TRAILER | X360, PS3 Friday, March 26, 2010 | 10:57 AM

Ghost Recon Future Soldier trailer

Ghost Recon Future Soldier trailer

Ubisoft sent us the announcement trailer of Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Future Soldier, looking more like a Metal Gear game than Modern Warfare, as we first expected.

Announcement trailer

All comments

Page 1 2 3 >>
Commented on 2010-03-26 11:19:27
How this can be called "Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon" is beyond me...
Commented on 2010-03-26 11:26:02
This message is in "Boulet Time" (TM), If you still *really* want to see it, click here

Commented on 2010-03-26 11:55:53
If this is ingame it looks good. Tom Clancy has no other connection to these titles then his name. This have been known for a long time.
Commented on 2010-03-26 12:19:08 In reply to Dinsdale
This message is in "Boulet Time" (TM), If you still *really* want to see it, click here

Commented on 2010-03-26 12:24:43 In reply to Dinsdale
Posted by Dinsdale
If this is ingame it looks good.
Are you kidding?
Commented on 2010-03-26 12:37:25 In reply to Dinsdale
Posted by Dinsdale
Tom Clancy has no other connection to these titles then his name. This have been known for a long time.
I was referring more to the Ghost Recon franchise. Instead of the military shooter it used to be (and I love) they are introducing all this sci-fi
bullshit...
But I'll be honest and say that other people might be more interested because of this change, I just see it as the degradation of the franchise...
Commented on 2010-03-26 12:44:48
How this looks like Metal Gear is beyond me....

This looks more like a GRAW sequel. What was here that was sci-fi? Don't tell me the invisibility cloak, that's very near to being done. Tom Clancy games always had near-futuristic weapons.
Commented on 2010-03-26 12:50:25 In reply to UrbanRats
Posted by UrbanRats
Are you kidding?
Yes, yes he was.
Commented on 2010-03-26 12:59:45
Any chance the english version might show up?
Commented on 2010-03-26 13:08:12 In reply to digi_matrix
Posted by digi_matrix
Don't tell me the invisibility cloak, that's very near to being done. Tom Clancy games always had near-futuristic weapons.
Just because we can make things invisible to IR light in the nanometre scope doesn't mean we are almost done. That's far from the truth.

What rubs me the wrong way is the character design, and the new toys you have. Also they should have left the live action trailers to Bungie/MS, this was horrible.
Commented on 2010-03-26 13:11:58
There was no sci-fi involved in this... only the fact that there were futuristic looking weapons/drones and cloaking. That's not sci-fi at all. It's just advanced weapons that we don't have (or at least know about) at this point in time.

Some people will bitch about anything, I swear. Read the title of the damn game.

Character design? Did you see any in-game footage, because I didn't.... If you're referring to the gas masks, I doubt that everybody will be wearing those 100% of the time in the game.

I find these live action trailers to be useless as well, but just saying. People are griping just to be griping, because there is absolutely nothing telling about the game in this trailer.
Commented on 2010-03-26 13:21:50
Posted by zomfg
Character design? Did you see any in-game footage, because I didn't.... If you're referring to the gas masks, I doubt that everybody will be wearing those 100% of the time in the game.

I find these live action trailers to be useless as well, but just saying. People are griping just to be griping, because there is absolutely nothing telling about the game in this trailer.
People are bitching because this game is absolutely nothing like the Ghost Recon's of past but then again they started down this road with the first GRAW.
Commented on 2010-03-26 13:26:07
WTF just happened lol
Commented on 2010-03-26 13:28:17
How do you even know that it's changed based on a live action trailer?

Just because the overall vibe of this trailer has a dark ominous tone with the color pallet, cloaking, and some drones (which we do have drones in real life). All of a sudden people are freaking out.

It shows nothing about tactical gameplay, what the general atmosphere of the game will be like, or anything. It's one trailer... one representation to get people excited.

I personally wonder why people want to freak out every time there is a change from the generic vanilla formula of regular war games that are released over and over and over and over and over and over and will continue to be released as long as war is real. I'm glad that we're finally seeing some kind of extra creativity being put into them for once.

I see the point that some think they shouldn't even call it Ghost Recon if it doesn't resemble the other ones... but maybe, JUST MAYBE you should wait until you see the game itself and you might find the parallels.
Commented on 2010-03-26 13:43:57
I dont think its that bad. Just dont expect to be super real. Robots walking along with soldiers, carrying their gear etc are already in development. It is not THAT MUCH sci-fi as I was afraid. Trailer was cool. I like the idea. It is not very distant from todays technologies. We will see.
Commented on 2010-03-26 14:29:58
It is sci-fi, what did you guys expect "science fiction" stands for?
Sci-fi doesnt only mean space, robots, aliens, spaceships you know.

If technology is so advanced compared to generic modern era of what we see now and how fictionified it is for a game or even a movie then it is sci-fi, it doesnt have to be aliens or laserbeams or space and the whole traditional sci-fi space stuff to consider it sci-fi.
Extremely advanced technology that would take like 10 years until its fully useable and such is what makes it futuristic/sci-fi.

So yeah, I for one am glad they turned GR into sci-fi/futuristic now considering I love sci-fi for my shooters because modern and old types just bores me too quickly.
Atleast with sci-fi approach they can design some neat unique weapons and looks for us to play around with.

Besides, GRAW1 took place I think 2015 and GRAW2 in 2017 and if I remember right, GR Future Soldier will take place like 15-20 years later, not accruate numbers but its close, a bit.
Posted by zomfg
I see the point that some think they shouldn't even call it Ghost Recon if it doesn't resemble the other ones... but maybe, JUST MAYBE you should wait until you see the game itself and you might find the parallels.
It should still be called Ghost Recon because they are keep continueing the story and characters, logo...etc. unlike Far Cry to Far Cry 2.
I doubt we will play as Scott Mitchell in this one as we did in previous titles because he was a cameo in EndWar and he is a General giving orders and prep talks to you.

Anyway, if it plays anything like GRAW and the trailer indicates the look of things, I am definitely buying it. I even saw some of the leaked scans and it looks pretty awesome.
I just hope they can fix the clunky controls GRAW had.
Commented on 2010-03-26 14:31:17 In reply to Sath
Posted by Sath
It is sci-fi.
and that... right there, is where its gone wrong.
Commented on 2010-03-26 14:43:00 In reply to ManThatYouFear
Posted by ManThatYouFear
and that... right there, is where its gone wrong.
Ubi did a smart move with this one, if they kept the same it would be another SOCOM, modern military war game and thats enough for now with MW, BF and SOCOM and even Medal of Honor. Atleast Ubi decided to go against this trend.
Next thing you know modern war games will come in as much as they did years ago with WW2 era.

Atleast with sci-fi, creativity is there, with modern there is non.
Commented on 2010-03-26 15:12:26
"Sci-Fi" has progressed into a genre based on the nature of the story itself and is no longer really taken as a literal meaning (aka it has pieces that are scientific, and they are ficion, therefor it is sci-fi).

When you think Sci-Fi you think something that is oriented around the scientific aspects (Star Wars... The Matrix....Fullmetal Alchemist) Just because there are futurustic weapons does not constitute a "sci-fi game" necessarily unless the game is ABOUT those futuristic weapons. I feel that the weapons are a piece of this game and not necessarily the focal point. You could argue that any game that is not 100% true to life is sci-fi... this one may have tiny elements that I suppose you could consider to be sci-fi if the weapons get very outrageous, but I don't see it getting too crazy.

In the end I think it depends on the story. If the story is about "Oh no, the ene

It's FICTION. I would not consider this science fiction at all.
Commented on 2010-03-26 15:19:08
As long as they kept the gameplay from Graw i'll be fine.


That drone thing is kinda weird though. It looks way to heavy and immobile to actually play a big role in future warfare.
Commented on 2010-03-26 15:26:41
Maybe it's just me, but I miss the old classic Ghost Recon games and the old classic Rainbow Six. I know they didn't appeal to most gamers since they were bit hardcore, but that's what Tom Clancy was to me.

Since Ubi took these games away from Red Storm it became commercial success, bringing them more money, but to me the games became worst :(
Commented on 2010-03-26 15:29:59
lol I chopped off my last post.

Anyway... I think it's essentially going to be a war game with futuristic elements, but I just wouldn't consider it a "sci-fi game" personally. Genres are debatable though.
Commented on 2010-03-26 15:45:58
It is still sci-fi to me, or futuristic, either way.
Commented on 2010-03-26 15:47:02
Invisibility??? serisouly Ubisoft? What's next the prince of persia with guns?
Commented on 2010-03-26 15:50:31
They really went as far as they could go with contemporary tech in the prior games (although calling it contemporary was already stretching credibility) and this looks like it has numerous new and satisfying gameplay options with the new fictional tech, like maybe controlling that very cool gatling spider...

Kudos to the developer for trying to move the series ahead instead of pandering to the whiners with more of the same and I have heard no better ideas from anyone as to where this series should have gone next because ultimately forward is the only direction that actually makes any sense.

Oh and ZOMFG, it is SF by your own definition, it is oriented around the fictional science of advanced warfare which is significantly beyond current scientific limits. Actually, the previous GRAW games were borderline SF already as the capabilities of the troops were still many years ahead of what is currently fielded. Bottom line is that Thermo optic cloaking and shoulder mounted submunitions that can destroy a tank is pure SF at this point and a robot with AI advanced enough to be trusted to fight alongside troops is still a long way off. Not that I'm complaining about any of that as the gameplay possibilities offered by a more SF setting make this much more interesting than the previous titles.
Page 1 2 3 >>

About the game


What's up?
  • alimokrane
    alimokrane On a different subject all together. if only the entire world acted like this: [url] (10 minutes ago)
  • Tiz
    Tiz Gears 4 is a refinement of the Gears 3 formula, which is great if you loved Gears 3. @alimokrane: I'm partial to the Embar & Overkill. (23 minutes ago)
  • alimokrane
    alimokrane @Phaethon360: I agree on the enemy variety, definataly but I simply love the little tricks and bits they added here and there. Best weapon has to be the DropShot. Ball of fun! (25 minutes ago)
  • Tiz
    Tiz But with regards to variety, do you mean enemy variety? Because I agree. That is spot on. Gears 3 had so many different Locust & Lambent classes which kept Horde rounds fresh, Gears 4 does not. (46 minutes ago)
  • Tiz
    Tiz PhaeKO outta nowhere. Rod said he wanted to do it right before doing it different and 343 were the blueprint for this which is why a lot of the Gears community still remains intact. (48 minutes ago)
  • Phaethon360
    Phaethon360 That and the variety just isn't there. So many different enemy and weapon types in Gears 2, which was the high point of the series for me. Gears 3 wasn't bad but it was on the downswing for me. (53 minutes ago)
  • Phaethon360
    Phaethon360 I really dislike Gears 4. Horde 3.0 was a disappointment, and the mechanics haven't changed much since Gears 1. After playing the remake so soon it just felt like more of the same. (54 minutes ago)
PreviousNext
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood GSY is getting some nice content at 3 pm CEST with our July podcast and some videos of the Deus Ex Mankind Divided preview build. :) (> 3 Months ago)
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood For once we'll be live at 4:30 pm CEST. Blim should not even be tired! (> 3 Months ago)
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood More Quantum Break coverage coming in a few hours, 9:00 a.m CEST. (> 3 Months ago)
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood We'll have a full review up for Firewatch at 7 pm CET. Videos will only be tomorrow though. (> 3 Months ago)
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood Tonight's livestream will be at 9:15 GMT+1, not GMT+2 as first stated. (> 3 Months ago)
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood New GSY Live dedicated this time to Just Cause 3 on Tuesday 9:30 GMT+2 (> 3 Months ago)
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood Join us tomorrow at 10 pm GMT+2 for a new livestream. We'll be playing Rise of the Tomb Raider. (> 3 Months ago)
PreviousNext
Top stories