How does it compare with Wildlands?

[A n a s t a s i a]

I get it, there are thousands of discussions that say "Wildland was better", but that's literally every game ever when a new one comes out. I played Wildlands 100% coop with my partner, mostly on stealth, but we've basically done everything so we moved on. So back to the mainquestion, what makes this game worse (or better) than Wildlands?

[Zaris]

I've finished both games on max difficulty solo and the general gist is (from the release version (!)) as single player:
- you have no AI comrades as cannon fooder / distraction (i read that Ubisoft added them many months later, didn't tried it out)
- no rebel diversions (Wildlands had up to 16, made it quite funny)
- very short main campaign (~6 targets while Wildlands had about what, 100 quests?) and half of the targets were blocked at release (DLC content later on, didn't played it)
- big island with futuristic settlements, gets boring really fast while Wildlands had a big country map from villages to harbors, airports, mines, factories and so on everything imaginable and believable
- overtuned oneshot robot enemies
- forced mobile defense mission (keep a driving jeep intact while destroying enemies) - on max difficulty pure luck
- stupid endboss fight (small room, no covers, you get swarmed by 6-8 enemies and the boss has a invicibility shield which needs to be destroyed first, on max difficulty it was pure luck)
- leveled equipment (scaling can be disabled in options) against leveled enemies
- needs constant online connection, no offline mode (Wildlands can be played offline)

In short this game has fewer content compared to Wildlands and doesn't add anything new on top of said problems above.

[A n a s t a s i a]

Originally posted by Zaris:

I've finished both games on max difficulty solo and the general gist is (from the release version (!)) as single player:
- you have no AI comrades as cannon fooder / distraction (i read that Ubisoft added them many months later, didn't tried it out)
- no rebel diversions (Wildlands had up to 16, made it quite funny)
- very short main campaign (~6 targets while Wildlands had about what, 100 quests?) and half of the targets were blocked at release (DLC content later on, didn't played it)
- big island with futuristic settlements, gets boring really fast while Wildlands had a big country map from villages to harbors, airports, mines, factories and so on everything imaginable and believable
- overtuned oneshot robot enemies
- forced mobile defense mission (keep a driving jeep intact while destroying enemies) - on max difficulty pure luck
- stupid endboss fight (small room, no covers, you get swarmed by 6-8 enemies and the boss has a invicibility shield which needs to be destroyed first, on max difficulty it was pure luck)
- leveled equipment (scaling can be disabled in options) against leveled enemies
- needs constant online connection, no offline mode (Wildlands can be played offline)

In short this game has fewer content compared to Wildlands and doesn't add anything new on top of said problems above.

Oh god i hate leveled stuff, i had to mod Assassin's Creed Odyssey entirely to avoid it.

[[ACPL] Jon]

GR: Wildlands - much better, more atmospheric & more alive game world, way better (and way better toned) narrative, more mature and realistic approach to the plot & narrative.

Great world, good characters & writing, gameplay wise you know where the game is at.

GR: Breakpoint - despite Bernathal's & Nomad's actors best efforts and generally decent idea for the plot, the narrative and atmospheric delivery is B-grade military action movie that just plays really well. Like I say - you get The Division 2 & GR: Breakpoint for the gameplay.

Worse things about GR: Breakpoint:
- no offline mode, supposedly (...I'm still pretty sure I've played it offline on my laptop)
- worse plot and especially, it's delivery (especially the dialogues and side characters)
- plenty of unlikable, cartoonish characters (unlike in GR: Wildlands, guey)
- generic island that despite having plenty of wildlife feels empty \ dead apart from enemies
- less biomes (mostly tropical or artifiial euro, tundra and snowy mountains, no desert)

Better things about GR: Breakpoint:
- very configurable experience (from full arcade RPG to full milsim-like modern Ghost Recon)
- much better stealth (coherent, working cover; moving bodies, distractions)
- more playstyles & tactics supported & viable due to class system (IMO decent split)
- more (incl. dynamically generated) content to have fun with, more weapons
- better system for getting weapons (split between exploration, grind and personal choice)
- more customization (looks, gunsmith, skills), more skills & abilities
- awesome executions
- you can friggin roll on the ground
- enemy patrols in the wild, more reactive AI a'la Metal Gear Solid
- slightly better AI (assault option, scan & drone abilities, customizable weaponry)
- drones (except Behemoths) are IMO one of the better enemies in the series
- ability to disable or mitigate most annoying \ disliked things about the game
- interesting R6-related gas event campaign

[[ACPL] Jon]

Well Anastasia, good news is, you don't need to do "levelled stuff" anymore or mod the game to avoid it. You flip one switch in the game's options and you forget this Division-like stupidity ever existed in Breakpoint, you're just playing another Wildlands game.

Originally posted by Zaris:

In short this game has fewer content compared to Wildlands and doesn't add anything new on top of said problems above.

That is both bad and untrue assesment.

It wasn't even true at releaase, when this game was waaay worse and lacking.

[Rhila]

Originally posted by A n a s t a s i a:

Originally posted by Zaris:

I've finished both games on max difficulty solo and the general gist is (from the release version (!)) as single player:
- you have no AI comrades as cannon fooder / distraction (i read that Ubisoft added them many months later, didn't tried it out)
- no rebel diversions (Wildlands had up to 16, made it quite funny)
- very short main campaign (~6 targets while Wildlands had about what, 100 quests?) and half of the targets were blocked at release (DLC content later on, didn't played it)
- big island with futuristic settlements, gets boring really fast while Wildlands had a big country map from villages to harbors, airports, mines, factories and so on everything imaginable and believable
- overtuned oneshot robot enemies
- forced mobile defense mission (keep a driving jeep intact while destroying enemies) - on max difficulty pure luck
- stupid endboss fight (small room, no covers, you get swarmed by 6-8 enemies and the boss has a invicibility shield which needs to be destroyed first, on max difficulty it was pure luck)
- leveled equipment (scaling can be disabled in options) against leveled enemies
- needs constant online connection, no offline mode (Wildlands can be played offline)

In short this game has fewer content compared to Wildlands and doesn't add anything new on top of said problems above.

Oh god i hate leveled stuff, i had to mod Assassin's Creed Odyssey entirely to avoid it.

you have the choice if you want the same system from Wildlands or the level gear. there are too many options in this game. if you want the same system from Wildlands choose Gear level OFF. you can create the game mode you want. this game overall better than Wildlands.

[LiquidFoo]

My $0.02: having played both I would say that Breakpoint is cool for a self imposed, minimal to no-hud stealth playstyle (where the game allows it). The engine is better & at this point it's a much more polished experience. That said Breakpoint can feel very sterile and outside of stealth very arcade-y. Outside of few exceptional weapons all the guns have a very same-y feel to them.

Wildlands is a janky mess and the difficulty scaling down near Tier 1 can break immersion, but it's the better sandbox game and better at stealth & loud combat overall. I enjoyed the gunplay much more in Wildllands.

For co-op, unless your team is going for an immersive zero detection, stealth only playthrough Wildlands is much more fun imho, despite all its jank.

Another point is that when Ubi's servers are down, you can still play Wildlands at least solo. With Breakpoint you can look at a nice error code and that's it.

[robilar5500]

Breakpoint is basically a longer continuation of what happened in Wildlands, but a different setting of course. I imagine if there is a third game, the world will have completely devolved into global conflict.

[A n a s t a s i a]

Originally posted by ACPL Jon:

Well Anastasia, good news is, you don't need to do "levelled stuff" anymore or mod the game to avoid it. You flip one switch in the game's options and you forget this Division-like stupidity ever existed in Breakpoint, you're just playing another Wildlands game.

Originally posted by Zaris:

In short this game has fewer content compared to Wildlands and doesn't add anything new on top of said problems above.

That is both bad and untrue assesment.

It wasn't even true at releaase, when this game was waaay worse and lacking.

That's good to know, how would you compare the damage given to enemies? are they bulletspongy or pretty much like in Wildlands (turning with that leveling option off)?

[A n a s t a s i a]

Originally posted by ACPL Jon:

GR: Wildlands - much better, more atmospheric & more alive game world, way better (and way better toned) narrative, more mature and realistic approach to the plot & narrative.

Great world, good characters & writing, gameplay wise you know where the game is at.

GR: Breakpoint - despite Bernathal's & Nomad's actors best efforts and generally decent idea for the plot, the narrative and atmospheric delivery is B-grade military action movie that just plays really well. Like I say - you get The Division 2 & GR: Breakpoint for the gameplay.

Worse things about GR: Breakpoint:
- no offline mode, supposedly (...I'm still pretty sure I've played it offline on my laptop)
- worse plot and especially, it's delivery (especially the dialogues and side characters)
- plenty of unlikable, cartoonish characters (unlike in GR: Wildlands, guey)
- generic island that despite having plenty of wildlife feels empty \ dead apart from enemies
- less biomes (mostly tropical or artifiial euro, tundra and snowy mountains, no desert)

Better things about GR: Breakpoint:
- very configurable experience (from full arcade RPG to full milsim-like modern Ghost Recon)
- much better stealth (coherent, working cover; moving bodies, distractions)
- more playstyles & tactics supported & viable due to class system (IMO decent split)
- more (incl. dynamically generated) content to have fun with, more weapons
- better system for getting weapons (split between exploration, grind and personal choice)
- more customization (looks, gunsmith, skills), more skills & abilities
- awesome executions
- you can friggin roll on the ground
- enemy patrols in the wild, more reactive AI a'la Metal Gear Solid
- slightly better AI (assault option, scan & drone abilities, customizable weaponry)
- drones (except Behemoths) are IMO one of the better enemies in the series
- ability to disable or mitigate most annoying \ disliked things about the game
- interesting R6-related gas event campaign

That's an interesting list, thanks for the effort.

[Zaris]

Originally posted by ACPL Jon:

Originally posted by Zaris:

In short this game has fewer content compared to Wildlands and doesn't add anything new on top of said problems above.

That is both bad and untrue assesment.

It wasn't even true at releaase, when this game was waaay worse and lacking.

In my memory (from release version) it's true. Wildlands had about 100 quests in total in ~15 areas with side missions for upgrading the rebel skills and gathering ressources from trucks and so on.

Breakpoint has about ~6 targets with each 3-4 subquests, in total maybe 25 and like i said in release the other 5-6 visible targets on the board were locked for DLC content.

Despite the ~25 quests you had only boring placed loot boxes all over the map and i did them all on max difficulty. In general you dropped down, parachuted in, grabbed the box and ran away from the one shot robots they placed there.

The rebel skilled were not there anymore and no comrades. In total totally lacking in content and half of the visible quests were locked behind DLCs.

[Moriendor]

Many things have already been mentioned. Wildlands especially had the better actual content (premise, story, missions, characters, exploration etc.).

Breakpoint has been patched a lot and they have made the game extremely customizable. Probably way overwhelming for a newcomer to the game.

However, in addition to all of the criticism that was mentioned before, there is also a balancing issue.
Once you can afford your own Opheis helicopter (and they are too easily affordable and too easily replaceable imo) the gameplay loop becomes something like this: You fast travel to a mission objective by spawning your team at the nearest Bivouac, you enter the camp mode, you select the Opheis from the vehicles list, you exit the camp, you enter your nearby Opheis helo and you mow down everything in your path.

There are only few missions that require a stealthy/stealthier approach so why waste half an hour clearing a large enemy camp/building/area on foot if you can do it in five to ten minutes from the air?
Sure, you can simply ignore the helo option and do everything on foot and limit yourself to using the knife only but... well, you get the point. If you play the game in the most effective way then it becomes very repetitive real fast.

I still had fun playing through all of the main and side single player missions and I even did some of the repeatable faction missions (they are kind of like daily missions in an MMO) but Wildlands was definitely better.

[A n a s t a s i a]

Originally posted by Moriendor:

Many things have already been mentioned. Wildlands especially had the better actual content (premise, story, missions, characters, exploration etc.).

Breakpoint has been patched a lot and they have made the game extremely customizable. Probably way overwhelming for a newcomer to the game.

However, in addition to all of the criticism that was mentioned before, there is also a balancing issue.
Once you can afford your own Opheis helicopter (and they are too easily affordable and too easily replaceable imo) the gameplay loop becomes something like this: You fast travel to a mission objective by spawning your team at the nearest Bivouac, you enter the camp mode, you select the Opheis from the vehicles list, you exit the camp, you enter your nearby Opheis helo and you mow down everything in your path.

There are only few missions that require a stealthy/stealthier approach so why waste half an hour clearing a large enemy camp/building/area on foot if you can do it in five to ten minutes from the air?
Sure, you can simply ignore the helo option and do everything on foot and limit yourself to using the knife only but... well, you get the point. If you play the game in the most effective way then it becomes very repetitive real fast.

I still had fun playing through all of the main and side single player missions and I even did some of the repeatable faction missions (they are kind of like daily missions in an MMO) but Wildlands was definitely better.

Yeah we could do the same with regular helicopters in WL, it would have made things a lot faster but we decided to use it in only few situations.

[Vector3D]

IGN gave Wildlands 7.9/10, Breakpoint 6/10

[Rhila]

Originally posted by Randot:

IGN gave Wildlands 7.9/10, Breakpoint 6/10

the game released in bad state, got many updates and now it is much better than before.

[Vector3D]

Originally posted by Rhila:

Originally posted by Randot:

IGN gave Wildlands 7.9/10, Breakpoint 6/10

the game released in bad state, got many updates and now it is much better than before.

I had Wildlands until my GF deleted, but I'm not going to buy Breakpoint because I have tried it on UBI's client (for free) and I wasen't impressed enough to play it more that 30 mins or so