Ghost Recon PvP is already an established success - no need to overthink it!
There's no need to create or innovate GR multiplayer. As-is: it's simply outstanding (specially, was: GR titles spanning 2002-2007). What made it so special, and so addicting is inherent to nothing more than the basic concept of a match itself (survival), not its relation to the 'main mode', or old and new 'game types' (capture the flag, etc.) and other rules or new variables (drones, sensors, etc.) imposed upon a group of players. Old multiplayer of Ghost Recon scratched the itch of our hard-wired survival instincts, and with up to eight human beings coming for you, it was the ultimate heart-racing thrill! In other words, the work has already been done for you. The thrill is from the hunt; the players themselves, not any specific game designs other than your wonderfully crafted maps, player movement, and graphics which all make for an amazing and unique experience. Good news:You don't need any $1M ideas, "creative direction", or to test anything. All that is needed already exists in the game: the maps, the characters, and the guns.
It's also very confusing to see people discuss "how could multiplayer PvP work" or "what kind of PvP would fit the narrative" -- it's already there, established by the dozen or so successful Ghost Recon titles to come before. Nothing new here. Additionally, Multiplayer in Ghost Recon has always been it's own option from the menu screen. It doesn't tie into the campaign, nor does it need to, nor does anyone care if it does. There is a HUGE itch for 3rd-person shooting multiplayer (created originally by Ghost Recon ironically enough), and no one is taking advantage of this.
It is nonsensical that the franchise responsible for the very first celebrated "Xbox Live" multiplayer experience (Ghost Recon, 2002, Xbox), the most popular (by player counts),and by all accounts successful, could either actually forget, or actively work against their previous achievements and MASSIVE popularity, which came from their 8 vs 8 modes (one life or unlimited lives), which we've come to expect after 15 years with GR, and somehow behave as if Ghost Recon PvP multiplayer wasn't only an already established thing, but a wildly popular one! As a side note for how popular their 8 vs 8 games were, I came to notice and buy Ghost Recon in 2002 blindly after two different people recommended it to me OVER A FOOTBALL Xbox Live game.
GR PvP: It is it's own game and option. It's already built-in for all intents and purposes. The player "characters" and maps are already there. Just set us loose in the maps and we'll be playing this for years and years. I welcome a great and possibly "new" campaign experience (everything about the game that has been officially released) -- but the itch that I, and so many thousands of other Ghost Recon fanatics desperately need scratched, is the return of the multiplayer modes we have come to expect from the original Xbox Ghost Recon releases, that continued with the first two Ghost Recon titles made available on the Xbox 360.
Again, nothing against the new direction of the game ("multiplayer coop" or "campaign" modes). If you're excited about what you've seen, no one is trying to take that away from you. But there's a HUGE niche market absolutely DESPERATE for a killer 3rd person shooter, and no one is filling that need. Personally, this 3rd person itch was created by the Ghost Recon franchise on Xbox, revitalized in 2004 with Ghost Recon 2, and sustained with GRAW 1-2. I'm not asking for Ubisoft and GR to tailor something new for me -- I'm asking that they return to us their very own bread and butter - the experiences that made their game such a huge success in the first place, which I and so many others loved and cherished. GR multiplayer is an already established, successful, and celebrated experience -- there's NO NEED TO INVENT ANYTHING HERE! Just let us play in the environment you have already created. If the maps are deemed "too large" for 8 vs 8 PvP, set defined boundaries, JUST LIKE YOU HAD TO DO PREVIOUSLY with every game since "Ghost Recon" on Xbox in 2002. Don't like the results from the boundaries? Then just adjust them, tweak them, as much as you want to - we're perfectly fine with that. We just wanna play the old "try not to die" game.
Besides, if the new game is as great as they and you think it is, what harm is it for the game to also have highly addicting multiplayer that keeps players playing it for several years? You know what happens when you're addicted and in love with a game for years (Ghost Recon), you tell others about it and you buy the next one without even thinking. It only boosts their profits and satisfies the original fanbase, who has supported you this long. Win win? Obviously, I am very passionate about returning to the thrilling multiplayer I used to expect from Ghost Recon -- imagine what I'd do with this energy if there was a game to promote. I'd be telling everyone I could to pick up Ghost Recon just like I did back in the glory days I spoke of. Free press. Ubisoft, give yourselves a chance to succeed, please! We are dying for this.
Ghost Recon multiplayer. It's so simple (just let teams of up to eight-players occupy a map) yet so rewarding and addicting. Low investment (just let teams play in the maps that are already built-in to the game), high reward (sales). What am I missing here? There is NOTHING for those who experienced and miss the thrill of the 3rd person shooters SOCOM and Ghost Recon. There's a GIGANTIC opportunity here for Ubisoft, or whoever else seizes the SO OBVIOUSLY NEEDED void to make a killing (without having to reinvent the wheel) and start a successful franchise for decades to come.
2 people found this helpful
Member
Senior Member
Member
After O.G.R. and GR.IT had been out for a while, they (ubisoft) noticed the huge success that Socom had on the PS2, and went that way with Ghos Recon 2. Since then, the Ghost games have been tossed around a lot, but unfurtunately they've kept it third person. In my opinion, they had something very uniqe with the first two games, and should have kept with it.
Member
Senior Member
Senior Member
Member
Senior Member
Senior Member
