Frontline: the wrong game at the wrong time. | Forums

[TONY-NOVA]

Ubisoft is late to the party and wants to compensate by flooding the market with their three new PVP games. I guess they're adamant about making success after their last venture in to PVP which was a flop. Reminds me of the band who tries to copy the hit single of another band but the direction of music has changed and it's too late because they put all their eggs in one basket.

[Milliardo.V]

What's most sad to me is the seeming obliviousness of the Community Team to our likely reaction to this. UbiT00n was over on Reddit saying things like this:



She's seen enough of our discussions here and on Reddit to have expected the overwhelming negative reaction to the stream. I don't understand why she even made an attempt to generate hype for this. And the repeated mention of surprises and gift emotes is baffling because 1) we've kinda made it clear that the whole radio silence > "soon" > surprise info dump right before an update to create a "ta-da" moment just doesn't have the impact they think it has, and 2) again, she had to know there would be a negative reaction to this stream. I just don't understand why Ubisoft leadership is so out-of-touch and I don't understand how the Community Team seems equally out-of-touch.

Well it's her job. Imagine if the CM did say “Well the next game is probably the opposite of what most of you want.” or worse, didn't say anything. One shows they know that most of the feedback the community gives is just for show the other shows lack of trust on the product.

[El_Cuervacho]

I guess, in the best of cases, this is Ubisoft trying to make some money off of BP's asset work, models and the like.

[Eagle-eyezx]

Thing is, they aren't even spec ops teams battling each other. They're not even Ghosts. They're contractors. But that honestly doesn't surprise me. Since Wildlands, Ubisoft has been pushing Ghost Recon away from any hard connections to the military. Much like what they did with the Assassins in the Assassin's Creed series starting with AC Origins, in Wildlands, Ubisoft made sure that the Ghosts wore civilian clothing and 5.11 Tactical gear. They made sure the Ghosts were indistinguishable from mercenaries, contractors, or CIA agents. They had no connection to military leadership throughout the game. They were just bad dudes with guns. When they finally brought in some kind of connection with the military, it was through Mitchell and only because he was present in GRFS. Ghost Recon Breakpoint does the exact same thing. It disconnects the Ghosts from their military leadership and military assets. It puts them in another context where they're on their own, without proper military gear, without communication with military leadership and support assets. Again, they're indistinguishable from mercenaries, contractors, or CIA agents. They're just bad dudes (and women) with guns.

I said this was similar to the Assassin's Creed series. Here's how. Starting with AC Origins, your main characters weren't part of the Assassin's Order/Brotherhood. They were the precursors. They were technically connected through that aspect, but they were never the same group as the series' namesake. In the follow up to that game, AC Odyssey, you're not playing as an Assassin at all and there is zero connection with the series' namesake. In the third follow up, AC Valhalla, you are still not playing as an Assassin. They literally moved the games away from the title protagonists yet kept the name such that the series is now completely disassociated with its former identity.

I bring this up to point out that this is what they've done with Ghost Recon. They have moved Ghost Recon away from its identity as a tactical, near-future, military-inspired and military-influenced series. The 20th anniversary video only reinforces this fact when you look at how pre-Wildlands devs discuss approaching their games. Even though the series moved towards a more arcade experience, it was still a series rooted in the military authenticity and exploration of possible future conflicts and soldier technology as informed by the US Army's modernization efforts. The series was grounded in a military-based experience and the Ghosts were the embodiment of a future Army unit. Wildlands and Breakpoint pushed the series away from that, and Frontline represents the conclusion of that push through its contractors. A lot of people have brought up the move away from tactical gameplay, while some praised Wildlands simply for reducing its level of technology. However, not enough people pushed back on the shift away from Ghost Recon's military identity, in my opinion.

That's why I've liked that we've started discussing more about the direction of the series and what we'd like to see the series do next and what we'd like the next game to have. It's also why I'm disappointed in the community team not doing more to get the devs to engage with the community on these subjects (while they also expressed excitement over yesterday's stream) and why I'm disappointed in the dev team not engaging with us.

This post should be sticked onto the main forum. Very well said.

[kyles3]

Bluefox makes too much sense, so of course Ubisoft doesn't listen to him. They only seem interested in dashing fans' hopes and running the GR franchise into the ground.

[GamerCZ84]

I have no problem with 1st person, because recent fan base believe that Ghost Recon is a 3rd person game, which can not be more wrong. It started as first person view and over the years under Ubisoft dictatorship it turned into more and more arcady game with 3rd person.

I dont mind 3rd person because of obvious reasons for PVE.

But frontline is an insult to anyone who was buying Ubisoft titles and GR titles specifically.

If I have to comment on it outside the GR and TC brands? It still looks like complete .... . Some really really ugly Wazone clone with ugly graphics ugly sound and defiently the most idiotic game mechanics I have ever seen.

Even COD Mobile BR will smoke this out of the sky.

Frontline is the same as Xdefiant - Its dead on arrival. I wont even register for the beta. Why would I?

I really dont understand how can Ubisoft completely ignore feedback from their own player base.
Are they not interested in adult audience? To me they are doing everything in their power to push us 30+ out and replace us with 12 year olds. I mean no offence towards kids. I love kids and I am looking forward to play games with my own when they grow up. But why adults does not deserve at least ONE game franchise from Ubi selection?

Tom Clancy was always are for hardcore and adult games, but Ubi unified everything from TC to WD, AC, FC... everything is the same forced "fun" which I hardly believe any adult actually finds fun... cheers for some minor exceptions...

I cant help it, but this company is done. They have materials to make insanly good games and they waste it all

[fastastoast]

Just a perspective.. I think as a playstation plus users I got a ww2 game (hell something?) for free that looks better than frontline and I'm not gonna play that either..

There must be some business group looking a video game revenue models or whatever and thinking they need a piece of the action.. the thing is fortnite is such an outlying success that they should remove it from the research. They'll never replicate it, it was a perfect storm, the planets all aligned for epic and it's bloody ruined the industry with everyone chasing that dream cash cow!

The only saving grace is it's free so we will all probably try it.. but then I guess they'll brag they had 10 million play..

Anyone thinking we should campaign for 3rd person? Coz if it played like GW in Wildlands I might be into it!

[rugby_dog]

Just a perspective.. I think as a playstation plus users I got a ww2 game (hell something?) for free that looks better than frontline and I'm not gonna play that either..

There must be some business group looking a video game revenue models or whatever and thinking they need a piece of the action.. the thing is fortnite is such an outlying success that they should remove it from the research. They'll never replicate it, it was a perfect storm, the planets all aligned for epic and it's bloody ruined the industry with everyone chasing that dream cash cow!

The only saving grace is it's free so we will all probably try it.. but then I guess they'll brag they had 10 million play..

Anyone thinking we should campaign for 3rd person? Coz if it played like GW in Wildlands I might be into it!

You don’t have to play something because it’s free. I certainly won’t, I won’t be buying any more Ubisoft games ever simply because they’ve killed off all the franchises.

[FNDMNTAL]

Anyone thinking we should campaign for 3rd person? Coz if it played like GW in Wildlands I might be into it!

Yea but before that Blue needs hair cut!
Let's put things in right order here!

[Church367A]

I’m glad I’m not the only one to see the Fortnite comparison. I also feel like this company is totally lost. They seem hell bent on following this direction, so at this point it seems the best we can hope for is that their share prices tank even further, they get in serious financial difficulties and end up selling the franchise.

With the latest announcements from Ubi, I would not be surprised if this ends up happening in the future. Everything has been a departure from their origins or a new concept nobody is requesting.