Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Wildlands - 60$ experience
57 replies, posted
[I]Wow,[/I] that's astoundingly bad.
[editline]6th February 2017[/editline]
I actually thought this game looked really neat, too. The whole concept seems way too ambitious for the dev team looking at some of the corners they've cut.
Ubisoft needs to figure some shit out, their games are always sold on decently fun sounding promises, but their inability to polish and lack of detail makes most of their games feel so soulless.
I think the only game I've enjoyed by them recently has been Watch Dogs 2 but since it is a sequel they've had an opportunity to improve on everything.
did all their talent go to the Steep and WD2 studios?
[QUOTE=Saphirx;51784521]did all their talent go to the Steep and WD2 studios?[/QUOTE]
I thought Steep was pretty buggy.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;51780995]Honestly the game concept looked neat, but then I remembered it's an open-world Ubisoft game.[/QUOTE]
It's sad that Ubisoft is now synonymous with "sterile generic open-world with zero interactivity beyond mission work."
EDIT: what makes it more sad is how beautiful the world is.
[QUOTE=nox;51785056]It's sad that Ubisoft is now synonymous with "sterile generic open-world with no depth beyond mission work."[/QUOTE]
Don't forget unfinished. That can go with their other games too though.
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;51783372]i just want a game like MGSV but coop that isnt zombie shit
is that so much to ask[/QUOTE]
Wildlands is pretty much that. I won't defend anything in the video, but I will say I had a lot of fun with it this weekend solo and with friends.
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;51783372]i just want a game like MGSV but coop that isnt zombie shit
is that so much to ask[/QUOTE]
Have you tried Future Soldier? Maybe not that much of mgsv, but I enjoyed coop stealthing
[QUOTE=Bradyns;51783900]It's tarnishing the brand and his name.[/QUOTE]
pretty sure he's a pile of dust after rolling around in his grave after everything ubisoft has done
[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;51783575]It's really surprising how fucking [I]sloppy[/I] Ubisoft is and they still somehow manage to survive in the market[/QUOTE]
The unfortunate truth is, they can afford to be sloppy. The thing is, a majority of the problems that their games have(or at least the ones shown in the video, for example), the average consumer either doesn't care about, or never notices/experiences it. Although, one thing I do have to say is, the idea that a beta is ALWAYS a representation of the final product a month from release is just not true, while yes the chances are that it's probably a more recent build, it's entirely possible that it's a MUCH older build. It's not uncommon practice in the AAA industry(especially when you're trying to release a beta with limited features) to choose a "stable" build months in advance for a planned beta release, and thus have a lot of bugs in it that have since been addressed.
GTA Vice City has better helicopter and motorcycle mechanics than this lazily developed garbage
Shame it will sell like hotcakes because of the Ubisoft marketing machine.
would say its a beta but this game comes out in less than a month and there's no way there going to be able to fix everything within that period.
[QUOTE=Deaglez7;51787208]would say its a beta but this game comes out in less than a month and there's no way there going to be able to fix everything within that period.[/QUOTE]
Usually beta is for fine tuning and polishing. Most gameplay systems are already implemented and cannot be changed without delay.
If Ubi is fucking smart they'll delay this game and fix this shit.
I was looking forward to this after The Division ended up looking like a grindfest instead of a tactical open world shooter, but now I'm likely not getting this either, unless the game shows major improvement.
Not that interested in this game, but most of the flaws in that video seemed pretty insignificant.
I was kinda looking forward for this Ghost Recon, i have fond memories of playing on of them on my 360 waaaay back, but the beta really felt disappointing and horrendous.
[QUOTE=TuLiq;51789091]Not that interested in this game, but most of the flaws in that video seemed pretty insignificant.[/QUOTE]
Like I said at the top of the page, I'm not going to defend or excuse it, but I played quite a bit of the beta (practically all day Sunday) and didn't notice most of those bugs. They should be fixed, but to me they weren't that significant.
I'm probably not buying the game at launch unless performance has seen a notable improvement. On low settings it ran worse and looked way worse than Witcher 3 and Battlefield One which run great on my system.
When does the license to Tom Clancy's name run out? Is this Ubisoft's Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 5?
This doesn't look like a good game but holy hell some of these complaints are fucking stupid
"rotor blades are fake" yeah check out every other fucking game with helicopters in em
[QUOTE=xalener;51790923]This doesn't look like a good game but holy hell some of these complaints are fucking stupid
"rotor blades are fake" yeah check out every other fucking game with helicopters in em[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, like GTA, I loved standing in rotor blades in those games, imagine if they actually went the trouble to make them kill you, I would totally have missed plataforming in between helicopters.
I'm not even talking about that, I'm talking about how the dude took issue with how they executed the visuals of spinning helicopter blades.
[QUOTE=xalener;51791367]I'm not even talking about that, I'm talking about how the dude took issue with how they executed the visuals of spinning helicopter blades.[/QUOTE]
Okay so he was mistaken in the explanation but the fact that you can stand on the blades is still unacceptable. Shit like that might seem "small" but it adds up when the entire experience feels like minimum effort garbage.
With more polish this would be a pretty fun game and i was kinda looking forward to it, i hope it's true that it was a very old build.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.