PDA

View Full Version : A Proper Gost Recon Game Or Watered Down For Casuals?



Flaw3dGenius23
11-29-2015, 09:38 PM
Pretty as much as the title, Are we going to get a game outlining players, Camera's everywhere and wall hacks left right and centre? Or are we going to get a proper Ghost Recon game?

Sorry if we already know the answer i've not been following the game yet.

DanHibikiFanXM
11-29-2015, 09:46 PM
Nobody really knows. The people that Ubisoft invited to try it out seem to swear unanimously that things are different now, but I remain cautious and skeptical until I see definitive evidence they aren't screwing it up again.

Flaw3dGenius23
12-03-2015, 04:43 PM
Sounds promising, Would hate this to turn out like the last Ghost and the new Rainbow with Camera's and Wall Hacks everywhere. Like yourself i'l remain cautious and skeptical but my god the console gaming world needs a proper tactical shooter...Shame Rainbow turned out the way it did as there is only so many times you can barricade yourself into a room without getting bored.

Magsmp31
12-04-2015, 09:22 PM
I hope its a true single player campaign and not four soldiers running around. I want to be able to tactically direct the team. I can't play online co op because of location so I need single player to be done well

SuperBiscotCOT
12-05-2015, 10:06 AM
I realy hope too that it will be a tactical game and not a run and shoot (again). :p
The devs video talking about authenticity sounds promising for the designs and gameplay choices. But and it's a big BUT if the game is with realistic guns, vehicles, ... and the gameplay is just a "piou piou pan pan piou" and run run run ! NO IT'S NOT REALISTIC ! :mad:

GiveMeTactical
12-05-2015, 08:09 PM
Looking at UBI's history stats and bad console port shooter games I can't help buy being negative, cautious and skeptical as well. I am not holding my breath and if I was a betting man, I would bet my house and my car that this would be, yet, another "What could have been Game"... full of potential but a flop nonetheless.

Only time will tell and I for one hope that I have to eat my words, although... I won't be holding my breath.

Nudebutterfly
12-08-2015, 12:17 AM
Just wait and see

SuperBiscotCOT
12-08-2015, 05:47 PM
If they asked some real GR hardcore players I think they are on a good road. But we don't really know if they were realy happy of the game maybe they can post a little message to reassure you ;) (@Cortexian, @AI_Bluefox, naturally if you have the permission to talk a little bit of what you saw).

ES-Ulukai
12-08-2015, 10:09 PM
Very fun but a shot session, I want more ^^

We played in a little part the map and there's plenty of things to do and discover, we had a long chat with devs and CEO Yve Guillemot about the game.

Don't hesitate to look the workshop vidéo with our first feedback about the game.

UbiKeeba
12-08-2015, 10:35 PM
I went ahead and found it so no one would have to go digging. :)

Ghost Recon Wildlands Community Workshop (http://ghost-recon.ubi.com/wildlands/en-US/news/detail.aspx?c=tcm:152-212021-16&ct=tcm:148-76770-32)

Flaw3dGenius23
12-09-2015, 12:35 AM
I was very happy with what I played. A lot to see yet though, and this was a very early build. The release trailer captures what I experienced very well

Did you play online multi or single player?

Flaw3dGenius23
12-09-2015, 01:32 AM
I went ahead and found it so no one would have to go digging. :)

Ghost Recon Wildlands Community Workshop (http://ghost-recon.ubi.com/wildlands/en-US/news/detail.aspx?c=tcm:152-212021-16&ct=tcm:148-76770-32)

Thanks for that looks good from what we can see although it seems they only played single/co-op mode and not competitive multiplayer?

One worrying thing is at the end the American guy comments "Your gonnae love it its insane, The size alone the world that you get to play around in and the toys at your disposal is insane, its going to blow your mind"


Nooooooooo

he1nz
12-09-2015, 06:35 AM
Thanks for that looks good from what we can see although it seems they only played single/co-op mode and not competitive multiplayer?

One worrying thing is at the end the American guy comments "Your gonnae love it its insane, The size alone the world that you get to play around in and the toys at your disposal is insane, its going to blow your mind"


Nooooooooo

It sounds like the "toys" in the game (probably the various vehicles) has to be stolen by you before a mission, if you want to start a mission with, say a helicopter gunship.. so if that seems to be overkill to you.. you can just go in by foot.

Options.. options.. sounds like Ubisoft is trying to do the right thing this time :)

Flaw3dGenius23
12-09-2015, 12:43 PM
Hopefully he meant vehicles. I can handle transport over camera's and heart sensors and everyother "wall hack" in games these days :)

Do we know when the game is set? If we are fighting drug cartels is it possible were back in the late 70's or 80's? That would be awesome!

SuperBiscotCOT
12-09-2015, 02:54 PM
Hopefully he meant vehicles. I can handle transport over camera's and heart sensors and everyother "wall hack" in games these days :)

Do we know when the game is set? If we are fighting drug cartels is it possible were back in the late 70's or 80's? That would be awesome!

Yes we know and it's set in the near future but not as far as in GR Future Solider. :p

Flaw3dGenius23
12-09-2015, 06:42 PM
Yes we know and it's set in the near future but not as far as in GR Future Solider. :p

Future setting scares the life out of me, It's bound to be full of wall hacks then.

SuperBiscotCOT
12-09-2015, 09:24 PM
Future setting scares the life out of me, It's bound to be full of wall hacks then.

No it's set in 2020 something like that. So no HAX weapons (seeing threw walls, invisibility, ... = 0 ). It's one of the mutiple promises of dev's :)

GiveMeTactical
12-10-2015, 02:49 AM
Just wait and see
I have been waiting since 2005... how about you?


I went ahead and found it so no one would have to go digging. :)

Ghost Recon Wildlands Community Workshop (http://ghost-recon.ubi.com/wildlands/en-US/news/detail.aspx?c=tcm:152-212021-16&ct=tcm:148-76770-32)

Thanks for the video, I had not seen it.

While its nice to put some faces on some names, I am still skeptical that even though you guys got to play a small part of the game, albeit with what seemed like Game controller and not mouse & keyboard... how do you know that once UBI ports the game to PC, that everything will be the same? I mean, its not the first time they show something good only to crap on the players that pre-order sight unseen. Furthermore, Watchdogs was supposed to be THE best Next Gen game and we all know what a flop that was, Siege went from day to night if we see the pre alpha videos, etc.

I don't know, full me once and all that jazz... Vegas and GRAw were good enough for me to be fooled with.I rather throw my money away by giving it to a crack head than to UBI LOL

Lolssi
12-10-2015, 01:10 PM
Future setting scares the life out of me, It's bound to be full of wall hacks then.
To be fair Adwanced Warfighters were set in the future (now past?) also. To me they still felt like tactical shooters and I like'em really much even though I hear some people felt like they weren't good Ghost Recon games.

Flaw3dGenius23
12-10-2015, 02:19 PM
No it's set in 2020 something like that. So no HAX weapons (seeing threw walls, invisibility, ... = 0 ). It's one of the mutiple promises of dev's :)

If they have promised no wall hacks im happy! :D

Cortexian
12-18-2015, 09:22 AM
Yeah just to answer some of the questions in this thread that I can:

We played cooperative mode (4 players in a group working together to overthrow the bad guys in the giant open world). The original concept for the game was this "multiplayer cooperative mode", that's the core of what Wildlands is all about. That DOESN'T MEAN that adversarial multiplayer won't be a thing. Information on adversarial multiplayer modes has not been released yet.

There are motorbikes, cars, trucks, vans, boats, aircraft, etc... In the game. The only "toys" and/or "gadgets" that were in the game when we played were gadgets that made sense. Smaller man-portable drones, etc. The game takes place "in a few years". Think 2018 - 2020 era. Technology and gadgets are designed to be realistically from this era.

Flaw3dGenius23
12-19-2015, 04:31 PM
I knew they would have drones creating wall hacks/lighting the enemy up like a Christmas tree! :( KNEW IT! :(

Although if Co-Op is the game with a possible multiplayer bolted on (with drones) then this is not the Ghost Recon i wanted/hoped for anyway.

Cortexian
12-19-2015, 06:15 PM
Actually, now that I think about it they show off in-game drone footage right in the trailer:
http://i.imgur.com/HsmpfGk.png

I don't recall if those markers show up from the player perspective or not/through walls/structures/etc. They may only show up when using the drone itself. Also... <standard disclaimer about the trailer and what we played in Paris being pre-release content and everything may change by the time it's released>.

jeannaq
12-21-2015, 07:37 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing a bit of a return to the more tactical and life threatening feel that you got from the earlier titles. Though that's not saying that Future Soldier was bad, I thought it was rather good and the faster paced arcady feel was a good change of pace every now and then. I think the biggest issue for some people with Future Soldier was being a Ghost Recon game. If it was it's own IP I think a lot of people would have warmed up to it more and had left Ghost Recon to be the tactical shooter. Either way I am curious to see how the open world plays out.

This may not be known yet or maybe no one can talk about it yet, but does anyone know how long roughly the SP campaign will run?

irunbk0826
12-24-2015, 07:02 PM
Too many of the old ghost recon fans complain about this game not being tactical because of the gadgets. I would argue that those gadgets made GRFS more tactical because you had to switch your loadout and strategy if you knew u were going up against a team that likes to spam sensors or use UVAs or running around data hacking people etc. Those things made it harder to win if you weren't playing as a team

There was a way to easily counter/destroy all of those "wall hack" devices. You can shoot down UVAs, cameras and even sensor grenades. Or even easier just throw EMP grenades in their general direction to destroy them. The only thing I felt was truly OP was data hacking but even that could be countered if you were playing with smart teammates who used Jammers

I feel those complaining about the GRFS gadgets were not really tactical players as they like to claim and are more campers. Once they got highlighted they had to move from their little camping spot and actually had to move around the map. They got mad because they couldn't sit in a little corner and shoot people running to the objective. A truly tactical player would have adapted and found ways around the intel devices

The game definitely had its issues (especially technical), but the Intel devices weren't the main ones

Ghost Sniper33
12-28-2015, 07:00 PM
The more i see about this game, and look at Rainbow six the more I'm deciding to wait til it hits the bargin bin. It kist looks more and more like COD dressed up as a tatical game but even with the screen shot above- why do you need markers? if you can't see the people its your problem,

Lolssi
12-29-2015, 08:22 AM
The more i see about this game, and look at Rainbow six the more I'm deciding to wait til it hits the bargin bin. It kist looks more and more like COD dressed up as a tatical game but even with the screen shot above- why do you need markers? if you can't see the people its your problem,
Agree with markers and Siege but...bare with me I know this sounds pretty radical. What if you actually wait that the game gets released first before making your mind? :)

SuperBiscotCOT
01-03-2016, 10:54 AM
Agree with markers and Siege but...bare with me I know this sounds pretty radical. What if you actually wait that the game gets released first before making your mind? :)

Ah you know .... some people will never change ... :nonchalance:

Snowman2372
01-03-2016, 03:55 PM
I think some people are having a pretty big disconnect when it comes to Wildlands and previous titles.

Previous titles were built around the Future Soldier program from the US Army, what came out in those games laid the foundation for what was seen in Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare, and furthered by Call of Duty: Black Ops 3. The Exo Suits, invisiability, UAVs, MULEs, VTOLs, all of that either has existed, is in use, or currently being developed by such agencies as DARPA. None of it is far fetched now, or back when Ghost Recon came around.

When it comes to the group of guys wanting a Hardcore health system, I can respect that. However even back in the very original Ghost Recon games, the missions were nowhere near as big as this Open World. Checkpoints, Save Features, all of that helped minimize the amount of times you wanted to scream at the computer.. then immediately jump right back into it. The amount of times I was given a headshot, from a massive distance away, by a pistol, while I was low crawling through the bush by AI is more than I care to admit. In the relative scale of things, just one mission in Ghost Recon old days, is equal to one small area of how I assume Wildlands will play out. Taking in what I have seen from the trailers, its much faster paced, which will almost certainly lead to a regenerating health system. This is to be more forgiving to players of a much larger variety, and to increase the market of which they can push this towards. One way to solve this, is a simple options menu to allow the player to customize how their individual game will go, however, by all means, do not expect them to come through with the old school health system.

As for the "Wall Hax", this game is being marketed thus far as a co-op game, I think it is safe to assume, you are not going to have problems with "Hax" as there isn't a point in most of these types of games. As for the competitive side of things (if that portion gets fleshed out and developed and is to be announced), you may have some minor issues there, but not nearly as many as you would in a competitive style game.

If you are referring to "Wall Hax" in the context of gadgets allowing markers, or X-ray vision, Thermals, ect.. well, I can't really comment on that. Verbal communication with another person is one thing, telling data to set priority on another clump of data is another thing (In the instance of AI communication). In that case, I would like to have Markers or highlights, as my AI isn't going to have any other way of communication with me. Though as in previous titles, I am sure you could disable such things.

As for the dread of "Futuristic", well, hate to break it to you, but we are much closer to the age of Si-Fi than to 1980's ODA teams rocking jeans and porn staches in ALICE gear. Like I said, a lot of the stuff you are writing off as fantasy is either in the works, or in use currently, though not mainstream as such things tend to be kept out of the publics eye. Stuff you may have seen, to hint at things..

-Osprey VTOL
-Blueforce Trackers
-Micro Drones (the size of the mini ones you see in the mall.. yeah, old tech)
-Nano Technology / 3d Printing (they are making parts of vital organs for the public now)

The list goes on, but the basic rule of thumb, if its something new and shiny available to the public, assume the (United States) Military and Agencies have tech 10-20 years ahead.

GiveMeTactical
01-03-2016, 04:31 PM
Ah you know .... some people will never change ... :nonchalance:

This is true but, it is also true that we have heard that saying "wait until the game is out to make up your mind" before only to be let down by UBI time and again.

It is extremely hard for most, myself included, to take UBI seriously seen how they have churn mediocre games at best for the past 10 years or so, full of potential but failed miserably for one reason or another... either short campaigns, scripted scenes that ake you by the hand and don;'t let you go, etc, etc.

I for one am tired of hearing how good the alpha or beta is only to be disappointed by a broken game at launch time and then sitting for hours, if not days, waiting for the miracle patch to come out. Why is it that we have to be the ones to wait after they have taken our money? Some people never change, sure, UBI has not change at all for that reason as well... I think its time they show us with facts and not fiction or just empty promises.... I could be wrong of course.

SuperBiscotCOT
01-04-2016, 10:01 PM
This is true but, it is also true that we have heard that saying "wait until the game is out to make up your mind" before only to be let down by UBI time and again.

It is extremely hard for most, myself included, to take UBI seriously seen how they have churn mediocre games at best for the past 10 years or so, full of potential but failed miserably for one reason or another... either short campaigns, scripted scenes that ake you by the hand and don;'t let you go, etc, etc.

I for one am tired of hearing how good the alpha or beta is only to be disappointed by a broken game at launch time and then sitting for hours, if not days, waiting for the miracle patch to come out. Why is it that we have to be the ones to wait after they have taken our money? Some people never change, sure, UBI has not change at all for that reason as well... I think its time they show us with facts and not fiction or just empty promises.... I could be wrong of course.

It's why Ubisoft invited some peoples like Deosl, AI Bluefox, etc. to give their first impressions and have a connection/bridge (call it like you want) beetween us (the community) and the devs.
We all want more monthly informations about the game what do you think about :
- a Q&A video all months even it's 1 min longer, it will prove to some of us that they realy care about what we are saying there.
- an other realy early alpha even with a strict DNA, few peoples (no youtubers/streamers only the people who already played the game and maybe some few more), and no videos but just have the feelings of what is going on, what have been improved.

Lolssi
01-05-2016, 01:28 PM
This is true but, it is also true that we have heard that saying "wait until the game is out to make up your mind" before only to be let down by UBI time and again.

What I ment by that is don't be a fool and buy Ubi game before it is released and you have read several reviews and done extensive research about it :)

Ghost Sniper33
01-05-2016, 03:54 PM
What I ment by that is don't be a fool and buy Ubi game before it is released and you have read several reviews and done extensive research about it :)

One of the few times I wish there was still a blockbuster up the block - go spend $8 to rent the game for a week to see if its worth it or not.

GiveMeTactical
01-07-2016, 04:51 AM
Personally, i could not care less if they don't say anthing prior to launch time. Hell, the less hype and lies the better. What I care the most are fir REAL trailers of the gameplay and bot a 10 million dollar commercial of something cool that will not be in the game... but that;s just me

Ahhhh, sorry... did bot catch the jist of it... but I'm down for that myself


One of the few times I wish there was still a blockbuster up the block - go spend $8 to rent the game for a week to see if its worth it or not.
Another thing I also miss... that and a real demo to see whether i want to buy the game or not

DanHibikiFanXM
01-07-2016, 05:24 AM
One of the few times I wish there was still a blockbuster up the block - go spend $8 to rent the game for a week to see if its worth it or not.

GameFly. Seriously, GameFly has saved me a LOT of money by renting titles I would have had to purchase otherwise.

Ghost Sniper33
01-07-2016, 04:56 PM
GameFly. Seriously, GameFly has saved me a LOT of money by renting titles I would have had to purchase otherwise.

Yea? I've been skeptical about them, espically now with the Xbox one needing to install games to play even with the disc.
Are they pretty good in avability of new games?

DanHibikiFanXM
01-09-2016, 05:46 PM
Well, typically yeah. The trick I've found is to have the title you really want as being #1 on your queue the days leading up to release. I've gotten new titles consistently but it does take time before it gets to you since it comes in the mail; I live pretty close to a distribution center so mine come fairly quickly. Pretty sure they have free trials too.

Cortexian
01-11-2016, 07:13 AM
I usually just watch some live streams of people playing a game after it's released, if it looks good after an hour or so I'll buy it.

SuperBiscotCOT
01-11-2016, 08:12 AM
I usually just watch some live streams of people playing a game after it's released, if it looks good after an hour or so I'll buy it.

I do exactly the same because some video games websites don't give an authentic grade and I prefer make my own opinion on the game just looking at two or three different streams. But Games like GRW I will definitly buy it at the realease because I'm a big fan and I can't wait to play it.:)

Kydd_Amigo
01-12-2016, 10:43 PM
I feel for the devs, they're facing the unenviable task of trying to please a wide spectrum. The number of true hardcore players is always a small slice of the pie, that's seen in a number of games, MMOs, Destiny etc. It's not easy to make the game accessible to "casual" players while enticing hardcore players (hence hard mode options).

While certain items are definitely more of a style "wall hacks", a lot also comes down to the subtle aspects such as aim assist, kit balancing and map setup. Striking a balance isn't easy, but the game shows promise as a lot of people have said. As for the pre-order / wait, that's all personal preference. It's definitely a risk, but to be fair, there will always be that element because everyone brings an opinion to it.

But I have my cards on this being a solid entry given the setting, concept and the content I've seen so far. (Just an opinion)

SuperBiscotCOT
01-12-2016, 10:52 PM
It's not easy to make the game accessible to "casual" players while enticing hardcore players

And that's one of the most important challenge of the future of the video game industry. Make a polyvalent game that can be adapted to all type of gamers

Ghost Sniper33
01-12-2016, 10:59 PM
And that's one of the most important challenge of the future of the video game industry. Make a polyvalent game that can be adapted to all type of gamers
Single player is alot harder i'd think, but it comes down to customization.
in single player make options like autoaim, 1st/3rd person ect turn on/urn off abile

Multiplayer- get back to the GR2.GRAW options - let hosts change options force a view, weapons ect and let people pick their rooms to find what fits them

GiveMeTactical
01-13-2016, 01:37 AM
If it was up to the devs i have no doubt that we would have a truly awesome games... Campaign & MP but, unfortunately for us... it depends on the the greedy bastids of UBI and not the devs.

I may not know anything about programming or coding but I am sure that if UBI didn't spend millions paying off lobbyist so they can be allowed to sell unfinish games at full retail, UBI would allow the devs to finish the game, polish it, coded correctly if a port amd make a truer difference between Easy Mode and Hardcode mode... this way they can have all the pies they want to eat.

I think it has more to do with people not being able to wait for a finish product and buying a game sight unseen.

Flaw3dGenius23
01-14-2016, 12:42 AM
I feel for the devs, they're facing the unenviable task of trying to please a wide spectrum. The number of true hardcore players is always a small slice of the pie, that's seen in a number of games, MMOs, Destiny etc. It's not easy to make the game accessible to "casual" players while enticing hardcore players (hence hard mode options).

While certain items are definitely more of a style "wall hacks", a lot also comes down to the subtle aspects such as aim assist, kit balancing and map setup. Striking a balance isn't easy, but the game shows promise as a lot of people have said. As for the pre-order / wait, that's all personal preference. It's definitely a risk, but to be fair, there will always be that element because everyone brings an opinion to it.

But I have my cards on this being a solid entry given the setting, concept and the content I've seen so far. (Just an opinion)

And that's one of the most important challenge of the future of the video game industry. Make a polyvalent game that can be adapted to all type of gamers



Or instead of going after COD's 10 million plus sales and making/ending up with a very average game...Why not go after the 2-4 million Hardcore sales and make a great game that you can then sell future DLC as we will still be playing if it is indeed good.....Most games companies try to find a balance and it's just not there and they fail miserably. Ghost Recon Future Soldier being a prime example.

HerbToken
01-22-2016, 05:28 PM
"open world"
"customization"
"non-linear"
"interactive environment"

they're using all the buzzwords to attract the casuals. it's a game for casuals.

jeannaq
01-22-2016, 06:27 PM
"open world"
"customization"
"non-linear"
"interactive environment"

they're using all the buzzwords to attract the casuals. it's a game for casuals.

So the die hard "hardocre" gamers don't like customization, and prefer competely linear on rails, shallow games? I don't know about you, but to me those terms can attract more than just casual players.

HerbToken
01-23-2016, 01:56 PM
So the die hard "hardocre" gamers don't like customization, and prefer competely linear on rails, shallow games? I don't know about you, but to me those terms can attract more than just casual players.

No we prefer competitive balance, good multiplayer maps, realistic weapon choices, and the devs sticking to what works best. You know, things that don't apply to a single Ghost Recon game from GRAW onward. ;)

jeannaq
01-23-2016, 06:51 PM
No we prefer competitive balance, good multiplayer maps, realistic weapon choices, and the devs sticking to what works best. You know, things that don't apply to a single Ghost Recon game from GRAW onward. ;)

Just because you may not like single player in games, doesn't mean every "hardcore" gamer out there shares the same sentiments. There is more to games than just PvP. Also, what works best is subjective. Just because you may not like the GRAW games doesn't automatically make the older ones magically better.

Flaw3dGenius23
01-24-2016, 08:30 AM
Just because you may not like single player in games, doesn't mean every "hardcore" gamer out there shares the same sentiments. There is more to games than just PvP. Also, what works best is subjective. Just because you may not like the GRAW games doesn't automatically make the older ones magically better.

True but Ghost games were always much better once you went multiplayer.

Sorry but the older games were far superior to Graw...It's not even questionable.

Cortexian
01-25-2016, 10:02 AM
No we prefer competitive balance, good multiplayer maps, realistic weapon choices, and the devs sticking to what works best. You know, things that don't apply to a single Ghost Recon game from GRAW onward. ;)
I mean, maybe the elitist PVP crowd prefers those things. There's a lot more to a game than what you're saying... And there's really nothing wrong with a developer taking a franchise in a different direction with various games. Look how many Star Wars games there are and in all the different genres... They have fantastic first and third person shooters, RPG's, RTS games...

Not everything needs to be the same rehashed formula over and over. If you like the old classic formula, the old classic games exist for you to play.

Not trying to be harsh, but if you're going to dismiss everyone's opinions as less valid than yours because you believe your opinion represents all "core" fans... Then we can do the same to your opinion.

I'm not saying that we don't represent the entire communities general stance on what they'd like the game to be either. We definitely take all of the constructive community feedback into account when passing along information to the developers. Sure, we're individuals with our own opinions, but that doesn't mean we can't be open to passing along other opinions as well. IMO it's more important to present the developers with a majorly popular opinion rather than one that I personally feel is best.

shobhit7777777
01-25-2016, 10:08 AM
My 2 cents:

IDGAF about PvP....in fact, I sometimes see a PvP component as a cancerous tumour. Ghost Recon, for me (again, this is my opinion) has always been a Singleplayer (and Coop) experience. I find it more immersive, "tactical", challenging and satisfying.

Coop is fine, it brings in the best of PvE and PvP.

I wouldn't GR to drop PvP - I can imagine there would a significant number of people who really enjoy it.....however, I would be happy with SP/Coop.

jeannaq
01-25-2016, 08:39 PM
True but Ghost games were always much better once you went multiplayer.

Sorry but the older games were far superior to Graw...It's not even questionable.

All subjective. Personally I don't like MP, I never really have and I don't see that changing anytime soon. I'm not opposed to games having great MP for those that like it. More power to the developers, but what I do have an issue with is when they ignore those of us that prefer or can only play SP completely.

Again, the best Ghost Recon game is subjective to a persons preferences. GRAW 2 is my absolute favorite one, and yes I have played the originals. I have played all of them but I still like GRAW 2 the most.

Timberley
01-26-2016, 11:37 PM
My tuppence on this (though, again, I did bang on about it on my wee blog) is rather simple; I'd prefer to have none of the cross-com stuff that was in GRFS or GRAW (highlighted enemies, weapon readouts, etc), and a fairly simple interface that can reward smart thinking. As a hardcore gamer who is really not interested MP in this game (or any of the other GR games) my thoughts are mainly with true SP.

Assuming we're limited to a team of 4 Ghosts, then I'd suggest we have a default 'follow' state for the 3 AI, who follow you around and take up cover positions whenever you stop, they fire on enemies when you fire, etc. Keeping it simple for people who may not care about sending an AI to steal a truck several miles away so they can make their escape easier. But, allow those who do want to do something different the tools to do so (command map, quick orders). Even allow me to complete a mission objective without a shot being fired if I can pull it off.

Basically, bridge the divide between Arma3 and CoD et al. The thinking man's shooter, if you will. This way both camps would be happy, as those with limited time to play or whatever can jump in and complete a few missions GRFS-style (robust AI to ensure they don't all die because of advanced stupidity), and the hardcore tactical gamers can spend hours on one mission, crafting their perfect solution and pulling it off with aplomb.

Admittedly I preferred the playstyle of OGR, but it would be disingenuous to suggest that anything from GRAW onwards is utter rubbish. I enjoyed GRAW, though it was irritating at times, and liked a couple of the mechanics from GRFS, though about 80% of it was bad.

Further, I'd almost suggest having this 'hardcore' approach tied to difficulty level, with easy being GRFS-level combat (health regen, marked enemies, no friendly AI death, only headshots one-shot enemy etc), Normal being between that and GRAW, Veteran being GRAW (no health regen, marked enemies, friendly AI death, can take a few rounds before death), and Elite being OGR. As you go up the difficulty levels, player aids such as enemy marking are switched off, and both you and the enemy become more lethal, with no 'down' state at Veteran and Elite: your Ghosts/enemy soldiers are either locationally injured or DEAD. Though my difficulty comparisons are coloured by my experiences and memories of playing the GR titles (it's been a long time since I played GRAW, in comparison to playing OGR only a couple of weeks ago).

Tim

UbiKeeba
01-27-2016, 03:02 PM
Wow, Timberley. What a great post! Thank you for all that feedback. :) I'll make sure it gets forwarded to the team. :)

Ghost Sniper33
01-27-2016, 03:37 PM
I just dont get why it has to be an either/or with MP/SP. Its called making a complete game. It shold have a great SP campaign that takes time - weeks not hours to complete. have like Tim said with different levels(jsut please no health regin or cross com crap)
And it should have great stable MP - bring it back to where there is a solid clan community(don't make it an esports game) with solid servers, great customization per "host" ect - think of GR2 style.

One with out the other is half a game and if they want to do that fine- but then it needs to be half the cost.

Timberley
01-27-2016, 09:53 PM
Wow, Timberley. What a great post! Thank you for all that feedback. :) I'll make sure it gets forwarded to the team. :)

Thanks Keeba! :) I know they're inundated with ideas from various sources and they have their own vision of the game, but if we can help them create a fantastic game, so much the better! (Unsubtle plug: if you want to read a more comprehensive review of what I'd like to see in GRW, check the link in my sig! ;))

Also, it's not an either/or approach to MP really. It's just that I'm not a big one for MP in these kinda games, as I'm not that good with my twitch reflexes and prefer to either merge into the crowd (BF-series) or have a little bit more time to do things (MMOs). None of my friends play games on PC either, and I have strange/variable working hours, so it's not like I can have a regular gaming crew to go out and MP with. I'm struggling to get into R6:S for that very reason. Hence why I write whilst thinking purely about the SP experience of a game. I'll be trying to solo The Division, and if I get some decent matchmaking for DZ play, then so much the better!

Tim

SuperBiscotCOT
01-27-2016, 10:49 PM
I checked the link and yeah ... I read it ... and I was'nt able to stop so I read until the end :D

I think we all want a fantastic game and fortunaly forums and Community managers exist :o

GiveMeTactical
01-29-2016, 04:41 AM
I am sure many if not most of us and the devs woud want what Tim suggested as well but being realistic i will not be holding my breath as there are two humongous hurdles in front of us... UBI and the Lemmings

Timberley
01-30-2016, 02:41 AM
Thanks guys! :o

I admit, my blog is fairly sparse and each entry more akin to PhD theses, but I struggle to make a short version of what I'm thinking. Plus, GRW is the first time I've been motivated enough to actually write something down and put it out there, as opposed to just grumbling to myself! Why? Well, because I think we're possibly at an early enough stage that we as the consumer can make our feelings/thoughts known and actually help shape the game's direction. But, that's my starry-eyed optimism shining through (which is strange as I'm usually a MASSIVE cycnic)!

Tim

Cortexian
02-01-2016, 09:44 AM
My biggest concern is that the devs don't corrupt their view or design direction of the game that was presented with E3 2015. No mention of adversarial PvP in the trailer, no hints at all. It was purely advertised as a cooperative open world game (that could be played solo/offline or up to 4 players). I want that game, the one that was advertised. There's so many posts asking about PvP and if it will be in the game.... That's fine, I don't mind players asking for it, some people like that sort of game and I'm sure if the devs add it it will be decent.

Hopefully adding PvP doesn't take any resources or time away from the team developing the core PvE game though. That would be unfortunate in my opinion.

ttueoop
02-01-2016, 03:58 PM
Looking at these forums here I see a comment made in 2004 and a reply to that comment in 2015.

That in and of itself tells me the player support for this game and gaming platform is pathetic at best. I'll be going elsewhere. I'll stick with Origin for now. Steam has already ripped off too much money from me with absolutely non-existent support. I don't want another experience like that via Ubisoft either.

Soooo, the two or four or six of you who are in here gaming every once in awhile have fun.

Thanks for helping me make my decision re: whether this is a viable gaming site or not.

Bwa Ha

Ghost Sniper33
02-01-2016, 04:11 PM
PvP won't develop itself, so it will take time and resources, but I see that as an investment not a contest.

As much as the open world co-op needs to be a stunning success, and I think it will be, the PvP multiplayer is the ticket to the big time. Watch any advert for a shooter, it's multiplayer that gets the airtime. Who remembers the campaign in Modern Warfare?

I so hope that the Dev team have got what they need to produce PvP. It has defined the franchise as much as any other aspect of the game. It is a huge part of the brand.
Remember when a proper game had single player, Co-op and a PVP? Ahh the good old days - when games were released when complete

jeannaq
02-01-2016, 06:24 PM
Remember when a proper game had single player, Co-op and a PVP? Ahh the good old days - when games were released when complete

Yea, what about when PvP multiplayer was played on 4 controllers in the same room on a 20 inch TV? This was also a time when 10 maps came in the actual game and its all people wanted. Seriously, the greed of developers and publishers along with the complete childish whining and nagging of "gamers" is ruining video games.

GiveMeTactical
02-02-2016, 02:29 AM
Do you want to know what's ruining Video Games... people throwing money left and right to mediocre or half finished games. Do you honest believe that if UBI dies, the franchise dies with them? No, perhaps someone less greedy will pick them up for cheap and make something good out of it. It does not matter, at the end of the day, UBI goes to the bank and then home happy thanking all of those people that keep believing that this time around it will be different because they don't believe they will get bamboozle next time around.