At this point just cancel everything! Why even make music, movies, games anyway? Just cancel it all and write it off for a sweet tax break! Ultimately I no longer care, I’m so done with Capitalism… I don’t purchase anything other than food nowadays. I’m just waiting to die; Fuck this stupid existence built on money, greed and hate.
In my opinion, the problems in Strive are nothing a new GG would fix better than patching Strive itself.
I think they had a good idea with Strive, as in casualize GG to make it more appealing to the masses. Yes, at the top, the game has balancing issues; but numbers can easily be tweaked. The game lacks a proper ranked mode, but so far, none of their games had one AFAIK so a new game wouldn’t necessarily fix that either (ranked is announced for Strive though). The only thing I see a new game improve is new singleplayer content.
The game had a relative peak last year (second only to the original release) when Dizzy was released – almost double the players compared to the Baiken release… while the player baseline is relatively constant, it seems the peaks are growing. Why go for a new game when you can actually build a playerbase with the current one?
I see some videos of players discovering Strive right now (almost surreal considering the game is four years old now…) and nobody is claiming about age issues with this game, as in bad netcode, performance, graphics or whatever. In fact, most people say that the game’s presentation is very good and that the fights are fun. There’s no need to crank out a new game for the sake of it when the teams are busy with other projects anyways, like Marvel Tokon, Hunter X Hunter and whatever.
I just finished it coop. Really nice looking game with fun combat both melee and guns. The plot went off the rails, and the game was rather short but I really enjoyed the zombie fighting part and sightseeing in LA.
Epic denied my refund request for this game because I had just barely over 2 hours of play time, but accepted the request of my friend I bought it with. I’ll never buy anything from them again. I should’ve known not to buy from them.
Really boring game overall. Wouldn’t recommend for full price. Maybe like $20-30.
The first one was so poorly made that I didn’t bother with the second. They spent far more time designing zombies in bikinis than they did on movement and hit detection that I wouldn’t advise anyone spending ANY money on it. I can’t imagine being that thirsty. It was so bad that unless rockstar made the sequel, I wouldn’t buy it.
I got it for free on Epic. I launched it and something wasn’t working right, and tried a few different Proton versions. Then it just would launch because Denuvo thought it was different systems. I thought I’d come back later and try it, once that wore off, but I never did and probably never will, so the game wasn’t even worth trying it for free for me. Lol. Maybe I’ll try it some day, but I doubt it.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
insider-gaming.com
Najstarsze