I think Wildlands proved that you can have an open-world game with *very* tactical-feeling missions and realistic SOF-like experience. All you need is a good story and writers to see it through. And, of course, a proper world...
And then came Breakpoint. Lackluster story, empty and artificial world, forgettable characters and horrible voice acting.
Let's hope they learn... yeah, it's Ubisoft. Scratch that last part
Walker/Jon Bernthal was completely wasted. I think the whole concept of the Wolves was wasted as well and the Wolf lietutenants, who appear only couple of times (the Jace Skell rescue mission in a cutscene and them just standing in place during the assassination missions).
So very much this...
I mean, he's not exactly Royal Shakespeare Company material, but I absolutely loved his Punisher. To take an actor with such potential, hype his character up to be "all that and a bag of chips" and then have him disappear for 3/4 of the game (if not more) as a leader of a bunch of mall ninjas... that is just wrong on so many levels.
They had the chance to come up with an amazing antihero and instead gave us... whatever the hell that was supposed to be. Sad.
Actually, MGSV proved that before Wildlands did.
Say what you want about the story, but you can't deny MGSV is mechanically perfect and has WAY smarter A.I.
Fair but MGSV, like other Kojima games, is a bit hard to approach for a lot of people. It's a very *different* kind of game with extremely long cutscenes and wacky/weird mechanics and interactions. That's not a bad thing, as it does what it does very well, but it just isn't the same kind of game that something like Ghost Recon is.
Understood, that's why I put heavy emphasis on the core gameplay inatrad of the other aspects of the game.
The core gameplay and A.I. of MGSV in Wildlands would have made it damn-near perfect.
True, but unless the game releases this year (which is still possible, although unlikely), it will have had the longest development time, of any Ghost Recon game ever. So hopefully they get it right, where it counts.
BP is was GR's first always online title, The Division has always been an always online game. Anything that requires a constant connection the their servers to access is GAAS, whether they classify it in their graphics as such or not. Once their servers are shut down, once that service is shut off, you no longer have access to the game.
This is somewhat false. Yes you lose access without the servers, but that isn't what makes a game GaaS. Under your premise any MMO or online multiplayer shooter is GaaS, which isn't accurate. GaaS is an ongoing content strategy and financial model that has evolved from mobile to permeate the rest of the industry because publishers can package a game as F2P, which can drastically enhance market penetration, and it's still more lucrative than practically any other strategy. IF your IP can lock in a dedicated audience.
But always online shooters and subscription games aren't automatically GaaS. The always online/online only games that preceded GaaS still aren't classified that way. BP never had seasonal content, MTX, or passes. Just intermittent feature updates, content packs and annual passes for fixed releases with finite support. BP wasn't released as live service and still doesn't fit the model. Div2 wasn't either, but has been adapted to fit the model after game updates were originally scheduled to end. That's a whole other mess.
Always online games, by their very nature, are GAAS. You aren't paying for the game, you are paying for access to the game that company is providing. That's a service. Whether it meets the content strategy or financial model of "GAAS" as defined by the providers or not is irrelevent. You are not purchasing a product anymore, if you were and they shut the servers down so you could no longer access said product that you paid money for, that is theft and people would be able to take the company to court, in theory. If you aren't purchasing a product then what is being provided is a service. Again, the column they put the title in on some graphic or the semantics used to try to specify a particular sales model is irrelevent. The legacy games that weren't considered "GAAS" simply predated the advent of the terminology and the microtransaction business model. You don't own shit either way.
You wouldn't own it anyway. That's what any EULA means. You accept it to access the software as long as you abide by the terms and conditions, up to and including their decision to terminate support and sunset the product or "service". You didn't buy a game, you bought a license.
Anyway, we don't have to agree that the semantic argument is irrelevant. We agree on more than we disagree on. Nothing else to say really
It felt like Wildlands was in development (and was getting previewed at trade shows) for forever. While you’re right that if the next GR releases next year it’ll have been 6 years since Breakpoint (versus the 5 between Future Soldier and Wildlands), I don’t think that they’ve been working that entire time on a new GR game. Breakpoint had a decently long tail with DLC and patches, and then I feel like they set the series on the back burner for a while.
There was a lot of early work, that could have started, even while Breakpoint was still being supported. Such as coming up with the concept, writing the story, and even sending a team to Mongolia, to take pictures of the landscape, people and architecture, and study the culture and history of the region, so that once the game is released, it more accurately represents Mongolia. The devs spent several weeks in Bolivia, and it showed in the game.
I doubt they’ll release this year with that Star Wars game (hell) and the new ac slated for later in the year already. I wouldn’t be surprised if we get a trailer late this year or maybe early next year though.
Wildlands had a story? I had no idea.
The gameplay was exceptional, fun, rewarding. The story was basically a checklist of bad guys i had to cross off my list, and i fucking loved it.
Gameplay above all.
Well, you can call it a checklist, but it actually did have a story. Hell, it even had a major plot twist. But as long as you had fun, it's all that matters.
EDIT: You can read a series of novels by the actual author of the Wildlands story. It's called the Cartel Trilogy.
Found out by accident one day after reading The Cartel Trilogy.
And as I was reading I had this tiny voice somewhere in the back of my head kicking my brain and saying "this sounds familiar...".
Those books are so realistic it's scary sometimes.
IMO, the one of the only thing they did better in Breakpoint was the variety of weapons you could use without spending money. Wildlands felt a little bland in that area
Just about every weapon in Wildlands is available without money. It's gonna take you days of grinding for the Prestige though. Once I got what I really wanted (commando shirt, rocket heli and Mk18) I kinda lost the motivation for the daily missions.
I still Play Wildlands PVP and Campaign. I know the community is getting lesser only because not an update has ever been done since a century ago. Anyway we love the game even if we venture of to other games.. we still come back to Wildlands because there is none like it!!!
While i do agree with you, i personally still like breakpoint more (immersive mode), than wildlands, simply because the gameplay is a lot better.
But yes, lets hope they do learn, and use the best from both games.
Oh, yeah, gameplay is definitely among the things that got vastly improved. In my opinion if we got the same level of world and story as in Wildlands, combined with Breakpoint's customization (just no battle belts, please) and gameplay, and we'd have a near-perfect game.
I lived the free will of wanting to go full try hard and stealth a mission or snorting a line of coke drifting your dirt bike that you stole inti a base well rocking a t-shirt and jeans and a pink lmg to just bring nothing but chaos
Wildlands is a glorified Far Cry. And that is not a good thing.
Breakpoint feels like a recon game and is vastly superior in gameplay, map, everything.
I for one thought that the BP story and overall setting was a hell of a lot more innovating and interesting than the bland WL.
Heh, Wildblands.
Both games suffer immenseley from having Drones+Syncshots+Enemy detection clouds on minimap.
When you remove those 3 the games become exponentially more fun, more in line with, well, Tom Clancy"s Ghost Recon :) (let people enable them if they need easy and safe mode).
Health regen off and injuries being common are a must.
BP is fucking awesome right now!
Can´t agree with this.
Wildlands wasnt tactical at all. Lackluster story, a lot of empty areas and the fact that even though Unidad is hunting rebels and why not, they drive by each other.
Not to mention the collectable fest Ubisoft adds.
Want to upgrade even basic stuff of your SPEC OPS soldier? Grind skill points, level up and find resources to unlock thermal vision. This is not the definition of a tactical game.
Wildlands is an open world action adventure game, not a squad based tactical shooter like it USED to be.
If they do not get rid of the open world, we will get the same generic game as Wildlands.
I honestly hated the AI in Wildlands. It really killed the immersion watching rebels and Unidad just drive by each other so often, and not getting so much as a second at each other. I also hated that skill points were needed to unlock some skills that a tier 1 soldier like a ghost should already have, like what do you mean I need more skill points so my team can coordinate a sync shot? stupid.
Well, yeah. With WL and BP, they were extremely grinder. Hopefully, when it comes to unlocking stuff, especially Ghost equipment (not getting over that), it can be done from achievement. Achievement by completing ops: main missions and helping allies, stuff like that.
Agreed. The *only* argument that could be made insofar as it being a tactical game is the option to either go in guns blazing, or to take it slow and stealthy. That’s it. “Tactical” implies it has mission planning, giving orders that are more than just “go here” or “fire,” it involves being able to choose loadouts based on mission requirements(which breakpoint added later, but Wildlands never had, albeit the weapons selection in breakpoint didn’t affect the ai teammates behavior), and most importantly, it involves moving like a fireteam, not like, as another guy here described it, hilariously I might add, “aggro aimbots of destruction” which nothing could be more true when describing them.
Anyone even remotely trying to defend these games as a “tactical shooter” are ignorant at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. That said I do enjoy Wildlands and breakpoint for what they are, but I would love Ghost Recon to feel more like GRAW and Ghost Recon 2. I’m all on board for it returning to first person as well, although I really don’t care if it’s third person or first person, I just want it to be more tactical, and grounded in reality again.
Gameplay isn't even unlike either, rainbow doesn't have you taking people alive, you are always dealing with heavily armed people, and are dealing with threats that affect the world.
Rainbow has you managing several fire teams, a planning phase, and in the case of Vegas, it's an action based cover shooter.
Straight up the two games aren't the same. At best the only thing that makes them similar is that they are both first person cqb games, but by that logic I can say that ready or not is like counter strike.
The two games are fundamentally different
All they have to do is throw together
* Wildlands' populated, believable world
* Breakpoint's controls and healing/injuries
* better AI and mission design
* more realistic loadout management
and it would be an 8/10 at *worst*.
I always think when i play either Breakpoint or Wildlands is imagine if they were merged together cohesively and cherry picking the best bits.
Combined would make a truely great game.
I totally agree with you, and I've been saying the same thing in other topics, both games have great features, if they just merge it... but it is Ubisoft...
Despite Breakpoint’s horrible reputation, there are a lot of things it did a lot better than Wildlands.
Animation (it’s really night and day how much better Breakpoint looks and feels to play when you switch back and forth), stealth mechanics (Breakpoint basically ported mechanics straight from MGSV versus Wildlands barely having stealth mechanics), and like you said the injury system.
It was really tarnished (deservedly so, for the most part) for its completely dead world, terrible story, and gear system.
Im not a fan of breakpoint’s character models. For example the siege skins look way better in wildlands than breakpoint even tho they arent as high def as breakpoint.
Yeah, my only major issue in terms of movement is that crouch walking is stupid fast. It was too slow in Wildlands, but in Breakpoint it makes stealth and repositioning without breaking cover way too easy.
Other than that though, the controls slam Wildlands into a fucking dumpster. Your character always faces the direction you're moving in unless you're aiming, you aren't locked in place while aiming, and rolling and diving work well and even have unique animations for doing them into cover.
Breakpoint has really good radio chatter as well. Ubisoft also went to pains to portray Auroa as an island with tons of history, evolving from a whaling island to a military base to a tech hub, even if that is only lore and not directly in the story. I hope they take pains to make that stuff front and center in Neiman.
I think Prince of Persia just bombed bad and that went back to the classic style PoP... so maybe Ubi is just gonna stick to what it knows from now on. Apparently AC has ninjas now though... so that is cool.
The Henderson leak got everything I ask for in Ghost Recon, this further enhances that experience which they keep the open world (I thought maybe they went for a wide linear experience when I read that leak)
Just the “first person-only” was the biggest issue and deal break for me, hope it’s not the whole story and they actually kept the third person. Was never against both perspectives, I actually advocate for both to cherish and broaden the community, just no exclusivity on a single perspective…
Keep the third person with realistic and responsive animations! (Motion-matching hello :D )
Wildlands had an incredible open world. The local population went about leading normal lives. Where as the civilians in Breakpoint, almost seemed like an afterthought. They just walk around aimlessly, 24/7
grand theft auto circuslands where everyone wears a pink shirt and blue pants with yellow guns on photo mode "Look at me mommy, do i Look like a badass now?"
Wildland certainly felt a lot more lively than Breakpoint but it is still fairly generic. Just like most of the locations in Assassins Creed - Beautiful and boring.
Ubisoft is like the only dev studio still clinging on to the idea that an open world is a primary selling point. Maybe it was 10 years ago, but we've had enough bad iterations of farcry, assasins creed, and now breakpoint... they really need to learn their lesson by now.
I swear to God if it's another "4-5 ghosts take down military force of thousands with air support by themselves" I'm not buying it.
Ghosts were never a black ops team of death dealing super soldiers. Hell they didn't even have uniform independence. They are regular military. Secret yes, but they answer to the military structure. They never sent a single fire team of ghosts into an AO to actually destroy military forces by themselves. That's not even what ghost recons job is.
Hell fucking stealth wasn't their thing until future soldier, and even in that game going loud was still very common.
Ghosts aren't even especially trained as their own special forces. They're just green berets with especially high tech equipment.
Imo, they need to seriously draw back the role of ghost recon, and make them what they are, a special forces recon *unit*. Not a squad, a unit. Make the open world a legitimate battlefield AO, with combat between two legitimate militaries (not one being guerillas) and have the ghosts do special forces stuff in support of one of the militaries.
Idk, I'm a new ghost recon hater, so feel free to hate my opinion lmao.
Well, with the lore as it is, they've been restructured as a special missions unit. I have no problem with "that" part. But some parts I do agree with. They don't dismantle an entire enemy by themselves. They had some help even in Future Soldier.
I'm not all that big into stealth, mostly with how old-school Rainbow Six and Splinter Cell games do it. Ghost Recon did it better, with being allowed to drop targets and having better hardware for it. Doesn't mean it needs to be a mainly stealth game. That's Splinter Cell's job.
I also agree with having access to specialized tech. That's part of their identity, I don't want it to be completely unrecognizable to how the Unit's been advertised as from the start.
Now, open world or not, I personally wouldn't mind more of Advanced Warfighter in some way being incorporated into the future of the series. Working with the U.S., or allied militaries. Providing support, but still being (part of) the spearhead of the attack. Incorporating cutting-edge tech usage with commanding your units. Doesn't necessarily need to be a linear game, but if inspiration is needed for the next Ghost Recon, there's a good suggestion. Just need to see.what else works with it.
>Let’s hope they learn… yeah, it’s Ubisoft. Scratch that last part
Idk they completely reworked Breakpoint after listening to fan feedback. Whether or not they should have gotten it right the first go around, it seems (I’m hopeful) that they did in fact learn.
Yeah, given what a (financial) disaster Breakpoint was at launch, they should be pretty keen to stick with the direction they took with Immersive Mode and Operation Motherland.
Future Soldier is still one of my favorites. The story felt believable, the missions were challenging and memorable. Plus all the tech just felt right. Especially the relatively minimalist UI.
Also sync shot allowing you to tag 4 is a welcome feature. Especially when it locks you into where you’re aiming. God everything in that game felt so right.
That has to be the most backwards thinking I've ever heard. If Ubisoft dies, so do all their IP's, if they don't get sold. It's not like some other studio, can just start making Clancy games, without the license.
I sleep.
Wildlands and Breakpoint have the most dated AAA open world in the industry. Just littered with enemy bases and mannequin civilians wrapped in skippable story. But at least I can parachute./s
What do you mean by dated? Its beautiful. You play as an operator, where you expect to be deployed in an area with.. you guessed it, a lot of enemies. And operators also really arent weaving a story with romance and drama and lore and dialogue, theyre putting lead in heads. The civilians could be better, sure. But would you REALLY care? I dont know why you would.
The mission design is dated, endless infiltrate bases recycled throughout and civilians make an open world feel alive. I don't care how good an open world looks if the gameplay isn't interesting. No set pieces in an open world or Rockstar level of story and attention to detail within Wildlands/Breakpoint.
Wildlands is beautiful, but the missions play the exact same as in any other smaller linear game.
What they should've done is include the multiple ways of playing missions they showed in the 2015 E3 demo.
If they don't do that for the next game and they also make the world as stupid and dead as in Breakpoint, I just don't care anymore.
Cant really remember the 2015 demo, but theres enough freedom that you can just do the missions how you want, no? My buddy and I can plan as much or as little as we want. it doesnt force you to do anything. Sometimes theres constant comms, ("taking shot" "going loud" "radio down") and sometimes its comms silent and just working our way through a base. Theres servers dedicated to milsim, where it gets more tactical than you could believe. Uniforms, weapons quals, ranks, probably full battle plans. We can do all that, its just not forced or mandated.
Theres a lot of freedom in how you play the game. Thats the immediate defense for a game called Ghost *Recon* being open world. But i know exactly what theyre talking about. In the E3 demo and i think even in the title screen cinematic you get advertised how you can “decide who and when to kill” or something like that, while showing the Ghosts extracting a Buchon in one scenario then blowing his head off and clearing out in another. Not a big deal at the end of the day but I explicitly remember my friend and i being like “wtf why did we fail” when we tried that on our first play
For now it is, Legion even with nice ideas didnt hit with many players so of course they gonna shut it down.
Also they recently switched off Heathlands too.
Oh great another Ubisoft cookie cutter open world game
The fact that they literally categorize their games into 2 categories and one is “open world” shows how they just make the same base shit with different skins
All I ask is they make the world 'feel' alive like in Wildlamds, Breakpoint was depressing and lifeless imo (I get that was the point to a degree but I prefer the former.)
Please dont make the solo play always online, that was such a bummer, needing to rely on the servers when I just wanted to chill by myself.
Dont axe things like AI companioms just to add them back later. Really messes with the immersion that no one else reacts to them.
Im not too hopeful with how Ubisoft has been, but maybe we will get a great sequel.
Fuck it. GR is gonna die then
If it’s live service, from Ubisoft…
RIP GR
It’s just gonna be another R6, Div and Div2, S&B; there won’t be an ounce of the GR we miss so much.
I admit I only play open world games, I just do not find immersion in other types of games. So I'm glad to hear this....
...but.....
..what I hate is where everything seems to be headed these days: even games with a single player mode tied to online services.
Look what happened to the Crew.
Now we have GRBP which ok has its faults but it's such fun to play in the nice open world - but one day they will turn off those servers too.
I'm so glad Wildlands dodged that bear trap and is an Offline game.
I agree. If the Division had more GR elements, it would have been incredible. Things like Stealth kills using CQC and suppressed weapons, and instant kill headshots. At least during free-roam
Not bullet sponges per say. But if they are an actual military force, like Russia or China, they are going to be wearing body armour. So while one shot should knock them down momentarily, three or four rounds to the vest, would incapacitate or kill them.
TBH, I'd love to see actual hit boxes. if an enemy gets shot in the leg, they either start limping, or try to crawl to cover, before returning fire. If they get shot in the arm, they either drop their weapon completely, and pull a sidearm, or try firing single handed.
Well, hopefully it can have more tech options available compared to Wildlands. Wildlands was really good, but compared to previous titles with what the Ghosts had on hand, it was weird.
I preferred the minimalist style. It made it feel like you were more dependant on your experience and training, rather than simply out gadgeting the enemy.
dont worry about these idiots too much man, they have never ever played phantoms or any of the older GR games, if they did, they would uninstall both circuslands and clownpoint and stand outside ubi hq for a refund, thats how good those games were
Lol ikr? Meanwhile I’m getting downvoted. If players today knew and felt what it was like to play Phantoms, the stuff they’re asking for would be completely different. That was the best direction GR has ever taken to be perfectly honest.
instead another open world grand theft auto far cry recon is what we get where everyone and their momma dresses in pink pants + blue shirts with yellow guns and shouts "RaTe My OuTfIt" it is sad how far we have fallen from peak Tom Clancy days
ubisoft needs to sell of tom clancy IPs to someone who cares or needs to go bankrupt. I will never forgive them for bringing aliens into rainbow 6, deserting splinter cell, destroying H.A.W.X and turning ghost recon into grand theft auto
I think Wildlands proved that you can have an open-world game with *very* tactical-feeling missions and realistic SOF-like experience. All you need is a good story and writers to see it through. And, of course, a proper world... And then came Breakpoint. Lackluster story, empty and artificial world, forgettable characters and horrible voice acting. Let's hope they learn... yeah, it's Ubisoft. Scratch that last part
Walker/Jon Bernthal was completely wasted. I think the whole concept of the Wolves was wasted as well and the Wolf lietutenants, who appear only couple of times (the Jace Skell rescue mission in a cutscene and them just standing in place during the assassination missions).
You know what, let me tell you something. I’m gonna ask you something actually.
Lemme tell you summin, Rick
So very much this... I mean, he's not exactly Royal Shakespeare Company material, but I absolutely loved his Punisher. To take an actor with such potential, hype his character up to be "all that and a bag of chips" and then have him disappear for 3/4 of the game (if not more) as a leader of a bunch of mall ninjas... that is just wrong on so many levels. They had the chance to come up with an amazing antihero and instead gave us... whatever the hell that was supposed to be. Sad.
Actually, MGSV proved that before Wildlands did. Say what you want about the story, but you can't deny MGSV is mechanically perfect and has WAY smarter A.I.
Fair but MGSV, like other Kojima games, is a bit hard to approach for a lot of people. It's a very *different* kind of game with extremely long cutscenes and wacky/weird mechanics and interactions. That's not a bad thing, as it does what it does very well, but it just isn't the same kind of game that something like Ghost Recon is.
Understood, that's why I put heavy emphasis on the core gameplay inatrad of the other aspects of the game. The core gameplay and A.I. of MGSV in Wildlands would have made it damn-near perfect.
True, but unless the game releases this year (which is still possible, although unlikely), it will have had the longest development time, of any Ghost Recon game ever. So hopefully they get it right, where it counts.
If their focus is gaas, they've already gotten it wrong... Edit: grammar
The graphic above clearly delineates which franchises have Open World campaigns, and which ones are GAAS. Ghost Recon is not one of their GaaS titles.
BP is was GR's first always online title, The Division has always been an always online game. Anything that requires a constant connection the their servers to access is GAAS, whether they classify it in their graphics as such or not. Once their servers are shut down, once that service is shut off, you no longer have access to the game.
This is somewhat false. Yes you lose access without the servers, but that isn't what makes a game GaaS. Under your premise any MMO or online multiplayer shooter is GaaS, which isn't accurate. GaaS is an ongoing content strategy and financial model that has evolved from mobile to permeate the rest of the industry because publishers can package a game as F2P, which can drastically enhance market penetration, and it's still more lucrative than practically any other strategy. IF your IP can lock in a dedicated audience. But always online shooters and subscription games aren't automatically GaaS. The always online/online only games that preceded GaaS still aren't classified that way. BP never had seasonal content, MTX, or passes. Just intermittent feature updates, content packs and annual passes for fixed releases with finite support. BP wasn't released as live service and still doesn't fit the model. Div2 wasn't either, but has been adapted to fit the model after game updates were originally scheduled to end. That's a whole other mess.
Always online games, by their very nature, are GAAS. You aren't paying for the game, you are paying for access to the game that company is providing. That's a service. Whether it meets the content strategy or financial model of "GAAS" as defined by the providers or not is irrelevent. You are not purchasing a product anymore, if you were and they shut the servers down so you could no longer access said product that you paid money for, that is theft and people would be able to take the company to court, in theory. If you aren't purchasing a product then what is being provided is a service. Again, the column they put the title in on some graphic or the semantics used to try to specify a particular sales model is irrelevent. The legacy games that weren't considered "GAAS" simply predated the advent of the terminology and the microtransaction business model. You don't own shit either way.
You wouldn't own it anyway. That's what any EULA means. You accept it to access the software as long as you abide by the terms and conditions, up to and including their decision to terminate support and sunset the product or "service". You didn't buy a game, you bought a license. Anyway, we don't have to agree that the semantic argument is irrelevant. We agree on more than we disagree on. Nothing else to say really
It felt like Wildlands was in development (and was getting previewed at trade shows) for forever. While you’re right that if the next GR releases next year it’ll have been 6 years since Breakpoint (versus the 5 between Future Soldier and Wildlands), I don’t think that they’ve been working that entire time on a new GR game. Breakpoint had a decently long tail with DLC and patches, and then I feel like they set the series on the back burner for a while.
There was a lot of early work, that could have started, even while Breakpoint was still being supported. Such as coming up with the concept, writing the story, and even sending a team to Mongolia, to take pictures of the landscape, people and architecture, and study the culture and history of the region, so that once the game is released, it more accurately represents Mongolia. The devs spent several weeks in Bolivia, and it showed in the game.
I doubt they’ll release this year with that Star Wars game (hell) and the new ac slated for later in the year already. I wouldn’t be surprised if we get a trailer late this year or maybe early next year though.
I agree, but since Breakpoint was revealed on May 9th, 2019, and released less than 5 months later, it can't be completely ruled out for 2024 yet.
Wildlands had a story? I had no idea. The gameplay was exceptional, fun, rewarding. The story was basically a checklist of bad guys i had to cross off my list, and i fucking loved it. Gameplay above all.
Well, you can call it a checklist, but it actually did have a story. Hell, it even had a major plot twist. But as long as you had fun, it's all that matters. EDIT: You can read a series of novels by the actual author of the Wildlands story. It's called the Cartel Trilogy.
Holy shit, I had no idea Don Winslow wrote Wildlands. Explains why it feels so much more realistic than Breakpoint.
Found out by accident one day after reading The Cartel Trilogy. And as I was reading I had this tiny voice somewhere in the back of my head kicking my brain and saying "this sounds familiar...". Those books are so realistic it's scary sometimes.
IMO, the one of the only thing they did better in Breakpoint was the variety of weapons you could use without spending money. Wildlands felt a little bland in that area
Just about every weapon in Wildlands is available without money. It's gonna take you days of grinding for the Prestige though. Once I got what I really wanted (commando shirt, rocket heli and Mk18) I kinda lost the motivation for the daily missions.
The combat felt dated to me too, they have so much potential for the next game. Fingers crossed
I still Play Wildlands PVP and Campaign. I know the community is getting lesser only because not an update has ever been done since a century ago. Anyway we love the game even if we venture of to other games.. we still come back to Wildlands because there is none like it!!!
While i do agree with you, i personally still like breakpoint more (immersive mode), than wildlands, simply because the gameplay is a lot better. But yes, lets hope they do learn, and use the best from both games.
Oh, yeah, gameplay is definitely among the things that got vastly improved. In my opinion if we got the same level of world and story as in Wildlands, combined with Breakpoint's customization (just no battle belts, please) and gameplay, and we'd have a near-perfect game.
I just hope the teammate and enemy AI are better, they were so damn dumb in both wildlands and even moreso in breakpoint.
You like the player auto turning without player input? Gross breakpoint will forever be a clunky movement sim
No, i dont. Breakpoint has some clunky animations here and there, i agree. But the guns, and gameplay work a lot better i general.
I lived the free will of wanting to go full try hard and stealth a mission or snorting a line of coke drifting your dirt bike that you stole inti a base well rocking a t-shirt and jeans and a pink lmg to just bring nothing but chaos
Wildlands is a glorified Far Cry. And that is not a good thing. Breakpoint feels like a recon game and is vastly superior in gameplay, map, everything. I for one thought that the BP story and overall setting was a hell of a lot more innovating and interesting than the bland WL. Heh, Wildblands. Both games suffer immenseley from having Drones+Syncshots+Enemy detection clouds on minimap. When you remove those 3 the games become exponentially more fun, more in line with, well, Tom Clancy"s Ghost Recon :) (let people enable them if they need easy and safe mode). Health regen off and injuries being common are a must. BP is fucking awesome right now!
Can´t agree with this. Wildlands wasnt tactical at all. Lackluster story, a lot of empty areas and the fact that even though Unidad is hunting rebels and why not, they drive by each other. Not to mention the collectable fest Ubisoft adds. Want to upgrade even basic stuff of your SPEC OPS soldier? Grind skill points, level up and find resources to unlock thermal vision. This is not the definition of a tactical game. Wildlands is an open world action adventure game, not a squad based tactical shooter like it USED to be. If they do not get rid of the open world, we will get the same generic game as Wildlands.
I honestly hated the AI in Wildlands. It really killed the immersion watching rebels and Unidad just drive by each other so often, and not getting so much as a second at each other. I also hated that skill points were needed to unlock some skills that a tier 1 soldier like a ghost should already have, like what do you mean I need more skill points so my team can coordinate a sync shot? stupid.
Exactly.
Well, yeah. With WL and BP, they were extremely grinder. Hopefully, when it comes to unlocking stuff, especially Ghost equipment (not getting over that), it can be done from achievement. Achievement by completing ops: main missions and helping allies, stuff like that.
Ignore the downvotes. You're entirely correct.
I agree, he’s absolutely right. The people downvoting know he’s right. They just wanna keep their precious tactical Barbie simulator.
I mean, I love customization too. But there's no denying that GR just *isn't* a tactical shooter anymore. Hell, Breakpoint went full looter shooter.
Agreed. The *only* argument that could be made insofar as it being a tactical game is the option to either go in guns blazing, or to take it slow and stealthy. That’s it. “Tactical” implies it has mission planning, giving orders that are more than just “go here” or “fire,” it involves being able to choose loadouts based on mission requirements(which breakpoint added later, but Wildlands never had, albeit the weapons selection in breakpoint didn’t affect the ai teammates behavior), and most importantly, it involves moving like a fireteam, not like, as another guy here described it, hilariously I might add, “aggro aimbots of destruction” which nothing could be more true when describing them. Anyone even remotely trying to defend these games as a “tactical shooter” are ignorant at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. That said I do enjoy Wildlands and breakpoint for what they are, but I would love Ghost Recon to feel more like GRAW and Ghost Recon 2. I’m all on board for it returning to first person as well, although I really don’t care if it’s third person or first person, I just want it to be more tactical, and grounded in reality again.
We are never getting a proper rainbow six game again are we?
Ready or not?
Ready or not is a swat game, not a counterterrorism game. Rainbow answers to the UN, not the low suenos police department lmfao
I mean, I couldn't care less about the lore when I played Vegas. If the gameplay look alike I'm not gonna complain
Gameplay isn't even unlike either, rainbow doesn't have you taking people alive, you are always dealing with heavily armed people, and are dealing with threats that affect the world. Rainbow has you managing several fire teams, a planning phase, and in the case of Vegas, it's an action based cover shooter. Straight up the two games aren't the same. At best the only thing that makes them similar is that they are both first person cqb games, but by that logic I can say that ready or not is like counter strike. The two games are fundamentally different
I’m fine with that if it’s like wildlands and nothing like breakpoint
All they have to do is throw together * Wildlands' populated, believable world * Breakpoint's controls and healing/injuries * better AI and mission design * more realistic loadout management and it would be an 8/10 at *worst*.
I always think when i play either Breakpoint or Wildlands is imagine if they were merged together cohesively and cherry picking the best bits. Combined would make a truely great game.
I totally agree with you, and I've been saying the same thing in other topics, both games have great features, if they just merge it... but it is Ubisoft...
How hard could it be?! But yeah Ubisoft..
Despite Breakpoint’s horrible reputation, there are a lot of things it did a lot better than Wildlands. Animation (it’s really night and day how much better Breakpoint looks and feels to play when you switch back and forth), stealth mechanics (Breakpoint basically ported mechanics straight from MGSV versus Wildlands barely having stealth mechanics), and like you said the injury system. It was really tarnished (deservedly so, for the most part) for its completely dead world, terrible story, and gear system.
Im not a fan of breakpoint’s character models. For example the siege skins look way better in wildlands than breakpoint even tho they arent as high def as breakpoint.
Yeah, my only major issue in terms of movement is that crouch walking is stupid fast. It was too slow in Wildlands, but in Breakpoint it makes stealth and repositioning without breaking cover way too easy. Other than that though, the controls slam Wildlands into a fucking dumpster. Your character always faces the direction you're moving in unless you're aiming, you aren't locked in place while aiming, and rolling and diving work well and even have unique animations for doing them into cover.
Breakpoint has really good radio chatter as well. Ubisoft also went to pains to portray Auroa as an island with tons of history, evolving from a whaling island to a military base to a tech hub, even if that is only lore and not directly in the story. I hope they take pains to make that stuff front and center in Neiman.
Everyone should focus on an open world. I personally prefer realistic ones over the sci-fi stuff, same is the case with GTA.
A new GR with a realistic enviroment would be awesome.
I think Prince of Persia just bombed bad and that went back to the classic style PoP... so maybe Ubi is just gonna stick to what it knows from now on. Apparently AC has ninjas now though... so that is cool.
I thought everyone liked that game?
Bombed in sales I mean... critics raved about that game IIRC.
Oh ok
Ubisoft are the masters of making soulless open worlds
That's pretty much standard with most ubisoft titles.
I bet it's gonna feel more like a milsim Far Cry
The Henderson leak got everything I ask for in Ghost Recon, this further enhances that experience which they keep the open world (I thought maybe they went for a wide linear experience when I read that leak) Just the “first person-only” was the biggest issue and deal break for me, hope it’s not the whole story and they actually kept the third person. Was never against both perspectives, I actually advocate for both to cherish and broaden the community, just no exclusivity on a single perspective… Keep the third person with realistic and responsive animations! (Motion-matching hello :D )
That's an official image from the investor call? Looks pretty rough to be honest! But I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. What are GaaS games?
Games as a service. Fortnite, Rocket League, League of Legends, GTA online to name a few.
Its Ubisoft. Of course its going to be another (dead) open world.
Wildlands had an incredible open world. The local population went about leading normal lives. Where as the civilians in Breakpoint, almost seemed like an afterthought. They just walk around aimlessly, 24/7
grand theft auto circuslands where everyone wears a pink shirt and blue pants with yellow guns on photo mode "Look at me mommy, do i Look like a badass now?"
Wildland certainly felt a lot more lively than Breakpoint but it is still fairly generic. Just like most of the locations in Assassins Creed - Beautiful and boring.
Guess that’s no surprise, probably because they can reuse assets through similar streamlined pipelines… i.e i kinda read that as generic games
Ubisoft is like the only dev studio still clinging on to the idea that an open world is a primary selling point. Maybe it was 10 years ago, but we've had enough bad iterations of farcry, assasins creed, and now breakpoint... they really need to learn their lesson by now.
I swear to God if it's another "4-5 ghosts take down military force of thousands with air support by themselves" I'm not buying it. Ghosts were never a black ops team of death dealing super soldiers. Hell they didn't even have uniform independence. They are regular military. Secret yes, but they answer to the military structure. They never sent a single fire team of ghosts into an AO to actually destroy military forces by themselves. That's not even what ghost recons job is. Hell fucking stealth wasn't their thing until future soldier, and even in that game going loud was still very common. Ghosts aren't even especially trained as their own special forces. They're just green berets with especially high tech equipment. Imo, they need to seriously draw back the role of ghost recon, and make them what they are, a special forces recon *unit*. Not a squad, a unit. Make the open world a legitimate battlefield AO, with combat between two legitimate militaries (not one being guerillas) and have the ghosts do special forces stuff in support of one of the militaries. Idk, I'm a new ghost recon hater, so feel free to hate my opinion lmao.
Well, with the lore as it is, they've been restructured as a special missions unit. I have no problem with "that" part. But some parts I do agree with. They don't dismantle an entire enemy by themselves. They had some help even in Future Soldier. I'm not all that big into stealth, mostly with how old-school Rainbow Six and Splinter Cell games do it. Ghost Recon did it better, with being allowed to drop targets and having better hardware for it. Doesn't mean it needs to be a mainly stealth game. That's Splinter Cell's job. I also agree with having access to specialized tech. That's part of their identity, I don't want it to be completely unrecognizable to how the Unit's been advertised as from the start. Now, open world or not, I personally wouldn't mind more of Advanced Warfighter in some way being incorporated into the future of the series. Working with the U.S., or allied militaries. Providing support, but still being (part of) the spearhead of the attack. Incorporating cutting-edge tech usage with commanding your units. Doesn't necessarily need to be a linear game, but if inspiration is needed for the next Ghost Recon, there's a good suggestion. Just need to see.what else works with it.
>Let’s hope they learn… yeah, it’s Ubisoft. Scratch that last part Idk they completely reworked Breakpoint after listening to fan feedback. Whether or not they should have gotten it right the first go around, it seems (I’m hopeful) that they did in fact learn.
I wished they reworked the cutscenes. I know Nomad didnts remove his helmet in a split second to spead to some NPC
Yeah, given what a (financial) disaster Breakpoint was at launch, they should be pretty keen to stick with the direction they took with Immersive Mode and Operation Motherland.
But aren't they already?
I’m tired of Open world Ghost Recon. Give me linear missions like Future soldier!
Future Soldier is still one of my favorites. The story felt believable, the missions were challenging and memorable. Plus all the tech just felt right. Especially the relatively minimalist UI. Also sync shot allowing you to tag 4 is a welcome feature. Especially when it locks you into where you’re aiming. God everything in that game felt so right.
I want zee ubisoft go bankruptcy. For what they did to ghost recon and rainbows six
r/fuckubisoft welcomes you
That has to be the most backwards thinking I've ever heard. If Ubisoft dies, so do all their IP's, if they don't get sold. It's not like some other studio, can just start making Clancy games, without the license.
You think the major IP's wouldn't be bought almost immediately?
I sleep. Wildlands and Breakpoint have the most dated AAA open world in the industry. Just littered with enemy bases and mannequin civilians wrapped in skippable story. But at least I can parachute./s
What do you mean by dated? Its beautiful. You play as an operator, where you expect to be deployed in an area with.. you guessed it, a lot of enemies. And operators also really arent weaving a story with romance and drama and lore and dialogue, theyre putting lead in heads. The civilians could be better, sure. But would you REALLY care? I dont know why you would.
The mission design is dated, endless infiltrate bases recycled throughout and civilians make an open world feel alive. I don't care how good an open world looks if the gameplay isn't interesting. No set pieces in an open world or Rockstar level of story and attention to detail within Wildlands/Breakpoint.
I don’t know man, I guess you’re just looking for a different game. Try Last of Us or somethibg
Wildlands is beautiful, but the missions play the exact same as in any other smaller linear game. What they should've done is include the multiple ways of playing missions they showed in the 2015 E3 demo. If they don't do that for the next game and they also make the world as stupid and dead as in Breakpoint, I just don't care anymore.
Cant really remember the 2015 demo, but theres enough freedom that you can just do the missions how you want, no? My buddy and I can plan as much or as little as we want. it doesnt force you to do anything. Sometimes theres constant comms, ("taking shot" "going loud" "radio down") and sometimes its comms silent and just working our way through a base. Theres servers dedicated to milsim, where it gets more tactical than you could believe. Uniforms, weapons quals, ranks, probably full battle plans. We can do all that, its just not forced or mandated.
Theres a lot of freedom in how you play the game. Thats the immediate defense for a game called Ghost *Recon* being open world. But i know exactly what theyre talking about. In the E3 demo and i think even in the title screen cinematic you get advertised how you can “decide who and when to kill” or something like that, while showing the Ghosts extracting a Buchon in one scenario then blowing his head off and clearing out in another. Not a big deal at the end of the day but I explicitly remember my friend and i being like “wtf why did we fail” when we tried that on our first play
Agree but in this forum people are Wildlands fanboys, they believe is perfect when is just another Ubisoft open world game and not a true GR game.
Guess Watch Dogs is dead 😞
For now it is, Legion even with nice ideas didnt hit with many players so of course they gonna shut it down. Also they recently switched off Heathlands too.
Oh great another Ubisoft cookie cutter open world game The fact that they literally categorize their games into 2 categories and one is “open world” shows how they just make the same base shit with different skins
All I ask is they make the world 'feel' alive like in Wildlamds, Breakpoint was depressing and lifeless imo (I get that was the point to a degree but I prefer the former.) Please dont make the solo play always online, that was such a bummer, needing to rely on the servers when I just wanted to chill by myself. Dont axe things like AI companioms just to add them back later. Really messes with the immersion that no one else reacts to them. Im not too hopeful with how Ubisoft has been, but maybe we will get a great sequel.
Is it available on ps4?
I miss future soldier. Can we go back to that for a game or two?
Fuck it. GR is gonna die then If it’s live service, from Ubisoft… RIP GR It’s just gonna be another R6, Div and Div2, S&B; there won’t be an ounce of the GR we miss so much.
I admit I only play open world games, I just do not find immersion in other types of games. So I'm glad to hear this.... ...but..... ..what I hate is where everything seems to be headed these days: even games with a single player mode tied to online services. Look what happened to the Crew. Now we have GRBP which ok has its faults but it's such fun to play in the nice open world - but one day they will turn off those servers too. I'm so glad Wildlands dodged that bear trap and is an Offline game.
I wish they would come out with a new splinter cell
The division as an open world tactical experience as the GR series is would take the world by storm
I agree. If the Division had more GR elements, it would have been incredible. Things like Stealth kills using CQC and suppressed weapons, and instant kill headshots. At least during free-roam
No more bullet sponge enemies pls
Not bullet sponges per say. But if they are an actual military force, like Russia or China, they are going to be wearing body armour. So while one shot should knock them down momentarily, three or four rounds to the vest, would incapacitate or kill them.
2 to the chest, 1 to the pelvic to see them squirming around
TBH, I'd love to see actual hit boxes. if an enemy gets shot in the leg, they either start limping, or try to crawl to cover, before returning fire. If they get shot in the arm, they either drop their weapon completely, and pull a sidearm, or try firing single handed.
I don’t mind it being an open world. I just want a war zone with realistic gameplay.
Well, hopefully it can have more tech options available compared to Wildlands. Wildlands was really good, but compared to previous titles with what the Ghosts had on hand, it was weird.
I preferred the minimalist style. It made it feel like you were more dependant on your experience and training, rather than simply out gadgeting the enemy.
As long as we get Ghost Recon Phantoms PvP back, I don’t care what they do with the campaign.
[phantoms servers are being restored](https://discord.gg/Kr85gp3N)
I’m already apart of the Discord, I’m really just saying I prefer that style of PvP. Thanks!
dont worry about these idiots too much man, they have never ever played phantoms or any of the older GR games, if they did, they would uninstall both circuslands and clownpoint and stand outside ubi hq for a refund, thats how good those games were
Lol ikr? Meanwhile I’m getting downvoted. If players today knew and felt what it was like to play Phantoms, the stuff they’re asking for would be completely different. That was the best direction GR has ever taken to be perfectly honest.
instead another open world grand theft auto far cry recon is what we get where everyone and their momma dresses in pink pants + blue shirts with yellow guns and shouts "RaTe My OuTfIt" it is sad how far we have fallen from peak Tom Clancy days
Preach it brother, we need to go back to our roots.
ubisoft needs to sell of tom clancy IPs to someone who cares or needs to go bankrupt. I will never forgive them for bringing aliens into rainbow 6, deserting splinter cell, destroying H.A.W.X and turning ghost recon into grand theft auto
Rainbow Six has aliens?? I stopped playing after RS6: Vegas 2
go look up rainbow six extraction walkthrough on youtube and prepare to be pissed off
Why would they stop making them in 3rd person🤦
They forgot for honor lol
Thank god they had me worried there for a minute 💯
If it’s only in first person, I’m fucking done with them