Is Wildlands true to the Ghost Recon brand? | Forums

[LaMOi]

So I wanted to make a post regarding this topic.


I know there are differing views about this.

I my opinion, I think it’s more Ghost Recon than any of the subsequent sequels so far.


But I want to make a few points.


firstly, I would like to challenge anybody to go back and play GRAW 2. Not the arcadey nonsense that was the single player campaign (I’ll talk about that later), but the coop missions.
The coop missions were basically the original maps (remastered). Those coop missions, which also could be played solo, were the closest anyone could get to the original game, and it’s gameplay. They were absolutely the highlight of GRAW 2.

Now if you go and play those coop missions, you know what? They play incredibly similar, to wildlands. Obviously wildlands is less clunky to control, but it’s incredibly similar gameplay wise.
The original game was also non linear sandbox levels.
So I’m many regards, Wildlands is closer to the spirit of the original game that any of the subsequent sequels.


Now let me continue by saying I’m not overly nostalgic about the original game by Red Storm. At the time I thought it was decent, but I didn’t think it was anything amazing. I think generally the thing that impressed me was it large open environments and the fact that it wasn’t a linear shooter. Which made it somewhat unique at the time. Also it’s uncompromising commitment to being a realistic tactical shooter.

You see back in the day, casual gamers would not pick up a Tom Clancy game. Back in the day the Tom Clancy game brand meant a hard-core, uncompromising realistic experience.

I can remember when first played Rainbow Six, I was initially put off because it was really quite difficult to get into. There was a steep learning curve, especially when you had to go about realistically planning your missions. It was uncompromising, and exacting, bordering on unfriendly with its commitment to a hard-core experience.

Ghost Recon was easier to get into. But that’s what these game largely were about. They were unflinchingly hardcore. Casual gamers need not apply. On the PC game market you could get away with that!

I think there’s people posting on this forum that complain about Wildlands not being true to the GR brand. When compared with the sequels I think Wildlands stands quite favourably to the original.
I personally think Wildlands is more hardcore than any of the subsequent sequels. I wish it were more hardcore though, sure.

But, let’s talk about the sequels.

GRAW, GRAW 2 and Future Soldier. So, I will make no bones about it, for somebody to suggest that these games are the standard with which other ghost recon games should be measured I think is a complete farce.

The single player portion of these games, we’re not like the original at all. They were not large open non linear sandboxes, Where players could approach mission objectives in whatever fashion they saw fit like the original game.
No, these games were much like a lot of the console games at the time, using a far more standard action shooter template opposed to something more hardcore!
They were largely linear corridors, which the player was herded down. The action was largely scripted, with the levels punctuated with scripted set pieces. They were shooters largely; to call them tactical would be generous I feel.

I thought Future Soldier was the best of the bunch, but not that great being quite linear, and GRAW being generally quite awful.

People want to talk about realism, but in GRAW 1&2 your team AI had a guy who ran around permanently holding a bazooka... even using it against infantry. It was hilarious.

Now take a look at this....


This is Future Soldier.

https://youtu.be/pBGkWVyinyg

This is closer to something like Gears of War than Ghost Recon!

People think THIS is what GR should be? I don’t... To be frank.

20yrs ago this type of game would be the very antithesis of a Tom Clancy game! Night and day!

I think Ghost Recon Wildlands is the closer game to the spirit of the original concept since the original game than any of the other games.
The very preposition of non linear large open environments, and the tactical gameplay this offers, surely embodies the core concept of what a GR game should be..?

Granted Wildlands is not perfect. I don’t think anyone has said that.
There’s are various features that are less hardcore which I don’t like. But the game has enough options to tweak the experience to get something pretty close to hardcore.

[MikeWeeks]

My two cents; not worth a lot, but anyway - Going from the original GR to Wildlands has been great. I played the original (plus the expansion packs) as long as I could because of the basic freedom it gave you. Plus I'd load up some of the private maps and have a go with what others had created.

I've acquired GRFS via discount, but in starting it, decided that I'll wait until I have nothing else to do whatsoever, as it's completely different from how I wish to enjoy my gaming experience.

[LaMOi]

GRFS was a linear cover based shooter.

I would not call it a tactical game at all. Like I said, I don’t see how Gears of War is any less ‘tactical’ than FS.

I like my games non linear so for me Wildlands is the only GR game after the original that I enjoy.

Freedom being the key factor, among others.

[ManticButton]

I started off with the graw games and also played future soldier since launch so I haven't played ghost recon 1 or 2

I've also played socom 2 and 3 and have bean playing and reading tom clancy books and games since I was a kid

so those are my credentials out of the way hear's my opinion

there's a lot of features missing from the previous games that would greatly benefit wildlands such as selecting unique squad members with unique weapons and abilities (graw 1/2) to the amazing animations and fluidity of grfs

right now squad members are all the same and the animations in wildlands are awful from incorrect to blatantly broken reload animations and stiff movement to the feeling of lack of authenticity in the ghosts

it really feels like ubisoft were using this game as a stepping stone for other titles

also everything wildlands has added really should return in future titles such as the character smith and drop in and out open world co op

developing the open world on a game engine that was never designed for it and then adding tether-less 4 player seamless drop in and out co op with shared progression on a map 3 times larger than gta5 must have taken up all their resources

but now that the foundation has been set I would love to see what they can do

my classification for a ghost recon game is very bare bones
squad of ghosts get deployed to a fictional but plausible warzone in the near future and utilising the latest war-fighting weapons and gizmos fight back against anti freedom evil doers and stop global catastrophes

grw fills all those criteria love it or hate it

is grw a perfect game
no
is it a great game
eh
but to say it isn't ghost recon would be a bit of a stretch

[shobhit7777777]

Even today, nothing in the GR family beats GR1. The gameplay mechanics still hold up and frankly, as a REALISTIC tactical shooter.....OGR is miles ahead of any game after it. From the mission setting to the friendly AI...it remains unbeaten for me.

Wildlands is the closest in spirit...but due to non-existent squad commands and dumbed down AI...it has half the depth the original has. It really is not a realistic/authentic tactical shooter. I am thankful that Wildlands returned to a more boots on the ground feel, open sandbox maps and stealth.

GRAW was fun....but it strayed far too much from what made the original awesome and doubled down on the high tech focus. Instead of being a badass tip of the spear commando unit, you became high-tech heavy infantry leading tanks into battle...a conventional, mechanized warrior rather than the swift, silent and deadly Green Beret from GR1.

Future Soldier was a cool blend of GRAW and GR1 - black ops commando unit with bleeding edge (sci fi) tech - and emphasis on sneaky-beaky ops. Great. But it lacked the tactical depth of it's predecessors.

Wildlands seems like fine blend of it all, so I see it as a leap in the right direction. But, the next game better have a fully fleshed out squad command system otherwise it's DOA for me. It's crippled this game more than any other feature or lack thereof.

[the5timechamp]

I like that you chose "brand"..

In that sense Wildlands is very true to the Ghost Recon "brand" that was established by Ghost Recon 2 (either of the 2 versions)... in that sense Wildlands is the natural evolution of that...

As far as Graw 2 "co-op" being the closest to the original "true" Ghost Recon experience, then no.... not even close, the co-op missions just highlight the regression of the series in its sequel... somebody got it in their head that "ghost recon" meant go anywhere maps, do objectives in whatever order you want and die in a few shots......It wasn't, they left out the mood, the ambience, the sense of threat and lethality within the battle space... bringing back the classic maps just served as a reminder of how much they misunderstood what made those play spaces unique (in addition to eliminating indoor environments)..... I wont even get into Single player and squad AI or commands..

On console the truest follow up to the Original Ghost Recon lineage was Operation Flashpoint Dragon Risings Spec Ops missions...flawed as that game was it carried the sense of lethality and squad based gameplay so sorely missing.... Damn shame the folks at Codemasters didnt have much experience in the genre to build on it..

Anyhow.. Wildlands = true enough to the lineage of both Ghost Recon and the "Ghost Recon" brand

[RedCeII]

I generally agree with everything you said, more or less, except for GRAW2’s campaign, which I loved.

But I didn’t play it like a shooting game, I played it more like one would play Full Spectrum Warrior, in that I used the team to fight my way through the levels, and very rarely engaged enemies myself. In that regard, it was almost like an RTS/TPS hybrid and I really enjoyed it.

As for the multiplayer campaign missions, I agree completely. They were the best the series was since the original, and I don’t generally enjoy the actual campaign if played in the same manner.

One game I really loved, and felt like it could have been the actual Ghost Recon 2, was Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising. You ever give that one a play? I loved every bit of it.

[LaMOi]

The AI Team arntconpletely redundant - https://youtu.be/5OqaOEpzfaM

But they arnt great. And in the tactical game is paramount that you are able to give individual orders and split your team up. Also having RoE toggle.

But I think this game is still a generally great tactical spec ops experience, especially when played as a lone insurgent lone wolf style.

When you can play the entire game like splinter cell. I just love the flexibility.

[Virtual-Chris]

I agree with the OP... as I said in another thread here the other day, one of the reasons this game was so successful was because it was a departure in some important ways from previous GR titles. I’ve played most of them, and the original series from 2001-2004 were favourites and the genesis of a few LAN parties to play coop with friends. After that, they became more tedious, unforgiving, and linear. All of that changed with Wildlands, which is as little or as much free-wheeling vs tactical or stealth vs Rambo or realistic vs arcade as you want. And it’s that flexibility that makes this such a gem and attracts more gamers, and their money.

But, the next game better have a fully fleshed out squad command system otherwise it's DOA for me. It's crippled this game more than any other feature or lack thereof.

I have to say, I originally felt the same way when I first started playing, but now that I’ve played through the game a couple times, I can easily beat most missions without AI at all. I can pick them off one by one or even three or four at a time without breaking stealth. In other words, the AI serve no real purpose other than to revive me when I make a mistake. So having more control is superfluous.

If they make the game more challenging where dead bodies are not instantly erased, and there’s more bad guys to contend with, where one guy with a suppressed pistol cannot compete nearly every mission solo, it might make having a squad somewhat useful. Then I’m all for this, as long as it meets two important constraints... it can be dumbed down (to how it is today) when I don’t want to micro-manage my AI, and it can be implemented elegantly with a console controller - not requiring controller contortions to invoke commands.

[LaMOi]

I generally agree with everything you said, more or less, except for GRAW2’s campaign, which I loved.

But I didn’t play it like a shooting game, I played it more like one would play Full Spectrum Warrior, in that I used the team to fight my way through the levels, and very rarely engaged enemies myself. In that regard, it was almost like an RTS/TPS hybrid and I really enjoyed it.

As for the multiplayer campaign missions, I agree completely. They were the best the series was since the original, and I don’t generally enjoy the actual campaign if played in the same manner.

One game I really loved, and felt like it could have been the actual Ghost Recon 2, was Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising. You ever give that one a play? I loved every bit of it.

Of course I played it. I loved Red River the sequel. That was a superior game in many respects.

But the best mil sim I ever played Op: Flashpoint Cold War Crisis. Phenomenal game.... so immersive.