Game is 2 months away and still no PvP footage | Forums

[Zoream]

two words and you should be worried!! THE DIVISION!!!!

I would not touch this game on launch day, I learned from the over hyped division. the division had the worse pvp of all time and still is!

I like the game and the advertised features, it's a preorder from me.

[he1nz]

two words and you should be worried!! THE DIVISION!!!!

I would not touch this game on launch day, I learned from the over hyped division. the division had the worse pvp of all time and still is!

Well, as Yves says: The Division will redefine the Tom Clancy brand for the new generation.

( http://blog.ubi.com/yves-guillemot-i...3-2014-part-1/ )

[topeira1980]

How many titles in the R6 franchise have not had a single player campaign? That didn't stop the devs and it won't stop them now. Get with the program, you fossils!

hehehe. that made me chuckle.
sad, but true. i was a huge R6 fan until they removed the reason i loved it.
played the alpha, TH was OK, but nothing compared to what could have been if it was also a SP game.

however, i gotta admit that R6 looks like a pretty well refined game, will GRW looks very mediocre to me. hard to explain why, but it just looks amateurish compared to other UBI titles.


And P.S. - the divisions PvP is not exacly PvP. it's some form of PvPvE and is MEANT to be unique and different. the division was also never supposed to have PVP mode. people made speculations on information that was never told to them and now they are mad.... kinda like what some of you are doing here, expecting a feature that was never promised by UBI.

even though im not a PvP kinda guy anymore, i hope PvP is there. i know it's been a part of the series and people expect it, but i am definitely not holding my hopes up.
and if it's there - it better use the huge map. this is the first GR with a single gigantic map. not taking advantage of it in MP (like GTAV is doing nicely) is a waste.

[Dcopymope]

Well, as Yves says: The Division will redefine the Tom Clancy brand for the new generation.

( http://blog.ubi.com/yves-guillemot-i...3-2014-part-1/ )

If he considers The Division to be the new standard for the Tom Clancy brand, then its no wonder its in the ****ter. Wildlands is in serious trouble if The Division "redefined" the brand. The brand doesn't need ****ing "redefining", it needs a return to form to what made it great to begin with. How is this supposed to bolster my confidence in Wildlands supposedly being "authentic" when he compares a brand that was once founded on "tactical realism" to a ****ty arcade shooter? **** this metrosexual to the depths of hades. What makes that article even more insulting is the fact that the son of ***** is smiling at me in that picture.

[he1nz]

Wow, chill out man 😂 First of all, it is a old article, and it is not like these changes came sneaking in over night.. it has been happening gradually to every TC game since Ubisoft bought the name some 10+ years ago. I agree that it would be nice if Ghost Recon went back to the original Tom Clancy recipe. But as long as casual shooters are the best selling ones that wont happen. The day that Ubisofts market analysis say that sim-shooters are most popular, we'll probably see it go right back to the original style. But not a second before.

[Dcopymope]

Wow, chill out man  First of all, it is a old article, and it is not like these changes came sneaking in over night.. it has been happening gradually to every TC game since Ubisoft bought the name some 10+ years ago. I agree that it would be nice if Ghost Recon went back to the original Tom Clancy recipe. But as long as casual shooters are the best selling ones that wont happen. The day that Ubisofts market analysis say that sim-shooters are most popular, we'll probably see it go right back to the original style. But not a second before.

Well, I'm more aware that this has been happening since at least 2006 than anybody. And Ghost Recon was never a "sim-shooter". You see, if we want a REAL Ghost Recon game in any way, then lets not give that Yves chump more reason to not do so by using the wrong language, and thats if you want to believe that Ubi Soft is even listening to its fanbase, and knowing them, they likely aren't. The only real "sim-shooter" is Arma 3, because that game is absolutely unapologetic in its realism, so much so that even some old school Ghost Recon fans don't like playing it due to its steep learning curve. If Ghost Recon was ever a sim, it would never have had a fanbase larger than niche level just like Arma 3. While Ghost Recon had realism in it, it was never so realistic that the so called "casual" audience couldn't enjoy it because of the relatively easy learning curve. Ten years later, and we see the difference in units sold between Future Soldier and Ghost Recon 1 & 2 is negligible at best. Know why? Its because Ubi Soft would sell more if they didn't alienate its real fanbase by debasing the gameplay. There is no excuse for the debauchery. Another thing that makes my head spin from that article is the quote below:

And Rainbow Six Siege is heading back to its roots while delivering a unique asymmetrical multiplayer experience.

You don't see how oxy moronic this statement is? How can Rainbow Six return to its roots if The Division of all games "redefined" the Tom Clancy brand? You can't have it both ways. Of course two years later we see that Siege is a shell of what Rainbow Six used to be.

[GiveMeTactical]

How many titles in the R6 franchise have not had a single player campaign? That didn't stop the devs and it won't stop them now. Get with the program, you fossils!

Hahahahaha... Yeah, I representt that remark

But let me not say much because even though they have announced Single Player as part of the Ghost Recon experience in WL, we have yet to see a thing about it so I am thinking that even though PVP was never mentioned, at the end of the day, it will probably get a better version than SIngle Player will.

Well, as Yves says: The Division will redefine the Tom Clancy brand for the new generation.

( http://blog.ubi.com/yves-guillemot-i...3-2014-part-1/ )

I threw up a little bit in my mouth after this jewel:

Ask Yves Guillemot how this E3 went, and he’s quick to share the credit for what he calls a “fantastic” show. First he mentions the creativity, the talent and the drive of Ubisoft’s development teams. Next, he points to the power of some of Ubisoft’s biggest brands. Finally – and perhaps most importantly – he credits the gamers themselves, whose passion has helped push Ubisoft and the entire industry forward.

so I just quit after it.

[Fruitarian]

Basically yes.

Whereas FarCry and AC are fundamentally based around a single character story (lone guy lost in a wilderness trying to search out his environment, lone assassin acting as an avenging angel) Ghost Recon has always been a team based game and even in single player you run with a team. That attracts people like me who enjoy the team dynamic and it is a pretty short connection to PvP when you accept that a team of human players against a team of AI will never have the same dynamic as a team of human players against another team of human players. PvP fits the GR brand better than other franchises.


Also, don't you think the opposite to your "by now" theory may be the case? We are beyond the point of no return so don't you think that the longer there isn't an announcement then the more likely it is that PvP will feature?

Well said, man. I salute the perseverance, and loyalty of players like yourself, and other lurkers that pepper threads like these just to pop up and post their nostalgia for HOW MUCH FUN PvP always was in GR games.

I really, really hope they are wavering because they are masking the development of it, and want the reveal to be impactful. If all of the 'it's not what we are speaking about right now' turns out just to be damage control marketing, and there IS NO PvP.. then I think they have injured a long-adored franchise, and one of the key reasons folks adored it.

It is weird that at this point we would need a 'GRW will have no PvP' press release to solve the mystery, as that will be hurtful news so close to release, and usually those downers are declared from the start.

Why do you have to make us ache Ubi?

I think it's probable GRW will not have PvP now and they're simply protecting us from that. Sad honestly. That's my main reason to play the game gone.

[xIMayhemIx]

If we have full map PvP 4 groups of 4 I will be stoked. But I just cant see it happening. They cant. I have a theory: The Division cannot have a full map PvP why?? Cause they dont know how to make it work(view-distance-popins). So they restrict the size of the area. But you could make it work if you say, obscure your vision with a snowstorm to hide bad texture popin and view distance etc.
Farcry series had very average view distance and the enemy popins are comical when they materialize in front of your eyes. I hope they have learnt from these games and dont put it into this game.

BTW The most fun I have had in any ubisoft game was the old original GRs playing LAN PvP in massive maps with snipers in ghille suits. Bring back that plz.

[he1nz]

Well, I'm more aware that this has been happening since at least 2006 than anybody. And Ghost Recon was never a "sim-shooter". You see, if we want a REAL Ghost Recon game in any way, then lets not give that Yves chump more reason to not do so by using the wrong language, and thats if you want to believe that Ubi Soft is even listening to its fanbase, and knowing them, they likely aren't. The only real "sim-shooter" is Arma 3, because that game is absolutely unapologetic in its realism, so much so that even some old school Ghost Recon fans don't like playing it due to its steep learning curve. If Ghost Recon was ever a sim, it would never have had a fanbase larger than niche level just like Arma 3. While Ghost Recon had realism in it, it was never so realistic that the so called "casual" audience couldn't enjoy it because of the relatively easy learning curve. Ten years later, and we see the difference in units sold between Future Soldier and Ghost Recon 1 & 2 is negligible at best. Know why? Its because Ubi Soft would sell more if they didn't alienate its real fanbase by debasing the gameplay. There is no excuse for the debauchery. Another thing that makes my head spin from that article is the quote below:You don't see how oxy moronic this statement is? How can Rainbow Six return to its roots if The Division of all games "redefined" the Tom Clancy brand? You can't have it both ways. Of course two years later we see that Siege is a shell of what Rainbow Six used to be.

I posted the link in hope of the "new generation" would chip in.. not to start a ****storm.

I think that Ubisoft is underestemating this so called new generation, and need to be careful, and not casualize their TC gameplay, matchmaking options, and host options too much, which has been the route they've taken the last many years with many TC titles.

I can't wait to try the open beta, so I can make up my mind if this is something I want in my game collection.