Why so negative reviews?

[Shzy]

I find breakpoint to be more immersive than wildlands but breakpoint has some real bad reviews why? is it performance issue? or just game is bad?

[Kuma]

Originally posted by Da'vidinchi:

I have to disagree with you there. I was getting ~20 FPS using Vulkan.

Most benchmarks show a big performance boost with vulkan under optimized settings, of course this is hardware dependant but with my hardware there is a 15 fps+ boost with vulkan and that allows me to play with higher graphical settings.

However this boost comes with many instabilities with my specific hardware, like random fps drops when opening the menu or similar so I returned to DX11.

Originally posted by Sleezure:

Breakpoint is worse than Wildlands in every regard.

Here are just a few improvements I've noticed jumping into breakpoint right after finishing wildlands:
-Bodies don't just instantly disappear in breakpoint, you have to actually carry them around and be aware enemies can spot them long after you've killed them.
-Enemy loading distance is much higher, so when playing as sniper you can stay much farther away to scout bases and pick strategic targets with binoculars without being forced to get close first for enemies to load.
-You have a new injury system that makes the game much more realistic, when you get critically hurt in breakpoint you start limping and can only use a handgun until bandaging yourself, this whole healing system alone on higher difficulties makes the game much more challenging and makes you think twice before swimming in bullets.
-There is no unrealistic "stealth shot boost", you actually have to aim in weakspots to kill enemies even in stealth here. In wildlands you could aim at any bodypart even leg with a handgun in stealth and that would be almost guaranteed insta kill for some weird reason.
-Difficulty options can be customized even more now, you get all the ghost mode settings included with the base game in breakpoint, things like losing ammo on reload or limiting your loadout options to a single main weapon only changeable in campsites.
-Difficulty is better balanced overall as well, I always play these games on extreme difficulty, and with wildlands especially on low tier levels it always felt like enemies had an unrealistic level of aimbot, where even a santa blanca grunt with ironsighted smg could almost instantly snipe you from the other side of the map once discovered, in breakpoint enemies realistically miss shots, there is much more space for mistake correction and different playthrough styles even when playing on extreme difficulty. In general it feels much more fair when you die in breakpoint.

[zainac]

If you have even the slightest problem with this game, for which you spend hours in front of your computer or console, you can contact Ubisoft and see how interested they are in this game. Because they don't care. The only thing they care about is money. All the weapons in my save file, which I played for +600 hours, suddenly disappeared and they never made up for it, and they said they couldn't help me with this and closed the issue. I wish good luck to people who are new to the game, I hope one day you will not have a problem and have to no contact ubisoft..

[JmZ-x-]

I played this for a bit - it gets really boring shortly into the game.
I played for about 60 hours then realised every single mission is the same thing just in a different location. Same faceless, bland enemies - same stupid drones everywhere.
The game looked like it had good concept - but the delivery is bad and cemented why Ubisoft games should never be played and if you MUST play them, buy them on sale for heavy discounts.
I got this on a 90% sale so I'm not too annoyed.

[N'Jadaka]

60Hrs. of Wildlands and 100+ on Breakpoint and what I can say is that in terms of replayability, Breakpoint is way better than wildlands. The arsenal is better, character customization. Story wise, Wildlands had a better story. Don't get me wrong, Jon Bernthal's Cole D. Walker was great, but the story could have been so much better. The way the missions were made felt like the stakes weren't high enough. E.g the final mission in Wildlands was insane, the trek to the mountaintop mausoleum while under HEAVY HEAVY resistance both from the Katari rebels and the Cartel WHILE on a TIMER. MY GOD. Compared to Breakpoint's final mission which was so so.

[RadarLuv]

I can't complete the game for there is a File in the Channels R&D Centre that I cannot get at, there's no way to open the door. Now I've seen video of how some got it but it includes using a Motorcycle to get close to the door, then dismounting the bike so you go through the door. Tried but can't get it to work, this should not be necessary to do just to get the file but the Devs won't fix it. So they can take this game and shove it where the Sun don't Shine. I don't like buying games that can't be completed just because of some lazy piece of you know what didn't do their job.

[ah, salmonn]

i was dire right in the middle of it and typical internet here sudden off, resulting in "NO GAME" continuation.

that would be the biggest why

[Extromal]

Originally posted by RMJ:

At least breakpoint you are required to clear the base before door will open.

On the other hand Breakpoint gives you the opportunity to kill the boss right in the beginning, making things even easier than Wildlands.

[Fax_the_Sender]

mostly due to making it online only, when wildlands was not and this was supposed to be a sequel.

social hub nonsense
bullet sponge drones
looting
crafting
gear score
no ai team mates at launch

stuff wildlands didn't have and could be played offline.

[Zaris]

It's just a bad game nothing more to say. I've played it at release on Ubi Connect and like others said the experience was horrible. Jeffrow_Cull already mentioned the most annoying things like no AI comrades (got added later i think) but even worse the content.

In Ghost Recon Wildlands you had afair 20 areas? with their own biomes (desert, woodland, jungle, green plains), in total over 100 missions and 50+ side activities playing in cities, military structures, ruins, caves and so on. You could also unlock mortar strikes, 16 rebel support attackers.

In Breakthrough they reduced it to a single jungle island with futuristic small cities as playground, i can only remember 1-2 military like areas and in total about 15-20 missions. On top of that at release 1/3 of the shown targets were locked behind "in future dlcs". The endboss fight on max difficulty was a total joke (invulnerable shielded guy blasting you away). You also play alone, not a single rebel or AI comrade as help.

On top of that they literally forced you to play it constantly online - server down = game not playable while Breakthrough was completely offline playable.

In short Breakthrough is a stripped down Wildlands without improvements but a shoved down "game as a service" coop approach. Maybe it's fun in multiplayer but the singleplayer part is a big letdown and not worth 5€.

[The Grin]

Originally posted by Zaris:

It's just a bad game nothing more to say. I've played it at release on Ubi Connect and like others said the experience was horrible. Jeffrow_Cull already mentioned the most annoying things like no AI comrades (got added later i think) but even worse the content.

In Ghost Recon Wildlands you had afair 20 areas? with their own biomes (desert, woodland, jungle, green plains), in total over 100 missions and 50+ side activities playing in cities, military structures, ruins, caves and so on. You could also unlock mortar strikes, 16 rebel support attackers.

In Breakthrough they reduced it to a single jungle island with futuristic small cities as playground, i can only remember 1-2 military like areas and in total about 15-20 missions. On top of that at release 1/3 of the shown targets were locked behind "in future dlcs". The endboss fight on max difficulty was a total joke (invulnerable shielded guy blasting you away). You also play alone, not a single rebel or AI comrade as help.

On top of that they literally forced you to play it constantly online - server down = game not playable while Breakthrough was completely offline playable.

In short Breakthrough is a stripped down Wildlands without improvements but a shoved down "game as a service" coop approach. Maybe it's fun in multiplayer but the singleplayer part is a big letdown and not worth 5€.

Breakpoint not Breakthrough x)

[soldier6661111]

Originally posted by Zaris:

It's just a bad game nothing more to say. I've played it at release on Ubi Connect and like others said the experience was horrible. Jeffrow_Cull already mentioned the most annoying things like no AI comrades (got added later i think) but even worse the content.

In Ghost Recon Wildlands you had afair 20 areas? with their own biomes (desert, woodland, jungle, green plains), in total over 100 missions and 50+ side activities playing in cities, military structures, ruins, caves and so on. You could also unlock mortar strikes, 16 rebel support attackers.

In Breakthrough they reduced it to a single jungle island with futuristic small cities as playground, i can only remember 1-2 military like areas and in total about 15-20 missions. On top of that at release 1/3 of the shown targets were locked behind "in future dlcs". The endboss fight on max difficulty was a total joke (invulnerable shielded guy blasting you away). You also play alone, not a single rebel or AI comrade as help.

On top of that they literally forced you to play it constantly online - server down = game not playable while Breakthrough was completely offline playable.

In short Breakthrough is a stripped down Wildlands without improvements but a shoved down "game as a service" coop approach. Maybe it's fun in multiplayer but the singleplayer part is a big letdown and not worth 5€.

First time I'm hearing of this game, but could you maybe put more time into discussing the topic, Breakpoint, instead.

[sounar]

ur mostly shooting generic drones in breakpoint

[startrekmike]

On a basic technical level, the game is fine. It performs acceptably and even looks pretty decent considering its age. There are also a lot of options for player character customization (both outfit and weapon). That seems to be where the bulk of the game's effort went and some folks seem to really, really get off on playing tactical Barbie dress-up.

The problem is that it just isn't a very interesting game. If you don't like staring at the character customization and weapon customization screens for hours on end, there isn't much else to really draw you in. The story is awful and presented as just a bunch of missions splattered on your map right from the start. They wanted it to be a sort of non-linear set of missions but that just makes it feel bland and pointless. You just kinda walk around and shoot stuff. It doesn't have any real tension or suspense. No real emotion at all. It is just a bland shooter for those who are obsessed with tactical gear.

[Fax_the_Sender]

Originally posted by Zaris:

It's just a bad game nothing more to say. I've played it at release on Ubi Connect and like others said the experience was horrible. Jeffrow_Cull already mentioned the most annoying things like no AI comrades (got added later i think) but even worse the content.

In Ghost Recon Wildlands you had afair 20 areas? with their own biomes (desert, woodland, jungle, green plains), in total over 100 missions and 50+ side activities playing in cities, military structures, ruins, caves and so on. You could also unlock mortar strikes, 16 rebel support attackers.

In Breakthrough they reduced it to a single jungle island with futuristic small cities as playground, i can only remember 1-2 military like areas and in total about 15-20 missions. On top of that at release 1/3 of the shown targets were locked behind "in future dlcs". The endboss fight on max difficulty was a total joke (invulnerable shielded guy blasting you away). You also play alone, not a single rebel or AI comrade as help.

On top of that they literally forced you to play it constantly online - server down = game not playable while Breakthrough was completely offline playable.

In short Breakthrough is a stripped down Wildlands without improvements but a shoved down "game as a service" coop approach. Maybe it's fun in multiplayer but the singleplayer part is a big letdown and not worth 5€.

You mean wildlands was playable offline, not breakpoint.

They could've added offline play to breakpoint but chose to be **** stupid instead.

pissed off a huge amount of wildlands fans. went full "don't care mode" by closing the original forums and replacing them with a garbage discussion board. basically took a page out of EA's book.

i.e. they they weren't happy with consumer response, so decided to delete / hide all the complaints by replacing the forums. only this affected all of their games. just like when EA closed their forums to silence complaints about the state of battlefield 3.

[Drum]

Just search for "Breakpoint Behemoth" videos and decide for yourself if you like this game. Taking down those mechs/tanks does not feel very ghost-like to me.

I've just refunded the game since I vastly prefer the gameplay of Wildlands. Other than that I really dislike the way the in game menu/interface works and am suddenly getting crashes. If the game was fun I would not mind tweaking the game a bit to get rid of the crashes, but since I’m a few minutes short of the 2-hours refund deadline i decided to get my money back.

It is not a bad game, and I’m sure people can have fun in it. It's just not for me.