**Ghost Recon Wildlands** Official thread
- Thread starter Twirlywoos
- Start date
Soldato
I'll try the open beta with a few friends, see if coop makes it more enjoyable and if it does I'll probably grab it.
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 111
Can anyone comment on the ganeplay yet, even though it's only in beta. Despite Ubi being dire, this still caught my attention.
Despite being Ubisoft-published, bear in mind they have many developers all over the world working on different franchises. This one is by Ubisoft Paris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubisoft_Paris#2009.E2.80.93present
From my experience in the closed beta:
-
- Movement feels clunky and stilted, isn't smooth. Same for the transitional animations and general movement of the player character.
- Driving and flying physics are awful, all vehicles are difficult to control and behave weird.
- Performance was poop, game is terribly unoptimised.
- Game isn't very hard, enemies are a bit dim, AI unimpressive.
- Ammo is too plentiful, making the game even easier. I want to run out of ammo in the middle of a long mission and have to scavenge a weapon to keep going.
- AI teammates are mostly useless.
+
- Charactersmith and Gunsmith (the interfaces for creating your character and for modding and customising your guns (paint and mods)) is great, Gunsmith is very in-depth, allowing you to really fine-tune and personalise your gear.
- Game is much more fun when played with people, the AI teammates are fiddly to command and the temptation is to ignore them and do your own thing, apart from the (some would say overpowered) "sync-shot" feature, which allows you to take down multiple enemies simultaneously, by tagging enemies then your teammates and you fire at the same time.
I really hope the open beta is a newer, more polished build. If not, they'll drive people away in their thousands.
Soldato
Open beta is opening up the level 5 area, I'm still going to wait for release.
I think Ryan0r sums it up well.
I still enjoyed this co-op despite some obvious flaws (enemy AI is terrible sometimes and even on the hardest settings it's quite easy unless you seriously mess up)
Quit with the ubi are dire stuff, that hasn't been the case for a while now.
I still enjoyed this co-op despite some obvious flaws (enemy AI is terrible sometimes and even on the hardest settings it's quite easy unless you seriously mess up)
Quit with the ubi are dire stuff, that hasn't been the case for a while now.
Soldato
I enjoyed it but I only played it briefly on my own. The team mate AI is terrible but I just told them to stand still and went in solo. I found sneaking around quite fun and enjoyed my time trying to find routes through areas without being spotted.
It would be nice though, to have more stringent ammo limits as said above. It would make the game more challenging and need more planning.
It would be nice though, to have more stringent ammo limits as said above. It would make the game more challenging and need more planning.
Soldato
Open beta trailer, not sure why it needs one but anyway:
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 111
Thank you very much, a lot of useful info there, I think I'll wait for reviews and opinions after launch and gauge it then.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 111
Sorry, I didm't mean to offend you, but unfortunately it is.
A few year back they had the possibility to be a Rockstar Games, instead they chose to be an EA (maybe comparable to Activision, but I feel EA is more accurate, the old EA that is)
They are capable of making VERY good games, but they won't. If the adopted the Rockstar approach, both dev costs and times would go up, but so would quality and appeal, woth that sales.
I don't want to get into a debate about it, I didn't mean to offend anyone, honestly.
It's not offended, it's just wrong and an odd thing to say. While far from perfect, they have done a lot of good games plus provide ongoing support beyond what most companies do.
EA deserve that kind of criticism for dumbing down products, releasing half a game then charging for the rest, ubi really don't.
EA deserve that kind of criticism for dumbing down products, releasing half a game then charging for the rest, ubi really don't.
Its quite opposite,and i have no clue why anyone would think Ubi making full games,unless the person never played enough of they games.
While i love Division and have put 1700h in it,game only came to life after 1.4 patch,somewhere 8-9months after release.Ubi games have very nice and cool ideas,but they implementation/realisation is bad and missing goals/players expectations all the time.They saving on everything and thats why they games never feel finished,EA is miles ahead and i never felt playing,lets say Fifa,that im missing content or that content cut to make DLC's,which is what Ubi does.At launch Division servers had no lag at all,now it feels like NPC's cheating on you because of constant server lag/problems/etc because they moved to other company.
Sorry,but compare EA with Ubi is a joke comparison.
Now - i played extensively Wildlands demo,and if they only manage this sort of gameplay in 4 years,then i feel sorry for those who paid for game full price.Unless it was old version they gave to us,but since dev at the start of that beta said that it took them 4y to make it,im not holding my breath.
Since i am Ghost Recon fan and played all of them since very first one,this game feels pretty much same like FarCry,just 3rd person - big map,same/repetitive missions,dumb AI - Ubi following they system and just copy/pasting more or less same gameplay.There is no Tom Clancy in this game at all,even tho i tried very hard to like it.
They need to do a lot of work to Wildlands to look like even semi decent Tom Clancy title.
Agree with Ryan, Ubi have many different development sub-companies.
The Division - Massive Entertainment (Swedish dev owned by Ubi)
For Honor - Ubi Montreal
Watchdogs 2 - Ubi Montreal
Ghost Recon - Ubi Paris
The Division for example afaik Ubi have very little day to day dev of the game.
Deploying the standard "lol-ubi" is the same as assuming the latest super car from Lambo is going to be rubbish because it's owned by VW. Each subsidiary will be operated in different ways.
The Division - Massive Entertainment (Swedish dev owned by Ubi)
For Honor - Ubi Montreal
Watchdogs 2 - Ubi Montreal
Ghost Recon - Ubi Paris
The Division for example afaik Ubi have very little day to day dev of the game.
Deploying the standard "lol-ubi" is the same as assuming the latest super car from Lambo is going to be rubbish because it's owned by VW. Each subsidiary will be operated in different ways.
battlefront and battlefield while i enjoy them have been ripping people off over dlc for years and as for fifa, please tell me why its worth £50 every year? all the microtransactions - it should be polished, its the same damn game minus a few tweaks (see bf also)
The division has had continuous support and some free contact, the season pass didn't feel like a rip off, rainbow6 has had great support - don't get me wrong, i'm not a ubisoft fanboy, don't care for them, but they have found a way to add dlc and microtransactions without punishing people effectively who didn't buy.
Anyway back on topic, wildlands feels like a bigger farcry than a ghost recon, nothing that can't be fixed and i hope they do, it has potential - full co-op could be a hell of a lot of fun.
The division has had continuous support and some free contact, the season pass didn't feel like a rip off, rainbow6 has had great support - don't get me wrong, i'm not a ubisoft fanboy, don't care for them, but they have found a way to add dlc and microtransactions without punishing people effectively who didn't buy.
Anyway back on topic, wildlands feels like a bigger farcry than a ghost recon, nothing that can't be fixed and i hope they do, it has potential - full co-op could be a hell of a lot of fun.
There's a lot more studios than that, and none of them 'is' Ubisoft, they're all part of the wider company. Most major titles are collaborations between several studios spread across the world (the PC version of For Honor was developed here in Germany, because at Blue Byte we're a primarily PC specialist studio).
From a personal point of view I'd rather be at Ubi which incubates a lot of new ideas (many of which you'll never see), rather than just developing GTAX and selling currency cards.
Must be doing something right, lots of people enjoying our games!
Oh of course, he was just giving a small sample of recent game as an example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubisoft#Current_studiosBlue Byte will always have a special place in my heart for the Settlers series, played them from way back in the Amiga days.
Whilst that may be the case from a work point of view... Give me a rockstar game over any ubi game every day of the week purely just for the lack of bugs, superb optimisation and just amazing fun to be had from most of their games + the story etc. are always superb too. Unfortunately the same can't be said for most of ubi's games imo. The last game of ubi's that I have really enjoyed and sunk a lot of time into is the division and before that, far cry 3, everything else has been "just" ok or down right poor since then imo.