So, is this game really 'THAT' bad?
Taking it for what it is, surely it cant be that terrible, can it?
How bad are we talking here, is it Duke Nukem Forever type bad?
If I ignore the "Ghost Recon" in the title:
6/10.
Fairly solid 3pv stealth shooter with pretensions at being a tactical shooter.
Being able to turn invisible, see round corners and see through walls removes a lot of tension though and the storyline is ultimately so rote as to be completely forgetable.
On the bright side the stealth mechanics actually work pretty well and the game appears to have been playtested thoroughly. It's reasonably long also.
Ultimately a bit unsatisfying in the way it promises to be tactical and then isn't. Makes me hanker after something with a bit more crunch to it like ArmA or Ghost Recon.
If I don't:
2/10
lol
What were they thinking?
I once saw one of the head guys at Red Storm talking about tension. He was explaining that tension is a key element in what they are doing. Not knowing precisely what was around the corner or over the rise.
I also saw them explaining that the essence of the tactical play in Ghost Recon was all about improvising tactics on the fly. The RS games were about the planning phase but GR you have on-the-fly stuff with the minimap.
Also notable for me was the way the game would dump you at one corner of the map with a number of objectives and let you handle them however you liked.
So it was a tense, non-linear, tactical game.
Is the new one any of that?