🛈 Announcement
Greetings! Ghost-Recon forums are now archived and accessible in read-only mode, please go to the new platform to discuss the game.
  1. #11
    GiveMeTactical's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,501
    Originally Posted by eskimosound Go to original post
    be grateful they even bothered to make it
    Are they giving it away?

    Originally Posted by hajibob89 Go to original post
    I think you completely missed his point. Plus if I paid for $70 for a game that I found sub par from what I was expecting, then I would want to at least get my moneys worth and complete everything before I got rid of it. The OP made some valid points. Whether or not I am in complete agreement with him or not is irrelevant. I can at least comprehend what he was saying.

    Also, not everyone has the chance to play betas and test the game before they purchase it. You cant exactly rent games like the old days either. He was also probably a long time Ghost Recon veteran and was expecting a true GR game and tactical military shooter.

    You can't bash someone's opinions on a game that is part of a fairly old franchise and they simply enjoyed the way that the old games played better and were just hoping that Wildlands had some of those same game mechanics which I can also personally say were better. The days of the old Ghost Recon franchise are over and I do also find that extremely disappointing.

    I too enjoyed playing Wildlands, but I would have enjoyed it 100x more if it was similar to the older GR games.
    Besides, I would venture to guess that most of the people on this forum were not even alive for the original ghost recon games, and if they were, they were probably too young to actually experience
    it.

    I'm sorry but no one here really has a any valid argument when you try to shame the guy for the fact that he said he completed the game 100% but still was disappointed in it overall. It's like watching a crappy B-movie but still sticking with it just to finish it and see what happens....or just the simple fact that he still paid for it and wanted to complete it all and atleast get some of his moneys worth
    Thank you, I thought I was the only one who understood where the OP was coming from.

    I guess that if you are not praising the game you don't know what you are talking about... God forbid you point out the flaws.
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  2. #12
    Still haven't fixed the damn no drone or bino bug FFS!
    Share this post

  3. #13
    Well, you cannot blame the dev team for making this casual game. Large portion of gamers today are casual players. I still remember a player compared Wildlands to BF4, saying "Wildlands does not feel like a hyper-realistic game like BF4 does." BF4, hyper-realistic game, ok, I lol-ed. Given this situation, the dev team simply designed a game that meets most gamers' preferences so Ubi can make the most revenue out of it.

    I love the map design, and a lot of new features, but it does not feel like Ghost Recon anymore. Sure, you can utilize tactics, but a lot of aspects of the game limits your choices, hinders your ability, resulting in some embarrassing and uncomfortable situations. Fence that cannot be cut, a small gap that cannot be leaped, a small elevation that suddenly cannot be scaled, shoot an enemy in the face then spend minutes hoping no one will see the body, character suddenly cannot lean over a corner, AI teammates turn everything in their sight to dust when walking and used about a year to kill someone when in vehicle, and let alone the single most ridiculous bullet speed and trajectory I have ever seen in my life, etc. None of those are really game-breaking for me, as I can come up with some work-arounds, but they indeed seriously affect the gaming experience, making me feel uncomfortable.

    A lot of players nowadays simply are not old enough to experience the original ghost recon, thus they probably do not know how specifically you can give order to team. Dividing teams, planning routes, adjust loadout, manually control every soldier so AI do not f**k up the mission, actually study the map to plan an attack, etc. So, OP, they basically do not know what you are talking about. Just imagine, in 2017, Ubisoft published a third-person-shooting game in which enemies detected you from 100 meters away, players got no health regen, players have to give specific orders to their AI teammates, players cannot run&gun and rambo the mission. Yeah, I can already see that "Overwhelmingly Negative" coming.

    This is generally a good game, not amazing, as it should have been if the dev team could put more effort into it, but everyone knows that the publisher is Ubisoft, so no surprise. Basically, the best Ghost Recon for me is the original one, the best for the franchise, however, should be Advanced Warfighter 2. In AW2, it is a great mix of hardcore and casual, you need to play it tactically to win, but in the mean time you do not need to worry about always needing to manually place your teammates, and the interface in AW2 is less complicated as it was in the original Ghost Recon.

    Geez, if only the dev team could put more effort into the actual game beside map design.
     3 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  4. #14
    The game is disappointing for one reason. It's so good that you realize they had a chance to make a gem. But damn if it's not a homerun it's close to it. AI, some missing features, and a bug here and there. But this game is what any 3rd person shooter fan should love.
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  5. #15
    Originally Posted by Gmoneymaster24 Go to original post
    The game is disappointing for one reason. It's so good that you realize they had a chance to make a gem. But damn if it's not a homerun it's close to it. AI, some missing features, and a bug here and there. But this game is what any 3rd person shooter fan should love.
    But when there are still the same annoying bugs present that were in the beta, 3 patches later, it's really discerning.
    Share this post

  6. #16
    Originally Posted by TheOutsider-NL- Go to original post
    So overall you're giving the game a 7.5 That's pretty high
    Not really above average, His 7.5 is similar to what the reviews ended up. It's an above average game but poor Ghost Recon game. A 7 is perfect for it.
    Share this post

  7. #17
    GiveMeTactical's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,501
    Well... a passing grade is better than a failure I guess. More so with this "No child left behind" mentality where trophies are handed out for participation
    Share this post

  8. #18
    Originally Posted by hajibob89 Go to original post
    I think you completely missed his point. Plus if I paid for $70 for a game that I found sub par from what I was expecting, then I would want to at least get my moneys worth and complete everything before I got rid of it. The OP made some valid points. Whether or not I am in complete agreement with him or not is irrelevant. I can at least comprehend what he was saying.

    Also, not everyone has the chance to play betas and test the game before they purchase it. You cant exactly rent games like the old days either. He was also probably a long time Ghost Recon veteran and was expecting a true GR game and tactical military shooter.

    You can't bash someone's opinions on a game that is part of a fairly old franchise and they simply enjoyed the way that the old games played better and were just hoping that Wildlands had some of those same game mechanics which I can also personally say were better. The days of the old Ghost Recon franchise are over and I do also find that extremely disappointing.

    I too enjoyed playing Wildlands, but I would have enjoyed it 100x more if it was similar to the older GR games.
    Besides, I would venture to guess that most of the people on this forum were not even alive for the original ghost recon games, and if they were, they were probably too young to actually experience
    it.

    I'm sorry but no one here really has a any valid argument when you try to shame the guy for the fact that he said he completed the game 100% but still was disappointed in it overall. It's like watching a crappy B-movie but still sticking with it just to finish it and see what happens....or just the simple fact that he still paid for it and wanted to complete it all and atleast get some of his moneys worth
    +1. There seem to be so many people on these forums nowadays, and the years before, that feel the need to come down on people. I guess that's the modern times where some people think they can say whatever they please, and above all assume a lot that sometimes isn't even close to the real thing.

    Originally Posted by Hecate2014 Go to original post
    A lot of players nowadays simply are not old enough to experience the original ghost recon, thus they probably do not know how specifically you can give order to team. Dividing teams, planning routes, adjust loadout, manually control every soldier so AI do not f**k up the mission, actually study the map to plan an attack, etc. So, OP, they basically do not know what you are talking about. Just imagine, in 2017, Ubisoft published a third-person-shooting game in which enemies detected you from 100 meters away, players got no health regen, players have to give specific orders to their AI teammates, players cannot run&gun and rambo the mission. Yeah, I can already see that "Overwhelmingly Negative" coming.
    Spot on! Exactly what some people here should realise. I invite these people to play a game like Arma, they'll probably hate it because it takes effort. Well, this is the type of game I come from. I do not expect PS4 games to be like it but hey, if you are claiming a game is a tactical shooter than at least make it so it allows people to play tactical.
    Share this post

  9. #19
    I loved oGR, however, as I came across this on different other forums as well:

    - you were not able to order individual soldiers in oGR but only the squad (alpha, bravo or Charlie)
    - You could only choose pre arranged weapon kits for your squad with different loadout combinations (so no full customization)
    - On top of that there were skill points to earn and spend on your squad AI to improve their skills and an (optional) threat indicator in the HUD.

    Don't get me wrong, oGR defined the genre back in the day, but did have some strange things as well. But very lethal gameplay nonetheless.
    Share this post

  10. #20
    I feel the same way OP; I will not spend a single penny on this game, heck I already paid 60 bucks for it and that's all Ubisoft is gonna get..👎👊
    Share this post