Isometric vs 3d person vs first person view

[tekmage]

@Mudran The fundamental problem with Breakpoint is that it is just using the brand and has become a generic loot shooter. Ghost Recon stopped being Ghost Recon after Advanced Warfighter 2 on Xbox360. I mean Diamond formation in the title afterward was good for a laugh but the tough coop third person tactical shooter devolved into what was in Wildlands. I don't think adding RPG like elements is a good fit for all games. Ubisoft is very much guilty of that trend.

[Mudran]

I don't know the franchise history, only Division, and Wildlands, but I was a bit confused about it - from this wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s it looks like it was always centered around some kind of military unit with their own story and their own kind of enemies. So I wasn't sure what Breakpoint is because originally I thought Ghost Recon was meant to be military squad control, but now it looks like it is about the story more. so if they are doing similar things like similar unit named Division with the more futuristic setting with more cool main boss (if I understand it correctly), it is clashing for me a bit. while Ghost recon Wildlands felt more realistic setting of real soldiers - fighting drug cartel. Maybe the difference is simply big city problem kind of story in Division and some kind of military-pseudo military conflict with Ghost Recon.

Also from the wiki it looks like Division was an online spin off developed by Massive rather than Ubisoft, with leveling online mechanics added to keep players there longer, but players didn't stay there longer than in Wildlands, which was more singleplayer, so I'm not sure why they follow Division online version with their main studio.

 

 

But anyway I asked someone who is playing both - 3rd and first person - in Breakpoint, and he explained to me that there are movement based skills/mechanics - like prone, hiding, positioning and sliding, which would look the same in first person, so it is centered and connected to 3rd person, because it is tactical shooter where it does matter.

 

Still it could be full 3rd person in Farcry 5 and they don't allow players to use it - only if it glitches in coop you can see it.

But I guess there is some explanation as well.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Mudran

[tekmage]

@mudran The idea of Ghost Recon is a group of elite operators made up of Tier 1 individuals, Delta Force, Ranger, and other like folks who tackle threats with zero footprint and no acknowledgement of government involvement. Missions that require complete deniability and invisibility.

 

The series has been primarily third person and was geared towards the hardcore audience. Location based damage meant a headshot meant death, body shots led to bleed out and death which meant a teammate needed to carry a medkit which there was only one allowed per player and took up a slot which could be replaced with a heavy weapon or other important gear. Being in a radius of a grenade toss was instant death but with realistic timing, the grenade could be thrown back or away. Cooking off a grenade was standard practice. Tactical errors generally lead to mission failure as objectives usually required cooperation between the four team members on the fire team.

 

To add accessibility towards a more casual audience, all of the core mechanics were thrown away in favor of RPG like elements, loot focused and open world. Primarily, it seems that Ubisoft made these decisions based not on player feedback but one of profit. Ubisoft is a business and they are in the business of making money. I get it but that doesn't mean I or any other hardcore player at the time were very happy with the dramatic shift in gameplay. All of the tension, cooperation, teamwork required was what made the series so unique and challenging. The multiplayer modes were varied and even more enjoyable due to the way objectives were set and how unpredictable real players could be in comparison to AI.

 

Of course, microtransactions and cosmetic purchases were also non-existent at the time. All upgrades, cosmetics, rank were all earned through playing the game and the games were purely skill based. If I remember correctly, the game shipped with 12 multiplayer maps and DLC added additional 12 maps at a later date. The single player was substantial and actually had some substance to it.

 

I guess the meaning of tactical gameplay has changed because Wildlands, The Division and now Breakpoint are not tactical shooters. They are part mmorpg, and loot shooter. If you like that type of game, great news for those players. But, it is sad to see that the uniqueness of Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six and Splinter Cell have all been thrown away in favor of monetization and trend of other similar games which there is too much of an abundance these days.

 

Maybe, It is just me, but I don't find the Grindy, open world, loot based, RPG lite type gameplay very appealing or interesting.

[Mudran]

If I understand it right you want the game act like if it would be in reality or do you want testing your skills of tactical thinking which is more about kind of games than real war simulator?

 

I think the main problem here is this grey area of "casual" group of players. I tried to have discussion in this section about it, but nobody was willing to discuss that. I'm not sure myself if that group really exist or if it is more about our set of skills which leads us to prefer certain kind of game mechanics which others simply don't have and that is why they cannot play it. Or maybe there is some kind of mainstream, but then I don't understand it as well - I don't think of myself as being part of any mainstream. I think combat games are "mainstream" between certain groups who are playing games. So if there is group of players who are complaining about difficult games being minority, there is my group of players complaining that roleplaying mechanics and not pure action combat are minority, so I guess I have the same problem.

But if it would be about preferences from bigger part, then big openworld games are simply destined to fail the same way as small games, only it does cost more. And then their microtransaction are necessity because of bad design of those games.

Sadly they can point at Skyrim as "mainstream" game or at streamlined WoW - that is sadly the reason why companies even if they have the money, they don't really bother making games more detailed to fit needs of more groups instead of simply cutting of the edges, so more groups would continue to play even if it is not 100% what they wanted. But WoW or Skyrim had more than just streamlined features.

 

Because that is my theory - if you want a good game then you have to make it niche anyway, like smaller, more detailed - like your smaller tactical hardcore shooter, or if it is big, then you have to make it more detailed.

So if I'm right then Ubisoft makes the same mistake as Bioware with their DAI and Andromeda - it looks like they think that if they will use the same features their smaller games had, it will be enough. Just to find out it is enough only for certain group, which is different than their previous one and question is if that group is big enough.

 

On the other hand I'm not sure how such game should looks like because I don't play shooter games that much. Combat generally bores me, I can enjoy it only if it is connected to something interesting - like set of skills, tactical thinking or survival, then I would play it.

so for me in Breakpoint I was hoping for a real hard survival game with a lot of enemies around me, but not too much like in stealth games, so I could relax in between, but more tense. But it looks like devs came with a good idea, then the idea was remade to fit the newest Ubisoft trend, which is sad, it could be really good. But on the other hand, still there will be enough of players playing those games.

 

EDIT:

I'm not sure if I would play Breakpoint anyway, my PC crashed during beta, so I can't anyway

Edited October 13, 2019 by Mudran