"We wanted to make the best Hitman game ever made" | Forums

[Flanker1Six]

Neither format is really definitive in my opinion. An open world is simply a set of sandbox maps that you travel between seamlessly instead of selecting from a list. The issue is more to do with mission story quality and the open world clichés that get thrown in.

Wildlands offered a much better experience as an open world, with its theme of dismantling the Cartel in the way you wanted, than it would have been as a list of sandboxes you chose one by one. Even if you could have chosen them in any order, I felt the open world lent a coherence to the feeling of the overall big mission. It could have been even better if a truly evolving and adapting world had been achieved. Breakpoint could have been a set of sandboxes and it would still have no AI team, would have had gear score and Raids and would still be drones with the same missions.

Nailed it.

Story/dialogue/cut scene technical quality/emotional depth; the ability to perform any mission and succeed, fail, or land in the middle, and the game proceeds regardless (no doing the mission over and over until a required "end" state" is achieved), all leading to one of a number of endings that are determined by the choices we made, and actions we took.

Hey! Maybe the game ends early if we screwed up badly enough! Wouldn't that be different?

[El_Cuervacho]

I'm absolutely convinced that an openworld GR game with an overaching array of systems can be achieved.
Off the top of my head, take FOBs or enemy camps for instance; apart from the obvious integration of different behaviour patterns depending of weather and time of day like we had back in WL:
Patrols should be attached to specific FOBs and conduct their patrol patterns in retation to that FOB, reporting to it, request reinforcements and mortars into the player's position, potentially discovering the player's hideous/bivouacs within the area, etc (I'm sure that veterans in our community could offer ways on how to implement that far better than I could).

Enemy density and search parties could be increased depending on player activity within a certain area/province.
Sabotage to public/enemy infrastructure should have practical consequences, such as deactivating drones within an area, leaving an area without electricity for a few days, eliminating AA defenses and ALL of that should impact how civvies and the enemy react/deal with you.

[TrickShady]

Nailed it.

Story/dialogue/cut scene technical quality/emotional depth; the ability to perform any mission and succeed, fail, or land in the middle, and the game proceeds regardless (no doing the mission over and over until a required "end" state" is achieved), all leading to one of a number of endings that are determined by the choices we made, and actions we took.

Hey! Maybe the game ends early if we screwed up badly enough! Wouldn't that be different?

Yeah that was what i was getting at you explain it more methodical than i can lol. This way of playing is greatly missing from the franchise and sorely needed.

[TrickShady]

I'm absolutely convinced that an openworld GR game with an overaching array of systems can be achieved.
Off the top of my head, take FOBs or enemy camps for instance; apart from the obvious integration of different behaviour patterns depending of weather and time of day like we had back in WL:
Patrols should be attached to specific FOBs and conduct their patrol patterns in retation to that FOB, reporting to it, request reinforcements and mortars into the player's position, potentially discovering the player's hideous/bivouacs within the area, etc (I'm sure that veterans in our community could offer ways on how to implement that far better than I could).

Enemy density and search parties could be increased depending on player activity within a certain area/province.
Sabotage to public/enemy infrastructure should have practical consequences, such as deactivating drones within an area, leaving an area without electricity for a few days, eliminating AA defenses and ALL of that should impact how civvies and the enemy react/deal with you.

The combined sources in the community could produce a truly thought provoking and enjoyable tactical experience, My question is will that ever come to fruition from this or another studio?

[lesh-1]

I believe that the open world is important for Ghost Recon. I still enjoy the game in the Wildlands and it is just perfectly done. If this game was linear, then it should lose the co-op in the sandbox, because it is not interesting to pass the same missions without an open world. In the Wildlands, you could always think of a special operation. Jungles, deserts, cities, snow spaces, rough terrain, all this has a great effect on replayability. I am still sure that they should have developed the ideas of the Wild Lands, and continue to build the potential of this game by adding more activities but not touching the core mechanics. Breakpoint was supposed to be the classic second part of Ubisoft with the same mechanics and new cool features and improved old ones. Instead, they removed the excellent ambushes on convoys, removed the missions to clean up buildings, although they needed to be improved and given a second life. I don't really understand who made the decisions and why, but even now Future Soldier looks much more appealing than the game. No Sam Fisher will not be able to save her. The worst part is that I'm no longer interested in the Nomad story. It ended when his helicopter crashed and the Breakpoint started. Excuse my English

[El_Cuervacho]

[GamerCZ84]

it could end up an enjoyable shooter but it will be better known as just breakpoint.

Well thats the story of Ubisoft.

Rainbow Six was killed by Ubisoft and turned into Siege
AC was killed by Ubisoft and turned into Odyssey
Watch dogs were killed and turned into Legion
Far Cry turned into New dawn...

All these main series were stripped if their identity and basically turned into Ubisoft The game..

[iiimadmaniii]

I have to say to an extent BP is already like a linear sandbox level design. Every mission once you get near the starting area outside Erwehon.. is basically 1.5-2.0km apart. When you fly up in a chopper and look down, it is literally zip zip zip all within a 3 to 4 km radius. That is part of what irks me so much in BP because it just looks like such lazy strategic design. Only leaving Erewhon is where you get the pinpoint of being alll the way across the map, and once you're there and get your first piece of intel it is zip zip zip. In WL in a way it had its own laziness, but at least the buildings did not look so cop and paste and drop in random places..WL had you sneak in and out of posts but it mixed stuff up with car chases, snatch and grab, blackmail etc... BP was getting out of people's hair and always getting caught by drones even with EMP's.

Like, who would have an open door beach house and sun chairs on a patio on top of a jagged *** mountain??

[PLAYER_77422]

I have to say to an extent BP is already like a linear sandbox level design. Every mission once you get near the starting area outside Erwehon.. is basically 1.5-2.0km apart. When you fly up in a chopper and look down, it is literally zip zip zip all within a 3 to 4 km radius. That is part of what irks me so much in BP because it just looks like such lazy strategic design. Only leaving Erewhon is where you get the pinpoint of being alll the way across the map, and once you're there and get your first piece of intel it is zip zip zip. In WL in a way it had its own laziness, but at least the buildings did not look so cop and paste and drop in random places..WL had you sneak in and out of posts but it mixed stuff up with car chases, snatch and grab, blackmail etc... BP was getting out of people's hair and always getting caught by drones even with EMP's.

Like, who would have an open door beach house and sun chairs on a patio on top of a jagged *** mountain??

I don't even know where to start with this.

[El_Cuervacho]

I don't even know where to start with this.

Don't even try..