NEW Gameplay Mechanic Could be a MAKE OR BREAK for Ghost Recon PROJECT OVER™ 

It's ubisoft, so if it's not broken, they'll find a way.

It's ghost recon... Its been broken since breakpoint released

It’s pretty broken atm

A cosmetic store would be useless 😅 i dont see my char 90% of time? Then we dont need any cosmetics at all 😅 that would make the store useless

So, Yea they have to fix it, because Ghost recon has been broken with the only good game being the original.

yep. as i say, why not both!

I agree. Just has to be done right regardless. The last 2 iterations were not done right. Single player co op is always great, can’t really miss on those two. They just don’t last long in any genre or game of this matter. How do you improve or make PvP better. They obviously think if rumors are true 1st person will. Imo, it doesn’t matter if the gameplay loop isn’t there. They should learn from PUBG. Simple yet great whether in FPP or TPP. No drones, marking etc. Simple tactics and great maps. Is all GR PvP needs.

​@@jriveaglenah wildlands was golden

First person is the Walmart of shooters

💯 Yes Sir.

I agree it should be third person but wouldn’t mind if you could switch between 1st and third, but I find 1st person completely defeats the purpose of being able to customise your character 😅

I've laid out the overlooked reality of the original GR and RB6 games and how they provided a true tactical simulation that needed today's technology to make it next level. I've played all the GR games and love them all, but there is a MASSIVE difference between the original GR and the causal GR (Breakpoint, Wildlands, Future Soldier, etc.). The current versions are perfectly suited for consoles and works on PC. However, a tactical sim is perfectly suited for PC and that is what we need for the next GR game. They should make 2 versions of the next GR game, one for PC that is more of a tactical simulation based around complex missions and the other for consoles (and PC release as well) which is a bit more of a arcade style with 3rd person and is open world. It is beyond the 1st or 3rd person perspective and that is what is being ignored in this discussion. The original GR was a far deeper experience which is sorely missed in today's tactical games. They can either make 2 versions of the game for PC and console, or make one game that offers OTS (Over the shoulder) view as a compromise.

Preciate all you do bro. I don’t know why they would deliberately alienate the fans that have supported this game for so many years. Making the game switch between 3rd and 1st is clearly the route to take giving the best of both worlds. I’d hate to not be able to buy it if it’s only 1st but I’m more than prepared to.

The only thing I have to say to that is the community has been screaming from the rooftops for a bunch of changes to the franchise, but switching to the first person perspective was not one of them. I truly just don't understand the logic

Agreed well they have the correct code name in project OVER because it will be if they ignore what we want there's already games on the market that's like that. Why are you trying to follow trends when you can choose to be creative and own the market in the third person category smh

You and everybody else brotha 🙏🏼

💯

FPS will kill it. Look at the track record. The players who waiting for Xdefiant due to its delays already concerned about that FPS. GR Frontlines another FPS was canceled. Hyperscape another FPS from Ubisoft was dead on arrival. This game will mostly die if it's just FPS. It will succeed if it does have TPP and FPP. Starfield, Pubg, GTA, etc... all succeeded providing both. Ubisoft better play they cards right

3rd person sucks ass

​@@xxfratosxx8257yall are just mad you're losing 3rd person. Keep crying about it.

agree

I would say far more than half.

My guy, you’re not really doing Far Cry like that are you?

@@REALSTEELE5last good far cry was 3 my guy 💀

@@kaiserhademar5126 you need help removing those rose tinted glasses? They sound glued on

this^

Yup, they will be adding this since the 3rd person and 1st person drama started. See if players find that 3rd person is not addded, its not gonna sell well, even if the game is good. At this point now, you are hurting the sentiments of fans more than youre choice.

@@workerbott Cant say, but its definitely Ubisoft's decision rather than Ubi devs decision. Nobody wanted the FPS exclusive, all wanted a FPS/TPS switch option. So yeah, its easy to figure

@@workerbottI am pretty sure overall it gives more control to them since the camera cannot go as crazy. I am not sure it is cheaper but it is probably easier in some ways and allows to up the technical quality.

Whose eyes are you looking through to see down the scope of your weapon?!

​@@Go_CoupMy own.

If they plan on doing that my money will not be going in the pockets

That would make the game actually stand out, far more than having third-person will.

Naah let's not go that route please, Helldivers is like Warframe or Avengers. The only thing similar between Ghost Recon and Helldivers is the animation, which is exactly the same as Breakpoint, it's almost like they took the same files. But overall it's not even a remotely close game, besides being a 3rd person shooter. They need to look at older Ghost Recon games first, especially Future Soldier and Wildlands. But also Splinter Cell (Chaos Theory and Blacklist), Metal Gear Solid (Snake Eater and Phantom Pain), Escape From Tarkov, Arma 3.. Actually if we could have Wildlands with MGSV:PP quality, that would be great. Also they need to look at Red Dead Redemption 2, Death Stranding, God Of War, Control, Days Gone, Horizon Zero Dawn etc. to see what a proper AAA game looks like, because it seems like they forgot they're supposed to be professional devs who make games worth 60€, and not indie devs who release Alpha/Beta/Early Access crap. Breakpoint truly feels like an indie game made on low budget, and that's what's killing the franchise. Even after all those updates it still looks like an indie early access game.

Everything you said is right however they DO need to look in helldivers 2, not for the sci fi aspect, but for the character animation and the 3rd person aspect. so he is right​ they need to look into it@@twentytwo138

You must’ve worked for Ubisoft before 🤦🏽those are 2 completely different styles of games 😂

The perspective is literally the only thing these games have in common lol.

@@twentytwo138 yeah, but breakpoint was dull and uninspiring. Helldivers is fun

Bet you're not an OG player

@@DragonNectar I've been playing Tom Clancy games for roughly twenty years, I'm not new to this franchise in the slightest

No no no if they want the game to sell they best be adding the option for third an first person if they don’t this game will not sale at all

Just play Wildlands and stfu. Happy for FP coming back. 3rd person sucks ass.

I think the term "go back to it's roots" for most means that first game only. Yes you had a reticule but it's still first person. I'm 46 so younger generations may have their first experience in the 3rd person gr games so I understand the notion it could be deemed nonsense but not to us older gamers!. I've played every gr game over the years and personally think it'll be 3rd and 1st person in this new game.

@@cjgsicknote I'm also an OG. Ghost Recon was a fps.

@DragonNectar 100%. Always felt more arcadey to me when it switched to 3rd person and gadgets. It's felt away from it's roots since then for me. Had a decent time with the 1st person mods for wildlands and BP but it still wasn't ever proper gr for me. Switched to Arma!!

Whats the point if you cant see how your characters are gonna look. Whats the point of mods to enhance an operator's looks and realism. COD doesnt have an issue with it since its a multiplayer arcade shooter while ghost recon is not.IS NOT.

It'll definitely be interesting to see how this all shakes out

You should really try GRAW 1 & 2. They are, in my opinion, peak Ghost Recon.

Yeah with the rumors surrounding the game being first person if they decided to do a third person camera later it wouldn't be as good. It would be much better if you fully developed the game in third person begin with and then add a first-person camera and debug it and perfect it beyond what the monitors did with the first person mods

No why they don’t just stick to how it was in breakpoint and make it better this why I’m starting to hate Ubisoft they do one thing good and do three different fuck 🤦🏽‍♂️ I just can’t with them no more

Well if that's the case it is obvious that the majority of people want third person in the game

Please explain

Respectfully I disagree with your thought of switching back to FPS is a good business decision. Plse allow me to explain. From the original Ghost Recon and all the way up until the last two versions of WL and BP, character customization-"kitting out"your character was not a "thing" However, now it is. That's undeniable. Both WL and BP offered customization options. Those cosmetic options became microtransactions,which ofcourse means additional $$$ for Ubisoft. The customization options in BP were not well received. There were numerous complaints about gear selection, gear relevance, and non milsim gear being heavily featured. The disappointment with the options available led to extensive modding in the pc community. Those on consoles were left with just having to accept there were no options. Gamers will gladly pay additional real $$$ in game, in order to customize their character / operator as they see fit. Switching to FPS completely removes the gear customization aspect. Which in turn removes the possibility for additional$$$ for Ubisoft.And that is not good business. It's tone deaf. And would be harmful to Ubis bottom line. Dare I say it would be criminally negligent. As well, I think profit margin for gear/weapon customization options would by far exceed the additional newcomer tactical milsim gamers you speak of to the Ghost Recon franchise. What they would gain from that market would be far less than what they lose by switching to and FPS only model. Lastly,Ubi has cornered the market in the 3rd person milsim space. Stepping into an FPS arena with the likes of cod, battlefield, and countless other games would be a huge mistake. Ghost Recon would lose its niche position. It would fade into obscurity due to the highly saturated offerings in that space. Ghost Recon in that space would have to resort to selling weapon skins and cheesy perks, which would further push them into the abyss.

@@johnedwards6124 "Dare I say it would be criminally negligent". Seriously? Give your head a shake. It has been statistically known that first person has always been prefered over third person in shooting games especially in PvP. Those who prefer third person are a very small yet highly vocal minority. First person is a strategic decision becuase it will attract a large portion of people from the tactical shooter community as well as set up the next Ghost Recon game for PvP if they choose to go that route. As for your character looking pretty. As long as they have photo mode to showcase the players drip then first person won't take away from those who like the visual stimulation from customizing their characters. Again those who want third person just becuase they like how it looks is a small yet vocal minority. The vast majority of the tactical shooter community all prefer first person. Ready or Not and Escape from Tarov are two great examples of first person tactical shooters that offer full gear and weapon customization with functional gear. Players love it.

@TacticalCyberpunk-fo8hi No head shake here yoyngman. It would absolutely be criminally negligent in the highest of degree to revert back to an FPS only format for Ghost Recon amist such strong opposition. U say 3rd person proponents are a minority? Are you sure? I'm not sure of that at all. Infact how could you be sure? I'm only going by what I've seen on these forms strictly in regard to GhostRecon making a change. I am not claiming to have any insight into what milsim gamers as a whole prefer. But I assure you there are far far more gamers advocating for a 3rd person or dual view, as opposed to solely FPS. As well,who wants to play GhostRecon as a PvP offering?? When has that been its featured selling point? I'm asking sincerely. Not in a condescending manner. Here is another genuine question for you in the spirit of discussion and dialogue. What makes a game "tactical or mil-sim" to u? Just curious. Name a few things. Would viewpoint be a key determining factor? If it is for you that's fine. But overall, you think viewpoint set some sort of standard for milsim vs arcade-like non milsim? Lastly, and respectfully,I think the point I made of Ghost Recon going FPS only and entering an oversaturated FPS market is perhaps the most valid. COD has that cornered! There's not a space for GhostRecon there. The brand recognition is too strong. Sure you can make the argument for Ready or Not, Tarkov, or Ground Branch, or Squad, or ARMA. But would you agree those are niche brands on CPU? Those games market share/ fan base combined could not equal even a fraction of COD or Fortnite or perhaps Battlefield market. If they go hardcore tactical FPS, it certainly won't be on the level of the other hardcore games such as Ready or Not etc... It wouldn't be appealing and generate the type of sales I believe they are looking for. Ghost Recon has been 3rd person for over a decade!! How's COD 3rd person mode going? Does it exist even anymore? We probably will disagree on the popularity of fps v 3rd as far as it applies to Ghost Recon. I truly want a hardcore tactical mil-sim game. I'm just not convinced it cannot be delivered in third person view. I guess we all will see what happens here in the next year or so. I do not think switching to FPS solely would be in the best interest of the franchise. However, I certainly am not saying Ubisoft will not do so. Infact believe making such a tone deaf decision will be the course they go.