Review

Ghost Recon Breakpoint Review - Faulty Reconaissance

  • First Released Oct 1, 2019
    released
  • PC
  • XONE
  • PS4

Ghost Recon Breakpoint is a confused mishmash of disparate ideas that struggle to coalesce in an enjoyable way.

Ghost Recon Breakpoint is uneven and conflicted. On one hand it's a natural sequel to 2017's Ghost Recon Wildlands, offering a near-identical core gameplay loop of open-world espionage and shooting. On the other hand, Breakpoint is a messy hodgepodge of disparate ideas, pulling various aspects from other Ubisoft games and shoehorning them in, half-baked and out of place. Ghost Recon's identity as a tactical shooter has evaporated and been replaced by a confused patchwork of elements and mechanics from other, better games. Its defining characteristic boils down to just how generic and stale the whole thing is.

The addition of loot and an ever-increasing gear score fits into the standard template of Ubisoft's recent open-world games, whether it's The Division 2, Assassin's Creed Odyssey, or even Far Cry New Dawn. Breakpoint fulfills its quota by including these light RPG mechanics, but the implementation of its loot grind feels like a severe afterthought. There are numerous pieces of armor to find and equip as you explore the fictional island of Auroa. The numbers attached to each one will raise or lower your gear score, but the effect this has on gameplay is entirely inconsequential. Rare loot might include small buffs like a 2% increase in stamina or a 1% increase to movement speed, yet the effects of these buffs are negligible, and armor doesn't affect your damage resistance in any perceivable way. A level 5 beanie offers as much protection as a level 75 helmet, so these numbers only exist to raise a gear score that's nothing more than a flimsy representation of your progress. You're supposed to feel good about that number rising, but it's difficult to care when there are no tangible benefits to picking one piece of armor over another. You just end up opting for whatever has the higher rating without any meaningful consideration.

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Now Playing: Ghost Recon Breakpoint Video Review

Choosing which weapon to roll with requires slightly more deliberation, although this is mainly due to your preference for specific weapon types as opposed to the number attached to each. Breakpoint features the usual assortment of assault rifles, SMGs, shotguns, and sniper rifles, and these firearms function similarly to armour, with rare weapons receiving miniscule buffs to aspects like reload speed and recoil reduction. Again, the impact these stats have on gameplay is paltry at best, especially because shooting in Breakpoint is still geared towards landing headshots for an instant kill. This is a holdover from Wildlands and the series' early beginnings as a somewhat "authentic" tactical shooter. The most heavily armored grunts in Breakpoint take two shots to the head to kill--one to take off their helmet, and another to finish the job--but every other enemy can be extinguished with a single bullet.

Weapons feel impactful as a result of this, successfully capturing the rush of being an elite special ops soldier that can take out four or five enemy combatants in a matter of seconds. But this also means the rarity of weapons and the gear score attached to them is ultimately meaningless. You can wander into an area recommended for players with a gear score of 140 with a significantly lower score and still kill every enemy without breaking a sweat. This amount of freedom would be commendable if it didn't shine a derisive light on how shallow the RPG mechanics are.

The only enemies in the game that require a specific gear score to defeat are the killer drones dotted across the island. Encounters with these unmanned killing machines are few and far between, but because they don't have heads and aren't made of flesh and blood, they can be bullet sponges. Facing off against one of these drones is the only time the number next to your weapon actually matters, and even then they're easier to destroy by using the rocket launchers, grenades, and mines found in your inventory, which don't even have numbers attached to them. It's another example of how Breakpoint isn't a coherent match with Ghost Recon's sensibilities, which are still reflected in the way headshots function, and the trivial impact that loot has on gameplay makes the constant switching and dismantling of each piece of gear an unnecessary timesink.

Breakpoint's paper-thin survival mechanics are similarly underdeveloped, hinting at a tense experience that never comes to fruition. You carry a flask that you can refill in lakes, rivers, and even in someone's backyard swimming pool for that sweet tasty chlorine. Water is used to replenish any lost stamina you've misplaced by over-exerting--usually by rolling down a hillside because Auroa is nearly bereft of flat ground. The island consists of diverse biomes including verdant woodlands, snow-capped mountain tops, and muggy swamps, but the common throughline in each environment is the presence of craggy cliffs and hillsides.

No Caption Provided

As a result, traversing on foot revolves around spending a lot of time sliding down undulating slopes. This quickly drains your stamina, sending you into an uncontrollable roll that inflicts damage with each nick and bump. Health regenerates over time, but if you suffer either a minor or major injury and don't want to hobble everywhere, you need to use a syringe for instant pain relief or spend longer wrapping yourself up in bandages. Syringes are finite, yet you have an infinite supply of bandages that almost make the mechanic moot. There are never any anxious moments of desperation as you find yourself hindered with an empty medicine box. It's easy enough to wrap yourself up after a tumble, and injuries in combat are rare enough that having to find a safe spot to pause is not something you have to consider very often. There are also bivouacs spread out across the map that are used as fast travel points and rest areas where you can apply specific buffs by eating, drinking, or aiming your gun at the sky to somehow improve its accuracy. You don't have to gather food because it's always available, and there's some light crafting on the docket if you have the materials to restock your supply of explosives and gadgets.

Much like the loot, these light survival mechanics aren't fleshed out enough to warrant any engagement beyond the limited amount you're forced into. The story revolves around your character being stranded alone, trapped deep behind enemy lines. You're outmanned and outgunned against an elite force equipped with a stolen fleet of devastating, unmanned killing machines. Stealth is encouraged, so much so that when you're prone you can cover yourself in mud and foliage to blend into the environment and remain undetected. Each of these elements places an emphasis on survival, but Breakpoint constantly skirts around the edges, never committing to mechanics that would extend beyond the feeble survival aspects already included. The plane-like Azraël drone occasionally flies overhead, ready and raring to rain fiery destruction down upon your helpless human body. Yet all this means is that you'll sometimes have to lie down and wait for it to pass before you can continue with what you were originally doing. You can see the inkling of some interesting ideas here, but Breakpoint never capitalizes on these and is ultimately a generic pastiche of what's come before.

No Caption Provided

The gameplay loop is almost identical to Wildlands': You send a drone into the sky, survey an enemy base, and mark targets before infiltrating in whichever manner you see fit. Navigating through a heavily fortified compound without being seen is still inherently satisfying. Each one is usually designed in a way so there are a number of enemies obscured from your drone's vision. You might be able to pick off a handful of guards from a distance using a silenced sniper rifle, but at some point you'll have to enter and find the rest. The only thing impeding your stealthy espionage is the fact you can't move sideways while prone. Instead, you end up with these awkward animations because you can only turn at right angles. Taking cover is overly cumbersome, too. You do it automatically, but what the game deems as cover is inconsistent from one low wall to the next, and even if you do manage to get behind an object, whether you can shoot over it or not is another question. Though this would be a bigger problem if the AI were the least bit competent.

Enemies in Breakpoint are mind-numbingly dumb to the point where playing on the highest difficulty doesn't present a significantly harder challenge. Their reaction to a buddy getting shot in front of them is often one of confusion; they'll stand still in the open instead of scurrying for cover. They don't fare much better in the midst of combat, either, running between the same two pieces of cover without engaging you or seemingly forgetting you exist. Occasionally they might try to flank your blindside, but more often than not their strategy boils down to charging directly at you, making it incredibly easy to line up your shots and dispatch a few in a row. Bottlenecks like corridors and doorways are by far their worst enemy, though. Sit down one end of a straight corridor and it doesn't take long for the bodies to pile up. You can even shoot the ground at the entrance to a base and kill each enemy who comes to investigate. Factor in the disappointing fact that enemies don't so much as flinch when getting shot in the body, and none of this is conducive to enjoyable combat.

No Caption Provided

Shooting other players in the Ghost War PvP mode fares better since real people tend to have their wits about them compared to the AI. Unlike Wildlands, Breakpoint cleverly unifies progression across both single- and multiplayer. All of your weapons and skills carry over, and any rewards you unlock can be brought back into single-player, too. Elimination and Sabotage make up the game modes on offer, the former ending when one team is eliminated, while the latter functions in much the same way with an additional win condition based on one team successfully planting and destroying a bomb. Matches generally turn into long-range sniper battles due to each map's wide-open spaces and the fact that a single shot from a sniper is enough to kill somebody. The best matches in Ghost War are tense affairs, especially since you only have a single life unless a teammate can perform a successful revive. The issues with Breakpoint's cumbersome cover mechanics and awkward prone movement are only exacerbated in multiplayer, however.

It can also be difficult just getting into a match of Ghost War due to relatively frequent server issues. Breakpoint is an always-online game, even if you're playing alone in single-player. The servers have run into a few problems since the game's full release, and it's incredibly frustrating to be kicked back to the main menu and have to restart a mission all over again when you're not even engaging with the multiplayer portion of the game. If you do want to do so, the servers are running smoothly, and you can get some like-minded friends together, there's definitely some fun to be had in Breakpoint's four-person co-op. Silently clearing a base of its enemies is more gratifying with four people. You can plan ahead, simultaneously approach the compound through different entrances, and time sync shots together. It's more chaotic with strangers but you can jump into matches with random players if you fancy a taste of open-world chaos.

There is, however, some dissonance between co-op and the story painting you as a lone soldier, although this is much more egregious in Breakpoint's social hub. You can play the whole game solo, but mission givers all hang out in this homely cave where you'll also find 50 or so other players. Your character is literally called Nomad, and yet you're in a space with a bunch of other Nomads, all standing around the same NPC like it's an MMO. And the story's not great either way. Jon Bernthal elevates every scene he's in, chewing up the scenery to deliver simmering monologues befitting a villain with a dubious moral code. The writing is mostly cheesy, though, with some flat voice acting and predictable twists. The inventor of the island's killer drones develops a minor Oppenheimer complex when he realises his creations can be used to kill innocent people, but this aspect isn't explored beyond surface level, and that applies to the rest of the narrative too.

Much like the loot, the light survival mechanics aren't fleshed out enough to warrant any engagement beyond the limited amount you're forced into.

The presence of the social hub and the effect it has on diminishing the story would've been worse if the story were better. As it is, the social hub seems to exist to guide players towards Breakpoint's myriad microtransactions. Maybe that's an overly cynical viewpoint, but why else would you gather players in an open space other than to encourage them to show off by purchasing fancy new cosmetics? You can buy tattoos, shirts, masks, hats, weapons, vehicles, and more. Purchasing in-game money also comes in denominations that ensure you're always spending more than you need. You don't have to engage with any of this stuff, and it's easy enough to ignore, but this microtransaction structure is predatory by design.

It would make sense if the addition of loot were in service of guiding people to spend real money on better guns, but even then the stats are so meaningless it would take a lot of convincing. There's some surprising fun to be had stealthily infiltrating enemy compounds and playing with friends, but Breakpoint is still a generic and distinctly sub-par game. It's essentially every Ubisoft open-world game rolled into one, failing to excel in any one area or establish its own identity. Breakpoint is a messy, confused game and a ghost of the series' former self.

Back To Top

The Good

  • Infiltrating an enemy compound unseen is satisfying
  • Headshots are impactful, allowing you to extinguish enemies in the blink of an eye

The Bad

  • The addition of loot and a gear score is inconsequential busywork
  • Survival mechanics are underdeveloped and easy to ignore
  • Enemy AI is terrible and robs the combat of any enjoyment
  • The social hub seems geared towards microtransactions
  • Its mishmash of half-hearted ideas lacks any unifying identity

About the Author

Richard has spent 35 hours playing Breakpoint on PS4 Pro, completing the story and spending a portion of those hours in co-op and PvP. Review code was provided by the publisher.
271 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for Theo1971
Theo1971

61

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

does any one know why GS is stuck for so many days with this "review in progress"? when will the final rating be released?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mogan
mogan

19998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

mogan  Moderator

@Theo1971: Most big games that have prominent multiplayer modes don’t get final scores until after they’re out and the reviewer can play them in the wild.

Remember when Battlefield 4 and SimCity got decent reviews, because they multiplayer worked fine before launch, but when tons of gamers started playing it fell apart and took ages to fix? Those are the kinds of situations the Review In Progress is supposed to prevent.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

61296

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

mrbojangles25  Online

@Theo1971: I believe they do it to be fair.

If we are being frank, you can generally get an idea of how good a game is and will be within a handful of hours. That is however fairly subjective, and doesn't really give the game a chance to show all it has.

If you're being objective, you need to spend at least 20 hours in a game of this size to give it a fair go. Maybe even more.

So it would take a standard work week to simply play enough of the game to give it a fair review. Then you have to write the review, make the video for it, have it reviewed by the editor or whatever (I don't know exactly what goes into it).

Upvote • 
Avatar image for solid_snake1461
solid_snake1461

557

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

@mrbojangles25: I don’t think that’s the case. If it had been the case, they could have withhold posting the review until they were done with it.

The delay is most probably because they were talking with the dev/pub to finalize the score. After all, blatantly protecting a broken product only bring more harm to both sides.

Or they were simply waiting for the Metacritic’s score to validate theirs.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Theo1971
Theo1971

61

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@mrbojangles25: yes, it makes sense.... I only wish they'd show this diligence to other reviews as well , some of which felt "rushed"in order to be published.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jpme226
jpme226

74

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

Seems like another great example of a big game checking all the right boxes as far as the "hype-train" goes but in the end, failing to actually deliver on it. This isn't a "new" thing by any stretch, so we all know - if we're being honest - that the motivation behind these iterative development cycles is to maximize revenue and keep share holders happy rather than the desire to focus on fit and finish. It's too bad really because there are no doubt hundreds and hundreds of developers, designers and coders across the industry who really do work themselves to the bone to create fun things, but ultimately, the bean-counters will always decide when something is released rather than a creative team saying - ok...we're done and its amazing. The industry has shifted to accommodate this model over the years. Slap it together, put another number behind the name, hire a well known actor to "appear" in it, hype the shit out of it, sell gold, deluxe and platinum pre-sales, drop it and then let people download an 80GB day one patch for an 70GB game...its silly.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for cejay0813
cejay0813

1944

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

There will be a price drop which by that time hopefully they'll have patched all the issues up. At that point I may buy it.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for showtime
ShowTime

16

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

heck man I really like this game ! It's fun what else do you guys want. Not what it could be, or what it isn't, but what it is. my buddy and I are enjoying it. as long as money transactions don't keep me from advancing i'm ok. if Ubisoft keep adding more content that's not repetitive this game will be around for awhile. Its just a game, not real . I almost did not buy this game listening to negative critics, i'm enjoying it .

Upvote • 
Avatar image for taylor_sparks
Taylor_Sparks

309

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@showtime: "What else do you guys want?"

Pretty clear you haven't played any of the older GR games. Why is loot in a game like Ghost Recon? Why are team mates taken out? What purpose does loot serve other than for Ubisoft to start sticking their greedy microtransactions in considering the loot in the game is completely tacked on without any thought? If Ubisoft were to completely remove the unnecessary loot mechanics, being back the team mates, remove the open world, have open ended levels, make it more tactical, make it much more like GRAW or even Future Soldier, this might have actually done well. But nope Ubisoft seems to want to make every. Single. Game of theirs into an open world, cheap light RPG, loot fested piece of garbage without any thought put into it so they can put in their dumb little boosters and microtransactions in.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for showtime
ShowTime

16

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@taylor_sparks:" Pretty clear you haven't played any of the older GR games" Taylor you would be surprised at how far back I go with Tom Clancy. Does Rio Ding ring a bell ? I agree with you to a point. I feel that someone did drop the ball on this game, farcry and wildlands it is not. For example, movement is clunky, and last night as my friend and I did the fast travel I spawned high up in the air...fell and my partner had to revive me. ( hope the patch isn't one of the microtransactions ) Every one it seems is going to microtransaction. I don't care for it but as long as I can advance through the game without having to buy I can live with it. I would say to Ubisoft, if you can't top or equal the last game in the series than don't put it out. (my opinion). Let this low score of 4 be a lesson. I bought this game because the name Ubisoft was attached to it. That won't happen again. That's my two cents worth, since I bought it I will play it, for me its.... ok :|

Upvote • 
Avatar image for taylor_sparks
Taylor_Sparks

309

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Taylor_Sparks

@showtime: Microtransactions aren't the only problem, why in the f*ck is there something like "loot" in a GR game where it's about being a tactical shooter? It doesn't even make sense(Other than Ubisoft to start sticking their greedy microtransactions and boosters in) when you can one shot everyone with just precision kills. Another criticism is why can't it just be open linear levels? Cause now in Breakpoint I have to travel unnecessary amount of miles just to go and grab or "investigate" something and go ALL the way back. It's just obvious padding to the game. It's no wonder Ubisoft has "time savers."

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Shuda7
Shuda7

29

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

Edited By Shuda7

@showtime: I have to agree, I'm having a blast with the game. I don't even understand the complaints about the AI because any time I engage in a gunfight the first thing they do is run for cover, and even try to flank me. I feel like most critics are bashing this game way too harshly just because there's some microtransaction even though they can be avoided completely.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Iemander
Iemander

757

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Iemander

This being Gamespot, I suspect Ubisoft simply didn't pay enough for a good score. Eidos/Square Enix used to pay Gamespot pretty well, they even fired reviewers when they scored too low for SE games.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

61296

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

mrbojangles25  Online

@Iemander said:

This being Gamespot, I suspect Ubisoft simply didn't pay enough for a good score. Eidos/Square Enix used to pay Gamespot pretty well, they even fired reviewers when they scored too low for SE games.

It doesn't really work that way; other way around, in fact.

Reviewers don't extort companies to get good reviews, but companies definitely bribe reviewers to get good scores.

I take this score, if anything, as a testament that Gamespot might actually be more honest than they have been in the past. Ubisoft certainly gave them a lot of money in selling ad space prior to release, but they still gave it a 4

Upvote • 
Avatar image for cejay0813
cejay0813

1944

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

@Iemander: Or the game really could be bad and broken. I don't always agree with GS reviews at all but in my opinion, this one is pretty accurate. The game should've been delayed

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sladakrobot
sladakrobot

11910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Graphically the game looks good and the environment/layout is interesting.
It looks like that across the board every site and every blogger/ytuber has the same critical opinion on the gameplay,reward and gearscore mechanics.
OUCH!
The only positive is that the publisher is Ubisoft and they drop very seldom games...i guess there will be a series of updates and patches.

Can the game be patched that much so the Ghost Recon fans are happy?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for aiat_gamer
aiat_gamer

915

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

Wow, imagine how bad it must be that GS, a site that has long stopped mentioning MTs in games, has to not even talk about them but admit that they directly effect the gameplay and the design.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for StonerDemon
StonerDemon

1041

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I've never had any interest in this kind of games. Be it CoD, Ghost Recon, Battlefield... Not a single one. Except for Splinter Cell Blacklist; that game was truly awesome and I enjoyed getting the platinum. Don't know if this Ghost Recon game is actually that bad, but if some company wants to charge you full price for an incomplete game, then don't buy it and play something else. Like, for example, The Binding Of Isaac. Just boss rush with The Lost and the platinum will be mine (no seeds used, no sir).

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hushed_kasket
hushed_kasket

432

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

@StonerDemon: This game is not incomplete, by any means.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for wretch1d
Wretch1d

977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 5

@StonerDemon: All those games you mentioend are completely different styles of games, even CoD to battlefield playes completely different. Splinter cell is a stealth game, so you like stealth games. agree why pay for an incomplete game, people will though

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deviltaz35
DEVILTAZ35

8490

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By DEVILTAZ35

Claps hands , finally a mainstream site sees AAA gaming today as it really is for the most part.

A ghost of it's former self no doubt.

Ok i'll see myself out.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for showtime
ShowTime

16

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@deviltaz35: Good one !

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hushed_kasket
hushed_kasket

432

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

Edited By hushed_kasket

*eyeroll*

We live in a media age when everything is either "amazing!" or "literally, the worst!" — and this review is no different.

This game is basically Wildlands with a few changes and improved (for the most part) mechanics. It added several new features (like gear score, tiered weapon perks) that don't really add much to the gameplay but which don't really detract either. Other features, like the class system and battle rewards, affect the gameplay in a good tangible way.

If you enjoyed Wildlands, you'll enjoy this too. And yes, it's better with friends.

It's buggy at times, with unmanned cars popping wheelies or wonky animations... nothing game-breaking or even overtly frustrating, in my experience. Should be easy to patch.

The AI should also be patched to respond more aggressively, especially on harder difficulties, imo.

The story (Wolves spec-ops taking control of a tech-utopia island) is already more interesting and less controversial than a narco-war against Mexicans in Bolivia. The Breakpoint story is better and MORE coherent than Wildlands' story was — anyone who says different is lying or didn't play both.

Exploration and quest-tracking feel more organic this time, especially when you opt for "Exploration" mode instead of "Guided" mode (toggled in settings).

There, now you know what to expect. I'd give it a 6 or 7 in its current state, probably more like a 7 or 8 once they fix these issues I mentioned. 4/10 is ridiculous — remember, Anthem was more broken AND had way less content and was scored 6/10 on this site.

The binary, click-bait hate culture that's going on in this industry (games journalism) is tiresome, and GS perpetuates it.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for relentless
Relentless

15

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@hushed_kasket: Yea, it's about a 7 for me. If they fix the bugs, which it's none game breaking that I've encountered, I would give it a 7.5 or maybe an 8.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hushed_kasket
hushed_kasket

432

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

@relentless: That's a fair score. 6 is a reasonable low score for this game, 8 would be reasonable if they clean up most of these lingering bugs. 4 is an emotional overreaction.

Speaking of bugs, those I've encountered include clipping through a wall (once), my crosshairs disappeared (once), and night vision wouldn't activate (once) — thermal still worked, just no NV. Fast travel to a bivouac seems to reset and fix things like that. Someone mentioned CQC being bugged in PvP, but I haven't played much of PvP.


Upvote • 
Avatar image for cejay0813
cejay0813

1944

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

@hushed_kasket: What you consider to be good points of the game are seen by a lot of these reviewers as bad though. In the beta, I did like the more organic nature of the exploration mode but honestly they took that from AC:Odyssey. They literally took mechanics from a lot of past successful games and forced them to work in Ghost Recon and it doesn't execute as well in this type of game. Instead of building a completely unique game they just massaged features of other games and stamped GR on it. THAT is why this game is bad.

This coming from someone who enjoyed Wildlands for the most part. This game is a step in the wrong direction

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hushed_kasket
hushed_kasket

432

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

@cejay0813: You speak specifically to the organic exploration.

Here's the thing— it's optional. If you like this type of game with specific instructions on where to go, turn on Guided mode. If you like it the other way, turn it off. That's flexibility in the way you can play.

Customizing the HUD and UI is usually never even an option in other games. Other than the general challenge of keeping an open-world story relatively cohesive (which all open-world games struggle with), why would more options in gameplay preferences be a negative?

It was a nice feature in AC:Odyssey (and even recommended as "the way to play the game" on this very website). Lots of people liked it. I'm sure the reason Ubisoft included it in Breakpoint is because it was a new and favored feature, not because it was easier to make. It sounds like your considering it a negative because the same devs used it in a previously released (and lauded) game, but you even said you liked the feature in the Beta ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Upvote • 
Avatar image for cejay0813
cejay0813

1944

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

@hushed_kasket: Right... so it's like a step in the right direction but a few steps back on other fronts (loot drops, forced and unnecessary RPG elements, what seems to be even dumber AI then Wildlands, lackluster survival elements, bugs). In general, when the animations work, they did a good job of improving on those over the last game but there's still some wonky things that I just wouldn't expect this time around.

Maybe some of that can be fixed down the road but at launch, I'm not surprised that most are seeing the game as kinda bad for a AAA title. Especially with so many other good titles around its launch window. Not a lot of room to fail

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hushed_kasket
hushed_kasket

432

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

Edited By hushed_kasket

@cejay0813: It's like all the criticism is coming through a hyperbolic filter.

As far as loot drops go, Breakpoint's loot drops are often and fair. It's not Destiny 2 or Anthem grindy... and you could argue the merits of "loot drops" for any loot-shooter, but it's a trend industry wide and it's not going away.

The RPG elements are no worse than most other games coming out. It's not marketed as an RPG.

The AI is identical to Wildlands in my estimation, except with more tools to detect you and harder-hitting drones called in for reinforcement.

The survival elements are better than the generic "delayed regen" in Wildlands (or other games like Uncharted, for instance). The old way, you took damage, waited, and then were fully healed again. In Breakpoint, damage leads to possible "injuries" that show as visible wounds, impair movement, reduce health capacity, and need to be treated to regain max health capacity. I have no idea how this updated system is argued as a negative in a quasi-military sim...

Bugs are real. As they are in most releases now. But most releases aren't getting GS review scores of 4/10.

Breakpoint is a LOT like Wildlands, but mostly improved in little ways. Wildlands got a 7/10. Breakpoint got 4/10. Worse games have been scored higher than this and great games have received similar treatment. I'm just saying the scores on this site are impossible to navigate when trying to find out if a game is worth playing. Period.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for wretch1d
Wretch1d

977

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 5

@hushed_kasket: I enjoyed the narco story

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hushed_kasket
hushed_kasket

432

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

@wretch1d: The story in GR:W was okay (though more like a caricature especially in the Narco Road DLC), but Breakpoint's is more coherent and better presented.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for nirvana8193
nirvana8193

5

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@hushed_kasket: "Binary, click-bait?" Dude, it's a reviewers opinion on a game. They felt their score of 4 was justified. If you disagree, that's fine, but to call it "click-bait" seems harsh. Also, complaining about Anthem scoring 6 and this 4, again; it's OPINION! 2 different games, 2 diffrent opinions.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hushed_kasket
hushed_kasket

432

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

@nirvana8193: I stand by my comments. It's about the pattern of low scores based on justifications with flimsy pretenses.

Why even use a number scoring system if everything's so relative it can't be compared one to another?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for cejay0813
cejay0813

1944

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

@nirvana8193: I agree. I had more fun with Anthem then I did with GR Breakpoint and agreed that Anthem was about a 7 so a 4-5 for this game is pretty accurate

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hushed_kasket
hushed_kasket

432

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

@cejay0813: Anthem was fun for a little while. But content was much more scant and systems were much more broken in that than they are in Breakpoint.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for cejay0813
cejay0813

1944

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

@hushed_kasket: So there were a lot of improvements over the beta in terms of gameplay and systems for Breakpoint?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hushed_kasket
hushed_kasket

432

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

Edited By hushed_kasket

@cejay0813: Well, there was obviously the sizeable Day One patch, so I would assume there were some tweaks, but the bigger point to be made is that it's much easier to learn, understand, use, and appreciate the systems in the full release than in a limited-time beta.

20 hours in, I'm much more comfortable with how the systems work and much clearer on what I like and don't like than I was after 4 hours with the beta.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for aiat_gamer
aiat_gamer

915

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

@hushed_kasket: The idiotic defence of horrible practices going on in this industry is tiresome, and people like you perpetuate it. Not long ago it was only the skins, now it is everything within the game that you can downright buy...!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hushed_kasket
hushed_kasket

432

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

Edited By hushed_kasket

@aiat_gamer: Have you played the game?

While they offer TONS of stuff to purchase with real-world dollars (which I'm sure as a company with shareholders they'd love for you to spend), they are not in your face about making purchases. I've easily ignored any premium store content.

Most of the things you "downright buy" in the game (weapons, gear, consumables, vehicles) you buy with in-game currency that you earn through gameplay, not premium currency. Or don't buy them at all, because the loot drop rate is not a grind.

Same for skill points. I've done maybe 15% of the story but leveled up enough to unlock 90% of the skills I care about. You don't need to buy them. If you're arguing that they should limit what's available so that the weak-willed won't be tempted, just say that, but maybe your beef should be with those people.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jackthereaperbanner
jackthereaperbanner

4

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 5

@aiat_gamer: Exactly, i totally agree with you.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for itchyflop
itchyflop

3687

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 68

User Lists: 0

@hushed_kasket: i agree however....

The loot system with regard to gear doesn't work IE : finger-less gloves giving more protection than padded?

The survival mechanics being totally redundant as health increases rapidly anyway along with infinite syringes and bandages, essentially making the mechanic pointless, other than maybe to slow you down or annoy you mid battle.

Being a tactical shooter i believe ubi should have focused on this "realism" and having the survival mechanics in meaning you do limp or bleed out over time before using/getting aid, and limit the number of syringes etc

Maybe they'll patch it.

Don't misunderstand me iv bought it and i enjoy it as i did wild-lands, the predator and splinter cell dlc were great ideas however, Ubisoft have been around long enough and are so well established in the gaming genre they should know what works by now and what clearly doesn't.

A for effort, but needs more work.

:)

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hushed_kasket
hushed_kasket

432

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

@itchyflop: To your points:

- yeah, the "skin" of gear is always like this in games (recall the uproar over Mortal Kombat X's use of male vs female "armor"), but this happens in nearly all games and shouldn't reduce this game's score because of it. Ultimately, they've separated the practical perks and the visual skins anyway, using the Visual Pallette system (like in AC Odyssey)

- On survival, there's a "damage" system but also an "injury" system, with injuries reducing your max health and showing visible wounds and impairing movement. Bandages (which are slow to apply) are infinite but only practical to use out of combat or safe behind cover. Syringes are quick and can be used on-the-fly in combat, but they are limited (like 4 max unless upgraded). It's not a huge change, just a small wrinkle in the health system, and arguably makes much more sense than just arbitrary regen we saw in Wildlands (and countless other highly rated games). Again, this mechanic can't be a justification for demotion.

What I appreciate most about your comment is that you've actually played the game, unlike most ppl who dump on it based solely on internet "journalist" reviews.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deviltaz35
DEVILTAZ35

8490

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@hushed_kasket: I think people hold Ubisoft to a higher pedestal as they really had been getting it together of late. It started with Far Cry 5 and has been getting better since. This is a step way back in the wrong direction so it stands to reason they will get called out for it.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hushed_kasket
hushed_kasket

432

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

@deviltaz35: Have you played it?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for cejay0813
cejay0813

1944

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

@deviltaz35: Yeah but Ubi still tends to be rather formulaic. They will come up with an idea and try to work that idea amongst all their other games instead of treating each title as its own. This is very apparent in GR:BP and its about time they get called out on it.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for AyatollaofRnR
AyatollaofRnR

789

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@hushed_kasket: I think you'll find this game is reviewing poorly across the board. Doesn't mean that no one can have fun with it, just that its quite flawed.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hushed_kasket
hushed_kasket

432

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

@AyatollaofRnR: My comment mentions the flaws. 4/10 is overkill.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for steelx600
steelx600

4

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 5

@hushed_kasket: if you think 4 is overkill in metacritic user score is 2.5

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hushed_kasket
hushed_kasket

432

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

@steelx600: Yeah, that's also ridiculous (though it's up to 3.0 as of writing this)—fueled by many "0" scores. A zero score on a game that functions as it's designed to is an obviously emotional, dishonest, and troll-worthy response.

The 64 critic score is more honest, IMO, and in line with the IGN review score of 6.0. I'm not arguing it's an amazing game, even I said in a separate comment that I'd give it a 6-7 in it's current state.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lion2447
lion2447

1260

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Does this really suprise anyone? There is a higher chance of a game being released broken than in a solid working state nowadays. Worse is the fact that games never feels complete with sometimes core gameplay being changed after a game is released.

But, as the developing companies say, there is a patch on the way, then another and another and another, until you have downloaded the same game 3 times over. 6 months past the release date the game may finally be in a working acceptable state.

It's so disappointing to read a review like this when things like the weapons and enemy ai are useless. This is more surprising coming from Ubisoft, who should already have a strong understanding of how to build these mechanics. Though I'm sure the MX system is working perfectly.

Upvote •