Remove Devision Type Gameplay Mechanics and Features from Ghost Recon. | Forums

[TreFacTor]

Understood, but for the sake of the forum thread not being filled with posts that don't carry much weight or contribute to a larger discussion, I do want to ask that the +1 posts stop.

Just to be clear: I understand that people are co-signing what OP's written and I am not trying to stifle or ignore it. As a mod I just don't think the "+1" stuff is what we want here. We've never allowed it over in the Wildlands forums or on other Ubi forums AFAIK.

Totally missed the point... But I agree with the op. Wrapping The Division in a Ghost Recon skin and in name only is lazy and poor form when compared to its previous iterations.

[AI BLUEFOX]

Maintaining the distinctive elements of Ghost Recon, those that define its identity as a franchise, is important to a significant proportion of the fan base, and also therefore to the franchise itself. Whilst it is good to see that a whole load of features that were requested are in the new game, staying true to a franchise also means excluding features that are distinctive elements from other titles.

At this point without having played the game I have to agree with most of the OPs points.

[TreFacTor]

Maintaining the distinctive elements of Ghost Recon, those that define its identity as a franchise, is important to a significant proportion of the fan base, and also therefore to the franchise itself. Whilst it is good to see that a whole load of features that were requested are in the new game, staying true to a franchise also means excluding features that are distinctive elements from other titles.

At this point without having played the game I have to agree with most of the OPs points.

Took you long enough bro, you Must've been busy.👍🤜🤛

[friday_mortimer]

I fully agree with op's notes and will not be buying your game until you listen to the community. No AI Team means no money from me (a fan for 15ish years).

[Kerrod33]

Agreed to all of OPs comments.

If Ubi actually did listen to someone and that’s where they got their ideas from, I would really love to find this person who wished for it all, and slap them.

[El_Cuervacho]

@ FerroMortem

Hey mate, already posted this somewhere else but I reckon it'd be more relevant here:

Most gameplay features they've listed for the new game (the ones I'd personally be looking forward to at least) were already present either in GR1, R6 and/or other games from circa 2002, ie: SOCOM 1 and 2 or later on in OFP: Dragon Rising back in 2009.
- Limping when shot/compromissed aiming CHECK
- At least 4 player coop (except for SOCOM1 and 2) CHECK
- Hide enemy bodies CHECK
- Antitank weaponry (except of R6) CHECK
- Bloused boots (not a gameplay feature but hey) CHECK

Is it so difficult to improve upon a 20 year old game's features?
- A distinct geographical setting (none of this "a world in a grain of sand" approach)
- An engaging story, set in a geopolitical flashpoint
- AI that reflects 20 years in AI development, for enemies and friendlies alike
- A degree of control over your AI teammates comparable to that seen in SOCOM 1 but again, with the benefit of 20 years of AI development
- Lethal combat, both for the player/friendlies and enemy AI
- Fully supported 1st person or 3rd person gameplay
- No cover system of any sort. A fluid peeking solution akin to what MOH did in their more modern titles.
- Authentic equipment and weapons. All readily available from the start, with the possibility of acquiring local weaponry and gear in country.
Gear and weapons from other units or countries could be implemented as DLC or as part of an oldshool expansion pack.
- Magazine based ammo count.
- Weight, injury and fatigue as factors
- Roles determined by loadout, weight. No perks.
- No player flown aircaft. LZs and secondary LZs preset, MGS5 slyle.
- Carry-over injuries, similar to what GR1.
- Working camo
- If any near-future tech is to be introduced, it should be well researched and implemented as realistically as posible.
There's tons of possiblity for engaging tactical gameplay with current/near future tech, such as drones or exoskeletons or electronic warfare without going full-scifi about it.

[Kean_1]

Maintaining the distinctive elements of Ghost Recon, those that define its identity as a franchise, is important to a significant proportion of the fan base, and also therefore to the franchise itself. Whilst it is good to see that a whole load of features that were requested are in the new game, staying true to a franchise also means excluding features that are distinctive elements from other titles.

At this point without having played the game I have to agree with most of the OPs points.

Unfortunately, just when I think "they get it" and take that step forward, they take one or two steps back with other decisions they make. At least that's been my experience and opinion with some Ubi titles / franchises. .....and it appears GR is no different.

In the case with GRW, they messed with a good a thing (IMO) with their shift in vision at some points. With GRB, it appears that instead of building / improving on that unique, core formula that made (and could have continued to make) GRW so good, it looks like they might be on the same path.

Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that they added things like smoke, healing / health management, damage affects, stealth mechanics, takedowns animations, perimeter breaching, etc. ....but then they doubled down on the tech (namely drones), introduced classes, removed friendly AI vs. improving them, added more RPG elements, etc. The reason is obviously because they tied PvE progression with PvP.

I never did like the departure GW took from the core gameplay of GRW but at least with that game we still had the essentially unspoiled base gameplay we could go back to for those of us who weren't happy with the CoD elements in GW. Unfortunately that may not be the case with GRB as the PvE and PvP elements are now bound together. My fear is that they will also ruin other components of the game like the really low TTK in the campaign to mimic what I'm hoping won't be a more spongy mechanic in PvP (just like GW was).

I guess we will have to wait and see just how much of an impact this blending of PvE and PvE will have on our choices, character development, RPG elements, damage model, etc, in the campaign / coop but my confidence is low at this point.

[B_616e6f6e]

@ FerroMortem

Hey mate, already posted this somewhere else but I reckon it'd be more relevant here:

Most gameplay features they've listed for the new game (the ones I'd personally be looking forward to at least) were already present either in GR1, R6 and/or other games from circa 2002, ie: SOCOM 1 and 2 or later on in OFP: Dragon Rising back in 2009.
- Limping when shot/compromissed aiming CHECK
- At least 4 player coop (except for SOCOM1 and 2) CHECK
- Hide enemy bodies CHECK
- Antitank weaponry (except of R6) CHECK
- Bloused boots (not a gameplay feature but hey) CHECK

Is it so difficult to improve upon a 20 year old game's features?
- A distinct geographical setting (none of this "a world in a grain of sand" approach)
- An engaging story, set in a geopolitical flashpoint
- AI that reflects 20 years in AI development, for enemies and friendlies alike
- A degree of control over your AI teammates comparable to that seen in SOCOM 1 but again, with the benefit of 20 years of AI development
- Lethal combat, both for the player/friendlies and enemy AI
- Fully supported 1st person or 3rd person gameplay
- No cover system of any sort. A fluid peeking solution akin to what MOH did in their more modern titles.
- Authentic equipment and weapons. All readily available from the start, with the possibility of acquiring local weaponry and gear in country.
Gear and weapons from other units or countries could be implemented as DLC or as part of an oldshool expansion pack.
- Magazine based ammo count.
- Weight, injury and fatigue as factors
- Roles determined by loadout, weight. No perks.
- No player flown aircaft. LZs and secondary LZs preset, MGS5 slyle.
- Carry-over injuries, similar to what GR1.
- Working camo
- If any near-future tech is to be introduced, it should be well researched and implemented as realistically as posible.
There's tons of possiblity for engaging tactical gameplay with current/near future tech, such as drones or exoskeletons or electronic warfare without going full-scifi about it.

Makes me sad thinking how Ghost Recon will never be that

[Jedimindtrxx]

So no +1, but an "I agree" is okay right?

This reminds of college and online discussion assignments

Teacher: Respond to two students. Must be 500 words minimum.

Hi OP,

Thank you for sharing your opinion on the matter at hand in regards to the topic that you presented. I absolutely, wholeheartedly, and fully agree with your request that this game should require all the items that you listed. Normally I would respond with a +1 to efficiently and effectively portray my feeling of absolute and definite agreement, but instead I wanted to add words to the conversation in order to better enlighten my discussion when +1 is all it really took for you to understand that I am fully on your side. The insight you provided was thought provoking, in-depth, and well-written. I appreciate you shedding light on a topic that so many people can relate with and can have a discussion on. Excellent post. Thank you for your response. I hope you have a wonderful day and enjoy the sunshine, rainbows, and butterflies.

Regards,
Jedi

[NPC-A]

I agree