[UbiSoft] You've reached a crossroad in the Wildlands | Forums

[JediMastaWyn]

Having played previous Ghost recons, stretching way back to the PS2 days. Ghost Recon always struck me as a sort of light 'Mil Sim' shooter. The trajectory of the series has taken it from those base roots to more of a casual openworld co-op shooter which lacks the gaming depth of it previous iterations. A typical ubisoft game massive openworld but dull world with endless side quest padding out a rather boring main story line.

In my opinion GR should be the ARMA for the consoles a more realistic military game. Whilst I know that this is looked at as a niche, especially for the consoles. I'm sure there must be a big enough market for this type of game and a place for it in ubisofts library for it.

As it currently stands I can't see myself purchasing Wildlands until the game of the year edition comes out with all the DLC and for a discounted price

[Force58]

The base game is good. Flawed, but good. Anyone with any experience with any part of the subject matter would tell you that it could be better in terms of execution.

Sure the execution could be better. You can say the same for any major game that's released these days. What I'm talking about is the number of people that feel the isn't worth playing. Some people are going way overboard with the idea the game is so flawed that it isn't worth playing. I've read 5-6 posts in the past week where people who haven't played yet are interested and come on here to ask for advise. Overwhelmingly the advise is "don't buy the game". I guess everybody has their own opinion, but it doesn't make sense.

[GiveMeTactical]

You mistook me with someone else. I have never played the full game, so I am not gonna cry if there would never be a major improvements and fixes for GR: Wildlands, and I am not buying empty promises, either.

I did not, my apologies... I was quoting part of your post, hence, why I posted what I did... "You" was meant to be a plural word and not directed to you alone.

1.-The OP has nailed how I feel about this game, but has done so in a slightly softer tone than I would have. Much respect. I just hope someone of consequence at Ubisoft reads this and listens. 2.- Are you willing to trade the respect of your previously loyal community and fans of the Ghost Recon/Tom Clancy universe for a few dollars. 3.- If this mess isn't put right, you may as well kiss the Ghost Recon franchise good bye because, congrats, you will have killed a golden goose.

1.- Yep, he deserves an applaud for going soft on his post. Kudos for that.

2.- The answer is yes, they are no longer a Gaming Company but a Trading commercial entity, the quicker we see and understand this, the quicker we can vote with our wallets and stop giving them a pass for all the wrongs they do.

3.- The goose has been dead and buried since 2005 but hope is the last thing we loose, hence, why we are all still here gasping for air

Sure the execution could be better. You can say the same for any major game that's released these days. What I'm talking about is the number of people that feel the isn't worth playing. Some people are going way overboard with the idea the game is so flawed that it isn't worth playing. I've read 5-6 posts in the past week where people who haven't played yet are interested and come on here to ask for advise. Overwhelmingly the advise is "don't buy the game". I guess everybody has their own opinion, but it doesn't make sense.

It may be overboard for you, for others like me, you went underboard putting band-aids and given passes to a flawed game, regardless of it was fun or not. I rather enjoy a game (fully) the way it should be played that finding the fun on some of the things the game has.... to each his own.

It shouldn't be this way but unfortunately, companies like UBI are preying on the naiveness and/or goodness of human behavior so if people don't do their own research before buying a product, anything, the lesson could be expensive. Sometimes, the little things bother you more than the big things.

[madhojo333]

You have to admit for a first attempt at an open world with tactical options, Wildlands isn't the worst.
From the GET GO this was going to be a new approach.
If you quit thinking this new iteration will cater to old fans you'll be better off.
If you get an open world, you don't get a story.
If you get a story, not gonna get an open world.
Yet the team accomplished this by creating a story outside of the open world and people still aren't happy.
A Story holds your hand through it's twists and turns, while the open world lets you create those moments yourself.
If anything Wildlands could've been a great deal better had it no narrative what so ever.
All the old games accomplished was leading you down a path.
Go here, do this, tactically, really? This is what you guys "miss" ?
I don't care how tactical a game seems, if they are holding my hand the whole time I might as well watch a movie or read a book.
I mean, who got into Splinter Cell: Blacklist? The story was cool but it always ends.
An open world is the ultimate in replayability.. they are working on fixes whilst making new content.
Honestly
What more can they do at this point?
Have some patience and be glad you got anything.

Oh... I guess you've never played any of the Elder Scrolls games then (Or Fallout games), because they cater to the old fans, have amazing stories and characters, are open world, and manage to add in new concepts all the while creating a solid player base and modding community that not only keeps their games alive well past the point they should be dead but also improves upon them to the point where they are better games.

UBI simply did not care to make something out of the Ghost Recon series and instead lazily threw together cobbled sections of their other game series and it shows badly here. To say they did OK is to ignore all the successful open world games that actually gave a damn about the quality of their games, and there are many.

[GiveMeTactical]

Some people think that because UBI sold millions of copies of the game it must mean the game is the best game out there... LOL

Far Cry 3 & 4 were as tactical and open world as WL is. The story was very good as well.

[BlancoCobra]

Y\
An open world is the ultimate in replayability.. they are working on fixes whilst making new content.
Honestly
What more can they do at this point?
Have some patience and be glad you got anything.

This open world has 0 replay ability. If I have taken down every boss, got all the guns/attachments and upgrades I want.....then what do I do? There is absolutely nothing to do at end game. What more could they do, add end game content. The patience part was waiting from announcement through the beta, through the release....and 2 weeks after the game comes out I have absolutely nothing to do on one of the more aesthetically pleasing games I've played. That is the main problem with me to this game, is it is collecting dust until something else comes out, because all I can do is the same thing I've already done and get nothing for doing it.... Sorry but this game is done and dead until something gets added that takes more than an hour or two to complete. Even the weekly missions outside of the community one can be completed in about 2 hours, and you get a patch and a camo.....come on i mean seriously......

They could add in 100's if not 1,000s of challenges in this game and give rewards for it that would keep it interesting, but there isnt any......

So agreeing with the OP, and sorry to say about this game but yes most open worlds have more replay ability but this is not one of those games..

[SoonerOX]

Sure the execution could be better. You can say the same for any major game that's released these days. What I'm talking about is the number of people that feel the isn't worth playing. Some people are going way overboard with the idea the game is so flawed that it isn't worth playing. I've read 5-6 posts in the past week where people who haven't played yet are interested and come on here to ask for advise. Overwhelmingly the advise is "don't buy the game". I guess everybody has their own opinion, but it doesn't make sense.

I disagree with those posters. The game is worth buying in my opinion. It scratches the itch for a modern shooter, but it really should have been the console player's Arma. At least close to it.

[SoonerOX]

Amen brother! Very well written and crazy relevant! Thank you OP.

Glad you found the write up relevant, brother.

[SoonerOX]

Having played previous Ghost recons, stretching way back to the PS2 days. Ghost Recon always struck me as a sort of light 'Mil Sim' shooter. The trajectory of the series has taken it from those base roots to more of a casual openworld co-op shooter which lacks the gaming depth of it previous iterations. A typical ubisoft game massive openworld but dull world with endless side quest padding out a rather boring main story line.

In my opinion GR should be the ARMA for the consoles a more realistic military game. Whilst I know that this is looked at as a niche, especially for the consoles. I'm sure there must be a big enough market for this type of game and a place for it in ubisofts library for it.

As it currently stands I can't see myself purchasing Wildlands until the game of the year edition comes out with all the DLC and for a discounted price

Agreed. Ghost Recon should be the console player's Arma-like game.

[V.M.R_JaRuTo]

I did not, my apologies... I was quoting part of your post, hence, why I posted what I did... "You" was meant to be a plural word and not directed to you alone.

No problem
I wonder what a new patch ver. 3.5 will fix this time... There is a high possibility they will mostly include fixes for Narco Road first and foremost.