[video=youtube;uqoX0WSE-SE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqoX0WSE-SE[/video]
I really hope this game is okay because it looks like it could be fun with friends.
Looks fun, but that fake gamer banter really needs to stop.
at least GRAW was trying to be a tactical shooter
also hopefully it's just because it's unfinished but those guns look weak as fuck
This kinda seems like The Division but with waaaaay more variety in the actual gameplay and not as much of a focus on loot and stuff. And hopefully no PvP stuff so they can focus on making the world feel not pointless and have interesting missions. But yeah this was a terrible demo, that first E3 reveal demo showed what the game is waaaay better, this barely tells us anything new.
i wonder what the actual game looks like
[QUOTE=God of Ashes;50515061]i wonder what the actual game looks like[/QUOTE]
The Division looked mostly the same on release so imagine not that different. I don't really get this thing that people still go on about, Watch_Dogs was the one game that looked drastically worse on release, but almost every other Ubisoft game looked only slightly worse and still had pretty much all the stuff they promised originally.
It looks like a better GTA clone than Watchdogs.
*pop pop pop pop pop* "Alright let's try to keep this stealthy." *pop pop pop pop popopopopop* :v:
Wow if that was ARMA they'd have been dead like 20x over.
if anybody ever said "roger that" to me over voice chat i think i'd immediately quit the game
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;50515331]It looks like a better GTA clone than Watchdogs.[/QUOTE]
I think it looks more like a co-op MGSV but they really need to work on the gunplay and sounds
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;50515501]if anybody ever said "roger that" to me over voice chat i think i'd immediately quit the game[/QUOTE]
I was most annoyed by the fact that they were whispering to each other as if NPCs can actually hear you in real life.
That was one of the sloppiest gameplay demonstrations I've ever seen. The NPC's are really really dumb in this. They didn't show off any gameplay mechanics except for voip and taking down npc's. Have them take down like 100 guys "stealthily" only to have the one guy who you're trying to capture escape at the last minute unarmed? Who fucking directed this shit.
Oh my god that video is the WORST. I couldn't get through it. So much fake and staged shit, fake gameplay, fake as FUCK "gamer acting"...I'm out. Another piece of shit from ubi. When we can see the actual game, I'll check back in.
"Tough Mission"
It looks like you could solo that without ever been noticed... the AI was brain dead and deaf.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;50517442]its pretty obvious its real gameplay, its just a really generic open world game that looks like far cry 3 but in third person now
also lmao when they're talking about melting the bodies so casually and even laughing a little[/QUOTE]
Nope not always. They do something that mimics gameplay and gameplay elements. Sometimes it's player controlled, sometimes it's just straight up pre-animated. It's subtle but we're starting to see the bait and switch. Crowbcats video on Ubisoft shows off some of this technique if you're looking for it.
How Ubisoft wants you to think you'll play: Make some intricate plan to stealthily infiltrate a compound and covertly neutralizing enemy tangos on your six good kill good kill. The mission goes off without a hitch and you feel like the operatorest operators in the world, or it all goes to shit and you engage in wacky systems-driven hijinks.
How you'll actually play: Everyone takes a sniper rifle and headshots everyone or just goes in guns blazing. When the capture target shows up, knock him out with a flashbang/stun grenade/some other kind of unbalanced nonlethal gadget or just run up and cold-cock him. Extract via helicopter all day every day.
[QUOTE=Hamaflavian;50517692]How Ubisoft wants you to think you'll play: Make some intricate plan to stealthily infiltrate a compound and covertly neutralizing enemy tangos on your six good kill good kill. The mission goes off without a hitch and you feel like the operatorest operators in the world, or it all goes to shit and you engage in wacky systems-driven hijinks.
How you'll actually play: Everyone takes a sniper rifle and headshots everyone or just goes in guns blazing. When the capture target shows up, knock him out with a flashbang/stun grenade/some other kind of unbalanced nonlethal gadget or just run up and cold-cock him. Extract via helicopter all day every day.[/QUOTE]
Or you actually do the first thing if you like fun and don't just want to do every mission in the most boring way? Why even play it if you're even going to attempt to have fun? I don't know about you, but I play games to have fun, not to find the most effective way to do everything.
I want to watch this video but the fake mp chatter is unbearable. It's like driving with the sun in your eyes and your windshield is dirty
[QUOTE=simkas;50521301]Or you actually do the first thing if you like fun and don't just want to do every mission in the most boring way? Why even play it if you're even going to attempt to have fun? I don't know about you, but I play games to have fun, not to find the most effective way to do everything.[/QUOTE]
Just none of that trailer looks believable
it all looks so staged and boring and that's not at all how gameplay would end up playing out
it's just like all Ubi's other properties and trailers. They put out these "Live gameplay banter sessions" that are 100% fake and sterile and nothing like how the game ends up playing in real life. All of their titles are like this.
Maybe they wouldn't have to hold back, and intentionally fuck up at every point to make some good gameplay video if they bothered making a good mission.
[QUOTE=God of Ashes;50515061]i wonder what the actual game looks like[/QUOTE]
I think it will look better this time around.
The footage looks very rough and not super smooth and fake.
Yes, the gameplay might be staged and scripted but not overbullshited like Watch_Dogs or The Division.
Just look at the stairs at 1:30, they look absolutely horrible, the visuals are clearly not faked in this.
I hope Ubi learned their lesson and is showing the game in it's current state without creating
fake footage for the E3 only to disappoint and anger gamers when it hits the shelves.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50521568]Just none of that trailer looks believable
it all looks so staged and boring and that's not at all how gameplay would end up playing out
it's just like all Ubi's other properties and trailers. They put out these "Live gameplay banter sessions" that are 100% fake and sterile and nothing like how the game ends up playing in real life. All of their titles are like this.[/QUOTE]
I did say that it was a terrible trailer, the first reveal trailer showed all the different possibilities and tactics way more and those actually felt like what it'd be in the game for the most part.
Yuck. Nothing like OGR or Ghost Recon 2. It looks like the devs rediscovered the Mercenaries games, but made them sterile and boring. I just don't get why they couldn't make a new Ghost Recon game following the formula of the first game and its expansions, with some of the additions of GR2 (and it's 3rd person view, if they really want). Just bizarre. There was a unique, winning formula with those games. But no, do yet another vapid, lifeless open world game, with none of the tactical considerations that made the series good in the first place. Very frustrating.
No one fucking talks like this.
Ubisoft, what is with you and making cringy and cheesy as hell dialogue to demonstrate your games? It seriously makes the video unwatchable.
[QUOTE=simkas;50521301]Or you actually do the first thing if you like fun and don't just want to do every mission in the most boring way? Why even play it if you're even going to attempt to have fun? I don't know about you, but I play games to have fun, not to find the most effective way to do everything.[/QUOTE]
fun fun fun
The issue is the dominant strategy problem--when a player in a game is given some kind of strategy that works better than all their other strategies, then as a general rule they're just going to use that strategy all the time, regardless of how 'fun' it is. People think that they play video games for fun, but the paradox of it is that even though we initiate with games for fun, and we set time and money out of our lives for games for fun, in the moment-to-moment act of actually playing a game, players aren't concerned with what's fun, they concerned with what'll win them the game. That's how people are neurobiologically wired to play games.
The strength of a game system is in the strength and sophistication of its incentives. Wildlands is selling an elite high speed low drag special forces fantasy of taking on a numerically superior enemy force through smart planning and quick thinking, but if the game is so bullshit dumb and easy that smart planning and quick thinking aren't incentivized, then why go through the trouble? Why bother reconnoitering an enemy position, planning and executing intricate tactical decisions, achieving an objective, and feeling like an idiot after all of it because you could have accomplished the same thing and wasted less time and effort beetling around with unnecessary details by just kicking in the door and mowing everyone down with a machine gun? The easy bullshit answer is that you'd do it because it's 'fun', but people don't find it fun to do difficult and demanding work if it doesn't help them accomplish a goal. (But people find it really fun to do difficult and demanding work if it [I]does[/I] help them accomplish a goal that's commensurate to how difficult and demanding it is.)
[QUOTE=Hamaflavian;50522552]fun fun fun
The issue is the dominant strategy problem--when a player in a game is given some kind of strategy that works better than all their other strategies, then as a general rule they're just going to use that strategy all the time, regardless of how 'fun' it is. People think that they play video games for fun, but the paradox of it is that even though we initiate with games for fun, and we set time and money out of our lives for games for fun, in the moment-to-moment act of actually playing a game, players aren't concerned with what's fun, they concerned with what'll win them the game. That's how people are neurobiologically wired to play games.[/QUOTE]
No they're not? Maybe that's how you approach games, but it's definitely not how I play any game. If it's not fun to play then yeah, I'll just look for the most effective way, but if the different ways are fun, I'm not going to care that they might be slightly harder or less effective, I'll still do it because it's more fun. Why else do people in co-op like to fuck around and shoot each other and fuck things up on purpose even though it might cause them to fail? Because it's fun to do. I mean, MGS or Hitman games are often fairly easy to play by just running through and shooting everyone and usually that's totally a fine way and often easier, but people still like to stick to stealth or do non-lethal no-kill playthroughs and try to do things in a way that's actually challenging and not just go down the easiest route.
[QUOTE=simkas;50522283]I did say that it was a terrible trailer, the first reveal trailer showed all the different possibilities and tactics way more and those actually felt like what it'd be in the game for the most part.[/QUOTE]
Even still, the game looks bland and boring
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50522589]Even still, the game looks bland and boring[/QUOTE]
It looks like third person Far Cry with a far more open ended structure (you apparently have all the mission open right away and can do them in any order you want), bigger world and way more options of how you actually carry out missions. So yeah, if you didn't like FC3 or 4 then it would seem bad, but for someone who loved those games, this seems like really awesome way to take that formula and fit it really well into a tactical-ish squad based game.
[QUOTE=simkas;50522567]No they're not? Maybe that's how you approach games, but it's definitely not how I play any game. If it's not fun to play then yeah, I'll just look for the most effective way, but if the different ways are fun, I'm not going to care that they might be slightly harder or less effective, I'll still do it because it's more fun. Why else do people in co-op like to fuck around and shoot each other and fuck things up on purpose even though it might cause them to fail? Because it's fun to do. I mean, MGS or Hitman games are often fairly easy to play by just running through and shooting everyone and usually that's totally a fine way and often easier, but people still like to stick to stealth or do non-lethal no-kill playthroughs and try to do things in a way that's actually challenging and not just go down the easiest route.[/QUOTE]
Yes they are actually. It's an interactive medium so obviously there's an element of spontaneity and self-expression that plays into it but optimization is the central element. That's why games of all kinds, going all the way back to the beginning of history, from China, to Europe, to the Amazon rainforest, are systems driven by rules that divide people into winners and losers, and aren't just variations of Calvinball.
Non-lethal perfect-stealth playthroughs aren't playstyles, they're goals. Telling yourself that you're not allowed to kill people or get spotted isn't a moment-to-moment gameplay decision, it's an amendment you're making to the rules of the game. A non-lethal perfect-stealth playthrough is more challenging, but like I said, people like to do difficult and demanding work if it helps them achieve a goal, the goal in this instance being able to say that you've done a non-lethal perfect-stealth run. Also, MGS grades you on your performance and docks you points for getting spotted and getting into firefights, so it's hardly the case that the game system doesn't provide those kinds of incentives, it's just that incentives can take forms other than just victory.
What you should do is record yourself playing a video game, preferably on a difficulty setting commensurate to an adult, and afterwards analyze all of the different micro-decisions you make as you play and determine whether you make those decisions in the moment because you think they'll create a fun situation, or because you don't want to lose, and I think you'll find that the majority of the decisions you make are driven by your desire to not lose. You just don't notice that that's how you think because it's that deeply wired into you.
[QUOTE=simkas;50522615]It looks like third person Far Cry with a far more open ended structure (you apparently have all the mission open right away and can do them in any order you want), bigger world and way more options of how you actually carry out missions. So yeah, if you didn't like FC3 or 4 then it would seem bad, but for someone who loved those games, this seems like really awesome way to take that formula and fit it really well into a tactical-ish squad based game.[/QUOTE]
yeah I enjoyed those games I'm just not sure why I want to buy a 3rd copy of that game with very few effective gameplay changes.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
