The lights are on
I was expecting this game to be a CoD killer and get at least an 8.5 (maybe a 9)
I haven't played the game yet but I'm hoping that the impressions I got from the review don't match the impressions I get from actually playing it.
How's the multiplayer, guys? Is it better than CoD in terms of addiction-ness? or is it worse (god forbid)?
Dunno' yet. Picking my copy up later today.
the graphics are okay but everything else is good
I don't get what you mean by a disappointment. I personally loved the game. It's got a refreshing mix of tactical pacing along with all-out gunfights. The graphics may be a bit dated but that's not what makes or breaks this game. The subtle details are what makes it great. The intelligence of your team and the true to life tactical manuvers are what stand out most to me. Your team isn't just a group of mindless bodies. They actually cover correct points and don't leave you hanging in battle. The cover system is amazing and the suppressive fire is a much needed addition. How many other games have you played that made you feel like poking your head out was going to be a fatal mistake?
Read the whole post before posting. I haven't played it yet.
Ive gotten 3 missions into the story and thats it. How this game is viewed as "aged" is unfair. It's not aged, it's old-school tactics. Its not run-n-gun like a CoD or a Kill-fest like Battlefield. The comparison is un-needed and doesnt work. This review was unfair.
The HUD Overload they talk about is actually kinda cool to me. The Kinect is also a sweet touch, gimmick or not, I like customizing my gun with hand motions Gamer style. So I disagree on almost everything in this game review. They are very picky with games, but never consistently. Mass Effect 3 for example. Plot holes galore, eh give it a 10. Future Soldier has somewhat aged graphics? 7.5! I think they be trolling...
I think the multiplayer is quite fun actually, I dont know why some people feel like its not all that great. I dont think the GI view was all that great. To be hung up on graphics? Please, I think a lot of people would agree that gameplay outrules graphics. Even then the graphics are not outdated.... The areas a beautiful but you do notice they drop off as the environment is revealed more and more (meaning when you see a lot of terrain from in a helicopter or such.) The campaign has a somewhat deep story and is progressive. Sure a lot of it involves stealth, but if you dont want stealth and you just want to shoot a bunch of guys go to Guerilla which is a very good challenging mode. However I have to note that its lack of matchmaking for Guerilla mode is depressing.
I did read the entire post. I just don't see how you could place a title stating disappointment in something you haven't even had your hands on. Doesn't make sense.
I haven't had a chance to dig into the matchmaking with guerilla mode yet but the mode itself is awesome. And I agree that gameplay clearly overrules graphics any day. Everyone wants to compare ever shooter to Call of Duty which is ridiculous. If there is any game that is dated and antiquated it is the Call of Duty series. The scenery changes and a couple of killstreak rewards get moved around and the rest is all the same. Character models, actions, gameplay; everything is the same. Thank God Ubisoft has the stones to step into the market and offer something unique. While Future Soldier brings back some of the same mechanics as past Ghost Recon titles it does a great job of innovating the gameplay with new technology at your disposal. Intelligence gather devices play center stage and that's how it is in the real world. I'm interested to see what Ubi has in store for Rainbow Six Patriots. I've been waiting for a long time for a new Rainbow game.
By your first post, it seemed like you thought I already played the game.
And I'm disappointed because, based on what the reviewer says, the game has too much "conventional" gameplay. Which contradicts IGN's review which said that the game stayed true to its roots and was mostly stealth.
I'm just confused, bro.
Well, I posted a simple review of it and I gave it a 9.25 personally. I have enjoyed the game throroughly. The campaign progressively gets slightly more challenging and causes you to think your way through things. The challenges for each level give it plenty of replay value in itself. I never really trust reviews from major gaming sites because they tend to lean too much towards the way a game looks and how it performs against other major titles. I like to look at what the developer wanted to accomplish and how well they did it. I think Ubisoft nailed it with this one. The real challenge is when you bring in four live players in the campaign and see how well you can work with your team. It's definitely worth it. The stealth aspect is definitely fun and a challenge. It's hard sometimes to find a way to get through an area without alerting anyone but in most cases it's possible. You just have to be patient. The stealth roots are definitely there. If you like the past titles in the series I have no doubt you'll love this one. I'm addicted. I can't stop playing.
Game informer is extremely biased when it comes to shooters. They suck COD ***. This is a great game. It deserves WAY better than a 7.5. If you're tired of paying $60 for the same game with different maps for the fourth year in a row, then this is the first shooter that I've found that's worthy of buying.
The game is alot better than the reviewer implies. if you have some friends play with them its a team based game, so much better or you will get your butt stomped. You get more points doing teamwork related tasks than killing to promote working together instead of people just spawn killing.
MY OPINION WITHOUT being BIASED as an independent buyer gamer/reviewer.
I pre ordered this with high expectations, but as said IT WAS A HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT for me. Game s graphics take you 5-6 years back. I mainly played multi-player and the re-spawning system sucks as well. The cover system integrated to the in game character prevents free movement, restricting the gamer. I guess the game's core software had been developed years back and the producers have tried to polish up the game with some touch ups later. This cannot come close to some of the other 2011/2012 games. What I suggest to those interested in getting this is to try it and get first hand experience before yo buy !!!. Then you ll know what I mean. Thanks.
Once again we're too hung up on graphics. You have to be kidding me. And how in the world does the cover system restrict free movement. It's not as if you are forced into cover in any way. While I will agree that the spawning system has it's flaws you have to credit the development team with trying to rectify the mistake with updates to spawning to allow the team to spawn behind and ambush spawn campers. As far as being able to come close to other 2011/2012 titles I have no idea what you are referring to. What other TACTICAL shooters have been released in the past 2 years. I can't think of any. All I have seen are the COD and Battlefield games. The same run-and-gun mindless first person shooters just keep repeating themselves. For once I'd like to see someone focused on the gameplay elements as opposed to graphics. What other games are you going to see something as intuitive as the sync-shot, mixing of stealth and gun battles, cover-to-cover movement and blending them all so well to create a well rounded co-op experience? Don't lose sight of what the objective was here; CO-OP TEAM BASED GAMEPLAY!!