Originally Posted by Newman_Oldman1 Go to original post
But they disguise that fact by having the gameplay reveal more about the world and the narrative, even going so far as to have some of the player's decisions affect the narrative and the world in different ways. I think if Wildlands had allowed the player to take out the buchons using capture/kill/interrogate/isolate instead of just forcing us into one of those without a choice, it would have felt much less repetitive, especially of the missions you do leading up to that point differed based on which strategy you choose. It would have been cool to actually look at the intel you gathered at outposts and then decided how you wanted to use it instead of just doing whatever Bowman or Nomad said you had to do. Even better if how you neutralize a buchon affects the overall narrative, the province, or possibly even a different province (for example, destroying the Production in one of the Production provinces causes the Security in the nearest Security branch province to either become more chaotic or have cartel/Unidad security forces lash out at civilians because they have no Production province for which to provide security, etc. Or you could take out the Security province buchon first and not have to worry about reinforcements in the Production province.). This would considerably increase replayability and encourage different approaches while increasing immersion and giving a sense of purpose to the objectives you are completing.
to be fair wildlands isn't a rpg and the story is pretty much fixed, for the simple fact that ghosts are part of the military so they're doing what they're told to complete the mandated task (dismantling the cartel, and the easiest way is kill everyone and blow stuff up. why bother with hostages?). the only limited freedom is how to accomplish it.
the capture/kill/interrogate/isolate happens during the missions with targets it makes sense, dunno why you'd want to employ elaborate tactics for your average cartel honcho, considering you're still operating somewhat covert, highly outnumbered in enemy territory.

what you're looking for makes more sense in just cause or far cry where the setup is much less rigid and allows more freedom for (personal) storytelling.

in breakpoint's defense part of what you're looking for was actually implemented - if you play in exploration mode. intel gathering through various means becomes a huge point there.

the map reacting would be nice, but you have to remember it's a multiplayer coop game, so the state of the map has to be somewhat consistent depending where you are in the story and your progress. sure, you could go around it with phasing etc. but that would probably be something someone else complains about, there's no perfect solution.
there's also the matter how much a map would actually change. if you take wildlands again there won't suddenly be a massive unidad force showing up to raise the stakes etc because it wouldn't make much sense, they don't have the numbers to begin with. iirc depending on your progress rebel patrols etc change and that's probably the most obvious visibly change that could happen - taking out security won't mean there's suddenly less people around anywhere else, just that they have less in the future. same with production (which is actually part of the story during the missions), rounding up civilians to harvest etc either happens when you're somewhere else or already has, personally I don't really need to see it in a short scripted dialog which plays over and over till I progress far enough again every time I go somewhere to make sure I absolutely see it.
I can accept the map staying the same in GR since you're only one (or four) in a whole frigging island (or even country), while your actions have some effect it doesn't necessarily mean it does so on a massive national scale changing day to day life (to the point I'd even notice it as a ghost when driving through a village once).

don't get me wrong, a properly dynamic map would be frigging awesome, I just don't think it was ever that bad or there's much room for it in ghost recon (unless ubisoft goes all out and changes it from a local stretched out conflict to smaller chunks on a more global scale, meaning actual variety in locations etc. but a man can dream...)