Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Future Soldier
So they took Ghost Recon....
- Back To:
- Board List
- Topic List
- Topic Archived
Less effective melee option, more recoil on most guns(even though it can be greatly minimized with the proper attachments and altering your firing stance...which is fairly true to life), third person, cover system, entirely different movement style, different aiming mechanics, different game modes, defined classes, etc... The game is very different from CoD and doesn't play similarly at all... | |
Nope, it is pretty much COD. Just because it looks different and has a cover system doesn't mean it isn't COD. COD "revolutionized" gaming by ripping of Medal of Honor and then ripping off BF2 for COD4, and continued to pump out the same game every couple of months, which back in my day would have been called an EXPANSION PACK. GRFS pretty much just takes the core ideas of COD, tight maps, spray and pray gunplay, overpowered melee, and spamming of grenades and adds nothing except for some customization in your weapons. The classes are also just basically perks, whether you want more health, sneaky-sneak, or to spam intel detection. However, these classes mean nothing as every class has the same combat effectiveness in every situation. AR's, PDR's, and rifles for medium to long range for each class, and PDW's, shotguns, and LMG's for close to medium range for each class. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN PLAY STYLE NO MATTER WHAT CLASS YOU CHOOSE. Merely you are just changing the appearance of your character. Also, if the maps are this small, it doesn't matter what the endgame game modes will be like, as they will all devolve to "camp, spray, spam grenades." The maps in every other GR game were large and had diverging paths, not middle, left, and right hallways. Compare mill and pipeline to headquarters in GRAW 2. Even headquarters was bigger. and had more than three pathways and they actually criss crossed and weren't just linear. GRFS is a pathetic attempt to cash in on a casual shooter while trying to maintain the title of "tactical." The most tactical part of the game is properly aiming frags at three chokepoints per map, COD style. | |
Anyone who says this isn't tactical...yes, it is tactical. Try playing it like CoD - as this is just a CoD clone apparently - then try playing tactically and with teamwork. You decimate playing tactically. You get owned playing like CoD. This is not a CoD clone. Please, people, if you don't know what you're talking about, do not post. Faster pace =/= less tactical. --- MW3 Gold Guns: FAD, MP5, MK14. B.Sc of Computer Games Design | |
If anything it is more of a fast paced Rainbow 6. | |
HitmanOnAcid posted... Nope, it is pretty much COD. Just because it looks different and has a cover system doesn't mean it isn't COD. COD "revolutionized" gaming by ripping of Medal of Honor and then ripping off BF2 for COD4, and continued to pump out the same game every couple of months, which back in my day would have been called an EXPANSION PACK. GRFS pretty much just takes the core ideas of COD, tight maps, spray and pray gunplay, overpowered melee, and spamming of grenades and adds nothing except for some customization in your weapons. The classes are also just basically perks, whether you want more health, sneaky-sneak, or to spam intel detection. However, these classes mean nothing as every class has the same combat effectiveness in every situation. AR's, PDR's, and rifles for medium to long range for each class, and PDW's, shotguns, and LMG's for close to medium range for each class. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN PLAY STYLE NO MATTER WHAT CLASS YOU CHOOSE. Merely you are just changing the appearance of your character. Also, if the maps are this small, it doesn't matter what the endgame game modes will be like, as they will all devolve to "camp, spray, spam grenades." The maps in every other GR game were large and had diverging paths, not middle, left, and right hallways. Compare mill and pipeline to headquarters in GRAW 2. Even headquarters was bigger. and had more than three pathways and they actually criss crossed and weren't just linear. GRFS is a pathetic attempt to cash in on a casual shooter while trying to maintain the title of "tactical." The most tactical part of the game is properly aiming frags at three chokepoints per map, COD style. User Name HitmanOnAcid User ID 6576353 Board User Level 10: Provisional (1) | |
Smallville_Fan posted... Anyone who says this isn't tactical...yes, it is tactical. Try playing it like CoD - as this is just a CoD clone apparently - then try playing tactically and with teamwork. You decimate playing tactically. You get owned playing like CoD. This is not a CoD clone. Please, people, if you don't know what you're talking about, do not post. Faster pace =/= less tactical. This game is very run and gun oriented. If you try to play tactically, *cough* camp *cough*, you will get spammed by grenades. Half of the people on internet gaming don't know what tactical is. The only way to do good is running around spraying and spamming the overpowered melee. I was dicking around using the flash bulb and I thought to myself, "wow this is op, it allows super easy melees," but after I stopped using it and started just meleeing I realized that it was the overpowered melee, just like COD, that allowed me to go 30-2 multiple times. I guarantee you that if I just ran around spamming the melee key and spamming grenades or sensors that I would do a million times better than someone playing tactically. You simply cannot play tactically with how the matches are set up. "Go to the place and press use" does not allow a tactical approach, especially when enemies can just spam grenades from unseen locations. Ammo box + grenades = sixteen grenades to be spammed. There is no tactical element to the game. And anyone who claims cover is tactical just is making an excuse for camping corners for kills. | |
The only thing that really separates GRFS from being a CoD clone is that it's in third person and how there's a cover system. Even in third person, the influence CoD has had on its development is obvious. To be absolutely fair, TC isn't wrong. Were it in first person (and not called Ghost Recon), then it would widely be regarded as a CoD rip-off by pretty much everybody. Regardless of what you think, it is definitely less team-based and tactical than the previous GRAW games, which is a sad thing because that used to be the whole appeal of the series. It's less of a distinct experience than it used to be, and I'm personally sorry for our loss as gamers. --- ''Were it so easy.'' MGO = Captain Deadman | |
Where are the kill streaks? Where is the prestige mode? I don't see a CoD clone anywhere here.... --- All I need: Forza 4 and Skyrim Gamer Tag: cre8nhavoc | |
A developer could create a game with all the tools they can imagine to make a tactical game (but still keep it fun and console player friendly) the bottom line is you can play any game like COD and mike it like COD. and that is alot of what you see in this free beta. Someone who has learned to play shooters through the cod series will come to a game with a particular play style. particualarly lone wolfing and methodically finding what is OP/exploitable. This is the best possible way to dominate COD style competative gaming. It highlights fast reflexes and skillsets aquired through uber fast paced gameplay. And since COD is so popular so many people have learned to play this way and assume all games are to be played this way One thing the developers have done to curtail deathmatching a game is to make standard kills award zero points to the team and giving HUGE point bonuses for the player and team for team oriented play. I have seen matches were people goe 30 and 0 K/D and wonder how their team lost. and on the flip side I have seen a great many matches where an entire team will have few kills and MANY deaths and dominate the other team. I wouldn't know if melee is overpowered as anytime I am in that range I go for the huge personal and team point bonus from a stun and hack. not to mention the obvious intel bonus. You can make alot of games into a COD game by ignoring the intended playstyle and going full COD. And hopefully with the upcoming announcement of COD BLOPS2 those who are just looking for a new shooter will save their money and leave GRFS to those looking for a tactical team based objective oreinted game. Though I truly wonder if that will be that case as COD fan base bloats and the backlash on the "sameness" of each iteration grows I think we'll see that more refugees will be making there way to other shooters. it will remain to be seen how the tactical gaming communities handle the influx if it happens. Do we deride and chastize incoming players fir being "COD players" or perhaps offer polite advice making the new players feel accepted and maybe giving them a desire to learn to work as a team. you might be surprised how camly explaining what is going on to someone doing the "wrong" thing can have a good effect on their immediate playstyle | |
Do NOT feed the trolls. --- Nothing important to say here. |
- Back To:
- Board List
- Topic List
- Topic Archived
