Senior Member
I thought it appropriate to remind most that the game was advertised as us versus the SBC. A campaign to be attacked by a small group of operators with a goal of pacifying a cartel dominated Bolivia. The gold version of the game even provides an additional mission.
A description like that makes it difficult to transition gameplay towards PVP TDM stylings that I hear more of than I'd like. Open world cooperation with more than enough meat and potatoes. The spices are there and bountiful to maintain retention as well. Not only that, but creating personalized means of accomplishing these missions rather than waiting for linear directions to be spoon-fed usually helps as well. Imagination and such.
Even if things do turn out to be bland in those fields, then I'm sure Ubisoft could let us create mission scenarios ourselves and/or provide us with additional accessories.
Member
Originally Posted by Klaymond Go to original post
I respect your opinion. With that said, why would the addition of PvP bother you enough to make a post about it?
If you ever played some of the original Ghost Recon games on PS2/Xbox/PC, you would realize that PvP doesn't affect single player or co-op gameplay...PvP matches consists of dedicated PvP lobbies with 12-24 players. Sanctioned towns, villages, and wilderness of Bolivia would be the maps.
As an avid gamer, PVE doesn't compete with PVP. It gets really boring for a lot of people to beat the crap out of NPC's over and over again... Once I've beat the main story line and done 100+ repetitive side missions, the game is going to lose most of it's appeal... In PVP the stakes are much higher... Especially once you start getting into competitive tournaments game battles tournaments, etc.
In short, the addition of PvP will in no way affect those that want to play co-op and single player... why would anyone speak out against PVP? It's not for you, that's fine... Don't ruin the chance for everyone to get some pizza because YOU don't like pizza... lol.
Member
Member
A standalone expansion doesn't take away from anything...Originally Posted by P3aT3arGr1ff1n Go to original post
Member
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here...
I'm referring to taking away the developers...if they have 100 people to develop the game, and 25 are taken away from PvE content creation and moved to PvP dev, they would by most estimations have less PvE content available than if all 100 people were working on the same thing. I'm not saying that's what they are doing here, and I'm not saying I believe this, I'm saying I've seen that many times over the years where people who are avid single-player gamers get upset at the apparent lack of time developers spend on PvE content as compared to PvP content since most games are PvP driven these days. Does this make sense?
Member
Makes perfect sense.Originally Posted by P3aT3arGr1ff1n Go to original post
That's why I keep bringing up "expansion" or "PVP DLC"... Start working on it after the game is released. Everything is already in place for PVP... All they need to do (for the most part) is figure out game types, put together the private lobby functions, and sanction off portions of the open world to create individual maps which would be loaded upon all players in the lobby being ready.
Why would anyone be against this being in the game? Don't like it, don't play it. Simple as that.
IMHO this game will be dead in the water a few months after everyone has beat it. I guarantee that Ubisoft won't want to miss out on all the possible micro-transactions that come with PVP... I can almost guarantee that they'll be incorporating PVP into this game.
