Finally It's here Ops Motherland! what do u think of the trailer? | Forums

[ApexMandalorian]

Seriously how they thought this and the 2 new heavies were a good idea?

Simple: It was in Wildlands. Wildlands had heavies and invisible enemies in Fallen Ghosts. Some members here praised Wildlands as the gold standard of Ghost Recon for years. Some here repeatedly praised Fallen Ghosts. Why is this surprising? Maybe if the feedback was more nuanced and wasn't just "Wildlands good, Breakpoint bad", and maybe, just maybe, if there had been more people clarifying what they meant by "Wildlands 2", perhaps they wouldn't have just gone with something that is basically Fallen Ghosts: Breakpoint edition.

[Kean_1]

Seriously how they thought this and the 2 new heavies were a good idea?

I know.....

It's like the point you made earlier that Ubi seems to have this knack for implementing some features the community wants but then putting their own spin on it or otherwise screwing up something in the process. Ghost Mode in WL was a classic example. Several frequently requested features people had asked for as options that are released but locked behind a permadeath mode no one wanted. ....or at least, very few. So, if you wanted to use most of those features, you had to play Ghost Mode.

Always seems to feel like one step forward, two steps back to me.

[ArgimonEd]

Simple: It was in Wildlands. Wildlands had heavies and invisible enemies in Fallen Ghosts. Some members here praised Wildlands as the gold standard of Ghost Recon for years. Some here repeatedly praised Fallen Ghosts. Why is this surprising? Maybe if the feedback was more nuanced and wasn't just "Wildlands good, Breakpoint bad", and maybe, just maybe, if there had been more people clarifying what they meant by "Wildlands 2", perhaps they wouldn't have just gone with something that is basically Fallen Ghosts: Breakpoint edition.

But people did clarify.
We want the Good things in WL and the Good things in BP to marry and have a baby.
More often then not in the same threads we always complained on how heavies are stupid and how we hate bullet sponge and unrealistic things.
I mean it was really clear for the past 2 years that this was a no go

[Steven527]

Simple: It was in Wildlands. Wildlands had heavies and invisible enemies in Fallen Ghosts. Some members here praised Wildlands as the gold standard of Ghost Recon for years. Some here repeatedly praised Fallen Ghosts. Why is this surprising? Maybe if the feedback was more nuanced and wasn't just "Wildlands good, Breakpoint bad", and maybe, just maybe, if there had been more people clarifying what they meant by "Wildlands 2", perhaps they wouldn't have just gone with something that is basically Fallen Ghosts: Breakpoint edition.

you mean like... a charter?

[Kean_1]

Maybe if the feedback was more nuanced and wasn't just "Wildlands good, Breakpoint bad".....

If that's what Ubi takes from all of what had been contributed in the WL and BP forums, via the polls, the Charter, etc., what can I say other than they missed a whole hell of a lot. They are very short sighted in that case as we have had many discussions on these topics with details and examples of what we want to see in GR. Discussions about optical camo, bullet sponge mechanics, a better gunsmith, RPG mechanics, loot mechanics, camera angles, ballistics, ammo management, player animations, drones, vehicle controls / physics, team AI commands, the damage model, a weight system, etc., etc., etc.

[ApexMandalorian]

If that's what Ubi takes from all of what had been contributed in the WL and BP forums, via the polls, the Charter, etc., what can I say other than they missed a whole hell of a lot. They are very short sighted in that case as we have had many discussions on these topics with details and examples of what we want to see in GR. Discussions about optical camo, bullet sponge mechanics, a better gunsmith, RPG mechanics, loot mechanics, camera angles, ballistics, ammo management, player animations, drones, vehicle controls / physics, team AI commands, the damage model, a weight system, etc., etc., etc.

This is why we need more actual discussion between us and Ubisoft. Because so many people just wanted to go back to Wildlands, whether it's remastering the game or having a sequel that just continues with the enemies from Wildlands. That's the problem with this update having Bodark. Some people just wanted a return to Future Soldier. Ubisoft looks at the big picture stuff, and misses the actual nuanced discussion going on, and then too often, the nuanced discussion is drowned out by generalized discussion like "Make it more like Wildlands" or "Breakpoint is good" (it's rare, but I've seen it). And see, this is where I fault the Community Team, because they don't look at the nuanced discussions. They're quick to prop up generalized surveys that don't fully capture the relative few detailed discussions that are had. Too many people (especially on Reddit) were saying general things like "go back to Wildlands".

That's why, for me, I don't just want a return to one game or another game in terms of story, tone, formula, etc. I want something that has its basis in realism and authenticity with respect to US special operations, that continues open world just because it's a bigger sandbox, that brings in realistic ballistics and damage, and has a well-crafted open world that changes due to different conditions and player actions, and then from there, add in real cutting edge tech. Even that is too general, and there have been discussions regarding various aspects of the series, but Ubisoft Paris has to engage with us in these discussions. I think the reason they keep messing up is because they refuse to do so.

But people did clarify.
We want the Good things in WL and the Good things in BP to marry and have a baby.
More often then not in the same threads we always complained on how heavies are stupid and how we hate bullet sponge and unrealistic things.
I mean it was really clear for the past 2 years that this was a no go

I don't enough people clarified, and I think such clarification was buried under calls to make Breakpoint and the next game more like Wildlands (and I've seen that on the forums, on Reddit, on Twitter, and on YouTube), coupled with people presenting Wildlands as being a gold standard. There have been a lot of posts that generally defend Wildlands, without equal discussion of what Wildlands gets wrong; more often than not, discussions that involve Wildlands' faults lead to them being overlooked or excused. Too much discussion here and on Reddit has been about simply comparing Breakpoint and Wildlands and not about the story elements, features, mechanics, gear, weapons, etc., that Ghost Recon should have. A lot of the focus was also put on Reddit instead of the forums as the source of feedback for Ubisoft.

you mean like... a charter?

With all due respect to those who worked on the charter, I think it's way too general and not specific enough. I don't think it specifically addresses what realism and authenticity should look like in a Ghost Recon game, because it doesn't establish the foundation of that realism and authenticity. Don't get me wrong.

There's a lot of stuff in the charter, but it's general in that it doesn't outline what it actually looks like. When it talks about a "believable real world scenario", it doesn't provide examples of such scenarios. When it talks about "Special Forces top tier operators" (that's an odd phrase there anyway) behaving and acting in a manner that is appropriate to the codes, rules, and operating procedures of their real world counterparts, it doesn't clarify what that actually looks like. It doesn't clarify the planning of operations and how that works. It doesn't explain how operators insert into the AO in a variety of different manners and whether or not they're being transported or they just hop into a helicopter and jump out the door. It doesn't clarify how they move, shoot, and communicate, how they take down HVTs and breach buildings or conduct ambushes. When it talks about tactics, maneuvers, and ROE, it's in the context of coop player requests, not of real-world TTPs and ROE. When it mentions equipment, weapons, clothing, and vehicles, it states that they should be real world and appropriate to the theme and story, but doesn't state that they should be based on what US Tier 1 operators use in various situations (so we'll continue to have games where they're using 5.11 tactical gear because it's "real world" and appropriate to the theme and story, even if it's not what US SOF typically use). There is no mention of consulting military advisors with experience in US special operations.

I understand that's a whole lot more than can be put into one poster, but that's my point: it's not specific enough.

[ArgimonEd]

I have not seen 1 thread in this forum, that wasn't clear in presenting Wildlands as the gold standard due to its campaign structure, day night cycle, full of life scenario, helicopters patrolling with an actual route or smarter AI in some aspects.
Ps: anyone with a little common sense can understand exactly what it means but you are juggling with semantics and anything you can to make your point and I believe that's exactly what ubisoft does to be able to continue adding things we said times and times again that we don't want

[Church367A]

This is why we need more actual discussion between us and Ubisoft. Because so many people just wanted to go back to Wildlands...

I understand that's a whole lot more than can be put into one poster, but that's my point: it's not specific enough.

Communication does need to happen between Ubi and the fanbase, but that doesn't discount the abundant discussions that did go into detail where there is no possible way to mistake what people liked of previous games. That is part of the reason why I don't bother going into great detail, because it has been said, explained in depth, and posted for Ubi to continuously ignore anyways and persistently do their own thing which often conflicts with what the fanbase has repeatedly posted.

It goes back to other things people have posted about where Ubi probably doesn't want to make a grounded Ghost Recon game true to the origins.

[wapeddell]

Hopefully we can add suppressors to all shotguns and lmgs, add optics to all handguns, they made weapons use the correct caliber, fixed the cqc, allow players to customize all outfits, allow players to disable the belt, improved ai, gave flashlights, and anything else I'm missing. I'm sure none of those will be addressed. Icing on the cake would have been offline mode.

[Steven527]

This is why we need more actual discussion between us and Ubisoft. Because so many people just wanted to go back to Wildlands, whether it's remastering the game or having a sequel that just continues with the enemies from Wildlands. That's the problem with this update having Bodark. Some people just wanted a return to Future Soldier.

Agreed, communication is the core issue. As to this "going back" to other games. I think that misses the point. When people say as others have noted, go back to FS or Wildlands it was because specific aspects of those games were better. When developing a new title you would think a publisher would first look at the previous iterations and ask - what worked, what made that a success? You then build on those and add to them to come up with something better. If you are going to start deleting things you damn well better have a good reason for it. Wildlands worked because it was immersive. The gun play is not better than BP. The enemy AI wasn't better. Driving and flying still sucked. The AI teammates were no better. So why was Wildlands a financial success? They never figured that out and the cry to go back to wildlands is more about the setting and the immersion. You weren't beset by enemies that defy the laws of physics to create difficulty.

They have mechanically added some aspects of Wildlands format back in, but the world is likely to still be dead as fk. Liberty will likely still be a mostly vacant location (god I hope I am wrong about that!) The spawning mechanism will still likely be there so you move a chopper 100 feet and land again and miraculously a convoy that wasn't on the map is suddenly driving past. The heavy will still be standing in the middle of fen bog whining. The lighting and sound will more than likely still suck. And I'll probably still be stuck with that horrendous belt.

As to what the charter defines, it has to be generalized. Within that saying things like not defining stuff about tier one operators... they have tier one operators to consult with WHY should we have to explain that?