安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
该主题的作者已标记一个回帖作为问题的解答。
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
The world looks amazing but is not as full of life as Wildlands with reprogrammed NPC's walking up and down the road sticking to their zone. There can be enemies right next to you but in another "zone" and when you engage one group of soldiers the others just seem to ignore you as you are not in their "zone" even though there is clearly gun shots being fired - it does not feel "life like" to me.
Also I started a mission only to be told that the first stage is free and I would need to purchase the rest of the story, why even put this in there when I have just started the game?
There also hardly seems like a reason to investigate and explore the world when all you seem to get is Bivouac locations, points to purchase weapon upgrades or gun parts (I am not playing the original so am already happy with the weapons I have) so that seems a bit empty and pointless to me.
I think they tried to blend the realism of Wildlands with the RPG elements of The Division which would make upgrading your weapons make more sense. But this is not why I play the Ghost Recon series.
Dunno, it just does not feel good playing it - perhaps I will get into it later when I have the right mindset.
But I don't hate it - it just feels a bit meh on the story engagement side.
Also even withput that the game was kinda buggy at first and everyone could tell it was rushed out the door.
It was mediocre at best and even in a micro universe a step back from wildlands in literally every way possible (except graphics).
Yeah in hindsight it shouldnt get destroyed that harshly but it deserved to be destroyed nonetheless.
My main critique is the hub system. That pretty much guarantees you'll play the game out of story sequence at some point, which can be jarring when you've already killed someone only for them to reappear for a quest lol. This also happens in FC6.
However, from a strictly gameplay standpoint, it's pretty satisfying sniping enemies and infiltrating areas.
A few reviews of Breakpoint suggested it that appealed to a different demographic, but still would be close enough to Wildlands to act as a demo at 80% off, and with my gaming rig and Steam Deck meeting the minimum requirements. The higher end graphics meant I could continue to play the game after I acquired a new gaming computer.
Also, I had finally gotten around to starting Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter on Steam, and was hyped for that classic Ghost Recon gameplay.
I keep having to remind myself that I didn't like Far Cry 2, and so I won't like Wildlands.
Spider-Man: Remastered handles character deaths better than Breakpoint does. Open World encounters are repetitive, and so you don't actually miss out on anything while the cooldown on the encounter gives you incentive to make an effort. Quests in Spider-Man will restart you at a check point to complete them so you don't miss out.
This means Breakpoint isn't hard, its easy. While being narratively inconsistent.
Edit: I've played the main quest up to when you enter Erewhon. I snagged a nice pickup, which was gone on my next playthrough, and there was the above issue with a death skipping an entire objective marker.
The game is making me lose interest.. Like it wants to be Solitaire for RTX 4090s. Just a brainless time waster, not an engaging and immersive multimedia experience. Facebook or TikTok mindless scrolling instead of a classic home theater viewing of a blockbuster movie.
-Campaign is decent, it has some variance with missions and some good FMV, the action part is sort of lacking in that it is always the same scenario, engagements with NPC's at a distance or close in hanging around the objective which is often simple interaction with whatever, a folder, a person, a switch.
PVP, at first is is decent to good, game play after that gets old and stagnant. Often the two situations are waiting for the other team to emerge or they are engaging you from some obscure place on the map where you didn't look or notice. There are a very small amount of maps voted for and played. Net code can be quirky or not register at times, long distance scopes are almost irrelevant because often there is nothing to see at a distance. I tried a few days of it and it didn't change too much from when I started. I have pretty much given up for now, it's a very narrow style of play, camp, wait it out, rinse and repeat, and with 4 a side it will get very old quick. Not a bad game, good, I would say no.
And even tho its a big open world, the missions are always inside a base, small town, etc. where you play your tactical style/sneak/snipe etc,
You can check your playstyle in the ingame menu and I got 60% stealth kills, which means I play for 40% full Rambo. The most awesome challenge is to go for at least 80% stealth, to play like a true ghost. Someone that was never there.
2. Always online even for pure solo play - so when the Ubisoft servers went down earlier this week no one could play the game.
3. Denuvo for a 4 year old game, won't be surprised if its denuvo causing crashes with the Vulkan version.
The menu system is overly complicated and terrible though; and many of the controls are too (mouse & keyboard). At least I can articulate that aspect. :D
Still playing it though.
Possible. I hadn't considered that, but yeah. I figured the Vulkan crashing may have been memory related? But I'm far from a technical hardware expert.
I'm not so sure that many players hate it because there are post on the Wildlands Forum that like this game more and "hate" on it.
I think it might be more of a ...
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2815782999
issue