Savage Ghost Recon review from Destructiod

[Elijin]

2.5/10 is reserved for things which literally don't work. Gaming reviews are so edgy these days.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

Saying a review of 2.5 is wrong and the game is at least a 5 at worst is the same thing as the many people mad at Jim Sterling's 7/10 Zelda review saying the game is at least a 8.5 at worst.

Not at all, 7/10 is a good and reasonable rating for a good game so I don't see why you'd complain. If Zelda was rated 2.5/10 I'd disagree even if I don't like Zelda at all. At the same time they give a game like No Man's Sky a 7/10 which is a mess and built on lies and then more lies. A 2.5/10 rating are for games that are absolutely dreadful and almost not playable because of how bad it is, Wildlands simply isn't that bad. It's nonsense and people are entitled to think reviews are nonsense.

 

[JemothSkarii]

I'd personally give the game a 5.5 but that's me. I'd like them to fix the stealth, or rather how enemies know exactly where you are when they find a body unless you're a good 400m out. Not to mention that when you do get caught you have no way of getting out of it unless you just kill them all. The guns and accessories scattered about feel like endless tedium to make you use the microtransactions and the world needs some compacting. But the gunplay feels somewhat meaty and managing to clear out camps without being seen is satisfying enough. I really only got the game for customization and squad gameplay.

... But 2.5 isn't fair. While the game may be tedium personified, a solid core alone should give it a three, then it's something of a technical marvel map size wise, and it DOES run.
But maybe the guy is getting really sick of it.

 

[Saelune]

Except it is reasonable to assume he treats a 2.5 rating as a "Fuck you its bad" rating. A 5 Should be mediocre and honestly, many of my most favorite games are rated 7-8. But most people dont view scores that way, reviewers included. If the reviewer gave the game a 5 or higher, Id think nothing of it. I may like Wildlands, but not enough to be upset at a 5/10. Hell, Im not even upset at this, but I dont doubt he was just being spiteful.

I don't know the reviewer at all. If it was a Jim Sterling review, a 2.5 is basically the mid-point between shit and average. I know Jim Sterling uses 5 as average. The reviewer in question, I have no clue what his scale is like. But to me, a 2.5 for Wildlands is somewhere in the general territory I'd put it (a 4 at best in my opinion). I have no issue with Jim's reviews, but I personally don't find him a good reviewer based on mine and his tastes being different plus he does rush through games sometimes not even understanding basic game mechanics (like The Last Guardian, Vanquish, etc). I have no problem with Jim or anyone shitting on something I like, and I do love that Jim rates games based on his enjoyment alone vs giving the game "passing" or good scores because the game is functional with good polish. I at least can find some value in Jim's reviews vs not finding any in 99% of "professional" reviewers. When Jim does rate a game really highly, I know he really loved the game and I want to at least try games that elicit that kind of feeling from at least someone. When IGN gives a game a high rating, it doesn't really mean anything because of how common it is and in-line with everyone else too.

Saelune is correct. The metrics of scores should be pretty clear. You know what else has gotten a 2.5? Aliens: Colonial Marines [https://www.destructoid.com/review-aliens-colonial-marines-244276.phtml]. A literal broken game.
You know what ranked higher than Wildlands? Steel Battalion Heavy Armor [https://www.destructoid.com/review-steel-battalion-heavy-armor-229691.phtml] and Silent Hill HD collection [https://www.destructoid.com/review-silent-hill-hd-collection-224478.phtml]. Both games literally broken and unplayable.
You know what game is literally twice as good as Wildlands? Starless: Nymphomaniacs' Paradise [https://www.destructoid.com/review-starless-nymphomaniacs-paradise-292835.phtml]

Call me crazy but I don't think its a credible review to say Ghost Recon Wildlands offers less to the world of video games than fucking Steel Battalion.

The reviews are from a collection of different reviewers and from different times on Destructoid as well. The scale might have been interpreted differently when Jim was there as I'm guessing (without researching) that he was in charge of reviews (as he then came here and had that job) and his "use" of the scale was probably encouraged. That could've changed quite a bit since then. It's hard for any site to have a common opinion because everyone feels quite differently about anything. Even if you have the likes of Siskel and Ebert as your game reviewers, neither will share opinion of the rating of any one game. To me, it's impossible for a site to stay consistent with reviews even if you have just 2 reviewers. No matter the medium, I always look for reviewers I like and not a site on the whole.

Jim Sterling has made more of a name for himself than this reviewer, and has gone out of his way to challenge expectations. He seems to intentionally wish to alter the gaming community's perception of review scores. I doubt this reviewer is.

Again, I am not disagreeing that how we perceive review scores isnt unfair, but that doesnt mean we pretend it isnt unfair.

If I see a score of 4 or less, that leaves me thinking it does not even work. A 4 atleast says the start menu is nice. Wildlands works fine enough. Buggier than it should be, but not AC Unity buggy. Aliens: Colonial Marines as Silentpony points out seems more appropriately scored at a low 2.5, but not Wildlands, even if you otherwise hate the game.

 

[Rangaman]

Look Destructoid, we're all tired of Ubisoft making mediocre sandbox games and we all want in on that sweet, sweet clickbait money. I get it. But still, 2.5? Why not name it "the worst game of a generation" while you're at it?

 

[oRevanchisto]

It's Destructoid, so I know automatically to disregard their opinions.

It's an Ubisoft title though. I think some reviewers are just getting as tired of the same old repetitive AAA crap as the rest of us and they're just no longer afraid of voicing their true honest opinion. And that's just what a review should be - just one guy's honest opinion. And I trust a reviewer a lot more if he's not afraid to demolish a highly anticipated game like this than I do a reviewer that gives every AAA game at least an 8/10 despite it's obvious glaring flaws.

Everyone knows a bad review of a game is the only "honest" opinion. Any way, I'm sure Ubisoft is crying over the stacks of money the game is raking in.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Yeah no, even if you don't like Ubisoft games Ghost Recon Wildlands is not a 2.5 out of 10, that's a ridiculous rating. Just another example why to not trust ''professional'' reviewers.

I wouldnot trust them if they giving it 10/10 or 9 out of 10. its finally score it deserve.

this is no longer a ghost recon game. 15 years ago when someone tell me. in future there will be a ghost recon game that will be open world third person action game with cover system and regen health i would laugh. now its sad reality


this is what true ghost recon game was.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

I would be buying it on the basis that it's a generic third person shooter. Might even be fun with a couple of friends.

Reading the article though you can already tell that the author probably had a horrible experience with the game that was tainted early on by shit he personally hates. Its the same way I didn't really consider Arkham Knight reviews where the reviewer started out on the garbage PC version then moved to console. There's no getting rid of that early bias.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Jim Sterling has made more of a name for himself than this reviewer, and has gone out of his way to challenge expectations. He seems to intentionally wish to alter the gaming community's perception of review scores. I doubt this reviewer is.

Again, I am not disagreeing that how we perceive review scores isnt unfair, but that doesnt mean we pretend it isnt unfair.

If I see a score of 4 or less, that leaves me thinking it does not even work. A 4 atleast says the start menu is nice. Wildlands works fine enough. Buggier than it should be, but not AC Unity buggy. Aliens: Colonial Marines as Silentpony points out seems more appropriately scored at a low 2.5, but not Wildlands, even if you otherwise hate the game.

I don't think it matters if Jim Sterling or any review cares about changing game reviews as long as they honestly rate a game based on their enjoyment vs just rating it lower or higher purposefully so their review is against the grain. I rate games just like I'd rate a movie or anything else. If I don't enjoy a game, it's at best average and no higher than a 5.

The fact that you feel that a 4 means the game doesn't work demonstrates a clear problem with the industry and reviews. 7s are basically scores that mean the game sorta sucks let alone anything lower than that. Even sites like IGN consider 5s to be "mediocre" according to their own scale. Yet they don't obviously use the scale anywhere near how they define it. If you go to Metacritic and look up IGN's profile, their average game review score is 70. A 4 SHOULD make you feel like the game is a bit below average and not complete shit.

Saying a review of 2.5 is wrong and the game is at least a 5 at worst is the same thing as the many people mad at Jim Sterling's 7/10 Zelda review saying the game is at least a 8.5 at worst.

Not at all, 7/10 is a good and reasonable rating for a good game so I don't see why you'd complain. If Zelda was rated 2.5/10 I'd disagree even if I don't like Zelda at all. At the same time they give a game like No Man's Sky a 7/10 which is a mess and built on lies and then more lies. A 2.5/10 rating are for games that are absolutely dreadful and almost not playable because of how bad it is, Wildlands simply isn't that bad. It's nonsense and people are entitled to think reviews are nonsense.

The thing is there is no such thing as an objectively good game. You can't say Zelda is factually a good game. With just watching some Zelda gameplay, I'm guessing the most I'd give if I were to play it would be in the 7 territory. I'm pretty sure I'm going to hate the stamina system and weapon durability system. From what I've seen, it looks like that combat of Zelda hasn't gotten much better since N64 times. It seems lock-on is integral to combat, which is just archaic even during the PS2 era. I could be wrong but I'm just basing it on what I've seen. I'm not a big fan of open worlds so I might find Zelda's world boring and uninteresting. I could see myself definitely feeling the game is average or even below average if I were to play it. I could also be totally sucked into the world as well, I don't know. But to say Zelda is obviously a good game is not something you can say until you played it yourself. You can only say a review is wrong if you think the reviewer isn't being honest or perhaps just didn't understand the mechanics and was literally wrong about something.

I played the Wildlands beta and the game is bad IMO. Just the overall shooting and controls is as average as it gets, the contextual cover system is far worse than Tomb Raider or MGS5. The world is big just to be big. What's the point in having to rescue a HVT and to then get him on a helicopter and fly for minutes to your destination? In any previous Ghost Recon, it would just be a short cutscene getting on the helicopter and arriving. What's this travel time actually adding to the core game? Nothing. It doesn't help that vehicles are horrible to drive/fly. The world merely exists to waste time getting to actual content and diluting the core gameplay, which is poor game design. The AI has been criticized by just about everyone, which is kinda important for a "tactical" shooter. The previous Ghost Recon literally did everything better; it had better controls and shooting, it had 4-player co-op, plus it had competitive MP. What about Wildlands seems like it should be scored better than average (5/10)?

 

[Dornedas]

Well I obviously have to agree with the review. We all know that video games are pure art and as such purely and 100% subjective.
And if it is the reviewers subjective opinion that the game is subjectively a 2.5 then I guess there is nothing we can argue against.

I mean sure we could say that somebody that is somewhat competent should have done the review.
But that viewpoint is unnecessary elitist and exclusive if you ask me.

 

[CaitSeith]

Since we are here discussing reviews, it seems like everone reviewing the gmae is complaining about politics yet again.

Spoiler

Eurogamer- http://archive.is/govHN
"Wildlands is that familiar glossy contradiction, the "gritty" quasi-realistic open world blockbuster - a work of great craft and care that's also a work of macabre war tourism, wowing you with its geography even as it casually up-sells the bankrupt fantasy of playing global policeman. Aside from being another Ubisoft love letter to icon-studded map screens, it reprises the fond Tom Clancy daydream that the answer to every festering international dilemma is a squad of all-American roughnecks armed with a list of names and a relaxed definition of collateral damage. It's a game about extrajudicial murder whose creators have taken the time to animate children playing hopscotch in schoolyards, a realm of soothing splendour in which you'll kick in the door of a village church to retrieve a laser sight accessory from the altar. It is by turns plodding and vivid, entertaining and abhorrent. I can't quite bring myself to loathe it, but it says a lot that I keep trying to escape it - or at least, to escape the part Wildlands expects me to play in reshaping its coked-up appropriation of Bolivia
Ghost Recon: Wildlands' premise reads like a 5am Trump tweet

It's easier to ignore the game's fundamental toxicity and hand-worn elements in co-op, but all that's still there at the back of your mind, like the smell of something burning in a crowded room. Earlier in the week I asked whether the Ubisoft open world had run out of steam. After a few days in the Wildlands I think the answer is a hesitant 'no' - few development studios are capable of landscapes as grand yet delicately worked as this, but the methods by which we traverse and uncover them are overdue a rethink, and the concept of a godlike special operator killing without undue compunction is rotten to the core. Wildlands is a world worth lingering over, but I need a better reason to make the trip."

Digital Trends-http://archive.is/vIiEj
"The trouble is that Ghost Recon isn?t good at being both things at once. Taken at face value, it?s impossible not to see the game?s shortcomings...and its premise can feel ? problematic.
and much of the plot and lore trades in stereotypes and gross militarism
Similar to Ubisoft?s last modern military game, The Division, Wildlands? premise and plot swerves into some unsettling political statements. Effectively, your Ghost Recon team is an unauthorized military force wandering around a foreign nation, shooting whoever you like. The game chastises you for killing civilians with a ?hey, you bozo!? kind of attitude. The radios, which turn on whenever you get in a car, are awash with Mexican stereotypes (the cartel is a Mexican transplant). For all of its silliness, there are also moments where its brotastic jokes and quite self-righteous ooh-rah militarism feels earnest and unsettling."

Ars Techinca- http://archive.is/XeWle
"While the reasons for your arrival in Bolivia might be clear, the justifications for your actions are absolutely not. Wildlands is, on its surface, a standard action game set in a tropical South American nation, but its blas? acceptance of American interventionism?as well as its careless casting of the Ghosts as ?good guys??creates an unpleasant edge to the story it tries to tell. Chances are you won?t like the Ghosts themselves, and nor should you: they?re a bad bunch of grossly immoral dickheads doing morally questionable things in the name of the ?greater good.? Ripped straight from the W. Bush Playbook of 2003, both the Ghosts and their handler, a woman called Bowman, are just nasty.
The ugly
Those politics, man. Damn those politics.

Polygon- http://archive.is/duQi7
Too much to excerpt here, the more than half the review is dedicated to hand wringing over thematics and tone, rather than gameplay or technical details (so far so Polygon...)
Kotaku-http://archive.is/8sooC
"But Wildland?s core is far more insipid. It is propaganda. It is jingoism made playable, perpetuating the failed logic that all it takes to solve the world?s woes is enough ammo.
They churn out banter that moves from unbearably dull to patently offensive, tossing out the kind of pithy one-liner that only teenagers would find cool before sitting down to make a homophobic joke. Wildlands wants them to feel alluring, but they mostly just feel like assholes.
The nature of your companions? chatter exemplifies Wildlands? biggest issue. It pretends to be politically mature, but it has nothing of value to say. Caught between Grand Theft Auto and ARMA, Wildlands can?t conjure cogent or meaningful gameplay systems, nor does it even bother to consider the real world ramifications of its gun happy gameplay.
Wildlands, continuing in the footsteps of The Division, is a game about being special and empowered. You are the player. The person with the gun. The government operative with the license to kill. Your enemies are the savage ?other?, no better than wild dogs that need to be put down. Bolivia is your playground, made to look like any other video game warzone. It is only the occasional corrido playing over the radio or small bit of environmental design that conveys any humanity.
There are times where it feels like Wildlands wants to say something. The game makes heavy reference to social media and information warfare but never does more than note how the cartel maintains a powerful media presence, which the game is keen to show in glitzy, tone confused briefing sequences. Wildlands also thrives on jingoism. It wants to talk about ?narco-states? but can only muster the brutish El Sue?o as the villain while depicting a caricature of Bolivia. The result is rubbish. Wildlands? gameplay is too chaotic to call back to Tom Clancy classics like Rainbow Six or the series? earlier titles. Its politics are too vapid to compete with the Splinter Cell series? pulpy yet prescient narratives. Wildlands wants to be everything. It succeeds at being nothing."

The Guardian- http://archive.is/HWVDw
" Instead of a living, breathing country, Wildlands feel like Westworld for the Guns & Ammo crowd. Which, of course, is essentially what it is. A chance for players to live out their hardline Republican fantasies largely unencumbered by law or morality (killing civilians will theoretically cause missions to fail but the developers have built in plenty of leeway). In this near future nightmare scenario Bolivia has been transformed into a narco-state run by the all-powerful Santa Blanca cartel headed up by the heavily-tattooed jefe, El Sueno ? a representation, by the way, that has sparked a real-world diplomatic incident between Bolivia and Ubisoft?s home country, France. You take on the role of an elite US soldier sent in undercover and off the books to destabilise the drug runners by murdering them in their thousands. Ghost Recon at least does a good job of making light of this state-sponsored genocide."

As someone who has no interest on buying the game, but found its premise hilarious; I found in Polygon's review what I was looking for.

 

[chocolate pickles]

It honestly looks like a 2.5. If Jim Sterling showed this as some Steam Greenlight garbage, I wouldn't bat an eye.

So no, I'm not buying it.

 

[CaitSeith]

But god dammit, why do all games have to be taken politically?

-There's the argument that art is inherently political. I don't agree with the letter of that claim, but do agree with the spirit, that art inherently reflects the creator's values.

-Many people treat games as art.

-Clancyverse works deal with real-world scenarios, and most certainly reflect(ed) the author's politics.

-I think the claim that "all games" are being taken politically is stretching things.

So, ergo, in my mind, treating Wildlands in the context of only its narrative is fair game.

This is my favourite part of Polygon's review:

At first I thought, "I'm pretty smart for using a drone here." Then I realized: "Holy shit, I just used a drone to massacre people at church."

I love that the game seems to give you options and he chose the drone.

 

[CritialGaming]

This thread makes me giggle. I love you guys.

Sadly Ghost Recon just doesn't look like a good game for me in general. I am already highly reluctant to deal with Ubisoft games. And while I doubt the game is 2.5/10 bad, I also don't think it looks like a good game.

Maybe if you are into those military games. But it is a hard pass for me.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

If 2.5-4/10 is supposed to be reserved for the unplayable and literally broken, what the hell does a game need to do to get a 0? Recite Mein Kampf at full volume while downloading child pornography? (Hyperbole for comedic effect.)


Is the game bad? Dunno, maybe. Is the game an Ubisoft open-world game coming after the likes of Horizon: Zero Dawn and LoZ: Breath of the Wild? Yes, yes it is. Which probably explains a large part of the score. If Dragon Age: Inquisition had come out after Witcher 3, it's scores wouldn't be as high as they were either.

EDIT:

This is my favourite part of Polygon's review:

At first I thought, "I'm pretty smart for using a drone here." Then I realized: "Holy shit, I just used a drone to massacre people at church."

I love that the game seems to give you options and he chose the drone.

Honestly, that statement resonates with me. 18 years ago I was all about the concept of drone warfare. Just a bunch of drones buzzing around in some wasteland shooting each other, nobody important taking any real casualties, taking out the generic Bad People with ease, etc.

Then reality sets in...

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Well I obviously have to agree with the review. We all know that video games are pure art and as such purely and 100% subjective.
And if it is the reviewers subjective opinion that the game is subjectively a 2.5 then I guess there is nothing we can argue against.

I mean sure we could say that somebody that is somewhat competent should have done the review.
But that viewpoint is unnecessary elitist and exclusive if you ask me.

This, but unironically.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

I played the Wildlands beta and the game is bad IMO. Just the overall shooting and controls is as average as it gets, the contextual cover system is far worse than Tomb Raider or MGS5. The world is big just to be big. What's the point in having to rescue a HVT and to then get him on a helicopter and fly for minutes to your destination? In any previous Ghost Recon, it would just be a short cutscene getting on the helicopter and arriving. What's this travel time actually adding to the core game? Nothing. It doesn't help that vehicles are horrible to drive/fly. The world merely exists to waste time getting to actual content and diluting the core gameplay, which is poor game design. The AI has been criticized by just about everyone, which is kinda important for a "tactical" shooter. The previous Ghost Recon literally did everything better; it had better controls and shooting, it had 4-player co-op, plus it had competitive MP. What about Wildlands seems like it should be scored better than average (5/10)?

A game has to be really, really, REALLY bad to recieve a 2.5/10 and I can't understand how anyone can see 2.5/10 as a reasonable score for Wildlands. There's simply nothing you can say to convince me that it deserves that score.

Also, Wildlands has 4 player co-op and will get a PvP mode in a future update.

 

[MetalDooley]

So according to Destructoid this game is only slightly better than Ride to Hell:Retribution which is literally one of the worst games ever made. Yeah I'm not buying it (by which I mean I'm not buying the review rather than the game)

 

[chrissx2]

Eh, I'm having way more fun playing this game than MGSV or GTA5. Giving it 2.5/10 seems like emotional/anger issues of the reviewer (or click bait).

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

A game has to be really, really, REALLY bad to recieve a 2.5/10 and I can't understand how anyone can see 2.5/10 as a reasonable score for Wildlands. There's simply nothing you can say to convince me that it deserves that score.

Also, Wildlands has 4 player co-op and will get a PvP mode in a future update.

You're literally arguing over a 1.5 difference in review score of a game I'm guessing you haven't even played. According to Destructoid's review criteria, they are very much about 5 being average. Since the reviewer definitely felt Wildlands is below average, that makes the game a 4 at best. Thus, the difference between 4 and 2.5 is merely a 1.5 difference.

I know Wildlands has 4 player co-op and the game's controls aren't good enough for PvP IMO. The previous Ghost Recon LAUNCHED with a campaign with 4 player co-op and PvP. Plus, the previous game actually had a revolutionary cover system and good controls.

Eh, I'm having way more fun playing this game than MGSV or GTA5. Giving it 2.5/10 seems like emotional/anger issues of the reviewer (or click bait).

That's fine that you're enjoying the game, not everyone else does though. I played the beta and the game was horrible IMO. I hate Rockstar games and it's not just because I just want to be different or bait people, I just think they're bad games. Every game should have it's share of negative reviews IMO. If a reviewer at Destructoid feels a game is below average, then they have to give it at best a 4/10 because a 5 is average there, not 7. The fact that 7 has become average is extremely problematic. When a game scores 80 or higher on Metacritic that means nothing because that's what almost every AAA release does score. It's quite an "accomplishment" for a AAA release to get below an 80 at Metacritic, which Wildlands succeeded in doing. Whereas going to RottenTomatoes and seeing a movie got an 80+% fresh rating means something because 9 out of 10 movies don't get that. Plus, the fresh rating is not the average score even. For example, Logan is 92% fresh but has an average score of 7.8, which is considered a bad average score for a game. If there was a Fresh/Rotten rating for games, just about every game would be 98+% fresh. Even No Man's Sky would have a 99% fresh rating because it only has 1 negative review.