I believe there will be something to use against the drones as at the moment stealth is almost impossible as the drones see dead bodies through walls. Im hoping but not expecting.Originally Posted by Hugo-FOU Go to original post
If I had to guess, they probably designed the missions with no drones, hence the tongue and cheek jab at them, I doubt we're going to see the spam of drones like the elite faction missions.Originally Posted by TrickShady Go to original post
Also side note, I'm really happy to see Sam since it helps to combat my biggest narrative problem that both Wildlands(Pre Special Operations) and Breakpoint have, being that it didn't connect at all with the Clancyverse/previous games and felt like it's own standalone story, hopefully we can see Hunter Team and Mitchell return in the future, and they can intertwine the story better with the franchise as a whole.
Yeah that's a possibility but as there is so much built up around the drones do you think that they would leave them out, I'm not to sure how it will be handled.Originally Posted by Stomp0nMybaIls Go to original post
I don't feel that they need to make crossovers and the story could have been handled independently but i am not adverse to it. Although i played many previous titles both ghost recon and splinter cell, breakpoint is the first time i've got into and played more seriously. Before playing arma 2/3 i just was a casual gamer with friends and it was just something to pass time rather than actually being interested in plots and storylines. So i don't have much memory of any of the older games.
In all honesty i'm looking forward to some new content that makes we want to get back playing again and added to the possibility of better immersion it could be well worth a look again. I stopped playing the campaign halfway through because how lame it felt hopefully this is less bland and more well written and played out.
Even with the upcoming "experience" changes, that has been something bugging me. I really didn't like the drones, tech or the armored, tank-like soldiers in the alpha / beta(s). While it's great the leveled weapons can be turned off and some of the other things that made this title a no-go for me, there are still these other elements I despise.Originally Posted by Megalodon26 Go to original post
It's funny...... Folks joked around in the old GW forums about "drone wars" and in GRB they decided it was a good idea to double down.
I ended up deciding to pass on GRB. I'm glad they are making changes but after some back and forth thoughts, I simply don't think it will be enough for me.
I'll revisit this game a couple months from now and see where it is.
I didn't read it as an attempt at laughing it all off and you already know I agree with a lot of your list.Originally Posted by CrockfordCK Go to original post
As I have said a number of times about this update, I don't see it as the franchise being back on track or the game being fixed. It has always been about the direction taken for me. We don't even have the team AI yet, a crucial part of the franchise as far as I'm concerned.
Agree that this is how we should view this update... but how do you interpret the integration of yet another games DNA into this Frankenstein mashup we already have?Originally Posted by AI BLUEFOX Go to original post
I’m sure you’ll find some positive way to interpret adding Sam Fischer to this game but
for me, it signals that they really don’t know how to strengthen the identity of GR to stand on its own. It’s yet another sign they don’t really know what they are doing here.
A crossover with Splinter Cell and other franchises made some sense in Wildlands because the game had an exhaustive campaign that stood on its own already. And the cross over stuff was free for all.
This game has a very thin campaign that goes nowhere and to make the first legit add on to the story and DLC mission pack a cross-over just reeks of lack of vision for this franchise.
I really hope the next GR game is going to be done by another studio, assuming this studio hasn’t f#cked it up so badly that the franchise actually continues.
I don't see a problem at all in this GR/TC games have had an interconnected story for 20 years now, having other characters from the various Clancy IPs interacting with each other should be a requirement for a GR/TC game at this point. Early GR and SC (GR 2 and SC 1) had directly linked stories.Originally Posted by Virtual-Chris Go to original post
I'd be ok with it as well, but here we are with a crappy short campaign, and the first extension to it is a Splinter Cell cross-over? I'm really regretting buying the year one pass.Originally Posted by Stomp0nMybaIls Go to original post
In terms of DLC we've had nothing that's pure GR... we've had a Raid, a Terminator Event, and now a Splinter Cell cross-over. Do you see what I'm saying?