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...

[Nado]

This was my review from briefly playing the Beta:

This is not the Ghost Recon I remembered. There is absolutely 0 realism, the bullets have no drop or arc trajectory from what I could see.... This is basically Ubisoft's version of Just Cause 3, with inferior weapon and vehicle handling. The car/jeep i briefly drove felt like a moving baloon, the handling was very odd. Perhaps this is an old build, though I can't imagine the "final" retail differing too much.

Ubisoft titles have been largely hit or miss these past few years. Their Assassin's Creed and Far Cry titles have been enjoyable, though it seems they're reusing these ideas too much in their other franchises. If you want a poor man's Just Cause with co-op then this is the game for you... Perhaps you aren't excpecting something that feels like Ghost Recon or Rainbow Six, it seems those franchises disappeared after Ghost Recon 2.
-- end of review


I make no assumption that Rainbow Six OR Ghost Recon were realistic - they just had a much better balance in my opinion. Maybe most gamers today want simplified/easier games that are even less realistic? I know there are the Arma / BF crowd, but these seem to be far smaller than the COD and other arcade shooters.

[Rai]

If you think this game is casual, it's probably because you were playing it like a casual. We need less of you in the matchmaking, so good riddance

[Durcaz]

Is this news? This is like the Battlefield vs Cod thing. But in this example Cod is this game and battlefield is Arma.

There is always a more realistic option but it is nice to have choice.

[Durcaz]

LANCERZ eredeti hozzászólása:

If you think this game is casual, it's probably because you were playing it like a casual. We need less of you in the matchmaking, so good riddance

It simply isnt as tactical as it makes you think. In the Beta me and my friend who have probably 800 hrs combined on arma tried to play as carefully and tactically as possible but we were very disappointed.

This game is just: Walk here and shoot this guy in the face, walk there and shoot this guy and his friend in the face.

I wasn't satisfyed at any point during stealth because it doesnt feel like the Ai are very capable and when you know that they aren't it just totally takes the satisfaction out of outsmarting them.

[RavenX]

What do you expect from a game where you never run out of ammo and only have to stop to reload. I've seen lots of item pickups in game, but no necessary ammo pickups.

[Tazor]

For Honor was marketed as a grand medieval combat game. Almost everyone calls it a fighting game with p2w microtransactions.

Wildlands (not a Tom Clancy game, not a Ghost Recon game) is marketed as a tactical realistic shooter. Almost everyone will call it a generic boring open world shooter.

[Teran]

Wildlands does not offer something resembling a tactical shooting experience the same way the original post in this thread does not resemble something written by a derp.

[Teran]

Tazor eredeti hozzászólása:

For Honor was marketed as a grand medieval combat game. Almost everyone calls it a fighting game with p2w microtransactions.

Wildlands (not a Tom Clancy game, not a Ghost Recon game) is marketed as a tactical realistic shooter. Almost everyone will call it a generic boring open world shooter.

Thank you grand master of public opinions. Could you please offer your insight regarding what everyone will think of Donald Trump in 2 years, the multiplayer in Mass Effect: Andromeda, and how Cyberpunk 2077 will be perceived by the public?

I can't say with the same level of certainty that I know what everyone in this thread wants as you can, but I for one would like to know what you think about these important issues.

[RavenX]

Teran (Sabbatine) eredeti hozzászólása:

Thank you grand master of public opinions. Could you please offer your insight regarding what everyone will think of Donald Trump in 2 years, the multiplayer in Mass Effect: Andromeda, and how Cyberpunk 2077 will be perceived by the public?

I can't say with the same level of certainty that I know what everyone in this thread wants as you can, but I for one would like to know what you think about these important issues.

Years from now, those of us living in what's left of America will look back on these years and say "Trump was right, if only he had come sooner maybe America could have been saved. We should have listened earlier.".

[bugkill5000]

After playing the beta, the only thing that frustrated me the most was the lack of attention to the solo play, which is mainly concerning the AI teammates. The only tactical realism you will ever find is in the military, law enforcement, or Private Military/security world, and I plenty of experience doing that.

Make no mistake, this is 100% a video game, not a sim like Arma 3, and that is perfectly fine. The problem is that the devs seemed to not understand that the Coop aspect of the game will not be it's more important feature and the devs have made a huge mistake putting all their faith in it or MP. The solo play is CRITICAL for a title like this and I can't stress how stupid of a decision it was to not have AI customization of the Ghost team where you could change uniforms and weapons and have the AI smart enough to jump into vehicles and drive to waypoints, parachute from aircraft, and accept individual orders.

The COOP game will die very quickly, but solo play having AI teammates that can be used in a variety of ways would have been a game changer. This game would have a player base for nearly a decade and Ubisoft could have raked in major $$$$$ releasing DLC of new uniforms, weapons, and other gear.

They should have had me on their SP dev team.

[NikkiQuick]

bugkill5000 eredeti hozzászólása:

After playing the beta, the only thing that frustrated me the most was the lack of attention to the solo play, which is mainly concerning the AI teammates. The only tactical realism you will ever find is in the military, law enforcement, or Private Military/security world, and I plenty of experience doing that.

Make no mistake, this is 100% a video game, not a sim like Arma 3, and that is perfectly fine. The problem is that the devs seemed to not understand that the Coop aspect of the game will not be it's more important feature and the devs have made a huge mistake putting all their faith in it or MP. The solo play is CRITICAL for a title like this and I can't stress how stupid of a decision it was to not have AI customization of the Ghost team where you could change uniforms and weapons and have the AI smart enough to jump into vehicles and drive to waypoints, parachute from aircraft, and accept individual orders.

The COOP game will die very quickly, but solo play having AI teammates that can be used in a variety of ways would have been a game changer. This game would have a player base for nearly a decade and Ubisoft could have raked in major $$$$$ releasing DLC of new uniforms, weapons, and other gear.

They should have had me on their SP dev team.

The game itself is not made to be played indefinately if you play through once with some friends you've probably got the full experiance

[Hoak]

Sayyiduna eredeti hozzászólása:

I think you bring up valid points about the game, but using condescending and emotional language which devalues what you are trying to do here. The delivery of the message matters every bit as much as the content.

The language of my OT post was neither condescending or emotional. I refuse to take responsibility for other people's psychotic emotional reactions to criticism of a game, or that they feel condescended to because they like things that are easy, repetitive, and simplistic.

Take a simple corollary as an illustration; a book publisher publishes a brilliant author writing an excellent adult, readable, non-fiction book on physics and space travel and how this might really work both technically and economically in the future. After the successful sustaining a position on the best seller list for almost three years the publisher not only buys the author out for his copyrights to the book, but buys his name as well.

The publisher then goes on to publish several mediocre books marketing them as successors to the original title, none of them are as compelling or sell as well. Then our beloved publisher says they've found an author that will 'return the franchise to the roots of the original book', and will be the 'true spiritual successor to the original title', only it's a B grade, sophomoric, fantasy novel with a vocabulary and writing style that clearly targets readers age five to eleven called 'Bambi's Magic Jet-Pack Ride To Uranus'.

There is no way you can talk about a book like this, however politely and not sound like your insulting adults or anyone over the age of eleven for that matter that thinks it's amazing, that have never read any of the previous titles, no less the first of the series. To make the illustration complete some actually go look at the original book and find the first paragraph with vocabulary and physics recitation that sails over their heads and claim it's 'useless, dated, unreadable trash'...

While there's nothing wrong with liking or even enjoying 'Bambi's Magic Jet-Pack Ride To Uranus', accurately calling it simplistic, fantasy for children and very low level readers is not an insult -- it's a fact, and it's the person that feels insulted that has the issue, not the person offering an accurate description.

redd eredeti hozzászólása:

>Barbie's Magic Shopping Spree with guns
Sold! :csdsmile:

Redd gets it! He wants a high-heels and guns role playing game, and is honest and forth-coming about it.

Sayyiduna eredeti hozzászólása:

The idea that someone reads the Ghost Recon title now, 16 years after the original Ghost Recon came out and after the huge tonal/gameplay shift of the Warfighter games and comes to expect the tactical realism of classic GR seems pretty far-fetched.

Not when the company started pimping the game as 'returning the franchise to it's roots', and 'the spiritual successor of the first game' -- if anything it's expecting prospective fans to read hype like that and not express some disgust and disdain that's far-fetched.

Sayyiduna eredeti hozzászólása:

It seems like you're more keen on venting your frustrations than doing a community service, even though that is what your post is, ostensibly.

Venting? I'm no where near being pissed off that there is anything to 'vent', it's their ip, they paid for it, they can hype, sell, lie and even pay shills to sell it anyway they like. I do think it's abject and terrible that Red Storm's brilliant ip has been steam-rolled by this sophomoric drek, and is lost forever to clueless Eloi, and I'm very entertained by their reaction. It seems far more likely you're projecting, over-reacting, and probably more then a little embarrassed at liking such a sophomoric game.

Durcaz eredeti hozzászólása:

It simply isnt as tactical as it makes you think. In the Beta me and my friend who have probably 800 hrs combined on arma tried to play as carefully and tactically as possible but we were very disappointed. This game is just: Walk here and shoot this guy in the face, walk there and shoot this guy and his friend in the face.

Succinctly said!

Durcaz eredeti hozzászólása:

I wasn't satisfyed at any point during stealth because it doesnt feel like the Ai are very capable and when you know that they aren't it just totally takes the satisfaction out of outsmarting them.

You are correct, it's not satisfying because the bots (they're not AI) are too simplistic and are indifferent to any use of terrain, light, concealment or cover as stealth they either detect you or don't independent of any of the things a player would conventionally use. And when they detect you they shoot and b-line for you, they don't flank, go for cover or a better position to take you out like AI and even well scripted bots do in games eighteen years senior to this one.

[Vulgrim]

Hoak eredeti hozzászólása:

Sayyiduna eredeti hozzászólása:

I think you bring up valid points about the game, but using condescending and emotional language which devalues what you are trying to do here. The delivery of the message matters every bit as much as the content.

The language of my OT post was neither condescending or emotional. I refuse to take responsibility for other people's psychotic emotional reactions to criticism of a game, or that they feel condescended to because they like things that are easy, repetitive, and simplistic.

Take a simple corollary as an illustration; a book publisher publishes a brilliant author writing an excellent adult, readable, non-fiction book on physics and space travel and how this might really work both technically and economically in the future. After the successful sustaining a position on the best seller list for almost three years the publisher not only buys the author out for his copyrights to the book, but buys his name as well.

The publisher then goes on to publish several mediocre books marketing them as successors to the original title, none of them are as compelling or sell as well. Then our beloved publisher says they've found an author that will 'return the franchise to the roots of the original book', and will be the 'true spiritual successor to the original title', only it's a B grade, sophomoric, fantasy novel with a vocabulary and writing style that clearly targets readers age five to eleven called 'Bambi's Magic Jet-Pack Ride To Uranus'.

There is no way you can talk about a book like this, however politely and not sound like your insulting adults or anyone over the age of eleven for that matter that thinks it's amazing, that have never read any of the previous titles, no less the first of the series. To make the illustration complete some actually go look at the original book and find the first paragraph with vocabulary and physics recitation that sails over their heads and claim it's 'useless, dated, unreadable trash'...

While there's nothing wrong with liking or even enjoying 'Bambi's Magic Jet-Pack Ride To Uranus', accurately calling it simplistic, fantasy for children and very low level readers is not an insult -- it's a fact, and it's the person that feels insulted that has the issue, not the person offering an accurate description.

redd eredeti hozzászólása:

>Barbie's Magic Shopping Spree with guns
Sold! :csdsmile:

Redd gets it! He wants a high-heels and guns role playing game, and is honest and forth-coming about it.

Sayyiduna eredeti hozzászólása:

The idea that someone reads the Ghost Recon title now, 16 years after the original Ghost Recon came out and after the huge tonal/gameplay shift of the Warfighter games and comes to expect the tactical realism of classic GR seems pretty far-fetched.

Not when the company started pimping the game as 'returning the franchise to it's roots', and 'the spiritual successor of the first game' -- if anything it's expecting prospective fans to read hype like that and not express some disgust and disdain that's far-fetched.

Sayyiduna eredeti hozzászólása:

It seems like you're more keen on venting your frustrations than doing a community service, even though that is what your post is, ostensibly.

Venting? I'm no where near being pissed off that there is anything to 'vent', it's their ip, they paid for it, they can hype, sell, lie and even pay shills to sell it anyway they like. I do think it's abject and terrible that Red Storm's brilliant ip has been steam-rolled by this sophomoric drek, and is lost forever to clueless Eloi, and I'm very entertained by their reaction. It seems far more likely you're projecting, over-reacting, and probably more then a little embarrassed at liking such a sophomoric game.

Durcaz eredeti hozzászólása:

It simply isnt as tactical as it makes you think. In the Beta me and my friend who have probably 800 hrs combined on arma tried to play as carefully and tactically as possible but we were very disappointed. This game is just: Walk here and shoot this guy in the face, walk there and shoot this guy and his friend in the face.

Succinctly said!

Durcaz eredeti hozzászólása:

I wasn't satisfyed at any point during stealth because it doesnt feel like the Ai are very capable and when you know that they aren't it just totally takes the satisfaction out of outsmarting them.

You are correct, it's not satisfying because the bots (they're not AI) are too simplistic and are indifferent to any use of terrain, light, concealment or cover as stealth they either detect you or don't independent of any of the things a player would conventionally use. And when they detect you they shoot and b-line for you, they don't flank, go for cover or a better position to take you out like AI and even well scripted bots do in games eighteen years senior to this one.

You know, a couple people said "troll" throughout the post and I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. I see now that they are correct, you are not looking for a conversation, you are looking for an argument and only agree with people who share your subjective opinion. If you do not think any of the language you used in your initial post is condescending or emotional, I strongly recommend doing some more reading, in particular of works intended as objectively rational or academic.

Either way, I'm taking my leave of the discussion, your ignorance is not my problem. Cheers!

[Mile pro Libertate]

Sayyiduna eredeti hozzászólása:

Mile pro Libertate eredeti hozzászólása:

You don't have to change what works for the sake of change.

Nor does the passage of time imply that a fundamental change to the basic formula of a gameplay needs to happen.

You could just as easily expect that in 15 years the basic gameplay formula or rubric would evolve and become more nuanced.

There are other games that have done this, like many strategy gaming series. Some of them are 20+ years old: but over time they keep evolving with new features and taking advantage of new capabilities in hardware, augmenting and enhancing the original scope or mechanics, not throwing them out the window.

Almost all such series are PC exclusive though.

So I would agree with you in a qualified way: when GR was brought to consoles, it was pretty far fetched to expect it would get deeper with age, instead of more shallow.

Even when you have an entry that breaks with the series, like Warfighter, it's not necessarily given though that the series will always be on that new course.

Look at a shooter like Doom. Doom 3 really broke from classic Doom in many ways, with its slower pace, monster closets, and lackluster multiplayer.

But the new Doom returned to the roots with it's visceral approach, very fast paced gameplay, throwing out the "fumbling in the dark with a flashlight" and jump closet level design, and its meaty multiplayer component.

Sure, but it is important to distinguish normative versus positive. The change happened to the series core mechanics and overall feature arc with both Warfighter and now Wildlands, whether it should or shouldn't have is a valid discussion but fundamentally of a different purpose.

I contend that all of the recent titles in the series have deviated enough from the original features that it is unlikely many would have expectations of a sudden reversion to decade and a half old gameplay style. Furthermore, Ubisoft reinforced that this was going to remain "new-style" GR with a large volume of early previews, gameplay videos, and a publicly available beta. At some level, even a modicum of due diligence would confirm to prospective buyers that this isn't the tactical realism of old.

Well said and argued.

You're right.

Considering that the sequel to GR was already making substantial changes, and each title from then on tried different directions too, it was far fetched to expect this trend to end up back full circle to original GR.

[Hoak]

Full Circle? No expectations there, something more 'tactially realistic' then a GTA deravitive Role Playing Game -- c'mon...