Reality Check, it's a TOM CLANCY | Forums

[SofaJockey]

You should play GRAW, GRAW 2, GR future soldier, rainbow 6 Vegas 1 & 2 are good as well. If you like stealthy games you’d love splinter cell as well, those are brilliant games and all Tom Clancy proper games.

Thank you for the recommendations. I had a try at Future Soldier but wasn't able to get into it. Perhaps I'll try again when I have a gaming gap.

...GRAW already started to go more in the wrong direction..

Am I to understand that to find a game you feel did it properly we have to go back 16 years?

I must admit I struggle playing games more than a decade old because they feel janky to me now.

[ManticButton]

Thank you for the recommendations. I had a try at Future Soldier but wasn't able to get into it. Perhaps I'll try again when I have a gaming gap.



Am I to understand that to find a game you feel did it properly we have to go back 16 years?

I must admit I struggle playing games more than a decade old because they feel janky to me now.

honestly I loved mgs3 but man those controls did not age well

graw 2 still holds up and it has some nice control schemes that are a bit more modern

I would recommend playing it on an xbox one S or X because it has a higher frame rate
also if you can get into a game of co op it's a blast

rainbow six vegas 2 is also a ton of fun the controls are a little dated but terrorist hunt solo or co op is a blast

if your into more strategic games rainbow six three still holds up and is constantly on sale for pc on the ubisoft store
I've had quite a bit of fun but sole swapping kills it for me it's very exploitable in my opinion

[AI BLUEFOX]

There's a cheat code in Vegas 2 on xbox that turns into a third person view as well.

[Kean_1]

I miss the original Rainbow Six games.

The single player was fun with the roster and soul swapping between teammates. The planning phases, etc. You could switch between team members, set them up in positions, give orders to cover, etc. Also, losing one actually meant something as you spend time building up each you feel an attachment and a genuine loss when things go wrong. It affects your decisions vs. just putting respawnable characters in harm's way

PvP was also a blast and more lethal. More hardcore than anything Ubi puts out today IMO.

When I look back on these games I don't see them necessarily as a direct comparison to titles of today but more of what they could be now if they were nurtured, built upon, expanded, etc.

I wasn't a fan of (what I thought was) the over focus on future tech in the later GR titles to be honest. That's why I liked Wildlands so much because I agreed with their vision of returning to more conventional or low tech warfare. Sure, there were drones with whacky abilities, marking, proximity clouds, etc. but that was in the hands of the players so if you wanted to push that aside and not have it in your GR experience, you could. WL could essentially be as hardcore or arcadey as you wanted it to be.

I'm just hoping the next gen consoles will attract some devs to create or port over some decent military tactical shooters. Zero Six Bravo is still way too early in development but sounds promising and they have plans to release on console too. ....and then there's Sandstorm with yet another disappointing delay into 2021 after NWI's acquisition by another company.

I guess we'll see how it goes. SQUAD finally went full release. Wish we had a version of something like that on console.

[AvengerGR35]

The basic concept of a PMC taking over a private island is a bit goofy but believable enough to be a good backdrop. However it's then brutally executed by the super-tech of Auroa. Cryogenics, neural-cybernetics etc. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they thought that by including them they could tap the Cyberpunk 2077 market. Have you seen the concept art for the Wolves compared to what's in the game? The Wolves in the game make me laugh. While the concept art is still beyond modern day military gear it looks far more plausible than the goofy villain outfits they wear in the game.

No they didn't do that for Cyberpunk market, they did that because they wanted to attract players from MGS since the series is over. A PMC taking over an island is stolen from MGS1. They basically copy pasted the story of the whole MGS series but made it even worse. At least the MGS story, even if it is one of the most confusing in gaming history, makes sense once you put the pieces together. BP on the other hand...

They thought by copying MGS they would attract MGS vets, however MGS was unique in its own way. Cybernetics, fantasy drones, Behemoths and MGS type stories don't belong in a GR game. They should've only copied some gameplay mechanics from some games of the series.

[OldCappy]

You ask a fair question. I'll mimic what others have said. Tom Clancy novels were always based on a tremendous amount of research into SotA mil/spec ops tech/tactics etc. coupled with a smattering of near term "somewhat probable...maybe" advanced tech, and/or real cutting edge spec ops type gear (or what one might think could be anyway). He didn't give away military/government secrets, but you thought he just might have. If you get my meaning. The books explored and exposed that research so much more than the movies do.

In terms of the more notable Tom Clancy franchise games, I think what others have said is pretty spot on. The Original Ghost Recon and Island Thunder games. GRAW and GRAW2. The thing about early GR games was the tactical control of your squad(s). The ability to pick operators for your squad based on skill set. Which you had to determine based on the mission briefing and the mission objectives. The degree of control over your team in OGR was so detailed. So much more than move over there and shoot. The tactical squad control was so critical to completing a mission. The games were very unforgiving of tactical errors. Early Rainbow Six titles, up to R6 Vegas 2, were also good. Although some might disagree I thought those games were pretty solid. Not without flaws, but you could believe in them. Slinter Cell games have also been pretty engaging, but perhaps a bit more fanciful. In my view anyway. Excellent games, some of the gear just seemed a bit too far of a stretch in their time (but then again who am I to know?).

Personally I thought Wildlands was a decent/fun game, and probably more in sync with reality. A believable story line, in line with some Tom Clancy novel titles. The gear/tech was in line with what one might think doable. (Rebels dropping a helo at my feet maybe not so much.) As an OGR player I was disappointed in the squad mechanics and some other things but still pretty good. Sadly Breakpoint is just too far from the intent of other Tom Clancy titles. (Truthfully Wildlands did the same nonsense with one of the DLC's and to a degree the add on missions (Predator??). Yes, I'm finding an entertaining way to play in immersive mode/solo and some of my own rules added on. But the underlying flaws of the game, as a Ghost Recon game, are tough to get around. So I'll continue to enjoy it. But I think, perhaps, it would have been better served as a new franchise.

[OldCappy]

Sorry I meant to reply to this ^^

I hear people talk about 'Tom Clancy', but I've never read a Tom Clancy novel, I saw 'The Hunt For Red October', that's a Tom Clancy yes? And I've played Wildlands and The Division.

There must to be a gritty reality and authenticity in the books that I'm not seeing in those movies and games.

I'm sorry you're not happy about it, but Breakpoint is a huge distance from Fortnite even if it fails to meet the bar of your expectations.

So please help us to understand what an 'authentic Tom Clancy Ghost Recon' game is 'supposed to be' (isn't that for Ubisoft to determine), because I'm enjoying Breakpoint (granted it's better now with immersive mode and the AI mode which arguably should have been there at the start) and I don't think it deserves the level of anger that's being fired in its direction.

[Ice-Quinn]

I hear people talk about 'Tom Clancy', but I've never read a Tom Clancy novel, I saw 'The Hunt For Red October', that's a Tom Clancy yes? And I've played Wildlands and The Division.

There must to be a gritty reality and authenticity in the books that I'm not seeing in those movies and games.

I'm sorry you're not happy about it, but Breakpoint is a huge distance from Fortnite even if it fails to meet the bar of your expectations.

So please help us to understand what an 'authentic Tom Clancy Ghost Recon' game is 'supposed to be' (isn't that for Ubisoft to determine), because I'm enjoying Breakpoint (granted it's better now with immersive mode and the AI mode which arguably should have been there at the start) and I don't think it deserves the level of anger that's being fired in its direction.

I’d start with Jack Ryan, if nothing else for a shirtless John Krasinski I mean, some great guns in that show.

[Ghost416]

Yeah, Jack Ryan is really good. I'd recommend it, too. For the guns, not shirtless John Krasinski. Yeah, the guns. Totally the guns.

[ArgimonEd]

Thank you for the recommendations. I had a try at Future Soldier but wasn't able to get into it. Perhaps I'll try again when I have a gaming gap.



Am I to understand that to find a game you feel did it properly we have to go back 16 years?

I must admit I struggle playing games more than a decade old because they feel janky to me now.

Was good because it was really authentic.
I'd tell you to try.
Gameplay might be different but there a lot of elements that I truly miss on today games.
Only ground branch gets close now day.