Junior Member
For me personally, this game was like buying a brand new car and then realizing that it was missing a bunch of features that should have been there like Bluetooth, led headlights, etc and the list just kept growing. This was a game I was excited for but held off on buying it for like a year and a half because I figured they would've supported and patched a lot of the kinks out the game...but sadly they didn't.
Banned
Again, it's hard to even justify calling loot boxes a GR trend, let alone "tradition". This type of thing is also addon content, not a complaint about the main game. They're also completely optional. The main campaign of this game alone has such a staggering amount of content that complaints about loot boxes you need not even participate in seem like trivial nit picks.Originally Posted by CplSpy13 Go to original post
I've also seen more than one person here make multiple threads showing, no PROVING, that most of the complaints about what you get in loot boxes are exaggerated to the point of being hard to believe that it's common you mostly get unrealistic or unusable items as claimed, or even "bad luck".
If you take the time to look at my join date, the amount of posts/threads I've made on the game, and the content I've provided, much of which disproves many of the claimed flaws in the game, you would know I don't need to do any searching on the tech forums to see what kind of claims have been made about the game. Anyone can make a claim, that means a whole crap ton of them are born more of naivety and stubbornness than actual game design flaw, like I already said.
While I can agree (and have said many times before) that tossing out lots of overpriced cosmetics is a cash grab at best, those were and still are heavily requested, and you are under NO obligation whatsoever to purchase or use them. Even the stock game has tons of options on clothing and gear anyway.
You didn't mention ANY past GR games, as I said you were VERY vague about what you said, even more so than Ubi was in that video you posted. Maybe try actually posting some useful details when making a rant. And if you think a rant is merely an opinion, you need to learn of what you speak. A rant is defined as talking in a "noisy, excited, or declamatory manner". It's also defined as being "bombastic". It's hardly a mere opinion, and deep down you likely knew it, or wouldn't have put the warning in.
Again, I did not define ranting itself as trolling. It's doing it off the top of your head without sufficient details that makes it look like emotional trolling. The fact that you can't even quote me accurately tells me you're more emotional than rational about this.
Senior Member
The game has some flaws and it's AI is horrible like I said many times before but its not as bad as you make it to be. The devs have done a great job of fixing the bugs and supporting the game.
I feel like Ubisoft wanted to make a MGS V style game set on the modern era instead of the 80s and they've done a pretty good job so far. Since the owners of MGS stopped the series (and ruined it with MG Survive) I believe Ubisoft aims to continue the open world stealth/tactical genre that MGS V created.
I admit I expected a bit more from the game like a camouflage system and a protection system like body armor. Sure the game has Armored Vests (which you should pay to get) and plate carriers but it's purely cosmetic just like everything you wear. It's also a shame to have a ton of camouflage patterns and ghillie suits in the game that have no effect in your camouflage.
Hopefully Ubisoft will learn from their mistakes with this one and make the next one a million times better. If their next game has Camouflage system, Protection system, better AI and less bugs it will be one of the greatest games ever.
Senior Member
I have read your post and I agree with some of the stuff you said but I also disagree with others. Now I’m going to mostly express my opinion of Wildlands.
I believe the original Ghost Recon is a good game but a very messy one, even at the time it felt empty, even more coming from people that did Rainbow Six, the game had a few things I hated and still hate
1) Perk system
2) No flash and smoke grenades
It was tactical yes but personally for me it was lacking and the only thing I would like to see back is the open sandbox mission plan instead of pure open world but that’s it, everything else felt empty they could’ve done better at the time in my opinion. GR2 improved a lot of stuff while making it less open and that’s how it goes, each new entry improves on the others.
With Wildlands is a different story, there are improvements but I feel the same thing with the original Ghost Recon, Wildlands is empty and doesn’t know exactly what it wants to be. There are more Far Cry elements present than Ghost Recon elements and that’s talking about the singleplayer/coop modes only, Ghost War is an empty competitive mode that wants to be Siege but with the idea of the Ghosts apply in it. It adds irregular gameplay mechanics on a Ghost Recon game, the RPG thing, is fine for some but why does it have to be so generic? Why does it have to be in a Ghost Recon game?
Wildlands improves but gets downgraded from the most part, certain things could’ve been done better with the game. It was half-finished when it launch and still is, that’s one of my main problems with “game as a service” which with Wildlands just like some other games means “we launch it incomplete now but we promised is going to feel complete in two years, maybe three or more but it is going to be completed” and yes, updates are free but most of this stuff should’ve been here at the date of launch, competitive and features like teammate customization and don’t get me started with the fact that updates DO NOT APPLY TO DLC’S , I mean what happened? “We started after the launch of Future Soldier” WTF? Come on, that game came out on 2012, Wildlands launch in 2017 so almost a total of 5 years to make what we got? Really? Does it really take 5 years to create a generic open world game that copy paste certain elements from Far Cry and then slap the Ghost Recon title in it?
It shows low effort and yet people are here screaming they want another title, and no, unless it comes out complete at launch I don’t want a new game until it is completely finished or I would start buying games two years later after launch, imagine you pay 30 or 40 dollars for the finished product full with updates and a complete version with all dlc’s of the game. Instead of wasting 99 dollars (which was the cost at launch for the gold edition) and get an unfinished game.
I payed 60 dollars for the Ghost collectors edition of the game at launch and I still feel it wasn’t worth it LOL. 2 years later and still no new game plus or a way to lock certain unwanted perks on Fallen Ghosts.
My advice unless they offer a complete product is just don’t waste your money at launch, do not trust the Ghost Recon brand and Ubisoft, I bought this at launch because I love Ghost Recon and all I got was disappointment because this game isn’t bad but it is disappointing.
Junior Member
Banned
It's not at all a "flex" as you put it. I've always maintained I don't care for micro transactions in ANY games, especially ones I love playing, and particularly the cosmetic kind. Where you and I differ (I feel it needs explaining as you clearly are not paying attention to anyone but yourself), is you throw the baby out with the bath water. Maybe you're a bit out of the loop, but most here, even those whom have leveled tons of complaints about the game, still play it a lot because the core game itself is pretty good. None of the things you're ranting about make the game holistically bad, and as I said above, they're completely optional.Originally Posted by CplSpy13 Go to original post
