Member
Senior Member
I finally just set the game aside. No interest in the raid or any of the goods walled up in it. I just want Ubi to fulfill what it said about a more immersive "hardcore" version. That is the only thing that will bring me back.Originally Posted by strolllikemouse Go to original post
Member
The survey was flawed from the jump. There was no reason to force people to choose between the numerous broken features and pick which one they felt was most important.
What good does that do, except to skew the results in a meaningless way? When a game releases that is as broken as this one, with as many broken promises, and which misses the mark as badly as this, why force people to choose their most desired feature that should have already been in?
Ubisoft obviously knew everything that was wrong with the game, because everything was already in the survey. All that was needed was them saying "OK here's everything wrong, we read you loud and clear, we're gonna fix all this." Instead, they pit us against ourselves, forcing us to make a Sophie's Choice of what the most important fix is, so we can feel like we've got some kind of influence over them and give the illusion we're driving this bus, but also feel uncomfortable because deep inside you know, you know, while you're staring at the 5 things you know must be fixed, by picking your favorite, you're dooming the other four. That's how things like offline play got 30% - you know everyone picked it, but not everyone picked it as their top choice. Especially when it's pitted directly against so many horrible features that desperately need fixing, like tiered loot and broken AI.
Then here come some cute graphics that prove how attentive Ubisoft is, and how they're gonna get right on all this stuff.
(I particularly like that each section said things like "70%+" or "30%+", which basically is the same thing as saying "literally any % over this number, right up to 100%, but we won't tell you that.")
If everything on the survey is in the announcement and slated to be fixed, then the survey did nothing except give Ubisoft an out if they decide not to change something. "Yeah as far as offline mode goes, really only 30% (+) wanted that, so we're gonna do other stuff first. Who knows how long it will take to get to that, it's so easy to lose track of time when we're working so hard to satisfy you guys LOL!!!"
I'm holding out hope for the "hardcore" version, whatever that winds up being. That sounds like it's up my alley. Time will tell.
Member
looking at the game survey results there are a lot of poor players out there that whine about AI team mates. If you cannot solo in this game give up. Playing at the hardest level with no enemy warnings on the map etc and it is still a walk in the park.
Maybe my stealthy way of playing works instead of rushing in like an arcade game.
Banned
I guess you never played any of the old GR games, because they all had AI team mates.Originally Posted by MaxPain_ Go to original post
Member
@maxpain. Having ai teammates was a core function of the games franchise. Also, along the way the mission planning has been removed. That was part of the first GR game (one reason i bought it tbh). Then you would use your teammates to execute your plan.
@ Scruffpuff, you are on the money with your point. Exactly what i was trying to say.
Member
More than 70% of gamers want more story content. I am aware of the season pass and live events. So I thought that when I vote for more, I thought that I am saying: I want more live events, more episodes, or I hope that the planned ones will be longer than that poor 5hrs estimate.
So Ubisofts statement: "You voted for more story content and guess what? There is also season pass that has it..." is really confusing to me. It doesnt sound like "more" content on top of the already planned one.
Banned
They should focus on removing the online requirement before anything else, then at least all the people on the fence can buy it and play it while waiting for the other improvements, safe in the knowledge they can play solo without worrying about ubi's crap servers.
but no....the talking suits obviously thinks differently.
will just have to keep playing and hope for something after christmas....because apart from wildlands, no other games ticks all my boxes for things i like in a game (excluding all the rpg mmo stuff)
still haven't played any missions yet, 19hrs played solo so far...if it had offline play today, i'd be playing it more.
Member
So...because you can't exploit a mechanic your upset? It's called permanent death for a reason...Originally Posted by Steven527 Go to original post
Member
Well.
What I think after reading survey results and Ubi interpretation of them
Story content: Only what was included in roadmap so far. I fear it's too little too far between.
And I'm not crazy about "Terminator live event" in GR game.
New enemy types : their answer "Terminator live event" and Raids.
Nope, no thank you. No more drones please.
New weapons : "Terminator..."
No thank you
New customization options: considering what ubi thinks are good designs in "realistic military setting" , I'm not sure if I want them.
Gunsmith changes : They consider them in context to existing game systems. So probably no or they break it even more.
Everything else pretty much sometime next year.
So I try to play sometime next year I guess. Ubi does not care, they got my money already.
Playing MW now, after seeing weapon animations , sound design, and ideas like "tactical sprint" and weapon mounting (all game'y representations of things I been taught in real life, and I'm not even SF lol) make Breakpoint even more of a joke.
When IW got guys from 'TRex Arms' to show them things, Ubi got LilWayne or whatever
And when CoD game have better gunsmith system then GR, that says a lot also.
Sorry for my poor English.
