🚀 go-pugleaf

>Yes it's third person with down the barrel aiming, but if it's fun
>then it's fun.

    Hearing rumblings that it's a farcry/justcause sort of game with really 
dumb ai that doesn't react to a helicopter landing behind them :)

rms 

On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 07:40:45 -0700, "rms"
<rsqui...@MOOyossmanMOO.net> wrote:

>>Yes it's third person with down the barrel aiming, but if it's fun
>>then it's fun.
>
>    Hearing rumblings that it's a farcry/justcause sort of game with really 
>dumb ai that doesn't react to a helicopter landing behind them :)
>
>rms 

Yes, but he seems to be enjoying all the quirks and weirdness, and
Mack is a weathered and bitter curmudgeon gamer like most of us so
that's saying something :)

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. 

- 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

- 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. 

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. 

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. 

>Wildlands /looks/ interesting, but it I too am on the fence, because
>of a number of issues.

    [dozens of issues]
Just a reminder that Swat 4 is now on GoG, one of the best of these tactical 
shooter games.

rms 

On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 12:48:17 -0700, "rms"
<rsqui...@MOOyossmanMOO.net> wrote:

>>Wildlands /looks/ interesting, but it I too am on the fence, because
>>of a number of issues.

>    [dozens of issues]
>Just a reminder that Swat 4 is now on GoG, one of the best of these tactical 
>shooter games.

SWAT4 is one of those games I didn't /enjoy/ but very much
/appreciated/. It's brutal reliance on proper police procedure (well,
sorta, never did have to fill out any paperwork ;-) meant it wasn't
the most fun game, but it was this same that made the game more than
the usual cookie-cutter FPS clone (it came out in 2005, were we still
calling them Doom clones back then?). 

So yeah, even though I don't expect to play it again any time soon, I
am re-buying it just to show my support for that sort of innovation
;-)