Or something like that...
See Ubisoft, you almost taught me something.
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Breakpoint is the latest in Ubisoft's growing library of military 'tactical' shooters to bare the name of the late Tom Clancy. This time Ubisoft intends to use all the success and goodwill they've mustered after the surprise series resurgence; Ghost recon: Wildlands, and dedicate that all into resources and manpower that will propel this title into the seminal open world title of the year. At least for a few months until Cyberpunk 2077 comes out.
I've always found Ghost Recon to be a peculiar entry into the 'tactical shooter' genre of games due to it's generous definition for the word 'tactical'. In the early 2000's where game design didn't know any better, 'tactical' meant wrestling with clunky teammate AI. Spending hours of your free time meticulously placing your team of highly trained special operatives in the corner so they didn't hurt themselves or anyone else. I'm being a tad facetious but it's not too far from the fact. Ghost Recon honestly has more in common with the Stealth genre than the Tactical genre. Usually, the second that gunfire starts up you might as well roll over and dig your own grave because there's no force on heaven or hell that can save you.
This argument about just how tactical Ghost Recon is, is not a widespread one. Fans believe the series to be the height of Squad-based tactical simulation and more power to them. Although, personally I would point to the Brothers in Arms franchise as an example of real military strategy but maybe that's just me. One view that everyone can agree on, however, is that 2017's Ghost Recon: Wildlands had no tactical blood in it whatsoever.
Marketed as a series revival, Wildlands was less a triumphant return to what made the series great and more a reshaping of the franchise to appeal to the tastes of mass audiences. Thoughtful planning and mission set up was replaced with on-the-fly decision making. Cleverly laid out levels and enemy placement were replaced with the same 'outpost gameplay' that Ubisoft have been recycling since 2008's Far Cry 2. And stealth was more of an optional feature this time around, you were most certainly well equipped enough to Rambo through every encounter in the game. None of this ruined the game like one might suspect, but rather led the game to success the franchise had never known before. Ghost Recon: Wildlands topped sales charts for weeks, and the huge dedicated player base consumed enough microtransactions to support continued development up until early 2019 when Breakpoint was announced.
Did Wildlands deserve this success? Sure. The small team that started the project clearly put their heart and souls into it to make the game what it is. Just like 'The Little Engine That Could'; Wildlands overcame development issues, tech demo glitches and tone deaf marketing to become an open world juggernaut. (I'm serious about that last part. Who remembers the E3 reveal where they gleefully presented the idea of Bolivia as a cartel ruled narco state? Yikes.) A sequel was a forgone conclusion at this point, a necessary product of the ever running machine we call 'Capitalism', but will Wildlands' success translate to Ghost Recon success? That's a more complicated issue.
I was actually part of the community for some of Wildlands' life cycle, having picked up the game early 2018 and I got a feel for the general consensus from the hardcore of the player base. The outspoken few, if you will. Wildlands didn't feel like a Ghost Recon game. The story was lackluster the gameplay was dumbed down and, as previously mentioned, the series staple 'Tactics' were all but gone. Fans were not thrilled with the direction that Wildlands took. For my part, I got the chance to engage with the game as the post-launch content started to pick up, and it wasn't pretty. Although cool in concept, each release seemed to further strain the goodwill that Ubisoft had built with the initial launch. The idea was that Ghost Recon would become the backbone for an interconnected Tom Clancy cinematic universe. Wait, I mean gaming universe. The movies come later.
This started with Sam Fisher (Voiced once again my Micheal Ironside!) coming to Bolivia and calling upon the Ghosts to help him in... a single 'hold-the-objective' mission. Someone thought it was wise to utilise Wildlands' semi decent gunplay to tribute the seminal stealth based franchise; Splinter Cell.(An odd choice.) Next came Rainbow Six. And if you're wondering if Siege's precision, tactics and breech based gameplay translated well into Wildlands' 'Ghost-recon-light' approach. No. No it did not. Then there was a send up to Future Solider. A Ghost Recon tribute to Ghost Recon? There's no way they could mess that up! And they didn't. The couple of mission were fine. Nothing to write home about. Finally came the tease. Operation Oracle (Get it?) which told the prequel events to Breakpoint. And from it I learned that Walker is a dick. That's about it. Oh, and they got someone to call him a 'Wolf', awkwardly. (Referencing his unit in Breakpoint; The Wolves.)
By the end of the roadmap, a lot of the community was sick to death of Wildlands. The decently fun Ghost War multiplayer mode was a ghost town (I can pun too!) by the end of the game's support. The game failed to impress the core fans and the general audience they picked up at launch were far too fickle to keep up with the post launch. So what does this mean for Breakpoint? Well, it means that Breakpoint has to be a fresh start. And judging from what we've seen so far, it just might be. Even if much of what they've teased I've already seen done elsewhere and done better.
I have ragged on Ubisoft before for riding the coattails of modern day game mechanics without ever contributing something unique of their own. (With Watch Dogs: Legion poised to break that trend.) I don't bemoan the fact that Ubisoft are not industry leaders, rather the fact that they easily could be and just refuse to take the risk. For most fans this is completely fine seeing as how Ubisoft have managed to maintain a mostly spotless track record in terms of predatory business practises but honestly, that should be a minimum requirement when it comes to being a renowned company not the gold standard. The fact Ubisoft and Nintendo are the expectation rather than the rule in that regard, is an ugly reflection on the entire game's industry.
Despite my misgivings, however, the reveal has been promising. the main highlight has to be the new injury system which discourages all out warfare in favour of ambushes, tactical strikes and/or stealth. The drones add an extra challenge, units that can spot you through walls or from the sky and are decently bulletproof. Prone Camo revolutionizes the...umm... well, it changes the way you... uh... okay, it's a gimmick but I still think it's cool. A class system has also been introduced (Not that kind of class system) that aims to diversify one's playstyle without limiting the player. Panther for infiltration, Sharpshooter for scouting, Assault for Assaulting and medic for... medic-ing. The whole system is designed to promote team gameplay without punishing those with no friends. (Like yours-truly.) They even promised to reintroduce AI squadmates after launch because the community sulked about it enough.
Will all these little improvements forever change the landscape of gaming? Of course not. But are they enough to win over the fans they lost? maybe. The Ghost Recon Wildlands' Reddit seemed to have already concluded that Breakpoint is the tactical experience that the first game denied them and the general public is sure to be lured in by the familiarity of the game to it's predecessor. I, personally, am encouraged by the candidness with which Ubisoft has presented gameplay to it's audience. There are literally hours of gameplay on YouTube letting the discerning customer know exactly what they will be signing up for at release.
The talk of post launch raid's seems to be generating some buzz as well. Or maybe that particularly enticing promise was made with me in particular in mind, seeing as how I've wanted a high-stakes stealth infiltration situation ever since Metal Gear Solid V. MMO buzzwords seem to be the way to excite consumers in today's day and age, just look at Destiny or Anthem. Heck, I've already fell for the 'Raids' promise with Fallout 76. I'm part of the problem.
Ubisoft may have just done enough to cement Breakpoint as another win for them. I'm going to get it and I'm still angry with how they handled Wildlands. In their defence, the base game was solid and post launch content did seem to improve as it went on. Maybe I just need another AAA stealth game to quench my demonic thirst so I'm giving Ubisoft the benefit of the doubt or maybe it's perfectly reasonable, with all they provided, to be excited for this project. Either way we'll all find out come October 4th. Fingers crossed.
No comments:
Post a Comment