DISCUSSION : Option to disable the Squad AI? | Forums

[GR_No_Joy]

A few of us including myself have long asked for the option to be added to the single player game to disable the Team AI if you wish.

Whether they will ever do it or not, I don't know.

But I was wondering what people's thoughts on this were?

Is the Team AI the worst thing about the Singleplayer experience?
It seems most criticism of the solo experience is focused around the Team AI...


So if you did have the option to turn them off, would people still have serious issues with the game?

What are they?

I for one, don't think I have any major problems with the game outside of the Team AI. Perhaps few minor gripes but nothing big.
Maybe the bullet drop on sniper rifles is a bit unrealistic. Some of the cars don't drive as well as others.

But like I said I can't think of any major criticism..?

The Squad AI is one of the main reason for me personally that I fee they butchered the whole GR experience but there are many other things that the game does wrong that even if fun, the frustration and anger are not enough to endure the grinding.

Many have said it and I feel that I am in the same boat but perhaps with a little twist... in the one hand, options are always a good thing for everyone but in the other hand, getting rid of them will probably yield a more frustrating play time and there is no other way around it because now, who is going to revive you now? how are you going to sync shot when you must or otherwise you can't finish the mission? etc, etc.

Then there are other things for me that just the few hours I did play the game were enough to not want to play it anymore and wait for the next one in hopes that, they decide to really make the effort to come up with an innovative tactical shooter. And NO, I do not want ARMA.

[LaMOi]

You're missing out.

I do think GRW is a grower...

When I played the beta, I was shocked by how 'meh' it felt.


But once I bought the game, I grew to love it. So much so it crazy, I'd say its in my all time top 10 favourite games. It really is.

What I love is,

1) how flexible the customisation is
2) how non linear it is. There's very few fail states

BUT You see I use this game as a base template to role-play different kinds of scenario's and types characters - not just spec ops. The game is flexible enough to allow for that. There's not a lot of games that offer that that are actually good. And I really appreciate that. So I get a lot of mileage out of GRW's...

For me it gets a hell of a lot right. Apart from the AI Team.
But like I said, to be honest I hold them in reserve, as support only most of the time. Tell them to HOLD and they will stay put within a range of 500m.

[GR_No_Joy]

If I am forced to have a squad I want them to do something positive for me and not hinder my playthrough, I want them to obey and be active with me while following a certain way of getting the job done. While you are salivating over what will happen on the next province, you soon find and realize that the missions are exactly the same but in different locations, its like the devs got their Copy/Paste buttons stuck for a while and they did not know how switch it off. 120 missions perhaps but I would have been happy with 20 good missions instead. IDK, perhaps getting old has made me grumpy but I still feel that a AAA game should do more than just cut the mustard. Again, my personal opinion and I am ok with others thinking different.

If I feel like playing alone I will go play Far Cry, at least I know Ramboning thru the jungle is the way to go with the sporadic stealth option.

CoD/MoH while linear or more scripted gameplay, at least the ergos of the weapons are extremely good, transitions from hip to ads is very smooth and fast, it does not hurt they both are FPV and the squad is really there to come along for the ride but it doesn't bother you and you know they will not be there when you need them because that is not what the game is all about.

[biomag83]

I simply don't see 20 well done unique missions in other games. Mission objectives are always the same, just scripted events and environment changed through games. 20 years of gaming and you have seen it all. For me there is no tactic when I have to stick to the predefined path and you just choose who to shoot first. Scouting the area and being able to do missions completely the way I want (nearly all of them) is the unique selling point that makes GRW stand out and not just another shooter. The sad part is if they had added a proper ai squad they would have to hit the *tactical* shooter as well and make it something special. All other issues the game has are minor.

[AI BLUEFOX]

I'm similar to Biomag in my view. The AI team mates for me just mean that a great game, one of the best I've played, was not even better. It's an improvement issue not a detraction issue.

With 100 missions it is too simple to play the repetitive card as an accusation, There was a lot more variety than the 15 in the original, and if you're a special forces team disrupting a Cartel by destroying assets, extracting and killing HVTs, gathering intel, then of course there will be similarities. It never felt like a repetitive grind to me as I took my time and followed the bigger picture of dismantling the cartel, which effectively made it 20 big missions with lots of smaller objectives.

[LaMOi]

I simply don't see 20 well done unique missions in other games. Mission objectives are always the same, just scripted events and environment changed through games. 20 years of gaming and you have seen it all. For me there is no tactic when I have to stick to the predefined path and you just choose who to shoot first. Scouting the area and being able to do missions completely the way I want (nearly all of them) is the unique selling point that makes GRW stand out and not just another shooter. The sad part is if they had added a proper ai squad they would have to hit the *tactical* shooter as well and make it something special. All other issues the game has are minor.

Agreed.

Firstly ALL games basically consist of the same trite objectives,

1) Go to X
2) Fetch X
3) Kill X
4) Destroy X

Etc etc... or slight variations of the above. But all the same.

What other games do is 'smoke and mirrors', dress up what amounts to the fairly banal above mentioned objectives with story, cutscenes, scripted set pieces....


It really is BS.


At least GRW allows you to complete your objectives in what ever fashion you see fit, with a myriad of options to vary any approach.
There's very few fail states as well, and they are non linear.

I would argue not many games can actually claim that degree of freedom.

[LoneSpymaster]

...

[GR_No_Joy]

I simply don't see 20 well done unique missions in other games. Mission objectives are always the same, just scripted events and environment changed through games. 20 years of gaming and you have seen it all. For me there is no tactic when I have to stick to the predefined path and you just choose who to shoot first. Scouting the area and being able to do missions completely the way I want (nearly all of them) is the unique selling point that makes GRW stand out and not just another shooter. The sad part is if they had added a proper ai squad they would have to hit the *tactical* shooter as well and make it something special. All other issues the game has are minor.

Perhaps OGR was not open world as WL is but I do not recall the objectives being scripted or linear. I don't want scripted or predefined paths either but a sandbox mission doesn't have to be unless of course there is no effort to make it so.

Funny how I have also being playing PC Campaign shooters for the past 20 yrs and I don't remember any of the missions being the same or feeling repetitive in any other game, even if different games. Plenty were scripted and linear but again... did not feel repetitive.

If you make 120 missions and they are all repetitive and/or almost the same and I have to be the one who has to come up with different ways to make them different than what the hell are you selling me? Perhaps I am the only idiot who expects the game to entertain me and not have to come up with ways to entertain myself because of it shortcomings. If I want to entertaing myself I go outside ride my bike, play BKB with friends, etc... I play a game when I don't feel like going out.

Agreed.

Firstly ALL games basically consist of the same trite objectives,

1) Go to X
2) Fetch X
3) Kill X
4) Destroy X

Etc etc... or slight variations of the above. But all the same.

What other games do is 'smoke and mirrors', dress up what amounts to the fairly banal above mentioned objectives with story, cutscenes, scripted set pieces....


It really is BS.

Sorry but BS is the fact that you mentioned 1, 2, 3 & 4 and yet, you feel the need to buy all of the other games that do the same thing. If that was the case then why bother having 80 different weapons if they all either 1) knock you down, 2) wound, 3) brake bones or 4) kill you? C'mon, you can do better than that. While I do believe in freedom of play, I much rather a good story behind the campaign then a barren world with the illusion of do the mission how you want it.

At least GRW allows you to complete your objectives in what ever fashion you see fit, with a myriad of options to vary any approach.
There's very few fail states as well, and they are non linear.

I would argue not many games can actually claim that degree of freedom.

Degree of freedom? I don't know, WL is pretty open world but so far, and I have looked but perhaps not wasted hours and hours looking for a video/walkthrough of WL's Campaign where someone finished a mission w/o firing a single shot or even if they did not going loud at some point in the mission because the game (predefined program anyone?) took you there. And I am not talking about those missions where you either walk, drive or fly for 4 to 5 clicks only to have to deal with 3 enemies. I mean one of those missions where you have to get info from an Unidad LT so you must get into one of their Bases where the perimeter is either locked down by a wired fence and you have to go through the main gates or 1 other side door or you have to get inside in one of their vehicles because the Base is walled in. Oh and, I am also referring to playing with no Xmas Lights so you don't know where the enemy is since, being a tactical game, I assume you want to play as real as you can get w/o dying for real of course

I think that Freedom of play is way overrated in the game but hey, if only this arguments makes the games better... I am all for it.

[TexasRocks2]

Uhh...huh? Why would you want to? I mean, sure the AI could be better, but play without it? Are you kidding me? I'm sorry but a lot of missions would be near impossible without synch shot. If not impossible, they'd take like a week to complete.

That being said, Ubisoft needs to take a hard look at the old SOCOM games from PS2. You could command bravo team to cover one area, and your alpha partner to cover another, while you go a third route. Plus you equipped your team with the weapons you wanted them to use. That's how it should be done.


My biggest issue with the game is that it has zero replayabilty because of no NG+. You should be able to start a new game with all weapons and skills. No way in hell I go through that grind again.

[Ghost416]

You could command bravo team to cover one area, and your alpha partner to cover another, while you go a third route. Plus you equipped your team with the weapons you wanted them to use. That's how it should be done.

Actually, if you got too far away from your alpha partner, he would automatically regroup to you, not unlike the AI in GRW.