Member
Again, your wrong, linear story progression simply means has to be done in a certain sequence, thats not what I'm talking about at all and frankly you just sound like someone who doesn't know basic terms and are manipulating words to fit your argument. I am talking about one thing, completing one task and having it do something consequential. That does NOT mean linear. If you don't understand the difference then we are just at a crossroads here. Take my general baro example, you don't have to take down baro after a bunch of other provinces, you can take his region out first. Or hell, don't take out his region at all and undid is always against you. They could still implement changes that occur after you complete the region, that does not make it linear gameplay. You can have these changes happen at any time-because you can take down baro at any point, making it non-linear. This is not a difficult argument to make and you are legitimately arguing a semantic point, and poorly, then thrown in a bunch of other information that neither pertains to your argument or what I was saying. You then ended by saying it could get worse... sure they can also get a lot better? Or are you trying to argue a subjective point?
Banned
I'm not wrong at all. You're only talking about the obvious aspects of linear story progression. I'm talking about specifically the parts of linear story progression that happen when a scripted event follows a player's action, which is basically what you're referring to. Either you're in denial of that, or you can't for some reason comprehend it. Scripted consequences are very much part of linear games, and the way those scripts play out are quite often not liked by those whom prefer open world games, as I exampled above.
So while no, what you're asking for doesn't necessarily make it a linear game, what it does is mix open world design with linear design and it would likely upset as many or more than those whom want such changes. To say linear games are only about progressing in a specific order is short sighted. Linear games are also about scripted events following your actions and having less choices in general, which is what happens when a certain NPC change is triggered, because it forces that on you like it or not.
What's being done "poorly" is your taking my perspective so defensively that you're missing the obvious and being offensive yourself. It's one thing if you say it in a rant thread. I mean I get it, ranters have to blow off steam, but when you guys jump in a praise thread all hot headed, it's a bit rude and out of place, and the exaggerations turn into toxic insults.
Senior Member
How do you know that Baro hasn't stopped supporting Sueno/SB?Originally Posted by crowlecj Go to original post
You flip a guy like that, if you can't provide high level EP what will most likely happen is that someone close to him, but loyal to Sueno will put a bullet in his head and things will go on business as usual. If you do the rebel missions you see more and more rebels on the street and showing up to throw down in your various fire fights. Occasionally even ruining your stealth plan because they are trying to be helpful.
There is a reason that the US has been fighting a war in Afghanistan for nearly 20yrs. That we shwacked UBL 8 years ago and we're still fighting there. Nature abhors a vacuum and you remove one guy and a new one moves in.
Would you like a list of Cartels that the US has brought down, wherein literally nothing has changed on the ground? In this game you are uprooting the SB cartel, as in taking out the various bosses and underbosses. You can do all of that and see no actual change. The US has been fighting the Mexican drug cartels since 1973. Amazingly the Fedarales are still in the pocket of the cartels despite various "anti-corruption" purges.
Banned
^Exactly, there are many ways such a scenario can go, and what he/she doesn't apparently realize is he/she is even thinking very narrow mindedly in talking about it, you know, linearly (eg a predictable reaction).
And I agree with Bone in his saying literally no change occurs. At best it slows them down a bit as they reorganize their hierarchy, while the US politicians use it for bolstering their careers.
It's really funny how many people go into script writing mode, like they think they can come up with a better story, when in fact they have no clue how such events play out in the real world. Then they have the gall to label you as imbeciles for merely stating basic facts they're missing.
Senior Member
To drive home the point that basically nothing really changes even more in the context of this world created, the game could have been designed around the capture of Gen. Baro resulting in a temporary "truce" to the effect that UNIDAD no longer targeted you, the player, unless you attempted to enter a base, or fired on them for example. That truce would have lasted for a specific time of in-game duration, then as mentioned, Gen. Baro is no longer in charge and you get an additional mission from Bowman.
IOW, it could have lengthen the playing time a bit, and for a specific time, there was a change in the game world due to the player taking a specific action.
Just throwing something out as it relates to how the game could have been designed a bit differently in concept.
Senior Member
I echo the OPs points on the game, it truly is a brilliant achievement.
Yes, there are imperfections, but in my view we tend to overstate their significance. Every game could be better, for sure, but ... yawn ... no, sorry, I couldn't stay awake long enough to continue this part of the discussion. It's 20 months; you either like the game or you don't.
I agree with Frag that overly specific game changes dependent on certain actions of the player introduce linearity as they become something you have to do. There is enough complaining about side missions not re-generating to show that the community is divided on how much they want the world to change.
It is a fine balance, and I am pretty sure that they wound back on the depth of the systemic world as gamers would have complained. To be truly subjected to the consequences of your play style and actions could have left the game world in a state where it was unplayable for some. A kind of de facto Ghost Mode where you're still alive but you can't do anything as Unidad or SB have locked Bolivia down.
The measure for me is do I believe in and feel immersed in the world. The answer is yes, a subjective yes of course. Games I don't feel involved in I don't play. AC games, waste of money, BF 1, waste of money not likely to buy V, BO 4 waste of money and just recently RDR2 another waste of money.
Wildlands, I can't seem to leave. Now the most played and best game I have experienced.
Member
I still disagree with the linear thing, in the baro example, you could choose to never do the region and never go down that path. You do not have to do anything. And even to your point, wouldn't a game in which a sequence of actions happen regardless of player actions be a game that is linear? As in on a pre-described path as you are describing?Again, you can keep every mechanic in the game, just make something consequential. The level of how linear this game plays would be no deeper than it already is with sueno's mission being available to you only after a certain time/completion. Also leaving a map "unplayable" is an exaggeration, prediction, theory, and furthermore something any capable game designer could easily find a way around, as many have demonstrated in open world games. Other games have made consequential game worlds and easily avoided this issue. Either way, I don't see how this minor change I suggested such as baro would make the map unplayable. I think your overstating the significance of what I'm saying. I mean if you really want to go down this path, lets start with this one small example. Please explain to me how having general baro and unidad not attack you for a set time after you take down baro make the game unplayable?
And frag, you completely changed the argument to something political from a conversation clearly on player interaction with the environment. Your argument actually supported mine, indicating having something, anything happen after you take down baro would be more preferable to them saying they something will happen and nothing happening. I agree, I would have loved to see another military strongman take baro's place, I think him getting shot by SB for resisting would have been a super interesting storyline, where you then have a new guy maybe in monte puncu, taking over. This could have been great. You also mention trigging npc action giving less choice in general, you argued yourself there. If you have a choice to trigger it, then yes, you do have a choice of whether it forces you to or not, because you are the one triggering it. This is some basic logic stuff here. But in wildlands nothing you do changes the outcome, it all triggers the same npc response, you have zero control over any action of the population, and nor does it change. They at the least could have just changed the cut scene and had baro said he couldn't stop supporting them, but I'm done with trying on these threads, logic rarely prevails. You have chosen to ignore the bulk of my original argument that this game is definitely does not have an interactive population in any sense nor is it polished, nor do developers care about quality over cash. They have time and time again proven to us that they like money more.
I never said I disliked the game, it is just a huge disappointment. The new games released proved that better and more capable development with people who actually care about quality are available. The development of this has been disappointing compared to other ubi titles, it makes "games as a service" a joke, and not a service I would have paid as much for in reflection. They had requests for an m4 short barrel since beta, added a 416 without one, added it after 2 weeks, and put it behind a paywall. Then made all other guns individually purchasable, except for the 416, which is kept behind a 15-20$ paywall. Then they flooded crates with over 75 emotes and voice lines, making it virtually inaccessible to those not willing to pay the price of a quarter of a new AAA game for a 6 piece weapon/customization pack, for a game you can buy on eBay for 30 dollars. I mean its the easy things that disappoint. In general other UBI open world games have more interactive, and more immersive worlds, making it hard to make the argument that this was done right, or even deserves exuberant praise as this thread indicated. Ubi has treated this game like the neglected child and it's grown up to be exactly what it was destined to be, a disappointment to those who recognize what it could have been. And like a neglected child, with all the problems it has, and the way it was developed, I care and love it nonetheless.
Senior Member
Ok. Let's take what we have in the the story, at least if you have the full thing. In Media Luna we learn thatOriginally Posted by crowlecj Go to original post
Spoiler: Show
So with Baro after you complete the smaller missions and finally
Spoiler: Show
Why do you think that he would necessarily even stick to his side of the bargain? I would say pretty much anything under those circumstances, and wouldn't feel the need to necessarily abide by it after the fact. Secondly given that, as we learned in Media Luna
as well as you building an insurgency against the government and the military, why on Earth would you think that the military would leave you alone after you are done the Baro mission? They may stop supporting SB, but that doesn't make you any less of a target?Spoiler: Show
RE: M4. The M4 is by definition "short barrel." Standard is a 14.5 inch barrel. Because it is running on the classic AR platform receiver you can't make much shorter without serious degradation in penetration and accuracy over range. In fact early in the Afghan war it was having a hard time punching through Afghani winter clothing at ranges of 100m-150m and the body armor issued at the time became ineffective against AKs at less than 100m. To fix this a 16.5" barrel was introduced which increased muzzle velocity by something like 12%. Also units started to standard equip suppressors which(unlike this game) increase muzzle velocity(and thus penetration) by an additional 1-3%.
RE: HK416 while still an AR variant does not use the classic AR upper receiver, but rather a proprietary short shift gas piston. This allows for a shorter barrel without the drop off of chamber pressure and thus muzzle velocity.
Paywalling the 416... I was really happy with everything in that pack so I don't really care.
Member
Lol yeah your right bro, thats totally why they didn't add a short barrel for the m4 your 100% right lololololol, how could I forget ubi's devotion to authenticity realism and logic rofl, thats totally why they added it to the hk416. I don't doubt the legitimacy of your ballistic breakdown, but that has nothing to do with uni's decision to add one to the hk416 and not the m4. Again logic rarely prevails on the forums.Originally Posted by Bone_Frog Go to original post
Banned
Don't know where you got that from. I was merely trying to explain why scripted NPC scenarios post missions was not likely done, and Blue alluded to it probably better than I. I also in no way agreed that having Baro's mission end as you suggest would be better. For one, you seem to put too much stock in Baro's significance. By the time you take on that mission, Baro is held captive in his own estate, and his family actually held prisoner in a small village. That doesn't exactly scream being in a position of power. El Sueno is running all the shots in this game, not Baro or Unidad. Sueno is only keeping Baro for leverage and what he knows about Unidad, but he could if he wanted appoint the next guy down in Unidad and things would continue without hesitation.Originally Posted by crowlecj Go to original post
