Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Frontline

[Armenius]

Ubisoft trying their hand once again at a battle royale, this time with the Ghost Recon franchise. The game is free to play with no apparent release date yet. Closed testing starts October 14 for Europeans.

 

[Flogger23m]

If it was more of their take on Battlefield I would've considered it. Free to play though? Not a chance. Battle royal? Also pass.

Seems like they even threw in the towel with attempting to turn GR into an open world action game. It isn't GR at all if there aren't missions to tackle and guys to lead/command.

 

[polydiol]

Nothing but a cash grab. Ubisoft doesn’t care if anybody plays the game - what Ubisoft wants is to get people to buy shit like guns and skins for the game so they can get that micro transaction money like fortnight or cod

 

[Ripskin]

I do not have high hopes after Wildlands horrid multiplayer and the follow up GR game that had its good points but blarg overall. Not speaking of the other BR attempt. I will say at least during the initial portions of the trailer it seemed to be trying to look more tactical than run and gun. The horrid Fortnite buildings crap ruined it so we'll see.

 

[Dan_D]

I never played Ghost Recon prior to Wildlands. I've been a huge fan of Wildlands and even Breakpoint despite its rough start. I've got hundreds of hours in each. I don't care for their PvP and I am not a fan of battle royal games either so this looks like a hard pass for me.

 

[M76]

I never played Ghost Recon prior to Wildlands. I've been a huge fan of Wildlands and even Breakpoint despite its rough start. I've got hundreds of hours in each. I don't care for their PvP and I am not a fan of battle royal games either so this looks like a hard pass for me.

Ditto

 

[Q-BZ]

I never played Ghost Recon prior to Wildlands. I've been a huge fan of Wildlands and even Breakpoint despite its rough start. I've got hundreds of hours in each. I don't care for their PvP and I am not a fan of battle royal games either so this looks like a hard pass for me.

Same although I did play a couple of the GR's prior to those and liked them, too. I guess this is another series I can write off.

 

[Comixbooks]

Junk looks just like Breakpoint no way is anyone going to play this.

 

[Armenius]

Launch of the closed beta has been delayed following intense backlash from the community.

https://www.videogameschronicle.com...st-has-been-postponed-following-fan-backlash/

 

[Q-BZ]

Launch of the closed beta has been delayed following intense backlash from the community.

https://www.videogameschronicle.com...st-has-been-postponed-following-fan-backlash/

LOL. Good.

 

[Flogger23m]

Launch of the closed beta has been delayed following intense backlash from the community.

https://www.videogameschronicle.com...st-has-been-postponed-following-fan-backlash/

I understand but I don't see the point. Post 2010 expecting Ubisoft to make something like a proper GR game is idiotic. This is expected. If anything, Ubisoft going back and making a spiritual successor to GR would be shocking. The game slid off into mainstream action shooter territory with Future Soldier, that came out in 2012.

The last time Ubisoft even tried was with Advanced Warfighter 1/2 in 2006 and 2007. The PC versions were unique to the platform and catered more towards the GR fanbase although were a more simplified streamlined experience. I'd still consider them lighter tactical shooters. They were FPS and not TPS, didn't have regenerating health/medkits, bigger more open maps, weapons were much more lethal and much more accurate, and GRAW 2 actually had semi decent commands. GRAW 1 was a bit too simplified but basic commands were still a necessity to not get mowed down. The console versions were straight up action games, cover shooters. That carried over into Future Soldier, Wildlands and its ill fated sequel.

Sure, Frontlines is MP only but at this point why does it matter? Ubisoft has zero intent to stay true to the original series. The new Rainbow Six game is a zombie blaster. Unless you've been living under a rock for the last 15 years, this shouldn't be news.

 

[Dan_D]

I understand but I don't see the point. Post 2010 expecting Ubisoft to make something like a proper GR game is idiotic. This is expected. If anything, Ubisoft going back and making a spiritual successor to GR would be shocking. The game slid off into mainstream action shooter territory with Future Soldier, that came out in 2012.

The last time Ubisoft even tried was with Advanced Warfighter 1/2 in 2006 and 2007. The PC versions were unique to the platform and catered more towards the GR fanbase although were a more simplified streamlined experience. I'd still consider them lighter tactical shooters. They were FPS and not TPS, didn't have regenerating health/medkits, bigger more open maps, weapons were much more lethal and much more accurate, and GRAW 2 actually had semi decent commands. GRAW 1 was a bit too simplified but basic commands were still a necessity to not get mowed down. The console versions were straight up action games, cover shooters. That carried over into Future Soldier, Wildlands and its ill fated sequel.

Sure, Frontlines is MP only but at this point why does it matter? Ubisoft has zero intent to stay true to the original series. The new Rainbow Six game is a zombie blaster. Unless you've been living under a rock for the last 15 years, this shouldn't be news.

I'm not surprised. I really didn't play any Ubisoft titles beyond a brief stint with Assassin's Creed 1 and that was about it. I am not one for open world games and generally speaking, the older Ghost Recon titles never appealed to me. I'm a big fan of Wildlands and Breakpoint, but I got the former for free with a video card. I'd never have tried it otherwise. That said, I've watched the Ghost Recon forums where Ubisoft claims it's listening to its fans while doing almost the polar opposite. They are tone deaf as hell and I'm not surprised by this battle royal crap.

 

[MavericK]

Jeez, how much more generic-looking can you get. Ubi has really shit all over the Tom Clancy franchise.

It sounds like most fans either way GR to go back to its roots (closer to original RB6) or another Splinter Cell game.

 

[M76]

I understand but I don't see the point. Post 2010 expecting Ubisoft to make something like a proper GR game is idiotic. This is expected. If anything, Ubisoft going back and making a spiritual successor to GR would be shocking. The game slid off into mainstream action shooter territory with Future Soldier, that came out in 2012.

The last time Ubisoft even tried was with Advanced Warfighter 1/2 in 2006 and 2007. The PC versions were unique to the platform and catered more towards the GR fanbase although were a more simplified streamlined experience. I'd still consider them lighter tactical shooters. They were FPS and not TPS, didn't have regenerating health/medkits, bigger more open maps, weapons were much more lethal and much more accurate, and GRAW 2 actually had semi decent commands. GRAW 1 was a bit too simplified but basic commands were still a necessity to not get mowed down. The console versions were straight up action games, cover shooters. That carried over into Future Soldier, Wildlands and its ill fated sequel.

Sure, Frontlines is MP only but at this point why does it matter? Ubisoft has zero intent to stay true to the original series. The new Rainbow Six game is a zombie blaster. Unless you've been living under a rock for the last 15 years, this shouldn't be news.

Wildlands is anything but an action game when played on the hardest difficulty. It is still a tactical shooter, it just doesn't hold your hand saying that. And after they patched out the division shit from Breakpoint, it is basically the same as wildlands, just with a different setting and backstory.

As for why being mp only matters, you got to be kidding, right? For me wildlands was perfect as it was, just because you didn't like it it still matters to many of us.
I'd prefer a new Splinter Cell game, but I'd gladly take a third similar game after wildlands and breakpoint over any battle royal or pvp bullcrap like xdefiant this, or even a division.

 

[Dan_D]

Wildlands is anything but an action game when played on the hardest difficulty. It is still a tactical shooter, it just doesn't hold your hand saying that. And after they patched out the division shit from Breakpoint, it is basically the same as wildlands, just with a different setting and backstory.

As for why being mp only matters, you got to be kidding, right? For me wildlands was perfect as it was, just because you didn't like it it still matters to many of us.
I'd prefer a new Splinter Cell game, but I'd gladly take a third similar game after wildlands and breakpoint over any battle royal or pvp bullcrap like xdefiant this, or even a division.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Flogger23m]

That said, I've watched the Ghost Recon forums where Ubisoft claims it's listening to its fans while doing almost the polar opposite. They are tone deaf as hell and I'm not surprised by this battle royal crap.

At one time Ubisoft had a vast and unique array of games under their umbrella. Tactical shooters, they published but didn't develop flight simulators, had stealth action games like Splinter Cell, RTS games, and other action adventure games. These days, everything is an action adventure game or some cheesy low effort multiplayer game. This started right around before 2010. Ubisoft will slap anything that involves some kind of gun under the "Tom Clancy" umbrella. This now includes zombie games and action hero super power games. Between R6 Siege, R6 Zombie game, X Defiant and this I think there is some massive overlap.

Wildlands is anything but an action game when played on the hardest difficulty. It is still a tactical shooter, it just doesn't hold your hand saying that.

It doesn't have any of the major features a tactical shooter has. The squad commands were practically not there. The few they had were pointless due to the game decisions. Your squad members could get blown up and then magically revived, same with the player. Your squad members would walk into enemy compounds and not alert the enemies despite walking right next to them. It all centered around whether the player was detected or not. You couldn't use your squad to do anything remotely resembling real world tactics. Without the tactics and without the realism, you don't have a tactical shooter. Everything is designed around being action oriented.

Wildlands is in the same genre as GTA or Just Cause. You run around a map, choosing guys to slay, call in vehicles and blow things up. Those games are fun but they aren't tactical shooters. That genre died sometime in the early 2000s when gaming when mainstream, despite Ubisoft marketing anything with a gun as a "tactical shooter".

I'd prefer a new Splinter Cell game, but I'd gladly take a third similar game after wildlands and breakpoint over any battle royal or pvp bullcrap like xdefiant this, or even a division.

Personally I'd rather just let Splinter Cell die in peace. Some other studio can come out with a spiritual Splinter Cell successor and do something like Chaos Theory. You can look to X Defiant to see what Ubisoft's idea of Splinter Cell is these days.

 

[M76]

At one time Ubisoft had a vast and unique array of games under their umbrella. Tactical shooters, they published but didn't develop flight simulators, had stealth action games like Splinter Cell, RTS games, and other action adventure games. These days, everything is an action adventure game or some cheesy low effort multiplayer game. This started right around before 2010. Ubisoft will slap anything that involves some kind of gun under the "Tom Clancy" umbrella. This now includes zombie games and action hero super power games. Between R6 Siege, R6 Zombie game, X Defiant and this I think there is some massive overlap.



It doesn't have any of the major features a tactical shooter has. The squad commands were practically not there. The few they had were pointless due to the game decisions. Your squad members could get blown up and then magically revived, same with the player. Your squad members would walk into enemy compounds and not alert the enemies despite walking right next to them. It all centered around whether the player was detected or not. You couldn't use your squad to do anything remotely resembling real world tactics. Without the tactics and without the realism, you don't have a tactical shooter. Everything is designed around being action oriented.

Wildlands is in the same genre as GTA or Just Cause. You run around a map, choosing guys to slay, call in vehicles and blow things up. Those games are fun but they aren't tactical shooters. That genre died sometime in the early 2000s when gaming when mainstream, despite Ubisoft marketing anything with a gun as a "tactical shooter".

What you describe is a team based game, a tactical shooter can be played solo, and it is still a tactical shooter. What I meant when I said it isn't holding your hand is that you can employ any tactics that makes sense and it will work. You can snipe from high ground, sneak around, parachute in, get a tank and drive up to the front door, and any combination of these. That makes it a tactical shooter. Of course if you play the game on anything but extreme difficulty you can run into the enemy guns blazing, and it will seem more like an action game.

The team in wildlands is only good for two things. Syncshots, and to give you a hail mary second chance, and on tougher missions you'll be glad that is there. But I still preferred narco road as you play solo in that so every move can be your last.

 

[Flogger23m]

What you describe is a team based game, a tactical shooter can be played solo, and it is still a tactical shooter.

Tactical shooters are SP or co-op. Practically all of them had both options. What they require is some necessity of using military/police tactics, hence the name of the genre. They're not simply regular shooters, they require tactics to be used first and foremost otherwise you'll do poorly in general. In SP that means micromanaging the tactics of your squad. Positioning, ordering them to attack what, or making them move along certain areas is a necessity. The whole point of the genre is you're executing the tactics, shooting is only half the game.


Compare this with Wildlands:



Or at least more basic things like covering an area:



Semi accurate positioning for ambushes or coverage:


Or getting your men in places that can cover you from all angles before moving up:


Like you said, in Wildlands they're only good for revives and sync shots. It kept the shooter part, dropped the tactics part entirely.

At that point it isn't any different from a game like Far Cry, Just Cause, or even Battlefield 4's campaign. You can choose to take a sniper rifle and shoot at an enemy at distance, or run in up close, use explosives, sneak in or use or vehicles at your will in those games. Without the tactical aspects and the tactics it is just a regular old shooter.

Problem is Wildlands wasn't good at anything, and it seems like they threw in the towel after their even worse follow up Breakpoint and decided to try their hand at a Fortnite knockoff. I wouldn't preferred a Wildlands: Done Right than what they have planned.

 

[mgty23]

good game?

 

[M76]

Tactical shooters are SP or co-op. Practically all of them had both options. What they require is some necessity of using military/police tactics, hence the name of the genre. They're not simply regular shooters, they require tactics to be used first and foremost otherwise you'll do poorly in general. In SP that means micromanaging the tactics of your squad. Positioning, ordering them to attack what, or making them move along certain areas is a necessity. The whole point of the genre is you're executing the tactics, shooting is only half the game.

Like you said, in Wildlands they're only good for revives and sync shots. It kept the shooter part, dropped the tactics part entirely.

At that point it isn't any different from a game like Far Cry, Just Cause, or even Battlefield 4's campaign. You can choose to take a sniper rifle and shoot at an enemy at distance, or run in up close, use explosives, sneak in or use or vehicles at your will in those games. Without the tactical aspects and the tactics it is just a regular old shooter.

Problem is Wildlands wasn't good at anything, and it seems like they threw in the towel after their even worse follow up Breakpoint and decided to try their hand at a Fortnite knockoff. I wouldn't preferred a Wildlands: Done Right than what they have planned.

Yes, the team management is missing from ghost recon, the part which I always hated in games like Rainbow Six, so I Actually prefer it this way.

You missed my point entirely btw. Just because wildlands doesn't give you crutches and ui elements for employing tactics, you are still making tactical decisions when attacking bases. You do recon, you find a good infiltration point, you scout out enemies, you choose which route you take, and whether you eliminate all enemies or go directly for your objective risking leaving active enemies around you. Those are all tactical decisions, none of which are available in a regular shooter. Playing doom, cod, battlefield or even half life is an entirely different experience, and lumping wildlands or breakpoint into the same group as those games is insane.

 

[Flogger23m]

Yes, the team management is missing from ghost recon, the part which I always hated in games like Rainbow Six, so I Actually prefer it this way.

Well that is the core feature of a tactical shooter. Emulating real world tactics. Without the tactical part, it is just a shooter.

You do recon, you find a good infiltration point, you scout out enemies, you choose which route you take, and whether you eliminate all enemies or go directly for your objective risking leaving active enemies around you.

You just described every shooter aside from the few pure on rails ones. I can fit Saints Row 3 within this definition. I can choose to call in an airstrike, shoot them from a distance, run in an melee them, etc. I know everything with a gun is a "tactical shooter" these days, but it is the same situation with calling Lethal Skies or Ace Combat a flight simulator, or putting Mario Kart in the same category as Project Cars or Assetto Corsa. It is just wrong an uninformed.

Wildland's is squarely in the same category as Just Cause 2/3, Frontlines Fuel of War and similar games. As for Frontlines, well, time will tell if it is more like Warzone, Battlefield or Fortnite. I'm leaning towards Warzone.