Senior Member
If things go wrong and you are caught in crossfire, Sergeant First Class Rubio "Midas" Delgado is the partner you want by your side. He’s not only a skilled mechanic and a vehicles specialist, he’s equipped with some seriously heavy weaponry, making him the perfect choice for intense assaults.
Ironically, while he is described as a heavy weapons specialist perfect for assault, in game he uses a silenced SR-653 SMG, one of the smallest weapons in the game.
Sergeant First Class Dominic "Dom" Morretta, aka Holt, is the Ghost team’s technology specialist. An expert in intel and data decryption, he is also an excellent drone pilot.
He don't fly any drone or hack any computer during the game
Anthony "Tony" Perryman, aka Nomad, is a Ghost team leader and support gunner. He is the one making the important decisions. A Major in the US Army, he was trained to leverage the expertise of each member of his squad for success.
In Narco Road, the player character is a completely new, unnamed Ghost, rather than Nomad.
Master Sergeant Coray Ward, also known as Weaver, is a scholar armed with a sniper rifle. He takes down enemies silently and efficiently, never giving away his position. They say a single bullet can turn a battle around, and Weaver knows it far too well.
Weaver is one of the four Ghost characters in Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands. It was confirmed at Gamescon 2016 that players would have complete character and weapon customization options.
And the false advertisement (@ 2.40 min)
Senior Member
I think a better argument could be made regarding the 'systemic world' this game was supposed to have. The 'White Hat' trailer is a perfect example where it shows the Ghosts taking down White Hat in a variety of different ways either sniping him, kidnapping him, or leaving him alive. They also showed interaction with the base itself in stealing cocaine, or destroying it. Obviously, none of these things ever emerged in the retail product. You're given a generic cookie-cutter mission and you have to complete it EXACTLY the way the game tells you to or the mission fails.
The world was supposed to change and react based upon what the player did. Factions in the game were supposed to interact with one another and, well, rival factions don't seem to do anything until a shot is fired...and sometimes that doesn't do anything. I can't tell you how many times I've seen rebel gun trucks driving past SBC/UNIDAD vehicles on the road, driving past bases and checkpoints with no repercussions, or even driving INTO a base with no reaction.
Senior Member
The game had a lot of cuts in sake of making it a good coop experience. It ended up definitely different than the game they announced, which isn't that unqiue of a fate for a game production. It simply takes too much time to not react to things that come up throughout the development. Most of the times you can only judge features once you see them actually in the game itself and the best ideas can turn out terrible with controller in hand. It happens.
I could live with all of those changes if they would have made the squad properly. Sadly the game is a coop only design, with leftovers for single players.
Senior Member
Senior Member
Yeah, this pretty much.Originally Posted by biomag83 Go to original post
Also picking up Dan's point, that the mission outcomes could be left as you wanted. I was certainly expecting that. In the build we played in 2015 we were on a mission where we blew up a radio tower to prevent reinforcements being called as we tackled the main objective. There were no game hints to do so we just did it after hints from the Devs, but this systemic element did not make the final game, except for the somewhat "gamey" alarm towers or the side mission comms towers which don't effect anything .
I could never work out in my own mind how drop in drop out coop could work if there was this systemic world. What if Dan had left a boss alive, but I had killed him and then I joined Dan's game? Schroedinger's Cat perhaps, but would the effect in the world of that boss being alive be Dan's version or mine? Add all the combinations and permutations in and Dan and I could have completely different Bolivias. That would work if my world changed to Dan's when I joined him, but what if I then carried out some missions with Dan and then Dan left; what would the world revert back to? My theory on this is it could well have been intended, but either produced some really weird worlds and they couldn't get it to work or the play tests revealed it was too confusing to gamers when they switched to a different coop group or back to their own.
Senior Member
^ That’s reasonable. I will say however that nobody at Ubi ever tried to explain that the game changed pre-release, and in fact it was still being touted until late in the development cycle if you remember. That’s the problem for me. I was sold on the idea of the systemic world (which is still an awesome concept). Every publisher does this to some extent, but it does seem to be a problem Ubi consistently has.
Member
"The whole team has only one obsession: making sure we polish, polish, polish to get the best game possible out there."
This quote really makes me sad because from what I see, they've done minimum things. They should've listened to the community, which could make the game even better.
By the way, what do you guys think the next Ghost Recon is gonna be?
Senior Member
Sometimes it feels like once they realized that the idea with a systemic world doesn't work out with a good coop experience it must have been really late in the development cycle and that forced them to make changes through the last 1-2 years of development ending up with a lot of things cut short. The result being a very casual game, that works great in COOP, but is a shallow as it gets in singleplayer.
Senior Member
No, sometimes the community doesn’t make the game better and some of the things on this forum don’t give me too much confidence that it will LOLOriginally Posted by CravenExtrez Go to original post
Some ideas are bad some others are good, we are not devs and we don’t work on Ghost Recon, they know what it does work for THEIR game and what doesn’t.
In the case of E3 changes, is perfectly normal, they didn’t say anything because they don’t have to, that’s why on every presentation it says “the ending product may change” or in the case of GR Wildlands “Pre Alpha Footage” and well you get the idea, not the final product so we shouldn’t get anything for granted
Check E3 2015 the first time they show GR Wildlands: Skip to 1:33:00
Check Ghost Recon Future Soldier on E3:
Ghost Recon Future Soldier final version: Skip to 1:05
It happens with every game. Not only Ubisoft's games but because we are talking about Ghost Recon i post those.
Now what I would like for the next GR game is:
1-No open world, it should go back to exploring different countries and cities like on previous GR (open environments of course) that way we get things like more weather effects like the sandstorm on GRFS for example
2-More commands for the AI, although all I need is a stealth/aggressive order, like on previous games.
3-If possible, Single Player only campaign and coop only campaign separated like on previous games.
4-Crosscom from the start, I was disappointed that it was included like 6 months later on Wildlands even though the gameplay work like we did have one lol, I’m grateful for the fact that they did included but i would've been better if it was there from the beginning, it is an essential part of the franchise, don’t force anyone to use it, just make it available from the start. (Which I believe it will be but just in case lol)
Member
if there are any good "open world" type games like Wildlands that are rpg.. are there? but i really dont know.. but i do like Wildlands cause of the Predator Movie /Comic tie in.. (and i really thought playing snake was cool too with his outift).
But lots of things in game for Wildlands are gimmicks.. but fun none-the-less.
