• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

I was wrong about Ghost Recon Wildlands and you probably are too.

So, I did play the beta Op and even with those different areas in the game how do the missions change from what was in the beta to make the game any better? I didn't really like the AI or gunplay as it was overall. I didn't really enjoy going from area to area to do those missions even though I do think the one mission with the underground lab was a little better.
 

Belker

Member
To touch on the idea of people supporting the game being suspect, I've said this elsewhere but I'm renting my copy. I'm tempted to buy it, but I don't like the microtransactions the game has for XP and paying for/unlocking weapons. I'm also concerned that will be more problematic when PVP comes in.

I also have a friend who bought a Switch after I recommended it and he's not enjoying Breath of the Wild.
 

arcticice

Member
I'm never really a fan of the "but you have to play with friends" point, that often comes up with games like these, as almost anything is fun when you play it with some buddies.

But there are a very few games like this. Wildlands is literally the only co-op stealth game available on console. I for one would like more games to feature co-op so that i can play with friends.
 

arcticice

Member
due to how repetitive things get. And I'm playing on the Advanced difficulty.


How can co-op get repetitive. do you not plan your approach? you do all the missions in same style? You clear all bases in same style? i am seriously asking.

I understand that most of the missions are clearing bases, but they're different bases with different vantage and different weak points, so two missions just can't be the same especially if you're playing in co-op. there are multiple ways to go about it.
 

Springy

Member
The title establishes the premise of this topic as if you dislike this game you are wrong about it.
And it sounds like that's all you read when you hit 'reply.' The post is a well thought-out piece on how they feel about the game and why. It's not an ad.
 

Arklite

Member
Thanks for the write up, though it affirmed my choice in skipping it. I had some laughs with friends in the beta in its spammy clunky open world way, and I'm good with that. Mostly it reminded me of better games.
 

Bollocks

Member
Wildlands is the COOP we should have gotten with GTA5.
I hope Rockstar takes notes on how to design a compelling COOP experience.
 
I disagree wholeheartedly. It's a fun mindless co-op game, but it's janky as all hell and every single encounter ends up the same. The vast open world has no variety at all. The different weapons feel almost the same. Game's ugly.

I could go on and on.

I'm with this guy.

Tried the betas, played the full game. It feels shallow, controls badly, and lacks variety.

The metascore is a little higher than I expected (78), but a lot of critics haven't weighed in yet, and the reception is dropping. User scores and the games communities are also very negative.
 

Tecnniqe

Banned
I'm with this guy.

Tried the betas, played the full game. It feels shallow, controls badly, and lacks variety.

The metascore is a little higher than I expected (78), but a lot of critics haven't weighed in yet, and the reception is dropping. User scores and the games communities are also very negative.
Yes, people are so negative about this game it can't possibly be selling any copies.
 

Sojgat

Member
Dynamic cover system is never a good idea (especially when it breaks if your character skydives or goes swimming). Extremely fun game otherwise though.

I expected the game to be shit based on the previews, but was pleasantly surprised by how much I've ended up loving it.
 

MaxiLive

Member
I've been enjoying the game, the gunplay feels decent, the vehicles are still hella janky at times. The envirmoent has enough variation to remain interesting as does teh encounters a lot of the time.

My biggest gripe is the mission structure is super similar for most missions and it feels like there is almost zero story, I don't care at all who I'm killing and why. I think a lot of that is an issue with co-op open world game design but there really feels like no reason to be killing these people rather than ticking a box.

Also you can get some crazy MP jank. I had a mission where someone had to escape via an helicopter at the airport (or at least I think that is what the missions was) we escorted the NPC to the airport and the NPC ran to the helicopter MISSIONS COMPLETE! The NPC then didn't get in the helicopter but ran to a random truck and drove for 30 seconds... I ran to the truck to see what happen and they were dead... Okay, so we didn't actually need to save that NPC as a random kill switch at the end of the script just removes him from the scene any ways :p
 

TVexperto

Member
I have the game disc right beside me but I dont know if I should even play it solo. I heard its only good if you have several other people to play with.
 

arcticice

Member
I have the game disc right beside me but I dont know if I should even play it solo. I heard its only good if you have several other people to play with.

I played 15 minutes with AI yesterday and hated every second of it. However, there are people that are enjoying it solo. For me, i think the game was meant to be played in co-op and that is how you get the most fun out of it.
 

Bollocks

Member
I have the game disc right beside me but I dont know if I should even play it solo. I heard its only good if you have several other people to play with.

Solo is only for when your friends aren't around or you just want to clear a side mission by yourself because you can take down 4 targets guaranteed because your friends can't hit shit or they are too dumb to land a plane so you have to solo.
 

glaurung

Member
This is either a cunning Ubisoft conspiracy thread or someone really reconsidered their position.

I might ask a friend of mine for a free Wildlands code now.
 

Makikou

Member
This game is something that would benefit hugely from less-Ubisoft-y game systems. Make unlocking stuff/developing your character MUCH more in depth and thus adding more longevity.

As it is right now, it's basically a Tacticool version of GTA Online, except in Ghost Recon: Wildlands I actually got 2-3 friends who wanted to do nerdy, tacticool military stuff with me and I really enjoyed the game while doing that stuff. To note I could just do that stuff in ARMA or Squad but Ghost Recon is less frightening for those who do not play mil-sims.

A game that will be purchased when it's around 30€ or less.
 

nOoblet16

Member
Did someone on first page really say the environments have no variety? Uh I don't even. This is probably one game with the most variety in environment and locale I've ever seen. And I can't take anyone who says MGSV's with its barren world looks better than this, MGSV wishes it had even 25% of environment density of Wildlands.

Also if "every encounter ends the same" for you on a game like this then that's actually your issue in that you are making it so that everytime it's the same...not the game's. The game is pretty damn open ended with its approach. It's like here's the mission objective, complete it however.
 

nOoblet16

Member
This game is something that would benefit hugely from less-Ubisoft-y game systems. Make unlocking stuff/developing your character MUCH more in depth and thus adding more longevity.

As it is right now, it's basically a Tacticool version of GTA Online, except in Ghost Recon: Wildlands I actually got 2-3 friends who wanted to do nerdy, tacticool military stuff with me and I really enjoyed the game while doing that stuff. To note I could just do that stuff in ARMA or Squad but Ghost Recon is less frightening for those who do not play mil-sims.

A game that will be purchased when it's around 30€ or less.
I sort of disagree, for one what does Ubisofty game system mean in your comment ? Because for some people it's be exactly what you think this game doesn't have i.e. an unlock system bound to character progression (aka Watch Dogs/Farcry) but for you it's the opposite.

I disagree because the ability to just get a weapon/equipment by picking it up makes it so that you are never really waiting to unlock that one thing to make stuff better for you. The fact that you can start the game for the very first time and immediately join a friend to help him finish the last mission in some distant area, while picking up an equipment or two on the way, and not feel overwhelmed (while still feeling difficult for your friend who has much more equipments than you) is a testament to the design of this game imo. All of that means that you absolutely never have to wait on other people, or sync your playtime as you can do missions, pick up equipments and progress in any order and it counts as completion for you. That sort of structure makes this game very free form and I think that's what is unique about this game.
 
Yes, people are so negative about this game it can't possibly be selling any copies.

What? I didn't say that. What kind of line of argument even is that? Because it sells it must be a good game? I don't need to explain the problems with that line of argument. There are simply too many examples where that hasn't been true.

It's not that I believe it a terrible game. It's just one of the worst Ghost Recon games. It's a 7 in a year where we are being bombared by 9s and 10s.

I'm not saying you shouldn't play it, if it's the type of game you want to play. But personally I really didn't like many of its gameplay systems, fundamentally however, I didn't like the way the game controls. It's unresponsive. The game has a large deadzone and even when you go into the options and set 'no deadzone' a deadzone persists.
 

Sojgat

Member
Did someone on first page really say the environments have no variety? Uh I don't even. This is probably one game with the most variety in environment and locale I've ever seen. And I can't take anyone who says MGSV's with its barren world looks better than this, MGSV wishes it had even 25% of environment density of Wildlands.

Also if "every encounter ends the same" for you on a game like this then that's actually your issue in that you are making it so that everytime it's the same...not the game's. The game is pretty damn open ended with its approach. It's like here's the mission objective, complete it however.

I agree. It's probably the most varied open world environment I've ever seen in a game. And it's huge.
 
ITT: People trying to figure out what different tastes in games actually mean.

Huge Text OP, but it's still an opinion piece and nothing more.
 
There is elitism in GAF and those folks tend to write off these type of games. I like GAF because many folks and threads introduce me to games that I otherwise would have never heard about. This thread for example I absolutely loved because now they'll be games this year I'll play that I had no idea were coming out.

Having said that I agree with the OP about GRWLDS. I know what I like and won't let a small but loud contingent on GAF away my mind on a game.
 
Opinion are not wrong or right. You have yours, I have mine.

Mine is that I've tried too many times to come back to these games and I end up being angry for having so dumb. I know what kind of things I'm looking for in games, this game doesn't have it.

Maybe we should stop trying to have a sort of "validation" by the community that the purchase we made was the right decision. Buy whatever you like, share your experience, but don't try to downplay others opinion by claiming this or this is a more valid one.

Some things are facts in a game (technical things mostly) but everything else is personal impression.

So "x game is crap because bad graphics" is personal. Now 720p and 20fps is fact but it may not bother some gamers.

This said, your opinion is interesting to read OP, many valid points :)
 

Sane_Man

Member
Did you even attempt to read what I wrote?

Nothing you wrote contradicts his own experience with the beta. If Ubi wanted to stand out they should have released a more compelling beta. As it stands the game has released at the same time as some of the best games in recent years. It's done nothing to earn people's time over these other better games.

It's genuinely probably the dullest beta I've ever played. Why on earth would I choose to buy the game based on the tiniest chance that ubisoft would actually surprise me for the first time in many years with a game that wasn't completely shallow and dull.
 
Nothing you wrote contradicts his own experience with the beta. If Ubi wanted to stand out they should have released a more compelling beta. As it stands the game has released at the same time as some of the best games in recent years. It's done nothing to earn people's time over these other better games.

It's genuinely probably the dullest beta I've ever played. Why on earth would I choose to buy the game based on the tiniest chance that ubisoft would actually surprise me for the first time in many years with a game that wasn't completely shallow and dull.

...He agreed with you that it's on Ubi to provide a more compelling beta, but he also said that the other areas, bosses, etc. provided an experience that proved to him that the beta isn't representative of the rest of the game. The tl;dr was basically The Trevor Project Of Games.
 
Nothing you wrote contradicts his own experience with the beta. If Ubi wanted to stand out they should have released a more compelling beta. As it stands the game has released at the same time as some of the best games in recent years. It's done nothing to earn people's time over these other better games.

It's genuinely probably the dullest beta I've ever played. Why on earth would I choose to buy the game based on the tiniest chance that ubisoft would actually surprise me for the first time in many years with a game that wasn't completely shallow and dull.

It's a good thing my post is about the game and not the beta then.
 

Zen Aku

Member
How can co-op get repetitive. do you not plan your approach? you do all the missions in same style? You clear all bases in same style? i am seriously asking.

I understand that most of the missions are clearing bases, but they're different bases with different vantage and different weak points, so two missions just can't be the same especially if you're playing in co-op. there are multiple ways to go about it.
Any games will get repetitive if you play it enough. Co-op, single player, competitive.
 

Mossybrew

Member
Did someone on first page really say the environments have no variety? Uh I don't even. This is probably one game with the most variety in environment and locale I've ever seen. And I can't take anyone who says MGSV's with its barren world looks better than this, MGSV wishes it had even 25% of environment density of Wildlands.

Also if "every encounter ends the same" for you on a game like this then that's actually your issue in that you are making it so that everytime it's the same...not the game's. The game is pretty damn open ended with its approach. It's like here's the mission objective, complete it however.

Exactly. The world has a massive variety of environments and locations, with a ton of detail and thought put into it.

And as you say, the gameplay itself is open ended. If you play without any imagination, sure every mission is going to start to feel similar after a while. I'm sure this game style just doesn't work for some people and that's understandable, but certainly not a fault of what the game is aiming to be.
 

Kentuchi

Neo Member
As someone said earlier there is no right or wrong opinion on this game, it's opinion. To me the game looks fairly competent in that it's mechanically playable and undoubtedly people would have fun playing it co-op, some would also have fun solo.

Overall not a very good game, it's the only one of it's kind in the mainstream market now (Big open world co-op shooter) if I'm not mistaken for now but it represents the worst aspects of Ubisoft design philosophy where you design a very good open world and then in terms of content it's a repetitive slog with uninspired features.

Shooting mechanics, traversal around the world, AI, story context and more. In all of these features it's actually a regressive game in the sense that it's nothing new and people are tired of it by now. But it can still deliver hours of fun though because it's a game that's competent.
 
So I just begrudgingly finished this game with a buddy after a marathon session. I cannot recommend anyone play this game. Bloated without cause in the pursuit of a large world and lots of "content" in lieu of meaningful narrative/gameplay is how I would put it. The environments are beautiful and reasonably diverse. The game has lots of weapons and weapon attachments to play with. The gunplay is solid. That's about where the praise ends.

Once you've done one or two regions missions, for the most part you've seen all the variety you're going to see. Every missions, even the higher ranking under bosses are just a variation of a few scenarios. Kill someone in a base, destroy something in a base, interrogate someone, extract someone. Tail someone and then do one of said things. Sometimes you can't be detected. The only real variations are locations.

The UI, abilities and interaction are... ok. But where it falls apart is in actually using tools, it's so annoying to have to d-pad through items and likely get yourself killed while trying to switch to things like flash-bangs that you end up generally just ignore them as spending 5-6 seconds flipping through and maybe over jumping it will likely get you killed trying to use them in combat. A simple 4 way d-pad navigation for different tools would have been nice. But it seems a lot of things were overlooked or just ignored. Even small things like seeing time in game requiring you to deploy a drone. Which is ridiculous. Not that it's a deal breaker but there's just countless little nitpicks about things that were absent or poorly planned.

The depth of the narrative at any given point is a short video, some text/audio files you can find and that's it. Even though each under-boss has a unique role, in action, how they behave, their crew or interaction with their environment is pretty much non-existent. Regions don't change depending on your actions, they are completely static and never really do anything. So don't expect anything cool in terms of reactions or changes depending on your progression in the game or on their "stories".

The game is chock full of collectible items and rebel missions but they're pretty non interesting. They seem to exist in an overbearing fashion in the game, just because they needed to fill the world and give a lengthy set of goals for those who want to die inside trying to platinum/100% the game.

The rebel missions generally just kind of dumb the game down as you progress. being able to instantly summon helicopters, drop mortar strikes or reinforcements at the drop of the hat wherever you are with relatively short cool-downs makes them replacements for actually having to plan and execute ingress, mission execution and egress. By the end of the game, even as a really good handling/pilot, we were literally crashing helicopters into bases, grabbing whatever was there and spamming drone medic abilities just to just get through it as fast as possible because it had gotten so tedious.

I can't think of anything I found really memorable about the game and it's story or why I would recommend it to anyone. I initially enjoyed it because, well I just enjoy playing games with friends in co-op more than anything. But even that wasn't enough to save the game from mediocrity. For me that's saying something, as I can bear through some really crappy co-op games, but at least generally they don't drag on unnecessarily for dozens of hours. It is very much a copy paste game. A few moving pieces for resources but everything else is generally a static copy of what you've already done repeated in varying locales.I wish they had focused on a tighter focused story around moral ambiguity and agency. Instead we got a very shallow cliched, Tom Clancy title that was a mile wide and an inch deep.

TLDR: The game was a burgeoning mess of tedious tasks in lieu of interesting dynamic elements that would have made taking down a cartel in a cliched story at least more tolerable. Even co-op isn't enough to save this game from becoming a mile wide inch deep title.
 

leng jai

Member
So I just begrudgingly finished this game with a buddy after a marathon session. I cannot recommend anyone play this game. Bloated without cause in the pursuit of a large world and lots of "content" in lieu of meaningful narrative/gameplay is how I would put it. The environments are beautiful and reasonably diverse. The game has lots of weapons and weapon attachments to play with. The gunplay is solid. That's about where the praise ends.

Once you've done one or two regions missions, for the most part you've seen all the variety you're going to see. Every missions, even the higher ranking under bosses are just a variation of a few scenarios. Kill someone in a base, destroy something in a base, interrogate someone, extract someone. Tail someone and then do one of said things. Sometimes you can't be detected. The only real variations are locations.

The UI, abilities and interaction are... ok. But where it falls apart is in actually using tools, it's so annoying to have to d-pad through items and likely get yourself killed while trying to switch to things like flash-bangs that you end up generally just ignore them as spending 5-6 seconds flipping through and maybe over jumping it will likely get you killed trying to use them in combat. A simple 4 way d-pad navigation for different tools would have been nice. But it seems a lot of things were overlooked or just ignored. Even small things like seeing time in game requiring you to deploy a drone. Which is ridiculous. Not that it's a deal breaker but there's just countless little nitpicks about things that were absent or poorly planned.

The depth of the narrative at any given point is a short video, some text/audio files you can find and that's it. Even though each under-boss has a unique role, in action, how they behave, their crew or interaction with their environment is pretty much non-existent. Regions don't change depending on your actions, they are completely static and never really do anything. So don't expect anything cool in terms of reactions or changes depending on your progression in the game or on their "stories".

The game is chock full of collectible items and rebel missions but they're pretty non interesting. They seem to exist in an overbearing fashion in the game, just because they needed to fill the world and give a lengthy set of goals for those who want to die inside trying to platinum/100% the game.

The rebel missions generally just kind of dumb the game down as you progress. being able to instantly summon helicopters, drop mortar strikes or reinforcements at the drop of the hat wherever you are with relatively short cool-downs makes them replacements for actually having to plan and execute ingress, mission execution and egress. By the end of the game, even as a really good handling/pilot, we were literally crashing helicopters into bases, grabbing whatever was there and spamming drone medic abilities just to just get through it as fast as possible because it had gotten so tedious.

I can't think of anything I found really memorable about the game and it's story or why I would recommend it to anyone. I initially enjoyed it because, well I just enjoy playing games with friends in co-op more than anything. But even that wasn't enough to save the game from mediocrity. For me that's saying something, as I can bear through some really crappy co-op games, but at least generally they don't drag on unnecessarily for dozens of hours. It is very much a copy paste game. A few moving pieces for resources but everything else is generally a static copy of what you've already done repeated in varying locales.I wish they had focused on a tighter focused story around moral ambiguity and agency. Instead we got a very shallow cliched, Tom Clancy title that was a mile wide and an inch deep.

TLDR: The game was a burgeoning mess of tedious tasks in lieu of interesting dynamic elements that would have made taking down a cartel in a cliched story at least more tolerable. Even co-op isn't enough to save this game from becoming a mile wide inch deep title.

That sounds like basically what I expected after the beta.
 

Ont

Member
I think Wildlands is the best co-op game I have played. I am enjoying it more than Destiny co-op. It is great that new players and higher level players can play seamlessly together.

It also has one my favourite open worlds. The world they have created is amazingly varied and pretty. It feels like a real place, even if it is not as interesting as the open world in the new Zelda.
 
I just want to point out that the game holds up the entire way through. I thought it would run out of ways to be fun and it would repeat environments. Nope. The variety was at the absolute max from beginning to end.

I even cared about the characters by the end.
 
Top Bottom