The PC versions of Advanced Warfighter(1 and 2)
are more like chess games than shooters, just like any other realistic mil-sim.
As with any dominant genre, the question keeps arising: is the military-shooter nearing the end of its hegemony? Well, on the evidence of Ghost Recon: Future Soldier this question appears to have an answer. Ghost Recon Future Soldier Wading for war It has everything you'd expect from a modern Triple-A shooter. There's the …
I don't get it, lots of critics have given this game 70-80% and complain its the 'same' as what has come before. Yet when Battlefield 3 and COD MW 3 were released and being cookie cutter clones they recieved reviews in the high 90s. Though the review score in this case is fair.
I bought it and am having a blast with the single player. Okay I agree its not GRAW (I didn't really enjoy those games tbh, found the controls a bit clunky), it doesn't try to be. It's a reboot/re imagining of the Ghost franchise. Like all the film reboots we keep getting. Whether this is a good/bad thing is up to personal preference.
I think the game fits on a scale between GRAW and the console Rainbow 6 Vegas games.
Now I have died several times during my play through, normally because my approach has been to treat it like R6 and go in guns blazing. Or I've stupidly picked the wrong weapons during the level, and ended up taking a sniper rifle into a 180 degree set piece fire fight. Twitch skills can't compensate for bad planning or choices.
My only gripe is that once the enemy has detected you in a given area thats it, you've lost the element of surprise and there is no cool down to a stood down mode. Of course this adds a little bit to the 'realism' as you have to kill them loudly and move on. This becomes annoying as you can't move/hide corpses. So take an enemy out at the wrong time in the wrong place and the plan you've been working towards for the last ten minutes has gone to pot. Annoying on levels where you can't raise an alert. On a couple occasions I've completely avoided engaging the enemy because I couldn't see a away through by killing them. I've also ended up on some levels replaying certain bits to try and get a perfect clear out. (Stupid OCD).
Ooo long post.
Saw it in Tescos - mentions Move support, now when you see a Move supported shooter, you think Killzone, SOCOM, Resistance, & MAG, full usability during campaign and multiplayer, the only thing stopping me putting into the shopping trolley was the navigation controller missing from the cover, this sent up a warning.
When I got home I investigated - only available for gunsmith mode!!!!
What is the point in advertising a game as Move compatible and not actually using the thing?
As far as I am concerned it can stay with a lot of other shooters - on the shelf!
BTW some of us strugle to aim quickly with sticks and like motion type control like a mouse, or a move controller.
Why I already am.
And I wipe out the DS3 using losers on Killzone 3*
* positive KDR, often top of my team, often winning team, in top few thousand world wide, win games when 4 vs me, I play tactician markman and engineer.
So I play a FPS using motion controls, large numbers of us do and a lot of us are very good. You do realise we actually have to aim - you know point at the screen to shoot!
I know at least one sharpshooter user, he is pretty good as well, top couple 100 in the world.
Finally it takes skill to use the sniper rifle like this, you actually have to hold your breath when aiming, stil got 30 streak using it though!
So you see a shooter game with this logo on - and it doesn't support it during campaign this is serious misselling.
The original Rainbow 6 was a thing of beauty. Small, intense scenarios. Careful planning, and realistic damage. It was great and the gritty realistic nature of it made it a refreshing change from the Duke Nukem and Quakes we were used to.
This review is right. Subsequent iterations have changed this series from a game of strategy with action, to an all out action game.
Ding Chavez is not amused.
I have not played this game yet (got the PC version on pre-order), but I can't help feeling this review is a bit harsh on the basis it is not like its previous games. Sure it is important to flag this up, but shouldn't the review judge the game itself on its merits rather than scoring it badly just because it is not the same previous (and bloody hard) style? For people who have never played the Ghost Recon series before and are too used to FPS clones, this might seem like something fantastic and new and so the review should use that as a baseline.
As previously said, giving COD and BF3 high scores for just regugitating themselves well while slating this one for trying to make itself more appealing to the masses seems rather hypocritical.