What do you guys think of the game as a whole? | Forums

[recklessnico]

It's not a bad game in itself but it's an epitom of what can be wrong in the gaming world industry.

The most important thing for me, and I know this term has been used a lot, is immersion. When I purchase a game, I want to be isolated for the rest of the world for a few hours and forget that I'm some regular schmuck with a regular job and be an elite recon force when I play Ghost Recon or an obese truck driver in a smelly truck cabin if I play truck simulator. You get my point.

The rest is just details, should the gunsmith allow for trigger customization or should my HUD display this or that... meh... a good game stands on its own merit with or without said options. This one doesn't.

The missions are repetitive bland and boring, the story goes south immediately after the chopper crash, it feels lonely and bland.

Ultimately you have to create your own adventure and be able to immerse yourself into some level of roleplaying with what is present, otherwise there's nothing really exciting, immersive, or even creative about this game. It's absolutely forgettable and the sales show exactly that.

Back to my point regarding the bad corporate decisions, it still amazes me to this day that a company would rather rush a product to have something to show for in an investors call and ultimately get blasted by the same investors for rushing and unfinished unmarketable product than delay it for a few months and release it at a stage that at least it has a chance to stand.

Rushing things to make investors happy involves more consequences and losses than a delay. Now let's be real, Ghost Immersive mode or whatever it's called isn't gonna save the game and it's not gonna generate revenue and profits.
The launch is gone, the marketing budget is burned, Lil Wayne and Bernthal aren't coming back to promote this to the rest of the planet.
I don't know anyone around me (casual gamers) who's gonna come back to Breakpoint because of this update, ultimately you're gonna replay the same boring missions but this time you'll loot your weapon from the ennemy instead of a crate. Wow! Pretty sure it can bring millions of people back to this game... don't get me wrong the change is welcome for the people who bought and play the game and maybe there will be some kind of hype on the forums/youtube that will somehow generate a renewed interest for the game but anyone who thinks it's gonna be a fresh start and start selling well is absolutely bat**** delusional.

So the "let's satisfy the investors and then maintain a broken game for the next few years at whatever cost that will never be profitable" is covered.

Then there's the lack of creativity and laziness of Ubisoft as whole. Now all of their games feel like the same arcady/looter concept. Somehow someone high ranking decided to go the lazy route and apply the same formula to all of their games because well... if it worked for Far Cry or Assasins Creed, then it should work for all the franchises. Well it didn't. I'm glad they made some corporate changes in that department, hopefully they'll take risks again and won't rely on the same formula for every one of their titles.

So back to Breakpoint, it's not a GR game, it's an OK open world with beautiful scenery/biomes that you can freely roam and have fun with if you decide to do so.

What saved it for me is coop play, if none of my buddies is online when I boot up the game it's pretty much game over after a few minutes of free roaming.


edited for typos

[Lapogo1]

I have to admit I do enjoy immersing myself with this game and the open world was well done as well as some of the hiking mechanics added. But like many other sentiments here, I will also say this isn't a GR game anymore especially when they started adding RPG tiered loot systems which only belong in games like the division and such. I'm sure alot of feedback was sent regarding how players felt about this and its appalling as to why the devs refused to listen which could have saved them the trouble of trying to repair a potentially great game. Some of the missions weren't also well thought off (especially Walker's final mission) where you're better off exploiting the AI when playing this game as realistic as possible like the original GR games.

The most offensive feature to me (and I'm sure other players as well) was the devs forcing this game to played online where people like me who can still enjoy the game solo are now forced to put up with our own internet problems as well as Ubisoft's server downtimes. Its also infuriating that they even make an alibi after reading the dev's reason why "they can't allow offline play". I could live without the AI team mates and yes indeed while the game is really better when played with friends, forced online isn't the right treatment for a game that supposedly offers solo immersion as well as this isn't an MMO.

Admittedly I'm looking forward to the immersion mode which I plan to pickup once its out. Guess this is my way of saying overall its not abysmally a bad game as it indeed has potential and yes I recognize the dev's efforts to make this game good with additional content. Yes I know I gotta be online to be able to get the future DLC's but adding an offline play should be one of their priorities as well as that alone can surely improve this game alot. I played and enjoyed Wildlands alot and also felt secured whenever my internet screws up that I can still enjoy the game especially the solo ghost mode.

[Hugo-FOU]

I think it is a pale shade of Wildlands. It's a litter shinier, and smoother when on foot(Minus navigating indoors) But it has no depth to the story, the combat, the environment, or anywhere that really matters.

Completely agree. I’ve high hopes for the immersive experience, in terms of mechanics, but if they re-released Wildlands with the things that BP did well with, (melee takedowns, prone camo, combat movement, body carry), I’d happily purchase it all over again and would barely give BP a second glance.

[CrockfordCK]

Completely agree. I’ve high hopes for the immersive experience, in terms of mechanics, but if they re-released Wildlands with the things that BP did well with, (melee takedowns, prone camo, combat movement, body carry), I’d happily purchase it all over again and would barely give BP a second glance.

I would do this too.

I would like everyone who posted in this thread to go back a re-read your own posts. "The game is good but" followed by paragraphs of things that are ridiculous and insulting de-evolutions in the franchise or plainly stolen ideas shallowly implemented.
"The game has potential" yes, because adding literally anything to it would be an improvement over this hollow money grab.

[MikeWeeks]

I went back and I see no reason to change my opinion, which is:

There's been nothing, so far, that indicates to me that this game is as good as Wildlands.

[Kean_1]

......same here. I stand by remark. I don't believe this game will ever be as good as GRW but it can be improved. Just depends on how committed they are to changing it and how far they are willing to go.

[Stomp0nMybaIls]

I think while it might not ever have the charm of Wildlands, with like maybe 3 to 5 years of consitant updates it would be better from a sheer content standpoint, as more guns/missions/cosmetics/quality of life changes get added, but I don't it it will have the charm or soul of Wildlands (without the MTX part of Wildlands because that part had no soul in it, let's be real.)

[DeBrievenbus]

The reason I play this game is: it was cheap.
It’s not that bad. It’s more kind of boaring. There are the places where there is the action. But in the land between those places there is nothing to do or even to see.

[CrockfordCK]

The reason I play this game is: it was cheap.
It’s not that bad. It’s more kind of boaring. There are the places where there is the action. But in the land between those places there is nothing to do or even to see.

I'm glad you got it on the cheap. Now, imagine for a moment, you paid $100+ for this game... Is it still "not that bad"? Keep in mind, it's titled as a Ghost Recon. Heralded as a "worthy successor" to Wildlands. Advertised as a "deeply immersive spec ops experience". With the premise that you are "alone" and "hunted".

Those are the standards that Ubi set for themselves. If the doesn't meet a single one of those it's far less than "not that bad."

[DeBrievenbus]

@CrockfordCK: I get your point.
I also bought Wildlands (cheap yeah ��) I haven’t played it yet. Reading all these topics I want to finish Breakpoint first. I’m afraid that if I start playing Wildlands I don’t want to play Breakpoint anymore.

I’m more an assassins creed player. I finished Odyssey a couple of times and I was looking for a different game to play till the next AC will be released. Breakpoint looked oké and it had a single player option so I bought it.

What irritates me most about the game is that the camera position and zoom changes in close combat. And that my oponents seem to be able to walk through fences where I can’t.