Question for the old school players!! | Forums

[xxFratosxx]

I never played the first few GR so I wouldn't mind if it was remaster/remake but I would prefer a reboot. The game is linear but the story can be linear which is fine by me. I would like a sandbox on the side to be honest. Kind of like The Division on how the story is linear and everything else is just in the open world for activities.

I personally prefer sandbox over open world any day for a shooter. The answer is cause sandbox delivers more than open world and its less restrictive. Open world normally have 1 big map or region with different biomes. So everything looks nearly the same and it all has to connect every few meters to have some type of realism to not break immersion.

Sandbox on the other hand doesn't have to stick to realism. You can easily go from one map to another through teleporting or a portal. So you can have a sandbox map that's a metropolitan city. Another map that's completely underground. Another map somewhere on the sea or desert. The Point is it don't have to connect and you have separate big locations whereas a open world map like Wildlands Bolivia or Breakpoint Aurora it has to be the same which leads to copy n paste.

The Division identified as a open world really is one big sandbox when you look at the details. For instance you have the map of Washington, DC and New York. Both maps aren't connected so you have to travel between the two through portals. You also have some other maps that's not within those maps you have to teleport to such as the raid, amusement park, campsite, haunted house, airport, Pentagon, etc...

This why The Division world looks a lot different majority of the time. It's not like Wildlands or Breakpoint that has the same gas station, chapels, or buildings. You really have to depend on landmarks in the open world to make it same like things are different but Ubisoft landmarks in both Breakpoint and Wildlands are really small. This why I say it's open world is empty. Yet Ubisoft charge full price for a low effort they output.

So if you really want different things sandbox is the way to go. Leave the open world to MMORPGs. Sandbox will totally fit for GR imo but I don't think Ubi will do it. Open world copy n paste is much easier meanwhile sandbox require more work and detail. I thought Wildlands was going to have 3 sandbox areas when it showed its e3 trailer reveal with the drugs/cartel being connected to South America, North America, and Europe. Final release it was just Bolivia.

Same downfall with The Division 1. It ended up being just Manhattan but it was also supposed to have Queens, NY and Brooklyn, NY. Throughout Wildlands life cycle we didn't get to go to a new continent much less expand the map. So they really need to stop sugar coding crossovers and character urban customization. Give us worlds not world with loads of content, modes, player count, and meaningful campaign we won't forget. This what the next GR should be but Ubisoft is going to be Ubisoft. This the type of world's I expect in a shooter since other genre does it easily. That's why I'm not happy with the updates tgey released cause it's literally what we been had since day 1 but it's just painted differently.

[FcAc-No-Moe]

I'm torned between the opinions of Keltimus and ArgimonEd. On one hand you have planification (from itineraries to team selection) from the first Ghost Recons games and on the other hand those games had all a linear and scripted campaign.

Unless they "re"implement the elements, I sincerely miss, and create a non linear campaign it would be great. Otherwise, I probably won't bother with it especially if it's a FPS.

To the bold... Again, show me where those maps were linear? I just don't understand. Ok, so they had an in-Fil and they had and Ex-Fil and then a cut-scene, is that why you guys are calling them linear? Is it because you couldn't jump from map to map w/o getting into a cut-scene? Help me understand if you would.

[jmagnum50]

A minor graphics upgrade, like for Quake 1 remastered, yeah. I would like to see all parts of GR 2, including the expansion pack, and both parts of GRAW, including the true GRAW 1. But, who knows what will happen.

[ArgimonEd]

To the bold... Again, show me where those maps were linear? I just don't understand. Ok, so they had an in-Fil and they had and Ex-Fil and then a cut-scene, is that why you guys are calling them linear? Is it because you couldn't jump from map to map w/o getting into a cut-scene? Help me understand if you would.

Means that the options on how to accomplish said objectives are very limited and you need to follow the missions as the game wants.
You go from mission 1 to 10.
In WL for example I can complete 95% of the missions in at least 10 different ways and I make the missions order, you can even have the 4 different players doing 4 different missions at the same time
And if I want to not do any missions at all and just free roam I can, this is what we mean that linear games like original GR didn't offer.

[FcAc-No-Moe]

A minor graphics upgrade, like for Quake 1 remastered, yeah. I would like to see all parts of GR 2, including the expansion pack, and both parts of GRAW, including the true GRAW 1. But, who knows what will happen.

I wouldn't mind playing GR2 with improved graphics even due to the fact that I never played it because it never came out for PC

Means that the options on how to accomplish said objectives are very limited and you need to follow the missions as the game wants.
You go from mission 1 to 10.
In WL for example I can complete 95% of the missions in at least 10 different ways and I make the missions order, you can even have the 4 different players doing 4 different missions at the same time
And if I want to not do any missions at all and just free roam I can, this is what we mean that linear games like original GR didn't offer.

Ohhhhh man, but isn't there a better word to use than Linear?

To me linear is Rainbow Six Vegas, you can only go 1 route and perhaps the small deviation to around the block but you'll funnel in through the same route no matter what. That to me is the definition of Linear. More so when the mission could be accomplish in a couple if not different ways, even the one in the Bank.

So, please, I beg you guys to find a different word because you guys are playing with my feelings when you call OGR Linear ( )

[jmagnum50]

OGR is just semi-linear, As ArmigonEd said. Others in the series before WL we're truly linear in terms of game play. The most non linear was WL, with BP behind it.

[AI BLUEFOX]

The orginal was a linear story, but made up from a sequence of essentially non-linear missions. Usually linear is used to describe how the missions are actually played rather than that you have to play them in sequence or not. Graw was a linear story with mostly linear gameplay whereas Future Soldier was more or less on rails with the gameplay.

[Megalodon26]

Yes, to me, a linear game is one where you have no real choices. You move from point A to point B, and the combat is often scripted. Some perfect examples of linear games, are the GRAWS and Future Soldier, as well as the single player campaigns in COD, BF and MoH games. But as great as those campaigns may be, there is a limit to how many times you can play the same thing over and over, when the outcome is inevitable, regardless of your actions. .

[Ice-Quinn]

Hmm… am I an old school player??? *pensive*

[Xion-]

Ground Branch in my honest opinion is a revamp of the old Ghost Recon series. It's just like old GR but with steroids!
The following is a version 1032 update that is coming soon. Worth your while to check it out!
https://www.groundbranch.com/2021/08/intel-update-009/