Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums
nyleken

I'm wondering how Wildlands will differentiate itself from the usu

Recommended Posts

The recent Ubisoft open world games feel awfully similar. That's because they seem to follow the same conventions: climbable towers, a crafting system, and upgrades. Let's not forget about those collectibles scattered around the world that make you feel like you're doing chores rather than something meaningful.

I'm... cautiously optimistic about Wildlands. Most of the recent Ubisoft open world games were developed by Ubisoft Montreal, hence why they feel so samey. But Wildlands is being developed by Ubisoft Paris, the same studio that created the highly-acclaimed milsim Ghost Recon: Future Soldier.

I just have this nudge that it'll all feel too familiar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't worry about that. If you could have been hands on or at E3 for the behind closed doors demo, you wouldn't be as worried about this. I had the same fears going into the Paris Workshop and was pleasantly surprised. It really seems that the dev team is just as aware of this potential pitfall as we are and is actively ensuring it's a non-issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep nyleken I had the exact same concern and voiced it in Paris; they have to find a way of making this Ghost Recon in an open world environment, not GTA with special forces, or else the series loses its identify.

Like Matt says, it still felt like Ghost Recon to us when we had our hands on session, so they are on the right track with it...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the Far cry series and if they used that open world in a GR setting it would be awesome i believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thales!!! Good to see you again.

Hey Rocky :lol: , it is a pleasure, new GR and i am back, hope they release something really great for us, old fans. :coolspeak:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thales!!! Good to see you again.

Hey Rocky :lol: , it is a pleasure, new GR and i am back, hope they release something really great for us, old fans. :coolspeak:

Agreed thales100!! Agreed. I've been waiting for an open world version of GR because I'm sick of being the rat running through a chosen maze!! Future Soldier would have been greater had it been open world.

I'm hoping for the following:

1. chose team

2. chose teams weapons/classes!! (like Old GR)

3. completely destructible environment

Now all we need is GR: AW2 team comms and control/order system and we're back in business.

I am very happy that UbiSoft is finally hearing the fans, though. The closed boxes that they put us in since they took over GR have really hurt the name and made the GR series feel like a simple shooter w/glitz and glamour but no real heart.

This time, it appears that we finally have a portion of the old GR back: we can accomplish a mission our way and go anywhere! About time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be honest, the GRAW squad command system, as with GR2/summit strike was O.k for convenience, but lacked setting waypoints, fire arcs etc on a map. You could only send your squad to places you could point to and I'm hoping Wildlands will include the kind of options available in the original.

Especially with an open map line of sight commands to where to move would be a limiting factor for me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be honest, the GRAW squad command system, as with GR2/summit strike was O.k for convenience, but lacked setting waypoints, fire arcs etc on a map. You could only send your squad to places you could point to and I'm hoping Wildlands will include the kind of options available in the original.

Especially with an open map line of sight commands to where to move would be a limiting factor for me.

I have to agree with you AI, GRAW and GRAW2 command interface were lacking and I hoped that Ubi would really improve that in their next releases of GR but they dropped it all-together to follow instead of leading the way! They followed BattleField and possibly COD when instead they had a market lead in that feature because NO ONE else was doing anything even close. The commands actually directed a group to deliver a "flavor" of commanding a team, which I deeply deeply miss.

I love "squad-based" shooters where you direct and lead the squad!

So, I too, hope that Ubi France has grown up and actually listened to what we fans are saying, though I am sckeptical. At least the open world aspect will get us out of that stupid BF3 or other shooter box where we must play the Rat in the Maze game! FINALLY!

O, thx for the comment thales100! haha glad you liked my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they do make you able to control the AI during campaign I'm all for it but I don't wanna babysit them like Graw and graw 2 I felt like I had to tell them literally everything and that's (put simply) not how a special unit of any military branch works. Make it more like Metal Gear Solid V when you have Quite (sniper) rolling as your buddy where they are simple commands such as, attack, scout, hold fire, cover me, also have them select there own covers not be forced to get the exact location on your (Go To) arrow on the right side of the cover to assure there visibility/cover. Just my .02 cents....

I have to be honest though as much as I love the Campaigns and how some are better than others its all gonna come down the PVP.....

But that's for another Topic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah ah, the campaign is VERY important, while multiplayer is growing to be quite popular, the story of ghost recon was always the first aspect of the game that needed to be good, they need to nail it if it's going to be successful with the original fanbase, they need to make it more tom clancy and less hollywood this time around as GRFS sometimes felt like I was just playing a 3rd person, whispery version of CoD with fancy light things and writing in the sky. 

Multiplayer PVP game modes aren't very original, to me running around killing other players all day doesn't make a game stand out; I could do that with any shooter with multiplayer capability, It needs to tell a unique, gripping interactive story that you can make your own and that will make it a memorable game

the amount of discussion I've had with some friends who played the original, of how they even handled the first mission, the number of ways which you could play the campaign were a good source of debate, one friend uses an LMG and riflemen to take out the camp I used a lone sniper with riflemen on standby as backup. 

Thats the sort of thing that needs to be there to make this game good, the linearization of the successor games meant you were less able to do this. 

Thankfully it's already there in part with the campaign being set in bolivia against prolific drug cartels (huzzah for no america vs russia crap) different approaches on the one target, however how much freedom I get is yet to be seen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Campaign is important agreed! However how many of us go back years later to run through a long time beaten Campaign not me. I usually beat the whole game twice and I'm done and most games that can be done in a week or two of my average game play in a week. Now PVP I have played FS for 3.5 years and am still going strong...that's where you build your player relationships. Hollywood I don't know about all that but after all you are playing a Video game its not reality. I've enjoyed most campaigns ive played on Shooter/Combat game types. everything from Halo, Ghost Recon, MGS V, hell I've got 200+ hours on the Metal Gear Solid V Phantom Pain loved the crap out of it, but now I've completed all the missions and side missions. I would have to say Phantom Pain was by far the best Single player Campaign I've ever played to date. I expect Wildlands to exceed MGS by far. I also think they will be very similar. Only time will tell. But once again after several weeks and 200+ hours later of Single player the MG Online came out with PVP and they tanked it you can't join with friends if you have less than 6 in your party it splits you and makes you fight against eachother. MGO lost its flame and is almost Burned out.

So in summary yes Campaign is important but the longevity of any game is dependent on PVP, Online gaming is the future and I know that rubs some old school players wrong but that's just the direction of gaming in general its not just Ubisoft or the Ghost Recon Series.

Best Title to look at is the Halo Series been around close to the same amount of time as Ghost Recon yes obviously its a 1st person shooter (not the point) all the Halo's still have a following even with the new Halo 5 out you can still run Halo 2 3 4, Reach, but guess what people play on those games. PVP

So while I do agree Campaign quality and experience is important lets not forget what keeps game alive and out of the Game Case a well balanced and explosive Multiplayer is an absolute must have.

 

Just my .02 cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thx for replying guys.

both of you are correct. Both aspects of game play are needed. However, there is an assumption being made and it's something the "open world" scenario might solve better than a regular campaign.  The whole idea behind an open world is to introduce new scenarios as well as keeping a story line. Anotherwords, I've always wanted some same targets/places to hit but have different enemy reactions/placements or new story arcs downloaded that changed the storyline because once you've played a story, you want it to change.

The idea of an open world is to introduce "freedom" and that freedom to me consists of:

1. updated/modified story arcs just like what can and is done w/the PC gam platform. This is where old campaigns ARE used because there are guys out there mod'ing the old campaigns and releasing to the community their mod'ed versions

2. Those mod'ed campaigns need to be released as DLCs for xbox, ps4 platforms, too.

3. Allow Ghost Squad Lead to FINALLY again be able to chose the TEAM!!! whether PvP or Campaign

4. Destrcutable environment

5. weapon mods

6. character advancement

7. team perks

 

For Longeity, yes, PvP is needed as campaigns that can be mod'ed but also, NEW scenarios/missions that are released that account for past mission accomplishments. That's Key and NO ONE else is doing that. No One.

If you add a couple of basic concepts as: logistics and diplomacy, things can get interesting and TOTALLY Unique. 

Imagine this: 

In a PvP, there are just so many resources, so many teams. If the current mission has 2 or more teams also functioning at the same time to accompish other missions in a story arc, then Ghost Leads must plan missions with material and manpower limits. In addition to that, when "in the field" resources are what a team has or can acquire. Then add infiltration and extraction as part of the planning of a mission and you have a much more real and broader GR. As for the politics/diplomacy, it is possible to craft missions that only succeed with diplomacy and alter the story arc if those missions fail.

In Campaign mode, the same goes but the game would have to track (and pre-randomly allocated) resources and personal before a mission is "released for execution."

This type of apporach to Open World Gaming would revolutionize the concept, which GR can do, and would mark GR as a squad based game like no other. Imagine, playing a mission over and over whether in PvP or Solo Campaign and realizing that Enemy and Ally resources, personal and behavior are different every time you play that mission?

I have no idea how to get these kinds of ideas to Ubisoft but all of them are totally possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thx for replying guys.

both of you are correct. Both aspects of game play are needed. However, there is an assumption being made and it's something the "open world" scenario might solve better than a regular campaign.  The whole idea behind an open world is to introduce new scenarios as well as keeping a story line. Anotherwords, I've always wanted some same targets/places to hit but have different enemy reactions/placements or new story arcs downloaded that changed the storyline because once you've played a story, you want it to change.

The idea of an open world is to introduce "freedom" and that freedom to me consists of:

1. updated/modified story arcs just like what can and is done w/the PC gam platform. This is where old campaigns ARE used because there are guys out there mod'ing the old campaigns and releasing to the community their mod'ed versions

2. Those mod'ed campaigns need to be released as DLCs for xbox, ps4 platforms, too.

3. Allow Ghost Squad Lead to FINALLY again be able to chose the TEAM!!! whether PvP or Campaign

4. Destrcutable environment

5. weapon mods

6. character advancement

7. team perks

 

For Longeity, yes, PvP is needed as campaigns that can be mod'ed but also, NEW scenarios/missions that are released that account for past mission accomplishments. That's Key and NO ONE else is doing that. No One.

If you add a couple of basic concepts as: logistics and diplomacy, things can get interesting and TOTALLY Unique. 

Imagine this: 

In a PvP, there are just so many resources, so many teams. If the current mission has 2 or more teams also functioning at the same time to accompish other missions in a story arc, then Ghost Leads must plan missions with material and manpower limits. In addition to that, when "in the field" resources are what a team has or can acquire. Then add infiltration and extraction as part of the planning of a mission and you have a much more real and broader GR. As for the politics/diplomacy, it is possible to craft missions that only succeed with diplomacy and alter the story arc if those missions fail.

In Campaign mode, the same goes but the game would have to track (and pre-randomly allocated) resources and personal before a mission is "released for execution."

This type of apporach to Open World Gaming would revolutionize the concept, which GR can do, and would mark GR as a squad based game like no other. Imagine, playing a mission over and over whether in PvP or Solo Campaign and realizing that Enemy and Ally resources, personal and behavior are different every time you play that mission?

I have no idea how to get these kinds of ideas to Ubisoft but all of them are totally possible.

I would say right now Metal Gear Solid V Phantom Pain is the closest to what I would expect Wildlands to be just wasn't quite to detailed as it sounds Wildlands will be and theres really no major moving pieces in MGSV. One action doesn't directly effect other missions or impact the people in the villages locally placed on the map. Which I'm not sure will be on WIldlands but based off the Videos of animals and Civilians looks like they will be impacted in a similar aspect to that of which I speak of.

I personally have logged around 230+ maybe more hours alone on just the Campaign something like 40 reg missions with 144 side missions that are brought up as you go through the main missions and the side missions were a part of the story as well. I don't want to go into detail as that's not a Ubisoft game Title. Just know this PVP MGO 3 came out and I have not logged in once since. I beat it I don't care anymore but what would keep me hooked is if the PVP(multiplayer/coop(GRAW) was there to save the day. Thus getting me to buy the game yes Campaign as mentioned several times above hugely important!!!That's your HOOK so to speak but to make them keep reeling in and tossing it back out and reeling it in again will require PVP Map Packs Gun selection Modifying weapons, apparel, helmets, gear, amounts of ammunition and all that impacting your style of game play and speed also being relevant in this all makes up the best all round recipe for a great game and justifiable of being labeled with the  Ghost Recon tag.

We all want a great game this round, even perhaps one that covers both sides of the spectrum and I believe the way Ubisoft and the Dev's are involving the player the gamers from the Competitive types to the action junkies, or to a casual Friday Night Shoot out were in for a ride and a well deserved treat when the smoke grenades clear and the bullets start to fly!

 

Cant WAIT!!!

Muddvain

GRFS

HVT Ghost Team

Xbox 360 for now.....

Edited by Muddvain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muddvain, thx for the comment. The system just notified me!! I'll buzz back when I've read it, man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be probably a FIRST in tactical shooter history if they approach the campaign AND multiplayer parts in a two part fashion.

I would probably, being UBISOFT add a functionality to the game to run as a SPEC OP unit or as a general combat team, ie 101st, 82nd, 1st Armored Division by a menu selection. and as per that selection say one game run as Navy Seals, you get 4 slots. Then if you select 101st , 82nd or 1st Armored Divison, which has numerous mechanized infantry units, if those are selected, then you get one,two or three squad slots based upon a menu selection of unit type.

one interesting way to play is, allow a group of gamers who are good and want a challenge, select Navy Seals, they can a run 4 vs 8, 16 or 32 man squad units. that'll make for interesting game play

then in the modding tools, you can add add units with uniforms like British special forces, IDF and then in a file enumerate how many slots available.

Edited by Papa6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naturally I would love for UBI to break with tradition and produce a good GR game. It will take an awful lot to convince me though and the flashy trailer did not do that. 

I bought GR: FS on a Steam sale and I swear I felt nauseous playing it. I mean, with anger and frustration and just plain disappointment that bordered on PTS grief for the continued abortions that have been sequels to OGR. I was quite hard on the GRAWS when they first came out but they actually had some great aspects. I got as far as the balcony shoot out in one of the early missions in GR: FS and un-installed it. I think right at the most intense point of a firefight the game suddenly wrested control away from me to go into a cut scene. That and the constant silhouetting of all my enemy made me want to vomit. The joy of identifying targets was taken away from me and replaced by hand holding. Honestly, I think GR: FS is probably one of he worst game play expereinces I have ever had in my life. It felt like I was back in an arcade playing Time Crisis. 

I've noticed that trailers for games can often make them look far, far, far more awesome than they really are. Wild lands doen't even look that good. I mean, who cares about sleazy drug runners in crap hole South American countries. I miss the Russians. 

 

But, as I said, I'd love to be surprised. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im just hoping for a real GR experience. since GRAW 2  there hasnt really been anything to give me that feeling.

Nice to have a reason to be back here too :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that concerns me about this open-world design for a tactical shooter is the health and supply aspect. While I'm not against regenerating health in general, it certainly doesn't belong in tactical shooters. But managing a health system and supply system in an open-world game without being too forgiving or unforgiving is tricky. 

Obviously we can't go back to the system used in GR1 and GR2 where you have a set amount of health at the beginning of a mission and you can only lose health. Not an inherently bad system, but OW games aren't segmented in a way that'd work for that. And if you got healed and re-equipped at the start of each mission, then you need to (re)play missions to heal after open-world gameplay outside of missions. Which depending on how that's managed, could be moderately tedious to highly frustrating.

So medkits or something like them are the answer. But there needs to be the right amount of scarcity. Merchants/item shops would require addition of a currency system and methods of acquiring currency. Supply drops on-demand would be extremely difficult to balance for a tactical shooter without being arbitrary or adding a new layer of complexity that doesn't enhance the SOF experience. It works for MGSV because Mother Base and Diamond Dogs are a huge part of the game.

Alien: Isolation, a stealth/survival horror game set in a far more claustrophobic setting, got item scarcity right, especially for the flamethrower. The flamethrower is a vital part of your arsenal once you get it. It's faster than a Molotov if the Xenomorph sees you, and you get enough fuel that you'll likely use it more even if you want to scare the Xeno away when it's unaware. But becoming reliant on it will make you run out of fuel pretty fast, and using it too much on the Xeno will result in it learning it's invulnerable to flame, contrary to its basic instincts. And if you're slow on the trigger, or don't use enough precious fuel, you'll get killed anyway. 

In the same way, Wildlands needs to make health kits something useful, but using them too often must be unsustainable, a crutch for bad play, and pointless to use when being shot at in the open.

4 squadmates, 6-8 medkits can be carried for the whole squad. Medkits healing 2/3 to 3/4 of max health would be about right. Either non-instantaneous restoration of lost health after a quick application, a short delay while the operator takes out and applies the medkit and stops shooting (again, Alien: Isolation), or both.

The game could have supply caches and safehouses that refresh occasionally, neither giving too much ammo or gear with the latter acting as safe spaces for the Ghosts. But then you have to balance having enough supplies against too much or too little. I'd err on the side of too little.

The safehouse/cache method could be complemented by certain rarely appearing enemies being combat medics who can heal themselves and their allies. Enemy medics would only carry 1-2 medkits, not be clearly indicated as such (not like cartel's gonna put a big red cross on their backs), and every ally they healed would subtract from the number recoverable, down to zero. They wouldn't appear among all groups of enemies either, only in places where personnel with such training would make sense. 

And because medics would be rare, there'd be aid stations in some cartel-owned/occupied buildings. Only 1-2 medkits for an aid station, with usually just one station for outposts and front stations, but maybe more stations for larger areas. It wouldn't make sense for a fort to only have one place with a first-aid kit, but a mid-level or low-level property owned by the cartel antagonists like a brothel, small-ish coca farm, camp or cabin innawoods would only need something small.

 

But as much as I want to believe things will be different this time and we'll get a Tom Clancy game that returns to the tactics-based gameplay and emphasis on planning and forethought we used to get, we're probably gonna get Watch Dogs meets Far Cry 3/4 with a tactical shooter coat of paint.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, no medikits in Ghost Recon for me thank you.

It works in R6:Siege, I kind of like how they have done it, it's neat and still requires careful use to revive downed teammates. But I would not like to see it in Wildlands.

Does ArmA have medikits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arma3 has medkits for medics and first aid kits for everyone else.
Medkits are more powerful if I recall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right, but. the first aid kit only stop you bleeding out, you are still impaired,  low stamina, blurred vision, increased weapon sway. You health can only be fully restored by a "Combat Life Saver" as there now called with a Medkit,  or by a visit to a medivac vehicle.

  I play mainly GR type missions with a small group, So no re-spawns and no medics. 

Edited by Hammer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Health regen has no place in GR, but without some form of health replenishment, free-roaming would be a pure health drain. Open-world, free-roam changes the drastically dynamic compared to isolated missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×