I don’t consider neither Wildlands and Breakpoint Ghost Recon games. Both has step backs in the GR franchise. I’m not into story telling in shooters either. If you looking for a game with stories RPG’s, action/adventure, and some survival games is the way to go for that. Shooters, racers, and fighting games has never been good when it comes to story. Which is why Cod doesn’t focus on story. Only thing shooters have to worry about is the introduction and the conclusion for the theme. Focusing on too much in between is a waste of resource. Again this is my opinion.
Comparison on gameplay to Wildlands and Breakpoint is day and night. Breakpoint offer some improvement but so many cons. Wildlands at this point has overall positivity but at its release it was in the same situation. The problem is the timeline. Wildlands has no threat at the time. No mind-blowing Call of Duty that was considered good at the time and no next gen-consoles with new games coming soon. So they had time to work on the game to make Wildlands better. Breakpoint on the other hand challenge Modern Warfare date and releases a year before the next gens will release.
In all honesty Ubisoft should’ve either made this game free to play, push back the release date of the game to next gen, or cancel it like Rainbow Six Patriots. Breakpoint did put a dagger in the franchise and cause loss of reputation of Ubisoft upcoming titles that has been push back. If I had to make a good ghost recon game I would listen to the community and mesh things from previous titles.
Example GRAW2. Give hardcore players that cross-comfeeling back. Not everything has to be drone drone drone. The no health regeneration was great in that game it had plenty of PvE/ PvP modes with up to 16 players. You don’t see that in this age since most shooters limit up to 4-8 players for co-op. Many battle royales have up to 2-4 squad members to team up and some games with raids like The Division 2 offer 8 player co-op. If Ubisoft refined this feature from GRAW2 the co-op would be a plus over games like COD.
GR Future Soldier. Many over seen this great game. The sync shot you have today from A.i. character to a drone that can sync shot in Wildlands/Breakpoint came from Future Soldier. GRFS biggest highlight was conflict mode. Why on earth will they not bring this back to add with Ghost War is beyond me. Another objective based mode forgotten that was truly amazing. Guess they let that team go that develop it cough cough Red Storm Entertainment. I can say this from GRFS. If this game had open world it would’ve kicked both Wildlands and Breakpoint arse. Why? Cause both Breakpoint and Wildlands PvE is super repetitive. The players have to come up with they own thoughts most of the time to keep the game interesting. What I’m saying is focus on in game elements. Remember on Future Soldier some HVTs you have to protect you had to do a diamond formation. Remember you had to solo a mission in a enemy base without players or your A.i. teammates being there. Features and restrictions like this in the game breaks repetition. Only time 4 player restriction is available in WL and GRB is in the beginning of the game introduction. After that repetition begins.
Although GRFS was linear it had some great ideas that could improved is predecessors. The movement in GRFS was way better than both Wildlands and Breakpoint. The running speed was perfect, the feel was great, and the animations was lovely. Cover actually worked in this game. You rarely made a mistake in cover. The cover swap was a good idea but needed nerfing in PvP that caused exploits. Most importantly the gunsmith was the best in the series. You think WL gun smith was great haha. If GRFS had female characters, customization, and open world it would make Wildlands look bad in PvE. That was it’s weakness. The PvP and having 6v6 is way better than both Ghost Wars at least
GR Wildlands. At this point we all wanted to drive vehicles. Ubisoft finally deliver although it clunky mechanics. WL has the best customization for character, weaponry, and clothing hands down. I don’t know if the characters in Breakpoint are smaller but I really don’t pay attention to players customization at a distance unless I’m spectating them. WL however made customization standout in both distance and spectate. I like the main missions in WL but the side missions are too repetitive. This what turn me off in PvE really fast and events didn’t keep me going. I did like it’s mercenaries mode. One thing The Division 1 got right was it’s survival mode and mercenaries mode reminded me of it. Remove having additional armor, add more player count, and this mode would be better than Warzone imo. WL limit PvP on gunsmith and the amount of weapons. I hated it. Classes with extra HP/armor was the start of the nightmare you see in GRB today. When Predator came out Ghost War lost it drive. It became all about superpowers and gadgets in PvP on WL. I do praise Wildlands with it daily/weekly missions.
GRB I won’t take a dive in. I appreciate having access to all weapons but they could’ve took more advantage of its perks. Such as a perk must be added to carry two weapons. There shouldn’t be any perk to give you superpowers. Health regeneration, damage resistance, super human speed? Why Ubisoft...... Prone camo and different ways to infiltrate bases is possibly the only pro. When you removed cover swap at launch, removed lock camera when sprinting to have players perform strafe agility glitches, and other exploits is a shame on the franchise. It’s like they forgot so many code features to make a basic shooter. The tactical features in this game is loss for words and 4v4 only and no conflict is still an embarrassment. There’s no need to continue to unfix this game every update. Just shut down the server and make a free to play GR until an actual good GR comes out next gen.
The sad part of Breakpoint is that it needed immersive mode to feel more like a Ghost Recon game. It needed to be like Wildlands to be a better experience. So when it comes to Ghost Recon, the immersive "mode" should be the standard for all of its games.
I don't sit well with the injury system. It's not that I don't like it, it just makes the experience unbalanced because the enemies do not suffer the same penalty as the player.
Prone camo is ok.
Allowing the player to choose their knife is ok. When it comes to choosing, I think Breakpoint made the right decision to make NVGs as a separate helmet attachment that you can interchange with other helmets.
I agree with you on the survival mechanics, I just don't like how Ubisoft made them as boosters and you could only choose 1. It should have been designed to maintain proficiency, not boost it. Example, having the body and mind wear down after playing so many game hours without eating and drinking. Cleaning and oiling your weapons to maintain smooth reloading and function. The weapon should progressively get worse after every prone camo the player performed.
Breaching tool was good, but I prefer cutters over a torch.
Terrain impact on the character is good
One primary is awesome, though the RPG should qualify as a weapon slot and not an equipment slot
Carry is ok, though I'd rather they made it a drag rather than wasting too much time lifting the whole body. It would have had been best to choose drag or carry, pending how a player needed to hide it. I would like to see in the next title downed teammates ability to crawl to cover or to other teammates. With so many Division features in this game, why oh why didn't Ubisoft cross that one over? The fact that enemy corpses don't disappear is far better than Wildlands.
Adding on...
The detail and accuracy of vests and holsters are better in BP, but WL detail on clothing fabric was better.
Character standing at idle is better in Breakpoint
Camo patterns on sleeves is definitely an improvement in Breakpoint.
Weather dynamics in better in BP as well as length between night and day, but night time in WL seemed more darker and yet still not dark enough.
NV is better in BP, but WL had filter options.
The water detail and movement in water is better in BP, however the wake from boats in WL was more accurate in detail.
HUD customization is far better in BP, especially being able to turn off the detection warning noise.
BP has more vehicle variety
BP's guide off mission structure was better
BP also allowed the player to put on or take off the suppressor while WL, you had to be aiming in order to use the function. I hope in the next title, the button used to equip the suppressor can be double tapped to fold or extend the stock.
BP had better sound efx like better explosions and driving on dirt. Standing next to a burning vehicle can kill you, detail on fire itself was better.
While WL had the better design and variety of face and eye gear, BP doesn't restrict the application of any camo or color to any piece of character customization.
--Now for what WL got right--
First off, I definitely agree that movement was far better in Wildlands as I can move in any direction and keep my character facing the target. Directional moving in prone in Breakpoint is horrendous and I think the 360 camera is what's to blame for all of it.
NPC life for both friend and foe was far better with activities, interactions, and sleep cycles. It gave all of the main characters, especially the enemy main characters an identifiable personality and story. Compared to BP, Fly Catcher, Silverback, Rosebud, etc.. their relationship to Walker is scant. They lacked any real depth.
Gunsmith is far better in WL, but I do like the parts painting options in BP and laser point placement. I wish in the next title bi-pods at least have the appearance of functionality and we finally get a variety of under barrel shotguns for rifles.
WL you didn't have to put binoculars in your inventory to use it. It makes me wonder why BP didn't have the drone take up an inventory slot? I know the sync shot drones took up a slot, but why binoculars take up a slot and not the surveillance drone? WL assigned a button to binoculars while BP used that button as a means to toggle the HUD information on or off. If the next title keeps the toggle HUD option, Ubisoft should allow the player to equip binoculars in place of the drone.
WL Map layout seemed better not just for it's more distinct diversity but also for mission/story structure. It had a variety of big and small cities and towns in comparison to BP with one major city and only a few small residential areas.
WL dirt and grime accumulating on characters looked more realistic. BP it looks painted on. BP made mud look better, but dry dirt and snow was over exaggerated on both character and weapons.
WL script and story was far better. Not great, but in comparison to BP it is superior.
WL has better enemy reinforcements that escalates.
The enemy NPC design in WL was far better because it was more down to earth. BP enemies looked ridiculous. They had great detail, but come on, lets get believable here.
I like to have a reason to do something in a game otherwise it just feels like a pinball machine and all I'm trying to do is get the high score. It's just my preference but respect yours also, there is definitely some middle ground in there somewhere.Originally Posted by LaMOi Go to original post
Taking down a base, for instance, could be a lot more interesting.
Honestly, I like the fact that GRW could be as slow or fast as the player wanted depending on what options they chose, etc. I never felt that it promoted a rushed or less challenging experience than GRB but then again, it depend on what options you chose and how you played.Originally Posted by LaMOi Go to original post
For me, playing on the highest skill level, without drones and enemy markers, etc. forced a more methodical approach to many engagements for us in GRW. We had to recon objectives manually. Unit tactics like using bounding overwatch, etc. was more important since your only intel on enemy positions is what your team can visually identify. Good communication was paramount.
This is one of those things I didn't like about GRB. Personally, I think it lends to a more spongy damage model for the player. I actually prefer the more lethal gameplay of GRW on higher difficulty levels where a couple hits could mean death or being incapacitated requiring your teammate to revive you. .....and again, this can be made even more intense and challenging by restricting yourself to not using drones for this purpose.Originally Posted by LaMOi Go to original post
I'm not saying I don't like healing mechanics like this in games as I think they work well in some hardcore survival / milsim titles I've played. ....but again, in those titles death was more likely from a gunshot and you were lucky if you only had an injury.
In a more simplistic shooter like this though, I'd rather the focus be on the unit tactics and gunplay. If they were going to get into more detail I'd prefer a more complex weaponsmith and customization of your kit. I'd rather have a more complex damage model that takes into effect where a player is hit, if they have body armor, weight of items affecting what you can carry, weight affecting stamina, stamina affecting aim, etc.
Personally, I don't like the simplistic nature of their healing system, generic animations, etc. If the damage model took into account where you were hit, I might appreciate it more. I also believe the enemy AI should be by more affected injuries as well. .....if not outright killed.
I'm not opposed to survival mechanics and in fact I do love a good hardcore survival game or some milsim titles that implement them, but I don't know how well they would work in an Ubisoft game especially considering how they implement such mechanics. Again, I (personally) prefer a focus on the tactics, gunplay, weaponsmith and damage model.Originally Posted by LaMOi Go to original post
The only thing about this is that Ubi still only provides the player certain points where they can breach fences. To me, it's no different than providing a box where you can jump a fence, a hole that you can crawl through, etc. When folks asked for cutters, I imagine most were envisioning the ability to breach anywhere they chose in a chain link fence, etc. instead of having to blow it up, ram through with a vehicle or perhaps not being able to either as they are magically impenetrable. I would have preferred they allowed players more freedom as to where they could breach but I had a feeling it would be implemented this way.Originally Posted by LaMOi Go to original post
I thought this was a cool edition as well. I also liked the fact that bodies didn't magically disappear which requires more thought before engaging targets.Originally Posted by LaMOi Go to original post
While I may not agree on all the things some others think GRB got right, I do think that they did get some things right. I do wholeheartedly believe that GRW got much more right than GRB though.Originally Posted by LaMOi Go to original post
I mentioned it before but over the free weekend, my friends and I could only stand playing the game for the first day even with the new Ghost Experience. I tried giving it a go but there is just too much there I don't like about it and not enough that's good to offset the bad for me.
I am baffled when people come out with this notion that Wildlands was in a comparable unfinished state when it first released.Originally Posted by xxFratosxx Go to original post
That’s complete nonsense.
I bought Wildlands at launch. And at launch I did not think the game was significantly buggy at all.
I had very little issues with Wildlands from the beginning. And I played extensively on both XBONE and PS4. I can’t comment on the PC version but the console versions were solid from launch. And I’ve played buggy games in my time so I know what that looks like.
Breakpoint looks and feels unfinished, it’s obvious that it was rushed.
Pretty much agree with most of your points Kean.Originally Posted by Kean_1 Go to original post
I too think they could put more thought into each of these new mechanics. But I’ll take what I can get — and that injury system whilst not perfect, creates some wonderfully tense moments. They are really onto something with that. It’s excellent.
But do agree would be better if it had an actual damage model, that took into account body armour etc as you’ve suggested. And then of course if the bullet hits the head, it’s a straight kill, no injury, just you dead. Would prefer that.
With regard to Breakpoint being slower, more considered, I stand by that.
Now not all of that is by design necessarily. Breakpoint is slower paced, but there’s a whole lot of clunky sandwiched around it. Breakpoints gunplay can often feel clunky.
So there’s a degree of forethought prior to a firefight, making sure you are positioned well and prepared — to make sure you have the best chance to win and survive.
I find you cannot steamroll situations like you can at times in Wildlands.
The movement feels more considered, because of its new movement system. Breakpoint feels way more deadly because transitioning from different stances or from cover takes more time now. Everything now takes more time.
For better of worse, you just can’t move like you could in WL’s.
Now let me be clear. I LOVE Wildlands. But I play on EXTREME, NO TEAM AI, no HUD. And I can John Wick a lot of bases. The movement is so much more precise and responsive — you can get away with a lot more, you just can.
And don’t get me wrong, I like it! It’s not easy to pull that stuff off, I feel skilful doing it, but overall it’s more forgiving.
Chk this — at 1:15
https://youtu.be/wy0NHFGFksQ
And my walkthrough — https://youtu.be/nTmPdtaQ0h8
Now I’m sorry — you just can’t play Breakpoint like that. I would struggle to pull off anything close to that style of gameplay.
I slightly disagree to an extent. Yes Wildlands has the benefit that both major titles like COD and BF were in a lull. However Wildlands released with far less bugs and more polish than BP. Wildalnds big failure at launch was they didn't include PVP at launch and when they did PVP was very low in content.Originally Posted by xxFratosxx Go to original post
Wildlands still has its glitches and bugs. For example I still will get a match or just experience a black out on all textures as I approach building or I'll be able to see through the back of my characters head. I still find that it released more complete and less rushed than BP.
The story on either one I could care less about. However, GRW story was more fleshed out, memorable. I remember characters and played through it several times. I barely made it through BP and I don't really remember any of the characters in it. Even Walker was a bland character.
All of BP from design, story, graphics, coding, all of it is just an unpolished rush job to get this out before the next gen and get some fast cash.
BF1 released the same month for EA so I wouldn't say the lack of competition was a factor. Ubi didn't have a magic ball to determine if BF1 was going to be a success or not and in fact it was moderately successful for EA.Originally Posted by ItsCouchPotato Go to original post
The thing is, Wildlands was still a big success for Ubi that was realized straight out of the gate even without Ghost War. I agree it may have been even better if they had released GW with the main game and I also agree that they really blew it not only with its lack of content but more specifically the lack of gameplay options. What's worse is that they departed from their original vision and chose to adopt CoD-like mechanics at the time. ....a more spongy damage model, classes, magical abilities, etc.
They continued to focus on classes rather than new, objective based modes, more maps, a weaponsmith, gameplay options, etc. GW customization was all about limitations in that regard. ....the opposite of GRW. It only got worse with the release of even more classes with special abilities, tech, etc. Folks were joking around the Ghost War had become Drone Wars. ....and then they doubled down on that in GW2.
GRW is actually what brought me back to the GR franchise after their direction further into the futuristic. The vision for GRW is what hooked me. They wanted to dial back the tech and focus on more current, conventional weaponry with a lethal damage model. ....and most of all, the freedom to play the way you want to play.Originally Posted by xxFratosxx Go to original post
I know some wanted GR to be more like GR of past titles before GRW and I can respect that, but I welcomed the open world idea and even though it didn't really feel like any other GR games of the past. It was a fun game all the same that delivered the tactical, military shooter experience I wanted. When I played the first beta of GRW I thought that this is what TD1 should have been in regard to lethality (I hated the RPG aspects of that game but still enjoyed it for what it was). For all I care, they could have named the game Tom Clancy's Wildlands if that would have made some GR fans happy.
IMO, GRB would have been better off being a GRW2 of sorts. It seems clear they didn't have the time to flesh out a brand new game with brand new (to GR) mechanics, new map, etc. It was also a departure from what everyone was asking them for. They completely ignored most of the valuable feedback folks had been providing since before GRW's release.Originally Posted by xxFratosxx Go to original post
Personally, I think they could have delivered a new, full game using the gameplay mechanics from GRW as a foundation. They could have even continued the story in Bolivia by adding new locations, expanded sections of the map, etc. .....with extra time spent in refining the enemy AI, ballistics, expanding the team AI commands, more interactive NPCs, more / improved vehicles, a better weaponsmith with more depth, a better damage model, etc.
I just didn't get the same feeling as you with GRB and that's ok. The tech (e.g. drones, gun turrets, mobile units, etc.) were more of a PITA for me than a challenge. .....hell, I even liked Horizon Zero Dawn for what it was but I don't like this stuff in my military, tactical shooters. The mini-gun wielding, heavy armored soldiers weren't much better IMO.Originally Posted by LaMOi Go to original post
I'm not saying you couldn't go in with guns blazing while playing on Extreme with no HUD, etc.in GRW, but you didn't have to and it didn't make the gameplay feel any less challenging by doing so. If they could make the AI more challenging without all the automated tech crap in GRB, I might have been more receptive to it.
To be honest, I felt more frustration with GRB than I did any other feeling. I'm glad you were able to get something out of it though.
Originally Posted by kean_1 Go to original post
100% — agreed.