I agree 100%. I don't want GR to be a substitute for those games.Originally Posted by ApexMandalorian Go to original post
understand,Originally Posted by ApexMandalorian Go to original post
Ghost Recon will never be a "Ghost Recon" game again. you got to move on or else you simple be mad every single release.
Ghost Recon is different now. its aiming to be Arcading first Tactical second. Wild Lands is the best you gonna get.. which is just that. Arcade tactical shooter.
Whether there is or there isn't another AAA GR game in the pipeline is not the point, at least not for me, the point is whether it will be another BoilPoint/Flatline PvE GR game.
That is the main point and by them not saying anything on the Eve of OGR 20th Anniversary is telling. Well, at least to me is and I don't need to follow their gimmicky business model to know that. I mean, who has time to go through that mess, watching paint dry would be ever so much fun.
Expecting a different thing is listening to the FC3 dude give you the definition of Insanity but, there is the rub, I like to make sure before I go away for good.
No, I meant what I said. Literally. Ghost Recon is based on US special operations (the Ghosts were Army Special Forces, aka Green Berets). Their gear was cutting-edge and based on real-world military modernization efforts (efforts to update their military capabilities).Originally Posted by jmagnum50 Go to original post
The original Ghost Recon presents a plausible near-future conflict in Eastern Europe. The Ghosts themselves:
The Land Warrior Program:
Look familiar? Three more photos:
https://i.imgur.com/MznuE1d.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/gxMzI4Q.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/9snXqUc.jpg
Then there's Ghost Recon 2. The Ghosts:
Land Warrior a little later in development:
Then there's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter. The Ghosts:
The Future Force Warrior Program (successor to Land Warrior program and previously called the Objective Force Warrior Program):
Look familiar? Another photo of an early iteration of the gear:
https://i.imgur.com/upxbOLi.jpg
You'll also notice the camo and style of the gear. Yes, this is where Crye Precision got their start and is why, years later, special forces units started adopting Crye gear.
Then there's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2. The Ghosts and their equipment:
The Future Combat Systems program (an expansion of the Future Force Warrior program):
Get it, yet?
It's not just something that sets Ghost Recon apart from other game series. It's a very specific something, that something being that Ghost Recon drew its inspirations from real-world US army programs that aimed to update the US military for the 21st century. It was the kind of thing that fit with Tom Clancy's novels, which created plausible future conflict scenarios based on current developments at the time. Ghost Recon was a Tom Clancy game because it presented a plausible future conflict based on current geopolitical developments and current developments within the US military. It imagined what future conflict would look like if these programs were fully realized, within a special forces context.
When the Red Storm developers were talking about how they approached their Ghost Recon games, you might have noticed seeing some of that Future Force Warrior gear in their "gear room." What they were saying wasn't BS, like FcAc-No-Moe has claimed a few times now. It wasn't in reference to Breakpoint, as some have assumed. This is what the inspiration was for Ghost Recon. This is what it's about. Even the crazy tech in Ghost Recon Future Soldier was based in part on speculation about light-bending materials being able to work as a sort of stealth cloaking system. And that game was the only game that actually consulted actual Tier 1 operators for its gameplay, movement, and tactics.
Other games don't have this. Other series aren't like this. This is what actually makes Ghost Recon unique, and it's why Wildlands, Breakpoint, and Future Soldier all fall short when it comes to living up to Ghost Recon's actual roots.
This is what most so-called Ghost Recon fans, from what I've noticed, never talk about when it comes to Ghost Recon. That's why they think games like Ground Branch are spiritual successors to Ghost Recon. That's why they're just ok moving on to another tactical shooter. They're not here for Ghost Recon. They're just here for the genre.
No. Wildlands is not the best we're going to get, because it fails to be a proper Ghost Recon game in a number of areas, but mainly story and gameplay.Originally Posted by RaulO4 Go to original post
so you not gonna understand the part that they wont make a Realistic Tactical game for a very long time?No. Wildlands is not the best we're going to get, because it fails to be a proper Ghost Recon game in a number of areas, but mainly story and gameplay.
they dont make a Realistic game not because they do not know how to but rather they do not want to. if you do not like wild lands than take this advise.. move on. cause all you are doing is wasting your time screaming to an empty void
I wasn't screaming. I was responding to two people to explain why the idea of just moving on to another game that is tactical isn't sufficient. And that explanation was that it isn't just a choice between Ubisoft's tactical shooter and another studio's tactical shooter, because there's more to Ghost Recon than it just being a tactical shooter. And then when someone asked what I meant, I explained what I meant. Again, not screaming. But I understand if a lot of words looks like screaming to you.Originally Posted by RaulO4 Go to original post
So, take this advice: if you don't like discussion, move on to a different thread. I'll choose what I spend my time doing. You don't have to read it.
LOL, the charter was from four months ago. You're deluding yourself if you think Frontline wasn't already deep into development and internal play tests by the time it was posted.
And once again, community managers aren't the ones who make decisions. They're responsible for capturing community feedback and passing it on to the people who do.
Screaming to the void is a saying not meant to take it letteral.Originally Posted by ApexMandalorian Go to original post
again back to the point. that Ghost recon does not exist and wont Exist. so you are not choosing between Ghost recon or Sandstorm.. you choosing between a game called Ghost Recon and another. that point.. it makes no difference just play the other game cause due to not even having a ghost recon to choose from.
Yeah. Frontline was in development well before the charter, so the charter of course has no influence on Frontline. In general, I think people here are propping up this charter way too much, and by extension, propping up Delta Company way too much. Most of the community has said generally the same things regarding the direction of the Ghost Recon series, and we've said it since Wildlands. We were even clear about BR back when Mercenaries released. Ubisoft just didn't care. It's not on the CMs. It's on the leadership of the dev studio and on the executives. My only frustrations with the CMs is that they don't communicate (even just general engagement with the community is zero, whether they have news or not) and that some of them tried to hype us up for the stream while knowing we wouldn't respond well to it. That frustrates me. And given the lack of communication, we honestly don't know how much of our feedback the CMs pass on to the developers.Originally Posted by dagrommit Go to original post
Yeah. I was just saying that it's not just something generic that sets Ghost Recon apart. It's a very specific set of things that influenced the early games, and those sorts of things should influence future Ghost Recon games. So, things like the NGSW program, and the IVAS program, and the ENVG-Bs and those capabilities, and the current US foreign policy shift towards Russia and China should all be influences for future games, and even for content in Breakpoint.Originally Posted by jmagnum50 Go to original post