It's not all rosy in the Ghost Recon Future Soldier camp as Ubisoft ditches established modes in favour of copycat gaming.
Yep, this is the sad face of business that is mirrored across many game series from Ubisoft whether it be Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six or Ghost Recon. As a fan, the only thing left to do is dig out the old games or write 1000 emails to Ubisoft to get them to at least add features as extra modes to their games which appeal to the long term fan. It's not going to happen though is it. So Kudos to Irrational Games for at least including an old school mode in Bioshock Infinite. /rant.
Ubisoft doesn't care about Splinter Cell,Rainbow Six or Ghost Recon anymore....notice how Ubi pays more attention to pumping out Assassin Creed...
Good point. They are hailing Assassin's Creed III as their biggest game launch ever.
yep , and hopefully that AssCreed cow will be dead soon.
I remember when they cared more about Prince of Persia....you know the game they rebooted then left the epilogue DLC on a cliff hanger. Will we ever get a sequel instead of Assassins Creed
....Still waiting Ubisoft...I'm still waiting
Whoever secretly disagreed with me. RE: AC III - Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot predicted it would be "the biggest launch in Ubisoft history." http://uk.gamespot.com/news...
Greed has taken over gaming. There may be a time where I may no longer buy games.
Assassins creed > more shooters :/
Rayman > games above.
With indie ventures becoming bigger and bigger, hopefully the next generation of developers will innovate more and bring back things that we once considered basic. "Assassins creed > more shooters" - Why is Madden's Creed better than "more shooters"?
I was just expressing how Rayman Origins was the only Ubisoft game I've enjoyed recently. It was a good game, disagreers.
@Silent Because we have hundreds of shooters already. We only have about 5 (not counting mobile versions) Assassins Creed, and while that still is a lot, it's not quite as bad as the hundreds and hundreds of shooters we have. In my opinion anyways. You can't really get Assassins Creed gameplay from any other franchise, but you can get Call of Duty gameplay from tons of other shooters.
Well I never played a Ghost Recon before, except the beta, but the reason why is kinda obvious. Ghost Recon, is kind of a niche game, not saying that is bad, however they want to open it up which can be kind of a problem. You lose the core fans in order for new ones, so that is the balance they have to cross. They are a business, they look at sales, this is the truth about gaming, companies like sales.... The epidamy of sales is COD, which is why every game seems to try and take ideas from COD inorder to sell more. Personally, I enjoy when games stick to their guns. @Dark11 Really love the way you went out of your way to call it AssCreed. The truth is that they follow a story, which revolves around the idea of 2012. AC3 has been in development for 3 years now, with ACB and ACR only requiring one, because they have a story to tell and want to do so before 2012. "In Assassin's Creed we set up a timeline with this whole end of the world plot in December 2012... That's fast approaching, and the story we have to tell, we obviously need to do it before we arrive at that point. It would be stupid of us to be centering a game on a semi-reality and then have that conclusion happen after that date in real life." — Alexandre Amacio, creative director of Assassin's Creed: Revelations Also, people love AC. Its one of the 2 games a lot of people cosplay as, AC and Mass Effect. There are a lot of people who love the games because they are unique in their sense of what they are. How it got so sucessful, no idea considering all that idiotic Jade Raymond controversy going on, but thats why they made creeds yearly after 2, they want to follow the story.
But when a company "sticks to their guns" people then say its the same old rehashed game, they try to improvise & improve it & people say they've lost the core gamer, they can't win. COD stick to their guns & on N4G gets slaughtered for it. A type of Horde gameplay is perfect IMO..
The ironic thing is is that if they went back to a super tactical multi-squad based style game a la the first rainbow six games, it would probably be hailed as a breath of fresh air and sell really well.
IF GR went back to how GR1 played it would be an improvement.
Ghost Recon died when GRAW released for me, I loved the earlier games.
Look, I agree that as time goes on, features in games get 'nurfed', publishers want to buck with the trend, etc. However, the points raised in this article aren't that accurate. 1. He states that in Guerrilla mode, solo players won't be encouraged to explore the map. In Guerrilla mode, your team is tasked with defending a Headquarters. Every 10 rounds, the Headquarters changes location. Once the round starts, 9 waves of enemies will spawn in to try to take your Headquarters from you. The 10th round is a stealth round where enemies are unaware of your location. Thereafter the location of the HQ changes. You are FORCED to explore the map. Solo or Coop. Also, I'm not a fan of straight up hating. I mean, I do honestly understand what it's like when you see a long standing franchise change over time to appeal to the masses and skimp on some of your favourite modes and features but the headline describing the solo play as "Butchered" is quite an exaggeration.
The ubisoft era died with the 360 gen.
So essentially, the PS3 gen too.
GRAW was only out for the 360, the PS3 wasn't out. (If that's what he meant) He probably meant launch.
ghostrecon died when united bought rse and christian allen took over lead design. graw was the beginning of the end.
Rubbish. GRAW was the first great game on the 360 and was the first graphic "powerhouse" on the system.
"My beef is, why Ubisoft? Why remove a cool part of the Ghost Recon experience that has been in every game to date in favour of a co-op based mode that can't really be enjoyed by solo players?" Some won't like it but XBL is why. MS has been punishing single player all gen and has all but eliminated local co-op. They want you on Live with every game you purchase and frown on the single player experience.
Xbox Live has killed local co op for all platforms? What nonsensical rubbish. The popularity of online gaming isn't down to the success of Xbox live alone. Microsoft doesn't give developers ultimatums about having online elements in their games. Sorry but yours is a silly sweeping statement.
Yeah that person's comment is rather stupid. I don't need to be hooked up to LIVE to play Skyrim or the like.
You speak the truth but the ghosts disagree ;)
The paranoia is thick in here. You'd probably get agrees for writing something like "M$ was behind the assassination of JFK. FACT!"
Stupid read. So, the writer claims that making it more co-op instead of single player driven will make ppl return the game, lacking replay value. Huh? Thats why MW3 and BF3 are so highly returned, becuz multiplayer is so boring(sarcasm intended). Show me the last person to buy a 1st or 3rd person shooter for the SP, and I'll show you someone who wasted their money. On top of that, he's assuming that the Guerella mode or whatever its called will be too "tough" to play solo. You know what they say about assumptions. This article is a bust.
I have to jump in to defend the article and writer Lee here. He says he disagrees with the Editor of msxbox-world who has obviously played the Guerilla Mode having posted up the gameplay footage. It's obvious via discussion with his Editor and by looking at the video that Guerilla mode is a co-op focused mode not designed for solo players even though it can be played solo. So it's no wild stab in the dark or assumption that it's too hard to play solo. Secondly. "Show me the last person to buy a 1st or 3rd person shooter for the SP, and I'll show you someone who wasted their money." There are countless games that are single player focused that include multiplayer, take Ubisoft's own Assassin's Creed and Splinter Cell games - pretty silly thing to say really. I think you're missing the point that there are plenty of gamers who like to play solo games or those who do not have access to Internet. They get short changed not the people who love to play online games - which isn't everyone y'know.
"Show me the last person to buy a 1st or 3rd person shooter for the SP..." Well, me. I bought the FANTASTIC Serious Sam 3. It's a 12 hours+ campaign and it plays in the style that I like best. In fact, it was even my personal GotY for 2011. Was my money lost? Well, if you were judging, apparently so. Thank God you aren't the one to tell us what is and isn't a waste of money. If you did, I guess I wouldn't be a gamer because I don't play multiplayer. In fact, there's quite a number of gamers who are just like me in that regard. Just because YOU don't play SP doesn't mean other don't. Get it through your skull that your subjective opinion on what you like is NOT objective fact.
"Show me the last person to buy a 1st or 3rd person shooter for the SP, and I'll show you someone who wasted their money." Ridiculous.
I buy games to enjoy singleplayer. The world does not stop and start with Team Death Match.
Yeah, everyone is online nowadays & sp only games are getting rare now. They say you can't play guerrilla mode on your own, well good, it's meant to be played coop. Ever tried Horde on Gears on your own, you don't stand a chance, because it's made for team mates. I suggest the author gets some friends & plays it how it's designed to be played.
@InTheLab, are you seriously ok? Almost every second Xbox exclusive game offers local multiplyaer: From big games like Halo and Gears, to third parties like SC:Conviction and L4D, to adventure games like Kameo (any similar game with co-op that you know of?), to arcade games like the the upcoming Minecraft and tons of other examples. Some of these games even have a PC version which EXCLUDES local co-op, so how can you say that MS is eliminating this element where in reality is seems like it's being pushed on the Xbox 360 more than anywhere else?
Probably the single worse comment I have read in a long time.
nothing you said made one bit sense or any shred of truth. The fact you have 14 agrees shows the sad state some people think here on n4g.
Halo would like to speak with you.
I agree about how games change etc. But this is a core element? I think you mentioned that you really didnt want to play it again after u were done but at least it was something a solo player could do? So, you would be returning it anyway, just a couple days later. Theres always little replayability for strictly solo players in these kind of games with short campaigns. Do you not like teaming up with your friends to play? And many of these mordes do offer settings for a solo play. Its just really hard.
atleast this game is coming... With all the delays from 2009,i thought this was never gonna come..
I can understand how some fans of GRAW are upset at the new changes that ubi has done to the franchise, however me being a first time Ghost Recon buyer, I must say, I am liking what I see so far. I think I will be purchasing this when it comes out.
I don't see why GRAW fans would be upset with this game considering GRAW was just as much of a downgrade to the series. The last good Ghost Recon was GR2.
Agee with you totally man. I've been playing ghost recon since the original and still jump on graw 2 co op campaign and elimination from time to time. The beta wasnt bad but without an open map to cruise around being " a ghost" this might be the first one I won't be buying. What the hell is going on with games now. It's all turning to sh#t.
I HATE it when companies remove basic features or modes that longtime hardcore fans of a series have become accustomed to and really like. Another example of this is the fact that Ubisoft removed vehicles from Far Cry 3 multiplayer! Vehicular multiplayer has been one of the best, most prominent distinguishing features of the Far Cry franchise and its multiplayer modes. Removing vehicles just serves to make the game more simplified and COD-like. People reason that it's about making money, and appealing to a wider audience, but why make unnecessary sacrifices? Why remove key features when many times they won't take that much effort or resources to include?
Why does the "ghost" look like he's riding a ten speed bike...the crouch animation sucks.
Enough about ghost recon and assassins creed... Ubisoft needs to focus on rainbow 6 again I miss rapelling down buildings
Maybe if you do ten seconds of research, you would know rainbow 6 comes out 2013.
There is not Ghost recon left in this game, its nothing like what ghost recon use to be, and not even close. Its some futuristic third person action game, with a lot of gadgets and gimmicks. That's it. Ghost recon is been dead for a while and its not coming back to life (as itself) any time soon.
Just imagine the original GR redone for this gen. Mmmm...goodness that will never happen.
If they would remake the original Ghost recon and rainbow six for this gen they would make a lot of money. Those games are still the best in their respective series. Creeping through the museum in R6 taking out terrorists was some of the most intense gaming ever. "Tango Down" mutha fucka. lol
Have to say I think they would be dreadful!! They were great in their day but the far from perfect, some of the maps were re-released as dlc for AW2 and they weren't half as good as you remember. RS3 maps had some of the worst choke points ever and would be far to simple for today's gaming. All games evolve over time, it's just a shame most fps try to evolve into cod. Ubi ruined the sp of Cell but the co op was excellent, hopefully some element of GR:FS will be the same. At present it ain't a bad game if only they could fix the lag!
We (gamers) often complain about games not changing from the last version. It can be hard for dev/pub to make changes to keep games fresh and at the same time kill a game. I was fine with Splinter Cell being the way it was, but at the same time I wanted something new. I just hope that if this version of GR sucks they fix the next version.
No single play variety, for me, means a no buy without replay incentives, as it just ends up a traded waste than a bang for the buck.
I don't get it. It sounds like the author is upset because the co-op mode is too hard to play alone. @_@
I've been on the fence about this game for a while. I've finally decided to cancel my preorder. Maybe I'll check it out later when the price drops. Ubi really messed up the last Splinter Cell too. It was just way too easy with the 'mark and execute'. SC was one of my favorite franchises on the original xbox. I really hope the new R6 doesn't share a similar fate.
I never play Ghost Recon before, but this one look exciting and am going to Pre-order it tomorrow. The stealth mode convince me :)
Single player screwed again. Just like the difference between BF2 and BF3, no offline multiplayer with bots.
Face it, UBISoft only cares about Assassin's Creed this gen. Don't worry they'll move on to a new franchise next gen. That will add to the list UBISOFT doesn't care about anymore. Instead all there other games will be 2nd fiddle to whatever there next new franchise is.
Conviction destroyed Splinter Cell for me, and Unicrap are doing the same to every other franchise they own.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.