Looks promising
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_Ghost_Recon_Wildlands
Good one, nex :)
It's about time a Tom Clancy shooter becomes open world
Ubisoft huh
UbisoaAAAAARGH?! ???
Ubislighltlybettersoft better not f***this up ::)
I think we all know how this will go - do a certain number of missions before you can unlock the next building. Pick a bunch of useless plants to make a miracle stimpack that will magically extract the last hundred bullets from your body, and skin some poor schmuck of an animal to build a crude holster before you can carry an automatic weapon that only fires in bursts of three. Oh, don't want to forget that we'll need to kill a certain number of people with our bare hands before a weapons dealer will sell us that inadequate weapon that rusts to pieces within the week. And, as to health, instead of malaria, we'll all be afflicted with Zika - the only question is how far out of our way we'll need to go to get medicine. 8-X
oops... did I just say that out loud?
Don't know what you're doing with your mouth when you're typing, but I rhink I get the picture ^-^
Spoiler
\:/
PZ, hilarious. :laugh:
Nice one PZ :laugh:
You're just about right, BinnZ :-X
For the most part, Ubi takes inventory of the worst parts of prior games and incorporates it all into their new titles.
:laugh: PZ for that very apt earlier description of Ubisoft's games :-X
come to think of it, you deserve a kudo for that, PZ. :) +1 :-X
:lol +1 PZ :-X
So true regarding Ubisoft :D ::)
The problem as I see it, who else makes better "open world" first person shooter games than them?
No idea :(
Thanks gents ^-^
Ubi had a winner with FC2, and I still go into that game at times because I love almost everything about it and overlook the annoyances. I've been disappointed with every Far Cry game since. I love the AC series, but the pinnacle of that line for me was AC2 - most games since have been a let down. I'm currently dabbling in AC:Syndicate, which appears to be a blast from the past, but I've not gone enough into it to make a definitive judgement.
As to other open world games, I like ArmA3, but it requires lots of time investment to get the full value although I fully intend to do so one of these days. An ArmA3 "nut" could spend countless hours playing with all the mods and scenarios people develop. I also like the Fallout games, mostly because of the post apocalyptic setting, and of course, the mods. The Just Cause games are also a favorite largely because of the massive maps and the run/gun chaos that is completely unrealistic, but entertaining none the less. At least the developers make it easy enough to accomplish most missions the first time around rather than forcing one to try countless times.
GTA games have never captured me entirely although I have tried. For me, criminal activities in a metropolitan area is simply not interesting - perhaps because I see the results of such activities every night in the news - I don't know for sure. However, I love to explore the GTA5 world, and maybe a trainer would help capture my attention to the game. I really dislike having to start a mission 30 times because my skill level is not high enough to go through the first time or two. After a few failed tries I'm annoyed, and after a few more, I simply leave the game.
I guess the bottom line for me is that a game need not be fully realistic, but needs to be able to played by the casual gamer - one that does not have the luxury of countless tries to accomplish a ridiculous timed event, which are the one thing that would cause me to give up gaming.
I guess that I am sill looking for that special game that will be better than, and entertain me more than FC2
One aspect of FC2 I appreciated the most is the fact that you don't have to press a series of buttons for the character to perform a single function or change from one weapon to another.
Or like in AC, I could never manage to eavesdrop successfully :D :D
I'm not slipping this one in before you, am I, fragger? :-()
You almost did, but I dodged it :-D
(EDIT: Actually, you did, but I dodged it :-())
PZ, I touched on much the same sentiments here. (http://www.openworldgames.org/owg/forums/index.php?topic=3827.msg79265#msg79265) I agree totally with you on what you say. I love the game environment of GTA V, but there were a number of times where I had to rage-quit main missions and cool down from the exasperation for a while. If I can't get through a mission after a dozen tries because I keep failing to slip through some sort of fiddly, unforgivingly narrow window of success I give up. I don't like a game to be too easy, but I don't like ones that rely too much on overly-demanding time/precision to determine the difficulty level, especially when there's a checkpoint system involved.
There were two instances in particular that drove me bonkers - trying to evade the police after the gold bullion heist, and trying to ride the trail bike along the top of the train (there were plenty of other frustrating moments, but those two stand out). I don't think there was a single mission in that game that I ever completed in one go, because I would either make a single mistake that would snafu everything, or it would be unclear what I had to do or where I had to go next (until I learned it the hard way by repeated fails), or I would get blindsided by something totally out of left field. I hate it in games when rude surprises are employed as difficulty tactics. Once or twice maybe, but not on a regular basis like GTA V did. I think that's a cheap and dirty way of adding to the "challenge".
A shame, because there are things I love about GTA V. Mainly the openworldness, the richness of its environment and the possibilities for lots of fun tomfoolery 8)
FC3 was a letdown, FC4 better but still not up to par. So yep, still awaiting that worthy successor to FC2.
To evade from the police you could simply head down the same route used in the Jewel store heist ;)
I couldn't remember where it was.
Ah I see ;)
FC2 had a lot of weaknesses but it had the best-looking and -sounding environment. The missions were nice, too, due to their non-scripted nature. And the merc dialogues as well as their idle activities were very funny and plentiful. I didn't like the feeling that everyone knew where I was at any time, that stealth was a joke, and that I couldn't walk around in peace to explore the areas as I would get spotted, shot or chased every other minute. And I bloody hated the deterioration of weapons. Still.. it was a cool game with cheats enabled that gave me the freedom needed to just do what I wanted to. :) No.. haven't yet found a game worthy of being called "the next FC2" (despite 3,100+ hours in GTAV) :-()
Okay, time to give my answer to Nex's question too. First I skipped, because I expected another search for the never-coming FC2.1
I was triggered by the word 'shooter'. An open world shooter. That is indeed what Farcry games are. A shooter like CoD games, but in an open world environment.
If I just focus on the open world thing, I would come up with, like PZ did, Fallout games, ArmA games, especially 3 and DayZ, GTA above all, which is my all times favourite... GTA can be demanding I guess. I remember these missions in where the frustration level is rising above the boiling point in every release. In GTA San Andreas there was also a mission in which you had to drive along a train and, instead of jumping on it, shoot some bad guys off. Probably the worst mission I've ever played. But to me 95% of the GTA missions and activities aren't that hard. Usually when it comes to the other 5%, I see it as an extreme challenge where you really get to give the best you got. The summit of skill demandingness was New York Minute Hardcore in Max Payne 3. Not an open world game, very linear (but a shooter nevertheless) where they gave you the challenge to do the entire game in one single go without dying once on the hardest difficulty. I took the challenge and spent weeks practicing. But everyone can choose to leave it aside.
But we're talking about a shooter in open world. GTA is not a shooter. All mentioned games aren't shooters, although ArmA3 comes close. I think the only good open world shooter is Borderlands 2. that's a shooter. And open world. It may not tip the quality we admire in FC2, but it's the best open world shooter imo. 8)
Two shooter games I thoroughly enjoyed is Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Medal Of Honor.
Ok, they are in a sense linear but also not as linear as Battlefield 3 and the Call Of Duty series
One of my long-time favourite shooters, and one I even still dip into from time to time, is Call of Duty 2. No unfolding storyline, no lengthy cutscenes, just raw gutsy WW2 action, and plenty of it (as in pretty much non-stop). There is some scripting but it's minimal and is seamlessly incorporated into the flow of the action. Even after 11 years, the graphics are still on a par with most games today (the game still has some of the best smoke effects ever, imo). The game is mission-based, 27 missions in all divided among Russian, British and American campaigns. They have to be played in sequence first time through but you can jump into any mission that you've completed at least once. Very authentic with meticulous attention to historical detail, in fact two of the American missions recreate the assault on Pointe Du Hoc on D-Day. Not only did the dev team go to Pointe Du Hoc to accurately map out the area (it has been preserved as it was back then) but they had as a technical adviser a veteran from the 2nd Rangers Battalion who took part in the real assault. He later said he was highly impressed with the accuracy of the finished product, both in looks and sequence of events.
CoD 2 was everything a good shooter should be. It's not open-world, but doesn't pretend to be. The action was full-on but managed to never got frenetic, like Doom-styled games. The environments were rich in terms of graphic and sound, and featured scored music performed by an orchestra, not sampled. The missions were pretty linear (though not all were) but the game was so immersive that it didn't really matter too much. The missions are down-to-earth with the sort of objectives that real WW2 soldiers were tasked with, not far-fetched nonsense (although a couple of missions push it a bit). There are very few negative things I can say about it. Maybe the linearity is the biggest drawback, but I can put up with it in this title because everything else is so well done. There are about 30 different weapons you can use - Russian, British, American and German. You never play as the Germans, only the Allies, but you can pick up and use any dropped weapon, including German ones. Realistically, you can only carry two weapons at any one time, and no more than 4 frag grenades and 4 smoke grenades (smoke is quite useful in this game). Obviously you won't find all weapons in a single mission, like Russian and American ones together. The modelling and feel of the weapons is terrific (you can almost feel the recoil) and while the sounds they make are of excellent quality, they aren't authentic (I do actually know what an M1 Garand and an M1A1 Carbine sound like, and the ones in the game are nothing like it).
This was the highlight of the CoD series for me, before it got dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era with the Modern Warfare and Black Ops variants. They went briefly back into WW2 territory with World At War (CoD 5) but the excessive scripting, the weak-sounding weapons, some silly missions and the overall shortness of the game made it a "play once then forget" affair.
I've only played Black Ops I from the entire CoD franchise. I was equalle impressed by that game. I remember how hard it was to manage the game. You had to learn how the weapons act and how you can spot and aim at the enemies. When I started I thought I was a pretty good shooter, but I kept dying. The things I learned on my way managing the game really felt natural and real.
Although I don't know s#!t about real life warfare and weaponry I do believe they did an excellent job there. Maybe I should try CoD2 once. I've heard before that it is the number one of this franchise indeed.
The weapons sound pretty good in CoD 2 (watched a YT video), but they are nowhere good compared to the ones in Black Ops 3 and BF3/BF4. The CoD community wants this game (along with the rest of the WWII games) remastered for the PS4 and Xbox One. I guess Activi$ion doesn't care that much about remasters as Microsoft do :(
If any of you are interested in this game, you can sign up for the beta (http://ghost-recon.ubisoft.com/wildlands/en-US/beta-registration/index.aspx). I might give this a try.
Definitely let us know how it goes :-X
I forgot my password :-D
:laugh:
Beta will start on 2nd February according to Ubi's twitter. Haven't received a beta code yet, they might roll them out soon
Watched Noobwork (Norwegian YouTuber best known for his Minecraft gameplays) play this game at an Ubi event in Paris. Gameplay-wise, lots of driving a la FC2, FC3/4/WD skills in play again and some WD2 gagdetry in play. You can tag enemies with a drone. Helicopters are also pilotable in the game. Let's hope they have an AS50 (or any .50 cal rifle), I wouldn't be surprised that PZ takes out his enemies with a bang, err, thunder >:D Again, no radio towers, thank god that Ubi dropped that ^-^
Graphically good/decent, but I wouldn't be surprised with performance issues on day 1. One noticeable thing was obvious texture pop-ins (notably shadows) and screen tearing again... But, GTA V levels of draw distance means something can be sacrificed though. This gameplay was on a PotatoPlayStation 4. Oh, you can play as a female :-D
Thanks for the neat reports thus far, GKID :)
Re GTA V and graphics performance: You'd think that if Rockstar can achieve excellent draw distances and great frame rates given the incredible amount of detail and constant animated activity in that game, like crowds of widely diverse pedestrians, dense traffic, aircraft flying overhead, trains rolling past, constantly changing skies, realistic wave action on water, ever-changing light and shadow, and so on and so on and so on, why can't other devs do likewise?
Like YOU, Hello Games \:/ with your No Man's Sky. The presence of just a few animals and bunches of non-animated plants turns the frame rate into a slideshow. Unacceptable.
Anyway, it's still beta days for this Ghost Recon title though, so hopefully there will be more streamlining and optimizing before release time.
I never said that other devs cannot do that 8-X I just believe Ubi already have hit this console gen's limitations and it shows somewhat obvious in the footage I saw ;) Indeed, I guess Ubi are going the same path as WD2, the release version looked better than the pre-release :)
The draw distance in GTA V is impressive, but objects close to the player still pops in. Again, very impressive feat to render the landscape that far on decade old hardware :-X Let's hope R* have improved this in RDR2, being free from last gen limitations (512 MB of RAM vs 8 GB in the consoles now). I guess it comes to a deliberate choice when dealing with underpowered hardware. Either cripple long range render distance just to have all objects close to you look good or just show how beautiful the in-game world is by trying to render as far as possible?
I hope the PC version is solid, a la WD2's port, lot's of options and other tweaks. Oh, and proper DX12 support without Nvidia's Bloatworks messing this up.
Unfortunately, no beta code for me...
go get 'em. :-D
Like, hacking Ubi's HQ for one? :-()
whatever rocks the boat. :-D
Do it! And sign with D.J.T. >:D
>:D >:D
Well, I checked a benchmark done by PCgameshardware.de and you need a Titan X to play this game at 1080p ultra/very high and get 60 frames. My current GPU would yield 30 fps average. I assume Ubi is going towards Crysis-levels of graphics. Or, they simply are going back to AC: Unity levels of "optimization" 8-X
I feel haunted. Almost every post I read these days has got at least a reference or is entirely about UBI-iiiaaaaarrgh