Senior Member
I sat next to Ulukai at that breakfast table with Ubi CEO, I remember we were all so in awe that we never ate a thing. Maybe apart from Blue lol.
But we did all contribute that morning and I remember Ulukai pushing for dedicated servers and more.
He has written a great letter there and I back him fully. When Wildlands was released there were frequent “it’s not Ghost Recon anymore, call it a different name”, but GRW is such a great game that many overlooked some great features that have been eroded over the years and enjoyed it for what it is.
With Breakpoint though I kind of feel it is aptly named, as this a real breaking point from the series roots in some respects. Adding RPG elements that has special forces picking up purple plants to craft items blurs the lines between GR and several other Ubi titles, eroding the series identity - squad based tactical shooter.
I’ll still be playing it, and if I can enjoy it as much as I enjoyed GRW I’ll be happy, but I won’t be looking for purple plants when I should be looking for wolf patrols.
Long Live Ghost Recon.
Senior Member
Senior Member
Junior Member
The thing is we want higher player bases especially with pvp and at the end if the day the franchise is a franchise its main goal is to make money, sadly we cant have the best if both worlds with out a little give and take, I'm not a fan if the crafting and many changes either but I am certainly in support of the game being a success! And well if that means I gotta craft and gather then I guess I'm going to craft and gather.
Point is the wider of an audience they appeal to and the more successful the game becomes, the better the support will be, wildlands just didn't have the player base for ubisoft to look after and nurture with bug fixes. When the cost becomes greater than the income it's time to move on to better things
Senior Member
Senior Member
This is a great point. However they can always give options. And make the damage model, enemy AI more realistic with Hard and Extreme difficulties. At the same time make the game more tailored to meet the needs of players like you for Very Easy / Easy / Normal difficulties.Originally Posted by premiumart Go to original post
There is always a middle ground to be found.
These are some things that can be affected between Easy and Hard difficulties:
- Damage to Enemies
- Damage Taken
- Enemy AI Behaviour
- Number of Primary Weapons allowed. (2 Weapons ) for Normal and below, (1 Weapon) for Hard and Above
- Access to Inventory. (Access to ALL weapons for Normal and below, (No Access until at Bivouac or Safe House) for Hard and Above.
- Regenerative Health (I don't know why this should ever be a thing in a Survival shooter) Maybe allow for Very Easy.
- Number of Healing items that can be carried limited for harder difficulties.
- Aim Assist (Not Available for Extreme)
And any others that I haven't mentioned.
But the RPG elements, collecting flowers like it is World of Warcraft and drones that are bullet sponges are just unacceptable. Doesn't belong in Ghost Recon.
There were tanks in early Ghost Recon games. You would take them out with anti-tank weapons with 1-3 shots.
Thanks for the letter Ulukai.
Senior Member
That letter was awesome, I'm just not optimistic that it will redirect Ghost Recon away from the looter shooter/RPG/gear score mechanics. With so many Ubisoft games that "evolved" into the loot genre when they originally stayed away from it, it's becoming part of Ubisoft's identity. The Division was for the loot and grind fans. Now AC is a loot and grind. Now Far Cry. Now Ghost Recon?
For me, it's not going to be about what games I'm going to avoid because of the features I don't care for, but the entire product line of the company itself. And it's not only all of their games are loot games, but they are the same method of which to obtain the loot. They are all copy and paste rather than being diverse from one another. The weapons are appropriate to the theme of the game, but the way you get those weapons and gear is indistinguishable from one game to another. Even Division 2 changed it's method to the more generic version of just killing enemies. In Division 1, finding articles of clothing was primarily found by searching closets and dressers in apartments and on the streets. The Division 2 doesn't allow that. You either kill an enemy or search a bag or suitcase. All of Ubisoft games are now about killing any enemy and once and a while you might get something and whatever it may be, it will be a random item. They are all becoming the same method.
With Breakpoint, the narrative of scavenging makes sense, but it could have been... it should have been far, far more distinct than and original and deep in respect to Ghost Recon's series rather being a copy/pasted disappointment.
EDIT:
As for Ubisoft owing us. I do agree to a point. They traditionally catered to us tactical shooter gamers who love the mil-sim feeling of it. There used to be a time when Ghost Recon and other tactical shooters like SOCOM were only designed for our niche. The more the company that owned those titles got greedy, the more it pushed us to the line until we went over it. They built the Ghost Recon fan base. They applied the core expectations from one Ghost Recon to another. But they can do whatever they want. If they want us to fade out from their game, well, the decisions that were made in Breakpoint will do that.
Senior Member
QFE!Originally Posted by jimzo36 Go to original post
I hope Ulukai reads this..because it is exactly correct.
Just because your a vet Jonathan, doesn't mean Ghost Recon owes you anything.
I know the vision Eric has for the game, i for one will support that, even though im am
not a fan of the whole RPG.
Well written JImzo!
Junior Member
Senior Member
Doesn't really make sense Tommy, So adding those features that denature the game is so more people come to game and there's gonna be more people in pvp ? If they come for those features that are PVE only why would they stay for the pvp as the pvp don't integrate, tier loot/gearscore & craft, even some of pve features are disabled for the pvp as stated by a dev in a video and thx god it is like that for the pvp.
You and I are pvp guys but we enjoy a good campaign, I play Ghost Recon for the gameplay and the mechanics it has "Ghost Recon identity" and not because they decided to add features from others games because those features are the identity of those others games and not from Ghost Recon.
There is a difference from evolving feature and mechanics of a game and adding features of others game to attrack more people. I'm not so no it is not "adapt or don't play the game" it's the others people that come to the franchise to adapt and not the way around, it is not the Ghost Recon Fans that have to adapt to people comming from Division or else. When I play the division I play it because it is different of Ghost Recon and I don't want the Division to be a Ghost Recon game.
Does anyone here that is also a Sam Fisher fan want Splinter Cell to have tierloot/gearscore or Splinter cell to be somekind of GR game or AC game ? People want Splinter Cell to be a Splinter Cell game like we want Ghost Recon to remain as it is. We are not against changes but we want to play GHOST RECON !!!
