Junior Member
I don't understand why they (Ubisoft) released Breakpoint with a whole new engine and gameplay mechanic. Their CEO said (in his shareholder statement) something along the lines of that Wildlands is in a better state because it had years of post-launch development. So why the hell did they go and try and re-invent the wheel and start a whole new game from the ground up?!?!
Ubisoft used to release a new GR game every year or two, each one based on the technology of the previous game with a new story and location, with improved textures, animation, AI, gameplay, etc. They had a winning formula, then went and changed it after just one game, rather than keep improving it with several other games for 5-8 years or so, which is what game devs usually do!
I really don't get it, and now both Ubisoft and us customers are paying the price. It seems crazy!
Senior Member
They used the same engine, AnvilNext 2.0. What we see from wildlands to breakpoint is a deviation from the components they created for the games. They seem to have build breakpoint on the AC components they built out. This is why we see the similarities with that franchise rather than WIldlands IE walking into bushes and having that "stealth" black around the screen corners mechanic. They moved away from the camera system and made the 360 camera with new animations. This is probably also why the game is such a mess. They were not given enough time to make this game. They probably needed another couple of years.
Member
they could have took 10 years to make it but it wouldnt have made a difference. The majority of what killed ghost recon is poor decision making and poor choices about the game concerning its gameplay and story.Originally Posted by Gmoneymozart Go to original post
Senior Member
Dude like some people can actually see it is not the same engine reprogramming an app, firmware, OS and engines will cause stress, just like a person give them to too many tasks and they will burnout now stress and burnouts can take many different forms depending on the person, place or thing in this case game engine is stressed out and is on burnout mode i.e. rendering issues.Originally Posted by Gmoneymozart Go to original post
Senior Member
As mentioned, the game engines are the same but yeah, I don't know why they felt to the need to scrap and/or reinvent so many of the game mechanics from Wildlands. Things they could have copied and pasted into Breakpoint, they didn't and actually made them worse (e.g. the camera angle/behavior, the vehicle physics/sounds/handling, the transitional lighting, etc., etc.).Originally Posted by HawkyUK Go to original post
IMO, they should have left much of what was in the Wildlands gameplay alone and concentrated on improving those aspects of the game people asked for.
GRW was a successful step in a new direction for the franchise with the big, open world, etc. It had a ton of potential and then they essentially scrapped all of what made it good and cobbled together this RPG-centric failure with autonomous, bullet sponge tech, etc.
Senior Member
Sorry but like i said about WildLands it was not a "Good" step to anything. It was not a True Tactical shooter and clearly was the foundation to Turn Ghost Recon into anything but tactical. It was always meant to lead here to breakpoint. You think WL had character Creations for nothing? no it was to charge you for skins. You think having a ingame Store was just all it will happen? no its slow boil the frog for what was found in BP. you think WL had perks upgrade for nothing? nope it for setting up this right here. i can keep on going but i said it during the release of wild lands.
Wilds lands was never a Ghost Recon game nor a Good direction for this game at no point. With Breakpoint i was proven 100% correct with my assignment of WildLands. This WAS the direction they wanted to go as everything in here in terms of monitations was layout in Wildlands.
Member
I certainly get the "WTH were they thinking" feelings. But, outside of a few CEO's that like to do things constantly on a whim, most decisions boil down to cost verses perceived interest. Think back to how far WL deviated from the GR franchise to that point. Somebody on the team had that idea and to make it open world. Then with the concept in mind, had to get management agree to it. After that, they then had to get the development team on board to flesh it out. So, mistakes in the direction it goes, or how it is implemented can fail otherwise great ideas. I REALLY liked the idea and concept behind BP. And, while I am enjoying the game a lot, as I noted in my very long post in the feedback topic https://forums.ubisoft.com/showthrea...1#post14996769, there was a "lot of littles" that add up and reduce what it seems they were going for.
To compare to other franchises, I have loved Just Cause series. From 1-3 every release was incrementally better. Then, JC4 hit. While the game is hella-fun, someone had this weird new idea (idiotic in my eyes) in how to take territory. Aside from a few stability issues, that is the only thing that kept it from being a 9.5 out of 10.
Another example was The Division. When I heard TD2 was coming out, I was absolutely stoked. But, when I actually played it I was extremely disappointed and quit in ~70 hours. The same thing rang true there, just copy and paste TD1 circa 1.8 into a new map, enemy archetypes, add/change a few skills and viola, best seller. Apparently some people like it, but I am not one of them for countless reasons.
Senior Member
Wildlands was more of a Ghost Recon game than Future Soldier or the GRAW campaigns in my view. I've not spent anything in store for either game, but that aside, Wildlands was the right direction for the franchise. Breakpoint was a lurch in the wrong direction on many features in my opinion and was not a continuation of the good work that Wildlands put in. Most of the disappointment has been because the game didn't continue the direction that Wildlands took relative to its predecessor.Originally Posted by RaulO4 Go to original post
Senior Member
That's the big question, isn't it? Why disregard all the hard work they put into creating Wildlands and start from scratch? Wildlands even had some critics re-reviewing the game and increased their final score the 2nd time.Originally Posted by HawkyUK Go to original post
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Am I right?
Senior Member
Future soldier had invisible cloak ... Wildlands had invisible teammates
GRAW had 1 shot 1 kill and body hits counted for stopping the enemy from shooting back... Wildlands had SB thugs sniping you with Mac 11's 150 meters out. They had enemies shrugging Sniper shot while shooting and killing you from the hip.
Personally, I would not be proud to call Wildlands Ghost Recon nor boot about it being a Ghost Recon game but it was indeed a shooter anybody could get behind because it had vehicles, helos, airplanes (even though if shooting made very little damage to anything worth killing), you could spend hours customizing your player (for those that like that sort of thing), and attack a mission the way you want to (up to a certain point as some bases had your basic 4 entrances) but if we are comparing it to Breakpoint, well, Crash Bandicoot could be also considered a Ghost Recon game because is more tactical than BP and it has fruits so it could be considered a survival element.
