Senior Member
As a 50 year old gamer, I’ve been playing games since the days of the Apple II and I have to say, Wildlands is by far my fav game of all time. I’ve played about 1000hrs which makes me feel guilty as hell for spending so much time gaming but it’s a guilty pleasure I guess. I’ve also spent around $200 on DLC and packs and it’s been well worth it. What makes it special is the realism of the situation, story, and most mechanics, the expansive, beautiful and open world, the variety and customization. The option to role play how I want as a Spec Ops operator of many varieties or even a vigilante or a disgruntled Unidad or Cartel member provided limitless game play opportunities.
I have to say, I’m really sad to see it coming to an end. I will probably continue to play well into the future but I can already see it starting to become a bit boring and repetitive (finally).
Wildlands has so much unrealized potential... and they could have easily made some amazing additions to the game without much effort that could have kept us engaged for so much longer...
Things like:
- A NG+ mode for Tier 1 players to have something to do - maybe with an option that randomly adds more AI enemies on the map all over making it more interesting to travel across country - or just an option to reset all the Rebel side missions FFS
- Adding the GM mechanics as options to the campaign
- Expanding the Fallen Ghosts campaign to the entire map or enabling lone wolf or AI Team customization (if they were smart, FG could have been a full sequel game to Wildlands and could have easily been as successful as Wildlands itself).
- Adding a mission creator or something to enable third party mods or missions or something like the Far Cry 5 Arcade
To this day, I think the developers of Wildlands are probably surprised by the success of this game, and don’t really understand why it was so successful. I think I can safely say this because when you look at Breakpoint, it’s not really building on the strengths of what made Wildlands so great (a realistic premise and story in a realistic setting). Instead Breakpoint seems to be a big experiment. It’s a bold move to change so much, but I can tell already that I’m not really going to enjoy it as much as Wildlands. The fantasy setting and fantasy premise and story just don’t enable the same level of immersion as a realistic setting and story. I think if you’re going to take big risks on a major successful franchise, you would be better off branching it into a new franchise. It has way more in common with Far Cry and the Division than Wildlands.
And if Mercenaries is any indication, the loot and weapon mechanics are a distracting immersion breaker as well. It’s looking pretty bleak from my perspective.
I thank Ubisoft for providing the ultimate experience for me over the last 12 months I’ve been playing Wildlands. It’s the best game I’ve ever played and may end up being the best game I will ever play.
But Ubisoft... please try to understand what made Wildlands so great. I don’t think you get it based on most of the DLC and what I’ve seen from Breakpoint.
Member
Banned
I can agree on the best game i've ever played part due to;
the map size and the varied locations (snow, jungle, swamp, forest etc)
lots of weapons to choose from
good selection of vehicles
varied missions
i also get a far cry / crysis vibe while playing it with a little bit of battlefield when action kicks off
i agree on the repetitive aspect but this mostly due to the lack of radio stations, constant enemy deteciton sounds, squad chatter and generic enemies. Those are my main probs.
i'm also an oldish gamer now in my mid 30's.
Senior Member
I agree I don’t think they understand exactly what made Wildlands such a success.
For me it was,
- the deep customisation for both character and weapons
- Sandbox non linear design of the missions
- Freedom of approach
- Straddles a good middle ground I think between tactical / mil sim and action game.
For me, if BREAKPOINT did not have,
- Drones
- levelled enemies and gear
- less futuristic / modern art gallery type buildings
- Always Online (IMO)
I would say they would be on track....
One thing I will say is I have a theory about FALLEN GHOSTS.
I believe Breakpoint started of as Fallen Ghosts.
I believe all those survival mechanics were originally developed for FG’s. But they saw how much potential it had and I think it was cut, to form the foundation mechanics for Breakpoint.
Senior Member
I think they know how to make games, and they know how to tread that path between mil-sim and tactical shooter. They also know how to assess their market and provide gamers with what they will enjoy.
As much as Breakpoint has some features I'd rather do without, it has something about it that takes me back to the original but with the expansiveness of Wildlands. It won't be for everyone, some will not like it and others will like it and join the GR community, but I know for sure that Breakpoint will be a game I play even more than Wildlands - and I agree on the plaudits Wildlands is getting here, it's a stunning game. In spite of the drones and in spite of the progression and crafting Breakpoint just works as a whole game for me.
Senior Member
That ‘something’ Blue I guarantee has nothing to do with the drones and the levelled weapons/gear and enemies etc.Originally Posted by AI BLUEFOX Go to original post
Member
Senior Member
This is another great summary of what made Wildlands great... and what has me concerned about Breakpoint.Originally Posted by LaMOi Go to original post
As for Fallen Ghosts... we may never know if Breakpoint was inspired by FG or it was always planned as the sequel to Wildlands with a similar plot line. My guess is that Breakpoint is inspired by FG and it’s success made the decision easy... and I think you may be saying the same thing that they realized at some point in the development of FG that this was the direction they should take for the sequel.
As an aside, I would like to know at what point Skell Tech became a driving force in Breakpoint... was it part of the story long before the FG inspiration? Or injected afterwards? Either way, I think had they stuck with the FG premise for Breakpoint and NOT added in the SkellTech angle, the end result would have had broader appeal since the high tech fantasy island and drone armies are likely to be the biggest detractors for many in this new game. They certainly are for me. Along with the ludicrous premise of former Ghosts being the bad guys and Nomad’s unjustifiable fetish for soldiering on in this situation.
Fallen Ghosts was brilliant for a few reasons...
- The premise was realistic and weaves perfectly into the end game
- The difficulty was greater (more difficult enemies and more of them)
- The mood was dark and oppressive - from the music, to the weather, to the choice of region - the whole tone was dark, bleak, and dangerous which increased tension - it seemed like there was more at stake
- There was even less emphasis on gear and loot. In fact, the intel to find gear was only revealed after clearing a region.
It was disappointing in that they never really implemented the “hunted” aspect even though that’s how it was positioned. Despite not really being hunted, I felt the need to role play it so I didn’t travel on roads etc.
Anyway, as I said above, if they really understood what made Wildlands so great, they wouldn’t have wasted time and resources developing Narco Road, and then Fallen Ghosts would have been the sequel full game follow-up to Wildlands. Instead, they were just experimenting... Narco Road was a flop... FG was a success. So Breakpoint was born out of FG but with so much fantasy added that I fear they’ve ruined it from my perspective. The sad thing is, they are still experimenting and I fear they still don’t really understand what made Wildlands (and FG) so great. The last two game modes like Mercenaries, and the waves of Defense mode, prove my point. And Breakpoint is a good idea... dragged down by over-creative efforts to add in too much eye-candy fantasy and loot mechanics. Shame.
