PDA

View Full Version : My fellow skeptics - what would it take?



DanHibikiFanXM
06-22-2015, 04:53 PM
I know I'm somewhat notorious around these parts due to my various critiques of Future Soldier during that title's development. When I first heard that there was a new Ghost Recon my initial gut reaction was to laugh. After the debacle that was FS did they really expect that a new GR would be welcomed with open arms by a snake-bitten fanbase? After I joked on other websites and forums I eventually took the Ubisoft-Hate-Shades off and watched the trailer with as much neutrality as I could. After doing so I came to this general conclusion;

GRWL is an interesting concept but there just isn't enough shown currently to make it anything other than a morbid curiosity for a former franchise fan.

I was impressed to see that Ubisoft extended a proverbial olive branch to GR's wounded fanbase by inviting some community members to experience the game and interact with the devs. Unanimously it seems everyone that participated in that event seemed to have a very positive response to what they experienced. I take that and I accept that. The questions linger and remain for me however due to one title in particular; Rainbow 6 Siege. I admit the reveal gameplay demo that debuted at last year's E3 quite literally made my jaw drop for that game. Words from people in the know seemed to paint a similar rosy picture for that game in a similar way it's being done for GRWL. Things like "Ubisoft is aware of the damage caused by FS" or "they're trying to move away from the design processes that produced the last few TC titles." Those are paraphrases but it seemed to fit with what I saw from Siege.

However...

Fast forward a year and I think it's a common consensus now (at least among long time fans) that Rainbow 6 Siege is a dumpster fire. A strange mixture of Counter Strike and COD's Search and Destroy featuring gimmicky/exploitable gadgets, questionable gameplay mechanics like hit markers, a cluttered HUD, and other things. Personally, the knockout blow came when it was revealed that Siege would have no AI squadmates at all. Apparently, an inseparable staple for the franchise simply and inexplicably didn't meet the "vision" for the game. I don't know about anybody else but that is incredibly hair raising statement in the shadow of the impending GRWL.

Point is due to what I've seen regarding Rainbow 6 Siege, in my eyes at least, it appears that Ubisoft is still Ubisoft and that nothing has changed at all.

tl;dr - I now ask my fellow skeptics and long time franchise veterans...what would convince you to approach GRWL with anything other than morbid curiosity? What would be the things that would take you off the proverbial fence? What would convince you to give Ubisoft your time/patience/money when they have such a poor track record even with recent non-TC related games (*cough*Watch Dogs*cough*)?

RedKnight5
06-22-2015, 06:01 PM
1. Added in, complete Clan Support for larger groups of friends to play and compete together. A Single Player campaign component in Wildlands is not needed... if good in game Clan Support is available. A co-op, out of online real play TEST RANGE room, should be included in game for private and Clan training and recruiting.

2. With very LARGE and advertised in game Wildlands maps... upscale the game and provide for 16 vs 16 or 24 vs 24 player rooms and game modes to accompany them. Less of this 3 or 5 player "Elite" squad stuff. You can have 4 or 5 "Elite", 5 man Squads working together. 5 vs 5 player rooms is a joke for today's online games. And Co-Op should not be the main component of Wildlands games. Co-Op is more for "Practice" and warm up matches before a real full multiplayer larger game. If UbiSoft can not make rooms for larger amounts of players... delay the game until UbiSoft figures it out.

3. If in game on ground vehicles, armor and aircraft are to be provided in Wildlands matches... do it right and not with an arcade feel style of play. At least look to Battlefield 3 and BF4 as a guide for the Wildlands vehicles.

4. Provide Private Rented User Wildlands Servers, controlled by a private Server Admin... with complete control, over the game options and how each Wildlands game is set up and played.

5. Keep the 3rd person view, along with a FPS view for more accurate aiming.

6. A UbiSoft provided Wildlands competitive in Game Ladder service for online competitions. And the in game "Hooks" needed for Private and online public Tournaments and scoring.

If UbiSoft, with their GR Wildlands, wants to seriously compete with EA/DICE or COD games for sales in the game market next year... UbiSoft better step up to the table... or be left behind in the dust when Battlefield 5 hits next year... when Wildlands is also expected to be released.

My list could go on forever... but that's a few suggestions to start with. I'll have more later. You know I will.

shobhit7777777
06-22-2015, 06:34 PM
1. Robust squad AI for offline play

2. A living, breathing systemic open world...like the one they are promising

BS__Paladin
06-22-2015, 08:28 PM
A limited closed beta at a very early stage with people I respect. Early enough that their feedback can be assessed and implemented into the game.

Kaiskune
06-22-2015, 08:55 PM
well the devs team not going dark a few months after announcement would be a start.

the complete denounciation of Future soldier as canon (I'm a EndWar fan so sue me Xp)

updates not only with what they have added/taken away and redone but reasons why it was changed- Using Endwar as an example there were multiple changed made in that game by Shanghai, every last one was explained (example: the JSF rifle change from the XM8 to the SCAR due to fact SCAR won the rifle competetion that year) Future soldier we didnt even get a wet fart out of the dev team when they spat the dummy out of the pram and destroyed the game

BS__Paladin
06-23-2015, 10:01 PM
I have to admit I'm quite jealous of you guys. I heard a rumour they were planning to invite some forum guys well back when Future Soldier was coming out. Apparently I might have been one of the people to be invited. So I was green with envy when I read your article lol. But I have to admit your time with the devs has definitely been a positive encouragement to old school GR players like myself. I am excited about the next Ghost Recon, which is saying something after the disaster Ghost Recon Future Soldier was. Some people love that game but personally I feel it threaded so far away from the other Ghost Recon games that it seemed to be from a different franchise.

Like a lot of people on here I have my own definitive idea of what makes Ghost Recon Ghost Recon. I think to accommodate people i think Ubisoft need to have a solid core game ( and that looks to be the case ) that has huge flexibility. Whether that flexibility comes in the form of Modding, Editing, Configuration Adjustments or just numerous host/player options; the game needs the flexibility to appeal to me and my Ghost Recon gamers.

On a side note I hope it was put across the need for searchable host controlled rooms. The social aspect of playing in great consistent rooms was the cornerstone of Ghost Recon. Chatting to and killing the same guys regularly made Ghost Recon the beloved franchise we all cherished.

Lastly do any of the guys who went to Paris know if we can switch camos for our players. Thats pretty important.

Cortexian
06-24-2015, 12:18 AM
Lastly do any of the guys who went to Paris know if we can switch camos for our players. Thats pretty important.
Player customization was a big point of feedback that we brought up... We can't go into details though. :nonchalance:

Pavelow1199
06-24-2015, 08:10 AM
Very skeptical, after the abomination that is R6.

I just want a core single player experience with a good sandbox feel and less of a cinematic feel.


Don't know if you can talk about it, but is the game played from the same character's point of view (like FS with Kozak) or are we able to actively switch around to different team mates?

bent_toe
06-24-2015, 08:13 PM
I know I'm somewhat notorious around these parts due to my various critiques of Future Soldier during that title's development. When I first heard that there was a new Ghost Recon my initial gut reaction was to laugh. After the debacle that was FS did they really expect that a new GR would be welcomed with open arms by a snake-bitten fanbase? After I joked on other websites and forums I eventually took the Ubisoft-Hate-Shades off and watched the trailer with as much neutrality as I could. After doing so I came to this general conclusion;

GRWL is an interesting concept but there just isn't enough shown currently to make it anything other than a morbid curiosity for a former franchise fan.

I was impressed to see that Ubisoft extended a proverbial olive branch to GR's wounded fanbase by inviting some community members to experience the game and interact with the devs. Unanimously it seems everyone that participated in that event seemed to have a very positive response to what they experienced. I take that and I accept that. The questions linger and remain for me however due to one title in particular; Rainbow 6 Siege. I admit the reveal gameplay demo that debuted at last year's E3 quite literally made my jaw drop for that game. Words from people in the know seemed to paint a similar rosy picture for that game in a similar way it's being done for GRWL. Things like "Ubisoft is aware of the damage caused by FS" or "they're trying to move away from the design processes that produced the last few TC titles." Those are paraphrases but it seemed to fit with what I saw from Siege.

However...

Fast forward a year and I think it's a common consensus now (at least among long time fans) that Rainbow 6 Siege is a dumpster fire. A strange mixture of Counter Strike and COD's Search and Destroy featuring gimmicky/exploitable gadgets, questionable gameplay mechanics like hit markers, a cluttered HUD, and other things. Personally, the knockout blow came when it was revealed that Siege would have no AI squadmates at all. Apparently, an inseparable staple for the franchise simply and inexplicably didn't meet the "vision" for the game. I don't know about anybody else but that is incredibly hair raising statement in the shadow of the impending GRWL.

Point is due to what I've seen regarding Rainbow 6 Siege, in my eyes at least, it appears that Ubisoft is still Ubisoft and that nothing has changed at all.

tl;dr - I now ask my fellow skeptics and long time franchise veterans...what would convince you to approach GRWL with anything other than morbid curiosity? What would be the things that would take you off the proverbial fence? What would convince you to give Ubisoft your time/patience/money when they have such a poor track record even with recent non-TC related games (*cough*Watch Dogs*cough*)?

What we already now... an open sandbox game.
THAT my friend caught my attention right away. Ubisoft might not make GR like back in the days but they sure as hell know open world gameplay (AC, WD, FC) so thats my #1 intrest in this game.

PublicVermin
06-24-2015, 09:52 PM
I know I'm somewhat notorious around these parts due to my various critiques of Future Soldier during that title's development. When I first heard that there was a new Ghost Recon my initial gut reaction was to laugh. After the debacle that was FS did they really expect that a new GR would be welcomed with open arms by a snake-bitten fanbase? After I joked on other websites and forums I eventually took the Ubisoft-Hate-Shades off and watched the trailer with as much neutrality as I could. After doing so I came to this general conclusion;

GRWL is an interesting concept but there just isn't enough shown currently to make it anything other than a morbid curiosity for a former franchise fan.

I was impressed to see that Ubisoft extended a proverbial olive branch to GR's wounded fanbase by inviting some community members to experience the game and interact with the devs. Unanimously it seems everyone that participated in that event seemed to have a very positive response to what they experienced. I take that and I accept that. The questions linger and remain for me however due to one title in particular; Rainbow 6 Siege. I admit the reveal gameplay demo that debuted at last year's E3 quite literally made my jaw drop for that game. Words from people in the know seemed to paint a similar rosy picture for that game in a similar way it's being done for GRWL. Things like "Ubisoft is aware of the damage caused by FS" or "they're trying to move away from the design processes that produced the last few TC titles." Those are paraphrases but it seemed to fit with what I saw from Siege.

However...

Fast forward a year and I think it's a common consensus now (at least among long time fans) that Rainbow 6 Siege is a dumpster fire. A strange mixture of Counter Strike and COD's Search and Destroy featuring gimmicky/exploitable gadgets, questionable gameplay mechanics like hit markers, a cluttered HUD, and other things. Personally, the knockout blow came when it was revealed that Siege would have no AI squadmates at all. Apparently, an inseparable staple for the franchise simply and inexplicably didn't meet the "vision" for the game. I don't know about anybody else but that is incredibly hair raising statement in the shadow of the impending GRWL.

Point is due to what I've seen regarding Rainbow 6 Siege, in my eyes at least, it appears that Ubisoft is still Ubisoft and that nothing has changed at all.

tl;dr - I now ask my fellow skeptics and long time franchise veterans...what would convince you to approach GRWL with anything other than morbid curiosity? What would be the things that would take you off the proverbial fence? What would convince you to give Ubisoft your time/patience/money when they have such a poor track record even with recent non-TC related games (*cough*Watch Dogs*cough*)?

*slow clap*

Beautiful, Dan. I couldn't have said that better myself (trust me, my linguistic skills are appalling! lol). But seriously, I agree with you on every point.

Pavelow1199
06-25-2015, 06:59 AM
We did open that line of discussion up; the body swapping you could do in the original. Not sure on where it will go, but it's on the agenda for me.

Pretty sure you can't talk about it, and it's probably too late anyways. Is it going to be the same 4 guys, or will there be other ghosts? Having a 'roster' of operatives to choose from would definitely bring that OGR feeling back. Even if it's only 8 or a small number to fit in with the "undercover in a country" plot.

BS__Paladin
06-25-2015, 01:18 PM
I loved completing the special objectives and unlocking specialists.

DanHibikiFanXM
06-25-2015, 03:47 PM
I loved completing the special objectives and unlocking specialists.

Me too. That was one of the best things about the original titles.

BS__Paladin
06-25-2015, 10:36 PM
Yes you did. Once they were killed that was them off the roster. But if they were wounded they were just sidelined for a mission.

DanHibikiFanXM
06-26-2015, 01:01 AM
Character permadeath would be an incredibly interesting feature but that is naturally assuming they're going to have a platoon system like OGR did which I am extremely skeptical about. After all they're gonna need four impervious and grizzled spec ops bad asses to spout goofy one liners to push the plot forward...so allowing them to die wouldn't be in the cards methinks. Actually, wouldn't that be awesome though? Have a system similar to that in the recent XCOM titles? Complete character customization (name, face, hair, gear) with permadeath? I tell you what I would care a LOT more about my guys (and gals) when I handpick/create them than some generic and cliche spec ops ******bags Ubisoft gives me.

I know you'd never do it Ubisoft devs but if you ladies and gents actually read these threads I triple dog dare you to add this feature.

Pavelow1199
06-26-2015, 02:54 AM
Character permadeath would be an incredibly interesting feature but that is naturally assuming they're going to have a platoon system like OGR did which I am extremely skeptical about. After all they're gonna need four impervious and grizzled spec ops bad asses to spout goofy one liners to push the plot forward...so allowing them to die wouldn't be in the cards methinks. Actually, wouldn't that be awesome though? Have a system similar to that in the recent XCOM titles? Complete character customization (name, face, hair, gear) with permadeath? I tell you what I would care a LOT more about my guys (and gals) when I handpick/create them than some generic and cliche spec ops ******bags Ubisoft gives me.

I know you'd never do it Ubisoft devs but if you ladies and gents actually read these threads I triple dog dare you to add this feature.

Isn't it always depressing when you think of a fantastic/throwback feature for a game, and then realize who the developer is? Knowing that UBI would never put that kind of optional depth in their games? No going the extra mile.

alpha-strik1959
06-26-2015, 03:11 AM
1. Have the missions be open ended. I remember how in the OGR there were fairly open maps where the objectives to the missions could be completed in any order I chose.

2. Longer engagement distances, one of the things that annoyed me in FS was how my enemies were almost always so close that using a pistol on them was easy. Engagements felt better in SS and OGR where often enough my enemies were far enough away to warrant using a rifle over a pistol.

3. No regenerating health or taking a significant part of a mag dump before dying. A good part of the ghost recon games from OGR to SS and to a lesser extent GRAW was that these factors gave the player reason to play smart. Performing recon and coming up with a plan actually meant something then as well as moving and taking cover properly to avoid being shot. Having a medic function or class would be nice though.

4. Good AI for both my own squad when offline and the enemy, the ability to set my squad's attack behaviour would be nice.

5. Multiple fireteams. Having two independent fireteams in OGR on xbox added possibilities in missions and added to the gameplay. For instance I could split them up to hande different objectives at once or I could maneuver them to cover each other or set up crossfires in ambushes.

tl:dr - take some of the features that made ghost recon great before FS and implement them in this game, bring it closer to the roots of ghost recon.

DanHibikiFanXM
06-26-2015, 05:13 AM
Isn't it always depressing when you think of a fantastic/throwback feature for a game, and then realize who the developer is? Knowing that UBI would never put that kind of optional depth in their games? No going the extra mile.

Yeah, but as Ed Boon once said it's easy to come up with ideas; actually implementing them is the tricky part. I paraphrased there but still. I think the guys and gals at Ubi are very talented at their craft but some of the design choices they've come up with over the years have been extremely disappointing. Disappointing enough for me to be a whiny-negative-Nancy for the past four years lol.

Does make you wonder though...how many good ideas were there over the years that for whatever reason fell by the wayside?

BS__Paladin
06-26-2015, 09:40 AM
I mentioned the idea about the idea of an open world sandbox GR ( set on a huge island ) about 7 years ago. Nice to see they are finally getting round to it lol.

In the idea the first portion of the game was concerned with the mission going disastrously wrong at the insertion, leaving the squad scattered and with little equipment. Therefore the first few missions taught you solo play, then squad play ( as you found your team mates ) and lastly weapon and item abilities as you slowly found them. In essence adding a structured tutorial in an open world environment. Hope they transfer this to GRWL to make it more accessible at the beginning.

GiveMeTactical
06-28-2015, 03:50 PM
Great to see some tactical old schoolers here...

Single player campaign...

1.- make a natural difference between normal mode and hardcore mode... not just a simple script where the enemy ai can kill you from a thousand yards with a pistol or that miracle bullet that gets you even if hidden under a steel boulder. remember GRAW??? LOL

2.- Take a little time to optimize the KB+M system if a console port.

3.- Head shots = dead

4.- if I hit an enemy ai in the chest and he is wearing a shirt, make him at least go down so I don't get kill by him right away (because he is still standing) or have to unload a full mag to bring him down. If wearing protective gear, allow some time for the enemy ai to gain composure before returning fire.

5.- Make my squad team mates a bit smarter so they don't walk in front of me while I am firing or just head on to the firefight all rambo like when they should be taking cover.

I could go on but I doubt they will listen or even if they do, I doubt they will want to implement a little reality over the watered down version they will come up with.

Dieinthedark
06-29-2015, 06:01 AM
For what they are promising as a systemic world, I want to see that. And I want to see it built based on the way characters interact with their environment. I don't want thousands of NPCs on screen like an AC game and Ubi to say, "Hey look at our living, breathing city!" I want civilians to be integrated into the game as they are in modern combat operations. I would love to have missions where we need to ask civilians what they know about the cartel, trying to gather intelligence and such. If the civilians perceive that the cartel is more powerful and dangerous then they wouldn't tell you anything. Or perhaps you could integrate missions into this such as, I'll give you the intel but they've taken my family prisoner and threatened to kill them if I tell you, type missions. Could be interesting.

But imagine the gameplay potential you could have with just one step further, if civilians would give players bad intelligence. Games typically would either give you what you need or not give it to you at all. Introducing this unknown would be absolutely game changing. Some civilians are bound to side with the cartel and would perhaps be bribed by them to give any intel to the Ghosts as a lead into an ambush or the like. Considering none of this would be scripted encounters, players would really have determine their role in the world, how they are perceived by other civilians, and any negative repercussions from earlier actions (lets hope you haven't massacred any villages between missions).

That would give weight to the player's actions because if civilians aren't integrated beyond the walk around and take up space level that they are in the AC franchise, I don't care how good of a shooter it plays as, it's not going to feel next-gen to me.

Deosl
06-29-2015, 09:49 AM
Pretty sure you can't talk about it, and it's probably too late anyways. Is it going to be the same 4 guys, or will there be other ghosts? Having a 'roster' of operatives to choose from would definitely bring that OGR feeling back. Even if it's only 8 or a small number to fit in with the "undercover in a country" plot.

Your question is border lining the SP which we know nothing about :)

@Dan, I know you've been fatigued of games lately and tried ARMA 3. But I think this could perhaps be up your alley and good to see you are at least intrigued by GRW.

@BS_Paladin, keep on posting constructive feedback!

BS__Paladin
06-29-2015, 01:02 PM
Feels like pizzing in the wind sometimes lol. Maybe something will filter through.

DanHibikiFanXM
06-29-2015, 05:47 PM
Your question is border lining the SP which we know nothing about :)

@Dan, I know you've been fatigued of games lately and tried ARMA 3. But I think this could perhaps be up your alley and good to see you are at least intrigued by GRW.

@BS_Paladin, keep on posting constructive feedback!

Eh...intriuged is probably too strong of a word. Morbid curiosity fits better I think lol. This game does have an interesting concept but my expectation for this title is complete and utter failure like Rainbow 6 Siege. I realized I didn't mention what would make me come back to this wayward franchise, but I think the things people suggested are in line with my potential hopes as well. This are things that would make me far more hopeful.

1.) Increased Weapon Lethality - Getting shot should have dire and potentially catastrophic consequences like in OGR and/or Arma; NO REGENERATING HEALTH. I believe doing this will put more of an importance on semi-auto with precise shots than the crazed spray-n-pray that every game forces now. This also discourages crazed COD/BF run and gun.
2.) Permadeath for Characters in SP Campaign - Already been talked about before earlier in this thread. Again, there should be consequences for stupid tactical decisions.
3.) Full Tactical Control - I want complete control. I want to pick my team, I want to pick their gear, and I want enough in-game control with squad commands to allow me to do whatever I want with my team.
4.) Fully Customizeable and Searchable MP Lobbies - No elaboration needed. Needs to be equal to or greater than the options presented in GRAW2.
5.) Classic/Staple Game Modes - Shapshooter, Last Man Standing, etc.
6.) Custom Mission Types - See GRAW2...Firefight, Quick Mission, Defend, Helo Hunt, etc...

ITK5
06-29-2015, 08:14 PM
1. Added in, complete Clan Support for larger groups of friends to play and compete together. A Single Player campaign component in Wildlands is not needed... if good in game Clan Support is available. A co-op, out of online real play TEST RANGE room, should be included in game for private and Clan training and recruiting.

2. With very LARGE and advertised in game Wildlands maps... upscale the game and provide for 16 vs 16 or 24 vs 24 player rooms and game modes to accompany them. Less of this 3 or 5 player "Elite" squad stuff. You can have 4 or 5 "Elite", 5 man Squads working together. 5 vs 5 player rooms is a joke for today's online games. And Co-Op should not be the main component of Wildlands games. Co-Op is more for "Practice" and warm up matches before a real full multiplayer larger game. If UbiSoft can not make rooms for larger amounts of players... delay the game until UbiSoft figures it out.

3. If in game on ground vehicles, armor and aircraft are to be provided in Wildlands matches... do it right and not with an arcade feel style of play. At least look to Battlefield 3 and BF4 as a guide for the Wildlands vehicles.

4. Provide Private Rented User Wildlands Servers, controlled by a private Server Admin... with complete control, over the game options and how each Wildlands game is set up and played.

5. Keep the 3rd person view, along with a FPS view for more accurate aiming.

6. A UbiSoft provided Wildlands competitive in Game Ladder service for online competitions. And the in game "Hooks" needed for Private and online public Tournaments and scoring.

If UbiSoft, with their GR Wildlands, wants to seriously compete with EA/DICE or COD games for sales in the game market next year... UbiSoft better step up to the table... or be left behind in the dust when Battlefield 5 hits next year... when Wildlands is also expected to be released.

My list could go on forever... but that's a few suggestions to start with. I'll have more later. You know I will.

Thats a good list.

I can tell you the COOP is spot on.

I was lucky enough to roll with BlueFox, Ulukai (http://forums.ubi.com/member.php/161141-ISWAT_Ulukai) & MattShotcha.
Missions were difficult even when we had a gameplan
(Ulukai running Sniper, Matt and I pushing foward and Bluefox running support).

3rd Person view with the Scope in FPS looks promising too..I only have one issue with
this and hope I can share some info on it at a later date.



All good suggestions Red.

DanHibikiFanXM
06-29-2015, 09:14 PM
Sorry, had a brainfart lol.

chadeboi
07-01-2015, 11:52 PM
My wants are very simple:

1. A robust collection of squad commands I can issue to my AI teammates. I don't care anything about co-op or multiplayer.

That's about it!

Rainbow Six: Siege completely lost me. It practically disgusts me at this point, and I almost welcome its commercial failure (though there's a chance it won't be one).

SASIncrement
07-05-2015, 12:39 PM
The eternity between GRAW2 and Advanced Future Soldier my love for GR died.
Other games gave me the well needed PvP adrenaline I once had for Island Thunder and Summit Strike map packs.
Wildlands, R6 Siege and The Division will be short sweet love affairs for couple weeks, a mere distraction, then I move along.
Come back in couple years reading posts how us "Old School" fans are let down and what have you.
Have a nice summer, got outside get some sun pale brothers and sisters in arms.
:o

V.M.R_JaRuTo
07-08-2015, 12:30 PM
Okay, I have few cents:

1. As someome mentioned before, make advance or at least some basic commands that i can issue to my AI Squad teammates.
2. Disable "Contact" / "Engage" and "Clear" message from HUD interface on hardest difficulty. That felt too arcadey in Future Soldier.
3. Don't force anyone to taging enemies from drone or binocular, Acog, whatever Ghost can use to infiltrate...
4. Character customization - not too deep, not too funcy, make sure to include real soldier sets also.
4. I saw at the Trailer that there is no cover system anymore. Keep it that way, and add some old fashion lean/peak feature.
5. Bring back Elite difficulty and this time make sure enemy AI will not be too acuracy but if you get 1 hit in the head = dead instantly and when you can't see enemy the enemy shouldn't see you and starts firing at you. One more thing, I don't like regen health but if you really want to keep this feature make regen health much more longer (20 seconds long at least) before you're health will regen fully.

I will get back to the forum when this game will get close to the release and see if they really listen and They take into account the suggestions of veterans GR series.
Peace.

Skullgrind
07-11-2015, 12:31 PM
It would pretty much take a miracle to get me to come back to Ghost Recon.

DmF-Lokiey
07-12-2015, 04:03 PM
Ok so i gotta say what makes for the best tactical hardcore shooter? I think this is a very important question because i think the answer varies from person to person depending on age and when they came into different series in the tom clancy universe. I do notice some trends in what some people say and its not to say there wrong and that some aspects should not be lost but that some new ones should be made.

1) No HUD? So to be true hardcore should the HUD be tossed out?
2) Reticue,should it just be a small tiny dot, nothing more?
3) Scopes, unless your a sniper should all scopes on other guns be eliminated?
4) Lean mechanic cerca 1998, this should always be a requirement for a true hardcore and shouldn't evolve?
5) Jumping, This is too COD/BF and not asking just saying NO!
6) Mini Maps, is this part of the HUD or separate and should it also be removed?
7) Always First person? I mean the second you remove it does a game become a casual pos crappy game?
8) Cover system? Does this mean cover isnt realistic and has no place in a hardcore game?

Now i was a huge fan of the first GR cerca 2001 and its expansions and played for 5 years but that game didn't come out without its flaws and things i would change with today's game engine,mechanics and such to make it better. Hell if they implemented UE4,DX11/12 graphics reskinning and changed it to the hybrid third person with first person scope that game would be a home freaking run and still just as much fun to play as the first time around. I agree that UBIsoft has had more misses then hits in the clancy series for sure, siege before alpha footage and playing alpha i thought was gonna be the next major title and then realized for lack of being hateful about it, not my cup of tea. The division i am however excited about because its a RPG with shooter based mechanics, i'm not going in thinking its a shooter but that its going to be a fun persistent world RPG. I mean for me the last really fun RV6 Titles were vegas 1 & 2 and i know for most they think those just further destroyed the series only to cement there feelings but i loved it. I was also a fan of blacklist as i had a ton of fun playing that game both single player despite not being long enough and the co-op missions despite them not releasing DLC co-op content later to extend the fun even more.

I do think though there is that small fanbase that does want to get back to the most basic of rogue spear game cerca 1999 because for those folks its the last time they really loved playing a shooter. I think UBIsoft should compile a SDK that people can work with,reskin the whole game in today's engine and to a fan based re release of the game. The fact is this type of group is holding on so tightly to the past and any RV6/Ghost Recon game isnt just like them that to them suck and a taint on the clancy name and i dont think thats true. I think some have been good and some have been bad and not my taste and to me thats just how it go's really.I do want you guys to think about one thing, imagine every RV6 being just like 1,2,3 but with new story,new content and better looking maps but nothing at all else changed in the slightest bit, do the same for ghost recon,splinter cell. Now open your eyes and watch gameplay from every call of duty,every battlefield and then ask yourself is that the gaming world i want to live in? Do i want nothing to change about my gaming experience? Do i just want better graphics and new content but nothing more,no changes, no new dynamics? See thats the thing, if you ask me if UBIsoft did that, there games would just be another call of duty where nothing ever changes or evolves and only the environment looks new. Food for thought!

V.M.R_JaRuTo
07-12-2015, 05:46 PM
Ok so i gotta say what makes for the best tactical hardcore shooter? I think this is a very important question because i think the answer varies from person to person depending on age and when they came into different series in the tom clancy universe. I do notice some trends in what some people say and its not to say there wrong and that some aspects should not be lost but that some new ones should be made.

1) No HUD? So to be true hardcore should the HUD be tossed out?
2) Reticue,should it just be a small tiny dot, nothing more?
3) Scopes, unless your a sniper should all scopes on other guns be eliminated?
4) Lean mechanic cerca 1998, this should always be a requirement for a true hardcore and shouldn't evolve?
5) Jumping, This is too COD/BF and not asking just saying NO!
6) Mini Maps, is this part of the HUD or separate and should it also be removed?
7) Always First person? I mean the second you remove it does a game become a casual pos crappy game?
8) Cover system? Does this mean cover isnt realistic and has no place in a hardcore game?

Now i was a huge fan of the first GR cerca 2001 and its expansions and played for 5 years but that game didn't come out without its flaws and things i would change with today's game engine,mechanics and such to make it better. Hell if they implemented UE4,DX11/12 graphics reskinning and changed it to the hybrid third person with first person scope that game would be a home freaking run and still just as much fun to play as the first time around. I agree that UBIsoft has had more misses then hits in the clancy series for sure, siege before alpha footage and playing alpha i thought was gonna be the next major title and then realized for lack of being hateful about it, not my cup of tea. The division i am however excited about because its a RPG with shooter based mechanics, i'm not going in thinking its a shooter but that its going to be a fun persistent world RPG. I mean for me the last really fun RV6 Titles were vegas 1 & 2 and i know for most they think those just further destroyed the series only to cement there feelings but i loved it. I was also a fan of blacklist as i had a ton of fun playing that game both single player despite not being long enough and the co-op missions despite them not releasing DLC co-op content later to extend the fun even more.

I do think though there is that small fanbase that does want to get back to the most basic of rogue spear game cerca 1999 because for those folks its the last time they really loved playing a shooter. I think UBIsoft should compile a SDK that people can work with,reskin the whole game in today's engine and to a fan based re release of the game. The fact is this type of group is holding on so tightly to the past and any RV6/Ghost Recon game isnt just like them that to them suck and a taint on the clancy name and i dont think thats true. I think some have been good and some have been bad and not my taste and to me thats just how it go's really.I do want you guys to think about one thing, imagine every RV6 being just like 1,2,3 but with new story,new content and better looking maps but nothing at all else changed in the slightest bit, do the same for ghost recon,splinter cell. Now open your eyes and watch gameplay from every call of duty,every battlefield and then ask yourself is that the gaming world i want to live in? Do i want nothing to change about my gaming experience? Do i just want better graphics and new content but nothing more,no changes, no new dynamics? See thats the thing, if you ask me if UBIsoft did that, there games would just be another call of duty where nothing ever changes or evolves and only the environment looks new. Food for thought!

You see... there is a big difference between those Tom Clancy's games and those nowadays. What Tom Clancy's games means to us back in the days is that they had a core features that shouldn't be removed, I'm talking about advanced planning phase system, mouse wheel door open, deep AI squad teammates commands, not to mention multiplayer multi options to create your own experience in PvP, etc. from Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon or advanced methods for spies such as reading emails by use OPSAT, hack to the computers, etc. to deal with missions in Splinter Cell games and stories of those games wasn't cliche, hollywood esque and most importantly they was realistic believable worlds to some extent, including your character in the game and how react with those worlds. Now it's gone.

Ubisoft are making the same mistakes year by year with those "bold decisions" to remove almost everything from those games what we loved once and replace with more accessible gameplay mechanics over and over and over. The best way to make such games is to recreate core gameplay mechanics as I mentioned above then build upon that with new features and Then make an "optional" options for casual crowd but at the same time keeping the mechanisms that are indigenous from the start of the series because minimalism in terms of gameplay for those type of games is a better choice that keep you challenging every time.
I'm not up against about some fresh not simplistic features (if they are fitting in the game) that's why we are so pissed because Ubisoft companies are so stubborn to remove everything from those franchises.

Rainbow Six games was great until released Lock down/Vegas series, Ghost Recon games was great until GRAW/Future Soldier games came out, Splinter Cell games was great until Conviction title. Those games are very simplistic and uninspired. They should be called as a new IP's because they have virtually nothing in common with what it used to be.

as for Ghost Recon: Wildlands I need to see if they learned from mistakes over the past years before I will consider whether to give them another chance. Time will tell... The Rainbow Six franchise is now lost in the ashes... that's for sure, so this is probably the last chance to repair/fix at least Ghost Recon franchise.
I dont give a... with DLC content. There should be mod tools to keep those games alive.

Dieinthedark
07-13-2015, 02:17 AM
You see... there is a big difference between those Tom Clancy's games and those nowadays. What Tom Clancy's games means to us back in the days is that they had a core features that shouldn't be removed, I'm talking about advanced planning phase system, mouse wheel door open, deep AI squad teammates commands, not to mention multiplayer multi options to create your own experience in PvP, etc. from Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon or advanced methods for spies such as reading emails by use OPSAT, hack to the computers, etc. to deal with missions in Splinter Cell games and stories of those games wasn't cliche, hollywood esque and most importantly they was realistic believable worlds to some extent, including your character in the game and how react with those worlds. Now it's gone.

Ubisoft are making the same mistakes year by year with those "bold decisions" to remove almost everything from those games what we loved once and replace with more accessible gameplay mechanics over and over and over. The best way to make such games is to recreate core gameplay mechanics as I mentioned above then build upon that with new features and Then make an "optional" options for casual crowd but at the same time keeping the mechanisms that are indigenous from the start of the series because minimalism in terms of gameplay for those type of games is a better choice that keep you challenging every time.
I'm not up against about some fresh not simplistic features (if they are fitting in the game) that's why we are so pissed because Ubisoft companies are so stubborn to remove everything from those franchises.

Rainbow Six games was great until released Lock down/Vegas series, Ghost Recon games was great until GRAW/Future Soldier games came out, Splinter Cell games was great until Conviction title. Those games are very simplistic and uninspired. They should be called as a new IP's because they have virtually nothing in common with what it used to be.

as for Ghost Recon: Wildlands I need to see if they learned from mistakes over the past years before I will consider whether to give them another chance. Time will tell... The Rainbow Six franchise is now lost in the ashes... that's for sure, so this is probably the last chance to repair/fix at least Ghost Recon franchise.
I dont give a... with DLC content. There should be mod tools to keep those games alive.


Quoted for absolute truth.

sarsdisease
07-14-2015, 03:20 PM
I had a lot of fun playing grfs siege mode and I played it about a year. If they are going to add noob features they have to have customizable lobbies. The amount of people that relied on ucav and noob tubes were rediculous. It took all the stratagem out of the game when you both saw each other in a one on one. I never used the noob tube or ucav cause I felt dirty. The amount of people that had no gun game and relied on noob tubes was crazy. Don't get me started on a scope that could see through walls. I want to play with good people that use statag and gun skills to win games. Not noob features that can make any scrub look decent.

ITK5
07-14-2015, 04:52 PM
I had a lot of fun playing grfs siege mode and I played it about a year. If they are going to add noob features they have to have customizable lobbies. The amount of people that relied on ucav and noob tubes were rediculous. It took all the stratagem out of the game when you both saw each other in a one on one. I never used the noob tube or ucav cause I felt dirty. The amount of people that had no gun game and relied on noob tubes was crazy. Don't get me started on a scope that could see through walls. I want to play with good people that use statag and gun skills to win games. Not noob features that can make any scrub look decent.

We played Future Soldier over the weekend, and we had a veteran player tweet out "Friends don't let Friends run BackScatter" and "There is a Reason they dont call it Pro-Tube"

BS__Paladin
07-17-2015, 10:37 PM
I believe that GRWL needs a significant amount of reconfiguration options. Whether that lies in host options, player options or custom content, that is up to the devs. I would like to see a match making system based on dating sites. Add what features are most important to you and get paired to similar minded players. For instance FPS only, No explosives, No health regen etc. Rather than just playlists based on game modes.

V.M.R_JaRuTo
07-18-2015, 09:24 AM
There are cars in Ghost Recon Wildlands that will explode if you shoot them : (
The same situation. Look carefully at the trailer. The truck explodes falling down from slope.

GR:Wildlands, so awesome, so explosive... http://images.eurogamer.net/2015/usgamer/GR-Wildlands-Shot-05.jpg

We can get at most customization characters and maybe... just maybe AI squad teammates "basic" commands, lot's of freedom choices and better shooting system from far distance at best and that's it. It's reskinned Future Soldier only. For more i'm not counting,
Forgive me for such skepticism but when I see these things I have very, very bad anxiety. It's Ubisoft after all, I think they will milk us once again.

Sorry, I'm out... I'm waiting for reviews now. Good luck in the fight for a better tomorrow, Paladin, DanHibikiFanXM.

ES-Ulukai
07-18-2015, 05:34 PM
Car is destroy ? No problem I got that covered :p

Can't talk further ^^

CourtlyShelf2
07-19-2015, 09:47 PM
for me i would really like that stealth option get in and get out and nobody would know i was there i know it sounds hitmanish but those type of options really appeal to me also character creation and customization i think would be nice

DanHibikiFanXM
07-19-2015, 09:53 PM
I don't mind the destruction of vehicles. What I do mind is the over-the-top Michael Bay explosions that happen in video games when cars get shot a few times. Unless they're a VBIED the explosions should mostly be small (around the fuel tank) and be more fiery. That would actually be interesting seeing fire propagation like Far Cry or Battlefield 4.

mikichiix
07-28-2015, 11:39 AM
I remember using a GL launcher in GRAW1 in MP , at the time I was using an ATI9500pro on all graphics on LOW and off at a lan party
The Nade/GL launcher ended up causing a destruction chain of effects that killed almost every single car on the highway , almost all squad mates and my system went to 1 FPS for 10 mins
I had to walk to another mates PC to see the action (and the screaming in the other room)

I love nades and blowing up stuff

Well, that convenient... :cool:

Ghost Sniper33
07-29-2015, 04:54 PM
It'll have to look and feel like GR:SS at the least, make it so teams matter, run and gun doesn't work 95% of the time.
reward those who move slow and work with the environment, not just fire blankly.
realistic damage,
no keep the tech realistic- i dont need a magantic sheld if i use my cover and concealment correctly.
get rid of the damn kill cam or whatever it is - if i get killed i don't know where it came from because im dead. just like if i have great concilment, i shouldn't be given away by a gimmick

Oh and one last thing, do not require me to buy anything on day 1 other then the game disc, this DLC the day you launch crap is nothing more then a money grab. pretend this is the orginal Xbox days and release a full game, stop nickel and dimeing me. otherwise i will keep my orginal xbox to keep playing those real complete games.