My Experience with Ghost Recon: Breakpoint1 Likes/6 Replies/190 Views
I'm not sure why I feel compelled to share my experience with this game. It could be the many hours invested. It could be that I want to see if others share in the experience. It could be that I just hope that Ubisoft developers can try to take away something from a game that was negatively received even if there were still many people who enjoyed the game all the same. Regardless the following is my experience with the game - I have 556 hours clocked in as of writing, maybe others have more, but I can say with confidence now that in its current state the gameplay of this game is hands-down one of the most enjoyable for me even if it took some work to find what was best and let the game play to its strengths - I mean that sincerely, I love this game.
Coming out of Ghost Recon: Wildlands - the beta for Ghost Recon: Breakpoint was not necessarily a disappointment for me as it was something I've come to expect from the games industry as a whole. The Beta may not have been polished - which is implied - but the direction it was going already showed to me the game needed more time to bake and was clearly going to be delivered with issues that would for many be an alienating experience that would encourage them to never re-experience the game. Regardless Wildlands had been such a hit with me that I was hopeful it could be improved.
I will brief on this - as I experienced very little past purchase. The awful reception of this game - justifiably so - and seeing all my fears for the game come true as I played it for the first time made me realize that if I really wanted to enjoy this game I'd have to wait and see if Ubisoft decided to support a game which I fully expected them to discard. Thankfully they did choose to support it.
When Immersive Mode was added I decided to try the game again - while I'm going to breakdown in detail what I love about this game - I will say that it was this update that saved this game for me.
Terminators, Resistance and Rainbow:
Terminators was definitely a silly inclusion to the game - but I felt they spent too many resources on this update. Resistance I barely remember and I doubt that's a good sign. Rainbow I thought was excellent and I'll break down further later in this post.
Ignoring my disappointment with Frontline's announcement since it's simply not my cup of tea I focused on Operation Motherland. I found myself waiting nervously and hoping they'd deliver and in the end I will say that they did - for me at least. Once again I'll go into detail with how this update made this game into one of my personal favorites shortly.
My Experience - The Story:
Story - Act 1: Poor plot delivery, unpolished in-game cinematics and cardboard villains of the week. Act 1's story was bad yes - but if I could offer something more constructive I would say that at the very least I would have felt more invested if instead of flashback cutscenes to us and Walker we instead had to fight side-by-side with him in linear flashbacks to see him as a person and build a connection.
Story - Act 2: While I've forgotten a fair bit of this act - which leads me to believe it wasn't the strongest one in the game - Michael Ironside was there and as is his usual expertly portrayed Sam Fisher in the way that only he ever can. In the end you defeat the "Deep State" plot by helping him snag a corrupt man and that felt far more engaging and human - something which is a definite positive.
Story - Act 3: Hunting down Bodark collaborators was the first time that plot and gameplay came together to give me enemies that felt meaningful even if I knew little about them other than that they were bad. Taking them down with single shots, close quarters assaults and drone strikes all felt great and I loved that me and my friends were free to choose without the enemy having absurd health. It made them feel more real and in a way helps convey how these individuals - mortal as they are - can cause serious pain and suffering without having supernatural powers or survivability - i.e. Walker.
Story - Amber Sky: I apologize but I won't cover Terminators or Resistance further as I didn't really enjoy either or take them seriously. However Amber Sky was excellent and deserves a mention. The threat felt real and the enemy's willingness to use such a terrible weapon only increased my investment to see them destroyed.
Story - Motherland: The plot of Operation Motherland was a double-edged sword. On one-hand it invested itself in the Outcasts who I don't care much about for reasons I'll address later and on the other-hand I got to fight an adversary that felt more real and threatening. Ultimately the Conquest Mode's attachment to Motherland made it the best plot in the game - and the adversaries felt real.
My Experience - The Game:
Before I start I want to say that this is the part of the game I love most. It took me hundreds of hours before I was bothered to complete the story, doing a mission here or there. But the gameplay itself is in a completely different category. For many people I doubt they will share the sentiment so I will first explain how it's possible.
- I only ever played Solo without AI companions or with friends in Co-Op.
- We - all four of us - only ever played on Extreme, Elite with a custom settings version of the Light HUD which removed Detection Meters and NPC Markers.
- Over the course of our gameplay we never disabled any enemy types, and after Motherland was finished we restarted Conquest with no plans to progress because Outcasts actually impact the game negatively and Bodarks impact the game positively. So minimizing Outcast presence and maximizing Bodark presence gives ideal circumstances.
- We almost never played story missions or even really faction missions unless we didn't feel like roaming.
- Almost all of our gameplay experience centered on us roaming base to base and systematically dismantling each while we each found out which role we were best able to enjoy and contribute.
- We only played with Leveled Gear once to see what it was like and immediately ditched it and haven't touched it since.
Now onto the gameplay review.
NPCs - The Outcasts: Mechanically I hate the Outcasts with a passion. These AI allies regularly alert bases and actively detract from the experience by making combat less challenging. In terms of plot I also dislike them because I never felt I was given a reason to care about them and even at their best I question their intentions and why I seem to be answering to any of them.
NPCs - Sentinel: Mechanically Sentinel isn't the worst. They present little challenge as you improve at the game but if you alert them too early they can punish you if your team isn't in an ideal position to fight in direct combat. Breachers, Heavies, Snipers, Radio Operators and Drone Operators are all mechanically threatening but the Rocketeers are completely useless and have never killed someone in my team. The appearance of Sentinel however is ridiculous. These guys look like complete fools with zero experience - their only advantage in aesthetics is the comments they make now and then.
NPCs - Wolves: Mechanically Wolves are fine. They present a decent challenge and encourage improvement. Their Snipers are incredible and push the tension way up with their ability to instantly down anyone with a single shot. The breachers are fine but feel uninspired next to Sentinel's Breachers. Ultimately their increased survivability makes them a little more dangerous without being so ridiculous as to make me feel like they're unrealistic. Aesthetics wise I love the commentary once again, but the appearance is mixed - they kind of look like edgy airsoft players but I think some younger people probably enjoy their appearance so it's not something I'll complain much about.
NPCs - Azrael Drones & Helicopters: Love them and their threat they offer, can't see why so many people complain about them personally - they offer a degree of tension as they are dangerous without being totally impossible to defeat.
NPCs - Drones: I know most people will disagree with me but personally I love the drones. I hated them initially as I felt they were unfair, but the more I played the better me and my friends got at defeating them and we've grown to almost respect them as an incredibly lethal and terrifying vision of what future combat can offer. The ground ones not so much, specifically the flying ones. I do feel developers of future Ghost Recon titles with this sort of enemy will need to respect these enemies as a rare and incredibly dangerous threat however as they're no joke to new players.
NPCs - Bodarks: Mechanically they are top notch. The regular enemies aren't anything special but the oppressor pushed me as my friend group's close quarters specialist to a new height as I had to quickly deal with these guys or watch my team be decimated. The tactician helped make our marksman prioritize targets more effectively as these guys ability to call helicopters proved very dangerous. The seeker was a threat that encouraged us all the scout a base before entering, just one of them guys with our settings meant we'd have to clear the base with thermals throughout the whole experience as their stealth made them next to impossible to detect - easily able to take out our whole team if undetected. The dreadnoughts are as pointless as the rocketeers though, they don't offer anything meaningful or threatening. I loved the addition of region-specific camouflage and with our settings lacking NPC markers and detection meters it made these enemies just a little harder to spot. Thematically I love them once again - weirdly enough their commentary wasn't as good as before lacking humor and self-awareness but their aesthetics and threat makes up for this.
NPCs - AI Teammates: Personally I don't use them or like them and they have no bearing on my gameplay experience. Others enjoy them though from what I understand.
Gameplay - Classes: I love the class system - I don't care what anyone says. The addition of a handful of special abilities helps it feel like each player in the team has a unique edge at something and the perks added customization on top. It also made me feel a need to figure out what I could be best at - even if I enjoyed playing them all.
Gameplay - Weapons: If there's anything that doesn't really need any work at this point in terms of its formula it MIGHT be weapons. I do think that combat could do with a bit more range at times - but I'm also biased admittedly since I handle close combat in the game and it's my personal favorite. The weapon variety and its attachments are excellent, it feels like there's something for everyone.
Gameplay - Combat: With the settings I have it's perfect. Animations are great, gunplay is great, enemies are lethal and die fast - players are lethal and die fast, it feels engaging, challenging and encourages players to try different approaches to any given situation.
Gameplay - Open World: Roaming the open world is core to this experience for me - I'm not a giant fan of open world games these days as I think linear progression helps give more meaning to what's happening. However I will admit that the ability to travel freely base to base with the combat this game offers was a key part of what I most enjoyed.
Gameplay - Vehicles: I found these pointless and could give the player too much power - I do however enjoy that enemies have access to them, albeit I'm glad its not more common as fighting multiple enemy vehicles would get repetitive and feel less engaging.
Gameplay - Customization: There's plenty of customization options in this game - enough that any player at this point can look pretty much however they want. I love the amount of effort put into this.
Gameplay - PVP & Raids: I apologize if you were looking for me to offer some real look at this - I'm sure someone else can offer insights here. But admittedly neither me nor any of my friends have bothered with the game's raid content or the player-vs-player content. I know some people love this but it's just not something we ever felt the game needed. Although if I can offer anything it would be that if the game had featured an opt-in/opt-out open world random encounter PvP when not fighting bases or if faction missions had simply had PvP missions I definitely would have opted in for this. While for the raid content I would have participated if they'd increased player limit to 8 and made these raids into massive fortresses with dozens of entrenched, lethal and varied enemies.
DLC - Free Updates: The free content offered post-release is a highlight of the commitment the game's developers made to trying to make a good game for its players and the commitment of the game's business-oriented staff trying to make up for losses and mistakes due to the launch. The fact both were committed in their own way is something I appreciate a great deal.
DLC - Store Content: The items offered I have a varied opinion of but it's not actually just negative. What I don't like is when gear regular players ought to have access to for customization is behind a paywall - I'd define this as any gear that U.S. Military probably have access to since that just makes sense. However the cosmetic items which are from different factions or is more creative being on the store doesn't bother me in the slightest as it offers dedicated players a way to show support for the game and get access to content that doesn't really make sense for Ghosts to have but provides players with something fun that they can use to play around or make their character feel more personalized.
DLC - NFTs: I apologize for being uninformed but I know very little about how these are being implemented or why people seem angry about it. I'd rather people save their comments on this for elsewhere since it doesn't really have anything to do with the game as far as I'm concerned unless they start trying to shove it in my face. Personally it just seems like a waste of Ubisoft's effort and while I encourage them to explain what they believe the value of NFTs is and how they can make the games I play better - right now it just seems like something on the sidelines that means nothing to me and contributes nothing to my game.
My Experience - The Summary & End:
I apologize if I didn't address something in here - if you have any questions feel free to leave them in the comments and I'll try to get around to them. Personally I love the game and while I know it's probably just boiled down to how me and my friends have chosen to play the game - I think at the very least if others share my love of these aspects of the game perhaps it'll encourage the developers to focus on these features. If you've had some difficulty finding what's fun about the game but can sense something under the surface try what I said above and see what happens. Sometimes all a game needs to shine is a good challenge for its players.
My Experience - Message to Ubisoft:
I started playing games with the Ubisoft brand as a kid. I loved Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon and Assassin's Creed growing up. I love that you try to change things up now and then for better or worse and while sometimes it feels you've given up on games I'm really glad you didn't with this one. I've tried to support each game release financially even if I don't always get around to playing them as much as I wish I could. I've even contributed through microtransactions even though I know many people despise them - if only because I want to see more of the games I love.
If there is one thing I could say that would be heard it's this. Ghost Recon Operation Motherland & Ghost Recon Frontline being announced at the same time provided a great contrast. On one hand you were adding free content to a game I love and it only made the game even better and despite the fact it was released free I bought whatever store content came with the update despite not personally needing any of it solely because the gameplay experience it has the potential to create means a great deal to me. On the other hand you announced a template game long past the genre's point of relevance and one which to me struck a nerve if only because I want to see Ubisoft creating trends and new game experiences rather than derivative clones and following trends of other developers. I know there's still staff in Ubisoft who are dedicated to creating the best game experiences they can because that's exactly what Breakpoint's gameplay gave me with the effort.
When customers and fans feel the company they're so invested in is going in the wrong direction you can see the impact in what happened with Ghost Recon: Frontline. A harsh negative response that turns away the casual audience you seek to bring in for their financial value. But if you take care of fans and the customers you do have they can take care of you - not just through direct contribution but the indirect contribution that comes from positive reception of announcements, influencer content and bringing in their own friends. I may not be an influencer - but I can say safely none of my friends would have played Breakpoint or given it a chance otherwise because of its negative reception and bad story - but I found the part of the game that shines and made sure they shared in the experience. I remain hopeful - stupid as that might be - for what you could do in the future. Thanks for the experiences thus far, look forward to more in the future.
stdape 34 posts
@psifur_ Breakpoint Though could be a great game, has been let down with Poor DLC,s and the Only thing better is the Experience Mode and the MOD. AI is still a Joke, Side Missions rarely any good.
Problem is MOD gives us more Reality as much as they can, but very few to team up with, most are gun ho.
Since Launch UBI really messed up, NO Crossplay, NO Mission Editor, and NO response from them. Let alone the inexcusable bugs poor AI, Voices and Video Sequences.
They have a chance to Rectify so much, but are unwilling too. They are making a Splinter Cell updated, which may well be poor as well. DO not get me wrong Splinter Cell was and is a Classic, COD done same with Modern Warfare, what a flop that was.
Frontline should be shredded and binned, more people are turning to PVE CO-OP Games, PVP is done way too much and does nothing but get Cheats, very few Talented Players among them.
Personally I would have liked more Profiles 3 is pathetic as I try different scenarios etc, and play with others now and then.
FcAc-No-Moe 1286 posts
Well then ... there you go!
jmagnum50 136 posts
@psifur_ It's nice to see someone else is enjoying this. I forget how many hours I put in this game, but I've been enjoying this game myself. What I truly don't like about this game is the online-only thing to it that's best left for any kind of multiplayer game mode. I myself don't have much of a problem with drones, as they offer a bit of enemy variety to them. They may be bullet sponges, but in past GR games between GRAW and FS, vehicles were also bullet sponges themselves, like cars, APC's, and choppers (aside from tanks, just use anti-tank assets). Drones themselves are pretty much a different version of that. It would be better if they acted more like realistically, perhaps. Also, the behemoth did not need to be too spongey. Air strikes, rockets, anything like that need to be more effective against those things.
Part 1 of the story was hit or miss with me. Now, it's understandable that Walker wants his men to be well taken care of, the people he works with to be competent, and for the missions he's sent on to not be mishandled by people he doesn't trust. He also wants people who do really bad things, or sloppy work, to be held accountable. However, he does have such extreme measures to deal with his problems. The flashback of his men slacking off is an example. What kind of boss murders his own men for screwing up? He was also going to use advanced drones to hold people at gunpoint and, I guess, live the way he expects them to. He was a maniac, and deserved to be put down. This is what I believe the first part of the story was showing, at least to me. While Nomad and Walker were soldiers, they had different viewpoints of what a soldier's place was, I think. One did his best to protect people who can't protect themselves, or so they don't have to. The other wants to bring a new world order, where soldiers like him are in charge, so they won't have to be thrown away meaninglessly, even if it meant regular people suffered. That's where they differed, and that's what I wanted to see more of in the first part, whether it's side missions or main ones. They could've done without the pirate treasure stuff or helping find a lure for someone, or junk like that. Just what I mentioned before.
I also enjoy the classes myself. What's your preferred class, because even though I dabble in all of them, I'm mostly an Assault kind of guy. Also, have you tried the faction campaigns? One is just helping the Outcasts get more organized and get their voice out, and another is helping to save the Homesteaders from a biological attack. If you liked Operation Amber Sky, you might like that one.
@stdape When it comes to the AI I hear you, I think there are times it's could be improved. I think that what Ubisoft's development team could be thinking is that the casual or regular players who pick up the game might be too intimidated by the AI if it was more sophisticated and tactically adept - then when they compare the cost to make multiple levels of AI intelligence for difficulty they probably see it as too large of an expense when comparing it to the alternative of just making the game harder to survive by adjusting in-game stats to enemies and the player. Ubisoft has plenty of excellent programmers given how large of a company they are so that's my best guess - cost-saving measure.
I do agree that cross-play would have been nice especially to make the game feel more alive, but that'd be a technical cost and once again they may have determined the game unable to generate the review necessary to justify the implementation - but that's just another guess. In terms of a Mission Editor I think it would have been cool but I'm not surprised it wasn't implemented and if they stated the game would have one I missed that boat. I've not really experienced many AI bugs at this point in the game's cycle but I could just be lucky. And in terms of PvP can't comment don't play it. Oh yeah and the 3 profiles is a bit strange - definitely feel there could have been more there.
Thanks for sharing your experience my guy.
@jmagnum50 Glad to hear I'm not alone in really enjoying this game. I know there's still some out there who are opposed to online-only play - Though personally I'm never not connected to the internet so I don't notice it anymore, but I definitely think it's a valid criticism if that's ever something you have to deal with or if perhaps there's another personal reason. I feel it could be tied into wanting the game to feel totally within the control of the developers but I'm not really sure. I've ever seen a situation where players having access to a game whether that's to be dumb and cheat in their single player game OR to create mods and unofficial content for the game has ever resulted in backlash. I think almost all players approve of having this sort of access to a game so long as others can't use it to abuse them in-game. Another reason why it's done this way could be the fact it has console releases and the PC version is being made with very few differences from those - which would probably be fine if there was cross-play but there's not.
Yeah I agree with the drones adding variety - and yeah I think air strikes definitely should do considerable damage to a behemoth. I know they're trying to prevent players from cheesing a behemoth but honestly if players are cheesing the behemoth then the job is more on the player to increase game difficulty. One of the most frustrating things I often see is players complaining about gameplay difficulty without bothering to try and increase the game's difficulty to accommodate - I wish there was a better way for developers to implement adaptive difficulty without relying on an algorithm to adjust the gameplay (which I think would be nothing but a negative). Perhaps the solution would be to just make a flat difficulty where different enemies are harder (like wolves, bodarks, etc). A kind of built in difficulty that doesn't rely on levels or an adjustable difficulty setting - forcing players to improve as they play when they encounter newer and more difficult threats and giving them a sense of achievement for being able to overcome them.
I first played mainly Echelon which I think was partly due to my past experience with the Splinter Cell franchise but also due to the fact it can see through walls which is a major advantage when not having NPC markers to rely on. I switched to Panther and stayed there until Operation Motherland as it fit my playstyle fairly well since it gave the ability to break contact and render oneself concealed against drones. In Operation Motherland I've mainly been playing Assault but admittedly for the extra survivability as the Bodarks were quite the initial challenge, in all likelihood though I will change back to Panther and just take the perk which stops me from being able to reach critical injury. I did try the faction missions for the outcasts and the homesteaders but sadly me and the outcasts have a difficult relationship at the best of times - I'm not really a fan of them and I don't really like that it seems I'm taking orders from them sometimes which doesn't really make much sense.
Thanks for sharing your experience my man, always glad to see someone else enjoying the game.