Wildlands plays it too "Safe" | Forums

[Machitos-01]

+1 Agree with OP

However, it still is fun in co-op and probably still picking it up.

Could've been far more amazing though no doubt. Going back to the Ghost Recon roots.

But it seems that the consensus nowadays is to reach a wide audience for more sales, and slapping on a flashy brand name helps boost these sales.

I'll still wait out for a true R6/SWAT tactical game to finally emerge eventually. I don't think it'll be in this IP anymore though nor from this publisher.

Gotta hope them indie devs finally get it right someday.

[ThePollie]

I won't argue it won't be fun, or a blast with friends - For a bit.

But that's the problem. This game is $60, "fun for a bit" doesn't cut it. A lot of my friends don't want this game because it looks mediocre and would be boring after a week, at best. If it were like $20, it might convince them better, but triple-A prices demands triple-A quality.

[AI BLUEFOX]

Impressive feedback from Shobhit as usual. Intelligent and inciteful and written in a way that gives the Dev team real food for thought.

I don't agree with all of it Shobhit, I'm finding more depth than you are although of course that is subjective, but I agree with the overall sentiment that the game has been played a little too safe.

[GiveMeTactical]

Impressive feedback indeed... jolly good show Shobhit!

It does make me wonder one thing though... Good people here have been given good feedback even before the CB, the people who went to Paris gave pages and pages of impressive feedback much similar to this as well and before the CB, do you not think the Devs would own a bakery by now with all of that good feedback?

Well, being positive and all... perhaps we will see it on the next GR game!

[ThePollie]

Part of what has me so cynical. There's obviously a lot of intelligent people in the community, if Ubisoft really has been taking feedback from these people, then how did the Beta turn out so poorly?

[shobhit7777777]

I had lots of fun with the beta, but Shobhit's criticism is 100% spot on.

Cheers, Dan
I enjoyed it a lot...even the Solo bits. I feel that with all the criticism I post, it might come off as me being a "hater" but the fact is that there is a fantastic game underneath all of the annoyances.

The design seems hesistant..thats the best word I can think of. Like they really WANT a game that is the grandchild of OGR...but are wary of the current gaming trends and audiences.

I won't argue it won't be fun, or a blast with friends - For a bit.

But that's the problem. This game is $60, "fun for a bit" doesn't cut it. A lot of my friends don't want this game because it looks mediocre and would be boring after a week, at best. If it were like $20, it might convince them better, but triple-A prices demands triple-A quality.

Yeah, the "Coop is awesome" argument - while true - doesn't really convince me to get the game. If I require 3 other people - all making the conscious decision to purchase this game - to really enjoy the game then I'd throw a tantrum and ask that the game be priced at $15

I enjoy playing solo with AI teammates and Ghost Recon has always scratched that itch. Danhibikifan has made excellent points as to why a game is considered tactical based on singleplayer content...and I wholeheartedly agree with him.

I can certainly team up with people on here...likeminded folks...but the logistics make it a nightmare. I don't have the time (I'm time zones apart)...I am on PC...and none of my friends are keen on getting another "Ubisoft open world Far Cry clone".

I do feel a bit shortchanged when my go-to tactical shooter franchise doesn't deliver...it may not be rational or logical...but thats how I feel, and how I feel will affect my purchase decisions to a great degree.

Impressive feedback from Shobhit as usual. Intelligent and inciteful and written in a way that gives the Dev team real food for thought.

I don't agree with all of it Shobhit, I'm finding more depth than you are although of course that is subjective, but I agree with the overall sentiment that the game has been played a little too safe.

Hey Blue, Cheers

I have seen some promising stuff in your gameplay videos and I'm sure there is depth to the game. Don't get me wrong, this game is definitely ON PAR with Ghost Recon 1 when it comes to the absolute core. Setting up overwatches, sneaking around, prioritizing targets, surveying the area, deciding approaches...especially with a full squad of Human players. It even ramps up the gameplay with vehicular freedom, aggressive enemy AI, open world mobility and superior gunplay (IMHO)

But:

1. This is a Ghost Recon game in 2017 - I expect it to be MORE than just on par with a game that came out 2001. OGR holds up extremely well even today!. I expect a badass squad order system, fleshed out and refined gameplay mechanics that are UNIQUE - Blending in, low profile tactics, Inter-faction manipulation - I expect a deeper, more complex systemic world....more meaningful decisions.

2. As I mentioned earlier to Pollie - I want it to be a robust Offline experience. I think it's unfair to the fans of the franchise to need other human players in order to enjoy what has traditionally been a solid offline experience...especially a tactical shooter. Much of this has to do with the inept Squad AI.

Impressive feedback indeed... jolly good show Shobhit!
Well, being positive and all... perhaps we will see it on the next GR game!

Thanks GMT

I've been very positive throughout the 7 years on this forum (Well I may have been an acidic, vitriolic **** on the Assassin's Creed forums...but I have no regrets) and usually try to be upbeat and optimistic....but frankly, Ubisoft has been extremely consistent in immediately and vilolently dousing any fires of hope.

It gets extremely tiring when they insist on putting out games that - In my opinion ofc - don't reach their full potential.

They have an annoying tendency to gamify and streamline ALL titles...from Splinter Cell to Assassin's Creed...and they've become an online joke. Even games that SHOULD retain a sense of maturity and complexity are being roasted over the fires of mediocrity and mass appeal.

The Tom Clancy brand should be divorced from their incessant streamlining and dumbing down....there is a SERIOUS niche market for it, gamers aren't that dumb - no matter WHAT your focus testers say Ubi - and games like the The Witcher 3 and the resurgent SWAT 4 (even their own Siege) IMO prove that yes, you can have complex games that throw the players into the deep-end.

I also feel that their focus testing sessions are flawed in one way or the other...they overcompensate by dumbing down and they are out of touch with the majority of the people who are attracted to this kind a stuff

It feels like they "settle"..."Is the game fun?" asked Ubi-Rep...."Yeah! I drove a tractor over my friend's SUV accidently....but my friend HALO jumped in an revived us and then we blew up the coca factory" said the Youtube focus tester...."EXCELLENT!" Said Ubi-Rep and marked the day a success.


Dear Ubisoft,

Please go UbiHARD....You be too soft.

Make some badass games again please.

[AI BLUEFOX]

Persistent reinforcement of the same positive message, repeated politely and constructively every time it is necessary is so much more likely to achieve results. Don't give up, guys, don't give in or resort to emotive bashing. The bashing will fail every time.

[ThePollie]

Well, bashing is fun... I do have a lustful fondness for a Gothic-styled flanged mace.

Unf, blunt force trauma.

[RV_whiplash]

Persistent reinforcement of the same positive message, repeated politely and constructively every time it is necessary is so much more likely to achieve results. Don't give up, guys, don't give in or resort to emotive bashing. The bashing will fail every time.

like that

[S.4.R.1.N]

Well, bashing is fun... I do have a lustful fondness for a Gothic-styled flanged mace.

Unf, blunt force trauma.

After so many years of seeing Ubisoft fail to do the most basic things over the years, there's a good reason why I enjoy bashing their games, especially when their rabid defenders come out with "hurrr it's a betaaaa", then I get to laugh on release day when I see nothing has changed.

While the game is "fun" in the strictest sense, that just isn't enough from a AAA developer, especially when they've already trashed the Rainbow Six IP with this pure multiplayer game with the whole singleplayer and planning phase ripped out of it. It's no surprise the another Tom Clancy title has been broken down to be more "accessible" while sacrificing all of the depth.

I really hope we hit a point soon where devs stop dumbing down game mechanics, if I was able to get into the first Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six at 8 and 11 years old respectively, I'm pretty sure the general public can get their heads around a game without all the "my first tactical shooter" training wheel mechanics. Why can't they give us the option for "simplified" and "advanced" control settings (for command and movement controls).

I'm just so sick of seeing some of my fav game series from growing up getting absolutely gutted for the sake of squeezing the most profit out of it to be more "accessible".

Oh well, rant over. If they give us a serious "ghost" mode and fix the heli controls it's a buy for me. If they don't, I think I'll just wait until it goes on the inevitable 75% off sale.