Ghost Recon - Let's talk about Ghost Recon

[Autocrat]

I just picked up Wildlands and am surprised at how much I like it. What story there is, is good. Tons of outfits, and more that actually unlock as you defeat bosses - unlike The Division 2, where they want you to pay money for everything. The combat and AI could obviously be a hell of a lot better though, and it's as blandly formulaic as any other Ubisoft game these days.

Idk what do you guys think about it? Looking forward to Breakpoint?

 

[The tired cat]

I gotta say, I do enjoy Wildlands. Its def more fun in co-op as me and a buddy had a blast either sneaking or just going John Wick/Rambo on cartels, mission wise I did like the idea of you taking out Cartel bussiness and they actually feel that they are related to specific wings of the organization. Solo wise its def not bad, but holy hell do the AI partners are OP as hell if youre doing it in stealth. As for Breakpoint, I do like its concept as it seems they took the general idea of Divisions Survival DLC and made into more a story campaign

 

[Varg Did Nothing Wrong]

>tons of outfits

lol 2 plate carriers from 5.11 and a couple other no-name bits and bobs

>story

ehhhhhh

For me, there hasn't been a good Ghost Recon game ever. Not even the first one.

 

[Catgirl IRL]

Absolutely adored Wildlands. Went for 100% completion even in the DLC. Only issue I had was how little effect dismantling the cartel had on gameplay - I understand why it didn't, but wiping out the security wing and seeing no difference in the organisation was a bit sad.

The fuss over the story was fucking hysterical though. Lot of folk pissed that the game was glamorising US intervention and black ops, and demanded that the game show that this wasn't a good thing. Funnily enough if you pay attention to the story, Ubisoft had done exactly that...

Not sure what to make of Breakpoint yet.

 

[WhoBusTank69]

I wanted to like Wildlands when I played the beta, but I waited to see how it was after release and it was still a bit bad for my tastes. I spent more time hunting parts than ability/good boy points since there was more tangible effect. Maybe it's a fun with friends title. but I have enough of those games too.

The fuss over the story was fucking hysterical though. Lot of folk pissed that the game was glamorising US intervention and black ops, and demanded that the game show that this wasn't a good thing. Funnily enough if you pay attention to the story, Ubisoft had done exactly that...

That's the best part, Ubisoft sparks these nontroversies almost constantly and, as it turns out, either does the opposite in their games or absolutely nothing to do with the outrage on either side of the aisle.
I think the most notable actual gaffe was them censoring art in Origins because reasons.

 

[Miller]

Wildlands was ok, the map was a bit too big and I didn't like the whole "go to that location to unlock the weapon part that you want", it ended up being a chore like the feathers from AssCreed 2.

Looking forward to Breakpoint?

Not really. They've turned the game into a clone of The Division 2, the setting is quite bland and doesn't sound like a Tom Clancy story (le evil Elon Musk and his mercenaries on a private island), they should've set the next Ghost Recon in Mexico.

 

[mr.moon1488]

I just picked up Wildlands and am surprised at how much I like it. What story there is, is good. Tons of outfits, and more that actually unlock as you defeat bosses - unlike The Division 2, where they want you to pay money for everything. The combat and AI could obviously be a hell of a lot better though, and it's as blandly formulaic as any other Ubisoft game these days.

Idk what do you guys think about it? Looking forward to Breakpoint?

Imo, Wildlands was okay, but it didn't really live up to the "take down the cartel your way" hype. They heavily implied that you'd have a lot of options like capturing some dude, or just outright assassinating them, but really you just more or less go through a bunch of very pre-coordinated missions, all of which are pretty easy, and then the game is over.

If you compare it to the most similar game that came out at roughly the same time, you'd have to compare it to Metal Gear Solid 5, and despite Konami fucking over Hideo Kojima, and fans by forcing out an incomplete game (1) with micro transactions, it was still a much more enjoyable game, with a more in depth story (2). You, also had more layers of complexity to the respective systems in the games (3) which made it feel like there was an actual cause, and effect to what you were doing.

1: It was actually confirmed that there were at least two more story arcs to the game, and likely another map. So basically, Konami force released a game that was only about 2/3s completed.

2: In wildlands, you basically go out, and kill bad guys. That's literally the main story, and outside of that, all you have is kinda sporadic story lines about characters which will end once you complete their story arcs. In MGS 5 you're playing a very complex character, which could easily spark many debates as to whether he's the good guy, or bad guy. In addition, you have a complex backstory mixed into real world politics. Not only that, but there's actual character development in MGS 5, whereas the characters in GRW stay pretty flat, and really don't even say much plot relevant during the entire course of the game. Shit the cut, and paste strong wamen CIA chick actually has more interesting dialog than the protagonists, or the antagonists do.

3: In wildlands, you're more or less kinda helping these cringy communist rebels with a bad fashion sense kill generic corrupt government military forces, and cartel dudes. The only effects this will have is to unlock more support powers (e.g. bigger mortar barrage), and you'll see more of them driving around the map aimlessly in their clearly marked green, and yellow trucks, which don't get air-striked for some unknown reason.

3: Continued: Conversely, the systems in MGS 5 have major impacts on both the storyline, and gameplay. If you kidnap someone, they'll actually become a playable character, defend your base in multi-player, and you'll actually see them hanging around your base. Not only this, but they'll improve your support capabilities, and all have stats, and traits which are very relevant to the game play, and in some cases the plot. The weapon crafting system is a lot more complex than just "find this collectible then use it," and your soldiers can actually be improved by the stuff you develop. In addition, some captured equipment will actually show up around your bases, and aid you, and your men during multiplayer.

So basically, the nearest competition to GRW won out despite suffering from major handicaps (Konami, and Ubisoft have roughly the same net worth, but Ubisoft exclusively makes games), and actually being an incomplete product.

P.S.
The stealth system is better in MGS.
GRW does win out in world design though. MGS locations can get a bit repetitive.

 

[An Ghost]

I surprised myself by 100% wildlands not long after it came out. Surprised to see them still updating it. I just enjoyed absolutely tearing shit up with randos. It’s also the closest we’ll get to a new Mercenaries game. Some missions you have to solo tho, specifically the “we fail if we get noticed” ones.

I actually enjoy Tom Clancy games. Vegas and siege are excellent.

 

[Just Some Other Guy]

I've always been interested in wildlands. Is coop with a buddy fun? That's the only way I'd want to play it.

 

[The tired cat]

I've always been interested in wildlands. Is coop with a buddy fun? That's the only way I'd want to play it.

I'd say it is, whether you try and be tactical or just blasting shit like an 80's action movie it's def can be fun.

 

[The Manglement]

Wildlands had a lot of really great concepts, but it had kind of weak execution. The idea that it's a truly open world game where you can go anywhere and have story content from the first ten minutes of play was really cool. It felt like a nice fixer-upper house, where maybe with a couple years of work they could make something great out it, although I'm not sure if they're iterating on the ideas in Breakpoint.

 

[mr.moon1488]

Wildlands had a lot of really great concepts, but it had kind of weak execution. The idea that it's a truly open world game where you can go anywhere and have story content from the first ten minutes of play was really cool. It felt like a nice fixer-upper house, where maybe with a couple years of work they could make something great out it, although I'm not sure if they're iterating on the ideas in Breakpoint.

Ubisoft is kind of hit, or miss with fixing stuff from one iteration to another. For the most part, I think the Splinter Cell games improved over the years, but The Division Two didn't improve much from the first one, and some of their games have felt pretty lazy.

 

[Autocrat]

Only issue I had was how little effect dismantling the cartel had on gameplay

I'm not going to make excuses for shitty game design, but within that shitty game design I think I prefer that to something like Far Cry 5. That game only felt dangerous in the beginning.

Not sure what to make of Breakpoint yet.

I'm highly skeptical of it being anything close to polished. But, again, within Ghost Recon's shitty game design, I'm pretty excited. They're adding hours of story cinematic, which I appreciate. It'll help add life to the experience. I expect a graphics downgrade, especially because I'm playing on PS4, but the world still looks beautiful. The machine vs Wolf combat will be interesting. I really hope the enemy AI doesn't break immersion too much.

The sad thing about these games, at least from what I can tell, is that a lot of this beautiful scenery feels like background noise because the world is so empty.

I came across this highway that I'm sure many people will never see because the driving sucks and they're just flying a helo past it.

(I don't have a good pic of the highway itself but this is a view from it, it curves along a mountain)

I'm sure it's better in co-op to make the world feel more realistic. Is their friendly fire enabled, so you can battle it out every once in a while? If not, that's a shame because they could add it with no effort.

Also, really gay that there was an outcry over operations like this. You are playing from the perspective of a US operator. It is cool. Are we just not allowed to get games like that? Why must all art send a moral message?

 

[Autocrat]

lol 2 plate carriers from 5.11 and a couple other no-name bits and bobs

People like me actually like the 'no-name bits and bobs' (and who says 'bits and bobs', you fucking boomer).

(Buggy game makes squadmates start to sink in photomode)

You can dress according to how you're playing. Want to somewhat blend in with the locals, or are you operating?

It just sucks that there's no safehouse system to making changing more immersive, let alone clothing/facepaint affecting armor, stamina, and stealth ratings.

Wildlands was ok, the map was a bit too big and I didn't like the whole "go to that location to unlock the weapon part that you want", it ended up being a chore like the feathers from AssCreed 2.


Not really. They've turned the game into a clone of The Division 2, the setting is quite bland and doesn't sound like a Tom Clancy story (le evil Elon Musk and his mercenaries on a private island), they should've set the next Ghost Recon in Mexico.

That guy is an ex Ghost turned future dictator (?). He didn't invent those weapons, he stole them.
I just wish I was able to play as a Wolf, honestly. Breakpoint isn't any more a clone of The Division than Wildlands is a clone of Far Cry. Which is to say: a little bit. It's Ubisoft

 

[Autocrat]

Imo, Wildlands was okay, but it didn't really live up to the "take down the cartel your way" hype. They heavily implied that you'd have a lot of options like capturing some dude, or just outright assassinating them, but really you just more or less go through a bunch of very pre-coordinated missions, all of which are pretty easy, and then the game is over.

I didn't believe anything they were saying about the game. I immediately thought it would be shit and disregarded it until now.
As for MGS V, if the gossip is true, Kojima really would've made an excellent game. As it stands though, the more I play MGSV the less I like it. More story arcs aren't what MGS V needed though.

Shit the cut, and paste strong wamen CIA chick actually has more interesting dialog than the protagonists, or the antagonists do.

Completely disagree there. At least so far. Sueno's World video's are really good. He's a heavily religious, Stoic, lawful evil big bad.
I don't want to defend Ubisoft, but MGS had quite a bit of lore to draw from. If you compare Skullface to Sueno, I think Sueno wins. He just has very little content.

The weapon crafting system is a lot more complex than just "find this collectible then use it,"

In MGS V, you "develop a weapon and use it". Wildlands has more in depth weapon customization.

I still agree that MGS V is an overall better game, I'm just saying.

 

[mr.moon1488]

I didn't believe anything they were saying about the game. I immediately thought it would be shit and disregarded it until now.
As for MGS V, if the gossip is true, Kojima really would've made an excellent game. As it stands though, the more I play MGSV the less I like it. More story arcs aren't what MGS V needed though.



Completely disagree there. At least so far. Sueno's World video's are really good. He's a heavily religious, Stoic, lawful evil big bad.
I don't want to defend Ubisoft, but MGS had quite a bit of lore to draw from. If you compare Skullface to Sueno, I think Sueno wins. He just has very little content.


In MGS V, you "develop a weapon and use it". Wildlands has more in depth weapon customization.

I still agree that MGS V is an overall better game, I'm just saying.

Disagree, but I see where you're coming from.

 

[Autocrat]

Wildlands had a lot of really great concepts, but it had kind of weak execution. The idea that it's a truly open world game where you can go anywhere and have story content from the first ten minutes of play was really cool. It felt like a nice fixer-upper house, where maybe with a couple years of work they could make something great out it, although I'm not sure if they're iterating on the ideas in Breakpoint.

I agree that it's a great fixer upper. The thing is, it's ubisoft. They're out to make a good product rather than a great game. Modern ubisoft at least, will never push the medium forward.

I really need to get a gaming PC so I can attempt to mod the hell out of one of these games.

————————————————————

Also: I'm available to co op on PS4
If anyone wants to.

 

[Varg Did Nothing Wrong]

MGS V, you "develop a weapon and use it". Wildlands has more in depth weapon customization.

Incorrect. Wildlands only lets you swap 1-2 different options for most parts of the gun. Stock folded or extended, regular mag or extended, long barrel or short. MGSV has far more flexible gun creation if you unlock it by Fultoning the side quest gunsmith guy that's a direct mission objective.

 

[Autocrat]

Incorrect. Wildlands only lets you swap 1-2 different options for most parts of the gun. Stock folded or extended, regular mag or extended, long barrel or short. MGSV has far more flexible gun creation if you unlock it by Fultoning the side quest gunsmith guy that's a direct mission objective.

I don't want to argue on the side of some formulaic shit Ubisoft churned out (which isn't to say MGS V isn't extremely formulaic. It is), but different scopes, laser sight, grenade launcher attachment. There's a fair amount of customization and plenty of different weapons. Also, you can color each part. You only get to do one overt color, and then you get the option to change any given part back to a basic color, but still. There's a fair amount, and unlocking weapons for both games is relatively similar. MGS V wins the weapons game overall, but unlocking them is pretty much the same. If anything Wildlands is more in depth.

Mr. Moon, the guy I replied to, was literally talking about weapons crafting.

Combat and general gameplay is more finely tuned in MGS V. It's a shame because Ubisoft seems like they don't really feel the need to improve it. Gameplay will never be finely tuned in modern Ubisoft games. I miss the old days of Splinter Cell, and the ability to do things like shoot while hanging upside down.

 

[Marcu Morello]

I feel like Wildlands and Breakpoint would be better as Far Cry games. Your already in a lawless land to take down a charismatic villain who has a philosophy. El Sueno and Walker would be amazing villains if done right.