Ubisoft is conscious that "super-hardcore" Ghost Recon fans yearn for the series to go back to its roots, but according to UK brand manager Matt Benson, commercial realities dictate otherwise.
The upcoming Ghost Recon: Future Soldier will tread a path between "classic" Ghost Recon and "the market expectations of gamers these days", Benson told us during a presentation of the Kinect-exclusive Gunsmith Mode, which allows players to assemble and disassemble weapons with gestures.
"It's the balance these days, with the rising costs of development," he said. "It puts real pressure on us to make sure that we strike that balance between the creative and the commercial. And innovation, which is the reason I joined Ubisoft in the first place.
"There's always going to be that hardcore player," Benson went on. "There's always going to be super-hardcore players and you're never going to keep them happy. They're just going to want the first Ghost Recon on first-gen Xbox, and they're going to want to be lying on the ground, camoed up, waiting 10 minutes for a guard to walk all the way back round and then pop him.
"And that's fine, but in terms of where we are right now as an industry, there are commercial needs that need to be met in order for us to make the game in the first place. That's the balance you've got to strike. And that doesn't mean dumbing down, although obviously the net is very quick to say 'Oh, they're dumbing down Splinter Cell, they're dumbing down this, they're dumbing that'.
Jonty went hands on with Future Soldier's main game at E3 last month. Apparently, it borrows a roady run from Gears of War and in-game text prompts from Splinter Cell: Conviction. Expect a preview in the not too distant future.
All future Tom Clancy titles will support Kinect. Multiplayer designer Thad Sasser has said that Future Soldier's Kinect functions "will appeal to a wide variety of players".
6 comments so far...
Bezza89 on 7 Jul '11 said:
Isn't taking the original concept of GHOST (stealth) RECON (also stealth) where you were in, granted, difficult situations where being invisible meant survival, then taking away the stealth, making it really easy with futuristic tech and putting in set pieces like helicopter chain guns and airstrikes etc to appeal to a wider market...
isn't that the definition of dumbing down?
I love GRAW, don't get me wrong. But it is in no way Ghost Recon at all. Ditch the prefix name. All these devs sticking with the franchise name and releasing a different IP because they are scared you wont buy it because it's not got Ghost Recon/Splinter cell etc in the title, both big names and guaranteed sellers.
CunningSmile on 7 Jul '11 said:
While you make a good point Bezza we all know that the hardcore fan boys always act the same way. If a sequel isn't exactly the same as the first they complain, but if the third game in the franchise isn't completely different they complain it is stale and doesn't innovate. You can't please them no matter what.
With regards to films Jerry Bruckheimer said in the 80s that most people are idiots and you should never trust their opinions because they don't know what they want until they are told. Sad but often true.
Bezza89 on 7 Jul '11 said:
Yeah I see that point, but look at Mass Effect 2... I love both that and the first game.
But with Ghost recon, it's a war game. Not your covert strike team. Look at Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, the best game in the series with lots of different stuff from the original, yet still the same. Conviction was a step in the right direction, but double agent was terrible.
I don't mind change, as long as there is the original game in there. With Ghost recon, it's absent.
Jensonjet on 7 Jul '11 said:
The worst change for me, with the last GRAW I played, was the change in the way aiming was handled when in cover. Rather than do what every other first-person shooter has always done keep the cursor fixed to the centre of the screen - the screen stood still and your cursor moved around the screen!
Yet again, the same complaint I always have... GIVE GAMERS CHOICE! If Ubisoft, in all their wisdom, believe this is the best way to handle aiming while in cover, fine, but they have to accept there might actually be a reason no other shooter does this, and it may not suit all gamers. So give us the choice between new, loose cursor, and the traditional, tried and tested, style used in every other game. Really how difficult would that have been if a little common sense were employed and the developers actually accepted they don't know what suits every gamer, so giving options is a good thing.
I'm not being funny, but I've been waiting for the whole industry to allow team mates, whether AI or human, to exchange ammo. It's a minor issue, but one I believe would be a welcome addition to any shooter. Instead I hear we'll be able to dismantle a gun! Maybe it's me, but that's about as exciting as cleaning boots, putting air in tyres, dusting the dashboard of a vehicle, polishing a mirror, cleaning a mug, actually, the list is endless. If this is how Kinect is going to be incorporated into 'hardcore' games, then Kinect really is an utter failure for non-party/dance/kids&mothers games. It could be worse, in Forza they think turning your head away from the TV is a great way of having a player look around. Anyway, I won't give up hope on Kinect yet, I'm sure within ten years a developer will actually find a clever use for it in a typical hardcore game. OK, maybe twenty.
Really the best Ghost Recon for me was before it became a console game. The first console versions were pretty good too. It was an amazing game once. And then Advanced Whatever it's called came out. With the way most of these types of games end up, my only hope for a military based shooter now lies with Rainbow Six. I'm fully expecting that to move further away from the game it used to be and then military games will be a distant fond memory.
Spiderless on 7 Jul '11 said:
On the topic of Rainbow six I recently bought R6 Vegas 1, totally not what I expected. I thought I was getting a slowish paced tactical shooter, instead I got a face paced action game, now I'm not complaining it is still damn good fun, but it seems weird to continue using so many seperate brands for games that are becoming increasingly alike. They're just all action filled shooters with too much resemblance to COD.
They (GR, R6, SC) are not necessarily being dumbed down, they are just all being made faster and more 'actiony' although also a lot easier... so dumber... damn.
I find it annoying that the same old, crowd pleasing crap just gets churned out every couple of years, too many FPS games are blending into one for me.
Pretty sure I'm rambling now but basically I throughly enjoyed Ghost Recon 1 all those years ago (at the dumb age of 12) and played GRAW a few years ago and thought it was awful. If a 12 year old me can work out the original GR, games don't need dumbing down.
TLDR: Like Bezza said, Ghost Recon just isn't Ghost Recon anymore.
David Jobson on 7 Jul '11 said:
I'd say the same for Splinter Cell
First Splinter Cell was one of my first video games I can ever remember playing. Didn't get the hang of it at first - still thought fire crabs and running under falling tree trunks were too dangerous to overcome (Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets PC). But later I came to love the series' sneak mechanics, and it's slow paced, strategy making process, which added to the increased tension of not being seen
That's nearly 10 years now, *sigh* the good old days
Anyway, with all my heart I love the Splinter Cell series, and with all my heart I hate the last game and how it simplified everything