Ghost Recon Fans! What did you think of the Division Beta? | Forums

[Dieinthedark]

Interesting and fairly fun for what it offers. I wish there were more collectible items around the world or things that encouraged exploration more. Granted there could be but I only played for about 3 hours. The only reason I felt like it needed more is because it wasn't really open world, I mean to a degree it is but it obviously can't offer much more than go down this street or go down this one. So as far as relating to GRW, I'm not saying GRW should have more collectibles because I think TD does. Overall, it's fun but not quite what I was looking for. I want my military sandbox shooter with focus on covert actions, small scale unit tactics and sandbox environments.

[xxFratosxx]

I really like this game. I see others are sharing negative comments but I respect they opinion. Still if you play RPG you will know that enemies/hostiles will not go down in one hit. I think people is basing this game as a regular shooter which it is not. I like changes that Tom Clancy games is making. First of all I like MMO. I may not have much MMO games but games close to MMO I had like defiance I have played is when I learn you can't kill people that easy. I like the fact you can explore, the DEVS put a lot work in this open world game to look so good, and they fix bugs/glitches. I like the fact I can customize my character, love the close range voice talk, like the weapon customization, loots, gear,etc... Now for those who want to drop someone in one hit if you stick around and play the game who knows you may have that ability when you get to a certain level cap. But hey I thought a lot of you didn't like the one hitter quitter cause you complained about this die quick issue in rainbow six siege so please make up your mind on what you want. Whether or not you get this game I will get it and be happy and await wildlands. I like the way ubisoft is moving so accept changes in life cause that's how games evolve.

Now the only Negative thing I would say which isn't really negative is the map size. I hope we can go other places besides the manhattan. Looking forward if there is borrklyn, Queens, etc... Will buy it if it is DLC. Just hope the mapis huge and there is a lot of missions, and buildings/underground places to go inside.

[Lolssi]

It's an MMO RPG, so should be compared with other games like it if you want to make a value for money assessment.

Nothing massive about that game except the developer :P

To my opinion... the beta was more like demo and things might be better in final release but I was expecting more RPG and less this boring loot grind. Things like conversation choices, seeing those effects in the city etc. I'm dissapointed that on several occasions devs seemed to choose the "safe" option with combat, bulletsponges, cover system etc. I just wish they'd been bit more brave. RPGs with more realistic damage models aren't unheard of.
Also they should have left the Clancy name out of it. I might still get it since you can get it pretty cheap but don't have need for it yet.

[he1nz]

Now for those who want to drop someone in one hit if you stick around and play the game who knows you may have that ability when you get to a certain level cap. But hey I thought a lot of you didn't like the one hitter quitter cause you complained about this die quick issue in rainbow six siege so please make up your mind on what you want. Whether or not you get this game I will get it and be happy and await wildlands. I like the way ubisoft is moving so accept changes in life cause that's how games evolve.

You know that you've just posted in the GR Forum right.. 😉 (I dont think you will se anyone in here complaining about 1 hit headshots being a kill shot!)

[he1nz]

Nothing massive about that game except the developer :P

To my opinion... the beta was more like demo and things might be better in final release but I was expecting more RPG and less this boring loot grind. Things like conversation choices, seeing those effects in the city etc. I'm dissapointed that on several occasions devs seemed to choose the "safe" option with combat, bulletsponges, cover system etc. I just wish they'd been bit more brave. RPGs with more realistic damage models aren't unheard of.
Also they should have left the Clancy name out of it. I might still get it since you can get it pretty cheap but don't have need for it yet.

Yes games that have both genres mixed (shoot/RPG) can have more realistic damage indeed. The game Escape From Tarkov has that.. and it actually looks more like a Tom Clancy game than The Division does.

[Gruntbull]

I liked it also - pre-ordered it based off of the beta (yes I know you had to pre-order to get a code but that can be canceled).

[Cortexian]

Yes games that have both genres mixed (shoot/RPG) can have more realistic damage indeed. The game Escape From Tarkov has that.. and it actually looks more like a Tom Clancy game than The Division does.

I disagree wholeheartedly. There's more to design direction for a Tom Clancy game than the mechanics. IMO a Tom Clancy game needs to exist in a plausible version of the "Clancy-verse" from a storytelling perspective. It needs to have elements of cloak and dagger / black ops / espionage, and it needs to have a realistically plausible storyline that unfolds. Gameplay mechanics don't really factor into the "Tom Clancy" franchise at all for me. Look at H.A.W.X and Endwar as examples, they fit into the Clancy-verse just fine, but they're different genres of games from what people here are ASSUMING is what a Clancy game SHOULD BE.

Escape From Tarkov is a survival game like DayZ / Rust / ARK: Survival Evolved as far as I can tell. Very different from an action RPG.

The Division is a new IP. It's a new take on a Tom Clancy game in an the action RPG genre. So long as it meets the above design guidelines it's a valid Clancy game in my mind.

That said, Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, and Splinter Cell are existing franchises with history that needs to be taken into account. Historically they have all been a specific type of gameplay, and some of that history needs to be taken into consideration when creating a new title. In the case of Ghost Recon Wildlands, I believe the devs have done a good job at combining design guidelines from many of the previous Ghost Recon games. The game isn't just GRFS: Open World Edition... Based on what those of us saw in Paris when we played the game a year ago, the developers really want to create the best Ghost Recon game they can. Many of us came to the conclusion that this is the game the original Ghost Recon team would have made if they had the technology available to them at the time. We came to this opinion independently and once someone put it into words (I believe it was AI Bluefox who first said it), we all agreed.

[SuperBiscotCOT]

The Division is a realy particular style of game and some people will like it and others hate it but any one can't compare this game with an other.
It's a new concept and personnaly I think that it's a Tom Clancy game he is totaly in the universe.
I would love to see more survival aspects in the division but it's something that was'nt in the aim of the devs when they created it but it's an awesone game that is looking like they wanted to create it.
Escape from Tarkov is a bit different. It can have a good potential but I don't think it will have the same goal at the end of the devlopment as GRW.

[Dieinthedark]

I disagree wholeheartedly. There's more to design direction for a Tom Clancy game than the mechanics. IMO a Tom Clancy game needs to exist in a plausible version of the "Clancy-verse" from a storytelling perspective. It needs to have elements of cloak and dagger / black ops / espionage, and it needs to have a realistically plausible storyline that unfolds. Gameplay mechanics don't really factor into the "Tom Clancy" franchise at all for me. Look at H.A.W.X and Endwar as examples, they fit into the Clancy-verse just fine, but they're different genres of games from what people here are ASSUMING is what a Clancy game SHOULD BE.

Escape From Tarkov is a survival game like DayZ / Rust / ARK: Survival Evolved as far as I can tell. Very different from an action RPG.

The Division is a new IP. It's a new take on a Tom Clancy game in an the action RPG genre. So long as it meets the above design guidelines it's a valid Clancy game in my mind.

That said, Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, and Splinter Cell are existing franchises with history that needs to be taken into account. Historically they have all been a specific type of gameplay, and some of that history needs to be taken into consideration when creating a new title. In the case of Ghost Recon Wildlands, I believe the devs have done a good job at combining design guidelines from many of the previous Ghost Recon games. The game isn't just GRFS: Open World Edition... Based on what those of us saw in Paris when we played the game a year ago, the developers really want to create the best Ghost Recon game they can. Many of us came to the conclusion that this is the game the original Ghost Recon team would have made if they had the technology available to them at the time. We came to this opinion independently and once someone put it into words (I believe it was AI Bluefox who first said it), we all agreed.

I feel like the old pillar games that Ubisoft built the company on, namely SC/GR/RB6, the "Clancyverse" is more than just near future and plausible. What I've really missed from the newest Ubi Tom Clancy games from these old franchises is that they used to be tied in with geopolitical influence. The plots were bigger and more involved than just you and your group of characters. For new TC IP's like The Division, I don't care as much. I don't need to see geopolitics playing out in a large scale. But the pillar franchises I feel like have disregarded this foundation. The plots don't seem to be involved in anything bigger than involving your character or your group of characters. Sure, the old games didn't have plot changing things depending on your actions, but the games at least felt like you were part of something bigger.

[Cortexian]

I believe the Wildlands story may provide some more insight into larger scale geopolitical issues. After all the Ghosts were sent in to Bolivia to deal with the drug problem there in the Clancy-verse. That's either an international incident waiting to happen, or some kind of international back-room green light from world leaders wanting to "wage war on drugs". It's one of those two things for sure, and hopefully some of that WILL be explained throughout the Wildlands story.

I agree that knowing why you're doing what you're doing and how it factors into the fictional worlds affairs is cool to see in Clancy games.