Will this game have minigames | Forums

[AI BLUEFOX]

I understand where you're coming from, thunderlight, but it's important to recognise as well that Ghost Recon has a brand image of being a tactical game that is deep in terms of mil sim (without being a mil sim) and therefore narrow in its focus on that aim. If the game widens out into mini games and other features not consistent with the GR brand that its fans love, then it is danger of becoming shallower in its tactical depth.

i guess I hope to be so immersed in getting the right weapon and planning the right approach and actually engaged in the missions that I wouldn't have time for minigames.

[the_oper8r]

thunderlight20, please don't multi-post. If you have the last post in a thread and you have something to add, please click the "Edit Post" button and add any additional comments that way. I've merged your posts.

I don't believe commando235 meant to be mean. Calling the idea trivial isn't exactly mean itself. I would personally side with commando when it comes to mini-games. It doesn't seem like it would "fit" with the Tom Clancy design rules to have mini-games. It just doesn't have much place in a Tom Clancy game (in my opinion).

It's a neat suggestion, but it's already in Assassin's Creed and Far Cry franchises I believe. Not sure if it's entirely needed in Tom Clancy games.

It was not my intention to be mean, sorry if I came across that way OP.

[he1nz]

I hope all resourses went to making the game so tactically challenging, that we'll be way to busy planing our actions.. not even considering minigames. If the game offers that.. minigames is welcome as DLC content 😃

[GiveMeTactical]

+ 1000 on NOT having Minigames... detrimental to the immersion of the game in my opinion.

I rather the Devs use the little time UBI allows them to have to finish the game or work on something that will add to the life of the campaign and not just put it there as an afterthought. I do feel that people need to stop trying to mix all the different genres of a shooting game into the next title that will pop up next month.

[gamingdude10]

I agree with thunderlight they should add minigames in this game it does not ruin the game like thunderlight said its just a side thing you don't have to do it it would be a nice addition in my opinion.

[the_oper8r]

I agree with thunderlight they should add minigames in this game it does not ruin the game like thunderlight said its just a side thing you don't have to do it it would be a nice addition in my opinion.

But it's a worthless addition. It has nothing to do with Ghost Recon, doesn't add to the core gameplay, and is a waste of resources. Like GiveMeTactical said, resources should go into making the game tactically challenging.

[SammyTheRed]

I actually wouldn't mind if they included something to occupy someone's time while he waits for another player to complete something elsewhere. That has never been done in Ghost Recon before, but neither has untethered, cooperative, open-world gameplay.

The hilarious thing is, if you were recreating the experience of real soldiers in their downtime, they'd probably be somewhere at a FOB playing Ghost Recon.

[Sp--pyBrown]

I'd rather put the resources into something more important.

[SammyTheRed]

I'd rather put the resources into something more important.

That's fair, although I notice your fallback seems to be "all resources ought to go to other things." See, e.g.,

How many female Ghosts were in GRFS?



Lol



Is it really that necessary to allocate more resources on something like this?

But even if you and I can agree that A is more important than B, that proves only that B is less important, not that it is unimportant. In this context, I agree that core game play is less important than downtime management. One thing I'm envisioning doing with my group, though, is splitting off into two pairs of cooperative players to attack two concurrent side missions, or do separate reconnaissances during daytime in advance of night-time attacks, or what have you. The game explicitly is designed to allow me to do that, but I know some of my players will feel aggrieved if they have to wait fifteen minutes while the slower or more methodical pair finishes their mission before they can move on. So I still think it's at least kind of important to give players something to do so they'll wait in-game--rather than dropping out from the client to go play a couple rounds of Smite or Rocket League, which is what they do when they're bored.

[Sp--pyBrown]

That's fair, although I notice your fallback seems to be "all resources ought to go to other things." See, e.g.,



But even if you and I can agree that A is more important than B, that proves only that B is less important, not that it is unimportant. In this context, I agree that core game play is less important than downtime management. One thing I'm envisioning doing with my group, though, is splitting off into two pairs of cooperative players to attack two concurrent side missions, or do separate reconnaissances during daytime in advance of night-time attacks, or what have you. The game explicitly is designed to allow me to do that, but I know some of my players will feel aggrieved if they have to wait fifteen minutes while the slower or more methodical pair finishes their mission before they can move on. So I still think it's at least kind of important to give players something to do so they'll wait in-game--rather than dropping out from the client to go play a couple rounds of Smite or Rocket League, which is what they do when they're bored.

Kids getting aggravated because of a wait (due to bad planning) is not really an issue in my eyes. This isn't the Army where you are ordered not to do anything, this is a game where the players decide whether they're going to sit on their *** or do something fun. Now, they could add something related to using a terminal at a safehouse to support the players who are doing stuff somewhere else. What I don't want to see is a blackjack minigame at a bar while the actual gameplay is rushed and incomplete. Obviously, with infinite resources, playing/interacting with locals could affect some other things but knowing that the resources aren't infinite I'd rather have a good game with boring "down time" (if one chooses to not do anything) than a mediocre game with fruit ninja and bejeweled blitz incorporated into the character's smartphone. Lol.

For the record, IMO core gameplay is not less important than "downtime management". Pretty sure that was a typo or something on your part but none the less...