Wildlands Is Not Tactical Realism

[Hoak]

I'm sure this will be a lot of neck down fun for people that want another GTA derivative RPG game with a different paint job. Sadly this one rolls with mechanics both simpler and rougher around the edges then GTA II, and a renderer that's neither as efficient or as easy on the eyes as as anything in LSS gaming in the last five years.

I think the biggest disappointment will come from Ghost Recon fans that hope that Ubisoft would throw them a bone with at least some elements of tactical realism -- be forewarned: nothing could be further from the truth, Wildlands has none of the even most basic elements of a tactical realism game; it's an action/fantasy realism, magical arcade grind coop RPG, with mediocre shooting mechanics as its only realism features. Summarily Wildlands is a simplistic, repetitive, kiddie, RPG grind tool for monetizing your time.

Worse, the grind is for ridiculous magical rewards: mall ninja and bunny paint ball arcade Liberace virtual pretend costume crap. You don't even start with nor can you buy an even remotely realistic load-out for the kinds of operations represented in Wildlands. To do so you go on absurd side-missions to randomly find parts, weapons and equipment in some drug cartel crack house basement, or some magic hollow tree. Fortunately for those that like this kind of thing; realistic load-outs aren't reqired because you can kill the zerging zombie Serious Sam style bots with ease and just about anything; yup you're magic Rambo and can destroy an entire army with invisible magic.

Not only is Wildlands not tactical realism, there isn't anything in it that's even remotely realistic or authentic, it's Barbie's Magic Shopping Spree with guns, and that's it -- that's not a value judgement, just how it is. I'm well aware some people love the low level of participation and focus games like Wildlands require, but be forewarned if looking for something challenging and realistic that offers the featurs of a tactical realism game: this is not it.

Sadly what Ubisoft mis-advertises as a 'franchise' (and isn't) and what the Ghost Recon moniker suggests -- you won't find in Wildlands at any level... If you want something challenging, suspenseful, that requires realistic tactics; you'll have look elsewhere; and will likely feel very disappointed and mislead by Ubisoft's Wildlands marketing...

[Hoak]

CheeseProphet eredeti hozzászólása:

Armus123 eredeti hozzászólása:

I disagree. Tactics isn't something that a game can force you to do. It is something that you have to choose to do with your friends in coop.

This.

Anyone can 'disagree' with anything; you can disagree that the world is round, water is wet, the sky is blue, or drinking gasoline is bad for you -- that doesn't make your disagreement a fact in any other sense then you disagree.

Cheese, has apparently never played a tactical realism game, thinks ArmA 3 is a tactical realism game (it isn't) and cites zero knowledge of or experience with actual tactical realism games or tactical realism game mechanics -- his argument completely absent facts and detached from from reality.

As for "This."; this what? Is what and you think too? When the facts are available to you, you choose to ignore them, ignore the evidence of actually going and seeing for yoruself, ignore the evidence of rality and choose irrational belief over knowledge? Good luck with that!

[Cik]

Im doing tactical realism in this game right now! It's amazing.

[Rhaegal]

Panic Fire eredeti hozzászólása:

Please, wildlands is a four player version of MGSV.

MGSV sucked for me, phantom pain was the worse, SP and MP wise

[Rhaegal]

(PG)War4Ever eredeti hozzászólása:

It's definitely a very shallow experience from what I've played in the Betas, not at all impressed definite pass for me. It's no where near worth it's price tag.

Probably cause you got no idea what to do when you've done everything, or you just went in, did it, got out, then sure, without really roleplaying, acting or talking to your friends you wont find anytthing immersive, thats why i play with my clan mates who just got into the beta and we do it tactical as ♥♥♥♥, and if we got nothing else to do we ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ around, try helicopter demo derby, fun as ♥♥♥♥

[Hoak]

Cik eredeti hozzászólása:

Im doing tactical realism in this game right now! It's amazing.

You said the same thing about eating three day old cold pizza, no one trusts your understanding of the word 'realism' or 'tactical' -- especially in the context of games, where you've never actually played a tactical realism game.

[Cik]

Cold pizza is awesome....i must be doing something wrong.

[ThunderMonkey]

Agreed... and I think THAT is what I couldn't quite put my finger on. I pre-ordered this game (which I usually don't mind pre-ordering before people are all zOMG!!!)... anywho, I pre-ordered it on the Playstation Store... HAHAHAHA, never doing that ever again!

(Main reason I told them I wanted a refund, which is true, is because the 'tactical' just wasn't my thing for some reason, and think that's why, because the 'tactical' in this, doesn't really FEEL all that 'tactical'.)

Figured I might try to get Ghost Recon Wildlands on PC instead so I can putz around with it at work, and use the refund towards Horizon: Zero Dawn. Come to find out that even after live-chat, Sony agent (who was very friendly and polite mind you) informs me that after researching all sales are final. Which had me perplexed... when I looked up the refund-policy BEFORE buying it, the very first match in the search shows a return-policy that states that as long as the game hasn't released yet, you can get a refund. Come to be informed on their forums that the policy I found was for the EU region, even though there's ZERO indication either in the URL or the page itself that states it's only for EU... and the web-search didn't seem to tun up squat for any N/A region policy. The URL even had "en-gb" in the URL, when I would have assumed was "English Global"... guessing gb might Great Britain!?

Web-search (click very first match link): https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=playstation+store+refund+policy&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Source (https://www.playstation.com/en-gb/get-help/help-library/store---transactions/payments---refunds/playstation-store-cancellation-policy/) [Notice there's no EU or UK bits in the URL] (EDIT: After scouring the page, I came to find the ONLY place that actually indicates Europe or United Kingdom is all the way down at the bottom where the copyright is... so wow, talk about hidden fine-print! The whole "Country: United Kingdom" should be AT THE TOP, so it doesn't seem like they're purposely MISLEADING people!)

QUOTE: "Pre-Orders

You may cancel a pre-order of digital content at any time before the release date. If the release date has passed, you can still change your mind and request a refund up to 14 days after payment was taken for the pre-order, provided that you have not started downloading or streaming the content to your device. See more information about cancelling a pre-order here."

( Also, and probably due to local EU laws, but kind of disturbing that a globally used system/network has differing refund policies by region! So, just like the PS-Plus where EU tend to get better selections and options, where NA typically get the shaft, NA also get shafted on refund policies! Be nice of PSN would adopt the same sort of refund policies as Steam... of all the gaming networks and platforms I use, PSN has to be the most stingiest of them all... which is sad to say, because I typically love Playstation! )

So, because of Sony's misleading policies on a webpage that completely obscures what region it's for unless you read the very fine print at the bottom (while also being the very first match in a web-search while there appears to be zero links in the web-search to an NA-region policy)... I'm now stuck with Ghost Recon Wildlands on PS4. (Which again, I usually love Playstation and the PS4... but this entire debacle has rather soured my taste on it quite a bit!)

[Hoak]

Cik eredeti hozzászólása:

Cold pizza is awesome....i must be doing something wrong.

Cold pizza may be awsome (for the easily impressed, which you clearly are) awesome ≠ tactical, they're not even synonyms -- apparently you don't understand this?

[ThunderMonkey]

Hoak eredeti hozzászólása:

Cik eredeti hozzászólása:

Im doing tactical realism in this game right now! It's amazing.

You said the same thing about eating three day old cold pizza, no one trusts your understanding of the word 'realism' or 'tactical' -- especially in the context of games, where you've never actually played a tactical realism game.

ROFL, not sure why, but as I read this, I just pictured somebody drooling like a madman while taking a tactical approach to picking the mold off the pizza, and then issuing themselves squad orders to take out the pepperoni first, to follow up with sniping the sausage, and when all is said and done, finishing it up by assassinating the sauce.

[Spooky]

CheeseProphet eredeti hozzászólása:

Armus123 eredeti hozzászólása:

I disagree. Tactics isn't something that a game can force you to do. It is something that you have to choose to do with your friends in coop. As an Arma fan, I love this game in beta. I have already preordered the Gold Edition. This game is a whole new level if you play with hud off and playing with friends who are in to it. If youre playing solo or with random ♥♥♥♥ boys, its a completely different experience. Is it realistic? Not exactly. But the tactics, open world, and options you have to execute a successful plan make this fun as hell. While I'm not dismissing your opinion, you are entitled to it, I want to offer a different perspective to those who are thinking about buying the game so as to not be disuaded by one sided negative opinions.

Tactical Realism is a choice. Wheather to go guns blazing or call out sync shots or call cover moves, enemy positioning callouts, etc (read the arma 3 tactical guide). Loadouts are a gameplay mechanic. If you want to do hardcore tactical realism, play Arma like I do. Bullet drops, realistic ballistics, weight capacity and stamina, realistic helicoper piloting, wind blowing smoke in different directions, etc.

This game is exactly as advertised. An open world tactical shooter. As Ghost Recon has ALWAYS been. And Ghost Recon IS a franchise. First Ghost Recon game was like...2001. Tactical military themed shooter. Arma 3 is a realistic military simulator sandbox. This has never been advertised as realistic, at least if it was, common sense told me it wasnt. I've been a long time Ghost Recon fan and I've never played it for the "realism". Remember GRAW 1 and GRAW 2? Fun as hell, not realistic

Again, you need to CHOOSE to play the game tactically with friends. Derping with ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ or solo demimishes the best experience you can get out of the game.

This.

+1

Disable full hud, hardest difficult. Problem solved.

[Cik]

-Spooky- eredeti hozzászólása:

CheeseProphet eredeti hozzászólása:

This.

+1

Disable full hud, hardest difficult. Problem solved.

Yes. The intellectually insightful get it. It's pretty fulfilling.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Something that I find strange, is that even after 7 pages, people keep defending this game by making arguments that boil down to:

"It doesn't matter if the AI/mechanics/physics/setting/whatever are lacking here or there...you can still have fun despite these things."

That is what a lot of people in this thread are doing.

The problem with this argument in defending Wildlands is not that it doesn't prove a point...it proves too much.

If 4 guys can indeed play coop and have a blast despite the AI being dumb as rocks, the question is why do you need an AI that is dumb as rocks to have a good gameplay experience?

The answer, obviously, is: you don't.

In other words, too many people in here have treated the capacity to play a game despite its shortcomings as equating to that game being good.

Total logical fallacy.

You could play any other number of similar games, including the original GR, and make the same argument, e.g. you can play GR 1 and its two expansions and "have a blast in coop" despite its older graphics or lack of player model customization.

What's more, you could go further and actually show how you'd have more depth in many areas by choosing original GR for coop versus Wildlands, such as having a far greater number of players instead of just 4; player-versus-player tactical play; AI player controlled squad options; dedicated servers; easier modding; etc.

So making some argument to the effect of "Wildlands can be good even in spite of X, Y or Z" is NOT an argument for Wildlands...it's simply an argument for the capacity of humans to make the most of a given situation or the means available to them.

So why buy Wildlands?

[ThunderMonkey]

Mile pro Libertate eredeti hozzászólása:

Something that I find strange, is that even after 7 pages, people keep defending this game by making arguments that boil down to:

"It doesn't matter if the AI/mechanics/physics/setting/whatever are lacking here or there...you can still have fun despite these things."

That is what a lot of people in this thread are doing.

The problem with this argument in defending Wildlands is not that it doesn't prove a point...it proves too much.

If 4 guys can indeed play coop and have a blast despite the AI being dumb as rocks, the question is why do you need an AI that is dumb as rocks to have a good gameplay experience?

The answer, obviously, is: you don't.

In other words, too many people in here have treated the capacity to play a game despite its shortcomings as equating to that game being good.

Total logical fallacy.

You could play any other number of similar games, including the original GR, and make the same argument, e.g. you can play GR 1 and its two expansions and "have a blast in coop" despite its older graphics or lack of player model customization.

What's more, you could go further and actually show how you'd have more depth in many areas by choosing original GR for coop versus Wildlands, such as having a far greater number of players instead of just 4; player-versus-player tactical play; AI player controlled squad options; dedicated servers; easier modding; etc.

So making some argument to the effect of "Wildlands can be good even in spite of X, Y or Z" is NOT an argument for Wildlands...it's simply an argument for the capacity of humans to make the most of a given situation or the means available to them.

So why buy Wildlands?

Much agreed. Also blows my mind how every single beta/release that comes along, people try to silence people pointing out issues. Like, hello, unless people point out what needs fixing, nothing that the devs don't directly find, will ever get fixed. It's like buying a fixer upper-house that you're going to be living in with others... going to open a door and the entire door-knob falls right out, and when you go to get it fixed, the others you're living with are like, "SHHHHH... just because we paid for it, doesn't mean it needs to actually get fixed".

[Mile pro Libertate]

Yeah it's ridiculous.

There is a seriously low level of average reasoning ability or critical thinking skills in this forum.

Which is even funnier considering the emphasis on "tactics" in this particular thread.

Tactics isn't just muscle memory or proficiency with the functions and mechanics of systems and tech.

The most crucial aspect with tactics is how to employ means to best effect. How to use that tech, movement, etc. in the most efficient manner.

This means going through a "obstacle-means-solution" process: accurately assessing the problem, the means, capabilities, obstacles and challenges, anticipating unforeseen issues and establishing contingencies, etc. all of which utilize logic and critical thinking.

[Hoak]

-Spooky- eredeti hozzászólása:

CheeseProphet eredeti hozzászólása:

This.

+1

Disable full hud, hardest difficult. Problem solved.

Oh yes, wear tactical cammo pajamas while playing game gets much more immersive and realistic... The only redeeming thing about this game has been seeing posts from people like Mile pro Libertate, ThunderMonkey, Rasmus below, and a half a dozen others on this forum that I've lost track of in the miasma of freak-out troll spam. I was starting to worry everyone that liked realism gaming was a basket case.

Rasmus eredeti hozzászólása:

LIMABRAVO130 eredeti hozzászólása:

Watch these video's and tell me this game can't be played tactical again:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLM2zMetj564pq0YT3J1FsEG140i-AICTW

And stop with this negative BS! This is just a relaxing (no hardcore) game. Maybe not for you , but millions of people can and will enjoy this game with not having your heart beat every 1 milliseconds. If you want/need that in a game, look no further and (like me)go play a "real man's tactical shooter" called: Escape from Torkov and let the casual gamers just enjoy this game for what it is: An open world game with tactical elements in it (best played with friends)...

LOL

OP's opening point was about idiots pretending that the game is realistic. Then guy links a video of grown idiots pretending this game is realistic asking how that's not realistic.

LOL

Touche Rasmus! That about sums it up. I just don't get why some people think things have to be dumbed down and easy to be fun, I find it to be just the opposite; the more challenging it is, the more engaging it is, the more I learn from it, the more depth it has, the more fun I have...