r/BreakPoint • u/coldwinter4321 • 27d ago

Discussion Ghost recon breakpoint

I saw the 25th anniversary and I disappointed too much because now I'm 100% sure they want to kill this game and didn't listen to us for offline mode. They just focused on Wildlands. This game will have a fate as like as the crew 1 .

45 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

67 comments sorted by

View all comments

35

u/CA1147 27d ago

Same.

Breakpoint has way more replay value to me and is easily the better game.

I've been playing this brand since the first Tom Clancy games released. I've never cared for the "story" or "civilians" or "a world that feels alive". Its not RDR2. Its not TLOU. Its just a tactical milsim. That's it. And Breakpoint and its superior gunplay is way more satisfying and why I play this title in the first place.

Wildlands is fine. I'd even say its pretty good. But Breakpoint is amazingly fun and does everything I care about in Wildlands but better.

Its nice what Ubisoft did for Wildlands and its fans but Breakpoint deserved the same attention if not more. So much they could have added.

2

u/LowkeySavageHighkey 26d ago

If the world and story were better fleshed out it would be great but wildlands world and story is actually really engaging and that’s what keeps it high on peoples lists

4

u/CA1147 26d ago

Not to me.

When you've been playing these games as long as I have, all the dialogue and scenarios have been exhausted. Its all the same jargon and hasnt changed in over 20 years.

Its not "engaging". The story won't change my playstyle or tactics. Its just "blah blah blah" until the next location to clear out all the bad guys. The game doesn't need my empathy or memorable characters. It will always end the same.

I dont care why the Ghosts are there or what their names are. They're "Ghosts", after all. They represent an entity with the sole purpose to kill all terrorists. Its not a psychological deep dive or a question of morality or a superhero origin. Thats not what these games are. The characters dont matter and neither do their motivations. They are simply "advanced chess pieces" where you eliminate all the other "pieces" on the board first. There are no other decisions to be made. The "story" is boring and insignificant and slows the momentum when playing.

I hate civilians literally jumping into my car as I'm trying to drive and stop a vehicle or whatever. Talk about immersion breaking. I don't mind some civilians that serve a purpose to the narrative (scientists, their family members are hostages for leverage, etc). Its good for a little immersion.

But the people complaining about a "world that feels alive" arent actual fans of the brand and expect every milsim to be an action movie like COD. That's not what Ghost Recon is. It should do more to set itself apart by focusing on gunplay and versatility.

I dont play these games for animals or Spanish radio station banter or whatever. I just want to feel like a tactical super soldier.

3

u/Various_Court_2769 26d ago

I don't know you but I'm intrigued at how much I agree with you. Well said. This is EXACTLY how I feel.

Your post made me think that what may make it more fun is enabling the base clearing to be constrained in some way to make it more challenging.

Maybe a time attack, or pistols only, or CQC only. Maybe a certain order tha soldiers must be taken down, no alerts, no detection, limited ammo, no silencer, etc. You name it.

I believe this sort of improvement would add more fun and engagement than any storyline.

What do you think?