What branch of the government are the characters in ghost recon supposed to be from?

[Skeeter69]

I know they an "Elite Team" working for the CIA but i dont recall much more of a background of them. Would they be CIA or DEA, MARSOC, SEALs? Maybe im reading too much into this but i think its intereseting.

[F A B L E D]

Problem with the games story is that it makes no sense. Tom Clancy would never have approved this story, that these specialized soldiers are being used to fight a drug war on a major scale because a CIA agent was capture or killed. That makes absolutely no sense.

And these soldiers aren't CIA, Ghosts are a part of the US army. If CIA wants something done, they have their own people, or they hire private contractors.

Ubisoft just cooked up a bullshìt story just to have something to pin the ghost recon name on, because they own the license. Screw logic.

Next time Let's have a game where Rainbow Six is sent to Korea to fight communism.

[CursedPanther]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von FabledSomething:

Problem with the games story is that it makes no sense. Tom Clancy would never have approved this story, that these specialized soldiers are being used to fight a drug war on a major scale because a CIA agent was capture or killed. That makes absolutely no sense.

Don't worry about what Tom Clancy would have or would not have done, becuz:
1. TC is dead, may he RIP
2. Ubisoft did purchase the full IP rights to the electronic entertainment commodities under TC's name fair and square

So yes, forget about realism. GRW is all about playing as a group of easily disavowed individuals blowing up stuff left and right in a virtual Bolivia.

[Lufeikun]

mercenaries? like 13 hours movie.

[F A B L E D]

Your point 1 & 2 makes no sense of course because i knew this and i already mentioned the license rights. Ghost Recon used to stand for something, things made sense.

You don't need to have the ghost recon name on a game to play a group of soldiers blowing ♥♥♥♥ up. Then they could easely just have called it Far Cry Wildlands or The Division Wildlands. But they did use the ghost recon name on it, and made a story not fitting the ghost recon universe.

Why they decided to make a ghost recon game in this case instead of the far cry name, is beyone me, the game would have sold much more if far cry was used. Instead they chose to destroy a lot of what was great about ghost recon and make another game that is just exactly the same as their other games. Now ubisoft has 3 or more franchises doing exactly the same thing.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ϺEƳEƦ:

This thread looks waaaay off topic at the moment but to OPs question, look up CIA SOG. This branch of the CIA is exactly what these guys are in real life.

Yeah it seems that the fictional "GST" is very much like SAD.

[CursedPanther]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von FabledSomething:

Your point 1 & 2 makes no sense of course because i knew this and i already mentioned the license rights. Ghost Recon used to stand for something, things made sense.

You don't need to have the ghost recon name on a game to play a group of soldiers blowing ♥♥♥♥ up. Then they could easely just have called it Far Cry Wildlands or The Division Wildlands. But they did use the ghost recon name on it, and made a story not fitting the ghost recon universe.

Why they decided to make a ghost recon game in this case instead of the far cry name, is beyone me, the game would have sold much more if far cry was used. Instead they chose to destroy a lot of what was great about ghost recon and make another game that is just exactly the same as their other games. Now ubisoft has 3 or more franchises doing exactly the same thing.

Becuz TC's name sells? Simple.

You may dislike the business ethics behind all this but the truth is that it is exactly how mega-corporates make money and survive. Next time consider not buying a TC game published by Ubi as the testimony of your disapproval.

[F A B L E D]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von CursedPanther:

Becuz TC's name sells? Simple.

Of course it does. This however does not mean you have to make up stupid stories that don't make any sense. This game could easely have been about taking down ISIS, would have been more realistic, and just as fun. I guess there isn't much else than desert in Syria, so they could not make that amazing map ^^

[CursedPanther]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von CursedPanther:

Next time consider not buying a TC game published by Ubi as the testimony of your disapproval.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von FabledSomething:

Problem with the games story is that it makes no sense. Tom Clancy would never have approved this story, that these specialized soldiers are being used to fight a drug war on a major scale because a CIA agent was capture or killed. That makes absolutely no sense.

And these soldiers aren't CIA, Ghosts are a part of the US army. If CIA wants something done, they have their own people, or they hire private contractors.

Ubisoft just cooked up a bullshìt story just to have something to pin the ghost recon name on, because they own the license. Screw logic.

Next time Let's have a game where Rainbow Six is sent to Korea to fight communism.

Yeah it's definitely off in La La Land.

Not so much for the "avenge the field agent" thing, imo, but simply for the whole "Narco State" thing.

Doesn't jive with reality in just tons of ways.

And yeah, I know it's fiction...but the cool thing with Clancy was that his fictional scenarios were like 60% plausible, whereas Wildlands is like 0.5% lol.

I mean the original Ghost Recon is a great example.

The game is set in August of 2008 with Russia having launched an invasion of Georgia and the Caucusus region; irl Russia did mount a major military offensive into that region, and it was even in August 2008 😵 😆😆😆😆

The whole "ultra nationalists sieze control of the state" thing was fantasy...but that is how Clancy operated: setup very plausible conditions and go along likely trends, then introduce a fantastic twist that accelerates things into an unexpected direction with larger than life ramifications.

Wildlands narrative kinda lacks on both counts though.

On the one hand, nothing in the initial setup is very plausible or based on likely trends.

And on the other, nothing goes awry or starts a chain reaction of events that leads to anything earth shattering or larger than life, or at least gripping.

The Tom Clancy book "Clear and Present Danger" was actually very similar to the premise of Wildlands. But it dealt with a cartel operating within the state, not the whole countryside being full of nothing but cartel members.

[CursedPanther]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mile pro Libertate:

Not so much for the "avenge the field agent" thing, imo, but simply for the whole "Narco State" thing.

Very well pointed out indeed. It actually makes me think if this would've been a better theme for Splinter Cell instead.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von CursedPanther:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mile pro Libertate:

Not so much for the "avenge the field agent" thing, imo, but simply for the whole "Narco State" thing.

Very well pointed out indeed. It actually makes me think if this would've been a better theme for Splinter Cell instead.

Well Splinter Cell 3 had a drug cartel as part of the story, iirc.

I know there were definitely a couple of missions in one of the SC games in the jungle against drug bosses.

[F A B L E D]

+Mile

You are correct. I am a huge Tom Clancy fan myself. And ever since i saw Hunt for Red October i have been hooked. Then when i read Rainbow Six i became a huge fan. Then the game came out and blew me away, and then friggin hell the first ghost recon game came out which was absolutely amazing.

The conflict in Georgia was an amazing thing to predict, when the invasion happened i was thinking to myself that this is something i have already played.

As you said, Tom Clancy based his universe on real plausible or likely scenarios, and he spent a lot of time making his stories authentic. I'm guessing Clancy sold his name to Ubisoft thinking they would carry on his legacy, but right now that's not what's happening. It's just pure fantasy.

Fighting in Iraq or Syria or wherever against terrorism would have been authentic, as USA already is at war there, and these special forces are used all the time, without risking consequences, exept loss of the soldiers.

For fans of the universe things like this matters. Rainbow Six siege for example, is an example of taking one of his brands in the right direction. As they managed to make a tight original highly tactical and compative shooter without braking the original rules, as R6 is about fighting terrorism.

Wildlands however. To bad, just a huge beautiful map with same mission over and over and over and over and it doesent even make any sense what so ever.

[CursedPanther]

Speaking of which, Ubi doesn't seem to be involved in any Jack Ryan material at all. Is that name still exclusive to the motion picture industry and novels?

[F A B L E D]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von CursedPanther:

Speaking of which, Ubi doesn't seem to be involved in any Jack Ryan material at all. Is that name still exclusive to the motion picture industry and novels?

Hmm interessting. Now when you mentioned it, i got curios myself.

[Mile pro Libertate]

It's also a case where truth is stranger than fiction.

Irl, SAD and other clandestine activities get their money, at least a huge portion of their monies for overseas operations, from black budgets. They don't like to use direct appropriations in the Congressional budgets, or from supplementary appropriations either.

Think Iran Contra.

An excellent source of black budget money is from seizures of drugs and other assets related to them through RICO-esque operations.

This means, from an institutional interest perspective, you don't really want the dollar value of drugs to come down if you're CIA.

The drugs also have utility as a whole commodity, and the illicit nature of their production and distribution also means that there are leverages that can be applied relating to this commodity, and that leverage can be used to shape interests and to negotiate with regional power brokers. The opiate economy of the AfPak region is the perfect example of this today.

In regions like Mezo and South America, the value of drugs as a commodity also can be exploited in dealing with guerrilla groups and even with state actors.

That is one of the most fake things about Wildlands, i.e. that the "rebel faction" doesn't make use of the drug economy themselves as a means of funding. Irl, it wouldn't be a battle between "the cartel," who wants drug production, and "the rebels," who don't: it would be a battle as to who is going to corner this drug economy. Real world examples like the FARC guerrillas should make that pretty clear. In Latin America, drugs are looked at very much as a commodity for export: the attachment of sentiments or something to it would just be seen as naive or childish.