|
|
| Line 25: |
Line 25: |
| ===Backpack Rocket Launcher=== | | ===Backpack Rocket Launcher=== |
| [[Image:GRFW-RL.jpg|thumb|none|500px]] | | [[Image:GRFW-RL.jpg|thumb|none|500px]] |
|
| |
| ==Plot and set-up of this game?==
| |
|
| |
| Is Scott Mitchell, the player character from Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, making a comeback in this game? Will there be a different version for the PC players this time too, as was the case for GRAW2? I like those kinds of "enhanced PC ports" that take full advantage of mouse and keyboard and possibly better hardware as well.--[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 17:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ==Not looking good so far...==
| |
| It's not the Sci-Fi..ness that gets to me, I mean it bothers me but I could get past it. They could be Jedis and I might still like this(might, but probably not), but what I can't get past is that these designs are just UGLY! DX [[User:Leadback|Leadback]]
| |
|
| |
| I've been a big fan of Ghost Recon ever since I played the original back in the day (and even liked both Advanced Warfighters, despite the largely mixed reviews they got), but this one is beginning to look ''too much'' like ''Halo'' for my comfort. Fictional weapons, optic camouflage, ''backpack-mounted rocket pods''? What's next, Master Chief armored suits? [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] 06:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| Well it's in the discussion section, so it's not too much of a problem [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] 06:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| Good point. Why does the "future" always involve wildldy complex electronics, invisibiility, and stupid-looking weapons? Maybee the developers started thinking the whole "Furture warrior" project and thought it might actualy work. In GRAW2, I usualy go for the SCAR-L or HK416, with MP5SD secondary and the Mk46 for my support. I don't want or need super-weapons like the melting Xm8 and the dosn't-actualy-exist MR-C. I just hope there's a mission with the enemy sets of an EMP, leaving you with watever dosn't use electricity. Seriously, optic camo is just dumb. --[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] 13:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :I think optic camo is the way of the future when it comes to camo. You are invisible to the enemy. Literally invisible. Don't you think that is much more advantageous than just blending in with camo colors? [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]]
| |
|
| |
| Another thing - the game is set in "near future" in late 2020's or early 2030's but in my opinion presented technologies are just too modern. Optical camouflage? Miniature "box-of--chocolate-chip-cookies-sized" rocket launchers capable of taking down a MBT in one shot? Oh, come on. Those things are not even in prototype stage yet. And I strongly doubt they would be in 10-15 years. As someone said, this looks much more like HALO than hard-core military FPS. Probably the best was the first "trilogy" - original Ghost Recon + Desert Siege and Island Thunder expansion packs. Plot line was not so shitty (well yeah, we still got the ultranationalists in Russia but ethnical cleansing in Sudan or colapse of Cuban regime were in my opinion quite realistic), you did not have any super cool hi-tech stuff (like AI driven battle robots, predator-like camouflage or laser guided beer can openers) and one 7,62x39mm round from an AK was capable of killing or incapacitating you. It was Advanced Warfighter, which started this "modern technologies" trend. The game was also set in "near future" (in 2014 to be precise) but it was much more "believable". You know, RC controlled drones/recon UAVs - why not? Military uses UAVs extensively even on todays battlefields and there are plans for further development. And speaking about weapons, "Ghost" were still using HK-416s, SCARs, MP-5s, MK-46s and other good "old fashioned" weapons (ok, there were few oversights like MR-C) rather than bullpup carabines firing "uranium" 5,56 rounds. W-T-F is that? What's next - Ghost Recon going Star Wars style aka Attack of mutant Jedi Clones firing lightsabers from their rocket lauchers? My point is - Modern technologies? Fine, but at least make it believable. Is there anyone else who would like to see e.g. 6,5x39 or 6,8x43 based weapons and other non-sci-fi stuff rather than railguns, lasers and plasma carbines? [Ragnar]
| |
|
| |
| :Unfortunately, highly realistic FPS games like [[SWAT 4]] are at best a niche market now, and less realistic "futuristic" stuff is wildly popular thanks to the success of shooter series like Halo and Gears of War. Nobody likes getting killed in one shot in a game.
| |
|
| |
| :That said, I did like GRAW2 (though not as much as SWAT 4), and I did like using the XM8 and HK416, as well as the MR-C (HK was working on getting the G11 to work until the Berlin Wall fell, and the other two would be in more general use if it weren't for bureaucratic inertia). Besides, I was thinking that modern military body armour was supposed to stop several 7.62x39mm rounds now.--[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 16:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :Modern combat vests with ceramic SAPI (Small Arms Protective Insert) plates and soft kevlar inserts are supposed to stop 7,62x39 or even 7,62x54R but they are more like to lower the possibility of life threatening wound/protecting you from getting killed than making you invincible Terminator-like war machine from which bullets just bounce off. Usually, when you are hit you don't rush back into combat (even if the SAPI have stopped the bullet) ... of course when the situation requires you are still able to participate in combat or fight back but it is not like in CoD games (or any other similar FPS with "self healing system") - whoa I was hit into my vest ... lets wait five seconds in cover and we're good to go. [Ragnar - 20:06, 12 May 2010]
| |
|
| |
| :No, I'm not saying I prefer a quick-healing system. I'm just tired of the tendency in certain more realistic games to kill you instantly without telling you where you got shot (which would be belieavable in places such as through the tactical goggles, or through the face, neck, groin, etc.) when your character are wearing body armour. Many's the time I've been shot dead with one bullet in SWAT 4 by a thug with a 9x19mm pistol, without having been previously injured. Maybe a better system might be to have armour just reduce damage or inflict "consciousness damage" (take too much of that and you are knocked out rather than killed) rather than be treated as health against rounds that are stopped and don't pierce it outright, while each piece of armour is tracked for its "integrity" (or likelihood of stopping/reducing health damage from rounds). That could be more be more realistic and more fun to play with. --[[User:Mazryonh|Mazryonh]] 00:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :Depleted uranium bullets are a real thing, actually they are THROUGH the prototype phase. Its use lies not in the radioactivity, but in its density. DU is used to make both vehicle armour and armour-piercing bullets by the US military already. Optical camo, while not 100% working right now, has been making HUGE steps forward in Japan. You wear it like a raincoat and you look like a strange shadow. Still noticable, but nearly there. If it was through prototyping RIGHT NOW, they'd probably already be using it. It's not Halo, it's just the future. It's gonna happen, look out. Anyways, the gun makes sense to me, what doesn't is the idea that the US would have changed its main assault rifle again. The M8 outperformed the SCAR and the M4 by a stunning amount in terms of reliability and ease of use, and it still wasn't adopted. If anything, they should have just standardized the MCR from the last game, made it the mainstay weapon and done some variants of it. Or, realistically, they would probably just keep flogging the mp5-m16/m4 horse. Because everyone wants to just play every war game ever made and to ever BE made with the same weapons again and again. Even in the future, when an assault rifle with possibly equal range, more stopping power and a built in breaching shotgun is invented, all taking up half the space of the M4 it is attempting to replace. Progress on the battlefield? Heaven forbid. That said, asthetically I'm not really a fan of the grips on the gun. Too ergonomic-looking to go with the rest of the rifle's look. [Erk - 05:46, 24 May 2010]
| |
|
| |
| I'm not liking the look of the new assault rifle. It looks like a frankin gun. Too much thrown into one thing to be practical. The bipod is so far from the center that to use it would simply be exposing one self and a built in hook? Seriously it just looks ridiculous. Even if it were built of all polymer which it isn't it would weigh like 20 something pounds. No one would be able to handle this weapon effectively. It looks like they're only a few steps off of throwing the chainsaw bayonet on there for good measure. It all just looks too dumb for me.[[User:ShaDow XPS|ShaDow XPS]]
| |
|
| |
| : Yep, that's the problem of most of the fictional/futuristic "cool-looking" weapons. They are not desighned for functionality but for looks (also majority of game desighners does not have any experience with fire arms ... [sarcasm] if you are lucky they only know that weapons do "boom"[end of sarcasm]). And again, I'm not criticising all game desighners or all fictional firearms - there are few nice (it-looks-it-might-actually-work) examples. If I were desighning a fictional firearm for such "near-future" FPS I would base it at least on some current weaponery (like in CRYSIS where they took XM-8 or MP-7 and refited them a bit) - e.g. something like FN 2000 with prolonged barrel, RIS handguard, EGLM (in my oppinon better construction than bulky AG36/M320), AN/PEQ 16 style IR designator, EOTech style holographic sight with magnifier and chambered to 6,5x39 or 6,8x43 ... It would look cool but also believable/functional - far more than that uranium rounds firing peice of crap with "hook" in front of the barrel. [Ragnar - 09:46, 14 May 2010]
| |
