Comments on: Review: Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2

By: Niels Keurentjes

Niels Keurentjes — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:35:36 +0000

Well I reviewed on 1080i, and like I said it’s definitely beyond stunning at times

By: Denko

Denko — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:30:21 +0000

is it just me or does the multiplayer feel like i am back in 2001 graphic wise? (and also a few fun things have been taken out imo)

By: ubihard

ubihard — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 07:21:23 +0000

And have you noticed it’s a 1080p game looks great on 720p but 1080p is…………. no word to say it.

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 23:20:49 +0000

I got to day three last night but no achievement

By: SNIPERWOLF 79

SNIPERWOLF 79 — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:19:02 +0000

Hey Glovner, think I may have played you online at GoW, ur names familiar. Ur right about the 10-12 people in a lobby, anymore and its multi drop outs after weapon select. Dont think av ever played a stable game with 16 people and i played graw 1 multiplayer to death aswell. Ubisoft blame it on peoples varying connections but surely if thats the case they should just set it up like halo 2 which is proven to work. Considering this was a major probelmn in graw 1 ,to not have it corrected in an ‘official’ sequel is bit dissapointing.

By: The_Glovner

The_Glovner — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:17:54 +0000

I host all the time and the reason most rooms sit at 10-12 is that the room is at is most stable for some reason with that amount of people. Minute you go above 5-6 people are getting chucked right at the start.

By: The_Glovner

The_Glovner — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:16:12 +0000

Ain’t I played you online? On GoW?

By: The_Glovner

The_Glovner — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:14:27 +0000

I joined but nothing was happening.

Give me a shout if it starts filling up and you start actually playing clan matches, until then I may just have to make my own clan and try and get naughty words into the name.

By: SNIPERWOLF 79

SNIPERWOLF 79 — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:22:55 +0000

Good point and time wil tell, however, its really difficult to get a graw 2 match with 16 people thats stable, i wouldnt mind them reducing the max peole to 12 in order to up the graphics engine so it looks ‘next gen’ rather than a 3 year old pc game. Most lobbys seem to be between 10 and 12 people anyway. But hey, the gameplays still superb and its good to have a change of pace from GOW once in a while, so its all good!

By: Rol

Rol — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:33:27 +0000

But only 4v4, smaller and fewer maps, less weapons. Graphically GoW excelled with the character models, no doubts, but it raised the bar only by its limits also. Unreal will really show us what Epic can do with the 360 for a bigger online game.

By: SNIPERWOLF 79

SNIPERWOLF 79 — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:09:37 +0000

Keurentjes, your review was spot on, its a real shame ubisoft haven’t listened to the fans concerns over lack of cover and updated graphics. Rather than making framerate excuses, ‘ubisoft’ should just admit they are not as good at programming as ‘epic’. Gears set the bar for online grpahics and the other developers haven’t caught up yet. The new map designs are far superior to GRAW1 though, so thumbs up on that.

By: Rol

Rol — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:44:14 +0000

This didn’t interest me to buy until I rented it. It’s got some of the best graphics sound and multiplayer options yet seen in a 360 game. 18 maps online (excellent). Options we kind of got as standard on the old xbox but still I’d rather see content at the moment as this seem to be the current bugbear with almost all next-gen games. Definitely better than GoW for the long haul and with a bit more playing time might champ R6:Vegas

By: Colby

Colby — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:49:06 +0000

It is still having the people dropping out problem? I had that problem on the first GRAW. In fact I couldn’t even play a Co-op game because it would drop me out EVERY time.

By: Niels Keurentjes

Niels Keurentjes — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:17:05 +0000

I am The first game spanned 3 days and nights, hence no sleep for Scott & co, and now right on the next day they continue for another 3 days and nights of non-stop action. And lo and behold, apart from working 6 days straight without sleep, the engineers even manage to invent new technology!

It just went too high on my bullshit-o-meter not to mock it

Also Doug: you suck I completed the complete Hard storyline within 24 hours, including sleeping, eating, doing other stuff, and playing ranked matches for a while. The 8 hours I mentioned for the hard campaign was correct, two 4-hour sessions.

By: nofear360

nofear360 — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:33:29 +0000

That’s what I meant

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:25:49 +0000

Not so much mocking as subtly pointing fun at, and I agree completely but if this entire game is wrapped up in three days I have complete faith in the characters to get a heck of a lot done in that amount of time. I’ve had it for five days and I still haven’t beaten Act 2.

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:24:30 +0000

I’m going to back him up here. I still have not accepted his clan invite because every time I try I have to go back to the dashboard because “Receiving Clan Data…” takes tooooo long.

By: nofear360

nofear360 — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:03:34 +0000

“It’s still 2014 though, and while Warfighting was already quite Advanced in the first game, the extra four days of technological research have brought some incredible new technology to Scott and his team.” LOL it sounds like you’re mocking the storyline

By: J1980/ welljasona / UK Jay

J1980/ welljasona / UK Jay — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:36:18 +0000

A few people on my friends list got this and have the full 1000 gamerpoints unlocked already…Im assuming it must be way easier than GRAW1….im yet to buy it - I want it, but GRAW1 bored me….

By: Niels Keurentjes

Niels Keurentjes — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:23:42 +0000

Which works flakey at best, as I described

By: Niels Keurentjes

Niels Keurentjes — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:21:34 +0000

That’d be ignoring the obvious problems with the difficulty level and the campaign length. The game is ‘good’, hence the 8, not ‘close to excellent’.

As we stated before, we try not to rate games according to common IGN standards, being that 7 is crap and 10 is perfect. We use the full scale, meaning that 1 is crap, 4 is barely worth money, 6 is average, 8 is good and 10 is excellent.

By: Derka

Derka — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:16:58 +0000

I only agree with this rating because of the online problems. Other than that its a 9.5

By: McGrude

McGrude — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:06:58 +0000

Doh! I guess I meant “…budget Euros…”.

By: McGrude

McGrude — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:06:24 +0000

But all those budget Francs that were not spent on the single player were spent on the multiplayer. There are many more maps and more game types than were available for the original GRAW. It was totally worth it (although I also got it at Fry’s for 34.99).

By: dark shady

dark shady — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:05:59 +0000

and graw 2 have clan support !!!!!

By: Rizzle-Q

Rizzle-Q — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:04:35 +0000

Yeah, I gotta say that GRAW1’s single player campaign was longer and more satisfying compared to GRAW2. Also, I would have like to see the single player campaign be playable with another person co-op style over Xbox Live or System Link. But of course that option was left out again just like GRAW1. The campaign levels in multiplayer are still fun though.

By: Tucky

Tucky — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:00:18 +0000

its all about online. and thats all i play

By: OLethalOShadowO

OLethalOShadowO — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:48:30 +0000

this game would have been more accuratly reflected with a $50 or $45 price tag, not because od quality but because of lack of innovation especially in the shorter single player.

By: Tucky

Tucky — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:47:06 +0000

awsome game. love online but lots of people drop out when the game starts, needs to be fixed.