Topic: Ghost Recon: Wildlands

[MysterD]

Anyone playing GR Wildlands during free weekend Open Beta this weekend on Steam and/or Uplay?

This doesn't really feel like a GR game, but I do like it. Feels like GTA, Watch Dogs, Borderlands series, Splinter Cell series, and Division.

EDIT:
This really feels like a mixture of many different games: GTA+Watch Dogs (3rd person open-world shooter w/ vehicles); Far Cry 3+4 (open world shooter w/ missions everywhere); Splinter Cell (some stealth gameplay - i.e. interrogations, knock-outs, sync-shots here reminds me of Conviction's marked kills); and Borderlands series (4-player co-op allowed, but you can have 3 AI's with you).

I also really wish these newer games used a Cover button to put me in+out of cover like other games did (i.e. Kane and Lynch 2, GTA4, Gears of War 1, etc etc). Rise of the TR didn't always auto-snap to cover properly & neither does GR Wildlands. Didn't dev's learn from why auto-cover doesn't always stick correctly from Kane + Lynch 1: Dead Men?

KB/mouse driving is clunky w/ KB + car physics feel too loose. Make sure if you have a controller, that you enable the controller support in the menu's. Driving cars normally are better w/ gamepads, anyways. Still doesn't help here that the handling + physics are a bit off & loose, too - even w/ the controller.

Actually, TBH - it feels like a lot of this game is off. It's trying to do so much, it just can't seem to get everything right. Its scope here is mixing so many elements + gameplay styles here - jack of all trades, but master of none.

Still, it's good - but, it just ain't anything truly special. And also, it doesn't feel like a GR game to me.

[Xessive]

I played the Closed Beta and the Open Beta.

While it is an open world game, which comes with all the caveats of that gameplay format, it is a Tom Clancy title. Based on my experience with the betas it is shaping up to be a worthy Ghost Recon game. It basically takes the principles of the first GR game (2003), modernizes it, and puts in 3rd person, and instead of individual large maps it's in one massive open world.

I played the betas on PC with gamepad as well as M+KB. There are some KB quirks like two separate keys for crouch and prone rather than one key to control your stance (tap to crouch, hold to prone) but overall it's a pretty smooth experience. The open beta is much better shape than the closed beta before it; it's a lot more polished and connectivity is solid.

To put it bluntly, it's basically the game we all expected when we were first shown The Division. It's what Tom Clancy fans, like myself, were praying for when it turned out The Division had bullet sponges and dice-rolls. The Division has its niche, but Ghost Recon Wildlands  is the tactical fantasy I've been craving for years.

Here's a video of some coop gameplay with friends:
https://youtu.be/mIrDzzoGIDA?t=3m20s

[MysterD]

See, that's the other thing - this game is in 3rd person (also like GR: Future Soldier). This isn't a FPS (GRAW1+2 PC versions were FPS). For me, GR always felt like a tactical FPS to me.

Though, it's cool there's an Ironsights button for the KB/mouse (to switch in 1st person when you want to aim) and that there's also an Option in the Menus for when you do a regular Aim it goes right automatically into Ironsights. Personally, eh - if I want Ironsights to jump into 1st person on the aim, I'll hit that button myself. More hot-keys + options, the better.

I am glad that on Normal difficulty, you basically take a hit or 2 or 3, you're toast. In that regards, it feels like a GR game to me. But w/ the huge open-world, vehicles, and other things - it feels like it's trying to be more than a GR game here. It really doesn't feel like it excels at anything here, either - it just feels like a mash-up of a bunch of different games altogether. Main missions don't feel like they're anything that special, either - feels like just another mission, for the most part.

Physics + handling on the cars here suck. Too loose, whether KB/mouse (even worse) or controller (better option, make sure this is enabled). They should tighten this up a bit.

Performance is all over the place, though. At 1440p w/ some Medium + some High settings on my i7 950 Bloomfield + GTX 970, I had to use an in-game 40FPS cap to get it stable. More games should have multiple options for in-game FPS caps like this game does (i.e. in-game caps allowed at every 10 FPS intervals: 30 FPS, 40FPS, 50FPS, 60FPS, etc) and Dishonored 2 (options in-game for 30FPS, 45 FPS cap, 60FPS cap, etc). Otherwise, with a 60FPS in-game cap, GR Wildlands was b/t 35-60FPS with drops + rises like crazy.

It's ambitious as hell w/ so many different elements here, but it doesn't feel like it's a master of any of them.

Still, it's solid. Will definitely get it, when it drops in price.

[Xessive]

The first Ghost Recon (and its expansions) were basically classic Rainbow Six in wide open areas; first person (with no gun model) real-time tactical shooter.

GRAW is when things started to change. That's when they released the console versions (Xbox and PS2) and they split the game with PC getting the first person and consoles with the third person camera. They repeated this with GRAW2. Aside from PC, GR has since been considered a third person tactical shooter and its popularity grew on the consoles.

This carried on to GRFS, which became purely third person but it also had ironsights viewing options.

I don't mind the decision to stick to third person; it doesn't discount the tactical nature of the gameplay. Considering the scale of the game world and the crucial need for spatial awareness, third person makes sense for the franchise.

The open beta certainly had its bugs and performance issues but that's to be expected. Hopefully, the game is more stable on release.

[MysterD]

Is it me, or did it seem like GR:W was also lacking the option to give orders to your AI members?

In GRAW PC versions, you could point your gun where you wanted your AI to go, hit the hot-key, and your AI would go there.
Or saw bring up the menu and have them follows orders.

It also seems like GR:W had more commands for your AI squadmates, as well - for positioning and all.

[Xessive]

Is it me, or did it seem like GR:W was also lacking the option to give orders to your AI members?

In GRAW PC versions, you could point your gun where you wanted your AI to go, hit the hot-key, and your AI would go there.
Or saw bring up the menu and have them follows orders.

It also seems like GR:W had more commands for your AI squadmates, as well - for positioning and all.

Yeah, that's been the case since Future Soldier. They dropped individual control of your teammates and let the AI take over.

In Wildlands You basically just issue "rules of engagement" orders like "Hold" "Fire" "Be Quiet" "Regroup" and of course sync shots.

It can be limited but at the same time liberating not having to worry about micromanaging. You set out to complete your objectives assured that your team will comply and work with you rather than fudge up the operation; unless you're in multiplayer where the AI disappears and you're at the mercy of whoever is in your game.

[MysterD]

Yeah, that's been the case since Future Soldier. They dropped individual control of your teammates and let the AI take over.

In Wildlands You basically just issue "rules of engagement" orders like "Hold" "Fire" "Be Quiet" "Regroup" and of course sync shots.

It can be limited but at the same time liberating not having to worry about micromanaging. You set out to complete your objectives assured that your team will comply and work with you rather than fudge up the operation; unless you're in multiplayer where the AI disappears and you're at the mercy of whoever is in your game.

Limiting the party commands + strategic/tactical elements makes it more like other shooters and less of a GR title. Many other shooters usually have very limited control to no control of your squad-mates. If I wanted other shooters, I would've played...well, other shooters. One of the elements that make a GR game such a title is...well, much more limited.

I guess, I probably shouldn't be too surprised. Much more niche titles like Dragon Age: Origins + Dungeon Siege 2 went much more action-y and shedded quite a bit of their strategic elements in their sequel (Dragon Age 2 + Dungeon Siege 2). Of course, both of the sequel's follow-ups - i.e. Dragon Age: Inquisition + Dungeon Siege II: Broken World expansion - pretty much brought back some of the strategic elements, but not all of them; trying to mix both of the improved action-y elements + strategic elements.

[MysterD]

RockPaperShotgun w/ their "Wot I Think" on GR:WL

[MysterD]

Kotaku - Review on GR:WL.

The result is rubbish. Wildlands’ gameplay is too chaotic to call back to Tom Clancy classics like Rainbow Six or the series’ earlier titles. Its politics are too vapid to compete with the Splinter Cell series’ pulpy yet prescient narratives. Wildlands wants to be everything. It succeeds at being nothing.

[Xessive]

That's rough.

Anyway, I'm having a blast. Wildlands' redeeming quality is its drop-in co-op. But in truth it's best if you have friends. The random online co-op games I've joined are generally awful. It's supposed to match you up with players that have similar play styles but I always end up with gung-ho Rambo-types who insist on blasting any vehicle I enter. Unless I've horribly misjudged my own approach to stealth gameplay there's something wrong with their matchmaking algorithm.

When it comes to the gunplay, Wildlands gives you a decent arsenal to unlock and find the weapons that best suit your play style. The guns are not about stats like in The Division, they're all about finding your weapon-of-choice for the objective. You want to camp and snipe targets for your team? Equip a sniper rifle. Want to get up close and person? Equip a shotgun or a SMG. The weapons are not about being better or worse; they're about what's appropriate or what's the player comfortable using. I can appreciate that.

The one main criticism I have is that a lot of the game feels like a bunch of wasted opportunities. I can understand a reviewer complaining that the game feels bland or lacks variety. But complaints like "The game is too generic unlike The Division" make no sense because The Division had little character interaction and had just as much of a "generic" look as GR Wildlands or any military shooter out there.

GR Wildlands is vast and gorgeous. It can get repetitive but with the right people each situation can approached differently and feels great, particularly when you go full-on tactical, communicate, and plan your shots. That's the Ghost Recon I love.

[MysterD]

Remember, my thoughts deal w/ GR:WL Open Beta. I ain't seen if they improved car handling and maybe added mroe features.

I agree w/ Kotaku on this "Wildlands wants to be everything. It succeeds at being nothing."

It wears a lot of hats here - but for me, it lacks party/AI control like that of GRAW, if you are playing w/ the AI.

I do think the game is good b/c it is trying to do so much - literally, it is trying to be at least 5 different games here (GTA w/ 3rd person action game w/ vehicles; some GR elements of some tactical shooter elements, old + new; Borderlands w/ 4 player stuff; stealth elements like Watch Dogs + Splinter Cell; Far Cry 3+4 open-world shooter).

Problem is - there are so many open-world games like this on the market already trying to combine so many other elements + genres, it's just going to be another one of those.

Still, if I catch it cheap - I'd get it. It's good, just not great.

[MysterD]

**** SPOILERS in below said link *****

Destructoid is pretty harsh on this game, in this review.

[Xessive]

Destructoid is pretty harsh on this game, in this review.

That review needs a spoiler tag. It also reads like a toddler's temper tantrum after being told he can't go to Disneyland.

There are some pretty irritating bugs, the most frequent of which is the seemingly random disabling of the drone and binoculars. No idea why, the drone and binocular buttons stop working, and people are complaining about it in the official forums.

In terms of the mission structures, they're all over the place. The missions feel like they were designed by 3 completely different developers. The story missions run the gamut from fantastic to downright idiotic. I was surprised to have some "insta-fail" stealth missions, where the mission fails upon detection, but I didn't struggle too much with them, even in co-op.

Then there's one particular mission that takes everything you hate about escort missions and ramps it up. Basically, you have to protect a target on his way to the airport but here's the catch: you can't take him to the airport yourself, he has to get there on his own; you have to stay within range, if he gets too far you fail (even he makes it to the airport); to top it off the jackass is suicidal, consistently smashing his vehicle into enemy vehicles, he'll keep trashing his vehicle and hop out exposing himself to enemy fire. It's a ridiculous mission and incredibly difficult to complete with the AI teammates, you need an intelligent player backing you up.

The game has its frustrations, undoubtedly, but it's a good game overall.

[MysterD]

@Xessive

GR: Wildlands during Open Beta struck me as good, but not great. So much in scope w/ so many different elements from so many different games and making most of them work, seemed ambitious. But, it all felt like it lacked key GR elements that I really wanted to be in a GR-branded game.

But, it just seems like 2017 is shaping up to be the year of "Good, but not great" games. My impressions from the GR: Wildlands (from Open Beta) and many peoples' opinions on Mass Effect: Andromeda already seem like they're shaping up in that direction. I wonder how many of these "Good, but not great" games we might get here in 2017.

Granted, Homefront: The Revolution came out last year - but there's another "Good, but not great" game that I played (played some in 2016 + finished in 2017).