Member
I think that a lot of the perceived blandness of some of the later campaign missions are due to the lack of dynamic story. One thing I always thought was left out was some real engagement with the teammates instead of just banter. It would be cool if one got captured, or held hostage ect. Possibly year 2 ideas? Anyone else agree they would like a deeper story/more depth to the characters?
Senior Member
Since they are just placeholders for coop players I am 200% certain you won't see any story or mission elements ever tied to them.
Honestly storywise they need the least improvement because I simply don't care about the story of GRW. I like the setting, I like the freedom of the missions, I don't need any story beyond that, but I severly miss depth gameplaywise. Like some suggested a pool of operative that can die / need replacement, have inventory and skills (see Hidden & Dangerous 2) would have given the team far more long term meaning in such a game than any scripted mission with dramatic cinematics... even the Assassins in AC Brotherhood and Revelation being as generic as they were had more connection to the player than Hold, MIdas and Weaver. But to me a such a small group behind enemy lines should be far more fleshed out and meaningful gameplaywise. Yet the coop is what Ubisoft made the game about and everything else became only a afterthought / second tier priority.
Member
Senior Member
I think Biomag hit the nail on the head.
I love the "pool of replacements" mechanic in the early R6 games and others that I've played. AI that grows with you by increasing their skills and effectiveness. However, they can also be wounded or killed in battle. It really makes the player think before putting their team in harm's way. Deaths also have a greater impact as characters you groomed and bonded with really impact you when they are lost.
btw, I loved H&D2. .....such a great game.
Senior Member
Today I went and play GRW for 30 mins - nearly no upgrades on the character, no drone, no support, no helos,...blah blah blah...- I attacked one of those cocain caches missions and just as I finished shredding the sicarios an Undid Blackhawk passed over me. I thought it might pass by, but it opened fire, so I had to take it down and got wounded. As per my own set of rules for now, this meant breaking up the mission as soon as my AI got me up and going for a rebel camp. Killing of the first two Unidad cars charging into the compound I retreated before the next re-enforcements charged my position.
At that time I was left with 88 bullets in my LMG (since I don't use the second weapon slot), but without car in the mids of nothing. I had to go towards the town where I met a sicario/Unidad random event that my team and I shot down. Still no luck because a few steps further another Unidad team got me. Once again up on my feet the Unidad cars charge in and I spray the first one avoiding the second running through houses and backstreets until I finally reach a car where I wait for the AI team and from there I manage to get to a rebel camp. My gun had 42 of the initial 450 bullets left.
Now imagine this whole thing where you don't have to just care about your own ***, but the whole team of your vulnerable veterans assets. Each with an own inventory of limited supplies and with only those supplies in your camps that you collected through out the campaign. Each engagement full with intense moments, no single gunfight would be any longer just a thing for the (incomplete) stats page on GRN. Every failed mission could be a meaningful experience and not just another retry.
GRW with a proper squad command system, proper team mates and inventory would have made the single player exerpience one of the best things this genre has ever delievered - even with all other bugs still present. It would have been nice to make looting trips like State of Decay had instead of the rebel support mission/convoy raids. Or if you could buy your ammunition with the resources you gather - it doesn't even have to be too extreme keeping the players on low supplies, just enough to add another layer of simple management to the game to increase the feeling of the setting - alone & behind enemy lines.
Instead GRW keeps it shallow, but extremely easly accessible that all works out great for quick fun in coop, but leaves the single player experience quite stale.
Senior Member
Banned
Correct me if I'm wrong, as I've played ALL GR titles, but obviously that goes back many years and I may have forgotten something, but I don't recall ANY of them having a mission where one or more of your squad is captured and you have to get them back.
My point is, let's be fair here. It's bad enough GRW is often the target of extreme exaggerations regarding complaints, but why single it out as "massively missing opportunities" when no such thing has ever existed in the franchise? This just makes it all the more clear GRW is unfairly ridiculed.
I keep coming back instead to the reality that it is so much better a GR than past ones, that many want it to be the holy grail of all tactical shooters, so they nit pick it to death as if it's supposed to be their idea of the perfect game. I don't know, maybe I'm over reacting, but if this is just a suggestion, why make the thread title sound like an accusation?
Again, I may have forgotten a scenario here and there, but as far as I know, I haven't. I know for sure though this is not a common type mission in GR games. As far as "perceived blandness of some of the later campaign missions", I feel that can just as easily be due to some not adapting their tactics and repeating the same mistakes. It's evident in the repeat complaints. Despite some offering sound tactics, you hear nothing but complaints that this or that is broken from some players.
I would think that itself would become bland pretty quickly. It's like what Einstein said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Apply same thing over and over to same failed tactics over and over. That definition can also be applied to the words bland or boredom.
Senior Member
Originally Posted by biomag83 Go to original post
....btw, I knew what you meant.
Senior Member
Originally Posted by Kean_1 Go to original post
....btw, I knew what you meant.
Member
While I think your not totally off base in saying that a lot of players don't have a lot of creativity, accusing me of it when you have never even seen nor have I mentioned about my play-style and how I switch it up, seems a little ignorant and entitled, but I appreciate the insult.Originally Posted by Frag_Maniac Go to original post
Furthermore, many past games have had more in depth story about the characters, and to say that any critique asking for more character development is somehow unreasonable is truly something disappointing to see. Frankly, I don't think it's even fair to compare GRW to former franchise titles, it's so drastically different that your excuse that "oh well others didnt have it" really doesn't pass at all, clearly consistency is not paramount. What I think a more fair comparison is to modern day open world games, the majority of which offer much more character development, even other open world titles made by ubi. Also, if a company wants to compete as one of the best open world shooters, which this clearly aimed to do, then it is more than a fair critique to say that they missed an opportunity at character development.
Maybe theres something lost in text but your comment seemed overly aggressive and illogical. I personally think GRW is a fantastic game, which is why I care about it so much. I hardly think this is "unfair ridicule", as I would expect any game that has the aspirations of GRW, would require such high standards.
