What happened to Wildlands? | Forums

[timpbader]

I played and loved GRFS!
I've been watching the gameplay demos and that last one is awful!
Where is the stealth, cover system, and gadgets?
The animations look low budget and last gen?
The new tagging system doesn't allow for cooperative mission planning
The outfits and environments look like they were made by a low budget developer.
"Put the Ghost Recon name on it they'll buy it"
Where are the tactics?
What happened to this game?

[timpbader]

I haven't been around the forums but I assume by your response, that these have become common complaints about the shown gameplay.

[ES-Ulukai]

I played GR since the first one and can tell that I find almost everything the one offered but as games evolves some features don't come back.

No cover system so not a GR brand ? Euh C.S was only on GRFS and Online, GR1 to Graw2 had no C.S so please guys stop saying GR isn't GR without C.S.

You can do what you want and the way you want in GRW, you see some rambo action, well yes it's one way to do your missions, or you do it silently. Remember can't fight the friction ? 3 different ways to do your mission.

As for the E3 2016 playable build, it was only for people to have a taste of the game to let them play the way they want one mission. Many features where disabled and graphics reduce to make the build works fine. The game is still work in progress and not all stable.

[AI BLUEFOX]

I haven't been around the forums but I assume by your response, that these have become common complaints about the shown gameplay.

They are are common complaints, but to be honest it tends to be more often the other way around. GRFS was a step into a direction that the core fan base at that time did not appreciate. Of course, there are newer fans to the series that really like what GRFS brought to the table and plenty of veteran players that also liked those features. I know that Ubisoft star players ITK5 and Muddvain prefer GRFS over all the previous GRs, whereas some swear by the original and some by GR2 or GRAW. Gamers, huh?

I think it's widely accepted that those animations need looking at, and the look is an authentic set up for special forces soldiers in deep cover. Note though that you can change you soldier into full mil spec gear if you wish to play that way. The open nature of the world is a bit of a non starter for a cover system anyway and it is worth noting that most of the previous games didn't have it, and as for the gameplay we have seen, the consensus is that this was to demonstrate to an E3 audience and specific for that purpose. Most of us hope, expect, that we will be able to pick settings and or options that allow you to either goof about or return to the classic Ghost Recon experience of punishing damage and a need for thoughtful, tactical play.

[GiveMeTactical]

to let them play the way they want one mission.

I have heard this statement from many people here many times and I often wonder... "Did UBI asked these people and they all agreed that they preferred to play the E3 demo that way" or it was more like UBI decided what was best for the people playing the E3 demo. You know, UBI ask for feedback, people say grass and UBI decides that desert is what really people are asking fo. UBI decides , those giving feedback really don't know what they are doing or even thinking... just wondering.

[ES-Ulukai]

The devs gave a line to follow to do the mission, find this target, interrogate, take the helo or car go to the cartel base and get the intels.

The way we did that was how we wanted to do it and the devs didn't told us how to do it so everyone was free to do these the way we wanted.

[DanHibikiFanXM]

I have heard this statement from many people here many times and I often wonder... "Did UBI asked these people and they all agreed that they preferred to play the E3 demo that way" or it was more like UBI decided what was best for the people playing the E3 demo. You know, UBI ask for feedback, people say grass and UBI decides that desert is what really people are asking fo. UBI decides , those giving feedback really don't know what they are doing or even thinking... just wondering.

This is what the Ubisoft portion of E3 looked like every single day. Masses, and masses, and masses of people all wanting to get a shot at trying Wildlands, For Honor, and some other titles. I stood in line on the first day for well over an hour. We did not get the opportunity to play the game as we wanted because it would have been impossible. They're trying to make sure every single one of these people get a chance to play. If you play it slow/tactically with hard settings it would take too long and many of these people (many of whom are casual shooting game fans at best) would have gotten wrecked. I hope this helps people put the E3 gameplay into perspective.

[ES-Ulukai]

Thx god the Ubi Lounge didn't had that much people outside E3.

[Sp--pyBrown]

This is what the Ubisoft portion of E3 looked like every single day. Masses, and masses, and masses of people all wanting to get a shot at trying Wildlands, For Honor, and some other titles. I stood in line on the first day for well over an hour. We did not get the opportunity to play the game as we wanted because it would have been impossible. They're trying to make sure every single one of these people get a chance to play. If you play it slow/tactically with hard settings it would take too long and many of these people (many of whom are casual shooting game fans at best) would have gotten wrecked. I hope this helps people put the E3 gameplay into perspective.

The problem with their showcase at the E3 was that they didn't communicate very well what the state of the game was and what the goals are. That allows for speculation to take place. From just the gameplay it seems like they're going for a Far Cry/The Division/GTA5 mashup targeting the casual console market. The fact that they are calling it a third-person adventure shooter supports this claim.

[Sp--pyBrown]

So what do you want? A silver-****-platter with the description of everything you will see because you, yourself, is too stupid to comprehend what a game is about? Then why attend any gamescon for that matter?
But anyway, they did. Just not to EVERYBODY OUT THERE. Just to the players playing it.
(This is what I meant with thick-skulled, btw)

Wow, okay. So, in order to get the full Ubisoft Marketing Experience, I either need to be a psychic or I would've had to be one of the Special Gamers who get to play the game while an Ubisoft Marketer whispers sweet secrets into my ears about what the game will look like after the release? Gotcha.

Although, they did listen to the community about releasing material true to the state of the game, I still feel like they f*cked up their presentation at E3. They should've addressed what style of gameplay they are going for (eg. if they will give options that cater to fans of tactical shooters), what their plans are for multiplayer, etc.

Right now, from what this looks like, they're in damage control mode and are only spewing the same s*it about how it's gonna be a wonderful open world with player being able to customize every single detail about their precence in the game world. Doesn't look good, as far as I'm concerned.

I am so sorry for being a thick skulled idiot who cannot for the life of me read between the lines of "we are going back to what made the original Ghost Recon great", "third-person adventure shooter", terrible run-of-the-mill shoot'em'up gameplay footage and Standard Ubisoft preorder selections featuring "gear packs" similar to the titles that are the absolute opposite of what made the original Ghost Recon great. But, yes, I would like the silver f*ckin platter with all of the f*cking information about what the devs are going for, because they sure as h*ll won't be giving any information (besides the usual "it's gonna be open world!", "you can customize your character!!" and "you can preorder it right now for $99.99!!!") out. Thanks.

Ps. I'm waiting on the mods to rain fire on you for using personal attacks and generating negativity on this thread. Lol.