New Ghost recon... Breakpoint coming

Gaming
43

That’s my attitude as well.

I do not look at the title of the game, see “Tom Clancy’s”, and “Ghost Recon” and assume what the gameplay will be like and then feel awful because it does not match the original title back in 2001.

What GR was died with the final expansion to the original game, just as what R6 was died after Urban Ops. R6 Raven Shield was a great game, but it wasn’t the original R6 anymore. GRAW 1 and 2 were fun enough, but they weren’t GR anymore.
R6 Vegas wasn’t Raven Shield, but I liked them well enough coop MP. Wildlands wasn’t GRAW, but I liked it.

If the game was called “Colonel Sanders’ Fried Chicken Commandos” but was otherwise identical to this, would people feel the same or think it was a remarkably good game for one with such a title?

I evaluate games based on their own merits or lack thereof and not on a preconception based on the history of that name. No one is going to make a game like the old R6 or GR or insert name of old 90s game here again. Time and tech have moved on and this is what games are like now.

People don’t have to like them, the old games still work if they want to play them, but if the complaint boils down to “it’s not sufficiently like Ye Olde Game With the Same Franchise Name for me” it really doesn’t hold up. Companies exploiting a name they hold the copyright to without honoring that heritage is de rigeur for corporations in the 21st century. Evaluate the game based on whether it’s enjoyable for what it does and buy it or don’t. Of COURSE it’s not like the old ones. None of them are anymore.

3 Likes
44

Agree. You would think there are enough people out there in the older demographic for someone somewhere to put one out. I don’t even need 2019 graphics. I’d be fine with some 2010 graphics and just a little more AI variety. Then just keep everything else the same.

But I guess it isn’t so, since no one is doing it…

1 Like
45

There is one, closest thing to it anyway, Ground Branch. Still in early access but very good.

1 Like
46

Correct me if I’m wrong, but GB has either no AI or no AI worth noting.

I have zero interest in, and will never entertain paying money for, a title that requires me fighting against other humans to play. Not saying it must have a full campaign necessarily, I’ve put 200 hrs into R6 Siege without one, but I can play that with or without friends against AI–which is all that I do.

Should GB get to the point where it has the same abilities as R6 Siege or any of the other GR/R6 titles where I can play solo or with friends against AI, then I will consider it.

1 Like
48

No, it has AI in it. They were ultra accurate terminators originally but have improved now, I enjoy clearing the maps in terrorist hunt.
I detest Siege though as that doesn’t have any offline play, it’s all online.

1 Like
49

Sure it does, the terrorist hunt works offline just fine.
The problem is you don’t have AI teammates like you did in previous R6 games, and the lowest difficulty setting is not balanced for 1 player (the AI love to enter the room for 2-3 directions at once at times, and no one can do that alone).

But I play T Hunt coop and it excels for that.

If GB has the same T Hunt (and coop) as the R6 games had, then I’m interested.

50

Speak for yourself :yum:

51

Really? You can take on 57 tangos in disarm bomb by yourself?

52

Just call him…Saurus…Rhino Saurus.

1 Like
53

Only 57???

2 Likes
54

Sure? Why not. Kill a TANGO, Save; Kill a TANGO, Save :grin:

…I’m pretty sure I did that a few times in one of the RB6 series…something about the Olympics in Australia…

55
1 Like
56

“Laws of physics and logic need not apply.” :rofl::rofl:

57

In some of the previous ones, yes. Siege doesn’t do things the same way.

There is no saving.

1 Like
58

The press reviews of Breakpoint have been unkind.

1 Like
59

Good. The game is crap and Ubi needs to be discouraged from this kind of cash-grabbing cynicism.

1 Like
60

Ghost Recon Breakpoint free weekend upcoming. Also, the game is 85% off.

Heard a lot of bad things about the game, but it’s allegedly been improved lately. I’ll try it for free and see what’s what.

2 Likes
61

Depends what you’re looking for.

If you want an Arma 3 replacement, no. There is nothing out there that qualifies.
If you want something in the vein of GR Wildlands, or The Division with more realistic weapons, yes.

Based on what it is, I like it, not based on what it isn’t.

1 Like
62

My implacable hostility towards this game is based on the cynicism, greed and laziness that defined it from the beginning. I was in the Beta, as I have been for so many tac-shooters; many of them have been disappointing or ill-conceived but this was a whole different level of failure. Only if you have utter contempt for your audience can you design, market and release a thing like this under the Ghost Recon moniker. Ubi’s arrogance in assuming they could sell us a truly dismal, half-finished, ultra-monetised mess of an open-world game with no team AI and micro-transactioned up to the hilt was breathtaking. I’m sure they’ve made it better (they couldn’t have made it any worse) but it still has all the DNA of the cynical dumpster-fire it always was. Only by staying away from this kind of craven attempt to separate gamers from their money – including when it goes on sale – can we signal to Ubisoft that we are not idiots who can be spoon-fed whatever abominations they target at us with their sophisticated marketing. This is easily the saddest and most incompetent AAA game I’ve had the misfortune to play in thirty years and the worst thing is that, until it fell on its a$$, it’s obvious that it represented Ubisoft’s business model for the future of all the tactical franchises it fully intends to monetise and ruin.

63

I can see you were biased from the beginning on the basis of the title being “Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon” in that it implied a particular type of game.

It is a franchise, not a label. In the same way that there are Star Wars games where you fight in first person, play an RPG in 3rd person, fly a ship in space in 1st or 3rd person, or play an RTS or strategy game in isometric view…even play chess with SW characters replacing the pieces or pinball with images and sounds from films…there is no definitive “this is a Tom Clancy/GR game” template.

When GRAW came out over a decade ago it was obvious where the series was headed. Rainbow 6 preceded GR and made numerous changes along the way, with the R6 Vegas titles being unrecognizable as R6 and Siege, while a good game, really having zero to do with the planning stage/positioning stage/storm the objective and take down the tangos in 10 seconds execution stage of the original titles.

As the series progress, Ubi has made changes to the formula in pursuit of one goal only–broadening the appeal. They spend more to make more. There can be no doubt that Wildlands and Breakpoint cost a LOT more $$ than the original GR or even the GRAW series. They need to increase sales to compensate, sell add-ons/season passes, and monetize them.

Why? Because I paid $70 for F-19 in a mall in 1989, and I paid $70 for GR Breakpoint in 2019. Name one other item out there that clearly has increased in quality and production value by that much with no change in price in 30 years…while inflation means it’s actually far cheaper. That F-19 purchase was like $150 in 2020 dollars. Conversely, GR would’ve been only $34 in 1989.

People will not accept going over that price point without a continuing flow of content, hence the propensity of season passes. It’s psychological, not absolute. Minimum wage in 1989 was under $3.50, making F-19 cost 20 hours, or half a week’s wage for the base worker (which is what I was back then). GR today costs about 8 hours of wage at today’s minimum wage. That means in real terms it costs less than half what F-19 did, and F-19’s team was TINY compared to what is making AAA games today.

So, TL;DR is that unless you’re willing to spend $150 per game with NO extra content, but still buy several a year in your particular niche (and none of that “I can buy one every 18 months or so and I’m good” garbage), publishers have no choice but to make them appeal to as large an audience as possible. Well short of a million copies sold was great for F-19 with a small team but would bankrupt Ubi if R6 or GR did that. They can’t make a game with AAA budgets that appeal to only hard-core players.

1 Like