Thoughts on Wildlands

[Rocky]

You are right Lightspeed, we are a minority, you could say we've fallen into a "niche", and I totally agree with the "adapt or move on" comment.

However I think you would agree Lightspeed that these continued titles are here by the grace of the award winning original. If the original had sucked, there would be no Wildlands. So although the "appeal to a wider audience" business approach makes $en$e, if it takes a game too far from it's roots, it puts the Ghost Recon brand at risk, and that kind of damage is difficult to repair.

With Wildlands though, they are taking us back to the roots, by removing the on-rails campaign of GRAW and FS; you can attack every mission in any manner you wish - this is a big welcome move back to what Ghost Recon was.

But there is more to Ghost Recon than freedom of choice, so much more, and we have yet to see if Wildlands can deliver on that.

If you step outside of our hardcore niche, and look at the comments being posted on Youtube, social media and other forums, yes you will see a good number of people posting along the same lines as the hardcore here, ie "it's all hollywood and thrills, where's the meat?"  - BUT, let's not kid ourselves, there are also a large percentage of positive responses from gamers who love this type of approach and are gagging for the game already.

[Rocky]

On 10/12/2016 at 14:06, ApexMods said:

This may sound somewhat elitist or like an old fart rambling on about the good old days, but I remember a time when games used to be rather clever, made by clever people for clever people. Nowadays it seems like they are increasingly made by greedy incompetent morons for fools and simpletons, or people who simply just don't care, hurriedly gobbling up anything "new" served to them again and again, never standing still to wonder why the continuous feeding frenzy ultimately still fails to satisfy any hunger.

 

:o(  Having a bad day mate?

I can't agree with that. Having met and spoken with the people making Wildlands, they are none of the above, I can assure you. They are talented, driven and passionate about what they do.

[TJbrena]

Well, some problems with modern gaming are the result of incompetence on the part of devs, compounded by publisher interference. Look at ME: Andromeda's reveal at the Game Awards. The terrible animations shown are the fault of the devs. There was even a noteat the bottom saying (unless I was too far into my self-concocted drinking game to read correctly by that point) that it WAS representative of the final product. I certainly hope not! And let's not forget the buggy and unpolished messes so many recent games, even those with lots of dev time, have been released as. 

Friendly as these guys may be, and hopeful, even optimistic as I may be about Wildlands' quality, all it takes is bad QA, bad programming, or corporate screw-ups and this game could go very wrong. There's also the chronic issue of filler or lack thereof in open world games.

Let's hope that among other qualities, Wildlands is relatively content-heavy and bug-free for an open world game.

[Lightspeed]

So easy to criticize Devs, but the reality is you can never please everyone so you try to please the group you're aiming to please. This game actually does look impressive, it just doesnt cater to GR diehards. what a sin!! 

And to your point Rocky re staying true to GR, Ubi put an end to that 4 iterations ago. Ship sailed a loooong time ago. 

Thing is while this game won't ever go back to it's roots as some would like, it could still be an excellent game in its own right if played by others who want to play OGR style.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Lightspeed

[101459]

I don't, won't, can't criticize or even blame the 'Devs' for anything... Debs? The Publisher ('Pubes'? ) however, more often then not deserves to feel as much heat as they get. Granted their money, business, and project to take in whatever direction they desire, and here's an outstanding example of going their own direction...

But suggesting they shouldn't be criticized, even harshly when their desires and designs take a direction that goes off canon, off franchise, off genre, and *cough* even off planet -- seems a little unfair to enthusiastic would be Fans that are after all the one's really paying the bills... Great opportunity there for a Publisher to actually learn and improve their *cough* game... Or if it's completely lost on them, there's always someone with some harsh criticism to figure it out for them:

I think I can miss 'Coco Does Wildlands'...

[Lightspeed]

Is it really going off GR specs though? 

Tip of the spear. Tick.

Spec Ops behind enemy lines. Tick.

Complete objectives as you see fit. Tick.

Futuristic tech. Tick.

Enemy markers. Tick.

It's all there.

[101459]

8 hours ago, Lightspeed said:

Is it really going off GR specs though? 

Tip of the spear. Tick.

Spec Ops behind enemy lines. Tick.

Complete objectives as you see fit. Tick.

Futuristic tech. Tick.

Enemy markers. Tick.

It's all there.

I don't know what you mean by 'spec', it's not a term I used, and of those are your only criterion for measuring tactical realism, Call of Duty meets your spec in spades.  If you're suggesting Ghost Recon = Call of Duty with a different paint job and that satisfies your 'spec', criterion, whatever -- so be it, but that's not a discussion or game design direction I'm interested in. Heck, your 'spec' is so vague, Coco is all there, and is fully up to spec -- perhaps your saying you really just want Ghost Coco in cammo lycra?

Edited December 14, 2016 by 101459

[TJbrena]

To be fair, Ghost Recon started down the future tech path in the first one. Land Warrior gear for 2 of the specialists, plus OICWs, plus magic ground sensors.

[Rocky]

If you post anymore Coco media 101, people are going to think you have a fixation...

[101459]

Fixation?! With mutant objectified nightmare porno toy bad science project Coco? You bet I am! Fixated like on a bad car accident, or a YouTube zit popping video you can't look at or look away from! It just amazes me that Ubisoft would spend what that video had to cost to make, instead of putting it into the game that so badly needed it. Hey, Rocky, look! Outside your window, there's someone to see you!

I don't think I'll ever get tired of rubbing Ubisoft's face in this. There have to be women that work there (and even a few self-respecting guys) that are pretty disappointed.

 

Edited December 15, 2016 by 101459

[Lightspeed]

You said in previous post that you're a 'would be fan' which is a key point. Ubi and the Devs look at the gaming community as a whole and work out best bang for buck. Your 'wants for  the game' don't fit into that calculation. They try to produce elements which make it GRish but already acknowledge that they probably won't meet the requirements of a few diehards. They know this. To suggest they don't care, are bad Devs, only produce basic ######ty games is wrong. They deliver what they must deliver.

[Rocky]

9 hours ago, 101459 said:

Fixation?! With mutant objectified nightmare porno toy bad science project Coco? You bet I am! Fixated like on a bad car accident, or a YouTube zit popping video you can't look at or look away from! It just amazes me that Ubisoft would spend what that video had to cost to make, instead of putting it into the game that so badly needed it. Hey, Rocky, look! Outside your window, there's someone to see you!

I don't think I'll ever get tired of rubbing Ubisoft's face in this. There have to be women that work there (and even a few self-respecting guys) that are pretty disappointed.

 

It's so last gen *yawn*

[101459]

On 12/15/2016 at 05:50, Rocky said:

It's so last gen *yawn*

Unfortunately, you are right. And the 'generational' disposability of the Tom Clancy games, in a genre that can least afford this approach  speaks volumes to what's become so disappointing about them, where they're reinventing the wheel constantly, and throwing it away, and starting over...

Say what you want about the Call Of Duty series of games, and if it were anything negative it would probably be true, but at least the same engine and a lot of content gets repurposed, game features that work and are liked are kept -- features, content, code that doesn't work gets dumped, and real means exist for the Developer/Publisher to know what maps, game modes and content are liked via a server browser and what gets played.

Can you imagine where Ghost Recon, and the R6 games might be today had an iterative approach been taken?  Red Storm's game engine was starting to show maturity and real polish in R6 Lockdown, the addition of an LSS renderer, nav-mesh AI, some iterative sprucing up of the AI animation & behavior and Ubisoft would for a fraction of the cost have had an enviable realism platform they could roll new and more polished content and ideas on.

But at least we have Coco...

Edited December 20, 2016 by 101459

[ApexMods]

I'm not talking about economic necessities, the problem with many of todays crop of devs is a complete lack of ingenuity, the absence of any philosophical, artistic, or at the very least creative ambition. When I look at some of the big AAA "mainstream" games and their insane budgets, I cannot help to ask myself how it is even possible to churn out humongous projects like that without an inch of originality, let alone any aspiration to answer a higher artistic calling. Luckily, the indy dev scene has picked up the torch and keeps the flame alive, because without them todays gaming industry would present a pretty bleak outlook on the future of game development.

The lowest common denominator approach simply cannot stand on its own, because its ultimate consequence will always be continuously decreasing standards for everything and everyone. Without someone breaking free from convention and going it alone, we end up with nothing but regression.

I simply don't want to accept that it is too much to ask for just a modicum of artistic integrity from todays AAA developers. Of course, not everyone can be expected to exhibit the amount of creative talent and philosophical depth of e.g. a Brian Upton (who cofounded Red Storm Entertainment, designed both RS and GR, and went on to write one of the most significant books ever about game design), but if someone made the life choice to become a game developer, they should be expected to exhibit at least some character traits that differentiate them from Wall Street shysters, and maybe even game publishers should rethink their business model if it would just as easily fit a fastfood chain.

So in conclusion, no, I cannot accept "market appeal" as an excuse for bad and unoriginal game design, and the history of gaming has shown time and time again that brave design decisions with an emphasis on deep player involvement on both emotional and cerebral levels do not have to stand in the way of economic success. It's just the easier, the quicker, the less risky, and ultimately the more cowardice way to simply trot behind the creative curve and push mindless console shovelware to 9-year-olds, and while it may be "commercially viable" and "economically making sense", it's still nothing more than developers selling their souls and whoring themselves out for the sake of mammon.

[101459]

Great book! I don't disagree with what you're saying, but would point out that in many cases game design has not merely devolved to appeal to the lowest 'common ' denominator, as even a reasonable measure of 'common denominator' is a more elevated standard then what we are seeing; it appears design standard has gone considerably lower -- to 'lowest denominator ' of appeal ostensibly to 'encompass the largest audience possible ' as part and parcel of AAA design aims. Some of the marketing weenie speak from these companies spokes-holes even say as much; though in verbose, jargon laden recitations...

The obvious flaw there is 'appeals to everyone ' interests no one in particular, just like 'one size fits all '  realy fits no one...

It's doubtful that market appeal is the sole reason for game design going to the dogs, it seems more likely it's a confluence of: big business, marketing, games being produced and churned as disposable commodity/products, outsourcing, top down administration, competition for market share -- and all the effects these things have on the people that do real production work for these companies. Looking at each effect individually it's easy to to see parallels in outcome.

There are many interesting anecdotes from inside big companies, how inefficient they are, the massive waste...  Microsoft started out as an ambitious, iterative, agile, efficient company; now it's a monstrous albatross where it costs them in some cases over a million times what it cost to get simple things done then in earlier years of the company, and there are many things they can't move forward with at all and even have to be outsourced even though they have the resources, finished code, money and manpower to do it in-house.

Game publishers don't create essential commodities -- it's entertainment, they don't have real deadlines or market dependence of any kind, if every game publisher folded right now the world would not change, no one would die... Even failing miserably to deliver a functional product there are rarely any consequences beyond dismal sales and marketing can even obviate that.

The executive and administrative talent (and in some cases it would be a gross abuse of the word talent) in game publishing companies is a reflection of the aforesaid, they are in many cases some of the least skilled, laziest, most ineffectual people in business -- ergo bureaucrats creating and doing 'make work' for themselves solely to make their jobs appear essential...

In big publishing marketing can obviate just about everything; a big enough, well enough financed and produced marketing campaign can literally package and sell unplayable games -- it has been done, by non other then the object of our discussion. Worse, in many cases more is spent on marketing and advertising then actual game development budgets; which just shows to go ya, where the priorities really are...

Big AAA game titles are now running parallel to AAA Hollywooden movies, all are seen as disposable commodity products, where the primary goal is to churn the assets of the company and make money. The 'blockbuster' is the ultimate goal, the consummate 'successful ' achievement of this approach, and the surest and safest formulaic approach will always be taken exactly because these companies are so inefficient and ineffectual. Occasionally a brilliant and talented director, writer, independent studio gets the green light (or is bought up) underwritten and produced by a large publisher or studio and we get games and movies that set a new standard.

All things considered I think you have to 'accept' this is the way things operate, there's little in the way of incentive for much change, really brilliant game design does break through occasionally, and we do have great venues like GRN where we can grouse and occasionally be heard perhaps inspiring someone results oriented enough, effectual enough, and with enough design decision making power to get something done.

Future forward it doesn't seem truly great game design is going to come from big Publishers anymore then great art film is going to be created by the mega studios, it happens but it will probably be the independents that offer the really pleasant surprises...

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by 101459

[101459]

On 12/14/2016 at 21:31, Lightspeed said:

You said in previous post that you're a 'would be fan' which is a key point. Ubi and the Devs look at the gaming community as a whole and work out best bang for buck. Your 'wants for  the game' don't fit into that calculation. They try to produce elements which make it GRish but already acknowledge that they probably won't meet the requirements of a few diehards. They know this. To suggest they don't care, are bad Devs, only produce basic ######ty games is wrong. They deliver what they must deliver.

I believe if you look at the context (in several posts) where I used 'would be fans' you'd see I'm not merely referring to myself, but Tactical Realism Fans that pretty much think it's over for Ubisoft and tactical realism gaming, and give their time, attention and money (to the tune of billions in USD) to Developer/Publishers like BI and the independents like New World Interactive, Haggard Games, Offworld Industries Ltd. -- et al...

I'm not sure what features you seem to believe are my 'wants for the game' that don't fit into 'Ubi and the Devs -- best bang for the buck approach ' -- in fact I wouldn't even agree that this is their approach or that they're even remotely effective in that regard if it is; but I've specified nothing on these forums that isn't a feature considered essential by much broader audiences of successful blockbuster action realism games that Ubisoft seems to follow and mimic -- even with their marketing... In fact most of what I've suggested like functioning net-code, something that's eluded Ubisoft for over a decade, is essential to any MP game...

No where have I said or suggested the 'Devs' are 'bad' -- or that they only produced 'basic ######ty games' (whatever that means). In fact I'd be surprised if Developers have much in the way of  design direction or even input at Ubisoft. However since Ghost Recon & SOAF -- Ubisoft has not produced a tactical realism game, they've produced action/arcade realism games, with sports announcer Narrators directing single path action, with cartoon voice acting, B movie action music, and speed/spam game-play.

That is not a value judgement, it's a simple fact. Whether this is good action realism gaming or not I'll leave to fans of that genre, but it's not tactical realism at all, good or bad, it's not remotely on canon with what the Tom Clancy franchise set out to be with R6 and followed with Ghost Recon.  

Your premise that Ubisoft is on some sort of preordained path of production where they "must deliver" some sort of mass appeal arcade sports shooters with a realism paint job is ridiculous. It's a demonstrated fact that Ubisoft has the resources to compete and succeed in multiple genres; they've done it -- so what they do is a choice not some obtuse religious mandate of fascist 'must'...

As many have pointed out before; Ubisoft would probably find much more success and certainly more customer satisfaction if they delinted their franchises and gave each brand a clearly defined genre of game design, be it: tactical realism, action realism, RPG, or MMO -- instead of the miasma that the Tom Clancy titles have become with franchise titles that have no focus and no one has any idea what their getting other then it will be some flavor of run-and-gun arcade sports shooting with really butch tactical barbie dolls you can dress up and play with...

Edited December 21, 2016 by 101459

[pz3]

Here we go again lol. 

I dunno about you guys but if your seriously distrought over all this there is that option to MAKE the true GR successor.

 

Unity/Unreal/Cryengine.... all that stuff is right there to be used for these specific niches. 

 

Someone was to accidentally create a barebones modable indie tactical game it might be a big hit.

 

Break it down... GR Demo was one level. I played that demo more then advance warfighter, graw2, nd everything since. 

AAA polish, a functioning game, a proper user interface, with modding.

And just one level.

Edited December 25, 2016 by pz3

[101459]

On 12/25/2016 at 03:51, pz3 said:

I dunno about you guys but if your seriously distrought over all this there is that option to MAKE the true GR successor.

I don't think anyone is "seriously distrought", or even distraught... Seriously disappointed, maybe... After nearly twenty years of seeing a substantial and obvious void in game design that was enormously popular (and very lucrative for Ubisoft) with the very talented studio that clearly knows how to deliver because they created the genre -- for most that like Ghost Recon and R6: cognitive dissonance is probably most apropos...

Not everyone has the resources of talent, time, or money to be able to work on games -- but there are excellent slow burn indie projects, superb mods by Lightspeed for ArmA, the unsurpassed Apexmods and this forum keeping the original torch burning; so again I don't think anyone is seriously distraught...

It would even seem many even see some humor in this; with the 'Tom Clancy', 'Ghost Recon' and 'R6' becoming catch all brands for just about every impossible eye roller "B" action/arcade shooter Ubisoft makes with some version of horrible net code mitigated shooting in it... So -- sad, disappointed, and bewildered is how most Ghost Recon fans seem to regard Ubisoft...

Of course if you search and read the Ubisoft forums you'll quickly see some are "seriously distrought" about just how terrible Ubisoft's net-code across its entire line of games is; now those are some upset customers, and it's doubtful telling them they can go make a game with better net-code (which would in fact be very easy with regard to this one thing) will allay their disgust with how they spent their money.

Edited December 27, 2016 by 101459

[pz3]

Most move on. I myself have zero ability to code so no new GR from me. Howeva Unreal blue prints are keeping me entertained at the moment...

 

I might try wildlands. Occasionaly I pickup AAA titles but have sunk most cash into Indie the past 2 years. 

[Rocky]

Something struck me recently around the whole Ghost Recon's original gameplay is "niche" argument that is used to justify gameplay changes that are clearly aimed at making it more mainstream and attract a totally different demographic. The deliberate simplification of tactical options at the expense of skill trees and character customisation etc is something we're almost as accustomed to as day one patches for incomplete games at launch, however this is not reflected in different game genres.

I installed Project Cars recently and was struck how in the racing genre, rather than simplify the driving mechanic and gameplay, it has become the norm to make the experience ultra realistic - its honestly astounding the level of detail and immersion they get into racing games these days. Racing realism is surely no more "niche" than tactical shooters?

Off the top of my head, niche hardcore racing sims include Project Cars, Gran Turismo, Assetto Corsa, the RaceRoom, iRacing... etc etc

Where are the tactical shooters??

If you do a google search for hardcore racing games, you will be spoiled for choice with new sims pushing graphics cards and processors to the max.

If you do a google search for tactical shooters, I guarantee the results will be filled with games that are over 6 years old. 

Maybe we need to look at what's happening in the real world; infantry and special forces budgets are being cut, and intelligence and data security budgets are through the roof - maybe tactical shooters need to give way to a new niche - cyber warfare.

If the tactical shooter genre had received the same attention as sim racers, I think we'd all be on cloud 9 right now, spoiled for choice!

[Zeealex]

Although arma isn't strictly a tactical shooter, more of a milsim sandbox, I'm gonna use it as an example of this 'niche' being attractive to thousands of players anyway, because it's a similar gameplay style. 

Arma has been one of the most complex games I've played, in terms of control set. People play it in their thousands (thanks to mods for the most part, but anyway) and people enjoy it. Now imagine this: simplify the control set, use a radial orders system like opflash, and optimize the gameplay and control system to fit a faster pace and a smaller scale. You have a tactical shooter that fills the void between Arma, and games like CoD. 

Going off on a tangent here, I was playing BFBC2 on Christmas, and I HATED how I couldnt flank a guy on an MG by going down river, and coming up next to him. I was out of the 'mission area' its a big pet peeve I don't often see in tactical shooters likes the original GR, even just getting rid of that, making the battlefield open and implementing a 'one shot can kill' damage system would bring something into the shooter game 'pool' that hasn't often been done. It would allow, if not make players make tactical decisions, such as flanking the MG guy, crawling through the undergrowth to avoid enemy armour. 

Its been touted a number of times that gamers want a challenge. They don't want unskippable cutscenes around every corner anymore, they want something that exercises their brains. And there is a massive void where that challenge should be

[101459]

2 hours ago, Rocky said:

Something struck me recently around the whole Ghost Recon's original gameplay is "niche" argument that is used to justify gameplay changes that are clearly aimed at making it more mainstream and attract a totally different demographic. The deliberate simplification of tactical options at the expense of skill trees and character customisation etc is something we're almost as accustomed to as day one patches for incomplete games at launch, however this is not reflected in different game genres.

I installed Project Cars recently and was struck how in the racing genre, rather than simplify the driving mechanic and gameplay, it has become the norm to make the experience ultra realistic - its honestly astounding the level of detail and immersion they get into racing games these days. Racing realism is surely no more "niche" than tactical shooters?

Off the top of my head, niche hardcore racing sims include Project Cars, Gran Turismo, Assetto Corsa, the RaceRoom, iRacing... etc etc

Where are the tactical shooters??

If you do a google search for hardcore racing games, you will be spoiled for choice with new sims pushing graphics cards and processors to the max.

If you do a google search for tactical shooters, I guarantee the results will be filled with games that are over 6 years old. 

Maybe we need to look at what's happening in the real world; infantry and special forces budgets are being cut, and intelligence and data security budgets are through the roof - maybe tactical shooters need to give way to a new niche - cyber warfare.

If the tactical shooter genre had received the same attention as sim racers, I think we'd all be on cloud 9 right now, spoiled for choice!

Nailed it! It's keen insights and erudite posts like this that make this forum such a gem! Not just depth of game play and feature sophistication, but the cost and sophistication of the code that goes into modeling all the detail of racing sim physics, suspensions, traction, power, surface effects and the render detail of these games really pushes the envelope as well...

I never bought the argument that Ghost Recon (Original Flavor) is niche game design, with niche appeal -- the slow burn sales for the original Ghost Recon have surpassed many of the Call Of Duty games, and the online playing audience surpassed anything I've seen since in realism gaming for peak sustained interest and play-share.

The numbers suggest that what we're seeing in FPS realism is frustration at the absence of a game like Ghost Recon, burn-out with action realism and publishers telling us what we want, and not hearing or accurately measuring what's actually desired in the public milieu. When there are indie tactical realism games and mods  with more people playing then Ubisoft's latest 'AAA' title -- that would you'd think light up the Bat Signal...

 

[101459]

On 12/27/2016 at 09:48, Zeealex said:

Although arma isn't strictly a tactical shooter, more of a milsim sandbox, I'm gonna use it as an example of this 'niche' being attractive to thousands of players anyway, because it's a similar gameplay style. 

Arma has been one of the most complex games I've played, in terms of control set. People play it in their thousands (thanks to mods for the most part, but anyway) and people enjoy it. Now imagine this: simplify the control set, use a radial orders system like opflash, and optimize the gameplay and control system to fit a faster pace and a smaller scale. You have a tactical shooter that fills the void between Arma, and games like CoD. 

Going off on a tangent here, I was playing BFBC2 on Christmas, and I HATED how I couldnt flank a guy on an MG by going down river, and coming up next to him. I was out of the 'mission area' its a big pet peeve I don't often see in tactical shooters likes the original GR, even just getting rid of that, making the battlefield open and implementing a 'one shot can kill' damage system would bring something into the shooter game 'pool' that hasn't often been done. It would allow, if not make players make tactical decisions, such as flanking the MG guy, crawling through the undergrowth to avoid enemy armour. 

Its been touted a number of times that gamers want a challenge. They don't want unskippable cutscenes around every corner anymore, they want something that exercises their brains. And there is a massive void where that challenge should be

Alex you are right! ArmA 3 has sold over three million, the mod payload available for the ArmA games/sims (that is portable across all versions of the game due to iterative engine design) now measures in petabytes, and as a side note this hasn't put a dent in BI's sales of expansions which are from my last read on that subject at near parity with the original game's sales beating Ubi, Activision and EA smartly with regard to DLC sales on their un-modable games.

Even though the core sim-like design of ArmA may not appeal to some; most realize it's one of the most outstanding values in PC gaming because of its mod-ability, tons of content that make it like getting hundreds of new games with one game, excellent long term support from BI, and being a simulator at its core it's easier to rig game design on top of that, then go the other way and add realism to an arcade shooter that lacks fundamental features. 

Your comments are right on the money with what Rocky has said; the enormous depth of features in ArmA 3 hasn't been a turn-off to mainstream game fans, if anything it has been a lure by being the pinnacle of deign, offering the most depth, sophistication, realism, granularity, and in many important regards is clearly the 'best of '.  Which is not to say ArmA 3 is without issues and limitations -- but it's a great working example of Rocky's point for FPS realism.

I personally find the notion appalling that anything entertainment has to be simple, watered down, "B" grade, or some stupid 'middle of the road ' compromise to be fun and appealing to a larger audience. In fact the lowest denominator of the PC gaming audience that I've been exposed to, which admittedly aren't the brightest lights on the Christmas tree, are typically the individuals that have the most time to pour into a game and are the first to be bored and annoyed with a games lack of depth.

Similarly I think assumptions made by publishers in categorizing 'Casual Gamers' is equally at odds with the facts on the ground -- because I am 'that guy'; I work 50 to 70 hours a week and don't have a lot of time to game. It is because I don't have a lot of time to game I don't want to commit what time I do have to a shallow, parade float of infantile indulgence over serious adult game design that engages me from the neck up.

And that brings me full circle back to Ghost Recon, the original game -- it was an adult game, with real and clear design intent; tactical realism. It didn't have to devolve to sports caster or "b" roll action movie announcers, squealing electric guitars, histrionic shouting, action barbie costume porn, music crash idiot rewards for mass-murder death sprees, idiotic redneck bro fisting dialog, cartoon GI Joe narrative, or game play so simple even a brain injured cocker spaniel could manage it -- but somehow even the lowest common denominator loved it.

 

Edited December 29, 2016 by 101459

[Kingkat]

I guess I am having some "issues" with the game itself. I have been a true GR fan since OGR. However,  I like what I have read about the game:

Modern setting

Choice between stealth or going in loud style

Customize weapons

Open World environment

BUT

I am just not sure about a "Third Person" view THEN switching to a "First Person View" when I use my weapon. Seems like going from "watching movie, then playing in a game". Also, as I watch some gameplay, its as if third person is like "cheating" in game. You get a "drone" view of the game, like a movie, not playing the game. I know its weird, but I simply can't help it!

I hope playing the BETA, I pray I get the chance,  will convince me that its worth the money......?!

 

 

 

[Rocky]

You're either okay with 3rd person, or you're not, it's a matter of preference. Personally, I don't like it because it gives me the god like ability to see around corners, and see any threats - where I should really be taking a chance peeking or leaning, and have to weigh up that risk.

So, I'm with you totally on the positives, but I too am not a fan of 3rd person. Plenty of people are though.