Senior Member
Senior Member
I somewhat agree with you, it will never be the hardcore tactical "milsim" game some would like it to be, I don't see them going that far.Originally Posted by NYCTOM Go to original post
Ubisoft is too big of a studio and too accustomed to create generic adventure games to make a 180 and go the tactical/milsim route.
Some of the recent topics, while full of great ideas and concepts are a bit delusional.
The best we'll get is something along the lines of an improved Wildlands, that is an arcady shooter with a good story and a lively credible world and I'll settle for that (if they could work on the teammates to make them a bit more tactical then I'd be even more than happy).
If I'd bought Breakpoint today, I'd still think if is a pretty bad game, mostly in comparison to Wildlands. Of course if you've never played Wildlands before your feeling about Breakpoint is going to be different.
Senior Member
Senior Member
Well it seems you really haven't put in the effort reading the various request threads to understand that this isn't the tactical milsim crowd. They are over at Arma. This crowd just wants Ghost Recon to stay true to it's IP and not become just another mtx platform with the same crafting/gear score/bullet sponge design that it seems every Ubisoft game has become. Wildlands was a huge hit. Yes it had issues, but please don't try to sell me on this niche appeal BS. It is stale, it is proven wrong and the sales of BP completely undermine your argument issue. You are speaking from a position of pretty bad ignorance when it comes to the franchise, it's appeal and what went wrong with BP. There is plenty of money to be made with GR, Wildlands proved that. Ubi seems to have forgotten that.Originally Posted by NYCTOM Go to original post
Sure maybe you can find some stuff in BP to enjoy, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the game design and it's core missions are sorely lacking.
Unless you think somehow finding parts to make a lure for a mystical fish somehow belongs in a GR game you have to admit they messed up more than a little and it goes way beyond Gear score and bullet sponge enemies.
Senior Member
Breakpoint did so poorly in the market that the CEO of Ubisoft had to admit the game was rejected by the market to all shareholders. Major studios don't intentionally pump millions of dollars into games to get them rejected by the market. Ubisoft f#cked up badly on this game and admitted it. But you're right about one thing... it's not the game we want... it's not the game anyone wanted.Originally Posted by NYCTOM Go to original post
Senior Member
I don't want a milsim, but I absolutely want Ghost Recon to be a tactical shooter. And it can, with more gameplay mechanics and a bit more structure to the way in which we complete missions. And they can do that using things like a central hub that they introduced in Breakpoint. I found enjoyment in Wildlands and I've found enjoyment in Breakpoint, but I'm not going to pretend the game aren't flawed and I'm not going to stop asking Ubisoft to do more with Ghost Recon and make it more tactical and authentic. That doesn't need to be a milsim like Arma. It's just all about give players more gameplay options, particularly some more TTP-based options - specifically for AI - like breaching buildings, clearing rooms, moving in various formations, having 8 teammates (AI and real players) and being able to separate them into two or four teams, being able to insert into the AO via helicopter or HALO (having AI be able to do those things), suppressing an area, etc. Certainly that's not coming with Breakpoint, but part of the feedback regarding Breakpoint isn't just about Breakpoint but about future games.Originally Posted by NYCTOM Go to original post
As for this game, a mission editor would be nice, but the problem is that the missions wouldn't involve much more than what the faction missions already offer. I'm not opposed to a mission editor, but I'd like to also see some more customization of the gameplay experience, like being able to tweak enemy appearances, weapons, vehicles, patrol sizes, and numbers in bases. Those kinds of settings would also enhance a mission editor's value should such a system be added to the game.
Regarding the comment you replied to, I certainly don't want Ubisoft to just give up on this game. I think they need to support this game for a bit longer, while they start taking all the feedback and going to the drawing board to figure out how to make a new Ghost Recon game that stays true to the series' roots while also providing an authentic, tactical special operations experience within their open world format. And that doesn't just mean a new IP that's like Wildlands. They need figure out how to take the best aspects of Wildlands, Breakpoint, and their other Ghost Recon games and integrate that into a new GR game.
Junior Member
I read quite a few request threads actually and a big chunk of it borders on ridiculous ranging from micromanaging teammates to making the raid available for single player.Originally Posted by Steven527 Go to original post
Sales of GRB were bad because the games launch was a complete disaster. No game can recover from a launch like that, just ask CDPR whose reputation was the opposite of UBIsofts before Cyberpunk 2077 released.
I was one of those Wildlands fans that skipped GRB at launch because of all the reviews essentially labeling it Division 3. As much as I like the Division franchise, I play GR for a tactical shooter experience. I didn't pick the game up till 3 weeks ago, can't go wrong with $15 for the ultimate and my expectations were extremely low. This forum makes it seem like this is the worst TPS ever created and night and day compared to Wildlands. After playing GRB with GS off on extreme with minimal hud and no drones, from a gameplay standpoint this isn't some massive departure from Wildlands, the STORY is but not the core gameplay. TPS core mechanics and the mission structure remains largely the same. The issue IMO from a gameplay standpoint is they didn't improve on the formula and the new features they introduced were either poorly implemented or flat out terrible ruining the experience. A lousy uninteresting story with annoying hipster characters doesn't help matters. I don't know WTF Paris was thinking with certain things they did with this game, make lure for a mystical fish? yea I'm never doing that.
That said I currently have a little over 160 hours invested, I got my moneys worth but I fully understand how someone that spent $100+ on this game is angry and unforgiving. The missteps Paris made fully deserves your scorn but the game is not some flaming dumpster fire that should be discarded. I'd rather think positively and work with Paris to improve the experience rather than trash a game I enjoy despite its many faults.
Lastly I wholeheartedly agree with you on Ghost Recon needs to be Ghost Recon and not another run of the mill UBIsoft open world shooter. We shouldn't need a laundry list of game parameters to tweak to get a Ghost Recon game to feel like Ghost Recon. There is plenty of money to be made with this franchise being tactical TPS focused but you have to also be realistic on all fronts. Its a video game and a lot of people enjoy loud Rambo style shootouts. Like I said, the trick is achieving balance and its a lot easier said than done.
Member
Is Ghost Recon Breakpoint better now than it was at launch? Yes, of course it is. I don't think anyone would dispute that. But I think it's also very clear that Ubisoft themselves have assigned Breakpoint to life support. The non-existent communication; the glaring greed when it comes to the MTX and locking 50% of an update's content behind it in an effort to salvage some of their development investment from the wreckage that is Breakpoint; theconstant missteps when it comes to very simple updates that could have been much better if they just listened and tried to look at the experience from our perspective. But Ubisoft Paris have been lazy, ignorant, incompetent and dare I say even downright arrogant. I know that sounds harsh, but given the journey Breakpoint has been on it's hard to come to a different conclusion. They have no idea what to do with this came and I'd almost be willing to bet the number of people still working on it could be counted on two hands.
Anyone can make mistakes, even AAA studios. But the least they could do is improve communication like they promised. So much frustration and sense of neglect could be alleviated if they actually bothered to communicate on a regular basis. That, I think, is what people are most bothered by, and that certainly hasn't improved one bit since Breakpoint first hit the market.
Senior Member
There’s a new interesting mechanic that would be kinda cool in ghost recon.. in the new R6 announcement they basically said that if you go out you risk losing progress and upgrades, I don’t know how if it’s just by dying but this sort of evolution of the ghost mode from wildlands should make a come back in GR as well since it makes the game more immersive
Senior Member
I just watched the trailer and well to say the least, it's fairly disappointing. But at the same time their next TU isn't before, what, fall 2021, right? Which is something around november. So 5, 6 months depending on how you count, during that time frame I'm tempted to spam every single media Ubisoft uses to collect feedbacks. Recently enough, I was looking at some job opportunities and one caught my attention: more or less it was a writer position for the GR franchise. Unfortunately, the position was already filled. But, if another similar position opens up again, you can bet I will apply for it.
