Member
You know, people always like to point out how good this or that game is because of the ability to do certain things, like hide a body, cool. I on the other hand always like to point out things I don't like in games that ruin the overall experience. If realism is what they are shooting for in Wildlands, then the magical floating markers on the enemies heads have got to go, for good, as well as the ability to magically see the enemy through objects. The map in the lower left corner, assuming there is one in WIldlands, needs to have a completely different design than the one in Far Cry 4. Some people may call it a radar, I call it the gaydar. Its unrealistic, makes no sense whatsoever, and doesn't belong in a game like Ghost Recon. It makes trying to finish a mission by stealth really cheap. Hell, the radar map in the freaking Halo games was more believable than this piece of sh!t I see in Far Cry 4, because it at least was based on motion, something tangible. It makes me sick to my stomach every time I see this kind map in almost every shooter, makes me want to vomit. If I can mark targets, then let it actually make some kind of sense. Realistically, you mark a target based on his last known position and it would show up on the map as a grid coordinate. It wouldn't follow the target around like some magical homing beacon. Far Cry in of itself may be a good game, but Far Cry was always meant to be arcade shooters as I see it.Originally Posted by DanHibikiFanXM Go to original postWell, as someone that has recently really gotten into stealth oriented games it's kind of essential to me. I mean, it's alright to leave bodies if they are in isolated areas but sometimes enemies just don't go where you need them to. It's sort of a risk/reward thing. Being able to move bodies also allows you to set up traps - place a body in a spot where they'll be noticed and rig them with mines or command detonated explosives. These are the kind of devilish things you can come up with playing games like Far Cry, Sniper Elite, or even Metal Gear Solid.
This is an older video when I was playing through Far Cry 4 a month or so ago where you can kind of see the importance of hiding bodies to remain undetected. Some of my language is NSFW so for people with sensitive ears be advised that I tend to curse a lot during gameplay. I didn't set any traps since I was trying for a completely stealthy run though.
Senior Member
Member
I'm sure hiding bodies will be in the game, and its not that Ghost Recon is trying to be Far Cry, the problem is that its BEEN Far Cry since Advanced Warfighter when it went full [Redacted] arcade. I see the same arcade features we see in every other arcade shooter with the floating magical markers. Its no use in pointing out what we all want without pointing out what needs to be jettisoned into outer space forever. Ubi Soft needs to stop catering to these Noobish, Call of Duty boot lickers that present themselves as their fanbase and give us the Ghost Recon we should have gotten years ago. The fact is, hiding a body ain't gone be worth much value if I can still magically see the enemy through walls with some nonsensical science fiction radar map anyway.Originally Posted by DanHibikiFanXM Go to original post
Senior Member
Graw markers dissappeared soon after you lost sight of the enemies. And pretty sure you could turn them off also.
Just talked about this yesterday while cooping Graw. Maybe we're just bad players but there is no way we could finish campaign missions without markers even on normal. The missions are so long and you can't save in coop like in single-player. Even with markers there are plenty of situations where we don't really know where the fire was coming on.
Then there was the gunfire radar that showed you the direction of sounds of gunfire. I find myself using that quite a lot even with 3D sounds (no idea how much Graw supports those). But I don't really see the need for that. Just make better sound design. Plus you can't always in real life pin point the direction gunfire sounds are coming either.
But once again there should be options to turn these on and off.
Member
You give the casual fanbase ten feet, they'll go a mile and take over almost every server. Thats what happened to Battlefield 4 up until now. The vast majority of the servers were played on normal mode. You would have been hard pressed to find a hardcore server, the way its meant to be played, in fact, this is the case even now. There is a reason why no one likes the gaydar in hardcore mode in Battlefield 4. The option to play a Ghost Recon game with floating markers of any kind with the gaydar shouldn't even be there in the first place. If people want the game to hold their hands that will play the game for them, telling them where to go and where to shoot, then they can piss off and go Halo or Call of Duty. This isn't Halo or Call of Duty, which are the primary culprits that made the magical gaydar, floating markers, and wolverine health system popular in the first place. If this game is supposed to be realistic, then they do not belong in this game at allOriginally Posted by Lolssi Go to original post
I can count no more than a handful of shooters that can legitimately be called realistic that was done well, and most of them were released over ten years ago with the exception of Arma 3 and perhaps Americas Army 3 to a lesser extent. A return to form for Ghost Recon, where Ubi Soft can build off the concept they designed in the original would truly be a breath of fresh air. Like I said before, if Ubi Soft had of stuck to the original design, we would have gotten what can be called a poor mans version of Arma 3, and by poor mans, I mean less realistic, and I may as well mention that the same goes for Brothers in Arms. This is how many see upcoming games like Ground Branch. If Ghost Recon had turned out like it should have, you wouldn't be seeing floating markers and science fiction gaydar maps.
Senior Member
I don't think there are many fans of the older versions of the games in the series that don't want to be able to customise the amount of intel they receive on screen. It was a major flaw in GRFS in my opinion and led to a total collapse of the clan scene as it was. It only needed some customisation options and it could have made siege and an LMS mode viable.
I am pleading with the Dev team at every opportunity to allow it for Wildlands. They may decide that this isn't their vision for the game and I'll respect that, but I honestly believe that the options for a hardcore HuD will be there. Just my personal opinion of course, but as R6 has just released the Tactical Realism mode (which is a blast) I do think Ubisoft has noticed this need in hardcore gamers. Total perfection for me would be Achievements that are based on completing difficult missions in hardcore mode as it will attract the newer generation to trying it out.
Member
I've been looking at some footage of the Tactical Realism mode, and really, this is how the game should have played to begin with. The fact that Realism is an afterthought in a game where realism was always the staple shows how far down the toilet the franchise has gone. Hardcore gamers should see the notion of a "Tactical Realism" mode in any game calling itself Ghost Recon or Rainbow Six to be an insult in of itself. Catering to the Call of Duty/Halo fanbase should be the last thing Ubi Soft should be concerned about. They are the ones that should be an afterthought. A "Hardcore" mode really shouldn't even exist, its either a Ghost Recon game or it isn't. Personally, even if Rainbow Six Siege actually played like a Rainbow Six game, I still wouldn't buy it because they are charging you full price for half the content normally seen in a Rainbow Six game.Originally Posted by AI BLUEFOX Go to original post
Senior Member
What can I say? You're missing out on one of the best shooters in years. You're also dismissing other people's preferences in the same way that you are accusing Ubisoft of dismissing your's. Easy, normal, hardcore, what does it matter it is just a name for a set of game conditions to give you an idea of what you are selecting.
I don't see why Ghost Recon gamers should see the very notion of a hardcore mode existing as an insult. The original, the game you take all your references from, had a Recruit, Veteran and Elite level. Yeah sure, it was a fairly crude setting based on enemy count, but the challenge was very much different and that is what we are talking about here. As long as I get to play how I like, why would I worry that another gamer or group of gamers are playing with markers and every visual aid they can?
Senior Member
Dcopymope hardcore mode is the definition of GR till Graw2 and R6 till Lockdown 1 or 2 bullets = kill.
Personnaly being able to remove things from the HUD is something I like, when I play a game I'd like some challenge and I don't like game that serve me everything on a silber plate.
You don't like it, then play on easy mode or another game that doesn't offer fun and challenge, a game where a adult hold you by the hand because without it you can't finish the game cause to difficult.
