Lets be real, I think I could see Ubisoft trying out the Battle Royal mode with this game...
I feel like I would enjoy it and can visualize it being done with their map, it seems comepletely do-able, and lets be real the battle royal game mode has litterally exploded in popularity the past year, and we all know how "money grabby" Ubisoft is, and TBH I am just surprised they haven't tried going there yet. Despite this I've already heard rummors on a possible "zombie" mode to play around on, I think farcry has more a more fun element to it when it emphasizes "survival" elements. We will see...
If you're going to get real, Ubi has made no announcements regarding a BR mode for FC5 let alone providing any in depth details on what is already confirmed.
The fact is that it would take quite a lot of work to make a mode like that work in a game like GRW or FC if it wasnt already a part of the development from the get go. Ubi already confirmed that with GRW when they were overwhelmed with reqs for a BR mode. They said it would be impossible without extensive work (which was not in their current plans). I suspect the same is true of FC5.
As for the zombie content, that's been confirmed for a while now that it will be in the optional DLC (zombies, Mars, Vietnam).
On aside note, R* has realized the popularity of BR and decided to include it in RDR2. Some suspect that is a big reason for the recent 9 month delay.
Yeah GRW was one of my fave games they released in a long time, I remember thinking how cool a BR mode would have been but I completely understand how much additional work needs to be done to effectively implement that game mode, COOL about the zombies DLC, in all honesty I could see them doing a slightly different DLC maybe even a Farcry5 BR standalone, but More than likely they won't, probably wouldn't be for a while anyways.Originally Posted by Kean_1 Go to original post
Yeah with the demand for BR game modes climbing as much as it is I won't be surprised with how many NEW games coming out will include it some way (Like you mentioned RDR2, that's cool never heard that yet) thanks for the update!
I wouldn't doubt Ubi has at least considered jumping on the BR bandwagon. Whether they do or not will be another story.
Personally, BR is not my cup of tea but it seems to be a popular concept for many. R* looks to be cashing making the effort and with their track record, I'll wager moves like this don't go unnoticed in the industry.
btw, that info regarding BR for RDR2 is based on leaked information and nothing "official". However, most seem to think it is legitimate based on the the details released and what we know from R* themselves.
BR is also a mode that could more easily fit into RDRonline's infrastructure, much moreso than in FC's, seeing as how FC's MP has never, and almost certainly will never take place in it's large open world SP map. BR is also not really a mode I have much interest in, but it doesn't seem like something that would work very well with FC's significantly lower player count and smaller MP maps. From what I can tell BR seems like something that needs a large number of players on substantially sized maps to really work, and I doubt the structure of FC5's MP will really fit the bill in either respect, whereas based on how GTA Online worked, and how similar that will no doubt be in RDR2, it seems like a much easier proposition to imagine...Originally Posted by Kean_1 Go to original post
I couldn't agree more but it seems survivial elements have taken a huge back seat this entry. I'm still trying to adjust. My reasoning is that a cop wouldn't be as much as a survivalist but I do hope they put a HUGE emphasis on hunting and farming considering it's montana. But I doubt it. The clammering of edge lords has made the game's focus be less survival and more Tom Clancy.Despite this I've already heard rummors on a possible "zombie" mode to play around on, I think farcry has more a more fun element to it when it emphasizes "survival" elements. We will see.
Zombie Mode is interesting but cliche. If they could give it a Far Cry vibe it'd be amazing. I just hope it wouldn't be Dying Light 2.0. Maybe an expansion DLC with some zombie uprising of Montana would be nice. Especially if it didn't envelop too much of the story and plot.
I agree. The GTAV / RDR2 seems better suited for it than GRW or FC5.Originally Posted by HorTyS Go to original post
The only thing that sounds interesting to me about BR in RDR2 is the "old west" take that it will have. .....assuming they stick with that theme in that mode.
Completely off topic here but I can't wait for RDR2 and I was quite disappointed that it missed it's Spring release. FC5 was going to just be a filler for me before then.
The survival but also the immersive elements is what i miss from FC2 but i can also understand when developers want to deviate and try other settings and stories that do not marry those elements properly. I think that many of those elements will see a come back in the future when the series goes onto other - far from home - areas.Originally Posted by CoryDeRealest Go to original post
It's actually GRW (Ghost Recon Wildlands). They departed from the later "futuristic" titles in the series like GRAW and GRFS to get back to their roots so to speak.Originally Posted by GRAW2ROBZ Go to original post
GRW didn't consist of maps but actually one huge open world. It was indeed 4 player co-op or you could play solo with 3 AI. In co-op you could play with up to 3 friends but you didn't have to. You could also play with just 1 or 2. Their idea was a small elite force and to encourage team play, coordination and communication.
Co-op was an absolute blast and where GRW really shined for many. GRW was more milsim-ish than other shooters on console in recent memory where lethality was more "realistic". .....in other words, there were no bullet sponge mechanics in the damage model nor super human bosses, etc. Player and weapon customization was also a strong point in that game. Well worth the $60 IMO even with some of its flaws.
Ghost War (GRW PvP) was released 7 months later and was still based on 4 player teams (4v4). However, they adopted several of the more popular attributes other popular shooter use like classes, "perks", etc. Even so, GW still retains a tactical flavor those other twitch shooters miss. I don't like it personally due to a lack of a hardcore mode. .....but this will apparently change once they add some of those components to the Custom Match and a searchable, public lobby system for it. As it is now, you essentially Quick Match and Ranked Match with one kind of gameplay mechanic. .....no way to turn off markers, increase lethality, etc. As it is now, its too "bullet spongy" for me with all the health buffs, perks and other traits they added.
The Division is an RPG by comparison so it is heavily reliant on leveling for weapons, armor, etc. and hit points. It is VERY spongy gameplay. .....that is until you begin to level up and then deal more damage but even then, it's still a sponge-fest. They also have bosses that take ungodly amounts of damage.
Having said that, the weapon selection, gear, crafting, etc. was great. I actually enjoyed the game a lot.
Co-op was possible and kinda fun the few times I played with others. It's much better with friends.
PvP was something that occured in a place called the Dark Zone in the middle of the city / map. You could enter and exit this area seamlessly. By entering (through one of several gates) you would automatically be in PvP mode. The DZ sounded great on paper. ....a place where other agents could join together to help in a firefight against AI, accomplish missions, etc., but unlike co-op in the main map, other players could decide to kill you if they want and take your stuff. Guess how that turned out? .....it was a grief-fest and worst part of the game IMO.
I don't know if you remember but there was a game called MAG on PS3. There were several modes including one with 128 players per side. .....256 players online at one time. Players were divided up into platoons and then into smaller squads IIRC. These groups would all have different objectives that affected the overall outcome of the war. Think of several smaller battles all going on at the same time in one huge war.Originally Posted by GRAW2ROBZ Go to original post
As you made your way to your objective, you could run across other players operating on completely different orders. ......friendlies and enemies alike. You could stop and help out or push on to your own target. The game was so big that you could approach your objective several ways (e.g. guns blazing or more tactically if you wish). You could actually hide in a corner through the entire battle without ever being killed. It wasn't that kind of shooter. I preferred the 256 game mode rather than the smaller more frenzied gameplay of the smaller options they had.