It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionHow well has Ghost Recon aged?(31 posts)(31 posts)
(31 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 07, 2016
avatar
drewpants: 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.
avatar
Hammercorps: 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.
I see your point. I've never played Grim Fandango, were the controls changed between the original and the remaster? I can't see the problem with playing classic Doom as it was without a mouse though. I think the issue comes down to the design of the game and how slick it is. Doom can be slick as anything (nearly said 'Slick as Hell' but no puns allowed here!) on a keyboard.
Posted June 07, 2016
avatar
drewpants: I see your point. I've never played Grim Fandango, were the controls changed between the original and the remaster?
Grim Fandango originally had tank controls.
The remaster gave it a Point and Click interface.
Posted June 07, 2016
avatar
Hammercorps: 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.
avatar
drewpants: I see your point. I've never played Grim Fandango, were the controls changed between the original and the remaster? I can't see the problem with playing classic Doom as it was without a mouse though. I think the issue comes down to the design of the game and how slick it is. Doom can be slick as anything (nearly said 'Slick as Hell' but no puns allowed here!) on a keyboard.
I suppose so. I guess it's an issue of not having grown up playing it in the 90's, and I've always played my shooters with mouse/WASD.
Posted June 07, 2016
It hasn't aged well. The sniper scopes are now fitted with bifocal lenses.

ba-dum-tssh!
Posted June 08, 2016
avatar
drewpants: I see your point. I've never played Grim Fandango, were the controls changed between the original and the remaster? I can't see the problem with playing classic Doom as it was without a mouse though. I think the issue comes down to the design of the game and how slick it is. Doom can be slick as anything (nearly said 'Slick as Hell' but no puns allowed here!) on a keyboard.
avatar
Hammercorps: I suppose so. I guess it's an issue of not having grown up playing it in the 90's, and I've always played my shooters with mouse/WASD.
Now I just feel old :-(
Posted June 11, 2016
avatar
Hammercorps: 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?
First Ghost Recon and both of its expansions is still a great game. Many guns to choose from, leveling up your soldiers, unlocking elite specialists and many, many more! Also, note that changing difficulty setting is no just making your enemies stronger, instead it add enemy vehicles, enemy teams with advancer weapon in addition to teams from easy setting. So, basically, changing difficulty is like playing different game with different levels: where was a safe route you can find enemy ambush, where was few soldiers now a twice more enemy soldiers with a tank. Great game!

The only problem is that now mods are hard to find. There was many mods with new levels, soldiers and weapons. Now links are mostly dead. :(

Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter is still have best weapon animations ever! Just look at LMG when you will change belts. ;)
Posted June 11, 2016
I still love this game, and think it has aged much better than the other Tom Clancy games from the same vintage. As mentioned, the controls take a little time to re-adapt to, and you might get frustrated by the lack of athleticism of the protagonists. It does not play anything like the later games: even the first level can take hours of inching forward, scoping, causing a diversion, flushing out enemies and running from counter attacks. Until you learn the mechanics, it will feel quite frustrating. With time and practice, however, your team begins to feel deadly (if vulnerable). If you're unsure, might be one to get in a sale.
Posted June 11, 2016
avatar
Hammercorps: 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?
if you are into classic small unit infantry sim games then ghost recon is nr.3 right after flashpoint and the ut99 mod infiltration. but only ghost recon 1 the other ghost recon parts are just disappointing crap. and it aged very well, ghost recon 1 graphics are great in my opinion.
Post edited June 11, 2016 by apehater
Posted June 11, 2016
avatar
apehater: the other ghost recon parts are just disappointing crap.
What wrong with Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 1 &, especially, 2? The only problem that i see is team of just 4 soldiers. And, well, lack of leveling up and unlockable specialists. On all other aspects his games are very good.
Posted June 11, 2016
avatar
apehater: the other ghost recon parts are just disappointing crap.
avatar
Andrey82: What wrong with Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 1 &, especially, 2? The only problem that i see is team of just 4 soldiers. And, well, lack of leveling up and unlockable specialists. On all other aspects his games are very good.
i don't see aw 1 and 2 as sim games, they felt like a cod modern warfare shooter
Posted June 11, 2016
avatar
Andrey82: What wrong with Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 1 &, especially, 2? The only problem that i see is team of just 4 soldiers. And, well, lack of leveling up and unlockable specialists. On all other aspects his games are very good.
avatar
apehater: i don't see aw 1 and 2 as sim games, they felt like a cod modern warfare shooter
They both play much slower than CoD, and have much more detail. Few examples:

- when falling to the ground from running, if you have equipped NVG, hey will flash on impact
- reloading animations of LMG depends on what amount of ammo you have left in belt
- you can't regenerate health and it depletes very fast

And many other small things. So, its much closer to sim than to CoD or Battlefield.
Posted June 11, 2016
Advanced Warfighter was a damp squib when I played it just 2 years after it came out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca2zLROqZeM

Remember this is the same console that gave us Crysis 2

The original GR however holds up much like Full Spectrum Warrior and The original Rainbow Six.
Posted June 11, 2016
avatar
Hammercorps: I suppose so. I guess it's an issue of not having grown up playing it in the 90's, and I've always played my shooters with mouse/WASD.
avatar
drewpants: Now I just feel old :-(
In case you're not feeling old enough: https://xkcd.com/891/
avatar
mcphail: I still love this game, and think it has aged much better than the other Tom Clancy games from the same vintage. As mentioned, the controls take a little time to re-adapt to, and you might get frustrated by the lack of athleticism of the protagonists. It does not play anything like the later games: even the first level can take hours of inching forward, scoping, causing a diversion, flushing out enemies and running from counter attacks. Until you learn the mechanics, it will feel quite frustrating. With time and practice, however, your team begins to feel deadly (if vulnerable). If you're unsure, might be one to get in a sale.
That kind of gameplay actually sounds pretty cool. I'll probably get it on a sale along with the expansions, as my backlog is a bit, uh, extensive, let's say, but it sounds like it'd almost play like an RPG, if that makes sense, which is pretty awesome sounding.
Post edited June 11, 2016 by Hammercorps
Posted June 14, 2016
avatar
drewpants: Now I just feel old :-(
avatar
Hammercorps: In case you're not feeling old enough: https://xkcd.com/891/
avatar
mcphail: I still love this game, and think it has aged much better than the other Tom Clancy games from the same vintage. As mentioned, the controls take a little time to re-adapt to, and you might get frustrated by the lack of athleticism of the protagonists. It does not play anything like the later games: even the first level can take hours of inching forward, scoping, causing a diversion, flushing out enemies and running from counter attacks. Until you learn the mechanics, it will feel quite frustrating. With time and practice, however, your team begins to feel deadly (if vulnerable). If you're unsure, might be one to get in a sale.
avatar
Hammercorps: That kind of gameplay actually sounds pretty cool. I'll probably get it on a sale along with the expansions, as my backlog is a bit, uh, extensive, let's say, but it sounds like it'd almost play like an RPG, if that makes sense, which is pretty awesome sounding.
*Sniff* Why?
Posted June 14, 2016
avatar
Hammercorps: 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?
If you can get around the awkward controls, I'd say it's a very good tactical shooter, very much on the same level as SWAT 4 (which I also liked quite a bit).

If you're really interested in a modernization of the game, you may want to check out the Heroes Unleashed mod, too.
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionHow well has Ghost Recon aged?(31 posts)(31 posts)
(31 posts)