So, I've been playing Ghost Recon: Future Soldier, and actually been having a good time with it, and am planning to start Advanced Warfighter 1 and 2 after I'm done with it. I'm interested in Wildlands when it comes out, but I was wondering, how well has the original Ghost Recon + expansions aged? I've heard a lot of good things about it, but then I've heard from other tac shooter fans that once you remove the nostalgia goggles, it's aged pretty poorly and is confusing and unintuitive. What does this site say? Worth going for?

That this is not a subreddit?

I haven't played the original lately, but it seems likely it hasn't aged well because it was a bit (as you put it) unintuitive even when it came out.

I actually picked this up again the other day because I missed it a little.

There's not a lot to say really, it's an older game for sure but still perfectly playable and a lot of fun.

When you ask 'How well has it aged?', what are you driving at? Obviously it's not as shiny as newer games, but unless your main focus is always having the newest stuff, its certainly still worth playing. There's no reason that should change with time for any game really.

well dunno - for me personally it didnt age that well - tried to replay it sometimes arround 2011, 2012 mabye? While i still could appreciate the game for what it was and still see it was a really good game back in the day (i played it arround release as well) it somehow just didnt do it for me anymore - can't nail it on a single thing (it's not like that i totally didnt like the graphics or if there was some buggy/crappy game mechanics or something like that) but in the end i stopped playing it after a few hours and it was just a game that despite having liked it back in the days i dont have to replay or where replaying felt rather as a duty than fun

I'm not really sure its fair to complain that the controls are different to those of other games you have been playing. It's a different game with different mechanics so of course it's going to be different to COD or whatever. It can be frustrating and is even worse when you are playing two or three games at the same time, but I wouldn't say its a fair comment on how the game has aged.

Damn, sorry. Pasted this from another place I had posted it, didn't get any replies there. Forgot to edit it. Will do that now.

That's quite alright, it was funny. :)

I just finished playing GR with both expansions. With regard to how it has aged, I would say not overly well. I am a tactical gamer and as such reach for GR or Swat 4 when I "get the itch". However; with that said, while the tactics are still present the AI, graphics, etc., leave a little to be desired.

I wish the tactical FPS didn't fade the way it did, however; I certainly understand why it did - the slow and sometimes frustrating gameplay is not for everyone.

With that said, I would still give GR a shot if you like being a sniper and giving your team orders as that is how most play these days from reading several sites.

Old visuals don't bother me, I've played many older games, but I haven't gotten into tac shooters, at least not the old-school kind.

When I talk about dated or archaic, I'm talking mostly about control schemes or gameplay. If the control schemes are rebindable, great, then that takes care of that. What I would consider a dated control scheme, would, be say, playing Doom with Win 95 controls mouseless.

With regards to gameplay, the best example I can think of on the spot is Grim Fandango. If I look back at the few reviews from 1998 I can find, they talk about how intuitive the puzzle design is. Yet, when I played the Remaster, it was some of the most unintuitive, complicated, and illogical puzzle design I'd seen. And it wasn't just me, reviewers who'd played it back in the day said this about it as well, and that it had aged poorly. I loved the story, world, and characters though. Compare this to something like, say, The Dream Machine, which, while really hard, most of the puzzles are grounded in real-world logic. I would also say that something like Wolfenstein 3D has aged badly as well. The level design there is too maze-like (at least for me,) and doesn't feel nearly as clever or well-designed as Doom or the shooters that came after.

Hmmm. I might try it at some point then, but wait u til my backlog is further along. Wonder if I'd be better off going with Swat 4. I've heard it's aged well.

I think if they could figure out how to make smart friendly AI, then maybe the genre would see a resurgence. At least, it'd be nice. There is a game called Epsilon in Steam Early Access that was trying to revitalize the genre, but they've hit financial troubles, and there's no knowing what's gonna happen with it.

Well, the keys are rebindable and the game makes use of keyboard and mice, so that might take away some worries for you.

Like drewpants said, my problem has more to do with playing too many games simultaneously (though his 3 or 4 is a mild guess, a dozen games installed at the same time is more accurate, it's not something I'd recommend but it's something I do to be able be able to choose which game I would have the energy for playing, if I'm feeling bad and one game doesn't suit, there's always another, that is, if I have enough energy to play a game at all).

IMO Swat 4 has aged much better than GR, however; please note that it too suffers from friendly AI issues that can cause frustration.

lol the originals aren't even remotely like the new retarded ones. They're more thinking oriented. Just look up a YT vid and you'll see.