Lessons in Open World Design: A Ghost Recon Story | Forums

[CrockfordCK]

I'm not certain if this has been shared here. I did see it was shared on Reddit already.
Lessons in Open World Design: A Ghost Recon Story written by Jean-Baptiste Oger, one of the Lead Game designers for Breakpoint, is a reassuring read.

The piece focuses on the exploration design aspect of Breakpoint, and covers several points I've personally brought up in the earlier days of Breakpoint, and how they are, at least, recognized as problematic choices.

I encourage you to read it for yourself. Cutting through the faux of the article, to summarize:
The decision to skew the franchise into an RPG/looter-shooter, and their willingness to implement solutions based solely off of "minimal cost"/effort lead them to focus on reducing the experience to the point where all that was left was the transparent mechanics specifically designed to manipulate player behavior for the goal of squeezing every last moment of Ubi's coveted "Player Engagement" metrics.

Here's hoping that Ubisoft understands that the solution to the issues that Mr. Oger brings up is as simple as focusing your efforts into making a product with more than "minimal cost". (So far though, it doesn't seem like it.)

[TrickShady]

Thanks Crock, that was actually an interesting read and does really highlight just why they went so far of course with breakpoint. There are a few things that really standout for me that should be glaring for the writter but he seems to complelty miss the point and get the wrong idea, or that is my take on it any way.

"The wild mysteries were a welcome change of pace from the tactical — sometimes intense — stealth and shooting experience. They gave slim rewards, but it didn’t matter much, the joy of finding them was enough."

"Does exploration really need to be one of the gameplay goals in a Ghost Recon game? If you ask players, they’ll always answer yes. Players always want more freedom of choice. But when you observe them playing the game, the answer is quite different: they don’t care much."

There was a lot in there but I will just pick these 2 out to highlight to show just how misguided this is and still how they lack the understanding that we have been trying to portray to them. The first sentence really sums it up for me. Ghost recon IS about the tactical and intense shooting experience and that is what the game has to be modeled around. What we want is very much that most of the time, I don't play this type of game because I want to walk around and admire the world. Yes at times we do take a back seat and have a wander around but that is second. Exploration should never have been the focal point.

What he seems to be missing the point on is that we don't want or need a loot gratification to get us to go to the wonderful landmarks that they have built and shows why the game is so lost becuase that is not what the title is about. The problem is not that the player is not going to places and needs loot to get us there the problem is that is not what the game should be about. People spent time in exploration in bp because of they were bored with nothing to do and because of the dull and awful mission designs that have absolutely no replayability because the lack substance, quality and quantity.

I have not seen anyone here state that exploration needs to be a gameplay goal, the reason it matters from the standpoint of the franchise is to be able to approach objectives from multiply angles and in differing ways. Exploration in the way being spoken able here is misguided and under the wrong impression of why it is better to have an open world rather then something confined. It is about the freedom to go about things the way we would like, as my approach will be different to that of others.

I say again to believe that the issue is that players needed incentives to explore is so far removed from the core issue and a truly misguided lack of understanding at the feedback you have received, it is another warning sign for me personally that what we have said is not being understood. Ghost recon is not about needing to go around and look at nice trees and landmarks, it is about being a tactical shooter where all the player focused gratification needs to come from planning and undertaking multiple operations, what is important is the gameplay and the world around should come after that as a second thought.

@BLUE if you have to opportunity to speak with this dev could you please relay my words to them, much appreciated if possible.
Just my take on this.

[TONY-NOVA]

I love these little excerpts from the minds of game creators. i wish we had more of this transparency.

[CrockfordCK]

Trick, that's dead on as far as Ghost Recon as a franchise is concerned. But I would say it's more accurate to say the Breakpoint isn't a Ghost Recon, not because they focused on aspects like exploring, but because they simply never even wanted to make a tactical military shooter. Instead they wanted to make an adventure shooter, but dropped the ball there, as well.

As far as Breakpoint, as a stand alone game, exploration is a huge aspect of any open world game. And he outlines that he's got a real good grasp of what make Breakpoint's exploration nothing more than a chore. They willfully reduced it to a checklist because it was the easiest solution to their perceived problem: People won't spend as much time in our game.

I also want to state, while it's good that this dev team of professionals is still learning from their "mistakes", these really weren't mistakes. They were deliberate choices, and shouldn't be forgiven until they prove that they are committed to making better choices.

I love these little excerpts from the minds of game creators. i wish we had more of this transparency.

So say we all.

[El_Cuervacho]

"...the vast island of Auroa features many diverse and beautiful landscapes, filled with dozens of cities..."

I'd sure love to see those...

[biomag83]

TrickShady is spot on. Ubisoft completely misunderstands why the open world in Wildlands was a success and it wasn't in Breakpoint.

Wildlands offered the freedom of approach to missions - the 'exploration' part was motivated by giving the player knowledge of the land around the mission site, offering options like picking up helos or tanks for missions. Knowing which roads and flypath would lead to safety and which would just bring you next to an enemy base or anti-air missile. There was no need to gratification based on loot-boxes. The gameplay based on stealth and shooting while doing recon was fitting with the story, setting and franchise.


I'm sorry to say, but as thought through the article written is, it still completely misses the point why Breakpoint besides objectively not being a successful open world game, is at the same time a complet failure for the audience the franchise actually has. Many of his conclusion are not wrong when talking about games, but simply don't apply to this situation. It like discussing FIFA 20xx roster issues, while the audience actually was expecting NBA 20xx. Yes, both games would be sport games using balls and having teams, but still you can't simply mix the lessons you took from it.

[El_Cuervacho]

Trick, that's dead on as far as Ghost Recon as a franchise is concerned. But I would say it's more accurate to say the Breakpoint isn't a Ghost Recon, not because they focused on aspects like exploring, but because they simply never even wanted to make a tactical military shooter. Instead they wanted to make an adventure shooter, but dropped the ball there, as well.

As far as Breakpoint, as a stand alone game, exploration is a huge aspect of any open world game. And he outlines that he's got a real good grasp of what make Breakpoint's exploration nothing more than a chore. They willfully reduced it to a checklist because it was the easiest solution to their perceived problem: People won't spend as much time in our game.

Precisely right, and as @Trick pointed out previously;
This game is called Ghost Recon; "exploration" in this context ISN'T done for leisure or sightseeing purposes, it serves a well defined tactical purpose, and as such should be properly integrated into the game's mechanics; providing intelligence VITAL towards achieving a set mission objective or effect in the world.

I also want to state, while it's good that this dev team of professionals is still learning from their "mistakes", these really weren't mistakes. They were deliberate choices, and shouldn't be forgiven until they prove that they are committed to making better choices.

A "mistake" is what some politicians call "embezzlement".

[rugby_dog]

I hate to say it but the franchise is dead. We will never get w good ghost recon game again. Ubisoft seem took a step in the wrong direction with Wildlands and the 10 more steps in the wrong direction for breakpoint.

RIP ghost recon, Ubisoft has now killed splinter cell, rainbow 6 and ghost recon. It seems to be run by a bunch golf morons.

[El_Cuervacho]

Ubisoft, STOP treating every game franchise like it was "The Quest For the Holy Grail" whilst cancelling games actually dealing with the subject!

https://www.ign.com/articles/ubisoft...e-mike-laidlaw

[Church367A]

I appreciate the post and enjoyed the read. Didn't agree with everything there, but here is my take on it:

“The Tale of the Blossoming Tree”
Breakpoint does not feature a diverse landscape in comparison to Wildlands, although it is attractive. Breakpoint mostly consists of forest, swamps, and jungles all of which are very similar to each other and lacks any meaningful desert areas and is short on transitional areas which Wildlands was enriched with.

There are not dozens of cities scattered about Auroa, there is one big empty city and a few town/villages which amounts to disappointment and a clear regression to life Wildlands brought with its populated areas. Many factories and military camps feel so identical in Auroa that few stand out as memorable which is in direct comparison to the unique bases that were constructed in Wildlands. I can think of one Wolf base that was a unique experience, but it was not due to the base layout, rather the enemies around it that made it unique. That was the Wolf base with Rosebud that had snipers everywhere.

As for the “Wild Mystery” being a blossom tree, well it’s a tree. Auroa has lots of them and Ghost Recon is supposed to be a squad based tactical shooter, so forgive me if I don’t have a desire to look at a single tree when Auroa is by-in-large one giant forest area. It is not why I play the game, it is not why I would purchase the game, it is not why any of my friends who picked up the game played it either.

I’m glad that by the sound of things you will no longer mark every insignificant attraction on the map to guide players and set up a completionist checklist to fulfill, however that same overbearing guidance error is not limited to map design alone. Having a marker for everything is in the same book of errors as well. One thing I found after picking up COD is that I was struggling in multiplayer because after playing Wildlands for so long with markers on everything I was not looking for the outline of my enemy, just his marker. With all enemies marked up you are never surprised and can see when an enemy is about to break cover to effortlessly wait for your shot or advance through the mass knowing exactly where each target was at all times.

I would very much like to see this change as the previous ghost recon games provided great suspense with the unknown and realization that you could easily be killed. I’m not against having a recon drone to observe, but as far as then marking that enemy for you until death is a huge mistake and kills a previously loved aspect of this series. But you have options you could reply, and true as that is there is no way of setting that style for those who join your game in which they could have everything set to easy mode to allow them to run and gun COD style, essentially playing pacman with enemy markers because that is what it devolves to.

“Why didn’t the map icon solution work?”
The map icon solution didn’t work because there are too many meaningless “points of interest” tagged. Sure it would have been nice as you mentioned to discover this just randomly, as a little wow factor to break up the emptiness of the game, but even if that were so, the game would still feel empty and dull due to the broken motorcycle and flyover fiasco. The actual content and play of the game. The decision to turn Ghost Recon into a Looter Shooter is without question one of if not the biggest detractors and reasons this game failed. You cannot expect adding loot here and there be anything but salt in an open wound for a feature that has no business ever being in a Ghost Recon game.

Breakpoint’s first mistake was not its lack of exploration encouragement, it was Ubi’s decision to ignore years of feedback from its core fanbase and the precedent the first games had set in how Ghost Recon is supposed to be a squad based tactical shooter. In the interest of immersion, the situation of the game’s story should influence a player’s decision assuming it is their first play through. So immediately after surviving a crash, what makes more sense between checking up and rendezvous with your squad or go sight seeing and check out a waterfall? Furthermore this entire chain of events for the intro are so short lived that it is honestly a bit of a joke.

As for the “Does exploration really need to be one of the gameplay goals in Ghost Recon” my initial reply was no, but after thinking more about it, it should be. However, its importance is so low that if you fail on the more important things such as story, ai, gunplay, and cosmetics that it really does not matter at all. Breakpoint fails in pretty much all of these, but has a beautiful island, does that mean I’m going to play it to purposefully explore points of interest, no.

“Incentives?”
The lack of intrinsic motivation is due to the poor ai, story, and overall setting. Ghost Recon is supposed to be grounded in reality with a believable story with authentic cosmetics and weapons reinforcing it. Once again gear score, what this game was built around, is completely counter to this as is the story and way enemies, breachers specifically, react. Does acquiring a gear score level 300 AK47 reinforce or enrich the precedent set by previous ghost recons? No, it does not belong, so no it should not be an exciting reward.

When I request a feature it is because I believe it will enrich the game and possibly give further incentive to play the same area or content multiple times and still have different experiences. Fence cutters are something that could have provided this in many instances for Wildlands. They were gifted to us in Breakpoint, however now the majority of bases I’ve come across either have a fence it won’t work on or there is an entrance where I would go anyways.

“Rhythm and density”
There is more to rhythm and density than just having something every so often and this is another area where Breakpoint fails. I don’t necessarily agree with Auroa being too big, however the space is utilized extremely poorly. Wildlands had a very natural feel to with helicopters, convoys, and general traffic happening naturally all over the map. This is completely absent in Breakpoint. Helicopter flyover? Directly over you. Azrael flyover? Directly over you. Convoy on the map? Driving somewhere near you. Wondering the woods? Broken motorcycle/vehicle every so often. That is one huge step in the wrong direction in trying to create a positive experience of an open world game. It screams lazy indifference and satisfaction for the absolute bare minimum.