[SUGGESTION] Please Ubisoft, no more futuristic nonsense | Forums

[Force58]

The title speaks for itself. The last thing we want is another “futuristic” game. There are other games for that.

Near-future stuff is ok as long as it is kept to a minimum, but Wildlands is already pushing the limits with its incredible drone capabilities and enemy tagging and whatnot (not to mention the absurd stealth backpack). There is absolutely no chance that my friends and I will play a GR game that is more “futuristic” than this. That would be a total deal-breaker, as it is definitely not what we play GR for. We just want all the modern (current) weaponry and a split-team SFODA-style setup (~6 troops, just like the original GR and how we typically played GRAW 1/2 co-op missions... our favorite GR). In other words, make the game actually resemble something that Tom Clancy would create. Is that so hard? Otherwise it shouldn't be called Ghost Recon.

On top of that, the Walker character from Operation Oracle was downright silly and just a total cliche, so I really hope the rumor isn’t true that he will return as some sort of futuristic super-villain with a robot army. That would be completely ridiculous. We aren't 10 years old.

This is all beginning to sound like a really cheesy action movie. Please tell me it isn’t true.

It because Ubisoft "thinks" that's what we want. I too wish they'd get back to what Tom Clancy games were like in the past. I imagine they think we'll think "its' cool". It might be for an 8 year old but my guess is the majority of people that play GR are adults, or they should be. The game play is awesome, but like you said, some of the weird stuff in the game makes it feel too much like Doom. Getting back to something like GRAW would be AMAZING!!!! I put so many hours into that, then going into team based with our Brit, Italian, Canadian and some Russian friends. We had some epic games. Keeping my fingers and toes crossed.

[Force58]

Prior to GR Advanced Warfighter, fantasy tech was minimal. As for Division, I'm guessing you haven't played Wildlands lately to know that there is a Division non combative side mission in the game. So no, Ubisoft does not imply that the Division is a separate reality.

Say what???? What mission is that? I've played a crap ton of Wildlands and haven't seen anything like that, or a reference to the Division in it.

[Bone_Frog]

Say what???? What mission is that? I've played a crap ton of Wildlands and haven't seen anything like that, or a reference to the Division in it.

Seriously? Anytime you hear a radio in the game, since the launch of closed Beta, their has been an announcement giving the starting coordinates of the mission. It allows you to unlock a parachute wing.

[ApexMandalorian]

It because Ubisoft "thinks" that's what we want. I too wish they'd get back to what Tom Clancy games were like in the past. I imagine they think we'll think "its' cool". It might be for an 8 year old but my guess is the majority of people that play GR are adults, or they should be. The game play is awesome, but like you said, some of the weird stuff in the game makes it feel too much like Doom. Getting back to something like GRAW would be AMAZING!!!! I put so many hours into that, then going into team based with our Brit, Italian, Canadian and some Russian friends. We had some epic games. Keeping my fingers and toes crossed.

GRAW had more drones and unmanned vehicles than Wildlands. I, too, would like Ubisoft to get back to something like GRAW. Understand, though, that GR2, GRAW, GRAW2, and GRFS were all based on the US Army's Land Warrior, Future Force Warrior, Future Combat Systems, and Future Warrior 2020 programs. None of those really panned out. By today's standards, they would be considered impractical and non-viable. However, Tom Clancy's work has always been predicated on speculative future. These types of digital systems are absolutely in keeping with Tom Clancy. To exclude these things for a pure modern military shooter would be to completely miss what Ghost Recon is about.90% of the franchise is about the Ghosts using this sort of technology. This "futuristic nonsense" IS Ghost Recon. We are already in a time where civilians have access to drones and they are causing major problems at airports. It is absolutely fitting for a Tom Clancy title to speculate what an armed force could do with drones. That's Tom Clancy. That's Ghost Recon. And GRAW had PLENTY of unmanned vehicles and drones, as well as prototype weapons that NEVER ended up being produced.

The people who want Ghost Recon to turn into Arma don't understand Ghost Recon. What we should be pushing for is a more hardcore experience, not a purely modern military experience. GRAW is the gold standard, imo. GRAW had a lot of near-future tech, but in its design and use, it felt authentic. That's what we should be getting back to. But that just isn't a purely modern military experience. That's the nonsense you mention in your OP. GRAW pushes further than Wildlands in the near-future arena because it is entirely based on the work of the Army's Natick Soldier Center and Crye Precision (Future Force Warrior and Future Combat Systems).

[Keltimus]

Seriously? Anytime you hear a radio in the game, since the launch of closed Beta, their has been an announcement giving the starting coordinates of the mission. It allows you to unlock a parachute wing.

Say what???? What mission is that? I've played a crap ton of Wildlands and haven't seen anything like that, or a reference to the Division in it.

To add what Frog said, the radio in Wildlands plays a snippet of what's happening in DC. Then the announcer gives coordinates to find the first dropped supply crate. Once you find it, you can activate it to play more audio about what's going on in DC. The screen on the supply crate transmitter has coordinates to the next crate. 3 crates total.

[Vikk Damone]

The title speaks for itself. The last thing we want is another “futuristic” game. There are other games for that.

Near-future stuff is ok as long as it is kept to a minimum, but Wildlands is already pushing the limits with its incredible drone capabilities and enemy tagging and whatnot (not to mention the absurd stealth backpack). There is absolutely no chance that my friends and I will play a GR game that is more “futuristic” than this. That would be a total deal-breaker, as it is definitely not what we play GR for. We just want all the modern (current) weaponry and a split-team SFODA-style setup (~6 troops, just like the original GR and how we typically played GRAW 1/2 co-op missions... our favorite GR). In other words, make the game actually resemble something that Tom Clancy would create. Is that so hard? Otherwise it shouldn't be called Ghost Recon.

On top of that, the Walker character from Operation Oracle was downright silly and just a total cliche, so I really hope the rumor isn’t true that he will return as some sort of futuristic super-villain with a robot army. That would be completely ridiculous. We aren't 10 years old.

This is all beginning to sound like a really cheesy action movie. Please tell me it isn’t true.

Totally disagree.

Wildlands is a few years before future soldier, this is why Skell Tech plays a huge role

I’m down to see a Future Soldier 2 with real life weapons and a few futuristic ones, even some new weapons in current development by the US military

Wildlands is telling the story about how Future soldier came to be, so futuristic things are coming like it or not. Future Soldier is a great game that had some real life weapons so give the next futuristic ghost recon a chance before passing judgement

[Bone_Frog]

GRAW had more drones and unmanned vehicles than Wildlands. I, too, would like Ubisoft to get back to something like GRAW. Understand, though, that GR2, GRAW, GRAW2, and GRFS were all based on the US Army's Land Warrior, Future Force Warrior, Future Combat Systems, and Future Warrior 2020 programs. None of those really panned out. By today's standards, they would be considered impractical and non-viable. However, Tom Clancy's work has always been predicated on speculative future. These types of digital systems are absolutely in keeping with Tom Clancy. To exclude these things for a pure modern military shooter would be to completely miss what Ghost Recon is about.90% of the franchise is about the Ghosts using this sort of technology. This "futuristic nonsense" IS Ghost Recon. We are already in a time where civilians have access to drones and they are causing major problems at airports. It is absolutely fitting for a Tom Clancy title to speculate what an armed force could do with drones. That's Tom Clancy. That's Ghost Recon. And GRAW had PLENTY of unmanned vehicles and drones, as well as prototype weapons that NEVER ended up being produced.

The people who want Ghost Recon to turn into Arma don't understand Ghost Recon. What we should be pushing for is a more hardcore experience, not a purely modern military experience. GRAW is the gold standard, imo. GRAW had a lot of near-future tech, but in its design and use, it felt authentic. That's what we should be getting back to. But that just isn't a purely modern military experience. That's the nonsense you mention in your OP. GRAW pushes further than Wildlands in the near-future arena because it is entirely based on the work of the Army's Natick Soldier Center and Crye Precision (Future Force Warrior and Future Combat Systems).

GRAW worked for me. Future soldier didn't. Where I think Future Soldier went off the rails is that whoever was making decisions at UBI didn't understand what the Army meant by "Blue Sky Project."

Clancy has always been about Techno-Fiction. Hunt For Red October- a futuristic(and honestly in trial) propulsion system. Cardinal of the Kremlin- Star Wars Project, specifically earth based laser ICBM defense.

Drones and unmanned stuff doesn't bother me as long as it is legit stuff that is in development as opposed to things that the army would like to have. Honestly if not for GRFS having been to far into production at the time when the Iron Man movie came out they probably would have had an Iron Man suit in GRFS too, as in 2009 SOCOM added that to the Future Warrior 2020 program. They finally pulled the plug on it this year, after 10yrs they figured they weren't going to get one. But honestly, then head of SOCOM, Admiral McRaven taking some snarky comment in a post op brief about how to suffer less casualties and saying, yeah that would be great if we could get some of those, is hardly the same thing as say War Hound in GRAW, which closely resembles MASTIF(an actual bit of tech in testing).

I've said it before and I'll say it again, as long as the Devs get themselves a copies of the relevant Janes year books they won't go wrong. If they rely on DARPA and US Mil blue sky stuff, it is going to be hokey again.

[SERPENT 1333]

It because Ubisoft "thinks" that's what we want. I too wish they'd get back to what Tom Clancy games were like in the past. I imagine they think we'll think "its' cool". It might be for an 8 year old but my guess is the majority of people that play GR are adults, or they should be. The game play is awesome, but like you said, some of the weird stuff in the game makes it feel too much like Doom. Getting back to something like GRAW would be AMAZING!!!! I put so many hours into that, then going into team based with our Brit, Italian, Canadian and some Russian friends. We had some epic games.

Agreed 100%.

I was surprised that a lot of people didn't know that the co-op mission mode was even a part of GRAW 1 and 2, yet in our team's book that mode was the very best of Ghost Recon, and the most similar to the original concept. We put more hours into that than all of the other GR combined, whereas the solo campaign was just an irrelevant afterthought in comparison. Then Future Soldier came out, and we all hated it and left the franchise until Wildlands.

A pure realistic modern scenario is NOT Ghost Recon. Ghost Recon isn't Arma.

We aren't asking for pure realism, and never said GR was pure realism. We just need enough for suspension of disbelief, and they are already pushing the limits. We don't want anything that isn't actually being used in the field, and certainly don't want to be forced to use that futuristic stuff.

Ghost Recon has ALWAYS been near-future. GRAW, imo, is near-future stuff done right. That's what it should be comparable to. Wildlands has less near-future stuff than GRAW.

GR1 didn't have any ridiculous tech. Neither did GR Island Thunder. I know those games like the back of my hand, and still play them occasionally. And the GRAW 1/2 co-op missions had almost no future tech either, especially since we would turn off the drone. Those co-op missions were the most fun we ever had playing any of these games. They were fantastic, and they kept coming out with more of them when they would release new map packs. They weren't futuristic at all.

[GAP_Computer]

well after the presentation you may want stick with wildlands

[Vikk Damone]

well after the presentation you may want stick with wildlands

Yup!

Presentation was awesome has a blend of future and modern technology

Some people like staying in the dinosaur era. While I don’t want a military tactical shooter to be full futuristic, this game has a blend of both to give some old-school feeling bike firing a 7.62 308. Winchester rounds