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...

[Mile pro Libertate]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Cik:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Mile pro Libertate:

No doubt, whether one thinks the game is "good" or not is subjective. And that is really what people like yourself are saying.

No, not "good", but specifically a "Tactical Realism" game. The subject of this thread is a false narrative; "Wildlands Is Not Tactical Realism".

The false narrative that Wildlands is something that the developers never said it is, but something that some say it isn't; well no ♥♥♥♥♥. No one on the business end ever said it was.

And if the continuation of the thought that the game won't be good for some because it's something that it was never advertised as, well, fine.

So other than constantly posting that Wildlands is something that one says it isn't, in a way in which falsely aligns it with a way in which the dev team never said it was, is kinda pointless.

But if its pointless then why argue against it?

[Cik]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Mile pro Libertate:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Cik:

They didn't, then, and there is no "but". What ever follows is pure subjective speculation and opinion from one whom thinks the game wasn't what they thought it should be, as far as I'm concerned.

No doubt, whether one thinks the game is "good" or not is subjective. And that is really what people like yourself are saying.

But that argument works both ways.

If it is subjective, there is no point in arguing with people whether it is subjective or not.

If all that is at issue is if some people like the game or not, then every individual either likes it, or they don't: they have a "debate" going on totally limited to within themselves and their impressions of the game, which makes arguing against others' impressions that run counter (like Hoak's or myself) self contradictory, and pointless.

But if people are going to debate whether the game is better or worse suited to "tactical realism," or something, that is different than a subjective impression of good/not good.

Like I said earlier, the definition of "tactics" is itself not subjective, but objective.

And we can objectively determine what is relatively more or less close to real world means and limitations, and thus, what is relatively more or less likely to encourage, utilize or require realistic tactics.

No, not "good", but specifically a "Tactical Realism" game. The subject of this thread is a false narrative; "Wildlands Is Not Tactical Realism".

The false narrative that Wildlands is something that the developers never said it is, but something that some say it isn't; well no ♥♥♥♥♥. No one on the business end ever said it was.

And if the continuation of the thought that the game won't be good for some because it's something that it was never advertised as, well, fine.

So other than constantly posting that Wildlands is something that one says it isn't, in a way in which falsely aligns it with a way in which the dev team never said it was, is kinda pointless.

And, no. The way one plays versus another person plays doesn't diminish the means in which he/she chooses to play.

If one want's to play in a way that they think is more tactically real, then they can say that they are playing more tactically realistic within the confines of game mechanics. It doesn't suggest that the game ca'nt be played that way. It's like the way this dude chose to play:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0fsnke3YWs

[Mile pro Libertate]

Like I keep saying, you're ignoring the definition of tactics in itself.

You are conflating playing in a tactical way with being tactical.

[Cik]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Mile pro Libertate:

Like I keep saying, you're ignoring the definition of tactics in itself.

You are conflating playing in a tactical way with being tactical.

Nope. If your playing in a way in which you think is tactically, then by definition, you're being tactical, as the gentleman in the above video chose to play, and defined it as such in his video subject.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Think of it in the context of martial arts or boxing.

You could say that approaching an Everlast dummy or focus cushion as if it was a human sparring buddy can result in similar technique to sparring a human opponent, so long as the fighter chooses to treat the Everlast in a way similar to the sparring buddy.

This is possible and a perfectly sound argument.

What isn't sound though is to say that there are no relative differences between how technique plays out or must be employed in using the Everlast instead of the partner, or to say such differences are only a matter of viewpoint or subjective opinion.

There are physical limitations to what you can do to the Everlast, and what the Everlast cannot do on its own, and therefore the tactic in approaching the Everlast is not the same as in a buddy with freedom of movement and capable of executing attacks or blocks.

Treating the Everlast in a way similar to a human sparring buddy does not make it into a sparring buddy.

And by extension, the execution of tactic against an Everlast will not be the same as against the buddy.

Technique may or may not be similar, depending on what you are working on; but tactic cannot be the same.

[Hoak]

I'll up the ante here and say: 'Wildlands isn't a realism game'. If you look at this honestly and objectively there is scarcely a realistic mechanic in the game except for killing, the rest is all RPG grind mechanics to build a fantasy combat Barbie, fill out the 'skill tree' and 'buy' combat Barbie accessories for your virtual dolly.

This may sound like nasty sarcasm to some, but it's not, it's to make a point; virtually nothing in this game that's made to 'look' realistic, functions in any realistic manner. It's like putting contemporary combat weapons and armor on Hello Kitty and saying this makes the Hello Kitty more realistic (and tactical).

That Wildlands is so dumbed down it's almost profound that this is comeing from a publisher that bought IP (Tom Clacy) and an entire studio (Red Storm) for billions -- one would think exactly for what they offered; adult appeal and cerebrial deep-feature game design.

Unfortunately Wildlands is about as feature deep for actual game design as a game of tic-tac-toe. Granted it has a boat load of 'content' -- but all of that is just play, dress up and pretend that has absolutely no bearing on game play; the game could just as well have shader cell art and a Simpsons theme.

[MacAttack]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Hoak:

I'll up the ante here and say: 'Wildlands isn't a realism game'. If you look at this honestly and objectively there is scarcely a realistic mechanic in the game except for killing, the rest is all RPG grind mechanics to build a fantasy combat Barbie, fill out the 'skill tree' and 'buy' combat Barbie accessories for your virtual dolly.

This may sound like nasty sarcasm to some, but it's not, it's to make a point; virtually nothing in this game that's made to 'look' realistic, functions in any realistic manner. It's like putting contemporary combat weapons and armor on Hello Kitty and saying this makes the Hello Kitty more realistic (and tactical).

That Wildlands is so dumbed down it's almost profound that this is comeing from a publisher that bought IP (Tom Clacy) and an entire studio (Red Storm) for billions -- one would think exactly for what they offered; adult appeal and cerebrial deep-feature game design.

Unfortunately Wildlands is about as feature deep for actual game design as a game of tic-tac-toe. Granted it has a boat load of 'content' -- but all of that is just play, dress up and pretend that has absolutely no bearing on game play; the game could just as well have shader cell art and a Simpsons theme.

Dude, you're just being hyperbolic at this point. That's just what games are now. XP, score, objectives, side quests, character customization, ranks, perks, abilities, all of it. Games are purposefully designed to have these elements. It's what makes games, well, games. You're literally describing what games are, and you're acting all surprised?

You're taking Wildlands' purposefully designed gameplay mechanics out of its comfort zone and applying it to something it was never designed to be in the first place. It wasn't designed and built to be a tactical realism game. Wildlands is far from it, actually, as are most games. That's like going and complaining that my dishwasher doesn't wash my clothes like my washing machine does. Well of course a dishwasher doesn't wash clothes, it wasn't designed for it. You can't criticize something it was never designed to be.

As for Ubisoft advertising it as a tactical realism game, I don't recall them explictly stating Wildlands is tactical realism. Please link me to where they said this. If I am wrong, I will gladly retract this statement about tatical realism. Furthermore, Wildlands may be far from tactical realism, but that does not mean it is devoid of tatics. Co-operating with your squadmates, planning an angle of attack, using stealth, picking and chosing targets. Aren't these tactical choices? What if my squad and I choose to take out the perimeter guards first, and then the sniper nests? Or the snipers, then the guards? Aren't these tactics? Aren't these tactical choices?

Let's look at the definition of tactical:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tac·ti·cal
ˈtaktək(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: tactical

Relating to or constituting actions carefully planned to gain a specific military end.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wildlands isn't military, obviously, but in this example of tactical, that's exactly what Wildlands allows you to do; plan your attack. Maybe not carefully like the definition describes, but this a game, its fictional. In the end, that's what all this crap is, fictional. It's funny you mentioned earlier that its all just pretending. Of course it is, man, all games are pretend, no matter how photo-realistic, no matter how life-like.

And besides, you'd be hard pressed to find many games designed to be tactically realistic. The games that come to mind are Squad, Arma, R6 Siege, maybe the upcoming Escape From Tarkov, America's Army series, and that's about it. Even you said earlier that Arma 3 wasn't a tactical realism game. What is it that you want out of games, then? If Arma 3 isn't tactical or realistic, then what is it? And Arma 3 is a damn mil-sim for crying out loud!

The further we get into this, the more its going to devolve into arguing about sematics. We're getting close already, because you and many others have gone back and forth on what is or is not tactical realism. Well, I guess I'm included in all of this now. XD

You and I, as well as everyone else in here, knows Wildlands is far from a tactical realism game, but that doesn't prevent people from playing the game in a meaningful, rewarding fashion. You can be tactical within the confines of the game's mechanics. And that's the key phrase here: within the confines of the game's mechanics. And really, that's what other users in this thread have tried telling you.

[Mile pro Libertate]

The thing is, while this debate may go on forever, the more simplistic and arcade the gameplay, the less enduring the game is.

Does anyone seriously think people will be playing Wildlands two years from now?

Exactly.

So that's the thing with "realism." It's not important simlly for its own sake; it's important because it makes for a deeper, more challenging gameplay within the genre.

As Hoak alludes to, this was the entire reason for Red Storm Entertainment's success, particularly with the "Tom Clancy's" games.

We had an environment in the '90s similar to what we have now: on rails shooters; dumb AI enemies that just spawned in and stood around or rushed the player; super hero player characters that took on the whole world alone.

Even outside the "tactical" or "realistic" games of the day, the reason games like Half Life took gaming by storm was because of this emphasis on using your cerebral ability, like Hoak reminded us. It was refreshing and players demonstrated that they approved of going in this direction because of the record shattering sales of these new type of games.

Whether a shooter like Half Life, an RTS like Medieval Total war, a tactical game like R6/Rogue Spear or SWAT 3, a military vehicle simulation like Silent Hunter 3, grand strategy like the Paradox games, etc.

PC gaming was going increasingly in the direction of more "thinking man's" gameplay.

Even casual military games like the original Call of Duty defined a new niche because of Infinity Ward's design statement that, "in war, no one fights alone."

So instead of being the lone hero like in Wolfenstein or Medal of Honor, you were part of a platoon or company engaging in small portions of regimental and divisional operations.

Then you had things like Splinter Cell 1 and 2. Obviously made to capture some of the customers from the "sneaking game" market on consoles (i.e. Metal Gear Solid), the developers put a true "Tom Clancy's" spin on the sub genre and laid the console sneaking/espionage games to shame by introducing real world weapons and tech, plausible operations and scenarios, more realistic use of cover, light and shadow, physical movement etc.

Again, these games were all tremendously successful, but not just in sales figures.

They were also successful in establishing rich gameplay experiences and vibrant and active player communities that endured for years. Some continue to endure to this day, as in the modding and multiplayer community surrounding original Ghost Recon, for example.

But many of these series/franchises are simply gone now.

Those that remain, have changed fundamentally.

The common denominator is that developers and publishers started marketing these games to consoles, in simultaneous PC-console release cycles, if not abandoning PC versions of their titles altogether or consigning entire ips to the trash bin.

So within the military shooter genre, as an example, we end up with CoD: Modern Warfare 2, R6: Vegas, GR: Advanced Warfighter, Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway, etc.

Some ips attempted to placate the "old guard" and the console crowd at the same time.

For example, there were distinct differences between the PC and console versions of Advanced Warfighter, with the PC version having a more unforgiving lethality mechanic, loadout constraints based on weight, first person view restrictions, etc.

Another example of this is R6: Lockdown. The PC version didn't have the "shooting gallery" segments, levels were larger and had multiple paths to objectives, helmets were worn by operatives, lethality was slightly more unforgiving, etc.

But the net result is that the ips grew radically different in scope and character as the console base took increasing priority. Taking Lockdown as example again: it was the first R6 game where there was no "planning phase" before an operation, even in the PC version.

There is huge difference between R6: Ravenshield, the last R6 game developed and marketed for PC, and R6: Vegas, developed from the inception for consoles, for example.

So really, what has been going on here, imo, is that the PC base was, on average, hungrier for and more supportive of a cerebral approach to gaming, and the console base, on the average, favored explosions, flashy colors and "customisation," multiplayer unlocks, character driven rather than event driven narrative, etc.

It may not be politically correct or some sophisticated argument, but it really just boils down to the simple idea that console gamers were typically more childish and more prone to ADD than PC gamers within certain genres like shooters and strategy games.

Some of these genres or sub genres were only on PC during their formation period.

But about the same time these genres were becoming more fleshed out with developer experience, player feedback, and new opportunities provided by advancing PC hardware capabilities, publishers opened them to the console market.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Początkowo opublikowane przez MacAttack:

...Wildlands is far from a tactical realism game, but that doesn't prevent people from playing the game in a meaningful, rewarding fashion.

You can be tactical within the confines of the game's mechanics.

And that's the key phrase here: within the confines of the game's mechanics. And really, that's what other users in this thread have tried telling you.

Guys like you and Cik can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that tactics includes the confines, limitations and obstacles.

Tactics is achieving ends with given means.

Part of this includes responding to obstacles and things trying to impede the attainment of the ends.

So a game design that has less realistic limitations on means, and less dynamic Ai seeking to impede attainment of ends, will by default have less tactics.

Hoak already said it way back on the first page: if you are practicing tactical techniques in an environment that obviates the respective techniques to attain the ends, then you're not being tactical: you're pretending.

My own way of putting it is this: I can execute sound tactical technique just by going to the fridge to get a beer.

I can slice the pie and check my corners on the way to the kitchen, keep well back from corners, maintain solid weight distribution and balance on my feet, open the fridge door without silhouetting myself in the "doorway," practice weapon retention by keeping my imaginary handgun near my lats as I open the fridge door, etc.

Is that being "tactical"?

Not really.

I would be practicing techniques and forms which are a part of tactics.

But what is missing is all the other parts: there is no realistic objective set within the context that the technique is developed for; there are no people trying to prevent me from obtaining the objective I do have (getting the beer); if anyone does try to stop me from getting to the fridge it won't be within the same reality I'm "training in," I.e. someone will just be like "hey Jack, can I talk to you for a second?" they won't be trying to blind side me or something; I don't have to worry about noise or light discipline; etc. etc. etc.

As I have said like 3 times now, and Hoak has explained in his own way, there is a difference between behaving in a tactical way or practicing tactical techniques and procedures versus TACTICS in itself, in employing them and modifying them as a situation develops.

Tactics is both proactive AND reactive.

That is why you must have sparring partners, force on force training, and live person drills in addition to target practice, procedure drills, and proficiency training.

If tactics was just about technique, you wouldn't see people through history doing any training outside of physical conditioning, weapon/technical proficiency drills, and "blue team only" maneuvers.

So if there are bots/ai A that can't spot you as easily in light or outside concealment as well as bot/ai B, you may be able to practice a certain technique, like advance to contact in vee echelon, for both...but the tactics with A are going to be totally different than with B, starting with the first fact that B is going to be more likely to detect you earlier than A, meaning that time and distance to contact changes, B has more time to respond to the contact, terrain that offers concealment from A may not conceal you from B, etc.

Really, this is a very simple idea Hoak and I are trying to communicate here.

I don't know why you guys can't separate your freedom to do whatever technique you want from the idea of how the confines and mechanics shape the employment or execution of that technique.

[Method Man]

I mean if you honestly think that the "mechanics both simpler and rougher around the edges then GTA II" youre a special kind of stupid haha

[Calibre]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Hoak:

Summarily Wildlands is a simplistic, repetitive, kiddie, RPG grind tool for monetizing your time.

So, stick to ArmA 3 then? Gotcha. Had my hopes up for Wildlands but it proved to be a massive letdown after all, though not really shocked, considering it comes from Ubisoft.

[♀⛤WitchyWoman⛤♀]

If you want that you should be playing Arma instead.

[MacAttack]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Mile pro Libertate:

Początkowo opublikowane przez MacAttack:

...Wildlands is far from a tactical realism game, but that doesn't prevent people from playing the game in a meaningful, rewarding fashion.

You can be tactical within the confines of the game's mechanics.

And that's the key phrase here: within the confines of the game's mechanics. And really, that's what other users in this thread have tried telling you.

Guys like you and Cik can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that tactics includes the confines, limitations and obstacles.

Tactics is achieving ends with given means.

Part of this includes responding to obstacles and things trying to impede the attainment of the ends.

So a game design that has less realistic limitations on means, and less dynamic Ai seeking to impede attainment of ends, will by default have less tactics.

Hoak already said it way back on the first page: if you are practicing tactical techniques in an environment that obviates the respective techniques to attain the ends, then you're not being tactical: you're pretending.

My own way of putting it is this: I can execute sound tactical technique just by going to the fridge to get a beer.

I can slice the pie and check my corners on the way to the kitchen, keep well back from corners, maintain solid weight distribution and balance on my feet, open the fridge door without silhouetting myself in the "doorway," practice weapon retention by keeping my imaginary handgun near my lats as I open the fridge door, etc.

Is that being "tactical"?

Not really.

I would be practicing techniques and forms which are a part of tactics.

But what is missing is all the other parts: there is no realistic objective set within the context that the technique is developed for; there are no people trying to prevent me from obtaining the objective I do have (getting the beer); if anyone does try to stop me from getting to the fridge it won't be within the same reality I'm "training in," I.e. someone will just be like "hey Jack, can I talk to you for a second?" they won't be trying to blind side me or something; I don't have to worry about noise or light discipline; etc. etc. etc.

As I have said like 3 times now, and Hoak has explained in his own way, there is a difference between behaving in a tactical way or practicing tactical techniques and procedures versus TACTICS in itself, in employing them and modifying them as a situation develops.

Tactics is both proactive AND reactive.

That is why you must have sparring partners, force on force training, and live person drills in addition to target practice, procedure drills, and proficiency training.

If tactics was just about technique, you wouldn't see people through history doing any training outside of physical conditioning, weapon/technical proficiency drills, and "blue team only" maneuvers.

So if there are bots/ai A that can't spot you as easily in light or outside concealment as well as bot/ai B, you may be able to practice a certain technique, like advance to contact in vee echelon, for both...but the tactics with A are going to be totally different than with B, starting with the first fact that B is going to be more likely to detect you earlier than A, meaning that time and distance to contact changes, B has more time to respond to the contact, terrain that offers concealment from A may not conceal you from B, etc.

Really, this is a very simple idea Hoak and I are trying to communicate here.

I don't know why you guys can't separate your freedom to do whatever technique you want from the idea of how the confines and mechanics shape the employment or execution of that technique.

A game needs to have limitations and obstacles, therefore more tactics. But a game with less limitations and obstacles, therefore less tactics. What?! Why do you need obstacles or limitations for it to be deemed tactical? In Wildlands, you raid and/or infiltrate cartel bases or cities. Isn't not wanting to alert the whole compound to your presence an obstacle to overcome? If the only way to complete the mission is to use stealth the whole sequence, is that not a limitation to overcome?

You're limited to just sneaking, so it will be more difficult to overcome. That's an obstacle. So based off this example, can we now apply tactics during our stealth through the compound? That's basically what you're saying. You're saying a game needs specific circumstances to employ tactics, otherwise, its not tactical. I just gave a specific circumstance in Wildlands which requires you to employ tactics to beat the mission. Is it tactical now?

Explain this statement:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"there is a difference between behaving in a tactical way or practicing tactical techniques and procedures versus TACTICS in itself, in employing them and modifying them as a situation develops."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know of any games this dynamic and advanced, please point me to this game, I'd like to play it. Maybe an RTS, but we're talking about shooters. If you're describing tactics pertaining to real life, then I already know the implications of applying tactics in the real world. Its an important part of strategizing, it's what makes military forces effective in combat. It seems like you're trying to apply real-world tactics to a game that is completely fictional. It doesn't traslate because its fake.

And this:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That is why you must have sparring partners, force on force training, and live person drills in addition to target practice, procedure drills, and proficiency training."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does this have to do with Wildlands being tactical? This statement is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. None of this happens in Wildlands, and none of that sure as hell goes on in other games. Not in Arma, not in Squad. Nothing. That's why its called a video game! I smell a red herring in that statement.

Look, I don't disagree with you. You're absolutely right, that's what being tactical is. A tactical action is hours of training, planning, discipline, executing with precision, coordinating with your squad, but now we're getting into real life, and video games are not real life. That's why you're never going to find a game that adheres to these specific prerequisites. I guess Arma, but that's as close as you're going to get. Games merely emulate what we see in real life.

This is pretty much all I want to say on the topic. We really are just debating semantics now. Its your meaning of tactical, versus the meaning of mine and other users' meaning of tactical. What's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah, that word is subjective.

[Mile pro Libertate]

I already broke down the answers to your questions in prior posts.

I'm getting tired of explaining the same thing over and over again.

Go back and look at the post with the Everlast-sparring buddy analogy for example, to address your question about sparring and tactics.

[CarolinaFrog]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Mile pro Libertate:

I already broke down the answers to your questions in prior posts.

I'm getting tired of explaining the same thing over and over again.

Go back and look at the post with the Everlast-sparring buddy analogy for example, to address your question about sparring and tactics.

bro... you cant fix stupid... and if this generation is any indication.... not only do they willfully speed down the path of ignorance... they revel in it!