🛈 Announcement
Greetings! Ghost-Recon forums are now archived and accessible in read-only mode, please go to the new platform to discuss the game.
  1. #1

    Looks like Boobiesoft followed the charter to a T....

    Well, turns out I was right. They would be better at making croissants, than a correct Tom Clancy game. Secondly, the new manager is useless as far as I can see. And thirdly, If you have your head so far up your arse, can't think outside the box, then they might have several positions available. And lastly, I could care less what happens to this post. If you are that stupid to do a 20 year anniversary like this, then you deserve everything that is coming to you.
     7 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  2. #2
    RaulO4's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,458
    relax,
    Share this post

  3. #3
    Oh, I am buddy, don't worry.
    Share this post

  4. #4
    Eagle-eyezx's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    May 2021
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    301
    Originally Posted by Rev09 Go to original post
    Oh, I am buddy, don't worry.
    Why don't you guys move onto other games that are actually tactical? I don't get it.
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Perhaps because we want a Ghost Recon game?

    Not hard to understand, at least I don't think.

    Normally one does not fight hard for something one doesn't like or want.

    Perhaps it begs the question... why aren't you fighting hard for it.





    He did said Boobiesoft and well, C'mon ... that's just funny right there.
     5 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  6. #6
    xxFratosxx's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    2,582
    I mean everyone has a chance to release frustration. When that anniversary started I kept my expectations low. I just had fun with the chat saying things like Future Soldier 2, GRAW3, remaster/remake, and so on. However, when I seen the 100+ players I just started laughing like really. Then when I seen first person only I was like they just taking everything away.

    Next I seen platforms like sniper towers and the other cover thing. I literally was thinking fortnite. Finally, I seen the following video with the armor plate exactly like Cod. It's like every 15 seconds they showed something to get you to that level of being mad. You can't pick your poison in this. Everything is just a downgrade and done in a different direction. I expected more from Bucharest but it is what it is.
     4 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by Eagle-eyezx Go to original post
    Why don't you guys move onto other games that are actually tactical? I don't get it.
    Because something a lot of you who just want to "move on to other games that are actually tactical" don't understand is that there is more to Ghost Recon than just tactical gameplay. Ghost Recon isn't just a modern squad-based tactical shooter series. It's supposed to be an authentic near-future tactical shooter series based on US special operations, cutting edge technology, and real-world modernization efforts. You are not going to find that anywhere else. Socom is not a substitute for Ghost Recon. Arma is not a substitute for Ghost Recon. Squad is not a substitute for Ghost Recon. Ground Branch is not a substitute for Ghost Recon. Zero Hour is not a substitute for Ghost Recon. Escape from Tarkov is not a substitute for Ghost Recon. Insurgency Sandstorm is not a substitute for Ghost Recon. Those games are not interchangeable with Ghost Recon. So no, we don't want to just move on to some other tactical shooter, because they aren't the same.

    That's what a lot of you have never understood, especially those of you who just want any tactical shooter on console. We want Ghost Recon to be better because we actually like Ghost Recon. We're not here just because it's the only tactical shooter we have access to. We're not here just because it's the closest thing to some other game that we can get on our platform of choice. We're not here just because we really want Ubisoft to make some other game (like the Splinter Cell fans who just want SC content in the game because they don't have a Splinter Cell game, or the Rainbow Six Siege fans who only care about R6 skins because they really just want a third person PvE R6 game). We actually care about Ghost Recon.
     4 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  8. #8
    The Charter does not apply to Ubi Bucharest making a F2P game that is just borrowing the name and assets ¯\(°_o)/¯

    We'll see how Ubisoft Paris feels about the charter when/if we get another Ghost Recon game.

    Anyone still yelping about this being a real Ghost Recon game is not paying attention. Rage that they put the GR name on Frontline. Rage that they revealed it during the 20th. Stop acting like this is the successor to Breakpoint.

    Y'all are welcome to throw all my posts about this in my face if Ubi comes out and says Ghost Recon is now only a F2P PvP franchise in the next three years. Until then, this is what was expected by anyone that follows the business side of Ubisoft, and they are not abandoning proper AAA, PvE Ghost Recon installments. Maybe it turns out they were lying though.
    Share this post

  9. #9
    I do agree with Apexmandalorian about GR having a certain something in it's setting that separates it from other tactical games out there. There are some games that, even though they aren't originated as a tactical game, have some form of tactical element to them. Killzone: Shadow Fall has some aspects of this, with different routes and objectives to take, and a drone that you can give orders to.
    However, when Apex said no substitute, I think it's that SOCOM, and ARMA, heck even the Conflict series, are not Ghost Recon itself. Even though it's a tactical game, it doesn't make it a Ghost Recon game. Somehow it feels a bit different than the others. I personally think that GR is the group that "Protects America today with the tools and training of tomorrow" or protecting us in the near future. Is that what you meant, Apex?
    I will say, Eagle-eyezx, that GR is not my only tactical game source. Since I play on other PS consoles, I have other options, like Army of Two, it's not just a tactical game I can work with but it's one of my favorite franchises. Personally, I'm just a big fan of shooters. It's a genre that makes up almost my entire taste for gaming.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by LateNiteDelight Go to original post
    The Charter does not apply to Ubi Bucharest making a F2P game that is just borrowing the name and assets ¯\(°_o)/¯

    We'll see how Ubisoft Paris feels about the charter when/if we get another Ghost Recon game.

    Anyone still yelping about this being a real Ghost Recon game is not paying attention. Rage that they put the GR name on Frontline. Rage that they revealed it during the 20th. Stop acting like this is the successor to Breakpoint.

    Y'all are welcome to throw all my posts about this in my face if Ubi comes out and says Ghost Recon is now only a F2P PvP franchise in the next three years. Until then, this is what was expected by anyone that follows the business side of Ubisoft, and they are not abandoning proper AAA, PvE Ghost Recon installments. Maybe it turns out they were lying though.
    It is a Ghost Recon game, even if it's not the successor to Breakpoint. The fact that they're willing to have a game like this within the Ghost Recon franchise shows what kind of liberties they are willing to take for the franchise. We don't even have to look at Frontline. Look at the liberties Breakpoint took that were widely panned by the player base, things like gear score and tiered loot and raids. It's not just about PvE vs PvP. It's not just about F2P vs traditional AAA. It's about what they're willing to do with a tactical shooter franchise. Had Frontline presented tactical gameplay within a military context, with military characters, then I wouldn't criticize it. I wouldn't play it, because I'm not big on PvP, but I wouldn't criticize it. But Ubisoft has demonstrated that they are willing to completely remove authentic, tactical gameplay from their tactical shooter franchises, and that's what Frontline represents: a failure to listen to players who want these iconic tactical franchises to remain authentic and tactical. And it's also a big red flag when they don't even have you playing as Ghosts in a Ghost Recon game, which is a further development in their trend since Wildlands to push the Ghosts away from their military connections.
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post

Page 1 of 6 123 ... Last ►►