2006, 07:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurtz_:
I have read that the AI squad in the 360 game is down to 2 men, that's 8 down to 3 (LD) down to 2. One more evolution of this game and you will be flying solo. Does this make any sense? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My guess is they are going this route for a couple of reasons, all unconfirmed:

1) The target audience of consoles is vastly different from PC and the devs think, right or wrong, console players can't manage more than two squad mates at a time.

2) More emphasis is going into the actual AI of the team mates and Tangos and therefore, the trade off is less of each (which they stated is a goal to have fewer, but smarter enemies).

3) More emphasis on the graphic and physics than in previous titles which is another tradeoff.

4) Because of the linear, Half-Life-esque storyline having to only do voice acting and other scripted sequences for two characters is much easier than for eight, or even three like previous versions of R6, console or PC.


Until we get any official information regarding the PC version I am taking all of the Vegas info. as pertaining only to the Xbox 360 game and nothing else.

I just hope UBI is sincere with their promise there will be a separate PC version and it won't be a mere port like Lockdown was...

03-24-2006, 08:41 AM
A sensible attitude, KFCIA. We have absolutely no confirmation either way as to whether the PC version will take its cues in terms of storyline from the 360 version (like GRAW PC vs 360) and very little else OR whether or not we will be getting the 360 version with certain things modified (like Lockdown).

For me, best case scenario would be for the two games to share some art and sound resources (textures, weapon reports, environmental audio, that kind of thing) and be different games in terms of gameplay (being built from the ground up) and storyline.

03-24-2006, 09:18 AM
IMHO, the best case scenario after UBI's thorough disrespect and abuse of the PC community is: "NO SHARING AT ALL!"

That is,
- No art/sound/model/texture/asset... sharing,
- Totally different gameplay (I mean true R6 and not debilitated SWAT 4),
- Totally different story (I mean Clancy's style, mature, deep, complex and ramified).


Oh well, better forget about that! UBISOFT has not the resources, the respect for customers, the devotion, the brain power and the creativity to achieve a true and unique PC R6 game...


03-24-2006, 10:16 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:
1) The target audience of consoles is vastly different from PC and the devs think, right or wrong, console players can't manage more than two squad mates at a time.

You are probably right with your assumption that UBI thinks the console player is ******ed (hopefully wrong). If I was a console player, I would feel insulted by UBI as much as PC players are.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KungFu_CIA:
3) More emphasis on the graphic and physics than in previous titles which is another tradeoff.

That's the world we live in! A beautiful hood (the graphics), but nothing under the hood (AI, gameplay, story, etc). UBI probably wants to help M$ and Sony to sell their 'next-gen' consoles and will use Vegas as a demo to do it. Expect spectacular graphics and physics but below average AI, gameplay and story.

UBI should have many other games to do that controversial task, but they will nevertheless prostitute R6 to do it... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Anyway, the graphics and physics of the PC version won't impress me no matter how advanced they are. It's not the purpose of an R6 game to try to lure the player with bells and whistles.

However, you can be sure that I will scrutinize the story, the gameplay (multiple teams, character switching, non-linear maps, etc) and the AI (friendly and enemy).

<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 just hope UBI is sincere with their promise there will be a separate PC version and it won't be a mere port like Lockdown was...

Promises, promises... I'm instead more than ready for another "Oops! I did it again...".

03-24-2006, 10:48 PM
I really, truly, sincerely and with all honesty hope that we do not get another marketing disaster like the debacle involving the GRAW PC version.

Like R65, there are 2 'serious' versions of GRAW, both aiming at being games that take advantage of current gaming hardware and attempting to push the envelope in terms of what a 'next-gen' experience is. Both games were developed by separate teams, from the ground up. This is the hope that we carry for R65. GRAW has been developed on the 360 with the console crowd in mind - full of eye-candy, a tactical element, but also overwhelmingly shallow compared to the PC GR of old, with some occasionally staggeringly poor AI. Its campaign is densely scripted and while there is capacity for tactics, it's a very diminished one. GRAW360 is a flawed gem - beautiful, revolutionary (for console users), a real showcase of 'next-gen' capabilities, with a fantastic multiplayer element making fantastic use of the Xbox's Live service to connect players and facilitate their communication. This is in contrast with GRAWPC. Developed specifically with the PC market in mind, it is (apparently) densely tactical, highly realistic and thoroughly deep, with much scope for improvisation and strategy in its missions. The devs have stated repeatedly their dislike of spawning enemies with unrealistic capabilities.

This version (apparently) has tremendously realistic AI and is seen by the PC community as the definitive follow-up to the original GR. Bear in mind that both versions have been developed in tandem, sharing very little. Both versions have been on a similar development cycle. Both games are looking at being released at a similar point in time (at least until the events to follow). Throughout its entire development history, only a handful of recent screenshots and NO moving media (movies, not flash) has been released pertaining to GRAWPC. As of today, we know nothing about how it looks in motion. Approaching its 'original' release date of March 31st, we still had nothing. Compare this with the 360 version - by early february, we had movies, we had screenshots, we had repeated and in-depth interviews with the devs produced with almost TV quality presentation, we had previews from masses of sites, we had masses of footage and reams of information to process and pour over. The media was saturated with 360 information. Everywhere you'd look on gaming websites - it was there.

March arrives - and you cannot move for 360 information. Silence on the PC front. Not a sausage. All we have is a 30 second movie taken in secret at a games show from August last year, showing the game in an early state, with next to no features depicted. Then the community gets the news they've been dreading. It's been delayed until May. Speculation is rife - everybody wonders just what the hell is happening with the PC version. The devs are doing their best to satiate the brewing storm over on the forums of www.ghostrecon.net (http://www.ghostrecon.net) - answering questions, trying to provide the community with information. Ubi has gagged them from making any official announcements, any substantial information. While the 360 publicity machine whirrs, not a sound can be heard from the PC camp. There's nothing, and it is abundantly clear where Ubi's priorities lie. It's with the 360.

Some have postulated the delay was down to nothing more sinister than the devs being unfinished. This is the line given by Ubi themselves. The devs have not commented, or rather, substantiated this claim, instead offering their condolences but not admitting to not being finished. Some have suggested that the delay was merely to focus on the 360 version at the exclusion of any potential attention to PC version might have garnered, positive or otherwise. This is wildly speculative, but also might go some way to explain the utter dearth of information with regards to the PC version. Their sentiment is; 'Ubi abandoned the PC version because the console version is where the money lay, and even delayed the PC version for such purposes.'

The game is out on the 360 now. Its garnered rave reviews from the console gaming press, and is wildly successful. Ubi's stock has reached record levels. All the investment by the dev team and the publicity department has paid off. The game is a resounding achievement for the publisher and the developers. But what of the PC version? Even now, information is scarce, but the PC version is beginning to be recognised. While more media regarding the 360 version is being released, things are starting to look up. Some fans have had a chance to look at the game. In past couple of days, some news screens trickled out. We got our first glimpse of the game in poorly-synced flash animation courtesy of a hardware manufacturer. This is more than the community has had at any time prior. Attention seems to be turning to the PC version.

But! Due to the utter lack of interest invested by the marketing in the PC version, people are either ignorant or sceptical of GRAWPC. People don't know anything about it, apart from the core community - most people didn't even know it had been delayed. It is not anticipated. The gaming press don't even regard it as important enough to merit a preview no more than a month and a half or so from release. It has left the community angry and resentful of Ubi at how they have been treated at the (percieved) expense of the 360 crowd. It has tested their patience to the limit. The marketing towards the PC crowd has, to date, been an utter and miserable failure.

What is the point of all this? Preare for a reoccurance. Ubi has no doubt looked at this as a success for themselves. NOTHING distracted the people from buying the product they invested the majority of their time and money into - the 360 version. Its resounding success can be attributed to both the talent of Red Storm and the carpet bombing of the gaming media outlets. The PC version, if it is a success, is now residual concern. There will be publicity, but nothing on the scale of the 360 version. With a variety of console versions of R65, and the release of the PS3 in September preceding Vegas' launch, prepare to see the PC version neglected. Prepare to be starved of information, begging for screenshots. Prepare to watch your console cousins gorge on more screenshots and exclusive video a week than you'll get in the entire development of the PC version.

If the GRAW publicity campaign is anything to go by, the console will be heavily prioritised and the PC crowd will be left feeling angry and feeling second-best. This kind of approach breeds distrust and contempt for the publisher and this rubs off, unfortunately, on the dev team for those not in the know. Although the devs for the PC version do their best for the community, their gags and Ubi's policy have contributed greatly to their being a lot less anticipating GRAWPC than there could have been.

03-25-2006, 11:55 AM
IMO it needs to stay at 8 with the original 4 color teams. having 4 teams of two or two teams of four or whatever was good and allowed for a lot of variety and customization for the player

03-25-2006, 01:52 PM

03-27-2006, 01:17 AM

03-29-2006, 03:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SAS_Shield:
IMO it needs to stay at 8 with the original 4 color teams. having 4 teams of two or two teams of four or whatever was good and allowed for a lot of variety and customization for the player </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen, brother. If it ain't broke, why fix it? These things I do not understand: why are they changing the game play when it has been SUCCESSFUL for so many years? It truly defies logic. The R6 games are great, have been great and will still be great if the developers would stick with the format and upgrade the physics, AI and graphics (in that order).

03-29-2006, 03:27 PM
I agree with the sentiment of 8 men total.

Defuser, I agree with your evaluation of UBI in regards to PC priority. I for one was estatic that they cancled the PC version of GR2 bcause it would have been to Ghost Recon as Lockdown was to RainbowSix. It was terrible excuse of a game holding the name.

I think they are worried about some backlash. PC users have the most potential for backlash and community outrage. Currently even with XBL, it is more difficult for console gamers to really express their disappointment than the PC gamers who easily can post on any number of message boards. Generally we have more active and vocal people in our boards than on the console ones. The potential of the PC version negative feedback on GRAW was high and it could have affected the XBX360 version launch. This way they risk nothing by keeping the PC verision under wraps.

I have learned my lesson however. UBI will no longer get my money during the first week of release. I will wait for reviews and community feedback before I give them more of my money on a potential lemon. They have proven they don't prioritize the PC version and don't particularly listen to the commmunity. So I will respond in kind and give them back all the skepticism they have earned.

03-29-2006, 03:53 PM
personally if multiple teams is not a reality (and myself if it's the pure waypoint scripting with no dynamic elements like the past, I'd rather not have it) I would love to see a 6 man team. Basically you can divide your team into 2-2 man teams with a cover man for yourself. I think this would be the most flexible dynamic team command setup.

Yen Lo
03-29-2006, 05:52 PM
8 to 12 man at least. Id like to see multiple entries, of a target building. And finally, frags thats stun as well as kill.

04-19-2006, 07:40 AM
More advanced Ai, less Ai with you, take example oblivion: two-three AI's are going with you, but if there will be 10 like i did once, game will lag because of AI so i think: 3 men like in GRAW, cuz of AI

04-19-2006, 08:17 AM
The question with oblivion is, if your machine is laging because of the graphics or because of the AI. The AI in Oblivion is pretty simple, it's not complicated and they are dumb as rocks. Being able to jump onto a ledge or boulder and have the enemy run at you endlessly while you pepper it with arrows isn't exactly cutting edge AI. I would think for that simple of AI it wouldn't be all to demanding on your cpu. IMO it's most likely the graphics that are demanding on your system in that having 2 more very high polygon count characters onscreen is what is hurting you, not the simplistic AI.

If "Vegas" PC has the kind of graphical demand that Oblivion has then I can see the reasoning for lower squad size based on performance. The AI would have to be exponentially better than previous titles to make that kind of performance hit on the CPU to justify lower squad size. However I doubt that we will see that kind of amazing AI - we can hope for it however.

Dayglow your proposal for dynamic buddy's/subsquads is nice and would be a nice alternative to preset squads if planning is removed.

04-19-2006, 11:04 AM
multiple teams are used in real life though

04-19-2006, 01:13 PM
So we have

Team Numbers

fighting for importance.

I think the most importance advance is the AI for developing the single player game. However you still need multiply teams, atleast as many people as RVS imo. Also the number of team mates drastically effects online coop. I beleive you need atleast 8 or it reduces the fun of it.

Graphics, give me any old mess I will not mind, just get the game play right.

As some one biased towards Co-op ideally I want atleast 8 people on a server, and better enemy ai than previous games.

But lets think what UBI is likely to go for.
If they want to attract a wider audience they obvioulsy need good graphics or casual gamers will look at the box and thing its naff. Then i guess its a battle for waht remains between AI and Team Numbers. I just hope they leave enough room for both of them.

04-20-2006, 11:14 AM
What was wrong with 2 teams of 4 with the ability to adjust ? worked well for me.

I would have thought that as computer speeds have improved we could get more than 50 tangos in coop against us now. not less. hopefully it will be adjustable like is is in RvS.

If theres less than 50 tangos allowed that means they are compromising gameplay to graphics im sure. PC speeds can handle more calculations in AI now.

I only expect improvments not degradations. Otherwise im happy to stay with RvS.

As a Co-op fanatic, i would say i would like 12 human players adjustable into as many as 6 six teams if required, to go against a max of 150 AI, over slightly larger maps to make the use of sniper rifles a possible requirement. Think of SAS attacking Al Quaida training camps type missions.
Personally i think the AI in RvS is good. Deadly in fact. Can be a little dopey at times, but then so can humans.

One thing i think would be good to add is a medic role, to partially heal a player. maybe a medikit to take up an equipment slot ??