Reality Check, it's a TOM CLANCY | Forums

[Spetsgruppa666]

Unfortunately you won’t get to really play some proper Clancy games to learn about how the games should be unless you have a backwards compatible device.

The division, WL, breakpoint and siege aren’t proper Clancy games. 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.

Hope you get to play them, enjoy.

Vegas 1 and Vegas 2...2 of my favourite games...except for the enemy suddenly appearing...

[Steven527]

Not a Tom Clancy novel, I should point out.

?
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Kindle Edition
by David Michaels (Author), Tom Clancy (Author)

What makes it not a Tom Clancy novel?

[Stomp0nMybaIls]

?
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Kindle Edition
by David Michaels (Author), Tom Clancy (Author)

What makes it not a Tom Clancy novel?

I think he means it was not published by Tom himself, but to be fair, Tom Clancy had like 50 ghost writers within his brand, I think only his first few books were written by the man himself.

[rugby_dog]

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.

By the way, not Tom clancy but operation flashpoint (both of them) are great intense military tactical games. I’m not sure how the graphics will hold up these days but the games are really good and enjoyable.

By the time you’ve done all of the suggestions we might have a new game to play.

[Ghost416]

I think he means it was not published by Tom himself, but to be fair, Tom Clancy had like 50 ghost writers within his brand, I think only his first few books were written by the man himself.

If it wasn't written by Clancy himself, I don't consider it a Clancy novel even if he put his stamp of approval on it. Clancy's even credited as author on the Splinter Cell novels even though, like Ghost Recon, the IP was created by Ubisoft and he had nothing to do with it.

[KUZMITCHS]

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.

Frankly speaking, even Tom Clancy himself hated the movies. There is a video of Tom warching "Clear and Present Danger" with the director and [Removed profanities]

As for "what is a Tom Clancy game" or "What does it mean to be a Tom Clancy game". You can watch this video:
https://youtu.be/PJBdIn5EQTg

[SeemannAOOBE]

Why do people keep complaining and talking about "future tech" being in the game? There is absolutely nothing in it except for the syringes and healing drone that is out of the realm of possibility, especially if you talk within 10 years. Not the drone tech, not the autonomous tanks (a.k.a. baal and the behemoths), not the "land drones" and not the enemy "air drones". Honestly, if anything, people should be complaining that the game is a little behind, for example, because a variety of the weapons platforms that are currently in use are missing (though that is slightly unfair since some were not selected until recently).

There are a ton of things to complain about, but other than the syringes, the tech should not be one of them.

[Megalodon26]

They're not complaining about the future tech that the Ghost use. if anything they want things that were in Future Soldier, like cloaking and crosscom. They just don't like the bullet sponge drones, with seemingly unlimited battery life and ammunition.

[Kean_1]

Why do people keep complaining and talking about "future tech" being in the game? There is absolutely nothing in it except for the syringes and healing drone that is out of the realm of possibility, especially if you talk within 10 years. Not the drone tech, not the autonomous tanks (a.k.a. baal and the behemoths), not the "land drones" and not the enemy "air drones". Honestly, if anything, people should be complaining that the game is a little behind, for example, because a variety of the weapons platforms that are currently in use are missing (though that is slightly unfair since some were not selected until recently).

There are a ton of things to complain about, but other than the syringes, the tech should not be one of them.

That's your take on it but the fact is, Wildlands was a success and Breakpoint was not. There's no arguing that. Part of it has to do with a lot of this "tech" they introduced in GRB and/or how they did it.

The devs wanted to go back to gameplay that was based on more conventional warfare with WL. Sure, there were drones with med abilities, marking, etc. but this was in the hands of the players. If people wanted a more hardcore experience, they didn't need to have that in their in-game experience. WL was really about as close to a "play as you want" tactical, shooter a lot of us had on console. A lot of people who liked WL, liked that about the game.

WL was as hardcore or arcadey as you wanted it to be. Assists could be used or turned off. Damage could be very lethal or spongy. .....etc., etc. It just needed to be improved upon, expanded and nurtured.

As for the drones in Breakpoint, it should have been a huge hint to Ubisoft how they would be received if they would have read their own forums back then. There was a running joke about calling Ghost War "Drone War" because of all the classes and new abilities Ubi kept trying to force into the PvP mode. .....which should have been more like the campaign / base game IMO but that's another topic.

Instead, they doubled down in Breakpoint and made the tech an integral part of the game. No way to turn it off for those that want to. Not only that, most found the tech annoying, spongy, etc. as @Megalodon26 said.

Personally, I like the direction WL was going with the franchise. I know there are those that didn't but there were enough that did as (I mentioned earlier) the title was a success for Ubisoft. I was never a fan of the path GR was taking in the later FS iterations, etc. I was more of an R6 fan and earlier GRs. I like my tactical, military shooters more raw or conventional in their approach focusing on weapons, unit tactics, etc. vs. tech, special abilities and so on.

Although I'm fine with a game without drones, etc., I think most would have been ok or even welcomed it in a GR title if it were just implemented differently. There's obviously plenty of folks out there like @Megalodon26 who like the FS titles, etc. and even he can see where the execution of tech was all wrong in Breakpoint.

.....so it's not just about the inclusion of tech in the game but how they did it I believe most people have a problem with. Unfortunately, I believe your confusion on this topic is shared by the very people who made the mistake in the first place. I honestly don't think they know why WL was a success nor do they fully understand why Breakpoint was such a flop.

[ArgimonEd]

Why do people keep complaining and talking about "future tech" being in the game? There is absolutely nothing in it except for the syringes and healing drone that is out of the realm of possibility, especially if you talk within 10 years. Not the drone tech, not the autonomous tanks (a.k.a. baal and the behemoths), not the "land drones" and not the enemy "air drones". Honestly, if anything, people should be complaining that the game is a little behind, for example, because a variety of the weapons platforms that are currently in use are missing (though that is slightly unfair since some were not selected until recently).

There are a ton of things to complain about, but other than the syringes, the tech should not be one of them.

The problem is, the flying drones in the game defy a few laws of physics.
I explained this in another topic by doing the math.
The other problem with this is unlimited ammo.
And an armor that survives so many shots.
And there isn't still a quad rotor drone in service that can survive a .50 BMG shot.

As for the land drones.
Even tho a drone can survive more G forces (Like deceleration and acceleration).
They also have a limited
They wouldn't be able to instantly get to top speed (friction of the ground) and instantly brake.
Also, would be kind of ok to have something like the behemoths.
But if even tanks explode with 1 shot of certain munitions...
All that would be needed is to destroy the engine or the core.
The behemoths dont have reactive armor.
The other land drones.
Couldn't possibly fit 2 M2 MG inside of it.
So these are the problems with it.