I disagree that the near future tech was what defined Ghost Recon at the start. It was an interesting addition to the tactical game that added some gameplay interest and helped with the theme that the Ghosts were the best of the best and so could use weapon systems, gear and equipment that wasn't yet approved for general issue and use.
It started to morph into a a key feature with GRAW and then became the theme with Future Soldier and thankfully, in my view, Wildlands started to back away from that. I'm all for it being a feature if it is realistic near future tech and not science fiction, Ghost Recon for me has always played better without the gadgets.
I'm with Blue on this. It's one thing to add a few things that are currently being field tested into the game, like the OICW and XM-8 were at the time. But they shouldn't be using tech that have barely progressed past the concept phase, and then using it as key feature of the game. In Breakpoint for example. Yes drones are being developed, but not ones that are autonomous, that can defy gravity and physics, with an endless power supply. .
They should have been more like these, but limited in number.
![]()
if these were the Metal Gears we were facing in Breakpoint i would not have had an issue with it.Originally Posted by Megalodon26 Go to original post
Well Bluefox, I think part of what was mentioned in GR 1's intro was "led with the latest battlefield technology". Now the XM8 and OICW had problems before the years these games were set in, I think. However, the thing with GR is not just supposed to be focused around this special ops team, but also show the kind of hardware used now and concepts of proposed projects in the future. That's a good (perhaps sizeable) bit of what Ghost Recon is and what differentiates them from other U.S. units; they not only operate like Spec Ops groups like them, but get access to working prototype hardware to give them an edge, making them their enemies' equal in combat or their better despite their numbers.
I'm not pushing for sci-fi tech. I haven't suggested bringing back any of Future Soldier's tech. That's irrelevant to the conversation. But programs like Land Warrior aren't just an interesting aspect to the game. They're part of the identity of the game, even if they didn't affect the gameplay much. That's part of who the Ghosts are. You can't just dismiss that when it comes to Ghost Recon. That's why it's Ghost Recon and "Army Special Forces." That is the identity of Ghost Recon. GRAW fully realized what Ghost Recon (2001) was loosely based on.Originally Posted by AI BLUEFOX Go to original post
It's true, though, even with Ghost Recon (2001) where it was loosely based on the Land Warrior program. Otherwise, old websites like ghostrecon.net wouldn't have correctly pointed out the Land Warrior connections to Ghost Recon (https://web.archive.org/web/20010812.../html/faqs.htm). The early games weren't like Wildlands. Even the original Ghost Recon, being as limited as it was, was still at its core about the Ghosts being the cutting edge tip of the spear. The games eventually made the warfighting capabilities more of the focus of the game not only because it was a development of the US Army modernization programs but also because warfighting capabilities were actually expanding during that time. Future Soldier goes overboard precisely because it isn't based on specific technologies that are being developed, but speculates about conceptual tech, but the core focus of GR1 through GRAW 2 is on the Ghosts having capabilities that exceed that of their enemies. Whether you like it or not, that's the core idea behind the Ghosts. Take that away, and there's no reason for the Ghosts to exist within this lore.
Let's even forget about the Ghosts themselves right now, because this goes beyond just the Ghosts' capabilities. Actual current SOF have more warfighting capabilities than are present in Wildlands and Breakpoint. A lot of you claim to care about authenticity and realism, yet you praise Wildlands where the Ghosts just have their guns and maybe their drones. That's not realistic. That's not authentic. I'm sure it feels badass, like Rambo, but it's not authentic at all. The Ghosts have no access to drone overwatch, no access to CAS, no access to cutting edge night vision (the Ghosts in the game are basically using 2000s-era night vision, no access to their TOC where they can actually have updates on enemy positions on the ground. No ATAK where they can see friendly positions in the area. They're so lacking that they don't even carry radios.
What you all are pushing for (make Ghost Recon like Wildlands) isn't authenticity or realism. It's just a barebones experience. You want a game without gadgets, yet the US military has a lot of gadgets. No, they aren't stupid sci-fi stuff like sentry grenades that can see through walls or invisibility cloaks. But the US military uses technology. A lot of it. Everything I presented to you was stuff that was actually being worked on, and that was the point; Ghost Recon, in fact Tom Clancy's work, imagined the possible future. His novels weren't stuck on what was only in present day or the past. I don't know why I have to keep saying it, but Ghost Recon has never been a modern shooter. And to say that doesn't mean I'm advocating for a hyper-futuristic game like Phantoms or Future Soldier. The early games were near-future, yet plausible. They're still plausible today.
Perhaps the reason Ghost Recon has an identity crisis is not only because Ubisoft Paris doesn't value what Ghost Recon was, but because the majority of its players don't value what it was either. Maybe that's why some of you were offended by the Red Storm part of the anniversary video. If you're just looking for a console version of Arma or Squad or EFT or Zero Hour, then perhaps that's why Wildlands is the gold standard of Ghost Recon for a lot of you. Maybe that's why a lot of you are so willing to run to another tactical shooter the moment it shows up on console.
I understand if that's not an aspect of Ghost Recon you care about, but it is the aspect that makes Ghost Recon unique. It is the core foundation of Ghost Recon. That's why the Ghosts exist. That's why they aren't just Army Special Forces or Delta Force or SEAL Team Six. Strip that away, and there's no point in the game being Ghost Recon. Maybe that's for the best, anyway. Maybe it's best that Ubisoft retires Ghost Recon. Because the alternative to actually embracing the identity of Ghost Recon is to simply try to copy whatever other game is out there, whether it's copying the most popular tactical shooter at the moment (like Insurgency Sandstorm right now) or chasing the biggest fad (like battle royale).
I know a lot people want Ghost Recon to return to being like their idea of what the first game was, but that doesn't make it realistic or authentic, and if you're really sticking to the charter that you all made, then you have to embrace the fact that what Ghost Recon 1 presents, and what Wildlands presents, is not realistic or authentic to warfighting. Being barebones like Wildlands, behind enemy lines, with no support and no communication, and no proper gear =/= authentic or realistic. Being an old school hardcore shooter like OGR =/= authentic or realistic. Even the heavy presence of support assets itself in the Advanced Warfighter games =/= authentic or realistic. I want an authentic gameplay experience, as well as one that embraces the plausible near-future (not the far-future, not sci-fi, the plausible near-future). That starts with embracing realistic technology as it is actually used by SOF, and then incorporating the current in-development technologies that could enhance their warfighting capabilities (like 6.8mm ammunition, lighter weapons, enhanced night vision, and even currently-in-developer augmented reality).
I don't seem to recall pushing for tech that has barely passed the concept phase, but perhaps that's your characterization of the Land Warrior and Future Force Warrior programs. And Land Warrior and Future Combat Systems were too far-fetched, but let's go with some non-American equipment because that's more plausible I guess.Originally Posted by Megalodon26 Go to original post
Looking forward, I think Ghost Recon needs embrace an authentic portrayal of warfighting. They should start with the basics: get movement, shooting, and communication right. Then add in real warfighting capabilities of US Tier 1 operators. Then add in the various support assets that they actually rely on. And then, finally, bring in the few WIP pieces of equipment that are being worked on, that you can count on no more than 10 fingers. That's not a big ask, and it's not asking to turn Ghost Recon into a sci-fi game. It's asking for actual authenticity, not a make believe authenticity that imagines Ghost Recon as something more akin to Splinter Cell, or limits Ghost Recon to the barebones experience of games like EFT and Insurgency Sandstorm, or restricts Ghost Recon to a mere CQB building-breaching experience like Zero Hour or Ground Branch.
Most seem to have wanted Arma-lite. Well what I'm talking about is the closest thing to that while retaining Ghost Recon's actual identity.
Using cutting edge technology and gear that is likely to be used in the near-future does not negate using current gear. It's about looking at what's currently used and what is currently in development, and what's currently going on in the world of geopolitics, and looking at what warfare might look like with those tools 6-7 years from now. That's what the original Ghost Recon did. That's what GR2 did. That's what GRAW and GRAW2 did. It's ok if you never cared about that aspect of Ghost Recon. It's ok if you ignored all that and just played the games as a modern shooter. But it wasn't. It never was. That's not to say it wasn't realistic and wasn't authentic and didn't mostly feature current weaponry (that was still considered the best in the world). It just means Ghost Recon was never a series focused on the present, no matter how much a lot of players want it to become that.Originally Posted by nyleken Go to original post
I'd be curious what Bone Frog thinks of that considering most of the games you note are 10 years old looking at the future. How much of that future is even close to what actual tech Special Ops teams use now and how much really is just sci fi imagining by Clancy who was simply an okay writer at best (heresy!!!!) . My bet is Wildlands is actually closer to the mark and even it is a bit over the top with an EMP drone.Originally Posted by ApexMandalorian Go to original post
Hmm. Blufor tracker, ATAK which is basically a tactical minimap, ENVG-Bs which outline objects in the world due to overlaying views (night vision and thermal I think, or night vision and IR), large drones which a TOC can use to spot enemy positions, AI motion-tracking which tracks motion and puts boxes around moving people, personal pocket-sized drones which can be used for reconnaissance, Crye gear, And that doesn't even take into account all the vehicles that are used.Originally Posted by Steven527 Go to original post
Need I go on? Wildlands with just its guns and its drone is not realistic. Wildlands where you double as an infantry-based operator and as a pilot is not authentic or realistic. Being on the ground with no communication with your command, and where you're just in the country to wreck stuff without any real operational planning is not authentic or realistic. No, Wildlands is not closer to the mark. If we're talking operationally, Future Soldier is the closest to the mark. If we're talking level of technology and equipment used, then something between GR1, GR2, GRAW, and GRAW2 is the mark. If we're talking about realistic military gear, Breakpoint is closest to the mark. Only in terms of world design (so, setting and realistic enemies) and AI presence and behavior (movement of NPCs throughout the world) is Wildlands closest to the mark, imo.
those are very selective choices compared to what is in the games and their actual implementation. Blu For tracker versus tech that is marking any opponents automatically versus non combatant civilians, Invisibility cloaks. etc even the stuff you noted above, how much of that is actually used versus still stuff that is being experimented with.Originally Posted by ApexMandalorian Go to original post
As to being a copter pilot, yeah that isn't a tech choice but a game design decision. I think that is simply an adjustment they had to make for an open world for better or worse. I agree about the operational side of Wildlands. We were talking more tech though. Personally I'd have preferred a much better mission operation design as well. I think it could have been done much better in the Wildlands design.
I think a hybrid is the most reasonable representation.