🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 05 Feb 2017 10:06:05 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Feb 2017 08:37:21 -0500, Rin Stowleigh
><rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Despite having been a fan of past Ghost Recon games, I was planning on
>>passing on this one, mostly because of the lack of competitive
>>multiplayer.  The gameplay vid's I've seen didn't grab me.
>>
>>However, Mack's review is making me reconsider.  Huge open world,
>>comparisons to the FarCry series, etc.
>>
>>Yes it's third person with down the barrel aiming, but if it's fun
>>then it's fun.
>>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0nK5JJqp8U
>
>Wildlands /looks/ interesting, but it I too am on the fence, because
>of a number of issues.
>
>- It's an Ubisoft open-world game. I mean, I enjoyed Assassin's Creed,
>Farcry, and Watch_Dogs but they all are very samey. Presumably Ubisoft
>isn't going to dump a ton of collectibles everywhere, but then
>again... it's Ubisoft so who knows. 

The part of this formula that appeals to me the least (aside from it
being third person) is probably the whole "scope it out, tag the
enemy, then follow the dots".  I think that formula is getting tired
and breaks immersion. 

>- It's a Ubisoft Ghost Recon game. The original Ghost Recon games were
>awesome tactical shooter, probably not topped until Operation
>Flashpoint and the later ARMA games. Ubisoft's take on the series have
>been little better than reskinned Call of Duty clones. This may have
>garnered them better sales, but at the cost of the series uniqueness

Nah, for tactical shooter fans, Ubi has done a nice job on the Rainbow
Six series.  With the exception of R6:Lockdown which sucked, the
series drops a smelly fecal load atop the Bohemia Interactive
attempts.  I've had a lot of fun with all the Ghost Recon games up to
this point, including Future Soldier and Phantoms, although admittedly
that was mostly in multiplayer.  Call of Duty has always been about
run-n-gun mechanics.  Neither the R6 or Ghost Recon series ever were.
If you look at screenshots, comparisons could be made to be sure, but
gameplay in Ubi tactical shooters has always been very different from
CoD.  CoD has never qualified as a tactical shooter, its more "twitch"
play.

>- It's a Ubisoft semi-online game similar to The Crew, The Division
>and Watch_Dogs. You can play these games single-player, but they are
>really designed for co-op multiplayer, and this results in compromises
>to the single-player components. If you are into multiplayer then this
>probably you won't mind this, but I prefer a well-paced experience
>with atmosphere and character and these are usually casualties when
>involving other players. The two styles can be successfully combined,
>but I don't think Ubisoft has the chops for it.
>
>The video preview linked by Rin also brings up various other issues
>including wonky cover-based shooting, awful driving mechanics and
>repetitive gameplay. 

The bad driving mechanics do concern me.  Yet, he says the shooting
mechanics are very good, so maybe I could live with it.  Or maybe it
will improve before release (he's previewing the beta in that vid).

>Personally, I'd love a huge open-world tactical shooter but I do not
>have much confidence that this game is going to be anything more than
>average at best. Wildlands seems to want to offer something along the
>lines of "Metal Gear 5" - with its huge sandbox - but I think
>ultimately we're just getting another reskin of FarCry crossed with
>the Call of Duty multiplayer community.