Ghost Recon Wildlands Developer Interview with Matthew Tomkinson at Game City 2016 | Forums

[ES-Ulukai]

It's your opinion but remember that as a devs he can't say what he wants about the game, there's still many subject of the game that can't be discuss with the public.

What did you expect ? That he was going to break NDA ?

[GiveMeTactical]

It's your opinion but remember that as a devs he can't say what he wants about the game, there's still many subject of the game that can't be discuss with the public.

What did you expect ? That he was going to break NDA ?

Yes, it WAS his opinion, hence, why he said what he did.

If the Devs can't say what they want then why have the interview in the first place. You are trying to correct him because he saw the interview for what it was... a marketing gimmick to hype the portion of the game they want to hype?

What do we, or he expects... THE TRUTH.

Then again, I forgot... everybody else in the industry does it so it is ok.

[S.V.]

the truth wins always.

[Dcopymope]

If it doesn't have options to force the player to play tactically, there's no point to play tactically. It would be like playing GTA or CoD tactically just because the game doesn't overtly force the player to go guns blazing.If there is no challenge to acquire and use vehicles, it will be exactly like GTA. Especially if the vehicles explode when shot at.The problem is that if GRWL is geared towards the casual TPV adventure shooter audience, there will be no tactical element to the gameplay, and it will likely miss the entire atmosphere of being part of a small AFO team "behind enemy lines".

My apologies, perhaps my lack of English grammar and vocabulary is so short that I am having a hard time getting my point across.Yes, info has been given, plenty and even too much or redundant at times but, if you go back and re read my post you will find out that LITTLE has been shown regarding the Teammate & Enemy AI, hence why I question the statement "If you play it tactical, the game will be tactical"... oxymoron statement at best.If the teammate AIs are as smart as a rock and the enemy AI equally dumb but with eagle eyes that can see you at night, w/o NVG across the map and kill you dead with a pistol like what happened in GRAW, then NO, I don't consider that a tactical game either but a lazy way of making me believe that the game is. If the enemy AI is going to be able to see me, even though I am around a cement wall and moving a very slow pace just because I have to trip that magical scripted line, like it did in R6 Vegas, then NO... the game can not be considered Tactical.If 2 enemy AI are but a feet away from each other and I shoot one of them and the other continues to stand there like his friend did not splatter gray matter all over his face, like it happened in FC3 & FC4, then NO... I don't consider the game Tactical or even Casual but extremely Arcade-noob-low casual-ish shooter.I could go on and on but I do believe you have to get my point now... that is what UBI has not presented us with yet and that is why I stated what I previously did. Call it whining, call it critique, call it what ever you want but the fact remains and is that my logic and common sense tells me UBI has work hard to make a Co-Op Open World Game and if, this is where the BIG if comes in, they decide to throw us a bone (Solo Campaign and PVP) it will be an after thought at best just to keep the natives happy and tell the world they listen to the community.

Your criticism of the gameplay isn't harsh enough. This is either a Ghost Recon game or its not. Its either a realistic tactical shooter or its not. Playing this as such should never be an option, it should be the only way the game can be played. I would love to see the noob fanbase play games like Arma 3, Ghost Recon 1, or freaking Swat 4 guns blazing like its GTA or Call of Duty just so they can make an *** out of themselves.

[GiveMeTactical]

Also why I keep insisting that if they truly want to give back to the community as they say, they would have given us the option to play the game in FPV... then everyone would have the option to play the game the way they (us) want and not the way they (UBI) want us to play. That BS about being hard to code or not good for open world or whatever their excuse was is just that... an excuse

Look at BlackFoot Studios, they don't have 10% of the money that UBI has, yet, they were able to give their customers the option of using FPV (with very good and advanced tech as well), TPV and can't remember what the other view is called. Perhaps UBI can hire those guys to show them how is done? or at the very least that IT can be done.

At the end of the day, they are going for the cheapest and minimalist way they can churn the game to make the most money because they know that as long as the trailers are kick-azz, the casuals will buy it, pre-order it even and swallow it whole.

[Dcopymope]

Also why I keep insisting that if they truly want to give back to the community as they say, they would have given us the option to play the game in FPV... then everyone would have the option to play the game the way they (us) want and not the way they (UBI) want us to play. That BS about being hard to code or not good for open world or whatever their excuse was is just that... an excuse

Look at BlackFoot Studios, they don't have 10% of the money that UBI has, yet, they were able to give their customers the option of using FPV (with very good and advanced tech as well), TPV and can't remember what the other view is called. Perhaps UBI can hire those guys to show them how is done? or at the very least that IT can be done.

At the end of the day, they are going for the cheapest and minimalist way they can churn the game to make the most money because they know that as long as the trailers are kick-azz, the casuals will buy it, pre-order it even and swallow it whole.

Yeah, I don't understand why they claim its so difficult to offer first person view for an open world environment when there are tons of open world games out there like it. Never mind Ground Branch. What about Arma 3? Or The Elder Scrolls series? Fallout? Its a joke for them to claim such a thing. Perhaps we really shouldn't count on Ubi Soft actually giving us some decent artificial intelligence if they are so dumb that they can't figure out how to code in a FPV in an open world environment. Its the biggest bunch of bull sh!t I've ever heard from any company.

[GiveMeTactical]

Casual Gamer = Tactical = TPV/Hybrid = Giving Back to the PC Community

Only on Ubi-Soft eyes of course.

Perhaps is our fault for not giving that piece of feedback info on time or in a positive fashion

[Dcopymope]

Casual Gamer = Tactical = TPV/Hybrid = Giving Back to the PC Community

Only on Ubi-Soft eyes of course.

Perhaps is our fault for not giving that piece of feedback info on time or in a positive fashion

Oh sure, you see its our fault for the name Tom Clancy being curb stomped into the dirt.

[Sp--pyBrown]

the truth wins always.

Yeah, they're gonna have to publish the game eventually...

[UbiKeeba]

Ok, this thread has gone beyond any sort of constructive feedback and has turned into just outright negativity. I'm closing the thread as I have been able to get what feedback you guys have out of it, but will not allow a thread that is heading down the path of toxicity to continue.

Thank you all for keeping your feedback respectful so far, I just don't like where I see this thread going.