Surveys: Ubisoft Can't IGNORE this | Forums

[FcAc-No-Moe]

You said it's a niche in the genre.~~~~~

Don't know if you were talking to me so I won't respond just in case.

I'm in the same mindset tbh, although yes they may look at these surveys there nothing officially to show so far that any of it will be acted upon.

whilst deep down we all wish that they would put the fanbases suggestions at the forefront for any future game there will always be those in power at the studio who are convinced they know better and instead choose to follow current "market trends" instead of creating a truly unique Tactical shooter on its own merits that would naturally attract back old and new fans alike

the main take away still though is as you've stated, not to get our hopes up until something more concrete has been publicly stated, and even to take that with a pinch of salt

Yeah even more so when it comes to their so called Game Trailers, which, should translate into "Nothing, and we mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that you see in this trailer will be in the ACTUAL game or gameplay" except for the characters and some of the backdrops . those you watch just to see how the world would be and nothing else. Those who believe otherwise are just wanting to get bamboozled and yipped out of their money.

Back in the Wildland days when they started to hype the game, I kept harping about the Actual Gameplay video for the Campaign and what they kept showing was the Co-Op gameplays. I remember they showed one where they took one of the bad guys and I asked if you would be able to do that with your Teammate AI and the response was something along the lines of "Whatever you can do in PvE (Co-Op) you can do with the Teammate AI and well, we all now know how that translated into, Hell No, you can't have the Sniper Dude setup as over watch while the other do something else, it was all or nothing. And if you move a bit further than they like all of a sudden they will spawn in front of you or all over the base that you didn't want them going in.

Bottom line is, If there is truly a new GR game in the making and there is a Beta and you see BP 2.0 or even WL 2.0 w/o any work on enemy or teammate AI and if you don't run very far away from it thinking that the 1st day miracle patch will fix it or it will get fix later on after launch, well... and again, you got nobody else to blame but yourself for getting hammered w/o KY.

[Sandilands85]

interestingly on the next game survey i asked a question with reference to specific US Camo patterns being added as base content and free to use from Launch which albeit most agree with but i did have 1 person specifically ask me in the where did you find the survey section "Why do you care about American camos so much lol"

it does seem to be that some people who play now have forgotten that this game is specifically based around a US special forces tier 1 unit where all of these camos would be regularly available

And although some do enjoy the idea of dressing your team up as UKSF, Alpha Group, Grom, KSK etc.. that these camos are the ones that should be unlocked or placed in the store

[Eagle-eyezx]

Hey Sandiland, how do you think Ubisoft has received your surveys? I saw a post somewhere that they are starting the new game. Do you feel confident that they are considering our feedback?

[Sandilands85]

Hey Sandiland, how do you think Ubisoft has received your surveys? I saw a post somewhere that they are starting the new game. Do you feel confident that they are considering our feedback?

The new game was initially mentioned as far back as when XDefiant was initially leaked. But members of the Community dev team have definitely expressed their interest in the results.

And realistically I would assume that Ubisoft probably started work on the next game soon after the release of BP tbh so it may already be too late as no one publicly knows how far along it currently is.

[Eagle-eyezx]

The new game was initially mentioned as far back as when XDefiant was initially leaked. But members of the Community dev team have definitely expressed their interest in the results.

And realistically I would assume that Ubisoft probably started work on the next game soon after the release of BP tbh so it may already be too late as no one publicly knows how far along it currently is.

Makes sense. Apparently, they've codenamed the next game GR OV - something like that.

Maybe we will get a 2022/23 release for the new game.

[Keltimus]

I'm hoping these surveys do make a huge impact. So huge that if their current state does not reflect well on these results, they will think best to do what needs to be done to course correct. If that means scrapping what they have so far, I think they absolutely should for the better of the franchise. I don't think they would be in the situation to start from scratch though.

Here is the results package from my survey I sent to the CMs upon their request. https://www.canva.com/design/DAEnnAu...bWPzFYTxg/view

I fit in feedback to go along with the survey slides that have come up often in these forums. Some going way back and accrued over time. It's only feedback from these forums, however. I unfortunately have too many other obligations that limit my time elsewhere online. I'm hoping once I finally retire from the military in a few months, I can get involved on more platforms.

[Kean_1]

About Ubisoft, are you talking about corporate or developers? I don't know who makes the original pitches of games, but aside from bad or personally unfavorable games, the developers, I think, come up with good ones, too.

Usually these companies have creative departments / positions whose job it is to come up with new ideas, help drive the vision, etc. .....but then there are producers and others who have influence as well. Each company will be different. Ubisoft had a problem with micromanaging their franchises as it was revealed after Breakpoints failure that they would be changing the way their games were managed to allow more autonomy of the teams / franchises as games were borrowing too heavily from one another and losing their uniqueness in the process. .....that which defines them.

Yes, community members in different forums and sites may come up with some good ideas, even though not everyone agrees with each other one the ideas or their thoughts on what the franchise is supposed to be.

Of course not everyone is going to agree on the details of what a proper GR game should contain but there are common aspects that a lot of folks can agree on which I think these polls bear out. Heck, look back at the polls Ubi took early on after the realization of Breakpoint's failure. Many of those choices take a similar direction to what we've seen in these community surveys.

I'm just saying this because Red Storm came up with real good titles before, and I think Paris did some good work, themselves. Yes, BP's release was really weak, but they have been doing better work with it in later updates, in my opinion (not trying to fight anyone on this). Don't forget, Paris did Wildlands. As good as that game was in some aspects, BP did better in some others, but each of us believe there are higher ranking titles.

Most folks here are well aware Wildlands was a product of the same studio that produced Breakpoint which make it all the much harder to understand their reasoning.

BP wasn't just "weak". ....it failed and failed hard. Let's not forget that BP played no small part in the internal restructuring of the company and delay of several big titles. It also resulted in a cringe-worthy investor call that where they struggled to explain why BP failed so miserably. ....which is frustrating considering the amount of good feedback the community had been providing since before WL released and beyond.

Let's not forget that the changes such as the Ghost Experience, cancellation of future plans for the raids, the hasty re-introduction of the team AI, etc. was exclusively the result of the games failure and community feedback from the surveys they took as they scrambled to salvage what they could.

The state of Breakpoint at the time of the reveal is what kind of work this studio was supposedly capable of. .....the changes since are the result games failure and when they finally started listening to the community through their surveys.

I'm just saying, while each of us in the community may have a good idea or two, and we would like some feedback every now and then, we're not the only ones with good ideas. The developers themselves have some good stuff up their sleeves, as well, and in future titles, I would like to here and see what they have to offer as well. They are the ones who make the games, after all.

This community has had far more than just one or two good ideas IMO and without their support, BP would have been a memory by now. ....a bad one at that.

Ubi has lost face with most of the fans. They continue to refuse to improve communications and still make decisions in the direction the franchise that has some scratching their collective heads.

Sandiland's surveys are of an appropriate sample size to show what fans want and (as I mentioned before) they follow a similar path to what the initial surveys (done by Ubi themselves) have shown what fans want in a GR game.

You said it's a niche in the genre. I'm just wondering. GR is still (supposed to be) a tactical shooter. However, some players want it to feel a bit more realistic with weight and bandaging and whatnot. I'm not trying to pick fights, just wondering what you think.
Have you ever played last GR games before Wildlands? If so, then you know how they operate compared to Tarkov and ARMA. I even suggested in one or two threads about moving elements like that into a separate game mode or difficulty setting. Something like Ghost Mode or COD:Infinite Warfare's Specialist mode, where gunshots apparently affected different parts of the body, as well as other penalties. Check out a description of it online if you haven't heard of it. I don't play it myself, I don't think I'm ready.
Anyway, what do you think of a separate mode for people who want this kind of challenge? Also, if I misunderstood you about niche in the genre, sorry.

GR isn't necessarily niche in that it is a tactical shooter but as @Eagle-eyezx mentioned, it is a squad based, tactical shooter.

Btw, adding some authentic or realistic elements to the game doesn't preclude it from being "tactical". .....quite the opposite depending on what we're talking about. These elements also don't instantly make the game "milsim". Even more complex mechanics in other games can be distilled down in a way to be more appealing to most.

As for your last question, let me propose this..... What do you think of a separate mode for people who don't want this level of "challenge"? ....who don't want an increased level of authenticity, some realistic elements, etc.? A game based on these surveys, the changes Ubi has made to BP as a result, etc. You're speaking as if creating a game catering to casuals is the way to go with those wanting a deeper GR experience are the vocal minority.

I think we've disproven the vocal minority argument when Breakpoint failed to sell well and through the results of official surveys, the community feedback and even these community surveys.

Creating a casual GR experience and then a "separate" mode for what fans are asking for is a bad move IMO. Personally, I believe what Ubi delivers in the next GR iteration should not be a compromise this time. Ubi needs to create a clear vision based on what most GR fans want. If any new, separate mode should be created than it should be one for the more casual players. .....not the other way around IMO.

Let me be clear though, I am not in any way recommending GR be turned into a milsim game. .....just that Ubi needs to start listening to their community this time around so they can avoid disasters like Breakpoint.

@Sandilands85,
Again, great job. 1,000+ respondents is nothing to sneeze at and is a healthy sample size for surveys like this. That's something I'm sure Ubi is well aware of and will take into consideration. Now, how they act on it, that's another matter but the results are generally in line with feedback we've seen since WL to be honest. .....no surprise there if I'm going to be honest.

[jmagnum50]

Look Kean,

I'm not trying to offend. I'd been saying in other posts that maybe Ubi devs look at past iterations for ideas, like GRAW 2 and FS. A mix of playstyles from these two for regular and new players. Another mode, like a Ghost mode or restrictive difficulty setting would be for people who want to try their luck/skill with it, once unlocked. Kinda like saying "Okay, you beat the regular game mode, now see if you have what it takes to be a true ghost".
Now, if some GR fans try it and don't like it, let them stick to regular until they are ready, or maybe regular is their style. I was comparing it to WL's Ghost mode, originally. I've been playing GR for quite sometime now, but as I said I myself haven't been hoping for more restrictive playstyles. Besides, I'm not trying to turn GR into COD or Fortnite. Many GR fans, like you and me, are different. I'm just trying to make an idea that makes it tactical and accessable. Not all GR fans want to play the same way as others do, nowadays.

[Steven527]

They have ignored the charter as far as any indications we actually get so I wouldn't underestimate their powers of non observation.

[rugby_dog]

Look Kean,

I'm not trying to offend. I'd been saying in other posts that maybe Ubi devs look at past iterations for ideas, like GRAW 2 and FS. A mix of playstyles from these two for regular and new players. Another mode, like a Ghost mode or restrictive difficulty setting would be for people who want to try their luck/skill with it, once unlocked. Kinda like saying "Okay, you beat the regular game mode, now see if you have what it takes to be a true ghost".
Now, if some GR fans try it and don't like it, let them stick to regular until they are ready, or maybe regular is their style. I was comparing it to WL's Ghost mode, originally. I've been playing GR for quite sometime now, but as I said I myself haven't been hoping for more restrictive playstyles. Besides, I'm not trying to turn GR into COD or Fortnite. Many GR fans, like you and me, are different. I'm just trying to make an idea that makes it tactical and accessable. Not all GR fans want to play the same way as others do, nowadays.

I’ve seen a few of your posts now where you talk about a more restrictive mode for hardcore players. Out of curiosity, what things would you expect in that part of the game rather than a ‘normal mode’. Just trying to understand what you consider hardcore and not?