Ghost Recon PvP is already an established success - no need to overthink it! | Forums

[Zoream]

Completely your opinion, I played it and thought it was ok, Future Soldier IMO was the best Multiplayer Ghost Recon has to offer, btw it is still available to play.
The coop campaign Wildlands gameplay mechanics would fit just fine in a PVP/Adversarial mode.

Why do you think game play mechanics of wildlands would make great pvp? All I see are a load of snipers camping, I really hope they don't add a pvp mode and as I've said I hope they concentrate on making the coop and single player the best it can be.

[he1nz]

Why do you think game play mechanics of wildlands would make great pvp? All I see are a load of snipers camping, I really hope they don't add a pvp mode and as I've said I hope they concentrate on making the coop and single player the best it can be.

Wildlands seems to have very similar mechanics as the G.R.A.W. games (console versions). And the pvp on those were very popular. In fact, GRAW II still has people playing it regularly. That is quite an achievement for a game that old! So I dont see why WL's couldnt end up with just as popular pvp.
There is many suitable areas on the map that could be awesome for pvp.. an obvious one would be that train cemetary.

[meathead_79]

I'd rather they spent their time adding more missions and polishing the game instead of pvp.

You do realize that typically the campaign and MP teams are different people right? They can work on it concurrently!

[Zoream]

You do realize that typically the campaign and MP teams are different people right? They can work on it concurrently!

I'd rather they not paid the wage and used the money to pay more to the campaign.

If, I say if there is pvp I'd want two separate nerfs and buffs so that pve isn't affected by pvp changes.

[AI BLUEFOX]

I'd rather they not paid the wage and used the money to pay more to the campaign.

If, I say if there is pvp I'd want two separate nerfs and buffs so that pve isn't affected by pvp changes.

You mean you'd rather not have the income and profit from the extra sales that PvP brings? You can't keep bringing up the same old "it costs more" argument and ignore the simple business model that the entire games industry is based on, they spend money on development to make money. PvP isn't a cost it's more sales and helps co-op!

[bakesalee]

You mean you'd rather not have the income and profit from the extra sales that PvP brings? You can't keep bringing up the same old "it costs more" argument and ignore the simple business model that the entire games industry is based on, they spend money on development to make money. PvP isn't a cost it's more sales and helps co-op!

You make an excellent point AI Bluefox! I purchased GRAW: 2 THREE times! Once on release day. A second time in '09 after renewed interest after returning to the US from living abroad. And a third time as a gift for my friend in another state to join multiplayer, so we could 'hang out'!

I probably wouldn't have bought it even once if it weren't for multiplayer, and I'm a Ghost Recon fanatic. It would have been like 'Future Solider', wherein I played the beta for a week, and never again. Suffice to say, I never bought that game. First Ghost Recon game since 2002 that I did not play (or buy).

As far as video games go, being an only-child, I spent the entirety of the 1980's and 90's playing against the "CPU". It barely held my interest then, it sure as hell won't now. Head-to-head or bust by the mid 90's (Mario Kart -> NBA Jam -> MK III -> NFL 2k5, etc.). Sure I played (rented) the games of the era (hell, there was no internet - a 'time kill' back then was actually welcomed to suppress boredom), but nothing was enough to pry a basketball out of my hands for more than an hour if it wasn't head-to-head versus. What would the incentive be? It's nothing more than "killing time". Have you ever, in your entire life, played against the "CPU", cleared a stage, and exclaimed "ONE MORE TIME!" to play that level again? Hell no, man. Never happened.

I don't care if I have human teammates. I saw how that worked out when I wasted $50 ($60?) on the Splinter Cell that came out I want to say, in 2010. Mildly populated at best on release day - dead and bloated a month later. And so what if the community wasn't dead a month in - it's still playing the "CPU", and the same levels. It's NEVER "new" after the first time, unlike each and every unique Ghost Recon PvP battle. It was literally, never the same. round. I probably was only assured in buying this Splinter Cell because if nothing else, it had a tiny Ghost Recon logo on the cover promising beta access to a game that would come out what felt like ten years later, bearing no competitive resemblance whatsoever to GR.

Thanks to everyone (naysayers and otherwise) for reading my post. I was too embarrassed to even check this thread (or forum) for two weeks after writing the "OP" since I rambled and repeated myself like a lunatic for what looks like ten pages on my iPad.

In part, it's people like me supporting the game by purchasing it three times (and promoting it for free) that are the reason Ubisoft, and newcomer fans who counter our pleas with inane arguments even have this 'stranger' to look forward to. While typing this, I just remembered that In 2009, I had a week's vacation from my job that I didn't use and was encouraged to take it anyway, I wouldn't admit this in public, but I actually spent a week's vacation playing Ghost Recon (GRAW 2 PvP). Ridiculous. Nine days in a row. You may have seen me on Xbox as "Jingle Johnson", after the Recon-acation gave me enough time with the game to become familiar with the maps and gave me the confidence to keep playing, somewhat obsessively. Looking back on that time, if I came home from work to discover my girlfriend was hogging the TV with a 'House' (TV series) marathon, it was severe disappointment enough to probably cause an argument, having looked forward to some "Riverbank" action for the previous 10 hours.

[Lolssi]

I agree that single player games loose something after the first time. But then again I don't feel any different about PVP, playing same maps gets boring real fast. Some rpg type progression helps grind same PVP maps again and again.
To me PVP would need some sort of meta game to keep it interesting. So it wouldn't be just bam bam thank you mam but rather each battle would affect outcome of bigger picture. Something along the lines of Planetside 2 or Heroes & Generals.
But what do I care.. I'll never play 3rd person competitive shooter when there are better free games out there to scratch my rare itch.

[ITK5]

Why do you think game play mechanics of wildlands would make great pvp? All I see are a load of snipers camping, I really hope they don't add a pvp mode and as I've said I hope they concentrate on making the coop and single player the best it can be.

Because I have played it more than most.
The campaign has that custom load out, which would work great in PVP.
The shooting mechanics an scoping has the Hybrid option (much like Metal Gear Online).
The landscape terrain and towns would make Great PVP maps.
The feel of the game, movement, sprinting all would work great in a PVP mode.


Don't worry the single player and coop mode will be amazing, but thats no
reason to not have PVP.

[ES-Ulukai]

True true true and so true true.

[Redacted]

[RaidenXS]

RIP Socom. Anyone ever play Socom 4? Exactly. bisoft needs to consider Socom as an example of what not to do.

Also is PvP confirmed?