Member
After playing Red Dead Redemption II, my immediate reaction was (since I'm a fan of Tom Clancy's games) how fantastic GRW can be if it endorsed the gameplay systems, animations, and ideas from that game.
I was expecting a huge entertaining game from GRW when it was first announced and counted the days till its launch. Then, a huge disappointment after the 5-6th hour because GRW has 3 to 4 hours long worth of gameplay loop that spans for 40-50 hours and has bland design choices and has no purpose of finishing it. It may be very good for some people who likes to do the same things over and over again with a freedom to do exactly how they like, but for me it lose its purpose. It became like a "chore" to finish it all for no reason. The game felt like a third person Far Cry where you can come back to play anytime when you feel like you have an hour or two to spare and do some objectives without chewing on anything like the story or other elements, just dumb fun. And it was too casual for my preference.
Anyway, Wildlands has passed, none of these above can change in the future updates since its core systems are grounded, needed full revamp and instead of updates, a full new game is a more viable option. And what could be perfect for the next game was that some of its core pillars has to change for some hardcore simulation elements. Characters needed to have a personality, life story-wise (I don't give two s..ts about them in GRW so why bother to play?), a great narrative story that pans out (please a proper NARRATIVE for god's sake) and weighty gameplay elements please.
What I meant by them:
In GRW I felt like they are just one-dimensional wooden characters that we played. There are only brief cutscenes that we can have a grasp of who they are but even then, I don't know anything about them, maybe a few small talks over the open World traveling but has no narrative purpose. Either find a better writer or create a better story that includes their own thoughts/decisions that affect the psychology so that we can relate to or to like them.
Make use of a better fluid and WEIGHTY animation system like RDR2 where you felt the characters belongs to that World. And most importantly, "INTERACT" with the World, like in RDR2 again, where every interaction is your own choice and brings immersion to your experience. Maybe choose your own side for whom you fought for, or for what purpose.
Give us squad team interactions and make them dynamic to our choices like as to earn their trust with something we do for them or by speaking to them or antagonize them if we don't agree with them, or if making wrong choices in battlefield, lose them forever in a firefight. So by that, every choice matters and you have to make careful planning and quality choices in tactical approach. And if possible, make the firefights a little bit merciful for tactical movements, like commanding "suppressive fire" or something...
I'm not going to dwell on "AI Squad Teammate Commanding" too much because it must be IMPERATIVE to have that in the next game! A detailed Cross-Com map where we can make tactical decision that WORK (PC GRAW and GRAW 2 AI's were god awful to command, think: delta force-like operatives where you babysit everything, they don't even shoot to protect themselves in a firefight!) is much appreciated, but if devs don't want that micro-management for their game, an "assign role" system can be implemented as well, where you assign roles to your AI squad teammate like "scout, sniper, assault, stealth, cover, backup etc.." where they automatically do their work with your one-button commands. I have some thoughts on gameplay systems for AI teammate commanding but don't want to bore people with details. (Teammate Bonding Level system that affects these above)
And finally a story where we choose how we approach every situation, without just a firefight. Let us interact with people, learn about their lives, their problems and how we can help them. Again I will recall RDR2 here, extend the interaction system, make us threaten people, try non-violent options, mexican stand-offs. And with our teammates interactions, a "group formation" movement (like "diamond" formation in GRFS but not scripted, our choice of formations) for protection, a "breach" mechanic system where you choose how to breach every contextual situation (door, room, place) and finally (you will be mad at me but...) a proper "cover" system where it is not a safezone (destructible or penetrable maybe) but not punishing too much as well (a balanced system)
EDIT: I forgot many things apparently, so I'll briefly add short lists:
- Base of Operations: Need this for changing equipment instead of "on-the-go" customization. Some hardcore realism here please.
- "Buggy": A dedicated vehicle buggy for traversal (like RDR2 horse) that Works as a mobile base of operations where you can pack some gear you choose from your Base of Operations and retrieve them from your vehicle instead of going all the way back to your base. You can customise it to your liking as well.
- Gunfight: RDR2 made it perfect! Realistic slow aiming, recoil, realistic reload system, stumble to avoid getting shot and many more…
- Climbing: Not as in "parkour" like Assassin's Creed but rappeling (rope climbing or rope rappeling, aussie style rappeling)
- Stealth needs complete revamp, analog based slow movement, light/shadow system, noise system (footsteps, weather, rain), and balanced enemy AI and AI awareness. We must feel like a strong elite operative but in heated situations, be in danger. "Balance" is key!
- Outfit costumization: Every choice must have a purpose instead of just cosmetic. Fabric, color, military gear, social clothing, everything must have an attribute. Some make sounds but have protection, some are stealth-based but open to dangerous situations. Maybe, some missions needs "hide in plain sight" so social apparel is needed! Maybe "hot-cold" body heat system necessitates appropriate choice of outfits like RDR2. Possibilities are endless
----------------------------
It was a sloppy and long post, didn't structured it well maybe and I'm not a native English speaker so, I'm sorry for that but those are my feelings towards where the Ghost Recon franchise must go next. I strongly inspired from Red Dead Redemption II's gameplay loop and systems, because like I said in my first sentence, I visualized a GR game that has borrowed ideas/systems from RDR2 gameplay and it was wonderful, excited me very much.
Hopefully we can see something much much better in the next game, and since next-gen is around the corner and "smart AI" is the new trend, why not? If anything other than above comes to my mind, I'll add in the edit.
Please let me know what you think?
Member
Bring the Ghost Recon series back to it's roots.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfil.../?id=936020164
The series has gotten too silly. It plays more like a very easy Just Cause and Far Cry. It's supposed to be a thinking game. The series made you think like a real military tactical leader. Please stop making spinoffs.
Senior Member
I’m on the idea we shouldn’t be talking about GRW sequel until they finish what’s wrong with this one. I have a detail post about this if you want to check it out, once they make Wildlands what it should’ve been then we can move on. Obviously as you said there are certain things that can’t be change like the story and the characters. Is also my opinion than the next game shouldn’t be an open world game but rather a game with a set of sandbox missions?
Now for your post I can’t say I agree with everything, as some ideas and the comparison with RDR 2 make is as if you want a military third person shooter to play as a heavily story based third person shooter, both of which are not the same. Let me, answer to each of your points:
“In GRW I felt like they are just one-dimensional wooden characters that we played. There are only brief cutscenes that we can have a grasp of who they are but even then, I don't know anything about them, maybe a few small talks over the open World traveling but has no narrative purpose. Either find a better writer or create a better story that includes their own thoughts/decisions that affect the psychology so that we can relate to or to like them.”
The thing that I believe it happened is that they wanted you to buy and read the book prequel to this game (yes there is a prequel and I have read it) as this is a Tom Clancy game, there are Ghost Recon books and the latest one is called Ghost Recon Dark Waters. In the book you learn about Nomad and his team, how and why his team was form by Midas, Holt and Weaver, you can also see other GR characters like Scott Mitchel (the head of the Ghosts) who actually doesn’t believe Nomad is capable of being a Ghost Lead and then we also take a look at Karen Bowman and how she asks Mitchel for help with Operation KingSlayer. I think the book is the reason why they didn’t bother to expand in the game that and laziness because there is another issue and is that your team of Ghost’s doesn’t show up in cutscenes besides the intro and the ending cutscene.
There is a good example of this being well done in Ghost Recon Future Soldier. In GRFS all of your team members have something to say , including your character, they stated what they thought about the mission, the terrorists, their allies (the Ghost’s seem to dislike marines lol ) their motivations and sometimes you get to learn more about them and who they are, they had a strong presence on both cutscenes and in game, they are not super depth like some characters in RDR2 but they had depth. Depth which this game lacks.
In Wildlands they do chat between each other, they state their feelings when they see an execution, they talk about what they think like at the beginning when is stated that they do not like the idea of cooperating with the rebels because of their ideology, they make jokes and tell some stories and that’s it.
Most of what they have to say is pure nonsense, sometimes when Nomad says something when entering a base or about a person or whatever, they do not reply at times when they should’ve done so. They do not get involved with what other characters have to say, something obvious in the Special Operations missions. They do not show up in interrogation cutscenes because Ubisoft is lazy and didn’t want to effort themselves into writing and animating those characters.
On your next point:
“Give us squad team interactions and make them dynamic to our choices like as to earn their trust with something we do for them or by speaking to them or antagonize them if we don't agree with them, or if making wrong choices in battlefield, lose them forever in a firefight So by that, every choice matters and you have to make careful planning and quality choices in tactical approach”
No. I do not like the idea of having that kind drama on a military shooter. We are the Ghost Lead they can state their comments if they do not agree with top orders but that’s it, creating a mechanic of trust when we are the leader is just boring and unnecessary. Losing them forever in a firefight is a no go for me. That doesn’t make me care for them more because it involves creating generic character that can just die, unless it is scripted losing teammates like in XCOM games (if that’s your idea) is a no go for me.
I'm not going to dwell on "AI Squad Teammate Commanding" too much because it must be IMPERATIVE to have that in the next game! A detailed Cross-Com map where we can make tactical decision that WORK (PC GRAW and GRAW 2 AI's were god awful to command, think: delta force-like operatives where you babysit everything, they don't even shoot to protect themselves in a firefight!) is much appreciated, but if devs don't want that micro-management for their game, an "assign role" system can be implemented as well, where you assign roles to your AI squad teammate like "scout, sniper, assault, stealth, cover, backup etc.." where they automatically do their work with your one-button commands. I have some thoughts on gameplay systems for AI teammate commanding but don't want to bore people with details. (Teammate Bonding Level system that affects these above)
Oww the crosscom map, something I really miss from GRAW, it seems that you play on the PC version but believe me the XBOX360 version is amazing in commands. The role system is not something I would like because again is there to create meaningless characters just like the first Ghost Recon and that’s something I do not want. I rather have what we have now with a mix of GRAW2 and GRFS commands plus expanding on them for this game.
And finally, a story where we choose how we approach every situation, without just a firefight. Let us interact with people, learn about their lives, their problems and how we can help them. Again I will recall RDR2 here, extend the interaction system, make us threaten people, try non-violent options, Mexican stand-offs . And with our teammates interactions, a "group formation" movement (like "diamond" formation in GRFS but not scripted, our choice of formations) for protection, a "breach" mechanic system where you choose how to breach every contextual situation (door, room, place) and finally (you will be mad at me but...) a proper "cover" system where it is not a safezone (destructible or penetrable maybe) but not punishing too much as well (a balanced system)
Oh please no. We are the top tier elite unit that is above everyone, do we have to learn about people’s problems? Or to approach non-violently in certain situations? The only reason the Ghosts are deployed is because the nonviolent approach is nonexistent. Is all about killing everything that moves and getting all the info. I’m not against a decision making plot like it was done in Ghost Recon Predator but only if it is minimal and doesn’t make me listen to what people feel. The destructible cover from GRFS and like I said before more commands and we are good to go.
- Stealth needs complete revamp, analog based slow movement, light/shadow system, noise system (footsteps, weather, rain), and balanced enemy AI and AI awareness. We must feel like a strong elite operative but in heated situations, be in danger. "Balance" is key!
Light/shadow like not being seen at all in shadows? No. I rather have it as it is. You get seen in the dark because you are not invisible what they could do is make it so the enemy takes a little bit longer to see you while in the dark.
You have good ideas here but they are overshadow with the idea of wanting to make the next game something like RDR2 when it can't be done, different games should have different ideas.
Senior Member
Sorry but I disagree with a great deal in this post. I think there is a story and I like the characters. At little expansion of this wouldn’t hurt but not so much that you’re more watching a movie than playing a game. I certainly don’t like the idea of getting NPCs to talk about there problems.
I didn’t find the gameplay repetitive because I made an effort to approach missions differently. So many people get hooked up on ‘I must beat the game on the hardest difficulty’ and limit themselves to a single method of attack. Do that and you miss all the fun that comes from lowering the difficulty and seeing how inventive you can get.
But many ideas, from a squad gameplay mechanics POV, are good. I think if everything in this post were implemented it could well spoil the next game for me, but if just a select few were chosen it would benefit the game greatly.
Senior Member
I think each to his own.
As much as I wanted to like the first Red Dead it was a waste of money for me and I played a max of about 15 hours on it. Most of that was an attempt to try and get into it, but to no avail. Wildlands, however, I have derived hundreds of hours of game time and not got bored. I can't see the point of buying RDR2, although I probably will at some point, because playing a soldier has more appeal than playing a cowboy.
Banned
As Blue said, to each their own, especially story related opinions. I loved Rockstar's story in GTA IV, but was very put off by the constant in fighting and immaturity of GTA V's story. So I'll judge RDR2's story if and when it comes to PC. Most feel it will since Rockstar made tons off GTA V on PC, and their main excuse for no RDR on PC was it would be too hard to port to PC from old gen consoles.
Regarding your "casual" remark though, I've always defined casual games by being easy to pick up and play. I tend to think just having slow mo aiming in RDR2 easily puts it more in the casual category than GRW. Everyone regards GRW as one of the more challenging modern day games to play if anything. It's always the people that play it on lower difficulty modes and never challenge themselves too much with stealth that don't appreciate how good a game it can be.
I also find it kind of odd you pass GRW off as casual when all your squad AI ideas are mere one button auto this and that, as if you want them to do all the work for you.
As far as cramming GR with tons of RPG features like RDR2, I don't think you understand the difference between a period piece action-adventure game, and a near future tactical shooter. Obviously one is going to have things like hunting, selling of animal skins, etc, because that's how a lot of people lived in those days. GR's side events are going to be things like intel gathering. I mean a covert tactical team doesn't have time or need for hunting, and it would only be an unnecessary risk exposing themselves further to possible attacks without need.
Plus action-adventure games tend to be more story driven, so there's more interaction with NPCs. Ubi's action-adventure series has always been Assassin's Creed, not GR. You're basically trying to make GR into something it never was or intended to be. Show me ANYONE making a near future tactical shooter with such features, and it would very likely be a post apocalyptic scenario where you need to hunt to survive. Ubi DID put scavenging in as part of the weapons upgrade system though, and there are quite a few skills to build. So technically it has more RPG features than past GRs, but you would be changing the genre to flood it with too many of them.
Senior Member
I am loving RDR2 and it will go down as one of the most memorable games for me but it is a different animal than GRW in several ways. While I can see some specific components of GRW being compared on a basic level to games like GTAV and RDR2, they are two different types of games.
Having said that, I enjoyed GRW (especially coop) but I also really enjoy RDR2. .....probably more so as I am finding it more complete and with more depth (as a game) than GRW was. In that respect, I can see where you're coming from in your comparison. It's RDR on steroids with refinements to all of the mechanics, NPC / wildlife interaction, graphics, weather effects, melee, etc. A really solid game that I'll likely be playing for a long time.
In contrast, while I still enjoyed GRW I always felt they came up short on several levels. Unlike RDR2, I never felt that they delivered on the experience I was expecting from the marketing during development. I initially had hopes that the game would become much more but that faded into feelings of "what could have been".
I won't even get into the fact of how much of a disappointment GW was to me as they made a departure from the core essence of what made GRW good. Not to mention my bitterness about how they treated their hardcore fans. .....I used to like carrots.
Speaking of which, I can't wait to see what R* has in store for their RDR2 online beta next month.
Senior Member
Senior Member
I haven't got to R2D2 yet, but RDR was a great game - a different genre and some interesting mechanics with a good dose of interesting stuff to do. However, the western genre never really holds as much interest to me as modern military and special forces... so even if RDR2 is super compelling, it's not going to grab me like GRW.
I think it's good to ask for a better story and more connection and interaction with the world, but I think you may be barking up the wrong tree here. Ubisoft's forte is building beautiful sandbox environments with a ton of things to kill and some mildly logical reason for doing that. Then leaving almost everything up to you. None of their open world franchises offer much of a story and if history is any indication, probably never will. Having said that, the environment and NPCs could be more interactive. I think they are making improvements with every new title. Far Cry 5 has way more NPC interaction than any Ubi title before that I'm aware of, and this franchise might benefit from that. However, it's not likely going to deliver what you are asking for.
You're probably better off posting in the Rock* forums asking for a military game. It would be interesting to see what they might do with that genre.
Please NO! Those games were horribly tedious chess matches.Originally Posted by Gonzo_850 Go to original post
Member
