Who gets the cover? Rime?
P.S.: I also think that a 4 for Ghost Recon is a joke. It's a really fun, entertaining game with some small flaws but many great points. I know that showing a society dominated by a drug cartel is a sensitive topic because it's something really sad and many people in real world is suffering it, but it's a fictional work. But just like thousands of other movies or games where torture, theft, kidnapping, massive amount of people being killed and other bad stuff is involved. But hey, it's Ubisoft and not Rockstar or something else so let's give them a bad score.
People need to stop tearing themselves up over a single subjective review.
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Wildlands [4]
Ahahaha, wow, that's harsh. It's uninspired but it's not exactly a terribly made game. I wonder what could've caused this low score.
lmao did you even read their Ghost Recon Wildlands review for their reasoning before calling it a joke? Just because you had a more enjoyable experience doesn't mean you can dismiss another one's take.
- "narrow and repetitive set of activities"
- "Once you've cleared out a couple of zones you may as well have cleared out all of them, and yet you'll have dozens still to go."
- "Vehicles are a bigger problem: handling is stiff for both cars and aircraft, although the latter suffer more, and vehicular physics - particularly if you go off-road - are all over the place."
- "Worse is the AI, which is simply too inconsistent to support the kind of shadowy tactical play with which Ghost Recon has always been associated.
- [Sync Shot] "Yet this too is an act of smoke and mirrors, with the logic governing your AI-controlled squadmates massaged to the point of shapelessness.
Your crew are invisible to the enemy even while standing right in front of them, regularly teleport into position, and will happily line up impossible shots." (source video: Giantbomb)
- "Tooting around from mission to mission is passably enjoyable, but it's also fundamentally repetitive and the thrill of success if quickly exhausted. Instafail stealth sections, and missions with critical VIPs and vehicles, are a poor fit, too, dampening enthusiasm with regular game-over screens."
- ..."despite Wildlands' eagerness for you to head online, public matchmaking is a crapshoot."
- Wildlands succeeds only where success is a matter of spreading a big enough budget over a large enough area. It is vast, its landscapes are gorgeous, its weapon-customisation system is extensive, and it provides an endless list of things to do. Yet in the areas money can't buy, it stumbles; its driving model, AI, and repetitive mission structure all cry out for more elegant design, and combine to leave Wildlands in the strange position of looking expensive but feeling cheap."
- "Its blithely misjudged tone and directionless structure suggests design on autopilot, and empty bigness is no longer enough to carry an open-world game on its own. The game's premise may come straight from Trump's paranoid playbook, but its hollow extravagance is arguably the more damaging point of comparison."
The Post Script is particularly scathing, as Wildlands doesn't come as ironic or self-aware and is all too self-serious. The tone is a misfire.
"This would require the Ghosts themselves to be the butt of the joke, however - a joke that Team America already told, more effectively, 13 years ago - and Wildlands isn't willing to go that far. Instead, the attempt is made to present you and your squadmates as darkly funny. Party banter includes back-slapping digressions on topics like preferred torture methods, funny things about corpses, and wistfully remembered war crimes."
"To be fair to Wildlands, it's far from the first game to turn atrocity into entertainment. Yet it is so openly callous about its competing urges that it unintentionally shines a light on the issue. Its tastelessness should amount to a form of public service: Ubisoft went there, so now no other studio needs to."
(but then again, why would that be a reason to not play the game?!)
