MyDarkestTimeline01@ani.social
on 18 Jul 19:00
nextcollapse
They saw how popular Ready or Not was and thought to themselves “didn’t we used to make a game like that?”
RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
on 18 Jul 19:46
nextcollapse
Yeah, it was Rainbow Six, not Ghost Recon lol.
MyDarkestTimeline01@ani.social
on 18 Jul 19:50
collapse
I seem to recall Ghost recon being adjacent. At least in the early days.
Carmakazi@lemmy.world
on 18 Jul 19:56
nextcollapse
I remember playing Ghost Recon (no tagline) back on the Gamecube, probably not the appropriate game for my age.
It was definitely a slower and more grounded game back then, or at least as much as a mainstream game could be back in the early 2000s. And first-person.
RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
on 18 Jul 20:31
collapse
Its was similar in some way, but it was also very different in others.
With the exception of Ghost Recon 1, which was first person, the series was always a third person shooter genre, but it occasionally was first person depending on the platform and the game (Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 1 is in first person only for PS2, Xbox, and PC, but is optionally third person on Xbox 360. GRAW 2 is in third person for all platforms). Most Ghost Recon games are third person, and this was likely an intentional choice to make a game that does not directly compete with Rainbow Six, another Ubisoft series.
Ghost Recon had some semblance of realism, but not on the level of Rainbow Six and definitely not on the level of Ready or Not. Rainbow Six in its later years also began to lose its realistic style and became more and more fanciful, culminating in Siege having crossovers that don’t make sense for the game or genre (I love NieR, but 2B does not belong in Rainbow Six, and her model in the game looks awful anyway).
Ghost Recons biggest difference is that Ghost Recon has a military focus, whereas Rainbow Six is more focused on SWAT or counterterrorism efforts. To this end, Rainbow Six often featured levels with enclosed spaces such as the inside of buildings or airplanes and a lot of close quarters combat, while Ghost Recon favors more open maps and long range encounters. Ghost Recon also featured vehicles and vehicular combat sections while Rainbow Six generally did not. For example, Ghost Recon would sometimes have a helicopter or tank appear to assist your squad in combat, perhaps against another enemy vehicle. If Rainbow Six ever featured a vehicle, it definitely wasnt a tank assisting your squad, and at most was a helicopter shooting through building glass or something similar.
To me, Ready Or Not is more of a spiritual successor to SWAT rather than a ripoff.
In a lot of ways, it’s an evolution because it deals with current topics and modern technologies. It also feels grittier than I remember SWAT being.
You are right thats what it would be called, but it doesnt do anything to be a "spiritual successor". It's just a modern copy of it, even worse in places, definitely in terms of quality. I wouldnt be surprised if the assets are just from a marketplace. I left some more thoughts elsewhere in the comment thread and they certainly love their "modern technologies", with AI generated art ingame.
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
on 19 Jul 09:58
collapse
It’s the only swat style game (with Ground Branch) at the moment. And it’s quite fun.
The game is incredibly poorly made, with clipping textures and models everywhere, animations are horrible, performance is terrible, it's hazy and blurry, there's AI imagery all over the place.
It's a cash grab at best. You just have to spawn into the lobby to immediately know you just bought an incredibly low quality game.
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
on 18 Jul 19:11
nextcollapse
Why would we be excited or happy about this? They can still cancel it at any moment. It’s not real until it’s released.
OrteilGenou@lemmy.world
on 18 Jul 19:49
nextcollapse
Even then it’s only real while you’re continuing to pay for the privilege to play
SharkAttak@kbin.melroy.org
on 18 Jul 21:46
collapse
And even if it's released it could be shit anyway.
Give us one last proper Splinter Cell send-off while Michael Ironside is still alive, you cowards. A “final job” with a retiring Sam Fisher would be an amazing setup for a game. Not that I trust Ubisoft to pull it off, mind. But we can dream.
What if they want to use the branding again in the future? They will do a gatcha mobile game with a never ending story. Don’t forget to try your luck on getting the Assassin’s Creed collab!
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
on 18 Jul 20:38
collapse
Michael has had a hard decade or so and a lot of indications are that he already can’t be “Sam”.
At which point you basically just have the GR Wildlands (?) mission where he talks to you for like 30 seconds.
I thought he beat cancer and was back to acting? He couldn’t do Sam Fisher in his prime anymore, but maybe an old Sam on his last legs? Though I guess the clock is ticking even for that.
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
on 18 Jul 23:24
collapse
Eh. I am a huge fan of “one last gunfight” stories but video games rarely ever pull those off and I triply don’t expect Ubi to do it. It is inherently a subversion of the power fantasy and it says a lot that the most famous example (MGS4) turned into a full on macho power fantasy by the end. Off the top of my head, the only one that even tried was LAD: Infinite Wealth and that still screwed it up with the post credits.
So it basically just leaves you with a sad and depressing reminder of aging.
Nah. I already don’t think the Wildlands mission was good, but let’s remember Sam with the VERY underrated Conviction.
_haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works
on 18 Jul 20:25
nextcollapse
Ooooh, you lost me at Ubisoft.
rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world
on 18 Jul 20:36
nextcollapse
Oh, Ubisoft? The big famous sex crimes company?
Drbreen@sh.itjust.works
on 18 Jul 23:12
nextcollapse
It’s really hard to be excited because of Ubi.
They’ll market it as some hardcore, gritty milsim but yet still feels so arcadey to appeal to the masses.
I get it, more mass appeal = more money =soul lost.
DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 19 Jul 05:22
nextcollapse
Wasn’t Ghost Recon third person?
That scared of rainbow six was fucking first person but thats now esports hero shooter swill
The original Ghost Recon games in the 1990s and early 2000s were first person and more outdoor/wilderness oriented than Rainbow 6.
The latest 2, Wildlands and Breakpoint, are third person but still great games.
A lot of people like myself complained about the third person. So this is giving the OG hardcores what they want, could be a good thing in spite of Ubisoft.
DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 19 Jul 13:50
collapse
The first Ghost Recon game I played was on the GameCube… well i’ll be damned. Could be a good thing
threaded - newest
They saw how popular Ready or Not was and thought to themselves “didn’t we used to make a game like that?”
Yeah, it was Rainbow Six, not Ghost Recon lol.
I seem to recall Ghost recon being adjacent. At least in the early days.
I remember playing Ghost Recon (no tagline) back on the Gamecube, probably not the appropriate game for my age.
It was definitely a slower and more grounded game back then, or at least as much as a mainstream game could be back in the early 2000s. And first-person.
Its was similar in some way, but it was also very different in others.
With the exception of Ghost Recon 1, which was first person, the series was always a third person shooter genre, but it occasionally was first person depending on the platform and the game (Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 1 is in first person only for PS2, Xbox, and PC, but is optionally third person on Xbox 360. GRAW 2 is in third person for all platforms). Most Ghost Recon games are third person, and this was likely an intentional choice to make a game that does not directly compete with Rainbow Six, another Ubisoft series.
Ghost Recon had some semblance of realism, but not on the level of Rainbow Six and definitely not on the level of Ready or Not. Rainbow Six in its later years also began to lose its realistic style and became more and more fanciful, culminating in Siege having crossovers that don’t make sense for the game or genre (I love NieR, but 2B does not belong in Rainbow Six, and her model in the game looks awful anyway).
Ghost Recons biggest difference is that Ghost Recon has a military focus, whereas Rainbow Six is more focused on SWAT or counterterrorism efforts. To this end, Rainbow Six often featured levels with enclosed spaces such as the inside of buildings or airplanes and a lot of close quarters combat, while Ghost Recon favors more open maps and long range encounters. Ghost Recon also featured vehicles and vehicular combat sections while Rainbow Six generally did not. For example, Ghost Recon would sometimes have a helicopter or tank appear to assist your squad in combat, perhaps against another enemy vehicle. If Rainbow Six ever featured a vehicle, it definitely wasnt a tank assisting your squad, and at most was a helicopter shooting through building glass or something similar.
How is Ready or Not popular? It's such a potato SWAT ripoff.
SWAT 4 came out 20 years ago
Yeah, exactly.
To me, Ready Or Not is more of a spiritual successor to SWAT rather than a ripoff. In a lot of ways, it’s an evolution because it deals with current topics and modern technologies. It also feels grittier than I remember SWAT being.
You are right thats what it would be called, but it doesnt do anything to be a "spiritual successor". It's just a modern copy of it, even worse in places, definitely in terms of quality. I wouldnt be surprised if the assets are just from a marketplace. I left some more thoughts elsewhere in the comment thread and they certainly love their "modern technologies", with AI generated art ingame.
It’s the only swat style game (with Ground Branch) at the moment. And it’s quite fun.
You just spam F and one tap enemies. Lol.
The game is incredibly poorly made, with clipping textures and models everywhere, animations are horrible, performance is terrible, it's hazy and blurry, there's AI imagery all over the place.
It's a cash grab at best. You just have to spawn into the lobby to immediately know you just bought an incredibly low quality game.
Why would we be excited or happy about this? They can still cancel it at any moment. It’s not real until it’s released.
Even then it’s only real while you’re continuing to pay for the privilege to play
And even if it's released it could be shit anyway.
Give us one last proper Splinter Cell send-off while Michael Ironside is still alive, you cowards. A “final job” with a retiring Sam Fisher would be an amazing setup for a game. Not that I trust Ubisoft to pull it off, mind. But we can dream.
What if they want to use the branding again in the future? They will do a gatcha mobile game with a never ending story. Don’t forget to try your luck on getting the Assassin’s Creed collab!
Michael has had a hard decade or so and a lot of indications are that he already can’t be “Sam”.
At which point you basically just have the GR Wildlands (?) mission where he talks to you for like 30 seconds.
I thought he beat cancer and was back to acting? He couldn’t do Sam Fisher in his prime anymore, but maybe an old Sam on his last legs? Though I guess the clock is ticking even for that.
Eh. I am a huge fan of “one last gunfight” stories but video games rarely ever pull those off and I triply don’t expect Ubi to do it. It is inherently a subversion of the power fantasy and it says a lot that the most famous example (MGS4) turned into a full on macho power fantasy by the end. Off the top of my head, the only one that even tried was LAD: Infinite Wealth and that still screwed it up with the post credits.
So it basically just leaves you with a sad and depressing reminder of aging.
Nah. I already don’t think the Wildlands mission was good, but let’s remember Sam with the VERY underrated Conviction.
Ooooh, you lost me at Ubisoft.
Oh, Ubisoft? The big famous sex crimes company?
It’s really hard to be excited because of Ubi.
They’ll market it as some hardcore, gritty milsim but yet still feels so arcadey to appeal to the masses.
I get it, more mass appeal = more money =soul lost.
Wasn’t Ghost Recon third person?
That scared of rainbow six was fucking first person but thats now esports hero shooter swill
The original Ghost Recon games in the 1990s and early 2000s were first person and more outdoor/wilderness oriented than Rainbow 6.
The latest 2, Wildlands and Breakpoint, are third person but still great games.
A lot of people like myself complained about the third person. So this is giving the OG hardcores what they want, could be a good thing in spite of Ubisoft.
The first Ghost Recon game I played was on the GameCube… well i’ll be damned. Could be a good thing
You can lease it for at least a year before we shut it down…
And I can confirm that I Won’t Be Playing It because Ubisoft blows chunks.
Ubisoft has some great older IPs that I wish would find itself in another company’s hands, though that will never happen.
It’s gonna be live service traaaash 🎶
I sang this to the tune of Zach Morris is Trasaash