stop ruining ghost recon | Forums

[RedKnight5]

I think RedKnight is referring to the state of Siege in general... I've been rather unimpressed by that team to "come back to the Rainbow Six roots" like they promised a long time ago. The game isn't nearly hardcore/tactical enough yet IMO. And some of the mechanics they had during beta were absurd in a Rainbow game, like hit markers and regenerating health. They've removed those things now, but they still have a ways to go IMO.

That said, I'm going to playing the heck out of TERROHUNT with friends. That game mode is a fantastic cooperative experience.

Hey Cortexian0... we all... or mostly all of us, love and respect you brother!!

And we love Canada and all your Moose too!!

[ITK5]

Hey Cortexian0... we all... or mostly all of us, love and respect you brother!!

And we love Canada and all your Moose too!!

Well Im with you on the Respect..but definitely not the Love

[shobhit7777777]

Ruining? I think GRW is far, far from it.

Ghost Recon (and the other TC brands) can be distilled into certain experiences.

For some it was perhaps the tense MP matches...for me it was the feeling that the singleplayer experience provided.

I absolutely cannot forget leading a six man element deep behind enemy lines. I remember vividly, crawling through a foggy swamp...stopping...looking for the dark silhouettes of Russian patrols. I can still recall feeling the trepidation and excitement of crawling through the undergrowth to reach my ambush position...and once there opening fire from two directions and wiping out an entire enemy camp within 3 seconds.

Stealth, Tension, Tactical Freedom, Coordination, Planning and Mistakes being punished

I don't mind if the core mechanics change. If GR goes from first to third person. If it has the exact same squad command system or a completely different one. I do care about the experience.

if GRW can deliver exciting, tense tactical gameplay which reminds me of OGR...than I'm happy.

Its already hitting some of the right notes

An open world for unparalleled freedom in movement
Non-linear objectives
AI squad (Still skeptical as to how well its implemented)

It also seems to be adding a uniquely next gen element to the GR formula - NPC relationships and a deeper ecosystem. If they can nail it, they might have a solid core GR experience wrapped in a novel, innovative package.

Yeah, Ubisoft has consistently managed to **** up brilliant concepts...they seem adept at it. They just might **** GRW up...but they have to get it right at least once, right? I hope GRW is that game. Because GR is super close to my heart.

[CR0SSlX]

100 % agreed with the poster, on Pc ghost recon needs to be FPS, beacause it was like that always until GRFS (fiasco), i said this for many times, but the problem right here is:
Ubisoft is mixing up PC and Consoles feedbacks!, they should ask for specific PC gamer what we want to see in the game and the same for consoles, but this forum is mixed, so the feedbacks wont be accurate, I personally wont buy the game as i didint buy GRFS for the single reason its a TPS, i am PC gamer and never like the TPS for the fact is NOT the same experience...

I think what a lot of players need to realize is that Ubisoft owns Ghost Recon... Whatever they do with it is what the game becomes. In my mind, game mechanics don't define a franchise name. Just look at how many different Star Wars games exist out there. There are RTS games, FPS games, TPS games, racing games, etc... Obviously a lot of players feel really strongly on this issue, as it's been a popular subject on the forums here.

Well we all know Ubisoft owned The Franchise, However we as customer have the right to tell what we actually want, so if they dont listen to us as they didnt on GRFS, this game will be another FIASCO, and let me tell you that What Defined Ghost Recon is what it used to be (roots), therefore if you change it, you basically have another game, just a example: Imagine EA/DICE Change Battlefield to a TPS or Activation doing the same? do you think people will like it? Hell No.

What makes a franchise is the core premise. In this game, we're playing as a Ghost squad with a specific mission to disrupt the corrupt government and cartels of Bolivia. Seems perfect for a Ghost Recon game.

What make a franchise is the promise of keeping its roots!

Really hope ubisoft delivers a Proper GRW fps on PC, Do whatever you want to the console version

thank you

[shobhit7777777]

100 % agreed with the poster, on Pc ghost recon needs to be FPS, beacause it was like that always until GRFS (fiasco), i said this for many times, but the problem right here is:
Ubisoft is mixing up PC and Consoles feedbacks!, they should ask for specific PC gamer what we want to see in the game and the same for consoles, but this forum is mixed, so the feedbacks wont be accurate, I personally wont buy the game as i didint buy GRFS for the single reason its a TPS, i am PC gamer and never like the TPS for the fact is NOT the same experience...




Well we all know Ubisoft owned The Franchise, However we as customer have the right to tell what we actually want, so if they dont listen to us as they didnt on GRFS, this game will be another FIASCO, and let me tell you that What Defined Ghost Recon is what it used to be (roots), therefore if you change it, you basically have another game, just a example: Imagine EA/DICE Change Battlefield to a TPS or Activation doing the same? do you think people will like it? Hell No.




What make a franchise is the promise of keeping its roots!

Really hope ubisoft delivers a Proper GRW fps on PC, Do whatever you want to the console version

thank you

Please speak for yourself. I'm a PC gamer and I have no issues with TPS....and to pre-empt the inevitable "You must have played console GR"...nope..I started with OGR and played both the GRAWs on PC.

As long as the game is about tactical and strategic freedom, I'll be happy.

As a community it would be nice if we focus on the big picture here...the implications of GR going open world. Ghost Recon is too awesome a brand to be defined by a view perspective...IMO. So what if its third person...does it deliver a Ghost Recon experience? Is it a deep, tactical shooter?

[Cortexian]

As a community it would be nice if we focus on the big picture here...the implications of GR going open world. Ghost Recon is too awesome a brand to be defined by a view perspective...IMO. So what if its third person...does it deliver a Ghost Recon experience? Is it a deep, tactical shooter?

This.

View perspective is a very small part of what makes a game IMO. If you're a player that won't be buying Wildlands if they stick with the current view model, I feel very sorry for your loss. It's going to be a fantastic game if they stay on the same path of development that led to them showing us the game in Paris!

[TRISTAM14]

I appreciate your commitment to bring Ghost Recon back to its roots, but I think you need to take a look at the current picture when it comes to games. You can cite numbers of copies sold for old Ghost Recon games as much as you want, but if you look at the competition at the time it's obvious as to why people would rather pickup Ghost Recon than some of the other old titles. Ghost Recon was the pioneer and one of the most advanced and exciting games available at the time.

In this day and age, competition is much more fierce. Battlefield and Call of Duty still have extremely large holds on the shooter players out there, and hardcore games like ArmA and Insurgency have extremely small followings in comparison. To me, Wildlands makes perfect sense from a game design perspective. It's not as hardcore as ArmA or some of the other military simulations which is a good thing for the mass population. I realize you may not agree, since you want Ghost Recon to go all the way back to its military simulation roots, but unfortunately that particular genre doesn't attract nearly as many players nowadays.

Ghost Recon Wildlands does a good job at bridging the gap between games like Call of Duty and Battlefield, and the hardcore games like ArmA and Insurgency.

Ubi_Jax has addressed your behavior already, so I'm not going to bother reiterating what was already said in that regard. I'm not paid by Ubisoft, I simply volunteer my time to try and make the forum community a welcoming and helpful environment. If you have issues with my behavior, you can contact me via private message and we can discuss it further.

We're on the same team here. We both want Ghost Recon Wildlands to be a fantastic game!

Great job Cortexian0....I have your back...from one Canadian to another....yes...should be as one team.

[TRISTAM14]

Well Im with you on the Respect..but definitely not the Love

Love the picture of the moose..since I am also Canadian.

[Diedel443]

Of the 4 games i was interested in GRW seems to be the only one of the FPS/TPS once worth gettign anymore, the fourth is anno, so a bit different. Siege with the lone wolf "core gamepaly" and the Division with the best gear locked behind PvP seem to be far worse at the moment.

[Pizza Thief]

3rd Person Over the Shoulder Camera Field of View gives you a wider/larger/higher/faster/stronger perspective to view the game world before you. You get a much more aware sense of things to your right and left. You don't necessarily get that in first person. Your view is tunnel visioned in, just like hmmmm, real life I suppose. Except your eyes see in a half sphere, still you know what I mean. I am all for 3rd Person OtS FoV
I want to be able to tactically assess the battlefield/surrounding country side around me easily with a large view range.

Oh and I really dig the fact that you can switch camera's from shoulder to shoulder to get a different view angle, a plus for information assessment.

The first couple of Ghost Recon games were open world, not linear which I think is nice of them to bring back. Room to stretch, hello freedom!