Best posts made by Mars388502
@superj021 I sincerely find the all story fairly badly written and I would like to explain why, using a few notes I made on the former forum.
Let's begin by the premice:
You incarnate Nomad, who apparently is the CO of an entire Ghost platoon sent to investigate the sinkage of a United States Navy ship (USN) and the lose of it's entire crew at large of an island which is New Zeland territory leased to the United States at, more or less, the limit of Antartica.
Upon your arrival, the 4 helos ferrying your unit are taken down, killing half of the unit under your command. You are miraculously contacted by "Homestaders" (until now, an unknown, local population), you regroup at their main hideout and greeted by men under your command, that won't ask you for any orders or directive of some sort. Furthermore, you learn (either by the homestaders or your own soldiers) that a Private Security Company (PSC) is present on site. Nobody thought to call the siege of said company to understand what's happening even before sending in the canaries?
This is the initial plot. At this point the US department of defense lost a ship, his crew, 4 helos and their crew and something like 15 or 20 spec ops soldiers...at this point, stricly from a financial point of view, the loss is several millions of USD, I would love to be at the congressial hearing.
Secondly, the simple transport part of the operation would have been monitored by satellite and someone would have acknolwledged that something went terribly wrong. The premice "the island went dark" is some scenaristic shortcut wrote by people who doesn't seem to be really aware of intelligence gathering means, nor their treatment, neither how military operations are organised nor conducted.
This is just the premice and as you can understand I find it 1. Particularly badly thought 2. It shows a certain lack of knowledge, if not a total desdain, for my primary field of studies (which I find outraging).
Bear in mind that this is ONLY the begining, from the very get go of the game. The following episodes aren't in any way an improvement from a narrative perspective.
But let’s keep digging. With episode 1, you and you alone (that's just unrealistic) take down the leader of a Sentinel sub-faction: the Wolves (Wolves have been discussed abundantly and I won't last anymore on them) that seemed to have a plan to decapite several head of States using a submarine... because, yeah, it's pretty easy to put you hands on those. Anyhow, you lone-wolfed, decimated and decapited an organisation that can easily be assimilated to a terrorist organisation.
Episode 2ish (Sam Fisher/Amber sky), you finally get "teamates" (for several reasons, I won't discuss them neither). Sam Fischer gets to an island on which the first military couldn't lend a foot to tell you that there is somekind of conspiracy going on. The so called "Deep State" that puppets everything and everyone... meanwhile the NSA, the FBI and all departments of the US governement just sit on their rear and does nothing. Finally, you get to help Sam Fischer unveil said conspiracy, but still the US governement will not take any kind of action to take control of a New Zeland territory (at this point, New Zeland and Australia, in my opinion, would have at least tried to understand what was going on in their own back yards). Amber Sky doesn't differ much, only this time it's not 1 single operator but at least 3 from various counter terrorist units, from 3 different countries (we can argue for pages on the nature of their units) to help you unveil yet another conspiracy revolving around somekind of nerve gas (that could be easily assimilated to a WMD). This episode/event punches holes in the all narrative. To sum up: you and the unit under you command are stranded, but there are people who can come and go as they please. You're supposed to be unable to communicate with the rest of the world, but you receive transmissions from the R6 CO?
Episode 3ish (various bodarks). A "renegade" unit of former Russian Spetsnaz (Spetsnaz is an umbrella russian term designating special forces). These guys are mean russians how wants to trigger a war between Russia and the United States (why is still a mystery to me and if anyone has a clue, please come forward). Once again you have to neutralize a submarine (that apparently Russia has forgot about). In the last update, even if you have decapitated the Bordarks, someone else takes the lead, but this time they came in with their own means (because apparently everyone can come and go from the island without much trouble but you). The last update brought the new Bodarks who seem to have heavy military equipment and to bring those you would need big transport boats, but they got through the international blockade without any much trouble.
As you can see, the more we go further in the GRBP time frame, the less it makes sense and punches plot holes in the story Unisoft tried to tell that in my opinion was written by people who doesn't seem to care about "realism" (in a broad acceptation of the term).
This looks like a rant, and sure it is, but I sincerely hope you will better understand my point of view and by extension the people who may share it.
This is a copy paste from a post I made in a different thread, but the idea stays the same: can we have a real exchange with the dev team around here or anywhere else at the discretion of Ubisoft?
The question is adressed to the moderator team ( @Ubi-Heruhoss among others). It would be sincerely appreciated if someone from the moderator team could tell us, in a truthfully fashion (please not a standard answer). But something sincere, within the limits of your attributions.
We have the names of the concept and environnement artists (most of them were or are freelances), the lead designer (Éric Couzian, who still is at Ubisoft Paris), one of the writers (Émile Daubon, who seems to be still at Ubisoft Paris).
But we don't know who is in charge of the Delta Company now, director of the IP and other key positions.
In my opinion, and this is just an idea, instead of going at each others throat for a yes or no, it may be more constructive to adress our posts directly to the persons in charge of some of the elements we would like to see in a future iteration.
A step forward and that would rebuild somekind of trust: a simple introduction from the brand manager. Something stupid like:
I'm XXX, I'm the brand manager for the IP, blablabla, where I come from, what I did before Ghost Recon, how long have I worked within the industry, I like dogs (who doesn't?) and what not.
We do consider your opinions and feedbacks and we would like to know more, so here an adress where you can send your ideas. We do reserve ourselves the right to reply or not, but at least we will notify you if we opened your mail or not."
Something among those lines, I don't know. This idea isn't new, we have been asking for a sincere exchange with the studio for a very, very long time now. I don't know if this idea has been heard, passed to the upper echelons or simply ignored. A real answer would be appreciated. Furthermore, it could contribute to change our perception of the company/studio.
@virtual-chris: I think you're onto something, since the former forum, was quite easier to use, specially from a phone (this can't be stressed enough) people could post and share their thoughts and impressions faster and in an easier manner (specially people on console). Now, we have this fancy forum that makes our communication way more tedious than what it used to be. In my case, today I've made my very first post on my impression on the new forum. To do so, I needed to boot my pc, scroll for the topic that got buried 5 or 6 pages back and firgure out how to reply without adressing to someone in particular. I play on console, so having to come here from a pc is kind counternatural in someway.
"To promote even less engagement" In my opinion, it's not really promoted, it's rather that it will prevent some of us to post as regularly as we did on the older forum. I'm not saying that change is bad, at time is necessary and welcomed, but when there is an improvement from the previous situation. Here we had the game to concentrate and discuss on, now we have also the forum in itself?
This is my first post on the new forum and personnally, I'm not a great fan of it.
First and foremost reason: It's, as BoneFrog wrote earlier, horrible to use on a phone. I've taken the habit to write from my cell while having my morning coffee and cigarette. You can't scroll on what you're writting, you can't zoom, you can't edit (when english is not your first language, you would kind like to have that function), it took me a while to understand how to write from it and I still can't totally understand how to. On a classic computer, I won't say it's any better. Yes it does look fancy but that's where it ends. Somehow it's a bit like the game itself: it looks nice but that's it. I'm not a web designer or engineer or whatever, but there must be solutions to what difficulties some of us encounter around here.
What I would like to see changed first is a more phone friendly forum website. The ability to see what you're writting, edit it if need be, zoom in and out, in other words what we use to have on the older forum, even if it's design was kind of outdated it worked better (I probably sound like a boomer right now). I believe there is a large room for improvement (like the game we are "debating"), but having to tirelessly ask for improvement is getting frustrating (like many other subjects, braids, battle belts, smarter teamates, blahblahblah). Now we have this second front: having to make recommendation on how to improve the forum?
I really don't know what to say, write anymore. This has become so discouraging.
@fcac-no-moe I thought that may be it at least the OP deserved a real explaination since I don't remember reading any topic made by SuperJ021 on the older forum. So he can understand why a great number of us have certain "ressentment" (to say the least) toward the narrative made by Ubisoft
@superj021 Yes I did, I didn't find it compelling in anyway (and to be sincere, pretty terribly bad). Secondly, I've just tried to explain my own point of view, it was in no way intended as an attack and I'm sincerely sorry if you felt it that way. But since I don't know you, it seemed important to explain why I felt that way about the narrative
Latest posts made by Mars388502
@sandilands85 it's extremely well researched and well put together. However, I fail to understand why the US would intervene. But, that's just me. I strongly believe that any explicit military intervention is politically motivated, should it be solely to fulfill international obligations (like a military assistance treaty). I don't know if it's something you might want to consider to add?
Once again, it's a really interesting reading, with a myriad of details.
Today, I'm travelling to Paris for Eurosatory (one of the largest arms fair in Europe) that begins today.
One of my plans is to go see the reps of Sig Sauer for the MCx Spear, for certain reasons. A part from that I sincerely not many other arms manufacturers I would like to meet. Maybe the FN Herstal and their new lmg (which names eludes me right now).
If you have suggestions I would glad to see if I can speak with some manufacturer
Meanwhile take care
While commuting, a thought crossed my mind about vehicles: what kind of civilian vehicles should be represented in a future iteration? I have been playing a lot of Just Cause 4 lately and there is a plethora of those (even drived by NPCs). These includes cars, trucks, flatbeds, buggies, construction vehicles, boats, planes, helicopters. Some may point out that those were present in GRW to some extend. In the present iteration though, those weren't a thing due to the "curfew/martial law" (which in my opinion is a scenaristic short cut to don't have to implement such mechanic).
I was wondering what kind of civilian vehicles would you like to see (pictures are welcomed)?
On the other of the spectrum, what kind of military vehicles would you like to see implemented? As fas as I'm concerned:
Helicopters: nothing more than a MH6 and UH60 that I could pilot. For the OPFORs, that may depend who we are facing in my opinion. For example, we faced the Bodarks recently (former russian Spetsnaz) and the addition of russian made helicopters would have been welcomed (Ka50, 52, Mi24/35, Ka32, etc...)
Boats: my main issue with the boats (which are just 3 or 4 types: wood canoe, zodiac/dingy, small rigid armed boat, "yacht") is their transport capability even if they have been increased between GRW and GRBP, they can't be used to exfil more than 4 pax). For the OPFORs, still depending of where the action takes place, boat size should exceed SMERSH class patrol boats. But the question is: should they be drivable? In my opinion no, since those vessels need a larger crew than your average spec ops unit.
Land vehicles: this conerns essentially the OPFORs vehicles. Once again it depends who we are facing. It ranges from technical to MBTs. MBTs are a subject on their own. Yes I would kind like to see OPFORs using them (at the condition of having the proper tools against them, recent events shows fairly well that a MBT isn't invincible). But should we be able to drive one? In my opinion no. In the army it's a occupation on it's own.
Another subsequent question is: would you like to be able to customize a vehicle skin (paintjob) and weaponery? The MH6 and UH60 can be modified to suite best certain missions (transport, CSAR, CAS). Personnally, I would love to mount a 30mm chaingun on a MH6.
@en075 sincerely, and I firmly believe Google traduction is a fairly limited tool, what you wrote moves me somehow. Because for once the problem isn't me...so before I had to squash a tear thank you, it's sincerely and deeply appreciated
@ai-bluefox you're probably right in that perception, eventhough, I may not totally agree. I wonder what else is possible to do, to make sure they received the message loud and clear that the franchise needs a better 2 way communication? This is the point I'm trying to get an answer for, primarly.
But apparently this doesn't work, after a bit more than a month, and it is why I made another thread about a letter to Mr.Capizzi. I sincerely invite you to go check it out and I would like your input on it. Concerning the topic of this thread, well I don't know...
Today makes 1 month and 2 day since the first post, since the question hasn't been answered, so @Ubi-Heruhoss , could you eventually tell us if there is any alternative, solution to resolve the lack of communication? If any demand for more transparency has been sent to your upper echelons and taken in consideration? Within the limits of your attributions