Why did Ubisoft do this to us (and themselves!) | Forums

[RaulO4]

You so realize the only GR that has been close to "realistic" was 1 and 2 right?, Its arguably been an arcade shooter since GRAW. Literally the only thing that has been consistant between the games is that they have an AI team and squad based PvP, unless you want to argue how Wildlands was unrealistic even though games like Ghost Recon Phantoms exist.

Ghost Recon always been a Realistic game..at no point i said Simulation or mil Sim. Two different things.
Mil Sim can be view as Arma. A Game were they try to Simulate reality.
A Realistic game can be view as trying to Ground its mechanics to be believable in terms of Realism.
An Arcade shooter doesnt care about Grounding its mechanics to any reality or believable manner.

[kaptnfusselbart]

I'm with @aibluefox' views in this thread on the matter.

Also, i don't see how wildlands does not fall into the "realistic"-category, that @Raul04 keeps bringing up - just because it has rpg-light-elements? Yes, sure, it has some of these, but you can easily ignore them and, like virtual-chris kept mentioning in his great thread over in the wildlands forum about his non-hud, non-upgrade playthrough, have an excellent time doing so.

And quite frankly, i don't feel like wildlands was an "arcadeshooter" - could somebody please elaborate on this matter - why do you, who claim this, feel it was arcady?

[Flaw3dGenius23]

I'm with @aibluefox' views in this thread on the matter.

Also, i don't see how wildlands does not fall into the "realistic"-category, that @Raul04 keeps bringing up - just because it has rpg-light-elements? Yes, sure, it has some of these, but you can easily ignore them and, like virtual-chris kept mentioning in his great thread over in the wildlands forum about his non-hud, non-upgrade playthrough, have an excellent time doing so.

And quite frankly, i don't feel like wildlands was an "arcadeshooter" - could somebody please elaborate on this matter - why do you, who claim this, feel it was arcady?

If you ignore them your elite soldier is not an elite soldier.

[Flaw3dGenius23]

The original GR series, GRAW, FS, Wildlands and now Breakpoint all took the franchise in different directions.

I don’t really give AF if this game or that game fits anyone’s definition of what a GR game should be, because they are all different. What matters to me is whether the game is realistic, immersive and can provide tons of hours of replay. In this regard, the original series and Wildlands are the best games I’ve ever played (and have the most hours in). Which is why I was hoping for more like Wildlands. But that’s not what we got here.

They have all been nonsense since Future Soldier. Ubi need to take GR back to basics. Sometimes you have to go backwards to move forwards.

[Flaw3dGenius23]

There was a skill tree of sorts in the original and island thunder.

A shark game from a different publisher isn't really relevant here.

That Shark game follows the Ubisoft model down to a tee. He even talks about the Ubisoft model in the video so its very relevant. The more you accept average GRs the worse the series gets as right now since FS its miles away from where it should be.

[kaptnfusselbart]

If you ignore them your elite soldier is not an elite soldier.

...if my abilites are elite, he/she is still elite ;-)

But, to be more serious - i can get critizising for example the decision in wildlands to hide away abilities elite operators should probably have, like the one to carry more grenades, behind an upgrade-system. However, you get these particular upgardes so fast that i don't see it as an hinderance to enjoy the game in general as a realistic shooter. Many other of the upgrades you didn't really "need" at all to feel elite, did you?

[AI BLUEFOX]

That Shark game follows the Ubisoft model down to a tee. He even talks about the Ubisoft model in the video so its very relevant. The more you accept GRs the worse the games get.

Wildlands was way better than Future Soldier, imho, and in coop better than the original. Single player less so as the AI team should have been more controllable. You've taken one game getting it wrong as evidence of a trend, whereas I see it as a mis-step. This has now been recognised and we can see the Dev team getting back onto the track they set with Wildlands. GR is again starting to head back in the right direction after the Breakpoint launch hiatus.

[Flaw3dGenius23]

I dont think its back on track at all. I recently played the free trial with immersive mode on and it was dire really dire. Ive not even completed the 6 hours it was that bad and i do believe the PvP is even worse than Wildlands which itself was a poor GR PvP mode. Thats not back on track thats still lost in the Ubisoft model limbo and no where near as good as older titles.

As for FS v Wildlands...tough one as i said im mainly a PvP player and the shooting mechanics felt vastly superior in FS with a bigger player count...while Wildlands had the edge on maps id say although most of the map were unusable due to the very low player count...neither were good though lets face it both were hand holding far too much with wall hacks etc. Wildlands had potential to be good but Ubisoft just couldnt manage to take it to previous levels. All they had to do was make it 8v8 take out the drones and classes but they stubbornly refused to.

It was a 2 finger salute "this is our vision not yours" they even said at the time they had tried it with more players and they didnt like it.

[Ironmatter]

What appealed to me with OGR was how it broke the DOOM/Quake mould of the day.

It did so by affecting change in the following ways:

Move-
The character aimed down the sights.
The character moved as part of a small team.
The character had stand, crouch and prone stances.
The characters would adopt a formation as they moved.
Cover and concealment were important.
The characters were dressed appropriately for the biome.
There was no ridiculous jump ability.

Shoot-
There were a variety of real world weapons which aligned to the theme of the characters.
Ballistics were factored into the weapons.
Damage was calculated by calibre and weapon characteristics.
Weapon carriage animations were realistic for the time.
Weapon transitions took a believable amount of time.
The enemy AI had their aim affected depending on the situation.
Damage tables allowed for consistent results when hitting targets.

Communicate-
The voice acting was appropriate to the characters.
The player was able to directly affect the team's Rules Of Engagement and level of caution.
The player was able to accurately direct reasonably complex orders to the team in real time.
The mission was communicated in a believable manner and encompassed the expected terrain/environmental factors, friendly and enemy situation, objectives and other factors that would affect the mission.

Medicate-
Wounds incurred were appropriate for the part of the body hit.
Team members were unable to heal in the field and had to be rested to get back into action.
Enemy and friendly NPCs shared the same wound system.
Wounds affected the characters physical abilities.

These attributes of OGR kept me coming back to the franchise hoping that future iterations of the game would build on the fundamental features.

Over the following 19 years I have seen features from the list drop away from Ghost Recon titles. Some were reimagined using different mechanics, and others were completely abandoned.

The franchise just makes me sad now...

[RaulO4]

I'm with @aibluefox' views in this thread on the matter.

Also, i don't see how wildlands does not fall into the "realistic"-category, that @Raul04 keeps bringing up - just because it has rpg-light-elements? Yes, sure, it has some of these, but you can easily ignore them and, like virtual-chris kept mentioning in his great thread over in the wildlands forum about his non-hud, non-upgrade playthrough, have an excellent time doing so.

And quite frankly, i don't feel like wildlands was an "arcadeshooter" - could somebody please elaborate on this matter - why do you, who claim this, feel it was arcady?

Sure i will break it down for you.

lets just start with one aspic of Wild Lands.
Your character.

Health=Regen,
Reloading= dropping a mag means nothing nor the bullet in the chamber counting at all.
Damage= you can take a lot of it.

want to carry more items? perk upgrade instead of changing your gear to hold more items.
want more health? perk upgrade instead of using heavier armor
Want to run faster? perk upgrade instead of having less gear on you
want to be more stealthly? perk upgrade instead of using Colors that match your area
want to be seen less? perk upgrade because that is how the world works
want to do more damage to vehicles? perk upgrade instead of using different rounds maybe?
want to use night vision? built right into yours eyes instead of using NVGs
want more ammo? perk upgrade instead of using more punches.

do you really want me to go on? none of this is "Realism" all of these can be found in all Arcade shooters like Cod. This is just with the Character alone..their is the shooting system, how your squads system works, how driving works, and so on.

also using the "easily ignore" doesnt work.
1. that is what Breakpoint apologies used. that didnt change the game into something else. it is what it is.
2. What happens when you ignore something? simple.. A) well they dont mind so it is ok to have them B) these people like them so it makes them happy so everyone wins and no one loses.
3. do you know what else happens with you ignore something? let me explain... when something can be ignore it is normally taken as a sign that it needs to be worked on to be improved.
So you ignore all the RPGs, Weapon damages increases, in game Store, the Arcade shooting mechanics, water down Tactical gameplay, and what happens? they tried to improve each one so it is more meaningful to the gameplay (minus Squad base...they simple took it away to focus more on Co op). thus creating a more integrated Store, more RPG system, more perks, no one cares its not a Realistic shooter so at this point..why not go looter shooter??

that is what happens when you "Ignore" it...Breakpoint happens. Now if you or somebody wanted that than it is a different discussion to have. If the point was/is to have Wild Lands to become "Ghost Recon" than those Points should not be ignored.